maryhelena

All this speculation re a substitute on the cross - and JC living out his days elsewhere (in India.....................)is just that speculation. There is no way to establish historicity for the gospel JC story. All one can do is consider what history we do have available. History that might shed some light on how that gospel story was developed. ie the gospel story is a re-telling, in 'salvation' terms, of specific events related to Jewish history.

On the issue of a substitute on the cross and the 'real' JC living out his days - consider this history.

Antigonus: The last King and High Priest of the Jews. (death in 37 b.c.)

Philip the Tetrarch.

That is the relevant history upon which the gospel JC story has been developed. One historical figure was hung on a stake/cross (also beheaded -Josephus and Plutarch) and the other lived out his days after ruling for many years.

Talk of substitution on the cross - that's the result of creating a composite gospel JC figure and creating a 'salvation' history - a pseudo-history.

mountainman

passion g3958

πάσχω paschō



The docetic gnostic heretics opposed this meaning. They claimed that Jesus was not affected, did not feel, did not have a sensible experience, did not undergo (crucifixion). In some cases another took his place. The Islamic Gospel of Barnabas has older precedents - e.g. docetism in "The Acts of John", the Nag Hammadi library.

sotto voce

The Bible speaks of suffering rather than passion. People who use the English word 'passion' (who muscled in on Wiki as soon as it got kudos) may be those keen to demonstrate their own sympathy with Jesus, while actually opposing him. It's an unnecessary expression, though not actually heretical, like so many of the teachings of those who use this particular word. It's perhaps something of an understatement, actually.

That God is passionless and impassible is absurdity to any who have read even the first eight chapters of Genesis. Or even the first three. God is there very passionate about the fates of people, whom he made in his own image. But God is unaffected in his underlying nature. His aseity is immutable, independent of anything that humanity may do. Here is Paul to the Areopagus:

'"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. He is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."' Ac 17:24-25

Now that describes the supernal deity. Jesus, Immanuel, God with us, the same person, did indeed suffer, and cried out that he had been forsaken. In Gethsemane, Jesus had a real decision to make, that was, if this be at all true, the most emotional decision possible, that of the innocent to 'become sin' on behalf of mankind:

'"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. Being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.' Lk 22:42-44

Diogenes the Cynic

The "Emmanuel" quote from Isaiah has nothing to do with Jesus, or even with the Messiah.

What does it mean to "oppose Jesus?"

stephan huller

Clement would have opposed the idea of God having any “passion” or feeling “passionate” including suffering of any kind. Impassibility means to be devoid of feelings, passion

stephan huller

Mary Helena

The substitution myth has nothing to do with Jesus ending up in Kashmir. The real problem is explaining how God ended up on a Cross, why Muslims deny the crucifixion of Jesus from the get go, why the heretics denied Jesus was crucified in some form

sotto voce

Why does Clement matter?

maryhelena

Well, I did put India in brackets - maybe I should have added a smiley.....:thinking:

God on a cross: That's great if one wants to use 'god' as referencing some idea or other that one wants to ditch. Down with the old and on with the new....

Muslims denying the crucifixion of Jesus: If the gospel JC is a composite figure and that composite figure includes references to a historical figure living around the time of the gospel time frame - and that historical figure is Philip the Tetrarch - he was not crucified.

Heretics denying Jesus was crucified: See above.

It's not all supernatural magic stuff - if it was then that gospel JC story would have no legs to run on. It's history that has anchored the 'salvation' story, it's pseudo-history. Two streams running here - history and 'salvation' history. Eventually, historical memories fade, the stream tapers off - but by then the 'salvation' story is up and running as a fast flowing river....

sotto voce

Much too far-fetched for such a purpose.

Muhammad and his associates did not think so. Neither did any earlier heretics. Composites are very modern. Too modern.

God on a cross is not of human origin. It's too strong.

God coming off a cross after 600 years is crackers. Deity cannot have allowed a fundamental error to go uncorrected so long.

Diogenes the Cynic

What does "too strong" mean? What an absurd assertion.