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.

Aikido7: 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.

No, I meant what I said.

Aikido7: But the fact is we are both sitting in front of computer monitors trying to listen to someone in first-century Palestine

On the contrary! I am sitting in front of a computer screen trying to explain my views about a person who died almost two thousand years ago, like Apollonius of Tyana. I don't hear anything. It is you who is "listening." Why, I don't know.

rodahi

rodahi: 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: 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.

Wait a minute. There is evidence in Mark, M, L, Q, and Jewish pseudepigraphical literature which supports the view that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet type. This IS across-the-board textual evidence from primitive sources. It is not something I have to conjecture over or fashion. If the evidence wasn't there, I wouldn't be presenting it. Your view is NOT supported across-the-board by the most primitive sources, nor Jewish pseudepigraphical literatrure that PREDATES Mark, M, L, and Q. Your view is supported by a few scholars who think they see a primitive source in Q which exonerates Jesus and makes him a nice, peaceful rabbi who was loving and compassionate. If life (and Jesus) were only that simple.

Aikido7: 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 only presenting what the text SAYS, not what I WANT it to say.

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

Aikido7: 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.

Why "look beneath the surface" for anything? What is wrong with looking at what the text SAYS?

Aikido7: 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.

Of course it is a game! But, I disagree that the object is to keep it going. My objective is to find out who Jesus was--warts and all. If we ever find out, in the long run, all would be winners.

rodahi

Toto

It is interesting that the Jesus Seminar tends to reject the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus. See The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics by Robert Miller, posted by James Still on another thread.

That is very true, and I have alluded to this fact numerous times on this and other threads. Other scholars, such as Albert Schweitzer, Charles Guignebert, A. H. Silver, and Bart D. Ehrman make a persuasive case for an apocalyptic Jesus. In my opinion, there is far more evidence supporting the apocalyptic prophet type than there is for the wandering peace-loving, Jewish teacher type.

I have yet to see a good explanation of why the latter type would have stirred up such hatred and resentment against him among his own people and others that it would have led to his execution. On the other hand, if Jesus had been an angry and confrontational self-styled prophet/magician with a superiority complex who ALSO predicted the imminent overthrow of the current power players in Palestine by the Most High and the Son of man, then his execution as a trouble maker would make good sense. In fact, where is there evidence that peace-loving, wandering Jewish teachers were ever executed for being peace-loving, wandering Jewish teachers?

But, is there evidence that the prophet/magician types were ever executed? Yes! According to Josephus, "Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time [ca. 44-46 CE] of Cuspius Fadus' government." Antiquities 20.5.1

Also, why would scribes, through redaction, wish to make a good, peace-loving rabbi into the angry apocalyptic prophet type we see in Mark, M, L, and Q? It seems to me, the more primitive the tradition, the more emotional and confrontational Jesus becomes, rather than the other way around.

Obviously, I don't know if Jesus was a good guy or not, but the available evidence seems to suggest that he was not.

rodahi

Toto

An alternative explanation is that, if in fact Jesus was a real person, the crucifixion under the Romans was added on to his story by Mark for dramatic effect, and he actually died in his sleep. The resurrection was borrowed from the pagan mysteries by early Christians, and picked up by Paul. There is very little evidence to support this theory, but there is very little credible evidence for anything.

I am not here to argue for or against a historical Jesus, but I see no good reason why a writer, probably representing the views of a religious community, would want to create a religious hero like the one depicted in Mark. He is highly problematic.

Also, presuming Jesus was a historical person, why would any writer or religious community wish to add a fictitious ending that would have the hero do the following:
1. Become extremely anxious about the possibility of imminent arrest and execution (a very human thing to do). We read in Mark: "And they went to a place which was called Gethsem'ane; and he said to his disciples, 'Sit here, while I pray.' And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. And he said to them, 'My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.' And going on a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, 'Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.'" (14:32-36) Within an hour or so, armed men came to arrest Jesus to stand trial.
2. Question the god he (and Mark's community) so devoutly believed in (a very human thing to do). Mark: "And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, 'E'lo-i, E'lo-i, la'ma sabach-tha'ni? which means, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'...And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last." (15:33-37) Another tradition has Jesus cry out, "My power, my power, you have abandoned me."

Certainly, the above could be fictive elements, added to Mark's narrative (which could be completely or partially fictional) for dramatic effect. But the questions remain: 1) What kind of religious hero would express such deep anxiety about his possible arrest, trial, and execution? 2) What kind of religious hero would question the very god who plays such a prominent role in his own religion?

rodahi

Originally posted by rodahi:
rodahi: 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.

Jesus saw a coming catastrophe. I think he was talking about the inevitable social chaos around him which eventually slid into the Roman/Jewish War after his death. But he also felt, preached and demonstrated the power of God (Luke 11:20). In his turbulent times he was presenting a choice. Repent and faith or side with what he saw as evil. The Pharisees wanted him to show signs from heaven to bolster his claims. He refused, pointing to prophetic signs on the earth (Matthew 16:1-4 and Luke 12:54-56}. In this sense he was not an apocalyptic.


Wait a minute. There is evidence in Mark, M, L, Q, and Jewish pseudepigraphical literature which supports the view that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet type. This IS across-the-board textual evidence from primitive sources.

You are correct; there is other biblical evidence which does support your view. The sources we have, unfortunately, are not a seamless whole. The New Testament accounts, particularly, are a dense weave of history and theology and each gospel evangelist had his/her own agenda.

It is not something I have to conjecture over or fashion. If the evidence wasn't there, I wouldn't be presenting it.

I certainly don't fault you for presenting your evidence, Rodahi! There is a difference between evidence in the text, fashioning evidence and presenting conjectures based on the evidence. And I certainly continue to appreciate and support you in presenting any evidence that you find. I just don't always agree with your arrangement of the pieces of the puzzle.

Your view is NOT supported across-the-board by the most primitive sources, nor Jewish pseudepigraphical literatrure that PREDATES Mark, M, L, and Q.

Let us remember that "across the board" is an imprecise and very malleable term: what appears to be "across the board" for one person would not be the same for another. It implies to me a sweeping and airtight consensus. I don't think scholarship--especially biblical scholarship--always works that way.

Your view is supported by a few scholars who think they see a primitive source in Q which exonerates Jesus and makes him a nice, peaceful rabbi who was loving and compassionate. If life (and Jesus) were only that simple.

You don't get crucified for saying "Love your enemies." The "few scholars" you are alluding to may or may not support my view.

I am only presenting what the text SAYS, not what I WANT it to say...I am not interested in what the Christian church's mission is. I am interested in who Jesus was.

That is certainly a valid presentation and an interest in which we are on common ground.

Why "look beneath the surface" for anything? What is wrong with looking at what the text SAYS?

Because there are usually more than one level beyond the concretization of textual studies. Things like context, agenda and our own prejudices become just as--if not more--important. And I did not mean to imply you are wrong in your approach. Just different, that's all.

Of course it is a game! But, I disagree that the object is to keep it going. My objective is to find out who Jesus was--warts and all. If we ever find out, in the long run, all would be winners.

I have news for you: we will not, finally, ever "find out who Jesus was." Your purpose may be to win, mine is to continue and improve the game. Conventional wisdom says winners exclude losers and "winner takes all." Another kind of wisdom says winning is shared and celebrated and open to all and winners teach losers better plays.

I find Jesus interesting and provocative. And I find Jesus' warts interesting and provocative. And I find your posts interesting and provocative, Rodahi. This does not mean that I think you are Jesus. Only Ralph Nader is.

The message posting above contains only the thoughts, opinions and feelings of aikido7. Any attempt to frame or construe the above as gospel truth will be rejected laughingly by its author

Dear Aikido7,

We have each made our point. I apologize if you think I was too agressive in my presentation of MY views or insensitive to yours. Thank you for the discussion. (For what it is worth, Ralph Nader was a hero of mine in the seventies. To some extent, he still is.)

rodahi

offa;, I got this from The Recognitions of Clement, Book vi,
chap. iv the words of St. Peter;
[b]
"For it is necessary that, for the sake of salvation, the son,
for example, who has received the word of truth, be separated
from his unbelieving parents; or again, that the father be
separated from the mother. And in this manner the battle of
knowledge, and ignorance, of truth and error, arises between
believing and unbelieving kinsman and relations. And therefore
He who has sent us said again, 'I am not come to send peace
on earth, but a sword.'"

offa; "It sounds to me like Jesus' Love is a political
philosophy, that exalts the cult above the rights of the
establishment." It is like how the Christians (and Catholics
in case Amos reads this) took over the Americas and that was
alright because it was Christian thing to do.

Thanks Offa,