Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by maryhelena »

John T wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:50 am
maryhelena wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 1:45 am
One could of course argue that the John the Baptist, Herodias, Philip and Herod (Antipas) story was a later addition to gMark - thus taking away a chronological element of gMark's story. So - no Passion narrative, no Herod (Antipas) Herodias, Philip and John the Baptist story - and what have we got ? A Jesus set free from a specific historical context. Bad luck for the Jesus historicists - using a first century search for their Jesus figure is futile.

Thus, back to arguments that the Jesus story is long in the tooth - that it's a story with many updates/additions. That the settled story runs with Pilate is just that - a grand finale not the origin story.
Jesus was real and was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
...and there is no way whatsoever that you can provide historical evidence to support your assertion....... :banghead:

======

and just for information - I don't engage in debate with Jesus historicists over the gospel figure of Jesus - I've far more interesting things to do.....
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10751
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 2:58 am I don't engage in debate with Jesus historicists over the gospel figure of Jesus - I've far more interesting things to do.....
Idem for me. :cheers:
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10751
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

Ephesians 4:8-10 appears to be contrasting recent hearsay about a Jesus crucified under Pilate:

(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

Why does he insist to precise the correct meaning of "he ascended" ? Because someone was introducing gradually the idea that the ascension was a post-mortem resurrection. Not all all, according to author of Ephesians: the ascension is only the mere corollary of the descent, not of a death on the earth.

So the autor of Ephesians could accept Mark 1-13 as his gospel, but never a Passion story.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 4:30 am Ephesians 4:8-10 appears to be contrasting recent hearsay about a Jesus crucified under Pilate:

(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

Why does he insist to precise the correct meaning of "he ascended" ? Because someone was introducing gradually the idea that the ascension was a post-mortem resurrection. Not all all, according to author of Ephesians: the ascension is only the mere corollary of the descent, not of a death on the earth.

So the autor of Ephesians could accept Mark 1-13 as his gospel, but never a Passion story.
Giuseppe - why not consider the possibility that the NT is dealing with two crucifixion stories. Paul and his spiritual/heavenly, philosophical crucifixion i.e an intellectual crucifixion - of outdated ideas. That's the only type of 'crucifixion' that can have 'salvation' potential. The gospel flesh and blood crucifixion on terra-firma - a crucifixion of no value whatsoever. But join the two together - body and spirit - and the interaction, the relationship, can be positive. Ideas, as it were, become us. Necessary for human physical progress.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10751
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

Paul's theology is very too much nebulous. I would like to ignore Paul and focus on Ephesians 4:8-10, since it appears to go directly against the progressive reduction of the ascension to a mere post-resurrection event, as shown in Acts 1:21-22:

Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

In Basilides, there is no Passion story but an anti-Passion story, i.e. a story invented deliberately to deny that Jesus suffered on the cross.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10751
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

John 3:13 seems to reiterate the same anti-Passion point:

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven

My error has been to believe, with Turmel, that John 3:13 is polemical against the Paul's ascension to Third Heaven, or against the Ascension of Isaiah. At contrary, the original sense of John 3:13 is the denial of a reason different, for the Jesus's descent and ascent, from the mere revelation of the Good God on the earth.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2215
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by andrewcriddle »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 4:30 am Ephesians 4:8-10 appears to be contrasting recent hearsay about a Jesus crucified under Pilate:

(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

Why does he insist to precise the correct meaning of "he ascended" ? Because someone was introducing gradually the idea that the ascension was a post-mortem resurrection. Not all all, according to author of Ephesians: the ascension is only the mere corollary of the descent, not of a death on the earth.

So the autor of Ephesians could accept Mark 1-13 as his gospel, but never a Passion story.
Ephesians clearly does link the ascension of Christ to his resurrection See Ephesians 1 19:21
That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.
Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10751
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 5:27 am
Ephesians clearly does link the ascension of Christ to his resurrection See Ephesians 1 19:21
That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.
the crucifixion in Ephesians is a cosmic crucifixion, according to Irenaeus himself (Epideixis 1:34), while commenting Ephesians 3:18:

And because He is Himself the Word of God Almighty, who in His invisible form pervades us universally in the whole world, and encompasses both its length and
breadth and height and depth
for by God's Word everything is disposed and administered the Son of God was also crucified in these, imprinted in the form of a cross on the universe; 171 for He had necessarily, in becoming visible, to bring to light the universality of His cross, in order to show openly through His visible form that activity of His: 172 that it is He who makes bright the height, that is, what is in heaven, and holds the deep, which is in the bowels of the earth, and stretches forth and extends the length from East to West, navigating also the Northern parts and the breadth of the South, and calling in all the dispersed from all sides to the knowledge of the Father.

So it doesn't seem that the author of Ephesians assumed an eartly crucifixion under Pilate for his Jesus.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10751
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

Now, Trocmé observes that Jesus in Mark 1-13 predicts the crucifixion of the Son of Man, not of himself.

So the crucifixion of the Son of Man, being missing in Mark 14-16, could be only conceived as a cosmic crucifixion, given that the Son of Man is a celestial figure.

Accordingly, the crucifixion for the author of Ephesians occurred during the Ascension, not before, when Jesus was yet on the earth.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10751
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Comparing K. L. Schmidt with D. Strömholm: analogies and differences

Post by Giuseppe »

It is very rare, by a Christian apologist (as Trocmé was), to concede a similar confession of an important difference between Mark 1-13 and Mark 14-16:

La réserve christologique de Marc 1 à 13 n'a pas son équivalent en Marc 14 à 16. Retouchée ou pas, la réponse de Jésus au grand prêtre (14/62) est dans le Marc canonique une acceptation des titres de Christ et de «Fils du Béni» (39), même si cette acceptation est un peu nuancée par la référence au «Fils de l'Homme» qui suit immédiatement. La confession du centurion (15/39), si bien mise en valeur et si chargée de signification; le beau geste de la femme qui oint la tête de Jésus (14/3 ss.); l'approbation au moins partielle par le Maître du titre de «roi des Juifs» que lui lançait Pilate (15/2): autant de passages où le caractère surnaturel et messianique de la personne de Jésus est fortement souligné dans les chapitres 14 à 15 et où l'on ne perçoit aucune réticence au sujet de l'utilisation des titres christologiques les plus élevés. L'écrivain qui glorifie si volontiers la personne de Jésus est-il le même que celui qui a mutilé la tradition rapportant la confession messianique de Pierre (8/27 ss.) pour substituer à sa conclusion naturelle un cinglant appel à l'heroisme missionnaire (40) et réservé à Dieu seul le droit de parler du Nazaréen comme de Son Fils (41)?
Nous avons quelque peine à l'admettre.

(p.185, my bold)

So, in Mark 1-13 Jesus rejects the title of Messiah (Christ).
Whereas Mark 14-16 is in its DNA entirely designed to prove that
  • Jesus suffered on the cross beyond any possible doubt;
  • Jesus is the Jewish Messiah (Christ), beyond any possible doubt.
Said otherwise, Mark 1-13 is anti-demiurgist, or based on an anti-demiurgist source, while Mark 14-16 is the added judaizing epilogue.
Post Reply