Bernard Muller

NOGO:
Do not blame me. Melito of Sardis, a Christian, did not have any problem with that. And since when religious beliefs have to make human sense? In 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote that human wisdom is useless for understanding "Christ crucified" and whatever magical consequences that would have.

I can see your theology/Christology here. But I think it is forced, convoluted and far-fetched.

In 6:63, there is no mention of "Word" and the "I" is obviously Jesus (alias the Word in flesh). "my flesh" and "my body" belongs to the one who allegedly spoke these words: Jesus is in the flesh, in a body, with a human father and mother, after all. And did you say the Logos, as God, was immaterial?
Jesus is the Word/Son who became flesh, as in Hebrews1-2. Paul also related the same in Ro8:3 + 1Cor8:6. "John" just followed on that.

John 6:53 Darby
"Jesus therefore said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, ye have no life in yourselves."
The same flesh belongs to the Son of Man, who his Jesus. Of course, this is an extreme canibalistic figure, but "John" wrote that in part in order to explain why Christ lost the support of the Galilean crowds.

And what about the last supper? There is no Eucharist in GJohn last supper. You are doing a collage with a bit of a non-Logos gospel here; very confusing.

And do you think that when Jesus is speaking in GJohn, "John" want us to believe it is really the Logos/Son talking through a dummy-like human?

John3:17-18 "For God has not sent his Son into the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him.
He that believes on him is not judged: but he that believes not has been already judged, because he has not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God."

John 20:31
"but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name."

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Joedad:
I do not see what you mean. I do not think the story of HJ as I extracted it from mostly "against the grain" bits and pieces from Paul's epistles, 'Hebrews" and mainly GMark (with a bit of Q), with some background supplied by Josephus, would attract the attention of Hollywood. To much down to earth, boring, and making Christians not looking good.
I did not have to use a theory, just painfully sort out the evidence and make a coherent reconstruction (some would say a deconstruction).
My web site which explains everything:
Jesus, a historical reconstruction

Best regards, Bernard

GakuseiDon

It's a good point, NOGO. I'll grant that GJohn certainly seems to be an attempt to merge a historical Jesus with Logos-religion. It's something worth pondering.

Bernard Muller

GakuseiDon:
Hmm! I'll rephrase that in order to represent my thoughts:
GJohn certainly seems to be an attempt to merge the GMark/GLuke Jesus with Christian Logos-religion.
Despite all the pretences, "John" did not know about HJ.

Best regards, Bernard

joedad

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

History records many gospels emerging in those early centuries, and there are many gospels emerging today. In Peter Kirby's link at your home page, it just seems that lots of folks are still trying to find Jesus. The current phenomenon is in many ways identical to the initial one.

What I'm asking is if you are aware of real life examples or your theory, historical instances that might lend credibility. You sayDoesn't this sound more like something out of a Hollywood script than actual history? Are there actual historical parallels to your theory that you can reference?

Certainly the Jesus Myth is historical, and is not something that just fell from the sky, but that doesn't make this Jesus historical. Any real life examples that would help remove it from a Velikovskian genre?

Amaleq13

Whether Jesus is mythical, a historical figure whose true nature is so obscured by later theological myth-making to render it unobtainable, or even if the Gospel stories are somehow entirely accurate, I think we have to face the fact we are dealing with an almost entirely unique "event" in the history of humanity when we consider the origins of Christianity.

Bernard Muller

Joedad:
Excuse my ignorance, but can you explain what Velikovskian genre means?
Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
Maybe not a unique event:

I am not an expert in Buddhism but, according what I remember reading about it:
a) The man later called "Buddha", the alleged founder, had his first histories about him written centuries after his death. Those "biographies" come with many obvious legendary items, some conflicts, and of course miraculous events. Considering that, some skeptics think "Buddha" never existed.
b) Even if apparently Buddha never proclaimed to be a god, he was deified later by some branch of Buddhism.
c) Primitive Buddhism adopted many items from the Hinduism in its early days (Brahmanism).
d) Several Buddhisms developed in the centuries after his death, with huge differences between them.
e) It is not certain Buddha wrote anything. Some of the most canonical Buddhist writings would have been remembered from Buddha and recited after his death by some of his followers. But that may be legendary accounts. Many important Buddhist writings may have been produced centuries after his death.
f) Buddhism got his big break when the emperor of India, Asoka, adopted it as his religion.

I can be corrected on each of these points.

I am rather certain that many well known legends started from some flash_in_the pan act by some individual. But it is hard to tell, because the initial fact (the fluke, the odd anecdote) is never recorded, only the legends which grew later from it, with all kinds of add-ons & variations.

Maybe someone was challenged to hit an apple on his boy's head with an arrow and did it. But of course only the tales which developed later are written because they were entertaining. People wants to hear about good long stories, not a brief "down to earth" account. Furthermore, there were no journalist and no day_after_day publications in these old times. Nobody to record "faits divers".
Troy got conquered & destroyed by the Mycenaeans as it is generally accepted now. But all we have from that is not a CNN-like account, but a book full of legendary things, the Iliad.
Maybe a recluse living in a cave in Persia cornered and killed a rogue bull with only a knife but what we have is the many Mithras myths, all add-ons on a possible very earthly old anecdotal event.
The earliest accounts on Socrates, all of them short, give different portraits on who he was, some rather unfavorably. Socrates never wrote anything we know of and his philosophy is subject of speculations. But Plato quasi-deified him, more so because on how & why he died. And in Plato's works, in the fictituous dialogues, he used Socrates a lot and planted words in his mouth.

Best regards, Bernard

NOGO

Not at all.
What you need to do is to re-read John with this in mind.
It will all come together.

in 6:63 Jesus is explaining his earlier statement.
The very statement which his own disciples could not take.
Something about having to eat his flesh in order to get salvation.
So Jesus says

The flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Maybe I'm a genius and noboby else can see this.
The above explanation which Jesus gives implies that the bread which came from heaven and gives life IS the word which Jesus spoke which he says is spirit and life. This is not far fetched and certainly not forced.

No, there is no canibalistic figure here.
All that Jesus is trying to say, although in a very strange way, is that you must believe the word of God to be saved. In the expressed symbology it becomes eating the flesh of the Christ, ie the Word which was God's first born.

No, no you missed the point entirely.
This is the only bit of Logos theology in the synoptic gospels.
It is meaningless in the context of Synoptic gospels.
Only after reading John can you understand what is meant.
If you think that this is about canibalism you are way off the mark.
The body of Christ is the word of God, is the bread from heaven which gives everlasting life.

It has nothing to do with a human.

The HJ is not.

The 10% which you mention may indeed come from an historical character but his story was tagged onto the Logos theology which already existed.
Why is this so hard to believe?
Is this 10% essential for the start of Christianity?
If so what exactly is this 10% which is essential?

To believers this 10% is that Jesus was God but you stated that you do not believe this. So, what is the essential element which the HJ brought to Paul's faith?

joedad

In 1950 a psychiatrist named Immanuel Velikovsky wrote a book called Worlds in Collision. In it As told in Cosmos by Sagan. Obviously Velikovsky's scenario is not credible.

I was simply asking if there are credible scenarios that could explain christianity's beginnings, some of which, incidentally, you later listed – Buddha, etc. It's just my opinion that the death of a pauper isn't going to fill the requirement. That's not to say that the execution of forgotten paupers didn't lend some impetus somehow, only that the gospel accounts are fictional.

Having said that, and not to digress too far, I find the situation in Iraq very interesting, even revealing. It's very similar to that environment which was allegedly the synoptics. I cannot imagine seeing a Gospel Jesus type figure emerging anywhere in Iraq. Can you? It's just not believable. I could certainly see someone fictionalizing an account of a poor, persecuted and downtrodden Muslim, but ala the gospels is just not possible, or no more possible than Velikovsky's scenario.I certainly agree. That's tropology, and that's GJohn.