maryhelena

One possibility could be that an earlier messianic story was linked to a figure born during the rule of Alexander Jannaeus. ie prior to the rule of Herod the Great.

http://books.google.com/books?id=K22...page&q&f=false

Check out this book also.......

Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?

http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-me..._100/ch16.html

archibald

I meant 'in this land'. Mind you, there are many reasons to think it may have been Jerusalem, even in Paul, since that seemed to be the epicentre of the cult 'he' (or the text attributed to him) said existed prior.

Incidentally, I would dearly like someone to address the interesting creed/hymn that even Doherty appears (unless he has been misquoted at a link supplied to me here) to accept as likely being pre-Pauline.


Yes, yes. But the reason given in the texts is that it is already here precisely becuse Jesus had already been. That is all. He was the main sign for Paul, it seems. Paul (and others) thought they detected other signs that the repercussions of that had already started. It doesn't fit with any revisionist anything.



It was in response to your 'timing' question.


Lack of first hand accounts are by no means unusual. Do we have first hand accounts for all the other 'prophet types' in the region around that time? Why set the bar unusually high in this regard for one of them?

And in any case, it's nothing more than an argument from absence. Just because you think there 'should' be an explicit account of someone eyeballing him, doesn't mean that it reverses the overall pattern of indicators. In any case, the guy had supposedly died before Paul arrived and there is no good reason that I can think of, bar speculation, to conclude that he thought no one prior to him had ever met the guy.

The timing thing again.

George. A while back, we started out by comparing things with other things (eg. 'how religions typically start'). You now appear to have abandoned that approach, for no good reason.

The scenario I am asking for examples of is one in which virtually (if not entirely) every early source appears to describe a (supposedly) prophecised religious figure who had been around, in the region, recently, and for it to be the mostly likely explanation that he hadn't.

Saying 'religious concepts change' is like saying, on hearing a report that there had been a heavy fall of pink snow in the middle of the Sahara, that it can be considered likely because 'everyone knows that weather is changeable'.

All I am trying to do is establish whether your scenario might be considered unusual, even in relation to other religions.

gurugeorge

You don't know which is more likely? Well, I'll tell you, it's Humeanly less likely that tens of thousands of people throughout human history, some of them of the highest probity and intelligence, have been lying, con artists or frauds. In fact, it's stupendously unlikely. Most of them must be telling the truth about their subjective experience (which, let me remind you, usually takes the form "X spoke to me and gave me a message to give to you, here it is").

It's also stupendously unlikely that there are such things as "gods", "spirits", "demons", etc., in reality. (It goes against a far larger bulk of knowledge that we have about the physical world.)

Therefore, they must be deluded in some way. Their subjective experience is playing them false. They think they "saw X and he spoke to them and gave them a message to give to the world", but actually there was no X and the whole thing was a product of their own brain - i.e. a hallucination, a vision, a waking dream.

dog-on

I think that this makes sense, though I do not see it as a necessary assumption with regards to the origin of Christianity. I think that simply having a literal view of the Hebrew scriptures, mixed with some end of the age expectation and various philosophical and theological concepts in the air around that time can account for Christianity much more easily. No need to posit delusion, imo.

gurugeorge

Well, they were Messianists, so yes, Jerusalem as a major city seems likely for where they lived, and because that's where he seems to say they lived. But that doesn't address the issue of where they thought the "Messianic event" had taken place. Not unless you take for granted that there was a human being Jesus and that the "appearings to" were shortly after the hypothesized human being's hypothesized crucifixion at the hands of the Romans

Here's a good post by Vridar on the subject:-

Quote:

The literary fossil evidence pertaining to the function of this name in early Christian worship informs us that the earliest chronological strata saw the name as belonging to a heavenly being as a reward for taking on the likeness of a human and becoming obedient to the point of death. Later strata, according to some, introduces death by means of a cross. Eventually we find Gospels, in particular the Synoptics, depicting a Jesus as an earthly human and over time more human traits are introduced while some of the divine significances of his death are stripped away.

It seems obvious to me too - the idea is "kenosis", a God emptying himself into the "form of a slave", "human likeness", and then returning to his exalted position.

It's actually quite beautiful. Nothing to suggest a human being known to anyone personally roundabout the time of the writing of the "Paul" texts though.

It fits perfectly well with the idea that they had a different idea of what The Messiah was from the idea others had ("he's already been", just as you say).

Yes, but in order for it to be on point, you have to think that the comments were about people who had known Jesus personally recently; i.e. you're connecting it with a recently deceased person whom they all knew. But there is no evidence for that at all.

What the evidence is for is for a bunch of people Scripture-bothering and having visions. The conceptual content of their revelation is certainly that The Messiah had already been, but there's not a single thing in that passage to suggest WHEN.

We have decent third party accounts for a bunch of other contemporary "small time prophet types" in Josephus. Yet, oddly, no "Jesus" (unless you accept the TF and the other thing, but that's another can of worms ).

No, it's the other way round. You're speculating about a "guy" where there's not a shred of evidence for such a fellow

Well think on this: the concept of the Messiah had already changed at least once. Originally, way back in the dim distant mists of the Jewish past, the term meant "Anointed One" and pertained to a King of the typical Near Eastern mold - a "good king" who'd do right by his people, and who was not only divinely inspired, but actually in a way a Son of God.

But later it morphed a bit into a dude who would come in the future and sort out the Romans, put the Jews on top of the world, and usher in Utopia.

The "Christian" concept was something of a return back to the older form of the idea. In fact, there's a whole bunch of interesting stuff by someone called Margaret Barker about this, to the effect that possibly the Jerusalem people were remnants or enthusiastic antiquarians of the older Temple Cult.

gurugeorge

I definitely agree that there's some literary juggling going on, but on top of my logic above, there's the simple fact that "Paul" claims visionary experience (the religiously typical "X spoke to me and gave me a message, here it is") and that the only glimpse we have from him of what went on in his congregations on a day-to-day basis shows that it was what we now call "occultism".

archibald

Clinging to unlikelihoods much, George? Maybe it was London.

Strawman. Again


Not dealing with the verses in question.

Beautiful. A beautiful idea you have there. Almost unique.



No. I was responding only to your comment about timing. And no, I don't NEED first hand accounts. Your chain of causality is setting the bar too high, from an objective, consistent pov. Which is all I am repeatedly trying to say.

I'm not sure which passage you mean or why you want to restrict things to one passage.

Inconsistent application of objective methodology again, setting the bar higher for some references than others . The point is that the references are in Josephus in the first place. As such, they are part of an overall pattern, and need to be explained away. Hence the lack of parsimony.



This is patently incorrect.

More speculation, but no analagous examples.

George, I think we've given this a good go, and thankfully we haven't had to resort to getting cross or disrespectful with each other, which is good. But maybe it's time to break off.

The weekend is coming, and I am hoping that I can ease back on the amount of time I have been spending on this issue online.

There is always hope.

Cheers,

Archibald

archibald

Hi mm,

Thanks for the links. I will read them. Because I am interested in the possibility of an MJ, and I certainly don't dismiss it.

Regarding 'unbelievers', I do need to find evidence of exactly what is was they didn't believe.

So far (and I have not yet read your recent links) you seem to have cited Docetists and Gnostics, neither of which, as far as I know, are close to being fully-fledged Jesus mythicists.

However, it seems you are saying that we are not getting a true reflection of what some of the heresies actually were. This, of course, is a conspiracy theory.

One thing about this which puzzles me is the apparent view that if there were MJers, or non-HJers, that the heresiologists (I hope that is the right word) would not have addressed them along with the other ones, in the open. Surely, they would, and in fact it would have been an easier one to slate than some others. Also, these attacks on heretics were not meant for us to read thousands of years later. What would be the point of letting what might be considered as some erroneous views go unchallenged in a direct sense? It doesn't add up.

And of course, we must remember that even if there were those who didn't believe in an earthly Jesus, it doesn't mean that there wasn't, only that a small minority thought otherwize (a so far invisible minority, of course). My point about the apparent lack of non-HJers is only one small component in an overall pattern of 'evidence' which of itself does not lend support.

Have a nice weekend.

A.

dog-on

I see. I would, however, suggest that a visionary experience does not necessarily mean seeing ghosts, for example. In fact, I think simply deriving some perceived hidden meaning may, itself, qualify for the phrase "visionary experience".

gurugeorge

Yeah we're just repeating ourselves now in the time-honoured internet tradition.

I pray for your soul, that you may see the Light and come to understand that "Messiah" means Messiah