TedM

I am referring to death coming from sin. That's Jewish theology 101. Straight from Genesis 1. God punished man by allowing the Angel of Death to exist/apply toward man.

My point for aa was that this is basic. When gMark says Jesus paid the ransom, it means Jesus paid the price of death in order for man to be saved. Without his death and resurrection 'faith' in Jesus would have been worthless.

This isn't my view and it wasn't exclusive to Paul or John. This was gMark's view too. It's the same theology of salvation that Paul preached.

It's there from the beginning of recorded Christianity.

Whether it makes sense, is moral, required 2 Gods, etc.. isn't my concern here. I'm putting forth the argument that these concepts existed from the beginning of Christianity, and therefore the argument that Paul HAD TO have been LONG AFTER GMark because it was such an 'advanced' theology in comparison has no solid basis. It's just a theory with little to no basis.

If I'm wrong, show me how.

TedM

You clearly have missed the point I've been making. I'm saying that the 'story' was interpreted early on to have significant theological meaning. It was either 'made up' with that in mind, OR the basic element (crucifixion of a Messiah-wanna be (probably during Passover)) was the FOUNDATION for the theology. The point is that it wasn't the STORY that allowed Christianity to spread. It was the theology that allowed it to spread. It was all about salvation, AND that theology of salvation appears to have existed from the beginning of the movement.

To see early Christianity as 'just a story' is to miss the point of it entirely:

Mary, it was a story of salvation., and HUMAN SACRIFICE was integral to the storyline. How can you not see how logical it was for this story to have caught on with the early Jews?

jakejonesiv

Hi Ted,

You really like that Angel of Death, don't you? Do you see him as a supernatural agent independant from God? Didn't think so.

Please read Mark 10:17-22 When Jesus was asked specificaly what was required to gain eternal life, he answered keep the comandments, and if you want to be perfect, give your possesions away to the poor.

Not a word about believing in Jesus, or Jesus commiting suicide to pay a ransom to his Father. Nothing about the blood of the cross, or the Angel of Death. In fact, gMark leaves it quite ambigous about why Jesus had to die, or to whom the ransom was paid. You are reading modern Systematic Theology, not gMark.

BTW, the entire New Testament, trying to graft a foreign concept onto Jewish roots, misrepresents Jewish soteriology that there can be no forgiveness of sins without shedding blood. That simply is not true. Again, ask any Rabbi.

Jake Jones IV

maryhelena

Ted - NO AND NO AND NO

Why don't you take a trip to Israel and try selling this salvation idea via a human flesh and blood sacrifice...

If this is your idea of what early christianity was about - then - thank God for the Jews and their rejection of such a monstrous idea.

Ted - don't be taken in by the gospel storyline. That's all it is - a story. A story that needs a very strong dose of logic, morality and humanitarian concerns, before one can begin to grasp whether anything it speaks about has any relevance for living on terra-firma.

The theology in the NT story has to stand down. The interpretative medium of choice is humanitarian concerns. Theology has had it's day as an interpretive tool for the NT. It's useless and has kept millions tied to it's fantasy world. The NT story needs to prove it's worth as a cultural heritage - and that will require that it pass a humanitarian test. And yes, I believe, it can do just that - but the idea of salvation value in a human flesh and blood sacrifice has to be rejected...

jakejonesiv

Yes, it is like the Emperor has no clothes! The the ahistoricist/mythicist position depends in no way on the assertion that Jesus was crufified in the sublunar. That just gives historists and apologists an easy target to discredit, and they think the /mythicist position has been damaged by showing Doherty's position untenable.

TedM

I don't have to. It stands on its own Mary. The story was accepted because of its theological value: Salvation. For the sake of history, it simply doesn't matter that you or anyone else finds it offensive. It's what it is. And, there are Jewish converts today who seem to not be so offended as to not consider its merits for themselves!

Your point though has some merit in that by and large it appears the Gentiles were more willing to accept a crucified savior than were the Jews.

Your refusal to accept the possibility that the Christianity could have begun with a crucified Messiah wanna-be because you think you know how every Jewish person (or Gentile, for that matter) would have reacted to it is baffling to me. How do you know? And why go against the recorded history that says otherwise? And the common sense patterning from the animal sacrifices? How can you close your eyes so easily to the obvious parallels and how OTHERS would have likely reacted to them?

I have no problem with your approach to viewing it as a story that 'somehow' caught on, and then trying to piece together the story as you see fit.

However, I do have a problem with your rejection of the orthodox viewpoint by asserting over and over the immorality and rationality of a Jewish or Gentile conversion's mindset. It seems you have closed your mind to how others would have responded based on your own personal response more than any knowledge of how they really would have responded. At this point I'm only going to be repeating myself though.

aa5874

TedM seems to be another Doherty. He reads things into gMark that is NOT there.

We have Mark 4.10 where Jesus told his disciples that he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted. The short Markan Jesus wanted the outsiders to Remain in SIN and DELiBERATELY spoke in a way that he would NOT be understood.

Mark 4.10-12 The short gMark Jesus did NOT want the populace to know he was Christ.

Mark 8We have three CHAPTERS in the short gMark where Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be Killed and then Resurrect WITHOUT ever stating that his death and resurrection was for Remmission of Sins or that he was a Sacrificial Lamb of God for the Atonement of Sins for Whole World.

Mark 10. The Jesus of the short gMark did NOT want the populace to be converted, did NOT want them to know he was Christ and did NOT teach his disciples that he would die and Resurrect for the Remission of Sins for all mankind.

The short gMark is NOT about Universal Remission of Sins by the crucifixion and Resurrection but about the REJECTION of Jesus the Son of God by the Jews and even his very disciples.

maryhelena

And, Ted, what it is is a story! That that story has been interpreted in theological salvation terms says nothing about what was the motive, the intent, the inspiration, of the writers of that story. To assume the NT writers were writing a theological salvation story based upon a flesh and blood human sacrifice, is to assume too much. There is no evidence that that was their motive.

Logic, morality and humanitarian concerns. Especially Jewish concerns.


Recorded history? Ted, we don't have a history of early christian origins - that is what the search, my search anyway, is about... When you talk history here, you are not talking about the history of early christian origins. You are talking about the history of the NT story. A big difference - a very big huge difference...

Ted - my eyes are wide open.....nobody in any rational frame of mind is going to believe that a human flesh and blood sacrifice has any value whatsoever. Yes, theology clouds the eyes - but, surely, one is then on a flight to nowhere....

Ted - theology clouds the eyes and closes the mind. Yes, people believed all sorts of stuff re the NT story - and they still do...So what? Fine - let such people dream on...but they are not going to stop my search for early christian origins - they are not going to stop my attempt to read that NT story with the tools of logic, morality and humanitarian concerns.

TedM

Yes, he was secretive, but that doesn't explain the ultimate purpose of salvation. I gave you the verse and it is in plain English, but you can't seem to understand its simple message: Jesus died for salvation from sins. Faith is meaningless for salvation from sins without his death and resurrection. It's the most important theological statement of gMark and you aren't able to understand what it means!

Whether that applied to his disciples, the Jews or Gentiles is rather minor compared to the basic meaning of his death and resurrection: salvation from sins. Paul and Mark were in agreement on that point. IF you can't understand that first, you aren't ready to move on to anything else.

TedM

Really? What is more important than salvation and eternal life Mary? I would agree with you if they didn't point out the REASON for the way the story ends. But they do! That is a dead giveway as to the REASON for the story to exist. Otherwise it WOULD just be a cute little story about a wonder doer who was killed by some bad people.


You are not applying logic and you are being naive when it comes to 'humanitarian' concerns. I've given you the logic. Rationalization of one's own salvation will trump humanitarian concerns -- even for the Jewish.


But what do you think you could possibly find that has any real value? Say you find that Jesus was just a short term preacher who wasn't crucified. Say you find that the real person who was crucified had lived 100 years prior. So what? How would that be any more satisfying for you on a logical, moral, or humanitarian basis? I don't see what you gain from that even if it is true. You still have people believing in a crucified human sacrifice for salvation from sins. How does an evolved story make that fact any more palatable for you? Isn't it still immoral and irrational to you?

Is the real issue for you this: If a man really did get crucified during Passover and was instantly proclaimed resurrected with fast spreading of the message you would feel like it must be true, and you simply can't bear that thought because is it so repulsive? IF not, then why do you care so much whether it happened like that or was a story that evolved over time? Is it really just curiosity or is something else going on here..?