rodahi

PK: I don't think surveys can prove anything, but they are useful for getting a sense of what people think.

Why don't we focus on the evidence?

PK: My information on Grant came second hand from Michael Martin, who in his _The Case Against Christianity_ cites Grant for the opinion that the historical Jesus did not have an apocalyptic view. If Martin was fibbing, now I know.

It appears from your quotes that Grant, like J. P. Meier, believes that Jesus had both present and future eschatologies. That is certainly one possibility, although it seems to me to be predicated on a harmonizing approach to the statements in the Gospels.

The present eschatology idea is not as evident in the Christian propaganda as you seem to think. Your biblical quotes correlate well with an apocalyptic Jesus. The scholars I quoted clearly state why this is so.


PK: There are no statements in the Gospels in which Jesus is supposed to have said "The Kingdom of God is here, and the Kingdom of God is coming" -- you can only get such a paradox out of harmonizing different kinds of traditions.

Why do you insist on a "paradox"? Why not consider that Jesus felt the Kingdom was imminent and that it had already begun to arrive?


PK: An apocalyptic point of view is not evident in all the sources for Jesus. It is entirely absent in John, Thomas, and even Kloppenborg's Q1.

I never said it was. Ehrman points out that both John and Thomas are LATER than Mark, M, L, and Q, so they reflect a changed view.

PK: Division of Q is a hypothesis, but the historicity of Jesus is also a hypothesis.

Why split the hypothetical Q in the first place?

PK: One doesn't need to ignore the milieu in order to avoid the conclusion that Jesus was an apocalypticist.

Yes, one does. Are you familiar with Jewish apocalyptic literature that came BEFORE and during Jesus' time? Did you read the quotes I presented?

PK: It comes in paying attention to the milieu that the present eschatology presupposed by most of the parables and a few sayings shows itself to be the distinctive teaching of the historical Jesus by the criterion of dissimilarity.

As I said earlier the criterion of dissimilarity is irrelevant. You have yet to demonstrate that Jesus had a distinctive teaching that can be separated from his apocalyptic view.

PK: Although the present eschatology sayings can be thus traced back to the HJ, the future eschatology sayings cannot, as they reflect the views of the early church as well as contemporary Judaism and so could easily have been placed on the lips of Jesus falsely.

This is nothing more than an unfounded assertion. No one has even proved the existence of Jesus, much less proven what sayings can be traced back to the man. I will repeat this as many times as is necessary: Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul, John of Patmos, and the writers of apocalyptic literature ALL believed that the Kingdom of Yahweh was imminent. Much Jewish apocalyptic literature dates to a time BEFORE and during Jesus' time, not after. According to Ehrman, Thomas and John came AFTER Mark, M, L, and Q, and, thus, do not reflect the apocalyptic view.

PK: There is no hostility in me in this exchange.

Agreed.

PK: I am not saying that an apocalyptic view of Jesus has nothing to commend it. But I just wanted to point out that the matter is not nearly so clear-cut as you had seemed to think.

When it comes to the study of the NT, NOTHING is clear-cut. That is why I included the Guignebert quote in my previous posting. If you would like to put forth the evidence supporting the views of those who advocate the "present eschatology," we can discuss it. Then, I will put forth the evidence supporting the opposite view and we can discuss that. Thus far, we have mostly quoted scholars. Perhaps we would do better by presenting evidence from primary sources.

rodahi

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rodahi:
[QB]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
This (Mark's apocalyptic gloss) fits perfectly well with the apocalypticism of the Book of Enoch and Daniel, both of which were written BEFORE the time of Jesus.

Perrin can make his case ONLY by ignoring virtually ALL of the NT.

rodahi


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

A: There are many, many scholarly opinions around this topic. I recently looked through Burton Mack's THE MYTH OF INNOCENCE, in which he deals with exactly this subject.

Yes, there seems to be no shortage of opinions.

A: I simply feel that Jesus did not teach a future apocalyptic coming involving a violent and cataclysmic restoration of the cosmos to God's order. I use the term "apocalyptic" very methodically and literally in this sense. The argument has been accused of being circular in that one of the criteria for being authentic was not being apocalyptic and "no authentic sayings of Jesus are apocalyptic."

I agree with those who think the argument is circular.

A: I believe most of the Jesus Seminar feel that the Baptizer was definitely an apocalyptic prophet and Jesus was his follower for a time but broke with John and ultimately rejected his teachings.

Let's pretend that Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar don't exist, for the sake of argument. What do the most ancient Christian MSS say about Jesus? What do the ancient Jewish MSS of 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Psalms of Solomon, a goodly portion of the Qumran literature, etc. say?

A: Jesus turned to favor an incipient wisdeom teaching that would insert itself into society and transform it from within, like weeds in a field or yeast in flour.

I think you like this idea BECAUSE you prefer it, not because you have carefully weighed the available evidence.

A: Traditional apocalyptic saw drastic and rather immediate change of the whole society, where God's power would establish justice on earth. Jesus--according to what I hold to be his authentic sayings--seem not to talk about a specific program, but rather the power of the words and ideas to transform from within. The images closest to his vision seem to be growth, a general hiddeness and a major surprise at the outcome.

How do you go about deciding what Jesus' "authentic sayings" are?

A: Personally, I see things a little differently. Although he rejected the Baptizer's apocalyptic preachings, Jesus may well have also had people who knew him to preach as John did.

Where in the NT, or anywhere else for that matter, does it say that Jesus "rejected the
Baptizer's apocalyptic preachings"?

A: Mark's gospel hints at this, and if Jesus followed the Baptizer, it seems likely that he may well have begun as an apocalyptic prophet. I see in some gospel stories signs of Jesus changing his mind. He became more inclusive after his meeting with the Syro-Phonecian woman who drubbed him in dialogue.

I see an apocalyptic Jesus in Mark, the earliest narrative.

A: I must at the same time, however, be alert to the dangers in seeing the failure of apocalyptic after 2000 years of hindsight. I may certainly have a bias in finding something different.

ALL apocalyptics have failed and it started far more than two thousand years ago. Look at the prophets in ancient Egytian literature or the prophets in ancient Hebrew literature. NO ONE can predict what the future holds.

A: Over the last 200 years we have dealt with the fire-and-brimstone vision of Jesus, only to find it sadly devoid of anything historically useful.

Would you explain WHY you are interested in finding a Jesus you can relate to? Why not let the man stay in his own time and culture?

A: He may have had some apocalyptic thoughts, but he was also clearly an awesome thinker and a teacher of wisdom in line with the other great teachers who appeared along with him at about the same time in history.

I personally don't think Jesus, presuming he existed, was "an awesome thinker and a teacher of wisdom." He made too many mistakes.

A: His sayings and parables are truly poetically powerful and transforming for me and the non-apocalyptic Jesus is defintely one I can put into practice day by day. I can also plant seeds, knead the dough of the bread of life, see beauty in a weed.

If it makes you feel good, go for it.

A: This has nothing to do with Christianity or religion but with living a life with integrity and forever open to possibilities.

I am open to possibilities and I think I have integrity, but I don't need to read anything special into what Jesus said or did for either.

A: The awesome wonder is not that a world has been changed from darkness to light in a cataclysmic moment of retribution, but that people can be transformed daily into subversive lovers of a troubled world and its troubled people.

What does this have to do with Jesus?

A: When fundamentalists and evangelicals--especially those in government--start thinking apocalyptically and making quasi-biblical pronouncements regarding the end of the world (as Energy Secretary Watt did and his President Ronald Reagan), I start to be concerned.

You seem to not understand that Jesus lived two thousand years ago and that his (and others) apocalyptic views were erroneous.

A: Many evangelicals I know talk about the beatings they received at the hands of their parents and always end with "Well, I deserved it." No child deserves to be hit and no world deserves to be destroyed.

I am opposed to child abuse regardless of who does the abusing. What does this have to do with Jesus?

rodahi

Peter Kirby

Yes, I am familiar with Jewish apocalyptic literature before and during the time of Jesus. I have Geza Vermes' DSS and Charlesworth's OT Pseudepigrapha under my belt. Of course I read your quotations. Your questions give me the impression that your intent is more polemical than collegial. So I've lost interest.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

offa

peterkirby, I clicked on your website and was
impressed. Have you read The Gospel of the Birth of Mary? Is it available on the web? I did not see it on your list and I would like to discuss a few of the The Lost Books of the Bible. ISBN 0-517-277956.
I also need to learn to use a little tact. I am retired and do not have to work but I have just spent two weeks (where did they go?) out in the hot ... hot sun working in concrete. I am totally exhausted. I love to work and I love this board. What to do? Can't do both.

thanks, offa

rodahi

Is this the attitude you take when someone challenges your assertions? That is too bad. I thought we had the makings of a decent discussion.

rodahi

Peter Kirby

They're not really my assertions. I really don't care whether or not the historical Jesus was apocalyptic.

Thank you for the reference from Michael Martin. I guess that I misremembered him. I thought he quoted Grant in order to refute the idea that Jesus taught the doctrine of the second coming, which is the point of Martin's chapter.

On pages 116 and 117, Martin states: "Grant argues
that Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God had already begun to arrive and
that the final realization was very near. Indeed, on occasion he was
extremely precise and specific about when the great day would come. Thus, in
Mark Jesus maintains, 'Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who
will not taste death before they see the kingdom of god come with power'
(Mark 9:1). In Matthew he says, 'Truly, I say to you, there are some
standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming
in his kingdom' (Matt. 16:28). In Luke he asserts: 'Truly, I say to you,
this generation will not pass away till all this has taken place' (Luke
21:32). Thus, Grant concludes: 'Jesus fomented a constant excited
expectation of its coming: the imminence of the Kingdom was the very heart of
his message. All therefore who wanted to enter it must make every possible
preparation for its arrival. They must be ready for action, their belts
fastened, their lamps lit. 'What I say to you I say to everyone: keep
awake.' "

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: peterkirby ]

rodahi

peterkirby: ...I really don't care whether or not the historical Jesus was apocalyptic.

Nor do I. I don't even care whether Jesus existed or not.

I appreciate your clearing the air with regard to Michael Martin's commentary on Michael Grant's views.

rodahi

aikido7

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rodahi:
[QB][QUOTE]Originally posted by rodahi:
[QB]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
This (Mark's apocalyptic gloss) fits perfectly well with the apocalypticism of the Book of Enoch and Daniel, both of which were written BEFORE the time of Jesus.

Perrin can make his case ONLY by ignoring virtually ALL of the NT.

rodahi


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

A: There are many, many scholarly opinions around this topic. I recently looked through Burton Mack's THE MYTH OF INNOCENCE, in which he deals with exactly this subject.

Rodahi: Yes, there seems to be no shortage of opinions.

A: I simply feel that Jesus did not teach a future apocalyptic coming involving a violent and cataclysmic restoration of the cosmos to God's order. I use the term "apocalyptic" very methodically and literally in this sense. The argument has been accused of being circular in that one of the criteria for being authentic was not being apocalyptic and "no authentic sayings of Jesus are apocalyptic."

Rodahi: I agree with those who think the argument is circular.

A: I believe most of the Jesus Seminar feel that the Baptizer was definitely an apocalyptic prophet and Jesus was his follower for a time but broke with John and ultimately rejected his teachings.

Let's pretend that Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar don't exist, for the sake of argument. What do the most ancient Christian MSS say about Jesus? What do the ancient Jewish MSS of 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Psalms of Solomon, a goodly portion of the Qumran literature, etc. say?

Mark and Q have been interpreted both ways--some scholars say and show an apocalyptic strain in both sources and other scholars see a non-apocalyptic core with a later apocalyptic redaction. I am of the opinion that Old Testament or ancient manuscript "prophecies" of Jesus' aims and praxis are the church's meddlings--taking ancient events out of context and making a Procrustean historical bed for them to lie in.

A: Jesus turned to favor an incipient wisdeom teaching that would insert itself into society and transform it from within, like weeds in a field or yeast in flour.

Rodahi: I think you like this idea BECAUSE you prefer it, not because you have carefully weighed the available evidence.

I DO prefer it, because it makes sense to me. Why would Jesus be such a breath of fresh air if he was just like every other prophet railing against the powers that be and promising divine vengance if the people didn't change their ways?

A: Traditional apocalyptic saw drastic and rather immediate change of the whole society, where God's power would establish justice on earth. Jesus--according to what I hold to be his authentic sayings--seem not to talk about a specific program, but rather the power of the words and ideas to transform from within. The images closest to his vision seem to be growth, a general hiddeness and a major surprise at the outcome.

Rodahi: How do you go about deciding what Jesus' "authentic sayings" are?

Ever since Thomas Jefferson took scissors and paste to the Bible to form his own "Gospel of Jesus," people have seen a major disconnect between a bitter, badgering Jesus who promises hell on earth and an open-hearted rabbi who had a ministry of compassion and inclusion. There are many scholarly tools for making the judgement between what Jesus actually said and the sayings put into his mouth by the early church. The Jesus Seminar has recently done the same thing, but in a more public way with a lot better public relations behind them. Most scholars who are interested in finding out and studying the differences usually set out their methodology for doing so in the introduction or first few chapters of their books or papers.

A: Personally, I see things a little differently. Although he rejected the Baptizer's apocalyptic preachings, Jesus may well have also had people who knew him to preach as John did.

Rodahi: Where in the NT, or anywhere else for that matter, does it say that Jesus "rejected the
Baptizer's apocalyptic preachings"?

Careful readers will notice a subtle shift throughout the gospels. There is a short parable in Luke and in Matthew which compares the Baptizer's preaching to a mournful funeral dirge and contrasts Jesus' preaching with the joyful song at a wedding dance. The Baptizer's behavior involved imploring and fasting; Jesus was characterized by feasting and teaching in parables. To Jesus, baptism was no longer necessary and forgiveness was a present reality. The Baptizer looked to the apocalyptic future and mandated baptism for forgiveness.

There is a break with the past--new wine cannot go into old wineskins and the new cloth cannot be sewn onto old garmets. Even the greatest human being born of a woman (John) is now out of date. God has ordained a new age with Jesus.

A: Mark's gospel hints at this, and if Jesus followed the Baptizer, it seems likely that he may well have begun as an apocalyptic prophet. I see in some gospel stories signs of Jesus changing his mind. He became more inclusive after his meeting with the Syro-Phonecian woman who drubbed him in dialogue.
Rodahi: I see an apocalyptic Jesus in Mark, the earliest narrative.

Because a source is early does not necessarily guarantee its historical truth.

A: I must at the same time, however, be alert to the dangers in seeing the failure of apocalyptic after 2000 years of hindsight. I may certainly have a bias in finding something different.

Rodahi: ALL apocalyptics have failed and it started far more than two thousand years ago. Look at the prophets in ancient Egytian literature or the prophets in ancient Hebrew literature. NO ONE can predict what the future holds.

Jesus seemed to predict the coming catastrophe for Jerusalem in 70 AD. That fact is well attested to--especially in Luke. It didn't take a weatherman to know which way Israel was headed if it didn't change its ways. Jesus had the vision to "predict" it.

A: Over the last 200 years we have dealt with the fire-and-brimstone vision of Jesus, only to find it sadly devoid of anything historically useful.

Rodahi: Would you explain WHY you are interested in finding a Jesus you can relate to? Why not let the man stay in his own time and culture?

Why "either/or"? Why not both? I can relate to Martin Luther King as well--different time, different culture. Gandhi, too.

A: He may have had some apocalyptic thoughts, but he was also clearly an awesome thinker and a teacher of wisdom in line with the other great teachers who appeared along with him at about the same time in history.

Rodahi: I personally don't think Jesus, presuming he existed, was "an awesome thinker and a teacher of wisdom." He made too many mistakes.

Well, he was only human!

A: His sayings and parables are truly poetically powerful and transforming for me and the non-apocalyptic Jesus is defintely one I can put into practice day by day. I can also plant seeds, knead the dough of the bread of life, see beauty in a weed.

Rodahi: If it makes you feel good, go for it.

Thank you! And the same to you!

A: This has nothing to do with Christianity or religion but with living a life with integrity and forever open to possibilities.

Rodahi: I am open to possibilities and I think I have integrity, but I don't need to read anything special into what Jesus said or did for either.

Okay. Cool enough.

A: The awesome wonder is not that a world has been changed from darkness to light in a cataclysmic moment of retribution, but that people can be transformed daily into subversive lovers of a troubled world and its troubled people.

Rodahi: What does this have to do with Jesus?


Maybe it is a right-brained way of talking in general terms about Jesus' ministry. I am surprised you honestly did not pick up on this!

A: When fundamentalists and evangelicals--especially those in government--start thinking apocalyptically and making quasi-biblical pronouncements regarding the end of the world (as Energy Secretary Watt did and his President Ronald Reagan), I start to be concerned.

Rodahi: You seem to not understand that Jesus lived two thousand years ago and that his (and others) apocalyptic views were erroneous.

But I don't think he WAS apocalyptic! He was apocalyptic--NOT!!!!!! And people are still killing people and/or planning for the end of the world in the name of your apocalyptic!

A: Many evangelicals I know talk about the beatings they received at the hands of their parents and always end with "Well, I deserved it." No child deserves to be hit and no world deserves to be destroyed.

Rodahi: I am opposed to child abuse regardless of who does the abusing. What does this have to do with Jesus?

Many evangelicals build a God in their own image, and if Father dearest beats them with a rod or with a firey cosmological end to their world, then they must have deserved it.
Many believers see obedience as a sign of strength. It is actually a dangerous weakness.

[ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]

rodahi

rodahi: Let's pretend that Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar don't exist, for the sake of argument. What do the most ancient Christian MSS say about Jesus? What do the ancient Jewish MSS of 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Psalms of Solomon, a goodly portion of the Qumran literature, etc. say?

A: Mark and Q have been interpreted both ways--some scholars say and show an apocalyptic strain in both sources and other scholars see a non-apocalyptic core with a later apocalyptic redaction. I am of the opinion that Old Testament or ancient manuscript "prophecies" of Jesus' aims and praxis are the church's meddlings--taking ancient events out of context and making a Procrustean historical bed for them to lie in.

Where is your evidence to back up this opinion?

A: Jesus turned to favor an incipient wisdeom teaching that would insert itself into society and transform it from within, like weeds in a field or yeast in flour.

Rodahi: I think you like this idea BECAUSE you prefer it, not because you have carefully weighed the available evidence.

A: I DO prefer it, because it makes sense to me. Why would Jesus be such a breath of fresh air if he was just like every other prophet railing against the powers that be and promising divine vengance if the people didn't change their ways?

You make the ASSUMPTION that Jesus was "a breath of fresh air." Where is your evidence? For all we know he was precisely what the most ancient MSS say he was--an apocalyptic prophet who was in conflict with almost everyone. Why else was he executed as a troublemaker? Certainly, men who preached love, understanding, and compassion were not crucified by Roman authorities.


A: Traditional apocalyptic saw drastic and rather immediate change of the whole society, where God's power would establish justice on earth. Jesus--according to what I hold to be his authentic sayings--seem not to talk about a specific program, but rather the power of the words and ideas to transform from within. The images closest to his vision seem to be growth, a general hiddeness and a major surprise at the outcome.

Rodahi: How do you go about deciding what Jesus' "authentic sayings" are?

A: Ever since Thomas Jefferson took scissors and paste to the Bible to form his own "Gospel of Jesus," people have seen a major disconnect between a bitter, badgering Jesus who promises hell on earth and an open-hearted rabbi who had a ministry of compassion and inclusion.

Again, If Jesus was "an open-hearted rabbi who had a ministry of compassion and inclusion," why was he executed as a troublemaker? Why do the most ancient MSS depict him as an apocalyptic prophet who argued with almost everyone? Why does the apocalyptic prophet fit well within the milieu in which Jesus lived much better than the compassionate rabbi type? Why would Jesus'followers willfully turn a "good" guy into a "bad" guy? These questions have not been adequately dealt with by anyone.

A: There are many scholarly tools for making the judgement between what Jesus actually said and the sayings put into his mouth by the early church.

There is also textual evidence contained in the most ancient MSS to examine and evaluate. Why throw that out? One must PRESUME that Jesus was NOT an apocalyptic prophet BEFORE applying the "scholarly tools" you speak of. I don't make any such presumption. It isn't good scholarship to presume something BEFORE examining all available evidence. Too many scholars WANT to find a Jesus they can believe in or relate to. Why not take him as he is depicted in the oldest ancient MSS and leave it at that? It is very possible that Jesus was just a self-styled Galilean apocalyptic prophet type who gained a following by practicing exorcisms and magic AND announcing the imminent Kingdom of Yahweh.

A: The Jesus Seminar has recently done the same thing, but in a more public way with a lot better public relations behind them. Most scholars who are interested in finding out and studying the differences usually set out their methodology for doing so in the introduction or first few chapters of their books or papers.

The JS is to be commended for their efforts. I have a problem with some of their conclusions.

A: Personally, I see things a little differently. Although he rejected the Baptizer's apocalyptic preachings, Jesus may well have also had people who knew him to preach as John did.

Rodahi: Where in the NT, or anywhere else for that matter, does it say that Jesus "rejected the
Baptizer's apocalyptic preachings"?

A: Careful readers will notice a subtle shift throughout the gospels.

There definitely is an obvious shift in the apparent beliefs of the writers from the earliest to the latest. For example, the earliest narrative, known simply as "Mark," depicts Jesus as the herald of the Son of man. The latest, "John," depicts Jesus as a god. (The prophetic sayings of Jesus can be found in ALL the following: Mark, M, L, and Q. They are not found in in the late works: John and Thomas.)

A: There is a short parable in Luke and in Matthew which compares the Baptizer's preaching to a mournful funeral dirge and contrasts Jesus' preaching with the joyful song at a wedding dance. The Baptizer's behavior involved imploring and fasting; Jesus was characterized by feasting and teaching in parables. To Jesus, baptism was no longer necessary and forgiveness was a present reality. The Baptizer looked to the apocalyptic future and mandated baptism for forgiveness.

Why do you suppose this was not included in the earlier Jesus tradition? Also, could Jesus not have felt the arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh had already begun? Further, you are forcing an interpretation that satisfies your preference.

A: There is a break with the past--new wine cannot go into old wineskins and the new cloth cannot be sewn onto old garmets. Even the greatest human being born of a woman (John) is now out of date. God has ordained a new age with Jesus.

There is a break with the past because Jesus said the arrival of the Kingdom of Yahweh was imminent and evidence of it could be seen by those who were "awake."

A: Mark's gospel hints at this, and if Jesus followed the Baptizer, it seems likely that he may well have begun as an apocalyptic prophet. I see in some gospel stories signs of Jesus changing his mind. He became more inclusive after his meeting with the Syro-Phonecian woman who drubbed him in dialogue.

Rodahi: I see an apocalyptic Jesus in Mark, the earliest narrative.

A: Because a source is early does not necessarily guarantee its historical truth.

Yes, but what you prefer comes in LATER tradition--AFTER people began to see that Jesus was wrong in his earlier predictions. (By the way, NOTHING guarantees historical truth with regard to Jesus or the NT. All we can to is evaluate the available evidence.)

A: I must at the same time, however, be alert to the dangers in seeing the failure of apocalyptic after 2000 years of hindsight. I may certainly have a bias in finding something different.

Rodahi: ALL apocalyptics have failed and it started far more than two thousand years ago. Look at the prophets in ancient Egytian literature or the prophets in ancient Hebrew literature. NO ONE can predict what the future holds.

Jesus seemed to predict the coming catastrophe for Jerusalem in 70 AD. That fact is well attested to--especially in Luke.

Jesus also seemed to predict a great number of things that did not come to pass.

A: It didn't take a weatherman to know which way Israel was headed if it didn't change its ways. Jesus had the vision to "predict" it.

According to the most ancient tradition,
1. Jesus spoke almost entirely to a limited number of listeners in Galilee and a few more in Jerusalem.

2. Jesus asked his listeners to repent because the Day of Yahweh was imminent.

3. Just because someone occasionally and successfully predicted something, that did not mean he was a "visionary." Josephus speaks of another Jesus (a man who was considered to be a madman) that predicted calamities for inhabitants of Jerusalem and all of Isreal: "there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that [Passover] feast whereon it is our custom for everyone to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden cry aloud, 'A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and voice against this whole people!' Wars 6.5.3. Jesus was subsequently arrested, refused to speak on his behalf, and was flogged ('he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, 'Woe, woe to Jerusalem!') The procurator Albinus decided Jesus was mad and let him go. Jesus uttered his "woes" for seven years and seven months. He died during the siege.

A: Over the last 200 years we have dealt with the fire-and-brimstone vision of Jesus, only to find it sadly devoid of anything historically useful.

Rodahi: Would you explain WHY you are interested in finding a Jesus you can relate to? Why not let the man stay in his own time and culture?

A: Why "either/or"? Why not both? I can relate to Martin Luther King as well--different time, different culture. Gandhi, too.

Would you explain WHY you are interested in finding a Jesus you can relate to?

A: He may have had some apocalyptic thoughts, but he was also clearly an awesome thinker and a teacher of wisdom in line with the other great teachers who appeared along with him at about the same time in history.

Rodahi: I personally don't think Jesus, presuming he existed, was "an awesome thinker and a teacher of wisdom." He made too many mistakes.

A: Well, he was only human!

Yes, if he existed.

A: His sayings and parables are truly poetically powerful and transforming for me and the non-apocalyptic Jesus is defintely one I can put into practice day by day. I can also plant seeds, knead the dough of the bread of life, see beauty in a weed.

Rodahi: If it makes you feel good, go for it.

A: Thank you! And the same to you!

Fortunately, I don't need Jesus to make me feel good. My family members do a great job of that. (By the way, according to some Jesus followers, Jesus said one must hate his/her family members to be considered his disciple.)



A: This has nothing to do with Christianity or religion but with living a life with integrity and forever open to possibilities.

Rodahi: I am open to possibilities and I think I have integrity, but I don't need to read anything special into what Jesus said or did for either.

Okay. Cool enough.

A: The awesome wonder is not that a world has been changed from darkness to light in a cataclysmic moment of retribution, but that people can be transformed daily into subversive lovers of a troubled world and its troubled people.

Rodahi: What does this have to do with Jesus?

A: Maybe it is a right-brained way of talking in general terms about Jesus' ministry. I am surprised you honestly did not pick up on this!

According to what was written about Jesus, he had difficulty relating to just about everyone: Family, acquaintances, disciples, fellow Jews, the Romans. I fail to see how he brought "light" to anyone.


A: When fundamentalists and evangelicals--especially those in government--start thinking apocalyptically and making quasi-biblical pronouncements regarding the end of the world (as Energy Secretary Watt did and his President Ronald Reagan), I start to be concerned.

Rodahi: You seem to not understand that Jesus lived two thousand years ago and that his (and others) apocalyptic views were erroneous.

A: But I don't think he WAS apocalyptic! He was apocalyptic--NOT!!!!!!

Yes, but you have not presented any solid evidence suggesting that he was not. The NT is full of evidence suggesting that he was.

A: And people are still killing people and/or planning for the end of the world in the name of your apocalyptic!

Don't pin the "apocalyptic" idea on me. It is in the NT and Jewish literature.

One more time: JESUS WAS MISTAKEN. ONLY the deluded think that Jesus meant his apocalyptic message for anyone but his contemporaries. THAT is not my problem.

A: Many evangelicals I know talk about the beatings they received at the hands of their parents and always end with "Well, I deserved it." No child deserves to be hit and no world deserves to be destroyed.

Rodahi: I am opposed to child abuse regardless of who does the abusing. What does this have to do with Jesus?

A: Many evangelicals build a God in their own image, and if Father dearest beats them with a rod or with a firey cosmological end to their world, then they must have deserved it.
Many believers see obedience as a sign of strength. It is actually a dangerous weakness.

This is not Jesus' problem. If he existed, he was executed as a troublemaker almost two thousand years ago. The things he said and did are not relevant and they haven't been for quite a long time--except to the deluded.

rodahi

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: rodahi ]

aikido7

My "evidence to back up this opinion"(that Old Testament prophecies tacked onto the words and deeds of Jesus are the later meddlings of the church) rests on an appeal to common sense, namely, that NOTHING in the OT or ancient sources pertains to Jesus. Such verses must be studied in context from the person or group originally being spoken to.

You ask "Why else was (Jesus) executed as a troublemaker? Certainly, men who preached love, understanding and compassion were not crucified." A good point; no one dies for just being compassionate. A heavy dose of social, economic, political and religious
change is what really threatens the status quo. And justice. And mercy. Ask the followers of Martin Luther King, Jr. "I have a dream" is fine--just stay away from our lunch counters. And read the story of Gandhi's struggle.

And you wonder why the apocalyptic prophet myth fits much better within the context in which Jesus lived than the compassionate rabbi myth. News (even--biblically speaking--"good news") is news only by virtue of its DIFFERENCE. For example, it is NOT news that "Dog Bites Man," but it IS news that "Man Bites Dog." Jesus stands out from his historical context and in these message boards because he was different. Because he did not fit comfortably in his historical setting.

You ask me why I "throw out" textual evidence in ancient MSS pertaining to apocalyptic scenarios. I do not think I do. You seem to continually confuse "throwing out" with a different emphasis on the available texts. I recognize the apocalyptic genre as part of the religious and cultural gestalt that Jesus was born into. A part, though. And one that may not have been emphasized in Jesus' authentic vision.

Before making any claims to "objectivity," we might do well to pay attention to particle physics for a moment, in which an object studied is changed by the mere fact of an observer studying it. Neils Bohr, the Danish nuclear physicist, said there are two kinds of truths: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities, when opposites are obviously absurd. Now you may be asking "What does this have to do with Jesus?" A good question, but one whose answer may elicit not another question but the same one again and again (To paraphrase Sir Francis Bacon: "What is truth?" said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer).

The short parable in question concerning the difference between Jesus and John can be found in Luke 3:31-35 and in Matthew 11:16-19. It can also be found in the sayings source Q and--depending on what you think about its existence or dating--would seem to contradict your insistance that the parable was not included in any earlier source.

Rodahi, you also write that "NOTHING guarantees historical truth with regard to Jesus or the NT. All we can to (sic) is evaluate the available evidence."

What prevents you from seeing my opinion as an evaluation? Granted, I must stand on the shoulders of good scholars and make no claim for absolute truth. I don't know Greek or Aramaic. I cannot read it and I don't do detailed textual studies or handle ancient manuscripts. I can only barely keep up with the writings of those who do. I am granting you the same vantage point, but I try to express my opinions with some integrity and honesty as if I THINK I am right, not as if I KNOW I am. What prevents you from doing likewise? Peter Kirby's last post seems to have picked up on this as well. You remind me of a navagator in a C-130 transport plane during the war who, when the engines went out and he was unsuccessfully attempting to get them started again in a horrendous free fall, told the crew "Boy, have YOU got a problem!" (This is perhaps an opening to a question best asked of ourselves and not on this board.)

"Jesus also seemed to predict a great number of things that did not come to pass" you write.

Cell phones and instant messaging were undoubtedly two of that "great number" he failed to predict but I stand by my assertion that Jesus did predict the Roman War of 70 AD--something he did not need to do by channeling or sending divine emails but by paying attention to what was going on in his world.

Incidently, by "Jesus" do you mean "the real" Jesus, the Jesus of the various communiites who wrote about (and "experienced") him or the Jesus of your personal interpretation? (This is an admitted tangle of questions not meant to be answered on this board)

You finally write "I don't need Jesus to make me feel good. My family members do a great job of that."

It takes a family to raise a child? Keep the village out of it? No babysitters or day care? These questions raise an interesting point about Jesus and the family--if we can let Hillary dangle for just a moment. Jesus made savage attacks on the family values of his day and he did it quite often. A lot of his "shocking" statements on the family have not set well with most Christians--especially of the fundamentalist and Republican type. There is good evidence for connecting the evidential dots to see that Jesus was against the patriarchal family as it was then embedded in first-century culture. He seems to have wanted to get his followers to push their mental and spiritual envelope to look beyond the tribal pedestal of the "family" and consider wider and more inclusive options for what "a family" in God's kingdom really means. But that's another post!

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: aikido7 ]