Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 10-09-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

curious.

When Hadrian built Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was erected in the place of the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem.

The evidence that the temple of Jupiter was on the site of the old Jewish temple is questionable. (There are old threads about this issue.)

Andrew Criddle

outhouse · 10-09-2012, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

the surving text isnt secondary and there are more then two sorurces.

the point is only that where the evidence is suspect, nothing can be said with any certainty. The only thing I am sure of in all my years of looking at this stuff is that Schmidt is right about the context. There can be no doubt and as such the idea that the gospel narrative = history implodes. One can argue that Jesus 'must have been' actually crucified or that there 'must have been' a real Jesus. But the gospel doesn't prove anything because it is obviously arranged to fit a theological contrivance. This is NOT how history unfolded.

I agree about the roman influences though. it is common knolwedge, was my only point.

no credible historians states mythology or cultural influences were not used, as its obvious they were, they have to be used.

it would be the same for any culture describing events they were not witness to. Different cultures and authors have different spins

stephan huller · 10-09-2012, 01:19 PM

But this is different. How on earth can we accept that the entire description of what happened during the Passion narrative is contrived? I remember reading Bob Price talk about the event being a Saturnilia. This blows that theory out of the water. What is left of reality? It is also important to note that the Muslims vehemently deny that Jesus was even crucified. A similar opinion is acknowledged in pre-Islamic Semitic Christianity.

There is another important corollary for Marcionophiles to notice. Paul's reference to this triumphal march necessarily means he was aware of the written gospel. This opinion is shared by Marcionites and Clement of Alexandria. If Paul is aware of the made up literary contrivance then that means our inherited understanding has to be revisited.

stephan huller · 10-09-2012, 01:32 PM

Clement's 'mystical' explanation of the crown of thorns:

Quote:

I can also show you another mystic meaning in it. For when the Almighty Lord of the universe began to legislate by the Word, and wished His power to be manifested to Moses, a godlike vision of light that had assumed a shape was shown him in the burning bush (the bush is a thorny plant); but when the Word ended the giving of the law and His stay with men, the Lord was again mystically crowned with thorn. On His departure from this world to the place whence He came, He repeated the beginning of His old descent, in order that the Word beheld at first in the bush, and afterwards taken up crowned by the thorn, might show the whole to be the work of one power, He Himself being one, the Son of the Father, who is truly one, the beginning and the end of time. [Paed 2.8]

stephan huller · 10-09-2012, 01:49 PM

Another interesting fact is that I don't see ANY Patristic references to this doctrine outside of Clement Paedagogue (partially cited above), Athanasius and a few others. This suggests either (a) it was totally unimportant or conversely (b) ABSOLUTELY significant. I think the latter.

sotto voce · 10-09-2012, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Clement's 'mystical' explanation of the crown of thorns:

Quote:

I can also show you another mystic meaning in it. For when the Almighty Lord of the universe began to legislate by the Word, and wished His power to be manifested to Moses, a godlike vision of light that had assumed a shape was shown him in the burning bush (the bush is a thorny plant); but when the Word ended the giving of the law and His stay with men, the Lord was again mystically crowned with thorn. On His departure from this world to the place whence He came, He repeated the beginning of His old descent, in order that the Word beheld at first in the bush, and afterwards taken up crowned by the thorn, might show the whole to be the work of one power, He Himself being one, the Son of the Father, who is truly one, the beginning and the end of time. [Paed 2.8]

Spot the innumeracy.

stephan huller · 10-09-2012, 01:51 PM

Another point to consider. We all know (I hope) that the Marcionites did not have Jesus 'triumphantly' entering Jerusalem as in the canonical gospels. Were these implausible stories about Jesus opening proclaiming himself to be the messiah a reaction against the ACTUAL triumphal march in the Passion? In other words, did the orthodox have to pretend that Jesus was saying X (= i.e. I am he) in order to avoid the implications of the original triumphal march (= secret doctrine)? I think so.

sotto voce · 10-09-2012, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Another point to consider. We all know (I hope) that the Marcionites did not have Jesus 'triumphantly' entering Jerusalem as in the canonical gospels. Were these implausible stories about Jesus opening proclaiming himself to be the messiah a reaction against the ACTUAL triumphal march in the Passion? In other words, did the orthodox have to pretend that Jesus was saying X (= i.e. I am he) in order to avoid the implications of the original triumphal march (= secret doctrine)? I think so.

Seems he did not stagger from defeat to defeat, anyway.

stephan huller · 10-09-2012, 02:06 PM

Well I guess the question is - what were the implications of Jesus being dressed up and crowned and saluted by the soldiers? Schmidt says it was to show him as the true king before Caesar. Yet was the Emperor considered a 'king'? I know Julius Caesar rejected the title and there was deep hostility to the term in the Republican period. It was actually a crime to try and revive the monarchy.

There is the line in John of course:

From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”

13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”

“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.

“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

I am not sure if the Greek is properly translated into English. οὐκ ἔχομεν βασιλέα εἰ μὴ Καίσαρα = not we have a king if not Caesar. You could argue it should be read we don't have a king, only Caesar.

sotto voce · 10-09-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I am not sure if the Greek is properly translated into English. οὐκ ἔχομεν βασιλέα εἰ μὴ Καίσαρα = not we have a king if not Caesar. You could argue it should be read we don't have a king, only Caesar.

There is irony here, because one of the Passover prayers of the Jews, fresh in the mind, acknowledged 'no king but God'. From John's pov, some Jews preferred anyone but God; even the detested, extorting, invader Gentile 'dogs'.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2012, 01:19 PM	#23
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But this is different. How on earth can we accept that the entire description of what happened during the Passion narrative is contrived? I remember reading Bob Price talk about the event being a Saturnilia. This blows that theory out of the water. What is left of reality? It is also important to note that the Muslims vehemently deny that Jesus was even crucified. A similar opinion is acknowledged in pre-Islamic Semitic Christianity. There is another important corollary for Marcionophiles to notice. Paul's reference to this triumphal march necessarily means he was aware of the written gospel. This opinion is shared by Marcionites and Clement of Alexandria. If Paul is aware of the made up literary contrivance then that means our inherited understanding has to be revisited.

10-09-2012, 01:49 PM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another interesting fact is that I don't see ANY Patristic references to this doctrine outside of Clement Paedagogue (partially cited above), Athanasius and a few others. This suggests either (a) it was totally unimportant or conversely (b) ABSOLUTELY significant. I think the latter.

10-09-2012, 01:51 PM	#27
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another point to consider. We all know (I hope) that the Marcionites did not have Jesus 'triumphantly' entering Jerusalem as in the canonical gospels. Were these implausible stories about Jesus opening proclaiming himself to be the messiah a reaction against the ACTUAL triumphal march in the Passion? In other words, did the orthodox have to pretend that Jesus was saying X (= i.e. I am he) in order to avoid the implications of the original triumphal march (= secret doctrine)? I think so.

10-09-2012, 02:06 PM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well I guess the question is - what were the implications of Jesus being dressed up and crowned and saluted by the soldiers? Schmidt says it was to show him as the true king before Caesar. Yet was the Emperor considered a 'king'? I know Julius Caesar rejected the title and there was deep hostility to the term in the Republican period. It was actually a crime to try and revive the monarchy. There is the line in John of course: From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.” 13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon. “Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews. 15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” “Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked. “We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered. 16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. I am not sure if the Greek is properly translated into English. οὐκ ἔχομεν βασιλέα εἰ μὴ Καίσαρα = not we have a king if not Caesar. You could argue it should be read we don't have a king, only Caesar.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.