On a recent apology of the historical Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 5791
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

On a recent apology of the historical Jesus

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:29 pm

Only some points have derived my attention:

Paul does not talk much about Jesus because his audiences are all baptized Christians who he assumes already know the full story of the gospel. Since Paul assumes that his audience already knows about Jesus, he has no reason to describe in detail any of the stories from the gospel because that would… well, be pointless. It was only later that Christians became concerned with the idea of trying to create a written record of Jesus’s life and teachings

Paul does talk much about Jewish scriptures despite of the fact that the his audiences knew already them. It was not the failed apocalypticism the cause of the "idea of trying to create a written record of Jesus’s life and teachings", since Mark himself is still an eager apocalypticist, even if he wrote Mark 13 in Bar-Kokhba era:

Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom

i.e. the Roman Kingdom against the Parthian Kingdom. Trajan is seen here.


Hence the apocalypticism doesn't imply zero need of references to a historical Jesus. At contrary, Mark 13 is evidence that the eager apocalypticism provoked a fanatic interest to see Jesus where he had not be seen:

Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many.

I.e. in the Real History.

The second faulty assumption the Mythicists are making is that the Romans would have taken interest in Jesus. The first problem with this assumption is that Jesus’s ministry was, until the very end, almost exclusively confined to Galilee, which was, from the Romans’ perspective, a tiny, remote backwater client state of little use or significance. The Romans could hardly have had less interest in what went on in Galilee; unlike Gaul or Egypt, it was of little economic interest and, unlike Greece, it was of little cultural interest.

http://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2018/0 ... al-figure/

I doubt this at least about Pliny the Younger. He persecuted the Christians in virtue only of the name: followers of Christ. Because probably an anti-Roman messianism was connected with the idea (see the suetonian impulsore Chresto). Hence the his surprise and cognitive dissonance: these Christians were pacifists and filled of mysticism. Their Christ was adored quasi deo. He was not a man insofar the pacifism and mysticism of the his cult surprised Pliny, who expected seditious sectarians.

There is a text known as The Ascension of Isaiah that some Mythicists have claimed supports this view of Christ being crucified in a heavenly realm, but it does not; the text describes Isaiah in heaven seeing a vision of Jesus’s crucifixion taking place on earth, not in heaven

this is wrong. If Isaiah was in heaven when he saw a vision of Jesus's crucifixion, then said crucifixion was in heaven too. The Archon of this world is a planetary Archon, not even Herod.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply