Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by hakeem » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:40 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:31 am
hakeem wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:28 pm
If Jesus lived and died then belief in a spiritual resurrection could not have made his dead body disappear.
The issue is to avoid confusing modern notions of "spiritual" with ancient notions. There is a difference between sarx (flesh), soma (body), pneuma (spirit, breath, wind) overlapping somewhat with psyche (soul, spirit). Generally, "physical" human bodies were made of flesh (a combination of earth, water, fire, air), while "spiritual" daemon bodies were made of fire and air. Aether was also in the mix for creatures living above the firmament.
hakeem wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:28 pm
If people saw the dead body of Jesus in a tomb it would remain there until it rotted or was physical removed.
Or the body of flesh is transformed into something else, as Ben noted.
You don't make sense. It is just utter nonsense that differences in modern and ancient notions of "spiritual" could result in the disappearance of a dead body in a tomb.

. If Jesus was a physical human being who was killed and people in antiquity saw his dead body then it could not have vanished merely because it was believed that he was made of fire and air.

The NT contains many claims about people who were raised from the dead and in all those stories the dead simply came back to life.

See Luke 8 where it is claimed Jairus' daughter was raised from the dead. Her dead body did not disappear.
See John 11 where it is claimed Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. The dead body of Lazarus did not vanish into thin air.

In fact, in the NT, it is claimed that people would re-appear after they were dead for years when they raised from the dead.

Moses and Elijah came back to life in the gMark Jesus story and appeared before Jesus, Peter, John and James.

Mark 9:4
And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
The character called Jesus in the NT was supposedly seen alive after he was dead for three days and to show that their Jesus physically resurrected they claimed he ate food in the presence of his disciples.

The claim that the dead body of NT Jesus disappeared because he was spiritually resurrected is just a modern propaganda.

Ulan
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Ulan » Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:45 am

Reviving the dead is not the same as the idea of resurrection. The resurrection body, made from spirit matter, as described by Paul, replaces the physical body in resurrection. The daughter of Jairus just lived on and died normally, while the resurrection body does not age. Paul's resurrected Jesus was a spirit.

Nobody asks you to believe these things. It's just what the text says.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10066
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:20 am

I think when people try and ask - why were the orthodox so adamant that the initiate will inhabit THE SAME body at the resurrection we have to consider what it is they were responding to (i.e. the earlier heretical opinion). Of course we don't know exactly what the heretical position was so that creates some degree of difficulty - i.e. we can't be certain about our conclusions. Nevertheless the sheer strangeness of the orthodox position helps us. My mother in law who is a nominal Roman Catholic and quite a beautiful woman especially in her youth used to ask me 'what body am I supposed to have? Will it be me as a young woman' of course appealing to her vanity. But the ambiguity of what 'me' it is, is worth considering.

When are we 'me' exactly? The short answer is that somewhere lurking in this Christian understanding is 'the ideal Me.' That's who resurrects.

But has the 'ideal Me' ever existed prior to being initiated into Christianity? Of course the complicating factor here is that my mother-in-law was baptized at birth into the Christian faith. What Paul is dealing with is new initiates who become 'useful' or perfected at baptism. This is the flesh or body that is resurrected. But clearly by Paul's own terminology that man, that person, that flesh has died, been buried and resurrected too. In other words the way I take these words are that whatever took place in the Christian initiation it made the Christian initiate 'like the angels' and thus a candidate for heavenly translation because he (even the shes were hes now) already heavenly.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10066
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:57 am

And FWIW this accounts for the orthodox attack against the heretical understanding of the resurrection. As we all know there seems to be an idea in early Christianity that upon baptism a new name was received by the initiate. This IMHO accompanied the change of identity that took place with the completion of the ritual initiation. By telling the uninitiated that they would still have the same body what the orthodox were saying was that their identity and their flesh didn't change. Why was the change of identity so important for the heresies? Because they were also free from the law and the Roman authorities (who put pressure on the orthodox) were uncomfortable about the idea of law breaking or claims of not being subjected to the law. I think this is what is the underlying war going on. Christianity appealed its message to 'bad people' (cf Celsus). They said that if you underwent Christian initiation not only would you experience a physical change but also a change of identity and freedom from the law because you weren't the same person. The orthodox said, no physical change (same flesh), no change of identity (same body resurrected), still subject to the law. Do you understand how this played out now and why this was such a big deal? It's all about the Roman authorities having power over their subjects.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Ulan
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Ulan » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:33 am

Oh, I understand that. Strictly read, gLuke gives us a resurrection scenario that is very close to what you just said. The death and resurrection already happens during baptism, and the baptized Christian already got his final reward. The Christian texts are full of wonderful little nuggets, despite the editing.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10066
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:49 am

But I think the orthodox reaction against this comes from the POV of the Imperial authorities. The implications of the early Christian rites were that I became an entirely different person. If I am an entirely different person my crimes disappear and I am not subject to the crimes I committed while this 'other' person. Also I am not subject to the bonds (especially for women in marriage) that I made when I married or when I was born into a subordinate social position when I became the daughter of a particular man. The orthodox effort to say 'you stay you' in effect limits the redemption (apolutrosis) of baptism. That's why this apolutrosis is at the heart of the dispute with the Marcosians. Notice the underlying dynamic of baptism freeing the initiate against the (cosmic) authorities. Notice the bits about the authorities not being able to prevent his liberation from his material body. All this was taken (by the Imperial authorities) to be allegorical as Celsus notes about 'can't have two lords). The orthodox position is so obtuse regarding 'the body' being 'the same' at the resurrection because they were being put up to it by the Imperial authorities. That's how they got their authority. The Romans didn't like the apparent 'disintegration' of social mores. Notice the attack of Celsus - Christians have to get married, serve in the army, eat meat, worship the gods etc. The same thing with sexual transformation - i.e. women becoming men and men losing their maleness. The Imperial authorities didn't like the radical apolutrosis at the heart of early Christianity. It has many striking similarities to the cultural 'progressive' values of today - i.e. the rejection of tradition marriage, sexual mores, sex identity, racial identity etc. My point is that 'you stay you' of orthodox teaching on the resurrection is all about the here and now and the rejection of the heretical teachings on 'redemption' bodily as well as spiritual.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10066
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:54 am

Jesus being a god pretending to be a man is the paradigm of this. The Christian is a 'second Jesus' when he completes his initiation. Now an angel rather than a man or woman.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10066
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:06 am

That's the one thing that my very practical German father had on me. Most scholarship is too far up in the clouds. Even when the Church Fathers are talking in the most abstract philosophical terminology there is something very 'down to earth' going on.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1162
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by Charles Wilson » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:10 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:57 am
Do you understand how this played out now and why this was such a big deal? It's all about the Roman authorities having power over their subjects.
You are correct. The blade, however, cuts both ways.
The Imperial authorities didn't like the radical apolutrosis at the heart of early Christianity. It has many striking similarities to the cultural 'progressive' values of today - i.e. the rejection of tradition marriage, sexual mores, sex identity, racial identity etc. My point is that 'you stay you' of orthodox teaching on the resurrection is all about the here and now and the rejection of the heretical teachings on 'redemption' bodily as well as spiritual.
Correct again. However, the Jews have developed an enclosed, inward-looking Culture that saw the "Outworld" as horrific, morally perverse. Nero and Sporus, for example, evidently made a huge impression on both Roman and Jew alike and it wasn't a positive one at that. Caligula and Nero were especially hated for their Abominations.

Very nice observations, Stephan.
See also the current Thread by Frans Vermeiren: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4600

CW

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5758
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:26 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:20 am
...we have to consider what it is they were responding to (i.e. the earlier heretical opinion). Of course we don't know exactly what the heretical position was so that creates some degree of difficulty ... the sheer strangeness of the orthodox position helps us.
Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:06 am
... Most scholarship is too far up in the clouds. Even when the Church Fathers are talking in the most abstract philosophical terminology there is something very 'down to earth' going on.
There may not have been an earlier heretical position, or, if there was, it wasn't for very long. If the proposals/ theories/ hypotheses of Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt (and perhaps Jason BeDuhn and Joseph Tyson, and maybe even David Trobisch and perhaps others) are correct - that the Synoptic Gospels were developed in close proximity in time and space - Synoptic Gospel development (and 'collection' of Paul's letters) would have happened while the Church 'Fathers' were philosophising. That could and would explain why the key Church Fathers' philosophising appears abstract: b/c the stories were coalescing at the same time.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply