Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2016, 07:23 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
Yabut. Were you there? 'Cause I was there. I remember kicking it with Paul on the steps of the temple of Apollo in Corinth when he was laying down the beat, cause I knew the rhythm. Wink

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
20-11-2016, 10:19 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 07:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 03:53 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I'm not interested in doing research. I know well what my religion says.

That's the problem with believers. They're just as lazy and self-assured.
We're NOT talking about "modern Judaism".
We're talking about ancient Judaism and what THEY thought.

Good on you for generalizing an entire group of people like that.

I'm not lazy, Bucky Ball. I just don't happen to be particularly invested in the answer. I evaluated the question and thought I had something to add. I'm not pursing a degree in theology, so the nuances of this question just don't seem especially relevant in my life. If you want me to change my mind, then you sell me. This subject is something that I happen to feel confident about and have no reason to doubt it. It also doesn't change my life in any way if I find out that the resurrection is a later addition to my theology, so my motives to align my views with yours are pretty low.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
I have no need to "sell" anyone on anything. Cultural historians know what they know.
If someone is interested in the subject of how CULTURAL changes in the ancient Near East drove changes in religious belief, they can study it. It's a complex subject, not amenable to brief synopsis. There is nothing "more valid" in what religious people hold today than what they held 2000 or 2500 years ago. It has changed radically. Judaism wasn't even a monotheistic religion until after the Exile.

The ignorance of religionists concerning their own traditions is a widely shared phenomenon.
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-r...-religion/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 03:46 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Paul, for example, only knows about the spiritual resurrection. The mythology has not yet developed to the point where it is a bodily resurrection, which is what Christians today think of, and what is found in Matthew, Luke, and John. Paul believed that the disciples had visions of the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:5) - this is not unheard of.

I gotta disagree here. Paul almost definitely believed in bodily resurrection. Jewish apocalypticism invloved the raising of the dead so that they may enjoy the kingdom of God when it came. Jesus' resurrection was a sign that the end of times is even nearer for Paul.(Source- Jesus Interrupted-Bart Ehrman)

Also, the mythology has to originate from someplace. It can't just pop into existence.
My main problem continues to be the apostles(and James). They are the only link between Jesus, who clearly did not think of himself as God and the outside world who were hell bent on deitifying him.

If only Cephas told Paul to, "Shut up with this resurrection nonsense before you end up starting a cult!", we wouldn't have to deal with this mess today...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2016, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2016 07:12 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
Please cite chapter and page where Ehrman says that about Jewish apocalypticism.

The first gospel (Mark) had (originally) no resurrection.

Jewish apocalypticism developed over a period of many hundreds of years. At the "end" it may have had immortality (resurrection) for the heroes, (only) but not for all. Read the speeches of the seven sons of Hanna. Only the hero who persevered was granted eternal life.

Paul never said Jesus "rose bodily from the dead".
He did say he was "exalted" like the other Jewish heroes.

"Scholars think the next earliest reference in existing written form to a risen Jesus, is a rather strange "hymn" or poem which we see placed in the beginning of the 2nd chapter of Philippians. Just as in the Old Testament, a "hymn" may be the oldest fragment, placed into another text. In Philippians 2: 6-11, there is a poem called the "Carmen Christi". The name comes from a letter of Pliny the Younger, in which he tells the Emperor Trajan, about (111-112 CE) what he found in the Provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, in Asia Minor. The Christian sect was being accused of various crimes, and he could find nothing especially seriously wrong about them. He didn't really know what to do. He says in Latin, "carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem"..or "they chant verses alternately among themselves, in honor of the Christ, as if to a god". That's all he could find. Nothing especially bad. But that's why the hymn is called the "Carmen" Christi.. it's a (probably) chanted hymn. (I personally think he heard the chanting of alternate verses of psalms, but I have no proof, as they were done that way also). This hymn has been studied to death, by scholars. By the 1990's the "hymn" status was even being questioned, but whatever it is, ( a Greek "encomion" ? ), it doesn't really fit with Saul's known writing style. So he got it from somewhere. We know Philippians was a combo job, because, among other things, the author says "finally" more than once, (3:1, 4:8), and more importantly, the tone of the text does not match the surrounding text. Some think from 4:10 on, is yet a third author. Some think the hymn may have come from inside the community at Phillipi, and Saul approved of it, so he included it. In any case, the hymn says Jesus was "super-exalted", after being humbled. What does that mean, exactly ? The academic examination of this poem is extensive, but an interesting part, is in the Greek, the form of preposition and verb compounding, called a "hyperypsosen". It's a linguistic element used which intensifies the verb. "Super-exalted", or "extra-exalted" are just made-up English words which attempt to translate the meaning, as there is not an English equivalent. Anyway, the "high" position is used to intensify the difference from the "humbled" of the low position. Anyway, Saul KNEW the context, and that the Romans would hear of this, and/or, it would be "heard" in a cognitive sense, as a shocking insult. A pathetic criminal, whom the Romans had executed, now was "raised" to a very high position. It was the equivalent to a (political) "obscenity". It would be the same as an American "wacko-preacher" telling HIS audience, in a US military setting, that Osama bin Laden had been raised to the highest place in heaven. There is a VERY strong anti-Imperial "ring" to the last part of the poem. So the first citing of the resurrection theme, can be seen in a striking political context. If you wanted to get the Romans mad at the Christians, or justify Roman anger toward Christians, you would use such a poem.

The most extensive passage in the NT about the resurrection, is in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15. If the gospels are not the first mention of the event, why is it the accounts in Saul's letters not looked at more carefully, or first ? Scholars know why. They were, capriciously put in the canon in the order they are in, for no particular legitimate ordering reason. No one has ever claimed "ordering" was important, or that it enhanced legitimacy claims, or inspiration claims. Opening the NT, one just comes to Mark first. Paul is less well known, also as he is used in liturgy less, in the sense that the gospel stories are used more often, than any one Pauline passage is used. Lastly, the artistic legacy, depicts the gospel story frequently. So visually we *think* of a "risen lord* the way we do. Ask yourself, "When I think of the resurrected lord, what do I think of ?". Probably a Caucasian, adult male around 30 years old, with long hair, and pleasant features". THAT is NOT what the gospels said they saw. The gospels all say they did not recognize him, and they were afraid of what they saw. Our thought has been determined by our culture, not the facts. Next what are the best known stories you remember ? Probably Mary Magdalene being told not to touch, and the doubting Thomas story. If Thomas DID recognize Jesus, why would he HAVE to put his fingers into the wounds ? The problem is not faith, it's "recognition". They do NOT know who or what they see. If it WAS the actual body of Jesus, they would recognize him. We will return to that. The accounts in Paul are brief, and our brains fill in the gaps, with our cultural assumptions. We know the *real* 1 Corinthians is missing, as the letter referenced in 1 Cor 5:9 is unknown. 1 Corinthians is a combo job. The section in 1 Cor 14:33-36 was likely added by a scribe who liked Timothy and Titus.

When Saul first talks about the resurrection, other than himself as a "revealed" thing, he says that he "appeared to Cephas". The word "appeared", is an ok translation but not exactly correct, in context. The Greek word is "ophthe". It has a *passive* element. In English it is an intransitive verb. "Appeared" is a word which means "to become visible", or "was made visible", or "became apparent". The Greek verb is the past tense of the passive verb "horao", "to see", ("was seen"). The passive translation is "The Anointed has been seen by Cephas". HOWEVER, normally a Greek translation of "by whom" would be translated in Greek using the "hypo" (preposition), to indicate "agency". THAT is not here, in the Greek. It really should be translated as "The Anointed has been seen FOR the advantage of Cephas or to BENEFIT Cephas, or for Cephas' *Advantage*". It does NOT mean "Cephas saw the Anointed". It means the "Anointed was made manifest for Cephas' advantage". That begins to look very different, than Cephas seeing something. It's more like Saul's vision. There are many examples of these kinds of misuse, and mistranslations, due to assumed cultural overlay, which when translated correctly, make the entire picture look very very different, especially in terms of the many "sightings" of various beings, and mysterious things, in both the Old and New Testaments. The most famous of these "shifts" is the sighting of Moses of Yahweh in the burning bush, where the angel shifts into the bush and is also "seen for" Yahweh, when Abraham moves from Ur, (which Philo of Alexandria talks about around 20-50 CE, in "On Abraham". There is NO physical "seeing". The correct translations all mean "seeing in the mind". It's a MENTAL change. Guess what ? SAUL's "blinding", and the "new seeing" is an EXACT correlation of these prior Biblical "manifestations", and any Jew or Christian, or Greek of the day would conflate these various "manifestations", "blindings", "and then seeings" as METAPHOR, for a mental attitude change. The same verbs, and words are used. Sauls blinding and then seeing" was equated, as Abraham's "vision", where his "mind saw again with it's recovered sight". Just like Saul. Saul "saw" with a different "sight". It was NOT a physical thing. It was a metaphor for a mental change. THAT is how he "*saw* the Anointed One". It like we say, "oh, ok, I get it, now". He did not intend to say he physically "saw" the Anointed One. It means "I have come to understand the Anointed One". In 1 Corintians 9:1-2, in defending his apostleship, he appeals to his new "seeing". "Have I not seen the Lord". That means that a requirement for apostleship, one has to have "*seen the light* about the Lord". But here he changes the passive past tense, to active verb. He means the "seeing" has an ONGOING present continuing "influence". It's all missed in translation, usually.

So just to emphasize here : Saul's "re-seeing", or "recovery from blindness", (ie THE "conversion event") WAS for him, personally the SAME thing, as the resurrection for him. For him "resurrection" was "re-seeing" the same set of events he already knew about, just "seeing" them in a different light. THAT is what he thought of the same thing as "Have I not *seen* the risen lord" It's metaphor, for a different understanding of events he already knew about. It's NOT a physical resurrection. It means "Have I not come to understand that Jesus was exalted as the anointed one" ?

There are countless other contradictions, and interesting tidbits, in Saul's letters, and how the wordplay is used, and later referenced by the gospels.
For example at the end of Romans, he says to greet the Apostle Junia. Junia was a WOMAN !!! Even (St.) John Chrysostom talked about how shocking that was, but says she was worthy of it. (On The Epistle to the Romans). John Chrysostom is full of interesting clues to the early church, including the fact they were still Jews, as late as 400 CE, (see the Christmas Sermon).

So what exactly did they mean they saw ? In 1 Corinthians 15:35, Saul says "How are the dead raised ?" He calls those who deny it "stupid man" (15:36). In Greek culture, the idea of immortality is as convoluted as Hebrew culture. The Greeks were Dualists. Body/soul was not a unity. But in Philippians 1:20, apparently Saul rejects this dualism, "the Anointed will be exalted, by my life, whether I live or die", or in SV translates it as "Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death". To Saul, to deny the resurrection is the same as saying "You don't think, what you (actually) now really think". When Saul *saw* things in a different light, of course he saw them in a different light. To say otherwise, would make one a "stupid man".

Next we look at what actually was seen to have arisen. There are two aspects to this. The Pauline understanding, and the questions raised in the gospels.

As we have seen, in Hebrew culture there was no immortality, except metaphorical immortality for martyrs. In Greek culture, to which Corinthians was addressed, there also was no immortality, early on, but it changed. In the Homeric period, and in Sophocles, there is no physical immortality. In the Apollo speech in Aeschulus' "Eumenides" he says "...once he is dead, there is no return to life". However, by Plato's time, he has Phaedo saying "shall we assume two kinds of existence, one visible, and one invisible". (Dialogues of Socrates and Cebes). Dualism had developed. In Plato's dualism, there is an "essence", or soul which breaks free of a body, and joins a "divine' realm at death. Thus for the Corinthians, in Plato's dualism, the SOUL is immortal, but there is NO physical resurrection. So this solves nothing. The Corinthian Christians (1 Cor 12) believed that they HAD ALREADY been raised. In Colossians 2:12-13, Saul says "When you were buried with him in baptism, through faith in the power of God". BUT HE DENIES THIS view in 1 Tim 2:18-19, and says it's heresy. "Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by claiming that resurrection has already taken place. " There is a huge lengthy corpus of theological discussion here, for many years, about what exactly Saul's understanding of dualism actually was. Rudolf Bultmann had the position that Saul's thought was that there was no dualism, and that humans did have *have* a soul, ("soma"), but actually *was* a "unity", (body+soul). This would be fine, but it fit's in neither Greek or Hebrew culture. So what did he mean ? He said "the Anointed will be exalted by my life, whether I live or die". Thus Bultmann's position is refuted, as if it's BOTH it is not the "unity", if the body is dead, and ONLY the soul remains. Then Saul says "Don't you know that your bodies are parts of the BODY of the Anointed". (1 Cor 6:15) So here we see that WHOLE thing has metaphorical meaning, and is not a literal discussion, in any way, in Saul's mind. In 1 Cor 15:40 he says "There are also heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies". There are mountains of other discussions in this subject with respect to Pauline understanding of nature, and whether they are Hebrew or Greek. Inevitably, they lead to the fact that Saul thought that was raised, was not a physical body but a "new body", that is based on a divine "breath". THAT is NOT a physical body. Saul of Tarsus did not believe in a physical resurrection of the dead. Whatever he did think, it was not a physical body. It's all over his letters."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-11-2016, 05:42 PM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 03:41 PM)underdogFTW Wrote:  I gotta disagree here. Paul almost definitely believed in bodily resurrection. Jewish apocalypticism invloved the raising of the dead so that they may enjoy the kingdom of God when it came. Jesus' resurrection was a sign that the end of times is even nearer for Paul.(Source- Jesus Interrupted-Bart Ehrman)

I'm not interested in what Ehrman has to say about this. He has failed to consult the prominent scholarly material when he draws conclusions like that. He now thinks that the Romans left the body up on the cross to rot and that he could not have had a decent burial - something that is easily disproved by the fact that Jehohanan was given a decent burial following his crucifixion (his remains were found within an ossuray, not some mass Roman grave that Ehrman erroneously claims all crucifixion victims would have been thrown in).

Having visions of a deceased loved one is not the same as meeting a deceased loved one in the flesh. Here, Ehrman and I will agree that the disciples did have visions of Jesus. Given the fact that Paul knew these men, they would have told him that Jesus had appeared to them in visions - which is exactly what Paul's creed says - what it doesn't say is that Jesus sat and ate fish with them.

Quote:My main problem continues to be the apostles(and James). They are the only link between Jesus, who clearly did not think of himself as God and the outside world who were hell bent on deitifying him.

According to how you are categorising him. You said that he was an apocalyptic preacher. It may be more correct to classify him as a messianic preacher. Furthermore, if Jesus used the title of "Son of Man" to refer to himself (something I'm agnostic on), then he is most certainly calling himself a god. He is the one that told his disciples that he would be raised from the dead - or perhaps he didn't, but nevertheless they expected that he would be raised. Not physically, but to the celestial realm.

Quote:If only Cephas told Paul to, "Shut up with this resurrection nonsense before you end up starting a cult!", we wouldn't have to deal with this mess today...

Paul.does.not.mention.a.bodily.resurrection. Not only does he not mention it, neither does "Mark". The author of Mark felt that his gospel was complete without a bodily resurrection - yet to Christians today the bodily resurrection is the cornerstone of their faith. Surely "Mark" would not have left out such an important event if he believed it had happened - the fact that it does not appear in his gospel suggests that when he talks about resurrection of the dead it is in a spiritual sense, not a bodily sense. "Mark" believed Jesus was resurrected, but there's no evidence that he believed he came back to earth for 40 days as a reanimated corpse and appeared to people, and sat down and ate fish with them.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aractus's post
20-11-2016, 06:14 PM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 07:23 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Yabut. Were you there? 'Cause I was there. I remember kicking it with Paul on the steps of the temple of Apollo in Corinth when he was laying down the beat, cause I knew the rhythm. Wink

You were there??!! Hey!!! so was I. I think I remember you. Weren't you half drunk, running around with some toga wearing actress?

[Image: article-1020641-014F695000000578-785_224x748.jpg]

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like dancefortwo's post
22-11-2016, 06:44 AM (This post was last modified: 22-11-2016 06:53 AM by underdogFTW.)
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 05:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Please cite chapter and page where Ehrman says that about Jewish apocalypticism.

I have the audio book so I don't know how to find it.
But I have found another reference by ehrman in How Jesus Became God!
A book you recommended BTW..
In chapter 4, The resurrection of Jesus, What we cannot know. (Pg 101 in my eBook reader)
He expresses his opinion on the matter.
I can guarantee that he has done this multiple times in Jesus Interrupted and or Historical Jesus books.
And if I do find the rest of em I'll post here..
Anyways, here's an SS.

EDIT- There is more in this chapter itself..pg 104. I haven't read the entire book yet, but its enough to get my point across.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 06:55 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(20-11-2016 06:14 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(20-11-2016 07:23 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Yabut. Were you there? 'Cause I was there. I remember kicking it with Paul on the steps of the temple of Apollo in Corinth when he was laying down the beat, cause I knew the rhythm. Wink

You were there??!! Hey!!! so was I. I think I remember you. Weren't you half drunk, running around with some toga wearing actress?

Saturday morning 6/4/10 - usually keep the crazy prophet out of the scholarly discussions, but also at times wonder what makes my view less valid (in terms of theology).

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Does resurrection fit within the hostorical Jesus model?
(19-11-2016 04:35 PM)Aliza Wrote:  For starters, a resurrected messiah must stick around to actually be the messiah for the Jewish people, and he can't have been murdered in his lifetime.

Just to tease you a little: Wouldn't someone have to be murdered in their own lifetime? Big Grin

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: