Rick Sumner

This fairly reeks of Platonism. In fact, it's exactly what I would expect to see in the theology of a very Hellenized Jew.

I'm not sure that it shows any dependence for exactly that reason.

Regards,
Rick

Bernard Muller

Hi neighbour!
Rick, can you tell me if Plato, or any other Platonic writer before 50 CE used the expression "heavenly man" or anything similar?

Best regards, Bernard

Rick Sumner

That's just a quick scan of Timaeus, there's a better one that I couldn't find with my cursory perusal, but will post it when I find it. To Plato, there was a heavenly counterpart to everything on Earth.

I know it's not exact, but Philo and Paul aren't using the contrast the same way either.

Regards,
Rick

Steven Carr

It is strange that Christian apologists like N.T.Wright swear that Paul was talking about a flesh-and-bones resurrected Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15, and that this is the only thing Jews would have believed, as anything else would have been inconceivable to 1st-century Jews (as Philo and Paul were)

On the contrary, 1st century Jews went out of their way to disocciate the heavenly man from anything which was on Earth.

Layman

Of course Paul was writing about a physical resurrection of Jesus and future Christians. This has already been established:

http://didjesusexist.com/resbody.html

Moreover, the argument is not that all Jews believed in a physical resurrection, but that Jews like Paul who spoke and wrote about resurrection were referring to a physical resurrection.

Den

Hello all. This is the first time I have posted on this site, but I felt I should since I was the chairman (and organizer) of the talk by G A Wells that Bede initiated this thread about. Many of the subsequent responses to him bear little relevance to what he posted, as far as I can see, so I shall merely add a couple of corrections/additions to what Bede says above.

Firstly, though it may well come down simply to a matter of semantics, I do not thinks it is fair to say, as did Bede, that

"[Wells] can no longer be classified as a ?Jesus Myther?".

Though Wells has modified his views in recent years (too much, in my view) to accomodate the possibility- no more than that- that Q betrays the existence of one or more 1st century Galiliean preachers whose words fed into the Synoptic picture of Jesus (and whose name(s) may or may not have been 'Jesus'), this does not alter the 'bottom-line' of his position- that is, that there was never any such person as 'Jesus Christ' or 'Jesus of Nazareth'- ie. someone who said much, or did anything, that the Gospels allege of him. This point can be argued, of course, but as I said above, I think it is simply a matter of semantics- Wells is still a very radical NT scholar, albeit marginally less so than Doherty.

Secondly, Bede says above that

"[I] asked [Wells] how the old Christians of Paul?s churches were supposed to have reacted when the new stories in Mark emerged and why we see no controversy or survival of the early gentile converts Paul made. Wells was only able to claim that history was written by the winners and such evidence that did exist has been lost in the intervening period."

This is an accurate record of their exchange (I know, I have it on video-tape, hehe!), but it requires a postscript. A few days after the talk Wells wrote to me (in longhand, as is his wont- he does not possess a computer) and said the following:

"He [Bede] said that, if I am right in saying that linking Jesus with Pilate was a late first century novelty, there ought to be some evidence that Pauline or Pauline-type communities protested against it. I should have said in reply that there is indeed evidence that it was not universally acceptable; for in three of the letters Ignatius wrote to Christian communities in Asia Minor he obviously felt it necessary to emphasize the dating in Pilate's time, in such a way as to suggest that not all Christians were agreed on the matter. He stresses that Jesus died in the time of Pilate as an integral part of the correct doctrine which, he admits, is in competition with other doctrine.
Thus he assures the Trallians (ch.9) that Jesus was 'really persecuted in the time of Pilate'; and he urges the Magnesians (ch.11) 'not to yield to the bait of false doctrine but to believe most steadfastly in the birth, the passion and the resurrection which took place during the governorship of Pontius Pilate'. To the Smyrnians (ch.1) he wrote that Jesus was 'truly fastened with nails for our sakes, in the time of Pontius Pilate'.
I say something to this effect in my 'Did Jesus Exist?'. pp.58ff."

So, there you are! Though it might sound like being wise after the event, I myself thought of Ignatius' remarks when Bede asked the question, but I didn't want to intervene between Wells and himself since various other people were waiting to ask questions, and a lengthy debate between us would have seemed rude!

Thanks.

Bede

Den,

Thank you very much for letting us know about Well's further thoughts. His point is interesting although I cannot claim to find it wholly convincing. That said, had you mentioned it on the evening, it would have been an excellent reply to my point!

I believe that there is actually an author who credits Ignatius as the true founder of Christianity (I forget his name but Vork can probably supply).

Until next time!

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and rteason

Secular Pinoy

Alvar Ellegard, perhaps?

Vorkosigan

Welcome aboard, Den! Are you on JesusMysteries?

Ignatius/Trallians

• CHAPTER 9
  9:1 Be ye deaf, therefore, when any one speaketh unto you apart from Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David, who was born of Mary, who was truly born, ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, in the sight of the things that are in heaven and on earth and under the earth;
  
  9:2 and was truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him up; according to the similitude of which also his Father shall raise up us who believe in him in Christ Jesus, apart from whom we have not the true life.
  
  
  CHAPTER 10
  10:1 But if, as certain men who are without God, that is unbelievers, assert, his passion was an appearance, being themselves an appearance, why am I bound, and why do I pray to fight with wild beasts? therefore I die in vain. Of a truth, do I not lie against the Lord?

Looks to me like he is arguing against Docetism, and the function of "truly" is to emphasize the bodily reality of these events and not their place in history. But perhaps someone can persuade me differently?

Vorkosigan

Bernard Muller

Looks to me like he is arguing against Docetism, and the function of "truly" is to emphasize the bodily reality of these events and not their place in history. But perhaps someone can persuade me differently?

Vorkosigan

Right on, Vork

More so, according to Gnostic/Docetist Basilides (120-140):

As reported by Irenaeus, about Basilides, AH, I, 24, 4 "For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all"

Basilides did not believe Christ was crucified:
As reported by Irenaeus, about Basilides, AH, I, 24, 4 "[Basilides thought] He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead, so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, [Simon] was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them."

Best regards, Bernard