Books: Jesus without theology (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 03, 2013, 18:51 (4130 days ago)

A WSJ book review of two books that attempt to show the times and life of Jesus and the development of theology around him.-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323740804578600613629282212.html-"In "Christian Beginnings," Geza Vermes, whose death in May, at age 88, ended perhaps the most celebrated career in Middle Eastern studies of the past half-century (among other distinctions, he published the first English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls), lays out and enhances some of the most important arguments that he helped to make familiar. He asks us to see Jesus as a Jew, a man whose outlook and belief were grounded in Judaism and who did not in any way imagine himself to be reinventing his religion or founding a new one."-"Reza Aslan, in "Zealot," assembles evidence that, like a number of Jewish dissenters under Greek and Roman rule, Jesus was a hot-headed champion of the poor and oppressed against the Jewish hierarchy, whom he saw as puppets of the Romans. He was also, Mr. Aslan argues, a defender of religious purity who did not eschew violence against even Jewish institutions. He was thus in spirit like the revolutionary Zealots of a generation later. Mr. Aslan cites Gospel accounts hard to explain otherwise, such as Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his attack on merchants and money-changers at the Temple. He stresses how anomalous a prophet of peace would have been in such violent times."- "In many ways, according to Vermes, the Galilean holy man resembled, among others, the prophets of ancient Israel—men like Elijah and Isaiah. Their uniting quality was "charisma," or manifestations of the power of God, mainly through preaching, healing and other ministries. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke—probably all written between A.D. 50 and 80—give a credible picture of such a mission and are divided and equivocal regarding Jesus' identity as the messiah. They are even less forthcoming about him as "the son of God"—a Jewish honorific but, when meant literally, blasphemy to traditional Jews of any period.
 
The Book of John—most likely written around the end of the first century—was a major break. Christ as the Logos or Word in John 1—a being existing along with God from the beginning of time as the essential force of creation—is a concept traceable back to Plato. It is easy to see a Greek philosophical influence on the "Johannine" corpus, which includes the Epistles of John and Revelation, as well as the Gospel text. One source may be Philo of Alexandria, whose philosophy epitomizes the Hellenized Judaism of the first century. But is hard to imagine such thinking as part of the peasant, artisan and Temple milieu of a historical Jesus."-
"But Mr. Aslan's claims, as well as those of Vermes, evade the key historical problems. The complete story of Jesus, as his closest followers knew it, made no sense and needed extraordinary explication—hence the quick and extensive development of theology, from Paul all the way to the Nicene Creed. Crucifixion was a vile death, on its own soundly repudiating Jesus' reputation as a charismatic holy man, since divine providence was central to Jewish thought. For a would-be rabble-rouser, on the other hand, crucifixion was a routine, quickly forgotten fate. Yet Jesus was said to have achieved what had not been granted even to the Patriarchs: He had risen from the dead, in the flesh."

Books: Jesus without theology

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, August 04, 2013, 00:14 (4130 days ago) @ David Turell

I am sorry, but this reads more like an account of 'Jesus when we ignore everything he said and did.' Even without bringing theology into it, the miss a lot of what is going on. His 'triumphant entrance to Jerusalem' was him riding into town on a donkey. He didn't tell anyone to go line the streets. (Although that did fulfill a prophecy.) When he was reaching to the masses, he didn't get them riled up and tell them to overthrow their oppressors. In fact, in every account of him talking about or dealing with the Roman's he treated them with respect and humility, even going peacefully into custody when he knew he was going to be put to death. He learned an honest trade from boyhood(carpentry). By all accounts, he was a kind, compassionate, and humble person. Yes, there was the display of what would be considered 'righteous anger' or 'righteous indignation' where he through the money changers and merchants out of the temple, but that hardly qualifies him as a 'rabble rouser' or a rebel any more than throwing a guest out of your father's house for grossly disrespecting him in some way would make you a rebel. (Although that DID set the stage for a future prophecy yet to be fulfilled.) In general, it seems like the authors here cherry picked whatever suited their agenda.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Books: Jesus without theology

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 04, 2013, 05:17 (4130 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: I am sorry, but this reads more like an account of 'Jesus when we ignore everything he said and did.' Even without bringing theology into it, the miss a lot of what is going on. ......... In general, it seems like the authors here cherry picked whatever suited their agenda.-Not to belittle your idea of the theology of Jesus, please remember that these authors are not Christian and are trying to re-create the true events without the overlay of theology. The first gospels are written 60-80 years after the fact. So it is all oral story telling until written down and the accuracy is unfortuantely doubtful. We do not know the objective truths, only the theologic interpretations. You have a right to accept those interpretatins as your true faith, but remember it is faith. What I can accept as an outsider is Jesus was an extraordinary man whose teachings were and are wonderful.

Books: Jesus without theology

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, August 04, 2013, 22:56 (4129 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: I am sorry, but this reads more like an account of 'Jesus when we ignore everything he said and did.' Even without bringing theology into it, the miss a lot of what is going on. ......... In general, it seems like the authors here cherry picked whatever suited their agenda.
> 
>David: Not to belittle your idea of the theology of Jesus, please remember that these authors are not Christian and are trying to re-create the true events without the overlay of theology. The first gospels are written 60-80 years after the fact. So it is all oral story telling until written down and the accuracy is unfortuantely doubtful. We do not know the objective truths, only the theologic interpretations. You have a right to accept those interpretatins as your true faith, but remember it is faith. What I can accept as an outsider is Jesus was an extraordinary man whose teachings were and are wonderful.-I don't find that belittling at all. My point was that they are referencing the gospels but cherry picking what they took from them and ignoring what didn't fit their agenda.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Books: Jesus without theology

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 04, 2013, 23:20 (4129 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> dhw:I don't find that belittling at all. My point was that they are referencing the gospels but cherry picking what they took from them and ignoring what didn't fit their agenda.-Their agenda was to try and see the human Jesus, angry with the corruption of the elders of Judaism. He had a perfect right to be angry and to preach the opposite way. Anyone can cherry pick the gospels. Who knows what is really history and what is embellishment. My wife is born again, believes in Jesus but not a church of Jesus. We both agree his teachings are wonderful. Who needs a religion about him?

Books: Jesus without theology

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 14:11 (4127 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Their agenda was to try and see the human Jesus, angry with the corruption of the elders of Judaism. He had a perfect right to be angry and to preach the opposite way. Anyone can cherry pick the gospels. Who knows what is really history and what is embellishment. My wife is born again, believes in Jesus but not a church of Jesus. We both agree his teachings are wonderful. Who needs a religion about him?-I don't disagree with any of that. He was human while on earth (yes, I do believe he was the Messiah), and he had emotions, both before, during, and after his time on earth. I also agree that there is no church, as an institution needed, except in one very significant sense. 'Do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together.' The real purpose of the early 'church' before it became a 'church' was to help upbuild and encourage each other through the association of like minded people, and to give those people a place and time that was insulated from all the madness going on in the world. In that sense, I think a congregation or gathering can be very, very beneficial and has a place. As an institution with rules and laws and all of that, no, I see no need for one either.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum