Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-06-2013, 08:47 AM

It is the simplest matter to deduce the evolution of Jesus belief.

We have TWO versions of gMark.

We have the EVOLUTION and it is in Pristine condition.

We have the 12 verses of the 16 chapter that was ADDED.

Mark 16-9-20 is the EVOLVED story of a resurrected Jesus.

There was NO such story of the resurrected Jesus in the short gMark version.

What is even more blatant is that the Markan Jesus had NO interest in Salvation and NO interest in teaching the Populace about his resurrection.

It was AFTER Jesus was DEAD that he became interested in Salvation for the whole world.

See the EVOLVED 12 verses of Mark 16-9-20.

Listen to the EVOLVED words of the DEAD and BURIED Jesus AFTER the resurrection.

Mark 16.15

Quote:

Go ye into ALL the world and preach the Gospel TO EVERY creature.

Before the EVOLUTION Jesus himself had NO interest in the whole world. The Markan Jesus did NOT even walk on the Mediterranean Sea---he walked on a small lake in Galilee.

It was AFTER the Markan Jesus was DEAD and BURIED that people started to preach the EVOLVED Gospel.

The Pauline writer is one of those who PREACHED the EVOLVED Gospel.

The Markan Jesus NEVER said that people should preach the Gospel to every creature in the whole world. The Markan Jesus deliberately spoke in parables so the people would remain in sin. See Mark 4.11

The Pauline Corpus has about 87 chapters on the Evolved Gospel.

Romans 10:9 KJV

Quote:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

andrewcriddle · 08-06-2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This familiarity with Mithraism is unlikely before the very late 1st century CE at the earliest.

You seem to have in mind a Roman trajectory. However, that is quite roundabout. Mithraism arrives in Rome and is taken to Palestine by a legion which is responsible for the Caesarea mithraeum late in the 1st century CE. Mithra (Latin: Mithras) was not native to Rome, which was a conservative religious center focused on the traditional religion, so we must account for the mysteric Mithra arriving from elsewhere. Plutarch locates Mithra at the center of mysteries in Cilicia well over a century earlier (Vita Pompeii 24.5). This helps establish the existence in Anatolia for Mithraic mysteries. A trajectory for familiarity with Mithraism is rather easy given that christian communities came to Anatolia after Mithras was noted there.

Do we have evidence for Mithras' birth from the rock before the development of the Roman cult ?

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

I am aware of Ps-Plutarch De Fluviis

Quote:

Near to this river lies the mountain Diorphus, so called from Diorphus the son of the Earth, of whom this story is reported. Mithras desirous to have a son, yet hating woman-kind, lay with a stone, till he had heated it to that degree that the stone grew big, and at the prefixed time was delivered of a son, called Diorphus; who, growing up and contending with Mars for courage and stoutness, was by him slain, and by the providence of the Gods was transformed into the mountain which was called Diorphus by his name.

But I am dubious about its relevance.

andrewcriddle · 08-06-2013, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Archeological evidence for the Mithras cult is older than any such evidence for Christianity, even if we accept the latest possible date of 100. By then there are underground temples. I would think that a cult would need some time to grow and develop before temples start emerging. Also, I think the rock could refer to the rock of Moses. This imagery is found in the Gospels as well as other apocryphal Christian literature, none of which is necessarily borrowing from or referring to the Mithras cult.

Obviously if one dates the origin of Christianity very late, then a work can refer to Mithraism and still be pre-Christian.

Andrew Criddle

Grog · 08-06-2013, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Archeological evidence for the Mithras cult is older than any such evidence for Christianity, even if we accept the latest possible date of 100. By then there are underground temples. I would think that a cult would need some time to grow and develop before temples start emerging. Also, I think the rock could refer to the rock of Moses. This imagery is found in the Gospels as well as other apocryphal Christian literature, none of which is necessarily borrowing from or referring to the Mithras cult.

Obviously if one dates the origin of Christianity very late, then a work can refer to Mithraism and still be pre-Christian.

Andrew Criddle

Sure, I don't have a quarrel with that at all. It wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

aa5874 · 08-06-2013, 04:56 PM

We have the TWO versions of gMark and we also have gMatthew so it is an extremely simply matter to observe the EVOLUTION of the Jesus story.

It is claimed the Pauline Corpus is a product of multiple authors and is heavily manipulated.

However, with gMark and gMatthew we have the evidence of manipulation and forgeries or false attribution.

We can see the EVOLUTION of the Jesus story.

In the short version of gMark there is NOTHING that states Peter would be the Rock on which the Church would be built. In fact, it is claimed that Peter is called Satan by Jesus in gMark.

We will see the Blatant EVOLUTION in gMatthew.

Mark 8:33 KJV

Quote:

But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying , Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Examine the very last words of Peter in Mark--Peter denies knowing Jesus.

Mark 14

Quote:

69 And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by , This is one of them. 70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.

71 But he began to curse and to swear , saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak .

The character Peter called Satan DENIED knowing Jesus. In gMark, Jesus will be ASHAMED of Peter.

Mark 8:38 KJV

Quote:

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed , when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Look at the blatant EVOLUTION in gMatthew--the story has changed. Jesus is going to build his Church on Peter called Satan who DENIED knowing Jesus.

Matthew 16:18 KJV

Quote:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Wait a minute!! Does not the Jesus cult claim Peter was the 1st bishop of Rome and that Paul and Peter were in Rome?

Is it NOT claimed the Pauline character did write and Preach to SEVEN Churches?

The story that Peter would be the Rock on which the Church was built is one of the EVOLVED stories.

The Pauline Corpus is compatible with the EVOLVED Jesus stories.

It is claimed Paul wrote letters to Seven Churches.

There is NOTNING about Churches in gMark--the story EVOLVED.

We know all the EVOLVED STORIES AFTER the short gMark.

We have the EVOLVED stories in Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, the Pauline and Non-Pauline Corpus and Revelation.

There was a time when Peter was regarded as Satan but the story EVOLVED.

In Galatians it is claimed that Peter was COMMISSIONED to preach to the circumcision.

Galatians 2:7 KJV

Quote:

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me , as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles...

The Pauline Corpus is LAST in the EVOLUTION of belief in Jesus.

The Pauline Corpus was derived from the EVOLVED stories of the resurrected Jesus.

Grog · 08-07-2013, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Note particularly the dating of the Parables of Enoch.

Waddell's conjecture is so unconvincing regarding the claimed parallel with the destruction of Crassus. There are no specific similarities between the text and Crassus's end other than a reference to the Parthians (and the Medes, who had long disappeared). Milik using the same material dated the so-called Roman reference to 270-290 CE. Knibb, having considered the various datings based on the passage, rejects them all as the passage is too vague.

I haven't read Waddell, but this comment reminded me of this book: Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk), edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. I don't have any dispute with your critique of Waddell, I am more interested in the relationship of this material to development of Jesus-belief which I am looking at as a meme. Reviewing this work, Boccaccini identifies what I am calling a meme as a "unit-idea." Unit-ideas are the building blocks of paradigms. If we thing of Christianity, and the beliefs associated with Christianity, including the Jesus story itself, then the elements of this paradigm are the specific "idea-units" or memes that form the paradigm. Boccaccini actually identifies five separate, but related, paradigms. I think that the fusing and recombination of several of these paradigms resulted in belief in a heavenly Jesus. It is my believe that Paul's writings (writings attributed to apostle Paul) refer to this heavenly Jesus, not the Jesus on earth that is found in the Gospels. Richard Carrier refers to the euhemerization of this Jesus-belief that resulted in "Jesus of Nazareth" found in the Gospels. . Boccaccini sees Paul’s view of Jesus Christ as a continuation of Wisdom belief (Wisdom also descends to earth, by the way):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bocacinni

The theology of Paul presupposes not only the Enochic concept of the Son of Man but also its earliest Christian reinterpretation, an raises both to a higher and more complex level of elaboration. In the Psalms of Solomon, the Parables of Enoch, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the earliest Christian tradition, the Messianic and Sapiential Paradigms merged in the sense that the Messiah is full of Wisdom and the revealer of God’s “secret.” Even when in the Parables the coming of the Messiah is presented as one of the contents of God’s revealed to the chosen, this knowledge is not exclusive. Also in the earliest Christian tradition, Jesus is primarily the revealer of something greater than himself—the mystery of the kingdom of God.

How else can Paul’s reference to a hidden message be explained, especially coming after a supposedly public, earthly ministry of Jesus of Nazareth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God (1 Cor 2:10-11)

God’s plan has been kept secret since time began:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

To me—less than the least of all the saints—this grace was given, to proclaim to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ 9 and to enlighten everyone about God’s secret plan—a secret that has been hidden for ages in God who has created all things.(Ephesians 3:8-9)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

7 Instead we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, that God determined before the ages for our glory.(1 Cor 2:7)

Dating the Parables of Enoch

In the same volume, Sabino Chiala writes, “…I date the Book of Parables as earlier than the writings of the New Testament.” Chiala identifies an “evolutionary parabola” from Old Testament writings such as Jeremiah, Psalms, Daniel to inter-testamental writings through to the New Testament. Chiala points to a number of factors that lead to this conclusion:

1. The presence of Daniel is much stronger in Enoch than in the Gospels.
2. Attributes of the Son of Man described in Enoch are found in Matthew, but the reverse is not true. (for example, that the Son of Man must die is not found in Enoch).
3. It is unlikely that a Jewish text would borrow from a Christian text.

Another observation is that after Christians adopted the Son of Man “unit-idea,” it only appeared in Christian writings and disappeared from Jewish writings. If the Parables of Enoch follow New Testament writings, it would be the exception to the rule. Also, on the jacket, Joseph Fitzmyer credits the notion that the Parables of Enoch predate the Gospels (and any other New Testament writings):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitzmyer

The essays [in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man] show convincingly that the Parables were indeed an integral part of 1 Enoch already in pre-Christian Palestinian Judaism…

None of this proves that there was never a Jesus of Nazareth, but I am not so interested in that as in where the idea of “Jesus Christ” came from. Tracing the evolution of the ideas that comprise the paradigm related to Jesus-belief leaves little room for a Jesus of Nazareth.

In fact, it is hard for me to see (not to say that it is impossible) how a supposed illiterate, itinerant preacher, abandoned by his followers in the last act, could be worshipped as heavenly revealer, illuminator, “Son of God,” within a few short years of his “shameful death.” I just does not seem plausible to me. Given that, and the documented facts related to the development of Christologic beliefs, proposing the existence of this person in history is an unnecessary burden.

aa5874 · 08-08-2013, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

It is my believe that Paul's writings (writings attributed to apostle Paul) refer to this heavenly Jesus, not the Jesus on earth that is found in the Gospels...

The Pauline writers knew NOTHING of an heavenly Jesus and wrote NOTHING of the life of an ONLY heavenly Jesus.

Where is the 'Biography' of the ONLY heavenly Jesus in the Pauline Corpus??

There is NO such Heresy as an ONLY heavenly Jesus in the ENTIRE NT Canon

The Pauline Corpus refers to a RESURRECTED Jesus--NOT a Jesus who was always in heaven.

The Pauline Corpus does NOT state anywhere that Jesus was always in heaven and was never on earth.

The Pauline Jesus is no different to the Jesus of the Gospels and the Non-Pauline Epistles.

The Pauline Jesus was SPECIFICALLY identified as God's Own Son and MADE of a Woman which is perfectly compatible with the Gospels.

Romans 8:3 KJV

Quote:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh..

Galatians 4:4 KJV

Quote:

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..

Philippians 2 KJV

Quote:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation , and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Quote:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The Pauline Jesus is completely compatible with the Later gJohn.

John 1 KJV]

Quote:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made .............. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 3:16 KJV

Quote:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

Grog · 08-08-2013, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

It is my believe that Paul's writings (writings attributed to apostle Paul) refer to this heavenly Jesus, not the Jesus on earth that is found in the Gospels...

The Pauline writers knew NOTHING of an heavenly Jesus and wrote NOTHING of the life of an ONLY heavenly Jesus.

Where is the 'Biography' of the ONLY heavenly Jesus in the Pauline Corpus??

There is NO such Heresy as an ONLY heavenly Jesus in the ENTIRE NT Canon

The Pauline Corpus refers to a RESURRECTED Jesus--NOT a Jesus who was always in heaven.

The Pauline Corpus does NOT state anywhere that Jesus was always in heaven and was never on earth.

The Pauline Jesus is no different to the Jesus of the Gospels and the Non-Pauline Epistles.

The Pauline Jesus was SPECIFICALLY identified as God's Own Son and MADE of a Woman which is perfectly compatible with the Gospels.

Romans 8:3 KJV

Galatians 4:4 KJV

Philippians 2 KJV

Galatians 2:20 KJV

The Pauline Jesus is completely compatible with the Later gJohn.

John 1 KJV]

John 3:16 KJV

Quote:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

I have already provided examples of similar heavenly entities who were also born of woman and also descended to earth. I believe your interpretation of Paul's writings is too dependent on the Gospel lens. Your argument that Paul's inclusion in the canon is proof that he only wrote of an earthly Jesus is flawed. The Church can intertpret those same passages just as you and and Christians do. I do not think that interpretation is correct.

DCHindley · 08-08-2013, 04:58 PM

No offense, Spin, but could you cite a source for Knibb's rejection of proposed dates?

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Note particularly the dating of the Parables of Enoch.

Waddell's conjecture is so unconvincing regarding the claimed parallel with the destruction of Crassus. There are no specific similarities between the text and Crassus's end other than a reference to the Parthians (and the Medes, who had long disappeared). Milik using the same material dated the so-called Roman reference to 270-290 CE. Knibb, having considered the various datings based on the passage, rejects them all as the passage is too vague.

mountainman · 08-08-2013, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

First, the idea of the Son of God descending from heaven for the purpose of salvation or cleansing of the human race, while not a new idea in the first century, is an innovation in Judaic thought.

What if Philo is seen as an exponent of Platonism rather than Judaism?

Quote:

We can see that this idea pre-dates Christianity and any known Christian writings concerning a Jesus Christ, Son of God, descended to earth from heaven. And it clearly derives from a synthesis between Hellenism and Judaic, most clearly seen in the works of Philo. In fact, in Philo’s writings we find the first hints of what became incorporated into Christian thought and eventually applied to the figure of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Philo, writing in the first half of the first century (and thus pre-dating any documented Christian writings), describes a heavenly entity called the Logos, the intermediary between God and humanity. Philo describes the Logos as the first-born Son of God:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo

For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings (Life of Moses 2.134)

The Logos descended from heaven to Earth:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo

God, intending to send down the perfection of his divine virtue from heaven to earth, out of pity for our race, in order that it might not be left destitute of a better portion, prepared in a symbolical manner the sacred tabernacle and the things in it, a thing made after the model and in imitation of wisdom. (113) For he says that he has erected his oracle as a tabernacle in the midst of our impurity, in order that we may have something whereby we may be purified, washing off and cleansing all those things which dirt and defile our miserable life, full of all evil reputation as it is.
(Her.112-113)

Notice the similarity between the descent of the Logos and the birth of Jesus described in Matthew and Luke:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philo

prepared in a symbolical manner the sacred tabernacle and the things in it, a thing made after the model and in imitation of wisdom

When we recall that “wisdom” to Philo is Sophia, personified as a female, we can see that “sacred tabernacle in imitation of Sophia” is but a small step from the virgin womb of the Holy Mother of God, Mary.

Logos and Sophia are Greek Platonist concepts.

Does your argument rely on Philo being regarded as an exemplar of Judaism rather than Platonism?

Quote:

In fact, we can see a similar idea in early Jewish apocalyptic thought. In the Apocalypse of Adam, the “illuminator of knowledge” is said to have “come from a virgin womb:”

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApocAdam

The third kingdom says of him that he came from a virgin womb. He was cast out of his city, he and his mother. He was brought to a desert place. He was nourished there. He came and received glory and strength. And thus he came to the water.

In fact, the illuminator of knowledge is said to have been, specifically “born:” When we recognize that heavenly entities can be “born” and can be of the seed of mortals, then the argument that Galatians 4:4 supports a Paul who knows of a human being Jesus of Nazareth, born of the woman, Mary, largely evaporates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApocAdam

The tenth kingdom says of him that his god loved a cloud of desire. He begot him in his hand and cast upon the cloud above him (some) of the drop, and he was born. He received glory and power there. And thus he came to the water.

The Apocalypse of Adam is considered to be a very early tract. John Turner estimated between 1st Century BCE and 1st Century CE. It is a Sethian document and generally considered non-christian, but the degree of Christian influence has been debated. I believe it pre-dates Christianity and that if there is influence it flows from Jewish apocalyptism, including works like ApocAdam, to Christianity.

The Apocalypse of Adam only appears in the Nag Hammadi codices which were manufactured in the mid 4th century. That this text was in use any earlier is a conjecture (hypothesis) by John Turner (and others).

Having made these two comments Grog I find your theory of punctuated evolution quite interesting. You must admit that the most critical aspect in developing any theory of evolution (whether butterflies or Jesus) is chronology. Chronology is the veritable backbone of the theory upon which, and to which, all the evidence must be hung and connected. Discovery of a new butterfly may reverse all previous theories if the dating of the newly discovered (fossilized or preserved-in-amber) butterfly is secure.

In your introduction you state that "the emergence of Jesus-belief [..] I think occurred in the middle to late first century". You use Philo (who was a Platonist) and the Apocalypse of Adam (a text first witnessed in the mid 4th century) to support this hypothesis.

What other historical evidence might be used to support the claim that the Jesus belief emerged in the 1st century? I have been looking at historical evidence for some time now and I don't find any from the 1st century at all.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.