Jesus Mythical and Real?

[Ahanu]

One medieval commentator argued that God kept Moses’s burial place a secret for the sole purpose of preventing later generations from worshipping him as a god. The fear of mistaking Moses for HaShem was real enough to require divine intervention!

 

[Ahanu]

Also, do not forget the heresy of Aher. The Babylonian Talmud (b. Hagigah 15a) records a famous story about a rabbi named Elisha ben Abuya, known as Aher. Upon seeing Metatron sitting in heaven, which was a posture strictly reserved for God, Aher became confused and exclaimed, “Perhaps... there are two divinities!” or “two authorities in heaven.”

 

[Thomas]

My point was not to dismiss the context of Scripture. I’m thinking that everything that people say in the gospels is very close to what was actually said, and I take everything in the epistles attributed to Paul as what he actually taught.

OK, didn't mean to misrepresent ...

You mentioned before about what Paul taught about the Resurrection, and I just wanted to add that you're on point there, as Paul saw the physical body – as we stand now – playing no part in the process!

 

[Thomas]

In these traditions, angel and elohim are quite fluid, not mutually exclusive.

Agreed. That, to my mind, just further muddies the waters of your argument.

 

[Longfellow]

OK, didn't mean to misrepresent ...

You mentioned before about what Paul taught about the Resurrection, and I just wanted to add that you're on point there, as Paul saw the physical body – as we stand now – playing no part in the process!

Thanks.

I often don’t communicate well, and it’s easy to misunderstand what I’m saying..

 

[Ahanu]

Agreed. That, to my mind, just further muddies the waters of your argument.

History is muddy.

Well I continue to disagree, for reasons I've explained. I think you're misreading McClellan, or McClellan's wrong.

We will just have to agree to disagree then.

Yes. Whereas Jesus believed his relationship was ontological.

You wrote in regards to John 10.33 the following: “Not that He is claiming coequality, coessentiality or consubstantiality, but they do see that He is claiming some order of divinity.” These are terms for ontological unity, yet you deny he is claiming the idea.

In John 10.30, Jesus speaks of unity of will. The Greek word hen usually implies that Jesus and the Father are completely united in their will, purpose, and actions. The crowd's anger does NOT prove Jesus meant ontological equality. That is a logical leap nobody should take, especially considering the theme of misunderstanding in John. The crowd could just as easily be reacting to the perceived blasphemy of a mere human claiming unmediated access to God's authority.

When Jesus uses the I AM title and speaks for God, he is acting as an authorized bearer of the divine name.

Nothing you have presented in this thread proves Jesus believed his relationship was ontological.

 

[Longfellow]

I’ll try approaching what I’m thinking from a different angle. I’m thinking that Jesus applied some OT passages to himself that people in the homeland were reading as being about Israel and a king who would restore its glory and power, and that people in the diaspora were reading as various heavenly redeemers. I’m not saying that those interpretations were true or false. I’m assuming that no one’s understanding was perfect, including Paul’s. He would have been aware of all those interpretations, and had his own opinions about them. When he saw followers of Jesus applying those passages to Jesus, at first he would have rejected that, but on the road to Nazareth Jesus convinced him that it was true. Then he applied his own understanding of those OT passages to Jesus. When he started baptizing gentiles, they didn’t have the Jewish context, so he re-imagined everything in terms of gentile ways of thinking. That’s what makes it look sometimes like he was importing gentile ideas into his teachings, but he wasn’t. He was just trying to make it accessible to gentiles.

 

[Longfellow]

I accidentally double posted.

 

[Ahanu]

The Greek for "one" here is hen, as opposed to monos, which means one numerically. The word hen can mean numerically, but it can imply a collective one, as in 'one people', united as one. Jesus is saying He and the Father are one, in that what He says and what He does is what the Father wills. This, of course, can be read in a moral sense, to imply divine endorsement, 'I'm just a man, doing the right thing, and I have God's backing because I'm doing what He would want me to do' – but if that is the case, the Judaeans would not have sufficient grounds to stone Him, because that is what they would claim for themselves.

I do not understand your reasoning in bold.

Let’s pretend to be the scribal elite for a moment. Let’s assume they understood Jesus correctly. In John 10.33, the opponents accuse Jesus of making himself a god. As we know, the Greek word theos is tellingly used without the definite article.

In the 1st-century Jewish context, there was a category for divine mediators like Jesus that I have already mentioned above (like the Angel of the Lord, Metatron, Moses) who bore the divine name and exercised divine authority. So let’s assume the scribal elite understood Jesus to be claiming this kind of status.

Jesus quotes Psalm 82.6, “I said, you are gods,” in order to show that the Law applies the term elohim to humans. If the Law calls humans gods, then his claim to be the Son of God should not be considered blasphemous.

Claiming to be a god pretty much warranted the same treatment as claiming to be the High God: execution by stoning. The authority of the scribal elite was based on their role as the authorized mediators of the Law and the voice of God. If Jesus is the authorized bearer of the divine name, his commands carry the weight of God Himself. This renders the traditional religious hierarchy redundant, unnecessary, obsolete. The claim to be a god displaces them and removes their authority over others. Their entire judicial and spiritual jurisdiction is at stake. That Jesus guy has to go, they reason. This is clearly not just another debate on halakha.

“Pay attention to him and listen to what he says... since my Name is in him.” Remember, “he will not forgive your rebellion” (Exodus 23.20-21). As this powerful agent, Jesus holds the power of life, death, and spiritual standing. The scribal elite only have two choices: submit to this agent or eliminate him. If he is the one they must listen to, then they are the ones who must be silent.

 

[Thomas]

You wrote in regards to John 10.33 the following: “Not that He is claiming coequality, coessentiality or consubstantiality, but they do see that He is claiming some order of divinity.” These are terms for ontological unity, yet you deny he is claiming the idea.

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that it was not necessarily the case that the Judaeans thought He was making such a claim. For them, claim to any kind of divine authority was sufficient for them to accuse Him of blasphemy.

However, Jesus in 10:38 leaves them in no doubt, so they tried to seize Him again ...

In John 10.30, Jesus speaks of unity of will. The Greek word hen usually implies that Jesus and the Father are completely united in their will, purpose, and actions.

And can also mean the same in essence and nature.

The crowd's anger does NOT prove Jesus meant ontological equality.

No, you're quite right – that's the point I made that you misread.

That is a logical leap nobody should take, especially considering the theme of misunderstanding in John.

Steady on. John thinks the Judaeans were misunderstanding. He wasn't.

The crowd could just as easily be reacting to the perceived blasphemy of a mere human claiming unmediated access to God's authority.

Quite right. But when He goes on to say "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" (10:38), that was oil on the fire for them.

When Jesus uses the I AM title and speaks for God, he is acting as an authorized bearer of the divine name.

Yes, as the Incarnate Logos of God.

Nothing you have presented in this thread proves Jesus believed his relationship was ontological.

And likewise, nothing you have offered proves otherwise.

 

[Thomas]

I do not understand your reasoning in bold.

OK.

Let’s pretend to be the scribal elite for a moment...

OK.

Jesus quotes Psalm 82.6, “I said, you are gods,” in order to show that the Law applies the term elohim to humans. If the Law calls humans gods, then his claim to be the Son of God should not be considered blasphemous.

Does this not mean self-declarations of divinity are permissible? I don't think so, nor is that what you meant. It's not blasphemous if the person making the claim is accepted by the 'scribal elite' – which clearly He was not (with exceptions).

Claiming to be a god pretty much warranted the same treatment as claiming to be the High God: execution by stoning.

So Jesus' claim to Psalm 82 is no defence at all?

The authority of the scribal elite was based on their role as the authorized mediators of the Law and the voice of God. If Jesus is the authorized bearer of the divine name, his commands carry the weight of God Himself. This renders the traditional religious hierarchy redundant, unnecessary, obsolete. The claim to be a god displaces them and removes their authority over others. Their entire judicial and spiritual jurisdiction is at stake. That Jesus guy has to go, they reason. This is clearly not just another debate on halakha.

Yes, I would say that's a pretty good summation of verses 10:24-25:
"So the Judaeans encircled him and said to him, 'For how long are you going to keep a grip on our soul? If you are the Anointed, tell us forthrightly.' Jesus replied to them, 'I have told you, and you do not have faith; the works that I perform in my Father’s name, these testify concerning me; but you do not have faith' "

It's quite a slap-in-the-face comment, really.

Pay attention to him and listen to what he says... (Exodus 23.20-21). As this powerful agent, Jesus holds the power of life, death, and spiritual standing. The scribal elite only have two choices: submit to this agent or eliminate him. If he is the one they must listen to, then they are the ones who must be silent.

Yes. And they remain obdurate, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, because they have so much to lose ...

... And Jesus knew this, and accepted the inevitable fate awaiting Him:
"For this reason the Father loves me: that I lay down my soul, so that I may take it up again. No one has taken it from me; rather I lay it down by myself, and I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again; this command I received from my Father." (10:17-18).

To which the intransigent 'scribal elite' reply: "He has a demon in him and is deranged; why do you listen to him?"

But they do ... and that's what vexed them most of all.

 

[Thomas]

I’m thinking that Jesus applied some OT passages to himself that people in the homeland were reading as being about Israel and a king who would restore its glory and power, and that people in the diaspora were reading as various heavenly redeemers.

I'm unclear on the distinction between "the homeland" and "the diaspora"? Jesus is preaching to Jews in Galilee and Judea. That's the homeland?

But clearly, Jesus saw Himself as a Jew. The Hebrew Scriptures is His context.

I’m assuming that no one’s understanding was perfect, including Paul’s.

Of what? The Hebrew Scriptures, or of Jesus?

With regard to the Scriptures, I'd say Paul was probably better informed than we are.
With regard to Jesus, I'd say pretty much the same thing.

Again, you make an assumption, with no reasoning why anyone should agree. I could argue that Paul had a face-to-face with the Risen Christ, and his subsequent understanding in light of that was quite correct.

I mean, 2,000 years later, and we're still unpacking what he was saying. Maybe he saw with absolute clarity way beyond the powers of comprehension of his readership.

He would have been aware of all those interpretations, and had his own opinions about them. When he saw followers of Jesus applying those passages to Jesus, at first he would have rejected that, but on the road to Nazareth Jesus convinced him that it was true.

OK.

Then he applied his own understanding of those OT passages to Jesus.

OK.

When he started baptizing gentiles, they didn’t have the Jewish context, so he re-imagined everything in terms of gentile ways of thinking. That’s what makes it look sometimes like he was importing gentile ideas into his teachings, but he wasn’t. He was just trying to make it accessible to gentiles.

Here you lose me. What gentile ideas do you mean? Jewish scholars today see Paul and Jewish, as thoroughly Jewish, and someone who remained Jewish, even after his epiphany. But he was an educated Jew, schooled in, among others perhaps, Stoic philosophy.

You'd have to elucidate, because there's a school of thought that says 'gentile ways of thinking' distorted and corrupted the transmission of Scripture.

 

[wil]

I’m not thinking that there were thousands of copies. Maybe no more than a few dozen.


Some scholars have argued that the Q source was written.

So you think a few dozen written copies by eyewitnesses formed the q source and were kept, handed down family member by family member and then found their way into 3 books named after 3 different disciples for some reason which made it into the canon?

So this fifty year old copy made it into 3 different people's hands each of which embellished and rewrite it to their understanding and that is what some people call they synoptics .. innerant gospel truth?

And you base this premise on?

 

[Longfellow]

So you think a few dozen written copies by eyewitnesses formed the q source and were kept, handed down family member by family member and then found their way into 3 books named after 3 different disciples for some reason which made it into the canon?

So this fifty year old copy made it into 3 different people's hands each of which embellished and rewrite it to their understanding and that is what some people call they synoptics .. innerant gospel truth?

And you base this premise on?

I’ve read that in other teaching networks, there were people who took notes, and that those were recopied as needed, until they were compiled into the collections that we have now. I’m imagining the same thing happening with the teachings of Jesus. It wouldn’t make the gospels infallible. It would only mean that the sources that were used in writing them were faithful reproductions of what witnesses thought they saw and heard, for whatever that might be worth.

 

[Longfellow]

So you think a few dozen written copies by eyewitnesses formed the q source and were kept, handed down family member by family member and then found their way into 3 books named after 3 different disciples for some reason which made it into the canon?

So this fifty year old copy made it into 3 different people's hands each of which embellished and rewrite it to their understanding and that is what some people call they synoptics .. innerant gospel truth?

A possibility that I see is that the gospels were written in response to a call from overseers at the end of the first century or beginning of the second. Some people were denying their authority over the churches and creating divisions. They called for people to write stories about what Jesus and the apostles said and did, that would validate their authority over the churches. Different gospels were chosen to appeal to different interests: one for the churches radiating from Antioch, one for those radiating from Rome, one for the wider diaspora, and one for the Greeks.

 

[Longfellow]

I'm unclear on the distinction between "the homeland" and "the diaspora"? Jesus is preaching to Jews in Galilee and Judea. That's the homeland?

Good question. Maybe a better way to say what I’m thinking is that there was a range of interpretations of those passages, from being about Israel and a promised king to being about a variety of heavenly redeemers and intermediaries, and that might have varied according to how much people’s lives revolved around the temple. Distance from the temple, and living inside or outside of the province, would influence that.

The Hebrew Scriptures is His context.

Agreed.

With regard to the Scriptures, I'd say Paul was probably better informed than we are.
With regard to Jesus, I'd say pretty much the same thing.

Better informed than you or me? Maybe in some ways, maybe not in others. Better informed than anyone can be now? Maybe in some ways, maybe not in others. Anyway, as you said, there is still the possibility of misunderstanding Paul.

I could argue that Paul had a face-to-face with the Risen Christ, and his subsequent understanding in light of that was quite correct.

Not a face-to-face. A light, and a voice. I suspect that it was not the first time that he heard that voice. At that moment, on the road to Damascus, he finally accepted what he had been hearing from the people he was persecuting, that those OT passages were all about their Jesus. That certainly would have led to new understandings, then and possibly much more during 40 days in the wilderness. None of that would make his understanding infallible.

Maybe he saw with absolute clarity way beyond the powers of comprehension of his readership.

Maybe. That still would not make his understanding infallible, much less our understanding of his understanding.

Here you lose me. What gentile ideas do you mean? Jewish scholars today see Paul and Jewish, as thoroughly Jewish, and someone who remained Jewish, even after his epiphany. But he was an educated Jew, schooled in, among others perhaps, Stoic philosophy.

You'd have to elucidate, because there's a school of thought that says 'gentile ways of thinking' distorted and corrupted the transmission of Scripture.

That’s exactly what I’m thinking of. That the reason for people thinking that is that Paul was trying to make his understanding accessible to gentiles. That’s been misunderstood as his understanding being corrupted by gentile ways of thinking.

(later) I don’t think that his understanding was corrupted by gentile ways of thinking, but our understanding of his understanding could be corrupted by him making it accessible to gentiles.

 

[Ahanu]

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that it was not necessarily the case that the Judaeans thought He was making such a claim. For them, claim to any kind of divine authority was sufficient for them to accuse Him of blasphemy.

It is what you wrote.

Maybe you need to start cleaning up your writing before posting if that was not your intent. I read what you write, not your mind.

You said: "They [the Judaeans] are not saying that Jesus claims to be God, but that He is assuming a divine status in His unity with the Father. Not that He [Jesus] is claiming coequality, coessentiality or consubstantiality, but they do see that He is claiming some order of divinity."

You placed the lack of ontological intent on Jesus ("Not that He [Jesus] is claiming . . ."). You should have written: "Not that they think He is claiming coequality, coessentiality or consubstantiality, but they do see that He is claiming some order of divinity." Grammatically, you stripped Jesus of ontological intent in that sentence when you wrote "Not that He [Jesus] is claiming" earlier. I must confess something: I rather enjoyed reading it, because I thought you were claiming Jesus did not claim coequality, coessentiality, or consubstantiality.

Don't worry, Thomas. I know your real beliefs about Jesus. You later informed us Jesus was claiming equality shortly after 10.33: "...Jesus was claiming a two-way process, a statement of equality" (John 10.38).

 

[Ahanu]

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that it was not necessarily the case that the Judaeans thought He was making such a claim. For them, claim to any kind of divine authority was sufficient for them to accuse Him of blasphemy.

However, Jesus in 10:38 leaves them in no doubt, so they tried to seize Him again ...

Yes, the Judeans attempted to seize Jesus after his statement in 10.38, but the question is why they did so. It seems you believe the initial charge in 10.33 might have allowed for some ambiguity, but Jesus later states that "The Father is in me and I am in the Father." You think this is the "unmistakable claim to Divine unity" (meaning the God). I would simply conclude your interpretation of 10.38 is problematic.

In John 17.21-23, Jesus uses the same language of mutual indwelling for his disciples ("that they may all be one, just as (kathōs) you, Father, are in me and I am in you"). Unlike later Christian tradition, Jesus clearly equates the type of unity he shares with the Father to the type of unity he wants for the disciples: "that they may be one, just as (καθὼς) we are one" (17.11).

If the language in 10.38 denotes ontological identity with the High God, then applying that same logic to John 17 suggests that believers also become ontologically part of the divine essence. To understand what John meant, one must allow the rest of the text explain itself. We don't need later philosophical language (like ousia or consubstantiality).

If you dare claim the oneness in Chapter 10 means essence but the oneness in Chapter 17 means relational participation, you are admitting that the phrase does not inherently mean ontological equality.

 

[Thomas]

Not a face-to-face.

W-e-l-l ... "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Corinthians 9:1) and in 1 Corinthians 15:8 he says that Jesus "appeared also to me" which Paul regarded as comparable to the sightings by the disciples. I regard his own account as more reliable than the rather prosaic Luke in Acts.

None of that would make his understanding infallible.

You are qualifying 'divine revelation' according to a human norm. I regard that as a categorical error.

That’s exactly what I’m thinking of. That the reason for people thinking that is that Paul was trying to make his understanding accessible to gentiles. That’s been misunderstood as his understanding being corrupted by gentile ways of thinking.

Then you'd have to evidence that.

You make claims, but never validate them, so I find it hard to see them having any foundation.

 

[Thomas]

It is what you wrote.
Maybe you need to start cleaning up your writing before posting if that was not your intent. I read what you write, not your mind.

I think that's rather rude. Maybe you should pay closer attention to what I write?

I wrote in #31:
So, it might well be that they (the Judaeans) are angry with Him (Jesus) for seeking to displace them (the Judaeans), and so want Him (Jesus) dead on any grounds, or they (the Judaeans) actually see that He's (Jesus) claiming more than any man can legitimately claim for himself, in relation to the divine. He (Jesus) asks them (the Judaeans) why they (the Judaeans) should want to stone Him (Jesus):
" 'We stone you not on account of a good work, but rather on account of blasphemy, and because you who are a man make yourself out to be a god.' " (10:33)

They (the Judaeans) are not saying that Jesus claims to be God (cap G, HaShem), but that He (Jesus) is assuming a divine status in His (Jesus') unity with the Father. (The Judaeans are) Not (saying) that He (Jesus) is claiming coequality, coessentiality or consubstantiality, but they (the Judaeans) do see that He (Jesus) is claiming some order of divinity."

It's quite clear.

I must confess something: I rather enjoyed reading it, because I thought ...

LOL, no. You read what you wanted to read. It happens ...

Don't worry, Thomas. I know your real beliefs about Jesus. You later informed us Jesus was claiming equality shortly after 10.33: "...Jesus was claiming a two-way process, a statement of equality" (John 10.38).

Well there you go – that should have alerted you to your mistake.