The start of the Jesus story

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Howdy, Hakeem

Perhaps you have conflated two distinct performances.

The gift portrayed in Acts 2:4 and following is the ability to speak in other natural languages so as to be understood by native speakers of those languages who are present at the time of the mysterious utterance. Acts continues from 2:5 through 2:11
Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under the sky. When this sound was heard, the multitude came together and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language. They were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Behold, aren’t all these who speak Galileans? How do we hear, everyone in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, the parts of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!”
The "interpreters," then, are the listeners themselves.

In contrast, Paul appears to be describing glossolalia, or the mimickry of connected speech sounds for which there is no natural language in which these sounds are coherent utterances (or, at least there are no native speakers of any such language among those present). In such circumstances, that there is a role for somebody to say something intelligible to the audience is obvious.

John Belushi and Richard Pryor demonstrate what Paul was talking about:



Chevy Chase portrays the Acts miracle, understanding Belushi and Pryor as if they were speaking English, Chase's native language.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:50 am Howdy, Hakeem

Perhaps you have conflated two distinct performances.

The gift portrayed in Acts 2:4 and following is the ability to speak in other natural languages so as to be understood by native speakers of those languages who are present at the time of the mysterious utterance. Acts continues from 2:5 through 2:11
Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under the sky. When this sound was heard, the multitude came together and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language. They were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Behold, aren’t all these who speak Galileans? How do we hear, everyone in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, the parts of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!”
The "interpreters," then, are the listeners themselves.
Your statement is quite bizarre. If someone whose native tongue is Aramaic begins to speak Koine Greek or Latin fluently to one who understands such languages then it should be obvious that there is nothing or no need for the listener to interpret.

The author of Acts merely invented a story that on the day of Pentecost the resurrected and ascended Jesus sent a Ghost to give the disciple power to preach the Gospel by speaking in other languages.

In other words, based on Acts a Holy Ghost filled tongue talking apostle, like Peter could go to Rome and preach the Gospel in Latin fluently or any language anywhere without the need for an interpreter.
Paul the Uncertain wrote:In contrast, Paul appears to be describing glossolalia, or the mimickry of connected speech sounds for which there is no natural language in which these sounds are coherent utterances (or, at least there are no native speakers of any such language among those present). In such circumstances, that there is a role for somebody to say something intelligible to the audience is obvious.
The gift of interpretation by people in the Church in the so-called Pauline Epistles is a later story than talking fluently in other languages in order to preach the Gospel to the uttermost part of the earth as claimed in Acts of the Apostles.

Amazingly In Acts, the resurrected Jesus commanded the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the power from the Ghost to preach in other languages but later in the so-called Epistles a Pauline writer advised his supposed audience not to speak in tongues unless there are interpreters.
Such advice makes no sense since a potential convert visiting the Church may only understand the "language" of the Holy Ghost filled tongue talker [without an interpreter].


Believers, like Pentecostals, who practise glossolalia are those who have read or heard of stories in Acts of the Apostles about the disciples speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost.

The Pauline writers were no different. They read Acts of the Apostles and attempted to talk fluently in other languages and found out that what they were saying was not understood by anyone in the known world.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

If someone whose native tongue is Aramaic begins to speak Koine Greek or Latin fluently to one who understands such languages then it should be obvious that there is nothing or no need for the listener to interpret.

The author of Acts merely invented a story that on the day of Pentecost the resurrected and ascended Jesus sent a Ghost to give the disciple power to preach the Gospel by speaking in other languages.
a Pauline writer advised his supposed audience not to speak in tongues unless there are interpreters.
Conclude: The author of Acts and "a Pauline writer" are talking about two different things. As you so ably distinguish between them, one of them needs a third party interpreter for the listener to understand, the other does not. That they could both be called "speaking in tongues" in English doesn't make them one thing instead of two, as you know.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem »

The so-called Pauline Epistles do not represent a collection of letters to Churches or represent the state of early Christianity but are really examples of the massive forgeries and false attribution in the NT and Church writings.

It is easily seen that writings attributed Ignatius and Clement were forged in order to historicise the fabricated apostle Paul.

It is claimed that Ignatius wrote 6 letters to Churches after being imprisoned and bound with chains on his way to Rome fighting with wild beasts and also chained to his guards but such a claim is utter nonsense.

Ignatius’ Epistles
Ignatius’ Ephesians 21--- Pray for the Church which is in Syria, whence I am led bound to Rome

Ignatius’ Magesians 12 ---For though I am bound, I am not worthy to be compared to any of you that are at liberty.

Ignatius’ Trallians 5--- For even I, though I am bound [for Christ], yet am not on that account able to understand heavenly things

Ignatius’ Romans 5--From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves all the worse.

Ignatius’ Philadelphians 5--Yet it is not I, but Jesus Christ, for whose sake being bound I fear the more…..

Ignatius’ Smyrnaeans 11 Your prayer has reached to the Church which is at Antioch in Syria. Coming from that place bound with chains....

It makes no sense at all for Ignatius to have been given ink, pen and papyri to continue to carry out the same crime for which he was sentenced to death and doing so while he was chained to the guards

The Ignatius letters are forgeries and absolute BS.

Now, it is claimed some character called Clement a supposed bishop of Rome mentioned the apostle Paul, however upon close examination it is easily discovered the letter called 1st Clement is also a forgery.

Christian writers claim there was a great dissension in Corinth around c 95 CE and that a letter was written by the bishop of Rome to the Corinthian Church.

But, when was the supposed Clement bishop of Rome according to Tertullian, a Roman writer?

In “Prescription Against the Heretics” attributed to Tertullian it is stated that the registers of the Church show that Clement was bishop after Peter which would be about c 69 CE.

Prescription Against the Heretics 32
For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

If Clement was bishop of Rome c 69 CE he did not write a letter c 95 CE.

The two supposed early mention of Paul and Epistles [Ignatius and Clement] have turned out to be forgeries or false attribution.

The start of the Jesus story appears to have been initiated by unknown authors of Jesus stories called Gospels.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem »

The earliest version of the story of Jesus is found in the short gMark composed sometime after the works of Josephus or at least no earlier than c 96 CE.

It is extremely important to understand that the author of gMark wrote nothing about a post-resurrection visit by Jesus to the apostles and the commission to preach the Gospel to the world which appears to be contradicted by Christian writings in and outside the NT.


gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, Justin, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius and others all claim that after Jesus was raised from the dead he met the disciples and commanded them to preach the gospel to all the nations.

Based on the fact that the short gMark does not contain post-resurrection visits and the commission to preach the Gospel this implies that the other NT Gospels and so-called Pauline Epistles are later than the short gMark since they contain post-resurrection visits and commission to preach the Gospel.

There would have been no Christian cult, no converts, if the disciples did not get the power from the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel..

But, why didn’t the author of the short gMark write about what appears to be the most significant event after Jesus was raised from the dead?

The answer is found in gMark chapter 13.

Mark 13
2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
4 Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

The Markan Jesus then proceeded to privately give the four apostles the sign when those things would happen.
When gMark was written the author believed all those signs had already come to pass.

Mark 13.
26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.


gMark was not written to start a new religion but was written to make it known that “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” and that the Son of man will be coming in the clouds with his angels to gather the elect.
Mark1
.14……... Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.


gMark was not written to start a new religion but to show that the time was fulfilled [all supposed signs have come to pass] --the son of man and the angels were imminently coming to gather the elect.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by davidmartin »

Pentecost as Acts tells it also bears a theological implication
That the Holy Spirit only came after the resurrection
Given what's in the gospel of John, it's curious
it's almost as if the author wished to say that the Christian church did not begin during the ministry of Jesus, nor did he baptise anyone with God's Spirit during his life. Thus this may refute the claim of those who perhaps felt otherwise, eg the community around the gospel of John
Obviously there were other accounts of this time by other groups which we don't have but seeing Pentecost's theological implications gives some insight into what these might have been... which connects to the gospel of John also
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:07 am Pentecost as Acts tells it also bears a theological implication
That the Holy Spirit only came after the resurrection
Given what's in the gospel of John, it's curious
it's almost as if the author wished to say that the Christian church did not begin during the ministry of Jesus, nor did he baptise anyone with God's Spirit during his life. Thus this may refute the claim of those who perhaps felt otherwise, eg the community around the gospel of John
Obviously there were other accounts of this time by other groups which we don't have but seeing Pentecost's theological implications gives some insight into what these might have been... which connects to the gospel of John also
In gJohn the author claimed his Jesus would send the "comforter" [a holy ghost] but only after he has gone away.

John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The Johanine story about sending the comforter was a late invention unknown to the authors of gMark and gMatthew.

The Markan Jesus had no interest at all in a new religion or sending a ghost after the resurrection to comfort the disciples.

The Markan Jesus gave his disciples power over evil spirits and sent them to preach the Gospel in Galilee while he was supposedly alive [Repent--the kingdom of God is at hand]


Mark 6
7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.

10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.

11 Andwhosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

12 ]And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

It is clear that the author of gMark believed or wanted his/her readers to believe that the kingdom of God was coming very very soon and one just has to repent to be saved--that is all, just admit and then stop sinning against God now. Jew or not--just repent.

In gMark, Jesus preached the Gospel while he was supposedly alive and his twelve apostles were given the power to preach the Gospel long before his supposed death.

All stories in Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles about talking in tongues or the apostles waiting in Jerusalem to get power from the ascended Jesus to preach the Gospel are late inventions unknown to the author of gMark.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by davidmartin »

In gJohn the author claimed his Jesus would send the "comforter" [a holy ghost] but only after he has gone away.
Correct
But in chapter 20:20 the pentecost happens completely differently to what is found in Acts

All 4 gospels claim Jesus will "baptise with the holy spirit" yet he apparently never does except once in John. I find this strange
I think that the idea of a Jesus who gave the holy spirit during his mission was suppressed for some reason when it is more natural and expected
But maybe people were saying if Jesus gave the Spirit during his life why do we need to believe in the resurrection if those who followed him then didn't, why can't we be like them? It looks like the story was fitted around the essential belief in the physical resurrection

The gospel of John shows this awkwardness
"Now on the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink! 7:38He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water." 7:39But he said this about the Spirit, which those believing in him were to receive. For the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus wasn't yet glorified."

So Jesus is saying, hey folks come and get the holy spirit - but when they get close - sorry you will have to wait ! It's obviously something like what i'm saying going on here
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote:In gJohn the author claimed his Jesus would send the "comforter" [a holy ghost] but only after he has gone away.
davidmartin wrote:Correct
But in chapter 20:20 the pentecost happens completely differently to what is found in Acts.
Are you referring to John 20.22? This is found in John 20:22-23
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The receiving of the Holy Ghost in the gJohn story is claimed to have occurred on the first day of week or on the same day as the resurrection. The receiving of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost in the Acts story is an event that supposedly happen 50 days after the crucifixion of Jesus at the Passover[50 days after the Passover is called the day of Pentecost]. In addition, the resurrected Jesus had already ascended in a cloud before the disciples were filled with the Ghost.

It must also be noted that the author of gJohn contradicted himself with regards to the receiving of the Holy Ghost.

Look at gJohn 14:26 and 16:7
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The author of gJohn claimed the Comforter was the Holy Ghost and that his disciples could not receive the Holy Ghost unless he went away but he seems to have forgotten his own story and claimed the disciples received the Holy Ghost before he had gone away on the very same day that Jesus supposedly resurrected.

In any event, it is clear that the author of gJohn knew nothing at all about the stories of talking of tongues by the apostles and the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed after gJohn.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The start of the Jesus story

Post by davidmartin »

The author of gJohn claimed the Comforter was the Holy Ghost and that his disciples could not receive the Holy Ghost unless he went away but he seems to have forgotten his own story and claimed the disciples received the Holy Ghost before he had gone away on the very same day that Jesus supposedly resurrected.

In any event, it is clear that the author of gJohn knew nothing at all about the stories of talking of tongues by the apostles and the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed after gJohn
I missed that contradiction before, all this confusion over when the Spirit was made available convinces me the original, simplest story was that Jesus was bestowing the Spirit during his mission and it's as simple as that. Later it got worked into the theology that emerged and made dependent on the cross but leaving behind the clues to the original in various places. A Jesus who goes around baptising in Spirit means Christians existed prior to the cross, maybe that doesn't seem a big deal but it could well be that was what some opponents ('heretics') of the proto-orthodox were saying, which is why the point gets repeated a few times in both gJohn and Acts maybe
Post Reply