Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 08-20-2009, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

1) The concept of the Messiah, as traditionally understood, includes the notion that he's one to come. Hence at any point in time, you will have some living Messiah candidates that some Messianists will believe is the Messiah (either the candidate is self-proclaimed, or proclaimed by others).

2) But what if you alter the very concept of the Messiah itself, so that his advent isn't something to wait for, but something that has already occurred? People who believe in this concept of the Messiah won't be looking to any contemporary human candidate, far less someone they know personally, but will be looking for proof in Scripture that the Messiah has already been.

"Joshua Messiah" is a revision of the very Messiah concept itself, that puts the Messiah in the past instead of the future.

All this fits beautifully with the idea of the Messiah having come "sub rosa", having come in humble aspect, etc., etc. He did it that way to fool the Archons.

Misdirection, you see? The Archons were lying in wait for some manly, kingly fellow to come along and make a great fuss, and win military victories, and generally cause a great stir. But the Messiah fooled them all: he spread the disinformation that he would be coming in this form (that's what all the other, ordinary Messianists believed, more fool them), but while people were looking to the horizon for this splendid fellow to come along, he stealthed it, and won his victory, in an unexpected manner.

It's like one of those hero stories: there's the dastardly villain, with the hero in his clutches, giving his great speech about how he's fooled the hero. Then the hero says something quietly and calmly, pointing out that some switch has already been clicked somewhere that has set in motion something inevitable that means the defeat of the villain's plans.

Wrt the Jesus myth, the villains are already defeated on the spiritual plane, all we need to do is wait for the inevitable repercussions of the victory that has been won on a spiritual plane to work themselves through to the material (hence the Second Coming).

And because the villains of the piece are already defeated, the term "euaggelion", having victory connotations, is particularly apt.

I think I understand this. I haven't seen this particular explanation before but there is a logic to it: Christ deceived the archons and "slipped under the radar" so to speak. If this was Paul's message I can see why it would be a stumblingblock to traditional Jews. It doesn't seem especially divine to resort to subterfuge in the spirit realm. But I guess gentiles could understand it as the action of a divine hero/demigod, sort of like Prometheus stealing fire, or Hercules tricking Atlas into re-assuming the globe. Even Zeus used deception occasionally (typically for seducing human women).

dog-on · 08-20-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

He consistently contrasts Jesus and his salvific death with torah observance. It is his Jesus that is central to his message, not the stuff the other guys are waffling on about. The notion of the messiah is old information, but his Jesus (who has already been) seems to be new information, otherwise he wouldn't have to work so hard flogging his very non-messianic Jesus.

spin

Something like this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

spin · 08-20-2009, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

He consistently contrasts Jesus and his salvific death with torah observance. It is his Jesus that is central to his message, not the stuff the other guys are waffling on about. The notion of the messiah is old information, but his Jesus (who has already been) seems to be new information, otherwise he wouldn't have to work so hard flogging his very non-messianic Jesus.

Something like this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

(And there is some manuscript doubt over this and the verses that follow it.)

spin

jakejonesiv · 08-20-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I think I understand this. I haven't seen this particular explanation before but there is a logic to it: Christ deceived the archons and "slipped under the radar" so to speak. If this was Paul's message I can see why it would be a stumblingblock to traditional Jews. It doesn't seem especially divine to resort to subterfuge in the spirit realm. But I guess gentiles could understand it as the action of a divine hero/demigod, sort of like Prometheus stealing fire, or Hercules tricking Atlas into re-assuming the globe. Even Zeus used deception occasionally (typically for seducing human women).

The Redeemer in Ascension of Isaiah chapter 9 descends incognito through the spheres, and fools the archons by taking on the appearance of the beings appropriate to each realm, and gains passage through each Archonic gate by means of secret passwords. When he emerges from the last gate, he is put to death in ignorance by the demiurge and his minions.

Quote:

12. ...the Beloved will descent in the form in which you will see Him descent [will descent, I say] into the world in the last days the Lord, who will be called Christ.
13. Nevertheless they see and know whose will be thrones, and whose the crowns when He has descended and been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man.
14. And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.
15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.
16. And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day,

A somilar idea is conveyed in 1 Corinthians 2:8. None of the archons of this aeon understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The oldest known interpretation of 1 Cor. 2:8 is that of Marcion (Against Marcion Book V). Marcion taught that Jesus was crucified by spiritual archons, minions of the Demiurge. Tertullian's argument is clearly secondary to Marcion's, and was only fashioned contra-Marcion, but has
become the standard orthodox apology ever since.

But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of
our glory, that "none of the princes of this world
knew it for had they known it they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory," the heretic [Marcion]
argues that the princes of this world crucified the
Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order
that this blow might even recoil on the Creator ... it
properly enough was unknown to all the princes and
powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants
are not permitted to know their masters' plans, much
less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression
himself, the devil Himself.
Tertullian Against Marcion Book V

However, it cannot be determined if Marcion allowed human agents as tools of the Archons. Comparison with the gospel of Marcion would appear that he did.

Best,
Jake

dog-on · 08-20-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Something like this...

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

(And there is some manuscript doubt over this and the verses that follow it.)

spin

Indeed, much manuscript doubt...

Quote:

and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Quote:

the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

Paul got his message via revelation:

Quote:

11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

and via scripture (LXX)

Quote:

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Really, it is quite clear.

bacht · 08-20-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The Redeemer in Ascension of Isaiah chapter 9 descends incognito through the spheres, and fools the archons by taking on the appearance of the beings appropriate to each realm, and gains passage through each Archonic gate by means of secret passwords. When he emerges from the last gate, he is put to death in ignorance by the demiurge and his minions.

Quote:

12. ...the Beloved will descent in the form in which you will see Him descent [will descent, I say] into the world in the last days the Lord, who will be called Christ.
13. Nevertheless they see and know whose will be thrones, and whose the crowns when He has descended and been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man.
14. And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is.
15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.
16. And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day,

A similar idea is conveyed in 1 Corinthians 2:8. None of the archons of this aeon understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory...

Excellent, thanks Jake. It does seem like the apocrypha/pseudepigrapha shed as much light on Christianity as the Hebrew canon or the LXX (eg the reference to Enoch in Jude)

spin · 08-20-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The Redeemer in Ascension of Isaiah chapter 9 descends incognito through the spheres, and fools the archons by taking on the appearance of the beings appropriate to each realm, and gains passage through each Archonic gate by means of secret passwords. When he emerges from the last gate, he is put to death in ignorance by the demiurge and his minions.

A similar idea is conveyed in 1 Corinthians 2:8. None of the archons of this aeon understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory...

Excellent, thanks Jake. It does seem like the apocrypha/pseudepigrapha shed as much light on Christianity as the Hebrew canon or the LXX (eg the reference to Enoch in Jude)

Umm, well, if you ahh, attempt to date the Ascension of Isaiah, you start wading in difficulty. Scholars see two traditions having worked on the text, the first part up to ch 5 was Jewish and the rest christian of sorts. (See intro to the text in Sparks (ed), The Apocryphal OT (or via: amazon.co.uk)). Knibb's intro in Charlesworth's The OT Pseudepigrapha (or via: amazon.co.uk) dates stuff in a more complex way, but much of it is christian.

spin

bacht · 08-20-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Excellent, thanks Jake. It does seem like the apocrypha/pseudepigrapha shed as much light on Christianity as the Hebrew canon or the LXX (eg the reference to Enoch in Jude)

Umm, well, if you ahh, attempt to date the Ascension of Isaiah, you start wading in difficulty. Scholars see two traditions having worked on the text, the first part up to ch 5 was Jewish and the rest christian of sorts. (See intro to the text in Sparks (ed), The Apocryphal OT) Knibb's intro in Charlesworth's The OT Pseudepigrapha dates stuff in a more complex way, but much of it is christian.

spin

Thanks spin. I'm aware of this issue but not up on the details. Other suspects I've heard are Baruch and the Didache.

rlogan · 08-20-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

I'm still seeing the false dichotomy between "Jesus was a wandering preacher who had disciples" and "Jesus was wholly mythical". Right now I would suggest a middle ground that makes sense of all the evidence

Hiya show_no_mercy. Nice to see your participation. I have a wee bit of a comment here.

There isn't logically a "middle ground" between "wholly mythical" and "wandering preacher who had disciples" later legendized or mythologized.

The issue generating the most heat is whether there was a person whose philosophy was handed down through time, and with the minimum standard that this person was crucified under Pilate.

There either was or their wasn't.

Quote:

: Jesus was some sort of pious hermit (like a "Nazirite") and was wrongly executed. That way we have a "historical" Jesus that makes sense of why Paul and other epistle writers don't mention any life stories or teachings by this Jesus character. But this historical Jesus has no relation whatsoever to gospel Jesus.

There is kind of a myth that we wouldn't know of any candidate Jesus characters to look at. But there are plenty. Josephus has a couple dozen Jesus', and if you add the people who are not named Jesus but who could be considered candidates, then it is many many dozens.

Well, I should say the number is zero. When you look them over. A leader of fishermen and other blue-collar types in raids against Romans. A son of a high priest. A crazy Jesus running around yelling "Woes unto Israel". Tortured by Pilate. Harmless fool he lets go, later killed by a Roman seige engine in 70 CE. Many Jesus', but no Christ.

And where do we find this Jesus? In the tortured quote-mining of the Hebrew Bible - that's the gospel Jesus. Mark isn't so bad as Matthew but its some nifty hellenized midrash. Paul's Jesus is by revelation. He is not receiving instruction from a student of an historical Jesus.

If we so completely disengage ourselves from the initial HJ premise of a cult leader who is executed, then giving direct rise to Christianity, then we are mythologists.

Oh, mix up the teacher of righteousness with the Hermit you mention, a dash of JBapt and some Hebrew Bible pepper - shake it up and viola the sort of historical jesus middle ground?

Well not a big deal. I may not even have read you correctly. I think we're both after the "argument from best explanation".

cheers.

jakejonesiv · 08-21-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Umm, well, if you ahh, attempt to date the Ascension of Isaiah, you start wading in difficulty. Scholars see two traditions having worked on the text, the first part up to ch 5 was Jewish and the rest christian of sorts. (See intro to the text in Sparks (ed), The Apocryphal OT (or via: amazon.co.uk)). Knibb's intro in Charlesworth's The OT Pseudepigrapha (or via: amazon.co.uk) dates stuff in a more complex way, but much of it is christian.

spin

Good points.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.