Iasion

Greetings all,

I have just completed a table giving a visual summary of the 1st centuries of Christian documents, showing references to Jesus Christ and the Gospels :

<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html</a>


I hope this will be a useful tool to get a broad over-view of the many and various sources.

This is my first draft, suggestions and comments are welcome.

Quentin David Jones

Haran

Quentin,

Nice list.

I would still like to know, however, why you think Minucius even mentions that he sees "the sign of a cross" in natural things and that when "a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched" he sees a natural cross. Why would he say that "the sign of the cross is either sustained by natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it" if he "denies", as you say, "the crucifixion"?

If he denies Jesus' crucifixion, then where exactly does this "cross" come from and what does it mean to him?

I think your statements about Minucius' work are too strong and, in fact, misleading. I simply find many of your conclusions (on your website, in general) untenable and believe that many scholars would as well (please remember Earl Doherty is no more of a scholar than I am, unless he has obtained a degree in this field as of late). Oh well, whatever your opinions may be, I'll stop hounding you now. Thanks for hearing me out.

Haran

aikido7

Focusing on the canonical writings is helpful, but there are many sources attesting to the experience of the meaning of Jesus in manuscripts left out of the "official" compendium--either deliberately or inadvertantly.

These missing but necessary sources are an eye-opening view to the rich diversity in early
Christian groups. They enrich the traditional "four-fold" picture of Jesus depicted in the New Testament.

madmax2976

Is this list supposed to serve as the basis for some claim?

Iasion

Greetings all,

Thanks for your comments


Harran -
Thanks for your compliment, and I do not at all think you are 'hounding me' in fact I genuinely appreciate your comments and even your polite criticisms - one of the reasons I came here was to subject my views to the crucible of robust debate, and to get feedback which will help me to improve my understanding of these complex issues.

As to Minucius Felix - I will be posting again shortly on this whole subject of the 'cross' and 'Christ crucified' especially in Paul.

In short I think the early references are NOTHING to do with a literal crucifixion at all, but refer to an esoteric concept - e.g. consider Paul's :

I think such statements (and there are many similar) simply DO NOT admit of the standard explanation of a literal crucifixion, of a real person, in the past.

On the contrary, I think such statements clearly refer to the original Gnostic origins of Christianity - that Christ is a spiritual principle or being or higher self found in every human being, and that this higher being/self is crucified in our physical incarnation (Philo's citation of Heraclitus is a big clue here).

But later, when materialistic Christianity won the day, these Gnostic statements were re-interpreted in physical ways. Also, I have to agree with the great Bauer who noted that early Christianity was a mixed bunch of wildly differing views - there was no orthodoxy and no heresy in the early days, this is merely the later polemic of the winners.


Aikido -
Thanks for your comments on the Apocrypha - and I fully agree with you - I plan to do a similar analysis of the Apocryphal works. I think they do indeed help to complete the picture of the early days, you'll note I include them in my main Gospel page, but have not yet dated or analysed them fully.


Madmax -
(great movie - are you an Aussie too? )
Indeed yes, this page supports my main premise - that the Gospel were late productions and only appeared in mid-late 2nd century - if you follow the link at the bottom of the page, you will find my other pages with chronologies and other relevant info.


Its Easter soon - note how its the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the Equinox - clear signs of Christianity's pagan origins.


Quentin David Jones

Alexis Comnenus

"Its Easter soon - note how its the first Sunday after the first Full Moon after the Equinox - clear signs of Christianity's pagan origins."

Actually, Jewish origins, I think. Passover is at the first full moon after the spring equinox and because Easter must be on a Sunday as that's the day the resurrection supposedly was, it is the next Sunday.

No need to look for esoteric explanations when the simple ones will do fine. I think the same goes for your reinterpreting early texts. Seems most likely that there was a real cross and crucfixion which then became sympolic rather than the other way around. This is the easiest way to answer the question "why a cross" and "how did the idea get started".

In history we have a law of parsimony too and the extra entities you need for a wholly mythical Jesus are too many for the evidence to bear.

Regards

Alex

CX

Were you going to present the arguments for that premise here? It might be an interesting discussion. Of course I think you're cracked (no offense it's just my colorful way of speaking), but I would be fascinated to see the argument.

Iasion

Greetings all,

Thanks for your comments

Alexis -
Indeed, there is a clear Jewish connection, I meant to point out the astrological rather than historical basis of Easter.

I don't think that is what the evidence shows at all - if you read Paul WITHOUT pre-conceptions about a historical crucifixion, its seems crystal clear to me he is talking about an esoteric meaning - consider these statements :

Theses statements cannot be taken literally, he is talking about spiritual conceptions.

Notably, the writings which show MOST commonality of thought with Paul are the Gnostic Nag Hammadi documents (and Philo and other esotericists too), and Paul is the Arch-Gnostic to these Gnsotic writers, he is the dominant figure in the Gnostics writings.

I don't think I am re-interpreting the texts at all - I am reading them in context - it was the literalists, the materialists who wrongly re-interpreted Paul - and we have had to struggle with this mis-reading ever since.


CX -
yes, I will be presenting my arguments here in due course - meanwhile you may like to peruse my web-site, the home pages is:

<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/" target="_blank">http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/</a>

Quentin David Jones

CX

It seems to me that you are engaging in pure eisegesis. You are reading exactly what you want to into the Pauline texts to support what you have already concluded is true. It is extremely popular in certain circles to point to Paul's focus on a spiritual Christ and from that conclude he does not know of a human Jesus. I think this is rubbish. Certainly Paul focuses on the spiritual Christ because he has no connection to the earthly Jesus. That is one of the greatest apparent objections to his apostleship. Even so I doesn't seem he denies an earthly Jesus. Aside from the myriad references to Jesus death which good I suppose be argued to be a "spiritual death" we have text like:

1 Cor 2:8 "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

or better yet:

Romans 9:5 "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ"

How should one interpret these passages if not referring to an earthly Jesus?

Alexis Comnenus

Quentin,

CX seems to be taking you to task but the methodological question is worth asking: is it valid to read Paul without preconceptions (or 'context' as it could be called) or must we always read documents with the background to them in mind. This has been a central argument between deconstructionists who insist on your method and almost everyone else, who do not.

As a secular history student, I'd say the evidence that Jesus was crucified is an open and shut case. Of course he was. The alternative is a massive great conspiracy effected by a tiny unoffical sect. Even if Paul can be read both ways (as CX does not seem to think) it causes less strain to the whole matrix of sources to read him knowing a historical Jesus than not. There are always anomalies in history but they cannot be allowed steer the ship. If Minucius did deny the crucifixion he would just be wrong. Big deal - happens all the time.

Regards

Alex