aa5874

Your absurdity is beyond belief.

In the ENTIRE gMark, the author does NOT claim Pilate was called

1. Pontius

2. Governor of Judea

3. Governor of Judea under Tiberius.

Must we say that gMark does NOT mention Pontius Pilate the Governor of Judea under Tiberius because he ONLY mentioned Pilate?

Mr 15:1 - I will add MORE than TWO.


The four MYTH FABLES of the Canon are about

1.Jesus the Child of a Ghost.

2. Jesus, the Word that was God.

3. Jesus, the Creator of heaven and earth.

4. Jesus who was ON the pinnacle of the Temple with the DEVIL.

5. Jesus that WALKED on the SEA.

6. Jesus that TRANSFIGURED.

7. Jesus that was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

8. Jesus that entered a building when its doors were shut.

9. Jesus who ate FISH after he was seen resurrected.

10. Jesus that ASCENDED to heaven in a cloud.

Jesus of the NT Canon was a Myth Fable that was BELIEVED in antiquity just like Christians BELIEVED Marcion's PHANTOM, without birth and Flesh, did EXIST in Capernaum after he came down from heaven.

gurugeorge

Well, Bauer's exhaustive investigation is pretty convincing - "heresy" came first, "orthodoxy" later. (Of course that's an odd way of talking about it. What it really means is that a bunch of varied ideas about a Redeemer/Intermediary figure loosely based on the Jewish concept of the Messiah - "Christ" - came first, and then they were eventually - so to speak - "condensed" into the hard-dated and semi-consistent "story" we know today.)

This would be all very well in a scenario where there was a "buzz" about Christianity in the world around it. But there was no "buzz" about Christianity in the pagan world, so far as we can tell. It's barely mentioned at all. Not until you start getting to the 3rd and 4th centuries does the world seem to sit up and take notice of it. Also, no archaeological evidence of it till - what, the mid-2nd century?

No, to me it's much more consistent with the evidence that the cult started off more like the slightly later "Hermetic circles" - you can see a similar sociological phenomenon today in the "New Age". You get people who are mystics and New Age thinkers known only to small circles of people, and they travel around giving seminars, small lectures, etc., and often leaves them with homework and "practices" to do at home. Sound like "Paul" perhaps?

This sort of scenario is unlikely to leave much of a trace; but then it's less likely to sustain the type of "chinese whispers" situation you outline, that's more characteristic of a situation with a bigger social "buzz" (say like Sabbatai Zevi).

Hebrews is dated at between 50-95 CE. It starts off like this:-

I don't know about you, but I just can't see a crucified preacher attaining this sort of status in a few decades. God's Son? "Beloved of God" perhaps, "Inspired by God", sure - but of the very substance of divinity? Highly unlikely. It took the Buddha a good few hundred years and some quite literal "Chinese Whispers" to attain a similar sort of status, from his "wandering preacher" beginnings.

Yet, the ancient mythical "Christs" (Anointed Ones) of the Near and Middle East - the God Kings - did have the status of "God's Son".

Odd that.

I meant if it were, in reality, dude centred - like a real human being who somehow kicked it off.

What we have is mostly Son-of-God-with-a-fleshy-avatar-centred. The "plain dude" only appears in the relatively late Ebionite "heresy".

I expect change in religious concepts, as I said, so I see nothing remarkable about a change in the Messiah - "Christ" - concept.

No such transition as you posit obtains - he's a putatively-historical entity right from the start, his "being in the past" is part of the conceptual change from "being in the future".

aa5874

NO. It does NOT sound like "Paul".

Not even "Paul" made any claims that he was FIRST.

Why in the world can't you even accept the words of Paul when he claimed he was LAST to SEE the resurrected in a list with OVER 500 people?

"Paul" claimed he was LAST and LEAST. See 1 Cor.15

"Paul" claimed he was a PERSECUTOR of the FAITH he now preached. See GALATIANS 1.

"Paul" claimed there were WRITTEN sources about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. See 1 Cor 15.

"Paul" claimed Jesus REVEALED to him that he was BETRAYED in the NIGHT AFTER he had supped.

1Co 11:23 - Jesus Christ was FLESHED out BEFORE the Pauline writings.

Hebrews was NOT dated to 50-95 CE at all. Some people have ASSUMED when Hebrews was written.

So, why don't you use the dates supplied by paleograhy for the Pauline writings?

The Pauline writings (P 46) have been dated to the MID 2ND -3RD century.

The abundance of evidence from non-apologetic sources do NOT suggest that the Pauline Jesus was known at all in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

archibald

The argument is not directly for MJ, as I understand it. The argument is that a late-ish Roman, Christian writer (circa start of 3rd C, but as ever, uncertain, 180-250CE being the range suggested at earlychristianwritings.com) appears to repudiate that Christians worshipped a cross or anyone on it. And I think it's reasonable to accept that this does appear to be the more likely reading, of the two possibilities. Octavius' initial reply to the accusation (from the pagan Caecilius) that Christians do worship such a man may be ambiguous:

'For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.'

But the next (or almost the next) bit is not so ambiguous:

'Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for.'

Could still be taken as ambiguous, but doesn't seem very ambiguous to me.

There is a good page here, ( a response to Doherty, basically) which sets M Felix in the context of second Century apologists:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/incarnation.html

and Earl Doherty's own article is listed on the previous page, here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/octavius.html

though the link doesn't appear to be working, and you have to go to the Jesus Puzzle website to find it.

It certainly seems odd that Tacitus appears to have said approx. 100 years earlier, (in 110CE) that Christians who followed a man put to death by Pontius Pilate in Judea were a botheration in Rome in 64CE.

Personally, I think it would be harder to explain away the overall pattern of evidence (including Tacitus, other sources and the list of 2nd C writers at the Roger Pearse page linked above) by saying that M Felix was not a bit of an anomaly. I am left to wonder why he appears to 'get it wrong', but I am not sure whether to conclude MJ as the reason. The other explanation is that he was not an anomaly. This requires the text to be read in a way which sees it as ambiguous, but ultimately orthodox, or at least not heretical.

It's also odd, is it not, that he has a pagan bringing up the accusation in the first place?

Apologies if you knew all this.

J-D

No you don't. That's plain wrong. Nobody has to read all of it.

TedM

Since Christians don't worship crosses, and they generally don't want to be crucified themselves, I don't see the problem here.

The 'earthly beings' part of the other verse is problematic, as he appears to take the focus off of the 'criminal' part. I haven't yet read MF but wonder just what he says Christians DO worship?

Not sure what you mean here.

Someday I intend to read more of the 2nd century works.

??

archibald

Well, I've read about his investigation, but I've never read the investigation itself, so I can't comment. And therefore nor will I disagree. Did you link me to the book earlier? :]

It's certainly an interesting hypothesis, it seems to me. And I have to include it as a possibility.

Might I just add that I would love to see you discuss it with a chap called Graham Budd (Grahbudd) at ratskep.

Or Andrew Criddle (first example that comes to mind) here.

Essentially, there seem to be a lot of non-orthos here, and as I recall, a few (seemingly) knowledgeable orthos at ratskep, and I would be interested to see the two get together. I myself might even shut up and just read for a change. lol.



I assume you are not suggesting that 'your scenario' cropped up independently in several places, so..........wouldn't there have had to be a buzz? even if it were of your sort?

Would sound a bit like Paul, yes, except......I am still tending to see Paul as talking about a recent incarnation, and....I'm not sure that any of your new age mystic types peddle that sort of story. And Paul does not claim (in the texts we have) to have been the first.



Maybe, maybe not, though I see where you are coming from. The thing is though, weren't the gospels likely already written by this time, well three of them. As such, the short space of time appears to include the historicization as well. Might it not be reasonable to suggest that one thing which might have 'forced the pace' was.......an actual Jesus?



Well, Paul does not seem to be referring to an avatar, given that he appears to use the word 'man' amongst other things.

And I'm still fascinated by that 'creed' (was it in Romans, I will have to remind myself) which even Earl D thinks is pre-Pauline, and appears to mention crucifixion. I still can't see it as anything more than very odd for a group of Jews to posit such a distasteful death as a crucifixion. And it isn't actually in any of the 'scriptures', is it?

Yes, but, he still had to go from vague new-agey to more solidly 'historical'? That's the unusuality, it seems to me.

Incidentally, what's your take on 'Q' and the nag Hammadi library? Quite an exceptional find, I'm sure you'll agree. Depends when you date the texts, I suppose, but if it were early......it appears (in the Gospel of Thomas I mean) to lend support to the idea that an HJ version reached Egypt quite quickly.

archibald

Yes, one could take that view. Personally....I don't think it's the obvious one. To me, M Felix does appear to repudiate the claim of worship of a crucified personage.

Interestingly, as far as i can tell, he wasn't deemed a heretic. So, perhaps, others took the meaning as orthodox. Can't see how myself. It's all there, on the pages I linked to, and well worth a read. If anything, one gets the impression that the (Roman, Christian) character Octavius says that Christians worship 'one god', and the whole thing reads like a polemic against polytheism.



What I mean is, M Felix is at least implying that Octavius' opponent, a pagan, has heard that this is what christians believe. Where would that have come from?

J-D

My position is that your position is wrong.

GakuseiDon

Thank you. Because you always seem to eventually lose sight of the idea that the man was wicked, to make it sound like the criticism is about a man who is crucified.

That is the sum total of my "prima facie" reading. The charge is that Christians are wicked because they worship a crucified man who was wicked.

I don't impose it; I infer it. The inference is based on the time period of the document, the charges against the Christians and the response. But the inference comes afterwards. It doesn't change the prima facie reading of the passage, on which you and I agree.

Some background:

The author, M. Felix, is recounting a conversation between his friend Octavius (a Christian) and Caecilius (a pagan critic of Christianity). At the start of the text the author states he is recalling something long past, recalling his friend fondly. As Octavius refers to Fronto in his defense of Christianity, and Fronto was active from around 140 CE to 170 CE, the text was written sometime after the start of the second half of the Second Century.

The context is a pagan raising charges against Christians and Christianity, and a Christian responding to those charges. The pagan opponent describes Christianity as "an impious assembly [who] are maturing themselves throughout the whole world." The charges against the Christians are the same found in other documents of the time: secret rites, love feasts, incest, slaying of infants, drinking blood, crosses as altars, candles tied to dogs, etc. The defense offered by Octavius is the same found in other documents: "you pagans do this as well".

The location of the debate is Ostria, a sea-side resort town very close to Rome. So it isn't taking place in some small provisional town, but at the heart of the Empire itself at a time when I'm sure you agree "historicist" Christians were active. Indeed, some of your points hinge on the author and pagans of the time being aware of such Christians.

That's the background to the text, which will become important below.

It is an excellent question! A very, very good question indeed to ask a Christian, in particular an orthodox one.

It is! It has been for the last six years, when I first brought this up with you on my website.

Yes, exactly. As I have always said.

Gahhhh!!! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

If any orthodox Christian was charged that Christians are wicked because they worship a wicked man, and it is ridiculous to put your trust in a mortal man (great question, that!), how do you think that the orthodox Christian would respond?

I'll open up this question to anyone reading this thread. How would any orthodox Christian respond to that charge? Remember the charge is: you Christians worship a wicked man, a criminal! And it is foolish to worship a mortal man!

So, how did Octavius respond? (my emphasis):

For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man.

Think about the implications of that. Now, if M. Felix was writing at a time when there were historicist Christians who believed in a crucified HJ who was not wicked and who was believed to be God, then isn't this a bizarre response by a non-HJer Christian? Isn't he actually SUPPORTING the orthodox Christian belief here? Given that he is covering the same kinds of charges on love feasts, incest, infanticide, etc, found in other documents, then he is missing a chance to differentiate between his brand of Christianity and the orthodox kind. "Hey, THOSE guys do that stuff; not us! THEY believe in a wicked man; not us! THEY believe in a mortal man as God; not us!"

No. The author instead says that "no criminal and no earthly being is able to be believed God". Orthodox Christians didn't think that Christ was a mortal man, and would have given the same response. So why does the author give this same response, if he was condemning such Christians?

Exactly. But you keep losing sight of this, and sooner or later you go back to the idea that the charge was about a crucified man rather than a wicked man. The charge isn't about a Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The charge is the worship of the likes of a Ted Bundy or a Charles Manson.

Well, you tell me then what the author's Christianity involved then. Why is he defending the idea that his Christianity doesn't involve the worship of a wicked man who was crucified for his crimes and who was just a mortal man?

I think we can get more from the text than just that. The charge is obviously directed towards orthodox Christians, i.e. worshipping of a crucified man. My inferences are drawn from that and the author's response. But it still doesn't change the prima facie reading of the passage in question, which you keep losing sight of.

And again you do what you always do at this point. The charge is that Christians worship an evil man, not just a crucified man. If I rewrite what you wrote just above as:

The “prima facie” reading of Minucius Felix is that Octavius condemns the idea that Christians worship an evil mortal man to the same extent that he condemns the ideas that they worship an ass, priests’ genitals and eat sacrificed children.

then I think people will understand where I am coming from.

Octavius' response is that "no criminal or earthly being deserves to be believed God". The inference is that any man who is believed God cannot be an evil man or an earthly being. Whatever else M. Felix believes, and whether he intends to or not, he appears to be defending the orthodox view.