Does the Earliest Gospel require a cult of a god Jesus?

[Giuseppe]

Since I am persuaded, by reading Bruno Bauer, that the earliest "pauline" epistle betrayes knowledge of a lost earliest Gospel story, then the next question is: was this story designed to euhemerize a god Jesus on earth?

[Peter Kirby]

Since I am persuaded, by reading Bruno Bauer, that the earliest "pauline" epistle betrayes knowledge of a lost earliest Gospel story, then the next question is: was this story designed to euhemerize a god Jesus on earth?

I'm curious, what would Bruno say about this? viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10757

[maryhelena]

Since I am persuaded, by reading Bruno Bauer, that the earliest "pauline" epistle betrayes knowledge of a lost earliest Gospel story, then the next question is: was this story designed to euhemerize a god Jesus on earth?

Step two is euhemerize a god - however step one is - establish there is a god prior to making assumptions about what this god did. In other words; put the horse first before the fixing up the cart...

This is the 21st century - time to leave archaic ideas behind. Yep, the Word was made flesh - but heaven help us if we take that as reference to an assumed sky god that became flesh. Theology might be fine for those so inclined - but it does not provide answers that enable us to understand our humanity.

The Word made flesh - it happens every minute of every day and every year of human existence. We transform our ideas into flesh by creating physical objects or knowledge. That's it, Giuseppe, that's the way the world of humanity works. Yep god talk has it's uses in that it has propelled the human search for knowledge - it's like that north star that guides us forward. It's the spirit within us, the evolutionary intellectual spur that has brought us to where we are today.

Theology gets nobody anywhere. It gets into everything via the backdoor that the French Revolution left wide open. It's a constant struggle to withstand it's fabled charms - but struggle we must. We might tame the beast but it will always be with us, generation after generation providing us with a constant fight for reason. Yep, maybe its like the irritant that enables the pearl to grow...

[MrMacSon]

Since I am persuaded, by reading Bruno Bauer, that the earliest "Pauline" epistle betrays knowledge of a lost earliest Gospel story, then the next question is: was this story designed to euhemerize a god Jesus on earth?

• ... what would this 'earliest Gospel story' have been ??
  
  Marcion's Evangelion ??
  
  a fore-runner to it ??
  
  some other form of 'good news' ??

[Giuseppe]

Since I am persuaded, by reading Bruno Bauer, that the earliest "pauline" epistle betrayes knowledge of a lost earliest Gospel story, then the next question is: was this story designed to euhemerize a god Jesus on earth?

I'm curious, what would Bruno say about this? viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10757

the Earliest Gospel, for Bauer, was a kind of proto-Mark. Accordingly, his author was a gentilizer more than a judaizer.

For "Judaizers" I mean readers of Matthew or proto-Matthew.

[davidmartin]

I don't think so Giuseppe, if... if it did.. it was to symbolise some mystery which I'd guess was a human Jesus

I look at it this way. Jesus appears fully human. He walks around, has a family, has to get baptised, people treat him as a normal human being, he dies. There is a badly hidden partner in Magdalene who is so obviously there next to him. He is like us, he has a girlfriend that is so badly hidden "beloved disciple".

This gospel was more like the other way around. Instead of a man who secretly was a God, it's someone who is thought to be a God who turns out to be a normal man and the prototype disciple. Paul substitutes himself as the prototype disciple "imitate me!". But people preferred Jesus Barabbas
Every human who does anything significant is thought to be a God especially in the ancient world. What choice did they have?

The other day I realised any historicist reading ends up back at a human Jesus who either said he was God or denied it. In John's gospel he denies it and says all his words were prophetically inspired. How can The Word in flesh say his words don't come from him?

[Giuseppe]

A criticism that can be addressed against Bruno Bauer may well be the same criticism that has been addressed by G. A. Wells against William Benjamin Smith:

Smith's argument is that Christianity emanated from the Jews of the Diaspora, who saw their function in the world — harassed as they were by Gentile oppression — expressed in Isaiah's story of the suffering servant of Yahweh, whose persecution and death made atonement for the whole world's sins. In other words, this story showed them that Israel was to be dispersed among pagans so that God could illuminate all the world's dark places with Jewish monotheism. The suffering and afflicted Messiah was thus, for them, a spiritual interpretation of the history of Israel. Since they did not find it expedient to say bluntly to Gentiles that the nation of Israel had the role of enlightening all others, they dressed up Israel's history in the form of the life-history of an individual, Jesus, and invented incident after incident in his life to reflect the history and character of Israel, as known to them from the Old Testament.

For example, the demons which Jesus casts out from persons in whom they have lodged symbolize heathen gods vanquished by Jewish monotheism. His crucifixion and resurrection represent the suffering of Israel at heathen hands, the political burial of the Hebrew state, to be followed by the spiritual triumph of Israel and its ideal monotheism. The original apostles, says Smith, intended the personification of the role of Israel only as a transient expedient and hoped that at a later time the Gentiles would be able to accept the unvarnished truth. But soon the allegorical basis of the story was lost from sight, and Jesus was accepted as a historical personage by Christians themselves.


It is always difficult to produce decisive evidence against scholars who insist on finding hidden meanings in plain statements, although it must be said that the onus is on them to support interpretations that seem forced and arbitrary. Furthermore, in deriving Christianity from Jewish proselytism in the Diaspora, Smith does not do justice to the fact that, already in Paul's time, Jerusalem was an important Christian center.

(G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 221)

[Giuseppe]

Note from the previous post the two arguments raised by G.A.Wells against William B. Smith:

• 1) How much is an allegorical interpretation of the Earliest Gospel an arbitrary operation?

• 2) The authentic epistles of Paul prove that the Christianity was born in Jerusalem by hand of the Pillars.

The argument (2) is easily dismissed by Bruno Bauer & fans. But what about the argument (1) ?

This is the reason I wonder:

If the mere allegory was not sufficient, was at least, a previous cult of a god Jesus, necessary and sufficient ?

[Giuseppe]

Note the difference between what a Bruno Bauer argues,

The original apostles, says Smith, intended the personification of the role of Israel only as a transient expedient and hoped that at a later time the Gentiles would be able to accept the unvarnished truth.

(my bold)

...and what Richard Carrier claims, i.e. that the original apostles believed really that Jesus died in outer space.

Bruno Bauer dismisses the problem of the first gospel as a mere theodicy, a deliberate lie made for a good purpose. It is not different from the same idealism in action behind the modern "ecumenical dialogue": a deliberate lie, that YHWH and Hallah and the Trinity are one and the same god, so that the holy wars can end forever.

[Peter Kirby]

Since I am persuaded, by reading Bruno Bauer, that the earliest "pauline" epistle betrayes knowledge of a lost earliest Gospel story, then the next question is: was this story designed to euhemerize a god Jesus on earth?

I'm curious, what would Bruno say about this? viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10757

the Earliest Gospel, for Bauer, was a kind of proto-Mark. Accordingly, his author was a gentilizer more than a judaizer.

For "Judaizers" I mean readers of Matthew or proto-Matthew.

Does proto-Mark presuppose the opening up of "God's Kingdom" to Gentiles, the very thing that the letters of Paul are written to justify? How does Bruno deal with this? Does he say that the proto-Mark and the letters of Paul were virtually contemporary, being read for the first time alongside each other? Or does he say that some proto-Mark was circulating on its own first?