The Historic Origin of the Jesus Myth

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The Historic Origin of the Jesus Myth

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:15 am

Johns, L. Ross is author of this book, 'The Historic Origin of the Jesus Myth'.

She recognizes influence by Drews, Jensen and especially W. Smith.

It seems that her views are about a pre-Christian cult of YHWH identified as Joshua.

I remember that the Ebionites claimed that any single person could be a Christ of his own right, that Jesus was a simple man.

I can easily think how the Ebionite belief reflects the view that the "anointed", the 'Christ', was a reference to the same sectarians of the pre-Christian Jesus cult: they, and not a historical Jesus, were the original 'anointed' of YHWH, meaning that they were possessed by the spirit of "salvation of YHWH", i.e. by the spiritual 'Joshua'. As possessed by the spirit 'YHWH saves' (and as such, being simbolically 'anointed' by that spirit), they could talk 'in the name of the Lord', have hallucinations, do religious propaganda, etc.

Hence we have, at the real Origins, a group of 'Christs', of 'possessed by spirit of YHWH', who preach the salvation of YHWH, i.e. Jesus.

It is only my speculation. But when I will read the book, surprises will await me, I think.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Historic Origin of the Jesus Myth

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:30 am

This symbolical use of "Christ" to mean any member of the community as "anointed" hence possessed by the spirit of YHWH is the key to explain why both in Paul and in the Gospels Jesus is allegory of the community.

Christ doesn't mean "davidic", at least in the epistles.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Historic Origin of the Jesus Myth

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:40 am

Hence the Ebionites were really mythicist Christians precisely in virtue of this belief:

The Ebionaeans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified, according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm

The Ebionites's quote about Jesus mere man remember me the words of a Japanese anti-Christian. Something as (I go to memory):

"In their folly, the Christians have taken a mere incarnation of Buddha for THE only Buddha".

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Historic Origin of the Jesus Myth

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:05 am

Here is the original of the words of this anti-Christian Japanese (reference in Thomas Cleary's book):


According to what I hear of the Christian teaching, there is a great Buddha called Deus, who is the one one sole Buddha, master of the universe and lord over all. This is the creator of the universe and all beings. This Buddha came into the world in some foreign land to save people sixteen hundred years ago. His name was Jesus Christ. Ignorant of this, they say, other countries honor the worthless Amida Buddha and Gautama Buddha, the height of folly.

...

Furthermore, they say that Jesus Christ came into the world and was crucified by ordinary men of the lower world. This is the master of the universe? How could anythiing be so illogical ?

The Christians do not know the unified enlightened state of the true likeness of original awareness. In their ignorance they have taken over one buddha to worship.


(Thomas Cleary, The Japanese art of war, p. 102, my bold)

So Cleary explains the accusation in bold:

In Mahayana Buddhism, the appearance of a living buddha is not considered a unique historical event as the appearance of Christ was by Church Christians; but rather an infinite, omnipresent possibility that is acted out according to conditions. A buddha was regarded as a reflection, or a reflector, of eternal truths to which all could aspire.

(ibidem, p. 103, my bold)

Hence a similar consternation I see in the Ebionites's reaction to the Catholic news about a Gospel Jesus:

They (these idiot Catholics there out) have taken one of us (= Christs in our own right as anointed/possessed by YHWH) for THE only unique Christ

Hence Hyppolitus reported that accusation, believing wrongly that the Ebionites accepted a historical Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply