…a tension in Ehrman’s reconstruction that is difficult to resolve…
I think the tension lies in the fact that there is a lot we don’t know about first century Jewish apocalypticism. There is clearly more than one view present in the tradition. We don’t know for sure if Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah and what that might have meant to him. And of course sometimes Jesus seems to be referring to himself as the Son of man and sometimes to another. And the whole tradition is filtered through the response to Jesus’ death and the experience of the resurrection however that played out.
tompicard said
the “Son of Man” appears on a cloud, then sits on a throne, then judges the currently living. At some point (I assume later) Jesus and 12 sub-regents sit on thrones ruling the earth (this is what Jesus taught that led to his trial and death explained in Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet). maybe the son of man was to stick around as subject to king Jesus or else he would return to the cloud or whence ever he originated. I was assuming the latter.
No, the third person Son of Man only comes on the scene when the handwriting is on the wall that Jesus was headed for Holy Week.
If a person sees physical death, diseases, and natural disasters as the PRIMARY manifestation of EVIL in this world, then, I think it makes sense that one should expect these ‘sins’ (are they sins?) to be eliminated in the Kingdom of God. and so I think the messiah or ‘son of man’ must be a supernatural being to resolve these problems.
On the other hand if a different person sees the primary manifestation of evil to be men and women’s separation from God and ignorance of their position as sons and daughters of God and inability to behave in ways befitting God’s children, then the ‘new heaven and earth’ should be a place where all know their own proper value and behave appropriately. Then there would be no reason to expect a magical being to usher in the Kingdom.
I think Jesus probably is probably in the second category.
Steefan
interesting you are saying that Jesus message changed in toward the end
that originally he considered himself to be or to become the ‘son of man’ (though always mortal) but at some point determined the opposition was too great and he would likely be unable to accomplish the task and was destined and required to play the role of a martyr. and at that point he started preaching that a supernatural 3rd party and supernatural and immortal ‘son of man’ would soon appear.
i think that could be possible, my own belief is that he expected to become son of man (always mortal) and yes at some point may have realized that the opposition was too great, and at that point started preaching of his second advent (but the second advent is not a supernatural phenomenon either).
Robert,
The first volume of Marginal Jew doesn’t address Jesus ministry and his understanding of the Kingdom of God, I got it and it focuses on Jesus birth and death ie what year he was born and even what year month and even day he was crucified.
So i am now reading the next volume, hoping to see if his conclusions are similar to Bart’s
I appreciate the recommendations
In the second volume, as far as I have read so far, Meier describes John and Jesus as ‘eschatological prophets’ whereas Bart always calls, at least Jesus, an ‘apocalyptic prophet’ and never makes a distinction of the terms
I think Meier believes there are some differences, and that apocalpticsm is an extreme expression of esctalogicalism, but so far dont know exactly in what ways, maybe he said apocalypticsm is more ‘magical’ which relates to the topic of this thread
. . the resurrection of the dead. . . is the core of what you are calling a ‘magical’ view of the kingdom.
No, rather ‘magical’ –
the cessation of physical death in the Kingdom – many (most?) people take as a given – i am not sure is biblically supported.
And though I think Jesus certainly believed in ‘resurrection’ in some sense (but i am not sure exactly) – neither am I convinced of him holding a belief in ‘magical’ resuscitation of decaying physical corpses – notwithstanding one verse in Daniel, a couple in Macabbees, out of all the Old Testament, plus one unintelligible answer by him [Jesus] to a ridiculously hypothetical question from his Saduccees ‘friends’. 
Stephen said
…a tension in Ehrman’s reconstruction that is difficult to resolve…the whole tradition is filtered through the response to Jesus’ death and the experience of the resurrection
Is the filtering process where the truth is lost or where it is added, refined, and emphasized?
Matt2239 said
Stephen said
…a tension in Ehrman’s reconstruction that is difficult to resolve…
the whole tradition is filtered through the response to Jesus’ death and the experience of the resurrectionIs the filtering process where the truth is lost or where it is added, refined, and emphasized?
I would say “all of the above”.
For me…I have read the NT and the Gospels over and over for 50 years…its very clear to me Jesus was a nutcase and a cult leader by both the things he says and does. Over and over he tried to divide people from their families and highlight the end was nigh.
Not sure if they had high grade ganja in that area of the mid east but if they did…
Steve Clark said
For me…I have read the NT and the Gospels over and over for 50 years…its very clear to me Jesus was a nutcase and a cult leader by both the things he says and does. Over and over he tried to divide people from their families and highlight the end was nigh.
Not sure if they had high grade ganja in that area of the mid east but if they did…
May I suggest another 50 years…I think it is unfair to judge ancient people against our modern, scientific worldview. The ancient Jesus sect had no knowledge of Big Bang, the geological ages of the earth, evolution of the species and so on. Armies were periodically marching back and forth, leaving a trail of death and suffering. They considered illnesses to be a result of sinful behaviour, just like the fragility,aging and dying of living beings were a result of the original sin. Their thinking may have been rational within the limits and foundations of their historical and cultural environment.
gavriel said
May I suggest another 50 years…I think it is unfair to judge ancient people against our modern, scientific worldview. The ancient Jesus sect had no knowledge of Big Bang, the geological ages of the earth, evolution of the species and so on. Armies were periodically marching back and forth, leaving a trail of death and suffering. They considered illnesses to be a result of sinful behaviour, just like the fragility,aging and dying of living beings were a result of the original sin. Their thinking may have been rational within the limits and foundations of their historical and cultural environment.
And you vastly underestimate their intelligence –
The vast majority of people wandering around the world 2000 years ago didnt go around preaching people should turn on their families, promising all manner of disaster if they weren’t followed, telling people to mutilate their bodies if they lusted after someone outside marriage, calling fellow Jews the Spawn of Satan…etc etc etc – there are many many more. All things Jesus, meek and mild, did.
Sorry, but teaching people they should turn on their families is not rational thinking 2,000 yrs ago or today.
Sorry, but teaching people to self mutilate for lusting is not rational thinking 2,000 yrs ago or today.
Calling your fellow people the Spawn of Satan is not rational thinking.
His own Mother, Mary (perhaps you’ve heard of her ?) thought he was crazy.
Maybe you need another 50 yrs ?
I’m on my last legs I dont have it…
I did the best I could with the mind I was given…perhaps I’m simply not as wise as you my friend.
Steve Clark said
For me…I have read the NT and the Gospels over and over for 50 years…its very clear to me Jesus was a nutcase and a cult leader by both the things he says and does. Over and over he tried to divide people from their families and highlight the end was nigh.
Not sure if they had high grade ganja in that area of the mid east but if they did…
I am kind of confused
what does this comment have at all to do with whether Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was absent death illness and natural disaster ?
Steve Clark said
its very clear to me Jesus was a nutcase and a cult leader
That is exactly what you would expect people to call a deity who takes on the form of a human. It’s sort of worrisome that you would read the New Testament over and over for 50 years and not get anything new out of it, but if that’s where you are, that’s where you are.
Steve Clark said
gavriel said
May I suggest another 50 years…I think it is unfair to judge ancient people against our modern, scientific worldview. The ancient Jesus sect had no knowledge of Big Bang, the geological ages of the earth, evolution of the species and so on. Armies were periodically marching back and forth, leaving a trail of death and suffering. They considered illnesses to be a result of sinful behaviour, just like the fragility,aging and dying of living beings were a result of the original sin. Their thinking may have been rational within the limits and foundations of their historical and cultural environment.
And you vastly underestimate their intelligence –
The vast majority of people wandering around the world 2000 years ago didnt go around preaching people should turn on their families, promising all manner of disaster if they weren’t followed, telling people to mutilate their bodies if they lusted after someone outside marriage, calling fellow Jews the Spawn of Satan…etc etc etc – there are many many more. All things Jesus, meek and mild, did.
Sorry, but teaching people they should turn on their families is not rational thinking 2,000 yrs ago or today.
Sorry, but teaching people to self mutilate for lusting is not rational thinking 2,000 yrs ago or today.
Calling your fellow people the Spawn of Satan is not rational thinking.
His own Mother, Mary (perhaps you’ve heard of her ?) thought he was crazy.
Maybe you need another 50 yrs ?
I’m on my last legs I dont have it…
I did the best I could with the mind I was given…perhaps I’m simply not as wise as you my friend.
Some of these Jesus attributions have to be modified a bit, they are possible inventions/changes made by the later Christian communities. One example is Mark’s description of a possible conflict between Jesus and his family. This narrative fits Mark’s theological agenda. The conflict with his family cannot have been very deep-rooted, since his brother took over the business after Jesus death.
I could go on with your remaining examples, but may be you should start a new topic? It is certainly interesting, but it’s off-topic here.
Stephen said
…a tension in Ehrman’s reconstruction that is difficult to resolve…I think the tension lies in the fact that there is a lot we don’t know about first century Jewish apocalypticism. There is clearly more than one view present in the tradition. We don’t know for sure if Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah and what that might have meant to him. And of course sometimes Jesus seems to be referring to himself as the Son of man and sometimes to another. And the whole tradition is filtered through the response to Jesus’ death and the experience of the resurrection however that played out.
He probably thought he was a kind of Messiah, or else his followers would not have invented the idea after his unexpected execution. The question is rather what kind of Messiah he had in mind. It must have been more than just a herald of the coming kingdom, he also expected a kingly role in that kingdom. Did he think that the heralding consisted of preaching, exorcising and healing only ? Or did he take a more active role in promoting the Kingdom by inflammatory actions?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)