Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ChristMyth · 08-08-2010, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountianman

Just a small quibble with the "literary facts":
Jesus was not the first to be resurrected.
Others who experienced prior resurrection include ...

1) Elisha the prophet (2 Kgs. 4.32-35),
2) Lazarus also rose before Jesus’ resurrection (John 11:43f.),
3) in the time of the Passion “many bodies of those who had fallen asleep” were raised (Matt. 27.52f.)

I think there is a big difference here. Everyone in the list above was raised into this life meaning that eventually they would have to die again.

Jesus was different. He was raised as a spiritual body, never to see death again. This spiritual body is the same one talked about in 1 Corinthians 15:

Quote:

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

Jesus was the first to put on a "spiritual body." A body that was not recognizable to those who knew him. It was only when their eyes were open that they realized it was Jesus.

I think that it's safe to assume that since such an idea is brought up in one of the Letters of Paul (or whoever wrote 1 Corinth.), that it wasn't really something new. To me, it doesn't sound like something the author is making up on the spur of the moment and is well aware of the questions of the resurrection in the early church. The authors of the Gospel accounts are just agreeing with the author of the epistle that we will have a new spiritual body that is "incorruptible" but will look nothing like the physical body we now hold.

Chili · 08-08-2010, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

[
I think there is a big difference here. Everyone in the list above was raised into this life meaning that eventually they would have to die again.

Jesus was different. He was raised as a spiritual body, never to see death again. This spiritual body is the same one talked about in 1 Corinthians 15:

Jesus was the first to put on a "spiritual body." A body that was not recognizable to those who knew him. It was only when their eyes were open that they realized it was Jesus.

Yes but you can't walk in a spiritual body and then there is the second death still to follow which is not a problem if we are soulfree and fancyfree. But you are right, if opening eyes is needed to recognize Jesus we are not even talking about a body but about 'the being' itself as created before the body was formed that therefore cannot die. An angel, oth, is not 'a being' but merely a message from such a spiritual being.

Now that Jesus was filled with the spirit when John baptized Jesus in Luke is because John was the fire of Jesus wherefore it can be said that Jesus died and Christ was raised who was Jesus' bosum buddy and that is made known when the spririt came alive in him and he rattled off his own lineage in evidence of that.

PhilosopherJay · 08-08-2010, 02:15 PM

Hi Mountainman,

Besides the five, six or seven unrecognized gospel appearances and the one in Acts of Peter, we should add the probable incognito appearance of Jesus found in Justin Martyr's Trypho:

Quote:

"And while I was thus disposed, when I wished at one period to be filled with great quietness, and to shun the path of men, I used to go into a certain field not far from the sea. And when I was near that spot one day, which having reached I purposed to be by myself, a certain old man, by no means contemptible in appearance, exhibiting meek and venerable manners, followed me at a little distance. And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather keenly on him.

"And he said, 'Do you know me?'

I replied in the negative.

"'Why, then,' said he to me, 'do you so look at me?

"'I am astonished,' I said, 'because you have chanced to be in my company in the same place; for I had not expected to see any man here.'

"And he says to me, 'I am concerned about some of my household. These are gone away from me; and therefore have I come to make personal search for them, if, perhaps, they shall make their appearance somewhere...

"When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable.

Neil Godfrey has a nice discussion of the Emmaus appearance on his Vridar Blog.

My thinking on this goes along the lines of what you suggested in your posts about there being a limited literary selection of motifs to choose from.

We should keep in mind that incognito divinities was pretty much the standard device, beside dreams, in which the ancient Gods related to mortals.

For example, in book 22 of the Iliad, Athena tricks Hector into fighting Achilles by disguising herself as Hector's brother, Deiphobus:

Quote:

She came to Hector in the form of Deïphobus,
with his tireless voice and shape. Standing beside him,
she spoke these winged words:

"My brother,
swift Achilles is really harassing you,
with his fast running around Priam's city [230]
in this pursuit. Come, we'll both stand here,
stay put, and beat off his attack."

Then Hector of the shining helmet answered her:

"Deïphobus, in the past you've always been
the brother I loved the most by far 290
of children born to Hecuba and Priam.
I think I now respect you even more,
since you've dared to come outside the wall,
to help me, when you saw me in distress,
while others all remained inside."

Zeus, in fathering Hercules, disguised himself as Alcmena's husband, Amphitryon, according to Apollodorus', Library (book 2.4.8)

Quote:

But before Amphitryon reached Thebes, Zeus came by night and prolonging the one night threefold he assumed the likeness of Amphitryon and bedded with Alcmena83 and related what had happened concerning the Teleboans. But when Amphitryon arrived and saw that he was not welcomed by his wife, he inquired the cause; and when she told him that he had come the night before and slept with her, he learned from Tiresias how Zeus had enjoyed her. And Alcmena bore two sons, to wit, Hercules, whom she had by Zeus and who was the elder by one night, and Iphicles, whom she had by Amphitryon.

Probably the most well known example is Dionysius in Euripides' Bacchae:

Quote:

Dionysus: Behold, God’s Son is come unto this land
Of heaven’s hot splendour lit to life, when she
Of Thebes, even I, Dionysus, whom the brand
Who bore me, Cadmus’ daughter Semelê, 4
Died here. So, changed in shape from God to man,
I walk again by Dirce’s streams and scan
Ismenus’ shore.

Later the guards of King Pentheus capture him and bring him to Pentheus:

Quote:

Pentheus: [The guards loose the arms of DIONYSUS; PENTHEUS studies him for a while in silence, then speaks jeeringly. DIONYSUS remains gentle and unafraid.
Marry, a fair shape for a woman’s eye,
Sir stranger! And thou seek’st no more, I ween!
Long curls, withal! That shows thou ne’er hast been
A wrestler!—down both cheeks so softly tossed
And winsome! And a white skin! It hath cost
Thee pains, to please thy damsels with this white
And red of cheeks that never face the light! [DIONYSUS is silent.
Speak, sirrah; tell me first thy name and race.

DIONYSUS
No glory is therein, nor yet disgrace.
Thou hast heard of Tmolus, the bright hill of flowers?

Again in the story of Dionysus and the Tyrrhenian Pirates as told by Hyginus in his Fabulae, he appears in disguise.

Quote:

"I will tell of Dionysos, the son of glorious Semele, how he appeared on a jutting headland by the shore of the fruitless sea, seeming like a stripling in the first flush of manhood: his rich, dark hair was waving about him, and on his strong shoulders he wore a purple robe.

We find two incognito Gods in the story of Baucis and Philemon in Book eight of Ovid's Metamorphoss:

Quote:

To Phrygian realms, my grandsire's government.
Not far from thence is seen a lake, the haunt
Of coots, and of the fishing cormorant:
Here Jove with Hermes came; but in disguise
Of mortal men conceal'd their deities;
One laid aside his thunder, one his rod;
And many toilsome steps together trod:
For harbour at a thousand doors they knock'd,
Not one of all the thousand but was lock'd.
At last an hospitable house they found,
A homely shed; the roof, not far from ground,
Was thatch'd with reeds, and straw, together bound.
There Baucis and Philemon liv'd, and there
Had liv'd long marry'd, and a happy pair:

The Egyptian Goddess Isis also appears in disguise when she comes to Biblos to rescue Osiris.

Quote:

But at length, by the aid of Anubis and the sacred birds, Isis ascertained these facts, and then went to the royal city. There she offered herself at the palace as a servant, and being admitted, threw off her disguise and appeared as the goddess, surrounded with thunder and lightning

Apparently, the gospel writings were following the standard "Incognito God" ancient literary formula for God-Mortal interaction.

There are two important things to note: the contradiction between the form (Incognito God) and plot (Resurrection) and the multitude of Incognito God variations used.

First, while incognito gods generally makes sense in mythological literature, it does not really make sense in the gospels. The God Jesus is not appearing to trick anybody into doing anything, he is there simply to teach. Thus, there appears to be no point to the disguise. The disguise is just there because it is part of the standard formula of Gods interacting with people on Earth.

We can find another, similar plot-form contradiction in literary history. Samuel Richardson, in 1740, wrote a novel called "Pamela, Or, Virtue Rewarded." While the novel was the hit literary event of the year, it divided England into " Pro Pamela" and "anti-Pamela" camps. Henry Fielding came out with the satire "Shamela" the following year, making fun of the novel.

One of the major problems with the book is that it uses an "epistolary" form. Richardson had apparently copied the form James Howell's "Familiar Letters or Epistolae Ho-Elianae written in the previous century. Richardson tells his story through a set of letters written by the main character, a young servant named Pamela, to her parents. She is writing to her parents about how her master/employer, "Mr. B." is trying to seduce her. She uses extreme detail in describing every thing that is happening to her and her feelings about them. This is fine and reasonable, but Pamela soon gets kidnapped and imprisoned by her employer. At this point, Pamela continues to write her letters home, but obviously she cannot send them. A more perceptive author would have abandoned the epistolary form, realizing the that any real prisoner under such circumstances could not send letters and wouldn't even be given any paper or pen to write them. Undaunted by the problem, Richardson sticks to his chosen epistolary form, and obsessively has Pamela write how she has managed to hide her letters and get paper and pen to write them. The letters to her parents suddenly change into a "journal" that she is keeping. This really doesn't solve the fundamental contradiction that her employer can not stop her from writing over 150 pages describing how he has kidnapped her, holding her prisoner and is planning on taking away her "virtue".

Richardson had apparently decided to adopt the pattern of the epistolary novel and did not abandon it, even when it made no sense because of his plot. This plot-form contradiction makes something that the author intended as serious seem quite ridiculous. In this way he is in the same situation, I believe, as the gospel writers who chose the God incognito form to prove Jesus had become a God after death. The plot of the Jesus story makes his being in disguise when he is trying to prove that he is really the guy who got killed a few days ago, appear quite ridiculous.

The writers, prisoners of their time, like Richardson, could not see the contradiction and could not solve the problem by changing the accepted form that they had to work with.

I should note that Richardson did understand that something was amiss by all the criticism he received. He published some 15 editions of "Pamela" over the next 12 years, making significant changes to every single one. Kathleen Hudgins notes, "For example, in response to the anonymously written Pamela Censured, Richardson made “nearly a thousand changes…to the text in the fifth edition” (Keymer and Sabor 37)"

Besides the awkwardness of the contradiction between plot (Jesus proving himself returned from the dead) and form (Incognito God), there is a second important point. The post resurrection incognito forms are all quite different:

Quote:

Mark: he appeared in another form to two of them
Luke: their eyes were kept from recognizing him
Luke: they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit
John: she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus.
John: Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus
Matthew: Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted

While all these scenes suggest the motif of an "Incognito God," they are all quite different in their use of different variations of that motif. This reminds me of the style of Fred Astaire's dancing. He blended together many different well known styles of his day to create his own. In the movie "Swing Time" (Stevens, 1936), there is an hilarious explicit reference to the way he mixed up the dances.

Astaire, after meeting and annoying Ginger Rogers, has followed her to the dance school where she works as an instructor. He signs up for a free lesson and the dancing school owner assigns Ginger to him. She is upset when the school owner brings him over, because she knows that he signed up for the lesson just to meet her.

Quote:

School Owner: What type of dancing would you like to learn.
Astaire: What kind have you got?
Rogers: (exasperated that he doesn't know anything) Sap!
Astaire: Sap dancing?
School Owner:No, no, no, no, she means "tap."
Astaire: Oh, tap dancing.
School Master: You see, we have tap dancing and ballroom dancing and aesthetic dancing.
Astaire: If it's all the same to you, I'll take a little of each.

In the same way, the gospel writers take a little of each of the Incognito God stories and adapt them to Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristMyth

I always assumed that the authors were trying to say something about the new body that would be resurrected at the end time. Jesus was the first to be resurrected ....

{snip}

The gnostics appear to have had Jesus appear differently after the resurrection by writing him into the gnostic gospels and acts in a huge variety of forms and characters. Photius summarises this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Photius

He appeared at different times in different form
to His disciples, now as a young, now as an old man, and then again as a boy,
now taller, now shorter, now very tall, so that His head reached nearly to heaven.

OLDMAN · 08-08-2010, 03:18 PM

I think the answer is as simple as an Elvis sighting in a grocery store.

vipertaja · 08-09-2010, 01:14 AM

Maybe he was running from the law so he shaved off his hair, beard and eyebrows.

(although the earliest art portrays him without a beard anyway, doesn't it?)

maryhelena · 08-09-2010, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Mountainman,

Besides the five, six or seven unrecognized gospel appearances and the one in Acts of Peter, we should add the probable incognito appearance of Jesus found in Justin Martyr's Trypho:

Quote:

"And while I was thus disposed, when I wished at one period to be filled with great quietness, and to shun the path of men, I used to go into a certain field not far from the sea. And when I was near that spot one day, which having reached I purposed to be by myself, a certain old man, by no means contemptible in appearance, exhibiting meek and venerable manners, followed me at a little distance. And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather keenly on him.

"And he said, 'Do you know me?'

I replied in the negative.

"'Why, then,' said he to me, 'do you so look at me?

"'I am astonished,' I said, 'because you have chanced to be in my company in the same place; for I had not expected to see any man here.'

"And he says to me, 'I am concerned about some of my household. These are gone away from me; and therefore have I come to make personal search for them, if, perhaps, they shall make their appearance somewhere...

"When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable.

Neil Godfrey has a nice discussion of the Emmaus appearance on his Vridar Blog.

My thinking on this goes along the lines of what you suggested in your posts about there being a limited literary selection of motifs to choose from.

We should keep in mind that incognito divinities was pretty much the standard device, beside dreams, in which the ancient Gods related to mortals.

For example, in book 22 of the Iliad, Athena tricks Hector into fighting Achilles by disguising herself as Hector's brother, Deiphobus:

Zeus, in fathering Hercules, disguised himself as Alcmena's husband, Amphitryon, according to Apollodorus', Library (book 2.4.8)

Probably the most well known example is Dionysius in Euripides' Bacchae:

Later the guards of King Pentheus capture him and bring him to Pentheus:

Again in the story of Dionysus and the Tyrrhenian Pirates as told by Hyginus in his Fabulae, he appears in disguise.

We find two incognito Gods in the story of Baucis and Philemon in Book eight of Ovid's Metamorphoss:

The Egyptian Goddess Isis also appears in disguise when she comes to Biblos to rescue Osiris.

Apparently, the gospel writings were following the standard "Incognito God" ancient literary formula for God-Mortal interaction.

There are two important things to note: the contradiction between the form (Incognito God) and plot (Resurrection) and the multitude of Incognito God variations used.

First, while incognito gods generally makes sense in mythological literature, it does not really make sense in the gospels. The God Jesus is not appearing to trick anybody into doing anything, he is there simply to teach. Thus, there appears to be no point to the disguise. The disguise is just there because it is part of the standard formula of Gods interacting with people on Earth.

We can find another, similar plot-form contradiction in literary history. Samuel Richardson, in 1740, wrote a novel called "Pamela, Or, Virtue Rewarded." While the novel was the hit literary event of the year, it divided England into " Pro Pamela" and "anti-Pamela" camps. Henry Fielding came out with the satire "Shamela" the following year, making fun of the novel.

One of the major problems with the book is that it uses an "epistolary" form. Richardson had apparently copied the form James Howell's "Familiar Letters or Epistolae Ho-Elianae written in the previous century. Richardson tells his story through a set of letters written by the main character, a young servant named Pamela, to her parents. She is writing to her parents about how her master/employer, "Mr. B." is trying to seduce her. She uses extreme detail in describing every thing that is happening to her and her feelings about them. This is fine and reasonable, but Pamela soon gets kidnapped and imprisoned by her employer. At this point, Pamela continues to write her letters home, but obviously she cannot send them. A more perceptive author would have abandoned the epistolary form, realizing the that any real prisoner under such circumstances could not send letters and wouldn't even be given any paper or pen to write them. Undaunted by the problem, Richardson sticks to his chosen epistolary form, and obsessively has Pamela write how she has managed to hide her letters and get paper and pen to write them. The letters to her parents suddenly change into a "journal" that she is keeping. This really doesn't solve the fundamental contradiction that her employer can not stop her from writing over 150 pages describing how he has kidnapped her, holding her prisoner and is planning on taking away her "virtue".

Richardson had apparently decided to adopt the pattern of the epistolary novel and did not abandon it, even when it made no sense because of his plot. This plot-form contradiction makes something that the author intended as serious seem quite ridiculous. In this way he is in the same situation, I believe, as the gospel writers who chose the God incognito form to prove Jesus had become a God after death. The plot of the Jesus story makes his being in disguise when he is trying to prove that he is really the guy who got killed a few days ago, appear quite ridiculous.

The writers, prisoners of their time, like Richardson, could not see the contradiction and could not solve the problem by changing the accepted form that they had to work with.

I should note that Richardson did understand that something was amiss by all the criticism he received. He published some 15 editions of "Pamela" over the next 12 years, making significant changes to every single one. Kathleen Hudgins notes, "For example, in response to the anonymously written Pamela Censured, Richardson made “nearly a thousand changes…to the text in the fifth edition” (Keymer and Sabor 37)"

Besides the awkwardness of the contradiction between plot (Jesus proving himself returned from the dead) and form (Incognito God), there is a second important point. The post resurrection incognito forms are all quite different:

While all these scenes suggest the motif of an "Incognito God," they are all quite different in their use of different variations of that motif. This reminds me of the style of Fred Astaire's dancing. He blended together many different well known styles of his day to create his own. In the movie "Swing Time" (Stevens, 1936), there is an hilarious explicit reference to the way he mixed up the dances.

Astaire, after meeting and annoying Ginger Rogers, has followed her to the dance school where she works as an instructor. He signs up for a free lesson and the dancing school owner assigns Ginger to him. She is upset when the school owner brings him over, because she knows that he signed up for the lesson just to meet her.

In the same way, the gospel writers take a little of each of the Incognito God stories and adapt them to Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

{snip}

The gnostics appear to have had Jesus appear differently after the resurrection by writing him into the gnostic gospels and acts in a huge variety of forms and characters. Photius summarises this:

Here is a very much more mundane idea re the incognito appearances: While Jesus is alive (assuming for the sake of argument a historical Jesus...) there is some degree of control, consensus, over what he said and did. Albeit eyewitness testimony is itself always subjective. When Jesus dies - then it becomes open-season re all these various interpretation of his existence, deeds and words. It’s now open season, a freemarket - Jesus can be all things to all people. Not just interpretations but re-interpretations, interpretations of interpretations etc. Jesus will appear differently to different people....

Anytime a charismatic and inspirational leader or teacher dies the followers can try to keep the whole thing together. The danger there is that the ideas can become frozen in time - historical curiosities. So that leaves the door open for heresy to take forward any ‘truth’ that might be there.

OK - so being a mythicist - no historical Jesus. However, we do have the pre-Paul scenario - whatever historical context that may have been. Paul is the mover and shaker of what the ideas were prior to his time. In other words; Paul starts the ball rolling - and heresy upon heresy we end up with Christianity as we know it today - with goodness knows how many incognito versions of Jesus....Once Jesus is resurrected as a spiritual being he is no longer bound to the physical identity that a historical context necessitates. It’s now a case of a one size fits all Jesus - Jesus is all things to all people - a spiritual saviour that can appear in many ‘forms' and many ‘places’. One just needs a bit of insight to recognize him. In other words - from now on its all subjective, personal and intellectual stuff - and Paul the grand champion with his very own personal appearance of Jesus....

Chili · 08-09-2010, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vipertaja

Maybe he was running from the law so he shaved off his hair, beard and eyebrows.

(although the earliest art portrays him without a beard anyway, doesn't it?)

He kind of was in that body hair belongs to the human condition which is why Jesus has a beard but Christ does not have one. It goes back to Gen. 2:25 where the complete man was naked to wit and felt no shame as opposed to Gen 3:10 where the isolated ego first realized that it was naked and sought cover.

Chili · 08-09-2010, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

[Anytime a charismatic and inspirational leader or teacher dies the followers can try to keep the whole thing together. The danger there is that the ideas can become frozen in time - historical curiosities. So that leaves the door open for heresy to take forward any ‘truth’ that might be there.

This is the very reason for the Church to be Infallible meaning to say only that it is in charge of its own destiny as the home of Christ with Jesus is left hanging on the cross as only the means to the end in Christendom.

Quote:

and Paul the grand champion with his very own personal appearance of Jesus....

. . . and he shall come again and again, each generation anew and has been doing so ever since that day. There so is no history in the bible with Christ being 'presence' and therefore the end of all where home is home . . . with Jesus left hanging on cross here now our name upon it.

Solo · 08-09-2010, 06:34 AM

:huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

There are four, five or six post resurrection stories/scenes of Jesus' where he is not recognized by people who should know him. In each of these cases, there is no apparent reason why Jesus should not be recognized by these people. Obviously, Jesus wants people to see that he has been resurrected and quickly tells or shows them. Why do we get all these non/recognition scenes? I have a theory, but I would like to hear other people's theories on why Jesus is not recognizable when resurrected?

Here are the relevant passages:

Quote:

Mark:

16.12After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. 16.13And they went back and told the rest,

Luke
24.13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emma'us, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 24.14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 24.15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 24.16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 24.17 And he said to them, "What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?" And they stood still, looking sad. 24.18 Then one of them, named Cle'opas, answered him, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?" 24.19 And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 24.20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 24.21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened. 24.22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning 24.23 and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24.24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see." 24.25 And he said to them, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 24.26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 24.27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 24.28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, 24.29 but they constrained him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." So he went in to stay with them. 24.30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 24.31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight…

24.36 As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. 24.37 But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. 24.38 And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? 24.39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." 24.40 24.41 And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" 24.42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 24.43 and he took it and ate before them. 24.44 Then he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." 24.45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 24.46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 24.47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 24.48 You are witnesses of these things. 24.49 And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high."

John:
20.14 Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 20.15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." 20.16 Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rab-bo'ni!" (which means Teacher). 20.17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father;

21.4 Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 21.5 Jesus said to them, "Children, have you any fish?" They answered him, "No." 21.6 He said to them, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some." So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it in, for the quantity of fish. 21.7 That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea. 21.8 But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from the land, but about a hundred yards off. 21.9 When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish lying on it, and bread. 21.10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish that you have just caught." 21.11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. 21.12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." Now none of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord.

Note that in John 21.12, it says, "none of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" This implies that he was in a different form from the form that Jesus looked like when he was alive, clearly he did not look like Jesus]

Warmly

Philosopher Jay

Hi Philosopher Jay,

of course, you are right - it was not the same Jesus. The resurrectional scenes are the imagination of creative writers cum theologians two generations after Jesus was crucified. There were no hallucinations of him, or appearances of him until the gospel of Mark came out with the koan of the empty tomb. In Mark's original gospel Jesus appears resurrected only once, in chapter 9.

Paul, 'seeing the Lord' (1 Cr 9:1, 2 Cr 12:1-6) is the original 'sighting', which was not seeing anything but the experience of synaesthesic brain brought about by high level of nervous excitement, the context of which varied. I believe most frequently Paul's 'fellow-prisoners' and 'fellow-slaves' of Christ were sufferers of a fairly common disorder - manic depression (or bipolar disorder). Paul almost certainly was. Mark, who was a staunch Pauline allegorized the experience of the manic Spirit:

For our purposes here, let us define the Spirit as the internal experience of altered consciousness which suggests to the excited subject an alien entity or an emanation thereof. This apprehended entity, in the early stages of manic intoxication (or similar excitement), validates perceptions, and manipulates abstract objects outside of an orderly process of cognition. It is probable but not yet proven by neuro-physiological research that significant inversions of hemispheric dominance are triggered during some forms of severe manic excitation and sponsor the subjective ‘reality’ of a separate entity engaging in the proximity of or within the individual. It is in the nature of the disorder that a confrontation ensues between the former cognitive, verbal self and the newly constructed Spirit when the latter’s suggested delusionary schemes fail cognitive testing. In the increasingly dysphoric and chaotic communication with the Spirit, that will be now defied as an impostor, the subject feels persecuted and eventually, often through severe terror attacks, recaptures most of the former stasis of self. This would be the normal, desirable outcome of an episode of mania.

The above mysterious cycle of the Spirit (as defined by Paul in 2 Cor 3:18) was Mark's gospel story plan, the witness of Paul's risen Lord. The passion is simply the dying of the spirit which is unmasked as a powerless impostor. Mark's Nazarene Jesus of course dies with the spirit of Christ that descended on him at the Jordan. The empty tomb is a koan, which I interpret as the invitation of Mark to the Petrines to join 'the body of Christ' in the mystical Galilee of Paul's church (1 Cr 12:27).

Best,
Jiri

Chili · 08-09-2010, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

:Hi Philosopher Jay,

of course, you are right - it was not the same Jesus. The resurrectional scenes are the imagination of creative writers cum theologians two generations after Jesus was crucified. There were no hallucinations of him, or appearances of him until the gospel of Mark came out with the koan of the empty tomb. In Mark's original gospel Jesus appears resurrected only once, in chapter 9.

Paul, 'seeing the Lord' (1 Cr 9:1, 2 Cr 12:1-6) is the original 'sighting', which was not seeing anything but the experience of synaesthesic brain brought about by high level of nervous excitement, the context of which varied. I believe most frequently Paul's 'fellow-prisoners' and 'fellow-slaves' of Christ were sufferers of a fairly common disorder - manic depression (or bipolar disorder). Paul almost certainly was. Mark, who was a staunch Pauline allegorized the experience of the manic Spirit:

i

Yes but Mark, regardless of how 'first' he is claimed to be, is a tragedy instead of a comedy in that God had 'forsaken' Jesus as the [Galilean] suffering servant and that is what caused him to go back to Galilee for more suffering until he died [after 40 some years] nonetheless. To know the intricate details of such a tragedy it must have been written by someone, yes, who had first hand expirience of a comedy and went to heaven instead of Galilee.

I have no problem with your notion of bipolar disorder - which is probably a fair description of such a patient - but if if nothing else, it so identifies where crucifixion takes place and after that, if disorder can be a final end it may just be possible that a new 'order' can be a final end wherein lies the difference between a tragedy and a comedy and so the difference between hell and heaven is found.

I further doubt that Paul's church was in Galilee but will agree that he was preacing in Galilee to make this difference known because that is the place where 'tragedies' gather to quench the pain of their newfound slavery as final imposter (Mt.27:64), who went preaching again from east to west.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-08-2010, 03:18 PM	#34
OLDMAN Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: look behind you... Posts: 2,107	I think the answer is as simple as an Elvis sighting in a grocery store.

08-09-2010, 01:14 AM	#35
vipertaja Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 233	Maybe he was running from the law so he shaved off his hair, beard and eyebrows. (although the earliest art portrays him without a beard anyway, doesn't it?)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.