Moderator: felix dakat
“Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”
“It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And immediately, coming up from[a] the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. 11 Then a voice came from heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,”[a] which is translated, “God with us.”
Jayson wrote:Not if you see Matthew in two parts. You forgot my timeline has Matthew start as GH format without the first two chapters.
Also, I think Matthew and Mark were from GH and not from each other.
This is why I consider them twins.
I don't think the content.placement of declared divinity shows me too much in placement.
There's no real logic to that contents placement order that indicates timelines that I can see.
The first followers of Jesus under James and Peter were called Nazarenes. Per Maccoby, their beliefs were indistinguishable from the Pharisees except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus and that Jesus was still the promised messiah.
Jayson wrote:OK Felix,
Here's just the quick wiki:
The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when the Risen Lord came to those with Peter, Jesus said to them, “Take hold of me, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.” Jerome also points out that the Apostles thought the resurrected Jesus to be a spirit, for in the Gospel of the Hebrews Jesus says that he is not a “A bodiless demon”
"Demon" being the word for, "spirit".
Interestingly, you said:The first followers of Jesus under James and Peter were called Nazarenes. Per Maccoby, their beliefs were indistinguishable from the Pharisees except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus and that Jesus was still the promised messiah.
And here, we see just above a physical and literal resurrection with no commentary references to divine ascension.
So this fits with your estimate that one would expect the GH to have even less than the other texts in regards to divinity declaration.
Then you have what you said just above, and to it we add:
This Gospel puts a particular emphasis on James the Just, as head of the Jerusalem church, and especially concentrates on arguing for obedience to Jewish law. The gospel contains an independent legend that the first resurrection appearance was witnessed by James.
So here, you have James highlighted as the favored individual in the GH, and in it you have the most reduced version of the resurrection, and you have a resurrection that is in line with the Judaic belief in literal and physical bodily resurrection and a wariness towards spirit incarnations.
Just for clarification, because text is a bastard, was that statement on James an agreement that you were talking of the same James?
As to Maccoby,
It doesn't inherently cause problems, but a heavy landing on Hebraic standards of Law and Practice would make it a bit more difficult to go with an Apocalyptic variation of Messianic following if that Apocalyptic is meant in terms in league with the Hellenist Apocalyptic tone. If Maccoby means the term more in specialty to this group's version of what apocalyptic included, and did so in some fashion similar to the Mayan's style of temporal and cyclic apocalypse, then there would pretty much be no contest between Maccoby and a GH influence theory.
Then I recant my reservations on the term from earlier. The way that it was written, out of full context - so I easily was not grasping what you are familiar with from the author, came off as suggesting league with the tone of the likes of the Apocalypse of Peter and Revelation (demons, spirits, hell-fire, and the like), rather than a cyclical era based Apocalypse (not of demons, spirits, hell-fire, and the like).
The latter is the style of the Mayan Apocalyptic "texts", and was then the comparison.
It is an older style that is a product of extending the seasonal cycle outward into cycles of mankind on many counts.
This was quite a Hebrew interest of the time, and still is today in some circles.
So far, everything you are discussing seems to line up with everything I'm aware of from what I study.
We approach from different angles, but it seems that even when approaching from opposite directions (you starting later in time and tracing backwards, and I starting earlier in time [10th c BCE] and tracing forward) we both arrive at relatively close proximity of probable early groups that indicate a cultural similarity to that which would be expected to be involved for Jesus.
I haven't encountered a cyclic Hebrew apocalypsism in my reading.
Jayson wrote:Yes. That is the same effect.
Do you mean names like these?Quite.
The Hebrew concept of dimension, in all forms of the term, is radically novel.
A simple example of their "fractal" conceptual thinking style that just explodes into complexity is the names of their god.
Their names are behaviors, and the name which is used then depends on the event and context in question.
It would be akin to having a different name for every major display of their person to the public that a President has, and using them in subjective application dependent on what reference is being discussed.
A different name when discussing liberation, a different name for sustainability, a different name for wrath, another for their status politically ideally, another, and another, and another, and another...
Each doesn't just refer to the concept, but also an event.
Like naming George Bush something in relation to 9-11, and referring to him as that name from that point forward whenever referencing him in context of war on terror.
This is also the other aspect that is interesting.
Unlike the Maya, which I made comparison to previously, the Hebrew culture's prophecy was dictated by event descriptions rather than solid dates or physical arrangements of things tangibly observable (like planetary alignment).
The movement of the human behavior on mass was the "clock" in Hebrew culture, rather than an external mechanic.
Notice that in Daniel, the markers of when things will take place are keyed by events of behavior, and not by a strict adherence to solid dates or secondary objective markers (like planetary alignments).
Notice that in all of the texts, even though the Hebrews had a fantastic calendar, the calendar is not used as the marker of things they forecast (unlike the Maya).
Instead, they use references to events, which themselves are a sort of reenactment of things previous in new form.
They really do seem to have thought quite more-so in terms of within a within which produces the previous within.
A gear within a gear, which moves the outer gear; except far more complex.
felix wrote:If so can you show how any of these names reflect an event?
I wonder if tying a name of God is a way of pinning it to the original experience.
That might indicate recognition of something other than a theistic totalized view of God on the part of the writers of the Hebrew Bible.
Do you see any of this Hebrew tendency reflected in the New Testament portrait of Jesus?
Wisdom, in ben Sirach's view, is synonymous with the fear of God, and sometimes is identified in his mind with adherence to the Mosaic law. The maxims are expressed in exact formulas, and are illustrated by striking images. They show a profound knowledge of the human heart, the disillusionment of experience, a fraternal sympathy with the poor and the oppressed, and an unconquerable distrust of women.
RH Charles in 1913 wrote: "This kingdom was to be ruled over by a Messiah sprung, not from Levi — that is, from the Maccabean family — as some of his (author of Jubilee) contemporaries expected — but from Judah. This kingdom would be gradually realized on earth, and the transformation of physical nature would go hand in hand with the ethical transformation of man until there was a new heaven and a new earth. Thus, finally, all sin and pain would disappear and men would live to the age of 1,000 years in happiness and peace, and after death enjoy a blessed immortality in the spirit world."
All that is and ever was comes from a God of knowledge. Before things came into existence He determined the plan of them; and when they fill their appointed roles, it is in accordance with His glorious design that they discharge their functions. Nothing can be changed. In His hand lies the government of all things. God it is that sustains them in their needs.
Their god was something that has a difference of behavior depending on which era of the Hebrew culture we're dipping into, but more radically between the pre-3 c BCE writings and the post-3 c BCE writings.
felix wrote:To what do you attribute that change?
One could nearly say that when a Hebrew practiced Hellenistic Judaism it was Hellenistic Judaism, but when a non-Hebrew practiced it, it was Christianity.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users