PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

The Passion Narrative is the only real case for an historically derived Jesus. Everything else is myth and fluff. It is easy to see that the Virgin birth, the Baptism of Christ, miracles like the healing of the blind and the clever rabbinical sayings, and the tomb resurrection are all mythological and fictional. It is easy to make an MJ case from them.

To me, the only thing in the gospels about Jesus that could have an historical basis is the so-called "Passion Narrative," the arrest, trial and execution of the Jesus Character. It appears as a rather vivid account and lacks the supernatural and obviously satirical elements that mark the other nine tenths of the gospels.

The Passion Narrative is such an objective, straight forward account, that it reminds one of a newspaper account. One forgets that there were no newspapers and no reporters in Roman times. It therefore cannot be so straight forward as a newspaper account on an historical event.

There is a possibility that it originates in some specific historical event. The mythological elements are added to the gospel later to explain the historical event.

On the other hand, there is also the possibility that it is an allegorical account based on stock characters and typical situations of the time. It could have been originally presented as either a novel (like "The Metamorphoses" of Lucius Apuleius), satire (a la Juvenal's, or Philo's "Embassy to Nero") or a mime play which dealt with crucified robbers.

We can also postulate a third theory which is a synthesis of the two. Let us suppose that it does report on an historical event, but not the death of Jesus, but the death of John, the Baptist. We may suppose that John was actually a radical Jewish preacher who offended the powers that be. We know that he was executed by Herod. Changing Herod to Pilate and John to Jesus, and a head chopped off to crucifixion would have been simple enough. Other events in the gospels, such as the birth narrative, the Sermon on the Mount and the baptism seem to me to be derived from prior John material. Perhaps the passion was also.

All three of these seem possible to me. What I lack is a means for testing the three hypotheses. Suggestions?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

show_no_mercy

How do you account for "Jesus Son of the Father" (BarAbbas), an insurrectionist (i.e. messiah claimant) being exchanged for Jesus the Nazarene?

aa5874

But, of course there are means to test your hypotheses. There is information that have survived about 1st century events in Judea.

The crucifixion of Jesus matches a fictional account based on information found in the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

1. Jesus told the disciples that Judas would betray him and Judas, as if an idiot, still shows up in person to betray Jesus. It would appear Judas must behave as an idiot for Psalms 41.9 to be fulfilled.

2. Jesus is arrested and again another idiot, a supposed follower of Jesus, takes out some sword and attempts to kill a member of the Sanhedrin cutting of his ear in the process. See Mark 14.47

This is exactly what the Sanhedrin or the arrest team would have needed to exterminate Jesus and his eleven disciples on the spot.

It was dark and the disciples attacked them so they would have most likely killed all of them and claimed that the Jesus and the disciples were just a pack of bandits and murderers by showing that they were armed and dangerous.

3. The rest of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus can be found in the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

The words of Jesus before the Sanhedrin---Daniel 7.13.

The action of Pilate---Psalms 26.6

The false witnesses at the trial---Psalms 27.12

The flogging of Jesus--Isaiah 50.6

The casting of lots for his clothing---Psalms 22.18

The wagging of heads and reviling of Jesus--Psalms 109.25

The last words of Jesus---Psalms 22.1

The drink of vinegar---Psalms 69.21

The place of burial of Jesus---Isaiah 53.9

The entire betrayal, trial, crucifixion and burial of Jesus was lifted straight out the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

The hypothesis where the trial and crucifixion is non-historical has been confirmed as a very good hypothesis just from the internal sources alone.

Externally we can't find anything about a crazy-man or a man who made crazy-like statements that he was coming back in the clouds and if killed would be raised from the dead withing three days, who also was supposedly crucified for blasphemy.

The writings of Josephus and Philo cannot account for that man or his crazy-like doctrine.

Roland

On the contrary, the Passion narrative practically screams fiction. Here's a guy who walks into a city, manages to get himself arrested and put on trial, then crucified on the Feast of Passover so he can be seen as a symbolic sacrifice for his fellow man. What are the chances that any person could get all those events to align themselves so perfectly as to actually pull them off - heavyhanded symbolism and all? There are simply too many elements in the story over which he could not have the kind of control he would need to bring the desired result about. After all, it's not like he wandered into Jerusalem and simply lit himself on fire which any fool could do.

As I see it, this story has all the qualities of carefully crafted and contrived fiction and virtually none of historial reality.

Chili

That is easy to do if the Gospels are taken as a transformation of the mind wherein Nazareth is the Jewish determination of Joseph; ie. a 'small city' that really did not exist on the map but was 'real' as Joseph's private city of God to show that his Jewishness was lineage driven, to really say no more than that Joseph was a clan-Jew 'through and through.'

Nazareth is important to be 'manger food' and serve Jesus as the 'involuntary force' that nurtured Jesus during his infancy period until the magi arrived who came from way back East and way back home [in time] to the days that Joseph was still prior to reason and now is beyond reason (he so than has obtained the mind of a little child when Christ was born unto him).

To be sure, Jesus was the reborn Joseph but was not the persona called Joseph that actually became the cross of Jesus. Prior to this Joseph was the donkey that Mary rode to Bethlehem while as much as dragging this persona called Joseph to reach 'beyond theology' so that in Beth-le-hem Christ could be born unto him.

So now I have identified Joseph the upright Jew, Joseph the usurper as ego identity, the city of Nazareth and it's function as Nazareth, Jesus the Barr Abbas (with Mary being the womb-of-Man (= womb of God)), and Bethehem as the required state of mind for the stabilization of Jesus to be a successful insurrectionist.

Chili

But if it happened as foretold there is nothing fictional about it. It just means that the prophets and or ancients knew the exact details of the event and were just waitng for the time to be ripe for the public exposure of the event.

sharrock

A theory: Jesus is raised in Nazareth in order to be described as the Nazarine, ο ναζωραιος. Lk 18:37.

ναζ is possibly indicative of the Hebrew nachash (i.e. serpent). The Gnostic Naaseni were followers of a serpent, who they believed to be Jesus.

http://theforbiddenreligion.com/the-...-salvation.htm

It's Gnostic in origin.

JoeWallack

JW:
Hi PJ. The Passion of "Mark's Jesus is theoretically possible but not practically possible. In a wonderful Irony that I think "Mark" intended, his Jesus (unlike "John's") is not God's son based on his doing the Impossible (teaching & healing Ministry). "Mark's" Jesus is God's son based on his doing the Possible (Passion). Therefore, it's possible to be like Jesus' as God's son by also doing the Possible Passion.

It's "Mark's" extreme ironic Style that pushes his Jesus' Passion into the Impossible but the basic message of suffering for the Jesus' cause is quite possible and may reflect the observational ideal of the author's time.

Since we know that at a minimum, most of "Mark" is not historical, and that Paul was a likely source for "Mark", it's possible that Paul is the source for "Mark's" Passion (in outline form which "Mark" fleshed into a narrative).

I previously indicated it likely that Paul was a major source for "Mark":

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

Specifically, regarding the Passion, Paul gives his basic philosophy in his earliest Epistle, 1 Thessalonians, that the key to believing in Paul's Jesus is to endure affliction on Jesus' behalf. Paul has all the building blocks for "Mark's" Passion in outline form:

1) Believers have no need of anything earthly and must control their passions.

2) Believers are contrasted with the lust of Gentiles who can not control their passions.

3) Believers who control their passion are imitating Jesus controlling his passion.

4) Controlling your passion may lead to earthly death but will lead to heavenly life.

Paul subsequently uses the phrase "crucify your passions". "Mark's" passion is based on the outline above. That's a fact. The only question is one of "how":

A) Paul and "Mark" both have a base of a historical passion.

B) Paul and "Mark" have different sources.

C) Paul is "Mark's source.

I think C is most likely. Note than that the creation of the Passion is backwards, a sure sign of Satan. Paul takes his historical observation of suffering for Jesus and connects it to his imagination (revelation) that this suffering for Jesus parallels Jesus' suffering. "Mark" than uses the outline from Paul to reverse the relationship, it was Jesus' historical suffering which created the need to suffer for Jesus in his ("Mark's") time.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Chili

The betrayal of Judas is the classic way to end Judiasm (he spilled his guts), before freedom from religion can be found in the mind of the Freeman and for Peter being the twin of Thomas just means that faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt = when Thomas was convinced in "my Lord and my God" Peter was defrocked = no doubt and thus no faith left. Combined this all means that the inner-determination of Judaism per se must be fully exposed before it can be liberated = knowledge frees.

Chili

Eve was the lesser serpent that Adam took to be his wife and the woman was the greater serpent to strike the lesser serpents in the head who in turn would strike Adam-ego in his heel to motivate him (Gen. 3:15), and so here the greater seprent gives birth to bar-abbas who's wherewithall or dowry she really is as revealed in Cana that for the Jesus in Matthew became the desert episode without it.