Mark Mc

I have to say this doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. I find it doubtful that the Jesus Christ of John 1:17 and the Christ in the Gospel of the Ebionites refer to an identical concept.

So, maybe as you say for you it is nothing more than a title. I think to others though, it conjures a more particular image or concept.

freigeister

Absolutely! It's what I've been saying all along: we have to study all the meanings that people have assigned to the term.

Mark Mc

And I am saying that using the term without prior definition can be confusing to the reader.

freigeister

Ya, I know. It's just that I've already explained myself several times on this board. Here's the quotation I base my usage on (Constantin Brunner, Our Christ, p. 52):

Christ, I say, not Jesus. Let me say Christ, again and again, and you too, always say Christ; his genius calls for the special name, the non-human name. He who in his earthly existence bore the name Jesus has become one with the eternal Spirit; like the river in the sea, he has lost both himself and his name.

Julian

[MOD]
This was suddenly bordering on post-slutting, so I have moved part of this to E (here). Please stay on topic.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

Didymus

I think your implicit assumption that Christianity arose from the Crucifixion is very dubious. I don't think anyone believes that Christianity arose from that event alone, even if it took place as described in the synoptic gospels. For more on this, see the end of Luke's gospel. Nothing much happened as a direct result of the Crucifixion pe se; it was the RESURRECTION that set the next chapter (Acts) in motion.

Christianity was a response, not to the crucifixion alone, but to the entire Christian message that was ardently preached, initially by a sect of Hellenized Jews, and later by gentile preachers. The crucifixion was only one element in that whole complex of sayings, pericopes, miracle stories, apopcalyptic prophesies and pseudohistory.

Your inclusion of the assumption that "some man named Jesus was crucified" seems superflous and confusing. Of course some man named Jesus was crucified! It was the most popular name in 1st century Judea, where there was an unruly population and many crucifixions. Your use of the phrase "some man" indicates that the inspiration for the Passion narrative could have been the crucifixion of another Jesus entirely, rather than the Jesus described in the gospels - an idea that's often put forth by MJ theorists.

But then you use the phrase "that man," which suggests you mean the purportedly historical crucifixion of the purportedly historical Jesus of the gospels!

On the one hand, your are using "crucifixion" in the sense of myth - a matter of perception. On the other, you're presenting it as an actual historical event - a matter of fact.

So, when you say "crucifixion, I can't tell whether you're referring to the purportedly historical crucifixion of the gospel Jesus, to all the crucifixions of all the Jesuses who may have been crucified in Judea during that period, to crucifixion as a symbolic and mythical event, or to crucifixion as a means of execution in a particular social context. (As to the last, it's pretty simple. Crucifixion was a particularly humiliating form of execution reserved for bandits, thugs, terrorists and rebellious slaves. The gospel Jesus doesn't fit any of those categories, but that demeaning means of execution squared nicely with Paul's Wisdom-based humble-servant Christology. )

In a nutshell, I don't think the question can be answered without some idea of how you understand the crucifixion, i.e., we need to know your "theory of the case."

Didymus

TedM

I"m sorry for the confusion. I am thinking of Christianity as the religion that believed in the resurrection of a crucified man named Jesus. As such, it is necessary to assume that such a man existed and was crucified. Once we assume these things, questions can be asked about why this man was believed to have been resurrected and why any pre-existing "Christian message" would have been attached to this man.



Ok, I'd like to know whatever you'd like to share about this other brand of Christianity, its origins and evidence for its existence sans a living Jesus, and even what it would have looked like without any Jesus at all (historical or mythical) though it probably should go in another thread.

thanks,

ted

jakejonesiv

It is explicitly stated in 2 Cor. 11:4 that at least one other Jesus was preached by competing group(s). Not just another view of the same Jesus, a different Jesus.

Jake Jones

TedM

That verse may be read as a hypothetical question "If someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached", so Paul may not have been referring to a real person at all there. Also, "another Jesus" could more liberally be referring to another kind of divinity/different attributes/different gospel associated with/within the same Jesus.

The context just doesn't clarify what really was going on there.

ted

Julian

I reads like it is just another definition (or view) of Jesus to me.

Julian