aa5874

Again, you are simply making up your own story from imagination. Please, we have the Existing surviving written statements so there is NO need to imagine some other Jesus of whom you have no documented existing writings.

The surviving evidence states that Jesus the Son of God was REJECTED by his OWN people and was caused to be crucified by the Jews in Jerusalem after a trial with the Sanhedrin and then Pilate.

The matter has been resolved. There is NO puzzle.

Jesus was a Mythological character.

There is an On Going Quest for an historical Jesus which cannot ever be found because there are no sources that described an historical Jesus.

JonA

Where is the evidence for this?

Where is the evidence for this?

Where is the evidence for this?

gurugeorge

The evidence that's usually presented to suggest copying or direct influence. The long-noted analogies between the myths of Adonis, Attis, Cybele, Osiris, etc., etc., and Christianity. I propose that these are best understood not as instances of copying or direct influence, but of variously different cultural attempts to express some ideas common in antiquity (so common, indeed, as to form background ideas for some contemporary novels).

But we need not look so far abroad for the specifically Jewish version - already we have in the OT (the Tammuz festival reference in Ezekiel) some evidence that the "dying/rising" meme was not unknown to pre-Diaspora Jews. Also cf. Thomas L. Thompson (review here) on the very Jewish idea of Messiah itself as having a long history involving originally the idea of a good king who's also a Son of the Divine, and has a self-sacrificial bent.

Again, it's more a question of looking at the evidence that exists in a different way than usual. There is little in Paul to even hint that any of the people known to him personally and mentioned by him ("Pillars", etc.) knew the cult deity personally while he was on Earth. A dubious reference to James that could as easily be a cultic term of art ("brother of the Lord" - cognate with the "brothers and sisters of the Lord" mentioned elsewhere in reference to taking spouses) seems to be about the closest.

Yet on the other hand, there is a lot of positive evidence to suggest that the cult deity (at least as conceived by Paul and the people he mentions) was a personal vision, also had by the people he's talking about. And also, all this was in the context of practice one would nowadays call "occultism" (cf. 1 Corinthians 12)

Given a post-Diaspora date for GMark, that gospel seems to be the first place where the idea appeears that the people mentioned by Paul were apostles who knew the cult deity personally. (And I suggest that, simply, generations since then have read that back into Paul. But no, there's no evidence for personal discipleship in Paul at all.)

OTOH, GMark is notoriously anti-Jewish and those "apostles" aren't shown up in a very good light. Yet, in GMatthew and GLuke, which seem to be orthodox reworkings of GMark, they seem to be splendid fellows.

I suggest that the "proto-orthodox" got the idea of a personal discipleship (of the people mentioned by Paul) from GMark, but reworked it to make those disciples good guys, and (naturally!) the founders of their own sub-sect (cf. Acts - thought by some to be written by the same hand as GLuke), which eventually became dominant due to this subterfuge (personal discipleship trumps visionary experience - the churches descended from Paul, and starting to diverge - eventually to become "Gnosticism" - only had visionary experience to go on).

Further evidence for this, I believe, can be drawn from Walter Bauer's investigations, which show (what I understand is now fairly widely accepted amongst "liberal" biblical scholars such as Ehrman) that Christianity was varied from the get-go, and that the whingeing and complaining of orthodox writers about the prior establishment of "heresy" wherever they preached, gives the game away that orthodoxy was relatively late on the scene.

IOW, the upshot (as I read all this evidence) is that the search for the "historical Jesus" is a bootless rationalistic 19th century intellectual exercise, based on a con-job, based on a misunderstanding (or possibly creative re-interpretation) of a myth.

What was originally an inspired visionary and/or mystical experience, shared by small groups, of a divine avatar who briefly did some stuff among us, became "someone the founders of the cult knew personally", which became "someone OUR founders knew personally", which became (shorn of its supernatural elements) the idea of a mythified historical personage, as normally understood (i.e. a historical person whose story accreted supernatural elements).

aa5874

You mean Paul was practising occultism and was known to be doing so and his letters were still Canonised????

There is no need for all your Complex uncorroborated stories.

The Pauline writer was merely claiming to be a witness of the resurrected Jesus and that he received his gospel from him.

gurugeorge

Received his gospel from no person he ever claimed to have met, but from a vision. But whatever Paul was talking about, he certainly seems to have encouraged his congregation to practice occultism. cf. 1 Corinthians 12:-

[7] To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
[8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
[9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
[10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
[11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

IOW people were getting into trance states of various kinds and speaking forth, or writing forth, and this process (physiologically mediated of course - certain tricks the brain gets up to under certain circumstances) was accepted under the label "gifts of the spirit".

What we would call inspiration (in an artistic context, perhaps) or "a stroke of genius", or enthusiasm (being "filled with God" - in God's guise as what's here being called "Spirit"). Sometimes they'd hear voices, see things ...

Particularly, "the ability to distinguish between spirits" is blatantly recognizable occultism, but the field of magic in antiquity was in fact more than just spirits anyway, it was always also about the more exalted things like healing, wisdom and prophecy too, as well as the pursuit of mystical experience.

The written evidence showed that somebody (called for the sake of convenience "Paul") wanted people to believe that he'd gotten a new kind of idea about the Messiah from the Messiah himself, but he never claims to have met the Messiah except in some kind of vision. That the Messiah was crucified is part of the story he knows, but there's nothing to suggest that any of the people he's talking about are reacting to the apparent resurrection of somebody they'd personally known. They seem to all just be having a vision of an entity, of some kind of ethical, spiritual or mystical insight, some direct self-revelation (apparently, as it seemed to them) of the Divine. Revelation of what? Revelation of the crucifixion/resurrection story.

Nevertheless, it could be that there was a historical Jesus and that "Paul" was (or as you would say merely claims to have been) "late on the scene" and only witnessed a vision of the resurrection of somebody the rest of the people he's talking about knew personally. But there's no evidence there to clinch that interpretaion, or even make it likely, because there's nothing really there that would make you suspect that the people "Paul" is talking about knew the cult deity personally while he was supposedly on Earth either!

It's only because we read back into all these fine fellows such as Cephas, James, "The Pillars", as being people who knew the cult deity personally while he was on earth. We're so conditioned. But it's just not there in the text (the reference to James being the only feeble tidbit that could possibly be construed as making such a connection).

As to the canonization thing: exactly, that's the puzzle. Why would something invented late (by your own hypothesis) include the kind of mystical stuff that was starting to get outlawed (or at least dimly thought of) at the time you propose? Why create this troublesome proto-Gnostic at all, and canonize him?

aa5874

Again, in the Pauline writings there is NOTHING about occultism. The Pauline writer is SIMPLY aware of gLuke and Acts of the Apostles where it is claimed the apostles should receive and did receive the Promise of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 24Acts 2 The Pauline writers were INFLUENCED by the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

You will notice that a Pauline writer would claim that he was a persecutor of the Faith, was indeed in a basket by a wall in Damascus just as it is stated in Acts 9 and also claimed he Spoke in Tongues MORE than anyone else.

1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV
The Pauline writer is SIMPLY after Acts of the Apostles was written and attempted to historicise the Apostles. That is all. There is no need for any complex speculation about occultism in the Canon.

gurugeorge

I've just given you what I think is the evidence that there is. Please deal with that before moving on.

aa5874

You have NOT given any evidence. You have speculated.
The Pauline writings are Canonised and do NOT propagate occultism.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a WITNESS, not a vision, of the Resuurected Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV Why can't you even accept what is written???

Anybody can have dreams and visions but the Pauline writer is claiming he was VISITED by the Resurrected Jesus--he was a WITNESS of the Resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer is claiming he actually EYE-BALLED the resurrected Jesus.

Why can't you accept that Paul merely FABRICATED a story to make people BELIEVE his Jesus did exist and was actually raised from the dead???

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were composed simply to give people of antiquity the impression that a character called Jesus Christ did have real followers and did actually resurrect and ascend to heaven when no such persons ever lived at all.

That is all.

tanya

Thank you GuruGeorge. I found your submission to the forum very interesting, and provocative. In fact, I think it is worthy of study, by many forum members, whose skills with foreign languages far exceed my own.

Your post is challenging, erudite, fascinating, and meritorious. It is actually, out of place, since many of the forum submissions are contentious, idiosyncratic, and focused on criticizing someone's perceived inability to comprehend the abc's of bible studies.

Your post was genuinely remarkable.

Thanks. I will try to offer some opinions, which may not rise to the level of your shallow water mark on the hull. Sorry about that.

First, I have to get this off my chest, it is a heavy weight on a light poitrine. I am most appalled by 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, though I won't belabor the issue, and I will attempt to stick to the point of your post, but when you cited 1 Corinthians 12, I instinctively revisited the much reviled writing found in the former verses, and reacted negatively, as usual, to another encounter with this scoundrel "Paul", who is simply reiterating the usual Jewish nonsense.

So, we should start with "occultism", right? It references, in my dictionary, appeal to supernatural action or powers. But, in my view, that describes the very definition of "myth", to begin with. So, I am not surprised, at all, to encounter "occultism" in the writings of "Paul" or any of the gospels, for that matter. Mark 1:1, which I view, perhaps without agreement from anyone else, as having been authored before Paul, already makes this clear.

But, looking at the reference you cited, 1 Corinthians 12, we find this interesting verse (3) :

Gosh, thanks again, Guru George, what a fascinating verse!!!

Therefore, I give to know you, that no one in (the) spirit of YHWH, speaking, says 'accursed Iesous' ; and no one can say, 'Lord Iesous', if not in (the) holy spirit.

This appears to my untrained ear, less like theology 101, and more like marketing 101. Pass the bucket, and drop in 100 talents, please....

In other words, how does one enter the elite group traveling to meet Jesus? Only those who are in harmony with the pneumati hagio--the holy spirit.

So, how does one gain access to this harmony with the πνευματι αγιω, pneumati hagio, holy spirit?

money.

I doubt that practice of occultism was high on "Paul's" "to do" list. I suspect that he was looking at his bank account with one eye, while reciting the relevant passage from the tanakh, with his other eye.

But, to the point of my query, here: George, do you disagree with me, that this phrase lends credence to aa5874's contention that "Paul" was written AFTER the gospels? How does the "Holy spirit" fit into Mark? Is this "Paul's" invention?

Do we find this phrase, πνευματι αγιω in the LXX, or does this represent a new creation, part of the Christian tradition? Do the Muslims also recognize πνευματι αγιω?

Can we use the phrase to suggest which text came first--Paul or Mark?

James The Least

The epistles have no knowledge of a virgin birth, Jesus' parents, Pharisees, Sermon on the Mount ... pretty much everything about the supposedly "historic" Jesus.

Hebrews talks about a heavenly platonic Jesus archetype only.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+8&version=NIV

"If he [Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: 'See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.' But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises."

Translation: Jewish priests offer blood sacrifices at a tabernacle that is an inferior, earthly copy of the one in heaven where Jesus is.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+9&version=NIV

"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

Translation: Christ shed his blood in the "greater tabernacle" which isn't on earth. That makes his blood sacrifice all the more great.

I think Hebrews is the strongest candidate for the concept of Jesus being an entirely heavenly entity. His "sacrifice" occurred on the heavenly realm. The evangelists eventually brought this down to earth to preach to average people who (unlike them) didn't understand these heavy, esoteric metaphors.