Jump to content

NT Wright on women preachers


Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, thormas said:
 

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. 

I can only remember the name of one scholar, it was Young. In the late 70's early 80's I did some studying at big city libraries and ecclesiastical libraries. Some of the crap I read really made me cringe. This was before people like Spong and Ehrman and before the internet. Just recently I read someone who was claiming to be a "scholar" who said that all the books of the NT had been written before like 55 CE and that he was sure of it and all this stuff. I didn't save his name or the link, I just closed the page and moved on. I guess that people can find "scholars" to tell them what ever they want to hear no matter what it is.

There are experts of all kinds, as I mentioned above. I kind of like Richard Rohr's idea of the "tricycle". He states that experience of God and JC and the HS are the front wheel, and to him, and myself, the more important wheel, and tradition and texts are the rear wheels. Myself, seeing that most if not all of the early Christians just got the faith, and the inspiration and the "experience" of God & & through JC, with no texts what so ever (non-Jewish people had no texts not even the OT), to myself this is of real importance and meaning.

Could Jesus read and write? He's only depicted once as writing anything. This is in the sand, with the woman caught in adulatory, (just the woman, no man was brought forth with her). If a person can write, they can read. Stories in Luke tell of him being a very wise youth and talking and arguing with the elders in the temple at age twelve. Does this mean he could read and write? I don't know. Did he need to be able to read and write, and how important is it / was it, is another good question. Same for his followers, both in those days and at any time in terms of getting the faith and the spirit and the experience of God. Children seem to know and experience this best, and they can't really read and write that well or that often.

23 hours ago, thormas said:

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 :+}

My understanding of Judaism is that they don't have denominations, they have "branches".  They are all Jewish, and it's not as separate as the way we understand denominations, but they do have groups, perhaps one could call them sects, that do think differently. This is true today, I can't remember the names of them, but there is a good number of them. I believe this was true back in the 1st C too.

The person and his spirit would still exist, be real, and be true,... even without a book behind or on top of him 🙂 .

22 hours ago, thormas said:

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 myself would rather use the term 'in-tune' with God . . . but each to their own

What do you think is the "big stuff" that is important in friendship?

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 8/23/2020 at 10:59 AM, thormas said:
 

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. 

I can only remember the name of one scholar, it was Young. In the late 70's early 80's I did some studying at big city libraries and ecclesiastical libraries. Some of the crap I read really made me cringe. This was before people like Spong and Ehrman and before the internet. Just recently I read someone who was claiming to be a "scholar" who said that all the books of the NT had been written before like 55 CE and that he was sure of it and all this stuff. I didn't save his name or the link, I just closed the page and moved on. I guess that people can find "scholars" to tell them what ever they want to hear no matter what it is.

There are experts of all kinds, as I mentioned above. I kind of like Richard Rohr's idea of the "tricycle". He states that experience of God and JC and the HS are the front wheel, and to him, and myself, the more important wheel, and tradition and texts are the rear wheels. Myself, seeing that most if not all of the early Christians just got the faith, and the inspiration and the "experience" of God & & through JC, with no texts what so ever (non-Jewish people had no texts not even the OT), to myself this is of real importance and meaning.

Could Jesus read and write? He's only depicted once as writing anything. This is in the sand, with the woman caught in adulatory, (just the woman, no man was brought forth with her). If a person can write, they can read. Stories in Luke tell of him being a very wise youth and talking and arguing with the elders in the temple at age twelve. Does this mean he could read and write? I don't know. Did he need to be able to read and write, and how important is it / was it, is another good question. Same for his followers, both in those days and at any time in terms of getting the faith and the spirit and the experience of God. Children seem to know and experience this best, and they can't really read and write that well or that often. There are NT and Gospel of Thomas verses that pretty much say that children are the "experts".

On 8/23/2020 at 11:10 AM, thormas said:

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 :+}

My understanding of Judaism is that they don't have denominations, they have "branches".  They are all Jewish, and it's not as separate as the way we understand denominations, but they do have groups, perhaps one could call them sects, that do think differently. This is true today, I can't remember the names of them, but there is a good number of them. I believe this was true back in the 1st C too.

Was Paul an apocalyptic Jew? Did he paint his ideas of apocalyptic Judaism on top of Jesus? Is that where we get that from instead of Jesus himself? Like we've mentioned, we don't even know if Jesus could read and write, we have to turn to his spirit inside us as best we can to find out. Perhaps we will never know for sure. Perhaps it is something we can only speculate on and the rest is left up to God/the Higher Spirit. 

The person and his spirit would still exist, be real, and be true,... even without a book behind or on top of him 🙂 .

23 hours ago, thormas said:

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 myself would rather use the term 'in-tune' with God . . . but each to their own

What do you think is the "big stuff" that is important in friendship?

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

I can only remember the name of one scholar, it was Young. In the late 70's early 80's I did some studying at big city libraries and ecclesiastical libraries. Some of the crap I read really made me cringe. This was before people like Spong and Ehrman and before the internet. Just recently I read someone who was claiming to be a "scholar" who said that all the books of the NT had been written before like 55 CE and that he was sure of it and all this stuff. I didn't save his name or the link, I just closed the page and moved on. I guess that people can find "scholars" to tell them what ever they want to hear no matter what it is.

There are experts of all kinds, as I mentioned above. I kind of like Richard Rohr's idea of the "tricycle". He states that experience of God and JC and the HS are the front wheel, and to him, and myself, the more important wheel, and tradition and texts are the rear wheels. Myself, seeing that most if not all of the early Christians just got the faith, and the inspiration and the "experience" of God & & through JC, with no texts what so ever (non-Jewish people had no texts not even the OT), to myself this is of real importance and meaning.

Could Jesus read and write? He's only depicted once as writing anything. This is in the sand, with the woman caught in adulatory, (just the woman, no man was brought forth with her). If a person can write, they can read. Stories in Luke tell of him being a very wise youth and talking and arguing with the elders in the temple at age twelve. Does this mean he could read and write? I don't know. Did he need to be able to read and write, and how important is it / was it, is another good question. Same for his followers, both in those days and at any time in terms of getting the faith and the spirit and the experience of God. Children seem to know and experience this best, and they can't really read and write that well or that often. There are NT and Gospel of Thomas verses that pretty much say that children are the "experts".

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?

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

My understanding of Judaism is that they don't have denominations, they have "branches".  They are all Jewish, and it's not as separate as the way we understand denominations, but they do have groups, perhaps one could call them sects, that do think differently. This is true today, I can't remember the names of them, but there is a good number of them. I believe this was true back in the 1st C too.

Was Paul an apocalyptic Jew? Did he paint his ideas of apocalyptic Judaism on top of Jesus? Is that where we get that from instead of Jesus himself? Like we've mentioned, we don't even know if Jesus could read and write, we have to turn to his spirit inside us as best we can to find out. Perhaps we will never know for sure. Perhaps it is something we can only speculate on and the rest is left up to God/the Higher Spirit. 

The person and his spirit would still exist, be real, and be true,... even without a book behind or on top of him 🙂 .

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 😀

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

I myself would rather use the term 'in-tune' with God . . . but each to their own

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 ☺️

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

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?

I don't know if everyone would call Rohr a "scholar" or not.  He did receive his masters degree in theology from the University of Dayton in 1970. Regardless, he's a pretty bright and enlightened guy.

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

The Jews passed down their oral traditions for thousands of years before they were written down. The native Americans in this country have been passing down "sacred" stories for thousands of years, and they have just become written down in this past century or two.  I know people who believe that we would still know about Jesus even if the books hadn't been preserved and canonized. Mostly we know Jesus through our faith and through his spirit given to us. All people really need is just a few words about him, just the "good news" and faith and spirit can really take us from there. When people heard the "good news" in the 1st C that was a lot of all they had, and it was something real and enough. If you don't think he has a living spirit that can reach us, then what do you believe in and what is the basis of your faith?

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

Did 1st C Gentile Christians have OT texts? My understanding is that they were kept in the synagogues on scrolls and were taken out only for readings during services. They weren't in book form and copying them was a long and painstaking process. 

 

2 hours ago, thormas said:

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 😀

I believe the Jewish people call them branches.

Do Hurtado and Hengel state that all 1st C Jews thought alike in these matters? We are not talking about God's kingdom here, but an apocalyptic view on how this is supposed to  happen. I know that today there are many branches, at least that's what I've heard Jewish people say. How many there were back then, I don't know. Regardless, I tend to think that Jesus was able to think independently. 

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

Yeah, all this preaching and teaching lead to the books. The question is, how good were/are the books?

Maybe the book writers and people behind them were trying to get a handle on and control of Christianity before all people really started believing they were all equal, so they dumped and wrapped all this hierarchical stuff on and into the books and onto Christianity.  

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

Branches or denominations, the question remains.

 

I just found this on this subject:

Jewish Sects of the 1st Century (1)

Harvard’s renowned late scholar Jacob Neusner wrote in Judaism When Christianity Began, p.5, 50: “Judaism divides into Judaisms….Judaisms that flourished in Second Temple times, before 70 CE, when the Temple was destroyed.”  There were several “Judaisms” in the Holy Land.

This two-part topic identifies seven main Jewish religious sects or groups extant in the Land in the 1st century.  The time when Jesus lived as a Jew and the temple still existed.  Part 1 discusses the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees.  Part 2 discusses the Herodians, Zealots, Essenes, Nazarenes.

https://bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com/2018/05/26/jewish-sects-of-the-1st-century-1/

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

I also found a thing that said there were these sects/branches, but also there were all the other regular people. It seems that the "regular people" out numbered these different groups/sects. I'm thinking that Jesus might have been talking mostly to the regular people. Paul however was a Pharisee.

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

I don't know if everyone would call Rohr a "scholar" or not.  He did receive his masters degree in theology from the University of Dayton in 1970. Regardless, he's a pretty bright and enlightened guy.

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

 

 

 

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

I know people who believe that we would still know about Jesus even if the books hadn't been preserved and canonized.

What people and on what do they base this opinion?

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

Mostly we know Jesus through our faith and through his spirit given to us. All people really need is just a few words about him, just the "good news" and faith and spirit can really take us from there. When people heard the "good news" in the 1st C that was a lot of all they had, and it was something real and enough. 

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. 

 

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

The Jews passed down their oral traditions for thousands of years before they were written down. The native Americans in this country have been passing down "sacred" stories for thousands of years, and they have just become written down in this past century or two.  I know people who believe that we would still know about Jesus even if the books hadn't been preserved and canonized. Mostly we know Jesus through our faith and through his spirit given to us. All people really need is just a few words about him, just the "good news" and faith and spirit can really take us from there. When people heard the "good news" in the 1st C that was a lot of all they had, and it was something real and enough. If you don't think he has a living spirit that can reach us, then what do you believe in and what is the basis of your faith?

 

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.

 

13 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Did 1st C Gentile Christians have OT texts? My understanding is that they were kept in the synagogues on scrolls and were taken out only for readings during services. They weren't in book form and copying them was a long and painstaking process. 

 

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.

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

Do Hurtado and Hengel state that all 1st C Jews thought alike in these matters? We are not talking about God's kingdom here, but an apocalyptic view on how this is supposed to  happen. I know that today there are many branches, at least that's what I've heard Jewish people say. How many there were back then, I don't know. Regardless, I tend to think that Jesus was able to think independently. 

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. 

14 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Yeah, all this preaching and teaching lead to the books. The question is, how good were/are the books?

Maybe the book writers and people behind them were trying to get a handle on and control of Christianity before all people really started believing they were all equal, so they dumped and wrapped all this hierarchical stuff on and into the books and onto Christianity.  

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?

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

I just found this on this subject:

Jewish Sects of the 1st Century (1)

Harvard’s renowned late scholar Jacob Neusner wrote in Judaism When Christianity Began, p.5, 50: “Judaism divides into Judaisms….Judaisms that flourished in Second Temple times, before 70 CE, when the Temple was destroyed.”  There were several “Judaisms” in the Holy Land.

This two-part topic identifies seven main Jewish religious sects or groups extant in the Land in the 1st century.  The time when Jesus lived as a Jew and the temple still existed.  Part 1 discusses the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees.  Part 2 discusses the Herodians, Zealots, Essenes, Nazarenes.

https://bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com/2018/05/26/jewish-sects-of-the-1st-century-1/

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

I also found a thing that said there were these sects/branches, but also there were all the other regular people. It seems that the "regular people" out numbered these different groups/sects. I'm thinking that Jesus might have been talking mostly to the regular people. Paul however was a Pharisee.

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.

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

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

 

 

 

I thought we were talking about whether Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew or not.

If you, and these scholars believe that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, because Paul and other Jews were apocalyptic in their thinking,... I don't see how one statement necessarily leads to and concludes the other.

13 hours ago, thormas said:

What people and on what do they base this opinion?

On their own simple and inspired faith and the inspired faith of others being passed along orally and  spiritually through time and through the ages.

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

Actually we first know about him from the texts preserved in the communities down through the ages. 

 

No, people first knew about him from his presence and the spoken words that he gave his first followers. Then people knew about him from the spoken words and presence of these followers. Today we can know about him by his spiritual presence in our lives, and the few words that are spoken about him that tell us where and when he walked this earth.

13 hours ago, thormas said:

And any 'few words' come from the texts - both canonical and apocrypha.

 

The few words, "Jesus is (the) Christ", though they are written down and canonized with a lot of other stuff, can just as well be passed down orally and verbally. That's the way it was in the beginning. Is there any reason why it shouldn't still matter and pertain down to and into this present day?

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

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 😋 

 

The problem with these books is that they are a mixture of truth and fiction and outright bile. Some parts a truth and worth quoting and are good messages. Other parts are vile and mean and even down right evil.  The fact that they are mixed and presented as "the word of God" creates a kind of mindbender that really can mess people up and can even create a kind of psychological illness.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

Just out of curiosity who exactly are you talking about that tired to control Christianity?

Those who are into hierarchical thinking and hierarchical ways of living. Those with control trips and who are into controlling others. Governments, religious leaderships, parents, gender dominance, people who are bent on the leader-follower mentality, instead of recognizing and getting along with other people as equals.

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

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.

What we are focusing on is was Jesus apocalyptic and was this the way and the only way that he and the Jews of the 1st C. saw and understood the coming of the Kingdom.

I'm saying that it is quite possible that Jesus was not apocalyptic. I'm also saying that it is quite possible that there were Jews and Gentiles who were not apocalyptic, and that they saw the coming of the Kingdom in a different way and form, rather than the apocalyptic one. 

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

I thought we were talking about whether Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew or not.

If you, and these scholars believe that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, because Paul and other Jews were apocalyptic in their thinking,... I don't see how one statement necessarily leads to and concludes the other.

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. 

3 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

On their own simple and inspired faith and the inspired faith of others being passed along orally and  spiritually through time and through the ages.

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.

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

No, people first knew about him from his presence and the spoken words that he gave his first followers. Then people knew about him from the spoken words and presence of these followers. Today we can know about him by his spiritual presence in our lives, and the few words that are spoken about him that tell us where and when he walked this earth.

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.  

3 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

The few words, "Jesus is (the) Christ", though they are written down and canonized with a lot of other stuff, can just as well be passed down orally and verbally. That's the way it was in the beginning. Is there any reason why it shouldn't still matter and pertain down to and into this present day?

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.

 

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

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. 

 

Apparently a number of people who wrote about Jesus were apocalyptic or at least partially  apocalyptic in their thinking. This does not mean that Jesus was. It just means that the people who wrote about him after his ministry were.

54 minutes ago, thormas said:

Again, what people? Examples??

 

People with true faith and belief in Christ.

 

59 minutes ago, thormas said:

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.

Or, it could have been just based in their faith in Christ 

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

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.

 

Well, perhaps it's not ALL the same word. Perhaps some of it IS and some of it isn't. Perhaps some of it has been edited and insertions have been made, to reflect what ever these editors and inserters wanted to add or take away from Jesus's message.

If people just accept the Spirit of Christ within them, they/we can better discern what is and are Jesus's true messages and wisdom. Perhaps if people just had that, or just went with that, or gave more credence and importance to just that, then we wouldn't be in the awful, confusing muddle we are in now about what is and what isn't the real and true word and ways of God.

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

The problem with these books is that they are a mixture of truth and fiction and outright bile. Some parts a truth and worth quoting and are good messages. Other parts are vile and mean and even down right evil.  The fact that they are mixed and presented as "the word of God" creates a kind of mindbender that really can mess people up and can even create a kind of psychological illness.

The books I have been talking about are the gospels (the NT) and you have been quoting them in your posts.Unless one is a literalist, we know they are a mix of 'truth' and fiction but you'll have to give examples of the bile and explain why you think some are bile and mean???

Thus the need for scholars to help with the mind bender parts. Paul and I had a discussion a good while back about the Temple incident and I did a good bit of research on it which cast it in a very different light. 

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

Those who are into hierarchical thinking and hierarchical ways of living. Those with control trips and who are into controlling others. Governments, religious leaderships, parents, gender dominance, people who are bent on the leader-follower mentality, instead of recognizing and getting along with other people as equals.

If we are talking about the original writing of the gospels and the entirety of the NT, I assume they were good people trying their best. As for later generations, there were good people and not so good people, some of the latter did try to bend the religion to their wills or use it for their own purposes (power, control, wealth). However, also throughout the history of Christianity there have been magnificent men and women for whom the good news was just that and they felt a responsibility to understand it, comment on it and explain it for the benefit of others. 

Especially when talking about a progressive Christianity, I simply don't see control trips and such sites can provide a means to counter the misuse or control attempted by others.

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

What we are focusing on is was Jesus apocalyptic and was this the way and the only way that he and the Jews of the 1st C. saw and understood the coming of the Kingdom.

I'm saying that it is quite possible that Jesus was not apocalyptic. I'm also saying that it is quite possible that there were Jews and Gentiles who were not apocalyptic, and that they saw the coming of the Kingdom in a different way and form, rather than the apocalyptic one. 

You presented an author and I am asking a question. That question was, "...is he saying that there are radically different views specifically of the expected Messiah and the Kingdom to be established by God on earth?" And that pertains to your assertion or belief.

If you are saying that about Jesus, on what do you base it? As to Jews and Gentiles of the early 1st C - to whom are you referring, specifically? 

If it is just speculation on your part, fine. However if you have some basis for your statements, I am interested.

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

Apparently a number of people who wrote about Jesus were apocalyptic or at least partially  apocalyptic in their thinking. This does not mean that Jesus was. It just means that the people who wrote about him after his ministry were.

The 'people' that we're talking about are some of the gospel writers. And they are presenting Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet as 'evidenced' in his sayings, parables, teachings. As Allison said, if we cannot trust them on this (again given the overwhelming number of texts previously mentioned) then we have to toss the whole gospel enterprise (my words since I don't have his exact words in front of me). Simply the gospels cannot be relied upon and that is all we have of Jesus except a few letters, some of which we know are not authentic. 

I have talked about scholars who believe and show the apocalyptic Jesus and also speak of the later gospel - when the Kingdom did not arrive in the lifetime of the disciples of Jesus - having to 'change their tune' and downplaying or ignoring the apocalyptic message of Jesus. 

If you have a way to show that Jesus was not such a prophet, what are they? On what do you base your statement?  

40 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

People with true faith and belief in Christ.

That is all people who are truly Christian so you have not really answered the question. 

41 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:
Or, it could have been just based in their faith in Christ 

No, their faith was dashed wth the execution of Jesus as a criminal. However, with the resurrection experience, they turned to and found support and explanation with reference to the Jewish scriptures and their oral preachings began an oral tradition that eventually found its way into the written gospels. 

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

Well, perhaps it's not ALL the same word. Perhaps some of it IS and some of it isn't. Perhaps some of it has been edited and insertions have been made, to reflect what ever these editors and inserters wanted to add or take away from Jesus's message.

If people just accept the Spirit of Christ within them, they/we can better discern what is and are Jesus's true messages and wisdom. Perhaps if people just had that, or just went with that, or gave more credence and importance to just that, then we wouldn't be in the awful, confusing muddle we are in now about what is and what isn't the real and true word and ways of God.

We were talking about the specific words, "Jesus is the Christ" and I said those words alone were not sufficient.

However, what other words are you now talking about? Which words are and are not 'all the same word' and on what do you base what the real same word is?

I conclude by quoting Allison from his previously mentioned book:

"As for eschatology in particular, my contention is that either a decent number of the entries in my catalogue (which I eluded to earlier in a post) fairly characterize what Jesus was about, or the tradition is so full of mnemonic holes and fictional accretions that the quest is a vain aspiration and we should find some other pastime with which to amuse ourselves. Opting, as I do, for the former alternative entails that Jesus had firm eschatological expectations, to which he gave frequent expression. More precisely, he envisaged, as did many in his time and place, the advent, after suffering and persecution, of a great judgment, and after that a supernatural utopia, the kingdom of God, inhabited by the dead come back to life, to enjoy a world forever rid of evil and wholly ruled by God. Further, he thought that the night was far gone, the day at hand."

Edited by thormas
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