ApostateAbe

Toto, thanks. I am sorry, but I would prefer to discuss this matter with Doug Shaver.

aa5874

One can make any proposal about Jesus. The proposal of itself has no value as evidence.

In any formal debate there are normally two proposals. Many persons may like to argue for proposal A only ONE may argue for proposal not A

The evidence for any proposal is not directly dependent on NUMBERS.

Now, Jesus can be anything you want him to be once you have credible sources of antiquity.

The Pauline writers have claimed Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth and was equal to God and was given a name above every name, including the Roman Emperors and that every Roman citizen and Roman Emperor should bow before Jesus.

No-one can locate such a such a Jesus or belief in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

It would appear that Jesus was NOT even a myth before the Fall of the Temple.

When Philo went on the Embassy to Gaius he did not tell the Emperor about Jesus the Creator of heaven and earth, that GAIUS MUST bow to Jesus and that Jesus was superior to the Emperors.

Jesus was NOTHING.

Sources of antiquity support the nothingness.

ApostateAbe

Yes, though that isn't saying much. There most certainly were at least two such Christian sects in the second century (the gnostics/Marcionites and the Ebionites). That means there is a maximum date, so it is at least possible that they would go back to the first century. I think it would be a little more difficult to connect either of those groups with any of the apostles, though I would like to see the attempt.

aa5874

Marcion's Christ was not related to the Jesus of the NT.

Marcion's Christ was not from the God of the Jews and was not derived from prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

Marcion preached ANOTHER GREATER God with ANOTHER son.

Isaiah 7.14 is irrelevant to Marcion's Christ since he had no flesh was a Phantom.

In effect, the evidence for or against the existence of Marcion's Christ has nothing whatsoever to with the entity called Jesus that was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God and a Virgin who walked on water, transfigured and rsurrected.

Now, with the Ebionites, a belief that their God existed is not EVIDENCE that their God does. And so it is with their Jesus.

The belief of a Jesus cult that their Jesus existed does not in any way enhance the belief of another Jesus cult that their peculiar Jesus was actually on earth as a man.

Now, if Marcion believed Christ was a Phantom, the Ebionites believed Jesus was a Man, and Paul believed Jesus was a RESURRECTED dead, there is ONE thing in Common. BELIEF.

Jesus Christ was a product of belief.

maryhelena

aa5874

Methinks you do not read what I write...

maryhelena

Back to you I'm afraid - you need to supply the historical evidence for your Ebion before your question regarding his ideas is going to merit an answer - in other words - your question does not fly...
The mythicist scenario does not require a "plainly human Jew". Cyrus was viewed as an anointed/messiah figure. Vespasian, according to Josephus, likewise.

1) neither position allows for the possibility of a non-Jewish historical figure that was deemed to be relevant to the pre-Paul, pre-christian, early history of christianity.

2) The "re-Judaizing"? But you just wrote of a "plainly pagan godhead". Surely then, the question would be regarding the Judaizing not the - re-Judaizing?

Regarding the lack of historical evidence for the gospel Jesus - it was not such a lack that led me to my mythicist position! I simply started removing the supernatural elements and realized that without these 'clothes' there was nothing there worth any theological interest. And if there was a historical figure that was relevant to early christian ideas - it was not the gospel Jesus figure. A figure that, even without the supernatural clothes, was still deemed to be crucified. A crucifixion that was the basis for a theological atonement/salvation theory. A theory that has god using a miscarriage of justice for 'salvation'...A human sacrifice that would have been abhorrent to Jews. Thus, alongside the supernatural in the dustbin of irrationality went the crucifixion storyline. What was left? A normal human man - a normal human man that was not crucified. So, the field became wide open - and the bar is raised.

In other words: It is christian theology that requires the supernatural and the crucifixion storyline. Christian history is not dependent upon, it is not subject to, it's theological premises.

(and if one wants the non-theological assumed historical crucified carpenter Jesus from Nazareth - the nobody, the everyman - that's a never-ending pathway to frustration and ultimate hopelessness...)

Doug Shaver

There must have been, if ahistoricism is true. It proposes that Christianity began, either during Paul's lifetime or possibly earlier, with belief in a purely spiritual Christ Jesus. After Paul's time, stories began circulating about a Galilean preacher named Jesus, perhaps having evolved out of stories that were circulating contemporaneously with Paul. At first this teacher was just a mouthpiece for teachings of whatever sect was telling the stories. (For what could be a modern analogy, see The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran.) As the stories continued to evolve, they added a martyrdom by crucifixion and a resurrection. In due course these stories were written down, with early versions appearing sometime, probably several decades, after the First Jewish War. Many of us suspect a composition date sometime in the second century is most likely.

Regardless of just when the gospels were written, once they started circulating, many Christians presumed that this teacher Jesus was the same Jesus about whom Paul had preached, and after many more years this presumption became Christian orthodoxy. For some time, though, there would have been a division between Christians who believed in a spiritual-only Christ and those believed in a human Christ, the God-man hybrid whose advocates won the doctrinal wars.

The historicists, generally speaking, deny that there was ever a time when any group of Christians believed Christ to be nothing but a spiritual being. In their scenario, Paul and other early Christian writers were so focused on his spiritual aspects that they practically ignored anything about his humanity, but they were never unaware that the human being known to subsequent history as Jesus of Nazareth once existed, preached in Galilee, had some disciples, and was crucified in Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate.

Solo

Consider it possible somone was pulling your leg, mh

I was asking how the mythicist/historicist schools explain the existence of the Ebionites. Your reply simply ignores the question.

Again, how do you, a mythicist, explain parsimoniously the existence of a sect deemed heretical by the orthodox, which denied the divinity of Jesus ?

You are grasping at straws, mh. Re-judaizing relates to the purported Jewishness of Jesus in the myth.

Thank you for the essay. The question however was asking something else. What do you think prompted the Ebionites to decide that Jesus Christ was Jewish enough to re-mythicize him as their own, Jewish holy man, without the pagan god mysteries ? I have an additional question for you: if there was no Ebion, as you and I know, do you agree that there is a certain, high, probability that the 'Ebionites' derive from the 'ptochoi' (ebyonim) for whom Paul was collecting money around the Mediterranean, in the hope they bless his missions ?

Regards,
Jiri

dog-on

I could envisage a Jew reading the gospels he got from the local evangelist saying somethig like, "cool story and smart rabbi, but God himself, come on man"...

aa5874

What you propose is mere propaganda, rumors or product of "Chinese whispers".

There is no EVIDENCE from any source of antiquity AT ALL, apologetic or non-apologetic that the Jesus story was started by the Pauline writers.

The Pauline writers did NOT write about a purely spiritual Christ, they wrote about a character called Jesus Christ who was betrayed in the night after he supped ( 1 Cor 11.23-27), was crucified, (1Cor. 1.23), shed his blood, (Romans 3.25) and was RAISED from the dead ( Galatians 1.1).

A purely spiritual Christ does not need:

1. Food

2. to be crucified

3. to shed blood

4. to die

The purely spiritual Christ cannot be a sacrifice for remission of sins.

It is just totally blatantly erroneous that the Pauline writers wrote about a spiritual Christ when it is seen over 200 times that they wrote about JESUS the resurrected dead.

And if the short-ending of gMark is considered the 1st written gospel then it can be seen that the author was not even aware of the Pauline story that over 500 people including the apostles saw the post-resurrected Jesus.

Again, you promote propaganda or rumors. What you propose is not at all supported by apologetic, non-apologetic or Pauline writers.

The Pauline writers wrote about the AFTERLIFE of Jesus the resurrected dead. The Pauline writers claimed that the VERY FAITH they preached was ALREADY being preached and that they PERSECUTED the FAITH. (See Galatians 1).

It is CLEAR that the Jesus story was known well before Paul was converted, and preached according to sources of antiquity.