jdboy

This is your invention so you explain it.

aa5874

1 Corinthians 11.22-25 are extremely significant verses because they allow us to understand How the Jesus story was developed.

These verses allow us to place the Pauline writings AFTER the earliest Gospels in the Canon.

The Myth Fables called the Short gMark, the Long gMark and gMatthew were developed BEFORE the Pauline writings.

This can be EASILY shown. Now, please remember that 1 Cor. 11.22-25 are the supposed WORDS of the resurrected Jesus.

The resurrected Jesus COMMANDS that the ritual of the Eucharist be carried out "In Remembrance of Me".

We will see which resurrected Myth Jesus spoke to Paul. Will it be the EARLY Markan resurrected Jesus or the LATER Lucan resurrected Jesus??

Sinaiticus gMark 14. The resurrected Sinaiticus Short gMark Jesus did NOT "talk" to Paul--There is NO command to practise the the ritual of the Eucharist.

KJV Long Mark 14 The resurrected KJV Long gMark Jesus did NOT "talk" to Paul--There is NO command to practise the ritual of the Eucharist.

Matthew 26 The resurrected KJV gMatthew Jesus did NOT "talk" to Paul--There is NO command to practise the the ritual of the Eucharist.

Luke 22 It was the resurrected Lucan Jesus that "talked" to Paul and Commanded that "this do in remembrance of me".

1 Corinthians 11.It is Imperative that the Pauline writings be placed in their proper chronological order to understand How the Myth developed.

1. Paul claimed he was a Persecutor of the Church.

The Myth Jesus story was DEVELOPED before Paul.

2. Paul claimed PEOPLE preached the Jesus story before he did.

The Myth Jesus story was developed BEFORE Paul.

3. The resurrected LUCAN Jesus talked to Paul.

The Myth Jesus story developed BEFORE Paul.

4. Origen and Eusebius claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

The Myth Jesus story was developed BEFORE Paul.

5. The Pauline writer claimed there were WRITTEN Texts about the resurrected Myth Jesus.

The Myth Jesus story was developed BEFORE Paul.

The earliest Myth Jesus story is the Sinaiticus Short gMark story.

Based on the contents of the Short gMark story it appears to have been written AFTER the Works of Josephus, and AFTER the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius, that is, AFTER or about c 115 CE.

The character John the Baptist is found in Antiquities of the Jews c 93 CE, the crucifixion of the three where one survived is found in the "Life of Flavius Josephus", and Vespasian was the prophesied Messiah in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

The Myth Jesus story was developed about or AFTER 115 CE and BEFORE the Pauline letters.

outhouse

false

that is the reality of the situation based on first century cultural anthropology

do you have the education to take on Crossan, Borg, and Reed?

jdboy

well bring it on show us some crossan borg etc. Quote your sources

aa5874

Do Crossan, Borg and Reed support your NO TAX Jesus who got Scraps of food for preaching????

DCHindley

Toto,

This is pretty close to the truth, although I'd call it a neo-Marxist interpretation. The theory that Jesus was a poor, dispossessed itinerant wisdom teacher is closely connected with some scholars who propose that the Didache (a document that purports to be a manual of instruction for new converts to Christianity) can be dated to the late 1st century CE. Both propose that peasants were so oppressed by the elites that their families were sold as slaves to pay their debts and they were homeless.

Scholars such as Gerd Thiessen propose that Jesus was one such itinerant tekton who wove together some bits of Syrian & Asian wisdom sayings which he preached to villages in return for a night or two in their homes. The community that created the Didache consisted of not-yet dispossessed peasant sympathizers to the peculiar wisdom teaching of Jesus, and village scribes later put the teachings on papyrus. In this process, Judean eschatological elements were added due to the fact that Judeans/Israelites were the most interested in his kind of sayings.

However, I think that what we really have are attempts to fit the data to a Marxist-like socio-economic theory to explain the origin of Christianity. Historians such as Alun Munslow call this a "Constructionist" approach, meaning the fragments of evidence that have survived have to be fit to a framework we have deduced from examination of modern events (this is where Marx comes in). To me it seems more like putting the cart before the donkey.

DCH

Alun Munslow, Deconstructing History (or via: amazon.co.uk), (1997)

aa5874

In the Didache, Jesus was the Son of God--a Myth character--a member of the Trinity.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...e-roberts.html

sotto voce

There is no more convincing argument for HJ than gratuitous trinitarianism.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

The quotation from 1 Corinthians 11:24 is very problematic. First, it should be noted that we have no manuscript evidence from before the 3rd Century (at best) for it. We know that the passage has been significantly changed at least once.

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

There is a great deal of evidence that "broken for you," as opposed to just the words "for you" was earlier and was changed for just theological reasons.

From http://ecclesia.org/truth/manuscript_evidence.html
The idea of Jesus saying that his body is broken makes no sense at the last supper of Jesus. At this point nobody had yet touched Jesus. His body wasn't broken. It does make sense in reference to Paul at the time that he was handed over after being beaten by the Chief Priest:

The term "broken" in reference to the body does not appear in the synoptic gospels, but does appear in John's gospel, denying that any bones in Jesus' body.

John apparently wants to emphasize that Jesus' body was not broken, because then he would not be an acceptable Passover sacrifice. How ridiculous for John to emphasize that Jesus' body was not broken if Christians are holding meals remembering Jesus for his broken body.

The major clue that the bread and water blessing was originally given by Paul is the connection of bread and water with prison. Paul is handed over and put in prison. (Conversely, Jesus is never put in prison). 1 Kings 22:27 establishes that bread and water is a prisoner's typical meal:

Bread and Water is also associated with enemies in Proverbs 25:21

What is important to understand is that Paul does not mention the Last Supper at all. There was already a well established eating custom at the Passover service and it would be ridiculous for Paul to try and change it.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 11:24, it would make sense that Paul is talking about the night that he was handed over.

There is not a word here about any Passover meal.

It makes perfect sense for Paul to demand that the regular group meeting meal he talks about should be just bread and water so as not to be a contest in how much food the host could provide the guests with. He wants to create prisoners of Christ, so the bread and water meal he ate in prison on the night he was handed over (arrested) and saw the Lord, ties in nicely with keeping a simple prisoner's meal at the group meetings.

In this text Paul is being given credit for creating the simple bread and water custom of the Christian meals. It makes sense for the authors to attribute it to Paul after his arrest when he is in prison and the Lord visits him. Transferring it to Jesus as the gospel writer's did and saying that he said it had something to do with the Passover Meal may make sense from some absurd Theological standpoint, but it is still clear from a logical standpoint that the original writer of the Pauline text did not mean to replace the Passover meal. The blessing of the bread and water comes from the Prisoner Paul in Prison, not from a free Jesus celebrating a joyful Passover meal.

Arguments that the text must be read as the text now reads are ridiculous when we know that the text was changed at least once and did not read as the present text reads. Imagine two Jewelry stores being robbed and a culprit nabbed in the act at the second store. Imagine an investigator who says, we cannot accuse the perpetrator of the first robbery, because, although there is circumstantial evidence to show that he was in the neighborhood at the time, and some stolen jewels was found on him, we did not catch him in the act. Saying that only presently possessed text is allowable to reconstruction the textual evolution of the New Testament, is like saying only criminals caught in the act may be persecuted.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

We also have ZERO manuscript evidence of any Pauline writings in the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

You must understand the problems associated with the Pauline writings.

I no longer accept the Presumption that the Pauline writings are early especially when it is admitted that the Pauline writings are problematic andwhen it is admitted there are early NO manuscript evidence.

Again, you have failed to show that the Pauline writings were composed before the Jesus story was known and written before c 68 CE.

You have failed to show that any early source used the Pauline writings. The words "broken for you" are NOT found in the early Synoptics.

In order to assemble a theory of how the Myth developed it is extremely important that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings be placed within a time period of which there is evidence.

1. The earliest Dated Pauline writings are from the mid 2nd-3rd century.

2. Writings atrributed to 2nd century Apologetics did NOT acknowledge Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

3. The Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the Jesus cult.

4. The Pauline writer claimed he Spoke in "Tongues".

5. The Pauline writer claimed there were Written Sources that Jesus died, was buried and resurrected on the THIRD day.

6. The Pauline writer claimed he was the LAST after over 500 people to Witness the resurrected Jesus.

It is most obvious that the Jesus Myth was developed BEFORE the Pauline writer.

The Jesus Myth Fables came first and then the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writer is merely claiming to be a Witness of the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite Texts.