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

[MrMacSon]

The usage of "phantasma" (G536 in Strong's) in the NT suggests something something 'real' (i.e. objective, outside the viewer) is meant rather than some inner psychological function:

Mat 14:26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit G5326 and they cried out for fear.

Mar 6:49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit G5326 and cried out:

phantasma/φάντασμά is not spirit/pneuma/πνεῦμα : Strong's G4151 : https://biblehub.com/greek/4151.htm

And Mark 6:49 is pretty universal in Greek:

..οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης περιπατοῦντα ἔδοξαν ὅτι φάντασμά ἐστιν, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν·

.....https://biblehub.com/texts/mark/6-49.htm

eta: as is Matt 14.26 : also "that phantasma" / ὅτι Φάντασμά : https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/14-26.htm

ie. not just 'a' phantasma

[GakuseiDon]

The usage of "phantasma" (G536 in Strong's) in the NT suggests something something 'real' (i.e. objective, outside the viewer) is meant rather than some inner psychological function:

Mat 14:26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit G5326 and they cried out for fear.

Mar 6:49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit G5326 and cried out:

phantasma/φάντασμά is not spirit/pneuma/πνεῦμα : Strong's G4151 : https://biblehub.com/greek/4151.htm

Yes, I agree that phantasma is not pneuma. Pneuma is the breath, the animating spirit. Psyche is the soul, one's spirit. Phantasma is an apparation, like a spirit.

The issue is around using language, any language, to define clearly what we mean. The context is important, but where the context isn't available, then it is imported by those in the in-group. For example, I suspect that for most people in the world, "the Christ Myth" is the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected after death. But when used on this board, the in-group here understand it differently. I think Secret Alias's use of "imaginary Jesus" doesn't solve the problem because most people won't understand the context he is putting it into.

[Secret Alias]

I couldn't care less what it "solves" for modern people. It was the term used by Marcion, Tertullian and Philo, Justin and others. What it does for moderns isn't the point.

[Secret Alias]

Don. For you Origen is NOT referencing the Word which wrestled with Jacob here. He is only thinking of 'Jesus' as a man of the flesh:

And when we see the Word appearing (ἐμφανιζόμενον) unto us we shall indeed be troubled before we clearly understand that it is the Saviour who has come to us, supposing that we are still beholding an apparition (φάντασμα), and for fear shall cry out; but He Himself straightway will speak to us saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. Matthew 14:27

Καὶ ἐπὰν ἴδωμεν τὸν λόγον ἡμῖν ἐμφανιζόμενον, ταραχθη σόμεθα μὲν πρὶν τρανῶς καταλαβεῖν ὅτι ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῖν ἐπιδεδήμηκεν, οἰόμενοι ἔτι φάντασμα θεωρεῖν, καὶ φοβού μενοι κεκραξόμεθαα· ἀλλ' αὐτὸς εὐθέως ἡμῖν λαλήσει λέγων· Θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε

Origen is wholly thinking of Jesus as a historical man 'walking on water' somehow. There is no reference to Josephus's phantasma who wrestled with Jacob?

Harnack on Marcion's use of phantasma going back to the angel Man/Word in the LXX:

„Doketismus“ bedeutete im antiken Zeitalter etwas anderes als heute, weil man die Konsequenzen nicht zog, die wir ziehen zu müssen glauben ¹. Verglichen mit den natürlichen Menschenleibern war der Leib Christi ein φάντασμα; aber wie die Engel, die zu Abraham kamen, nicht Gespenster waren, sondern als leibhaftige und wirkliche Menschen handelten und aßen ², so war auch Christus kein Gespenst³, sondern der Gott trat in menschlicher Erscheinung auf und setzte sich selbst in den Stand, wie ein Mensch zu empfinden, zu handeln und zu leiden, obgleich die Identität mit einem natürlich erzeugten Fleischesleib nur scheinbar war, da die Substanz des Fleisches fehlte. Es ist also durchaus unrichtig, zu meinen, nach Marcion habe Christus nur scheinbar gelitten, sei nur scheinbar gestorben usw. So urteilten die Gegner; er selbst aber bezog hier den Schein nur auf die Fleischessubstanz 4. Natürlich nahm er nicht an, daß die Gottheit gelitten habe; aber daraus zu schließen, Leiden und Tod Christi seien ihm ein bloßes Schattenspiel gewesen, ist unrichtig. Zwar kann man es den Gegnern nicht verübeln, wenn sie mit Origenes in bezug auf Marcions Lehre erklärten: Κατὰ φαντασίαν ἐδραματούργει ὁ ’Ιησοῦς τὴν ἔνσαρκον αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν, ja es ist auch möglich, daß Marcion wörtlich gesagt hat: δοκήσει ὁ Χριστὸς πέπονθεν, allein dann bezog er δοκεῖν ausschließlich auf den als Fleischesleib vorgestellten Leib. Als biblischer Theologe hielt er sich an die Philipperstelle: ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπου γέγονεν. Sie war ihm die Grundstelle für die Lösung des hier vorliegenden Problems, und er lehrte deshalb, daß Christus in und an der menschlichen Gleichgestalt, in die er sich begeben hat, wirklich gelitten hat. Zum Heil der Menschen stieg er hernieder. Kann es eine größere Liebe und ein größeres Erbarmen geben als das, welches ihn vom Himmelszelt getrieben hat? Die verfehlte Schöpfung eines widerwärtigen Gottes, die jämmerliche Menschheit, und in ihr die Elendesten, will er aus purer Liebe retten! (s. die ergreifenden Worte De carne 4). Das, was nach Ursprung und Entwicklung dem Tode mit Recht verfallen war, weil es nichts Lebenswürdiges in sich hatte, will er zu ewigem Leben erlösen, und den Gott will er ins Unrecht setzen, der selbst da, wo er sein Recht verfolgt, alles verschlimmert und verdirbt.

[mlinssen]

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.

You are utterly confusing two completely different words.

1. Jesus Myth = Jesus is fake
2. Imaginary is a fun term because for the Christian flock Jesus is their imaginary friend

Your ISH theory is vague nonsense and wrongly supposes that Christianity was rooted in Judaism. You should first argue for Christianity being rooted in Judaism

None of any of this has got to do with Docetism.
It was particularly legit for Egyptians to have a Pharaoh who was god. The first scribblings that accuse Jesus of being a phantasma are the NT itself

[Leucius Charinus]

Using the polemical "Fathers" as a "control group" is sickening. It's like using Donald Trump's advertising consortium to write a national history.

[MrMacSon]

And when we see the Word appearing (ἐμφανιζόμενον) unto us we shall indeed be troubled before we clearly understand that it is the Saviour who has come to us, supposing that we are still beholding an apparition (φάντασμα), and for fear shall cry out; but He Himself straightway will speak to us saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. Matthew 14:27

Καὶ ἐπὰν ἴδωμεν τὸν λόγον ἡμῖν ἐμφανιζόμενον, ταραχθη σόμεθα μὲν πρὶν τρανῶς καταλαβεῖν ὅτι ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῖν ἐπιδεδήμηκεν, οἰόμενοι ἔτι φάντασμα θεωρεῖν, καὶ φοβού μενοι κεκραξόμεθαα· ἀλλ' αὐτὸς εὐθέως ἡμῖν λαλήσει λέγων· Θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε

FWIW, this is from Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book XI, section 6

via https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101611.htm:

6 ... Then when we see many difficulties besetting us, and with moderate struggle we have swum through them to some extent, let us consider that our boat is in the midst of the sea, distressed at that time by the waves which wish us to make shipwreck concerning faith or some one of the virtues; but when we see the spirit of the evil one striving against us, let us conceive that then the wind is contrary to us.

When then in such suffering we have spent three watches of the night — that is, of the darkness which is in the temptations— striving nobly with all our might and watching ourselves so as not to make shipwreck concerning the faith or some one of the virtues — the first watch against the father of darkness and wickedness, the second watch against his son "who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or thing that is worshipped" [2 Thessalonians 2:4], and the third watch against the spirit that is opposed to the Holy Spirit, then we believe that, when the fourth watch impends, when "the night is far spent, and the day is at hand" [Romans 13:12], the Son of God will come to us, that He may prepare the sea for us, walking upon it.

And, when we see the Word appearing unto us, we shall indeed be troubled before we clearly understand that it is the Saviour who has come to us, supposing that we are still beholding an 'apparition,' and for fear shall cry out; but He Himself straightway will speak to us saying, "Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid" [Matthew 14:27]

And, if warmly moved by His "Be of good cheer," any Peter be found among us, who is on his way to perfection but has not yet become perfect, having gone down from the boat, as if coming out of that temptation in which he was distressed, he will indeed walk at first, wishing to come to Jesus upon the waters; but being as yet of little faith, and as yet doubting, will see that the wind is strong and will be afraid and begin to sink; but he will not sink because he will call upon Jesus with loud voice, and will say to Him, "Lord, save me" [Matthew 14:30]; then immediately while such a Peter is yet speaking and saying, "Lord save me," the Word will stretch forth His hand, holding out assistance to such an one, and will take hold of him when he is beginning to sink, and will reproach him for his little faith and doubting [Matthew 14:31]. Only, observe that He did not say, "O you without faith, but, O you of little faith," and that it was said, "Wherefore did you doubt," as he had still a measure of faith, but also had a tendency towards that which was opposed to faith.

"...the Word...clearly...is the Saviour...supposing that we are still beholding an 'apparition' ..."

[MrMacSon]

Using the polemical "Fathers" as a "control group" is sickening. It's like using Donald Trump's advertising consortium to write a national history.

That's not what Secret Stephan is doing.

The texts of the 'Church Fathers' can be revelatory

For example, the dualism in Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book XI, section 6 ( and possibly in 2 Thessalonians 2, Romans 13 & Matthew 14 )

6 ... let us consider that our boat is in the midst of the sea, distressed at that time by the waves which wish us to make shipwreck concerning faith or some one of the virtues; but when we see the spirit of the evil one striving against us, let us conceive that then the wind is contrary to us.

When then in such suffering we have spent three watches of the night — that is, of the darkness which is in the temptations— striving nobly with all our might and watching ourselves so as not to make shipwreck concerning the faith or some one of the virtues — the first watch against the Father of darkness and wickedness, the second watch against his son "who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or thing that is worshipped" [2 Thessalonians 2:4], and the third watch against the spirit that is opposed to the Holy Spirit, then we believe that, when the fourth watch impends, when "the night is far spent, and the day is at hand" [Romans 13:12], the Son of God will come to us, that He may prepare the sea for us, walking upon it.

And, when we see the Word appearing unto us, we shall indeed be troubled before we clearly understand that it is the Saviour who has come to us, supposing that we are still beholding an 'apparition,' and for fear shall cry out; but He Himself straightway will speak to us saying, "Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid" [Matthew 14:27]

... while such a Peter is yet speaking and saying, "Lord save me," the Word will stretch forth His hand, holding out assistance to such an one, and will take hold of him when he is beginning to sink, and will reproach him for his little faith and doubting [Matthew 14:31] ...

via https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101611.htm:

[GakuseiDon]

Don. For you Origen is NOT referencing the Word which wrestled with Jacob here. He is only thinking of 'Jesus' as a man of the flesh:

And when we see the Word appearing (ἐμφανιζόμενον) unto us we shall indeed be troubled before we clearly understand that it is the Saviour who has come to us, supposing that we are still beholding an apparition (φάντασμα), and for fear shall cry out; but He Himself straightway will speak to us saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. Matthew 14:27

Καὶ ἐπὰν ἴδωμεν τὸν λόγον ἡμῖν ἐμφανιζόμενον, ταραχθη σόμεθα μὲν πρὶν τρανῶς καταλαβεῖν ὅτι ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῖν ἐπιδεδήμηκεν, οἰόμενοι ἔτι φάντασμα θεωρεῖν, καὶ φοβού μενοι κεκραξόμεθαα· ἀλλ' αὐτὸς εὐθέως ἡμῖν λαλήσει λέγων· Θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι, μὴ φοβεῖσθε

Origen is wholly thinking of Jesus as a historical man 'walking on water' somehow.

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:

And when we see the Word appearing unto us we shall indeed be troubled before we clearly understand that it is the Saviour who has come to us, supposing that we are still beholding an apparition, and for fear shall cry out; but He Himself straightway will speak to us saying, “Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.” (Mat_14:27) And if, warmly moved by His “Be of good cheer,” any Peter be found among us, who is on his way to perfection but has not yet become perfect, having gone down from the boat, as if coming out of that temptation in which he was distressed, he will indeed walk at first, wishing to come to Jesus upon the waters; but being as yet of little faith, and as yet doubting, will see that the wind is strong and will be afraid and begin to sink; but he will not sink because he will call upon Jesus with loud voice, and will say to Him, “Lord, save me;” (Mat_14:30) then immediately while such a Peter is yet speaking and saying, “Lord save me,” the Word will stretch forth His hand, holding out assistance to such an one, and will take hold of him when he is beginning to sink, and will reproach him for his little faith and doubting.

It's nothing to do with flesh or apparitions.

There is no reference to Josephus's phantasma who wrestled with Jacob?

I don't get your point, I'm sorry. Origen is being Origen: finding analogy in everything, in this case gMatthew. On God's appearance to Jacob, I can find this view by Origen:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en166.html

Our wise men, however,--Moses, the most ancient of them all, and the prophets who followed him,--knowing that the chief good could by no means be described in words, were the first who wrote that, as God manifests Himself to the deserving, and to those who are qualified to behold Him, He appeared to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob. But who He was that appeared, and of what form, and in what manner, and like to which of mortal beings, they have left to be investigated by those who are able to show that they resemble those persons to whom God showed Himself: for He was seen not by their bodily eyes, but by the pure heart. For, according to the declaration of our Jesus, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

Perhaps seeing God's appearance with a pure heart might fit your idea of "imaginary" person?

[MrMacSon]

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 )