Toto

I don't think so. If you are on the JesusMysteries list, you can view this note from Jay Raskin.

Amaleq13

OK, let's recap a bit of what we're saying about an historical Jesus:

1) None of the Jerusalem crowd was originally a follower of the living Jesus.

2) James the Just was a leader of that crowd but was not related to Jesus.


What did these guys believe? They seem to have agreed with Paul about the notion of a Risen Savior but their focus appears to have been exclusively Jewish.


3) If Jesus was crucified, it was because the Romans considered him to be a political threat.

BUT

4) The evidence suggests that none of the followers of the living Jesus considered or declared him to be the Messiah.


How do we reconcile 3 and 4 while retaining an historical Jesus?

Along these lines, another thread (No Cross? http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=69722) suggests that Paul's "crucified" is better understood as "hung after being stoned to death".

Is that a credible way to remove the apparent contradiction between 3 and 4? Just as James the Just eventually becomes Jesus' blood relative, Paul's "stoned then hung" Jesus becomes "crucified"?

Llyricist

Where did this come from?? I think they would have been if he existed.
I would put the caveat...not necessarily Jesus' Brother.
Whoa there, they may have believed in a resurected Messiah (physically...and in hiding) but NOT that savior notion of Paul's.
Either dump 4 or dump the HJ
actually I don't buy it, too much emphasis on both crucifiction and "the cross" on Paul's part. Plus stoning doesn't even enter in to it.

Amaleq13

None of the Jerusalem crowd was originally a follower of the living Jesus.

What evidence exists to suggest otherwise? Paul never refers to them or otherwise treats them as though they had any significantly different relationship with Christ than he did (i.e. resurrection experiences). Mark's Gospel appears to have taken the "Pillars" and turned them into disciples of the living Jesus but there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe this.

I was primarily thinking of Doctor X's line of thought:
Regarding the Pillars, I wrote:
What did these guys believe? They seem to have agreed with Paul about the notion of a Risen Savior but their focus appears to have been exclusively Jewish.

On what evidence do you base this conclusion?

3) If Jesus was crucified, it was because the Romans considered him to be a political threat.

BUT

4) The evidence suggests that none of the followers of the living Jesus considered or declared him to be the Messiah.

How do we reconcile 3 and 4 while retaining an historical Jesus?

If we dump 4, how do we explain Mark's stupid disciples and messianic secret?

If I understand the argument correctly, you should replace all references to a "cross" with "tree" and all references to "crucifixion" to "hung upon a tree". Paul does explicitly refer to Jesus as being "hung upon a tree" at least once. If I recall correctly, it is where he talks about the those who call Jesus "cursed". All of this is consistent with the OT stoning-treehanging-cursed tradition. In fact, the Gospel detail of the requirement of taking down Jesus before sundown is based on the stoned-treehanging-cursed tradition.

As far as I'm concerned, the only doubt I have about it is linguistic (i.e. is Paul's "crucified/cross" actually better translated as "hung/tree")?

Llyricist

He was talking about Jesus' divinity, not whether they followed him. And also not whether they considered him a regular old human Messiah.
On the basis of the decidedly Un Jewish character of deifying an actual person. As I said before, if they believed that way, they probably wouldn't have lasted long.

As being the device to explain why the original followers weren't part of the Markan/Pauline movement.
If that's accurate, then it places a whole new plausibility on the Gospel conception, however, it would tend to leave a whole lot of other loose ends.

Toto

Crucifixion was a Roman punishment in which a live person was affixed to a cross or a pole and left to suffer. It is completely different from the Jewish punishment for blasphemy and other offenses in which the person is stoned to death, and the dead body hung from a tree.

It may be an indication that the whole thing is symbolic and not historical that the NT slides so easily from one form of death to the other.

Mythicists think that the cross was originally an astrological reference.

Mageth

Mythicists think that the cross was originally an astrological reference.

As an aside, some point out that the "three days in the tomb" refers to the time (about three days) between when the moon "dies" and reappears every month (the moon is a common mythological symbol of death and rebirth).

Amaleq13

The point made earlier is that we have no evidence that ANYBODY considered Jesus to be "a regular human Messiah" while he lived. The realization that Jesus was the Messiah appears to have begun with the resurrection experiences.

What reason do we have to assume that members of the Jerusalem Church had previously been followers of a living Jesus?

Paul never deifies a "person". If anyone is deified by Paul, it is the Risen Christ. Paul's beliefs involve a pre-existent Christ "taking on the appearance of flesh", getting executed, and being resurrected. I don't see any practical difference between the pre-existent Christ and the Resurrected Christ except, of course, for the "taking on appearance of flesh" and getting killed part. If the Risen Christ was deified, I think he got that way when Paul described him as pre-existent.

This doesn't seem all that different from the Jewish tradition of God's Wisdom incarnate. It certainly doesn't seem different enough to warrant death.

According to Paul, the only difference between the Pillars and him is that they experienced the resurrected Christ before he did.

4) The evidence suggests that none of the followers of the living Jesus considered or declared him to be the Messiah.

If we dump 4, how do we explain Mark's stupid disciples and messianic secret?

But that's why I conclude that the Pillars weren't the original followers. Our Pillars do appear to have shared Paul's belief in the Risen Messiah. I'm not sure I'm following you.

Young's Literal Translation doesn't seem to have a problem seeing Paul's "cross" as linguistically different from the "tree" in Gal3:13.

Even if the linguistic basis seems flawed, let's hear 'em.

Amaleq13

If you want to have fun, ask a literalist to identify the "three days and three nights" (Mt12:40) Jesus spent "in the heart of the earth". Friday to Sunday only gives him two nights. If they retreat to just the three days, mention that Mt 28:1 clearly indicates that Jesus has already risen before the dawn of that fateful Sunday.

Doctor X

Why are my ears burning?

Indeed. I suspect the followers of Junior did not consider him divine or at least not in the fashion Mk did. I had not considered whether or not the "Pillars" were not actual followers. Peter is one of the "Pillars" and he is the disciples targeted by Mk. It seems to me likely that--assuming you have a historical Junior--that the "Pillars" were whatever the followers were.

I suspect they did not consider Junior divine because Mk and others attack them on this point--indeed everyone else can seem to figure it out! Now, I think I mentioned that if may be that the followers did consider him divine but Mk and others still wished to denegrate the movement for whatever reason--I am reminded of an evangelical Christian claiming Catholics are not Christians! It may not make sense, but such "logic" happens in polemic.

--J.D.