Ben C Smith

Hi, Jane. I was wondering what Tweeb was supposed to mean. Thanks for clearing that up.

The specific references you listed (Isaiah 13, 14, 34; Ezekiel 32; Joel 2, 3; Amos 8; Zephaniah 1) may be easy for some to ignore as the kind of apocalyptic imagery you are talking about, simply because one might say that these prophets did predict the end of the world (stars literally falling, earth literally shaking) and were mistaken.

Many decades ago Milton Terry pointed out even better examples of this, including Psalm 18 (17 LXX), which is also inserted into 2 Samuel 22 as a song sung by David concerning his dealings with Saul. Here the apocalyptic imagery apparently applies to strictly past events.

Ben.

boneyard bill

That would pretty much have been the reaction in the church I was raised in also here in America. I was in high school before I learned that somewhere in the Bible there was something about Jesus returning to earth some day. It was an esoteric doctrine that was never addressed in the pulpit or even in Sunday School.

Although scripture says, "No one knows the time of his return." And, "Do not ask for a sign." There are people here in America and who claim to know the signs and the approximate time of his return from these very same scriptures.

This idea has been around for a while but it has gained new traction since the Jews returned to Israel. This is because this is supposed to be one of the signs. It is based, however, on a totally senseless reading of the Book of Ezekiel.

But American Christians don't read scripture. They listen to preachers. So they're vulnerable to all kinds of nonsense. The fundamentalists claims about the Creation, in fact, are probably closer to the truth than their claims about the destruction.

ible

The historicity of an event shouldn't depend on whether it occurs often or not. We don't believe that World War II didn't occur because it only happened once. But you're right in another respect: there is a good basis for believing in wars, because they occur all the time. It's in the nature of people, seemingly. So we can ask this about this supposed Jesus person, too. Would it be in the nature of God---if it was true that Jesus was God, as in the Christian view---to not be conquered by death? Doesn't seem out of the question. The usual rules don't apply.

So it's not just any old dead person coming back to life and floating up to the sky, it's the supposed incarnation of God. Such a being would seem to me to have different rules than any normal human being.


But I am interested in hearing more about this mythical position.

So wait, who believed in the spiritual death and resurrection prior to the Mark business? What would it even mean to spiritually die? (I mean, in Christianity to be spiritually dead is to be a rebel against God, but that's probably not what is meant.)

JoeWallack

JW:
What distinguishes the Gospels are claimed Sources. My guess is that the following is the evolution of the origin of the Jesuspecies:

1) HJ is Possible Jesus witnessed by Peter, James el-all. The Jewish Bible is the only holy writing and there is no need to write a Jesus narrative because they have historical memory. They are based in Jerusalem. Paul is competition and Paul is forced to go outside of Israel to preach dead Jesus because Israel still remembers live Jesus. Paul has some success where there is no knowledge of HJ. Peter/James send HJ witness to large cities to counter Paul and are winning the battle due to personal knowledge of HJ.

Jerusalem is destroyed which ends the original Jesus movement. Modern Christians claim that the destruction of Jerusalem effectively ended Judaism but Ironically the opposite is true. The destruction of Jerusalem effectively ended Christianity in that Peter and James were the real followers of Jesus and the destruction started Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism.

2) Paul's followers continue Paulinism with Judaism as the only competition now. Paul's Source is Explicitly identified as Paul and Explicitly identified as not Historical witness.

3) To Papias, early second century, there is no knowledge of any Canonical Gospel because it doesn't exist.

4) "Mark" is written early second century with Paul as major source. "Mark" has no claimed source and has a primary theme of being Anti-historical witness which by itself prevents it from being a Greco-Roman biography (it doesn't have most of the qualities of a GRB anyway). By Style "Mark" is somewhere between Entertainment and Theolgy. Since "Mark" lacks a claimed source, by itself it can not be an Evangelical tool, only a Jesus' narrative.

5) Marcionism, which is the first identified user of a canonical Gospel (per Orthodox Christianity) adopts "Mark" and modifies it to make it evangelical. "Mark" is given a source of Paul and supposed in Text recognition that Jesus was resurrected. Paul's major themes are thus retained, historical witness did not understand Jesus. Understanding came through Paul's revelation. Note that Epiphanius and Hippolytus/Forged Hippolytus retain a tradition that "Mark" and "Luke" were Disciples of Jesus who fell away and were restored by Paul. A memory that the first two Gospels were "Mark" and Marcion's "Luke".

6) Orthodox Christianity realizes that without claimed historical witness to Jesus all Revelations are equal and there can be no uniformity. Early to middle second century Marcion's "Luke" is edited to reconcile Paul to historical witness. Now the claimed source is historical witness to Jesus and Paul's revelation. Think of it as a merger of two big holy oil companies eliminating the competition.

The true genius of the merger is that it is just like the Yankees not only signing a big free agent but signing a big free agent of the Red Sox, their main competition. It not only strengthens the Yankees but at the same time weakens the Sox. In the same way the orthodox hostile takeover of "Luke" not only gives it a competing Gospel but undermines the claim that Marcion's Gospel is legitimate.

Regarding "Luke" correcting "Mark" the above explanation has the advantage of an evolution. Marcion's "Luke" accepts "Mark's" primary theme that the source of understanding Jesus is not historical witness. Where "Mark" provides no source for the evidence Marcion transitions that Historical witness provided the evidence but did not understand it. Orthodox Christianity than transitions that orthodox "Luke" is historical witness that understands.

Think of the above like Foundation and Empire. In the short term a new Christian Assertian can have significant effect but long term analysis is done by logic, reason and observation where orthodox Christian assertians mean little.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

Actually the idea of the son of man "coming on clouds" is only found ONE single time in the OT in Daniel 7.13, and only the NT claimed the son of man will come with power and glory.


It would appear that the second coming was to fufill the prophecy of Daniel 7. The 1st coming was to fulfill Isaiah 7.

spamandham

For 2000 years, people have been convinced 'this generation' refers to them. Is it so far fetched to posit that the writer of Matthew did too - regardless of when he wrote?

You have to realize that religious zeal is irrational, and people 2000 years ago were on average even more irrational than we are. It doesn't have to make any sense.

GrahamSA

Hi allMy apologies if my question is covered elsewhere .......... my understanding is that the oldest surviving text/s of Mark end/s at Mark 16:8. There is no resurrection in the old writings, they are apparently a later add on.

Is this so ?

Graham

Toto

It is the general consensus that everything after Mark 16:8 was added on later. But this still leaves the resurrection, even if the women ran away and didn't let anyone else know about it.

GrahamSA

Hi Toto

Thanks for your reply, must admit though that I don't quite catch the gist of the second sentence ......... I am perhaps a bit slow

Can it then be said/assumed that the resurrection is then an add on in Matthew, Luke and John as well ?

Another question: Is there a resurrection in all/any of the other excluded books/gospels of the Bible ?

Graham

Toto

Sorry if I was not clear. The resurrection was part of the original - it happens before Mark 16:8.

Look at Mark 16. The Resurrection has happened by verse 6; the women run away in verse 8; and then some imaginative editor added the ending. So the resurrection was part of the original story. But the appearances to Mary Magdalene and the snake handling and drinking of poison were added.

The gospel of Peter also has a resurrection scene. The earliest Christian documents talk about a resurrection. There is no reason to think that there was ever a history of Jesus without a resurrection account.