Jayhawker Soule

That was helpful and I, apparently, wrong. Thank you.

Metacrock

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Celsus
[B]Nice straw man you have there Metacrock. Does it scare the birds away? I asked:

I await a proper response
Meta => You didn't make that clear.Since there is an argument people make form time to time that it didn't exist, I thougnt that was what you were getting at.


why couldnl't Jesus be both, a Nazarian and a Nazarene? I don't care if you expose his Essene roots, I beleive he had them! I absolutely believe that the early chruch evolved out of the heterodox Judaism, and I further believe that the Karaites have a better claim to the Jewish tradition than the talmudists, or at least no less so (I know that will piss off all kinds of Jews on the board--what I know , I'm a protestant?)


IN fact I believe that that is why the heterodox sects disappeared after AD 70, becasue they either died fighting the Romans, or became jewish-christians. But a small group reamined and became the Karaites.


Here's a question for you


Why would they try to cover up their heterodox roots? Jesus didn't make any secret of the fact that he disapproved of the Phrisees. The "heterodox" had just as much claim to being "orhtodox" as did the Pharisees. Moreover, by the time the Gosoples were written the chruch was segmented from the Jews anyway. So what did they have to hide?

Celsus

I'm glad you accept his Essene roots. Of course it's possible that Jesus was both a Nazorean and Nazarene. We have insufficient evidence from the first century to prove anything one way or another. However, when we've got the faintly traceable Nazorean sect (Acts 24:5), the convoluted Matthean story (2:23), Eisenman's big wordplay on the N-Z-R roots, Sid Green's (forthcoming) examination of where words are covered up (and where they were not--as in the case of the omission of Matthew 2:23, because it (apparently) cites Scripture); then we have typical first century confusion. That means, it is probable, if not plausible that the fact was uncomfortable for early Christians, and it was hidden.
You are approaching the question from the wrong terms. The answer probably lies along these lines: If Jesus is God, then he cannot have been influenced by a sect, much less have followed the dictums of an already extant sect, at least in the eyes of the Gospel authors. Indeed, any lifestyles of the sect are written as originating from Jesus, rather than from Essene or Nazorean practice. All traces of the influences on Jesus had to be written out to create this illusion of authority. It is not a question of whether they were heterodox or orthodox. It is all part and parcel of legendary development.

Joel

Metacrock

But to be a Jew he had to be some sect. There was no such thing as generic. Besides, it would feed into the incornational theology of a truely human, truely divine savior to be form human roots and have human culture. Well, maybe.

Vinnie

Your welcome.

Vinnie

Metacrock

I started a new thread summarizing what I think is the strongest evidence for HJ.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=51974

NOGO

I really do not have a problem with this statement, however, if this is all that is claimed then we would not be discussing this would we? Jesus would be see as so many other founders like John Smith and others.

The question is why did the followers eventually claim that they saw him after his death etc?

These same people said that Jesus thought that the Kingdon of God was imminent. It did not happen, so why should I believe that he resurrected?

My problem here is one of credibility.

Metacrock

Meta => The kingdom was immanent, and it did come. The problem is, the firsrt century Jewish expectations were so laden with political hopes of liberation from Rome that they could only understand the Kingdom in those terms.

As latter theologians would say, the Kingdom of God has an "aleady" dimension and a "not yet" dimension. The fancy term for this is "relaized eschatology." All that means is that the Kingdom came in the sesne of power of God in the life of the believer through the Spirit. That is seen in Penticost and in the gifts. But they confussed it with the end of the age.

Jesus himself never said "this is the end of the age." There's a gloss on a verse in Matt 13 I think. But even there he doesn't say when. When they asked him the day and the hour he said he didn't know. So he never claimed that the end of the age was at hand. He claimed the Kingdom of God was at hand, and through the power of the Spirit, it was, and is still.

Vorkosigan

As latter theologians would say, the Kingdom of God has an "aleady" dimension and a "not yet" dimension. The fancy term for this is "relaized eschatology." All that means is that the Kingdom came in the sesne of power of God in the life of the believer through the Spirit. That is seen in Penticost and in the gifts. But they confussed it with the end of the age.

Sheer rationalization. The Bible is extremely clear that Jesus and his followers expected that their eschatology would be realized within their own lifetimes. The solution you've proposed is a rationalization designed to deal with cognitive disssonance.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

The alredy but not yet kingdom of God

It looked like harmonization but maybe Meta can offer up a discussion on this?

I think John meier argues that the mistaken timetable stems from an early Prophet in the church (I didn't get that far in Vol. 2 yet).

E.P. Sanders puts forth the strongest arguments I've seen that Jesus was mistaken but Crossan thinks Christians created the datum through meditation on Zech 12:10 and then moved to combine Daniel 7:13 with that prophecy. Crossan makes a pretty compelling case and it has forced me to rethink my stance.

The bible? Did Jesus expect the kingdom to come soon, Mr. HJ Agnostic?

Why is Meta's argument that some followers of Jesus confused material a necessary rationaliztion? I understand that virtually no Christian is willing to cope with Jesus being wrong on something but there could be good argumntation behind this. Or was Crossan rationalizing as well?

Vinine