Christofer:-6
I would suggest to you that you obtain a copy of J. D. Crossan's book "The Historical Jesus an Eastern Mediterranean Peasant". He explains in great detail how such determinations are arrived at.
It has to do with multiple attestations and consistency of message.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Who is right?
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
Some how I knew you would reference a book - lol -
I will check it out - but I do have to say - I don't think that we can look at the people of the first century and make any determinations about a historical Jesus considering Jesus existed before the first century before He came in the flesh...
He was not and is not like any other man of any time - is He?
I will check it out - but I do have to say - I don't think that we can look at the people of the first century and make any determinations about a historical Jesus considering Jesus existed before the first century before He came in the flesh...
He was not and is not like any other man of any time - is He?
Who is right?
Christofer wrote: He was not and is not like any other man of any time - is He? :)The church has always, rightly, insisted that Jesus was fully human, whatever else he additionally was.
If you'll excuse a large quote, this from the first chapter of "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" by Albert Schweitzer gives a good background to the concept of the relevance of the historical Jesus at various stages of the church's development:
There came a Man to rule over the world; He ruled it for good and for ill, as history testifies; He destroyed the world into which He was born; the spiritual life of our own time seems like to perish at His hands, for He leads to battle against our thought a host of dead ideas, a ghostly army upon which death has no power, and Himself destroys again the truth and goodness which His Spirit creates in us, so that it cannot rule the world. That He continues, notwithstanding, to reign as the alone Great and alone True in a world of which He denied the continuance, is the prime example of that antithesis between spiritual and natural truth which underlies all life and all events, and in Him emerges into the field of history.
It is only at first sight that the absolute indifference of early Christianity towards the life of the historical Jesus is disconcerting. When Paul, representing those who recognise the signs of the times, did not desire to know Christ after the flesh, that was the first expression of the impulse of self-preservation by which Christianity continued to be guided for centuries. It felt that with the introduction of the historic Jesus into its faith, there would arise something new, something which had not been foreseen in the thoughts of the Master Himself, and that thereby a contradiction would be brought to light, the solution of which would constitute one of the great problems of the world.
Primitive Christianity was therefore right to live wholly in the future with the Christ who was to come, and to preserve of the historic Jesus only detached sayings, a few miracles, His death and resurrection. By abolishing both the world and the historical Jesus it escaped the inner division described above, and remained consistent in its point of view. We, on our part, have reason to be grateful to the early Christians that, in consequence of this attitude they have handed down to us, not biographies of Jesus but only Gospels, and that therefore we possess the Idea and the Person with the minimum of historical and contemporary limitations.
But the world continued to exist, and its continuance brought this one-sided view to an end. The supra-mundane Christ and the historical Jesus of Nazareth had to be brought together into a single personality at once historical and raised above time. That was accomplished by Gnosticism and the Logos Christology. Both, from opposite standpoints, because they were seeking the same goal, agreed in sublimating the historical Jesus into the supra-mundane Idea. The result of this development, which followed on the discrediting of eschatology, was that the historical Jesus was again introduced into the field of view of Christianity, but in such a way that all justification for, and interest in, the investigation of His life and historical personality were done away with.
Greek theology was as indifferent in regard to the historical Jesus who lives concealed in the Gospels as was the early eschatological theology. More than that, it was dangerous to Him; for it created a new supernatural-historical Gospel, and we may consider it fortunate that the Synoptics were already so firmly established that the Fourth Gospel could not oust them; instead, the Church, as though from the inner necessity of the antitheses which now began to be a constructive element in her thought, was obliged to set up two antithetic Gospels alongside of one another.The online copy at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/ is an early and comparatively easy way to browse into the topic.
If you'll excuse a large quote, this from the first chapter of "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" by Albert Schweitzer gives a good background to the concept of the relevance of the historical Jesus at various stages of the church's development:
There came a Man to rule over the world; He ruled it for good and for ill, as history testifies; He destroyed the world into which He was born; the spiritual life of our own time seems like to perish at His hands, for He leads to battle against our thought a host of dead ideas, a ghostly army upon which death has no power, and Himself destroys again the truth and goodness which His Spirit creates in us, so that it cannot rule the world. That He continues, notwithstanding, to reign as the alone Great and alone True in a world of which He denied the continuance, is the prime example of that antithesis between spiritual and natural truth which underlies all life and all events, and in Him emerges into the field of history.
It is only at first sight that the absolute indifference of early Christianity towards the life of the historical Jesus is disconcerting. When Paul, representing those who recognise the signs of the times, did not desire to know Christ after the flesh, that was the first expression of the impulse of self-preservation by which Christianity continued to be guided for centuries. It felt that with the introduction of the historic Jesus into its faith, there would arise something new, something which had not been foreseen in the thoughts of the Master Himself, and that thereby a contradiction would be brought to light, the solution of which would constitute one of the great problems of the world.
Primitive Christianity was therefore right to live wholly in the future with the Christ who was to come, and to preserve of the historic Jesus only detached sayings, a few miracles, His death and resurrection. By abolishing both the world and the historical Jesus it escaped the inner division described above, and remained consistent in its point of view. We, on our part, have reason to be grateful to the early Christians that, in consequence of this attitude they have handed down to us, not biographies of Jesus but only Gospels, and that therefore we possess the Idea and the Person with the minimum of historical and contemporary limitations.
But the world continued to exist, and its continuance brought this one-sided view to an end. The supra-mundane Christ and the historical Jesus of Nazareth had to be brought together into a single personality at once historical and raised above time. That was accomplished by Gnosticism and the Logos Christology. Both, from opposite standpoints, because they were seeking the same goal, agreed in sublimating the historical Jesus into the supra-mundane Idea. The result of this development, which followed on the discrediting of eschatology, was that the historical Jesus was again introduced into the field of view of Christianity, but in such a way that all justification for, and interest in, the investigation of His life and historical personality were done away with.
Greek theology was as indifferent in regard to the historical Jesus who lives concealed in the Gospels as was the early eschatological theology. More than that, it was dangerous to Him; for it created a new supernatural-historical Gospel, and we may consider it fortunate that the Synoptics were already so firmly established that the Fourth Gospel could not oust them; instead, the Church, as though from the inner necessity of the antitheses which now began to be a constructive element in her thought, was obliged to set up two antithetic Gospels alongside of one another.The online copy at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/ is an early and comparatively easy way to browse into the topic.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
I will have to check this out too - however - I still don't see why we would believe Jesus would fit into an historical profile when He wasn't a first century man - but the Son of God who existed before the world. (Unless, of course, you don't believe that He existed before He was born as the Son of God.)
Who is right?
christofer:-6
A lot of scholarship has gone by since AS published his book. He certainly does not fit in with the thinking of theologians today. We have far more knowledge then they did in his day.
Present thinking is that Jesus of Nazareth was probably born in Nazareth, doubts notwithstanding, and grew to an age of 33 to 36 before his crucifixion. He was born naturally to parents named Joseph and Mary and eventually became a carpenter before starting on his ministry.
He was a fully human being who lived in and had a special relationship, as did all the prophets, with God; a spirit person, a healer, and exocist, a miracle worker once again doubts not withstanding.
In this man we saw the fulness of God manifested and the OT must be read in light of this not against it. After his death he was exalted to the Godhead. We do not know what actually happened at Easter but whatever it was it was very profound and has influenced man ever since. In some way or another they continued to sense his presence with them as have millions since.
Terms like "Son of God" are metaphorical because by its very nature we do not have the language to define or describe Divinty. It is beyond our language and conceptualization ability.
We can know more then the scriptures tell us by looking at the history and culture of the day. History being what it is makes any day to day accounting of his life impossible with perhaps his last week which is well outlined in the Gospels though keeping in mind that they were written some 30 to 70 years after his death. This makes the Gospels a composition of history remembered and history metaphorized. Nor do we know who the evangelists, who wrote the gospels, actually were.
Shalom
Ted:-6
A lot of scholarship has gone by since AS published his book. He certainly does not fit in with the thinking of theologians today. We have far more knowledge then they did in his day.
Present thinking is that Jesus of Nazareth was probably born in Nazareth, doubts notwithstanding, and grew to an age of 33 to 36 before his crucifixion. He was born naturally to parents named Joseph and Mary and eventually became a carpenter before starting on his ministry.
He was a fully human being who lived in and had a special relationship, as did all the prophets, with God; a spirit person, a healer, and exocist, a miracle worker once again doubts not withstanding.
In this man we saw the fulness of God manifested and the OT must be read in light of this not against it. After his death he was exalted to the Godhead. We do not know what actually happened at Easter but whatever it was it was very profound and has influenced man ever since. In some way or another they continued to sense his presence with them as have millions since.
Terms like "Son of God" are metaphorical because by its very nature we do not have the language to define or describe Divinty. It is beyond our language and conceptualization ability.
We can know more then the scriptures tell us by looking at the history and culture of the day. History being what it is makes any day to day accounting of his life impossible with perhaps his last week which is well outlined in the Gospels though keeping in mind that they were written some 30 to 70 years after his death. This makes the Gospels a composition of history remembered and history metaphorized. Nor do we know who the evangelists, who wrote the gospels, actually were.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Who is right?
Ted;
You said-
"Present thinking is that Jesus of Nazareth was probably born in Nazareth,..."
Whose thinking? Obviously, you have subscribed to it, but you fail to credit your source.
The prophet said that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. The gospels verify that he was. Augustus decreed a census and tax, which explains why Joseph and Mariam went to Bethlehem when they did.
I think when certain so called scholars could not get the attention they wanted by remaining loyal to the scriptures, they figured being contrary to them would get them what they wanted. Additionally, this fits the bill to a T as to the activity of a "devil" even as he has been depicted in scripture. "Yeah, has God said.....?" and so forth. Bring the word into question. And some folks, wanting themselves to be thought of as scholastic and intellectual, go after them for vanity. The scripture says, "except you become as a little child, you cannot see the kingdom of heaven..." (my paraphrase).
I say Yeshua the Messiah is precisely whom the writings claim he was. The virgin born Godman.
We do know exactly what happened on Passover (not Easter! That is a profane mistranslation incerted to placate certain pagans who worshipped Ishtar). The word Easter appears ONE TIME in the scripture, but a check of the Greek demonstrates that the word used in the manuscript was Passal (sp?). And Christ is our Passover. Our "sabbath". As with the old, "when I see the blood, I will "passover" your house" (of the Hebrews in Goshen before the release from bondage to the Egyptians). Now the type of messiah, the "spotless" lamb of the Passover is replaced with the fulfillment in the SON OF GOD. Hence the miracle of the veil in the temple blocking the mercy seat in the Holiy of Holies in the temple, from approach, being rent from the TOP DOWN (God did it) when Yeshua breathed his last. Now, because of the cruxifiction, we have no need of a priest to intercede with the blood of an animal. Those things are done away with in the Messiah. On Passover, Yeshua was raised from being dead by God. In fact, it is a requirement to be saved, that you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and you must confess it to others that you believe this.
Until you experience the "new birth" from above, I guess it is just Greek to you.
I would die for what I subscribe to. Would you die for what you subscribe too?
Some things have to be taken by faith in order to please God. Seek him over so called wisdom.
d:-5
You said-
"Present thinking is that Jesus of Nazareth was probably born in Nazareth,..."
Whose thinking? Obviously, you have subscribed to it, but you fail to credit your source.
The prophet said that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. The gospels verify that he was. Augustus decreed a census and tax, which explains why Joseph and Mariam went to Bethlehem when they did.
I think when certain so called scholars could not get the attention they wanted by remaining loyal to the scriptures, they figured being contrary to them would get them what they wanted. Additionally, this fits the bill to a T as to the activity of a "devil" even as he has been depicted in scripture. "Yeah, has God said.....?" and so forth. Bring the word into question. And some folks, wanting themselves to be thought of as scholastic and intellectual, go after them for vanity. The scripture says, "except you become as a little child, you cannot see the kingdom of heaven..." (my paraphrase).
I say Yeshua the Messiah is precisely whom the writings claim he was. The virgin born Godman.
We do know exactly what happened on Passover (not Easter! That is a profane mistranslation incerted to placate certain pagans who worshipped Ishtar). The word Easter appears ONE TIME in the scripture, but a check of the Greek demonstrates that the word used in the manuscript was Passal (sp?). And Christ is our Passover. Our "sabbath". As with the old, "when I see the blood, I will "passover" your house" (of the Hebrews in Goshen before the release from bondage to the Egyptians). Now the type of messiah, the "spotless" lamb of the Passover is replaced with the fulfillment in the SON OF GOD. Hence the miracle of the veil in the temple blocking the mercy seat in the Holiy of Holies in the temple, from approach, being rent from the TOP DOWN (God did it) when Yeshua breathed his last. Now, because of the cruxifiction, we have no need of a priest to intercede with the blood of an animal. Those things are done away with in the Messiah. On Passover, Yeshua was raised from being dead by God. In fact, it is a requirement to be saved, that you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and you must confess it to others that you believe this.
Until you experience the "new birth" from above, I guess it is just Greek to you.
I would die for what I subscribe to. Would you die for what you subscribe too?
Some things have to be taken by faith in order to please God. Seek him over so called wisdom.
d:-5
Who is right?
Ted wrote: A lot of scholarship has gone by since AS published his book. He certainly does not fit in with the thinking of theologians today. We have far more knowledge then they did in his day.That's fair comment. I prefer it as an introductory book purely because it's so readable, it's logically arranged and it's so well written.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Who is right?
downag:-6
You speak of the census. Actually the ancient historical records for that time regarding public administration are quite complete. There is no record of such a census. Nor in a census are people required to go to the place of their birth. That is not how, nor was how a census is or was carried out.
"except you become . . ." ???
That the Bible says he was born is Bethlehem is a given considering the prophesies given in the Torah. That is how they had to write it. That is not wrong. That is the nature of midrash. Probably he was born in Nazareth, the doubts of its existence notwithstanding.
If you think you know exactly what happened at easter, good for you. Scholars are not so sure. In fact the Easter story is midrashic. What matters is the experience of, and living in, a growing, transforming relationship with the risen Lord.
Your statements about my position regarding my experiences with the risen Lord are immaterial. It is what I know that counts for me. You do not, no can you, know what I have experienced. Though I think I have made my position plain elsewhere.
You have no idea about my depth of faith or my ministry.
You want a reference, a list of scholars. I will give you some of them:: J. Spong, D. Gordon, M. Borg, J. Crossan, N. Wagner, T. Meek, D. Hall, Finkelstein & Silberman, B Ehrman, O'Murchu, S. McFague and so on. If you want more I can list them and some titles if you like. However, I am not about to catalogue my whole library.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You speak of the census. Actually the ancient historical records for that time regarding public administration are quite complete. There is no record of such a census. Nor in a census are people required to go to the place of their birth. That is not how, nor was how a census is or was carried out.
"except you become . . ." ???
That the Bible says he was born is Bethlehem is a given considering the prophesies given in the Torah. That is how they had to write it. That is not wrong. That is the nature of midrash. Probably he was born in Nazareth, the doubts of its existence notwithstanding.
If you think you know exactly what happened at easter, good for you. Scholars are not so sure. In fact the Easter story is midrashic. What matters is the experience of, and living in, a growing, transforming relationship with the risen Lord.
Your statements about my position regarding my experiences with the risen Lord are immaterial. It is what I know that counts for me. You do not, no can you, know what I have experienced. Though I think I have made my position plain elsewhere.
You have no idea about my depth of faith or my ministry.
You want a reference, a list of scholars. I will give you some of them:: J. Spong, D. Gordon, M. Borg, J. Crossan, N. Wagner, T. Meek, D. Hall, Finkelstein & Silberman, B Ehrman, O'Murchu, S. McFague and so on. If you want more I can list them and some titles if you like. However, I am not about to catalogue my whole library.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
Christofer
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:12 am
Who is right?
This is becoming an interesting conversation, forcing me to face many things - as I agree with both Ted and Downag at different points.
It makes me ask - what if the Bible is wrong in different details about Jesus? Does it change my relationship with Him? Nope. What if its right? Does it strengthen my relationship? Nope. Either you believe or you don't, no matter how the beliefs may differ.
I hope we can keep that in mind as we are looking at a life that walked this earth about two thousand years ago. Regardless of records - or lack thereof - the concrete proof we all wish we had doesn't exist. Neither side of the argument can truly claim to have all the answers. It depends on ancient writings, speculation, and theories of men. So while we can be sure for ourselves about what we believe happened back then - we may never convince our brothers.
Let us come together one the things we agree upon - and maybe we can learn from one another.
It makes me ask - what if the Bible is wrong in different details about Jesus? Does it change my relationship with Him? Nope. What if its right? Does it strengthen my relationship? Nope. Either you believe or you don't, no matter how the beliefs may differ.
I hope we can keep that in mind as we are looking at a life that walked this earth about two thousand years ago. Regardless of records - or lack thereof - the concrete proof we all wish we had doesn't exist. Neither side of the argument can truly claim to have all the answers. It depends on ancient writings, speculation, and theories of men. So while we can be sure for ourselves about what we believe happened back then - we may never convince our brothers.
Let us come together one the things we agree upon - and maybe we can learn from one another.
Who is right?
Ted;
When I said,
"Until you experience the "new birth" from above, I guess it is just Greek to you."
I was speaking of people in general and didn't mean to imply "you" personally.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
d:-5
When I said,
"Until you experience the "new birth" from above, I guess it is just Greek to you."
I was speaking of people in general and didn't mean to imply "you" personally.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
d:-5
Who is right?
downag:-6
Thanks. I understand now. It is just that I have been their and done that. I know how some folks think. This of course does not include everyone.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks. I understand now. It is just that I have been their and done that. I know how some folks think. This of course does not include everyone.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Who is right?
spot:-6
You are correct in many ways. History is an uncertain study and even moreso when it comes to ancient writings. However, it really comes down to a matter of , "blind"? faith or a faith based on some reasoning and some study and research. I will go with the study and reasearch as well as its basis for faith in that the research has shown clearly that the Bible is not inerrant.
I am reminded of the story of the ascent of Moses up the mountain to receive the ten commandments. While he was up on the mountain his people constructed a golden calf. Why was this constructed? People like to have something concrete in front of them. They like to have a visual image to look at. They want certainty in a very uncertain world. This was an exercise in the physical as they found it hard to have faith in a God they could not see. It was human nature.
It seems to me that this desire for certainty has not ended. We no longer have the Golden Calf. However, we have a substitute for this calf. We now have an "inerrant" Bible. People still want certainty. They still want to see something physical that they can lay their hands on. The Bible does say that we ought to walk by faith and trust in God not by sight. Does this desire not show a lack of faith in God? After all His Word is the "Word made flesh". It is not a physical book that we can hold onto. It requires total faith in God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are correct in many ways. History is an uncertain study and even moreso when it comes to ancient writings. However, it really comes down to a matter of , "blind"? faith or a faith based on some reasoning and some study and research. I will go with the study and reasearch as well as its basis for faith in that the research has shown clearly that the Bible is not inerrant.
I am reminded of the story of the ascent of Moses up the mountain to receive the ten commandments. While he was up on the mountain his people constructed a golden calf. Why was this constructed? People like to have something concrete in front of them. They like to have a visual image to look at. They want certainty in a very uncertain world. This was an exercise in the physical as they found it hard to have faith in a God they could not see. It was human nature.
It seems to me that this desire for certainty has not ended. We no longer have the Golden Calf. However, we have a substitute for this calf. We now have an "inerrant" Bible. People still want certainty. They still want to see something physical that they can lay their hands on. The Bible does say that we ought to walk by faith and trust in God not by sight. Does this desire not show a lack of faith in God? After all His Word is the "Word made flesh". It is not a physical book that we can hold onto. It requires total faith in God.
Shalom
Ted:-6