Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by MrMacSon »

lsayre wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:51 am
There may also be association of Phantasma with the Pleroma.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (In the beginning God created light and darkness?)
And God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep

Pleroma / πλήρωμα appears 17 times in the NT though mostly to mean filled, fulfilled or fullness

eg. Colossians 1:19


... For in him all the 'fullness'/πλήρωμα of God was pleased to dwell

... https://biblehub.com/interlinear/colossians/1-19.htm


For Irenaeus,
Jesus appears on earth 'as the perfect beauty and star of the Pleroma' (teleiotaton kallos kai astron tou pleromatos, Adv. Haer. I. xi. 6)

Irenaeus also said that, for the early Christian Cerinthus, the pleroma expressed the fullness of the Divine Life out of which the Divine Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism, and into which He returned (Adv. Haer. I. xxvi. 1; III. xi. 1, xvi. 1)
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by lsayre »

Consider the 'Letter of Peter to Phillip'.

Peter quoting Jesus: “Concerning the fullness, it is I."

This links light to fullness (pleroma) in my book.

Then there is this:
Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell;
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

And previously I mentioned this:
viewtopic.php?p=141387#p141387

One must but use their imagination whereby to see that the light and the fullness are one and the same phantasma.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 11:02 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:33 pm
Your ISH theory is vague nonsense and wrongly supposes that Christianity was rooted in Judaism

I see a view of a Jewish Ish as potentially being motivation for Thomas's IS ( who, iiuc, you see as part of a satire )
Ah no, not all all Mac. Here's the deal:

https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_s ... ristianity

My latest and tentative addition to that that it was likely John who first took Thomas into a narrative, which in turn got hijacked by John.
Why would Thomas have a protagonist called IS who is a positive hero in all aspects when he borrowed the word from Judaism or Messianism that he ruthlessly refutes and rejects?

Thomas is not about Christianity or any other religion, he's against them all
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

That whole passage in his Commentary on Matthew is him explaining via analogy how modern Christians (i.e. of his time) might treat the Word of God when it comes for them. Step out onto the sea, but if, like any Peter, we may have doubts and so start to 'sink', call upon Jesus. As Origen follows on your passage:
Your presentation of Origen's methodology is disenguous. He wasn't living in a time where everyone had this understanding of a 'historical Jesus' like modern Christians want to pretend existed. But instead lived in an age where everyone had more or less crazy or at least unusual ideas about 'Jesus' and yet as Allen Brent demonstrates the Christian religion was being streamlined toward monarchianism i.e. with an all powerful God (singular) and where all that was not the all powerful god (i.e. Jesus's humanity) was being distinguished from the Almighty. Origen is not 'experimenting.' He knows Jesus was actually the Word. This is estabilished 'fact.' It's not an analogy. His predecessors knew that too. You're being a phoney here. You know better than that. You're trying to squeeze in the modern scholarly notion of Jesus's 'historicity' as front and center of Christianity in an age that it simply wasn't. It wasn't even there.

For people in Origen's age Jesus was the Word first and if you stressed too much that he was an ordinary human being you were identified as a heretic.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:58 am
https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_s ... ristianity

My latest and tentative addition to that that it was likely John who first took Thomas into a narrative, which in turn got hijacked by John.
In the article I have found the reference to Irenaeus's order of the gospels that betrayes proto-John's priority, but not precisely that Thomas was "euhemerized" (a synonymous of "hijacked") first by John.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Thomas, John, Marcion, and then Christianity

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:10 am
mlinssen wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 5:58 am
https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_s ... ristianity

My latest and tentative addition to that that it was likely John who first took Thomas into a narrative, which in turn got hijacked by John.
In the article I have found the reference to Irenaeus's order of the gospels that betrayes proto-John's priority, but not precisely that Thomas was "euhemerized" (a synonymous of "hijacked") first by John.
Nope, you're entirely correct Giuseppe! That's a week old at best I think but it makes great sense. Here, allow me:

Thomas: deep and cryptic text aimed at Seekers to liberate themselves from religion / philosophy and all other quacks and direct them to self-seeking instead. Combines that, rather unfortunately, with a deep hatred against anything Judean and Judaic which he uses as a setting for his imaginary stage play / story.
Drive for it all: to migrate everyone by making them realise that they have to do that all by themselves; to de-enslave everyone in the broadest sense of the word

John: feels truly attracted by the Father-Son paradigm in Thomas and the mysterious and poetic wordplay, and decides to turn it into a narrative. He takes the context rather than the content and invents a narrative around a real person who speaks of the father and becoming one again.
He likely wanted to bring it closer to John Doe, having recognised the mountain high barriers that the cryptic text establishes. By turning it all into something tangible he would greatly increase reach

Marcion: feels truly attracted by John yet adds a beginning and an end to it, and exploits the Judean hate by having the protagonist killed by Judeans at the end, aimed at maximizing the drama. He likely had in mind to use it as a force against Judeans. Adds dozens of actual Thomas logia to the text of John

Mark: undoes the anti-Judean and anti-Judaic touch by ingeniously redirecting both into only one of them: by focusing the anti-Judaism solely on the Pharisees and scribes he makes just one casualty (collateral damage, I suppose) and clears the way for rooting the text in Judaism itself, instead of being diametrically opposed to it. That is his greatest achievement really, and a monumental one - yet nonetheless his ambition knows no limits and he decides to continue the story after the death of the protagonist - so his goal is to revive him, yet in order for that to be a credible story he needs to come up with an explanation why everyone assumed that he died instead - hence his putting the blame on the bloody women who got told as sole witnesses yet ran away in panic...

καὶ (and) οὐδενὶ (to none) οὐδὲν (nothing) εἶπαν (they spoke)

How obvious can it be, really?

Matthew: etc...
Last edited by mlinssen on Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

Do any of these examples help understand the use of phantasia or phantasma in early Christianity? If not why are they being discussed?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

So let's start with Josephus:
After spending the day arranging this he moved on with his group at nightfall, and when they had crossed over a river called the Jabacchos, Jacob stayed behind and met with an apparition (φαντάσματι), who began wrestling with him, but he defeated the apparition (φαντάσματος). Then it raised its voice and spoke to him words of greeting, encourging him by the event and saying that his victory was a significant one, for he had overcome a divine messenger and should see it as a sign of great future blessings, and that his descendants would never fail and that nobody would excel him in power. He told him to take the name Israel, which in the Hebrew tongue means one who struggled with an angel of God. He foretold these things at Jacob's request, for recognising him as an angel of God, he asked him to indicate what would happen to him later. After saying this to him, the apparition disappeared (καὶ τὸ μὲν φάντασμα ταῦτ᾽ εἰπὸν ἀφανὲς γίνεται). Delighted, Jacob named the place Phanuel, which means, the face of God. Since after the fight he felt pain around his broad sinew, he abstained later from eating that joint as food, and for his sake it is still not eaten by us.
This 'angel' is called 'Man' in the text of Genesis and is of course recognized as such by all parties. Justin, Clement etc all recognize him to be the Logos (Word). It's not difficult to see a direct line to Marcion's 'disappearing' phantasma.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by Secret Alias »

The term phantasma occurs throughout Josephus in conjuction with the same angel of the Lord:
An angel of the Lord ‘appeared’ (ὤφθη, Jdg 6:12) to Gideon and later ‘departed from his eyes’ (ἀπῆλθεν ἐξ ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτου, 6:21; ἐπορεύθη ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτοῦ,).374 Gideon recognises from this departure that he has seen the angel of the Lord face-to-face, but God reassures him that he will not die (6:22-23). The detail ‘from his eyes’, the reaction, the recognition, and an inclusio formed with the appearance all imply an aphaneia, 375 ascension, or both. Similarly, an angel of the Lord ‘appeared’ (ὤφθη) to Manoah’s wife (13:3), apparently departs, and ‘arrives’ (παρεγένετο, 13:9) again to reiterate his prophecy to the couple (13:10-14). No departure is mentioned as she hurries to tell Manoah (13:6-8), but Josephus records that the angel ‘departed’ (ᾤχετο, Ant. 5.278). When asked his name, the angel cryptically replies that it is ‘wonderful’ (θαυμαστόν, Jdg 13:18), an ‘evasive’376 or ‘enigmatic’377 answer implying human incomprehension, then Manoah offers a sacrifice ‘to the Lord who works wonders’ (τῷ κυρίῳ τῷ θαυμαστὰ ποιοῦντι, [A] 13:19), suggesting an angelomorphic theophany. The angel ‘went up’ (ἀνέβη) in the ‘ascending’ (ἀναβῆναι) of the flame (13:20) and no longer ‘appeared’ (ὀφθῆναι) to them, but they ‘knew’ (ἔγνω) it was an angel of the Lord by this departure (13:21). Manoah is afraid they will die having seen God, but his wife reassures him that the Lord accepted their offering (13:22-23). Elements correspond with the typical theoxenic scheme.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

Post by mlinssen »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 6:52 am Do any of these examples help understand the use of phantasia or phantasma in early Christianity? If not why are they being discussed?
Perhaps the OP is not clear to you :facepalm: but I can quote it again, that may help, highlighting the part that it started with:
Secret Alias wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 9:42 am I think the earliest Christians understood 'Jesus' to be 'imaginary' rather than a 'myth' or 'mythical.' I hope to promote this terminology in place of 'mythicism' which I think is an unfortunate choice on the part of proponents. Why do I think 'imaginary' is preferable?

1. I think that the origin of the nomen sacrum we take to mean 'Jesus' is/was 'Man.' I think Justin, Marcion and Irenaeus can be rallied in support of this proposition.
2. the angel/god Man was well established not only among the earliest Jews and Samaritans but specifically the only Greek speeaking Jews we know of - Josephus and Philo.
3. In Josephus's case he says quite explicitly and on several occasions that 'Man' was a phantasma an imaginary or mental representation.
4. In Philo's case he says that the almight god made himself visible to humans by making his lower powers including Man means of 'imagination' phantasia.
5. I think that when scholars confirm that Christianity was a development of the religious traditions of Greek speaking Jews like Josephus and Philo we can draw a straight line between what Josephus and Philo say about 'Man' being an imaginary representation or him being made manifest to human beings on the part of God by 'imagination' and confirm an 'end product' which is compatible with 'mythicism' (albeit without all the atheist swagger than many of us find annoying and distracting).

I will try to lay out the case over the coming weeks.
If one desires to understand what "the earliest Christians understood" then the primary sources should be consulted, not secondary ones that arguably are highly contested when it comes to the question whether they are in fact describing any form of Christianity at all (Philo) or are early at all (Josephus) or are guaranteed to be very late and tertiary at best (Justin).
In fact, the only relevant source that you name would be Marcion - which is in my list

And apparently it is not apparent to you, but no nascent spirituality or religion of any kind ever has started with debunking their own pet project - so why your confusion with 'mythical'?
Post Reply