The idea that the 'Son of Man' who was to be raised in the many declarations in the gospel was someone other than Jesus was first proposed by Bultmann to my knowledge. Bultmann is certain that God spoke in the historical Jesus. Jesus announced the imminent apocalyptic end of the world; but Jesus was also the bearer of the Word of God for the last hour. As the bearer of the Word of God, his Word demanded decision of man, and his person demanded decision. Bultmann repeatedly quotes Luke 12:8, "And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God." In this passage, Bultmann thinks of the Son of Man as some future apocalyptic figure other than Jesus; but the destiny of men is determined by their reaction to Jesus' person. Jesus did not teach that he himself was the Son of Man. He had no teaching about his own person.
My own research into the pre-Catholic interpretation of the context of the Pauline ascent to heaven seems to point in the direction that Paul took himself to be that figure.
1. We note the parallel of Jesus's ascension and Paul's - viz. Jesus 'snatches up Jesus' into the air and to heaven where the two become one in Paradise immediately following the Passion (cf. Clement's statement in the Stromata and others).
2. We note that Paul heard 'unspeakable things' which are ultimately connected in the heretical tradition with a 'secret gospel' (cf. especially Tert. de Praescriptione, Clement to Theod. etc)
3. Paul himself declares that he was in some form 'buried, resurrected and raised' (albeit 'with' Jesus in our recension).
When you start putting all the pieces together - (a) Marcionite ascription of Pauline authorship of the gospel (b) the gospel having Jesus announce the 'raising' of a subsequent secondary figure and (c) the author of the gospel (= Paul) announcing himself as that raised figure - it seems to all fit together to imply a wholly mythical origin to the gospel narrative clandestinely employed to raise the status of Paul.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Interesting. Per Detering, I may argue the identity Marcion/Paul.
Per Vinzent, I may argue the identity Marcion/"Mark".
Just what you are saying (Paul is Mark)!
Though I remember the objection of Robert Price against a "Paul" author of the first Gospel: the epistles are silent about a Gospel Jesus. Therefore their author cannot be one and the same.
How do you reply against that criticism?
Thanks in advance,
Giuseppe.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Let's just leave it where it is so as to pique the interest of the few non-nutbars at the forum
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
I think it is quite possible that the man with the name some may have been saying was the name of the Messiah - the sun rises - , and who was living during the time period some had concluded Daniel said the 'son of man' was to arrive, could have over time come to believe that he was that son of man and was to become Isaiah's Suffering Servant. As a consequence he may have acted out prophecies, such as riding into Jerusalem on a Donkey, and raising a ruckus in the Temple all in anticipation of his getting arrested and crucified.
Did Jesus Really Predict that He Himself Would Be Raised?
No.
He would have been a Galilean pious Jew who did not view himself as divine, knowing he took over Johns movement.
Son of god is a Hellenistic term, like the authors who stole it from the Emperors divinity.
The usual assumptions, from the usual forum member, which limit discussion and understanding to the things 19th and 20th century Protestants assumed about Christianity.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
I think it is quite possible that the man with the name some may have been saying was the name of the Messiah - the sun rises - , and who was living during the time period some had concluded Daniel said the 'son of man' was to arrive, could have over time come to believe that he was that son of man and was to become Isaiah's Suffering Servant. As a consequence he may have acted out prophecies, such as riding into Jerusalem on a Donkey, and raising a ruckus in the Temple all in anticipation of his getting arrested and crucified.
So what you're saying is that because it might have been true that the gospel author was taking his cue from an actual man who said he would be rise again after his crucifixion the other possibilities aren't worth considering or fleshing out in more detail?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
So maybe yes, maybe no is your answer to the thread title or just maybe yes, ignore the other possibilities.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
