Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
10-06-2008, 03:47 PM | #51 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Quote:
This is what I think is meant in the synoptics. Later christians took these texts and instead began to look for a literal coming where Jesus/the Lord would actually be seen. i'm not sure about the reference to Saul. What is it? |
||
10-06-2008, 04:31 PM | #52 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA
Posts: 3,370
|
I stand corrected.
|
10-06-2008, 10:59 PM | #53 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Posts: 12
|
Thanks to the replies to my question, much appreciated, I am learning !
My understanding that the term/word Christ/us is a title ? And if so when any reference is made by Josephus/Pliny/Tacitus to Christ/us does it necessarily mean that Jesus (Biblical) is being referred to ? Jesus bar Abba/s (Barrabas) was also around at the time, could it not be that it was he that was referred to as being on the receiving end of Pilate's bad treatment ? Graham |
10-07-2008, 02:02 AM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 874
|
Quote:
I don't know if this is part and parcel of the Danielic image of the coronation of one like the Son of Man -- in Daniel the coming refers to a change in order (a "new order") on earth marked by the Son of Man "coming to the Ancient of Days" in heaven. With two apparently alternative views in the OT of what the coming of the Lord meant, neither of which fits the modern understanding, I don't think it is safe to be too quick to assume our common understanding of the literal meaning in Mark is what was originally meant. -- especially given the problems the modern literal interpretation does raise -- as per the OP, which I don't think has been completely put to rest by any of the usual explanations offered. Neil |
|
10-13-2008, 04:42 PM | #55 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: England
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Responses that I have seen, include the partial preterist idea of splitting up the verses and having two different "comings". I haven't seen much in the way of evidence for that. Another preterist idea that I have seen is that the judgement being talked about in Matthew 25 etc. is something that everyone enters after they die, rather than it being an event in history where the Son of man turns up and everyone alive or dead gets judged at that time. But if you place it outside of being an historical event, you're interpreting the prophecy in such a way so that it can't be verified or falsified which looks very suspicious. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
10-14-2008, 12:28 AM | #56 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Africa
Posts: 12
|
Please help me here ............... why is Jesus referred to as the Son of man, my understanding is that he has always been sold to us as the Son of God ?
Perhaps I have looked past the obvious, but just not making sense to me :huh: Graham |
10-14-2008, 07:54 AM | #57 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
|
Quote:
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.(KJV) |
|
10-14-2008, 01:46 PM | #58 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
1 Samuel 22 ?
Neil was that reference right? I can't see any mention of the Lord coming. Quote:
Maybe others share it. Who were you thinking of? |
|
10-14-2008, 07:06 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 525
|
Quote:
|
|
10-17-2008, 07:46 PM | #60 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 874
|
Quote:
He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. If we read Daniel 7:13 (one like the Son of Man coming in clouds) and Mark 13 within the literary tradition of the above and following citations we begin to see how Mark 13 can quite naturally refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. -- the end of the Jewish/Mosaic/Temple kingdom, allowing "Christians" to claim inheritance of the new kingdom thus ushered in. Isa 30:27 - See, the Name of the Lord comes from afar, with burning anger and dense clouds of smoke; his lips are full of wrath, and his tongue is a consuming fire. Jer 4:13 - Look! He advances like the clouds, his chariots come like a whirlwind, his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us! We are ruined! Divine judgment, immediately administered by conquering armies, is really from the clouds of heaven . . . Jer 51:9 - Other passages where the "day of the Lord comes" or appears or with judgment and clouds symbolizing or directing human military conquest below --- Eze 30:3 -We also have metaphoric uses of "seeing God" from the same literary circuit: Job 42:5And Mark's gospel is, of course, the gospel of metaphor par excellence -- in particular metaphors of seeing and hearing. Galilee is the metaphor of the kingdom of God -- where Jesus is to "be seen" after his resurrection. It is also interesting, I think, that at the Transiguration in Mark's gospel, that some disciples are allowed to see the kingdom of God in power (with clouds) but only for a moment. Suddenly the reader is drawn to the scene of the same disciples looking around and seeing no-one anymore. The vision was only momentary. It was there but then not there. Yet the kingdom of God is still "at hand", with them, in Jesus, as demonstrated immediately afterwards by his power contrasted with their impotence. The kingdom was seen coming in clouds and it was there with them, but not seen any more. After Jesus' resurrection he was "seen" again in 70 c.e. according to the narrative. Quote:
Neil |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|