Amaleq13

Could you elaborate on this "existing tradition"? Where would they come from if former followers weren't making the claim?

I don't think the original ending implies a denial of resurrection appearances. The message the women are given doesn't instruct the disciples to go to Galilee but seems to assume that is where they are headed anyway. Whether or not the women give the message, the promised appearance can be assumed or known (by Believers anyway) to have taken place. The author seems to me to have introduced this group of women specifically to replace the disciples he had already portrayed as running away. After all, they show up for the first time to witness the execution (15:40) and then to "witness" the resurrection. The author needed somebody to witness these things and he had already eliminated the disciples. I understand the abrupt ending as an explanation to Mark's audience for why they had never heard of these women before his story.

Why bother claiming that the Jerusalem group had the same experiences before him given that he disregards their "high reputation" as irrelevant (Gal2:6)? If the apparent kerygma of 1 Cor 15 is genuine to Paul, I think we have to assume he is forced to work with the fact that they experienced the risen Jesus before him.

I think I'll have to wait until I understand what you mean by "existing traditions" before I can consider this one.

Even if I assume an HJ, I don't see Paul referring to TJC as former followers. How could he disregard their reputation and expect that to be accepted if that reputation was based on their former close relationship with Jesus? Also, Paul describes Jesus as having "made himself of no reputation" (Phil 2:7, KJV) which doesn't suggest to me that Paul believed he had a following.

Regarding that passage, I note that the KJV is in the minority with that translation. YLT and others have "did empty himself" or a variation. I'm not sure that matters since, as I understand it, the reference is to a lack of supernatural power. Why would anyone follow a powerless Jesus?

NOGO

There does not have to be!

The symbology here is not the body of a man.
The symbology is with the "Word of God".

Eating the bread symbolizes accepting Jesus' teachings.

See the following
The Lord's Supper ...

capnkirk

RE: Phil 2:7. In my NIV it says the same thing as KJV. But, I don't read the same meaning into it. Paul is not imputing "absence of power (or followers)" but of "absence of EGO". He is setting up Christ as having awesome the power of a deity, but (unlike the willful, egocentric gods of the Greek pantheon with which they were familiar) with no ego-driven urge to abuse it, hence the perfect balance between power and restraint. That is what I 'hear' Paul doing here (whether I believe him or not).

Amaleq13

I think that an absence of ego would certainly be part of the "emptying" but I'm not sure why it should be limited to that. At the very least it would seem to involve Jesus consciously avoiding displaying his supernatural capability. The footnote for the NASB translation reads "laid aside His privileges". That seems to suggest more than just his ego was set aside. So, too, does Paul's statement that Jesus was "he was crucified in weakness" (2Cor 13:4). I'm also reading this in the context of the absence in Paul's letters of any reference to Jesus' alleged miracles. What little Paul says about the pre-crucifixion Jesus seems completely at odds with the portrayal of a miracle-performing healer in the Gospels.

In your view, why does Paul avoid making any reference to Jesus' miraculous activities? This seems especially conspicuous when he talks about the miracles being performed by his fellow Believers. Is it related to his opposition to TJC? I assume this was something they would have taught about their former leader. Was the traditional Jewish Messiah expected to perform miracles?

capnkirk

Why is the presence or absence of a Jewish precedent for the Eucharist relevant?

Because the central sacrament of the Xtian church and faith is that of the Eucharist (Holy Communion), and conventional orthodoxy (on the strength of the gospels) cites HJC as the founder of it, and thereby founder of Christianity. In the light of the arguments I have presented earlier in this thread, let us examine this more closely.

In the first three gospels, familiar texts portray HJC founding the Eucharist at the Last Supper, and the respective accounts are virtually identical. John (written much later), however, does not mention the incident in his account of he Last Supper, but instead attaches the Eucharistic idea to a quite different phase of HJCs’ life, namely his preaching in Galilee in the Capernaum synagogue (John 6:53-58). In the three Synoptic Gospels, HJC is represented as performing a ceremony, but not as instituting a rite to be observed by his followers in perpetuity. (This is critical, so don't hesitate to validate these observations for yourselves.) It is left to the reader to surmise that this story provides a historical or etiological origin for the rite. In John, Jesus does not even perform a ceremony; he merely expresses some ideas, dark and cryptic even to his disciples, some of whom are disturbed by them (John 6:66).

Chronologically,(55-56 CE) the first assertion of the Eucharist as a regular sacrament, and the first endowment of the Eucharistic idea with a salvific power in the body and blood of Jesus is found in Paul’s Epistle (I Corinthians 11:23-30), which begins: ‘for I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord....’ then he goes on to quote Christ (administering the familiar), 'This is my body which is given for you' From this passage it is abundantly clear that Paul was the inventor of the Eucharist, both as an idea and as a Church institution. Paul says quite plainly that the Eucharist was founded on a revelation which he himself received. I cannot considere it coincidental that this rite bears an uncanny similarity to one of the pagan rites of the mystery religion of the god Attis. We must accept that Paul is saying here that he knows about Jesus’ words at the Last Supper by direct revelation, not by any information received from the Jerusalem Apostles. This also explains the otherwise inexplicable fact that the Eucharist was not observed by TJC at all but only by those churches (in Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, et al) that depended solely on Paul’s letters for guidance and insight.

The evidence presented here thus confirms that Paul and no one else was the creator of the Eucharist. He gave authority to this new institution (more like mystical rite) by citing as 'proof of argument' a vision in which he had seen Christ at the Last Supper giving instructions to his disciples about performing the Eucharistic rite. This vision of Paul’s was later redacted (imperfectly, we have seen) into the gospels.

In stark contrast, the followers of HJ in Jerusalem (TJC), being pious Jews would have viewed the idea of eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood as thoroughly repugnant, thoroughly pagan, and a heretical violation of the Law (Torah) forbidding the sacrifice of a human, much less of a deity, never practiced this rite, but simply took communal meals prefaced by the breaking of bread in the manner sanctioned by Jewish tradition for fellowships within the general community of Judaism.

capnkirk

The first 11 verses of Phil 2 are about imitating the "humility of Christ". In v3Paul entreats the Philippians to 'do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves'. then in v5 he prefaces his description of christ's humility with 'Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus'. The remaining verses then portray Christ as the son of God humbling himself by allowing himself to be made in human likeness and accepting human death on the cross...and that this impressed god so much that he gave him high honor.

Paul not only fails to make any reference to HJC's miracles, he only quotes him twice in all his letters combined (One instance is the previously-quoted Eucharist-related example in 1 Chron. The other occurs in 2 Chron 12 and relates Christ's vision-borne answer to Paul's prayer. Paul seems completely disinterested in JC before the crucifixion[, focusing totally on the 'resurrected Christ' of his visions. Even his Eucharistic example relies on a visionary revelation by the risen spirit. Paul had no interest in the physical life of Jesus (except for his sacrificial martyrdom). Paul was consumed by his vision of the resurrected deity, and his sacrificial redemption of the sins of the world. IMHO, all this supports my viewpont that Paul invented a new religion, and that in his heart he knew it was. Nonetheless, he still needed Judaism's claim to antiquity to bolster Jesus' stature sufficiently to make people believe that he did in fact rise from the dead as the Christ, so he devotes considerable space to comparisons with and references to OT heroes and by virtue of attempting to demonstrate that Christ WAS the fulfillment of HEBREW prophesy, hoodwink his followers into believing that Xtianity was therefore a natural evolution of the Jewish faith. He may have even believed it himself...who can say?

Amaleq13

I agree that Paul's depiction of the origin of the Lord's Supper comes from himself (allegedly through revelation) but I would be interested in why you consider it an "inexplicable fact" that TJC did not practice it. I think I see why you doubt they would have accepted Paul's symbology but why couldn't they have used something more similar to what is given in the Didache?:

This removes the problematic (for Jews) body/blood symbology.

As I understand it, this was a traditional Jewish thanksgiving (eucharist) meal that followers of Jesus reinterpreted.

capnkirk

amaleq,

I have not seen the quote you reference here before today, so the only context I have for it is what I can draw directly from it.
To help provide some context, here is what a cursory search found concerning the Didache:
I would consider this document to be a local departure from the mainstream Paulinist doctrine of the Eucharist, perhaps specifically to make it more palatable to local Jewish (potential) converts. Its redefinition of the Eucharist was firmly rejected by the canonical majority as evidenced by the theological arguments that abounded later over the orthodox belief that the sacramental bread and wine WERE ACTUALLY DIVINELY TRANSMUTED INTO REAL BLOOD AND REAL FLESH by the performance of the ritual. That this was the position of the RCC for over a thousand years undermines both the import and the potential scope of influence of this section of the Didache.

On the other hand, the breaking of bread and the pouring of wine were a traditional beginning for a shared meal in the Jewish community, and were probably present in the earliest accounts of the Last Supper. The editing required to apply the symbology of the blood and flesh of a deity would have been minimal...and IMHO, likely done by Xtian redactors with access to (or knowledge of) Paul's teaching in 1 Chron. By the time Paul wrote 1 Chron, his first official reprimand from TJC was at least 10 years past. If the Eucharist had actually been instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, then why did Paul wait 'til 55 CE to first write about it? That the central sacrament of the church didn't appear in the first Xtian writers work for 10+ hears after his ministry began and 25+ years after the crucifixion is simply not compatible with the Xtian 'declared' origin at the Last Supper. If TJC observed the Eucharist, do you think that there is any way Luke would have neglected to mention it? Nay! If there had been ANY evidence, he would have featured it PROMINENTLY. Ergo, the absence of any such reference IS compelling evidence to the contrary.

Amaleq13

That assumes it was derived from Paul's "tradition" but I don't see any reason to accept such an assumption. We could just as well assume that Paul's variation was derived from an earlier Jerusalem Church tradition.

I also don't see any reason to accept the assumption given in your source:
I see nothing that "obviously" suggests this to be the case. This seems to be based on the assumption that Paul's interpretation really does derive from Jesus. I consider that an example of retrojecting the Gospels back into Paul and, thus, not a legitimate methodology.

Given that the Christian eucharist is a reinterpretation of an older Jewish thanksgiving tradition or perhaps only a communal meal, I don't see why, within the context of your views, it is unlikely that the former followers were the first to reinterpret this tradition in a way similar to that given in the Didache.

If the author favored Paul's version over theirs, I don't see why he would. What makes you so certain the author would have felt compelled to mention it given a preference for Paul's reinterpretation?

I think it is important to note that Paul refers to this as the Lord's Supper rather than the "Last". The latter is obtained from the later Gospel stories including changing Paul's "delivered up" to "betrayed". Both times "delivered up" is used in the OT (Ps 78:50; Amos 6:8) it is God doing the delivering. IOW, Paul seems to be describing God giving Jesus up to be sacrificed.

Paul writes about it because certain members of the Corinthian church were apparently abusing the ritual but I do not think this is something that Jesus instituted. I think, like everything else, it came after the resurrection experiences.

As I mentioned before, I'm not convinced of the historicity of "a" Jesus but I am convinced that the Gospel Jesus is a myth. I've tried to set all that aside, however, in an attempt to determine if your view creates a coherent story. In that context, I still do not understand why, if former followers of Jesus were preaching something entirely different, anyone would pay any attention at all to Paul's babbling.

I'm also still not clear on what you think TJC believed about Jesus beyond his qualifying as the Messiah. If James was his successor, why would Jesus be relevant anymore? Why wouldn't the focus remain on the message (i.e. the coming Kingdom of God) with a new messenger/Messiah (i.e. James)? Also, if they believed Jesus had been resurrected, taken into heaven and would return, why would they bother appointing James as a new leader instead of considering the risen Jesus to still be their leader?

capnkirk

Can you provide a single shred of evidence to support your "could just as well assume" position?

The passage you quoted certainly fits that description. Go back and read it again. The adjective (not 'my' word) seems appropriate for a document that was written AFTER 1 Chor and reflects a "sanitized" interpretation compared with that of Paul and the majority of Xtian sects. I say majority because Paul's interpretation is the one that survived to become canon. While majority status says nothing about who was right, it speaks volumes about the what the PREVAILING viewpoint believed to be right. That is the factor that gives strength to the obviousness motive for sanitization.

First, 'reinterpretation' is not an accurate description of what Paul did. Paul didn't reinterpret the custom of braking bread and pouring wine at a communal meal, he CO-OPTED IT, completely corrupted it by overlaying a pagan sacrificial rite on it, a rite that in Jewish eyes constituted participation in human sacrifice (worse than human sacrifice, the sacrifice of a deity!), a sin only about a thousand times worse than eating pork. That is why NO observant Jew could participate under penalty of death for breaking the Law prohibiting human sacrifice! Had TJC been observing the Eucharist, it would have been a dramatic 'proof' that Jesus had indeed instituted the rite rather than Paul. No Paulophile would have passed up that opportunity. That is why its absence is so significant.

I profoundly disagree with your first 'because'. You will have to quote chapter and verse to support the contention that certain members were abusing the ritual. This is important because it would mean that they had received the rite at an earlier time. I just went back and re-read the passages and it is abundantly clear that Paul believes that this is the Corinthians first introduction to the rite. At least we are in agreement that Jesus didn't institute it.

You needn't set any of that aside. I too am convinced that the Jesus of the gospels is a myth, or at least distorted beyond recognition. I do feel reasonably sure that there was some historical character that all this was based on, else why all the redaction and such? As an anthropologist, I have learned that myths are almost always heroic charicatures of historic persons or events or cultural translations borrowed of myths (not evident in the Jesus case); they are almost never made up out of whole cloth.

Why did anyone pay attention to Paul's babbling? Consider this: By 42 CE, when Paul first returns to Jerusalem after his epiphany and two year sojourn in Arabia, it has been 12 years since the crucifixion and Jesus still hasn't made his triumphal return, and with each passing day it becomes harder to convince others that he ever will. I am sure that the members of TJC also had their creeping doubts. Within another two years, another messiah candidate appears (Benjamin the Egyptian) who DOES incite the people, which gets Ben and a lot of his followers killed, but the Roman oppression only gets worse. Self preservation and self-doubts would both tend to cause TJC to try to maintain a low profile.

Meanwhile, Paul is in remote Gentile Antioch preaching 'his' gospel to Gentiles (that TJC would have no interest in) who could readily see the parallels and similarities between Paul's doctrine and the Zoroastrianism that the Persians had spread through the entire area, and that many of them actually practised. (One of the things that the NT never mentions is what all the Gentiles who converted TO Xtianity converted FROM.) Secular archaeology reveals that it was mostly one or another sect of Zoroastrianism (just like Saul was exposed to in Tarsus).

TJC believed that Jesus would return, on the Mt. of Olives he would invoke a miracle from God that would vanquish the Romans. He would then reestablish the Jewish monarchy and the free nation of Isreal (Kingdom of God). There follows a bunch of apocalyptical, eshatalogical BS, but it isn't germane to our central point.

You misunderstand James' role. James was only a 'Prince Regent', a "placeholder or trustee" to lead his followers back on earth until his brother's return. (Just like England's Prince John was supposed to be regent in King Richard (Lionheart) until he tried to usurp the throne for himself.) For James to presume to be more than that would also have been considered usurpation.