neilgodfrey

Some years ago (around the time I seized the opportunity to personally thank Bishop Spong for helping me on my way to atheism) I asked a well respected anglican cleric what his response would be if it could be reasonably established that Christianity did not begin with a real historical Jesus. My query was via email so he had a little time to think before responding. His words in effect were:

"Well it seems the Jews can still get along without a literal historical Abraham so I suppose Christianity could still find a way to survive without an historical Jesus."

Thoughts?

spin

This is another non BC&H thread.

Christianity is founded on the notion of salvation through the vicarious participation in the death of Jesus and his resurrection. No Jesus means no salvation.


spin

neilgodfrey

The non-historical view of Jesus does not deny this. Simply removes it from the historical realm.

spin

This is still not a BC&H thread.

Sorry, but what does "this" refer to? the salvific act? And what realm is whatever it is moved to, so that it still has religious significance for humans?


spin

Solo

The question here is whether Jesus needs to be historical.

The "vicarious participation" seems to have originated in Paul's head, and his expose needed no reference to the historical figure (1 Cr 11:23-28, 1 Cr 15:3-8, and Rm 1:3 are later church fakes of Paul). But Paul was addressing a select audience. Paul Tillich sees Paul's participation "mystery" originating with Delphic Apollo (the first instance, he says, of God's participation in the suffering of man). The ecstasis through the participation in the death and rising of the god is brought about through "psychological means. Intoxication is brought about by a change of light and darkness, by ascetic fasting, by incense, sounds, music...etc". Tillich stresses that the esoteric nature of the practices was protected "against profanation". "Later, in the Christian congregations", he writes, "a similar thing took place to protect against betrayal to the pagan persecutors". (Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, ed. Carl E.Braaten, N.Y., 1968, p.13-14).

So, one can look at the gospels themselves, as the works of pneuma, gained by insight into the "unio mystica" with the risen Lord, written up as koans and riddles, and read according to the depth of participant's initiation.
But the problem is this: with the emergence of the Church, the universaility of the creed can only be maintained by the mainenance of the lowest, but most common, spiritual denominator. The commonest believer will read everything in the Bible literally - as history. So what is the pope to do ? Say, ok, but the real resurrection is just for the gnostic maniacos ?

Jiri

Amedeo

I agree, that's the question! But you seem to give an answer in terms of Paul, as if to say: Following Paul, Christians believe that Jesus is the Savior of (in principle) mankind, but it is logically necessary in Paul's doctrine that there be a real Jesus?

You or I could ask the same question but on our terms (about historicity): Does Paul's doctrine of salvation logically require a real (a historical) Jesus?

I would answer the first question by aYes, for if there was no crucifixion [of a real Jesus], there was no atonment; and if there was no resurrection, "our faith would have been in vain."
[I don't know what the real Paul said or di not really say; I simply speak in terms of what is attributed to him.]

The second question will be answered differently by different readers of the biographies [Gospels] of Jesus.

In order to relate to Paul, you have to start considering the biography of Jesus the Messiah/Christ, not the biography of Jesus the King... who died on the cross as the [claiming] King of the Judaeans, rather than as the messiah. You see, the Messiah was born of God and of Mary (not of Joseph, son of David, and Mary). He was literally a son of God or, as he was understood by the Christians, a God-Man [like the Giants and the Titans and the Heroes of Greek mythology]. It is the crucifixion of the God Man that, according to Paul, makes for the expiation of human sins. [This was not Jesus/Messiah's own mission, which was to prepare Israel for the imminent end of the world -- within one generation! Christians forgot about that and took Paul's interpretation of the crucifixion as Jesus' real mission. Of course, Paul himself had to forget that Jesus died as the King of the Judaens, not as the messiah to mankind.]

So, for the Pauline salvation, it is necessary NOT that there was a real Jesus, but that there was a real GOD-MAN [begotten by God and Mary]. Without this, the crucifixion had no expiatory value and could not serve the purpose of saving mankind.

I personally think that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, maybe of the bloodline of David, was a rabbi (learned in the Scriptures) who noted what the Messiah would have to be, and he impersonated the Messiah -- preaching his messianic autobigraphy along with moral sermons and the parables about the Kingdom of God.

I could say that Jesus was not the pre-figured or foretold messiah. But what would the real messiah have that Jesus did not have? Was the real one supposed to be a political leader? But Jesus of Nazareth was or was claimed to be: he was the legitimate king who was going to displace the foreign Herodian dynasty. Do you remember the tale of the magi who, having informed Herod, he took measures to protect his rule over Judaea? (The Gospels, compiled by Greek Christians, eliminated most of the episodes that had to do with the royal Jesus: They are predominantly the biographies of Jesus THE MESSIAH.)

If the Messiah was the God-Man that is told in the Gospels, then there had to be a real God-Man in order for the Pauline universalistic doctrine to have any validity at all.

The end of the world did not come and Jesus' own mission ended with his crucifixion, but the Church of Jesus the Christ lived on since it was Paul's universal, not the Israelitic, Church {People}.

Peter Kirby

I once asked someone such a question, Neil, and this is the response I got...

FWIW.

Draconis

I think they'll just be jews then

Doug Shaver

Whether the cleric was correct depends on which version of Christianity we're talking about. I have known some Christians whose beliefs were not contingent on Jesus' historicity, but I doubt that they are in the majority.

Certainly, no kind of Christianity that presumes scriptural inerrancy could adapt itself to irrefutable proof of Jesus' nonexistence. But then, no dyed-in-the-wool inerrantist would accept any proof. They would just deny that it was irrefutable.

aa5874

Where did you get information about this Jesus, son of Joseph. There is no such Jesus in the NT. I cannot locate your Jesus, son of Joseph, in any historical writings of the 1st century, not even an anecdote.

All we know is that the story of Jesus' birth, as recorded in Matthew and Luke is false, neither Joseph nor Mary, herself, could understand how this Jesus could be conceived, according to the authors of the very same books.