Doherty's Mythicism

[_Kishkumen]

This scripture gets to the heart of it. There are two hypotheses we are considering: hypothesis 1--that Paul's audience thought of Jesus Christ as the guy from Nazareth who had a multiple-year career preaching love and forgiveness, and was eventually executed by crucifixion. Hypothesis 2--that Paul's audience thought of Jesus Christ as the God that descended from the top level of heaven to the lowest level of heaven, changing his form to disguise himself as he descended, and then being crucified once there.

Verses that talk of Jesus descending heaven, disguising himself, being crucified, and being resurrected describe precisely what Doherty thought the earliest Christian's actually believed.

In contrast, if Jesus was a historical person and the founder of Christianity, the earliest Christians believed what Jesus taught, which would have been different than this--surely Jesus didn't go around teaching that he was a god in disguise and came to earth to be crucified on a cross.

I am not sure I see the reason to look at these two options as mutually exclusive. It is certainly possible that some interpreted a historical Jesus who actually did walk the earth as some kind of heavenly being who descended from some upper realm (I have pointed out a possible model for this in the messengers who visit Abraham). That said, as I wrote earlier (on another thread?) fragmentary early creeds in the New Testament tend to place the deification of Jesus at the resurrection, or the descent of the spirit upon Jesus at the baptism. This suggests that earlier Christians viewed him as a real person whose status was at some point upgraded, not as a divine being in the first place.

[_richardMdBorn]

I am not sure I see the reason to look at these two options as mutually exclusive. It is certainly possible that some interpreted a historical Jesus who actually did walk the earth as some kind of heavenly being who descended from some upper realm (I have pointed out a possible model for this in the messengers who visit Abraham). That said, as I wrote earlier (on another thread?) fragmentary early creeds in the New Testament tend to place the deification of Jesus at the resurrection, or the descent of the spirit upon Jesus at the baptism. This suggests that earlier Christians viewed him as a real person whose status was at some point upgraded, not as a divine being in the first place.

Or that his deity was initially disguised but over time was revealed to first a select few (the Mount of Transfiguration) and then more broadly to his followers with the resurrection. Theologians talk about the messianic secret.

[_Analytics]

In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and John, the Gospel story cannot be found. When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him.

If we limit ourselves to those seven epistles that consensus holds to be genuinely Pauline, Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon, then these are the references Paul makes to Jesus that appear to place him in the mundane realm....

4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.

In general, the passages you quoted here seem to support Doherty's point: echoes of Jesus of Nazareth is barely auditable. You've been conditioned to think that a celestial being taking on the form of a man to die on a cross is an earthly thing, but is it really?

Galatians 4:4 is the first thing you cited that seemed to be supporting an earthly Christ. I've been thinking about it a lot, and reading the surrounding chapters.

I can think of about three ways to read Galatians 4:4:

1- For some reason Paul thought there would be doubts about whether Christians knew Jesus was born of a woman, so he decided to throw in this declaration about that right here, despite how that would be a totally unrelated tangent to the surrounding verses. I suppose if everybody was quite sure he was divine how he came to earth would be in question, but that still seems like an out of place way to make a statement about it.

2- Saying people are born of a woman is just a rhetorical thing that people throw out there. Like saying, "Greetings my friend Kishkumen, born of a woman." You can tell me if this is a thing. I'm guessing not.

3- It is meant as an allegory. The surrounding chapters talk a lot about people past and present being born as several layers of allegory about different religious things.

The chapter goes on to say:

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

So if the declaration that Abraham's son was born of a slave woman according to the flesh is to be taken figuratively, as Paul explicitly says, how can we be sure that he wasn't using the same figurative speech when talking about Jesus being born of a woman?

I don't want to Bible-bash about it, but it seems at least equally plausible that Paul's point was figurative and wasn't meant to be taken literally about Jesus having a physical mother--as if he really felt the need to point that out.

[Guest]

The chapter goes on to say:

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

So if the declaration that Abraham's son was born of a slave woman according to the flesh is to be taken figuratively, as Paul explicitly says, how can we be sure that he wasn't using the same figurative speech when talking about Jesus being born of a woman?

I don't want to Bible-bash about it, but it seems at least equally plausible that Paul's point was figurative and wasn't meant to be taken literally about Jesus having a physical mother--as if he really felt the need to point that out.

Analytics, I do not see a reason to think that because Paul could put a figurative reading on the story of Abraham's son that there is any indication that Paul didn't think Abraham was a real flesh and blood historical figure.

A person can take either a real or fictional story and make a figurative interpretation of it. The creation of an interpretation does not change the reality or lack of reality of the source story.

I doubt Paul was such an idiosyncratic Jew as to believe in a fictional Abraham or one isolated in the realm of the figurative.

[_Symmachus]

4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.

Galatians 4:4 is the first thing you cited that seemed to be supporting an earthly Christ. I've been thinking about it a lot, and reading the surrounding chapters.

I can think of about three ways to read Galatians 4:4:

1- For some reason Paul thought there would be doubts about whether Christians knew Jesus was born of a woman, so he decided to throw in this declaration about that right here, despite how that would be a totally unrelated tangent to the surrounding verses. I suppose if everybody was quite sure he was divine how he came to earth would be in question, but that still seems like an out of place way to make a statement about it.

2- Saying people are born of a woman is just a rhetorical thing that people throw out there. Like saying, "Greetings my friend Kishkumen, born of a woman." You can tell me if this is a thing. I'm guessing not.

3- It is meant as an allegory. The surrounding chapters talk a lot about people past and present being born as several layers of allegory about different religious things.

Actually #2 is most likely.

The phrase "born of woman" does occur elsewhere in the Bible. Three times in Job (here and here and here). The usage here occurs in poetical parallelism, where the second clause restates the first in different terms but with the same meaning; in each it just means "mortal" or "human." It also occurs in the Septuagint apocrypha in the Wisdom of Sirach, where the poetic structure shows the same thing. It also occurs in Matthew (a very Jewish gospel that is more Mishna than mysticism) and in Luke. The point in Matthew and Luke is that John the Baptist is greater than any other humans. There is nothing mystical about these.

[_Kishkumen]

Quite often, "son of man" in the gospels has the same meaning: human being. And, to address someone as human being is not what one does to mystical beings walking in the mortal sphere.

[_Analytics]

I was thinking about these conversations, and decided that instead of reading other people analyzing the Bible, I'd read it directly and see if there was any mysticism in it.

I decided to read Hebrews first. Granted, Paul didn't write it, but it is an example of authentic early Christian thought.

The following notes are some thoughts I had reading this. I didn't pick up these ideas from a polemic or a scripture guide--they are just my own thoughts from reading Hebrews.

A few notes:

The on-line Bible at lds.org no longer has footnotes. Are they embarrassed by the LDS version of the Bible?

Chapter 1: A theme in this chapter is to compare Jesus with the angels: "But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies a footstool?"

If this were written a few years after Jesus' death to people who knew about him and his earthly ministry, wouldn't it make more sense to prove that Jesus wasn't a human being, rather than proving he has more glory than the angles?

Chapter 2: Verse 7 says, "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels." That sounds like it is directly and explicitly teaching mysticism. Jesus wasn't placed on earth--he was placed in the firmament a little lower than the angels.

Verse 9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

Isn't that explicitly and directly saying that the crucifixion happened in a geography described as "a little lower than the angels?"

Verses 17 says, "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Is being made like a human being exactly the same thing as being made into a human being?

Chapter 3:15: "While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts..."

Christ speaks directly to the people today. Nothing of an earthly ministry or what Christ told people when he was alive.

Chapter 6: 4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened....to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh."

This makes crucifying Jesus sound like a spiritual thing.

Vs. 20: Jesus was made a high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

7:3 Melchisedec didn't have a father, didn't have a mother, didn't have descendants, didn't have beginning of days, and didn't have end of life. Sounds like a heavenly being, not a man, right? It goes on to say that rather than having a mother and a father, and rather than having end of life, Melchisedec was "made like unto the Son of God."

Did the original Christians really think Jesus had a mother? It sounds like Melchisedec didn't have a mother, and that Jesus was made like Melchisedec.

Verse 14 Throwing a bone: "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses sake nothing concerning priesthood...." So, either he figuratively sprang out of Juda, or figuratively didn't have a mother.

Chapter 8:4-5: "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."

I get the distinct impression that the Melchisedec priesthood is a heavenly priesthood that angles like Melchisedec and demigods like Jesus hold. The earthly priesthood is a shadow of the heavenly priesthood.

Verse 10: "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts." Does Jesus talk directly to people into their minds and hearts? Is that where the doctrine in all of the epistles come from, rather than from a literal, earth-bound ministry of Jesus? The latter never seems to be mentioned in the epistles. If Jesus didn't teach anybody anything when he was on earth, how did he end up starting a religion?

Verse 23: It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

What are the "things in heaven" this is talking about? It sounds to me like the earthly sacrifices that the priests had been doing in the temple were a pattern of Jesus' sacrifice that he was to do in heaven.

Chapter 11: This chapter is the one Mormons often talk about with faith. It gives over a dozen examples of people in the old testament that had done things by faith. In verse 32 it says, "And what more shall I say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets." It doesn't even cross his mind to tell of anything that Jesus of the disciples allegedly did just a few years earlier by faith. Was the author of Hebrews aware that a ton of miracles involving faith had happened a few decades earlier? If he was, why didn't he mention them? He was addressing Christians that were aware of those stories, wasn't he?

Chapter 12:22 "But ye are come unto mount Sion and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling."

Jesus and the blood of sprinkling are in the heavenly Jerusalem, not the earthly one.

[_Kishkumen]

Chapter 1: A theme in this chapter is to compare Jesus with the angels: "But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies a footstool?"

If this were written a few years after Jesus' death to people who knew about him and his earthly ministry, wouldn't it make more sense to prove that Jesus wasn't a human being, rather than proving he has more glory than the angles?

When this expression was used in Psalms, it was directed at the very human king of Israel. So, no, I don't think it lends support to the mythicist perspective at all.

[_Analytics]

Chapter 1: A theme in this chapter is to compare Jesus with the angels: "But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies a footstool?"

If this were written a few years after Jesus' death to people who knew about him and his earthly ministry, wouldn't it make more sense to prove that Jesus wasn't a human being, rather than proving he has more glory than the angles?

When this expression was used in Psalms, it was directed at the very human king of Israel. So, no, I don't think it lends support to the mythicist perspective at all.

Good point. I didn't catch that link until you brought it up. Here is Psalms 8:1-5:

1 O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.

2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Is the "crown" referring to the heavens that are directly above us?

Are you saying that "the son of man" in this context is referring to "the very human king of Israel?"

[_Kishkumen]

"Son of man" here is ben-'adam, which can be interpreted as humanity or perhaps as a particular human being, perhaps Israel's king. In any case, it does not refer to a special celestial being.