Juststeve

Stephen:

I agree "that in can be argued" that Clement of Alexandria regarded Jesus as purely divine, but I don't think it can be argued that Clement thought Jesus, whether divine or not, did not appear in history, in what appeared to be human form. In other words, if we are to take Clement of Alexandria as evidence it would be for an historical Jesus who although appearing to be human was actually divine. That does no advance the myther case.

Steve

Juststeve

Toto:

That one can imagine how a character might have been invented is not evidence that they were invented.

Steve

sotto voce

So the vast majority of humanity believes. The vast majority of humanity now celebrates the 'birthday' of one whom they believe at one time historical, but now to be timeless and eternal; which perhaps brings deity into a more controllable factor in their lives. But that majority would be wrong.

So how was the historical Jesus invented? Forsooth, it is on this wise.

Two learned Jewish scribes, old friends with not much in life to excite them, whose names have not been recorded (the reason will be seen clearly enough later), as was their wont, were chatting over lunch, one day. One of them (we'll call him Gideon) suggested: "Why don't we write a story, the 'true account' of the Messiah, as from a future historical viewpoint? We know almost everything about him, from prophecy, from Passover, and from Tabernacle and Temple worship, and more. It would be just a matter of filling in rather mundane details, with a bit of perfectly justifiable extrapolation. Could be fun, as well as useful."

"Yes, that would certainly give the ordinary folk an excellent idea of what to expect," returned Bezer. "But the thing is, Gid, they may take our 'account' as literal truth. You know what people are like."

"That's a shrewd thought, Bezzers, old chap. But if we preface our work with a clear indication that the following is not history, we should likely overcome that difficulty. And if we root our 'account' in real time and place, people will easily be able to check that these events never actually took place. I can't see any real difficulty, provided we take those precautions."

"Yes, very good, Gidders, I take your points." He munched thoughtfully on a tasty bit of broiled fish. "So let's do it. Tomorrow morning, eh? My place, or yours?"

And so the work took shape, quickly, in little more than a year, the two excited friends so absorbed in their work that they sometimes even skipped lunch! Then, with happy, satisfied hearts, they had copies carefully made, for circulation. But the notion that the public would take their 'account' as 'how things might well be' was greatly optimistic, because their cautionary preface became 'lost', and nobody bothered to check that events mentioned had correspondence with observation. 'How things might well be' became 'What had actually happened'. Nobody took the least notice of their protests.

Quite how their work became expressed in four 'gospels' is unknown, but this is just what occurred, and various people known as 'apostles' subsequently wrote letters to followers of a purely imaginary person. The power of myth is very great, at times, and is not to be underestimated. People believed what they wanted to believe. Then, if not now.

Toto

Well, of course.

But one historicist argument has always been that a character like Jesus just couldn't have been invented (because Christians were unsophisticated fisherman, or there wasn't enough time between the date of the gospels and the time of the alleged crucifixion.) Legion is arguing that in another thread that is active now.

sotto voce

Would sophisticated plutocrats have invented him?

aa5874

There is NO need to imagine anything. The authors TOLD us EXACTLY how their Jesus was invented.

Jesus was INVENTED primarily and fundamentally from Hebrew Scripture.

This is EXTREMELY important--there is NO, ZERO, NIL recovered Jesus story that has been dated to the first century, No author of the NT claimed they personally met Jesus, and the ACTIONS of Jesus are NOT those of a human being.

Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin so that the words of ISAIAH might be fulfilled. And all the rest is" history"--I mean Mythology.

The OT is BOLTED to the NT.

1. The Birth of Jesus---Isaiah 7.14

2. The Birth in Bethlehem--Micah 5.2

3. The Fleeing of Jesus to Egypt--Hosea 11.1

4. The Killing of the Innocent--Jeremiah 31.15

5. John the Baptist as the Fore-runner of Jesus--Isaiah 40.3

6. The words of the voice from heaven at Baptism--Isaiah 42.1

7.The Temptation with Satan--Exodus 34.28

8. The Words of Jesus to Satan--Deuteronomy 6. 13, 6.16 and 8.3.

9. The Words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount--Psa. 37.11, Isa. 55.1-2 &61.2, 2 Sam. 22.26. 2 Chron. 36.16, Exod. 20.13-14, Levit.19.12, Deut. 15.8.

10. The Talking in Parables--Psalms 78.2-3 and Isaiah 6

11. The Miraculous Healing of Jesus--Isaiah 53.4

12. The Donkey riding triumphal entry into Jerusalem--Zecariah 9.9

13. The Prediction of the desolation of Jerusalem and the Temple--Daniel 9.7

14. The Prediction of the Second coming--Daniel 7.13

15. The Price for the Betrayal--Zecariah 11.12-13

16. The words of Pilate at the trial--Psalms 26.6

17. Words of Jesus when crucified--Psalms 22.

Jesus was INVENTED Primarily from the Words of God according to the Prophets.

The Word was made Flesh. John 1.

outhouse

anyone who even states jesus was a "carpenter" looses credibility based on their failure to study what and how the word tekton is used.



he wasnt invented.



were talking about the temple incident and his death, that started his popularity.


with a possible 400,000 people in attendance in a corrupted temple, these possible witnesses upset with the corruption, surley would have remembered the man who stood up against them and died for it.

oral tradition would have survived for decades afterwards, the fact he was deified by a culture not his own, leaves a vague picture of actual events leaving mythers imaginations to run wild

Solo

Irenaeus seems to be looking at the primitive "oracular" beginnings of the church and unable to make a case for the historical root of the gospels. If Jesus was saying things on earth and they were remembered (as things the historical figure of Jesus said) why was it necessary for the apostles to attain "perfect knowledge" to preach the gospel ? Note that Irenaeus does not claim the gospel originates with Jesus (as is plainly asserted eg by Mark 1:15, and Mt 11:5, and explicitly linked to Isa 61:1 by Luke 4:18 in which Jesus relates to himself the verse of the scripture). He says :

A.H. 3.1.1 For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Now obviously there was no "perfect knowledge" required to recall what Jesus said to his apostles if Jesus was a man teaching things in an ordinary way that could be orally transmitted. My point is that Irenaeus is evidently innocent about the "historical sourcing" of the gospels. There seems to be a tradition at large during his time which asserted that Peter, like Paul, preached gospel supplied by the holy spirit, IOW not as a direct recall of actual events, but as oracular revelations. This tradition seems to be still around when the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions were composed. Peter in 2.1 relates the method of "recall" of the Lord oracles.

PCR 2.1: “I confess, brethren, that I wonder at the power of human nature, which I see to be fit and suited to every call upon it. This, however, it occurs to me to say of what I have found by experience, that when the middle of the night is passed, I awake of my own accord, and sleep does not come to me again. This happens to me for this reason, that I have formed the habit of recalling to memory the words of my Lord, which I heard from Himself; and for the longing I have towards them, I constrain my mind and my thoughts to be roused, that, awaking to them, and recalling and arranging them one by one, I may retain them in my memory. From this, therefore, whilst I desire to cherish the sayings of the Lord with all delight in my heart, the habit of waking has come upon me, even if there be nothing that I wish to think of. Thus, in some unaccountable way, when any custom is established, the old custom is changed, provided indeed you do not force it above measure, but as far as the measure of nature admits. For it is not possible to be altogether without sleep; otherwise night would not have been made for rest.”

Now, the real shocker comes in the next section where Clement offers this in response:

I believe, therefore, that you also have acquired the habit of wakefulness, as you state; and you have wished at a fitting time to explain this to us, that we also may not grudge to throw off and dispense with some portion of our sleep, that we may be able to take in the precepts of the living doctrine.

So, in response to the OP: the way you "invent Jesus" is this: Get yorself spiritually aroused to the point of losing sleep, and experiencing early morning awakenings to "profound revelations". (This is a very common experience among mystics and psychotics). Then sit down and write your gospel as a living doctrine, or if you are an American, dictate it to someone who knows how to write despite graduating from Stanford.

Best,
Jiri

Toto

Luckily, no one has stated that - the title of the book is a quote from Mark.

outhouse

you mean its a quote from a poor english translation from GMark


I wouldnt even title my book using that.