aikido7

Inauthentic "Jesus speak" is recognizable by scholars through careful comparative reading and common sense. Whenever the exalted savior acts or speaks, scholars assume that Jesus no longer acted or spoke after being put to death. However,some of the sayings of the human being Jesus may have provided some of the sayings of the exalted Christ.

Anytime a law of nature is broken one can be sure that a particular act or feat of Jesus is not historical.

If a particular saying of Jesus can be referenced to the context of a particular community at a particular time (e.g., Mark's account written during the devastation of the Roman war has Jesus on the cross asking why God has forsaken him, while John's Jesus written about 25-30 years later has him proclaiming "It is finished!" from the same cross)--showing how Mark's community was under seige and John's community believed things were a bit more under control, going according to God's plan. The differences raise doubts about historical accuracy.

Since Jesus was a Jew, any saying or action which is said or demonstrated to a Gentile audience is also suspect.

Speech and actions that scholars deem probably came from the historical figure of Jesus if they are seen as distinct from normative Judaism. If a particular saying can be shown to differ markedly from the theology of the post-Easter communities, it is deemed to be authentic. If the saying or action is deemed offensive or embarrassing to the early church (such as Jesus' baptism and his subsequent rejection of the practice), then it is probably historically true. Another scholarly rule of thumb is that the older a saying or action is, the more it has been overlayed by the evangelists to fit Jesus into their particular community issues.

Guidelines and criteria such as these help scholars account for the wide variation in the many "Jesuses" in the New Testament and if a saying can comfortably fit into an agreed-upon picture. Scholars do not always agree, but they can sometimes reach a consensus as to what the basic historical facts are, even though the theories of how those facts fit are quite different.

Your exasperation might be the result of taking two seperate sayings of Jesus at face value and out of context and trying to harmonize them.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

NOGO

Thank you for the info.
I am certainly not exasperated. I am looking to see if any believer can actually give me a reasonable asnwer for the issue that I raised.

I will take you up on the criteria described above. Jesus telling us that he is there ONLY for the lost sheep of Israel is certainly an embarrassment for the early church as it is even today. So according to the criteria stated above this was probably an historic statement and the bit about saving the world was a later embellishment.

My question is this. Is there any reason this conclusion should not be retained given the fact that nothing Jesus says supports the embellishment?

aikido7

I can't help you with the specific statement, although it is well-established today that Jesus stood firmly within his own tradition--so there may be a scholarly consensus that the statement about the lost sheep of Israel is in fact historical.

Jesus probably never thought of himself as the Messiah, the Son of God or divine. And he probably never saw his mission as dying for the sins of the world. Preaching the Kingdom (or Rule) of God was for Jesus paramount; the dying and saving god myth was an overlay of the early church which found some of its justification in Paul's theology.

James Still

This is a very important point and I'm glad you made it. What Jesus believed about his own role as a prophet and/or wisdom teacher to his fellow Jews (his self identification) is a very different thing from the many post-Easter sayings and teachings attributed to him posthumously. It is absurd to think that Jesus considered himself divine since that sort of blasphemy would be very out of place for an itinerant Galilean peasant. Divinity is thrust upon him in the centuries after his death; it is not something he taught about himself. Most everything we know about Jesus is promulgated as an interpretation of his ministry (and even of his death). That's why we are mostly dealing with the realm of faith and meaning rather than historical fact.

Amos

The "walking on water" parable means that Jesus walked on the celestial sea which is the right side of his own mind. The fishing trip took place after the resurrection and is when the recalled apostles caught much on the right side of the boat without tearing their nets. This means that they did not have to think (which is a left brain activity) and found many answers to many things in their right brain. Peter was naked because his faith had just been removed when doubt had been removed and so when Peter put on his cloak of faith and dove into the celestial sea (right side of the brain) he started the new faith in the celestial sea for the conversion of many (new concept).

Jesus died for the Children of Isreal who were lost in the desert until they died nonetheless.

They were, and many today still are, led into the promised land through a premature rebirth of which the parting of the waters is symbolic (this makes Moses a bad guy). Instead we must learn to walk on the celestial sea and never forcefully gain entrance to the promised land and live there with the paradox sinful yet saved until we die. They, like many of us today, must consume scriptures daily because faith will fade and our problem is unbelief much as it was theirs.

Jesus showed the way to the children of Israel of both the OT and those that did or would adopt the OT as grafted branches. He died for the sins of the world means the same if you do not include it to means the sins of 'your' world because if you think that why would Jesus have to show us the way? In other words, we must become a child of Isreal first, either as Jew or as Jew by adoption (of the OT law), and so to die for the Children of Israel is to die for us all and show us the way so we do not get lost and die nonetheless.

Amos

NOGO

Very interesting! I believe that deep inside you are as much a skeptic as I am.
Kingdom (Rule) of God? Are you talking about Yahweh?
Are you talking about the same god who wiped out numerous defenceless children in order to force the Egyptians to let the Israelites go. The one who preferred killing Children rather that wiping out the Egyptian army which he later had to do anyway? The one who made this (the children massacre not the army) into a national feast which Jesus celebrated? The same God who needs blood sacrifices in order to forgive sins. No!, I am not talking about the animal sacrifices of the OT... I am talking about Jesus?
Is this the God that you are talking about?


Really, and which WAY is that? Do you follow the OT law?
Where did you learn that a human sacrifice and a little blood is what it takes for the sins of the world to be forgiven?

Did you see my point about Mt 15:24
Jesus refused to do anything for the woman because he was sent ONLY for the children of the Israel.
"Sent ONLY for".
You can twist words and meaning into anything that you want. Jesus makes a fundamental claim here as to the nature of his mission.

Here is another example.
The quote below simply does not sound like an invitation for the rest of the world.

Matthew 10 5, 6 and 23
v5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.
v6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
v23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.


There is simply no time for other nations here because the end of the world is expected before the disciples complete the job.

aikido7

Jesus preached the Kingdom of God, revealing it to his listeners in the form of parable.

His conception of God was one that certainly found some resonance among many of his followers, because he parabolically tied that conception to everyday peasant realities like baking bread, farming and the monetary system of his day. Jesus seems to have been trying to evoke a God who is unclean, hidden away and is acting within the world in mysterious ways. Even though Jesus compared God to a loving father, his parables remind us that any of our ideas of God (or how the world works) are bound to be frustrated.

Jesus accessed his particular conception of the divine during a unique period in his culture's zeitgeist. For many, it was a conception that made sense. It was a god that "worked for them."

Many people--believers and skeptics alike--can become frustrated with the cognitive dissonance that arises when one tries to take the Bible and its many conceptions of the divine too literally.
Most back off at the initial frustration and retreat into their own mythology to "weather the storm" in a church and/or among peers.

Perhaps Jesus was telling people that when the storm comes, get up and be a wanderer.

NOGO

You certainly have a most unique debating style.
You also agree that Jesus celebrated Passover the day before he died and that he was referring to Yahweh when he talked about his Father in heaven with all that this implies. Yet, you will not allow yourself to draw any conclusions regarding any of the so called "dissonance" in the Bible.

How do you figure that my position has any "cognitive dissonance"? How do you figure that I have retreated into my "own mythology" as you put it? And what is the "storm" that I am supposed to be weathering?

aikido7

In John's account, the last supper is before Passover, and it is not presented as a model of Christian faith. In fact, in John Jesus "institutes" foot-washing instead.

Jesus talked about "his Father in heaven with all that JESUS HIMSELF implied."

I am not aware that I have not drawn any conclusions regarding "dissonance" or contradictions in the Bible, but maybe I have. If you mention a specific incident, NOGO, then I will be glad to talk about it with you.

I was not talking about you; please read the post carefully.

In my own case, especially if it concerns a closely-held and cherished belief, I will tend to hold onto that "non-useful" belief--even if confronted with unassailable evidence to the contrary. My own mythology is often more comforting to me than trying to face a new truth--with all the creaks and groans of what new learning and thinking about that new truth may entail.

It is too easy for most of us to just "hunker down and batten the hatches" rather than to seize initiative, let go of some fears and get up and walk around in the new climate.

Literalists--both of the skeptical and fundamentalist kind--have a harder time with this in the post-modern information glut.

[ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

NOGO

This is the kind of selectivity ie "In John's account" that I was referring to in my original post.
So did Jesus celebrate passover or not?

This is a way of avoiding the issue. Jesus read the Bible (our OT) which described the same God (YHWH) which Christians believe in. Jesus referred to YHWH as Father with all that the Bible (OT) implies. You are again being selective. You are saying that what matters is what Jesus perceived his God to be and not what is in the OT.

Try this one.
Jesus celebrated passover which is a celebration of innocent children being murdered and it is difficult to see why. These children were not holding back the Israelites in slavery the aduslts were and especially the army which had to be destroyed anyway. So why not destroy the army to beging with and spare the innocent children. Ah! God works in mysterious ways.

Jesus called YHWH Father who sent him OLNY for the children of Israel. (Mt 15:24)

Jesus tells his disciples to preach ONLY to the children of Israel. (see Mt 10)

When Jesus asked his disciples "Who do you think that I am?" Peter answered "you are the anointed one of God". (see OT for definition)

This is not the Jesus the Christian churches preach about. Since these are embarrassment to the early church and indeed today's churches then they can be said to be historical by your own criteria.