Duvduv

I don't know what you mean. However, if the Empire was developing ideas of their savior who they placed in history some 300 years earlier, then it developed over time.

Toto

IF??? There is absolutely no evidence for this bizarre belief.

The only people who think that Jesus was invented in the fourth century believe that he was invented out of whole cloth, not that there was any development over time.

Could you please cite some authority before you post these baseless statements??

EarlDoherty

You make two mistakes.

(1) You listed a bunch of "if"s regarding the alleged shakiness of viewing the Paulines as containing some authentic material proceeding from the first century. But those "if"s have been far from demonstrated, and certainly not to the point that accepting some first-century Paul becomes less likely than those various alternative "if"s. You are the one who is making assumptions that are on shaky ground, and basing your stance on them.

(2) You have little or no knowledge of my case if you think that I am saying that the Gospels, or Mark, are entirely based on historicizing the Pauline Christ. In fact, the Gospels would not ever have been written on such a basis, for in large part they are dependent not on Paul or any celestial Christ but on an historical "kingdom of God" preaching movement of the first century centered in Galilee and represented in the Q document. (Yes, yes, I know, not everyone accepts a hypothetical Q, but that is a separate matter, and I have presented a far better case for accepting a Q than the no-Q alternative.)

The entire teaching, miracle-working and prophetic content of the Gospels is derived not from Paul, whose celestial Christ had nothing to do with such things, but from an imagined founder of the Q movement (that he was imagined and inserted into the evolving Q tradition at a later date I have fully argued). Even the death and rising dimension of the Gospel Jesus, which Mark added to the Q Jesus, cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ, though I suspect that the latter type of movement had some influence. It could even be an allegorical aspect of the beliefs of the Q/Markan sect that believers themselves, though suffering death, were fated for exaltation/resurrection, owing little to the Christ cult which operated separately on the first and early second century scene.

Earl Doherty

Duvduv

From the year 325, when you see the ostensibly dated Nicaean Creed with no mention of Pilate or Mary. And the Pauline epistles also have no mention of Pilate and Mary.

Chili

Bolding is mine to say that that was true, too, and for sure it was true! What Duvduv fails to realize is that also Herod and Pilate were domineering forces inside the mind of Joseph the Jew, with Pilate being the faculty of reason and Herod the united state as Joseph both 'human and Jew.'

Then let me say that these two were at odds with each other at this time of life and that indeed happened in history at the Time When Herod and Pilate were actually presiding back then . . . and so they 'hung' the story on them.

And so it can be said that Joseph was looking for meaning in life by putting religion to the test and make it deliver 'the promise' he saw, which made Herod the tetrarch he was . . . while in the end Herod and Pilate had become friends in Lk.32:12.
"Herod and Pilate, who previously had been set against each other, became friends from that day on."

This is how peace of mind came about, but not in Matthew, just so you know, where Herod was not even present, wherefore they beat him blue first and then put a scarlet mlilitant robe on him to show that he died as a religious fanatic instead.

Note here that Macbeth was the same who could not be persuaded to unconscious surrender with the words: "And damned be him that first cries 'Hold, enough!'" (V.viii.34), and died as an iron fool by the sword of duffy Macduff, instead of 'like a Roman fool and die on his own sword' as per Luke 22:1-6 (here as a Jewish fool handing himself over to them).

Edit to add that this Roman fool bit is a line from Coliolanus, I think.

Toto

Do you seriously think that lack of mention in a short credal statement from 325 CE means that the details were yet to be invented? Is that your entire argument? I don't see the point of continuing this.

Duvduv

I do note your tendency for picking out pieces and ignoring the overall context!
In any case did you notice how later credal statements managed to find the space for a few extra words?
This little creed is in the same company of the Pauline epistles. Let's count now: "born of Mary" -- that's three words, and "under Pilate" that's two words. A grand total of FIVE words. That should have been able to fit in to the creed no problem, as it is said to have done a few decades later...... Hmm...

maryhelena

There goes your imaginary Q founder figure - just went out the window with Q.

Earl, the gospel JC is a crucified figure. That figure does not exist in Q - and Q is also being viewed as imaginary i.e. it's existence is being questioned. The crucified JC is the focus of the gospel story. Where did that crucifixion story come from? If your answer is that it came from the Pauline epistles - then, Earl, your theory is a gospel historicizing of a Pauline cosmic JC figure.

As to questions regarding 'Paul' and the shaking ground of the Pauline epistles...the Jesus Mysteries List has, as you know, been dealing with some of the issues involved.

Bottom line, Earl, scholarship might be slow in moving forward - but it does move. It's best to keep an open mind on Q and the Pauline epistles.

Toto

I pick out pieces so you can give specific answers. You usually fail.

You have yet to make a case for the significance of this.

Not in general. Please find this in the Pauline epistles:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

For that matter, where is the Holy Spirit in Paul's letters?

Chili

But if Catholics have an exhaustive list of saints stacked in heaven, who do you think is crucfying them these days?

Crucifixion is also and allegory as was the trial, while yet it is real, but since nothing human is real it cannot be a human event, but is an event that crucifies the human in man.

So it is totally absurd to look for a physical crucifixion. Otoh, the Jews may have used this as a deterent to let Galilean trouble makers prove their Nazarite nature to them.