Toto

That's not how it works. We know that early Christians read the Jewish scriptures for information about Jesus. Hosea 6.2 is one of many "third day" references that they would have found.

Third_day_in_the_Bible contains examples.

Jewish sages, ever since antiquity, have recognized this phenomenon concerning the third day in their scriptures. And they have sought to understand its significance. Their Talmud and Midrash literature reveals that many of these sages concluded that this scriptural phenomenon reveals a divine principle: God will rescue Israel, or a righteous person, on the third day of some great crisis.^[2] Indeed, that is often the case in the narratives cited above. And Jewish Midrash shows that many rabbis interpreted Hosea 6:2 as a reference to the anticipated resurrection at the end of the age.

...

2. For example, p. Sanhedrin 97a; b. Rosh Hashanah 31a; p. Berakoth 5.2; p. Sanhedrin 11.6; Midrash Rabbah, Esther 9.2 (on Esther 5:1); Midrash Rabbah, Deuteronomy 7.6 (on Deuteronomy 28:12); Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 56.1 (on Genesis 22:4); Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 51 (73b-74a); Tanna de-be Eliyyahu, page 29.

Paul, or whoever wrote the epistles in the NT, often quotes scripture without an exact reference. Your apologetic source who wrote Church History is not considered to be a reliable source

You haven't even understood KentF's argument, much less debunked it.

aa5874

That is NOT how it works. You are promoting false dichotomies if you continue to imply that "Paul" used Hosea 6.2 because early Christians use Jewish Scripture.

Again, Please read Hosea 6.2. Please READ the ENTIRE chapter to get the context.

Hosea 6. is about "US" not Jesus.

Hosea 6:2 - I really DON'T accept your opinion at all.

I have effectively DEBUNKED KentF.

He made a SPECIFIC claim about Hosea 6.2 which is unsubstantiated when examined.

Kent F

I don't think it unsubstantiated. Us=those who believe in him will be raised on the third day, and implied "just as he (Jesus) was raised."

Then there's also Jonah, which also could have served as an inspiration for Paul: "And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." He could have likened this with being in Sheol, the underworld.

After all, it was used later in a gospel: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40)

The German biblical scholar Roland Gradwohl said that "three days is a stereotyped phrase used by the Old Testament in describing a situation when something will be fulfilled or completed within a useful and reasonable time. " We have for instance, from 2 Kings 20:5, "This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the Lord."

But back to your theory that gMark is earlier than Paul. It doesn't fit with the evidence. So I repeat: If gMark was earlier than Paul, then how could the spiritual Jesus emerge as a belief in the early 1st century?

A spiritual son of God, crucified and resurrected in the heavens is a much more realistic starting point within the Jewish communities.

aa5874

Please, stop compounding your errors.

You simply cannot show that Hosea 6 has anything to do with Jesus Christ and that "Paul" used Hosea 6.2.

Kent F

Paul wrote it himself: that's what "according to the scriptures" means. I offered Hosea 6:2 as one example, Jonah and the fish as another example and I also quoted a German biblical scholar who said "three days is a stereotyped phrase used by the Old Testament in describing a situation when something will be fulfilled or completed within a useful and reasonable time."

Paul, Clement of Rome, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, John and Jude, even some of the pastorals show no awareness of a human figure named Jesus. These writings are therefore among the earliest. gMark has this awareness, and must be later.

I know, you will say it's all bogus. But even if it's all forgery, the forgeries themselves had to be written at different times, and then Paul, Clement and the others have to be earlier forgeries than gMark because of their spiritual content! It can't be the other way around, because then we have to assume that the forgers first came up with a human-like Jesus and later forged writings with no awareness of such a figure. That's totally illogical.

And how do you explain that even as late as around 180 CE there were Christians who didn't identify Jesus as a man on earth?

Some examples from Earl Doherty's book:

Around 180 CE, Theophilus of Antioch, I:33: ”we Christians have alone possessed the truth, inasmuch as we are taught by the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the holy prophets and foretold all things.” (my emphasis). The holy prophets aren't exactly the gospel writers, now are they? Everything has been foretold in the scriptures. This is in line with Paul's thinking.

Around the same time, Athenagoras who worked in Alexandria wrote: ”Even though a god assume flesh in pursuance of a divine purpose, he is therefore a slave of desire... He is created, he is perishable, with no trace of a god in him.” There's not even room for a docetic Jesus here.

Around the same time, Minucius Felix in his Octavius, answering pagan criticism(29:2-3): ”Moreover, when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the truth in thinking that a criminal deserved, or that a mortal man could be able, to be believed in as a God. Miserable indeed is the man whose whole hope is dependent on a mortal, for such hope ceases with his (the latter's) death.” This writer thought it was evil slander to say that a dying criminal on a cross was part of his belief.

So, even way into the 2nd century, there were christians who didn't believe in a Jesus on earth. Those like Felix, who had heard about a man on a cross, denied believing in it. ”Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?” he asked.

What was the point in inventing writers like these, if that's what you think happened? It serves no purpose whatsoever.

If, on the other hand, we take these writers, plus Paul and the lot, and evaluate what they said, there's no question that christianity must have started with a spiritual Jesus. It's impossible to explain away the lack of knowledge of a human Jesus, or the denying of such beliefs, in all of these writings.

Paul was earlier than gMark.

aa5874

"Paul" wrote NO such thing.

Why, why why are you compounding your errors?

1. You cannot show that "Paul" used Hosea 6.2.

2. Hosea 6.2 is about "US" not Jesus.

3. The Entire Hosea 6 is NOT about a character called Jesus Christ who was raised from the dead.

Secondly, an apologetic source claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25.6.

In 1 Cor.15.3"...according to the scriptures" may refer to gLuke.


What!! gMark's Jesus was BELIEVED to be a Spirit when he was seen walking on the sea. See Mark 6.49. gMark's Jesus Transfigured. See Mark 9.2 and gMark's Jesus was raised from the dead. See mark 16.6

Now, how did gMark's Jesus come to be on earth? Did he come directly from heaven like Marcion's Phantom?

gMatthew's Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost.

What human are you talking about in the Gospels?

A child of a ghost cannot be human.



You have it upside down and back to front.

The Jesus story in gMark ENDS at the RESURRECTION and the Pauline story and revelations BEGIN AFTER the RESURRECTION.

The Pauline story is RATHER simple.

After Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven "PAUL" SAW the resurrected Jesus and got revelations.

Kent F

I repeat: Paul's according to the scriptures meant the old writings. His Jesus was foretold there, not by name, but hiding within the sacred old writings, such as in Hosea and Jonah. The gospel writers themselves looked for their Jesus in the old scriptures, and they didn't find his name either but they still believed their Jesus was confirmed in various prophecies in the scriptures, so why couldn't Paul have done the same before them? The first to mention the fourfold gospel was Irenaeus late in the 2nd century and even he meant the prophets in what is now the OT when he talked about the "holy scriptures."

You seem totally ignorant of the fact that early christianity didn't start with Rome. Paul was an apostle of a rival church to Rome and the Roman church used its power in the 2nd and 3rd centuries to create their own history as the legitimate heir of the christian faith. Eusebius WANTED Paul to be aware of gLuke because that suited his agenda, just like he WANTED some outside source to be aware of Jesus and therefore he or someone close to him manipulated the writings of Josephus.

Oh please! Why should Paul be the only early christian writer to mean a gospel when he says scriptures? gLuke himself quotes the old scriptures some 30 times to verify his Jesus.

The source for gMark's story probably had a Jesus who descended from heaven onto earth. It's a logical chain: from spiritual to docetic to historical. This chain explains the baffling silence for almost a century on Jesus supposed mission on earth.

Be that as it may, christians believe to this very day that Jesus was a historical figure of flesh and blood. Paul didn't have a historical figure in his writings. Neither did James, John, Clement of Rome, the author of Hebrews, Minucius Felix and several others. gMark's Jesus has a historical setting, and John the Baptist is mentioned, Mary, Pilate, disciples, miracles, Calvary, the empty tomb. It's a later earthly version of a spiritual belief. Can a spirit suffer? According to Irenaeus, no. His Jesus was truly of flesh and blood and those who thought otherwise were heretics. This is what I mean with a "human" Jesus, someone who in the eyes of the believers was on earth, who was of flesh and blood.
But why doesn't Paul address the hundreds of questions he must have faced if gMark was known to him and to those he preached for? "Have you met Jesus mother and what happened to her? What's your opinion on John the Baptist? Tell us about the miracles and stop your spiritual nonsense! Did Jesus really feed 4000 people with just some small fish and seven loaves of bread? Did he really raise people from the dead? No answer? But can you at least tell us about when Jesus was arrested! Did Judas betray him or did he just do as he was supposed to? Did Peter really deny him three times? Did you visit Calvary where Jesus died on the cross when you were in Jerusalem? Did you see the empty tomb? And by the way, who was the young man dressed in linen outside the tomb?"

All this and you suppose Paul just shrugged his shoulders and answered "I'm simply not going to tell you. It's not that interesting. But you see, after Jesus was resurrected... " Yeah, right. Not one person would have bothered to stay and listen to him.

The one and only reason he never addressed these questions was because he wasn't aware of gMark or any other gospel writer. He was earlier.

aa5874

You are RELYING on your imagination not on SOURCES of antiquity.

There was a tradition that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke according to Eusebius.

I don't talk imagination. I talk sources of antiquity.

"Church History" 6.25.4-6And LOOK again at "Church History" 3.4.8 "According to the scriptures" in 1 Cor. 15 may have referred to gLuke because in gLuke Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose on the THIRD day and it is claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLUKE.

Hebrew Scripture does NOT contain the name or character called Jesus Christ who was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

You talk imagination but I talk SOURCES of antiquity.

aa5874

The gospels called according to Matthew and Mark are generally considered earlier than the gospels called according to Luke and John.

Once it can be shown that INFORMATION in the Pauline writings MATCH the later Gospels, gLuke and gJohn, then the theory that the Pauline Jesus story is after gMark is GOOD.

1. In gMark and gMatthew Jesus told the disciples to MEET him in GALILEE after the resurrection.

Mt 26:32 & Mark 14.28- 2.In gJohn 21, the disciples were in GALILEE AFTER the resurrection.

Joh 21:2 - 3.Only In gLuke, Jesus told the disciples to STAY in JERUSALEM for the Holy Ghost and also begin to preach the gospel in JERUSALEM.

Luke 24 4. "Paul" claimed he went to JERUSALEM to see the apostles.

Ga 1:17 - The authors of gMatthew, gMark and gJohn did NOT get their information about GALILEE from the Pauline writings because the Pauline writers did NOT make any reference to Galilee at all.

The claim by the Pauline writer that he went to Jerusalem to see the apostle Peter after the supposed resurrection MATCHES the information in gLuke about the start of the preaching of the Gospel in Jerusalem.