eitans%wisdom.BITNET@cmcl2.UUCP (12/25/86)
[I was in a quandry about posting this. I really don't want to start
continuing point by point discussions of this sort. However since the
list is about to pause for a week while I go to my parents' for
Christmas, I thought it might be better just to let this through
unchanged than to ask for editing and then not be around when he sent
me the results. Note that in the following you see me alternating
with Eitan. The first one is me. This is the format in which Eitan
submitted his response. Presumably our styles are different enough
that no one will be confused. --clh]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to respond to Eitan Shternbaum privately involving some
details of his posting, since detailed point by point response is not
something I really want to see in this group. But his basic claim is
commonly enough believed that it's probably worth looking at more
generally. He claims that Jesus was basically a good, if slightly
idiosyncratic, Jew, but that Paul hijacked him. Now I don't expect to
make a Christian of Eitan, but I would like to convince him that
things are a bit more complex than this. I have problems both with
his views about Jesus and his views about Paul.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First , thanx for not trying to make me Chrsitian , you're one of the
few that didn't ... (by the way i'm not a religious jew , i'm atheist)
I still thinks that Paul USED the story of Jesus for its own needs
(By the way i'm not sure he used the story of jesus , there were many
prophets/reachers/messiahs like jesus , many has been crusified .
Jesus's story just might be a profile of all those stories )
He implemented his HELLENIST view of judaism on Jesus and was the main
reason for the creation og Xianity (as a religion ) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we have the question of whether Jesus said anything that was
out of the ordinary for a Jewish rabbi. It's clear that Jesus was
entirely within the context of Judaism, as Eitan points out. This is
something that Christians all too often forget, and so it is useful to
point it out. However I think it is going too far to claim that there
is nothing about Jesus' teachings that point in the direction
Christianity took. I once went through Mark (generally considered the
earliest of the gospels) to see whether it was possible to construct a
picture of Jesus that didn't involve some sort of Messianic overtones.
It is not. Jesus' claims about himself are an intrinsic part of
everything that he says and does. Of course one could say that the
gospel-writers added this. But any picture of Jesus as a simple
teacher involves a rejection of the only evidence we have, or a
reconstruction sufficiently radical that you might as well reject it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Your problem is that you do not understand the JEWISH term of MESSIAH
messiah is a KING & PROPHET his redemption is not only spiritual
but also NATIONAL . one cannot know wether he's a true messiah
unless he tests it with the reality . Jesus as a believing jew
who has been exposed only to jewish ideas & was raised in a pure jewish
area (the GALIL) had this consept in his mind . if he ever preached
for his being s messiah the reality has proved otherwise .
His sayings aren't differant from the proverbs of the prophets
& his declaration about the Kingdom of heaven & the Son of man are
quite reasonably reffered to the near futur but not quite about himself .
(The son of man is taken for DANIEL ch 17 or 7 . read what the Son of Man
means & you'll see how his messianic nature isn't so obvious )
I didn't say that Jesus wasn't involved in messianic like actions
EVERY rebby in those times was involved in such acts every prophet has
spoken about the days to be & the kingdom of heaven ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus was crucified. Both the Jews and the Romans were reasonably
---------------------------------------------------------------------
He was crucified by the ROMANS for spreading anti-Roman propaganda
crucifing was the punishment for traitors he wasn't crucified by the jews
for claiming that he's the Messiah .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
tolerant during this period. People made overt claims of being the
Messiah without being prosecuted. [Of course when they made war on
Rome, things did happen...] Presumably Jesus must have made some
unusual claims. Now I'm not saying one can prove that Jesus claimed
specifically to be God incarnate. But I think it is clear that he
believed he had been appointed by God to inaugurate God's Kingdom, and
that he had a special authority that was different from that of an
ordinary Jewish teacher. Even NT studies that start by assuming that
the NT portrait has been biased significantly by the beliefs of the
Church (see for example Perrin's "Rediscovering the Teaching of
Jesus") emphasize this escatological call that Jesus issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
you're right , ofcourse Jesus thought he was special that's why he began to
preach . the escatological aspects in jesus' teaching were also in the teaching
of the zealos , essense & the pharasis it's an essential part of Judaism .
incarantion is not a jewish term (hellenistic term) that wasn't known to the
jews of those times a jew wouldn't have adopted a paganist term for his theory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, there is a tendency to credit far too much to Paul. Paul
himself worked within a Jewish context. The problem is that 1st Cent.
Judaism included a wider range of beliefs than modern Judaism. (For
example, when was the last time you saw a Jewish missionary? In the
1st Cent., there were groups of Jews who actively encouraged Gentile
conversions.) Those scholars who have studied Paul carefully find
Jewish background to everything that he says. (This includes Jewish
scholars. See, e.g., H.J.Schoeps, "Paul". This doesn't mean that
Jewish scholars think Paul's conclusions were legitimate, but there is
less of a tendency to see Paul as importing Greek ideas than there
used to be a few decades ago.) In fact Paul did not go as far as
other parts of the NT in Christology. He avoids referring to Jesus as
God. The same restraint is not present in the Johannine tradition,
e.g. John and Rev.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul did not work within a jewish context he was almost banned even from
the Nazarian group (in Jeruslem) I agree that what paul USED the jewish
missionary movement BUT he did not make the gentile into jews but into
something else , Xianity . Ofcourse Paul came from a jewish background
BUT his ideology contradicts Judaism on all its sects he's trying to
Hellenize judaism or in other words to paganize monotheism .
By the way paul calls Jesus Lord a title known in the Roman empire as
a title for ceasar BUT Jesus is HIGHER then ceasar, another 'nickname'
for the emperor is God (God-emperor , like the pharoes) a logical conclusion
brings the Gentile to state that : Jesus is GOD/Son of god . in the right
context even simple word like LORD means GOD .
Again to Missionary acts of the Jews , the gentile that hasn't been
converted but still believed in the 1 god were called IREY-HASHEM
But weren't jews . Paul doesn't convert any1 he opens his own sect .
that's why the heads of the community try to bann him . he's violating
the Jewish law (the Law of Jesus) . the Story about Peter and the converting
of the gentile in jaffa is clearly a try to justify Paul . especially
when there are several versions about the story (in one Peter is trying
to bring a solution to this problem But he doesn't agree that they will be
Jews ) .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems likely that the earliest Christian
confession was "Jesus is Lord". Jesus' death was seen as in some way
saving others. [There are Jewish precedents for this sort of thing --
see Sam Williams' "Jesus' Death as Saving Event: the Background and
Origin of a Concept."] Without some such interpretation, it's hard to
see how any kind of community could have developed around an executed
leader. Christians ackowledged him as their Lord. Originally, there
probably was not a very clear definition as to what this meant.
"Kyrios" is a nicely ambiguous term which can refer to God, kings,
etc. As time went on, various alternatives were explored. We see in
the NT and elsewhere quite a variety of different formulations tried
out. The NT itself has not only Paul, but the Johannine tradition,
Hebrews, and several different traditions that show up in the Gospels.
Then we have the Gnostics and various groups that eventually came to
be considered heretical. Paul's letters show signs of several other
groups even during his life. One gets the impression that Paul was
more or less a middle of the roader. The Christian doctrines that we
know of now took form over several centuries. While they certainly
took much from Paul, I think that among the NT documents John's gospel
is probably more influential in the strictly doctrinal areas. Paul
was primarily interested in the reality of the Christian life. He is
known, for example, for his so-called "Christ mysticism", his
well-developed notions of the life "in Christ". However he didn't go
in for the sorts of speculation that you find in the first Chap of
John [except possibly in Colossians, but most scholars think he is
quoting a hymn at that point]. In many ways the Incarnation and
Trinity probably have the most direct basis in John's gospel. However
it is probably most accurate to think of the progression from the
primitive "Jesus is Lord" to the mysteries of the Trinity and
Incarnation as taking place across a broad front.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a small correction you refer to isiah who writes about EVED-HASHEM
the servant of the Lord . this person suffers dies & ressuercts .
all over the years xians 'forgot' that this is a proverb talking about
the destiny of the sons of israel & about the fate of the JUSTS & the idea
behind suffering (quite like IYOV [Job]) . if you look in the historical
conetxt you'll see that this ch is talking about the return of the jews to
judea in 785 B.C the suffering perosn is the jewish nation which RESSURECTS
when returning to its homeland after the diaspora (the deat , spiritual)
Again diying ISN'T one of the qualities needed for being a messiah .
scrificing himself for the Jews might make him into a saint , nothing more .
About the christian mystiscm , It's purely gentile , the source isn't jewish .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me say again here what I have found it necessary to say in
talk.religion.misc: The fact that the NT as a whole wasn't frozen
until around 300 doesn't mean that the individual documents were
changing that late. What varied was the *list* of documents
considered canonical, not the contents of the documents. And even the
list didn't vary by much by 300. It is likely that the earliest
documents in the NT are some of Paul's letters, and that they are from
the early 60's. Some scholars claim that all of the NT documents were
finished before 70. (John A. T. Robinson claimed this in a talk,
though I don't know whether he continued to maintain it seriously.)
At most a few documents are likely to have been beyond the end of the
1st Cent, and even there we are talking about the early 2nd Cent. (It
used to be claimed that John went into the mid-2nd Cent until several
papyrii were found that have portions of it, dated around 150.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It took 200 years to cannonize the NT if you don't know what cannonize means :
it means taking all the data puting it together in a way the editor thinks
it should be . with the ordering comes the corrections . To prove a point
one can change a paragraph one can discard unwanted data ( BURN it ).
There's a bif question mark about the letter to the hebrews & about
the 2 letters Petrus (Petrus reffers to things that has happened 100 & more
years after his death ...) Paulus' leters (espeically the anti-semite)
are suspected as a fraude .
one can see the evoultion of the Text by : the attitude ot the Jews
the attitude to judaism & the position of Jesus .
one can see this just by reading the NT carefully .
(read the versions about the death of jesus on the cross , a small rashumon)
The last meal is the funniest part in the NT : 'This is my flesh (bread)
This is my blood (wine) ' How sad 'sniff sniff'
I have some doubts about the story :
1- the night is the night of the passover how can a nice jew like jesus
(& his kosher followers ) EAT BREAD in passover ?
2- Even if they wanted to eat bread , how could they find bread in judea ?
(remeber , passover there's a low in bible that a bread won't BE
in any house in israel , bible law)
3- again , the feast is the feast of the Passover , seder leyl pesach ,
there's no use of bread in that night at the seder .
4- returning to the feast : there were (& still are) 2 customs in those times
the head of the seder (Jesus in this case) BLESSES over the WINE
Takes the MATSOT (the bread of the poor people, not bread but a tastless
bisquit) cuts it into small pieces and distributs them to the other ppl .
5- again , Jesus has been INVITED to feast the passover , it's not an ordinery
meal .
summing those remarks :
The non jew editors&writers didn't understand the jewish terms & the jewish
meaning of his acts (there are many plpaces within the NT where the editor -
writer has to explain what jesus says most of them explenations are VERY
strange or just untrue since the editor/writer himself didn't understand the
acts . we must remember that the terminology was Jewish while the writers
were pagans & that the language of Jesus was aramic while the NT was written
in greek . thus matsot - bread of the poors become bread & the blessing becomes
something extraordinery-devine-mystic from jewish holiday to a christian
sacrament . the NT is the product of an opinionated EDITORS who wanted
to proove what they believe & to believe what they prove . the Nt isn't a valid
euthentic document but an opinionated propaganda who has came to the spiritual
needs of the Xians . the Editor might consider a small change for the sake
of the SPIRIT of the NT as a legitamate act But the product is now changed
mistake or not it's a fact that the Nt has been edited enough to change it
from the original course of it's start . Fraudes,burning books,censorship
is something variously used by the Christians (the RABBIS didn't DESTROY
uncannonize books their consept was TRUTH will always stand ).
If you try to deny that the NT was edited you just deny history .
martyr
p.s my posting ain't so good when i finished a 1/2 of it i was too hungry
to think , forgive me for the zpeleenj mishtaqs
i'm just a lousy
Martyr
' And history reeks From the wrong we have done '
Dreams of the blue turtels BY
Sting .
[The following was sent to me separately, but seems to be part of the
same response --clh]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
While Paul is certainly an important figure, I don't think he is quite
as overpowering as you suggest. There were a number of traditions
other than Pauline, and they did not die out. Paul wrote primarily
about the Christian life, and not so much as Jesus himself. Even if
you think that the Trinity is tritheism (which it is not), that was
far after Paul's time. Paul didn't refer to Jesus as God. He
referred to him as "kyrios", which can mean lord, master, or Lord.
(John's gospel is the place where it is said clearly that Jesus is
God.) Furthermore, Paul did not start the Gentile church, at least
not if you believe the reports in the NT. He was certainly a primary
defender of the Gentiles in discussions within the Church. But
non-Jews were accepted very soon, based on a vision to Peter. This
was before Paul's conversion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be correct 25-40 % of the NT is about jesus & his direct students
The rest is written in a Pauline style or ABOUT PAUL .
Yes , i do think that Xianity isn't a monotheistic religion morever
it has a strong basis of death whorshiping (Satanism is the offspring
of this attitude , it has aroused only in Xianity) .
If you admit the Paul doesn't think/mean that jesus is GOD then you admit
that the texts has been EDITED by the church ... anyway messiah is clearly
not another word for LORD or MASTER .
Yes Paul is the main defender of the Chirstians ( also Bar-Naba ) BuT
there are several stories in the NT with different version about the matter .
in one of his letters Paul admits that the followers of paul were jews
(includiing Jesus) & that HE is the person who has brought the Gentile to
christianity . i must also point out that the fathers of the community
in jerusalem had accepted the new Chrsitians as believers of GOD but not
as jews (or nazarians) . The vision of peter is a try to cover this fact
by adding peter to the pro-gentile crowd . again this is a violation of
JESUS's sayings (i'm for the jews ONLY for them) .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The elimination of Jewish Christianity was complex, and no one person
is responsible. It was finally eliminated when the Jews refused to
allow Christians in the synagogues. There was a sort of battle of
prayers, where language in the daily prayer was adjusted a couple of
times until no Christian could possibly say it. But it had probably
become a hopeless cause before then. There is no evidence for a kind
of Nazarean group that considered Jesus no more than a teacher. As
far as we can see, all followers of Jesus considered him in one sense
or another their Lord. In the end, it's very hard to see how these
people could have continued in the synagogues. Even if they didn't
consider him a second God, he was important enough to their spiritual
life to cause them to make their practices unacceptable to other Jews.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
after the great revolt there weren't many jews nor nazarians .
the battle of the prayers wasn't to kick the nazarians out of judaism
but rather to unit the jews who were desperate after the destruction of their
temple and country . the banning of the nazarians was an outcome of those acts
the few nazarians had to choose between the 2 ways some returned to judaism
some open their own communities (and entually disappear) the other become Xians
[To avoid another round of exchanges, let me say that I think my original
response, quoted here in extenso, still stands for itself. I believe
anyone who reads what I said originally will have no problem figuring
out how I would respond. If anyone would like a specific response,
please feel free to ask. I am mystified, however, by the discussion
of Jesus eating bread. As far as I know, all Christians realize that
Passover was (and is) conducted with unleavened bread. Perhaps there
is a language gap here? I.e. in English matzoh is referred to as a
kind of bread, whereas presumably in Hebrew it is an entirely different
word? --clh]