Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ghid

Begats to Ascension

Recommended Posts

I have returned from the Stone Age. :clap: 

 

Actually, Mom let me take a laptop; and we did have some electricity, so I was able to keep it charged. This is what I did. I read the Gospels. 

 

Recently I read some of a book, The Quest for the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer. 

 


 

The title misleads its readers. Schweitzer talked more about a Rational Jesus than about an Historical Jesus. 

 

In the nineteenth century, scholars tried to apply enlightenment ideas to religion. I know that seems strange on several levels, but I mean that they applied reason. They tried to find rational explanations for Biblical events. Schweitzer’s book tells the history of that process.

 

The scholars also tried to write chronologically about the events in Jesus’ life, from Begats to Ascension. According to Schweitzer, that process has been unsuccessful. 

 

So I made a list, and so far I have about 130 parts. Some are duplicates. Some are short, one or two verses, like Mark 1:14-15  (NIV)

 

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

 

Some, like the Sermon on the Mount, are more than two chapters long. 

 

I still have 10 chapters from Matthew and Luke to edit. Now that I have returned to civilization, I will have less time to work on this, but I think that if I post this thread I will have more incentive to continue. 

 

I became interested in this because some of my relatives attend the Disciples of Christ Church. They support Chapman University, which has a Schweitzer Library.  So they have an interest in Schweitzer and his ministry. 

 

I remember being told in a Sunday School lesson that Schweitzer decided that there is no historical Jesus, except for the Gospels. 

 

Maybe other people will want to talk about The Historical Jesus.

 

:taz:  :)  :clap:  :thumbup: 
Edited by Ghid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, by Catholic teaching, many discuss how the 'Historical Jesus' in America more less is used to refute the true Jesus. they claim the 'Historical Jesus' was a common man, did not come from God. Nonetheless, this could just be wording from my book and we discussing two different subjects :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweitzer's work on Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet was an important recovery, but I think N. T. Wright has the best picture of a historical Jesus I've heard of.

I find historical Jesus work interesting, but ultimately dislike its usual appearance as a means to rationalistically remove the Bible from a portrait of Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, by Catholic teaching, many discuss how the 'Historical Jesus' in America more less is used to refute the true Jesus. they claim the 'Historical Jesus' was a common man, did not come from God. Nonetheless, this could just be wording from my book and we discussing two different subjects :)

 

I can see how the Historical Jesus could be used to argue that Jesus was just a man. :clap: 

 

According to Schweitzer, a scholar, Herman Reimarus, did exactly that about the middle of the nineteenth century. A book, The Passover Plot, a 1965 best seller by Hugh Schonfield uses, IMO. uses many of Reimarus's idea.

 

Seems to me that thinking of Jesus as a man is reasonable because we do think he was a man as well as God. I'm not sure that I can speak for Schweitzer, but I think he agreed with that.

 

:taz:  :)  :clap: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schweitzer's work on Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet was an important recovery, but I think N. T. Wright has the best picture of a historical Jesus I've heard of.

I find historical Jesus work interesting, but ultimately dislike its usual appearance as a means to rationalistically remove the Bible from a portrait of Jesus.

 

I'm not sure that I understand the word, "apocalyptic," but I think it refers to anything to do with the end of the world. For things about the end of the world or end times, Schweitzer uses "eschatological." It that the same thing?

 

:taz:  :)  :clap:  :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I understand the word, "apocalyptic," but I think it refers to anything to do with the end of the world. For things about the end of the world or end times, Schweitzer uses "eschatological." It that the same thing?

 

:taz:  :)  :clap:  :thumbup:

 

In modern pop culture, it indeed refers to the world ending, but its original sense was along the lines of an unveiling or revelation. In particular, "apocalyptic" is used of prophecies, texts, and other preaching/teaching which unveil things through revelatory visions, especially when the topic is what God will soon do/is doing now. In this last sense it intersects with eschatology, as God beginning His final and definitive act in history was always a major theme of apocalypse. In Judaism people who preached the arrival of the eschatological kingdom of God are classified as apocalyptic prophets. This, as Schweitzer's work reminded the world, clearly includes Jesus.

 

Contra Schweitzer, though, Wright argues that the "end of the world" aspect of eschatology as popularly imagined was in fact never a part of mainline Judaism, nor Jesus' preaching and theology. He also argues against the idea that dominical teaching and early Christian belief required Jesus to return in a lifetime, characterizing that as a significant misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In modern pop culture, it indeed refers to the world ending, but its original sense was along the lines of an unveiling or revelation. In particular, "apocalyptic" is used of prophecies, texts, and other preaching/teaching which unveil things through revelatory visions, especially when the topic is what God will soon do/is doing now. In this last sense it intersects with eschatology, as God beginning His final and definitive act in history was always a major theme of apocalypse. In Judaism people who preached the arrival of the eschatological kingdom of God are classified as apocalyptic prophets. This, as Schweitzer's work reminded the world, clearly includes Jesus.

 

Contra Schweitzer, though, Wright argues that the "end of the world" aspect of eschatology as popularly imagined was in fact never a part of mainline Judaism, nor Jesus' preaching and theology. He also argues against the idea that dominical teaching and early Christian belief required Jesus to return in a lifetime, characterizing that as a significant misunderstanding.

 

So NT Wright must be Tom Wright the former Bishop of Durham in Northumberland, UK
 
He writes a lot, a sort of James Patterson of Jesus 
 
The relevant book might be The Original Jesus?
 
 
:)  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So NT Wright must be Tom Wright the former Bishop of Durham in Northumberland, UK

 

He writes a lot, a sort of James Patterson of Jesus 

 

The relevant book might be The Original Jesus?

 

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-original-jesus-life-and-vision-tom-wright/1114708671?ean=9780802842831

 

:)  :) 

That's him. I've never noticed The Original Jesus before; I was introduced to his picture of Jesus through his newer work Simply Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any discussion of Jesus should begin or end with the Begats, so I tried to compare the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and I had a cowabunga moment.

 

Matthew 1:1-17 lists 41 names from Abraham to Jesus. Luke 3:23-38 lists 56 names, and Luke does not mention King Solomon.

 

I had expected closer agreement, and I don't know what I should make of it. I know of one other example where Luke appears to have been dyscalculic, and I might talk about that later. 

 

Possible explanation might be that different Jewish sects had different lists, or maybe different translations use different manuscripts. I used the NIV version.

 

:thumbup:  :)  

 

Relative Time 0000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that John’s Gospel has the best hook, “In the beginning was the word …” in its first verse, but I think that it was not the original introduction. I think that John 20:30-31 might have been the original first paragraph. During a rewrite someone with some poetic talent removed the original introduction and put it at the end of the manuscript. John’s original introduction sounds a lot like Luke’s in Luke 1:1-4 with its I-know-the-truth-and-I’m-going-to-tell-you statement.

 

:)

Edited by Ghid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any discussion of Jesus should begin or end with the Begats, so I tried to compare the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and I had a cowabunga moment.

 

Matthew 1:1-17 lists 41 names from Abraham to Jesus. Luke 3:23-38 lists 56 names, and Luke does not mention King Solomon.

 

I had expected closer agreement, and I don't know what I should make of it. I know of one other example where Luke appears to have been dyscalculic, and I might talk about that later. 

 

Possible explanation might be that different Jewish sects had different lists, or maybe different translations use different manuscripts. I used the NIV version.

 

:thumbup:  :)  

 

Relative Time 0000

It appears to be the case that Matthew intentionally arranged omits generations in order to create his 14-14-14 sequence. Now, the names being different is another matter, though explanations abound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that John’s Gospel has the best hook, “In the beginning was the word …” in its first verse, but I think that it was not the original introduction. I think that John 20:30-31 might have been the original first paragraph. During a rewrite someone with some poetic talent removed the original introduction and put it at the end of the manuscript. John’s original introduction sounds a lot like Luke’s in Luke 1:1-4 with its I-know-the-truth-and-I’m-going-to-tell-you statement.

 

:)

It's an intriguing hypothesis, but lacks manuscript evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first chronological event in the Gospels’ story (Luke 1:5-80)  begins when the angel, Gabriel, who was likely on his way to recite Quran to Muhammad, stops in Jerusalem to tell Zechariah, a temple priest, that his wife will have a son and that he should name him John.

 

Six hundred years later, Gabriel recited the Quran to Muhammad, the Prophet. That is not relevant to the story, but it shows that Gabriel gets around.

 

The text does not say that the son, John, will become John the Baptist. It even asks the question, “What then is this child going to be?”  It does imply the child’s VIP status in that  “... he will be filled with the Holy Spirit …. He will bring back many of the people ... to the Lord their God. he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the .. disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous …,”

 

The most important part must be that he will “ … make ready a people prepared for the Lord,” which in the modern view implies that he will make people ready for Jesus. At the end of the first century BC, it might have meant that people should prepare for the end of the world.

 

:thumbup:  :)  :glare:  B) Relative time 0001

Edited by Ghid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first chronological event in the Gospels’ story ([/size]Luke 1:5-80) [/size]

 begins when the angel, Gabriel, who was likely on his way to recite Quran to Muhammad, stops in Jerusalem to tell Zechariah, a temple priest, that his wife will have a son and that he should name him John. [/size]

 

Six hundred years later, Gabriel recited the Quran to Muhammad, the Prophet. That is not relevant to the story, but it shows that Gabriel gets around. [/size]

He he. He.

 

The text does not say that the son, John, will become John the Baptist. It even asks the question, “What then is this child going to be?”  It does imply the child’s VIP status in that  “... he will be filled with the Holy Spirit ….[/size] [/size]He will bring back many of the people ... to the Lord their God. [/size]… [/size]he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the .. disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous …,” [/size]

 

The most important part must be that he will “ … make ready a people prepared for the Lord,” which in the modern view implies that he will make people ready for Jesus. At the end of the first century BC, it might have meant that people should prepare for the end of the world.[/size]

 

:thumbup:[/size]  :)[/size]  :glare:[/size]  B)[/size] [/size]Relative time 0001[/size]

I think the fundamental issue is thinking of eschatology in terms of the world ending. To the first century Jew, the "world" which ended would only be the present corrupt age. If we could speak of the universe as dying, it would only be in relation to God's coming resurrection. This is why we see the Jews referring to the coming kingdom with reference to the resurrection and regeneration. It would be God's final climactic act by which He would renew all things and vindicate Israel.

In this sense, I would agree that John came to prepare the world for the coming of the kingdom of God, though I would also argue that in doing so he in some way recognized that God was going to inaugurate this kingdom through Jesus, and so you could still also say he was preparing the world for Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He he. He.

 

I think the fundamental issue is thinking of eschatology in terms of the world ending. To the first century Jew, the "world" which ended would only be the present corrupt age. If we could speak of the universe as dying, it would only be in relation to God's coming resurrection. This is why we see the Jews referring to the coming kingdom with reference to the resurrection and regeneration. It would be God's final climactic act by which He would renew all things and vindicate Israel.

In this sense, I would agree that John came to prepare the world for the coming of the kingdom of God, though I would also argue that in doing so he in some way recognized that God was going to inaugurate this kingdom through Jesus, and so you could still also say he was preparing the world for Jesus.

 

Yes that seems reasonable to me.
 
When Jesus said in Mark 1:15, “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news,” his audience might have thought that "It would be God's final climactic act by which He would renew all things and vindicate Israel."
 
:thumbup:  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving chronologically:

 

While Elizabeth, Mary, and Zachariah deal with the birth of John and Jesus in Luke 1:5-80, Mary’s husband, Joseph, deals with his wife’s pregnancy “from the Holy Spirit,” in Matthew 1:18-24. That must have been a cowabunda moment. Maybe even a what’s-a-cubit moment.

 
It is also a great place for an aria, Zachariah and Joseph at stage right and left and with the women in the middle. With King Herod as the tragic protagonist, the magi could be a gold smith, a myrrh merchant, and frankincense merchant. 
 
:thumbup:  :)
 
Relative time 0002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Luke 2:1-21 Jesus’ parents went from the “town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem” to be counted in a census. Wikipedia says that census happened in AD 6.

 

In Luke1, Luke suggested that Jesus and John were born when Herod was king. Herod died in 4 BC.

So maybe Luke’s investigation was not as “carefully investigated” as he thought it was, or one or the other date is a typo.

 

:thumbup:  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Next the narrative switches to Matthew 2:1-17 in which the magician's visit Herod and Jesus. Herod wants to kill Jesus, so Joseph takes him to Egypt. After Herod dies, they return to Nazareth.

 

Now, the narrative switches to Luke 2:22-52. Joseph takes Jesus to Jerusalem for purification rites, and they meet Simeon, “a righteous and devout” man, who was waiting for the Messiah, and they meet Anna, and woman who prayed near the temple.

 

I don’t what I should make of Simeon and Anna, but I can speculate that they were the first to recognize that Jesus would arrange “God's final climactic act by which He would renew all things and vindicate Israel,” or in modern terms they were the first to recognize Jesus as God.

 

Luke also tells a story about how when Jesus was twelve, they celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem. When they began the return trip, Jesus stayed in Jerusalem, and they found him three days later.

 

:thumbup:  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×