thormas

Welcome Jerry

You lost me: is God an object or thing that can be studied as the objects of science are? Evolution is a natural process, meaning that the 'supernatural, i.e. God is not involved in a natural process (unless one is working from a theistic take on God). Is the evolution of man and woman into eternity also a natural process that does not need God? I'm not trying to be difficult but I think words matter and I don't know any Progressive or Liberal Christians who would define science as the study of God. And I think most people in the 21st C define evolution as a natural process so how does one evolve into eternity (which by definition is supernatural)? It could be said that Jesus was 'in God' in this way yet the negative did not fall away, he was crucified. Furthermore, his followers, also in Christ and in God, suffered hardship and death. It seems that being in God or Christ does not protect human beings from the negative in the world.

Was just reading a bit on Larry Hurtado's website and thought this would be of interest: Hurtado quotes Martin Hengel’s essay: “Christology and New Testament Chronology,” in his book, Between Jesus and Paul "Speaking of Paul’s “conversion”, which likely must be placed within at most a couple of years subsequent to Jesus’ execution, we have to consider that an “enormously rapid christological development” took place within this even shorter period. Paul’s characterization of the cognitive content of his religious re-orientation is that it was a “revelation of God’s Son”. But, since he then promptly associated himself with other Jewish Christians (including Peter/Cephas, per Gal. 1), the most reasonable inference is that the christological view he adopted was pretty much what he had been opposing. And that means that some pretty powerful developments must be dated within the very first few years!" And Hurtado himself writes: "This is “the gospel that is preached by me” (Gal. 1:11), and “the gospel that I preach among the nations” (Gal. 2:2). Paul didn’t create his christology or the devotional practices that he affirmed. But the boldness of his sense of mission, and his unstinting commitment to it, made a major contribution to the subsequent shape of what became Christianity."

I see that (your comment on Q) and can agree with it so perhaps M and L and perhaps by way of Paul. Agree that we can't know definitively. What is a bit intriguing for me is the different 'incidents' of Jesus interacting with non-Jews. Again, hard (impossible?) to know but I do think Allison is on to something and if I remember correctly he also goes outside of the canon. And there seems to be consensus on much of the patterns he identifies (that I included from his book above). A degree of possibility on the scale of speculation or probabilities based on repeating patterns? You might like Allison's book as he is brutally honest, critiques himself and speaks to the 'eye of the beholder' for the scholars, including him. You lost me here. We know Paul does not get into the historical Jesus (more interested in the Christ) but he was writing letters to different communities with specific issue in mind. Again the few gospel stories about interaction with Romans, Samaritans, even the Official - especially in light of his emphasis on the two commandments and his call to love, turn the other cheek, etc. seems a piece or at least consistent with 'reaching beyond the Jews.' What do you mean by a Pauline take? I have two minds on this: on one hand one could argue that Jesus' ministry was to the Jews, that was all consuming and if he didn't reach out to non-Jews (who were to be first) that was fine as it was taken up by Paul and also others in the early communities once they believed the Kingdom was imminent (2nd coming). On the other hand, it there was very limited out reach to non-Jews by the historical Jesus, many would not be surprised given his call to repent, forgive, love and assuming he knew his own holy book and that the prophet Isiah spoke of all nations, i.e. Gentile nations, worshipping the God of the Jews. So it was later Christians (gospels) and we simply do not know with any degree of certainty if it was also the historical Jesus at least reaching out to a few???

I agree with Ehrman but any enhancements were already present in Judaism. I think there is a depth to Jesus and it seems, from the Gospels, that he cuts through to the heart of the Law that is created for man and so that man might have Life. So I can see how one would say Jesus made it better but all that is there is still already part of the Law of the Jews. The caution for all, and the criticism of Borg and Crosson in particular, is that they create a Jesus in their image, Allison is great in speaking about this and also critiques himself. I prefer to say that Jesus 'grew' out of his people as we all do. I'm not sure what you mean by God 'creating and conceiving' Jesus from the beginning.

I'm thinking on this but it seems those thoughts first have to get there and for me they get there from our experiences with others and in the world. For me, God always presents himSelf in creation...........but I'm thinking on it 😀 I agree with what you said about words. In John also, God does not come to us 'directly' as he is in himSelf (sometimes called the Godhead or God in Himself) but it is in and through his Word that he creates, that he comes 'among us' and he comes in the Word that is Jesus to bring 'salvation.' It is always the Word. Agreed, would be an interesting discussion. I think of Word and Spirit as two modes of God, i.e. two ways the same God interacts with humanity, with the created. But they are also one. If you think of it the best, most effective words are those spoken in (the spirit of) love.

Even with the verses you quoted above, Jesus had limited interaction with non-Jews. They were simply not the focus of Jesus' mission: the Jews were the people of God, God was fulfilling his promise of the Kingdom, Jesus the Prophet (the Messiah) was announcing that Kingdom to them.........and then all nations (Gentiles) would worship him. I think (for us) it can be said that the Kingdom did start coming in and with Jesus: he was already living it as he was announcing that it was near (in its fullness). And I believe it is always 'there' waiting to in-break in the lives of individuals and perhaps even communities. When it is ever established fully (whatever that means) is an interesting and unanswerable question. I think Jesus saw the Kingdom in the understanding of his day but we, looking back, have a different insight or discernment; he was the Kingdom in the flesh, he is the possibility of us all.

No truer words have been spoken.............

You could very well be right on the money - but at least without the trumpster it will be 'business as usual.' I hope Biden and the country at least have the chance to make things right.

Another President might be able to but not the current one given his own mindset.

Wanted to add that any 'patterns' we might have (listed by Elen) of Jesus reaching out beyond his boundaries to non-Jews seems to be a piece with his call to love one's enemies.

The following is copied from one of my September 2019 post under NT Reliability, part of the Debate and Dialogue Section (it offers some more detail on Allison and has a link to his book which is pretty thorough) ________________________. So, in addition to Ehrman's list (above) of the gist of Jesus, I also mentioned that Dale Allison is concerned with broad patterns rather than definitive assertions that this or that saying or this or that story (including miracle stories) actually were said by Jesus or actually happened as recorded. To that end, Allison's broad patterns (the gist or adding to the gist of Jesus?) follow: "Jesus was an exorcist who interpreted his ministry in terms of the downfall of Satan; he thought highly of the Baptist; he spoke repeatedly of God as Father; he composed parables; he came into conflict with religious authorities; and, he saw himself as having a starring role in the eschatological drama that was unfolding" This material, for those who might be interested is found in his book (mentioned above) and on this site: https://www.thecontemplativelife.org/blog/historical-jesus-dale-allison-jesus-apocalyptic-prophet I have put it in a list format to match the above and Ehrman's list. Allison continues his general patterns: "Jesus had firm eschatological expectations, to which he gave frequent expression; he envisaged the advent, after suffering and persecution, of a great judgment, and after that a supernatural utopia, the kingdom of God; he thought that the night was far gone, the day at hand. Jesus probably believed himself to be not just an eschatological prophet but the personal locus of the end-time scenario, the central figure of the last judgment" Regarding miracles, Allison lists the many miracles from the gospels and, again goes to general patterns, concluding (again the source is his book, 'The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus'): "Jesus was reputed to be and thought himself to be a successful exorcist, healer and wonder-worker some who knew him believed that they had witnessed truly extraordinary event" There is an interesting section from Allison on miracles which is worth a quick read - if interested. Allison's POV is nicely summed up: "I do not contend, because I do not believe, that all this (NT gospel) material comes from Jesus, directly or indirectly. Nor do I insist that any of it is word-perfect memory. To repeat what I have said before: the Synoptics are not primarily records of what Jesus actually said and did but collections of impressions. They recount, or rather often recount, the sorts of things that he said and did, or that he could have said and done."

Wanted to recommend Allison's book above and the bonus is that it is only a bit over 100 pages so it is not a major commitment of time. Another good read is Paula Fredriksen's book, also above, but that one is longer.

This to me is a bit of a minor point but what would be interesting to determine is if Luke and Matthew get this from Q or from their separate traditions of L and M? And if the latter do we then have 2 separate sources? I do allow that it is a later addition but my question is does it 'reveal' something that Jesus would have done (or said) (a criterion used by Dale Allison). Allison, one of the top biblical scholars, in his book 'The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus' pretty much (as I understand him) gives up on whether we can know definitively what Jesus did or said, however he speaks of "making inferences from patterns that characterize the sources (the Gospels) as a whole." He continues " the Synoptics are not primarily records of what Jesus actually said and did but collections of impressions. They recount, or rather often recount, the sorts of things that he said and did, or that he could have said and done.' For example, it is not about the historicity of particular miracles: Allison writes, that Jesus "was reputed to be and thought himself to be a successful exorcist, healer, and wonder-worker and that some who knew him believed that they had witnessed truly extraordinary events." So too, as I understand it (and am further exploring it), it is not about the historicity of the story of the centurion but that this crossing boundaries (the Roman, the Samaritan, the Canaanite, the Official, etc.) was the sort of thing that Jesus could/would have done (even with the acknowledgement that his focus was the Jews). Both the miracle stories and the stories of interactions with non-Jews are impressions of Jesus that characterize the Gospels.

Paula Fredriksen (in Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews) states that the "during Jesus' lifetime, Gentiles scarcely figured at all in his mission." Again this does not mean that Jesus did not cross traditional boundaries and 'reach out' to non-Jews - however he was, as those prophets before him, a Prophet for his people, the people of God, the Jews and his message to them was urgent: the Kingdom was coming. She also writes that "a strand within traditional Jewish apocalyptic though anticipated the Gentiles turning to the God of Israel as one of the events at the End of Days." Isiah 2:2-4: "....will draw all the nations to it (God's house), to the worship of the God of Jacob." And it was Paul, anticipating the coming of Christ and the full establishment of the Kingdom who (with others) took on the mission of spreading the good news to the Gentiles - this was his focus.

Cuomo has done a great job and I love how strong and passionate he is. I agree: brilliant! I also love how he calls the trumpster on his bull.

I agree but, for me, it is the Word that speaks to us, awakens us and surprises us - whether it is spoken by a person in real time or by a person in the past and present in a book. Science, art, music and nature - all hold the possibility of 'speaking' to us, surprising us and awakening us to God. What is E?

I believe we're talking about two different 'moments:' the meaning of the inbreaking of the Kingdom for Jesus and the meaning of the Kingdom in light of the reality that it was not established in the lifetime of his followers (as promised). If I follow you, I too think that "the in-breaking of the Kingdom is different" now than what Ehrman and others say it was for Jesus - i.e. it is different than what Jesus thought and expected. Which is ok because we are talking about different discernments of the Divine (but I still hold that the present understanding, thought different, is built on Jesus). It seems in the understanding of Jesus, God was the one who was expected to do it. Repenting was not our participation in bringing the Kingdom, it was our getting ready for that Kingdom which God would establish. It was all about God for Jesus. As said, that didn't happen and with a changing understanding of the Kingdom there was also an evolving understanding that we do have to participate and I would go as far as saying that without our participation the Kingdom will not be established. And that would be an interesting discussion.

The Jews, I believe, including AJ Levine, would disagree that Jesus modified and enhanced their laws and I would agree. Jesus was a Jew through and through who followed (and loved) the Law and visited the Temple and kept the Jewish rituals. In these terms what was unique about Jesus concerning the Law was nicely summed up in the Gospels: the Law is made for man, not man for the Law. Many have also believed that Jesus was the first to call God Father but this too is false. It seems the only 'right direction' was not a new, better understanding but the announcement of nearness of the Kingdom and the need to repent and be ready. If I remember correctly people like Marcus Borg and John Crosson disagree with Ehrman on Jesus being an Apocalyptic Prophet but it appears that the leading biblical scholars agree with Ehrman (his seems to be the consensus opinion). As a note, I'm not sure what you mean by the idea that God 'grew' Jesus out of the Jewish nation.

I agree with Paul (and Ehrman) on this. However, as this was the understanding of Jesus, it is evident that he was wrong. And with the passage of time, the Christian community's understanding changed. I think this is fine as Jesus was a man (who was exalted by God) and as a human being he could be wrong. Faced with a different reality (so to speak) that the Kingdom was not establish, that Rome was not overcome, etc., it was the discernment or insight of the community that began to speak of the Kingdom in a different light.

Agreed - and scholars like Allison, Fredriksen, Hurtado and others are all in agreement that Jesus was such a Prophet.

His focus was the Jews even though this did not mean that the Gentiles would not be included in the Kingdom - still he came (first) for the Jews. He was not trying to overthrow Rome - with the coming of the Kingdom (done by God) Rome would be overcome.

In truth there is no proof for or against God: that is a matter of belief.

I agree that there is only one Way.............but it does not preclude one from accepting the theory of evolution. I'm not asking or expecting evolution to be a Way, it is simply a scientific take on the evolution of life on the planet. For me it does not have anything to do with my belief in God or my faith response to God.

Agreed