Jesus's authority from the God of Abraham

[rocala]

@Thomas Now I agree with you pushing back against my idea of Jesus as a person to obey. It isn’t about obedience, not in the way that word might conjure up. It’s about trust, trusting what He says about how to live our lives. I actually knew that, so I don’t know why I was leaving that out. Now I have to rethink everything that I’ve been trying to say here.

I did everything wrong in this thread.

Longfellow, I would not worry about this. We can all sit and read and think but a forum gives us a chance to see how this pans out. Actually communicating our ideas to a mixed audience can be a valuable training session.

 

[RJM]

I remember when I was studying Taoism. I read the Tao Te Ching, Chung Tze, The Tao of Pooh, a couple other books, practiced Tai Chi and Chi Gong, and got to know religious Taoists. And I was done.

Really? I find far more depth.

At the least I believe no investigation of Taoism is complete without knowing the I Ching. It is the root of Taoist thought, of the yin/yang and the concept of tao, and is far older than either the Tao te Ching or Chang Tze.

I Ching - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is quite a lot about Taoism in the Tao section here.

 

[Thomas]

I did everything wrong in this thread...

Or you did everything right ... you got your ideas out there, testing and refining them ...

 

[Longfellow]

Or you did everything right ... you got your ideas out there, testing and refining them ...

Thank you.

Besides poorly choosing my topic, which I think now should have been about trusting Jesus’s prescriptions for living, I derailed my own thread, going off on a tangent about Jewish heavenly figures, and even worse, irrelevant speculations about cultural and geographic variations in the popularity of those figures. Now that I’ve opened that can of worms, I want to try to explain better what I’m thinking.

I’m thinking that explaining why some things that Hebrews and the epistles say about Jesus don’t look like anything in the synoptics, doesn’t require imagining that Paul spent three years, literally in the lands of Arabia, to learn or receive them. I see another possibility, that sometime after the death of Jesus, possibly soon after, maybe as soon as they became aware of His exaltation, those things became obvious to some of the disciples. For example:

1. Jesus as Priest in the Order of Melchizedek.
   • Hebrews 5–7: Jesus is a high priest “after the order of Melchizedek,” eternal, without genealogy, superior to the Levitical priesthood.
   • Jewish background: Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 mention Melchizedek; Qumran’s 11QMelchizedek portrays him as a heavenly deliverer who proclaims Jubilee and executes judgment.
   • Distinct from Gospels: The Synoptics never present Jesus as a priest. This is a Hebrews development anchored in Jewish mystical traditions.

• 2. Jesus as the Heavenly Adam
  1. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:45–49): Contrasts Adam as “a living soul” with Christ as “a life‑giving spirit,” the “second man from heaven.”
  2. Jewish background: Philo of Alexandria taught about a heavenly archetypal man (the Logos) and an earthly man formed from dust. Paul identifies Christ with this heavenly man.
  3. Distinct from Gospels: The Synoptics never call Jesus the “second Adam” or “heavenly man.” This is Paul’s way of situating Jesus in Jewish participation metaphysics and cosmic anthropology.
• 3. Jesus as Divine Wisdom / Logos
  1. Paul (1 Corinthians 1:24, Colossians 1:15–20): Jesus is “the wisdom of God” and the agent of creation, “in him all things hold together.”
  2. Jewish background: Wisdom traditions in Proverbs, Sirach, and the Book of Wisdom portray Wisdom as pre‑existent, co‑eternal with God, and active in creation. Philo equates Wisdom/Logos with the archetypal man.
  3. Distinct from Gospels: The Synoptics present Jesus as a teacher of wisdom, but not as Wisdom itself or as cosmic Logos. Paul’s Christology explicitly identifies Jesus with this heavenly figure.
• Summary
  1. These three motifs — Melchizedek priesthood, heavenly Adam, divine Wisdom/Logos — are not found in the Synoptic Gospels but are deeply rooted in Jewish heavenly figure traditions.
  2. Paul’s distinctive Christology is not an import from outside Judaism; it is a Jewish synthesis, identifying Jesus with categories already alive in Second Temple thought.

I’m thinking that maybe even if Paul was the first to put those ideas in writing, he was not the first disciple to have those ideas.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Longfellow –

I've responded to your post #18, but I've changed your order of response in doing so, I hope you don't mind.

Not exclusively, but I think that part of his mission was to make the gospel accessible to them.

Oh, for sure! He understood the needs of both, "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1:22-23).

I think that he sometimes used concepts from Greek philosophy to make it easier for gentiles to understand, because they didn't have the Jewish context and shouldn't have to spend years learning it.

Again, agreed. I don't think anyone disputes that.

If you're making that case, however, you'd be obliged to reference the relevant concepts. Acts 17, Paul speaking to the Greeks in Athens, clearly alludes to two poets, the Cretan Epimenides and the Greek Aratus.

I agree, but I might go farther with that than you or any scholars do. I'll come back to that in a later post.

Well scholars have gone quite a way down that road, so I'd be interested in how you back up that claim.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Really? I find far more depth.

At the least I believe no investigation of Taoism is complete without knowing the I Ching. It is the root of Taoist thought, of the yin/yang and the concept of tao, and is far older than either the Tao te Ching or Chang Tze.

I Ching - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is quite a lot about Taoism in the Tao section here.

I have never been into divination. I think I spent maybe ten minutes with the I-Dhing. Have you heard of the Barnum effect?

 

[RJM]

I have never been into divination. I think I spent maybe ten minutes with the I-Dhing. Have you heard of the Barnum effect?

It's about far more. Divination is the entry point. The concept of Tao originates with the I Ching, that has firmed Chinese thought fur thousands of y00ears. It's a very deep book and I'm not alone thinking that. Confucius, Jung and many others did too.

I just don't think the I Ching and Taoism can be so lightly dismissed.

Anyway ...

 

[Thomas]

I’m thinking that explaining why some things that Hebrews and the epistles say about Jesus don’t look like anything in the synoptics...

I really think you'll have trouble making that point.

I see another possibility, that sometime after the death of Jesus, possibly soon after, maybe as soon as they became aware of His exaltation, those things became obvious to some of the disciples.

I rather think that's the stated case, rather than 'another possibility'?

I think we can safely say that when Jesus was crucified, his followers thought that was it. The Resurrection took them all by surprise.

The Synoptics never present Jesus as a priest. This is a Hebrews development anchored in Jewish mystical traditions.

Melchizedek appears only in Hebrews, and there as a nuanced theological argument about the authority of the Rabbinical priesthood – one can hardly doubt the Synoptic authors would have been aware of him.

The Synoptics were presenting Jesus in his own words and his own deeds – which they saw spoke for themselves. That Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies made to Israel was the primary focus – mystical speculation is the stuff that goes on round the edges.

Jesus says "But I tell you that there is here a greater than the temple" in Matthew 12:6.

The Synoptics never call Jesus the “second Adam” or “heavenly man.”

I disagree.

The Synoptics present Jesus as a "heavenly man" – Jesus' Son of Man self-reference is to the figure in Daniel 7. The Baptism, the Transfiguration, the miracles, all point to it. His authority in his own right to forgive sin, and his self-declaration as Lord of the Sabbath all point to it.

Paul's presentation of the soma psychikon and soma pneumatikon is unique to him. The terms exist in Greek literature, and the general idea exists in Jewish speculation, but his contrasting the present earthly body with the future spiritual body is a distinct Pauline formulation.

That the body is animated by the soul is common in ancient thought, Paul's description of resurrection and transformation from a perishable body to an immortal body powered by the Holy Spirit is a unique theological contribution.

The Synoptics present Jesus as a teacher of wisdom, but not as Wisdom itself or as cosmic Logos.

Scholarship disagrees with you here.

 

[Thomas]

I'm sorry, @Longfellow, I take no pleasure in constantly disagreeing with you.

If you could get to the kernel of the point you're trying to make, because that's not clear to me ...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's about far more. Divination is the entry point. The concept of Tao originates with the I Ching, that has firmed Chinese thought fur thousands of y00ears. It's a very deep book and I'm not alone thinking that. Confucius, Jung and many others did too.

Oh, somehow I missed that. I may have to go back and read it. Can you tell me more? Tempt me!

I just don't think the I Ching and Taoism can be so lightly dismissed.

I didn't dismiss it at all. I love Taoism. Judaism is my core, but into that very Jewish tapestry is woven other threads--beauty and wisdom I have found in many other religions. You don't have to believe everything in a religion to find some goodness in it. I would say that after my own religion (obviously) Taoism and Lakota spirituality have touched my life the most.

 

[RJM]

I may have to go back and read it. Can you tell me more? Tempt me!

I recommend the Richard Wilhelm version. Not online though. The real book. Perhaps start in the middle with 'The Great Treatise' ...

 

[Longfellow]

Someone asked in another thread why it's important to people sometimes to say that Jesus was not the son of God. There might be different reasons for different people, but one reason might be because they relate it to Greek and Roman gods having children with mortals. That could be the reason for the Quran saying that God does not beget nor is he begotten. Not to deny what the Bible says about it, but to say that God did not have a child in the way that Greek and Roman gods did.

 

[RJM]

That could be the reason for the Quran saying that God does not beget nor is he begotten.

Yes. It's too literal.

There is no actual Father, no actual Son. They are human words to symbolise the relationship between spirit and nature. As I said in another thread -- spirit is pure and eternal, nature is ever-changing and goes to death. Spirit weaves nature.

Father and son are words to outline a higher truth, in symbols.

Folks who follow the (commonly accepted) Quran idea of Jesus have to prove the Bible wrong, in order to justify the Quran, imo.

It becomes a mantra. Nobody is interested in hearing the explanation, because if it seems to contradict the Quran, it has to be false, in their eyes?

 

[RJM]

"God" by definition cannot be a single entity, imo

 

[rocala]

There is no actual Father, no actual Son. They are human words to symbolise the relationship between spirit and nature. As I said in another thread -- spirit is pure and eternal, nature is ever-changing and goes to death. Spirit weaves nature.

Father and son are words to outline a higher truth, in symbols.

I have to say that the only times that I have encountered this idea in a Christian context are in your posts here RJM, and I find it absolutely fascinating. Thank you.