Jesus Mythical and Real?

[muhammad_isa]

"For which reason God also exalted him on high and graced him with the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee—of beings heavenly and earthly and subterranean—should bend, and every tongue gladly confess that Jesus the Anointed is Lord, for the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)

That is not a discussion about the verses I quoted from the Gospels..

 

[Longfellow]

But associating those prophetic utterances and cosmological speculations with a specific person is a whole other thing. It's massive.

I agree.

No, 'resurrection' is not unique, although the Christian version of it is, I think.

I don’t doubt that the resurrection happened. I just can’t decipher what Paul is saying about what kind of body it is.

I agree that the separation of Christianity from Judaism was not as simple as just letting gentiles br part of it.

Well, again, I'm with Paul (and the Gospels, and the NT): If there's no resurrection, there's no salvation.

I’m not thinking that the resurrection has no part in salvation. I’m thinking that *believing that it happened* is not a requirement for salvation.

Did He live there? The house in Capernaum belonged to Peter's mother-in-law. It could well be that Jesus stayed with whoever in Galilee offered him a roof. It's assumed He had family there, Cana, Capernaum, Bethsaida ...

Good point. I’ve changed that part of my story. Now it says that He lived with relatives in Capernaum.

 

[Ahanu]

No. And from your quote, I don't think McClellan thinks so, either. He says: "The term [elohim] was also occasionally used in reference to humans with special authority or relationships with deity ... This suggests deity was fundamentally understood as a relational designation and not an ontological one."

Wrong. McClellan argues that the term elohim was applied to human beings in the Hebrew Bible. Do you equate his “relational designation” with a denial of the role? Don’t know. You fail to communicate clearly why you think so, leaving it to your reader to guess. McClellan’s thesis is that the category of deity in ancient Southwest Asia was a functional and relational one based on what a being does or whom they represent, not an ontological one based on what a being is. He is correct on this point.

 

[Ahanu]

Well that debate goes way back, doesn't it? And if you're not going to accept it on the strength of Scripture and Tradition, then nothing I can say will change that ...

Way back. Ask Justin Martyr, who also accepted scripture and tradition, but the way he interpreted both differs from your interpretation. His theology is subordinationist theology.

 

[wil]

Do you have some reasons for thinking that the Jesus teaching network was different from other teaching networks? All the others had people writing things down as they happened, and recopying them as needed.

I think that would have been reported. That decades worth of notes shared with thousands of followers would have been stated by other than you. What I have heard in my lifetime is that historically there has been an oral tradition of story telling.

Those stories get embellished over 50 60 years, I believe as Thomas Jefferson did that is where we got the miracles and irgin birth...there were lot of other stories to compete with the need to make the story of your leader compelling so people will listen to you around the square....ya do what ya gotta do...Jesus said a lot of great things yet the gospel of Thomas didnt make it in...no miracles...not compelling.

 

[Ahanu]

I think they understood, but it's evident that that we might misunderstand them.

Or understood him better?

Are you sure?

They misunderstood Christ since the beginning, my friend. Hence John’s huge theme of misunderstanding, which is completely missing in your entire analysis in this thread. You even assert the mob unmistakably understood his claims. How did the spiritually blind mob accomplish that? “He claims ‘I am’ and speaks in that sense profoundly and exclusively. It's an unmistakable claim to Divine unity.” I would conclude you are falling for the same misunderstanding as the characters in the story if you think Jesus is claiming unity in the sense of ontological equality with God the Father.

John depicts opponents that seem to not understand the mystical streams flowing in their own backyard. It was fairly common to see a human being as elohim in Jesus’ time. One only needs to look at the Enochic and Qumran traditions, in which the truly human Tzaddikim were believed to undergo a transformation through heavenly ascent, a theme that surrounds many of Christ’s “I am” statements. “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he” (John 8.28). Jesus is no doubt alluding to both his death and mystical ascent at the same time. Paradoxically John sees Jesus being enthroned through his death. Melchizedek, for example, appears in Qumran fragments (such as 11QMelch) with divine status. 2 Baruch depicts a heavenly messiah. There are other examples as well that show the intellectual current full of divinized messiahs that John was swimming in.

“At the climax of the Qumran community’s Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, for example, the mystical liturgy turns to the direct praise of the community’s chief priests who are identified with the Glory of God that Ezekiel saw by the river Chebar. For others, such a close identification with Israel’s one God is precluded and, like Moses, Jacob-Israel, the patriarchs and other heroes of the faith, transformation is to an angelic identity such that, in various ways, the worshippers become ‘divine.’ … the truly human righteous not only ascend to the heavenly heights, they become the holy ones, the holiest of the holy ones, and, probably, even the ‘gods’ (both elohim and elim), surrounding the heavenly throne in worship.”
-Crispin Fletcher-Louis

 

[Thomas]

That is not a discussion about the verses I quoted from the Gospels..

Doesn't tell the man to get up, though, does He? And He uses the opportunity to teach the man a lesson ...

As I read it, in Mark 8, Jesus is in Galilee when He asks the disciples " 'But whom do you say that I am?' Peter answering said to him: 'Thou art the Christ.' And he strictly charged them that they should not tell any man of him" (Mark 8:29-30).

Now, in Chapter 10, He's come down into Judea, and is again drawing crowds, and so when confronted by the man, He is still not yet ready to fully disclose Himself, so He diverts the man's attention. The disciples have just witnessed the Transfiguration, and He has been preaching the Passion in private to them, but He's not 'going public' on that point quite yet.

 

[Longfellow]

I think that would have been reported. That decades worth of notes shared with thousands of followers would have been stated by other than you.

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

What I have heard in my lifetime is that historically there has been an oral tradition of story telling.

Some scholars have argued that the Q source was written.

 

[Thomas]

Wrong. McClellan argues that the term elohim was applied to human beings in the Hebrew Bible.

And I would still argue there are no Scriptural references to a human elohim, other than Jesus.

Do you equate his “relational designation” with a denial of the role? Don't know. You fail to communicate clearly why you think so, leaving it to your reader to guess.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you not understand?

I would have thought my agreement with McClellan against your proposition was sufficient.

Let me clarify: Broadly, in line with Jewish and Christian thought, God can be 'in' or 'on' a person, God can work through a person, and that was widely understood. In such instances, the persons can speak and act with divine authority invested in them in performance of that function – thus a Priesthood, thus Prophets, thus Patriarchs and Royalty. The Jews did not see such persons as an inherently divine being.

McClellan’s thesis is that the category of deity in ancient Southwest Asia was a functional and relational one based on what a being does or whom they represent, not an ontological one based on what a being is He is correct on this point.

Yes, that's the point. So there are no human elohim, there are humans in whom Divine Immanence is made manifest according to the nature of the role they fulfil.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As I read it, in Mark 8, Jesus is in Galilee when He asks the disciples " 'But whom do you say that I am?' Peter answering said to him: 'Thou art the Christ.' And he strictly charged them that they should not tell any man of him" (Mark 8:29-30).

I don't understand your point .. "thou art the christ" .. " you are the messiah".
The messiah was not expected to be God.

Jesus disciples did not worship Jesus .. they worshipped God.
He taught them the Lord's prayer ..
"Our Father, whom art in heaven, hallowed be thy name"

..and I don't think that the name of "the man who came running" in Mark 10 was mentioned,
in any case.

 

[Ahanu]

And I would still argue there are no Scriptural references to a human elohim, other than Jesus.

Of course there are scriptural references to human elohim besides Jesus:

“The term [elohim] was also occasionally used in reference to humans with special authority or relationships with deity, as in the vocative references to the king ’ĕlōhîm in Ps 45:7–8, or in Exod 7:1 (nǝtattîkā ’ĕlōhîm lǝpar‘ōh, ‘I have made you a deity to Pharaoh’), Isa 9:5 (šǝmô pele’ yô‘ēṣ ’ēl gibôr, ‘his name will be called Counselor of Wonder, Mighty Deity’), and Exod 4:16 (wǝ’attâ tihyeh-lô lē’lōhîm, ‘and you will be to him a deity’). Lest the lamed prefix in the final example be interpreted to be qualifying the divinity attributed to Moses (i.e., ‘you will be like a deity’; Wardlaw 2008, 108), note the lamed prefix in YHWH’s promise to Israel to be, lǝkā lē’lōhîm, ‘to you a deity’ (Gen 17:7; Deut 26:17; 29:12).

This suggests deity was fundamentally understood as a relational designation and not an ontological one.”

Oh, I'm sorry, did you not understand?

I understand you said the following: “No. And from your quote, I don't think McClellan thinks so, either.” McClellan definitely thinks there are human elohim, because he writes that “[t]he term [elohim] was also occasionally used in reference to humans.”

I would have thought my agreement with McClellan against your proposition was sufficient.

What agreement?

Let me clarify: Broadly, in line with Jewish and Christian thought, God can be 'in' or 'on' a person, God can work through a person, and that was widely understood. In such instances, the persons can speak and act with divine authority invested in them in performance of that function – thus a Priesthood, thus Prophets, thus Patriarchs and Royalty. The Jews did not see such persons as an inherently divine being.

No.

There were those singled out and more elevated than an ordinary prophet. A figure could be an authorized bearer of the divine name. Possession of the divine name allowed the agent to perform actions otherwise reserved for God, such as the power to forgive or not forgive sins (Exodus 23.21). This status allowed the agent to be identified as God in a functional sense while remaining distinct in a personal sense. The agent was both the deity and not the deity simultaneously.

Prophets speak for God, but figures named by the divine name act as the presence of God. This allows them to receive worship. It is directed at the divine name. According to John, Jesus possesses the divine name. John 17.11 states:

καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσίν, καὶ ἐγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι. πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς.
kai ouketi eimi en tō kosmō, kai autoi en tō kosmō eisin, kai egō pros se erchomai. pater hagie, tērēson autous en tō onomati sou hō dedōkas moi, hina ōsin hen kathōs hēmeis.
I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect them by Your name, the name You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one.

Yes, that's the point. So there are no human elohim, there are humans in whom Divine Immanence is made manifest according to the nature of the role they fulfil.

No human elohim at all?

Bearers of the divine name were called elohim. Again, the Hebrew Bible uses the term elohim or el in reference to humans (Exodus 7.1, 4.16; Psalm 45.7–8; Isaiah 9.5).

Let’s turn to Second Temple literature where the real fun begins.

The Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian shows how Moses is above and beyond the examples you mentioned above. It depicts a vision where Moses is invited to sit on the divine throne in heaven, receiving the scepter and crown while the stars, which are the heavenly hosts, bow to him.

The human Enoch was transformed into the archangel Metatron, which was described as the Lesser YHWH. This represents a human being ascending to the highest possible functional status of deity, bearing the divine name and exercising divine judgment.

We know deity is a role. If we know humans are recorded as being appointed to that role (e.g., Moses, the King, the Messiah), then we should know human elohim are a reality in the biblical and historical record.

 

[Ahanu]

Note in some Jewish streams Metatron is identified as the angel mentioned in Exodus 23.20–21. Again the angel of the lord has no problem being worshipped. Some acknowledged this figure as divine (Gen 16.13; 48.15-16; Josh 5.13-15, and Judg 13.17-23).

 

[Thomas]

Are you sure?

I think you've confused yourself here, so let me clarify:

Your question is directed at two of my comments, so I'll address each in turn.

The first is a reply to @Longfellow, in post #17:
"It’s all human interpretation and therefore partly misunderstood, but it’s all based on OT passages that Jesus applies to Himself."
To which I replied:
"Human interpretation is not necessarily wrong – you're assuming misunderstanding as a given, so that's not really sufficient argument.
I think they understood, but it's evident that that we might misunderstand them"
My "they in this context was the scribes of the NT, and Paul and John particularly.
And I stand by that comment. I'm not saying human understanding is omniscient or infallible, but the claim that human understanding is infallible is not in itself sufficient to dismiss the content of Scripture.

We know there are errors in Scripture. We know that the Gospels contradict each other in details. We do not, therefore, dismiss the lot as unreliable fiction.

+++

The second is my reply to a question in your post #34:
"Or perhaps later Christian tradition just misunderstood John?"
To which I replied:
"Or understood him better?"
The subtext of your comment being you understand John better than the Christian Tradition, and mine being the Tradition understands John better than you might suppose.

+++

They misunderstood Christ since the beginning, my friend.

Again, the they in question were John, Paul et al. You go off on a tangent from here.

Hence John’s huge theme of misunderstanding, which is completely missing in your entire analysis in this thread.

Which is not the case, you've missed my point.

You even assert the mob unmistakably understood his claims.

No I didn't. I asserted that what He said can be construed as blasphemy. Whether they understood what He was saying is another question. Whether they actually believed He was blaspheming, or whether they were just looking for an excuse to get a troublesome yet populist speaker out of the way, is another question.

I would offer that His opponents were so entrenched against Him, it's unlikely they would understand anything He said without prejudice.

I would conclude you are falling for the same misunderstanding as the characters in the story if you think Jesus is claiming unity in the sense of ontological equality with God the Father.

As I would conclude, as well you know, that the misunderstanding of Jesus' nature is yours.

John depicts opponents that seem to not understand the mystical streams flowing in their own backyard.

To be fair, John depicts opponents as neither seeing nor understanding the truth of Jesus' deeds and words.

There are other examples as well that show the intellectual current full of divinized messiahs that John was swimming in.

By John's time, not every messiah was necessarily divine, and there were degrees of divinity, or rather divine status. I think John was well aware of them, and the nature of Jesus, in relation to them.

“At the climax of the Qumran community’s Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, for example, the mystical liturgy turns to the direct praise of the community’s chief priests who are identified with the Glory of God that Ezekiel saw by the river Chebar. For others, such a close identification with Israel’s one God is precluded and, like Moses, Jacob-Israel, the patriarchs and other heroes of the faith, transformation is to an angelic identity such that, in various ways, the worshippers become ‘divine.’ … the truly human righteous not only ascend to the heavenly heights, they become the holy ones, the holiest of the holy ones, and, probably, even the ‘gods’ (both elohim and elim), surrounding the heavenly throne in worship.”
-Crispin Fletcher-Louis

OK ... and nothing I have said disagrees with that.

I don't know Crispin Fletcher-Louis, but I found this on a blog and think it relevant, discussing Fletcher-Louis' "Jesus Monotheism: Volume 1: Christological Origins: The Emerging Consensus and Beyond

"Fletcher-Louis thinks that there are antecedent traditions which anticipate the inclusion of Jesus in the divine identity ... While the worship of Jesus alongside God and beliefs in his divine identity are new and surprising, they could have been anticipated if we were attuned correctly to certain movements and ideas within second temple Judaism."

An apposite comment here is that it was not so much what was being claimed by early Christians, but about whom the claims were being made.

"Fletcher-Louis situates the causative factor for an early high Christology not in powerful religious experiences post-resurrection but in Jesus’ own self-awareness. He claims that the historical Jesus had an incarnational self-consciousness...

"The emerging consensus among many scholars is that a divine Christology is indeed early ... and located historically within Jewish milieu. It did not arise late in the first century only after Gentiles had streamed in and overtaken the Jesus movement... early followers included Jesus within the divine identity and engaged in actions toward him which can only be described as worship...

"Where he goes “beyond” is to try to locate (historically) the belief in a divine Messiah in pre-Christian Judaism and in the self-awareness of Jesus. Jewish writings which could have a pre-Christian origin such as the Life of Adam and Eve and the Similitudes of Enoch can be read in such a way to suggest that Jews before Jesus had a messianic expectation which included a divine Messiah who comes from heaven.

"Hurtado has made the case that it is powerful religious experiences post-resurrection which caused these early, Jewish followers to consider Jesus divine and to worship him. Apparently, through visions and prophetic utterances early Christians “saw” Jesus enthroned at God’s right hand and came to believe that worshiping Jesus was the will of God. While Fletcher-Louis applauds Hurtado’s sense that we need to take seriously the role of religious experience, he does not consider it is enough to account for what happened so quickly after Jesus’ execution. The problem, as he sees it, is that with no precedent for the worship of a divine person or Messiah in pre-Christian Judaism or without taking seriously the possibility that Jesus’ himself had a sense of his own divine identity, it is hard to account for the speed and exact shape Christ devotion took in the first decades after Jesus’ execution. It is more believable, according to Fletcher-Louis, that Jesus had a divine self-consciousness."

 

[Thomas]

Of course there are scriptural references to human elohim besides Jesus:

I'm not disputing that.

Let me repeat, the Jews did not regard such figures as inherently divine beings, but rather as human persons who were 'authorised' or 'empowered' by God to act in a certain fashion. They were not themselves elohim by nature, but by grace. They were not worshipped as gods or God.

“The term [elohim] was also occasionally used in reference to humans with special authority or relationships with deity,

Quite. Authority or relationship does not necessarily infer deity.

or in Exod 7:1 (nǝtattîkā ’ĕlōhîm lǝpar‘ōh, ‘I have made you a deity to Pharaoh’)...

I have looked at a number of Jewish online resources on this point, and they are all notably circumspect in translating and discussing this point. The general consensus appears to be that by some spiritual process, a degree of immanent indwelling, chosen individuals could speak or act with divine authority – Pharaoh thought himself a god, and thus that Moses was far inferior. HaShem says He will make Moses a God to the person who thinks he's a God...

This suggests deity was fundamentally understood as a relational designation and not an ontological one.”

Yes. Whereas Jesus believed his relationship was ontological.

I understand you said the following: “No. And from your quote, I don't think McClellan thinks so, either.” McClellan definitely thinks there are human elohim, because he writes that “[t]he term [elohim] was also occasionally used in reference to humans.”

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

The agent was both the deity and not the deity simultaneously.

I rather see it as the agent acted for the deity and with the deity's power and authority. I doubt anyone mistook Moses for HaShem.

Prophets speak for God, but figures named by the divine name act as the presence of God. This allows them to receive worship. It is directed at the divine name. According to John, Jesus possesses the divine name.

Yes.

No human elohim at all?

None other than Jesus, no ... please don't be obtuse, we both know where I am coming from.

Bearers of the divine name were called elohim. Again, the Hebrew Bible uses the term elohim or el in reference to humans (Exodus 7.1, 4.16; Psalm 45.7–8; Isaiah 9.5).

Yep. Explained above.

Let’s turn to Second Temple literature where the real fun begins.

The Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian shows how Moses is above and beyond the examples you mentioned above. It depicts a vision where Moses is invited to sit on the divine throne in heaven, receiving the scepter and crown while the stars, which are the heavenly hosts, bow to him.

The Transfiguration has Moses alongside Jesus on Mount Tabor.

The human Enoch was transformed into the archangel Metatron, which was described as the Lesser YHWH. This represents a human being ascending to the highest possible functional status of deity, bearing the divine name and exercising divine judgment.

But still not equal to HaShem. Metatron is an angel – I quite like the Sufi designation: The Angel of the Veil.

We know deity is a role. If we know humans are recorded as being appointed to that role (e.g., Moses, the King, the Messiah), then we should know human elohim are a reality in the biblical and historical record.

And round and round we go ...

 

[Ahanu]

But still not equal to HaShem.

Neither was Christ, who was the Lesser YHWH/second god/a god.

Metatron is an angel – I quite like the Sufi designation: The Angel of the Veil.

Metatron is not just an angel. Metatron is the supreme angel.

“. . . the endowment of the angel with the divine name, the indwelling of the name in the angel, authorizes the angel to do the things only God is supposed to be able to do, because this reference to not forgiving your transgression is word for word the exact way that Joshua 24.19 refers to el as a jealous God because he will not forgive your transgression . . .”
-McClellan

 

[Ahanu]

But still not equal to HaShem. Metatron is an angel – I quite like the Sufi designation: The Angel of the Veil.

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

 

[Ahanu]

The Transfiguration has Moses alongside Jesus on Mount Tabor.

What does that have to do with my point? Nothing. The point is Second Temple authors reimagined Moses in similar divine terms as John’s Christ. That is, a god/elohim.

 

[Ahanu]

None other than Jesus, no ... please don't be obtuse, we both know where I am coming from.

Yes, but streams of Judaisms during the time depicted . . .

 

[Longfellow]

The first is a reply to @Longfellow, in post #17:
"It’s all human interpretation and therefore partly misunderstood, but it’s all based on OT passages that Jesus applies to Himself."
To which I replied:
"Human interpretation is not necessarily wrong – you're assuming misunderstanding as a given, so that's not really sufficient argument.
I think they understood, but it's evident that that we might misunderstand them"
My "they in this context was the scribes of the NT, and Paul and John particularly.
And I stand by that comment. I'm not saying human understanding is omniscient or infallible, but the claim that human understanding is infallible is not in itself sufficient to dismiss the content of Scripture.

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.

 

[Ahanu]

I rather see it as the agent acted for the deity and with the deity's power and authority. I doubt anyone mistook Moses for HaShem.

Actually, there is a rabbinic tradition where an individual sees Metatron sitting on a throne in heaven and exclaims, “That is Adonai!”
A rabbi had to correct the observer, explaining that while Metatron bore the Divine Name and exercised divine authority, he was not the High God.