jakejonesiv

I am going to hit the OT Theophanies again because I think it is devestating to one of the historists favorite argument. In the OT, God and Angels allegedly appeared in form that was visually indistinquishable from a human being. These theophanies allegedly appeared on earth, in apparent historical circumstances. These appearances were believed by many to actually be historical.

But we know that, unless appeal is made to the suprenatural, that God made no such appearance.

Isn't this the identical argument that Gamera and Ben C. Smith (among others) appeal to for evidence of a Historical Jesus??? Seems like the props have been kicked out from under the HJ arguments.

Jake Jones IV

Solo

One: you are assuming that all historicists are literalists. That is not the case.

Two: God never "appeared" to any Jew directly as a human; angels are asserted to have had human form at times but that would be an issue of interpretation.

Three: the cognitive process around the complex neuro-psychological events and processes is historically and culturally determined. Obviously, hypermanic fugues with euphoric peaks and seizures in 1st century Palestine would be captured and processed through local religious imagery. If the individual was bright, had what I call "shamanic credentials" (there appears to be personality traits in humans that makes other people "recognize" them as such - this is as true of the mezolitic Inuit as with Branch Davidians) and bore up well, his imaginative capture of his inner events would leave cultural imprint.

No, but someone by the name Yeshu could have very well been wandering about promising village blokes in Galilee to show them the Danielic Son of Man and a way to the kingdom come if they followed him. And they well might have. He ended up nailed to a piece of crude carpentry when he decided in one of his manic highs to walk to Jerusalem and seize the Temple. (It was a small incident soon forgotten, well below history's radar). Peter and the Zebedees then made a contact with the Nazarenes of James (no relation to Yeshu). He hears the stories, Yeshu's ideas, his visions. Decides Yeshu was a prophet of the last days killed by "Jerusalem" like JtB and accepts the group into his church. Peter and Co. spread Yeshu's ideas and show his "baptism of fire" around. It attracts the Hellenistic Jews of Jerusalem and beyond....the baptismal magic has explosive effects; the word of a rite producing prophetic visions spreads quickly. .....gets to Paul, etc., etc.

Where is anything supernatural about such or a similar scenario ?

Seems to me thousand times more probable than a Temple worshipping Jewish holy man James worshipping a Platonic hypothesis crucified in the abstract.

Jiri

jakejonesiv

Why are these details missing from Paul's epistles? Paul doesn't even mention any so-called Son of Man.

Assuming, for sake of argument that Jesus and Paul were both
historical, I have suggested above that at best Paul heard a rumor that a Jew known as Jesus-Christ was crucified and appeared in visions, and plugged this scant information into a Hellenistic redeemer cult of some type. In the traditional datings, there doesn't seem to be time to develop the full blown Pauline Christology starting with a failed Jesus scenerio.




Who do you propose had these seizures? Jesus? Paul?
Are you advocating that the origins of Christianity are to be found ultimately in pathology?

In your opinion, what does the phrase "Brother of the Lord" mean?





I don't see any supernatural being invoked in your response.



Are you identifying James the Just with the James of Galatians and Acts 15?

Thanks,
Jake

Malachi151

This is absurd, this is like saying that none of the believers in Mithras taught that Mirthas was a myth, therefore Mithras must have been a real person.

Give me a break. Paul considered Jesus real, just like be considered Belair real, and the angel Michael real, and the third layer of heaven real, etc., etc. Paul didn't teach that angles were myths either, so does that mean that angels were real?

Oh really, care to back that up? The forged letters of Paul are even more mythical in nature than the authentic ones. In the forged letters it is clear that the people who killed Jesus are the "archons of the air".

Take also the example in Ephesians:

Here the author is trying to explain a Hebrew scripture that he is claiming describes the Messiah, Jesus, and the scripture says that he ascended.

The author then seeks to explain where he was ascending from, and he says that he ascended FROM HADES!

What the hell, this is CLEARLY a mythological view by our standards. Here is the place where they would have said that Christ was ascending from the tomb, or whatever, if he were talking about a historical figure, but he never places him on earth at all, he never says that he was on earth.

Here is the scripture that was being referred to:

Psalm 68 is talking about an escape from death in a battle, however, and they are twisting the meaning, just like all the Christians did, but we can clearly see here a scriptural basis for the ideas, and then a further development of those ideas by Paul in a way that, again, defies or at least avoids a historical basis.

And what is the body of Christ according to this? The believers constitute the body of Christ.

Solo

Paul converts the Son of Man of HJ, into Jesus the Christ. The proclaimer of the Nazarenes becomes the Proclaimed of Paul (and Christians).

whereas I think Paul's letters show he was a pneumatic who came into contact with the Jesus faction of the Nazarenes, became obssessed with them and militated against them until he himself had, what today is commonly described in psychiatry (or study of paranormal states if you prefer) as conversion experience . Paul interpreted this as a revelation about Yeshu the crucified Nazarene, but because of his own Phariseic background he refused to accept the lore and the practices of his followers. He began to preach a different, "cosmic" Jesus Christ, radically rejecting the traditions of the earhly figure of Jesus (and I agree that he might not even have had much info about him) creating instead a theological and ethical system that directly opposed the Nazarene Petrine faction.

Both. The mythical figure of Christ originates in Paul's subjective "spritual" perception of Jesus' suffering and vindication. He goes even as far as paralleling his own experience to J's crucifixion: Gal 2:20, Rom 6:6. I don't see how anyone can deny that ....Look, I am not hung up on stressing pathology, since I myself have a diagnosis. The bigger problem than the pathogenic elements (which are not necessarily degenerative) is the fear of people of insanity, their misjudging the impairment, either overstressing it or suppressing it.
Winston Churchill, we know today was bi-polar, and his insomnia and depressions were the stuff of legends and rumours. Yet, he was not impaired in any sort of way; quite the contrary, his 'manic' energy was the right anti-dote to the 'manic' demons of Hitler, who everyone ouside his inner circle perceived (since his rise in 1920's) as deeply abnormal, 'sexless' psycho.

The fact of the matter is, that all reports of direct contact with God, or special relationship with God today (in the last 150 or so years) are routinely refered to psychiatry. God, or other supernatural entites, do not interact with normal, healthy-minded people. Was it any different 2000 years ago ? The figure of a bright village lad in Galilee, who had an episode, believed himself to suddenly to have a mission, and his family knowing that he went off the deep end, are not the kinds of stories that would evolve from contemplating a Pie in the Sky.

I think it originally denoted extreme "sainthood" in the Nazarene movement. It don't think it referenced Yeshu in any way.

I think Luke "abducted" James for the Christian movement. The "conference" in Acts 15 is mythical and contradicts Paul writing. I have a strong hunch that James "the pillar" (Gal 2:9) and James the Just (Gal 2:12) are not one and the same. James the Just appears to have been by far the dominant figure of the Nazarenes. That Paul would have referred to him as "one of the boys" just does not fit. I don't know yet - I am still not completely decided on that one.

Jiri