Jump to content

NT Wright on women preachers


Recommended Posts

On 8/17/2020 at 8:00 PM, PaulS said:

It is most likely that later gospel authors such as Matthew and Luke, who had an element of gentile audiences, would have added gentile-friendly stories about Jesus to fit their own personal beliefs.  As I have mentioned, these stories simply don't exist in Mark, our earliest Gospel, that Matthew and Luke build on.

That's not so. I haven't been able to study all of Mark with this question in mind, but here are some verses in Mark that do show Jesus teaching and preaching and healing non-Jewish people:

Mark 3:7 Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake, and a large crowd from Galilee followed. 8 When they heard about all he was doing, many people came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon

Tyre and Sidon are Canaanite regions. Idumea I’m still trying to figure out. I see no reason to suppose that these verses are more or less made up than any of the others

 Mark 5:1-20 Jesus heals a man with a demon called legion and sends them into a herd of pigs. We all know that Jews don’t eat pork, this is not a Jewish territory. It is called “the region of the Gerasenes”. This is a Gentile, culturally Greek area. Jesus tells the man to tell his own people about this, which he does in the Decaplis, (ten cities). The New Testament doesn’t say that all the people became believers, but it does say that they were all “amazed”.

 JS Spong states in his book ‘Jesus for the Non-Religious’ (page 197), that the ‘feeding of the 4,000’ in Mark 8:1-21 was on the “Gentile side of the lake”.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 407
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Time to throw AJ into all this.  

Forgiveness is the only way to rid yourself of resentment.  It does nothing for the other, but everything for the self.

I agree.

On 8/18/2020 at 9:46 AM, JosephM said:

As far as Erhman goes it is fine with me if he and others wish to 2nd guess concerning the kingdom that Jesus preached. I am convinced that it was spiritual and it is an experience rather than a physical kingdom that will reveal itself as confirmation to each in his/her own order.

 

I agree with you on this, this is how the "kingdom comes"

Jesus himself, as far as we know, never owned a house, or wrote a book. He even had to borrow a donkey to ride into town. He didn't have a thrown or a castle or fancy clothes and ornaments, and still he is the "king".

Like you say, it's spiritual and is an experience, rather than a physical kingdom. Maybe it cover the  earth someday, until then it happens and comes to each person in their own time and at their own pace and in their own understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I agree with you on this, this is how the "kingdom comes"

Jesus himself, as far as we know, never owned a house, or wrote a book. He even had to borrow a donkey to ride into town. He didn't have a thrown or a castle or fancy clothes and ornaments, and still he is the "king".

Like you say, it's spiritual and is an experience, rather than a physical kingdom. Maybe it cover the  earth someday, until then it happens and comes to each person in their own time and at their own pace and in their own understanding.

Still, it is two different points: Jesus did believe in a physical Kingdom that was to be solely established by God, this was the apocalyptic hope of Jews at that time. When time kept marching on, the early Christians began to rethink the Kingdom till we arrived at John's Gospel. Thereafter we think of it as a spiritual Kingdom that dawned in Jesus and continues in each of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2020 at 7:20 AM, thormas said:

Still, it is two different points: Jesus did believe in a physical Kingdom that was to be solely established by God, this was the apocalyptic hope of Jews at that time. When time kept marching on, the early Christians began to rethink the Kingdom till we arrived at John's Gospel. Thereafter we think of it as a spiritual Kingdom that dawned in Jesus and continues in each of us.

I'm thinking that if Jesus really is the Christ, which I think he is, he would have known what was to come and how things were going to unfold.

I agree he was depicted this way sometimes, by those who wrote and constructed the first three gospels. Perhaps because it was how they saw things, that is what they projected onto him and how they wrote him up.

Can't help but think that if Jesus had really wanted everything he said and or thought to be written down, there would be some mention of him saying that and telling someone/some people to do just that. If it had happened, wouldn't it have been in Aramic, the language that Jesus, and everyone he was communicating with, were speaking? There's no scrap of any such document(s). 

Instead, what we have, is to live in his spirit and love, as well as God's love and that of the Holy Spirit. . . . (with no real book(s) . . . Just the indwelling spirit, which maybe is plenty enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that if Jesus really is the Christ, which I think he is, he would have known what was to come and how things were going to unfold.

I agree he was depicted this way sometimes, by those who wrote and constructed the first three gospels. Perhaps because it was how they saw things, that is what they projected onto him and how they wrote him up.

Can't help but think that if Jesus had really wanted everything he said and or thought to be written down, there would be some mention of him saying that and telling someone/some people to do just that. If it had happened, wouldn't it have been in Aramic, the language that Jesus, and everyone he was communicating with, were speaking? There's no scrap of any such document(s). 

Instead, what we have, is to live in his spirit and love, as well as God's love and that of the Holy Spirit. . . . (with no real book(s) . . . Just the indwelling spirit, which maybe is plenty enough.

I think, as did the early Christians, that he was 'exalted' by God and thereafter their devotion to him was as Lord and Messiah (Christ). 

If Jesus knew what you say he knew, he simply wasn't like us, he was not human as we are and all (salvation) is for naught.

Actually the earliest Christians and Paul were all apocalypticists and it was the later gospels, living when the Kingdom had been delayed for decade upon decade, that began to soften the apocalypticism of Jesus.  

Edited by thormas
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

If Jesus knew what you say he knew, he simply wasn't like us, he was not human as we are and all (salvation) is for naught.

I don’t get this idea.  What is your definition of ‘human’?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burl said:

I don’t get this idea.  What is your definition of ‘human’?

It's not this: "he would have known what was to come and how things were going to unfold." 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, thormas said:

It's not this: "he would have known what was to come and how things were going to unfold." 

 

Prophets are human.  I think humanity is defined by our sensory, animal nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Burl said:

Prophets are human.  I think humanity is defined by our sensory, animal nature.

I don't think prophets knew what was to come or how things were going to unfold. Texts were written after the fact and the prophecy was placed on the lips of the prophets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, thormas said:

I think, as did the early Christians, that he was 'exalted' by God and thereafter their devotion to him was as Lord and Messiah (Christ). 

 

I lean towards thinking that people saw his eternity, or saw/experienced the eternity in him, during his earthly life/ministry, not just after the reresection.

There are plenty of verses about eternal life, and his being the messiah, in the body of and during the course of the gospels. 

17 hours ago, thormas said:

If Jesus knew what you say he knew, he simply wasn't like us, he was not human as we are and all (salvation) is for naught.

 

First off, how much "like us" do you need him to be? He was human, but perhaps the best of and the most that any human could or can ever be. If I, as a person, were to try to enter in to a competition with him, I'd just give up before step one, and say you have it, you win. I don't however think this is so much of a competition or anything like that. Maybe a learning experience and something more, maybe something much, much more. But a competition, no. I'm just not doing that.

The verses where Jesus is quoted as saying, (quotes are from memory here), "The kingdom of heaven is within you", "The kingdom of heaven comes in a way that cannot be seen", "The kingdom of heaven is scattered among you and people do not see it". These verses don't sound very apocalyptic and actual, physical "end of the worldy" to me. Don't see how people see him as being so  completely apocalyptic in this way, when there are much subtler verses that express the coming of the kingdom.

If JC was just a regular person, and he had set the changes in motion that he did, it doesn't take that big an all seeing outlook to figure that things would pan out somewhat the way that they did. That the kingdom inbreaks and fades and then inbreaks again, (over and over again), as the rest of us humans slowly make our way forward.

17 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually the earliest Christians and Paul were all apocalypticists and it was the later gospels, living when the Kingdom had been delayed for decade upon decade, that began to soften the apocalypticism of Jesus.  

I can see it that the earliest Christians, (at least some of them) and Paul were apocalyptical, but I don't think that JC was. Some words may have been put into his sayings to suit their views, or maybe they/we just misunderstood some of the things he said and how he meant them, but apocalyptic in the way we tend to uses the word, no. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

I lean towards thinking that people saw his eternity, or saw/experienced the eternity in him, during his earthly life/ministry, not just after the reresection.

There are plenty of verses about eternal life, and his being the messiah, in the body of and during the course of the gospels. 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

First off, how much "like us" do you need him to be? He was human, but perhaps the best of and the most that any human could or can ever be. If I, as a person, were to try to enter in to a competition with him, I'd just give up before step one, and say you have it, you win. I don't however think this is so much of a competition or anything like that. Maybe a learning experience and something more, maybe something much, much more. But a competition, no. I'm just not doing that.

The verses where Jesus is quoted as saying, (quotes are from memory here), "The kingdom of heaven is within you", "The kingdom of heaven comes in a way that cannot be seen", "The kingdom of heaven is scattered among you and people do not see it". These verses don't sound very apocalyptic and actual, physical "end of the worldy" to me. Don't see how people see him as being so  completely apocalyptic in this way, when there are much subtler verses that express the coming of the kingdom.

If JC was just a regular person, and he had set the changes in motion that he did, it doesn't take that big an all seeing outlook to figure that things would pan out somewhat the way that they did. That the kingdom inbreaks and fades and then inbreaks again, (over and over again), as the rest of us humans slowly make our way forward.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

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. 

I get a little tired of foo-foo "scholars and experts" sometimes, (though at other times I do appreciate them). It shouldn't be so incredibly complicated and people shouldn't need 3 PHDs to understand the basic faith and love in Christ. They shouldn't even have to read and write and a whole bunch of other technical stuff that seems to be spread all over and under the life and eternity of Christ.

It's my understanding that some Jews believe in eternity and some don't. Which are which, I couldn't tell you.

If you are going to get your understanding of Christ just from Paul, then you are layering Paul onto Christ. Just because he was the first writer in the cannon, doesn't mean he was always right, or always knew everything. There's the difference in his letters and the pseudo-Paul letter(s) that the reresection had already begun, or that people were already stepping into eternity, or whether this happened later, or even and including after death.

I just tend to think that Jesus knew more. He had some idea that the coming of the kingdom was not this once and for all time apocalyptic event. If one looks at it from one point of view, one could say that when one passes into Christ, that one passes into another spiritual "dimension",  where eternity really is inside and all around one.

Looking at it from another point of view, one could say that "apocalypses" have been happening in some form or other all through out history. Whether it's the destruction of the 2nd temple, the fall of Rome, the black plague, the world wars, covid, etc. I don't know how it fits together and probably never will. 

I do try to focus on the positive side, for myself it just seems better and makes my mind clearer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

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? 

 

"Like us in all ways but sin." I haven't heard that line in a long time. Can I ask, do you believe in the virgin birth/conception? Is that how he was so free of the human "sinful" nature, or do you believe he had the same nature, but didn't sin and was able to overcome and not actually commit/do any sins?

I myself think that he might have had a bit more going for him than the world view of a 1C CE Jew. Nothing against them, I just think he knew and was aware of more. Did he know the future, in full or in part(s)? I don't know. He might have had a clue or two like we all do, if you do x, y is probably going to happen. If you say "all people are created equal", Rome or the Jewish leaders, or The 1776 English crown, or the hyper-hierarchists, or the fundamentalists are going to get mad at you. So what does one do then? Stick to it and keep bringing up the idea again and again until people get it I guess.

I'm not much for "obedience" to God. I'm also not much for the 'commandment' to love God. To me, if one knows God, one loves God, it's that simple. If one knows God and loves God then it's not "obedience". One just wants to do the right thing(s) gladly and happily, and with an open and smiling heart, and there's no real "obedience" tacked on to it.  Of course I've never been asked to go to a cross, or have my throat slit for my beliefs, but I still think there might be more to it.

Competition? I've known some people who seem to go into competition with Christ. It's like it's about, 'who's the greatest person ' in town or in all eternity for that matter. They are always trying to bring Christ down and or build themselves up. Maybe so they can take Christ's or God's place in other people's lives, I don't know. Maybe they had a mommy or daddy who put them first, before even god, and they want and expect that from everyone else and don't get why they are not getting it. I don't know, but I've seen it happen.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

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. 

 

If you're not looking to the gospels then you are looking to the Pauline letters. That's fine, but then you are placing Paul and Paul's world view onto Christ. They are not the same thing or the same person. Paul was brilliant at sometimes and not so brilliant at other times. He doesn't and shouldn't speak for Christ in all things.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Jesus saw the beginning of what was basically a new religion, Christianity? Jesus saw the Temple being destroyed in the year it was destroyed? 

 

I don't know if or how much Jesus saw into the future. I don't know what God showed him or told him.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

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. 

 

Just like I said above, I don't know how much Jesus knew or was told by God.

If it's true, he might have known that we evolved instead of came into being through the Genesis stories, and he just chose not to tell everyone, cause he knew they couldn't handle it and wouldn't believe it. Plus it wasn't that important for their "salvation" and understanding of eternity, just like their understanding that the earth is round or that it revolves around the sun wasn't/isn't.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

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.

Don't know what his limits were are weren't. Maybe someday we'll find out.

Maybe it's not our business and we just get to know what we need to know, (for where we're at) and that's it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I get a little tired of foo-foo "scholars and experts" sometimes, (though at other times I do appreciate them). It shouldn't be so incredibly complicated and people shouldn't need 3 PHDs to understand the basic faith and love in Christ. They shouldn't even have to read and write and a whole bunch of other technical stuff that seems to be spread all over and under the life and eternity of Christ.

It's my understanding that some Jews believe in eternity and some don't. Which are which, I couldn't tell you.

If you are going to get your understanding of Christ just from Paul, then you are layering Paul onto Christ. Just because he was the first writer in the cannon, doesn't mean he was always right, or always knew everything. There's the difference in his letters and the pseudo-Paul letter(s) that the reresection had already begun, or that people were already stepping into eternity, or whether this happened later, or even and including after death.

I just tend to think that Jesus knew more. He had some idea that the coming of the kingdom was not this once and for all time apocalyptic event. If one looks at it from one point of view, one could say that when one passes into Christ, that one passes into another spiritual "dimension",  where eternity really is inside and all around one.

Looking at it from another point of view, one could say that "apocalypses" have been happening in some form or other all through out history. Whether it's the destruction of the 2nd temple, the fall of Rome, the black plague, the world wars, covid, etc. I don't know how it fits together and probably never will. 

I do try to focus on the positive side, for myself it just seems better and makes my mind clearer. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, thormas said:

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.

I know that this is the pop, trendy, group-think, modern way of understanding Jesus nower days, even among scholars. I myself just don't think it's true. I think there was and is more to the man. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

"Like us in all ways but sin." I haven't heard that line in a long time. Can I ask, do you believe in the virgin birth/conception? Is that how he was so free of the human "sinful" nature, or do you believe he had the same nature, but didn't sin and was able to overcome and not actually commit/do any sins?

I myself think that he might have had a bit more going for him than the world view of a 1C CE Jew. Nothing against them, I just think he knew and was aware of more. Did he know the future, in full or in part(s)? I don't know. He might have had a clue or two like we all do, if you do x, y is probably going to happen. If you say "all people are created equal", Rome or the Jewish leaders, or The 1776 English crown, or the hyper-hierarchists, or the fundamentalists are going to get mad at you. So what does one do then? Stick to it and keep bringing up the idea again and again until people get it I guess.

I'm not much for "obedience" to God. I'm also not much for the 'commandment' to love God. To me, if one knows God, one loves God, it's that simple. If one knows God and loves God then it's not "obedience". One just wants to do the right thing(s) gladly and happily, and with an open and smiling heart, and there's no real "obedience" tacked on to it.  Of course I've never been asked to go to a cross, or have my throat slit for my beliefs, but I still think there might be more to it.

Competition? I've known some people who seem to go into competition with Christ. It's like it's about, 'who's the greatest person ' in town or in all eternity for that matter. They are always trying to bring Christ down and or build themselves up. Maybe so they can take Christ's or God's place in other people's lives, I don't know. Maybe they had a mommy or daddy who put them first, before even god, and they want and expect that from everyone else and don't get why they are not getting it. I don't know, but I've seen it happen.

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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I know that this is the pop, trendy, group-think, modern way of understanding Jesus nower days, even among scholars. I myself just don't think it's true. I think there was and is more to the man. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

If you're not looking to the gospels then you are looking to the Pauline letters. That's fine, but then you are placing Paul and Paul's world view onto Christ. They are not the same thing or the same person. Paul was brilliant at sometimes and not so brilliant at other times. He doesn't and shouldn't speak for Christ in all things.

 

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. 

Edited by thormas
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thormas said:

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?

 

 

For myself, what God wants me to do is also, plain and simple, what I want to be doing. It's just as much happily going along with God as with my true christ/godish self. Yeah, God shows me/us what this/these things are and how to go about things through our insight and understanding, but there is no conflict here and no "obedience". To Love God is to Love doing what one wants to do and one just wants to do what one can do inside of God. One doesn't want to do anything outside of God or outside of the holy spirit of things. 

I don't really think that anyone should be "obedient" to anyone. Yeah, sometimes one does what the other person wants to do, when they don't really want to. But that's not "obedience", that's just being nice. If the other person doesn't do the same in return, then people have to work that out. With God it's different, one just needs to be inline and in-tune with God and there is no conflict, one is just merrily going along doing what one wants to do anyways, and they end up being the same thing. It is important to realize where the higher insight and inspiration is coming from, that's just being honest with oneself and giving real credit where it's due. Being In-tune with God and in harmony with God is a lot better than being "obedient" to God. To me it just makes a lot more positive sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

For myself, what God wants me to do is also, plain and simple, what I want to be doing. It's just as much happily going along with God as with my true christ/godish self. Yeah, God shows me/us what this/these things are and how to go about things through our insight and understanding, but there is no conflict here and no "obedience". To Love God is to Love doing what one wants to do and one just wants to do what one can do inside of God. One doesn't want to do anything outside of God or outside of the holy spirit of things. 

I don't really think that anyone should be "obedient" to anyone. Yeah, sometimes one does what the other person wants to do, when they don't really want to. But that's not "obedience", that's just being nice. If the other person doesn't do the same in return, then people have to work that out. With God it's different, one just needs to be inline and in-tune with God and there is no conflict, one is just merrily going along doing what one wants to do anyways, and they end up being the same thing. It is important to realize where the higher insight and inspiration is coming from, that's just being honest with oneself and giving real credit where it's due. Being In-tune with God and in harmony with God is a lot better than being "obedient" to God. To me it just makes a lot more positive sense.

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. 

Edited by thormas
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

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.

All I know is that no one used to say that about Jesus. All of a sudden it became pop, and trendy and the thing to say to make a person look intelligent, & then everyone was saying it.

I've encountered "serious" scholars that have been at it for decades. Some of them have a lot of good insights and info. that they pass along and others, not so much. Most of them are a mixed package. For myself right now it seems to be about how much of a mix of what and what are they conveying, (to use the words of one of the early church fathers, "mix of truth and bile")? I'm finding that I don't agree with anyone completely, and that's just life. Wish I did, but I don't, so I just have to deal with it and try to figure it out. All I have is my own intelligence,  (just the same as anyone else), so I do the best, hopefully the very best) I can with that.

I myself would have a hard time calling Jesus "limited in many ways". But we all have our own right to our own take on things. After all we do live in free countries in this respect.

2 hours ago, thormas said:
 

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. 

I'm not good at remembering chapter and verse, if I have time, I'll  look them up.

I don't see Paul's world view as necessarily being that of Jesus or that of all 1st C Jews. One can have a bunch of 1st C Jews thinking one way, and another bunch thinking another way, (from what I've learned, they didn't all think the same, then or now). There can even be an individual who thinks their own, independent way thinking, and Jesus could quite possibly been one of these.

I agree with you that there are differences between Jesus and Paul and also differences between Jesus and each gospel writer. So what do we have left, but the spirit of Jesus within us. (& no book 🙂 ) 

 

1 hour ago, thormas said:

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. 

Myself, I can do without the word "obedience", but each to our own I guess. To me, one just lives in Love and peace and joy, and there's no "obedience".

Can I ask, what do you mean by "the big stuff that makes or breaks a life and a marriage"?

----------------------------

Edit> found at least 2 of those verses. Different versions put it in different words

https://www.biblehub.com/luke/17-20.htm

https://www.biblehub.com/luke/17-21.htm

 

Edited by Elen1107
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

All I know is that no one used to say that about Jesus. All of a sudden it became pop, and trendy and the thing to say to make a person look intelligent, & then everyone was saying it.

I've encountered "serious" scholars that have been at it for decades. Some of them have a lot of good insights and info. that they pass along and others, not so much. Most of them are a mixed package. For myself right now it seems to be about how much of a mix of what and what are they conveying, (to use the words of one of the early church fathers, "mix of truth and bile")? I'm finding that I don't agree with anyone completely, and that's just life. Wish I did, but I don't, so I just have to deal with it and try to figure it out. All I have is my own intelligence,  (just the same as anyone else), so I do the best, hopefully the very best) I can with that.

I myself would have a hard time calling Jesus "limited in many ways". But we all have our own right to our own take on things. After all we do live in free countries in this respect.

 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm not good at remembering chapter and verse, if I have time, I'll  look them up.

I don't see Paul's world view as necessarily being that of Jesus or that of all 1st C Jews. One can have a bunch of 1st C Jews thinking one way, and another bunch thinking another way, (from what I've learned, they didn't all think the same, then or now). There can even be an individual who thinks their own, independent way thinking, and Jesus could quite possibly been one of these.

I agree with you that there are differences between Jesus and Paul and also differences between Jesus and each gospel writer. So what do we have left, but the spirit of Jesus within us. (& no book 🙂 ) 

 

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 :+}

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Myself, I can do without the word "obedience", but each to our own I guess. To me, one just lives in Love and peace and joy, and there's no "obedience".

Can I ask, what do you mean by "the big stuff that makes or breaks a life and a marriage"?

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.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service