tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19670264.post7478666617778375214..comments2023-08-10T02:07:41.140-06:00Comments on Losing My Religion: Water into Wine into MythologySocietyVshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19670264.post-83898426220301383302007-11-01T12:30:00.000-06:002007-11-01T12:30:00.000-06:00Dagoods thanks for the input - I find your view ve...Dagoods thanks for the input - I find your view very honest and refreshing. <BR/><BR/>"The only sources we have for Jesus are Christian writings. And the primary sources—the earliest—are the works of Paul and the Gospels. Within even those we see the development of myth" (Dagoods)<BR/><BR/>I have very little problem with this - since I think Paul was using the skills he had available to him - and this lines up with Jewish interpretation (see Yael's PaRDeS chart right below this). <BR/><BR/>Our approach to Biblical exegesis is PaRDeS:<BR/>Pshat - surface meaning<BR/>Remez - deeper meaning other than the literal<BR/>Drash - interpretation of the passage, making comparisons to other passages, pulling ideas together (a lot of my writing is at this level, midrash)<BR/>Sod - the secret meaning, sometimes quite mystical <BR/><BR/>Using that chart I can see Paul's writing a little more clearer (and even the gospels) - and the use of various meanings throughout his work. Paul jumps from literal to mystical in certain passages - so I can see how he does not have to be literal all the time. <BR/><BR/>The synoptic idea will always be a problem I think - and finding the clear-cut answer is not something that will be 100% proven. I do find it interesting on an academic level to be honest - and the main problem will always be what is discussed and seen in the letters and gospels themselves. If we dismiss them as reliable sources - then any theory will be valid I would have to say. But I guess we have to wait until we find more proof - or maunscripts - for definitive answers (and this might not happen). <BR/><BR/>"I question whether Paul sees Jesus as a Miracle worker. I significantly question whether Paul considers Jesus as being physically resurrected with a physical body appearing on this Earth." (Dagoods)<BR/><BR/>These are questions we can only peruse in Paul's letters and then decide what we think. I lean to the idea he knew the original group of disciples and built his doctrine from them - and never saw a miracle (yet is attributed them in Acts). I think Paul see's a Jesus that is human - and how resurrection looks to him - well that's a whole nother thing (but he does mention it more than anyone else). <BR/><BR/>"I am resigned to believing the author is writing Christian polemic, just like Matthew, and is equally as trustworthy (or not) when it comes to being careful with historical events." (Dagoods)<BR/><BR/>I agree - he is writing in the same style as the gospels (for sure) - but to me - since he is not an original disciple - where he is gathering this info from? We do know he was in the same time frame as Paul. He does know the original community - enough so - to write a polemic on it (and a gospel). He is an interesting character to say the least. The huge question is - did he write the same time as Paul - which I belive he might of (based on that communion passage). <BR/><BR/>"Mark also has the big Three – “Peter, James and John” – yet when we come to the claims of the early church, the Leaders are “Peter, James the other one and Paul.”" (Dagoods)<BR/><BR/>You see this is interesting on one level - even Paul names Peter, James, and John as the big 3 (Galatians 2:9). Oddly enough so does Mark - who seem to be travelling companions also -according to Paul's letters. So who declares 'Peter, James the other, and Paul'? Luke? Even Acts makes Paul look like an outsider to the 'apostles' authority (Acts 15). But what never changes from the gospels - to Acts - to the letters - is Peter's role (he seems to be always regarded as the senior apostle). This tells me there is some continuity in everyone's approach as they write - as if in a community (during the same time). <BR/><BR/>What I also ponder is the role of Luke and Mark - the travelling companions. They (and a few others) show up in Acts and Paul's letters as fellow workers to bigger names in this faith (ex: Paul and Barnabus (mark's cousin), Luke and Paul, Peter and Mark). I actually wonder if they were writer's for the people they pal around with - even Paul points this out in a letter that someone wrote for him. Because their role is not defined - but we do see these same people bringing parchments to Paul (2 Tim 4:13) - and it seems to be in regards to Luke - and mark). These 2 people are never clearly defined - but oddly enough they have their names on writings in the NT. <BR/><BR/>"To speculate one way or another is just that—speculation." (Dagoods)<BR/><BR/>Agreed - I cannot prove any of this but I do speculate on it - and maybe I am giving too much room for the gospels, Acts, and the letters to define themselves - but this is the strongest avenue to use as far as I can tell - as we all know - history is still pretty silent on this group. <BR/><BR/>So in essence, from merely using the books and letters to define themselves I am able to reason to this conclusion:<BR/><BR/>The Traveller's<BR/>Paul wrote letters - that mention and lot of people<BR/>Luke was a contemporary to Paul and the Apostles<BR/>Mark was a travelling companion - and lackey - to Paul and the Apostles<BR/>Barnabus was Mark's cousin and did the same thing Mark did<BR/>Then there is a list of others that Paul also mentions as fellow travellers (ex: Demas)<BR/>- What these others did is not specifically mentioned - but if Paul was writing - they would of knew or even helped. <BR/><BR/>- Paul states he knew Peter, James, and John (and the council at Jerusalem) and that he was in 'sharp debate' with them - this scene is also in Acts 15. <BR/><BR/>- Mark is found with the Apostles and then travels with Paul (it would seem this is a pattern Paul adheres to) - same with Barnabas and a few others. <BR/><BR/>- Luke writes Acts and a gospel - and travels with Paul - but is found in the Apostles midst (then we see his 'we' chapters from Acts). <BR/><BR/>- Matthew and John are seen in Acts as being included in the title 'Apostles' - that group -(Acts 1:13) - who also get mentioned in each synoptic gospel. <BR/><BR/>-It seems to me there is a small community of people who followed Jesus that each knew one another enough to write all these things in some kind of unified effort. Do they all look the same in writing - no. But it is not proposterous to say they all wrote in similar time frames - from within that small Jewish community - and all share similar values. But with no original manuscripts - who can be certain?SocietyVshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892870801259282254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19670264.post-33021121621284608142007-11-01T07:29:00.000-06:002007-11-01T07:29:00.000-06:00SocietyVs,I haven’t read this particular book, but...SocietyVs,<BR/><BR/>I haven’t read this particular book, but I am familiar enough with the Mythical vs. Historical Jesus debate. Coupla points to address, in the same numerical fashion you used (helpful, by the way)<BR/><BR/><B>(1) Jesus is Mythical – the concept & (5) The Teachings as mythology </B><BR/><BR/>I can’t quite get myself to buy the idea the whole <I>persona</I> is mythical either. I think there must be a historical presence at the core—even if it only consists of a cynic philosopher being crucified.<BR/><BR/>However, the interesting issue raised by this debate is to create a methodology by which we determine myth from historical. You say you find a “few other things” being myth—how? What method did you use to determine “this” was myth but “that” was historical? It is extremely difficult to come up with a consistent method by which we can safely make such a determination, other than personal prejudice. (And I am just as guilty, of course.) <BR/><BR/>The only sources we have for Jesus are Christian writings. And the primary sources—the earliest—are the works of Paul and the Gospels. Within even those we see the development of myth. How can we determine what was developed as myth <I>prior</I> to their writing? Not an easy issue.<BR/><BR/><B>(2) Synoptic Problem </B><BR/><BR/>“Tired and Old”?? *falls off chair in faint* Take a knife and just stab it in my heart, why don’t ya? *grin* I find this area of study in the creation of the three Gospels fascinating. Why did Matthew and Luke both feel free to make up a birth story, yet each include a genealogy, a virgin birth, an angelic announcement, and a Bethlehem birth with a Nazareth infancy? Where did the Sermon on the Mount come from? Why did Matthew and Luke change Mark? Why did Matthew and Luke use Mark in the first place? Why does Luke skip the Tyre trip in Mark? <BR/><BR/>I love to dig and explore and tear in this issue. Ah, well. Just because I love it does not mean you have to. (While I agree Matthean priority is the best viable alternative to Markan priority, Matthean priority still creates more problems than solutions in that regard. I would go into it, but apparently it is “tired and old.” [I hope you know I am kidding you when I say that.])<BR/><BR/><B>(3) Paul </B><BR/><BR/>I would agree Paul sees Jesus as a historical figure who was actually crucified. I question whether Paul sees Jesus as a Miracle worker. I significantly question whether Paul considers Jesus as being physically resurrected with a physical body appearing on this Earth.<BR/><BR/><B>(4) Luke/Acts </B><BR/><BR/>The more I study Luke, the more I see corrections to Mark made in order to be historically accurate. (e.g. moving the Sanhedrin council of Jesus trial from night to morning.) The more I study Acts, the less I trust it for <I>any</I> historical accuracy whatsoever. On oddity that, but for the similarity in style, would cause me to question it was the same author!<BR/><BR/>As to Luke being Paul’s traveling companion, the Acts “we” passages would indicate he was for at least a short period of time, yet his doctrine diverges from Paul. Eventually, I am resigned to believing the author is writing Christian polemic, just like Matthew, and is equally as trustworthy (or not) when it comes to being careful with historical events.<BR/><BR/><B>(6) Other names historical </B><BR/><BR/>Some are probably historical. Some are not. If there was a traveling philosopher/rabbi, it is very probable he had some followers. If they promulgated his beliefs, post-mortem, their names could easily be connected to him.<BR/><BR/>Mark uses the name “Simon” but then cleverly adds “Peter” or “Rock” to play on Peter’s lack of sticking with the teaching. Unfortunately with Mark, he is a bit <I>too</I> clever, in that it is difficult to tell whether he created the name “Peter” to attach to the Parable of the Sower, or create the Parable of the Sower to attach to the name “Peter.” Mark also has the big Three – “Peter, James and John” – yet when we come to the claims of the early church, the Leaders are “Peter, James <I>the other one</I> and Paul.” The only person in common is Peter, yet the name “James” is in common, and John seems to have disappeared. Odd.<BR/><BR/>The rest of the Disciples Mark conveniently makes up their names, to round out to the magic number—12.<BR/><BR/><B>(7) Luke’s name attached </B><BR/><BR/>Actually ALL the names being attached are interesting…but…*sigh.* (Again, just kidding ya!) To speculate one way or another is just that—speculation. I tend to fall on the side that it WAS Luke, the traveling companion for this reason, yet could be easily swayed otherwise. It is not a strong enough argument for me to make a definitive opinion statement one way or the other.<BR/><BR/>The problem, SocietyVS, is that we have been trained and taught and stated and heard over and over how Jesus is historical—to the point it seems so impossible to not be true. Like some conspiracy theory claiming we are all aliens from the Planet Persei-8. But once we start to declare <I>some</I> of it as mythical, we enter a difficult (albeit not necessarily impossible) world of making a reasonable determination as to what must be historical and what must be mythical.<BR/><BR/>It is that method which has remained elusive to me thus far.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.com