Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 04-16-2009, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Fun stuff but we’re getting off topic

Not at all!

Raising the dead is exactly the point of xianity and salvation and a direct connection with the DSS is very important.

I am only answering points that struck me as significant.

Arnaldo, what is this Jews over here Persians over there assumption you are using?

The Jewish scriptures we have are probably written and at least very heavily edited post Cyrus, possibly in Babylon or Jerusalem after a very doubtful return from exile. Remember we are talking two generations and it was possibly unheard of for the same peoples to be returned to their homelands - politically that is a very dangerous thing for an empire to do - strengthen the people you have defeated.

It will probably need a lot more DNA testing but I doubt Ezra and his mates actually have much to do with the people living in Judea pre Cyrus.

And as I said earlier, Alexander is best understood as a Persian emperor. Sacrificial ritualistic monotheistic Judaism is a clear product of the Persian Empire - these are the classic mores of the state religion of Zarathustra with local dialects!

"It ain't necessarily so!"

Solo · 04-16-2009, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

I think Zechariah 3 LXX and Hebrews 4:14 explains where the name comes from, but the theology of (the author of) Hebrews is not the same as the theology of Paul.

Well, is it the discovery of the name ? or the consecration of the name ? I believe it is the latter.

Granted that Hebrews is different from Paul's teachings. Take eg. how Hebrews treats the 'resurrection' (11:35-39).
What's your take on the passage ?

Quote:

It just explains the origin of the name. I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that Paul understood where it came from. In fact the way he flaunted the “Jesus is Lord” shit suggests that he didn't.

Btw - don’t get all defensive because I’m not suggesting that you are jumping to that conclusion.

Could it not be though that Paul knew well the scriptural origin but did not buy into it because his conversion was to the apocalyptic end of the world and not to the messianic age that comes after ? And again if Paul was a Greek-tuned, cosmopolitan Jewish intellectual, would he not be inclined to think of the messianic kingdom of the Jerusalem sectaries as childish daydreaming ?

Jiri

arnoldo · 04-16-2009, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

MM claims that Paul and Jesus were based upon Apollonius;

whereas you claimed in an earlier post that Zarathustra was the bases for the Lord's Supper.

Which of the two above opinions are correct?

These two opinions need not be mutually exclusive.
As far as I am concerned we are dealing with the newt testament
a fabricated literary collage drawn from the LXX and other sources
which are Hellenistic, since writing in Greek, the fabricators were
addressing the canon to the Hellenistic civilisation at a specific epoch.

They took legends wherever they found them and wove them together.
The question nobody is prepared to answer is when this happened.
Following contemporary scholarship we can safely exclude the first century.
This is the century in which Apollonius of Tyana authored his works.
We should have no doubt about the historicity of Apollonius.

In the second century we have the rise of the Second Sophistic - a form of blossoming of Hellenistic literature, perhaps featuring Marcus Aurelius.

The the third century we have the revolution in Persia under Ardashir, the rise of Zoroastrianism as "canonised" by Ardashir and the demise of the Hellenistic culture in Persia. The sage Mani appears to have been a Persian who emulated Apollonius' reck to India, and managed to persuade the King Shapur's brother Peroz to mint coins with Buddha on the back.

At the end of the 3rd century we have a change in government in Persia and Mani is killed, his followers are persecuted and his voluminous writings edicted for destruction. This persecution then boiled over into the Roman empire and Diocletian edicts for the same.

Thus at the end of the first century we have Apollonius and the pre-Sassanid Persia - the Parthian civilisation and its legends available for christian pilfering.

At the end of the second century we have the early part of the second sophistic available for christian pilfering as well as the 1st century.

At the end of the third century we have heretics being persecuted over religious writings featuring Manichaeanism and Zorastrianism plus Philostratus "Life of Apollonius" available for "christian pilfering".

We do not need to look at the 4th century.

The authors of the canon pilfered the literature of their epoch.
They fabricated a collage of literature from Hellenistic and other sources,
designed for Hellenistic audiences as a "Holy Writ".

Thank you for at least providing sources which leads you to your conclusions of various pagan influences on christianity instead of producing idle speculative historical interpretation of texts. Interestingly enough. there is internal evidence in the Book of Acts of Greek mythology playing a role in the perception of the Apostle Paul. Note Acts 14:11-12

Quote:

When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have become like men and have come down to us!” 12They began to call Barnabas Zeus, and Paul Hermes, because he was the main speaker. 13The priest of the temple of Zeus, which was just outside the city, brought bulls and garlands to the gates.

Is this a clue that the writer of Acts was basing the character of Paul as Hermes?

Quote:

Hermes (Greek, Ἑρμῆς, IPA: /ˈhɝmiːz/) is the messenger of the gods in Greek mythology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes

show_no_mercy · 04-16-2009, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

It’s the same ‘Jesus’. In both episodes Jesus was a high priest who was tempted, but who was made ‘without sin’ by God.

Aren't high priests annointed with olive oil?

Solo · 04-16-2009, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Here’s Luke 7:21-23

Quote:
At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."

Here’s Matthew 11:4-5

Quote:
Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.

Here’s Isaiah 61:1

Quote:
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners …

See? There is no mention of raising the dead.

But now read 4Q521

Quote:
[the hea]vens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones. Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service! All you hopeful in (your) heart, will you not find the Lord in this? For the Lord will consider the pious (hasidim) and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power. And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom. He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the b[ent] And f[or] ever I will cleav[ve to the h]opeful and in His mercy ... And the fr[uit ...] will not be delayed for anyone. And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as [He ...] For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor ... He will lead the uprooted and knowledge …

See?

Tabor wrote a twinkie article on this called Parallels Between A New Dead Sea Scroll Fragment (4Q521) and the Early New Testament Gospel Tradition

Quote:
(W)hat is most noteworthy is that Isaiah 61:1 says nothing about this Anointed One raising the dead. Indeed, in the entire Hebrew Bible there is nothing about a messiah figure raising the dead. Yet, when we turn to the Q Source, which Luke and Matthew quote, regarding the "signs of the Messiah," we find the two phrases linked: "the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tidings preached to them," precisely as we have in our Qumran text.

It calls into question the whole issue of what does ‘Jewish’ mean?

Fun stuff but we’re getting off topic.

Fun stuff indeed,.... and right on topic !

What you collect is fine, except you see the 'dead' in those verses illustrate dissimilarity to the Paulinist resurrection. The dead are not necessarily dead as in a state of unremitting rigor mortis. The Q saying of Jesus, 'let the dead bury their dead' illustrates that there were two kinds of dead: 1) spiritual deadbeats, 2) corpses.

Dead type 1:

Heb 11:35: Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.

Dead type 2:

Rev 2:11: He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death.'

BTW, the 4Q521 passage could also be read as crossreferencing the Qumran thnanksgiving hymns (1QH):

My spirit is imprisoned with the dead for my life has reached the Pit; my soul languishes within me day and night without rest.

Does not the 'raising of the dead' here really mean 'liberating the chronically depressed' ? Isn't that what the first two beautitudes of the Sermon actually promise to fix ?

Jiri

Toto · 04-16-2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

... Interestingly enough. there is internal evidence in the Book of Acts of Greek mythology playing a role in the perception of the Apostle Paul. Note Acts 14:11-12

Is this a clue that the writer of Acts was basing the character of Paul as Hermes?

...

No - it is a clue that the writer of Acts relied on typical Hellenistic stories, in which characters were often mistaken for gods.

Eta: there is a more interpretation of this passage here.

Loomis · 04-16-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Could it not be though that Paul knew well the scriptural origin but did not buy into it because his conversion was to the apocalyptic end of the world and not to the messianic age that comes after?

Imho no. I don’t think Paul was familiar with Zechariah 3. In Zechariah 3 ‘Jesus’ and ‘the Lord’ are two separate characters. But in verses like Romans 10:9-13 Paul emphatically claims that ‘Jesus’ is ‘the Lord’.

In Romans 10:9-13 Paul makes an honest mistake. He thinks Joel 2:32 is talking about some mysterious Lord character who lacks a proper name. And so he makes up a lie and asserts that ‘Jesus’ is that Lord (I’m not suggesting that he actually believed it). If Paul was familiar with Zechariah 3 then he wouldn’t have said that Jesus is the Lord because he would have known that they were two separate characters.

At least that’s my opinion.

Am I making any sense?

Amaleq13 · 04-17-2009, 08:40 AM

The discussion about Paul's knowledge of the Gospels has been given its own thread here.

Solo · 04-17-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Could it not be though that Paul knew well the scriptural origin but did not buy into it because his conversion was to the apocalyptic end of the world and not to the messianic age that comes after?

Imho no. I don’t think Paul was familiar with Zechariah 3. In Zechariah 3 ‘Jesus’ and ‘the Lord’ are two separate characters. But in verses like Romans 10:9-13 Paul emphatically claims that ‘Jesus’ is ‘the Lord’.

In Romans 10:9-13 Paul makes an honest mistake. He thinks Joel 2:32 is talking about some mysterious Lord character who lacks a proper name. And so he makes up a lie and asserts that ‘Jesus’ is that Lord (I’m not suggesting that he actually believed it). If Paul was familiar with Zechariah 3 then he wouldn’t have said that Jesus is the Lord because he would have known that they were two separate characters.

At least that’s my opinion.

Am I making any sense?

Like yourself, I am not sure .....

I am convinced that Paul did not invent his Christ schema out of a detached study of the scripture: he knew a man in Christ who was caught up to third heaven and to Paradise (2 Cor 12:2-5); he was given thorn in the flesh by Satan to keep him from being too elated (2 Cor 12:7); he preached his gospel in Galatia because of a bodily ailment (Gal 4:13); he relates his fear and trembling to the works of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:1-15), he says he suffered a loss of 'all things' for the sake of Christ , but considers them 'dung' anyhow (Phl 3:8); he admits to being troubled and perplexed though not in despair (2 Cor 4:8) but fesses up earlier in the "letter of tears" that in Asia he suffered beyond measure so as to despair of life itself and receiving a sentence of death (2 Cor 1:8).

In short, Paul does not make up 'a lie' when he calls Jesus a Lord. You need to understand first what it is that he calls Lord Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe in it yourself, but you need to have some sort of informed notion of the 'reality' this appelation addresses.

As to whether Paul knew or did not know Zechariah 3, or was 'honestly' mistaken about Joel 2:32 referencing some mysterious Lord other than YHWH: this is naturally open to debate.

Paul's cleansing formula in 1 Cor 6:11 indeed appears to refer to Zechariah 3:4-5 investiture of Jesus the high priest and may have been used by Paul to woo converts from other Jesus cults to his Christ schema.

As for Rom 10:13 use of the Lord, this would be an example of Paul's shift in the usage of the term 'Lord' in pointing to the 'glory' associating with his esctatic and revelatory experiences. I simply don't see where Paul would think in terms of a parallel 'kyrios'. The 'name of the Lord' now belongs to the risen Jesus who acts as God's empowered plenipotentiary of the last days. The OT Day of the Lord (eg Is 2:12) transforms into Jesus' parousia, and the judgment of the world is executed by God's Redeemer.

Perhaps, the apocalyptics started to invoke Jesus to avoid the utterance of the forbidden name in their ever-changing scenarios of God's plans for the end of the world.

Jiri

Loomis · 04-17-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Imho no. I don’t think Paul was familiar with Zechariah 3. In Zechariah 3 ‘Jesus’ and ‘the Lord’ are two separate characters. But in verses like Romans 10:9-13 Paul emphatically claims that ‘Jesus’ is ‘the Lord’.

In Romans 10:9-13 Paul makes an honest mistake. He thinks Joel 2:32 is talking about some mysterious Lord character who lacks a proper name. And so he makes up a lie and asserts that ‘Jesus’ is that Lord (I’m not suggesting that he actually believed it). If Paul was familiar with Zechariah 3 then he wouldn’t have said that Jesus is the Lord because he would have known that they were two separate characters.

At least that’s my opinion.

Am I making any sense?

In short, Paul does not make up 'a lie' when he calls Jesus a Lord.

He doesn’t just call Jesus a lord. He calls him the same Lord.

Romans 10:12
For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him.

Q: Same lord as what Lord?

A1: Same lord as the Lord in Joel 2:32. :bulb:

A2: Same lord who exercises a lordship over all who call on him. :bulb:

Paul’s blunder is that the original Hebrew doesn’t say anything about a lord; it specifically asks followers to call on the name Yahweh.

Paul’s blunder makes perfect sense when you realize that his bible (the LXX) reads Lord.

Like I said - it was an honest mistake. But it shows that he was just making things up (or barrowing old ideas from others who made the same mistake).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You need to understand first what it is that he calls Lord Jesus Christ.

He probably saw all those nameless ‘Lords’ in the LXX and seized the opportunity to present them as little prophecies; to give them a face and a name, and to turn them into proof texts for Jesus’ divinity.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-17-2009, 08:40 AM	#118
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	The discussion about Paul's knowledge of the Gospels has been given its own thread here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.