Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:38 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:34 am
Really? By all means, Ulan - 3 examples will be enough to satisfy the initial thirst there I think
I mentioned gMark as example.
We had been talking about the initial scene already, where Jesus gets adopted by God as his son by receiving his spirit. The only unusual part of that scene was that it was shown like a possession, which is probably why the other gospels and most current translations changed this to the normative Judaic way, with the spirit resting "upon" the adopted. Other than that, the scene is a copy of what happened to David, including that David was considered a son of God, or as the normal crowning ceremony of kings (who also became sons of God), like it's shown in the psalms. Some prophets come to mind as well. It's the normal way how the OT god chooses his messengers. When the Persian king Kyros gets adopted as the anointed of God, it's also similar. At this particular point, the only transgression is the "possession" part.
John invents the dove, and focuses on where the Spirit comes from: heaven (which I think is a redaction, as I would expect it to say heavens at the very least), and that it remains with IS. Mark takes that goal and implements it via the means of baptism, and thence changes it into something that physically enters IS, because he needs to have it ex-spirited again at his death, so he can reuse it after the resurrection and pass the ball to Paul who doesn't talk about a living IS, but a dead IS: XS is his pet, the XS that equals the Spirit
This is not an action by IS though, nor does it have anything to do with the observance of Judaic habits
Other stuff like plucking wheat on a Sabbath or the "love thy neighbor" part are also part of the OT. The question of how strictly certain commandments had to be followed are typical debates that were fought between different pharisaic schools. Jesus sounds like a typical member of the Hillel school, the only exception being his stance on marriage, which seems to be closer to Shammai. The time also checks out, as Jewish tradition has these fights turn violent in the time of the lead-up to the Jewish war. Of course, "Jewish tradition" has the issue of being concomitant with the rise of Christianity, so there's that.
This (plucking) is an action, yet not by IS, that does have something to do with the observance of Judaic habits. IS supports it, and as such this is an anti-Judaic action.
"Love thy neighbour"? Not the first commandment, so in essence this also is anti-Judaic behaviour
gLuke presents Jesus as a messiah actor. He's doing stuff not because he wants it or God wants it, but because the script he follows says so (he's basically following a "magical" formula that is supposed to summon God's army). This somewhat surprising revelation is made when Jesus orders his followers to sell their stuff in order to buy weapons. What script? The peculiarly Christian interpretation of Isaiah and, other than that, mostly Daniel, I'd suggest. Even the "empty tomb" scene makes sense in that context. Daniel is one of the most popular texts preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's funny how failed prophesies never seem to want to die. As Paul puts it, he found his Christ in the scriptures. People still do that nonsense today.
Luke is *Ev redacted, that is impossible to refute. Proving that *Ev is Thomas / John redacted is a whole lot trickier, so I am currently focusing all in logion 47, the piece de resistance of Chrestianity / *Ev.
Luke is directed at the Chrestian audience, and all of its messages are aimed at toning them down, watering down their content, yet also at changing their behaviour. They are told to be poor, meek, and giving above any other gospel's message
The resurrection was invented by Mark, and not present before his text. It got added to John, so that we now have a John with a resurrection - which evidently fits within the fout-fold gospel collection as it literally "closes the book" on it (credits due to Geoff Price for that)
No action here, alas
mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 4:34 am
What authors like Bird argue is that we just see a continuation of former fractions in Judaism, like the fights between Hasmonean priests and their pharisaic opponents, or the violent arguments between the schools of Hillel and Shammai over the oral Thora.
None of that has anything to do with Christianity, or to be precise the content of the NT.
You are merely daisy-chaining
That's what Christian preachers will tell you, because the Christian Jesus is this wonder boy that came up with all these cool ideas himself and himself alone. It's as if Jewish apocalyptic literature or all those debates over how strictly the law is to be followed never happened.
They happened, but none of that is relevant to the NT, or to this topic. Can you not just show me at least one tiny pro-Judaic action by IS, so that we soothe ourselves with the illusion that he was Judaic in any way?
I know you think that Thomas came first and gJohn was the first gospel. You have shown your reasoning, and I see that you have put a lot of thought into this. Nevertheless, I don't agree with that your conclusions out of this necessarily follow, which means I don't see any reason to accept your view of the current particulars we are talking about. Given that gJohn is often seen as some kit bash of two or more predecessor texts, I'm not even sure there's much of a point to force a decision here, as what I say about gMark doesn't necessarily touch on your ideas at all, and vice versa. The recycling of stories and ideas is as old as mankind.
I can only guess that your concern is with the Judaism aspect that I now raise, and my concise claim that "Chrestianity + Judaism = Christianity", asserting that all the Judaism in the NT consists of mere feeble fantasies by people almost entirely unfamiliar with Judaism?
Simply strip all the Judaisation from the NT, and what remains is Chrestianity (plus a tiny bit of bullshit bingo) - it's as simple as that