Steven Carr

Hebrews 5
But God said to him,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father."And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

The author of Hebrews is not just claiming that God spoke to Jesus, quoting the Old Testament while doing so.

He is claiming that Psalm 110 actually IS God talking to Jesus. The 'other place' where God spoke to Jesus is Psalm 110, not planet Earth.

How could there have been an historical Jesus, if early Christians pointed out Psalm 110 as the place where God spoke to Jesus?

Juststeve

I think the standard Christian claim is that Jesus was the pre-existent logos of God but that nevertheless he had an earthly career when he incarnated as a human being. That seems very unlikely to me but as they said in vaudeville, if you “buy the premise you buy the bit”. Nevertheless, I see nothing about the extravagant claims that were made about Jesus that precludes there being a real life Jesus to who the claims attached.

It seems to be the position of some who are skeptical about an historical Jesus that their position is vindicated by the fact that extraordinary claims were later made about him. This seems to me to be a weak argument. Legends can grow around real persons and often do. No one here that I know of think Jesus actually walked on water or is the second part of a trinity. That these are myth is hardly news to anyone.

Steve

Juststeve

Stev en Carr:

If you don't already know it no Jew thinks God is talking to Jesus or about Jesus in Psalm 110. The Rabinical view is that the Psalm is by David and "My Master" is Abraham. From the Jewish point of view Jesus is just a myth or in the mind of most a false Messiah, one of quite a few.

Steve

Toto

The problem is that the extraordinary claims did not come later. The religion starts with extraordinary claims, and historical details are added several generatons later, based on reading the scriptures rather than any identifiable memories. (The Epistle to the Hebrews is generally considered to be early.)

Instead of a historical man to whom legends were attached, we seem to have a spiritual entity who was later historicized.

bacht

But Christianity (or pre-Christian gnosticism) may have started with theology rather than history. The figure of Sophia/Logos/Christ may have been a fringe move to inject another deity into Judaism, or to re-animate a pre-monotheistic form of Judaism.

Consider that after the removal of Onias as high priest in the 2nd C bce, the pre-Hellenistic version of Judaism was under stress. Not only was another temple built in Egypt but some of the Hasidim ended up in Qumran, protesting what they believed to be critical violations of the Torah (I know the identity of these people is disputed). Their brothers the Pharisees chose to protest in the political sphere.

This was also the era when the Septuagint was circulating around the eastern Mediterranean, bringing new eyes to their tradition. At the same time large numbers of Jews were living in cities around the east, side by side with pagans.

If Jesus was a prophet he doesn't seem to have had much to say. Is there anything original in the Sermon on the Mount or other quotes? John may be closer to the origin of Christ in emphasizing his metaphysical identity more than his actions or words on earth.

The concretization of Jesus seems to be a later Catholicizing move to undercut the popularity of 2nd C gnosticism, and to reinforce the claim of Jewish continuity.

Steven Carr

I just quoted the author of Hebrews saying Psalm 110 is the 'other place' where God spoke to Jesus.

It is no use simply denying what the Bible says, when we can read what the author of Hebrews claimed.

If the place where God spoke to Jesus was Psalm 110, then the place where God spoke to Jesus was not Earth - it was in the scriptures that Jesus appeared.

gurugeorge

But of course! 1 Corinthians 15:-

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that (according to the scriptures) the Messiah died for our sins ;
And that he was buried, and that (according to the scriptures) he rose again the third day,

Note my slight change of emphasis in the way the English is laid out - "according to the Scriptures" is a plain report (as in "according to the BBC").

i.e. the Scriptures is where they first got wind of the whole idea of their version of the Messiah. Nobody who's mentioned in that passage is mentioned as personally knowing or eyeballing anyone called "Jesus".

It's a revision of the Messiah concept itself, based on poring over Scriptures and finding secret meanings in them.

As if to say (e.g. to fellow Messianists): "No, you idiots, he's not "one to come", he's already been, and in an unexpected manner - look, if you squint at the Scriptures just so, you will see, that's what they tell us!"

andrewcriddle

The Greek for in another place is EN hETERW(i) literally in another.

A very extended paraphrase might be Andrew Criddle

Juststeve

gurugeorge:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received" is the standard rabbinical formulation for passing on tradition. Its equivalent to Paul saying "I'm passing along what I was told". Told by whom? Other men who were Christians before him. . This is not an argument from scripture but rather a report of what he was told happened as well as his belief that what happened was in accordance with scripture. Were it an argument from scripture, scripture would have been cited.

Steve

Steven Carr

'"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received" is the standard rabbinical formulation...'

Do you have rabbis writing that in Greek? Examples please.

And Paul was reporting what he was told, that , according to scripture, Jesus had risen after 3 days.