thormas

Welcome Jerry

49 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I think that science is the study of God.

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)?

49 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

If one is in God and in Christ, all this negative stuff just falls away and becomes relatively minor or even nonexistent, and one sees and experiences only God and Christ. But science and the cosmos still exist and they are not against God, in fact they are often very much a part of God. But God is still very much more than that. 

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. 

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

Or how others later thought of the things initially attributed to Jesus, aka Chinese Whispers. 

I agree with Allison's approach.  Making inferences is one things - saying that it is likely Jesus did or said this or not, or that it was probably something he did, are all just degrees of probability on the scale of speculation, and depending on one's personal view, the degree of accuracy varies greatly.  How much it matters to anybody is also in the eye of the beholder I think

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.  

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

For me, it sounds more like a Pauline take on Jesus that has developed rather than actual Jesus, mainly on the basis that we simply do not see anywhere else Jesus having a kind word for the Romans let alone any involvement with them.

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?

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

4 x gospels and very, very little mention of Jesus interacting with non-Jews during his 3-years or so ministry.  I think there might be more to it than accurately representing that Jesus was embracing all.  But if you mean to a degree that it was part of the story that later Christians began to tell, accurately or not, I would agree.

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???

10 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Ehrman did a talk on how Jesus did not negate or reject the law but enhanced it. He took many of the principals of the law and took them a step or a few steps further. I listed a few examples on another comment I made, I got these ideas and this understanding from Ehrman. Essentially Ehrman was saying, he took the law and made it better.

I like both Marcus Borg and John Crosson. It's good to know that there are some folks that I'm in agreement with. The subject as to whether Jesus was apocalyptic or not is probably better left for another thread.

I probably should have used a better word than "grew". I believe that somehow God evolved Jesus through and out of the Jewish nation. I also believe that God created him and conceived  of him from the beginning as it says in John 1. Exactly how this all works is another thing altogether, and I certainly don't know what or everything about it.

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.

9 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

& also the 'words' of our own thoughts sometimes.

I love words, and I love getting the perfect words to express something. But too often it's not possible to find them and one needs to just come close to what they want to say or what they want to express.

In John 1 the word 'Word' is meant to mean Jesus himself. It's a translation from the Greek word Logos. This would also be an interesting subject to discuss.

I've heard people say that the word 'name' in the bible could or might also be understood as 'spirit'. We say in the 'name' of God, but we don't have the name of God. Could this be better said or understood as 'the spirit of God'. We say "gather in the name of Jesus". Could we also say, "gather in the spirit and name of Jesus" and be meaning more what we really intend to say?

I wish I was a lot better with words, ... hope this communicates something interesting and worthwhile

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.

9 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm wondering if the Kingdom did start coming in Jesus's day and has been coming and inbreaking ever since. Yes, that would be an interesting discussion. 

I don't think I would say "Gentiles scarcely figured at all" I would say that they were less prominent in Jesus's mission and during his "earthly life".

I'm wondering what "the End of Days" means. I tend to go with an end of worldliness instead of "the end of the world". Perhaps as one enters more eternal types of thought, the meaning of time and the significance of 'days' becomes less important. Or maybe it means the end of worldly significance. Or the end of an era.

 

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.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I do find it astounding that so many Americans (Trump voters) are so quietly accepting Trump's version of this pandemic, particularly when he calls himself a war-time president in dealing with it.  Thank God he hasn't led the US to many wars is all I can imagine.

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

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

Definitely not the current one with his current mindset, but I doubt even Biden will be able to convince Trump stalwarts either.  They will continue to be focused on their personal rights & freedom to go where they want, how they want, and without a mask if they so choose!  If Trump loses I can't imagine them having an epiphany and understanding that Trump was wrong on covid, but rather that he was always right and Biden is the devil.  

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.

5 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I think it's fair to say, and very sad, that unfortunately the damage is done and I doubt even Trump can bring the mindset of many back to a place where the priority is stopping the spread and protecting the community, so that the community can go forward in a controlled fashion.

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)

________________________.

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.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

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).

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.

12 hours ago, thormas said:

My comment here is to both you guys. I keep running into this. People and even scholars keep saying that Jesus just came for the Jews and that it was Paul and only Paul that taught to non-Jews. I keep thinking that this is not exactly what I remember reading in the Gospels. I've taken sometime to research this a bit. It would take a month or more to go through out all the Gospels and find every incident, but this is what I've found so far:

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.

10 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Had to post another one of these.

For people that think that somehow NYC has developed some kind of "herd immunity", that is just not true. I can get you videos and articles on "herd immunity" NY and this county are no where close to herd immunity. The reason that infections are down in New York is because of the way the virus is being managed and because of what people are doing. They are wearing masks, they are social distancing, they are doing a phased and controlled reopening, and they are taking the virus seriously and not playing politics with a deadly virus.

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.

9 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I also think that one can 'meet' God and be surprised by God and be inspired by God without a book. By many different things, through nature, through science, through art, through music, and perhaps most importantly, through just tuning into God and E's Light and E's Spirit and E's Grace and that of Jesus too. Living in God and God's energy and love and in Jesus's light and love are for me, the most important thing, book or no book, it's still the most important thing (for me).

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?

9 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Sorry, I think I disagree with all of them and Ehrman too on this point.

So, who am I to disagree with all these notable scholars on this? Well, I'm me and I disagree and I just don't see things that way. I've read this and heard it many times and I still don't agree. I think that the inbreaking of the Kingdom of Heaven is different than many people see it and portray it. What it means and how it happens and how it has been happening is a big subject, that would take pages and pages to cover. One thing about it is that God doesn't just 'do it'. We/people have to participate and make it part of life also. It also may have been happening in pockets of humanity that don't make the news, and people just don't see it.

I don't know everything about it, but I see things as being different. Thanks for reading.

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.

9 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

This is one of the places where I disagree with Ehrman, and it sticks in my side, and has for sometime. I agree with and love so many of Ehrman's ideas and insights, and then there's this one. This is the one point where I really and completely disagree with Ehrman. (it's just got to happen somewhere 🙂 )

The Jews did have a few things going for them, one of them was the "One God" thing. This might be why God evolved/grew Jesus out of the Jewish nation. They also had a messianic tradition, and some laws that when enhanced and modified (by JC) turn out to be pretty good and some real steps in the right direction. Still, even the Jews needed to know and understand the "God of Israel" better than they did, & a new and better understanding needs to and needed to come to all of us.

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.  

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

Is this the overcoming or the coming of the Kingdom that Jesus intended? I think we are all still working on it as well as and including them in Rome. 

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. 

20 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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".

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

6 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I don't see Jesus as directly trying to overthrow the Roman government. He was trying to overcome it, as well as some of the teachings and restrictions of the Jewish leaders, but not by a violent and immediate overthrow. He was trying to teach everyone a new way of being and living together. This ultimately would overcome the hierarchical ways of living and governing. Seems that in life this is still an ongoing process. 

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.

54 minutes ago, Pipiripi said:

One have proof but the other doesn't. Evolution doesn't have any proof. Till today nothing has evolve. But people are still healing in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. 

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

49 minutes ago, Pipiripi said:

I understand you much better now. But there is only one way for eternal life. And you know who have it. Both cannot give you eternal life.

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.

18 minutes ago, PaulS said:

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.

Agreed