maryhelena

Rather a contradiction there.....historical people, by definition, are very clear indeed. Whether any specific historical person was relevant to the gospel writers is what is under discussion. Earl agrees that historical people were relevant to the writers of the JC myth - I've been asking him, for well over 10 years, to name names.

As to whether anything is 'clear' re who these specific historical persons were, in connection with the JC pseudo-history - check out the chart linked in the above post.

Actually, Earl's statement, quoted above - demonstrates the very thing that he is seeking to deny. If historical people were relevant to the writers of the gospel JC myth - then one cannot write off the possibility that a real flesh and blood crucifixion was relevant to the writers of the gospel JC story. It then becomes only a question of identification of that specific historical figure.

MrMacSon

Are you referring to

1. historical people the gospels were based on?
2. historical people involved with the writing of the gospels? or
3. historical people who might have preceded or been around when the gospels were written?

Cant find it. You'll have to provide a link to the chart, or the post that has a link to the chart

Do you have an inkling as to who they were?
or where they fitted in?
.

maryhelena

1. Yes, historical people who were relevant to the writers/creators of the gospel JC figure.
   
   
   Quote:

   historical people involved with the writing of the gospels? or historical people who might have preceded or been around when the gospels were written?

The chart is in post #1 in this link:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038


All revealed in that chart.....

Solo

Hi Duvduv,
not sure what this is in relation to. What are you saying ? Would traditional Jews, during the late Second Temple not be offended by someone preaching that an executed criminal was Mashiah ?

Best,
Jiri

Duvduv

No, I wasn't saying that. All I meant was that the allegorizing of verses is not unusual. However mainstream rabbinic Jews would not accept a martyred messiah.

Solo

Indeed. This is what Paul alludes to in 1 Cr 15:42-50 which Earl badly misread as meaning that the man of heaven did not have earthly existence.

To be honest with you maryhelena, I don't know what 'crucifixion in a heavenly, spiritual or intellectual space' means. When Paul claims to have been 'crucified with Christ' he is speaking hyperbolically, in what any shrink today would look at it as a sign of annihilation anxiety (the Freudians) or depressive (para-)psychosis (in regular psychiatry). This is not Paul taking a philosophical stance but dramatizing a terrible mental challenge that he has. As the disorder is quite common (I have been diagnosed with it) his finding a useful, consistent narrative, in the absence of any known therapy or medication for it, guaranteed him following and a status of a great sage.

TMK, the direct equation of "archontes" with demonic powers relates to gnostic concepts of the Demiurge which came later than Paul. But again, we have had long discussions about this here with our Oxford buddy, Jeffrey Gibson, and it was generally agreed that even if Paul meant "demons" they would have been acting through human agents.


Did you not agree that Paul understood the crucifixion to have been an event on earth ?

Best,
Jiri

maryhelena

The relevant history is Antigonus - as I'm sure you might be aware of my position on that

Yes, the gospel JC story has a resurrection; after death appearances. But that is a story and not literal. So - interpretations of what resurrection, re-birth, NT gospel wise, is about is an open question.....But I'd bet my bottom dollar it has nothing to do with flesh and blood being changed into a spiritual 'body'. That sort of change is metaphorical, symbolism. All fine and dandy for philosophical or theological pursuits but of no help in searching for early christian origins.

I've always run away from imaginary spirit figures.................................

I would interpret a spiritual crucifixion to refer to intellectual reality. Our thinking runs it's own evolutionary path. Our mental world can run along smoothly for decades - but, as with physical evolution, sometimes mutations or 'jumps' take place. Our old ideas are killed off, 'crucified', in order for 'salvation' to come by the new more modern ideas. A new intellectual world leads to a new social environment. A new heaven leads to a new earth.....

Of course, what insight 'Paul' did have would have to be conveyed in language and ideas current at his time. Today, we can update 'Paul' - but that does not negate the fundamental concept he seems to be trying to convey: A 'crucifixion' in a heavenly realm can generate 'salvation'. And that, I would suggest, was a momentous insight - light years ahead of it's time.

Vorkosigan

There is nothing in those lines that points to an earthly Jesus. Without the Gospel insistence on an Jesus crucified on earth, every Xtian could happily be a gnostic and live with those lines.

Vorkosigan

maryhelena

Problem is, Vork, that we do have the gospel JC story. And regardless of when one might seek to date the copies that we do have of that story - that story is as much a part of the NT as are the writings attributed to 'Paul'. So, one way to explain this is that those early christians were not going to go the way of the gnostics - flesh and blood mattered, reality mattered, history mattered. It was never, could never be, all pie in the sky. Early christian writers placed their two feet squarely on terra firma. That is the 'message' of the gospel JC story.

Vorkosigan

Luke "grounded" Jesus on what you might call terra firma, though the writer obviously understood himself to be writing fiction, not history. The writer of Mark clearly did not think he was portraying history at all and offers the reader allegory and parable while inventing off the Tanakh.

The backreading of the Gospel tales into Paul is an apologetic and ideological move, totally unscholarly.

Vorkosigan