Biblical Texts: explication & discussion

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I agree. But don't we also have to check to see if the myth also contains spiritual value?

The difference between the two examinations is that we come from two different directions.I dont accept that jesus necessarily claimed to be the son of god.His motives are not of creating a new religion but of educating by openenly preaching a new way.His attitudes and morals are a reflection of other teachings of the time.He in my opinion came to be taught by the those wise men he encountered by his travels.
We are blinded by the obvious myths that where woven around his story and extracting the man from them is almost impossible.I cant believe in the virgin birth, why should god be so removed from man.I cant believe in the miracles, why not give a cure for malaria and save millions instead of one showy act of mercy.These are the stories introduced by pagans to convert their god into a movement that was overtaking their faith.The saviour of man was a revolution of the common man for a better way, just like the demand for democracy and social reform was in more recent times.We always see a revolution for change by well meaning men used by manipulative men to maintain their power or abuse the real cause.I see a socialist in Christ and i see the common mans desires destroyed by greed and the desire for power.Do you honestly believe Christ would admire the Vatican and the trappings of wealth and power.

@xris,

xris wrote:

The difference between the two examinations is that we come from two different directions.I dont accept that jesus necessarily claimed to be the son of god.His motives are not of creating a new religion but of educating by openenly preaching a new way.His attitudes and morals are a reflection of other teachings of the time.He in my opinion came to be taught by the those wise men he encountered by his travels.
We are blinded by the obvious myths that where woven around his story and extracting the man from them is almost impossible.I cant believe in the virgin birth, why should god be so removed from man.I cant believe in the miracles, why not give a cure for malaria and save millions instead of one showy act of mercy.These are the stories introduced by pagans to convert their god into a movement that was overtaking their faith.The saviour of man was a revolution of the common man for a better way, just like the demand for democracy and social reform was in more recent times.We always see a revolution for change by well meaning men used by manipulative men to maintain their power or abuse the real cause.I see a socialist in Christ and i see the common mans desires destroyed by greed and the desire for power.Do you honestly believe Christ would admire the Vatican and the trappings of wealth and power.

xris Jesus would be horrified by all the silly trappings, and rituals now invading the church.

Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth

Blessed are the poor for they shall be satisfied

Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God

In the Beatitudes or Sermon on the Mount , no mention about power or wealth

Below is a essay written about Jesus, sometime in the early 1900,s I am unsure of the author

One Solitary Life e .

@KaseiJin,

I am fairly convinced that the ideology of Jesus and the factual existence of Jesus are completely two different things.

I just saw a show on the history of George Washington. In the show they made several claims to state that the historical person doesn't in all cases match the actual person. That a legend was build upon false facts during and after his life. This all happened less than 3 hundred years ago. So if we can't actually have accurate history of a person only 3 hundred years ago how can we expect to have accurate history of a person 2 thousand years ago? Not only that but George Washington actually had archeological evidence where as Jesus has none.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were never actually a person resembling the legend of Jesus in history. I find it quite humorous and human behavior is far less than reliable for historical facts.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

I regret that it might appear to you that I have overlooked some of the content of your previous posts, it was not so, your posts are long and detailed and need some reflection before responding in the correct manner . . .

(bold mine)

I appreciate your taking the time to consider it, Alan. Yes, I will, as I do believe I have before, admit (and in the same breath offer apologies for a necessary evil) that my posts are long and detailed, and may require some consideration as well as back-up research to verify. That, however, is one very intent inherent in this very thread--to encourage careful investigation, balanced, reasonable (=practical+logical), honest and fair thought. My encouragement is for all !

The following sentence from Luke's narrative, viz., ' Father forgive them because they don't know what they are doing,' is spurious. What that means is the autograph most likely (as in some 95% chance) didn't contain those words. It is for that reason that we cannot claim that those words represent any historical event (an act of speaking, in this case) in the life of the character who in a few texts is said to have spoken such words.

To put it more straightly, those words were never spoken by the Yeshua who was the instigater of the basic movement which later became 'Christian' in nature.

I will explain the other words later, and the reasons as to why they are not trustworthy. Regardless of what one may believe at the moment, I am very confident that I can fairly present that argument--although it will demand some detail, some careful and proper methodological thought, and concern for a search for what can be fairly deemed to be more truthful (in the sense of known to be true[\i], known to be untrue, and the ranges inbetween the two.

You have pointed out a matter that must be kept in mind, Krumple, and with the age that we are dealing with, we'll find that such was somewhat more rampant than even what we'd expect to see from the 18th century. Anyway, I'll continue with the matter brought up in that one Pauline letter, 1 Thessalonians, about the parousia.

ps. If I may, Alan, I'd like to humbly suggest that it may not be to any advantage to use larger font size in posts as a habit. From time to time, to stress, I can see; to use bold and such, as I do myself, I can see. It is fully your right, of course, but just a friendly suggestion, if I may. Thanks. KJ

@KaseiJin,

I HOPE this doesn't automerge, but . . . let's see; the last one did.

PAROUSIA

The word parousia that we find there in chapter 5 of 1 Thessalonians, a feminine noun, is most likely derived from the verb pareimi which means, basically, to be beside/at/in, or to have arrived at a place. We will find the basic usage at places like 1 Corinthians 16:17 (where most translations and versions in English give us 'coming,' some give 'presence' in the footnotes, and others give 'presence' in the text), and 2 Corinthians 10:10 (where they all render it 'presence'). The reason for the difference is a bit of a problem with the original word assignment. Translators usually make use of the principle of one word assignment which states that a single original tongue word should recieve, as often as context allows, a single translation. Due to problems with the word parousia in other locations (due to theological concerns) the translation 'coming' was preferred, but at 2 Corinthians 10:10 it simply will not do. However, the word assignment is likely a bad choice to begin with.

Another very conspicuous location of parousia is at Matthew 24:3b, where the New Revised Standard Version gives us:

[INDENT]"...'Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?'"
[/INDENT]
What is consistently connected to this usage of parousia when it is not in contexts which demand an act of a contempory individual known to, and interacting with, the author of any document, is the idea of the end of the age, or the end of the system of things. This is the early sect's doctrine of the second coming of the messiah.

Going back to 1 Thessalonians, we can see the time frame had not been universal nor timeless, and that both Paul and the direct and immediate audience held, or had been told of, the understanding that the said event would happen in their lifetimes. (4:18; 5:1~5, 23, 24) We find this implication in those other 'considered-authentic' letters of Paul at Romans 13:11, 12; 16:20 (indirectly, but clearly enough implied); 1 Cor 1:7; 4:5; 7:29; 10:11; 15:50, 51; Philippians 1:6, 10; 3:20; and 1 Thess 1:8~10.

We will find the same running theme in other documents of later dates as well, such as Hebrews 9:26 (in light of 10:25m 35~39); James 6:7, 8; 1 Peter 1:5~7; 4:7; 1 Jn 2:18; 2 Jn 7; Acts 2:16~21; Revelation 1:1, 3; 22:12, 20; Matthew 24:2~3; 9, 15~20, 33, 34; Mark 13:2~4, 9, 14, 30; Luke 21:6, 7, 12~14, 20, 21, 28, 32~36, and of course in 2 Peter, a much later document, we find evidence of those who question the failure of that doctrine.

What is determined, therefore, is that with this point in 1 Thessalonians (and in other documents as well), the expectation communicated to those comtemporaries living around 50 CE in Thessalonia is of human origin only. Nothing of any such description (other than details of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, and some natural events which randomly occurred) ever happened. This is one strong point-in-case for the understanding of the lack of supernatural superintendence.

I will proceed with the explication of the next authentic document from Paul.

@KaseiJin,

xris wrote:

I dont accept that jesus necessarily claimed to be the son of god.

Jesus' relationship to God permeates all four Gospels as well as the apocryhpa, to my knowledge. I can't think off the top of my head of an example of Christ-myth that does not relate Jesus to God.

Though, we could ask what is meant by "Son of God". According to John, Jesus is the "only begotten Son". The claim is unique to that Gospel, and a major point of divergence from the Synoptic Gospels. If we reject John's claim, then a compelling argument can be made for Jesus being the 'son of God' in the same way we are all children of God and that the regular mention of this fact is for the sake of reinforcing the idea of Jesus as a true Messiah. The regular mention suggests a sort of filial piety felt by Jesus toward God, the Father.

xris wrote:

His motives are not of creating a new religion but of educating by openenly preaching a new way.

By all accounts Jesus relied on the old ways to express his new ideas. His message was treated as a radical departure from contemporary Jewish religion, but it was not entirely different. Jesus often echoes, and is sometimes found quoting, the Hebrew Bible.

xris wrote:

His attitudes and morals are a reflection of other teachings of the time.He in my opinion came to be taught by the those wise men he encountered by his travels.

Sure, Jesus seems to have been influenced a great deal by teachers before him, but the history of his education is lost to us. Most of his life is unaccounted for.

xris wrote:

We are blinded by the obvious myths that where woven around his story and extracting the man from them is almost impossible.

How can we be "blinded" by the myths when the myths are the only accounts of Jesus by which our eyes are opened to his teachings?

xris wrote:

I cant believe in the virgin birth, why should god be so removed from man.I cant believe in the miracles, why not give a cure for malaria and save millions instead of one showy act of mercy.

If we agree that the accounts are mythology, then reading them literally is agreed to be a mistake. Thus, you are not compelled to believe in a literal virgin birth in order to find meaning in the myth. Instead, we read the account as figurative, the virgin birth implying that Jesus' coming is so revolutionary that his appearance is entirely unexpected - an almost unimaginably significant occurrence.

Instead of believing that Jesus performed physically impossible miracles, we understand his miracles to reflect the nature of his impact on the world. That his message can figuratively heal mankind and so forth.

xris wrote:

These are the stories introduced by pagans to convert their god into a movement that was overtaking their faith.

Actually, the virgin birth and miracles are as original as the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's Prayer. The virgin birth and miracles may be influenced by pagan traditions, I think they are, but the use of these older myths is no more an attempt "to convert their god into a movement that was overtaking their faith" than the accounts of Jesus' original teachings as they were recorded at the same time.

xris wrote:

The saviour of man was a revolution of the common man for a better way, just like the demand for democracy and social reform was in more recent times.We always see a revolution for change by well meaning men used by manipulative men to maintain their power or abuse the real cause.

Sure, I completely agree. And the accounts of Jesus have been manipulated in such ways. But I do not see the relevance. The accounts of Jesus pre-date such attempts known to history. They seem to have been written by people honestly and seriously interested in passing on legitimate, useful, and penetrating spiritual teaching - not by people who were interested in abusing Jesus' teachings for some worldly end.

xris wrote:

I see a socialist in Christ and i see the common mans desires destroyed by greed and the desire for power.Do you honestly believe Christ would admire the Vatican and the trappings of wealth and power.

Whatever political message you read in the accounts of Jesus' ministry (which I think to be a dangerous practice), and however you think Jesus might react to certain institutions (I think we have some agreement on that point), I do not see the relevance.

We have access to copies of Scripture which pre-date the Catholic Church, which pre-date Constantine. We have accounts of Jesus which come before greed and the desire for power begin to notably infect the Christian community.

And whatever the supposed influences of corruption, I still see no relevance. Machiavelli's The Prince is not slighted for being forced upon the author purely out of the desire for power.

Why reject any value relayed by the myth? Has every minister failed to say something useful by way of the four Gospels?

xris wrote:

The difference between the two examinations is that we come from two different directions.

You describe the different directions, but I cannot seem to put a finger on their exact difference. We have agreed that the Gospels contain mythology. Don't we come from the same direction? with the opinion that the accounts should be read as literature employing figurative language?

@Didymos Thomas,

I cant in honesty dispute your post Thomas.I'm not denying his ministry,but his gospels are told and retold as if every word or story is a factual account of his life.The myths are a tool to maintain the faithful as if the truth would destroy the mans message.I can believe in a man of destiny but not in a god walking in human shoes.If god needed to send us a message it would be a lot clearer than the confused and partially informed message sent with Jesus.I adore the man and he should be worshipped but as a man of immense influence for the advancement of humanity not because he sits next to god.Thanks xris

@xris,

xris wrote:

I cant in honesty dispute your post Thomas.

Where is our disconnect?

xris wrote:

I'm not denying his ministry,but his gospels are told and retold as if every word or story is a factual account of his life.

So what? You and I have managed to conclude that much of the story is pure mythology: why can't we then interpret the mythology as we would any other offering of mythology, like Homer and Gilgamesh?

xris wrote:

The myths are a tool to maintain the faithful as if the truth would destroy the mans message.

What does the intent of some presentations matter to our ability to read the stories as mythology?

xris wrote:

I can believe in a man of destiny but not in a god walking in human shoes.

But we look at the stories as mythology, not as literally true accounts. We have agreed not to do exactly what you say you cannot do.

xris wrote:

If god needed to send us a message it would be a lot clearer than the confused and partially informed message sent with Jesus.I adore the man and he should be worshipped but as a man of immense influence for the advancement of humanity not because he sits next to god.Thanks xris

I don't get it. We have agreed that the stories should be read as mythology, so why do you refuse to do so?

@Didymos Thomas,

I do agree, sorry but my remark was my opposition to it being used as facts in matters of theology.xris.

@xris,

I enjoyed reading the dialoge there, guys. A few points raised will surely come up, but if I may, I'd like to address them a little later. I have decided to make the epistle examination presentation much more concise.

In especially the authentic letters of Paul, but also in those transcribed to him, we can see the extremely low degree of universality and timelessness, and the very high degree of immediate and direct audience. We will find some areas that reflect a high enough degree of universality and timelessness, yet we can fairly determine that supernatural superintendence would hardly be needed to expound on those things. The same is true of the documents entitled, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude.①

It will be seen that the documents According to Matthew, According to Mark, According to Luke, According to John, Acts of the Apostles, and Revelation are not of the same genre as what has been looked at so far--even though the documents of especially Luke (Luke and Acts) and Revelation were at first correspondence in nature, the intent was to either report history (in the case of Luke's works) or forcast future events (regardless of the intention having been that those events would happen in the direct and immediate audience's lifetime, they were to be future relative to having been written and recieved).

For crossing over into the gospel accounts, which I'd like to next proceed into, I'll use the letter (considered authentic) of Paul written to those comtemporaries in Corinth--1 Corinthians.

There is one key point, a very dramatically, emotionally charged argument made by Paul in chapter 15 of that letter; it runs the whole chapter. The highlight of the entire block is surely that of verses 12~19, which deals with the matter of Yeshua's having actually died, and then having actually been raised up out of that state of death.(according to that writer here, xris) I'll provide the text, for ease in following, here, as it is translated and worded by the American Standard Version (1901):

[indent] Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching in vain, your faith also is vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is in vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.[/indent]

It will be noted in verses (vss) 20~28, following that, that the word parousia comes up in verse (vs) 23. As explained earlier, that term usually deals with that second coming at the end of the age (or system of things) doctrine of the early sect. I will provide the text for ease here (again, ASV):

[indent]But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming (footnote: presence) . Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject ll things unto him. And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all. (bold mine)[/indent]

In continuation in that chapter, we will see at vs 51 that Paul had expressed that he had been telling that audience a sacred secret (or mystery), namely, that not all comtemporary believers to him and them would have died when the end would have come, but would be changed over in the blink of an eye. This exactly correlates to and matches the idea presented to those who had lived in Thessalonia around that time, as well, (1 Thess 4:15~17) and also with some other passages in documents of that more expanded general time (mid-first to first half second centuries) such as:

[indent]1 Tim 6:13, 14; 2 Tim 3:1~5; James 5:7; 2 Peter 3:1~4, 9~14; Rev 2:5, 16, 25; 3:3, 10, 11; 22:12, 20[/indent]

In conclusion on this 'cross-over' point, then, it is found to be very clear that most obviously there had been a strong connection with the doctrine of the contempory parousia, bringing the end of the age with Christ's having come the second time, and that doctrine of Yeshua's having actually died, and having actually been raised up out of the state of death. According to Paul's emotional and dramatic argument, if this latter had not been a real, factual historical event, then that former would not be as well.

Well, we today have the added advantage of the passage of time, to know for a fact, that that former did not occur (as spelled out by all points dealing with such event throughout those various documents). This knowledge will put great strains on any attempt to see at least that portion of the gospel accounts as having come from supernatural superintendence--as being used in this thread, and from that god-model. I'll go to the gospel narratives next, but am very willing to answer towards any questions or concerns raised on this much.

① All of these, except 3 John, express a very high degree of general didactic matterial and intent. Some of that is universal and timeless but will not override the stronger understanding that there had been a direct and immediate audience in mind for that particular instrument.

@KaseiJin,

I assume that Paul was part of the conspiracy to build the Myth.He definitely had an a revelation.The creed or the existing hierarchy transferred its allegiance to a popular movement and brought with it the trappings of its own god. I would be interested to know what faith Paul was following before his conversion.

@xris,

xris wrote:

I assume that Paul was part of the conspiracy to build the Myth.He definitely had an a revelation.The creed or the existing hierarchy transferred its allegiance to a popular movement and brought with it the trappings of its own god.

What conspiracy?

xris wrote:

I would be interested to know what faith Paul was following before his conversion.

He was a Jew.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

What conspiracy?

He was a Jew.

He was more than a Jew and im not the first to believe he corrupted the christian message.He is supposed to have disagreed with Peter over the character of christianity and the last supper, his invention is another pagan feast.If you read between the lines his message is more pronounced than Jesus, he makes more of his position than Christ's.He corrupts the message and takes it to Rome away from its roots and its humble beginings.
His writings spring from earlier non christian texts and his claim to authority is likened to the modern Popes direct contact with god.That for me is a leap of faith too far.Yes i do believe Paul corrupted the message of Christ,he turned it from a simple message of love and hope into a world power, corruptible and vindictive.

@KaseiJin,

Here, we do have one problem, namely, that we really just do not have enough external (non-biblical literature, or even non-canonical literature/documentation) material to determine anything about the person. If we were to give fair credit to the writings of Luke (which are well enough attested to as having been written by that particular person, by the sub-apostolic fathers) we would have to at least acquiesce that Paul had been a natural born Jew, had been of the Pharasitic sect, and had learned under one of the greater Jewish religious scholars of the time. Most of his work had actually (as far as can be determined) been in the area of Greek and Ephesis. (sp?...sorry, rushed and my spelling can be bad at times...sorry)

Do you happen to have some source material on your line of thought there, xris? I'd be interested in checking it out some. Thanks ! KJ

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin wrote:

Here, we do have one problem, namely, that we really just do not have enough external (non-biblical literature, or even non-canonical literature/documentation) material to determine anything about the person. If we were to give fair credit to the writings of Luke (which are well enough attested to as having been written by that particular person, by the sub-apostolic fathers) we would have to at least acquiesce that Paul had been a natural born Jew, had been of the Pharasitic sect, and had learned under one of the greater Jewish religious scholars of the time. Most of his work had actually (as far as can be determined) been in the area of Greek and Ephesis. (sp?...sorry, rushed and my spelling can be bad at times...sorry)

Do you happen to have some source material on your line of thought there, xris? I'd be interested in checking it out some. Thanks ! KJ

Sorry i have no direct source but Paul was also believed to be Gnostic as well as Hellenistic.The Gnostic's i do believe existed before christ and this marriage of ideas must have influenced his beliefs.The number 13 is a pagan number drawn from the 13 lunar months.The thirteenth month kills the sun and it is then reborn at Easter the pagan new year.All these subtle messages would have been attractive to outlawed pagan believers.Circumcision a must for Peter as a jew became unnecessary by Paul's teachings and would also have made Christianity more attractive to pagans.Hellenistic Jews had their power from Rome rather than Jerusalem so it was natural again for Paul to divert his new christianity to Rome.The more you look the more you see the story changing and adapting to fit Pauls image of christianity.

@xris,

xris wrote:

He was more than a Jew

You asked about Paul's faith prior to conversion to Christianity. Again, he was a Jew from Tarsus. That's it. He was a Jew who persecuted Christians until he had what he understood to be a profound religious experience which left him blind for a few days after. In this experience, he claims to have seen Jesus and received his teachings from Jesus.

So, we have Paul who takes his teachings from the Jesus of his visions, not always the historical Jesus.

xris wrote:

and im not the first to believe he corrupted the christian message.He is supposed to have disagreed with Peter over the character of christianity and the last supper, his invention is another pagan feast.If you read between the lines his message is more pronounced than Jesus, he makes more of his position than Christ's.He corrupts the message and takes it to Rome away from its roots and its humble beginings.
His writings spring from earlier non christian texts and his claim to authority is likened to the modern Popes direct contact with god.That for me is a leap of faith too far.Yes i do believe Paul corrupted the message of Christ,he turned it from a simple message of love and hope into a world power, corruptible and vindictive.

Many scholars agree that Paul's Christianity is vastly different from Jesus' Christianity, but whether or not this is a corruption and that he turned a peaceful message into one of power, ect depends entirely upon how we read Paul.

xris wrote:

Sorry i have no direct source but Paul was also believed to be Gnostic as well as Hellenistic.

Some, like Pagels, have advanced the notion that Paul may have been a Gnostic, but this is highly contested. I have not read Pagel's book; it can be found in many bookstores (Barnes and Noble, I think, carries it).

xris wrote:

The Gnostic's i do believe existed before christ

Yes, Gnostics existed prior to Jesus, but Christian Gnostics did not exist prior to Jesus. Not all Gnostics were/are Christians.

@Didymos Thomas,

Alan all these proposed letters are supposed to be direct from god but as our learned friend has tried to explain they are not. Paul would like us to believe that his interpretations and his teachings are novel and not to be disputed because of their authority.Its always good way of carrying your view by claiming its gods word not yours.When you look at the detail many of his claims come from previous non christian teachings,the apocalypse is one in question.He is the bully boy who threatens us into Christianity, he dissolves Christianity into a power struggle and the original message is drowned in his own self interest.His legacy is a pope whose bigoted views reinforced by his holiness carries dogma to the point where children die and are left orphans.Can you imagine christ sacrificing a child for dogma, for a point of view?

@KaseiJin,

Then, crossing over into the gospel accounts, I'll first explain a little of the methodology used, and then go from there.

I will be using Luke as the 'control group' (of sorts) here. By doing so I am not making the argument that the historio-biographical document is historically accurate, but am holding it as though it were (and will later come back to show how it, even, cannot be trustworthy). The reason for holding according to Luke as a guide to compare against is not only because of the better linguistical style and volume of the document, but the opening claim to have recorded things in accurate order as per the accounts of those 'who had been witnesses of the events.' (Luke 1:1~4)①

Looking at Luke 21:5~7, we will pick up on a reported event that is covered by all the synoptics (the end of the age). We will note, however, that there is no mention of the parousia in the quotes given for the question that the disciples had asked Yeshua. After looking over that whole block (which finishes at vs 36) we can then cross-examine it with the other reports.

At Matthew 24:3, the disciples had reportedly mentioned (as though they had already known about such tenet) the parousia whereas neither Mark's nor Luke's accounts give room for that verbatim question.②　　The monolog which follows (Yeshua's answer to the disciple's question) runs in a number of simi-fixed blocks. These blocks do not all agree chronologically, nor in wording in some cases. We will find that Luke has portions which neither Matthew nor Mark have③, and that Matthew has some which the other two do not.

The second person plural is used as the address of Yeshua's speech throughout the entire monolog by all synoptic authors. In the historical perspective, this would be Yeshua's words to those to whom he had been talking--at the first level--and to the immediate audience for whom the texts had been written--on the second level. The intention is most clear, as backed up by the epistles which deal on the matter, that this was to have happened in the first century according to the earlier teaching.

In that it is most certain that the predicted event involved in the parousia tenet did not occur historically, we can see that there is a weakness in the former premise that Paul had so emotionally argued in that letter to those in Thessalonia around 50 CE. To check that out, some time should probably be spent, and a couple of posts made. We will look at Luke 24, Matthew 28, Mark 16, and John 20. All accounts deal with the ressurection.

① John 21:24 (compare [cf.] vs 19:35) tells us that the witness of the disciple who is insintuated as having penned that gospel narrative is true (and is thus believable) but that section is by a second (or third) hand, and not of a proto-John, as the bulk is. For this reason, Luke's claim can at least be held as the better control.

②　　In that we have historical record of one document's having been written by the disciple Matthew, the Levi, in Hebrew script, and of a Hebrew Matthew of a somewhat different nature (along with concerns on Shem Tob Hebrew text), we cannot be sure that our Greek exemplar is from that source. Also, while we do not have to always worry about direct translation from Aramaic (the spoken language of any would-be Galilean) into Greek, we will have a fair verbatim body to most quotes.

③ Lk 21:11b, 15, 18, 19 (although vs 19 has an essence with Mk 13:13b and Mt 24:13a), 20~23b, 24, 25, 26a, 28, 34~36b.

@KaseiJin,

The document entitled According to Luke, which we can think of as having been composed sometime during the last couple of decades of the first century--although it has traditionally been seen to have been penned earlier--is the guide we'll use to investigate and test. In chapter 24 the story of the resurrection of Yeshua begins. We will look at that and compare it with the other documents.

It must be kept in mind that the said event was to have happened around 30~33 CE. From that point in time, as can be reasoned out in any event, those who told, kept, and/or published the story did so by oral methods at first (oral tradition). There is evidence that a form of 'note' may have eventually been used (as was used from time to time by some in that era) and this may have led to documents like the Q sayings, or the Didache; and the likes. Therefore, from the spread of the oral stories, we eventually, and in gradual degrees, get to the more fully documented on writing material narratives.

In applying historical method, we can use the did you, or did you not . . . style reasoning/questioning that a trial lawyer could be imagined using, because we are dealing with what is reported on as being actual history--in the mind of the authors of these narratives. In the process of trying to reconstruct said event, we can test for supernatural superintendence in the conclusion.

Luke has the women who had followed Yeshua's troupe out of Galilee coming to the tomb (which they had inspected two days before, Lk 23:55, 56) early in the morning with the spices and perfumed oils they had prepared to rub the body with. The sabbath had been sandwiched between the day of burial and this day (vs 23:56b). There is no problem really with the Greek term, orthrou batheos, here as being early in the morning with some degree of light. (which would be realistic for working inside a tomb, where it'd be dark anyway--unless one had been carrying tourches)

Upon arriving at the tomb, they find the stone which had covered it had already been rolled away. Unlike Matthew's account, there was no earthquake at that moment, and unlike Mark's account, Luke does not give information about whether they had been wondering about how to roll the stone from the door. One matter here, is that Luke gives us a bunch of women making the trip (vss 23:55, 56a; 24:1, 10), whereas Matthew and Mark give us only two (the two Marys) while John tells us that only Mary Magdalene had gone to the tomb.

The group of women go into the tomb and find no body (vs 3; 'of the lord Jesus' is spurious). Then, as they were perplexed about that, suddenly two male figures in shining garments appeared (or entered the tomb...not told exactly). The women look down in fear--the report tells us--as the male figures (men, basically) ask them why they were looking for the living among the dead. The 'he is not here, but was raised up' line is spurious, but the message they are to have given the women asks them to recall how Yeshua was to have earlier told them he would be impaled and that on the third day he would rise (stand up). Having heard those words, Luke tells us that the women remembered, then left the memorial tomb to go report to the eleven disciples and others of the small sect.

Now in the flow, it is certain that these two male figures had appeared after the women had entered the tomb and had spoken such to the women. This will directly contradict with Matthew's report that an angel of YHWH had descended and rolled away the stone before the two Marys, and the guardmen (Mt 28: 4, 11), sat down on it, told them pretty much the very same thing--for that would mean the information would have already been known. Actually, Matthew's account does not give any room for the two women to have gone inside the tomb.

Luke also will not allow room for Mark's account's having had a young man already sitting to one side inside the tomb as the two Marys entered it--because they would be aware of it as they entered--saying basically, the same thing.

Luke of course gives no room to consider John's account as being worthy of historical correctness up to this point because John has only Mary Magdalene going there while it was still dark (skotias; vs1a) and no appearances by any men in shiny clothes or angels of YHWH.

Up to this point, therefore, we can see that while holding Luke to be the control group (historically accurate and in order), Matthew, Mark, and John have been shown to be false reporting. This will have to be (and should be, anyway) broken down into a number of posts. I will pick up from here.

@xris,

xris;64868 wrote:

I assume that Paul was part of the conspiracy to build the Myth.He definitely had an a revelation.The creed or the existing hierarchy transferred its allegiance to a popular movement and brought with it the trappings of its own god. I would be interested to know what faith Paul was following before his conversion.

xris Paul had a epiphiny on the road to Damascus, were Jesus appeared to him as a bright light, blinding him with the words, Paul Pual why do you persecute me (he meant of course the christains)

Sorry if you know this

KaseiJin

Resectfully, could you post in more digestably chunks, you are one really imformed guys, but I dont think referal to numerous bible verses will make the participants in this thread really go and open there bibles and read the actual word Smile

A person once came up to Napoleon and said we should invent a better religion than Christianity. To which Napoleon is said to have replied OK

"Find a 33 year old man from peasant stock , make him and his message more influenced than Jesus. Make him walk on water, raise a man who was dead for four days and is stinking from decay, heal the blind, maimed and sick"

"Convict him falsely of a crime of blasphemy he did not commit, scourge him with sixty cat and nine stripes and crucify him , bury him in and waite outside for him to raise up from the dead after six days"

Let him say he is the Son of God

Then come back to me and I will start you new suggested religion

Peace to you

Alan

Philosophy Forum

Biblical Texts: explication & discussion

Quick Links

My Account

able2know