James Still

It occurs to me that it appears as if I'm advocating the portrait of Jesus as some sort of peace-loving hippie out of the sixties. Let me say that I'm not. I think that the wisdom teacher motif has a lot going for it but so too do other motifs like the apocryphal prophet or the radical social upstart. I do not want to privilege any one of them over the other and rodahi's views should be taken seriously. But rather than split these motifs out into several people, or use their differences to advocate a Christ mythicist position, I'd rather remain agnostic about the matter until the real Jesus emerges at some point.

Your point is well taken. Thanks for adding your thoughts and knowledge to the discussion. And thanks for being a gentleman. I know it isn't always easy to be polite and civil when dealing with me, and people like me.

rodahi

Dear Rodahi:

Jesus placed a certain emphasis on key themes from the Hebrew Bible; he was not engaged in wholesale appropriation of the entire Old Testament prophetic tradition.

Jesus was definitely like Ralph Nader in that his message was difficult for many to hear and believe in (I'll take 50 per cent of the blame for not getting that across to you in a way that you could understand me!). Jesus and Ralph are basically saying: "If you don't change what you are doing, you are going to wind up where you are headed." There are a growing number of people now who see our environmental stance as an essentially bankrupt one. There were even less in 1970 when the first "Earth Day" was celebrated. This small group was paying attention to a potential catastrophe that the rest of the world was blithely ignorant of. Jesus, too, saw Palestine heading for a catastrophe; to a visionary/prophet like Jesus, it was not too difficult to extrapolate out from the present human misery of his time and see that fundamental change and reversal was needed in order to stave off certain destruction.

You wrote that "I don't think it is a good idea to try to fit Jesus into our times so we can relate to him. It is very possible that he said and did very little that is even relevant to us." I have a major difference of opinion with you on this one. Every generation since the crucifixion has had to look at the evidence (such as it is) and find a meaning behind the historical events which can speak to us across the 2000 year old gulf. Some then--as now--see Jesus as a fabrication, the Son of God, a magician, a prophet, another boring charismatic, a cynic, etc. A careful reading of history in this regard shows that each age in many respects fashions a Jesus who is congenial to it. Part of the Christian church's mission, it would seem, is to discover what is relevant about Jesus and how it can still fit him into our own time to find a relational interface. The one difference between then and now is that we have many, many more resources to draw upon and we also have near-instantaneous dialogue between and among scholars (and apologists).

I also have a problem with your idea that Jesus' thoughts of God were no different than previous prophets of Hebrew tradition. Although the major prophets preach for a conversion in their listeners and harrangue and judge, they were not as explicit on forgiveness and compassion as was Jesus. When Jesus said "love your enemies" it is difficult now to really understand how that novel nugget struck the sensibilities of his audience. Years and years of reading and hearing that admonision from Christians and pulpits have deadened us a bit to its original revolutionary and paradoxical bite.

Jesus was not saying resign yourself to the Romans--or even kill them with kindness. In my view Jesus was highlighting the root cause of all violence and opression: humanity's lack of compassion.

If the Jews were in power and still lacked compassion and forgiveness, wouldn't the Roman empire be replaced by an equally loveless Jewish one? Jesus wanted the Kingdom of (or Rule of) God--not the replacement of one worldly kingdom by another.

Jesus' invitation to celebration and feasting was to ALL. His emphasis was on the poor and hungry because the social structure was way out of balance but he didn't exclude and asked everyone to have faith and find forgiveness. I try to seperate the ridiculing and bitter Christ speech from that of the compassionate rabbi. The gospels contain both the religion OF Jesus and the religion ABOUT Jesus:

You keep on saying "the texts show/depict a Jesus who is..." The gospels are an incredibly complex blend of history, faith, evidence and theology. As a result, some of "Jesus'" speech is transparently inauthentic and self-serving to the communities who wrote the gospels. Sometimes the evangelists were "spin doctors," but it was not to win a campaign as much as it was to find a meaningful Jesus for their own times.

You mentioned a four-part approach to the Bible which went something like this: 1.Find what the text says 2.Writers usually say what they mean 3.Good readers can find the difference between literal and figurative themes and 4.Figurative speech is open to interpretation.

Number 1 is a process, not a destination. Number 2 depends upon the genre and its interpretation--which can be problematic because of Number 4. And Number 3--if only it were that easy!

Of course Jesus was a human being (a man who "chose God" rather than being magically "annointed" by a god. I just don't see that fact as important in our discussion as you seem to--mainly because it cannot be otherwise.

The problem with this last point is that most evangelicals and fundamentalists have flies in their eyes and they cannot be shown that they indeed do because--well, because they have flies in their eyes.




[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited June 20, 2001).]

Aikido7: Dear Rodahi:
Jesus placed a certain emphasis on key themes from the Hebrew Bible; he was not engaged in wholesale appropriation of the entire Old Testament prophetic tradition.

I am not going to say what Jesus was or what he was not. No one knows for sure. What I will say is what I THINK, and what I think IS supported by the text of the NT and extra-biblical literature. For instance, there is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that the writer of Mark (and/or Jesus) was influenced by ideas contained in I Enoch and other pseudepigraphical works.

Aikido7: Jesus was definitely like Ralph Nader in that his message was difficult for many to hear and believe in (I'll take 50 per cent of the blame for not getting that across to you in a way that you could understand me!).

I am not going to say anything "definite" about Jesus. I understood you the first time and I simply disagree with you.

Aikido7: Jesus and Ralph are basically saying: "If you don't change what you are doing, you are going to wind up where you are headed."

Rather than tell people what Jesus said, I would rather quote the text. Any reader can go back and look at the quotes that support my argument. Where are all the quotes that support your view?

Aikido7: There are a growing number of people now who see our environmental stance as an essentially bankrupt one. There were even less in 1970 when the first "Earth Day" was celebrated. This small group was paying attention to a potential catastrophe that the rest of the world was blithely ignorant of.

Are we talking about the twentieth century America or first century Palestine? I think it is inappropriate to try and compare them and then draw conclusions based on that comparison.

Aikido7: Jesus, too, saw Palestine heading for a catastrophe; to a visionary/prophet like Jesus, it was not too difficult to extrapolate out from the present human misery of his time and see that fundamental change and reversal was needed in order to stave off certain destruction.

I presented textual evidence to support my argument. You have not.

Aikido7: You wrote that "I don't think it is a good idea to try to fit Jesus into our times so we can relate to him. It is very possible that he said and did very little that is even relevant to us." I have a major difference of opinion with you on this one.

Yes, you do have a difference of opinion, but what evidence have you presented to support your opinion?

Aikido7: Every generation since the crucifixion has had to look at the evidence (such as it is) and find a meaning behind the historical events which can speak to us across the 2000 year old gulf. Some then--as now--see Jesus as a fabrication, the Son of God, a magician, a prophet, another boring charismatic, a cynic, etc. A careful reading of history in this regard shows that each age in many respects fashions a Jesus who is congenial to it.

I don't need Jesus to speak to me across the 2000 year span of time that separates him from me anymore than I need Apollonius of Tyana to speak to me. Jesus spoke to his contemporaries, not us. A. H. Silver said it well: "When Jesus came into Galilee, 'spreading the gospel of the Kingdom of God and saying the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand,' he was voicing the opinion universally held that the year 5000 in the Creation calendar, which is to usher in the sixth millennium--the age of the Kingdom of God--was at hand...The Messiah was expected around the second quarter of the first century C.E., because the Millennium was at hand...Jesus' essential mission was apocalyptic...He was more of the mystic than the moralist. His impassioned concern was not to reconstruct society but to save it from the winnowing and retributive judgment which was imminent in the van of the approaching Millennium...The whole epic of Jesus must be read in the light of this millenarian chronology of his day, or it remains unintelligible..." A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel, pp. 7-8.

We read in Mark what I think is a primitive message, one that echoes I Enoch: "For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.' And he said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.'" (8:38-9:1)

A catastrophe was imminent and therefore there was no need for concern about money, or clothes, or shelter.

Aikido7: Part of the Christian church's mission, it would seem, is to discover what is relevant about Jesus and how it can still fit him into our own time to find a relational interface.

I am not interested in what the Christian church's mission is. I am interested in who Jesus was.

Aikido7: The one difference between then and now is that we have many, many more resources to draw upon and we also have near-instantaneous dialogue between and among scholars (and apologists).

Jesus remains an enigmatic figure. All one can do is look at the available evidence. Unfortunately, virtually all of that evidence is contained in Christian literature.

Aikido7: I also have a problem with your idea that Jesus' thoughts of God were no different than previous prophets of Hebrew tradition. Although the major prophets preach for a conversion in their listeners and harrangue and judge, they were not as explicit on forgiveness and compassion as was Jesus.

Your saying that Jesus was "explicit on forgiveness and compassion" does not make it so. Are you familiar with the text of Mark? It DOES NOT depict a forgiving and compassionate Jesus. As a matter of fact, it depicts an angry, confrontational Jesus. Also, there are other parts of the NT that do precisely the same. I think you are attempting to relate to a Jesus for which the most primitive tradition does not bear evidence. Shouldn't our search for the historical Jesus (presuming there actually was one) be motivated by a genuine desire to know who Jesus was and not by a desire to find a Jesus we can admire, respect, and relate to?

Aikido7: When Jesus said "love your enemies" it is difficult now to really understand how that novel nugget struck the sensibilities of his audience. Years and years of reading and hearing that admonision from Christians and pulpits have deadened us a bit to its original revolutionary and paradoxical bite.

I am not certain that Jesus said, "love your enemies." How can you be so certain that he did? It isn't in Mark. Also, it does not make a great deal of sense, does it? I think you are attempting to force some sort of sentimental sense from a very ambiguous statement. That seems obvious in your characterization of it as "that novel nugget."

Aikido7: Jesus was not saying resign yourself to the Romans--or even kill them with kindness. In my view Jesus was highlighting the root cause of all violence and opression: humanity's lack of compassion.

Finally, we get an "in my view." In my view, I disagree. Read Mark.

Aikido7: If the Jews were in power and still lacked compassion and forgiveness, wouldn't the Roman empire be replaced by an equally loveless Jewish one?

I find it hard to believe that the Jews of Jesus' day were less compassionate and forgiving than any other social group. Why do you think they were?

Aikido7: Jesus wanted the Kingdom of (or Rule of) God--not the replacement of one worldly kingdom by another.

The text of Mark and extra-biblical literature contain evidence which contradict your statement.

Aikido7: Jesus' invitation to celebration and feasting was to ALL.

Based on the text of the narratives, that "invitation to celebration" would seem to exclude the following (with some overlap): Jesus' family; Gentiles; Pharisees; Sadducees; the rich; the powerful; the inhabitants of Jesus' hometown, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.
Are you suggesting that we ignore 90% of the text so you can justify your view?

Aikido7: His emphasis was on the poor and hungry because the social structure was way out of balance but he didn't exclude and asked everyone to have faith and find forgiveness.

See above.

Aikido7: I try to seperate the ridiculing and bitter Christ speech from that of the compassionate rabbi. The gospels contain both the religion OF Jesus and the religion ABOUT Jesus

Yes, and that is a very selective thing to do. You MUST ignore 90% of the text to justify your view. Why not accept the Jesus that is depicted in the most primitive tradtion?

Akido7: You keep on saying "the texts show/depict a Jesus who is..."

Yes, that is a very sensible, reasonable thing to do--THAT is all we have. Your view relies on a heavy dose of conjecture and almost no reliance on the available evidence.

Akido7: The gospels are an incredibly complex blend of history, faith, evidence and theology.

I am not interested in faith and theology. I am interested in available evidence,i.e, the text of the NT. I agree that the early Christian scribes have done major damage, but there may still be a core of primitive tradition. Unfortunately for Christians, that core appears to contain some rotten seeds.

Aikido7: As a result, some of "Jesus'" speech is transparently inauthentic and self-serving to the communities who wrote the gospels.

"Transparent" to whom? It is dishonest to ignore 90% of the text to justify a pet hypothesis; furthermore, it is just plain bad scholarship.

Aikdido7: Sometimes the evangelists were "spin doctors," but it was not to win a campaign as much as it was to find a meaningful Jesus for their own times.

Then they must have been very dissatisified with the original Jesus, right?

Aikido7: You mentioned a four-part approach to the Bible which went something like this: 1.Find what the text says 2.Writers usually say what they mean 3.Good readers can find the difference between literal and figurative themes and 4.Figurative speech is open to interpretation.

Number 1 is a process, not a destination. Number 2 depends upon the genre and its interpretation--which can be problematic because of Number 4. And Number 3--if only it were that easy!

I will stand by what I said in my original quote.

Aikido7: Of course Jesus was a human being (a man who "chose God" rather than being magically "annointed" by a god. I just don't see that fact as important in our discussion as you seem to--mainly because it cannot be otherwise.

I am certain that if Jesus existed, he was a man. I think the writer of Mark was influenced by Jewish pseudepigraphical works and thought of Jesus as the herald of the Son of man and the Day of Yahweh.

Aikido7: The problem with this last point is that most evangelicals and fundamentalists have flies in their eyes and they cannot be shown that they indeed do because--well, because they have flies in their eyes.

You and I agree with respect to evangelicals and fundamentalists. Apparently, we disagree about how to do good scholarly analysis of the text of the NT and present evidence. I have presented evidence to support my view. You have not.

rodahi

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
[b]Aikido7: Dear Rodahi:
Jesus placed a certain emphasis on key themes from the Hebrew Bible; he was not engaged in wholesale appropriation of the entire Old Testament prophetic tradition.

I am not going to say what Jesus was or what he was not. No one knows for sure.

Now I am confused--are you saying he was an apocalyptic prophet whose mission failed as Albert Schweitzer said? Or not? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt by equating "Jesus was..." with "I think he was..." or "in my opinion he was..." The sudden conversion to linguistic precision is confusing. If I have intimated that I know exactly who this enigmatic Galilean was and how his internal dialogue went, then let me clarify. I DON'T KNOW. (In my opinion)WE WILL NEVER KNOW. That's what keeps the dialogue fun and interesting. Don't spoil it by putting straw thoughts in me head!

...there is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that the writer of Mark (and/or Jesus) was influenced by ideas contained in I Enoch and other pseudepigraphical works.

I have not done a comparative reading of Enoch and Mark's Jesus. At a basic level, the Hebrew Bible contains a number of different leadership stories and roles that those who are called to lead God's people are given. Out of this base Jesus was talked about as fulfilling these roles as the vindicated one fulfilling the Servant Songs of Isaiah--especially 52:13 and 53:12. paul draws on a number of them in I Corinthians--the wisdom of God, the righteousness the sanctification and redemption. What the whole gamut of New Testament traditions (I think--in my opinion) is that Jesus is talked about as prophet, priest and king. High priest after the order of Melchizedek, Son of Man, Son of God, Lamb of God, Messiah (Christ) and so on. Then we have God as Father, God's chosen as son (see Psalm 2) and God as Living Spirit. These are all there in the Hebrew canon.

Aikido7: Jesus was definitely like Ralph Nader in that his message was difficult for many to hear and believe in (I'll take 50 per cent of the blame for not getting that across to you in a way that you could understand me!).

I am not going to say anything "definite" about Jesus. I understood you the first time and I simply disagree with you.

When you wrote "I don't see Jesus as the Ralph Nader type. You, I and Ralph Nader live in modern times" it seemed clear to me you saw only the literal truth and not the underlying comparison I was making.

Rather than tell people what Jesus said, I would rather quote the text. Any reader can go back and look at the quotes that support my argument. Where are all the quotes that support your view?

"If our father's country were the sky, birds would belong there more than you. If it were the sea--the fish. But our father's realm is inside you! You will understand this when you know yourselves for what you are, the children of the creator of all living things."

"How can you say 'I have kept the law and the prophets' when it is written in the law" You shalt love your neighbor as yourself? And look, many sons of Abraham, your brothers, are clothed in filth and dying of hunger, while your house is full of good things, none of which goes to them."

"Love your enemy. Ask God to prosper those who hurt you. Only then will you be a true child of our father. Loving those who love you needs no reward; even the unrighteous love. What merit is there in being kind to those who are kind to you? Your father is compassionate to all, as you should be."

"Meet meaness with generosity, evil with good. If a man slaps you on one cheek, turn so that he can slap the other. if a man takes your shirt, give him your coat as well. If you are made to go a mile, go two."

"Give to the beggar, lend to the borrower."

"The father causes the sun to shine on both the evil and the good and sends his rain on both the just and the unjust."

Jesus's message was religious/social/political/personal. In that respect he was very different from the pprophets of the Old Testament.

Are we talking about the twentieth century America or first century Palestine? I think it is inappropriate to try and compare them and then draw conclusions based on that comparison.

Comparison, allegory, metaphor, reversal and paradox--and humor. ALL valid tools to communicate information. And some of Jesus' favorite tools, I might add.

Earlier I wrote:

Quote:

Jesus, too, saw Palestine heading for a catastrophe; to a visionary/prophet like Jesus, it was not too difficult to extrapolate out from the present human misery of his time and see that fundamental change and reversal was needed in order to stave off certain destruction.</font>

I presented textual evidence to support my argument. You have not.

"Repent for the Kingdom of God is near."

"Let anyone who has power renounce it."

"You see a cloud rising in the west and say 'It's going to rain.' When the wind blows from the south you say, 'It's going to be a corcher. So why don't you know how to interpret the times now?"

"Our father's kingdom is not going to come with people watching for it. No one is going to be able to say 'Look, here!' or, 'Over there!' For the kingdom is inside you, waiting for you to find it."

"The last will be first and the first will be last."

"There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."

"The law and the prophets ruled in Israel until John was slain. Violent men have taken the kingdom by force."

"Who promotes himself will be dmoted, who demotes himself, promoted."

"Jerusalem! Jerusalem! You that kill the prophets and stone those sent to you! How often, if you had let me, whould I have gathered your children as a hen her chicks under her wings."

Yes, you do have a difference of opinion, but what evidence have you presented to support your opinion?

Relevant for this board certainly. Relevant for both the churched and unchurched, the historicans and even the skeptics. And of course relevant in vastly different ways and degrees

I don't need Jesus to speak to me across the 2000 year span of time that separates him from me anymore than I need Apollonius of Tyana to speak to me. Jesus spoke to his contemporaries, not us. A. H. Silver said it well: "When Jesus came into Galilee, 'spreading the gospel of the Kingdom of God and saying the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand,' he was voicing the opinion universally held that the year 5000 in the Creation calendar, which is to usher in the sixth millennium--the age of the Kingdom of God--was at hand...The Messiah was expected around the second quarter of the first century C.E., because the Millennium was at hand...Jesus' essential mission was apocalyptic...He was more of the mystic than the moralist. His impassioned concern was not to reconstruct society but to save it from the winnowing and retributive judgment which was imminent in the van of the approaching Millennium...The whole epic of Jesus must be read in the light of this millenarian chronology of his day, or it remains unintelligible..." A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel, pp. 7-8.

You probably mean to say you don't need a Jesus to speak to you personally and/or you don't need a Jesus as a heroic model of behavior. But the fact is we are both sitting in front of computer monitors trying to listen to someone in first-century Palestine, or something

We read in Mark what I think is a primitive message, one that echoes I Enoch: "For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.' And he said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.'" (8:38-9:1)

A catastrophe was imminent and therefore there was no need for concern about money, or clothes, or shelter.

I see Mark as having to confront more and more people in his community of believers who were "ashamed" of backing or following Jesus so he had his Jesus say what needed to be said to keep the faithful in line. You and I and A.H. Silver are doing the same thing: looking at the evidence and fashoning a Jesus who is agreeable to us.
This is a common mistake and all we can do is be aware of the tendency and try to mitigate it with humility and pretensions at objectivity. The last word on the subject will never be heard, barring the discovery of a new manuscript.

I am not interested in what the Christian church's mission is. I am interested in who Jesus was.

I am not equating you with Christians or with the church either, but there are many in the church today who are also interested in who Jesus was and who look beneath the surface and also on the surface to study the patterns in the Bible. Rodahi, understand that there are as many theories and ideas out there as there are widths of men's neckties! On some level this is all a game, the object of which is to keep the game going.

I let you have the last word:

Jesus remains an enigmatic figure. All one can do is look at the available evidence. Unfortunately, virtually all of that evidence is contained in Christian literature.

Originally posted by rodahi:
Aikido7: Dear Rodahi:
Jesus placed a certain emphasis on key themes from the Hebrew Bible; he was not engaged in wholesale appropriation of the entire Old Testament prophetic tradition.

rodahi: I am not going to say what Jesus was or what he was not. No one knows for sure.

Your opening sentences declare, without qualification, what Jesus did and did not do.

Aikido7: Now I am confused--are you saying he was an apocalyptic prophet whose mission failed as Albert Schweitzer said? Or not? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt by equating "Jesus was..." with "I think he was..." or "in my opinion he was..."

I THINK Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet type. This is based on textual evidence. That certainly does not mean the same thing as "Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet."

Aikido7: The sudden conversion to linguistic precision is confusing. If I have intimated that I know exactly who this enigmatic Galilean was and how his internal dialogue went, then let me clarify. I DON'T KNOW. (In my opinion)WE WILL NEVER KNOW. That's what keeps the dialogue fun and interesting. Don't spoil it by putting straw thoughts in me head!

I don't recall putting anything in your head.

rodahi

rodahi: ...there is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that the writer of Mark (and/or Jesus) was influenced by ideas contained in I Enoch and other pseudepigraphical works.

Aikido7: I have not done a comparative reading of Enoch and Mark's Jesus.

I think that is part of the problem here. Did you read my quotes?

rodahi

Aikido7: At a basic level, the Hebrew Bible contains a number of different leadership stories and roles that those who are called to lead God's people are given. Out of this base Jesus was talked about as fulfilling these roles as the vindicated one fulfilling the Servant Songs of Isaiah--especially 52:13 and 53:12. paul draws on a number of them in I Corinthians--the wisdom of God, the righteousness the sanctification and redemption. What the whole gamut of New Testament traditions (I think--in my opinion) is that Jesus is talked about as prophet, priest and king. High priest after the order of Melchizedek, Son of Man, Son of God, Lamb of God, Messiah (Christ) and so on. Then we have God as Father, God's chosen as son (see Psalm 2) and God as Living Spirit. These are all there in the Hebrew canon.

I think Mark was more heavily influenced by the specific ideas contained in I Enoch than he was by ancient Hebrew tradition. Did you read the quotes from I Enoch?

rodahi

Aikido7: When you wrote "I don't see Jesus as the Ralph Nader type. You, I and Ralph Nader live in modern times" it seemed clear to me you saw only the literal truth and not the underlying comparison I was making.

Is there something wrong with the literal truth?

rodahi: Rather than tell people what Jesus said, I would rather quote the text. Any reader can go back and look at the quotes that support my argument. Where are all the quotes that support your view?

Aikido7: "If our father's country were the sky, birds would belong there more than you. If it were the sea--the fish. But our father's realm is inside you! You will understand this when you know yourselves for what you are, the children of the creator of all living things." [snip]


Thanks for presenting quotes to support your contention that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi whose primary
message was love and compassion. The problem is, though, a few sayings later in the Gospel of Thomas, your source for the above, Jesus says,

“Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me.” 55

“The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge; they themselves have hidden them. Neither have they entered, nor have they allowed those who are in the process of entering to enter. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves.” 39

Why do you selectively ignore the evidence which you find disagreeable? Isn't it possible that Jesus, as a human being, expressed anger and hatred (as well as other emotions), a superior attitude, and a mistaken belief in the imminent coming of the Son of man and the Day of Yahweh? Wouldn't these characteristics have been far more likely to have caused Jesus to be executed as a trouble maker than those of a soft-spoken and peaceful spreader of love and compassion?

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 21, 2001).]

rodahi: Are we talking about the twentieth century America or first century Palestine? I think it is inappropriate to try and compare them and then draw conclusions based on that comparison.

Aikido7: Comparison, allegory, metaphor, reversal and paradox--and humor. ALL valid tools to communicate information. And some of Jesus' favorite tools, I might add.

Those are valid tools for someone not necessarily concerned about how well his message might be understood. There is evidence in the NT that Jesus confused just about everyone he came into contact with, especially his own disciples and family.


Earlier I wrote:[QUOTE] Jesus, too, saw Palestine heading for a catastrophe; to a visionary/prophet like Jesus, it was not too difficult to extrapolate out from the present human misery of his time and see that fundamental change and reversal was needed in order to stave off certain destruction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

rodahi: I presented textual evidence to support my argument. You have not.

Aikdio7: "Repent for the Kingdom of God is near."

"Let anyone who has power renounce it."

"You see a cloud rising in the west and say 'It's going to rain.' When the wind blows from the south you say, 'It's going to be a corcher. So why don't you know how to interpret the times now?"

"Our father's kingdom is not going to come with people watching for it. No one is going to be able to say 'Look, here!' or, 'Over there!' For the kingdom is inside you, waiting for you to find it."

"The last will be first and the first will be last."

"There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed."

"The law and the prophets ruled in Israel until John was slain. Violent men have taken the kingdom by force."

"Who promotes himself will be dmoted, who demotes himself, promoted."

"Jerusalem! Jerusalem! You that kill the prophets and stone those sent to you! How often, if you had let me, whould I have gathered your children as a hen her chicks under her wings."

Are you suggesting that these quotes somehow prove that Jesus DID NOT proclaim the imminent coming of the Son of man and the Day of Yahweh? Every single one of the earliest attested quotes SUPPORTS my view. I think the catastrophe Jesus saw was the coming of the Day of Judgment. There were going to be changes; the poor were going to be exalted; the rich and powerful were going to be brought down; food, shelter, and family were no longer important--Everything was about to change!

"Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Truly I tell you, some of those who are standing here will not taste death before they see that Kingdom of God has come with power." (Mk. 8:38-9:1)

This apocalyptic vision is attested in Mark, M, L, Q, and early Jewish pseudepigraphical works. The only way to argue against it is to ignore the earliest literary evidence.

rodahi