ez: I guess there is a lot of unknowns that would make it hard to know today... How high would his head have been from the ground level of the crowd, was a strong wind blowing like it does on hills, was the crowd noisy with crying and moaning, the Roman dice game going on, if there was too many distracting sounds, did Jesus have to yell all these things really loud requiring too much effort of a man hanging on a stick. We may never know.

SecWebLurker: I'd go farther and say we will never be able to verify all those details through historical enquiry - not that there's really any need to.

SecWebLurker

In the gospel's reporting of Jesus' last words--from the earliest gospel to the last gospel written-- the evangelists go from a dying Jesus crying out in despair (Mark and Matthew) to quiet resignation (Luke) and finally to fulfillment and triumph (John).

This reflects not historical remembrance, but theological development.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Good point aikido.

Always keep in mind that our humanity is created by its counterpart womanity and the victory of the cross the the elimination of both our humanity and our womanity. In the end, what remains is Christ and Mary to be united with God as the happy trinity.

Mythmakers must write for different levels of understanding and must reach from infant believers to mature Christians.

Amos

Ps I forgot to add that we too must be united with God as Mary and Christ, our own Mary and Christ that is.

[This message has been edited by Amos123 (edited April 17, 2001).]

aikido: In the gospel's reporting of Jesus' last words--from the earliest gospel to the last gospel written-- the evangelists go from a dying Jesus crying out in despair (Mark and Matthew) to quiet resignation (Luke) and finally to fulfillment and triumph (John).

This reflects not historical remembrance, but theological development.

SecWebLurker: Actually I think its more accurate to say they all reflect theological development. And whether or not they are seen to each redact historical reportage to suit their own particular theological emphases (Mark's utter abandonment of Jesus vs. John's higher christology [though "I thirst" and "It is finished" don't really reflect this]), or there is seen to be a linear legendary development, is predetermined by one's own paradigm.

SecWebLurker

Of course the gospels reflect "development." Far from being literalistic and static "biographies" of Jesus they are dynamic faith documents never meant to attest to "literal truth" but to present a Jesus relevant to the early Christian communities they were written for. The evangelists were concerned with a Jesus who lives, not a Jesus who lived.

A careful parallel reading of the gospels shows the paradigm of each writer. This is not the way most believers are instructed to approach their tradition, but this is where modern mainstream scholarship begins: by first paying attention to what is actually [i]there[/] in the text.

aikido: Of course the gospels reflect "development." Far from being literalistic and static "biographies" of Jesus they are dynamic faith documents never meant to attest to "literal truth" but to present a Jesus relevant to the early Christian communities they were written for. The evangelists were concerned with a Jesus who lives, not a Jesus who lived.

SecWebLurker: The bold portion of this comment is quite obviously falsified by the fact that the Gospels were even written. As Charlesworth writes, the Jesus traditions "were passed on by Jews who had amazing memories and who lived in polemical relations with many who did not believe in Jesus and rejected the claim of his followers that he was the long-awaited Messiah. Some interest in Jesus' life and career was certainly typical of his followers and those who joined his movement; otherwise, we would never be able to explain the appearance of the Gospels, especially Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John."(Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 7) If you want to assert that the Gospels mainly reflect the needs of the post-Easter Church as opposed to containing authentic information about the pre-Easter Jesus, and that post-Easter issues were retrojected back into the life of Jesus, the burden of proof is on you. I start off very skeptical of this position due to the fact that the Gospels are presented in the context of the pre-Easter Jesus, and the Synoptic relationships themselves (being significantly seperated in time) evince a high regard for certain fixed points in the tradition and an obvious restraint in this specific area.

As N. T. Wright states, "it has been shown often enough that the synoptic tradition has preserved material which is not so relevant to, or so obviously taken up by, the first-generation church."[N. T. Wright, "The New Testament and the People of God" (London: Fortress Press, 1992) p. 422.]

C.F.D. Moule similarly concludes, "Aspects of Jesus' attitude and ministry have survived in the traditions, despite the fact that the early Christians do not seem to have paid particular attention to them or recognized their christological significance."[Charles F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament: An Inquiry Into the Implications of Certain Features of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Theology 2nd series, vol 1. London: SCM, p. 76]

Paul's letters give us great insight into the controversial issues in the early church. Yet, in the Gospels, if deeds and sayings of Jesus were freely invented and embellished to address present needs, why is it that none of these issues are addressed? So Wright:

"…Paul provides evidence of all sorts of disputes which rocked the early church but left not a trace in the synoptic tradition. From Paul, we know that some parts at least of the early church had problems in relation to speaking in tongues. There is no mention of this in the main stream of synoptic tradition. From Paul, it is clear that the doctrine of justification was a vital issue which the early church had to hammer out in relation to the admission of Gentiles to the church. The only mentions of the admission of Gentiles in the synoptic tradition do not speak of justification, and the only mention of justification has nothing to do with Gentiles. In Paul it is clear that questions have been raised about apostleship, his own and that of others. Apostleship is of course mentioned in the synoptic tradition, but so far is the tradition from addressing post-Easter issues here that it does not discuss the question of subsequent apostolic authority except for one passage--and in that passage it still envisages Judas sharing the glorious rule of the twelve. In Paul we meet the question of geographical priority: does the church in Jerusalem have primacy over those working elsewhere? In the synoptic tradition the criticisms of Jerusalem have to do with its past and present failures, and with its wicked hierarchy, not with the place of its church leaders within a wider emerging Christianity. So we could go on: slavery, idol-meat, women's headgear, work, widows; and, perhaps above all, the detailed doctrines of Christ and the divine spirit. The synoptic tradition shows a steadfast refusal to import 'dominical' answers to or comments on these issues into the retelling of stories of Jesus. This should put us firmly on our guard against the idea that the stories we do find in the synoptic tradition were invented to address current needs in the 40s, 50s, 60s or even later in the first century."[N. T. Wright, "The New Testament and the People of God" (London: Fortress Press, 1992) p. 421-2.]

aikdio: A careful parallel reading of the gospels shows the paradigm of each writer. This is not the way most believers are instructed to approach their tradition, but this is where modern mainstream scholarship begins: by first paying attention to what is actually there in the text.

SecWebLurker: I don't disagree with anything in this paragraph, but I also don't understand why you're telling me this. Certainly none of that says anything towards the Gospel authors choosing to invent, rather than edit/preserve, authentic tradition so as to make whatever points they wish to, as was the task of writers of bioi.

SecWebLurker


[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited April 18, 2001).]

(1) What is the precise basis for your sceptical refusal to believe the Gospel accounts of Christ's last words?

(2) Is all history wrong or just biblical history?

(3) Why?

(4) If you have a conspiracy theory about the Bible what is its rational basis as compared to the Gospel accounts taken at face value?

(5) What would be your answer to anyone who was sceptical of your conspiracy theory?

(6) Are you sceptical about the recorded manner of death of anyone else in history and their recorded last words?

(7) What do you assess is the likelihood that your scepticism may obscure the truth in relation to Christ's death and last words on a scale from 0 = highly unlikely to 100 = highly likely?

Blessings and Peace

Hilarius

<p>
A small ledge on the cross for the condemned to rest his buttocks on would have made speech possible. I don't know of any hard evidence for Romans doing this but it is a possibility.

Boy, the Mary and Christ references are going over my head, Amos. I do not understand what you are getting at....

If they "must," they do it without conscious purpose. Myths are not true or false, just living or dead, useful or not useful.

Thomas Mann once sat unnoticed in a California lecture hall while a speaker waxed eloquent about the "mythology" in Mann's "The Magic Mountain." A companion leaned over to Mann and asked, "Did you put all that in your novel, sir?" Mann answered, "No I did not. But it is all there."

Dear SecWebLurker:

I don't wish to make the time to respond point-by-point to your consensus (or is that "consensus"?) of scholars.... For now I want to make a few points in a general way. If you feel I have misunderstood your post, have back at me!

Paul's struggles to articulate his version of Jesus' Kingdom of God (by ignoring it completely, in my opinion) were not normative for early Christianity, and this is borne out by the canonical accounts and some non-canonical sources.

Either/or is a rather severe methodology to use (EITHER the concerns of the early church are in the earlier gospels OR the idea that the gospels contain community/church development is a grave historical error). The historical truth highlights the opposition of both/all sides of the ancient arguments and factions.

The burden of proof on my shoulders is one I would find impossible to carry. I am a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants; the most I could do would be to look up words and terms in a scholar's index and cut and paste them into the fray to buttress my own feelings and opinions.

One thing I see is that there was no controlling legal authority attempted until Nicea. Evolution is not always toward progress but toward complexity. Progress is another dangerous myth from the Enlightenment. There is a development which can be traced in the New Testament; better minds than mine have shown the way. We can speak of "Christianities" rather than "Christianity" in those early days. Paul and John seemed to have won out in the end--but at a price for the faith. Jesus fully human has been lost and/or ignored and most believers walk within a gnostic Christianity, close to the ancient heresy called "Docetism."--Jesus was not really human, he only seemed to be.



[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 18, 2001).]