show_no_mercy

Reading the many early Christian epistles, the Christ of their worship doesn't seem to have had an actual "ministry". They never quote any of Jesus' words authoritatively in their writings, but they do talk about how they are themselves preaching a "gospel".

What if, instead of Jesus actually having had a ministry, that the gospel writers are simply quoting the minstry of the apostles and inserting the apostle's theology/ministry into the mouth of Jesus? So that Jesus more or less, in the Gospels, becomes a "Confusious say" sort of person?

I think this could fit in both a HJ and MJ position. In the HJ position, a Jesus is executed as a troublemaker by Pilate. His followers begin preaching about him, starting their wandering ministries. The later gospel writers use quotes and sayings made by these followers of Jesus and put them into the mouth of Jesus himself. So for example, the Sermon on the Mount might have actually been given by Cephas, James, or John.

In the MJ position, a mythological Christ is symbolically crucified and then Paul and other "Christ believers" begin their ministry preaching about this mythologically crucified savior. The writers of the gospels then use the philosophy/theology of these apostles and put their words into the mouth of a retroactive "historical" Jesus.

Both of these could explain why Jesus himself never had anything written or dictated - because we actually aren't reading the minstry of Jesus, we're reading the ministry of his apostles. "Q" might just be a collection of sayings attributed to the many "Jesus believers" in the first century.

Thoughts?

bacht

This is now the second letter that I have written to you, beloved, and in both of them I have aroused your sincere mind by way of reminder;
that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

2 Peter 3.1-2

Here Christ is supposed to have spoken through the apostles, but no mention of pre-crucifixion teachings.

Toto

I suspect that the gospels relied a lot on "revelation" - what the New Agers call channeling. The Holy Spirit or angels spoke directly to certain select prophets and prophetesses who passed the word on.

aa5874

But , second Peter does not even belong to the canon according to Eusebius.

The author of 2 Peter is unknown.

"Church History" 3.3.1

bacht

Yes but it's in the canon now isn't it?

I just wanted to throw in a quote which seems to echo the OP. I'm not going to argue about whether this epistle is too late for consideration.

Do you dispute the suggestion in the OP that the epistle writers don't mention pre-resurrection teachings of Jesus, or that the ideas they do express may have been supplied by apostles or christian prophets?

aa5874

The Pauline letters in particular are not about re-writing or repeating the history of Jesus on earth, they are about revelations from Jesus.

It appears to me that the Pauline epistles were primarily written to introduce the final doctrine or gospel of the ascended Jesus.

Paul is trying to show that the apostles did not fully understand the gospel of Jesus while he was on earth, so whatever they wrote about Jesus may have been mis-understood.

spamandham

I've just about given up trying to figure out which writings leaned upon others - to date them absolutely or even relatively, in whole or in part. ...and considering that even qualified scholars disagree on fundamentals in this regard (the radicals *are* qualified....I don't give a damn about what the majority feel is...I consider such a metric worthless when evidence is so scant), I think I am justified in my historical agnosticism.

That said, I see strong evidence of symbolic mysticism in all surviving Christian literature I've run into, and so I think it fair to conclude this was central to the way they thought. That being the case, a straightforward literal approach to interpretation is almost certainly wrong, IMHO.

We should not be asking who the historical Jesus was or details of the apostles, we should be asking why the idea of Jesus was contageous at that particular junction of history. HJ/MJ/FJ/*J is almost an irrelevant distraction to what is actually historically interesting.

Lilyofthevalley

I suspect the same. I think you can't apply rational thinking too much to these writings.

In simple terms: Think channelling, think dreams, think visions, think largely illiterate audience.

rizdek

I find this topic fascinating as well. I think one thing that favors Christianity is its flexibility. Of course, each individual denomination has it's code of doctrine, but taken in its total, Christianity is extremely flexible and has many features that are desireable. Example:

Some who call themselves Christians believe that one can find salvation through other means than Jesus. I think CSLewis was of that mind. While other Christians with stricter interpretations disagree with that, when talking about how many peoples of the world are "Christian," they happily include people with those beliefs as evidence that Christianity is widespread and use that fact to convince others that it must be true.

Christianity doesn't really place much burden on the adherents. Of course some teach and practice what Jesus said...take up your cross and follow me, but others emphasize the accepting the gift of salvation while still being a victim or humanity and original sin. In other words, despite what they do, their sins are always covered by the blood and won't be held against them. What a pleasing thought, no wonder it's popular.

Christianity is all embracing in that there is something for everyone. You can mold it into exactly what you want it to be. There are scriptures and interpretations of scriptures that can say pretty much anything from "we need to hate gays and kill abortion doctors" to "love thy neighbor and mind your own business." Add to it the OT and its a perfect prescription for a build it yourself religion.