teresa said
In what way does that affect our understanding of the verse talking about The Son of Man coming on the clouds?
Hi Spiker,
I’ve just reread what you have written and whilst I’ve replied I missed this bit. Have you considered that this may not be speaking of literal clouds?
Once again (I must have the memory of a gnat I vaguely remember something but not the details ) I’ve read about the use of Jewish imagery and is it in Hebrews where the “cloud of witnesses “is spoken of?
Teresa x
You might want to take a look at Bart’s Apocalyptic prophet of the new millenium.The problem with the whole cloud thing is theres nothing to tell us whether its literal. Is sin a metaphor? Is the ressurection just a metaphor?
I tend to think Jesus got it wrong; badly wrong. That he died a tragic brutal death. I do think Jesus expected a cosmic figure to arrive and destroy gods enemies and stand in judgement.
teresa said
In what way does that affect our understanding of the verse talking about The Son of Man coming on the clouds?
Hi Spiker,
I’ve just reread what you have written and whilst I’ve replied I missed this bit. Have you considered that this may not be speaking of literal clouds?
Once again (I must have the memory of a gnat I vaguely remember something but not the details ) I’ve read about the use of Jewish imagery and is it in Hebrews where the “cloud of witnesses “is spoken of?
Teresa x
I used to have a strong interest in Biblical eschatology and I remember once picking up Strong’s concordance to do an exhaustive study on the word “clouds” to see if I could uncover the secret meaning.
Today, this reminds me of the movie “Contact” where they received a set of plans from outer space but couldn’t make any sense of it because they didn’t have the “primmer”. So I guess you could say I was looking for the “primmer”.
I never found it and finally came to the intellectually satisfying conclusion that Biblical eschatology is nothing but a jumbled mess and no “primmer” will ever be found.
spiker said
You might want to take a look at Bart’s Apocalyptic prophet of the new millenium.The problem with the whole cloud thing is theres nothing to tell us whether its literal. Is sin a metaphor? Is the ressurection just a metaphor?
I tend to think Jesus got it wrong; badly wrong. That he died a tragic brutal death. I do think Jesus expected a cosmic figure to arrive and destroy gods enemies and stand in judgement.
Hi Spiker,
There is so much that we are unable to figure out from the written information we have and I’m glad really because it levels the playing field. Why should people who are intelligent and can study have greater access to God than somebody who may be intellectually challenged?. So whilst I enjoy delving into things I don’t believe it brings me any closer to God.
All we can do with the information we have is a best guess unless we receive enlightenment and then It’s not necessary to debate it, it just is.
I’ve enjoyed chatting with you.
Teresa x
Teresa
I must admit I started form a viewpoint of not believing in the physical return of Jesus because ( theology alert) as far as I can see the emphasis after the resurrection is on a spiritual kingdom not an earthly one, so I went through all of the scriptures which spoke about this. For me because of the word (presence) used I feel quite happy to continue to believe that.
Ehrman doubts Jesus was talking about himself in that passage: the son of man coming on the clouds.
Sometimes letting something percolate can make a lot of difference and I think I understand. Would it be accurate to say equate the Son of man statement with the emergence of Christianity. Thus, the passage might be something like after the destruction of the temple you will see the emergence of the christian movement?
spiker said
Teresa
I must admit I started form a viewpoint of not believing in the physical return of Jesus because ( theology alert) as far as I can see the emphasis after the resurrection is on a spiritual kingdom not an earthly one, so I went through all of the scriptures which spoke about this. For me because of the word (presence) used I feel quite happy to continue to believe that.
Ehrman doubts Jesus was talking about himself in that passage: the son of man coming on the clouds.
Sometimes letting something percolate can make a lot of difference and I think I understand. Would it be accurate to say equate the Son of man statement with the emergence of Christianity. Thus, the passage might be something like after the destruction of the temple you will see the emergence of the christian movement?
Hi Spiker,
Re the son of man coming on the clouds, I really don’t know but I’m starting to believe that the gospels and therefore Jesus earthly ministry were for the Jewish nation and not us Gentiles so I would be of the opinion that this concerned the nation of Israel whatever it means.
That’s a very interesting point you’ve brought up about the Christian movement and one I hadn’t previously considered. Off the cuff my only reservation would be that I think in this age, i.e after the resurrection it seems to me that God is dealing on a very individual basis with people and not on a national level and I really do have doubts that he is overly concerned with the Christian movement or even the growth of Christianity he just loves each and every person on the planet. I make no apologies for these extreme views, it’s what I believe. Some time ago I realised that my views aren’t in line with mainstream Christianity but it’s an exciting journey.
Teresa x
Of course, predicting the end of Jerusalem to a foreign power is somehow cause for identifying Divine Knowledge throughout Jewish literature.
Usually even the prophecy demonstrates the simple cause and effect that caused the destruction.
Of course, the term prophet meant “truth teller”, which adds even more weight to the idea that the temple destruction may have seemed inevitable. And “false prophet” would be one who does not tell the truth.
teresa said
Hi Spiker,
Re the son of man coming on the clouds, I really don’t know but I’m starting to believe that the gospels and therefore Jesus earthly ministry were for the Jewish nation and not us Gentiles so I would be of the opinion that this concerned the nation of Israel whatever it means.
Yea, I have heard that. It is a tricky question. If this is all intended for Jews and NOT Gentiles, how do we get to a mission to the Gentiles? Jewish exclusivity was a longstanding highly resistant sensibility.If you’re familiar with the story of Pilate and the Standards bearing the likeness of Tiberius. That’s an example of both Jewish tenacity and Roman, tolerance, if you will.
on the other hand I think there are stories of allowing outsiders to convert. I haven’t read it yet, but Geza Vermes produced a book
entitled. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. As I understand it, Vermes was one of those scholars placing Jesus within his Jewish context. Fortunately you might get an idea from a section dealing with his work on Early Christian writings ** you do not have permission to see this link **
If this is all intended for Jews and NOT Gentiles, how do we get to a mission to the Gentiles?
Hi Spiker,
From Paul who said his ministry was to the Gentiles. It’s in Romans I think where he states that the Jews had to reject Jesus in order that the Gentiles could be included in the promise but that they would be reconciled eventually. In Matthew 13 Jesus says that he spoke in parables so that the people would not understand. It seems inevitable then that he would be rejected by the people.
Thanks for the link, I like that site there’s some good info.
Teresa x
teresa said
From Paul who said his ministry was to the Gentiles. It’s in Romans I think where he states that the Jews had to reject Jesus in order that the Gentiles could be included in the promise but that they would be reconciled eventually. In Matthew 13 Jesus says that he spoke in parables so that the people would not understand. It seems inevitable then that he would be rejected by the people.
Thanks for the link, I like that site there’s some good info.
Teresa x
Oddly enough Prof E wrote a post dealing precisely with this idea the other day
“… Jesus was the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfilment of the Jewish law. Thus, for these other missionaries, to believe in Jesus required a person to be a Jew. Yes, gentiles could join the people of God and find salvation through Jesus. But to join the people of God – they had to join the people of God! The people of God were the Jewish people. God had given his people a sign to show that they were distinct from all other people on earth. This is way back in the Old Testament where God tells the father of the Jews, Abraham, that everyone who belongs to the covenant community needs to be circumcised (see Genesis 17). Jews are circumcised. Those who convert to Judaism need to be circumcised. Belonging to the people of God means being circumcised. The Christian believers in Galatia need to be circumcised. When God gave the covenant of circumcision to Abraham, he called it an “eternal covenant.” It wasn’t a temporary measure. It was permanent. And God had not changed is mind. So say Paul’s opponents….”
He credits Paul with the conviction about Gentile conversion ( Paul’s Gospel) That’s an interesting idea (not that Paul has never been credited with the appeal to Gentiles, but that it seems to have originated in the conviction that “the point of Jesus’ death was that it brought salvation to all people, Jew and Gentile. Salvation could not come by keeping the law of God, starting with circumcision. If the Law could make someone right with God, then there would have been no reason for Christ to have died.”
He credits Paul with the conviction about Gentile conversion ( Paul’s Gospel) That’s an interesting idea (not that Paul has never been credited with the appeal to Gentiles, but that it seems to have originated in the conviction that “the point of Jesus’ death was that it brought salvation to all people, Jew and Gentile. Salvation could not come by keeping the law of God, starting with circumcision. If the Law could make someone right with God, then there would have been no reason for Christ to have died.”
Yep, In His letter to the Romans Paul lays out a detailed view of salvation and what it means to everyone. The law could not make anyone perfect and was not intended to, it was there to show the sinfulness of sin and to reveal to us that we needed a saviour. Everyone is included in this and Jesus died for everyone. ” As in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
I beleive that, in fact, Everyone will be made alive eventually . . .but that’s another discussion ?.
Teresa X
teresa said
Yep, In His letter to the Romans Paul lays out a detailed view of salvation and what it means to everyone. The law could not make anyone perfect and was not intended to, it was there to show the sinfulness of sin and to reveal to us that we needed a saviour. Everyone is included in this and Jesus died for everyone. ” As in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
I beleive that, in fact, Everyone will be made alive eventually . . .but that’s another discussion ?.
Teresa X
🙂
Yea, I was thinking that there must have been something in judaism despite it’s exclusivity that would make an opening to the gentiles logical, if you will, but this doesn’t seem to be the case. Consider, Paul’s innovation does not seem to do well with Jews. This is interesting because Paul describes himself-if memory serves, as a Jews Jew etc.
. Consider, Paul’s innovation does not seem to do well with Jews. This is interesting because Paul describes himself-if memory serves, as a Jews Jew etc.
Hi Spiker,
I think Paul was extremely zealous for the Jewish religion before his conversion, which makes it all the more spectacular. After it, he no longer believed that being a Jew or a gentile was the important thing, he saw converts as being part of the body of Christ with no identity except that. It really was radical and you can see how fervently he believed this by his letter to the Galatians wher he saw that the assembly was in danger of moving away from the gospel of complete grace into a quasi Jewish law based system.
I think Galatians has to be my favourite book.
Teresa X
Teresa, mainstream Christians are either liberal Christians or they would be considered liberal by fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. So your views are actually shared by many Christians. There are many Christians who do not rubber stamp the official theology of their own church and even among committed theologians of a big denomination there is a diversity of theological views. But I have to point out that some of your thoughts above are strictly theological and therefore not amenable to historical investigation. This means that historians of Christianity can neither refute nor confirm such thoughts.
tgeorgescu said
Teresa, mainstream Christians are either liberal Christians or they would be considered liberal by fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. So your views are actually shared by many Christians. There are many Christians who do not rubber stamp the official theology of their own church and even among committed theologians of a big denomination there is a diversity of theological views. But I have to point out that some of your thoughts above are strictly theological and therefore not amenable to historical investigation. This means that historians of Christianity can neither refute nor confirm such thoughts.
WHAT?
Which part it is that you don’t understand? Fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals are a minority among Christians.
There a many who are not practicing Christians and do not care much for official dogmas, but they have their own theological views, e.g. some are leaning in a New Age direction, esotericism, occultism, and such. Other have simply fairly tolerant views of other religions and do no subscribe to Jesus being the only way to the heavens.
Even among committed Catholic theologians there is a diversity of views competing for what Catholics should believe as a matter of true faith (see e.g. the context of how Hans Küng got sacked). And so it is in other major Christian denominations.
About the difference between theology and history: historians seek to establish objective knowledge, i.e. knowledge that gets agreed to by people of different faiths and religions. Theologians for the most part seek to determine what the believers of their own denomination should or should not believe as true faith. History works with falsifiable statements, theology does not need falsifiability. So there is a difference between a theological claim (e.g. Jesus is God) and a historical claim (e.g. how Christians came to believe that Jesus is God?). The history of Christianity can illuminate certain theological matters, but it does not tell you that you should believe that Jesus is God. That is a theological claim, not a historical claim.
E.g. suppose that all the New Testament would be historically accurate (including miracles and regardless of contradictions). It still would not follow that Jesus is God. Ehrman gave an example of a theological explanation with an evil god tormenting Jesus in the 12th dimension, told him not to spill the beans about his torments, otherwise he would double his torments, and allowed Jesus to appear several times to his ignorant disciples. Same historical facts to account for, different theology.
Question for Dr. Ehrman: Thank you, Dr. Ehrman! Do you believe that theology is in any sense a valid source of knowledge or do you believe in philosophical naturalism? [Bad reception on the microphone.]
Answer from Dr. Ehrman: I think the theological modes of knowledge are perfectly acceptable and legitimate as theological modes of knowledge. But I think theological claims have to be evaluated on a theological basis. For example, you know the idea that these four facts that Bill keeps referring to showed that God raised Jesus from the dead. You could come up with a different theological view of it. Suppose, for example, to explain those four facts that the God Zulu sent Jesus into the 12th dimension, and in that 12th dimension he was periodically released for return to Earth for a brief respite from his eternal tormentors. But he can’t tell his followers about this because Zulu told him that if he does, he’ll increase his eternal agonies. So that’s another theological explanation for what happened. It would explain the empty tomb, it would explain Jesus appearances. Is it as likely as God raised Jesus from the dead and made him sit at his right hand; that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has interceded in history and vindicated his name by raising his Messiah? Well, you might think no, that in fact the first explanation of the God Zulu is crazy. Well, yeah, O.K., it’s crazy; but it’s theologically crazy. It’s not historically crazy. It’s no less likely as an explanation for what happened than the explanation that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob raised Jesus from the dead because they’re both theological explanations; they’re not historical explanations. So within the realm of theology, I certainly think that theology is a legitimate mode of knowledge. But the criteria for evaluating theological knowledge are theological; they are not historical.
Source ** you do not have permission to see this link **
tgeorgescu said
Which part it is that you don’t understand? Fundamentalist Christians and evangelicals are a minority among Christians.There a many who are not practicing Christians and do not care much for official dogmas, but they have their own theological views, e.g. some are leaning in a New Age direction, esotericism, occultism, and such. Other have simply fairly tolerant views of other religions and do no subscribe to Jesus being the only way to the heavens.
Even among committed Catholic theologians there is a diversity of views competing for what Catholics should believe as a matter of true faith (see e.g. the context of how Hans Küng got sacked). And so it is in other major Christian denominations.
About the difference between theology and history: historians seek to establish objective knowledge, i.e. knowledge that gets agreed to by people of different faiths and religions. Theologians for the most part seek to determine what the believers of their own denomination should or should not believe as true faith. History works with falsifiable statements, theology does not need falsifiability. So there is a difference between a theological claim (e.g. Jesus is God) and a historical claim (e.g. how Christians came to believe that Jesus is God?). The history of Christianity can illuminate certain theological matters, but it does not tell you that you should believe that Jesus is God. That is a theological claim, not a historical claim.
E.g. suppose that all the New Testament would be historically accurate (including miracles and regardless of contradictions). It still would not follow that Jesus is God. Ehrman gave an example of a theological explanation with an evil god tormenting Jesus in the 12th dimension, told him not to spill the beans about his torments, otherwise he would double his torments, and allowed Jesus to appear several times to his ignorant disciples. Same historical facts to account for, different theology.
The part I don’t understand is that you think any of that is relevant to the discussion.
historians seek to establish objective knowledge, i.e. knowledge that gets agreed to by people of different faiths and religions.
Uhh, No Historians try to figure out what most likely happened and they certainly aren’t worried about agreement by ” people of different faiths and religions”
Same historical facts to account for, different theology.
And you have that backwards
spiker said
The part I don’t understand is that you think any of that is relevant to the discussion.
teresa said Off the cuff my only reservation would be that I think in this age, i.e after the resurrection it seems to me that God is dealing on a very individual basis with people and not on a national level and I really do have doubts that he is overly concerned with the Christian movement or even the growth of Christianity he just loves each and every person on the planet. I make no apologies for these extreme views, it’s what I believe. Some time ago I realised that my views aren’t in line with mainstream Christianity but it’s an exciting journey.
That’s what my message was about: there are lots of mainstream Christians who would agree with her views, and they are certainly not extreme. They are only seen as threatening by Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.
spiker said And you have that backwards
I know that Ehrman did not agree with those facts. My argument was: even assuming that those were the historical facts, there is still a wide variety of theologies which could account for such facts. In this context, it means that Teresa’s views cannot be either confirmed or rejected through historical investigation, since they are theological claims, not historical claims.
spiker said Uhh, No Historians try to figure out what most likely happened and they certainly aren’t worried about agreement by ” people of different faiths and religions”
Google intersubjective.
tgeorgescu said
spiker said
The part I don’t understand is that you think any of that is relevant to the discussion.
teresa said Off the cuff my only reservation would be that I think in this age, i.e after the resurrection it seems to me that God is dealing on a very individual basis with people and not on a national level and I really do have doubts that he is overly concerned with the Christian movement or even the growth of Christianity he just loves each and every person on the planet. I make no apologies for these extreme views, it’s what I believe. Some time ago I realised that my views aren’t in line with mainstream Christianity but it’s an exciting journey.
That’s what my message was about: there are lots of mainstream Christians who would agree with her views, and they are certainly not extreme. They are only seen as threatening by Christian fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.
Actually, I think she knew what she was saying. The view she enunciated goes back to Origen and was defined as a heresy. Further, “lots of mainstream christians” doesn’t either alter those views or the strange idea that the founder of the Christian movement is uninterested in the movement or its growth. After all wasn’t that the purpose of The Great Commission; to make disciples of all men?
I don’t think she would ever need to fear a heresy hunter and I would not be surprised that even a majority of Christians would agree with her, but where exactly is that view taught in the bible?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)