Vorkosigan

LOL. I am in Kaohsiung, my library is in Taichung, three hours away. You'll have to wait until Saturday or Sunday, when I go back home for the weekend. My apologies. But my review of Eisenman here happens to contain this passageL

One should also notice that Hippolytus’ ‘Nassenes’ — whom he seems to think are an earlier group of ‘Priests’, “following the teachings of James”, have more or less this same doctrine of ‘the Perfect Man’. They call him either ‘Man’ or ‘Adam’ — the ‘Primal Adam’-ideology delineated in the Pseudoclementines again — even sometimes, ‘the Son of Man’. For the Pseudoclementines, which appear to think that Simon “Magus” — together with another Samaritan named Dositheus — learned this doctrine from John the Baptist, ‘the Standing One is the Exalted Power which is above the Power of the High God [‘that is, in others, the Christ’] superior to the creator of the world’.

Not only do these doctrines peer through the Gospels even in their present form, for instance, in the references to ‘the Great Power’ and the repeated allusions to ‘standing’, but their antiquity is attested to by Paul himself, who knows that Adam is ‘the First Man’ (that is, ‘the Primal Adam’) and that Jesus, ‘the Son of Man’ or ‘the Lord out of Heaven’, is ‘the Second Man’ and ‘Heavenly’ or ‘a Heavenly One’ — what he also refers to as ‘the Last Adam’ (1 Cor 15:45-49). This, in turn, means that the knowledge of these doctrines and their identification with ‘the Christ’ comes before the Gospels in their present form and, true enough, reflections of the ‘Primal Adam’ ideology and the ‘standing’ vocabulary are to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Haven't you read James the Brother of Jesus yet?

A review of Bloom on this familiar apologetic site also gives a thumbnail.

History and the world will end when the fragments are reassembled. Often this takes the form of the reintegration of the Primal Adam, the cosmic giant whose fragments are our souls. While this aspect of gnosis can also be taken metaphorically, the fact is that Gnostic millenarianism has not been at all rare in history.

Now you what Paul might mean when he contrasts Jesus with Adam. Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I hope that you expound on those reasons at some point. I have been partial to (4) on occasion, and you might have some insight into the problem that I don't have.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

The main problem I have is that if they are second century forgeries, why are they so bad? Why doesn't "Paul" just fall clearly in line with the Party line -- Pilate, Mary, Resurrection, Ascension, etc?

By the conventional chronology, Mark had been out there at least 40 years, and Ignatius had already written as well. Yet there is no sign in Paul of any of the gospel legends. If they are written in the first half of the second century, why is that?

One response would be that the 'authentic' Pauline epistles and the gospels were written in the 1st half of the second century together, more or less as the Dutch Radicals claimed. I already think that the gospels are all second century, so that is not a problem.

I do not know of a way to resolve the problem. I don't think they are authentic epistles dating from the 1st half of the 1st century, but I can't tell what they are.

One thing I want to take a look at this summer is the epistle of Philemon and Pliny's Letter of Sabinianus. The Pauline epistle looks a lot like a Christian reply to Pliny. If you could pin down a relationship somehow, you could demonstrate that they all dated from after Pliny wrote that letter, in the very least.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Have you considered the position of Frank R. McGuire that Galatians was written in response to Acts?

Whenever there is a literary relationship, there are three possibilities, which would be here: (1) dependence of Philemon on Pliny, (2) dependence of Pliny on Philemon, and (3) dependence of Pliny and Philemon on a common source. You would need to mount an argument that (1) is correct over against (2) and (3).

Also, two facts are relevant here: (a) Philemon and Colossians have a close relationship, particularly with the people named, and (b) Colossians may be inauthentic. I do not know why few people have taken the extra step of declaring Philemon inauthentic as well. In any case, it is possible that Philemon is inauthentic while other epistles are authentic. But I look forward to whatever arguments could be adduced that Philemon is inauthentic.

best,
Peter Kirby

jfryejr

Hi all,

I'm a newbie to the board and to critical reading of the bible. I sort of always read it believing in it until I started noticing too many inconsistencies. I'm definitely not a scholar and certainly have limited knowledge, so most of what I write might, in itself, be questionable.

One thing that's occured to me regarding the historical context of Jesus' [alleged] operation is that the Jews at the time were dying for a Messiah (after years of Roman oppression, taxation, and so forth). It would seem to me that someone walking around healing the sick en masse, feeding hundreds, etc. would attract positive attention from many Jews who were waiting for this. It's also written that his (Junior's--hehe never heard that before!) disciples went out to many towns and did the same thing.

So, we have this huge population waiting for someone to come save them. We have this guy spreading miracles like Johny Appleseed. Yet, there's no huge Jewish concensus, no large movement of followers that declare Jesus as the Messiah (which, I think, is actually a requirement to have the OT prophesies of the Messiah's coming fulfilled). Had this happened, the historical proof would have simply been the total conversion of the Jews, as Yaweh would have written his new law on *their* hearts, not the hearts of the gentiles (I think per OT somewhere..?) Furthermore, times are so bad for the disciples that, according to their own account, they have to hide away.

I know this definitely isn't an argument against an historical Jesus using sound methodology and I'm sure my logic is flawed somewhere, but I still find it a bit odd.

Now that I've written this, it seems I'm arguing more against a biblical Jesus and less against an historical Jesus but I'm curious as to any responses.

Cheers

James

NOGO

Standard answer.

Let me give you another angle.

The Last Supper.
Here Jesus breaks the bread and gives it to his disciples and says "this is my body".

This appears in all gospels and Paul mentions the Lord's supper or something like that.

The symbology of this act is explained in GJohn


John 6
51 "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;

54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
55 "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
56 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Jesus then explains these statements to his disciples

63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.


NOTE VERSE 63 "THE WORDS THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE"

Similar statements can be found in
John 6:63
John 5:24
John 12:48
John 14:23
John 17:6-8

So it is Jesus sayings, ie his teachings or his Words, which are life and Spirit. That is the symbology of the Last Supper.

Please Tercel explain these items

1. Why do Christians in Paul's letter do not shared Jesus's sayings?

2. Like Paul they receive inspiration directly from heaven.

3. Paul does not quote Jesus even once.

4. 1 Cor 15 Paul explains his Gospel. Not one word of Jesus' sayings

5. In acts Peter reveals the gospel to the Gentiles (Cornelius). They receive the Holy Spirit yet there is not one saying of Jesus in what Peter said.

Jesus came down to earth to give the "Word of God", which is life and Spirit, to humanity and Paul and his gang are totally unaware of it.