aa5874

When did Peter realise Jesus was serious when he did not resurrect?

You are not making any sense at all.

Peter in the Gospel story have already denied any association with or knowing Jesus.

People saw and heard Peter lying. Peter is done. Peter lost his faith and has turned into a liar.

Jesus was subsequently crucified and was buried. The disciples are hiding in a house.

They are waiting for something miraculous to happen or else they are finished.

On the third day some of them go to the burial site and Jesus' body is gone.

Did the Sanhedrin move the body? The disciples are trembling with fear and run from the tomb.

Well if Jesus did not resurrect, tell me what happened next?

In the story book, Jesus was raised from the dead.

What is your story that you just made up?

maryhelena

No, not at all - that is pure speculation - or to give it a fancy name - theology....

By all accounts he died at Bethsaida Julias but was most probably buried at Caesarea Philippi.

So, anyone on the lookout for an inspirational figure around the time of the early first century, could not but fail to take Philip, son of Herod the Great, into account.

Consider, in our own day, Nelson Mandela:

Mandela is a myth in the making, a living legend. At the end of the day, what he himself did can be questioned (his role in the armed wing of the ANC). But as an inspirational figure, in Africa, and in many parts of the world, he stands at the pinnacle of renown. A humanitarian figure par excellence. One can question just what exactly he did while president of SA. But that is, again, to miss the point – it is Mandela’s life, his very existence, that is the inspiration to so many. Yes, he was the symbol of the anti apartheid movement – and it is as a symbol that Mandela will forever be remembered. That is his legacy – that at the right time and place such a figure as Mandela was able to capture the moment and inspire others to walk that long road to freedom with him.

Mandela is, of course still with us – but methinks the storytelling, in Africa at least, is only about to begin…Sure, the Mandela storytelling will most probably carry his name – for sometime at least. However, already, Mandela is most often referred to as ‘Madiba’ – so down the line – just for argument – the storytelling could easily drop the Mandela name – since that name can also carry some baggage – and the ‘Madiba’ name could become the focus of the future storytelling – with embellishment tagged on so that in time the ‘Madiba’ storyboard itself far overshadowed anything Mandela ever did. Later generations could then be asking the question – ‘just who was Madiba’ – and might well be surprised that the historical figure behind the ‘Madiba’ storyboard was not a bit like the embellished ‘Madiba’ of the storytelling – so much so that it would be impossible to make a simple equation. (Things like origin stories might be retold – obscure humble beginning having more resonance with the common folk than a royal connection might have – inspirational figures uplift both themselves and others – hence coming from nowhere is a good starting point in such a storyline).

I’m not suggesting the early Christians did exactly the above…
Their interest was theological and prophetic from the start – not mere history but interpretation of that history. Hence, using a ‘Jesus’ storyboard would have been more involved than a simple ‘Madiba’ storyboard. But the general idea, an inspirational historical figure being the impetus for a theological/prophetic movement – is perhaps worth considering. And being a theological and prophetic storytelling – the ‘meaning’ of the storytelling going way beyond its historical core – that historical core gets shifted onto the back-burner – and the storyboard, the mythology, the embellishments, takes centre stage. To attempt to make a simple equation – Jesus equals such and such a historical figure – would be to miss the whole thrust of the gospel storyline. A gospel storyline dealing not with an historical, a physical, crucifixion and atonement theories (a storyline which Richard Dawkins has recently labelled ‘moral depravity’) but with spiritual/intellectual renewal or re-birth.

To be able to equate a historical Jesus, ie the assumption of a historical Jesus, to a specific historical figure would be an impossible task. There is just too much contradictory elements within the gospel Jesus for these contradictory elements ever to have been part and parcel of one historical figure: A cynic sage and an apocalyptic prophet, for instance, are two characteristics that don’t sit well together. They suggest rather that the Jesus storyboard developed over time and incorporated later historical interpretations made by the early Christian community. I think one should keep in mind that an inspirational figure usually has ‘followers’ who take things further along – various people start interpreting the sayings of an renowned teacher – and very often add their own twist as well…

Once one starts dismantling the gospel Jesus, once one starts up some sort of salvage operation from the mythological ‘wreck’ – one is in danger of losing the plot, losing the essence of the gospel storyline. The gospel Jesus story is a never ending story; an ancient story that has taken input along the way from the interpretations, the visions, the dreams – and, yes, probably the sayings, of historical figures. To attempt to concretize it, to make it specific to a historical figure – is truly to deny that story any rational relevance whatsoever.

That said, if its history we are after, the history of early Christianity, then, yes, perhaps its good to have a clear historical picture. However, the simple equation cannot be made – ie clear historical picture equals the gospel storyline. The gospel storyline is about interpreting that historical picture, finding meaning in it and focusing with a prophetic lens.

The Mandela/Madiba analogy is useful only in that it shows the type of mythmaking that can develop. The Jesus myth is much more complex – yet at its core could well have a similar foundational element to the Madiba analogy. While a ‘Madiba’ mythology might well have a stronger link to Mandela (at this stage in history anyway) the gospel Jesus myth might have only a faint reflection of a historical figure that inspired the gospel storytelling.

Anyone here got any other suggestions re an inspirational historical figure, an inspirational historical figure that might have had relevance for the spiritual and prophetic interpretations of the early Christians?

aa5874

Well, we already had an inspirational historical figure called Martin Luther Kimg Jr. and this character has shown that if Jesus was just a man that he would not have been worshiped as a God.

Martin Luther King Jr did not worship any man as a God and so too did his followers. Martin Luther King worshiped Jesus as a God.

There is one embellishment that you won't see coming from Jesus believers to Martin Luther King Jr and it is that Martin Luther Kink Jr was a God, or equal to God, the Creator of heaven and earth, born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost with the ability to forgive the sins of mankind including circumcision and was raised on the third after he was assassinated.

The massive FATAL problem for HJ is that a deified HJ would be contrary, diametrically in opposition to the very doctrine of HJ and his followers.

HJ supposedly lived when men were calling themselves Gods and these DEIFIED men were persecuting and literally murdering people who refused to worship them as Gods. It is just highly irrational for Jesus believers to have known Jesus was just a man and would have been MARTYRED or persecuted for not worshiping some other man as a God.

In the Pliny letter to Trajan about the Christians, it must be noted that Christians did not worship men as Gods.

Pliny letter to Trajan on Christians See http://www9.georgetown.edu/

Pliny's Christians considered Christ as a God not as a man. It was those who did not worship Christ as a God who worshiped men as Gods.

HJ has self-destruct. It has imploded upon itself.

maryhelena

Historical Jesus - no such person. So your "Fatal problem" re deification has no bearing on the historical figure that I have suggested might have been seen as inspirational by the early Christians.

And, no, according to Josephus, there was no deification regarding this historical figure mentioned at all. Just a normal bloke - albeit one with some grand connections - who, nevertheless, was able to meet the masses in their own predicament.

So, long before the gospel Jesus character hit prime time - Philip was up and about doing his own thing. Visiting the areas in which Philip ruled - the gospel Jesus would have been something of a Johnny-come-lately...The road had already been well traveled...

gurugeorge

Well I was going to leave it there, but the subject is so fiendishly interesting and your points are always good and challenging, that I just couldn't help myself

That's sort of what I mean by looking at it through orthodox filters. To the orthodox (I mean especially the later orthodox heresiologists), Gnosticism looked like a question of belief and belief in memes, belief in ideas, in doctrine, in teaching, and in the happening of some things in the past - i.e. as an alternative to orthodoxy. Not only did it look like that, but they wanted it to look like that, because they were already getting rid of as much mysticism and occultism in orthodoxy as they could (new gospel writing forbidden, the panoply of occult practices practiced by Paul's congregation frowned upon), and to thrash Gnosticism qua doctrine was a convenient strawman: the whole idea was to get all Christians focussed on a single doctrine, and individual "knowledge", prophecy and gospel-writing couldn't be countenanced; nor could salvation any longer be dependent on an individual connection, but must be sought through the Church and it's "appointed" heirs. (Check out Ehrman's Lost Christianities to get some idea of this.) But look at the Gnostic texts themselves: it's mostly mysticism and occultism. These are not mere "symbolic instantiations" of Platonic principles, they are, rather, reports of mystical experiences and visions that substantiate Platonic principles, and attempted elucidations of their meaning.

Cool. I am not coming at it from the point of view of a conspiracy theory here, though. Mainly orthodoxy would at first have been a variant interpretation, another example of theological drift, due to people having different takes. Orthodoxy is simply a more rationalistic interpretation of [insert your version of early Christianity here]. There is one little bit of conspiracy, though, I think, and that is in the orthodoxy's picking up the idea (that was originally perhaps a connection that GMark made for the first time, or something that had only been a vague supposition before, and that was particularly attractive because of its political advantages) that the first apostles knew Jesus personally, and the subsequent fabrication of Luke and Acts (and I think, in parallel, the Kerygmata Petrou - the hypothetical original kernel of the Pseudo-Clementines - which I think was another, abortive attempt at the same thing they were trying to do in Acts - the Kerygmata, or some document those are a part of, was probably too Jewish-centric).

It might be, except we don't have any evidence of orthodoxy being early and/or the dominant position.

Not only still resurrected, but with them in their heads, as an imaginary friend.

I agree they could have had their imaginary friend based on a real guy, but there's just no evidence of a real guy (yet), so failing that, it looks like it's imaginary friends all the way down.

I don't doubt there are some parts of the synoptics that might have been part of the older visions. The movement was already 40-50 years old by the time GMark might have been written. My idea of the synoptics is as follows. (Bear in mind that I'm holding the following true for the purposes of this interpretation - the standard view which has Paul as the earliest, and the results of Bauer's investigations into the actual composition of early Christianity):-

approx 35 CE - 70 CE - no gospels at first. Tiny but widespread movement based on middle-class "New Agey" mysticism and occultism around a postulated Messiah found prophesied in Scripture, who had already been and done his work, and was now contactable in spirit vision, and mystical-union-achievable-with as a deity. What's produced in sessions is (amongst other things) messages from the god about it's doings while sojourning on earth. Some story elements become popular, there are a few sketchy "gospels" or biographies floating around. Towards the end of this period, one of them, an "ur-Luke", becomes popular, perhaps mainly as shared, loose oral tradition at that stage. EVIDENCE: If Paul and Hebrews earliest: the absence of evidence for the existence of a human Jesus in Paul; the presence of evidence for belief in a historical but divine being; the presence in Paul of a clear description of mystical and occult practices as "what we do" in Corinthians 12-13; reading "according to Scripture" as meaning reporting; it's clear from Paul himself that he is talking about a once-historical, now-visionary entity that talks back to him, which is linked with a mystical experience of connection with that deity (or rather, strictly speaking, revelation of the always-present connection); scholarly investigations which show some parts of Luke are not accounted for in the standard hypothesis, and appear to be very early; later on, Marcion reportedly uses some kind of slimmer "Luke", later Gnostics are known to have traditionally favoured "Luke".

70-90 CE - Someone or some people write GMark - which takes the most popular story-skeleton (the hypothesised "ur-Luke") and rewrites it as a dramatic gloomy post-Diaspora retro-prophecy. The idea is introduced (or is a re-emphasis of an earlier speculation, perhaps in the ur-Luke) that some of the original apostles knew and walked with the cult figure. At that time, we'd naturally expect a variation of takes on the theme - some holding the cult figure more like in John, a true superhero-type, some taking the cult figure to have been more like in Mark, more like a preacher or priest while on earth, but certainly a vessel of the Divine in some sense). GMark is based on a more humanized vision of the saviour. Quite innocent, just natural drift in interpretation. One school or sub-sect, probably not the one "Mark" belonged to (which is more traditional proto-gnostic) but a sect sharing a more humanised vision of Jesus, but also a more Jewish-favourable stance, picks up this idea, and drafts a GMatthew that somewhat orthodoxises and "catholicises" Mark. This becomes the central gospel of the new orthodox movement. EVIDENCE: the orthodoxy self-ascribed GMatthew as being their earliest and most popular gospel, yet we know from scholarship that it can't have been; the scholarly work on GMark shows little that could be construed as apparent quotes from a human Jesus, but a whole ton of stuff based on Scripture; the absence of evidence in Paul (presuming him earliest) that any of the apostles before him knew the cult figure personally, again combined with the ever-present absence of external or internal evidence that would support a man Jesus.

90-150 CE - GLuke and Acts fabricated in response to the threatening popularity of Marcionism (still a small movement though, only a few thousand folks at this stage, still a relatively well-to-do and middle class affair on the whole). GLuke based on the "ur-Luke" used by Marcion, but taking material from GMark and GMatthew. Acts uses some folk-memory stories about Paul. Kerygmata Petrou an alternative kernel for Acts that's binned as being a bit too Jewish-weighted, and a bit too fanciful. By this time, orthodoxy is beginning to appear historically (cf. Bauer) - and it's fighting the already-established variegated, more or less woo-woo descendants of the original Jerusalem and (mostly) Pauline forms, wherever it goes. Towards the end of this period, GJohn is written, perhaps based on an earlier text more obviously Gnostic (cf. Doherty on this). Meanwhile, lots of other gospels and other material start being written by many different schools, partly in response to the first two, partly as a natural effusion. EVIDENCE: there is scholarly belief that the two are the work of the same hand; the tenor of these two documents is Catholicising and has always been recognised as such; Acts is one big exercise in reinforcing the idea of the Apostolic Succession; yet Paul has to be accounted for somehow, those who still follow him have to be "kept sweet", so "Peter" and "Paul" shake hands; Bauer shows a to-and-fro struggle between orthodoxy and heresy - it may be the case that GJohn is a further attempt by orthodoxy to get Gnostics on board, i.e. take a gospel that's popular with them, and Catholicise it.

150 - 200 CE - by this stage, orthodoxy is starting to really flex its muscles, it has the power and money to gradually unify the Christian movement around its version of the myth, which it increasingly pushes as "canon". It's also lucky enough to have some sharp, rationalistic minds on its side. No more gospels need to be written, gospel-getting, prophecy, occult practices - the very stuff of the Christian cells as originally seeded by Paul - are curtailed and eventually outlawed.

200 - 400 CE - the movement is gradually positioned as a mass-movement, grows a bit more, and by the end of this period is eventually presented, neatly trimmed and prettified, to Constantine as a viable possible religion to unify a failing Empire.

Doesn't "we" refer to Paul and his congregation - i.e. Christians at that time? He is saying "we are the ones who know, but ...". To me it looks like the typical mystical balancing act as reflected also in the Mahayana distinction "Wisdom/Compassion", or in the Vedantic distinction "Jnana/Bhakti"

Not promoting, no, but casually admitting - which in a way is even better evidence for my side of the story

No, they diverge a lot - look at early Buddhism, so many varied interpretations spattered in logical possibility space that one of its sub-schools (Pudgalavadin) actually held a tenet that was contrary to what most people think as one of the central tenets of Buddhism (absence of self - the Pudgalavadins thought there was a self). Whether there is variation partly depends on whether there's central political control; we know from Paul that the movement was pretty loose, and there were variant interpreters of whateveritwas even in Paul's day.

And on the contrary, although you have wild tales spreading around a real human being "saviour" who is mythicised (Sabbatai Zevi, for example), there is much more of a settled "story" early on. There might be doubt about whether those angels actually appeared when X met Y, but X meeting Y wouldn't be in doubt. Also, personal sayings and doings are cherished. Totally unlike with the Christian story. The evidence we have simply shows: divine being with a sketchy earthly component gradually accumulating more earthly biographical details. THAT'S THE EVIDENCE. The orthodoxy has to make excuses for the lack, in the earliest writings, of the kind of homely biographical detail we find in the later writings. No excuses have to be made for anything in my interpretation: we follow the evidence as it stands.

Again, that's part of it, but Gnosticism (and Plotinean philosophy, and Iamblichus' Theurgy, and Hermeticism, and neo-Pythagoreanism, and ... ) are also practical studies - people aren't just reading and talking about stuff in those schools, they're doing practices - they are inducing trance states resulting in life-changing mystical and visionary experiences. The Gnostic texts contain reports of the results of such practices (the visions, like Paul's "caught up in the third heaven"); the other philosophies' too (to a greater or lesser extent - e.g. in visions and allegories and myths). The descriptions in Plotinus are of his own mystical experience.

The physical resurrection was some kind of occult "switch" - a symbol, but a symbol in flesh, that has spiritual repercussions that open up access to awareness of this thing we all share (God putting the "son spirit" into our hearts, so we awaken to our true nature as sons). Don't look at me - it's how these people think!

But if I expected a small-time working class cult hero, I wouldn't expect ANY evidence (other than perhaps a mention in Josephus ). I don't think the "New Agey" occult-dabbling middle-classes in those days had the kind of middle-class guilt they have now, that would make "a working class hero" something to be (or rather, imitiate ).

This whole investigation of mine is just based on taking the scholarly datings as largely valid, just to see what shakes out. (i.e., I don't want to have to use any special pleading, if possible). If Paul is first, then look at Paul in himself, forget what later people say - what's going on in Paul? Mysticism and occultism hedged about by orthodox interpolations. A report of Paul's imaginary friend, which we can vaguely gather is based on some entity Paul thought physically existed, but whose existence Paul's letters show no evidence for the apostles he mentions as having been personally acquainted with. We don't know from fishermen yet, we don't even know who Peter or Cephas is, even if they're the same person, apart from them being members of some sort of community, a precursor community or analogous movement to what Paul is talking about.

Some people like to treasure fan tidbits even if they haven't met the guy. How do you know this "Paul" wasn't such a person? Again, the idea that he was "uninterested in the details" is an ad hoc explanation to cover the absence of such homely details (the kind of detail that might give away that a human being known personally to some of these people was involved).

Actually it's pretty ambiguous. Look at the time progression of your quotes (according to standard dating). At first, in Mark, the saying itself looks mystical, referring to the loss of the ordinary sense of self in mystical experience (just as cognate sayings in Thomas). Bear in mind that Mark has his Jesus admitting that he's talking in riddles most of which most people won't understand - i.e. Mark is expressing a proto-Gnostic viewpoint, in which some "get it" and some don't. The later versions are more elaborated and concretized, more like what you are talking about. i.e. precisely what you see, even here in this mini-progression, is orthodoxy taking an essentially mystical and gnostic viewpoint, and turning it into an orthodox viewpoint shoring up their version of the story and their theology.

Historically, it wasn't truly successful until Constantine. Perhaps you could say that in its earliest forms it was a "minor hit" with some "New Agey" middle-class types, but it was there in the syncretic melting pot with other things - philosophies, mystical and occult practices. It was starting to be successful with Marcion's version. There is no archaeological evidence of Christianity of any kind until well into the 2nd century, and when we find it there, it's syncretic, and looks like just another pagan cult (look at the early representations of Christ as an Apollo-like figure, a kurios almost - a sort of solar deity).

The evidence we have, in sequence, is this: a mystical/occult cult (Paul), a bunch of different-looking things called "Christianity", a unifying movement based on some stories (the percentage of which was intended as history and the percentage of which just made up we have no idea), the success of the unifying movement.

Such mystical and occult practices are as "successful" as the time and effort people put into them.

Well there are only two choices: "according to Scripture" means the advent and doings of a man-god Jesus (who was known to the apostles personally) was fulfillment of the Scripture; or "according to Scripture" means the same as "according to the BBC". In the absence of evidence for a man Jesus, why not see what happens if you take the latter reading? Actually in both cases, Scripture is understood as prophesying something to come (relative to the time it was written), only the way I see it, in reality, THE WHOLE IDEA OF JESUS came from looking at the Scriptures as prophesying something, albeit something that happened in secret and not many people know about.

To them, they would have viewed it as the generals and politicians being possessed by demons (demons who had a certain powerful position in the cosmic architectonic), to us that would mean merely that they were obsessed by certain ideas. Somewhat similar to the way "Big Business" or "Big Government" are demonized today (e.g. as obsessed by "patriarchal" memes or whatnot).

I agree it's difficult to understand, but bear in mind that it's occult business - they wanted to prevent Christ from "flicking the switch", something he could only do by being murdered by them, and then resurrecting.

Look at Paul: the resurrection is a spiritual affair, nothing to do with reanimated corpses. All these symbols: crucifixion, resurrection, etc., represent inner events accessible to all here and now, the supposed historic earthly happenings were themselves symbolic of the inner events, only with an occult component (the "switching on" of something occultly). (Again, don't blame me for this if it seems wooly to you, it's how the magickal theories go: "as above, so below".)

Don't think of this movement as having any sort of simple-minded or working-class following at this time. There's no evidence for it. It's middle-class mysticism and occultism at this stage. Paul circulating around the ancient world is a bit like Eckhart Tolle going around giving satsangs/seminars to genteel little groups of well-to-do spiritual folks - only without the aeroplanes. (Again, let me remind you of how the early apologists seem to talk of something that's more like a philosophy than Christianity as we know it, dependent on dogmas and faith.) The slaves and working class joined later, once orthodoxy was well under way, and they were indeed attracted by a simple message of faith - that was the orthodox intention, they knew the movement couldn't grow if it stayed the same as it had been at the beginning (i.e. a movement of occult/mystical praxis). All eminently rational (another way of looking at it is simply that the orthodox were the more rational people in the movement, the least mystical, least prone to visionary experience, etc. - their interpretation reflected their proclivity, and for them it was far more rational to follow a lineage coming from people who had known the cult figure personally, and follow a fixed, settled canon, than to continue to extemporise new doctrine based on mystical and visionary experiences). I'm far from demonizing orthodoxy altogether - I think they were sincere, and they were doing what they thought best for the movement.

Quite a bit later, first actual external evidence of persecution of Christians is well after their time, IIRC.

What we have in Luke is:
This is the explanation given by the people who wrote GLuke, of how Mary conceived - she was f****d by a spirit no two ways about it. Only, it was a particularly special spirit, so it's ok

Well, I feel I'm reading the texts as saying what they say, in historical sequence, without contaminating early layers by ideas from later layers, and building an idea of what happened from that, plus a general idea we have from Bauer about how early Christianity ACTUALLY developed.

aa5874

So are you claiming that Jesus was not deified or worshiped as a God by so-called Christians. That is exactly what the discussion is all about.

HJers contend that Jesus was a man and then was woship as a God. Deification does not have be accomplished during the actual life of a real person.

My contention that Jesus Christ of the Canon was always or intended to be BELIEVED to be a God.

The ability and power to forgive the sins of mankind and abolish the Laws of God including circumcision was not because Christians had AMNESIA and forgot Jesus was just a man.

Non-believers would not have forgotten that Jesus was just man, especially the Emperors who believers refused to worship as Gods.

dogsgod

The epistle writers viewed Christ as a mediator between man and God, a messenger that resided in a heavenly realm. It was the gospel writers that wrote later of a Jesus from Galilee. Paul knows nothing of a Jesus from Galilee because the gospels were written after he died.

maryhelena

Well, I thought the OP was asking the question 'How Did Christianity Begin'....

Did Christianity begin with the deification of a historical person? - I very much doubt it. I don't think its wise to confuse the history of a historical person with the gospel Jesus storyline - myth-making is one thing - history something else entirely.

dogsgod

Where did Christianity begin? Syria? Alexandria? Rome? Jerusalem? Antioch? Paul had followers in various places, so it misleading to ask if Christianity began in any place in particular?

aa5874

You must have forgotten what the OP is about. What you doubt may not reflect mine.

My position has always been rather clear. Jesus believers did not believe that Jesus was first a man or was known to be only a man or that Jesus whom they worshiped as a God was a man.

Jesus Christ believers started with a God/Man.

Now, what history of the gospel Jesus do you have?

Jesus was produced as a myth in the Canon. I did not make up Matthew 1.18-20 or Luke 1.34-35, the authors of the Jesus stories pre-fabricated the myths for us.

Some today have fabricated his history out of nothing but their imagination..