Jump to content

Jesus In The Nt


thormas
 Share

Recommended Posts

Where we left off at Pistis Christou.

 

Hi, Thormas. You raise some important points -- points that have been debated by biblical scholars and historians with no clear consensus. There are many clues in the gospel accounts of Jesus' life that indicate he was not the simple Aramaic-speaking carpenter from Galilee that we've been told to see. Paul, of course, is of no help when it comes to the life of the historical Jesus.

 

The Gospel of Mark is especially rich in small details that aren't obvious to us today, but no doubt were obvious to the audience for whom Mark wrote. Authorship and dating of all the gospels is also not as clear as we might like, but I find the evidence for an early date for Mark -- early to mid 60's -- compelling.

 

In Mark, we have Jesus described in two ways: as a physician (Mark 2:17) and as a carpenter (Mark 6:3). Theologians have chosen to see the second reference as a literal description and the first reference as a symbolic description. But are you certain the theologians are correct? If the theologians are correct, then how do they account for the family of Jesus described in Mark 6:1-5? A first century Jewish family with four surviving sons, an unknown number of sisters, and a widowed mother who had not remarried almost certainly describes a wealthy family with resources and good nutrition, since the average lifespan of a 1st century Mediterranean male was about 35 years, many children were lost to death or slavery early in life, and there was tremendous pressure of Jewish widows to remarry unless they were fortunate enough to have personal means, societal influence, and the protection of Augustus' marriage law reforms (which were all too brief).

 

This is just one example. There are other examples which, when added together, imply that Jesus was born into an educated, wealthy family -- in which case, he almost certainly was literate. Who do we imagine wrote the parables? These are short but brilliant works of literature that demonstrate an in-depth understanding of both Jewish and Hellenistic rhetorical devices.

 

It cannot be stated that Jesus didn't write anything down. Many assume Jesus was only the carpenter and not the physician (though I don't see any reason why he couldn't have been both). The case for Jesus' having been exactly what Mark said he was -- a physician -- increases the likelihood that Jesus was both educated and literate.

My response:

Jen,

Mark 2:17 - this is not a question of a Markan passage not being 'obvious' to modern people, it is a misunderstanding of the text: Jesus is not self identifying as a physician, it is about who 'He' comes for: sinners. I have actually never heard this interpretation by anyone, but especially not by critical biblical scholars. When talking about the bible, I am not referring to theologians but biblical scholars and there is no reasonable choice here, it is evident in reading the passage. This seems comparable to the Prodigals Son: the good son is already 'with the Father,' but it is the sinner, the prodigal for whom the Father (comes) waits and celebrates upon his return. So on this, I side with the scholars.

If Jesus was wealthy, what was his or the family business that produced the wealth? What is the source for the answer? If Jesus, the physician, was the breadwinner, why would the family risk everything by turning on him? Then how would that same family survive the loss of his income? He certainly wasn't working during his ministry - anywhere from 1-3 years according to the gospels.

As for the family of Jesus, your description does not automatically point to a wealthy family and 'almost certainly' is a guess not based on reliable evidence. What are the sources and supporting independent evidence in the NT or the writings of Josephus or others to support this suggestion that such a family - if accurately described - would need to be wealthy to survive? We don't know how many sisters, we know of other NT brothers who made a living as fisherman and were not rich (and don't know if they came from large family also), we don't know when Joseph died or when the other sisters or brothers were married, thus shrinking the size of the family.

This is not an example, it is guess work, and I doubt there are other examples that are reliable. Guesses are fine and your right, but these are not based on dependable research or an understanding of the history of the region during the time of Jesus. Who was invading Roman territory to take people as slaves? And the Romans would leave people alone unless they were regarded as troublemakers (evident in treatment of the Zealots, Jesus himself as a 'rival king" and the execution of other 'messiahs' and the Jewish population during the Jewish Wars). This simply does not ring true.

As for Jesus being literate, perhaps, but the odds were against it. However, this is not to say he was not a very bright, even a brilliant?, insightful man, steeped in the faith of his people and standing on the shoulders of those who came before him. As to who wrote the parables, the only ones we have are found in the NT so, the gospel writers. However, I believe scholars trace them and/or there use back to Jesus.

I refer you to Bart Ehrman's blog and this posting on literacy: https://ehrmanblog.o...-from-the-past/. He refers to a full length study, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine: total literacy in Palestine was probably around 3%; those who were literate were largely located in urban areas; some villages and towns had literacy rates of lower than 1%.

We have nothing Jesus wrote, so we cannot prove he did (didn't) write anything but given the literacy rate, the odds are against it. I think, even if he could, he was too busy especially if his ministry was only 1 year.

Jen's response:

Just to be clear so you know where I'm coming from in my statements about the historical Jesus . . . please don't feel you need to point out to me the difference between biblical scholars and theologians. I have a recent Masters degree in theological studies from a reputable Canadian university, and my bookshelves are groaning with biblical studies texts (including many of Ehrmans's), as well as theology tomes, ancient history texts, the entire 2014 5-volume New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, many issues of Biblical Archaeology Review (which is the only magazine I subscribe to!), and right now I'm eagerly awaiting the delivery of wonderful next book about the history of ancient Samaria. (I hope it arrives today!)

My statements above are not guesswork. They're based on solid socio-historical research. You may not agree with my interpretation of the information available to us at this time, but I'm not going to worry too much about that, since no one interpretation can be said to be "the one correct truth."

I do agree with you, however, when you say that Jesus was "a very bright, even a brilliant?, insightful man, steeped in the faith of his people and standing on the shoulders of those who came before him."

Absolutely.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have nothing Jesus wrote, so we cannot prove he did (didn't) write anything but given the literacy rate, the odds are against it. I think, even if he could, he was too busy especially if his ministry was only 1 year.

 

Proof? Corroborating evidence perhaps?

Do we even have a Biblical claim that Jesus was literate?

 

One of the concerns I have is that we have little contemporary historical evidence of Jesus's existence. OK we can take the various Gospels etc as evidence but the evidence is a little circular. Also a similar argument can be advanced regarding other historical characters; we might be a little circumspect about them too. So for me the questions becomes how literally should we take the New Testament ... if at all? While the historicity of the Jesus is an interesting debate, to me a more interesting question becomes what were the later scribes trying to say or were they just trying to document the history they inherited?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And back to me:

 

Jen,

My comment about referring to theologians as opposed to biblical scholars when discussing NT passages was about how I operate; I was not pointing out the difference to you. In addition, I too have a Masters in Theology and bookshelves filled with the same kinds of books.

 

Again, stating that Jesus was an actual (and wealthy) physician is, I believe, a misreading of the text. Therefore, because it is appears a 'reading into' what is not in the text and because I don't believe this claim has ever been heard, or hinted at, by a critical biblical scholar or historian of Early Christianity, I considered it a guess. There is scholarly consensus on some factual claims we can make of Jesus, for example: he existed, he was a Jew, he came from Galilee, he was crucified, etc. Then there are positions that come as a result of 'critical' scholarly research and scholars 'test' these positions against the work and opinions of other equally competent scholars. It is also the case that some positions seem 'more correct' than others - while other positions seem questionable and can be critiqued or even discredited by the weight of scholarly research and/or historical evidence.

 

As an example, a solid number of critical scholars have stated that Jesus is best understood as an Apocalyptic Prophet, others that Jesus is best understood as Savior - while other writers presented Jesus as a Myth. The first two positions, while they differ in various areas and even on the best summary understanding of Jesus are more biblically and historically based than the latter writers. In this case, most scholars or students who read these scholars would consider that some of these opinions are "more correct' than others.

 

What is the socio-historical research, what is the historical evidence, who are the scholars that hold the interpretation that Jesus was a wealthy physician? And what are opinions of this interpretation in the 'critical' scholarly community?

 

I would also be interested in how Jesus' encounters with the wealthy young man or the rich man and the eye of the needle square with a wealthy Jesus.

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Proof? Corroborating evidence perhaps?

Do we even have a Biblical claim that Jesus was literate?

 

One of the concerns I have is that we have little contemporary historical evidence of Jesus's existence. OK we can take the various Gospels etc as evidence but the evidence is a little circular. Also a similar argument can be advanced regarding other historical characters; we might be a little circumspect about them too. So for me the questions becomes how literally should we take the New Testament ... if at all? While the historicity of the Jesus is an interesting debate, to me a more interesting question becomes what were the later scribes trying to say or were they just trying to document the history they inherited?

Rom,

 

Perhaps you misread. Jen believes that jesus was literate, I allow for the possibility in that we will simply never know - but given the work I cited, the probability is very slim (1% or less) that he was. I lean to the opinion that he was not literate.

 

As for the existence of Jesus, there are external sources and I refer you to Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The answer from this agnostic, biblical scholar and historian is a resounding, Yes!

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to contribute my two cents ( perhaps no more than one ), the three words given near the beginning of this thread sum up the situation..."no clear concensus". In my opinion, there will never be any consensus.

 

The subject keeps a few academics in buisness, and provides weight for the bookshelves. Maybe the subject can aid the faith of a Christian in some way lost to me, but it certainly is lost to me.

 

Very near the beginning of the so called "search for the historical Jesus" Albert Schweitzer came to the conclusion that the actual Jesus of history was lost in time, and that all that could ever be found by gleaning the gospels was the "Christ of Faith". Maybe progress has been made since then but asfar as the few books I have read myself, I did not find it do. Just speculation and more speculation - even the growth of the "Jesus Myth" theory.

 

I find it significant that more often than not the various Christian mystics speak of Christ and not of Jesus. Their faith centres upon the "light that lights all who come into the world".

 

Personally, I see things in such a way. Pure Land Buddhism centres upon what can only be deemed "myth" and in the Interfaith dialogue between Pure Landers and certain Christian theologians, it is thought that it is all the better for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to contribute my two cents ( perhaps no more than one ), the three words given near the beginning of this thread sum up the situation..."no clear concensus". In my opinion, there will never be any consensus.

 

The subject keeps a few academics in buisness, and provides weight for the bookshelves. Maybe the subject can aid the faith of a Christian in some way lost to me, but it certainly is lost to me.

 

Very near the beginning of the so called "search for the historical Jesus" Albert Schweitzer came to the conclusion that the actual Jesus of history was lost in time, and that all that could ever be found by gleaning the gospels was the "Christ of Faith". Maybe progress has been made since then but asfar as the few books I have read myself, I did not find it do. Just speculation and more speculation - even the growth of the "Jesus Myth" theory.

 

I find it significant that more often than not the various Christian mystics speak of Christ and not of Jesus. Their faith centres upon the "light that lights all who come into the world".

 

Personally, I see things in such a way. Pure Land Buddhism centres upon what can only be deemed "myth" and in the Interfaith dialogue between Pure Landers and certain Christian theologians, it is thought that it is all the better for it.

 

A rather low opinion of the scholar group - keeping them in business! But definitely good for the bookshelf business.

 

It probably is the Christ of Faith that always has been the touchstone for believers since the first days of Christianity. And, although it is not for everyone, I find that a great deal of very reasonable opinions can be made, appear reasonable and provide a better 'handle' on the historical Jesus (as long as one doesn't drink too much of their own bathwater). But ultimately I agree, it is Christ.

 

Plus, for some this is fun! Especially on a Friday afternoon with a cup of tea or a glass of wine - depending on your belief system. It was a great way to meet girls in grad school :-)

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rather low opinion of the scholar group - keeping them in business! But definitely good for the bookshelf business.

 

It probably is the Christ of Faith that always has been the touchstone for believers since the first days of Christianity. And, although it is not for everyone, I find that a great deal of very reasonable opinions can be made, appear reasonable and provide a better 'handle' on the historical Jesus (as long as one doesn't drink too much of their own bathwater). But ultimately I agree, it is Christ.

 

Plus, for some this is fun! Especially on a Friday afternoon with a cup of tea or a glass of wine - depending on your belief system. It was a great way to meet girls in grad school :-)

Ah ha! The old "get to meet the girls ploy"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rom,

 

Perhaps you misread. Jen believes that jesus was literate, I allow for the possibility in that we will simply never know - but given the work I cited, the probability is very slim (1% or less) that he was. I lean to the opinion that he was not literate.

 

As for the existence of Jesus, there are external sources and I refer you to Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The answer from this agnostic, biblical scholar and historian is a resounding, Yes!

 

Not really ... I was just cautioning against the use of the word proof ... unless you want to use in a legalistic (balance or probabilities, reasonable doubt) or in a logical/mathematical sense (where one's axioms are well developed).

 

The rest of my post was agreeing with you and wondering about the necessity of the truthiness of the Jesus story.

 

It's like wondering how real Winston Smith was in 1984 ... it potentially misses the whole point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps I have read Did Jesus Exist?

 

​I don't recall Bart citing any contemporary evidence for Jesus. Though I do recall him providing a little bit of evidence for a contemporary Nazareth ... which up to about 2009 was scant to non existent. (2009 from memory)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jesus was literate. He was certainly educated and had an encyclopedic knowledge of Scripture.

 

Perhaps Jesus learned by rote. Difficult but possible. A convincing point for me is how often Jesus prefaced his quotation of Scripture with, "It is written that . . .". Not conclusive evidence, but substantial.

 

Ben Witherington has posted a thorough treatment. See the third of four blog posts by BW3. If deeply interested flip back to the first and start there.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/11/04/was-jesus-illiterate-part-three/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jesus was literate. He was certainly educated and had an encyclopedic knowledge of Scripture.

Perhaps Jesus learned by rote. Difficult but possible. A convincing point for me is how often Jesus prefaced his quotation of Scripture with, "It is written that . . .". Not conclusive evidence, but substantial.

Ben Witherington has posted a thorough treatment. See the third of four blog posts by BW3. If deeply interested flip back to the first and start there.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/11/04/was-jesus-illiterate-part-three/

 

I had written more but lost it.

Jesus must have been fluent in Aramaic (his language), probably Hebrew (a cousin of Aramaic and the language of Scripture), and, it could be argued he would have had to know Greek (proficient rather than fluent?) as it was the language of the empire and as a worker with his hands needed it as a working citizen of the empire. As for Latin, the language of the law and the military, perhaps not but one author did bring up this might be the language necessary to speak to Pilate (not Greek?).

 

So, multilingual but literal (reading and writing)? Perhaps, given Burl's and other articles on the value of education: at least able to read the one 'book:' the Scriptures??

Able to read Aramaic - perhaps as it is close to Hebrew and necessary for some work?? Greek, work related? Latin, doubtful. But these last three are pure guesses. As for writing, no evidence of which I'm aware.

 

But all seems conjecture because we have this article and the one suggesting that literacy in rural Palestine was 1%??

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had written more but lost it.

Jesus must have been fluent in Aramaic (his language), probably Hebrew (a cousin of Aramaic and the language of Scripture), and, it could be argued he would have had to know Greek (proficient rather than fluent?) as it was the language of the empire and as a worker with his hands needed it as a working citizen of the empire. As for Latin, the language of the law and the military, perhaps not but one author did bring up this might be the language necessary to speak to Pilate (not Greek?).

 

So, multilingual but literal (reading and writing)? Perhaps, given Burl's and other articles on the value of education: at least able to read the one 'book:' the Scriptures??

Able to read Aramaic - perhaps as it is close to Hebrew and necessary for some work?? Greek, work related? Latin, doubtful. But these last three are pure guesses. As for writing, no evidence of which I'm aware.

 

But all seems conjecture because we have this article and the one suggesting that literacy in rural Palestine was 1%??

Why are we asking this question? It's interesting to noodle on but I don't see it leading anywhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to contribute my two cents ( perhaps no more than one ), the three words given near the beginning of this thread sum up the situation..."no clear concensus". In my opinion, there will never be any consensus.

The subject keeps a few academics in buisness, and provides weight for the bookshelves. Maybe the subject can aid the faith of a Christian in some way lost to me, but it certainly is lost to me.

Very near the beginning of the so called "search for the historical Jesus" Albert Schweitzer came to the conclusion that the actual Jesus of history was lost in time, and that all that could ever be found by gleaning the gospels was the "Christ of Faith". Maybe progress has been made since then but asfar as the few books I have read myself, I did not find it do. Just speculation and more speculation - even the growth of the "Jesus Myth" theory.

I find it significant that more often than not the various Christian mystics speak of Christ and not of Jesus. Their faith centres upon the "light that lights all who come into the world".

Personally, I see things in such a way. Pure Land Buddhism centres upon what can only be deemed "myth" and in the Interfaith dialogue between Pure Landers and certain Christian theologians, it is thought that it is all the better for it.

What is Pure Land and how does it differ from Zen, Lamanism, Shaolin or all the other variations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Burl, just something to noodle on. But it was tied to Jen's contention that Jesus was a wealthy physician and thus educated and literate. Thoughts on that?

Jesus' occupation as a tekton and his association with the fisherman place him as middle class. Not wealthy, but not a peasant either. The fishermen were wealthy with established businesses, some having paid servants.

 

I read the 'physician' quote in Mark as sarcasam and an indication of wit and intelligence. I think a lot of the humor in the Bible is competely missed by grumblepussed theologans.

 

Reaspiritik is correct in that Jesus healed a lot of physical and mental conditions. Jesus was a physican in that sense, no doubt about it.

Edited by Burl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus' occupation as a tekton and his association with the fisherman place him as middle class. Not wealthy, but not a peasant either. The fishermen were wealthy with established businesses, some having paid servants.

 

I read the 'physician' quote in Mark as sarcasam and an indication of wit and intelligence. I think a lot of the humor in the Bible is competely missed by grumblepussed theologans.

 

Reaspiritik is correct in that Jesus healed a lot of physical and mental conditions. Jesus was a physican in that sense, no doubt about it.

 

What is your source for fishermen being wealthy, and tekton being middle class? Just curious?

 

Not sure about the humor but will look again. Didn't read like humor.

 

It is in the tradition that Jesus healed but Jen meant an actual (wealthy) physician or else I suspect she would have made that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is Pure Land and how does it differ from Zen, Lamanism, Shaolin or all the other variations?

 

Hi Burl, many thanks for a question that could perhaps keep me occupied until doomsday. Simpler to refer you to a thread I began on Pure Land Buddhism on this Forum..........

 

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/3149-pure-land-buddhism/

 

 

Which goes some way to towards an answer.

 

Having googled "Lamanism" I am told that it is a form of Buddhism that has "elaborate rituals", and "Shaolin" appears to be associated with the martial arts, though I did glean that it may have originated in China and may have involved Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma is more associated with Zen, and one of the famous zen koans is "why did Bodhidharma come from the West?". Zen I do now more about but I'm still at a loss as to why he did come from the West. He was the one who, when asked by the then emperor of China who it was who stood before him, answered "A bag of bones with nothing holy in it". ( Another version is "I don't know" ) Then the emperor mentioned all the good deeds he had done and asked Bodhidharma what benefit he had gained from them. "No benefit at all" he was told. Anyway, I'm waffling as usual, but one surely has to think of "Not by works lest anyone should boast"?

 

Then there is D T Suzuki, who was raised by a mother who was immersed in Shin (Pure Land Buddhism), yet who is known primarily as the one who bought Zen to the West. But he never lost his Pure Land roots. When he met with Thomas Merton in New York he was much taken with a few words that Merton quoted him from a South American theologian...."Praise be to God that I am not good". So I ask you.....what is the difference between Christianity and zen?

 

Anyway, Pure Land Buddhism is generally seen as non-monastic and egalitarian, It has no "masters". It is often deemed to be for the simpler folk. It centers around Amida, the Buddha of the Western Paradise. Veneration of Amida has a long history, far longer than the Japanese exressions of Pure Land Buddhism (which arose there in the 12th century as a reaction to what was perceived as Buddhist monastic elitism) Just how tangled it all becomes can be seen by the fact that the great Buddhist thinker Nagarjuna of the third century CE, known as the founder of the central philosophy of Buddhism, the Madhyamaka, which is just about as austere as you can get, nevertheless also wrote hymns to Amida and apparently saw no contradiction. Such things make me think............

 

Well, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your source for fishermen being wealthy, and tekton being middle class? Just curious?

 

Not sure about the humor but will look again. Didn't read like humor.

 

It is in the tradition that Jesus healed but Jen meant an actual (wealthy) physician or else I suspect she would have made that point.

Mark 1:20 James and John had hired servants. I would say that puts them in the wealthy category. The fishemen had capital equipment, boats & nets, and they controlled the major source of protein in Galilee. They were kind of like the cattle barons in the American west.

 

Tektons were craftsmen, sometimes wood but usually stone. They had tools and skills well above the common peasant laborer. If you go with Luke's decription of the flight to Egypt Joseph could afford to pass up work for a while. I think middle class is a safe assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark 1:20 James and John had hired servants. I would say that puts them in the wealthy category. The fishemen had capital equipment, boats & nets, and they controlled the major source of protein in Galilee. They were kind of like the cattle barons in the American west.

 

Tektons were craftsmen, sometimes wood but usually stone. They had tools and skills well above the common peasant laborer. If you go with Luke's decription of the flight to Egypt Joseph could afford to pass up work for a while. I think middle class is a safe assumption.

 

Burl, there were also small ranchers in the American West and they were not rich in any sense of the word. Not all suppliers of cattle were barons, not all suppliers of protein in Galilee (although I do admire the phrase for fish along with capital equipment) were fish barons of the Galilee. Some probably had one boat or a shared boat, nets and friends - unless we can account for all the fishers of fish, it is a guess. Fun to noodle but ultimately without an answer.

 

As for James and John, were the servants theirs or their father's? There is a difference. And is there collaboration from other sources in the NT (probably can't count Matthew and Luke -although I haven't checked - because they took most of Mark and added) so this would mean John, Paul etc.? Are their others sources that would collaborate that fishing was a wealthy enterprise and there were 'fish barons' in Galilee? I simply had never heard this presentation before.

 

I allow that the trip to Egypt is not historical but I do get that a tekton, as a craftsman - unless they were just hired help - might be paid more than the hired laborer. Do we know which Jesus was? I don't however, know how to put these ancient occupations into classes: poor, middle or wealthy. Source?

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi Burl, many thanks for a question that could perhaps keep me occupied until doomsday. Simpler to refer you to a thread I began on Pure Land Buddhism on this Forum..........

 

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/3149-pure-land-buddhism/

 

 

Which goes some way to towards an answer.

 

Having googled "Lamanism" I am told that it is a form of Buddhism that has "elaborate rituals", and "Shaolin" appears to be associated with the martial arts, though I did glean that it may have originated in China and may have involved Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma is more associated with Zen, and one of the famous zen koans is "why did Bodhidharma come from the West?". Zen I do now more about but I'm still at a loss as to why he did come from the West. He was the one who, when asked by the then emperor of China who it was who stood before him, answered "A bag of bones with nothing holy in it". ( Another version is "I don't know" ) Then the emperor mentioned all the good deeds he had done and asked Bodhidharma what benefit he had gained from them. "No benefit at all" he was told. Anyway, I'm waffling as usual, but one surely has to think of "Not by works lest anyone should boast"?

 

Then there is D T Suzuki, who was raised by a mother who was immersed in Shin (Pure Land Buddhism), yet who is known primarily as the one who bought Zen to the West. But he never lost his Pure Land roots. When he met with Thomas Merton in New York he was much taken with a few words that Merton quoted him from a South American theologian...."Praise be to God that I am not good". So I ask you.....what is the difference between Christianity and zen?

 

Anyway, Pure Land Buddhism is generally seen as non-monastic and egalitarian, It has no "masters". It is often deemed to be for the simpler folk. It centers around Amida, the Buddha of the Western Paradise. Veneration of Amida has a long history, far longer than the Japanese exressions of Pure Land Buddhism (which arose there in the 12th century as a reaction to what was perceived as Buddhist monastic elitism) Just how tangled it all becomes can be seen by the fact that the great Buddhist thinker Nagarjuna of the third century CE, known as the founder of the central philosophy of Buddhism, the Madhyamaka, which is just about as austere as you can get, nevertheless also wrote hymns to Amida and apparently saw no contradiction. Such things make me think............

 

Well, that's all.

 

Hey, I though this was about Jesus in the NT. Is this leading to Jesus taking a side trip to the land of Buddha? :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I though this was about Jesus in the NT. Is this leading to Jesus taking a side trip to the land of Buddha? :-)

I remember during the days I was interested in the "historical Jesus" reading some claim that he was in India at some point. Convincing? No, but the book shelves groaned more deeply.

 

Seriously, for better or worse I actually read through the thread I linked, and must say how relevant much of it was with regard to the "Pistis Christou" thread and its "alternatives".

Edited by tariki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burl, there were also small ranchers in the American West and they were not rich in any sense of the word. Not all suppliers of cattle were barons, not all suppliers of protein in Galilee (although I do admire the phrase for fish along with capital equipment) were fish barons of the Galilee. Some probably had one boat or a shared boat, nets and friends - unless we can account for all the fishers of fish, it is a guess. Fun to noodle but ultimately without an answer.

 

As for James and John, were the servants theirs or their father's? There is a difference. And is there collaboration from other sources in the NT (probably can't count Matthew and Luke -although I haven't checked - because they took most of Mark and added) so this would mean John, Paul etc.? Are their others sources that would collaborate that fishing was a wealthy enterprise and there were 'fish barons' in Galilee? I simply had never heard this presentation before.

 

I allow that the trip to Egypt is not historical but I do get that a tekton, as a craftsman - unless they were just hired help - might be paid more than the hired laborer. Do we know which Jesus was? I don't however, know how to put these ancient occupations into classes: poor, middle or wealthy. Source?

Well, that is what I think and why I thunk it. It's just my opinion. The guy gets invited to fancy weddings and brings the wine. Not rich and not poor. Middle class.

 

What is your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember during the days I was interested in the "historical Jesus" reading some claim that he was in India at some point. Convincing? No, but the book shelves groaned more deeply.

Seriously, for better or worse I actually read through the thread I linked, and must say how relevant much of it was with regard to the "Pistis Christou" thread and its "alternatives".

Agreed. Unexpectedly relevant and a pleasant surprise.

 

I love it when that happens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service