storytime

Wouldn't the OT stories (in its many fabrications) be the best evidence against the NT god-man?

Start with the OT covenant. Can you supply evidence for a so-called New Covenant that the OT God contracted to Gentiles? Keeping mindful of Ezekiel's warning against bringing foreigners[strangers-Gentiles] into the sanctuary of God, who were not circumcised in flesh or heart.

Did the OT God lie or did he remain the same? How do the writers portray him? Why did the Jewish apostles want another god, a new god?

show_no_mercy

I think the entire dichotomy between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian NT is explained by the view that the NT's theology was completed by non-Jews. In the HB, YHWH makes a covenant with his chosen people and promises that as long as they remain circumcized and follow his mitzvot, he will give them land and prosperity. This is the one theme running throughout the HB.

Non-Jewish Christians balderdized this and introduced some sort of "spiritual" kingdom where people who actually reject the HB laws and just have faith in Jesus' resurrection are promised this new spiritual kingdom and eternal life.

There's a huge disconnect there.

How did we go from YHWH promising the Jews physical land and prosperity in this life to a spiritual kingdom with resurrected people who will live forever if you just have faith? And it just so happens that the person who led the Jews to their physical promised land has the same name as the person who leads you to -- and was the firstfruits of -- this new spiritual kingdom.

I'm thinking that non-Jews invented the Christian story as a "LOL you stupid Jews and your concentration on the material world" Platonism-for-the-masses reaction to the Jews and their three failed rebellions against Rome, latching on to and expanding/bastardizing an Ebionite/Nazirite reform Judaism precursor.

neilgodfrey

The historical question is not whether any particular person existed, but how best to explain the origin of Christianity. Earliest Christianities with their spiritman, godman, heavenly man etc who came to earth unrecognized by his contemporaries and from whom such a wide diversity of views took hold from the start, is a phenomenon that needs explaining as much as other aspects of early Christianity. One belief many (if not all?) have in common is that Jesus was not recognized in his own time. This surely is a big hint we are talking about someone whose past had to be created, and then explained as to why it made no mark at the time.

If one is not interested in the historical question and believes that one's own life depends on the historical existence of Jesus, then that person has very little incentive to seriously question his existence and the historical question can have little relevance, unless it is interpreted theologically.

Doherty's real contribution is not so much his iconoclasm, but his opening an alternative way to see Christian origins.

Neil

storytime

The origin of Christianity seems to be in the last books of the OT, wherein some Jews were teaching that souls could fly. :huh:

storytime

There's a huge disconnect there. WOW is there ever.

Do you think the Gentile inclusion into the "promise" was written totally behind the backs of Jews? Or did the confusion come into play in interpretation of "the world to come"?

spamandham

It's a complex question, and I will first equivocate a bit. I think it's possible that there is a historical person somehow intertwined in the Christ myth, and many would call that the "historical Jesus" even if there is no resemblance at all to the Jesus of Christian literature, just as the "historical Santa" is Nicholas of Smyrna. I don't think it's particularly helpful to refer to Nicholas of Smyrna as the "historical Santa" - that seems arbitrary and silly to me, and likewise, referring to some figure of history as the "historical Jesus" for whom there si no resemblance at all to the Christian Jesus is just as silly and arbitrarry. That said, I don't see any good reason to posit such a thing anyway.

Also, I am using the idea of "myth" very loosely in this post, as I do not think Jesus is mythical, but is instead mystical and allegorical.

The case for a mythical Christ is pretty straightforward.

1. Under the assumption that Paul's writings are earliest, we see in them a mythical Christ. Paul explicitly states that his gospel was derived from revelation and scripture. He does not distinguish in any way between his revelation and that of those who came before him, implying that revelation was the only means by which anyone ever knew Jesus. He talks of Jesus in mystical terms, he talks of Christ in mystical terms. He talks of the kingdom in mystical terms. It semes obvious to me that Paul's Christ is an internal spiritual transformation (perhaps experieced via ecstatic vision). His gospel is the death of the Jewish messiah-king concept and the resurrection of the true inner Christ in its place, which he then uses as proof of a future general resurrection. It seems to be a spin off of some sort of vague pre-existing Christ ideas that involved doing away with Jewish law. If Paul's texts were the only source we had, I think we would universally conclude he is not referring to an actual human being of history.

2. The Gospels are clearly (to me) the invention of a Christian origins story, just as Pentateuch is the invented origins story for the Jews. The Gospels are symbolic through and through constructed primarily from the Jewish scriptures. Everything about Jesus in the Gospels has symbolic significance. There is no need to even try to tie in pre-existing pagan mythology. We know Jesus did not raise Lazarus from the dead even if the story does not have an Egyptian origin. We know that a herd of pigs did not commit mass suicide, even if it is not a thinly vield political allegory, and so on. Even the crucifixion and resurrection are

3. His family just drops off the face of the earth. No-one can claim a lineage back to him, his brothers, or anyone else related to him. It is simply not plausible that all traces to his lineage would be erased in a few decades. It seems to me the Gospel writers were aware of this embarrassment as well and tried to pre-empt questioning by having Jesus trivialize the importance of blood family. Preachings such as that are very implausible to begin with, but even if genuine, wouldn't matter after he died and the inevitable power struggles within the cult began. At that point, the family card would get played no matter what he had said on the matter, just as happens in modern cults that outlive their founders.

4. There are other less important arguments from silence, such as the lack of early pilrimage to his home, or his grave, etc. It seems to me the empty tomb plays such an important role in the canonical gospels and to early Christian theology overall, that its location could not possibly have been forgotten.

DCHindley

Guru,

Thanks for the only really deep contribution so far. There is a quibble, though, in that RSV 2 Corinthians 5:16 says "From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer."

"We" actually refers to Paul and his followers in their "understanding" of Jesus. By "human point of view" I take him to mean to consider him a man like any other man. But this POV Paul (or as I think, the Pauline redactor) has abandoned for one he considers much better, a spiritual POV, in which Jesus transcends what he was in the flesh. In fact, he looks at everyone this way now, not as mere humans, but spiritually transformed beings.

So, it seems that Jesus was transformed from a human being to a supernatural being.

DCH

The Greek verb OIDA means (1) as having come to a perception or realization of something, know, understand, comprehend (MK 4.13); (2) as having come to knowledge through experience know (about), recognize, understand (EP 1.18); (3) as having knowledge and ability to do something with an infinitive following know how to, can, be able to (MT 7.11); (4) of intimate or close relationship with someone know, have knowledge of (MT 26.72); (5) as a formula for introducing a well-known and accepted fact (e.g. ... we know that . . . MT 22.16); for introducing a rhetorical question (e.g. ... don't you know that. . . ? 1C 3.16); (6) as giving deserved recognition to someone respect, appreciate, have regard for (1TH 5.12)

aa5874

But, the empty tomb only became significant with the resurrection.

The empty tomb was actually terrifying for the women when they visited the burial site.

Now, if Jesus just human who died and was buried, and the tomb was really empty when the women with Peter arrived at the site, perhaps nobody would have even remembered or wished to write anything about Jesus.

It was the resurrection, a non-event, that played the single most important role in the NT.

Clivedurdle

What are the relationships between "The Lord Jesus Christ" and "The God Jesus Christ"?

Are they the same thing?

And I always understood that "human point of view" as being they used to see Christ from a human point of view but now they understand him from a spiritual gnostic enlightened out of the cave point of view - referring to glass darkly and all the visionary in their own heads stuff again.

Clivedurdle

And the core message - you must be born again - also supports this idea, with the new heaven and earth, and conquering death, of a classic leaving the cave experience.

Returning to our discussion about the Holy Spirit, this would be taken as evidence that the initiation, the rebirth had taken, speaking in tongues, signs and wonders, washed in the blood of the lamb....

I'm sorry, we are looking at a Judaic platonism, Mark is probably a play to explain it all.

Might Mark have been sung?