Elijah

This statement doesn’t make sense. First you say you don’t expect evidence then act amazed that someone would claim a historical core without any? If you don’t expect evidence why be surprised that others don’t expect any and still think a historical core is the most likely. Why are you surprised everyone doesn’t come up with their own conspiracy theory on how the Jesus phenomenon started?
What evidence is this? How it is presented now? Do you really think that makes any case for its origin at all? You haven’t even presented your understanding of the mythical origin much less provided a drop of evidence to support it. Not a single thing have you presented to support a mythical origin. You have only complained about a lack of evidence that apparently neither of us should expect.
The evidence would be the narrative. If you want to go you don’t think it is true then provide your reasoning other then you don’t want to believe that part because it screws your theory up.
What attention are talking about? Surely you have more than just Josephus that was tampered with and has a mention of Jesus to support your claim?
Boy that proved it. No urge to go into your take on when exactly the texts are created.
The ideology would indicate if were speaking of historical claims and not of mythological sources. Like the question how do you understand salvation through a mythical source that you never answered. We don’t know what Jesus’ personal issue he was pushing was.
That’s the same thing I do with a little bit different results. Now how do you use his method to get to your mythical origin? You suppose a historical origin if you can’t explain how the occurrence came about through a myth being confused for history much less find any evidence or mention of this actually happening.
I have a hard time believing you read those links before you posted them and have a harder time believing you are still trying to use them to argue for a mythical core.

From your link in addition to the other obvious quote posted:

“The historical event of the cross acquires cosmic dimensions. And by speaking of the Cross as a cosmic happening its significance as a historical happening is made clear in accordance with the remarkable way of thinking in which historical events and connections are presented in cosmic terms, and so its full significance is brought into sharper relief.”

“In its redemptive aspect the cross of Christ is no mere mythical event, but a historic (geschichtlich) fact originating in the historical (historisch) event which is the crucifixion of Jesus.”

“In the last resort mythological language is only a medium for conveying the significance of the historical (historisch) event.”

“For us the cross cannot disclose its own meaning: it is an event of the past.”
No it’s the line of martyrs. Jesus convinces the early followers. Stephen imitates Jesus and convinces Paul. Paul and some of the other apostles are martyred in Rome and convince the onlookers there. It’s the spread of conviction from the imitation of one man’s sacrifice.
Your interpretation is the more modern one I would think of the supernatural evil entity guy. I don’t know where you are getting the devil from right now.

aa5874

It is absurd to suppose that something happened without evidence.

Myths do not occur, people make up stuff about myths.

And then people believe the myths really exist, just like you.

You believe the myth called Jesus existed as human.

Can you explain how you confused the myth for history when you have no historical evidence?

You must tell us how you confused the myth for history, now.

Analyst

Huh? I don't understand this.

fatpie42

I thought this was pretty obvious. I don't expect evidence because I don't expect a historical core. Why expect a historical core without any historical evidence?

You could always try reading what I wrote.

I don't claim that I have evidence of a mythical origin. I claim to have evidence for a mythical Jesus i.e. as Bultmann claims, the Jesus within the NT is mythological. This is uncontroversial because it has nothing to do with 'origins'.

I admit the possibility of a historical origin to Jesus, but don't think it very likely without historical evidence to support it, of which there is currently none.

Does that make sense now?

I don't think you can use a mythological narrative as evidence for historical events.

Look, it's quite simple. Why does Josephus think John the Baptist was more important than Jesus if Jesus was the one with the huge following?

Here we come to the problem that Bultmann is talking about us, not 1st Century Christians. We have a mythological text which nevertheless demands to be treated as history, so how can a Christian do so without engaging with a mythological world view which makes no sense to their modern understanding? In the end, Bultmann decides, modern Christians need a historical core around which to understand salvation. The problem is that this is more of an arbitrary decision in order to appease Christians than a sensible choice for historians.

How do you deal with the fact that, for the people writing the gospel is was not an event of the distant past, but an event of recent history? We have clear examples of history being made up (e.g. Quirinius' census expecting people to travel), so how are we meant to reconcile this with the idea that the writers were describing historical information? It seems more likely that the writers are trying to fit mythical stories into a historical narrative.

Sorry I didn't quite get that. The grammar feels odd.

A quick overview of Satan. The first reference to Satan is when Balaam is riding his donkey and the angel of Yahweh blocks his path acting as a 'Satan' towards him. Satan means adversary. Satan is also found in the book of Job and is described as walking all over the Earth. He serves God by testing mankind, so this is the early understanding of Satan/devil.

In the NT Satan is sometimes used or in other cases an ancient greek term for devil is used. Either way, the figure described is not pure evil within the NT. The interpretation of Satan/devil as a kind of 'prince of darkness' is not described until we come to the texts of early Christians like Justyn the Martyr.

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure if that is correct. The figure of Satan in the NT seems to be one of evil. Paul calls him the "god of this world", which gives him reign over the corruptible sphere. Other passages in the NT show him working against God and Christ as an active agent of deception:

2Cr 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
2Cr 11:14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
2Cr 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
...
2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

I suspect "lawless one" here is the anti-Christ, possibly one of the Roman emperors.

fatpie42

Well, certainly there is more chance of Satan beginning to posess the 'pure evil' characteristics the later the accounts get. This account was most likely not written by Paul, but was rather written later under the pseudonym.

However, it still isn't obvious from what you've quoted that, even at this late stage, they have already adopted the idea of Satan as working against God. In either interpretation of Satan, he is still acting as an adversary towards man, even if he is not an adversary of God. In other words, in both versions of the devil, he is still a tempter.

That the political figure viewed as being opposed to Christ is given the title of 'lawless one' and not 'Satan' further goes to show that Elijah's assertion that Satan would apply to political figures is mistaken.

GakuseiDon

Ah. You did say "Satan in the NT" a few times. The Gospel versions of Satan do seem to be like the modern ones. But perhaps you meant just Paul?

Even in Paul, Satan appears to represent evil:

Rom 16:19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all [men]. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

Elsewhere, Paul associates the devil with the serpent whom tempted Eve. I've never read Paul as suggesting anything other than the modern "prince of evil" Satan.

In your view, how did Paul see Satan?

While I disagree, it's an interesting idea and not one I'd thought about. (That's one of the reasons I like coming here). When would you date: (1) Mark, (2) the latest book in the NT, and (3) Justin Martyr? I can't help but see some overlapping in dates there.

I can't say I understand Elijah's last point, but he is right that Satan could be applied to political figures, basically anyone who sets themselves up as a god, especially Roman Emperors. In the Ascension of Isaiah, the devil Belair comes down as Nero to persecute Christians:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ascension.html

Beliar the great ruler, the king of this world, will descend, who hath ruled it since it came into being; yea, he will descent from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king, the slayer of his mother: who himself (even) this king.
3. Will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.
4. This ruler in the form of that king will come and there will come and there will come with him all the powers of this world, and they will hearken unto him in all that he desires.
5. And at his word the sun will rise at night and he will make the moon to appear at the sixth hour.

I suspect AoI may be too late for your purposes, though.

Elijah

You expect evidence. That is the WHOLE basis of your theory. You don’t assume the existence of Jesus but you damn sure expect evidence of his existence.
If you admit there is possibility of a historical core I have no idea why you came in this conversation and tired to make an argument against it with an absent alternate theory. If you agree with the text you sent me then we are in agreement on the source of the Jesus phenomenon.

What makes it unlikely? Just the lack of evidence or something more?
You work with what you got. If we had videotape from back then I would check it out.
So no other examples of texts? Maybe he thought John was a more significant figure then and Jesus wasn’t the messiah as is thought, but if you want to show that John had more of an impact then Jesus some more ancient sources are definitely needed.

I have no understanding what your mythological world view is since you don’t’ like explaining how you are using words. I don’t know how you are determining Bultmann’s motives for coming to the conclusion there was a historical core or how you modified his technique to get a mythical origin.
I don’t know why you assume it is more likely they were using a historical setting to describe symbolic/mythical concepts instead of use symbol/mythical language to describe the spiritual aspects of what is happening in the historical setting/event; as being described in the links you sent.

“The historical event of the cross acquires cosmic dimensions. And by speaking of the Cross as a cosmic happening its significance as a historical happening is made clear in accordance with the remarkable way of thinking in which historical events and connections are presented in cosmic terms, and so its full significance is brought into sharper relief.”
I’m talking about in your interpretation of John 12:31: “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

How is the ruler of the world clearly the devil?

fatpie42

I think it is important to remember that Paul also claims that Jesus overcame the law. The law is not in opposition to God, but yet Jesus is still believed to have been victorious over it. The same goes for Satan. Just because he is in league with God does not mean that he is not defeated by Jesus.

Once again, I think it is a mistake to interpret this Satan as 'evil'.
[/QUOTE]

Are you sure? Can you find the reference?

I would have thought it fairly uncontroversial that the gospel of Mark came before Justin Martyr. Nevertheless, you may well be right that there are NT texts which would overlap with Justin Martyr. I can't claim to be an expert.

My knowledge on this subject comes from the following book:
http://www.cambridge.org/features/re...n/overview.htm

However, I understand that this is meant to be a better book on the subject (though they come to pretty similar conclusions):
The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Interesting. Would I be right in asserting that this was a gnostic text?

andrewcriddle

Probably Jewish-Christian rather than Gnostic in the strict sense.

Andrew Criddle