aa5874

Well, if Jews living in Judea were not monolithic in the 1st century as found in Philo and Josephus, then you must show that there were Jewish writers who wrote that Jews in Judea were polytheistic in that very century.

Or you must provide the name of Jews of antiquity who were polytheistic in Judea at or around the same time time as the supposed Jesus Christ, Peter or Paul.

And even if you think the history of the Jews is erroneous, you still have to provide a Jewish source or some credible source with the alternate history of the Jews.

And what Jewish writer ever wrote that there were Jews of Judea living in the 1st century who did not fuss about circumcision when the writer himself may have been already circumcised on the 8th day after he was born?

Now, just imagine that your mum told real people that "smell" was betrayed after his last supper, and that "smell" was crucified, rose on the third day, ascended to heaven and was coming back a second time for the dead who believed in "smell".

Just imagine your mum told real people that she persecuted those who once believed in "smell" and that the sins of the world would not have been forgiven if "smell" was not resurrected.

I think real people would say something SMELLS.

Paul met his Jesus Christ already pre-fabricated from the mis-interpreted/mis-transliteration of Isaiah 7.14. as propagated by the memoirs of the apostles or the Gospels.

In all the letters with the name Paul, the author uses passages from many many books of the LXX or Hebrew scriptures, not Zechariah alone.

There is no confusion at all with Paul's Jesus Christ, his information about Jesus Christ matched the general description of Jesus Christ in the gospels.

I have read the Jesus Puzzle.

Clivedurdle

By monolithic I mean they were not all zealots! As with modern Judaism there has always been a wide perspective - what was Maccabees about?

aa5874

Some were mad, some robbers and there were others who wanted to be like Simon Barcocheba. I don't know any who was like Paul or his Jesus, the offspring of the seed of David, who claimed circumcision is useless in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple.

In the 1st century, if you were male and a Jew, arguing about circumcision was an exercise of futility after the first eight days of life.

Clivedurdle

Please look up some Jewish history. Why were there gymnasiums in Jerusalem? Why did the Maccabees complain about these allegedly backslidden Greek Jews who were not circumcising? Why are non sacrificing synagogues found across Europe Asia and Africa pre the destruction of the temple?

The gospels even record the variety of Judaisms!

Just because the fundis shout loudest and their views were taken up by the xians does not mean they were the only - or even - that large a viewpoint.

Paul is a typical anti circumcision Greek Jew.

Check your assumptions!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt

Who writes history?

arnoldo

One thing I appreciated from the mythicists was the argument that the New Testament was influenced by ancient Persian texts. While it's clear that the writers of the New Testament were influenced by various texts written sometime before the fifth century B.C,; the texts the New Testament writers referenced were Jewish rather than Persian in nature. It's not difficult to providence evidence of this, for example note Isaiah 61:1 which states ;
This verse is referenced in Luke's Gospel

Now, if any "mythicist" would kindly produce a specific ancient persian text which the new testament writers utilized it would be greatly appreciated. If not then all that the "jesus mythicists" have been producing is speculative historical interpretation of texts.

Solo

No, not unreasonable at all. I want to thank you for the link. It is just what I have been looking for in my little adoption theory. This looks pretty solid. I have no doubt that Heb 4:14 references Zech 3, and the Jesus of the Jacobite community.

Well, I would not be so sure of this. The Nazarenes were messianists and and would have been interpreting current events as signs and fulfilled prophecies of the prophets in the advent of last days. The brothers of the Lord may in reality have been brothers in the Lord, an inner sanctum of saints in the church whom Paul evidently respected (Rom 15:31), and tried to reach, unsuccesfully (Gal 2:2). James and his saints may have adopted a small following of a minor Galilean prophetic figure of Yeshua after he was executed as a gesture of defiance to the decision of the Sanhendrin to denounce him and hand him over to the Roman prefect. The saints would have connected Yeshua by name to the vision of Zechariah's 'dirty' defender of the Lord being cleansed and consecrated as a high priest in heaven who prepares the Lord's way for his servant, the Branch (Messiah). In this scenario Jesus then was not Messiah himself but filled a function of a priest of the order of Melchizedek (after Psalm 110:4), a heavenly intercessor in ushering God's kingdom on earth. So what might have been a simple coincidence in names became a sign from heaven.

Paul indeed seems to references this Z-Jesus in 1 Cor 6:11 but I think it is simply in wooing folks to his own schema. Paul remained adamant that there was not going to be any kingdom of God on earth. Everything that lives in the flesh is perishable; God's kingdom belongs to the imperishable spirit. This kingdom is not of this world. It is reachable only through the acceptance of the bounty of Christ, the profession of faith in his act of redemption. This I think is the crux of Paul's disagreement with the Jerusalem folks and their Jesus missions. It is from there that Paul developed his faith vs. law doctrine which further alienated him from Jerusalem.
Note that Paul considers the execution of Jesus a 'just requirement of law' (Rom 8:4), and has God give Jesus the outward appearance of a sinner (2 Cor 5:21). This again sharply contrasts with the Z-Jesus who by tradition was executed 'by the hands of lawless men' (Acts 2:23).

I was always struck by the tradition of puritan James, which contrasted with the general tenor of the gospels (and falls in line with Paul's description of Cephas), in which Jesus (and after him his closest followers) is portrayed as not exactly abstemious. Naturally, this tradition (which Paul was despairing of at Corinth) must have come from somewhere.

Thanks again for the link...made my day

Jiri

mountainman

These two opinions need not be mutually exclusive.
As far as I am concerned we are dealing with the newt testament
a fabricated literary collage drawn from the LXX and other sources
which are Hellenistic, since writing in Greek, the fabricators were
addressing the canon to the Hellenistic civilisation at a specific epoch.

They took legends wherever they found them and wove them together.
The question nobody is prepared to answer is when this happened.
Following contemporary scholarship we can safely exclude the first century.
This is the century in which Apollonius of Tyana authored his works.
We should have no doubt about the historicity of Apollonius.

In the second century we have the rise of the Second Sophistic - a form of blossoming of Hellenistic literature, perhaps featuring Marcus Aurelius.

The the third century we have the revolution in Persia under Ardashir, the rise of Zoroastrianism as "canonised" by Ardashir and the demise of the Hellenistic culture in Persia. The sage Mani appears to have been a Persian who emulated Apollonius' reck to India, and managed to persuade the King Shapur's brother Peroz to mint coins with Buddha on the back.

At the end of the 3rd century we have a change in government in Persia and Mani is killed, his followers are persecuted and his voluminous writings edicted for destruction. This persecution then boiled over into the Roman empire and Diocletian edicts for the same.

Thus at the end of the first century we have Apollonius and the pre-Sassanid Persia - the Parthian civilisation and its legends available for christian pilfering.

At the end of the second century we have the early part of the second sophistic available for christian pilfering as well as the 1st century.

At the end of the third century we have heretics being persecuted over religious writings featuring Manichaeanism and Zorastrianism plus Philostratus "Life of Apollonius" available for "christian pilfering".

We do not need to look at the 4th century.

The authors of the canon pilfered the literature of their epoch.
They fabricated a collage of literature from Hellenistic and other sources,
designed for Hellenistic audiences as a "Holy Writ".

Loomis

Luke 7:21-23 isn’t directly referencing Isaiah 61:1. Neither is Matthew 11:4-5. They are barrowing their material from the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521) from the Dead Sea Scrolls. You can tell because of the part about raising the dead.

Here’s Luke 7:21-23
Here’s Matthew 11:4-5
Here’s Isaiah 61:1
See? There is no mention of raising the dead.

But now read 4Q521
See?

Tabor wrote a twinkie article on this called Parallels Between A New Dead Sea Scroll Fragment (4Q521) and the Early New Testament Gospel Tradition

It calls into question the whole issue of what does ‘Jewish’ mean?

Fun stuff but we’re getting off topic.

Loomis

That’s a trip. Isn’t it? There’s where yer “Jesus” comes from.

I think Zechariah 3 LXX and Hebrews 4:14 explains where the name comes from, but the theology of (the author of) Hebrews is not the same as the theology of Paul.

It just explains the origin of the name. I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that Paul understood where it came from. In fact the way he flaunted the “Jesus is Lord” shit suggests that he didn't.


Btw - don’t get all defensive because I’m not suggesting that you are jumping to that conclusion.

aa5874

You cannot say they are borrowing material specifically from the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521) of the DSS. It may be that there were already similar writings prevalent at that time.

And you must bear in mind that the gospel writers may not have lived anywhere near Judaea.