PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

The best argument here is "In ONLY in gLuke of the Synoptics, the resurrected Jesus PROMISED the Holy Ghost and in also gJohn."

Luke:
John
In Luke, the text talks about the Holy Spirit teaching the disciples what words to say during trials. It seems to refer to a type of spirit that will inhabit people at times of great stress. It is basically saying, "Don't worry when you are put on trial about saying the wrong thing, God will help you. The Holy Spirit was commonly recognize as a spirit the writers that possessed the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In John, the text talks about the Paraclete, it refers to a specific person who will come after Jesus dies whom the father (Yaweh) will send who will use Jesus' name to teach all things.

Paraclete and Holy Spirit are entirely different terms and concepts. One has to suspect that the term "Holy Spirit" was inserted into John to make it harmonize with Luke and to oppose the numerous gnostics in the Second Century who claimed to be the Paraclete.

There is a another use of the term "Holy Spirit" in John:

John
This time we are dealing with the magical power to judge and forgive sins. It just means that you have the power of God to judge anybody you want as good or bad. This seems closer to the material in Acts where the Holy Ghost gives the disciples magical powers.

This does not show that John followed Luke, but only that Luke circa 200 is reusing material in Acts that comes from the time of John's writing circa 120. It also shows that small changes were made in John to make it harmonize with the other gospels

As for what most scholars say, they have the handicap of believing the gospel narratives reflect a real history, so their judgment on issues tends to be skewed, like those wearing rose-colored glasses tend to see a rose colored world.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

maryhelena

For what it's worth here is how I'm presently viewing things....

I think the whole argument over Paul not knowing or making specific use/quotations from the gospel story is overblown. If mythicists think that by using this argument that they can give history short shift they are deluding themselves. A historicized Pauline cosmic christ figure is never going to sell - for the simple reason that we do have the gospel storyline. And it is that storyline that has to be addressed if we are seeking early christian origins.

Indeed, as things now stand, it is the writings attributed to Paul that are deemed to be the earliest christian writings. ie a high christology at the very start of christian thinking. Which seems to give some mythicists the idea that they have the trump card in their hand. And yet, and yet - the historicized Pauline christ myth idea just won't make headway...

Yes, the gospel storyline that we now have in the four gospels is problematic - and the more so when it's evident that Paul has no interest in that story's many twists and turns. I don't think, in the gospel storyline, that we are dealing with a historicized Pauline cosmic Christ myth. Rather that the gospel story is history mytholozised - and Paul has spiritualized, rather than mythologized history. ie working from reality, from historical reality, is ground zero not intellectual flights of fantasy.

So, here is my present ordering of things:

1) The wonder-worker storyline that is now preserved in Slavonic Josephus. A bare bones story that has no connection between the wonder-worker and John, the baptizer. A story that is an attempt at mythologizing elements within Jewish history.
2) Paul and his spiritualizing of that mythologized history with his Cosmic Christ figure.
3) gJohn and it's high Christology and its very tentative meeting between JC and JtB. (maybe even an earlier than Paul version of gJohn - something to start Paul on his intellectual philosophizing - the JtB and JC meeting could have been a later addition....)
4) gMark and its water baptism of JC by JtB (the messianic 'torch' being passed on.....)
5) gMatthew and it's birth narrative in the time of Herod the Great.
6) gLuke - who attempts to re-invent the wheel by taking the 'birth' of JC away from the time of Herod the Great to the census of 6.c.e. - and tells of the bloodline connection between JC and JtB.....

What this ordering does is place Paul where he himself places himself (in the NT storyline) after the death of JC. It allows for the developing JC storyboard to be written after Paul's letters (or whoever it is that is writing them). It places Paul in the middle of things not at ground zero.

avi

Thank you MaryHelena. Always a joy to encounter one of your posts. Very well done.

I do not, as you know, share your enthusiasm for this sequence. I am partial, rather, to aa5874's notion, (though, I do so purely on the basis of faith, having absolutely zero evidence upon which to hang my hat, until such time as it can be convincingly demonstrated that the concept of "grafas" embraces "new testament gospel") of Paul's letters FOLLOWING the gospel story.

I am one of those stuffed shirts (blowhards) who imagines, but firmly, with conviction, that the absence of even one citation from the gospels in Paul's epistles, confirms absolutely nothing, vis a vis the relative dates of composition of either epistles or gospels.

In short, I think we have a paucity of data, most of it garbled, distorted, and dishonestly redacted, upon which to base any kind of sequence. What bothers me, the most, I think, is that there is zero mention of any of this folderol in the DSS. How could there not be at least one of the gospels, and one of the epistles, contained therein, had they been written before the second century?

I do not accept aa5874's idea that the gospels were written after the first Roman-Jewish conflict, but rather, (in accord with Jay, I believe), accept the hypothesis that everything was created de novo, after the third Roman-Jewish conflict, when the Jews were exiled (again).

The whole business begins, in my opinion, with the conclusion of the Roman Jewish conflict, as the uprooted Jews, (in caravans, again,) find themselves in a desperate situation (again). Story telling would be one relief, but, even better would be the chance to escape the furies of this cold, dark world, and migrate/emigrate to paradise.....

avi

maryhelena

Perhaps only a matter of degree...
Paul says he wants to know nothing "except Jesus Christ and him crucified.". He did not need the gospels (as we know them) for that position. The JC crucified story in the gospels is reflecting the wonder-worker story that is now preserved in Slavonic Josephus. All Paul needs is to be aware of this storyline. (and his relevant historical knowledge of course). The gospels are simply developing that basic wonder-worker storyline. Whether JC was born in the time of Herod the Great or in the time of the census of 6 c.e. is a side-issue. Whether the temple was cleansed at the beginning or the end of the JC ministry is a side-issue. These are interesting elements that add to the storyline but they are not the essence of the JC storyline. The crucifixion, for Paul, (or whoever is writing under that name) is the main interest. "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Consequently, Paul does not need, or show any interest in, the gilding of the lily that subsequently takes place in the developing gospel storyline. Paul's interest is not in physical, historical, realities. The power of God - a power outside of dying physical matter - is what interests Paul. And that power is not some supernatural sky god but the power within our own intellect. And its that world, our intellectual world, where 'crucifixion', where death of ideas, can have value.

Perhaps the early gospel writings had a limited market - more in-house than for public consumption. I also think that we should be looking more closely at Philo and Josephus. The groundwork for the gospel JC story, philosophical and pseudo-historical, could very well have been laid long before written gospels came into being. Alexandria not Qumran.
Ah, but this is a Jewish story - and while the days might well be cold and dark - it is dreams not of paradise in some make believe hereafter - but dreams of restoration of a land of milk and honey, every man under his fig tree.....Its this reality, that where there is life there is hope, that keeps the heart warm through the dark days - holding on to life, not seeking death, is the far stronger force, or value, in human nature.

Unless of course one has been drinking too much theological cool-aid and short-circuited ones brain cells....

aa5874

We are dealing with gJohn in the NT Canon. It is the DOCTRINE of the Church that determines the STATUS of the Myth characters which they worship.

In gJohn, the Comforter (the Paraclete, ) is the HOLY GHOST.

The Comforter is NOT human but of SPIRIT.

John 14:26 - The passage is extremely clear.

The Comforter is the Holy Ghost in gJohn.

aa5874

The claim that the Pauline writings are the earliest christian writings is actually IRRELEVANT since it is an UNSUBSTANTIATED claim.

Even "Paul" claimed Jesus Christ died, buried and was raised from the dead on the THIRD day according to a WRITTEN source.

It must be LOGICAL that other authors could have used some written source JUST like "Paul" claimed if those written sources really did exist.


1Co 15:3-4 There was a WRITTEN source of the Jesus story that "Paul" used.

ALL authors of the NT could have used those very "SCRIPTURES" if it is true that they existed BEFORE "Paul" the PERSECUTOR of Christians.

It is completely logical that the Christians "Paul" persecuted KNEW some Jesus story BEFORE "Paul".

"Paul" supposedly became a BELIEVER AFTER he persecuted BELIEVERS.

"Paul" MUST know what those he PERSECUTED believed since it was PRECISELY for their BELIEFS that they were persecuted.


"Paul" by his own admission could NOT be earliest writings of the Jesus story.

maryhelena

:thumbs:

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

It is my contention that the phrase Holy Ghost was inserted later into the John text and makes no sense there, except as a later orthodox insertion to attack the gnostic teachers who were claiming to the paraclete.

the term in Greek and Hebrew usage before this point in time is never used to refer to the Holy Ghost.

Note Wikipedia.

According to my retcon theory of Bible Construction, the text in question was originally spoken by John the Baptist, not Jesus. The passage originally talked only about God's future intervention. The term paraclete was added to make it refer to Jesus. When the speaker became Jesus instead of John, term seemed to refer to the coming of a second Jesus. When gnostic teachers started taking the title, the phrase "Holy Ghost" was inserted.

Anne Jensen makes an important point here about the use of the term paraclete in later Christian terminology having nothing to do with the Holy Ghost.

Stephen Heller has some excellent stuff here

The first thing that jumps out at us is the consistent connection of the revelation of the Paraclete at the Pentecost. The Catholics WRONGLY associate the figure of 'the Paraclete' with a holy wind. Those traditions most closely associated with the original Semitic culture of Christianity know better. The Paraclete is the title of the messiah (Numb. Rabba 13 etc). That this tradition of associating the παράκλητος with a human being who would come after Jesus's death to take over the Christian community and be its messiah is clearly present in the Marcionite and Valentinian communities (cf. Origen Hom Luke 25.5) and is the orthodox understanding in the Christian communities of Osrhoene (cf. Acts of Archelaus), Manichaeanism (where one of the title of Mani is that of the Paraclete) and earliest Islam (where Mohammed is similarly identified).

Again the singular, unprecedented and senseless use of the term paraclete to refer to the Holy Ghost in this one single sentence in John can best be explained as a later harmonizing interpolation into the Gospel of John text.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Well your contention does NOT match the evidence.

You must show that the author of gJohn could NOT have written that the "Comforter" was the Holy Ghost or show that the author of gJohn previously denied that the "Comforter" was the Holy Ghost.

In effect, you must show that the author of gJohn was a KNOWN Heretic before gJohn was Canonised.

The author of gJohn is UNKNOWN so you will NOT be able to substantiate your contention.

And now, in another chapter the author of gJohn refers to the Comforter as the Spirit of Truth.

Joh 15:26 - My contention is that in gJohn the Comforter was NOT human but of a SPIRIT and that gJohn is a LATER version of the Jesus story.

The mere fact that in gJohn that Jesus claimed he must go away in order for the Comforter to come is NOT found at all in the teachings of Jesus while he was supposedly alive demonstrate that gJohn is an ENHANCED Jesus story UNKNOWN to the the authors of Synoptics.

In the Synoptics, Jesus merely TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and resurrect on the third day and did NOT mention his ASCENSION to heaven.

Mr 9:31 - Nothing about the ASCENSION in the teachings of Jesus AFTER he is killed and resurrected in the Synoptics.

It is in gJohn that Jesus TAUGHT his disciples and others that he MUST go away and ascend to heaven..

Joh 3:13 -
Joh 16:7 - In the Synoptics, Jesus TAUGHT his disciples about the THIRD day resurrection but in gJohn Jesus TAUGHT his disciples about his ASCENSION.

The evidence is clear that gJohn is LATER than the Synoptic type Jesus story.

Doug Shaver

You assume that the version with the latest documentation was the first to be told?

Fascinating.