A partial analogy for my best mythicist scenario?

[Clive]

Why people may not understand this depends on one's church background! Most "normal" churches rarely mention Revelation, Ezekiel et al, but this is the core of proper pentecostals, not the Laodician spew out of mouth stuff!

Nothing like some good visions, holiness, heaven and hell and singing in the spirit for a Sunday morning! You poor souls in your boring churches don't know what you missed!

Better than Hollywood and its been going on a few thousand years!

[outhouse]

I propose it went like this.

Long term groaning, probably over hundreds of years for the new heaven and earth to be revealed. Judaism makes this a niche sport taken on by various oriental cults. Various political events seen as end times stuff, especially Rubicon et al, various earthquakes.

Someone formalises the idea of Godwithus, probably linked to mass hallucinations - 500 - and mystery plays - who has bewitched you.

Yahweh's annointed saviour slowly becomes Lord Jesus Christ - when were capital letters invented?

The greatest story ever told gets slowly improved - Jerusalem is a logical scene for this. Confusion about where and when this saving happened slowly accretes into the orthodox view - time of Pilate in Jerusalem at Passover.

Turtles all the way down!

Which in almost every aspect you presented, ignores what is known about a simple divorce between Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism that wanted to be looked at differently then the oppressed Jews by the Roman power that stood. Many Hellenist never fully embraced the old religion but found value in monotheism.

It amazes me how some people can take something so simple and try to complicate it where it makes no sense what so ever, because they want a different reality then what is in place.

[Ben C. Smith]

The scenario would be fully plausible if, by analogy, the belief was that the Messiah or the Antichrist were currently on earth but that their identity had gone unrevealed. Where the analogy breaks down is that the Antichrist had not yet performed his "activity" on earth yet. That is why his obscurity is fully credible. I've already mentioned that Jews could believe that the Messiah was on earth but obscure, with reference to the Dialogue with Trypho where the Jewish opponent allows it hypothetically.

In the early Christian writings, their Christ had performed his "activity," which involved (at least) being crucified, rising from the dead, and risen appearances.

This implies two things: (a) their Christ's identity was believed to be known, not unknown, and, (b) this activity was believed to have been performed already.

Taken as an a priori consideration, your implication a might well have some force; without having read any of the relevant texts, I might well make the same assessment in advance. But I have arrived at my line of thinking exegetically, based on the texts attesting to this messianic activity.

You seem to be thinking:

	Christ	Antichrist
Before the Activity	still in heaven (I presume)	on earth, biding his time, participating in philanthropy and politics
During & After the Activity	living, dying, rising coming back to take the throne	- taking the throne

My thinking is more like:

	Christ	Antichrist
Hidden Activity	descending living (?), dying ascending	- on earth, biding his time, participating in philanthropy and politics
Revealed Activity	coming back to take the throne	taking the throne

In this reconstruction, the entire first advent starts out as a recon mission of sorts, a setup for the real business of Christhood, which is ruling the world (an event every bit as public and well known as the same action on the part of the Antichrist). But of course I wind up placing the descent, the death, and the ascent in the hidden activity box based on specific texts in which those actions are described as obscure, mysterious, disguised, or hidden, not from a priori considerations.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Taken as an a priori consideration, your implication a might well have some force; without having read any of the relevant texts, I might well make the same assessment in advance. But I have arrived at my line of thinking exegetically, based on the texts attesting to this messianic activity.

But of course I wind up placing the descent, the death, and the ascent in the hidden activity box based on specific texts in which those actions are described as obscure, mysterious, disguised, or hidden, not from a priori considerations.

When it comes to the major point of where Jesus died, it should be sufficiently addressed in the earliest and every form of the myth.

That's all in general terms, of course. A case can possibly made that the non-specific nature of where Jesus was killed was a special point of doctrine. That the answer was "nobody knows because we're not supposed to know yet." That's also an answer to the question, although a somewhat surprising one, IMO.

We seem to be in agreement, really.

It appears that the "Wellsian" hypothesis is closely tied to the hypothesis that the hidden-ness of this Jesus was a special point of doctrine.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can be a strength of the hypothesis if, as you point out, you can also arrive at the same conclusion based on the evidence of the texts themselves (i.e., if the "prediction" of the hypothesis were corroborated by texts evincing the hidden-ness of Jesus).

[Ben C. Smith]

We seem to be in agreement, really.

It appears that the "Wellsian" hypothesis is closely tied to the hypothesis that the hidden-ness of this Jesus was a special point of doctrine.

I just posted an undifferentiated list of passages possibly pertaining to this special point of doctrine, and nearly all of the most relevant ones I got from Wells at some point or other. (Note, however, that I would prefer to drop as a pointed issue the Wellsian matter of the first advent being imagined as having occurred at some indistinct point in the distant past.)

That isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can be a strength of the hypothesis if, as you point out, you can also arrive at the same conclusion based on the evidence of the texts themselves (i.e., if the "prediction" of the hypothesis were corroborated by texts evincing the hidden-ness of Jesus).

That is one thing I am working on.

Thanks, Peter.

Ben.

[maryhelena]

We seem to be in agreement, really.

It appears that the "Wellsian" hypothesis is closely tied to the hypothesis that the hidden-ness of this Jesus was a special point of doctrine.

I just posted an undifferentiated list of passages possibly pertaining to this special point of doctrine, and nearly all of the most relevant ones I got from Wells at some point or other. (Note, however, that I would prefer to drop as a pointed issue the Wellsian matter of the first advent being imagined as having occurred at some indistinct point in the distant past.)

As far as I remember Wells made his comment re advent related to crucifixion in the distant past, in relation to the writings of Paul.

If Hebrews can be read as referencing a more recent, to the author, advent/crucifixion scenario - that suggests, to my thinking, that Hebrews preceded the writing of Paul. Thus, Hebrews can be connected to the Jesus story; a story that connects this figure to Pilate - making the Hebrews advent/crucifixion time conditioned.

As the Jesus earthly based story developed over time - so too the heavenly scenario. The heavenly parallel scenario of Hebrews becomes for Paul the center of his timeless theology/philosophy. Paul did not break the Hebrews link between heaven and earth (between mind and matter). However, by side-lining this linkage, as it were, he was able to develop a 'pure' intellectual scenario in which time had no place.

Interesting work Ben. Hebrews vs Paul - makes sense to me...

(As for Wells and his advent/crucifixion scenario in the distant past - he is on the right track here but not in connection to Paul - the distant past scenario relates to history that is reflected in the gospel Jesus story not the Pauline writings.)

[Ben C. Smith]

Taken as an a priori consideration, your implication a might well have some force; without having read any of the relevant texts, I might well make the same assessment in advance. But I have arrived at my line of thinking exegetically, based on the texts attesting to this messianic activity.

But of course I wind up placing the descent, the death, and the ascent in the hidden activity box based on specific texts in which those actions are described as obscure, mysterious, disguised, or hidden, not from a priori considerations.

When it comes to the major point of where Jesus died, it should be sufficiently addressed in the earliest and every form of the myth.

That's all in general terms, of course. A case can possibly made that the non-specific nature of where Jesus was killed was a special point of doctrine. That the answer was "nobody knows because we're not supposed to know yet." That's also an answer to the question, although a somewhat surprising one, IMO.

.... It appears that the "Wellsian" hypothesis is closely tied to the hypothesis that the hidden-ness of this Jesus was a special point of doctrine.

A paragraph on page 394 of Robert M. Price, The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems, reminded me of the above exchange:

Couchoud's second group of ancient exegetes finally decided this Suffering Son of Man must have come, that is, already, in the past. Once one has decided this, well, the exegetical maneuvers entailed will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Wrede and the Messianic Secret.* One would begin to read that, though the Son of Man Jesus had in fact recently arrived, it is possible for us to have missed it since he hushed up those whom he healed and exorcized, told witnesses of his Transfiguration to keep it under their turbans till later, warned them not to circulate news of his messiahship, and finally entrusted the big disclosure to frightened women who failed to tell the news. If we may imagine the puzzlement of the first who read Mark‟s newly-minted empty tomb account (“Why didn‟t I ever heard these things before? Oh, I see…”), we may as easily picture the reaction of those who had expected the Suffering Son of Man upon first hearing the secret unveiled: he has already appeared! It would be no different from the Diaspora synagogue attendees whom Acts pictures learning from Paul and Barnabas that the long-awaited Messiah has already come — and gone!