Bible Lesson: The Death of Jesus an Evolving Myth

[Jenny A]

Yes, it seems reasonable to me that god incarnate would cry that out in anguish, considering the extraordinary situation that he who did not know sin was made sin (2 Cor 5:21). I'm amazed when I consider that, and I can't completely comprehend it.

That any feeling being, would cry out when cruxified seems reasonable. "Arrrrg!" seems most appropriate. But "why hast thou forsaken me," does not sound reasonable on the part of a man/god who knows and I mean really knows he's heaven bound. Interestingly, a literal translation is closer to "why have you left be behind?" than it is to "why hast thou forsaken me?" That's a little odd, don't you think?

Paul's arch enemies the Ebonites believed not only that you had to keep all of the OT laws to follow Jesus, but also that Jesus was not born divine. They believed he lived an exemplary life and was adopted by god at baptism and died very human indeed. They used a version of Mathew which omitted the first two chapters describing Jesus' virgin birth. "My god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me," reads rather better in this light.

The Marcionites on the other hand rejected the OT and the OT god outright. They believed there was the god of the OT and the god of Paul's preachings. The god of the OT created this world in all it's evilness. The god of Jesus came into this world to save the world from the vengeful god of the Jews. Marcion taught that Jesus was not really part of the material world. He only appeared to be human, "coming in the likeness of sinful flesh." Romans 8:3 John's Jesus who merely says "it is done" fits this conception of Jesus rather better.

The Gnostics believed that this world was made by an ignorant arrogant bumbling god. People came here from a better place and are trapped here. The NT god is a non-material god unconnected with this world who did not create it. Jesus came to give the saving knowledge of how to escape this world. But they also held the knowledge tight to their chests. It was secret knowledge, thus "gnostic" ---- with knowledge, in the know. How to escape the material world is the message of Jesus. Most of the Gnostics believed Jesus was human and god entered into him---Jesus was not god, but inhabited by god from baptism. The spirit of god left at Jesus' at death though god raised him from the dead afterwards. Thus, "my god, my god why have you left me behind."

Paul's view of Jesus, doesn't quite fit any of the gospels. If he was born the son of god and divine, why would he cry out "why hast thou forsaken me" let alone "why hast thou left me behind." But if he was god made flesh with all of the sensations of flesh, how could he not cry out or merely say, "it is finished?"

This isn't meant to be a gotcha, the Bible isn't inerrant. It's full of contradictions and no thinking person looking at it in an unprejudiced way could find it inerrant. What I'm interested in showing is how the gospels preserve some of the views of early Christians who lost the theological battle to Paul. Early Christians did not share the same vision of Jesus as modern Christians.

[John V]

That any feeling being, would cry out when cruxified seems reasonable. "Arrrrg!" seems most appropriate. But "why hast thou forsaken me," does not sound reasonable on the part of a man/god who knows and I mean really knows he's heaven bound.

Why not? You act as if there should be no suffering if one is convinced that the suffering will end. That Jesus suffered from the lack of fellowship with the Father while on the cross doesn't indicate that he thought there would never be fellowship again. Even with that knowledge, it still hurt at the time. Have you never expressed pain even though you knew the pain was temporary? Did that knowledge nullify the pain?

Interestingly, a literal translation is closer to "why have you left be behind?" than it is to "why hast thou forsaken me?" That's a little odd, don't you think?

Young's Literal translates it 'My God, my God, why didst Thou forsake me?'

Also note that Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1. That Psalm discusses his anguish, yet in verse 21 says that God answers him. Seems doubtful he would quote that psalm if he actually despaired of ever getting an answer.

Paul's view of Jesus, doesn't quite fit any of the gospels. If he was born the son of god and divine, why would he cry out "why hast thou forsaken me" let alone "why hast thou left me behind." But if he was god made flesh with all of the sensations of flesh, how could he not cry out or merely say, "it is finished?"

Paul was endorsed by the apostles, as recorded by one of the gospel authors, so I have to disagree that his view of Jesus doesn't fit with the gospels.

[Minimalist]

Paul was endorsed by the apostles,

The "apostles" are as fictional as paul....and jesus.

[Jenny A]

That any feeling being, would cry out when cruxified seems reasonable. "Arrrrg!" seems most appropriate. But "why hast thou forsaken me," does not sound reasonable on the part of a man/god who knows and I mean really knows he's heaven bound.

Why not? You act as if there should be no suffering if one is convinced that the suffering will end.

No, as I said suffering would certainly be expected--very physical suffering--the kind that makes you scream or groan out loud. That kind of reaction would be natural in anyone made of flesh and blood.

That's why the depictions of the silent Jesus or the one who merely says, "it is finished" are so odd unless Jesus was really thought to be all god or a mere phantasm of flesh.

That Jesus suffered from the lack of fellowship with the Father while on the cross doesn't indicate that he thought there would never be fellowship again. Even with that knowledge, it still hurt at the time.

Why would he lack the fellowship of god while on the cross? "Take this cup away," is one thing. "Why have you forsaken me," from one who is supposed to know rescue in the form of eternal life is coming is another.

Interestingly, a literal translation is closer to "why have you left be behind?" than it is to "why hast thou forsaken me?" That's a little odd, don't you think?

Young's Literal translates it 'My God, my God, why didst Thou forsake me?'
Also note that Jesus is quoting Psalm 22:1. That Psalm discusses his anguish, yet in verse 21 says that God answers him. Seems doubtful he would quote that psalm if he actually despaired of ever getting an answer.

Erhman translates it as "why have you left me behind?" And that does make sense from the Gnostic point of view.

But certainly Psalm 22:1 is relevant. It gives the writers of Mathew and Luke a reason for putting those particular words into Jesus' mouth. However, it is far from clear that Psalm 22:1 has anything to do with the messiah. That reading of Psalm 22 has a very Christian gloss. I read Psalm 22 as the plea of a suffering man (or perhaps a suffering nation) proclaiming woe and then asking god to help in exchange for proclaiming the goodness of god:

Lord, don’t be so far away.
You give me strength. Come quickly to help me.
Save me from the sword.
Save the only life I have. Save me from the power of those dogs.
Save me from the mouths of those lions.
Save me from the horns of those wild oxen.

I will announce your name to my brothers and sisters.
I will praise you among those who worship you.
You who have respect for the Lord, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, honor him!

Psalm 22:19-23[/quote]

Paul's view of Jesus, doesn't quite fit any of the gospels.

---

If he was born the son of god and divine, why would he cry out "why hast thou forsaken me" let alone "why hast thou left me behind." But if he was god made flesh with all of the sensations of flesh, how could he not cry out or merely say, "it is finished?"

---

Paul was endorsed by the apostles, as recorded by one of the gospel authors, so I have to disagree that his view of Jesus doesn't fit with the gospels.

Marcion endorsed Paul. He based his cannon almost entirely on Paul's letters. But his view of what Paul said doesn't comport with the orthodox Christian view as it emerged in the third century. So I don't see that an endorsement of Paul would make the gospel read the way Paul is now interpreted.

I don't see any of the gospel as endorsing a particularly Pauline point of view. Nor do they all have the same point of view.

[Jenny A]

There are more indications of the Gnostic point of view in the synoptic gospels (the first three that are so much alike: Mathew, Mark and Luke) In them, Jesus speaks in parables. Other secret knowledge cults in the Greco-Roman world speak in parables. Parables are understood only by the elect, the inner circle. The Gnostics were such a cult.

Here Jesus does something dear to the hearts of Gnostics. He explains that true knowledge is for the disciples and parables for others.

Then his disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others I speak in parables, so that ‘looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand.’

Luke 8:9-10

When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that

‘they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’”

Mark 4:10-12

---

Then the disciples came and asked him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” He answered, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The reason I speak to them in parables is that ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’ With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says:

‘You will indeed listen, but never understand,
and you will indeed look, but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes;
so that they might not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and understand with their heart and turn—
and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.

---

Matthew 13:10-16

There is a little of this idea that true knowledge is for those who have already accepted and not for others in Paul's letters:

Brothers and sisters, I couldn’t speak to you as if you were guided by the Holy Spirit. I had to speak to you as if you were following the ways of the world. You aren’t growing as Christ wants you to. You are still like babies. 2 The words I spoke to you were like milk, not like solid food. You weren’t ready for solid food yet. And you still aren’t ready for it.

1 Corinthians 3:1-2

The Mormons who have their own secret knowledge like the milk before meat metaphor.

[John V]

There are more indications of the Gnostic point of view in the synoptic gospels (the first three that are so much alike: Mathew, Mark and Luke) In them, Jesus speaks in parables. Other secret knowledge cults in the Greco-Roman world speak in parables. Parables are understood only by the elect, the inner circle. The Gnostics were such a cult.

Here Jesus does something dear to the hearts of Gnostics. He explains that true knowledge is for the disciples and parables for others.

Yes, we can selectively find things in the gospels which are found in gnosticism. We can also find things which are anathema to it, such as Jesus showing that he still had a physical body after the resurrection:

Luke 24
36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.[f] 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence.

[Jenny A]

Yes, we can selectively find things in the gospels which are found in gnosticism. We can also find things which are anathema to it, such as Jesus showing that he still had a physical body after the resurrection:

Luke 24
36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.[f] 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence.

Yes, we can selectively find support for all the early Christian sects in the Bible. And having read the gospels a few times myself, I doubt that the gospels would lead you to the church's (Catholic, liberal or conservative Christian) current or first millennium view of Jesus if you were to read them without a theological overlay. The gospels simply do not provide a coherent picture of Jesus. And should you read the non-canonized gospels your view would be even more confused.

And I'm not talking mere factual differences about when Jesus lived, and what day he died on, I'm talking about doctrinal differences. It's no wonder there are so many sects of Christianity.

Paul won. But not necessarily because he was right--always assuming of course that there was a historical Jesus.

[John V]

Yes, we can selectively find support for all the early Christian sects in the Bible. And having read the gospels a few times myself, I doubt that the gospels would lead you to the church's (Catholic, liberal or conservative Christian) current or first millennium view of Jesus if you were to read them without a theological overlay. The gospels simply do not provide a coherent picture of Jesus. And should you read the non-canonized gospels your view would be even more confused.

God spent centuries building a theology before Christ came. The gospel wasn't intended to be heard in a vacuum. A "theological overlay" is not necessarily a bad thing. Consider the Bereans: Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Paul won. But not necessarily because he was right--

As noted, the apostles and a gospel writer endorsed Paul's message, which indicates that Paul was in accord with Jesus.

[Zen Badger]

God spent centuries building a theology before Christ came.

So why did he on concentrate on a dusty little shit tip on the coast of the Eastern Mediterranean?
Why did he ignore the rest of the planet?

[Jenny A]

<snip> And having read the gospels a few times myself, I doubt that the gospels would lead you to the church's (Catholic, liberal or conservative Christian) current or first millennium view of Jesus if you were to read them without a theological overlay. <snip>

God spent centuries building a theology before Christ came. The gospel wasn't intended to be heard in a vacuum. A "theological overlay" is not necessarily a bad thing. Consider the Bereans: Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

You misunderstand me. I don't mean an OT theological overlay, or even a Theological overlay of Paul in the form of the Epistles, I mean theology developed outside the Bible, i.e. church tradition and later theology. Without knowledge of theology outside the Bible, modern Christians would not practice the religion they do. As is there is a remarkable variety in Christian belief simply because of the ambiguity in the OT.

It's a side note here because I began with Jesus and the Gospels, but the OT is not a particularly clear set of documents either, and just as there are several sects of Jews now, there where many sects in the couple centuries before and after 1 CE. The Pharisees and Sadducee mentioned in the synoptic Gospels were just two such sects.

I am interested in the development of that theology, but I don't think that god developed it. God is the fictional subject of theology, not the creator of it. Obviously you will disagree with that

Paul won. But not necessarily because he was right--

As noted, the apostles and a gospel writer endorsed Paul's message, which indicates that Paul was in accord with Jesus.

So you say, but where do the Gospels endorse Paul? What do you find in them that accords with Paul and not the other Christian sects existent at the time the were written?

It is true that the author of Luke and Acts sort of endorses Paul in Acts. Certainly he describes Paul's life and death in Acts. But he describes a rather different Paul than the one in Paul's own letters. And while the Gospels are written after Paul, and they do describe people other than the disciples seeing Jesus after the resurrection, they do not describe Paul's vision of Jesus. With out Acts, the Gospels have no connection to Paul at all.