Early Christians knew no historical Jesus tradition

Gday all,

This post will address the origin of Jesus traditions for the early Christians.
It's about history and Christian sources.
(It's not directly about whether Jesus existed, nor about personal experience.)


So how did Paul and the early Christian writers learn about Jesus
?

Gal. 1:16
"God chose to reveal his Son in me, in order that I might preach him among the gentiles"

Jesus was revealed to Paul, IN Paul, by revelation.
Not from any historical tradition.


Rom. 16:25-6
Paul's Gospel
"about Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept in silence for long ages but now revealed, and made known through prophetic writings".

Until NOW it was secret, but Paul now has knowledge about Jesus - derived from his revelation about what the scriptures mean.
Not from any historical tradition.


Eph 3:5
"The mystery about Christ which in former generations was not made known to the human race, is now revealed to dedicated apostles and prophets through the Spirit."

Knowledge about Jesus Christ is only NOW known by revelation.
Not from any historical tradition.


Gal. 1:11-12
"For I neither received (paralambanoo) [my Gospel about Jesus Christ] from man, nor was I taught it, but [I recieved it] through a revelation of Jesus Christ"

He received his gospel about Jesus from personal revelation - specifically saying that he did NOT learn it, and got it from NO MAN.
Not from any historical tradition.
(Note: Paul uses 'paralambano' to refer to receiving revelation.)


1 Cor. 15:3-4
"For I delivered to you ... what I also received (paralambano), that Christ died for our sins, as learned from the scriptures, and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day, as learned from the scriptures"
(Translating "kata tas graphas" to "as learned from the scriptures".)

Paul has received this knowledge about Jesus dieing and rising again from HIS personal REVELATION about what the scriptures really mean, probably referring to Isaiah 53, Hosea 6:2, Ps. 22:16, Zech. 12:10 and Ps. 2.
Not from any historical tradition.


1 Cor. 11:23-26
"For I received (paralambano) from the Lord that which I passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was delivered up, took bread, and when he had given thanks, broke it and said: 'This is my body..."

Paul's received this knowledge about Jesus' Last Supper by personal revelation.
Not from any historical tradition.


In summary
Paul's preaching of Jesus all comes from his own personal revelation, his own new understanding of what the scriptures really mean. Note his use of "paralambanoo" to refer to receiving by revelation.

Nothing to do with a historical Jesus.


Kap

Gday,

I hope mods will keep this here if we stay on topic please ?
:-)

This pattern is not just in Paul - other early Christians get their knowledge of Jesus FROM the scriptures. Not from any historical Jesus tradition.


Hebrews
1:2 "In this final age God has spoken to us through his Son" in the present.
But all quotes of the Son are from scripture, not a single Gospel saying - e.g. Ps. 2:12 "I will proclaim thy name to my brothers", not Mark 3:35 as example of being brothers.

Quotes of OT scripture are put in Jesus' mouth with "he says...", in the present tense - e.g. 10:5-7 Christ speaks about himself by quoting Ps. 40:5-8. 5:7 derived from Ps. 116:1 and Ps. 22:24.

Scripture is consistently the source for Jesus' words and actions to this early writer, not any historical Jesus tradition.


Revelation.
Opens with the "revelation of Jesus Christ" - God reveals it to Jesus, who passes it to an angel who tells John. Filled with revelation about Jesus. 1:7 is derived from Zech. 12:10. Closes with quote from Habakkuk in the mouth of Jesus.
This whole book is about revelation and what is supposedly says about Jesus.
Not from any historical Jesus tradition.


The Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One
Mark's passion of Jesus is derived from the OT - Gen. 39-41, Est. 3, Tobit 1:18-22, Susanna, Dan. 3 and 6, Macc. 3, 2 Macc. 7, Wis. Sol. 2-5.
The passion story of Jesus comes from episodes in the OT.
Not from any historical Jesus tradition.


1 Clement
16:15-16 describing Jesus' suffering - quoting Ps. 22 and Isaiah 53, no Gospel stories. Ch. 22 - Ps. 34 is quoted as a direct summons from Jesus.
Scripture is a source for Jesus' actions for this writer too, not any historical Jesus traditions.


Polycarp's epistle
8:1 talking of the events around Jesus - he quotes from Isaiah 53.
2:3a speaks of "the Lord in his teaching", then quotes from 1 Clement 13.
No clear knowledge of Jesus stories, except from scriptures.


Barnabas
Talks about Jesus' passion 5:2, 5:12, 13 ; but his sources are scripture - Isaiah 50 and 53 and Psalms 22 and 119.
No clear knowledge of Jesus stories, except from scriptures.


Tertullian,
On the Flesh of Christ, Ch. 9
"As the case stood, however, it was actually the ordinary condition of His terrene flesh which made all things else about Him wonderful, as when they said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works?" Thus spake even they who despised His outward form. His body did not reach even to human beauty, to say nothing of heavenly glory. Had the prophets given us no information whatever concerning His ignoble appearance, His very sufferings and the very contumely He endured bespeak it all. "

That is -
even if the prophets [i.e. scriptures] had not told us he was physically ugly, we could still tell that was so from his sufferings.

Tertullian's source for Jesus appearance is the scriptures (the prophets.)

Again in Against Marcion 3, 17 :
Let us compare with Scripture the rest of His dispensation. Whatever that poor despised body may be, because it was an object of touch and sight, it shall be my Christ, be He inglorious, be He ignoble, be He dishonoured; for such was it announced that He should be, both in bodily condition and aspect.
Isaiah comes to our help again:
"We have announced (His way) before Him," says he; "He is like a servant, like a root in a dry ground; He hath no form nor comeliness; we saw Him, and He had neither form nor beauty; but His form was despised, marred above all men." Similarly the Father addressed the Son just before: "Inasmuch as many will be astonished at Thee, so also will Thy beauty be without glory from men,"

Isaiah is directly the source of details about Jesus for this writer.


Origen vs Celsus.
They argue about the characteristics of Jesus - as derived from Isaiah and Psalm 45 (contra Celsum VI, 75)

In summary -
many early Christians got their knowledge of Jesus FROM scripture, or FROM revelation - without any hint of a historical Jesus tradition.

Gospel 'historical' details don't become widely known and preached until early-mid 2nd century when the Gospel become known.

But -
The source of early Jesus traditions is the Jewish scriptures.
The source of later Jesus traditions are the Gospels.
(And the source of Gospel Jesus traditions are the Jewish scriptures.)

Jesus traditions are not based in history at all.


Kap


[edit on 15-7-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Kapyong]

To the church at Corinth, Paul wrote,

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

That's from 1 Corinthians 15. He's talking about a bodily resurrection. He was buried. He was raised on the third day. He came to Peter (still alive). He appeared to the Twelve (indicating He appeared to Mathias, too, still alive). Then He appeared to 500 folks, most of whom are still alive.

Paul considers himself the aberration amongst that group. His rebirth wasn't as the others, who had seen Christ physically. Paul recognized this, and typically pointed it out, as has been shown in the previous posts. This doesn't mean he said this was the only way it happened, nor did he say the physical resurrection never happened. If it didn't, then our faith is in vain.

So... whats your point?

Everybody knows Paul lived after Jesus and the Apostles. This was never any big secret.

If you look at the 4 gospels then Acts you will see that the Apostles carried the message of Jesus to the world and beginning in Acts established christian churches.

Paul was just One writer of letters in the New Testament. He happened to have a personal conversion experience unlike most other Christians at the time. You make it sound like the entire early christian Church was started by Paul and knew only what he knew.

The Churches Paul wrote letters to were already established churches. I am sure many of the Christians in those churches did have knowledge of the historical Jesus.

Of course Paul would interpret the scriptures differently in light of his revelation about Christ. There was much prophecy in the Old testament about Christ only most people would not see it because they were looking for an earthly leader to deliver them from oppression and not a spiritual leader that Jesus was.

You say, "Gospel 'historical' details don't become widely known and preached until early-mid 2nd century when the Gospel become known. "

I dispute the validity of this statement. As I said, Early churches were established beginning in Acts. The book is called Acts because it shows the acts of the Apostles carrying out the commandments of Jesus, who told them to : Go into all the world and make disciples of all men.

In the end, the Jews got their leader who would deliver them from oppression. God knew what he was doing here. The first covenant was faulty in that the people refused to follow it. So God sent Jesus to make a new covenant for the Jews and also extended to the gentiles. God knew if he gave them a new covenant that they could follow and some real practical life teachings to go with it, the people could free themselves and have something way better than just an earthly military leader.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

reply to post by Kapyong


I'm confused. What is the conspiracy here? Are you saying that the Pauline letters predate the Gospels so they don't count?

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Paul was just One writer of letters in the New Testament. He happened to have a personal conversion experience unlike most other Christians at the time.

Ever read the Gospel of Mary?

It might be a good idea if you did.

You would understand that even the male apostles of Jesus had fundamental misgivings about the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the "Son of man"--especially when coming out of the mouth of, horrors, a woman.

In the Gospel of Philip, by the way, it is stated very clearly that Jesus loved Mary more than the other disciples "...kissing her often on her mouth."

(No wonder most people have not read the Gospel of Philip.)

Ever heard of the Gospel of Thomas?

Michael Cecil

why do you fail in every thread to mention Pauls direct revelation(moment he first believed) was an AUDIBLE voice from out of thin air/heaven that said-Saul, "I am Jesus" of Nazareth whom you are persecuting -then the Spirit comes into play


[edit on by No King but Jesus]

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
why do you fail in every thread to mention Pauls direct revelation(moment he first believed) was an AUDIBLE voice from out of thin air/heaven that said-Saul, "I am Jesus" of Nazareth whom you are persecuting -then the Spirit comes into play

[edit on by No King but Jesus]

Maybe you missed it.

I referred to Paul being inspired by the Demonic Spirit.

"By their fruits you will know them" said Jesus.

And the 'fruit' of Paul's doctrine of vicarious atonement and deification of Jesus was the slaughter of tens of thousands of Albigensians and Bogomiles and the Holocaust of millions of Jews and, more recently, Muslims.

Paul was a Pharisee. He turned upside down the Teaching of Jesus that the Doctrine of "resurrection" is a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

No further evidence is required to demonstrate that, whatever 'revelation' it was that Paul received, it certainly was not from the Creator...

Who is the Origin of the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

Michael Cecil

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Michael Cecil]

Originally posted by darkelf
I'm confused. What is the conspiracy here? Are you saying that the Pauline letters predate the Gospels so they don't count?

I think the point the OP is making is that Jesus may not actually have existed aside from scriptural accounts. That Jesus was fiction. Correct me, please, if I've misinterpreted. Or that the origins of the Church are not divinely inspired, but demonically.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 7/16/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
No further evidence is required to demonstrate that, whatever 'revelation' it was that Paul received, it certainly was not from the Creator...

Well, is there any question that the Earth is the domain of Satan? That everything in the human world is precipitated at the hand of Satan?

It's our challenge to escape from this world, is it not, through the Resurrection, thereby defeating Death and Satan and Hell and leaving it all behind? Jesus as Christ showed us the escape route. He demonstrated the procedure for defeating Satan and ascending to Heaven.

It's a tough path, but that's the lot of true Christians.

Now, if it's you're contention that the Catholic Church is Satanic, then I'm with you. Of course the Church is a spawn of Satan. This is his world. I doubt Christ would recognize the Church, but I think Christ and the Holy Spirit come to us in spite of the Church.


— Doc Velocity

Paul's claims about his formation carefully distance him from the Jerusalem leadership, who are his rivals. He is not their emissary, he is not their disciple, and he is not beholden to them. He positions himself as commissioned directly and personally by the risen Christ.

However, Paul doesn't deny contact with the general membership of the Jewish church while he was persecuting them. He doesn't deny his time spent with the Damascus Jewish Christian community as their convert. There isn't a lot of story to learn, and Paul seems like a bright guy. A few days should have sufficed to get him on-message.

Paul will turn out not to be as generous as some students in acknowledging his earthly teachers. That's an interesting character trait, but uninformative about the existence or absence of an earlier Jesus tradition for him to draw on.

As to the content of what he wrote, Paul knew that he would never be able to top the Jerusalem gang in telling pithy Jesus anecdotes, so he didn't try. The cost of Paul getting a biographical datum wrong would have been considerable. Even now, tongues wag about his sole recorded venture into Jesus-quoting (that it is better to give than receive), because it looks like he may have gotten that wrong.

Away from Jerusalem, Paul could easily have learned the corpus of Jesus lore, but he couldn't have known which stories his rivals would endorse, except by becoming their disciple. So, he played the KISS strategy ("Keep it simple, stupid"). No mystery there.

Conversely, the Jerusalem clique couldn't touch Paul in crafting Hellenistic philosophical spin for the climax of the story, so Paul brought that up every chance he got. No mystery there, either.

Much of the rest of the basic story is Jesus being an emphatically Jewish political and religious leader. Paul was pitching Gentiles. So, a lot of the basic story is uninteresting, maybe even off-putting, to Paul's readers. There's no surprise that a lot of the story doesn't come up in Paul.

The bottom line is that we cannot expect to hear from Paul about what his apparently illiterate rivals were teaching their Jewish followers orally about the Jewish leader Jesus. And we don't.

It would be reasonable to conjecture that there wasn't a Gentile Jesus tradition until Paul launched his. So, the pre-Paul material would obviously be Jewish, focusing on fulfillment of prophecy, and so richly illustrated with prophecy to fulfill.

In other words, the record looks just as we would expect it to look. I suppose you could argue that the surest sign of a successful conspiracy is the utter lack of evidence for the conspiracy, but I sense you were going for something else.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


wow you are out in left field it was addressed to K but anyways Paul admits he was a perfect Pharisee by law and approved/did persecute/kill the early sect of the Way BEFORE the voice, the direct revealing of Jesus and considered it all as dung(his law Pharisee-ism), and as to your doctrine of the rebirth and the ressurection it's all in there, but seems you have a mojammed agenda? is that it?


[edit on by No King but Jesus]

reply to post by eight bits


what was that about gentiles and jerusalem?

he will be a sanctuary;
but for both houses of Israel he will be
a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.
And for the people of Jerusalem he will be
a trap and a snare.-Is8.13

In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'-Hos1.10

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law-Rom2.14

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
No further evidence is required to demonstrate that, whatever 'revelation' it was that Paul received, it certainly was not from the Creator...

Well, is there any question that the Earth is the domain of Satan? That everything in the human world is precipitated at the hand of Satan?

It's our challenge to escape from this world, is it not, through the Resurrection, thereby defeating Death and Satan and Hell and leaving it all behind? Jesus as Christ showed us the escape route. He demonstrated the procedure for defeating Satan and ascending to Heaven.

It's a tough path, but that's the lot of true Christians.

Now, if it's you're contention that the Catholic Church is Satanic, then I'm with you. Of course the Church is a spawn of Satan. This is his world. I doubt Christ would recognize the Church, but I think Christ and the Holy Spirit come to us in spite of the Church. — Doc Velocity

You know so little about the Jewish religious milieu at the time of Jesus that it is difficult to know where to start:

First, there were the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes.

The xenophobic, arch conservative and racist Sadducees held to the Law (especially its ritualistic aspects because that's how they made their money) and looked askance at the prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea because the claim of 'personal Revelation' and their commentaries about the evils of the Jewish priesthood threatened their authority. (A modern equivalent would probably be John Hagee's Christians United For Israel--CUFI.)

The Pharisees opposed the Sadducees and took a more liberal bent, focusing much more intensely on the ethical-moral dimension of the Law and believing the Revelations of Isaiah (or so they assumed) and the other prophets. A modern equivalent would be the anti-Zionist rabbis of the Neturei Karta.

And then there were the Essenes (sometimes referred to as scribes) who believed the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' as well as held to the validity of the Book of Daniel.

Neither the Pharisees nor especially the Sadducees could tolerate the Book of Daniel as an authentic Revelation since it focused on a specific Vision: the Vision of the "Son of man" (something that they considered to be "unsure", as reported in the Thanksgiving Hymns). And, to this day, the Book of Daniel is not considered among the books of the Prophets but in the "writings" because of its mention of this Vision. (There were also attempts by the Pharisees to eliminate Ezekiel from the canon altogether for precisely the same reason.)

So, along comes Jesus talking at length about the Vision of the "Son of man", specifically validating the Prophecies of Daniel, and talking about the "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'--as it was understood by the prophet and scribe Malachi.

So, obviously, he would have been opposed by the entire Jewish religious establishment except the Essenes.

So, when Jesus ridiculed the doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave, he was demonstrating that the Pharisees were his enemies.

When he went into the temple and challenged the economic interests of the Sadducees he was almost as if acting like a Pharisee, demonstrating that the Sadducees were his enemies.

Jesus specifically made enemies of both the Sadducees and Pharisees because they had no Knowledge whatsoever about the two fundamental Revelations upon which both the Torah and the Prophets were based.

Oh, by the way, the Sadducee perspective is always in favor of blood sacrifice of one kind or another; either animal blood sacrifice, or human blood sacrifice--the slaughtering of the Albigensians and Jews and Muslims by the Roman and Protestant denominations; or, today, the slaughter of people by Zionist and Muslim terrorists--whether that person be a Jewish or a Christian or a Muslim 'Sadducee'.

And all indications are that the next blood sacrifice du jour--if John Hagee and Netanyahu get their way--will be of the Iranians: Jewish, (one of the largest Jewish communities in the Middle East outside of the Israel) Christian and Muslim.

Michael Cecil

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Michael Cecil]

[edit on 16-7-2010 by Michael Cecil]

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Paul was just One writer of letters in the New Testament. He happened to have a personal conversion experience unlike most other Christians at the time.

Ever read the Gospel of Mary?

It might be a good idea if you did.

You would understand that even the male apostles of Jesus had fundamental misgivings about the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the "Son of man"--especially when coming out of the mouth of, horrors, a woman.

In the Gospel of Philip, by the way, it is stated very clearly that Jesus loved Mary more than the other disciples "...kissing her often on her mouth."

(No wonder most people have not read the Gospel of Philip.)

Ever heard of the Gospel of Thomas?

Michael Cecil

LOL.. yeah.. I heard of them.. you do know those books are not canon for a reason don't you.. you wanna believe them, that's your choice, but they hold no place in true Christians study of the bible.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
No further evidence is required to demonstrate that, whatever 'revelation' it was that Paul received, it certainly was not from the Creator...

Well, is there any question that the Earth is the domain of Satan? That everything in the human world is precipitated at the hand of Satan?

It's our challenge to escape from this world, is it not, through the Resurrection, thereby defeating Death and Satan and Hell and leaving it all behind? Jesus as Christ showed us the escape route. He demonstrated the procedure for defeating Satan and ascending to Heaven.

It's a tough path, but that's the lot of true Christians.

Now, if it's you're contention that the Catholic Church is Satanic, then I'm with you. Of course the Church is a spawn of Satan. This is his world. I doubt Christ would recognize the Church, but I think Christ and the Holy Spirit come to us in spite of the Church.


— Doc Velocity

Thumbs up!

That is the best description of belief that I have ever seen!

Thank you for being bluntly honest with that descriptive answer.

Originally posted by infolurker

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
No further evidence is required to demonstrate that, whatever 'revelation' it was that Paul received, it certainly was not from the Creator...

Well, is there any question that the Earth is the domain of Satan? That everything in the human world is precipitated at the hand of Satan?

It's our challenge to escape from this world, is it not, through the Resurrection, thereby defeating Death and Satan and Hell and leaving it all behind? Jesus as Christ showed us the escape route. He demonstrated the procedure for defeating Satan and ascending to Heaven.

It's a tough path, but that's the lot of true Christians.

Now, if it's you're contention that the Catholic Church is Satanic, then I'm with you. Of course the Church is a spawn of Satan. This is his world. I doubt Christ would recognize the Church, but I think Christ and the Holy Spirit come to us in spite of the Church.


— Doc Velocity

Thumbs up!

That is the best description of belief that I have ever seen!

Thank you for being bluntly honest with that descriptive answer.

This, of course, is my favorite line here:

"Of course the Church is a spawn of Satan. This is his world."

And, if you see the final battle between Neo and Agent Smith in Matrix Revolutions, you may remember that, just after Agent Smith emerges out of the earth (See Revelations 13:11 and Sura 27:82 of the Koran) as a symbol of the "beast of the earth" 'thinker', he says "This is my world, my world." That is, the world of the 'thinker'.

Michael Cecil

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Michael Cecil]