thormas

I was talking about we as in us, present day people and those well after the first few centuries. I do agree that his disciples and a larger group of followers, including the women often mentioned. experienced Jesus in their present and in/through his words and actions. After his death and in light of their 'resurrection experience' they turned to their Jewish scriptures to better understand and explain Jesus. Thereafter, their preaching and the telling of stories about Jesus did include their memories of his words (actions, etc.) to them, the disciples, and this was the gospel or good news, presented orally which was repeated to others as they went out to the wider Jewish communities in the Diaspora and to the Gentiles - words, actions, stories of Jesus that were eventually reflected in the written gospels. In the beginning of the community's life, those words (and more) were the gospel or good news of Jesus the Christ that they were presented orally - and the gospels in the later 1st C were that same gospel presented in writing. They were passed down orally and then the same word was passed on in written form. The few words, 'Jesus is the Christ' were not sufficient in the beginning and the disciples were there to cite their scriptures, tell of this man, Jesus, with whom they lived and encourage others with their words. Now with the disciples gone, the written gospels fulfill this same mission and need. The Christian communities believe it is the 'same word.' If you do not, please explain why it is not.

We were and the critical scholars who agree with this position and your comments about them. It's not one statement as these scholar have presented numerous apocalyptic comments and references. Allison, alone, in a book previously referenced, cites at least 30 texts and many of these are found in multiple gospels, so the number is beyond 50. Again, what people? Examples?? Everything that was passed along orally by the early community was presented with reference to Jewish scriptures and/or made up part of the oral traditions that became part of the NT.

No Republican platform, just trumpism. So much for the GOP, now it is just a cult dominated by the trumpster's family. OMG!!

Well we all know about the first three plus the Zealots and Essenes. The Nazarenes seem to refer to Jesus and his immediate followers. It definitely seems to be the case that the Nazarenes, Pharisees/Scribes and Essenes were all apocalypticists. The Zealots and the Herodians seemed to be very political with the latter favoring not the house of David but the establishnment of the house of Herod - not sure of the religious beliefs of either of these parties. However is he saying that there are radically different view specifically of the expected Messiah and the Kingdom to be established by God on earth? That, after all, is what we are focusing on. Are you saying the 'regular people' believed something different? If so, what? Regardless of whether or not he was a Pharisee, Paul was an apocalypticist like Jesus and his followers. Will read when time permits.

No, you misunderstand. Their focus was on the earliest Christian community (the understanding of Jesus which was aided by searching their own Jewish scriptures) and how their earliest beliefs (about Jesus) came into existence or focus in the first year or so after the death (and resurrection experience) of Jesus and was received and past on to others, including Paul. In the 2nd Temple period (the time of Jesus and the earliest community) the dominant understanding was of God's coming Kingdom and the apocalyptic understanding expressed and accepted by Jesus, his disciples, the earliest Christians and Paul (a contemporary of Jesus). I am researching any 'variations' in this understanding but it still seems to be variations within an apocalyptic view. If you have read something that radically opposes this Jewish understanding during this time, please let me know as I am interested. Well you have been quoting those books in many different posts on this site - so one can only assume you must think they are really good and good enough to quote and rely on 😋 Just out of curiosity who exactly are you talking about that tired to control Christianity?

The Jewish scriptures were written between the 13th and 2nd C BCE and existed in the 1st C CE - the time of the Jesus and the early community. So the good news was not all new believers had: they had the explanatory scriptures of the Jews, interpreted by Jesus's followers, the announcement of the good news and the teachings, parables and actions of Jesus that would become the basis for the Christian scriptures. The Gentiles and the Jews had the texts presented in the synagogues and/or explained/interpreted by 'Christians' who were bringing them the news of Jesus and salvation.

Actually we first know about him from the texts preserved in the communities down through the ages. And any 'few words' come from the texts - both canonical and apocrypha. It was not all they had: Jewish Christians had the disciples' witness and the Jewish scriptural backdrop that helped to explain and present Jesus. And Gentile Christians these also since the scriptures are quoted to explain Jesus and what found its way to become the NT was already being preached within 1-2 years after the death of Jesus.

What people and on what do they base this opinion?

But we were specifically talking about 'scholars' and you presented him. So not a critical biblical scholar??

I agree with that but there is still the amazing understanding of obedience and if one accepts the first commandment or even the two great commandments, one is obeying the Lord God ☺️

Branches or denominations, the question remains. Plus, the apocalyptic views of Jesus, his disciples, Paul, the Pharisees and the Essenes were in agreement on the expectation of the physical Kingdom to be established by God himself. Which Jews did bot have this view in the 1st C? Actually, Saul/Paul was already persecuting the earliest Christians for their view of Jesus as God's 'resurrected' Messiah (and we know what the Jews expected of the Messiah). Plus, it is also apparent that the disciples, as Jews, knew of such expectations and they searched their scriptures to make sense of Jesus both in light of what seemed to be a failed mission but also their experience of his resurrection and exaltation by God (resurrection was to also mark the coming Kingdom). So did he 'paint' his ideas on Jesus or did he initially 'inherit' those ideas from the earliest followers of Jesus? And actually experts and critical scholars like Hurtado, Hengel, Ehrman and others have spoken to and shown the inheritance from the earless community. We don't have to 'turn to the Spirit' as his disciples (to whom he gave the spirit) preached the unlettered Jesus who as the Messiah, exalted by God upon whom they waited to establish the Kingdom as promised by God. Actually without the preaching of the disciples and the devotion of the early communities, the person (Jesus) and his spirit would never have been known - their preaching, their stories about Jesus ..............becaeme or lead to the books 😀

You have made my point: even you question if these people were scholars and you refer to their stuff as crap. It is questionable if these people are truly 'serious critical scholars.' Is Rohr a biblical scholar? Regardless, without the NT texts, we would not know Jesus and we would not have the view of God that is revealed by him. Without the texts, the wheel would be flat. You do know that the earliest Christians looked to their scriptural texts (our OT) to understand Jesus both as crucified Messiah and resurrected/exalted Lord and that they, by speaking of Jesus were telling his story and therefore beginning the oral tradition that were sources of our NT? And the Gentiles 'had' texts, both the interpreted OT texts presented by the disciples to explain/present and defend Jesus and, of course, the disciples' preaching (again the beginnings of the NT oral traditions). So God, Jesus and the Spirit were delivered and presented to Jews and non-Jews by people, the missionaries, the disciples. Was that writing or doodling? Was it historical or a literary device? You seem to be saying, therefore Jesus could write while also saying you don't know?

It seems obvious that Jesus kept holy every day and particularly the Jewish hold day of Sabbath. As for Revelation, I never indulge given that most people, particularly literalists, misunderstand it.

I get that, I was simply giving the best understanding of the word, especially where it pertains to God. Also, obedience to God is also the choice for God and it is not a burden - given what obedience actually means. To live in love, peace and joy is to be freely obedient to God since one makes important in their life what is important to God. It is the same big stuff that is important in friendship.

I'm just asking in general, the name of the gospel, not chapter and verse. I have to ask on what do you base your take on Paul's world views being different than Jesus or other Jews. I'm not talking his theology about Jesus, but his worldview. Do you have examples of the different thinking among the different Jews? Do you mean their take on the Law or their world view? I'm not talking agreement on all things, I have simply said that apocalyptic views and expectations of the Kingdom in the 1st C were the same for Jesus, his disciples and Paul.........among many others. It is not this book or that, rather it is the person behind the book........it is always the person since there would be no book without one :+}

Actually not in scholarly circles for over 100 years - so not really trendy or merely the thing to say. There was no 'all of a sudden' as if this is recent discovery. Who exactly are you talking about - which scholars? Actually in addition to our 'own intelligence' many people refer to experts to expand their knowledge, like in science, medicine, car repair, house building, exploration of the universe, economics, cooking and.............greater depth understanding of the Bible and the history of, in particular, the 1st century. If you can convince anyone that Jesus' world view was different than that of other Jews in the 1st C CE - I for one would be interested. Are you saying he understood the universe then in a way that we do 20 centuries later? Did he understand medicine and aliments then as medical experts do now? Plus it is at least a question (and highly doubtful) if he could write (probably not) or read and he probably only spoke Aramaic - the everyday language of his people. Sounds limited in many ways but typical for 1st C Palestinian, rural Jew.

To love God is to love and do what one wants (i.e. Love) which is also what is important to God (i.e. love): this is obedience. Some don't like the word but there it is. As an example any Lover who is not 'obedient' to his/her Beloved is not planning on a long or happy relationship (whether or not they use the word obedient or not). Actually, many people today recognize this truth: "a happy wife makes a happy life" and vice versa. 😀 And when we're talking about, for example the husband making what is important to his wife, important to him we're talking the big stuff. He doesn't have to take up pilates or become a doctor if she is, she doesn't have to love to watch comic book movies or be a teacher is he is - but this stuff is small or smaller potatoes. It is the big stuff that makes or breaks a life and a marriage. If one is in tune or in harmony with God, then one is in tune or in harmony with Love - one is, therefore, obedient to Love.

No I'm asking what gospel you are talking about and when was it written and since they are all 40-70 years after the death of Jesus, then they are living at a time when the Kingdom, that was to begin in the lifetime of the disciples, has not occurred. Thus there is a change of emphasis in the gospels. This has nothing to do with Paul. Paul's world view was the world view of Jesus and his disciples - they were contemporaries. You are denying the Jewish worldview and expectation that Jesus, a 1st C Jew shared. I agree there are difference from Jesus to Paul but there are also differences from Jesus to each gospel writer.

It's not pop, trendy or group think. The work of serious scholars is work in ever sense of the word. And for those non-scholars who have an interest in such learning, it is also work. Trendy is easy and doesn't demand much from anyone. And if you're talking about Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, that is not just a present, now a days, understanding of him. As I have said, I too think there was more to the man but he was a man, limited in many ways as are we all. However, he was not limited in what is most important. In any time, one can decide for love, become its embodiment and be a beacon, a hope, a way for others. Jesus was such a man and is, therefore, rightly called the first born Son of God.

No, I don't take literally the immaculate conception/the virgin birth. So no connection to 'without sin.' I believe he was born just like us and that he was just like us in all ways. I further believe that he, probably because he was born into 'the people of God' and learned from them, that he developed an incredible consciousness or awareness of God as Abba and he was (became) obedient to God (obedience means what is important to the other, you make important to you). It is this (i.e. Love) that made Jesus 'special' and different - different not in kind but in degree, the degree that he loved and was selfless (thus sinless). We have through the ages considered so much sin that never was. having said that, I have no idea if Jesus ever did anything wrong in his life but being sinless is not about particular moments but what has become and who one is 'in a lifetime.' Again, human being don't know the future. We might be able to 'read the signs of the time' and have an idea that if one continues down a particular road then what is likely to happen is X. But that is knowing the future. I think obedience is completely misunderstood. It is, I think an amazing word and idea. If one is friends with someone, then the friends if true are obedient to one another: what is important to my friend I make important to me and I do not violate the friendship. Some people have issues with the marriage vow that includes obedience. I think both partners should make such a promise. To be obedient to God is to simply make important in your life what is important to God.........and that simply is to Love. And it is in loving that we become sinless, children of God and the incarnation of God.To know God is to love and that is obedience - given this definition. And it is done gladly and happily ........out of love. I'm not aware of the kind of competition you describe and it seems a bit ridiculous on it face, doesn't it?

If one wants to read for devotional purposes or spiritual understanding, it actually is not very complicated at all. However if one (also) approaches the Bible as literature and theology and seeks to get a handle on early Christianity and the historical Jesus, it seems like a scholar is helpful in that endeavor.As Ehrman has said if you go for a medical procedure, you want an expert so too, if one wants to 'study' the Bible, it only makes sense to go to an expert. From what I have read, in the 1st C CE, the apocalyptic expectation of the physical Kingdom was 'the' understanding. Other than that, I don't know what Jews you're talking about. If one looks to Paul to understand Jesus - it is helpful to see how much Paul got from the earliest communities of the followers ofJesus and it is considerable. In addition, the only Jesus we get is filtered through the Gospels and they present 4 portraits ofJesus. If there are differences between the pseudo Paul and Paul it would be helpful to have some idea of when the pseudo Paul was written. If it is after Paul then that might coincide with a softening of apocalyptic beliefs because they were living in the time when there was no Kingdom that had been established. If Jesus knew more then we're back to a Jesus who was not like us, therefore not really human.Again I don't disagree with what you are saying about the Kingdom but it is doubtful if the historical Jesus of 30 CE would've agreed with you. The apocalyptic understanding was that with the fall of the other kingdoms, God would establish his Kingdom on earth - it has not happened. I am ver positive, I am simply differentiating between what I believe about the Kingdom in the 21st C and what we know Jews, including Jesus, his disciples and Paul, believed or expected in the 1st C.

........and this is just one day in the crazy world of the trumpster and his minions 😟

Or perhaps the ideal is if one always lives that dedication and spirituality.

Like us in all ways but sin (the degree of our selfishness). And we do not know the future or how things will unfold. He was not best in his knowledge in that he had the worldview of a 1C CE Jew. No best in knowing what cause certain aliments or illnesses. However, I do agree he was 'best' in his obedience to God and his embedding the Love that was God. Competition? Again, what gospels for the verse, when were those gospels written and they were all after decades of waiting for the Kingdom and began to move to a 'delayed end-time.' It seems that the more genuine sayings are the truly apocalyptic ones. Jesus saw the beginning of what was basically a new religion, Christianity? Jesus saw the Temple being destroyed in the year it was destroyed? Where does Jesus talk about the Kingdom breaking, fading and break-in in again? If this is your present take, I get it but if we're talking about the Jesus of the 1st C - it's just not there, it seems. Jesus could have been the epitome of humanity, the fullest incarnation or embodiment of God - however he was still a man, limited in so many ways - except the one that counts most.

If that is opinion, fine. However, it is not backed up in biblical studies by the experts - and if we're talking about the texts, I go with the experts. Plus did the 1C CE Jews talk about 'experiencing eternity' - would that have even made sense to them? Or did they believe in a physical, earthly Kingdom that was imminent? As to the verses you mentioned, it would have to be asked in what gospel are they found. And of course all of the gospels were written with 4 to 7 decades of believing that Jesus was the messiah.