Robert
The identification of Enoch with the ‘Son of Man’, especially in Chapter 71, is often seen as a Jewish response to the Christian use of the Son of Man as a authoritative and heavenly characterization of Jesus in the gospels.
Steefen
Chapter 71 needs to be proven to have been written after Mark, if not other gospels also.
Robert
I would agree with most critical scholars who see Mk 14,62 as a very important Markan creative use of Dan 7,13 put on Jesus’ lips. Luke, who follows Mark, refines this and also puts it on the lips of Jesus in Lk 22,69 as well as the lips of Stephen in Acts 7,56.
Steefen
You say Jesus did not forgive the paralytic?
You say Jesus never said “Son of Man.” It was made up by Mark. Mark created the term.
I lean towards a non-existent Biblical Jesus did not say or do anything: the gospel writers created it all. They made a composite character of historical fiction. They euhemerized Paul’s revealed Jesus.
But for you to say there was an actual Jesus of the 20s/early 30s and then to say he did not use the title that is so associated with the leadership of the Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness requires you to provide the title of the ruler of the glorious kingdom. Until then, you have an incomplete comprehension of the gospel and a point that is not persuasive.
Robert said
Steefen said
Robert
I would agree with most critical scholars who see Mk 14,62 as a very important Markan creative use of Dan 7,13 put on Jesus’ lips. Luke, who follows Mark, refines this and also puts it on the lips of Jesus in Lk 22,69 as well as the lips of Stephen in Acts 7,56.
Steefen
You say Jesus never said “Son of Man.” It was made up by Mark. Mark created the term.
I did not say that.
Robert
I would agree with most critical scholars who see Mk 14,62 as a very important Markan creative use of Dan 7,13 put on Jesus’ lips.
Steefen
The expression put on someone’s lips means that someone did not say it.
Don’t make this thread ridiculous.
Robert said
Nothing ridiculous about it. One must distinguish between plausible historical reconstructions regarding what Jesus himself may have taught regarding a heavenly Son of Man figure during the entirety of his public activity and a much later literary account of his singular trial. I do not consider the trial account in Mark’s gospel to be anything like a verbatim transcript of the proceedings. It’s remotely possible that later orally transmitted traditions might have grown out of some authentic memories of someone who may have been present at the trial, but I would not merely assume this to be the case. Rather there are very good reasons to see the trial scene, especially Jesus’ words in Mk 14,62, as a literary creation of Mark. It is integrally related to the the structure of Mark’s passion narrative as well as the larger structure of the whole gospel. But that literary analysis does not preclude the possibility that Jesus himself might have taught something about a coming, heavenly Son of Man during the whole of his public career. Such a conclusion involves historical reconstructions, attempting to weigh probabilities, to argue for general plausibility in scholarly discussion with other likely reconstructions. That’s a very different scholarly discussion than the structural analysis of a later literary text.
Steefen
Your comment is incoherent.
The expression put on someone’s lips means that someone did not say it.
Sorry, I do not have time to unpack replies that are incoherent.
It is quite clear the gospels said the Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness would be led by the Son of Man. Other than Jesus in the gospel narrative, no one else in the gospel narratives champions this in the detail provided by the Biblical Jesus.
Feel free to not respond to a reply I will not read. The time limit has passed. Unfortunately, I judged your paper, F – incoherent with a position that dismantles Jesus’ ministry, a continuation of John the Baptist’s ministry.
Robert said
Linda said
Robert said
Bultmann and Ehrman are talking about the the historical Jesus, not Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, which were written later.
There is no “historical” Jesus without the Gospels.
There is only conjecture and tossing of the dice. Which leads nowhere.
I would not say without the gospels. I think scholars such Bultmann, Ehrman, and many others critically use the gospels as sources to develop plausible reconstructions of who Jesus was historically. There are some important areas of background knowledge to master and historical methods that help contribute to a relatively disciplined scholarly discussion. There is certainly room for scholarly disagreement with respect to presuppositions, methodology, and conclusions, but this scholarly process is not merely conjecture and tossing of dice.
The teachings of Christ are not good enough?
We need scholars to instruct us on what Christ meant and what he taught?
Truly?
Yes.
Here is why. Either we trust that Christ was led by God’s spirit or we do not. Either we trust that the Gospel writers did their best to faithfully represent their Gospel as they had heard it or knew it or we do not. Either we trust that God has preserved for us what we need not necessarily what we would like to have or we do not.
Why should we 2000 years later follow the word of men or women who did not know Christ?
Yes, there are contradictions and questions. But to put our faith in those who do not believe Jesus is the Son of God is to fall.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)