Jump to content

PaulS

Administrator
  • Content Count

    2,770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

PaulS last won the day on September 7 2017

PaulS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

113 SAGE

About PaulS

  • Rank
    Alternate Administrator & Site Sponsor
  • Birthday 08/20/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Mandurah Western Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,842 profile views
  1. I understand your disagreement. I don't think that's where the scholarship takes us on the matter, but I understand that is how many interpret the Jesus story. And hey, I don't see anything harmful about that and perhaps that view has even contributed positively too many lives. Maybe it's an even better message than the one Jesus set out with! For me personally, I find the scholarship of the likes of Erhman to be compelling evidence that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, who understood the 'end of the world' to mean the end of the world as it was currently understood - run by man (i.e. the Romans and other non-Israeli-God governments). People who worshiped the God of Israel, including those raised from the dead, would live in a new, physical world on earth, ruled by God. Those that didn't submit to that God's rule would be annihilated. If you are interested, have a read of Erhman's "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium".
  2. Known/remembered, or made up about Jesus based on storytelling as well. I wouldn't rule out that it is an incorrect understanding of Jesus even if it is innocently made by the writer at the time. Both Mathew and Luke are considered to have used elements of their own community in their writings, in addition to the sources of Mark & Q. That Mathew was written some 40-80 years after Jesus, and that there is no Roman centurion story in Mark (or even any glimpse of Roman/Jesus interaction outside of this story (even as repeated in Luke, most likely), suggests to me that it is a later story added for whatever purpose, but most likely not an accurate representation of a Jesus event. Luke in general is considered to have used Mark, Q and L-source, but I think this is where your point about the understandings of Jesus to the community at the time start to creep in. I think it is more likely that the Lukan & Matthean understanding was beginning to transform the message of the Kingdom being an imminent event, to a different understanding (because we're some 40 years of from Jesus' death and the Kingdom hasn't yet arrived).
  3. No, I don't believe it is. I think it is a distortion or a harmonization of the teachings of Jesus which produce a different message than the one he was preaching. He was an apocalyptic prophet - he was thinking the Kingdom was about to come any day now. He wasn't thinking long term.
  4. I tend to use the NRSV and that version doesn't describe the Centurion's words as 'the' Son of God, but rather that he said that Jesus was God's Son or as the footnote explains, 'a' son of God. So I think the story is saying the centurion thought Jesus was something special in his relationship to God. Jesus didn't need to overthrow the Roman government because in his mind, God was going to do that Himself, and very soon. I don't think he particularly cared for the Romans, but he didn't go out of his way to hate them either. God was going to take care of the Romans - worrying about them wasn't Jesus' mission in my opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree that Jesus 'came' to free all people. I think Jesus was a human just like you and I, who grew up in a certain environment and for various reasons believed what he believed and later became an apocalyptic preacher who was certain the world as he knew it was about to end, and that via the Son of Man, God was going to overthrow the enemies of Israel and restore his Kingdom on earth. Romans could be a part of it if they capitulated their power and submitted to the God of Israel. The fact that the 'message' of Jesus became about the Kingdom of Heaven being for everyone and all people, is more a Pauline development than a Jesus one, I believe.
  5. Well, I was only joking, but in my view he is neither a Nazi or a demon. Just a rich bloke with his views and probably thought of by some to be part of a greater conspiracy against mankind. Each to their own.
  6. Maybe, but I would argue there are few grounds to argue for the Roman story as a 'probable' experience of Jesus. There seems to be more against Jesus healing a Roman than for it. There is no other mention of Jesus anywhere in the Gospels of saying or doing a single kind thing for a Roman other than this one story in Matthew, repeated in Luke. It's not in Mark or John. Maybe Mathew got if from Q, but Q is typically understood as sayings of Jesus, not antidotes. I think maybe we read into it what we want, but I don't think we can say that it is probably known/remembered. The evidence just isn't there. It's at best 50/50 to me.
  7. No I don't see. We all use our thinking - you think you understand the bible a certain way. That is your thinking. What you have not thought through in my opinion is that much of the bible is myth and storytelling, such as the stories of creation, made by people who had no idea of the universe and its unfolding. Science can now fill in that picture and it seems to me, only Christians who feel threatened by the science of our existence tend to deny it and grab hold of that literal bible even harder. I would encourage you to release your grip a little and try to be open-minded about evolution. That might help you see.
  8. None of these are examples though of Jesus interacting with Romans, or what he had to say to them. Well may have some Romans thought favorably of Jesus (or what was later said about him). That doesn't demonstrate that Jesus thought his message of the coming Kingdom included them. To the contrary, he clearly thinks that the 'forces' against the Jews will be overthrown - aka the Romans. I think this is a kind of harmonization of the stories of Jesus rather than a critical analysis of what we think he did and said. From what I have read, I'm pretty certain he believed in a very imminent coming of the Kingdom of God, for the Jews, to overthrow those that oppressed them. Jesus lived in very apocalyptic times and he wasn't the only prophet to be pushing this message. He does talk about the Kingdom of God being within, but I think that is in the context of the personal relationship a Jew could have with their God, as was soon going to be the case when God's kingdom actually arrived. I'm not sure that was ever Jesus' message or actually was happening during his time. Really the first we hear about that sort of approach was after Jesus' died and Paul rose to prominence. I think Paul broadened the Jesus message to include all - I don't think that was Jesus' intention. Paul too thought the kingdom was imminent, but he was pushing the 'all persons' barrow which is where I think we get that from. When Jesus didn't return in Paul's lifetime later Christians started saying Jesus will come later, then later, then later. Christians have generally been waiting about 2000 years for the Kingdom of God that Jesus thought was imminent for the Jews, there and then in his lifetime.
  9. There are many Christians who understand the science of evolution, but I think I understand why you can't at present.
  10. Don't quote me on it, but I think that might be the only mention in the entire NT of Jesus interacting with a Roman (other than his arrest). There certainly isn't much to be said in the NT about Jesus acting positively towards Romans specifically. Bart Erhman sums it up like this: "Jesus really did see himself as the future king of the Jews, who would rule God’s people when the Son of Man arrived in judgment and overthrew the kingdoms aligned against God and set up a new kingdom here on earth." It's hard to imagine a Jesus who favours the Jews so much, to be as equally forgiving and loving toward the Romans who he simultaneously considered part of the kingdom aligned against God. I think he believed God would overthrow the Roman Empire and it was going to happen shortly, which is why he was warning Jews to get ready for the coming Kingdom.
  11. Both - it just depends who you ask!
  12. The only thing I'd say about that is that I think Jesus didn't particularly have time for the Romans and I think he was specifically preaching a message to Jews about preparing for the kingdom, in the context of the evil the Jews had suffered at the hands of the Romans, being dominated by them and all. I don't see Jesus as that all encompassing 'love everybody' figure that is often portrayed about him. I think he was a Jew with very human emotions, and these affected what he thought of the Romans, in my opinion, for what it's worth.
  13. Maybe this is where conspiracy theory starts coming into it, but I didn't interpret his interview at all like you are portraying him. He just seemed to be being bluntly honest - that as a 14 year old kid, he didn't feel guilt because he was living while others were being shipped off. Rather he recognized that that could've been him otherwise, and this is what developed his character (so he says) concerning looking ahead and being forward planning. He didn't relish in people being taken away and he seems to be a huge philanthropist, which normally doesn't gel with being a nazi, I wouldn't have thought. But each to their own view I guess.
  14. No, I don't subscribe to The Australian. I am very lucky - my state (Western Australia) is on the west coast of the country and has had zero cases of community transmission of covid19 for some time now, so our state is fully open and functioning within it's borders. But we did go hard early on with restrictions such as shutting pubs & restaurants down and basically stopping people from congregating in groups for a few weeks until we flattened the curve. Because of that we have been able to return to normal much earlier than elsewhere. We do maintain a border protocol and those people who are allowed into our state must undergo two weeks quarantine upon arrival. That's pretty much the case for 3/4 of the states here. Unfortunately our state of Victoria tried to reopen way too early. They had utilized some restrictions but just weren't strict enough to overcome the curve and then they reopened too early and suffered a signification outbreak of community spread, so they are now trying hard to recover the situation and stop the spread. An adjoining state to Victoria (New South Wales) is a little more affected, but Victoria by far is experiencing the worst of covid19 in Oz.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service