Jesus wanted people to live Kingdom lives now. How does one distinguish the rationale for this teaching being: (a) live Kingdom lives to gain admittance to the Kingdom when it comes, vs. (b) it will help usher in (in a relevant way) the Kingdom itself? Not mutually exclusive, but (b) is the one I don’t yet have my finger on.
returning or focussing on aesthetics rather than evidence cause I think that is what you are asking
I will try to answer Robert and Godspell with 2 texts, I am sure I have reference these before
I know Jesus did not specifically mention either of these
Kingdom of God is well described by Jer 31:31-34
this should be take 100% literally I see no reason to invoke metaphors here
everyone knows God, (even Stephen as well as Richard Dawkins would have a very deep awareness of God’s existence), it would not require Godspell or or Billy Graham to explain ANYTHING to them, for some one to say “I am an atheist” would be a joke, it would be so obvious to everyone that God exists as their Parent as well as the Parent of everyone else. Sin, extortion adultery, hate would just be like almost “inconceivable”. philosophical arguments for or against the existence of God (First cause, prime mover) would be utterly superfluous. there are no goats. that there are births is no issue, those born somehow inherit natural understanding of God. that there may be a Caesar or President is no issue because that person’s recognition/submission to God. any power games in marriage would likewise be things of past, tho of course marriage continue as well as births and death ( as previously mentioned in Isaiah 65)
Certainly this is overly psychoanalyzing but I guess this is what Jesus thought of Kingdom of God. [so you see there is nothing magical, other than the magic of some universal awareness, and there is no explicit need for heavenly angels to battle the Roman legions nor round up goats to throw in fires either literal or metaphorical]
coming of Kingdom well described in ** you do not have permission to see this link **
this is almost 100% metaphorical
man coming out of sea, people who hear him speak melting like wax, and then him flying, people armies gathering against him and they are afraid of him but he doesn’t even hold a spear and him destroying them with fire out of his mouth, and so on and so forth till we get to him standing on a mountain and calling all peaceful multitudes to himself
this man is a human being with zero supernatural powers . If I read this why then should I think that Jesus thinks there needs be a magical or supernatural (for want of better words) heavenly army actually rounding up evil bad goats like caesar and Herod.
And note these goats are not literally destroyed or annihilated – how could they be literally destroyed by words coming out of this mans mouth who doesn’t hold even a weapon
May I ask
Robert and Godspel do you think the person described in this passage of Ezra is supernatural?
godspell said
I think you’ve got it just right–it’s both. Jesus doesn’t draw a clear line between the two. To him, it’s a miracle when people treat each other decently with no external motivation to do so. We should all see that as a miracle. The supernatural stuff is secondary to ethics. He still needs to believe in the supernatural, because without it, he can’t see how the good part of us wins out in what we now call a Darwinian universe. Neither did Darwin. Neither do I, but one can always hope.
exactly
Thanks much. Perhaps it’s my odd way of reading it, but when I’ve read that, my brain’s default setting reads that as saying “we can plant the seed to make a Kingdom-like community now, and (when God comes) the community will blossom and be granted participation in the transformed, actual Kingdom.” Like an as-if colony in this age, but part of the actual Kingdom in the age to come. Not discontinuous but distinct. And it’s God that ushers it in.
Robert said
It’s a parable. There’s more than one single true interpretation. It brings you into the interpretive world, and you are trapped, forced to live within its mythic power. And thereby freed from your previous ways of interpreting reality as you saw it before.
Fair enough. I can now see it working both ways – which is more expansive than when I started. Cheers.
but returning to the anachronism criticism (criticism not taken to be pejorative)
Robert said
What I mean when I say that your metaphorical non-apocalyptic interpretation is probably anachronistic is that it does not fit very well with the wealth of apocalyptic texts that we possess from that very time.
I would be happy for you to use this apocalyptic texts that we possess from that very time (4 Ezra 13) if you consider my metaphorical interpretation of it terribly mistaken
“I saw only how he sent forth from his mouth something like a stream of fire, and from his lips a flaming breath”
if the stream of fire coming from his mouth is taken literally then it would be “supernatural” and/or interchangeably “magical”
if the stream of fire coming out of his mouth is taken metaphorically to mean burning exhortations for repentance then it would be natural
Tompicard wrote
So by looking at ** you do not have permission to see this link ** you are not willing to say that Jesus thought that at the resurrection there will be no marriage but only that Mark thought that Jesus thought that at the resurrection there is no marriage?
this is kind of ridiculous
I was assuming in this thread we were taking some of the reports in the gospels to be historically accurate, (well at least these verses) if you aren’t willing to accept that then there is no point in any discussion and even more ridiculous a criticism of anachronism because rather than determining verifiable history you can only consider what the writers of the ancient documents thought was verifiable history
The distinction I’m making is perhaps best illustrated by example. Take the crucifixion. I accept that almost surely the crucifixion of Jesus was a historical event. But we have no access to the details of what actually happened. Mark (or his community) invented narrative details to serve a literary/theological purpose. In Mark’s case he views the crucifixion through the lens of Psalm 22. (Although I find it fascinating that Prof Ehrman disputes this somewhat. I understand his point of view but his existential despairing Jesus (as much as it resonates with moderns) is just as much an anachronism as Crosson’s “wisdom sage”.)
To Mark 12:18, this may well be a view that goes back to the historical Jesus. But Mark has created a “setting” to couch the saying in, a controversy with the Sadducees. Describing myself as a “historical minimalist” seems to have flabbergasted godspell but I simply mean that I think there is a very sparse historical architecture available in the NT. This architecture supports theological/literary narrative details that were composed to present a certain point of view about Jesus.
Make sense? (Not necessary to agree of course.)
and your comment / opinion
Stephen said
from a 21st century secular perspective (which is mine surprise surprise) he was a naïve religious fanatic. is valid opinion but equally as anachronistic as mine or Dr Ehrman’s (maybe more but that is my opinion)
A fantastic question. Another example to help me clarify my point.
A modern feminist critique of Jesus would not be anachronistic.
A modern critic who claims that Jesus was a feminist would be anachronistic.
There is nothing wrong with evaluating the ancients from a modern perspective. But “feminism” as a concept simply didn’t exist in Jesus’ day. So it seems to me that the first step in a modern feminist critique of Jesus would be the realization of the differences between his way of thought and ours. And that is the opposite of anachronism. Make sense?
My “naïve religious fanatic” is hyperbole of course. But it is a very real response to this automatic haze of light we place around Jesus no matter how we otherwise speak of him. So ok maybe he’s not the Son of God but he must have been the wisest far seeing teacher that ever lived! No, we have to see him in his own time and his own place. And when we do the paradox is that it distances us from him.
I simply ask. How would you respond today if a figure comes on TV and announces he is the king of the universe, who will judge heaven and earth at the latter day which is coming next Tues after lunch? Would you seek out this individual as a source of wisdom? Like the feminist critique we can evaluate Jesus from a modern perspective but the first step is to see him as he really was in his own milieu. Once again you don’t have to agree with me but I do want you to understand my actual point of view.
Is there any religious person one in the past 100 (or 1000) years who you dont consider naive and fanatical ?
Of course. I’m not a believer but I’m not one who thinks all believers are stupid. One of my best friends in the whole world whom I’ve known since high school is a Christian minister. (He took the path I was on but did not complete.) At the seminary one of my teachers (godspell thrills to this kind of anecdote) was a renowned expert on Western Christian spirituality, an observer at Vatican II, a friend of Thomas Merton. On Thursday evenings he invited a few of his students over to his house where he served hallucinogenically strong coffee and guided us through the Western mystics. This man was infinitely more sophisticated than most people I’ve ever known. (My deepest regret at leaving seminary was not to be able to become closer friends with this man.) I just think he and my friend are mistaken in their beliefs.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)