Kapyong

Previously, you quoted Paul as referring to
"the brother of Jesus",
when he actually said
"the brother of the Lord".

When I mentioned that, you said your version was 'clearer'.

But more recently, I see you have quoted it correctly - well done.


K.

gurugeorge

This is an attitude people can take about mysticism, but actually it is its own value - the value of personal salvation. The whole tenor of Pauline mysticism is encapsulated in the bit in Galatians about Christ being that in the heart (in all our hearts - this was Paul's added twist over the Jewish version) which cries "Abba! Father". That passage with its definition of what "redemption" means, is absolutely key. Redemption (for Paul, based on his own words) is not the experiential confirmation of some propositions, but a deep, personal understanding of how things are - gnosis - and a deep feeling of personal connection with the Divine in some sense. IOW, regardless of what the orthodox may have thought later on, it's this that Paul and the original Christians (very few, remember, little cells of people scattered here and there) were going for (again, remember the actual description we have, in passing, in Corinthians I think it is, that little glimpse we have of what went on in the congregations - "prophecy", tongues, basically self-induced trance states). Now, one could construe that as either a woo-woo departure of Paul's from some prior orthodox position in response to a human Jesus, or a position taken in ignorance, deliberate or inadvertent in some way, of a human Jesus. But in the absence of positive evidence for a human Jesus, why bother?

No, what I'm doing is seeing no evidence for "someone with enough conviction to sacrifice their life", and in the absence of that evidence, the preferability of a plain reading of the mysticism and visionary stuff evident in Paul.

I quite agree that the effect of seeing a real human being sacrificing themselves, or whatever real-person life-changing event one might posit, might have had similarly bold effects, including mystical and visionary effects, and in that case, if there were such an event of a human being sacrificing themselves in that way, the orthodox history would be more likely to be correct (they were the originals, the other Christianities later pretenders). But first you have to show me the man, before it's plausible to think that, and not to think rather that the whole thing just came out of peoples' heads originally, and that the orthodoxy were later on the scene?

Show me the man, not the myth. If everything can be explained as myth, borrowed materials, etc. - where's the history? Where's the stuff that's about the man you are hypothesising?

Your hypothesis: that there was a man (in reaction to whose real-life sacrificial event, people were deeply moved in various ways).

On what do you base that hypothesis? What, in the texts, or outside them, is the positive evidence that suggests to you that this particular myth is a sure-gone, certifiable case of euhemerism? This man - where are his traces?

I mean, are we supposed to read every myth euhemeristically, or what? Is it supposed to be some kind of default position in academia, whether there's evidence for it or not?

Elijah

Yea but how does that gnosis or connecting to the divine offer any real salvation compared to the orthodox view?

I’m not sure what you are getting from Paul’s letters. Regardless of how you understand Paul’s perspective of Spirit, it’s pretty clear that it’s faith in Jesus he is arguing for over obedience to the law or works. He isn’t arguing for a particular gnosis or against what he considers incorrect gnosis or for some kind of mystical practice that leads to salvation.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Gal 2:16 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

It seems pretty clear that Paul is promoting an orthodox position of faith in Christ as the key to salvation, not gnosis or mystical experiences. The spiritual/mystic talk has more to do with the higher/lower soul stuff and imitation of the lord but it’s the faith that is the source of the salvation being pushed by Paul and orthodox Christianity.
Are you really asking for proof of Jesus’ existence/crucifixion now? As this board has clearly shown there is no proof of his existence or crucifixion but there is no reasonable expectation for any either. The evidence though is in the Gospels. That’s what’s the story is about, a guy sacrificing his life, not a guy promoting mysticism or teaching metaphysics.

Again, I think you are letting this idea that all religion can be explained by visionary experience get in the way of understanding Christianity if it is making you ignore the possibility of actual martyrdom kicking it off because you are too wrapped up in the mystic talk and visions.

A guy willing to sacrifice his life like that is a rare occurrence but when you are talking about over history it’s just a matter of time before someone with a messiah complex comes up with something similar. How many wannabe messiah’s do you think it would take before someone started a submitting, self sacrificing meme? Why do you think it’s so unlikely for there to have been a Jew who martyred himself a bit like Socrates but asked his followers to do the same creating the faith? Besides the whole I need proof thing what’s the problem with an actual martyr starting the faith?

gurugeorge

I'm not sure what you mean - how could belief in a proposition possibly compare (in terms of salvific value) with direct, personal contact with the Divine, as a means of salvation? Is belief in a proposition about X "more real" than direct knowledge of X?

How do you know? How do you know you're not reading "faith" through the lens of a later orthodox position? IIRC the word "faith" was later used by gnostics too, as almost cognate with "gnosis".

The way it looks like to me (again, absent evidence for a human Jesus), is that there are (at least) two (maybe more) consistent strands in the letters. There's a mystic/visionary talking, and there's an orthodox voice talking. Since there's no evidence for a human being that would probabilify the orthodox picture of origins (they were the originals, all in response to a real human self-sacrifice), the orthodox stuff looks like it's interpolated in the mystical stuff (to hedge it about). The mystical stuff is totally consistent: Christ in you. Somehow, by achieving a symbolic earthly sacrifice, the divine being won some kind of spiritual victory with repercussions for all of us, at a deep level in our beings. The orthodox stuff is also consistent. But the two don't mesh at all well unless there was a human Jesus. But there's no evidence for a human Jesus.

Now and always, because it's the crux of the whole affair. It's only if there really was a man that you can construe Paul the way you are doing and the way the orthodox later did. That's the way the logic flows: the existence of a man Jesus makes the references in Paul be (albeit only vaguely and through a mythifying lens) about a man Jesus. If you can show me the man, then your interpretation is more plausible than mine.

I'm not ignoring the possibility, I acknowledge it, but I don't find any reason to believe it, since there's no evidence for a human being Jesus. There's no reason why there couldn't have been a Socrates-like Jew, there's just no positive reason to beleive there was one.

And if there's no positive reason to believe there was one, a visionary/mystical startup is viable and believable based on the evidence.

And I agree that the orthodox stance is as you are saying, but the evidence we have (Bauer) is that it's later. (And suppose there was a man Jesus, then the laterness of the appearance of orthodoxy would still have to be explained - it would still have to be explained how, if the movement was initially a response to a real man's sacrifice, you get the immediate diversity from Paul's kooky take, and nobody's interested in the orthodox position till a couple of hundred years down the line.)

aa5874

But, in the Gospels there is NO story about any guy first of all. You should produce the true description of Jesus of the Gospels.

The Jesus in the Gospels was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and the Creator of heaven and earth.

And in the Synoptics, the crucifixion of Jesus had nothing to do with sacrifice. The Synoptic Jesus did NOT teach his disciples that he would be sacrificed or that he would die for the sins of all mankind.

Salvation in the Synoptics was achieved by simply believing Jesus, the son of God, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, was the Christ.

Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, in the Synoptics did not come to abolish the Laws of God, (the Laws of his Father).

Based on the Synoptics, Jerusalem would be destroyed because the Jews REJECTED Jesus as the Son of God and Christ, and caused him to be crucified as a blasphemer.

God, the Father of Jesus would then unleash his VENGEANCE on the Jewish People.

The rejection and crucifixion of Jesus, the Son of God, offspring of the Holy Ghost, brought VENGEANCE not SALVATION. The Jewish Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was made desolate as a result of the crucifixion of Jesus.

In effect, if the Jews killed Jesus, the Son of God, then his Father would destroy the Jews.

There was NO salvation for the Jews just as Jesus predicted when Jerusalem was made desolate.

mountainman

You then go on to say ....

Please read all the above very closely. My argument in this thread above is clearly restricted to a very small element of the database of evidence. It concerns the writing of Athanasius against Arius. My claim is simply that on the surface of things it appears from the evidence I have cited to argue the case that Athanasius presents Arius of Alexandria as a Greek satirist.

Nothing from the 5th or 6th centuries has any bearing on this issue.

J-D

If we aren't interested in the truth about Arius, how is the way that Athanasius presented him of any interest?

Sure, it's logically valid to argue:

Premise: Athanasius compared Arius to Sotades
Premise: Sotades was a Greek satirist
Conclusion: Athanasius compared Arius to a Greek satirist

--but so what?

mountainman

Is it coincidental that Eusebius appears to do the same thing?
Eusebius’ Final Word about Greek Satire

“… the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.”

[Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Ch. LXI,
How Controversies originated at Alexandria
through Matters relating to Arius.]

We are left with the conclusion that 1) Athanasius
and 2) Eusebius appear to support the notion that
this Arius was a Greek satirist.

3) Further evidence from a letter of Constantine
suggests the very same conclusion. This evidence
suggests strongly that Arius wrote books
which were anti-Christian and anti-Jesus.

Thus I find it reasonable the argument that
Arius of Alexandria was perceived by Athanasius,
Eusebius and Constantine, as an anti-Christian satirist
who wrote literature, some of which was performed
in the eastern empire as a reaction against the
conversion of the empire to Christianity at that time.

Elijah

What I am asking is how does your understanding of Gnostic Christianity or mystical Christianity lead to salvation. How does Gnosticism or mysticism supposed to save a person or the world? If I can understand GThomas how does that lead to eternal life?
I’d have to see the text you are referencing. I’m sure there is ways to amalgamate or interpret “faith and gnosis” into “faith in a gnosis” but I don’t have a reference in mind for that off hand.

This seems pretty clear to be against the pursuit of gnosis as their faith.

Tim 6:20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge," for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.

I’m a little confused on your position. Is the faith stuff found in Paul interpolation or is faith somehow like you suggested above to be understood like gnosis?
What do you think Christ in you means? Keep in mind there is a difference between the spirit and the personification of the spirit, as in form vs particular. Here is Origen from his commentary on John:

We must not, however, forget that the sojourning of Christ with men took place before His bodily sojourn, in an intellectual fashion, to those who were more perfect and not children, and were not under pedagogues and governors.

I see the in Christ to be about imitating his perspective and while it may include trying to connect to the same spiritual element he did to achieve that, it is still part of the advertising campaign, not the source of the salvation being offered.

What do you mean by the orthodox position being consistent?

God I hate the myth conversation. It’s like the hit song they just play over and over and over till you just want to pull your hair out as soon as it comes on the radio. But here’s a minor attempt.

There is no proof for the historical existence of Jesus but there is no reasonable expectation for any either. It would be great if there was some extra evidence out there to give us certainty but there just isn’t so we have to work with the evidence we do have instead of pining away for better evidence that you hope will support your position since the evidence we do have doesn’t. It would be one thing if there was evidence or even reason to believe in a mythical origin or there was difficulty in believing a historical origin, then the debate would have some merit but as it stands now it just seems like an argument to challenge Christians’ faith, not something that is going to actually help to understand the origin of Christianity based on the evidence we do have.
The evidence and positive reason to believe there was a historical figure is because that’s what reading the texts say. I know it’s not the level of evidence you would like but it is reason and evidence to believe in a historical origin.

What reason do you have to believe an actual martyr wasn’t the case if that’s the story we were given about how it started? You just want more proof? No reason, just a desire driving this? And I really don’t understand how your particular visionary start-up becomes the default in the absence of proof of historical existence?

And could you clarify what your position is exactly on what happened a bit? You believe that Paul actually existed right? Was he the originator of the religion or was there a previous group like the apostles having the vision in an earlier group? What are they learning from the vision? Is it that the messiah has already came and gone like some kind of retro-prophesying or is it connecting to spiritual element like the Tao or is it teaching/showing them a specific gnosis? Who was the first to martyr themselves setting the example? Who initiated the faith based side of the movement if it wasn’t Paul with the gentiles? What is the evidence or reasoning behind thinking the Gnostic interpretation predates the orthodox?

I don’t know why looking at the story (as it’s given) of a man sacrificing his life, that it would be unexpected for there to be a variety and lack of understanding around him and what he was doing. This is especially true when the crux of the story is him establishing faith that he was the messiah and a self-sacrifice meme with the reason and philosophy behind why being left somewhat cryptic. The reason you get Paul’s kooky take right away is because Christianity was open to interpretation. Going from the story, the people who witnessed the event didn’t understand what was going on. They just had a vision that confirmed for them that Jesus was the messiah. There is no clear gnosis or mystical understanding of what was going on in the beginning there was just faith in him as the Christ. The interpretation and philosophizing of Jesus comes later when more educated religious figures like Paul get involved IMO.

J-D

It doesn't say anything in the passage you cite about Greek satire.As I said before, what your evidence does show is violent ideological antagonism between Arius (on the one side) and Athanasius, Eusebius, and Constantine (on the other). For precisely that reason, anything Athanasius, Eusebius, and Constantine have to say about the precise content of Arius's views is not objectively reliable. They had an obvious and even an avowed motive for misrepresenting him.