TedM

See my answer to Doug.


What matters is whether the people at the time of their creation had a pre-existing paradigm of a non-human and then accepted a fictional account of them as historical. And, that the paradigm had everything to do with their personal salvation. Big differences.


The early paradigm about Jesus living in another sphere died out, as did the belief that his "life" was a matter of revelation to select people, not a direct message from Jesus himself to anyone. That's something that needs to be explained.


Why not?

I"m not familiar but don't those debates reveal that doecetists were not mythicists but believed in the historical Jesus on earth, but just didn't think he was "really" fully human? If so, they weren't Doherty-style mythicists so it is irrelevant to the issue here.

Sure, if the docetics came along a few decades after Jesus, but you and I know that isn't supported. I can easily imagine such a debate it if it was 100 years later and people were believing he had been divine and resurrected, which is what the orthodox historical view.

ted

TedM

I think you are talking about 3-4 century theologins and not the early Christians being asked to accept a paradigm in contradiction to a pre-existing one which had everything to do with their salvation. I don't think you've established that the 3rd century cultural environment of theologins was the same as the early culture first encoutering a story of a historical Jesus from Israel.

ted

Solo

Imagine this, Toto. You are a fairly bright, well read individual, who somewhere in his mid-thirties is struck by severe melancholia. Then, suddenly your mood reverses from hellish blues to ecstatic, rapturous euphoria. You lose sleep, you become clairvoyant, you have hypnotized yourself (unwittingly) with the suggestion have been touched by some higher power that gave you "sight" into the mysteries of the universe. The idea as it carries on, however, soon gives you fright, which grows into a panic and vistas of universal annihilation. You go through tremendous inner torture. At the end of eight weeks, the cycle completes and you begin to see that throughout the whole episode, somehow, mysteriously your real self became supplanted or monopolized by "someone other", a visitor, a "twin", an unseen spirit. You also see that other people have seen you as deluded, crazy, cuckoo. You friends, sometime your own family, will shun you. Worst of all, the Spirit is gone, with no further instructions.

Fast forward two or three years: you now have a perspective on what happened. The original fears that you had are now gone. You feel confident and begin to have some deeper insight into the visitation. Your confidence grows. You get flashes of insight - not the torrents of revelations which you had during the high, but small trickles that converge into a steady stream.
You begin to see that the experience you had, though ugly, painful and costly in terms of the lost prestige and respect of your friends and kin, has long term some positive effects. For one thing, you don't scare easily. You begin to write and allegorize the experience as a mystery for those who had had a very similar encounter. You live in a time and place blissfully untouched by psychiatry.

Naturally, the stuff you (and those who get it and copy) write will come into the hands of obsessive domineering people who don't have a clue. They think the mental phenomena (which get mixed up in name with a minor, obscure Jewish prophetic figure who likely used them as the proof of apocalypse) really was a guy as the story tells, in which "blind beggar" is a blind beggar, "Galilee" is on the map and that people really forgot to eat to be with the Saviour. These church leaders of course will come to think that Saviour really came down from heaven as something-or-other experimentally planted in a virgin. Those who still copy (or have a good hunch of what is going on) of course will know that things do not always appear to be what they are.

Here in a nutshell is your origin of docetism (if we ever agree how to spell it ).

Jiri

Johnny Skeptic

It is reasonable to assume that if God wanted people who are living today to believe that Jesus existed, and that Jesus was his only begotten Son, he would not depend upon copies of copies of questionable ancient texts to do so. Sixth graders have no problem believing that President Bush exists, and knowing what his agenda are. If a God exists, and showed up tangibly, in person, sixth graders would have no problem believing that he exists, and knowing what his agenda are. If a God exists, it is obvious that he wishes to limit the number of people who believe that he exists.

TedM

JS, your first post was on topic somewhat given the questions I asked. This last one is not. take care,

ted

Johnny Skeptic

You want details that are not available, and never will be available. Why do so many people at this forum wish to debate whether or not an ordinary man named Jesus existed? If an ordinary man named Jesus existed, so what? If a God exists, so what? If he does exist, we don't know who he is, what he is like, and what he wants people to do with their lives.

Is your interest in the historical Jesus entirely academic? I suspect that it isn't.

TedM

I'll answer your questions in a pm, but not here since they are not on topic.

ted

Clivedurdle

I think you need to provide evidence for that assertion.

If the third four century xians argued on theological grounds - a human Jesus is required for an efficacious sacrifice - the mythical nature of this beastie in fact becomes stronger.

Probably another thread, but possibly not, BBC Radio 4 In Our Time discussion was about Socrates, and the comment was made that Sermon on Mount was derivative from Socrates.

And I would not yet throw Caesar's Messiah out - there are real connections that Christ is an antihero figure to Augustus.

There are so many literary leads, mythical elements, connections with ritual, wars between Rome and the Jews that something bringing together these elements is almost predictable. It does not need a real Jesus to start it! It may be a Roman propaganda attempt that got out of control - some mind warfare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...nourtime.shtml

The following is by one of the contributors, Angie Hobbs, and may be a better comparison of the type of literature the gospels are!

http://www.davidgibbins.com/Plato%20and%20Atlantis.htm

TedM

How about the fact that that is what Christians believe now and we have ZERO direct evidence that they EVER believed he was a fictional character? Clivedurdle, the burden not on me but is on YOU to provide evidence that the gospels were ever understood by an audience to have been plays. You've provided some ideas that support the POSSIBILITY that they were plays, but not evidence to support even the POSSBILITY that an audience even thought they were plays in the first place.

I"m asking you guys to state your case for the 4 things I listed that are necessary in order for Doherty to be right about Jesus' origins and about the gospels. Is anyone up to the challenge?

1. What was necessary for the Doherty-Jesus group to have died out without a trace in the manuscript evidence?

2. What was necessary for audiences to have accepted gospels as fictional without us having evidence that they ever did?

3. What was necessary for audiences to have believed the gospels were real after an original understanding that they were fictional, without us having any manuscript evidence of this metamophisis?

4. What was necessary for us to have no record of a clash between these 3 groups that had very different beliefs about Jesus?



Too late to be relevant--Doherty's Jesus didn't have to be human at all--that's his contention about Paul's belief: Jesus just had to "appear" human, in another sphere. There is nothing in that 3r century argument that isn't supportive of a historical Jesus so how does that help the mythical to human evolution argument?


This may be a clue to it being a play, but that is no longer the question I'm focused on.

Same answer as above.

You may indeed be onto something here, but the same answer as above still applies.

Can you answer the 4 questions above which relate to the idea of making a case for what would have been necessary for the origins of Jesus transition to have worked?

Keep in mind the premise: The first Christians were believers in Doherty's Jesus.

thanks. Gotta run,

ted

Clivedurdle

Paul only ever met him in visions!

The Gospels are later!

The Gospel writers never knew this guy!

Xians by definition have ALWAYS believed he is a fictional character = part god part man!

Paul has a vision. He thinks that the way that we can become gods is by ritual - eating bread and wine, getting wet, believing x,yz.

Becoming a god for a woman or a slave or whatever is a pretty impressive offer! Sons of gods? Minor distinction!

Augustus can be one, why not democratise the idea?

The invention of stories about this hero figure - the new Adam - are almost predictable from the writings of Paul!

No one would ask if he is real - the gods are real, we can become gods, Christ is the firstborn. The gospels are only joining up the dots!

The theological disputes about the percentage goddiness percentage humaness are predictable!

Try going around the triangle the other way! Instead of God sending his son Jesus to save us - (God so loved the world.. John 3 16) ., we have always wanted to be gods, Paul says he has had a vision of the first fruit, the Christ is evolved to make us gods - exactly what xianity offers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_ex...ays_on_the_tin