aa5874

The evidence is showing that it is highly likely that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles were written after gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, and the writings of Justin Martyr also that all writings containing, the day of Pentecost when the disciples spoke in tongues, or the gifts of the Holy Ghost were later than the 2nd century.

Now, the version of gMark that was canonised appears to be later than Act of the Apostles since it contains information about talking in tongues, not even gJohn after dedicating two chapters to the post resurrection wrote a single thing about the most important PROMISE for the disciple, the day of Pentecost when the disciples should received the POWER of the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues.

In gJohn, after the resurrection Jesus was more interested in cooking and eating fish than teaching his disciples about talking in tongues and the POWER of the Holy Ghost.

Paul talked in tongues after the author of gJohn wrote his gospel.

aa5874

From where did the authors of Luke and the Pauline Epistles get their tongues-talking story?

Jesus in the NT is not recorded to have spoken in tongues.

Solo

A historical Jesus, an unknown preacher from the north, had an ecstatic episode right in the Temple precinct, was arrested and handed over to the Romans. The ecstatic brotherhood of James, which had some political pull in the city was outraged by the treachery of the Sanhendrin and his murder by the Gentile dogs, adopted Jesus' small entourage to proclaim him a martyr of the last days. Then one of the saints in the James congregation connected Yeshu of Galilee to Zechariah 3 vision and proclaimed him a high priest in heaven. The Nazarenes did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus: they proclaimed him a just man unjustly treated who ascended to God and was rehabilitated by him.

Came to me on a ticker tape....

Jiri

gurugeorge

Yup, that's viable, along with a few of the other HJ scenarios; but to me it just seems to be neater if you think of it as "ecstatics all the way down". One cult among many pullulating around at the time had a variant Messiah idea (time-reversed and value-revalued), and "saw" him in visionary experience. His biography later got filled in over time.

dog-on

You idea also points to Marcion, in my opinion.

Solo

Guys, there is no doubt in my mind, that the name Jesus was the personification of gnosis, one acquired through contemplation and interpretation of the "cosmic" peaks of ecstatic transports. The issue is here is though, how did the earliest group agree on that name if, as it appears, they argued just about everything else ?

Jiri

dog-on

Jiri,

I wish I knew the answer to that question. It has been pointed out that the name Jesus would have appeared numerous times in the LXX and that this may have provided the impetus for the name, itself.

In actuality, I would consider this simple issue to be one of the better reasons to consider a case for an historical founder, by that name.

Clivedurdle

Maybe it wasn't a name originally, but a vague concept - saviour-messiah. Completely in line with gnosticism.

Over time with Chinese Whispers and little children asking mummy mummy tell me about this annointed saviour, we move from jesus christ to Jesus Christ, and the name above all names is part of the process.

Actually, the way xians pray in the name of Jesus is classic abracadabra magical thinking.

What would the LXX look like with jesus and christ all over the place?

And is Paul talking about Jesus Christ or a jesus christ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gnostic_Paul

And Paul is not consistent - it switches, christ jesus to jesus christ. Surely clear evidence of a vague concept.

dog-on

Very good point.

Clivedurdle

Keeping quiet about the ecstatic roots would then be part of the process of transforming jesus christ into Jesus Christ.


Well, Emperor Jesi do not go around being ecstatic!

http://www.goarch.org/resources/clip.../image_preview


(Emperor Christ)