Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 03-06-2006, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

After 70 CE, the Jerusalem group loses influence, and Christianity becomes increasingly "paganized". But as Jesus became more associated with God, the original problem pops up again -- how could a perfect God inhabit corruptible flesh? This was answered in the Second Century through the introduction of docetism and gnosticism.

To my mind, that explains just about all the data: The association with a Moses-style assumption could have started from his death, so the belief of a divine role for Jesus may have started very early. Paul then comes into it and tries to make it more acceptable to pagan thought. The Ebionites were the remainders of the Jerusalem Group, and the gnostics were the remainders of Paul's thinking (though Paul wasn't really a gnostic himself).

This makes a lot of sense to me Don. Add to this a death during Passover in Jerusalem and I think a lot of the Jews would have taken notice very early on if his followers were claiming he was teaching about a righteousness that would result in some kind of new covenant. The role of both Martyr and Savior would be near instantaneous.

ted

jjramsey · 03-06-2006, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Unless I am particularly thick, if the above is read without any preconceptions from gospels and later theology, is this not an explicit description of a mythical jesus?

The speaking to us is as Paul states - via visions. There is no statement of where the purification for sins occurs.

There is nothing in Hebrews 1:1-3 that indicates where the information about Jesus came from. You are reading the idea of "visions" into it. You are correct in saying that this passage does not say where the purification for sins was, but that neither works for or against mythicism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by polyseeme

On the other hand:

It seems to be true that extra-Biblical Roman records contemporary with the alleged life of Jesus show that no Jesus matching the description of the Nazarene/Nazarite in the gospel accounts was ever executed under Pontius Pilate.

This would be meaningful if the Roman records had been preserved, but IIRC, the bulk of them were lost.

No Robots · 03-06-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

The whole thing fits together so well, IMHO at least. Still, it maybe nothing more than trying to work out the gaps between the Star Trek movies. That it hangs together coherently doesn't make it true.

You should have more confidence and trust your intuition. What you say has the ring of truth. It is economical and, as you say, fits all the evidence. Well done.

Vorkosigan · 03-06-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

So: Jesus came proclaiming a new law and a new covenant (or it was thought that he came proclaiming it). His supporters regarded him in some way as a "new Moses". At his death, his body disappeared (*), and his supporters regarded this as a sign that he had been taken up like Moses. But his supporters were still Jews, and still working within the belief system of the Hellenized-influenced Judaism of the day. It would have been a fringe belief, probably frowned upon, but not so much different from those who thought that Moses and others had been "taken up".

Unfortunately this section above is not necessary for the section below. The "new Moses" stuff is added by the writer of Mark in his invention of the travel narrative -- a staple of Greek historical fiction of the 1-3 centuries, as is the empty tomb. The elements you've identified are all building blocks of Hellenistic fiction. Whatever real crucifixion there was, the one in the gospels is strictly fiction at all levels.

Quote:

Then along comes Paul. He has a vision of Jesus, and becomes a follower. He believes that Christ's death and resurrection had brought in a new Law and a new Covenant. However, he believes something different to the Jerusalem followers: he believes that he has found the great secret hidden in Scriptures: the New Covenant was to the whole world, and included Gentiles!

And this section above is a succint description of how Christianity got rolling. There's no need for Jesus to exist in this scenario.

Quote:

There is nothing in Hebrews 1:1-3 that indicates where the information about Jesus came from. You are reading the idea of "visions" into it. You are correct in saying that this passage does not say where the purification for sins was, but that neither works for or against mythicism.

The passage describes an descent-ascent that resembles more those generated in visionary experiences than an adoration of a historical figure. The original poster's perception is correct.

Vorkosigan

No Robots · 03-06-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

There's no need for Jesus to exist in this scenario.

In this thread what is under discussion is not the need for Jesus's existence, but the possibility of his existence.

Ben C Smith · 03-06-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vork

Whatever real crucifixion there was, the one in the gospels is strictly fiction at all levels.

I have not read all the Hellenistic fictions out there. Does the hero in those Greek fictions ever die on the cross? Or is he generally rescued at the last minute?

Ben.

Didymus · 03-06-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Why would the disciples have ever accepted that he was the savior, if they had traveled all over Judea with him?

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that the two propositions - them having traveled with them, them accepting that he was the savior - are mutually exclusive? If so, why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Perhaps for the reasons that they chose to follow him to begin with.

Which were?

The reasons for the "decisions to follow Jesus" that actually appear in the NT were decidedly vague. And not related to salvation.

Simon-Peter and Andrew: promised they would be "fishers of men."

James Z and John Z: No motive given.

Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James A, Thaddeus, Simon C and Judas: No motive given.

Matthew: Responded to "follow me."

So, yes, your answer is a non-answer.

Didymus

jjramsey · 03-06-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

So, yes, your answer is a non-answer.

What I was thinking was that whatever magnetism and charisma that may have attracted the disciples to Jesus in the first place and kept them following him also made them prone to accepting and making exalted claims about him.

jjramsey · 03-06-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The "new Moses" stuff is added by the writer of Mark in his invention of the travel narrative -- a staple of Greek historical fiction of the 1-3 centuries

How would you tell a purely fictional travel narrative from a historical travel narrative or a travel narrative with legendary accretions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

as is the empty tomb

How would you tell the difference between a work of pure fiction and a mix of fact and legend that included an account that may have been inspired by an element of Greek fiction?

GakuseiDon · 03-06-2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The "new Moses" stuff is added by the writer of Mark in his invention of the travel narrative -- a staple of Greek historical fiction of the 1-3 centuries, as is the empty tomb. The elements you've identified are all building blocks of Hellenistic fiction.

I actually mean Paul here. I don't think Paul believed he was writing fiction. My point is: look at the similarities between ideas regarding Moses listed in the Jewish Encyclopedia and the ideas about Jesus in Paul:
* Both are pre-existent
* Both taken to heaven
* Both bring in a new covenant
* Both are mediators between God and man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

And this section above is a succint description of how Christianity got rolling. There's no need for Jesus to exist in this scenario.

One of the Mythicist criticisms about Paul is the apparently highly developed view of a divine nature in Christ. This is an explanation for it: there are precedents for beliefs about people (who were believed historical) already existing at that time. These beliefs about Jesus could have started almost straight away.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.