They Stole His Body - The Hijacking of Jesus

I found something the OP may be interested in, which is somthing I found reading the preview pages for Mary Douglas' book Jacob's Tears where she is saying the priestly redaction of the Pentateuch was made to lessen hostility between Samaria and Judah. She quotes John Bowman but so far only found one book by him on Amazon, with no information about what it was about. I Googled the title and got another book on Google books which references John Bowman and has to do with his claim that the Gospel of John was written to be a counteracting response to Ester, and identifies the festival in John 5:1 as Purim. In The Jews and the world in the fourth Gospel: parallelism, function, and context By Lars Kierspel, he points out how Bowman draws parallels between Haman and Jesus, the six meals, and the love for Lazarus with the love by Ester for Mordechai.
Kierspel calls Bowman a Semitist, meaning he studies all the rabbinic literature.
Amazon listed an inexpensive used copy of that Bowman book quoted by Kierspel, so I went ahead and ordered that, having a big question in my mind what was behind John being written (and this being something I can afford in a sea of $120+ books I have been looking at).
btw: I also ordered another relatively inexpensive used book, The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective by Cynthia White. The book description says, "This brief survey text tells the story of early Christianity. Cynthia White explores the emergence of Christianity in Rome during the first four centuries of the Greco-Roman empire, from the first followers of Jesus Christ, to conflicts between Christians and Jewish kings under Roman occupation, to the torture of Christian followers, Diocletian's reforms, and Constantine's eventual conversion to monotheism, which cemented Christianity's status as the official religion of Rome."
So, kind of an overview textbook of where the church came from that ended up being the Catholic Church. I guess something I wanted to be able to put a lot of these texts I run across into context.

reply to post by jmdewey60
I've always viewed Purim as a distinctly Mesopotamian(Babylonian and Elamite, look up Elam in Wikipedia ) holiday. Penetration of Purim and Book of Esther into Judean culture would indicate the extent of Babylonian "Diaspora" influence upon Judea.

Bowman seems a little confused linking Jesus with Haman and Mordechai both.

Saul of Tarsus is identified as "of the Tribe of Benjamin" as Mordechai is in Esther. Had that term "of the Tribe of Benjamin" become formulaic to indicate "semi converts to Judaism"? Just a question?

Why is Alexandrian Judaism completely ignored when people discuss first century Judaism and Christianity? Is it that Alexandria was probably the most Hellenized Jewish "Diaspora" population? Is it to distract from Philo, and his use of Logos in a Stoic way? Is some one suppressing the origin of Logos as Christian terminology because of embarrassing source? Is the suppression done by pretending that Alexandria didn't exist? Or that Philo didn't use the word? Look up Philo of Alexandria. He had important connections in the Jerusalem priesthood, the Herod family, and the Roman imperial family. And he was contemporary with Jesus.

ETA: What struck me the heaviest from reading chapter 3 of The Invention of the Jewish People was just how wide spread Monotheism was throughout the whole world from c 200 bc thru 400 ad. Yet people pretend that only Jerusalem and Babylon were of importance. And yet Alexandria had the bigger library. Why? My theory is that all the Monotheism not associated with Jerusalem or Babylon was not bound to Torah or Rabbinic Judaism (from which came Talmud). Some powerful force or group wants only Talmudic Judaism to be recognized as authentic Monotheism.

reply to post by pthena
I ordered the Bowman book that I found for $12, used. I suspect the other author was not quoting him right, or missed his point. I'll check it out when I get it.
I think there was a big war going on, like you pointed out in my "Weird Hebrew" thread, between the Babylonians from the north, and the Alexandrians from the South, with the Judaens in the middle. That's why I am investing in the Septuagint. I was reading about how the Jews were actually translating from the Old Greek to make the Jewish Bible. A lot of people do not realize there is no such language as what the Jewish Hebrew Bible was written in.
I just thought that was amazing, the Gospel of John written to counter Ester. And he (Bowman) is no hack.
I am totally with you on the conspiracy to monopolize monotheism.
I got my used but looks new, copy of Paul and Jesus by A.J.M.Wedderburn in the mail, so I will be looking at that today.

@ Pthena, Something you may find interesting and made me think of the OP for this thread, that I was reading in the book I mentioned at the end of my last post.
The person I cited as the author, Wedderburn, is the editor, though he did author three of the essays in this book which was meant to give an idea of what was being discussed at this annual symposium that is held in Germany on scholarship about the relationship between Paul and Jesus.
It starts out with an essay by Furnish, covering the history of the debate, going back as far as 1800. Furnish brings up Martin Brückner who wrote a book (1903) on the topic. Quoting Furnish summarizing Brückner, ". . .Paul. in the main, disdains the earthly life of Jesus, considering it not a 'revelation' but an abrogation of the messianic nature of Christ, an 'emptying', a time of 'weakness' which leads to death."
Brückner says the problem is not being able to get at the ipsissima verba, which I looked up and Wikipedia says, in part, 'Latin for "the very words".'
This sucks, now that I bought the physical book by Wedderburn, I find out someone has the pdf of it you can download at scribd.
Albert Schweitzer mentions Brückner in his book on Paul, and the english translation of the title of Brückner's book is given as, How the Pauline Christology Arose. The book (by Schweitzer) is at archive.

Originally posted by pthena

ETA: What struck me the heaviest from reading chapter 3 of The Invention of the Jewish People was just how wide spread Monotheism was throughout the whole world from c 200 bc thru 400 ad. Yet people pretend that only Jerusalem and Babylon were of importance. And yet Alexandria had the bigger library. Why? My theory is that all the Monotheism not associated with Jerusalem or Babylon was not bound to Torah or Rabbinic Judaism (from which came Talmud). Some powerful force or group wants only Talmudic Judaism to be recognized as authentic Monotheism.

If it were a simple matter of Monotheism you may have a point. But it was never really about Monotheism but whos who. Monotheism in itself means nothing. If all the nations on earth were Monotheistic the question would remain unansewered.

reply to post by Logarock

So, it is all about who's version of God is the right one?
I would say, if the "Jewish god" is adopted by the world, civilization will be plunged, not into the Dark Ages, but the Early Bronze Age.
This is "the problem", to me, do we have a god of war and death and genocide and slavery, or do we have a god of Love, which is what Christianity is loosing sight of in the face of the Judaizing machinations of the anti-christ and Satan.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
As for "cooking up", I was thinking more along the lines of having a theology which did not build up the evil spirit.
My theology has been very dependent on that built up spirit, as an explanation for why the world is bad.
I guess your current view is that the world is not so bad.
I was reading Paul last night and it says nothing of a "new creation". Which I thought a bit odd, having been so indoctrinated in Revelation. And there was no mention in that section of a Satan being done away with, another divergence from Revelation. What I did find was people coming to be doers of good rather than evil.

edit on 14-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. .....2 Thessalonians 3-10


There you go. You did well to let your theology be dependent on that built up. As far as the new creation it follows with the line "the brightness of His coming".

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Logarock

 

So, it is all about who's version of God is the right one?
I would say, if the "Jewish god" is adopted by the world, civilization will be plunged, not into the Dark Ages, but the Early Bronze Age.
This is "the problem", to me, do we have a god of war and death and genocide and slavery, or do we have a god of Love, which is what Christianity is loosing sight of in the face of the Judaizing machinations of the anti-christ and Satan.

edit on 31-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Yea thats the only point I was making....is that its a matter of "who's God".

As far as the other gods of the bronze age they were no less gods of death, slavery ect. In the jewish case that same God was said to be a god of love. "for God so loved the world". Just saying.

reply to post by Logarock

There you go. You did well to let your theology be dependent on that built up. As far as the new creation it follows with the line "the brightness of His coming".

I go along with the critical view that says that 2 Thessalonians was a forgery.
So I dropped all that end of the world theology which collapses without that one book.

reply to post by Logarock

As far as the other gods of the bronze age they were no less gods of death, slavery ect. In the jewish case that same God was said to be a god of love. "for God so loved the world". Just saying.

You are wrong about that. El is the real God, as in the father of the "sons of god". El was completely benevolent. That is who Christians worship, not that son of god who was over a particular Canaanite tribe, Yahweh (actually a loan-god from the Midianites).

In Schweitzer's book, Paul and His Interpreters, on page 171, he gets into Brückner, where according to Schweitzer, Brückner says Paul's Christology comes from there already being this concept of a pre-existent heavenly personality, then inserting into that, the Jesus story.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Logarock

 

As far as the other gods of the bronze age they were no less gods of death, slavery ect. In the jewish case that same God was said to be a god of love. "for God so loved the world". Just saying.

You are wrong about that. El is the real God, as in the father of the "sons of god". El was completely benevolent. That is who Christians worship, not that son of god who was over a particular Canaanite tribe, Yahweh (actually a loan-god from the Midianites).

edit on 31-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Dont know that you can call Yahweh a loan as He spoke with Abraham face to face. Abraham called Yahweh "the everlasting God". Abraham did a lot of talking to the elohiym (plural) but didnt show them the respect that he showed Yah-weh. We see Yahweh and two elohiym meeting with Abraham.

Take Moses, One minute he is talking to elohiym and then Yahweh later. Moses comes in Yahwehs name. Pharaoh said he didnt know Yĕhovah. Moses calls him Yĕh-ovah elohiym Yisra'el when he spoke to Pharaoh. Yah or Yeh. The Chief elohiym. Yehovah is chief el and lays claim to Israel as His first born and is the one that says He will kill Pharaohs first born. There is every reason to believe that Yehovah is the same God that christains worship. He Yehovah of the elohiym of thier fathers. At any rate Jesus has equal status with Yehovah and is the Son of Yehovah not the son of the elohiym.

Jacob didnt hesitate to ask one of these elohiym mal'ak to bless his children but pointed to El-Shaddy as he called the head, the almighty elohiym, as the one that blessed him at Luz.

Anyway there is to much personal interaction for anything to be borrowed. As if the lame ass Israelites didnt have a god or gods of their own. The fathers of the Israelites interacted with the el malack of Yehova and thier boss Yehova.

When Yehova and the two el-malak left off with talking to Abraham they went down to Sodom and Gomorrah where Yehova said He was going to have a look around. However it was the two elohiym that were with Him that destroyed the city. So much for the benevolent elohiym! The chief El looks to be none other that Yahova. Otherwise known as Yahova (boss) El. As Yehova called Israel his first born amoung men His Son was first born and only begotten among all.

Notice satan in the garden refers to the elohiym when he tempted Eve but it was Yehova that came looking for them. Satan tempted Eve into becoming like the elohiym..."you will be like elohiym".. not like Yehova. That idea even satan knew wouldnt fly but the elohiym idea was more likley to fool Eve. Why? Becouse Adam and Eve could see that the elohiym were under Yehova and were created beings with a higher status, a favored status and relationship with the Yehova-El than Adam and Eve had being garden wrokers. It is noted that satan himself was a created being (Gen 3:1). So satan convinced Eve that Yehova was shortselling her and it was this hope of el-ohiym status that satan sold her.

Several nations and tribes knew there was a supreme El. But this same El developed a close personal relationship with the sons of Abraham and was known by Israel as Yahova. Yahovas elohiym general and protector of Israel, body guard is the elohiym prince known as Micha-el. Over the years the little el had contact with the fathers and the nation of Israel but only in a service capacity. The local bad guy in the area was a elohiym known as baal or ba-el and he sought to be worshiped.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
In Schweitzer's book, Paul and His Interpreters, on page 171, he gets into Brückner, where according to Schweitzer, Brückner says Paul's Christology comes from there already being this concept of a pre-existent heavenly personality, then inserting into that, the Jesus story.

Bruckner is certainly no Pauline scholer. In light of all Paul said about the nature of God and Jesus and their relationship to each other and man Bruckner looks like flat out dumb dumb when he says that.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Logarock

 

There you go. You did well to let your theology be dependent on that built up. As far as the new creation it follows with the line "the brightness of His coming".

I go along with the critical view that says that 2 Thessalonians was a forgery.
So I dropped all that end of the world theology which collapses without that one book.

Really? How convenient.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Logarock

 

There you go. You did well to let your theology be dependent on that built up. As far as the new creation it follows with the line "the brightness of His coming".

I go along with the critical view that says that 2 Thessalonians was a forgery.
So I dropped all that end of the world theology which collapses without that one book.

Really? How convenient.

You are probably saying that thinking I changed my theology, then decided to go along with the higher criticism of the New Testament books. That would be a wrong assumption. Once I decided to accept the opinion of the critics, then I reassessed by opinion of end of the world theories.
I am a Seventh Day Adventist, and if you don't know what that means, the "adventist" part of the name is referring to the second advent, which supposedly happens at the end of the world. So my current way of thinking is a wide departure from what it was not long ago. The overriding concept I learned from my religious denominational affiliation is to go by the Bible. If I find convincing enough of an argument that certain books of the Bible do not belong, then I need to adjust my theology accordingly, even if it removes the support for long-held views. Keeping long-held views in the face of contrary evidence is the other thing I learned from my church to not practice.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by jmdewey60
In Schweitzer's book, Paul and His Interpreters, on page 171, he gets into Brückner, where according to Schweitzer, Brückner says Paul's Christology comes from there already being this concept of a pre-existent heavenly personality, then inserting into that, the Jesus story.

Bruckner is certainly no Pauline scholer. In light of all Paul said about the nature of God and Jesus and their relationship to each other and man Bruckner looks like flat out dumb dumb when he says that.

Such as . . ?
What? That there was already a concept within Judaism of a Christ type person who already somehow exists in heaven before his appearance on earth? You think people are just making that up?

reply to post by Logarock
2 Thessalonians 3-10 is a perfect candidate for discussion on JMDewey's thread: Anankē, What is it, and is it Anything We Need To Be Concerned About? specifically for the phrase: "that won't happen until..." meaning some line of prophecy must still come before, and the "something holding back" (Scripture itself holding Jesus back? As in: "It is impossible for Jesus to return until 1, 2, 3, happen").

But the real kicker is:

because they didn’t receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 Because of this, God sends them a working of error, that they should believe a lie; 12 that they all might be judged who didn’t believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Which also touches on JMDewey's thread: The Day of the Lord is Already Here. 2 Thessalonians 2:2.

To show at least one difference between 2Thess and Paul is to point out that 2Thess has this "close of probation" , when the possibility of truth learning becomes impossible because "god" sends the strong delusion, is framed completely in eschatological linear time line terms. Paul, on the other hand, places truth and error as in operation simultaneously as in Romans chapter 1:18-32, and that "god" has already "handed them (presumably Gentiles, including philosophers) over to a depraved mind."

reply to post by jmdewey60

In Schweitzer's book, Paul and His Interpreters, on page 171, he gets into Brückner, where according to Schweitzer, Brückner says Paul's Christology comes from there already being this concept of a pre-existent heavenly personality, then inserting into that, the Jesus story.

I'm glad you included the page number, else I would have to read all the way up to it to find it. I started reading the Preface, and saw that what Schweitzer sees as the goal of Paul study is to Hellenize Paul, so as to Universalize Paul, that is "make him relevant for today", after all, the end of the world didn't occur in his lifetime, or even the full revelation (unveiling) of Christ.

Bart Ehrman, in Jesus Interupted, follows the assumption that Jesus was basically just another apocalyptic preacher, and that Paul also formed his doctrine around Jewish Apocalyptic world views. That's Ehrman's default position, since he was educated in a fundamentalist education right up to BA level, before even being exposed to critical study. So he is agnostic about the view he grew up with, which leaves him A or Agnostic toward A, not much thought about a possible B. Bruckner and Schweitzer and a whole lot more seem already ahead of Ehrman for the reason of looking for B.

My current view happens to be that Paul was not sufficiently Hellenized before engaging upon his mission. See 1 Cor 15:

12 Now if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised. 14 If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain. 15 Yes, we are found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead aren’t raised, neither has Christ been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. 18 Then they also who are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.

So even though some possibly Epicurean taught members of Corinthian church were teaching no resurrection, Paul saw it as duty to "correct that error", for him the resurrection is central, his proof though is "we preach the resurrection of Christ", and his proof for that is: "that which I also received" vs 3. Hearsay at best. " If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable." There may have been those who did believe in Christ, without resurrection as an essential element of Christness, who did not pity themselves this one only life. That would be a different Christ, an Epicurean Christ, which Paul couldn't quite grasp. The compiler of Gospel of Thomas did, at least, so I strongly suspect.

Paul would say then, "your faith is vain; you are still in your sins."

Epicurean responds, "You also confess to sin. You say 'wages of sin are death' and I say, 'in that case, my eventual death will simultaneously free the world and myself of this personal problem, and answer the wage question, at the same time."

Reply to post by pthena

IIT: Yet another person who has not studied Torah, and make baseless claims.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Yet another person who has not studied Torah, and make baseless claims.

Is this meant as your review of my OP, or as your warning to potential readers of the OP?

If the latter, it usually helps to get it in quick enough to make page 1 rather than page 7 or so.

I would like to know what method you used to get the link to do "single post", that's pretty cool. I'd like to use it some time.