Iasion

Greetings Metacrock,

Thank you for that apology - in fact I do find your tone abrasive, even rude. Perhaps you genuinely don't realise how offensive some of your comments are - you basically called me a liar just because I disagreed with you! Please - lets keep it on the level, shall we?

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings again,

Thats just it.
I think they are almost the same position, and represent belief in a NON-PHYSICAL Jesus.

I say "spiritual Jesus" to cover the Jesus found in writings such as Cerinthus, Valentinus, 1 John, and Paul of course - a divine entity from the higher planes who has only an indirect influence on the world of matter.

I use the term "phantom Jesus" to mean the specifically doketic view - a divine entity from the higher planes who descended to have a direct influence on the world of matter.

Both of these views are essentially of a NON-PHYSICAL Jesus - and the vast majority of early Christians writings show such a non-physical, spiritual, Jesus in one way or another.
Mentions of the physical places and actual names and specific Gospel events are ONLY found a CENTURY after the alleged events.


In the writings of Paul - but remember the gentile "Christos" is not exactly the same as the Jewish "Mashiach".
For early comparison we have Philo's Logos doctrine, then later we see the Gnostic Marcion criticised for introducing a new or 2nd God - Paul shows certain elements of Gnosticism, and the Gnostics revered Paul as their founder.


Well, middle-platonism may be more accurate - but its the themes that matter, not our later label.

Consider Cicero's "Dream of Scipio" and its layered universe from the 1st C. BC.

Consider Plutarch's "Vision of Aradeus" and its layered universe and multi-body doctrine from late 1stC. CE

Not to mention contemporary Jewish writings which have a multi-layered model - Apocalypes of Zephaniah, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch.

Most notable is the Vision of Isaiah, probably written early 2nd century, about the time the Gospels arose - this document has Jesus as a divine entity, descending the planes of existence to be crucified on the material plane, then ascending the planes again (the final stage on Earth may be a later addition, this document itself is known to be layered).

This document clearly has the "ruler of this world" as belonging to a realm just "above" the earth, and also has a highly variant birth narrative (2 month pregnancy e.g.).

This is good example of Earl's thesis - Jesus as a spiritual entity who descended the planes to Earth or just above it.

So, these themes that Earl and I cite - multi-layered universe, Jesus as a spiritual entity who descended the planes to bring salvation (and related themes such as humans rising up the planes for revelation, multi-body doctrine of humans) can be found before, and contemporary with, the rise of Christianity.


No we don't.
You couldn't possibly believe the wild theories of Carsten Theide about P64?

As for P52 - its is usually dated 100-150, although some say late 2nd century, and some even argue for a much later date - indeed it was originally dated centuries later, opinions having changed much over the years. Furthermore its a tiny fragment, with only 1 instance of 2 whole words in a row - hardly proof for a whole Gospel, as it could be from an early proto-Gospel or free-floating episode.


Wrong.
Celsus attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myth - his critique was SO damaging, the Church ordered his work destroyed.
Porphyry criticised the evangelists as "inventors" - his critique was SO damaging, the Church ordered his work destroyed.
Julian charged Christ as "spurious" and "invented" - his critique was SO damaging, the Church pilloried him as the "apostate", a derogatory term still used 17 centuries later.


You have confused M.Felix with Trypho.
I refer you back to my comments about M.Felix who specifically denies Christians believe in the incarnation or the crucifixion. Check Peter's site for M.Felix text.


Wrong.
The distinction between Jesus and Christ is merely later Christian belief being readc back into the text - there is NOT the slightest hint in Trypho to support your view. You merely present later Christian views without adducing any support in the text.
He does say INVENT a Christ
He does NOT say TURN a man into a Christ.
He does NOT refer to a historical Jesus.
He does NOT anywhere make the distinction between Jesus and Christ.
Your view is not supported anywhere by the text.


In other words - all non-Christians' views should be dismissed.
Especially a Jewish critic from the very period the Gospels arose who argues Christ never existed.


Rubbish.
The Christian writer Athenagoras wrote "On The Resurrection of the Dead" - without ONCE even mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, or even using the words "Jesus" or "Christ" ONCE!
How do you explain that, Metacrock?
Athenagoras also wrote "In Defense of the Christians" without even using the words "Jesus" or "Christ" ONCE!
How do you explain that, Metacrock?

Minucius Felix goes further, I'll quote him again as you seem to have mixed him up with Trypho -
"he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth",
and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"

to Diognetus is similar - he responds to "close and careful inquiries" and preaches a Christianity in neo-platonic tones without ONCE even using the word "Jesus" !

Theophilus also - not a single mention of Jesus or Christ in a document explaining Christianity.

All of which goes to show that even as late as mid-late 2nd century, some Christians did not consider Jesus Christ to be part of Christian belief. Which could only be if there never WAS a Jesus.


P52 is dated usually to 100-150, and later by some, and is a mere scrap which MAY be from G.John.
May I point out 120 IS 2nd century?


Habeus Corpus.


I don't agree - I challenged you to produce evidence from actual SOURCES, but you haven't. I don't believe everything Koester says.


Iasion

Metacrock

Meta=>you seemed to imply that that distinction somewhow made a difference in the argument, but there is really no distinction there. That notion of fleshing out a mth with concrete places and so on is absurd. Mythology just doesnt' work that way. No anthropoloigst or mythogropher has ever propossed such a scheme. Why would they do that? Where did they get the physical details to put in? Who invented Jesus of Nazerath exactly and why?



In the writings of Paul - but remember the gentile "Christos" is not exactly the same as the Jewish "Mashiach".



Meta=>Yes it is! That's the word the Jews used for Messiah. That's a Hebrewism. It's adopted by Greek speaking Jews to speak of Messiah. you guys are reading into the history all kinds of bits and peices form different time preiod and concokting a mixture that didn't exist in history.




For early comparison we have Philo's Logos doctrine, then later we see the Gnostic Marcion criticised for introducing a new or 2nd God - Paul shows certain elements of Gnosticism, and the Gnostics revered Paul as their founder.


Meta=>The Gnostics trying to claim Paul doesn't prove anything. That doesn't prove that Paul would have calimed them as followers. Who else are they going to claim? Both sides tried to hitch themselves to the preinciples of the early period.





Well, middle-platonism may be more accurate - but its the themes that matter, not our later label.



Meta=>No it does matter. It's Neo platonism and it wasn't around in Jesus day!






Meta=>Noooooo, that's so irresponsible. That's the Jesus was an essene logic:

The Essenes lived in Palestine

Jesus lived in Palestine


Therefore, Jesus was an Essene.

You are just arguing form sign. here are two things that have some similarities so there must be a connection! But you can't stick mar Kabba mysiticism with having a non-flesh and blood Messiah.









Meta=>If Doherty's stuff is really drawn from what you just described, no academic scholar worth his degree will ever be taken in by it. That's about as flimsy as anything I've seen.Argument from sign, reading into the text the context you wish was there, and streaching connections to the nth degree, and argument form silence.




No we don't.
You couldn't possibly believe the wild theories of Carsten Theide about P64?



Meta=>what?




As for P52 - its is usually dated 100-150, although some say late 2nd century, and some even argue for a much later date - indeed it was originally dated centuries later, opinions having changed much over the years. Furthermore its a tiny fragment, with only 1 instance of 2 whole words in a row - hardly proof for a whole Gospel, as it could be from an early proto-Gospel or free-floating episode.



Meta=> Bull. That's not the same one. Try Egerton2 and the other one I'll have to look up.



Wrong.
Celsus attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myth - his critique was SO damaging, the Church ordered his work destroyed.




Meta=>No, you are contradicting yourself. you admitted that accepted Jesus as flesh and blood. And just becasue he said the Gospels were made up doens't mean he tried to deny the darkness at noon. He tried to exlpain it away.





Meta=>Bull! the guy said that there was no such thing as truth and that people dont' needs opinions. That has more to with why he was banned. And that doesnt' mean he was in any position to know anything about the origins of the gospels. you seem to take any ancinet world person who didn't like Christiantiy as an authority, but all the one's who did were either lying or made up!






Meta=>NO quote it! AFter the way you misapplied that other one I wont let you get away with those kinds of assertion. I want to see the text, see the documentation. You already took one out of context, and I have feeling you are donig it again.




Meta=> QUOTE IT ! I asked you to quote it and you quoed that 'you invent a christ' which is not a deniel of jesus. And you still haven't tolm me how M.Felix would have any authoritative knowledge.






Meta=>That's an almost delusional account of what happened. You quoted a text, it did not say what you said it did. There was most cerrtainy a distinction bewteen jesus and christ . (It is not the same thing at all to say "you invent a christ a for yourself" as saying "Jesus didn't exist." if that's the kind of argument your theory is based upon it is pure and utter crap! You will never have acceptance among real shcolars because this si the biggest tissue of fabricated bull shit I've ever seen. You take everything out of context, read in what you want to be there, dobmatically ignore all counter evidence.. don't make critical distinctions bewteen time periods, I could go on but who cares?







He does say INVENT a Christ
He does NOT say TURN a man into a Christ.
He does NOT refer to a historical Jesus.
He does NOT anywhere make the distinction between Jesus and Christ.
Your view is not supported anywhere by the text.


Meta=> Obviouly it is! It's a purely logical and very very apparent reading to say that "a christ" means you invent a Messiah. That's his title, it's not his name. don't you dare give me this bull shit lie about "they didnt' think that way then." He doesnt' have to mention the historical jesus, because it wasnt' an issue. We should not expect him to come back and say "O but the historical Jesus did exist." that wasnt' at issue. He doens't make the distinction apparent because no one would make the mistake.

Now I didn't say that he says "turn a man into christ" but he doesn't have to. That is what he is saying in a manner of speaking. But he says "invent a christ." If I was saying you made up a guy named Beattle Baily would i have to say "You invent for youself a Beattle Baily?" Wouldn't I just say "you invented Beattle Baily?"




In other words - all non-Christians' views should be dismissed.
Especially a Jewish critic from the very period the Gospels arose who argues Christ never existed.


Meta=>What Jewish critic would that be? trypho? He wasn't Jesus era. You guys really never distinguish between time periods. You act like there was one time before now, the ancient world. But Trypho does not deny Jesus' existence. I can tell you that for sure. He does not and no one else does.

Quote the bleeding passage man!






Meta=>So you haven't really read Athenagoras' Plea have you?

he was also in the middle of the second century or latter. That's not the first century. Not connected to the early works.






Meta => If you really believe the stuff you are saying, you need the sylvan learning institute. You have serious problems with compreshension. That no where says that the man Jesus didn't exist. The reference to "if such a man ever been born" obviously means if the man they refur to was really God.It is in no way a deniel of the historical guy from Nazerath.


First of all, Felix was a heratic. He was not important, he doesn't represent any major tend in the chruch, and he probably lived int he third century. Some pleace him in second, but his jurisprudential way of writting indicates latter Alexandrain origin.

Now, secondly, you totally miss the context and the point of his writting. he's not trying to discuss theology, in fact he doesn't discuss it all. he's more concerned with demonstrating pelasant discussion with pagans and showing them that Christians have good manners. that was important to people in that place and time. that seem trival to us today but it was important to them. and he is not a major theolgoain. He doesnt' discuss theology at all.

Now here's the context of the larger passage:





Christians are accussed of worhshiping corsses. he's denying that they worship them. He doesnt' say Jesus didn't exist. he says that they dont' worhip a cross or a criminal.He's not even saying the guy on the cross didn't exist. he's not saying that Christians don't have historical J of N as their center peice, he's a heratic and believed in the unity of god, he's a kind of Arian like christian, so he's denying the diety of christ, not the existence of histoircal Jesus.










Meta => He also was in the middle of the second century or latter. After Pete's famous 100 years rule. But I've read that, I've read all these guys. You are fabricating an undestanding that is just abismal. I'm going to have to look them up again, but you are making major mistakes on this.

Theophilus also - not a single mention of Jesus or Christ in a document explaining Christianity.

All of which goes to show that even as late as mid-late 2nd century, some Christians did not consider Jesus Christ to be part of Christian belief. Which could only be if there never WAS a Jesus.


Meta => doesnt' mean anything of the kind. At best it is an argument from silence. these sources were consdired orothdox, and their thoughts are seen to be full of Gospel allusions. See that Fairweather source i sopke of. if they had the Gospels they knew Jesus was an historical figure.




I don't agree - I challenged you to produce evidence from actual SOURCES, but you haven't. I don't believe everything Koester says.


Meta => That's ridiculous! You haven't even begun to answer the Koster stuff I put through. but that phlip dismissal of a major scholar doesn't surprize me. you only regard scholars as worhty of attention when they agree with you. You guys are totally unscholarly.

Metacrock

You curtly dismissed Koster without even considering any analysis of his position. He's proven his thesis, and he is not the only one to support it.

You have to accept textual methods if you accept Q,if you accept redaction, or if you accept the GT. Those same methods tell us that the Passion narrative complete with empty tomb was in written circulation by AD 50. And Crosson also agrees.


You also drop all the stuff of other historians. The arguments from Josephus. That's enough ample evidence to maintain the presumption of the status quo on assuming historicity of Jesus.

You have showen no reason at all to doubt that. And you certainly have a long way to go to dela with the Koseter stuff.

Crisor

I'm will admit that I am ingnorant when it comes to the HJ (and new to this forum altogether), but, after reading most of the posts on this subject, I was wondering if this might be a possibity: Is it possible that Paul truly thought that Jesus was a real man when he wrote about him? Why would he have any reason to believe otherwise? If Paul got his sources elsewhere, i.e. from someone who also thought Jesus lived, then any writings he would do would reflect that (which they do). Could this not also explain why he does not explain the whole story and give only parts of it?

I think my question is how do we know what Paul (or anybody else who wrote about a HJ) really knew, how much they knew, and who there sources actually were?

Toto

Crisor:

Paul, according to his letters, got all the information he needed about Jesus from divine revelation. But proponents of the historical Jesus think that Paul learned about the earthly Jesus when he visited with Peter and James in Jerusalem. We don't have any indication of what Peter or James told Paul, and Doherty uses the incident as one of the points of silence where you would have expected Paul to say something (about visiting the place where Jesus was crucified or preached, or listening to Peter's stories, or whatever.)

If, as some believe, Jesus was based on a person who had lived 100 years before, the scant references in Paul's letters that can be interpeted as referring to a HJ might be consistant with Paul having some hearsay knowledge of a person who lived a long time ago.

Iasion

Greetings Metacrock,

Well,

You claimed he could trace the "empty tomb" back to 50AD.

I showed you were wrong.

You provided NO evidence what-so-ever, merely responded with waffle about 1 John.

You were WRONG, there is NO mention of the empty tomb until early-mid 2nd century.


I pointed out Athenagoras has no mention of "Jesus" or "Christ" even in his work "On the Resurrection"

You were wrong.

Yet you responded with personal insult.

Yet again, you were WRONG, but cannot admit it, instead flinging insults in an attempt to muddy the water.


Furthermore, we all see your posts :
* are full of spelling and grammatical errors, suggesting you don't bother to check your work (you can't even get Koester's name right)
* show repeated reading comprehension faliure,
* show lack of knowledge of the background material,
* have false statements u supported by evidence,
* regularly descend to swearing and name calling,
* often include personal insults.


In short, your posts do not show the minimum requirements for polite and rational discourse.

I will not waste any more time on them.

Iasion

Dark Jedi

It's getting heated in here.

Good debate, by all means keep it up. Let's just be careful to keep it dispassionate. It's only discussion...

Peter Kirby

Actually, Crossan hypothesizes that the "Cross Gospel" behind the canonicals and the Gospel of Peter ended not with an empty tomb, which is Markan, but with a resurrection appearance.

Crossan contributed the section on chapter 16 of Mark in The Passion in Mark, edited by Verner H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976). In this essay, Crossan argued that the empty tomb story finds no corroboration before Mark, that the empty tomb story is only found after Mark where other authors have copied it over, and that the empty tomb story in Mark is congruent with Mark's narrative aims. On this basis, Crossan regards the empty tomb story as the creation of the evangelist Mark.

It is in the 1976 essay that Crossan laid down his dictum, which was repeated in his 1991 book The Historical Jesus: "With regard to the body of Jesus, by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care. Why should even the soldiers themselves remember the death and disposal of a nobody?" (p. 394)

In 1994, Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography was published. On p. 154, Crossan states: "What actually and historically happened to the body of Jesus can best be judged by watching how later Christian accounts slowly but steadily increased the reverantial dignity of their burial acconts. But what was at the beginning that necessitated such an intensive volume of apologetic insistence? If the Romans did not observe the Deuteronomic decree, Jesus' dead body would have been left on the cross for the wild beasts. If the Romans did observe the decree, the soldiers would have made certain Jesus was dead and then buried him themselves as part of their job. In either case, his body left on the cross or in a whallow grave barely covered with dirt and stones, the dogs were waiting. And his followers, who had fled, would know that, too. Watch, then, how the horror of that brutal truth is sublimated through hope and imagination into its opposite." Crossan proceeds to trace a development from the hypothetical Cross Gospel with a burial by Jesus' enemies, through Mark with a person who is both in power (with the enemies) and a friend ("waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God"), through Matthew and Luke who try to make better sense of Mark's Joseph of Arimathea, and finally to John in which Jesus is given a full regal burial.

In 1998, Crossan's The Birth of Christianity came out. Crossan states (p. 552): "Mark created both the women's discovery of the empty tomb and the burial story needed in preparation for it." After some detailed elaboration, Crossan concludes (p. 555): "Mark's story presented the tradition with double dilemmas. First, if Joseph was in the council, he was against Jesus; if he was for Jesus, he was not in the council. Second, if Joseph buried Jesus from piety or duty, he would have done the same for the two other crucified criminals; yet if he did that, there could be no empty-tomb sequence. None of these points is unanswerable, but together they persuade me that Mark created that burial by Joseph of Arimathea in 15:32-47. It contains no pre-Markan tradition."

So it seems safe to say that, at no point in Crossan's academic career has he held to the hypothesis that Jesus was buried in a tomb that was found empty three days later, or that this story predates Mark. Instead, Crossan consistently argues that the tomb burial by Joseph of Arimathea is a fiction, although Crossan gives somewhat different arguments in each of his books.

I have not posted this to defend Crossan's arguments against the tomb burial of Jesus but rather to show that it is baseless to claim that Crossan believes that the empty tomb is contained in a pre-Markan passion narrative.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Just a note: the Greek language does not have an indefinite article (that is, there is no "a" or "an"). I don't have the Greek text before me (I salivate at the thought of possessing the TLG cd-rom with tons of Greek texts), but it is obviously problematic to place stress on the particular wording of an English translation.

best,
Peter Kirby