CJD

First, we must keep in mind Neusner's (among other Hebraists) staunch opinion that it is a matter of "Judaisms" — not Judaism. The same goes for "messiahs" — not Messiah (hence no 'traditional' messiah). They were saying that this Jesus, who they believed to be God's Messiah, the one through whom YHWH would do what he always said he would do (i.e., keep the covenant), is the one in whom the goal, purpose, or telos of all that came before in YHWH's dealings with his people were realized. This involved, no doubt, some reassessment regarding their own messianic expectations.

This too is what the "McDowell-types" are missing: earlier conceptions were not wrong; but for whatever reason, the NT authors thought they were incomplete, that is, not completely and robustly Israelite, covenantal, and Yahwistic.

Best,

CJD

CJD

I said not to confuse the two. I am talking about learning how to read a particular pericope in its ANE context, which does not allow us to adopt "McDowell-type" hermeneutics. Do not let them influence your reading of the text. Start by attempting to presuppose a first-century view of the world so your own biases (i.e., your disdain for much modern Christian 'apologetics') are kept in check.

This will lead you to see, for example, that when Jesus is recorded quoting passages from the TNK he is not saying, "These things were originally uttered about me"; rather, he is saying, "My life, my work, my vocation, embodies this, and as such, expect to experience that to which [the prophet] spoke."

By the way, this is one major facet of what "repent" meant: It's not about "feeling sorry for your sins and inviting Jesus into your heart"; it is about repenting, that is, "Turn from your way of doing and thinking about how God's kingdom comes, and follow my way, the way of walking the extra mile, turning the cheek, and giving your tunic too when your cloak is taken," etc.

Do you get it?

Best,

CJD

John A. Broussard

Certainly there was a need, early on, for Christians to want the myth that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. since Jews were the ones to whom the converts were appealing.

Later, and certainly at the present day, there's no need to advance any such arguments, since the various Christian denominations that proselityze are aiming at gentiles. But the need persists, somehow, to insist on biblical inerrancy, so we plough grimly on with new interpretations.

Simply stated--if Christ is god, what in the world difference does it make whether or not his mission was predicted beforehand?

Amaleq13

CJD,


Thanks for the clarification. It sounds reasonable to me.

sharon45

I already keep myself in check. I take this very seriously and I do not in any way wish to be deceived by anyone especially myself. Afterall, I have nothing to gain except knowledge for an interest of mine as its only reward.

This is not true in all cases however. In some examples, yes it could be seen as such, as long as it isn't that percise. With regard to specifically important long awaited prophecies, there is no excuse, because these are blatant lies.

As I pointed out before with an another example elsewhere about coins, jesus is minting his own coins modeled as though they were officially authorized and backed by a certain well known government. Just because he can try to do this while silently excusing himself as only passing off the embodiment of that county's currency, it is still a deception, it is still a counterfeit coin.

This makes a mockery of established institutions whereas just about anybody could attempt to become or do almost anything camouflaged in their own created theories and ideas for their appointment and defense.

Yes, I get it. I got that part a long time ago. It is about some of what jesus speaks of, but by far not everything. If he would have just stopped there in his teachings without ever bothering trying to correlate himself within Jewish laws and prophecies, he would have been at least more consistent while also making a more meaningful connection and contribution to society. Instead, his ego allowed him to overreach far beyond his abilities and stability. He turned out to be the weed seeds on good soil that the ignorant spread across the world.

sharon45

In paul's leters, his focus was more on the gentiles though

Tradition and extra legitimacy being associated with its very strong origins, that of a further long-standing established religion with supposedly the same god in operation. Unknowingly, this is a double-edged sword. One of which is not noticed with enough faith instilled.

Skeptical

That's an interesting perspective, and I tend to agree it is probably closer to what Jesus actually thought and believed than any of the later mythical acretions.

However, this is definitely not how the Christian church has traditionally approached Jesus, at least since the writing of Matthew. In fact, in many cases the focus comes down to simple hero worship and very little focus on anything related to a message. "Believe in me and you shall be saved" seems to translate basically into "believe I died for you and that's all you need", the message, whatever it was, is essentially irrelevant.

I think this is probably due in large part to the work and beliefs of Paul. Paul, having never met Jesus, could only focus on the "heavenly" or "resurrected" Jesus in order to solidify his position as a leader of equal stature with the early followers in Jeruselem. Based on my own research, it seems like Christian traditions owe much more to Paul than Jesus.

The most interesting questions about the early Jesus movement, in my view, is what Paul was doing and saying and what the other leaders in the movement thought about what Paul was doing and saying.

CJD

See, I tend to think that what you describe from here is largely a early modern to modern development. You're absolutely right, though. Whatever the message was, it is largely rendered irrelevant by the "believe I died for you and that's all you need" revivalistic jargon so prevalent in the modern church.

What would you say if I imagined to have gotten it from Paul's writings?

CJD

Skeptical

Actually, I think it was an early development, though I am prepared to be incorrect. I say this because the author of Matthew certainly seems to take the perspective of "Jesus as Messiah" to an extreme, sifting through the HB to find anything that could remotely be applied to Jesus. Eusebius also certainly takes this approach, basically identifying any use of the word "annointed" in the HB as a reference to Jesus, although obviously his input is far later than Mat.

My interpretation of these ideas is that it is a "christianization" of Jesus, probably mythical accretion and probably not well grounded in the original ideas and message of Jesus. This is not equivalent to the modern message, but I see it laying the groundwork and sufficiently eroding whatever the early message of Jesus was to make any attempts to find it in the modern era merely speculative.

Based on what I have read from scholars like Crossan, Ehrman and others, I tend to think that one can "find" whatever Jesus one wants to find because the mythical acretions have so obscured the original message that we wouldn't know we had found it even if we had.

Actually, I have gotten the exact opposite idea from the writings of Paul.

In fact, I suspect that Paul may have been the originator of much of the mythical acretions about Jesus, though I admit it is speculative in many areas. Without doubt, Paul seemed to have no concerns for the earthly Jesus and he had some disputes with the early Jesus movement in Jeruselem, though to what extent the disputes were serious we will never know.

I've read "Paul the Mythmaker" and found it interesting, but again speculative in many areas, and I know there are many scholars who take counter positions. The problem, in my opinion, is that we simply cannot make much out of what Paul thought from what Paul said in his letters. First, the letters were undoubtedly written for specific purposes to specific groups, so gleaning generalities out of them to apply them to general principles is dangerous. Also, they are very limited in number, which makes it even more dangerous.

All things considered, the letters of Paul are the best evidence we have of the early Jesus movement, but I don't think they are good evidence from which to draw broad conclusions. I'm sure it is possible to break down individual elements in Paul's writings and have them show what you are arguing, but I am equally sure you can do the same thing to show the opposite. With the limited information we have, I just don't see how we can know which is more likely to be correct.

John A. Broussard

Most serious of all is the fact that we don't have the original letters. Who's to say what was added or subtracted by the many copiers who came between those original letters and the extant manuscripts (written years later than the originals) which we have today?