Llyricist

Ya know, I keep following your link, again and again, hoping to find this persuasive argument. And all I find is his argument that concludes that "brothers of the lord" must be referring to a certain closed group. Which I agree with, however, I'm not getting from there to "must be talking about familial brothers". :huh:

Paul talks about alot of separate groups and people that were later conflated and expanded in different ways, such as "the 12" separately from "Cephas" separately from "the Apostles" separately from "brothers of the lord". The gospels later on conflated the first three (ie. the Apostles were the disciples were the 12 and Peter was one of em) and gave the familial meaning to the brothers. Without backreading the gospels, we don't know who Paul meant by "the 12", or who were "the apostles" (he lists them and Cephas separately in his "appearance" list) or whether the phrase "brother(s) of the Lord" was meant as familial or not.

And that's assuming Pauline priority and non-interpolation, each successively larger pills to swallow, though the priority is easy, just not so sure. I mean, when we have a history with so much interpolation and marginal gloss and pious fraud, it gets difficult to be persuaded by the historicist case that seems to hang by a few phrases and prepostions scattered through Pauls "authentic" letters and Josephus, against the overwhelming impression that Paul is talking of some spiritual Christ that never had a human existance on Earth. Never even mind the arguments of incredulity over how the religion started, or the pathetic "criterion of embarrassment".

I still think there COULD have been someone crucified that inspired it all, but that's a far cry being convinced one way or the other.

No Robots

What's the alternative? You start with a fantastic "Middle Platonic" cosmogony to which you add a saviour figure. Now you want to materialize the saviour. You do so by making him into a hapless Jewish doofus wandering around Palestine, pissing off everybody, getting called a drunk and a glutton. Even his own family calls him nuts. Finally he gets arrested and executed in the most ignoble means possible. It just doesn't make sense.

Llyricist

Several in fact
HUh? The guy that was constantly embarrassing the Pharisees with his amazing wisdom and knowledge? WTF?
??? yeah those 5,000 he fed were really pissed off about it. :Cheeky:

I missed this part; B, C & V?
Common hero motif, and?
Which he PLANNED. :huh:
Your point?

No Robots

I am just talking about Doherty's version.

You think him wise? Then why do you not believe him? Why do you not obey him?


You believe he fed 5,000 with a few fish and loaves?:Cheeky:

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. Mt 11:19.

Did you know that the whole Bible is online, and is keyword searchable? Try it.

But for our cosmic savior?

Now you're sounding like a fundy.

The point is that there is no point to this odyssey from cosmic demiurge to executed nut.

Llyricist

a. Cut the crap, I was talking about the gospel portrayal, not that I believe it.

b.
Demiurge? nut? cut the hyperbole too.

But in any case your point about the crucifixion is totally without merit. the crucifixion was absolutely central to Paul's theology, a historicized Jesus had to be crucified.

Seems to me you are just providing examples of the two "never even mind"s in my earlier post.

Toto

Aren't you confusing the historical Jesus with the Christian godman?

Socrates was wise, but I don't "believe" him or "obey" him.

Thomas Jefferson was wise, but similarly I don't feel a need to believe him or obey him.

No Robots

How many fictional characters would you call "wise"? Yoda, maybe?

Anyway, the real point is that I want to get mythicists to start recognizing Christ's qualities. It's the necessary first step in learning how to understand this phenomenon correctly.

Assuming for the moment that you accept Christ's historicity, then you do raise a good point about Socrates and Jefferson. The short answer is that Christ is in a different category from the other two. Christ is a mystic, THE mystic, operating essentially within the realm of the will; and thus demands belief and obedience. Socrates is a philosopher, and operates on the level of knowledge. His is essentially a negative mode, undermining mistaken beliefs. It is the via negationis, the powerful negation that prepared the Hellenistic world for the affirmation of Christ, his mystical, world-shattering "yes". Jefferson lives, as we do, in the wake of this movement. He is shaking off the superstition of the ages, and attempting to examine the world with a scientific eye.

jakejonesiv

Sure, historical events!

These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and afterwards slew him.
Cassius Dio, _Roman History_ Book XLIX chapter 22 section 6.

I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.
Josephus, Life, 75
Joseph of Arimathea is perhaps derived from Joseph bar Matthias (Life 1, 2)

This next one could be legendary. I'll let you decide. Hung on a tree, the tomb, the guards, the taking down at sunset, are derived from the following.

Joshua 10:16-27 Jesus role swapping!

Now Didymus, I have a question or two for you.

How do you explain the varieties of early Christianity that didn't either didn't believe Jesus was crucified or didn't mention it? It is unmentioned in GThomas or Q, if there even was such a thing.

What is the earliest extant image of Jesus on the cross? If it is the one definitive event that started Christianity, it should be depicted early and often right? So how many years before we see an unambiguos display of the crucifix? 500 years? more?

Jake Jones IV

Clivedurdle

From umich link above.

No Robots

You might as well say it was all cribbed from Plato: For Plato actually speaks of one who, without having done any wrong himself, gives the appearance of most manifest unrighteousness, in order to prove himself totally righteous. He is then put in chains, scourged, tortured, blinded, and, having endured all sufferings, is finally crucified (spitted): τελευαων παντα κακα παθον ανασχινδυλευθησεται Gorg. 58,13ff.; De Rep. 11, 65,66.