Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by MrMacSon »

hakeem wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:18 pm
1 Cor. 11.23-25
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Luke 22:-19-20
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. . 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Mark 14.22-25
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” . Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

It is easily seen that the passage in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 matches gLuke 22.19-20.

In fact, the Last Supper story in 1 Cor. is evidence that the author of the Epistle wrote after gMark's version.

The Jesus in gMark does not tell his disciples to carry out any ritual in his remembrance or tell about a new covenant.

gLuke and 1 Cor. are later embellishments of the Last Supper fable.
.
The proposition that the Last Supper/Eucharist story in 1 Corinthians was written after and therefore likely based on gMark's version is an interesting one.

As relayed in my previous post, Thomas Nelligan notes that "Luke may provide more striking parallels". He did not explore 'the possibility of Lukan dependence on 1 Corinthians' but noted "the closer similarities certainly fit in with how Luke his sources .." He did specify Mark as such a source "which in many places is unchanged."

But there could well be various as yet unexplored directions for the narratives and thus various dependencies of the texts.
  • (eg. Luke may have used gMark and 1 Corinthians, regardless of which initially used which)
It'd be interesting to know when all these texts were really being aligned and finalised; including if they were being developed in parallel as might have happened if there is any truth to the theories of development of the Pauline texts in the 2nd century of Robert M Price and Hermann Detering, and to the propositions (of Joseph B Tyson, Jason Beduhn, Markus Vinzent and Matthias Klinghardt) of the development of some or all of the synoptic texts in the 2nd century, in and around the Marcionite texts (and we know Marcion had access to most of the Pauline texts including 1 Corinthians).
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by andrewcriddle »

hakeem wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:18 pm 1 Cor. 11.23-25
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of meIn the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.


Luke 22:-19-20
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


Mark 14.22-25
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
It is easily seen that the passage in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 matches gLuke 22.19-20.

In fact, the Last Supper story in 1 Cor. is evidence that the author of the Epistle wrote after gMark's version.

The Jesus in gMark does not tell his disciples to carry out any ritual in his remembrance or tell about a new covenant.

gLuke and 1 Cor. are later embellishments of the Last Supper fable.
One problem here is that which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
is omitted in Codex Bezae and may not be part of the original text of Luke.

Andrew Criddle
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by hakeem »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:48 am
hakeem wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:18 pm 1 Cor. 11.23-25
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of meIn the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.


Luke 22:-19-20
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


Mark 14.22-25
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
It is easily seen that the passage in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 matches gLuke 22.19-20.

In fact, the Last Supper story in 1 Cor. is evidence that the author of the Epistle wrote after gMark's version.

The Jesus in gMark does not tell his disciples to carry out any ritual in his remembrance or tell about a new covenant.

gLuke and 1 Cor. are later embellishments of the Last Supper fable.
One problem here is that which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
is omitted in Codex Bezae and may not be part of the original text of Luke.

Andrew Criddle
If the earliest versions of gLuke did not contain the phrases " this do in remembrance of me" and "the new testament in my blood" then such an admission only supports the argument that those passages in 1 Cor 11.23-25 are indeed later embellishments.

All the so-called Pauline letters are late writings developed after c 70 CE, after Jesus stories were already known and circulated , long after there were believers and after Churches in the Roman Empire were established.

The very letters show that Jesus stories were already known, established and believedf throughtout the Roman Empire before the letters were composed.

In fact, the letters show that the start of the Christian religion did not require a single letter from the so-called Paul.

Romans 1.8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Galatians 1. 23
But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by arnoldo »

hakeem wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:49 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:48 am
hakeem wrote: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:18 pm 1 Cor. 11.23-25
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of meIn the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.


Luke 22:-19-20
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


Mark 14.22-25
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
It is easily seen that the passage in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 matches gLuke 22.19-20.

In fact, the Last Supper story in 1 Cor. is evidence that the author of the Epistle wrote after gMark's version.

The Jesus in gMark does not tell his disciples to carry out any ritual in his remembrance or tell about a new covenant.

gLuke and 1 Cor. are later embellishments of the Last Supper fable.
One problem here is that which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
is omitted in Codex Bezae and may not be part of the original text of Luke.

Andrew Criddle
If the earliest versions of gLuke did not contain the phrases " this do in remembrance of me" and "the new testament in my blood" then such an admission only supports the argument that those passages in 1 Cor 11.23-25 are indeed later embellishments.
Allegedly, Paul hung out with Peter for a spell so he may've heard about this secondhand.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by John2 »

rgprice writes that in Mark (12:18-27) and Paul (1 Cor. 15) the resurrection is spiritual, which I readily agree with. But this is also mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18:
He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit.
So this is something else that Mark could have learned from Peter. And note the reference to Jesus being put to death "in the body." This is in keeping with what Paul says about the nature of resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:12-44:
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised ... But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies ... So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
I've looked over the second chapter of Deciphering the Gospels fairly thoroughly and find that the parallels mentioned there are more or less things that Peter and other Jewish Christians said as well (like spiritual resurrection, honoring the emperor and loving your neighbor), so why should only Paul get the credit? And in the big picture, Jesus is pro-Torah in Mark, so when I add everything up I get the impression that Mark is Jewish Christian and not Pauline.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by MrMacSon »

hakeem wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:49 am
All the so-called Pauline letters are late writings developed after c 70 CE, after Jesus stories were already known and circulated, long after there were believers and after Churches in the Roman Empire were established.

The very letters show that Jesus stories were already known, established and believed throughout the Roman Empire before the letters were composed.

In fact, the letters show that the start of the Christian religion did not require a single letter from the so-called Paul.

Romans 1.8
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Galatians 1.23
But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
Those are interesting propositions. It is interesting that the Pauline letters are all addressed to different regions outside Galilee.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by hakeem »

John2 wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:27 pm rgprice writes that in Mark (12:18-27) and Paul (1 Cor. 15) the resurrection is spiritual, which I readily agree with. But this is also mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18:
He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit.
In gMark it is implied that Jesus would physically resurrect three days after he was killed. Christians writers of antiquity who used the so-called Gospels claimed Jesus bodily resurrected. The NT contains multiple accounts of resurrection and they are all physical.

Mark 8:31
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
1 Cor.15.15
Yea, and we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up, if so it be that the dead rise not.


In addition, Christians do not claim that spirits can physically die or can be killed.

It is simply contrary to the teachings of Christians who use the NT that Jesus resurrected spiritually.

In antiquity the so-called Pauline letters were used to argue against those who claimed Jesus was not physically raised from the dead.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by John2 »

hakeem wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:00 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:27 pm rgprice writes that in Mark (12:18-27) and Paul (1 Cor. 15) the resurrection is spiritual, which I readily agree with. But this is also mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18:
He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit.
In gMark it is implied that Jesus would physically resurrect three days after he was killed. Christians writers of antiquity who used the so-called Gospels claimed Jesus bodily resurrected. The NT contains multiple accounts of resurrection and they are all physical.

Mark 8:31
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
1 Cor.15.15
Yea, and we are found to be false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up, if so it be that the dead rise not.


In addition, Christians do not claim that spirits can physically die or can be killed.

It is simply contrary to the teachings of Christians who use the NT that Jesus resurrected spiritually.

In antiquity the so-called Pauline letters were used to argue against those who claimed Jesus was not physically raised from the dead.
I think that for Mark and Paul Jesus is a normal human being who became infused with a divine "Christ spirit" (which strikes me as being an amalgam of several things but mainly Daniel's "one like a son of man"). I think it is this divine "Son of Man" spirit that Jesus is referring to in Mk. 8:31 (and throughout Mark), the divine spirit that Paul says had "made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!" in Php. 2:7-8.

And I think the way resurrection works in Mark and Paul (and 1 Peter) is that a physical body (including Jesus' human body) becomes transformed into a spiritual body, so there is consequently no physical body left behind after this transformation (and which is why I think there is no body in the tomb in Mark; it had become transformed into a spiritual body).

I can't explain why Paul has ever been used to defend the idea of a physical resurrection, but from my perspective it doesn't matter. People come up with all kinds of ideas using the Bible. All I can tell you is that my impression is that Paul talks about a spiritual resurrection and that this is in keeping with 1 Peter 3:18 and (in my view) Mark. And I think that Matthew and Luke/Acts having scenes of a physical resurrection could be an indication that Mark did not, in the same way that Matthew and Luke have birth scenes because Mark does not. And I don't get the impression (generally speaking) that Matthew and Luke necessarily agree with everything in Mark, and a spiritual resurrection seems like it could simply be one of these differences to me.

And if Paul and Mark (and 1 Peter) are then contrary to teachings in other NT writings, so what? People do all kinds of inconsistent things, including (in my view) canonizing Paul, 1 Peter and Mark along with writings that believe in a physical resurrection and that Jesus was physically resurrected. Things changed in Christianity after the writings of Paul, 1 Peter and Mark. Docetism emerged (perhaps partly in response to Paul, 1 Peter and Mark), and people who did not agree with it wrote some popular gospels and canonized them along with Paul, 1 Peter and Mark and used whatever arguments they had to justify it.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
nightshadetwine
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:35 am

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by nightshadetwine »

John2 wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:57 am And I think the way resurrection works in Mark and Paul (and 1 Peter) is that a physical body (including Jesus' human body) becomes transformed into a spiritual body, so there is consequently no physical body left behind after this transformation (and which is why I think there is no body in the tomb in Mark; it had become transformed into a spiritual body).
What do you think about James Tabor's view on the resurrection? https://jamestabor.com/resurrection-of- ... -new-body/ and https://jamestabor.com/why-people-are-c ... -the-dead/
Paul makes clear that in Christian resurrection the body is left behind like an old change of clothing, to turn to the dust, and the spirit is “reclothed” with a new spiritual body. He compares the physical body to a temporary tent, and the new body is a permanent house (2 Corinthians 5:1-5). He even throws in a polemic against the Greek Platonic view of the “unclothed” or disembodied immortal soul—he says our desire is not to be naked, which is the state of death before resurrection, but to be clothed again!
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Fictional Jesus Synthesis

Post by John2 »

nightshadetwine wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:52 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:57 am And I think the way resurrection works in Mark and Paul (and 1 Peter) is that a physical body (including Jesus' human body) becomes transformed into a spiritual body, so there is consequently no physical body left behind after this transformation (and which is why I think there is no body in the tomb in Mark; it had become transformed into a spiritual body).
What do you think about James Tabor's view on the resurrection? https://jamestabor.com/resurrection-of- ... -new-body/ and https://jamestabor.com/why-people-are-c ... -the-dead/
Paul makes clear that in Christian resurrection the body is left behind like an old change of clothing, to turn to the dust, and the spirit is “reclothed” with a new spiritual body. He compares the physical body to a temporary tent, and the new body is a permanent house (2 Corinthians 5:1-5). He even throws in a polemic against the Greek Platonic view of the “unclothed” or disembodied immortal soul—he says our desire is not to be naked, which is the state of death before resurrection, but to be clothed again!
All I need to do is read what Paul says 1 Cor. 15.
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body ... So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body ... Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”


The physical body, like a seed, has to die in order to "come to life" (i.e., to "clothe itself with the imperishable"). This why Paul says not to worry "if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed" in 2 Cor. 5:1-5:
For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
So there is no re-clothing, only clothing. The physical body is like a "tent" (v. 1) and is "unclothed" (v. 4), and then it dies and is transformed into a spiritual body, or "clothed."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply