Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by Sinouhe »

davidmartin wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 2:00 am whaaat, i'm only allowed to believe what the epistles say?
seems kind of limiting, is this christianforum.com? :D
No, of course you can also speculate. But the purpose of a forum is to share ideas, right? That's why I'm explaining to you why you are only speculating.
so the apostle is preaching only something unique merely in it's acceptance of gentiles?
that's the big revelation, not all the other stuff he comes out with
I did not say that.

The good news is the death and resurrection of the servant / Jesus who sacrificed himself to save humanity from Adam's sin.

But someone has to announce this good news because apparently no one knows about it except the apostles since it's hidden in the scriptures and transmitted trough surnaturel visions.

Paul's mission is to announce his gospel to the Gentiles. With the inconveniences that this implies (the law, dietary impurities, circumcision).

And this is where the divergences with Jerusalem comes from, since the others are only concerned with the Jews.
This is what Paul says and I do not see why I should question the conflicts he has with the apostles concerning the Gentiles in favor of other doctrinal differences that they never mention in his letters. Perhaps I am too pragmatic. Sorry.
All perfectly in agreement with the existing leadership (who he is not taught by but acts independently of)
and when he falls out with the other apostles constantly, it has nothing to do with disagreements over the contents of his gospel?
Again and again, i never said that there are no disagreements.

The doctrinal differences with others come from the application of the law to the Gentiles. At least that is what is written.

Galatians 3 for example:

1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?
2 Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

And Galatians 2 :

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

i feel like the bending over backwards to accomodate all the inconsistencies means never getting past first base in figuring anything out lol
oh well, i tried. never mind
Yes I think it's better to stop here indeed. You absolutely need the Jesus of Paul to join the Jesus of the Gospels. So it is a waste of time.
And for that you speculate and speculate again.

Without any irony, i enjoyed this discussion even though it was pointless like most discussions on this forum.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by Sinouhe »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 4:40 am
Sinouhe likes to close his eyes for everything that contradicts his theory. Yet most importantly to close all other people's eyes too LOL
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black !
At least some people have the decency not to treat their interlocutors and anyone who contradicts their little theory as idiots.
Mark is 90% Paul! ROFL
You forgot the Old Testament in your quote. You know that collection of Jewish texts that influenced the NT so much but that you try to minimize as much as possible because it contradicts your little fringe and fancy theory that makes Thomas and Marcion the precursors.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by andrewcriddle »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:25 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:39 am One indication is that in both accounts the disciples seem clueless as to how Jesus will handle the problem.
I am not following. If there is something unusual about there being two distinguishable miracles of the same type, then the disciples could not be expected to anticipate a "repeat performance." Either a repetition is foreseeable or else there is no basis for disparaging the disciples' "cluelessness."

In any case, it seems to me that verse 8:5 doesn't say that the disciples fail to understand the plan after Jesus has asked them once again about their provisions. Their answering line, "Seven," can be played with dawning realization that Jesus is once more going to provide free eats at industrial scale. It is not as if they pick up on so much else Jesus says with greater dispatch than here.
If the earliest tradition had two distinct feeding miracles then one would expect a reference within one story to the earlier account.
Who's one? I don't recall Mark's Jesus ever saying, "Oh look, here's another demon to exorcise." Even in an extended parallel situation, like when Jesus is jammed in the packed house for the "house divided" speech after having recently been jammed in another packed house where some men dismantled the roof, there is no "Oh no, I hope they leave the roof intact this time."

Mark repeats situations giving them different spins. The restoration of Bar Timmaeus's sight makes different narrative points than the restoration of the nameless blind man at Bethsaida. There is no overt reference to the Bethsaida miracle in the Bar Timmaeus story.

Of course, IMO as always and your mileage may differ. But please do be careful when prescribing what "one" would expect unless you know your conversation partner expects the same as what you expect.
Mark 8:4
His disciples answered, “But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?”
If the disciples have already experienced the feeding miracle in Mark 6 then one would expect them to say something like We won't be able to feed them Master unless you do another miracle.

The precise relation of the two stories is peripheral to the argument in this thread, but I am genuinely surprised at the criticisms made of the idea that the stories are both derived from one original narrative. The evidence appears stronger than the claims frequently made on this forum abut Gospel stories being derived from the Hebrew scriptures, claims that members of this forum typically find plausible.

If the issue is that both stories are being regarded as pure Markan creations, then I agree that there is, in that case, little purpose in labeling the two accounts as duplicates. However, if there are pre-Markan sources for these stories then they do not go back to two originally independent accounts, they are too similar for that.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:25 am
Even if the stories were originally independent, it would still be highly doubtful whether the location of the feeding of the 4,000 in probably Gentile terrotory was pre-Markan.
Fine. What you and I were discussing was whether it was Markan or instead later. There was nothing until now between us about whether it was or wasn't earlier than Mark.
I never had any intention whatever of suggesting that the feeding of the 4,000 might be post-Markan. I must have expressed myself badly.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:25 am
Without that location, (which has to be deduced from the location of the immediately preceding miracle in Mark 7:31-37), there is nothing in the text of Mark to associate the feeding miracle in Mark 8:1-10 with Gentiles.
That, and the repeated contrast in the style of the baskets used for the leftovers.
The number of baskets of leftovers does not obviously indicate that the beneficiaries were Gentiles.

Andrew Criddle
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:07 am Mark 8:4
His disciples answered, “But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?”
If the disciples have already experienced the feeding miracle in Mark 6 then one would expect them to say something like We won't be able to feed them Master unless you do another miracle.
Once again, there seems to be some confusion what you would expect and what "one" would expect. Jesus has initiated the conversation, stated a problem, and declined to disclose what he thinks ought to be done about it. His junior associates ask him a question about how the problem might be solved. There is nothing in the question they ask that implies ignorance of the full range of possible responsive answers. Jesus didn't ask for their advice, nor did they offer any. Mark's Jesus is a sometime prickly boss; I see nothing suspicious in the disciples drawing him out rather than offering their own suggestions.
The precise relation of the two stories is peripheral to the argument in this thread, but I am genuinely surprised at the criticisms made of the idea that the stories are both derived from one original narrative. The evidence appears stronger than the claims frequently made on this forum abut Gospel stories being derived from the Hebrew scriptures, claims that members of this forum typically find plausible.
I haven't denied that there is only one prominent antecedent in the now-canonical Jewish Bible (I also accept that GMark was composed before the contemporary Jewish canon was set). What has that to do with how many times Mark may use the same idea in his composition?
If the issue is that both stories are being regarded as pure Markan creations, then I agree that there is, in that case, little purpose in labeling the two accounts as duplicates. However, if there are pre-Markan sources for these stories then they do not go back to two originally independent accounts, they are too similar for that.
OK. I don't know whether or not the stories both existed before Mark composed his gospel, and so I don't know how "independent" they might have been had that been the case.
I never had any intention whatever of suggesting that the feeding of the 4,000 might be post-Markan. I must have expressed myself badly.
No worries; it's just as likely that I misunderstood.
The number of baskets of leftovers does not obviously indicate that the beneficiaries were Gentiles.
Not the numbers so far as I can tell, but the different kinds of baskets in the two episodes are suggestive.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by davidmartin »

Sinouhe i think i was also replying to GD somewhere along the way
The good news is the death and resurrection of the servant / Jesus who sacrificed himself to save humanity from Adam's sin
The good news Jesus seems to preach in the gospels is 'eternal life' - nice and simple
Paul's gospel seems to be something further developed on from this is what i'm thinking, that was work-in-progress and the apostle's own invention
But what I quoted above isn't the entirety of Paul's gospel, it's just the legalistic piece of it. There is more to the good news than the legalistic description of how it works

Also, this idea that the apostle is apostle to the gentiles is another contradiction when tradition has it Mark went to Egypt, Peter to Rome, Thomas to India, Philip to Samaria, etc and the gospels suggest that also + Paul encounters his 'super apostles' where? In gentile turf
This delineation that in effect Paul is the only apostle (since in this schema the Jewish ones are obsolete) is some later narrative possibly Marcionite or just the apostle's own invention. Amid all this confusion and contradiction there's got to be speculation

And if all we had were the gospels, even with the pro-Pauline elements they contain, I doubt it would be possible to sum up the gospel in what I quoted above as 'the gospel'. The gospels don't really lay it out coherently enough. This fuels my suspicion the apostle's gospel is somewhat unique. Another piece of evidence - look at the Shepherd of Hermas. A whacking great early text from Rome of all places, that omits this Paul gospel you quoted to me as 'the gospel'

It all looks like you have many gospels kicking around, sharing similarities and differences. But Paul's one isn't the original, which leads to the question what was it then? The field is open: (in the historical Jesus paradigm)

1.) The apologist Jesus. Jesus preaches 1 year how he will sacrifice himself for sin, and Paul takes the reigns after that
2.) The Judaic Jesus. Jesus actually preached predictable Judaism, the Torah and that he was a human prophet like Moses (or the Messiah?)
3.) The non-Judaic Jesus. MLinssen's baby. Jesus is anti-Judaic, wants to rip up the Torah
4.) The mystical Jesus. He's a prophet, spiritual messiah who wants to correct all the misconceptions, as a spirit possessed man he is a kind of God-man. The Odes of Solomon represent this tradition which is the original movements own text, I think the apostle Paul riffs on this no.4 Jesus to create his gospel. The presence of the James/Peter tradition that looks like no.2 Jesus is just another offshoot of the original, not that authentic who Paul appears to try and cut a deal with to stay off each others turf
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:33 pm 3.) The non-Judaic Jesus. MLinssen's baby. Jesus is anti-Judaic, wants to rip up the Torah
Tons of books have been written about mlinssen's baby :whistling: back then. They're mostly called Adversus Marcionem and such, crazy isn't it?

Funny thing is, century after century saw the rise of these books, they just kept being written! A minor sample is what follows; Tertullian, A.M., 4.11

You are in error also about that pronouncement of our Lord in which he is seen to make a distinction between new things and old. You are puffed up with old wineskins, and befuddled with new wine, and consequently have sewn the patch of heretical newness upon the old, which is the prior, gospel. In what respect, please tell me, is the Creator other <than himself>? When he gave command by Jeremiah, Renew for yourselves a new fallow,f did he not turn them away from things old? When by Isaiah he declares, The old things are passed away, behold these are new things that I make,g is he not turning them round towards new things? I have long since established the fact that this termination of the ancient things was rather the Creator's own promise made actual in Christ, under the authority of that one same God to whom belong both old things and new. For new wine is not put into old bottles by one who has never had any old bottles, and no man adds a new piece to an old garment unless he has an old garment to add it to. The <only> person who abstains from doing a thing if it ought not to be done, is the person who has the means of doing it if it ought to be done. Consequently, if <Christ> was applying the parable to this purpose, of indicating that he separated the newness of the gospel from the oldness of the law, he made it clear that that from which he separated it was his own, and ought not to have been stigmatized as evil by the separation of things which did not belong: because no man combines his own belongings with those of others just to make it possible to separate them from those of the others. Separation is possible because things are conjoined: and their conjunction brings it about. So he made it plain that the things he was separating had once been in unity, as they would have continued to be if he were not separating them. In that sense we admit this separation, by way of reformation, of enlargement, of progress, as fruit is separated from seed, since fruit comes out of seed. So also the gospel is separated from the law, because it is an advance from out of the law, another thing than the law, though not an alien thing, different, though not opposed. Nor is there in Christ any novel style of discourse. When he sets forth similitudes, when he answers questions, this comes from the seventy-seventh psalm: I will open my mouth, he says, in a parable, which means a similitude: I will utter dark sayings,h which means, I will explain difficulties. If you had wished to prove a man was of a foreign nation, perhaps you would do so by his idiomatic use of his native speech

Tertullian happily goes along with the separation between old and new, of course: his business case is greatly aided with that, as the new gospel is all he has (on his mind).
What he does do however is claim that it is his right to perform the separation, or rather that of Christ.
We're allegedly talking 200 CE, and already there is a full blown schism between Law and Gospel, we find a Tertullian trying to justify the alleged actions of an alleged Marcion, and it is the same that the alleged Paul does

Are the gospels concerned with any of this? No, of course not - because justification comes after the deed

There is not a shred of pro-Judaism in anything: neither the gospels, nor the epistles, and certainly not the FF.
Do note that your Jesus 1 is present in the NT, on the side: it gets fumbled in between the story and known as the Passion Prediction. Jesus 2 will never pop up but it's the Jesus that the Judaisers want to make believe existed, and Jesus 4 is somewhat similar to the Chrestian Jesus, which also is the Jesus 3
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by Sinouhe »

davidmartin wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 10:33 pm Also, this idea that the apostle is apostle to the gentiles is another contradiction when tradition has it Mark went to Egypt, Peter to Rome, Thomas to India, Philip to Samaria, etc and the gospels suggest that also + Paul encounters his 'super apostles' where? In gentile turf.
This delineation that in effect Paul is the only apostle (since in this schema the Jewish ones are obsolete) is some later narrative possibly Marcionite or just the apostle's own invention. Amid all this confusion and contradiction there's got to be speculation.
I don't understand this need to bring in tradition and the gospels at the expense of Paul who is written long before... But well.
It is possible that Paul is lying when he says that he was the only apostle to the pagans. But it is also possible that he is telling the truth. He has brothers with him who accompany him and it is not as if Christianity in the 50's had to be a super religion. It was just a small sect. Whether it is a lie or not, it does not really solve the problem, because if there was other apostles in the Gentile territory before Paul, they could simply have preached the law for the Gentiles like the ones in Jerusalem and therefore be in contradiction with Paul.

A whacking great early text from Rome of all places, that omits this Paul gospel you quoted to me as 'the gospel'
I don't really understand what the pastor of hermas has to do with the discussion either.

- It is an apocalyptic text very different in style from the epistles of Paul
- from the second century, so it was certainly written after Paul, almost a century after and even after most of the canonical gospels.
- To my knowledge, his author does not contradict Paul. But since he is a latecomer, even if he had done so, it would not have proved anything, except that there were different doctrines from Paul a century after his letters. Which is logical.
It all looks like you have many gospels kicking around, sharing similarities and differences. But Paul's one isn't the original, which leads to the question what was it then? The field is open: (in the historical Jesus paradigm)

1.) The apologist Jesus. Jesus preaches 1 year how he will sacrifice himself for sin, and Paul takes the reigns after that
2.) The Judaic Jesus. Jesus actually preached predictable Judaism, the Torah and that he was a human prophet like Moses (or the Messiah?)
3.) The non-Judaic Jesus. MLinssen's baby. Jesus is anti-Judaic, wants to rip up the Torah
4.) The mystical Jesus. He's a prophet, spiritual messiah who wants to correct all the misconceptions, as a spirit possessed man he is a kind of God-man. The Odes of Solomon represent this tradition which is the original movements own text, I think the apostle Paul riffs on this no.4 Jesus to create his gospel. The presence of the James/Peter tradition that looks like no.2 Jesus is just another offshoot of the original, not that authentic who Paul appears to try and cut a deal with to stay off each others turf
Historical or mythical character, among all these propositions, only Jesus 1 & 4 are attested in the first source we have: the letters of Paul.
Everything else comes from late texts that rewrite the myth in their own way, influenced directly or indirectly by the Jesus of Mark.
But then everyone is free to prefer the Jesus of the late gospels instead of the Jesus of Paul (for convenience ?)
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by davidmartin »

There is not a shred of pro-Judaism in anything: neither the gospels, nor the epistles, and certainly not the FF.
Do note that your Jesus 1 is present in the NT, on the side: it gets fumbled in between the story and known as the Passion Prediction. Jesus 2 will never pop up but it's the Jesus that the Judaisers want to make believe existed, and Jesus 4 is somewhat similar to the Chrestian Jesus, which also is the Jesus 3
Hmmm yes Jesus 1 only makes fleeting appearances, in areas flagged as likely redactions i'll bet

Jesus 2 comes nearest to showing up in Matthew? He's more at home here complete with heavy doses of hellfire that are completely absent in John

John's Jesus is I'm guessing your number 3, number 4 is similar just not so anti-Judaic, but rather on the fringes, he hasn't had words put in his mouth yet :)
I don't understand this need to bring in tradition and the gospels at the expense of Paul who is written long before... But well.
It is possible that Paul is lying when he says that he was the only apostle to the pagans. But it is also possible that he is telling the truth. He has brothers with him who accompany him and it is not as if Christianity in the 50's had to be a super religion. It was just a small sect. Whether it is a lie or not, it does not really solve the problem, because if there was other apostles in the Gentile territory before Paul, they could simply have preached the law for the Gentiles like the ones in Jerusalem and therefore be in contradiction with Paul.
That's interesting. I never thought of him lying, I think people 'think they are right' and just get convinced they are, he's convinced he is the apostle to the gentiles. It doesn't mean he is. If the epistles never had mention of splits and all these problems it would be a lot more difficult to suggest multiple gospels were on the loose but it's the other way around a lack of unity we see, in this earliest text we have (although I think the Odes is contemporary and the most reliable of all)
I don't really understand what the pastor of hermas has to do with the discussion either.
It's to show that even in the early 2nd century there's a key text that doesn't really preach Paul's gospel. I don't think it even mentions the cross, it talks about commandments of the Lord and so on. Other apostles were active before and after the apostle, giving their own interpretation is one way to make sense of all the drama
Historical or mythical character, among all these propositions, only Jesus 1 & 4 are attested in the first source we have: the letters of Paul.
Everything else comes from late texts that rewrite the myth in their own way, influenced directly or indirectly by the Jesus of Mark.
But then everyone is free to prefer the Jesus of the late gospels instead of the Jesus of Paul (for convenience ?)
Interesting you see Jesus 4 in the epistles. I agree with this because I think the apostle was connected to the Jesus 4 movement and took quite a lot of it with him, I mean the spiritual/pneumatic mystical elements found in Paul, they're the same I think. The fun part is working out what's original and what he added or put his own spin on

Jesus 1 I think pops up either in late-Paul or dates to the pastorals - things like 'he made himself of no account' is either late-Paul or redacted from later (like the Hebrews style Jesus 1). This Jesus does nothing apart from pray, has no teachings or anything. His job is to die (try telling that to Jesus 4 and his disciples). - i think that the Jesus 1 stuff dates a bit later and may have been an attempt to oppose the gospels. The pastorals don't seem very gospel friendly to me, i'm tempted to see them as the 'Jewish myths' they complain about. Every gospel was once someone else's heresy
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:04 am
There is not a shred of pro-Judaism in anything: neither the gospels, nor the epistles, and certainly not the FF.
Do note that your Jesus 1 is present in the NT, on the side: it gets fumbled in between the story and known as the Passion Prediction. Jesus 2 will never pop up but it's the Jesus that the Judaisers want to make believe existed, and Jesus 4 is somewhat similar to the Chrestian Jesus, which also is the Jesus 3
Hmmm yes Jesus 1 only makes fleeting appearances, in areas flagged as likely redactions i'll bet

Jesus 2 comes nearest to showing up in Matthew? He's more at home here complete with heavy doses of hellfire that are completely absent in John
Oh yes I forgot, tnx. When I went through the gospels for my 72 logia, reading every single letter because I had no idea about anything back in 2019, going by Matthew made my physically and mentally sick somehow. It also was the combination of how he twisted Thomas to yet a more extreme shade of darkness compared to Mark and Luke, but still. Yes, Matthew certainly presents the Jesus that the Church adores the most
John's Jesus is I'm guessing your number 3, number 4 is similar just not so anti-Judaic, but rather on the fringes, he hasn't had words put in his mouth yet :)
I don't understand this need to bring in tradition and the gospels at the expense of Paul who is written long before... But well.
It is possible that Paul is lying when he says that he was the only apostle to the pagans. But it is also possible that he is telling the truth. He has brothers with him who accompany him and it is not as if Christianity in the 50's had to be a super religion. It was just a small sect. Whether it is a lie or not, it does not really solve the problem, because if there was other apostles in the Gentile territory before Paul, they could simply have preached the law for the Gentiles like the ones in Jerusalem and therefore be in contradiction with Paul.
That's interesting. I never thought of him lying, I think people 'think they are right' and just get convinced they are, he's convinced he is the apostle to the gentiles. It doesn't mean he is. If the epistles never had mention of splits and all these problems it would be a lot more difficult to suggest multiple gospels were on the loose but it's the other way around a lack of unity we see, in this earliest text we have (although I think the Odes is contemporary and the most reliable of all)
I don't really understand what the pastor of hermas has to do with the discussion either.
It's to show that even in the early 2nd century there's a key text that doesn't really preach Paul's gospel. I don't think it even mentions the cross, it talks about commandments of the Lord and so on. Other apostles were active before and after the apostle, giving their own interpretation is one way to make sense of all the drama
Historical or mythical character, among all these propositions, only Jesus 1 & 4 are attested in the first source we have: the letters of Paul.
Everything else comes from late texts that rewrite the myth in their own way, influenced directly or indirectly by the Jesus of Mark.
But then everyone is free to prefer the Jesus of the late gospels instead of the Jesus of Paul (for convenience ?)
Interesting you see Jesus 4 in the epistles. I agree with this because I think the apostle was connected to the Jesus 4 movement and took quite a lot of it with him, I mean the spiritual/pneumatic mystical elements found in Paul, they're the same I think. The fun part is working out what's original and what he added or put his own spin on

Jesus 1 I think pops up either in late-Paul or dates to the pastorals - things like 'he made himself of no account' is either late-Paul or redacted from later (like the Hebrews style Jesus 1). This Jesus does nothing apart from pray, has no teachings or anything. His job is to die (try telling that to Jesus 4 and his disciples). - i think that the Jesus 1 stuff dates a bit later and may have been an attempt to oppose the gospels. The pastorals don't seem very gospel friendly to me, i'm tempted to see them as the 'Jewish myths' they complain about. Every gospel was once someone else's heresy
Paul, like Mark, must juggle all 4 Jesus at the same time - but in his texts Jesus 3 naturally draws most of the attention and plays the largest role - but no apologetic will want to admit that.
Jesus 4 is the first, and he comes with Jesus 3. Jesus 2 is the last, and he comes with Jesus 2. Or rather, the focus (of Chrestianity) was on Jesus 4 but he also got implemented via Jesus 3, just like Harry Potter is a very talented magician who saves the world but he gets implemented - like so many other heroes - via the stereotypical victim who never got a chance, was never loved, always despised, and so on: much like Jesus. And Jesus 2 is where the new focus must be, that of Christianity, and he gets implemented via Jesus 1

Of course, Paul doesn't come before Mark: Jesus is where the story begins, Christ is where the religion begins - and the gospels are about Jesus whereas the letters are about Christ. Even if Christianity had preceded Chrestianity then "Paul" never could have come first
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why I think a historical Jesus is best explanation for earliest texts

Post by davidmartin »

Oh yes I forgot, tnx. When I went through the gospels for my 72 logia, reading every single letter because I had no idea about anything back in 2019, going by Matthew made my physically and mentally sick somehow. It also was the combination of how he twisted Thomas to yet a more extreme shade of darkness compared to Mark and Luke, but still. Yes, Matthew certainly presents the Jesus that the Church adores the most
Indeed, this began my journey on the whole Christian origins thing. The complete inconsistency of the hell doctrine in the NT soon became clear (well, after a decade or two), and the evidence points to it creeping in like nosferatu later on. The pattern is so easy. Mark doesn't have hell apart from one place copied from Matthew. John lacks it altogether (as does Paul, see, he is useful sometimes!)
Luke as a later reworking of Marcion gets it a half dozen mentions. It clearly was never in Mark, John, Paul, and surely not Marcion's Luke. The only 2 that are solid is Matthew and Revelation, from suprise, surprise the most extreme wing of the church - and they tried to get Matthew the only gospel in town but gave up on that. It's completely obvious hell was never original to it
Paul, like Mark, must juggle all 4 Jesus at the same time - but in his texts Jesus 3 naturally draws most of the attention and plays the largest role - but no apologetic will want to admit that.
Jesus 4 is the first, and he comes with Jesus 3. Jesus 2 is the last, and he comes with Jesus 2. Or rather, the focus (of Chrestianity) was on Jesus 4 but he also got implemented via Jesus 3, just like Harry Potter is a very talented magician who saves the world but he gets implemented - like so many other heroes - via the stereotypical victim who never got a chance, was never loved, always despised, and so on: much like Jesus. And Jesus 2 is where the new focus must be, that of Christianity, and he gets implemented via Jesus 1

Of course, Paul doesn't come before Mark: Jesus is where the story begins, Christ is where the religion begins - and the gospels are about Jesus whereas the letters are about Christ. Even if Christianity had preceded Chrestianity then "Paul" never could have come first
This is where i struggle to completely get what you're saying which i might as well confess
Yeah, I can see Jesus 2 getting implemented by Jesus 1, but all these sources were taken or provided from groups (that what became) orthodoxy ended up opposing. They didn't have their own stuff and Paul gave them big fat nothing in that regard about Jesus

The lineage back to Jesus 4 is through any similarity that exists of what they got from their opponents, parables and some stuff in the gospels probably is the same, in the case of Paul I think it's quite large amounts that are similar. From a distance it might look the same, but it's not really identical.
What Paul changes I think is he swings the fearsome idea of God back in, one that scatters bodies of his opponents in the desert, and introduces religion on top of the previous spiritual movement that was saying God is love, the Father, etc not fear based. He tried to make it respectable outwardly when it was perfectly good as it was, i think that's why he fell out with the founders. In my humble opinion
Post Reply