aa5874

Well, that is for you to prove. You must prove that not providing informatiom must mean insignificance and never non-existence.

But, even more alarming is that Julian wrote after Eusebius, and Eusebius in Church History claimed Josephus did mention Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews.

Was the passage, the TF, in Church History also interpolated after Julian?

Did the Church make additions to Church History to combat Julian's "Against the Gallileans"?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto and Pete,

These following thoughts are not intended as a criticism of either of you, but just some thoughts on the recent exchange between you.

I have been thinking about Judith Butler's "Excitable Speech" and its possible relationship to the bible. The gnostics were using "excitable" or "hate" speech from the point of view of certain churches. Wasn't the selection and restriction of text in the New Testament a response to this type of dangerous speech. While Butler advocates more speech to combat hate speech; wasn't the response of the self-proclaimed, orthodox Churches mainly the opposite, the restriction of speech, the New Testament canon?

One can see the use of the phrase "Clark Jesus Kent" as a repeated sophomoric insult that lowers the level of discourse on a serious forum. On the other hand, one can see it as a clever renaming that shortens and reinforces a clever analogy. In the most popular gospels (good news-birth announcement) of the ancient world, the Jesus on Earth (aka Jesus of Nazareth) character is basically the secret identity of the son of the sky-rain god, Yahweh, sent from the heavens by his father to Earth on a mission which is never clearly identified. In the same way, in the most popular modern gospels, Clark Kent is the secret identity of the son of the clever scientist from the advanced civilization on krypton, who has also sent his son to Earth. The term "Clark Jesus Kent" shows the intimate connection between the most popular ancient and most popular modern gospels. Instead of the simile, "Jesus is like Clark Kent," to encapsulate that idea, we get even a briefer encapsulation in the phrase "Clark Jesus Kent."

We can see the transformation:
Jesus is like Clark Kent (a valid comparison or simile)
Jesus is Clark Kent (an overlaying of the modern and ancient characters or metaphore)
Clark Jesus Kent (the fusion of the two characters into one or renaming. )

The renaming is offensive because it makes something high and important (Jesus, son of God) into something low and trivial - Clark Kent, a comic book character for kids). It is shameful things that need to be censored -- see recent political controversy over General Petraeus and General Betrayus, where the United States Congress took the unusual step of censuring the Move-on organization for running an ad doing this renaming.

Of course, we should remember that at least one of the authors of the gospels said that we should all become like children in order to inherit the kingdom of God. This suggests that the stories of Jesus were like comic books -- intended for children and not serious adults -- and the response of the early Christians was not to deny this charge, but to suggest that the adults should read them for the pleasure involved with a willingness to suspend disbelief, as children do, in order to get the sweet pleasure of fantasy.

But ignoring that irony for a moment, perhaps we should think more about the form of the act and the form of the censorship.

Note that the act of pronouncing the name Clark Jesus Kent almost prevents debate on the issue of the relationship between Clark Kent and Jesus. One now has to pry the name apart to get back to the separateness of the two characters and a discussion of their actual relationship. It is an act of renaming that is a symbolical birth from two comes one, from Jesus and Clark Kent comes Clark Jesus Kent.

On the other hand notice the censorship order: It is brief too:
"mountainman: this is an official moderator request: Please stop using the phrase "Clerk Jesus Kent." Immediately."

It includes the important words "official," "stop" and "immediately". It is a symbolical arrest. The word "please" is very sweet here, showing great politeness and softening the order. It makes the censorship a request for self-censorship, as opposed to an authoritative censorship with threats of punishment.

In this case, the naming is an act of psychic restriction and the censorship can be seen as a demand against that restriction.

Now, how can we relate this back to the Bible which is nothing but a book of censorship extraordinaire. We often take the label "Jesus, son of God" as equivalent to "Jesus Christ," but should we not see the two in opposition. Let us take Christ to mean "anointed one" or "King." Is there really any reason for the two to be the same. Someone can certainly be king without being a son of God (Herod, for example) and someone can be a son of God without being King (Hercules for example).

Both terms had potential of being offensive and censorable. Yet, apparently there were groups that called themselves the sons of God and Brothers of the Lord, so assuming a familiar relationship with God was not offensive, only when coupling it with idea of being the sole and only son of God would it become offensive and censurable to the Jewish community. Now we know the term Christ was applied both to Herod and his archenemy John, at least several different texts indicate this.

Now, we know that the demands for censorship will often be met by transference in the party being censored. The censorship is effected by moving the suppressed energy someplace else. We may postulate that this order of censorship took place:

John, a son of God, is declared Christ by his followers.
Hebrew authorities demand that John (the) Christ be censored.
Followers of John proclaim him the Baptizer and the the son of God -- see birth narrative material in the gospels of Luke and Matthew, which apparently was written for John originally and the baptism material which was apparently originally written for John alone where he is proclaimed unique son of God at his first baptism.
Hebrew demands for censorship again.
The term "Son of God" become transferred to the angel Jesus in the terminology of John's followers.
Thus the demand that John no longer be "Christ" or "only son of God" have been met. But now a reverse instantiation begins -- a fetishism -- to put it in Freudian terms.
The Jesus who has been made son of God, now becomes Jesus the Christ (or Jesus Christ). Thus we are left with the original decree of censorship being met, John is not regarded as the Christ, but even more offensively Jesus is regarded as the Christ. The letter of the censorship has been obeyed, but not the sense. This results in the expelling of the John-Jesus cultists.

We have the following stages:
1 John declared Christ
1a. Demands for censorship.
2. John not Christ, but John declared son of God
2a. demands for censorship.
3. John declared not son of God, but Jesus (chief angel/Michael) declared son of God.
4. Jesus, son of God, declared Christ.
5. Renaming of angel Jesus as Jesus Christ.

Note: we should distinguish between the transference of the name and the transference of the designation. The John followers try to obey the censorship demand by transferring to an equivalent designation. When that fails they try transference of the name/character to fit the designation. The John followers were trying to please both their id and their superego with these transference steps.

The name "Jesus Christ" was probably as offensive to certain Jews in 1st or 2nd century in Judea as the term "Clark Jesus Christ" is to some today.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

I don't care about proving it. It's obvious to anyone who bothers to read the whole thing.

But since we're into proof demanding mode, its' up to you to prove that is what he meant, since that's what you claim.

Maybe so.

Toto

The Christians claimed that the Jews persecuted Jesus for blasphemy. Is this the hate speech to which you refer? Otherwise I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I didn't call it sophomoric. But it is a repeated assertion that does not further the debate.

Like I said, an intelligent argument based on the comparison would be welcome.

There is no censorship of ideas here, only an attempt to keep the forum from degenerating into an exchange of taunts.

??

Do you have any support for the claim that the Jewish community would have censored someone who claimed to be the son of God? Did Jesus claim to be the one and only son of God?

This is where you lose me. I think you have accepted the Christian narrative, but I don't see a reason for the Jews to reject someone claiming the title of Christ on religious grounds.

And where is John called the Christ?

How would this name alone be offensive? The annointed Joshua?

But nice try.

Cesc

Was Paul's religion a bizarre unlikely Jewish-Hellenic mystery religion? Perhaps even with the inner mysteries only revealed orally to the Teleioi, that is, the initiated? (As the Valentinians would also go on to postulate) Where you would be personally resurrected in initiation not with the usual Hellenic godman or goddess, but in this mystery religion with the Jewish Messiah? If Paul was indeed from Tarsus, he would arguably have been very familiar with these Hellenic mystery concepts.

This is a very intesting book.
The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters by Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton.

google books

I never knew that Paul was some kind of hero to some gnostics, including the Valentinians.

evangelical

A Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ would certainly admit what Jesus Himself certainly taught. Anybody who denied the teachings of the one they claimed to follow, did not really follow them. There have been many people throughout the last 2000 years (and today) that insist they are still Christians even though they do not truly follow Jesus.

aa5874

Well if you don't care about proving it, why claim that it is PROOF.

And are you claiming that whatever appears obvious to you MUST be obvious to everyone else?

How would Julian know they were insignificant or non-existent if no known writer wrote about them? You mean Julian guessed they were insignificant and that was the PROOF of their existence?

spamandham

I don't know what you're getting on about here. You demanded proof from me, and I simply turned the table.

No. I'm saying you show no sign of having read it.

So, have you read the whole thing?

We're discussing the meaning of what he said, not the veracity of it.

lycanthrope

hi

i think all christians will agree with u that they are followers of the Christ. i think these ppl u speak of see themselves as christians but of course the mainstream churches will never see them as such. within christianity itself there are many factions and teachings, some are quite orthodox some are quite strange/heretical but they still go by the name "christian". i dun think its advisable to stand on a moral high ground and denounce them as false christians becoz on wat authority do u/me/anyone have to say declare such?

i have ppl in my church openly denounce catholics as fake christians and that catholics are not saved by quoting verses in the bible to support their accusations but conversations with a catholic fren also showed me they have their own counter arguements and that some radical catholics dun think protestants are saved.

for the gnostics, they are pretty much extinct but i imagine they see themselves as upholder of christianity although their interpretations differ greatly from the mainstream churches. i see no reason why they are not considered christians as such

Roger Pearse

The term Christian would appear either meaningless or synonymous with "I approve of this group", if used in that way, tho. Such use of words - any words - should be deprecated, surely?

I would have thought that, like any group, the Christians get to decide who is one of them and who isn't. If they disagree, let them. Do we care, otherwise?