What to Do With an Errant John the Baptist?

16791112

Comments

  • Yes, I sometimes wonder if The Rapture has been, and gone...

    And we missed the Ninevehites condemning Jesus' generation! Anything else?
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    BJII: "What did John the Baptizer know and when did he know it?"

    Dunno.

    Surely he knew what he knew and knew it when he knew it?

    But how eh?
  • Martrin54: Surely he knew what he knew and knew it when he knew it?
    But how eh?

    A bit like you and me, eh, Martin54?

    Ya know what I mean?

  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Martrin54: Surely he knew what he knew and knew it when he knew it?
    But how eh?

    A bit like you and me, eh, Martin54?

    Ya know what I mean?

    Uh fink so.

    Is there any point in continuing this adventure in missing the point?
  • Yes! What about the Ninevehites? Were they Errant? Or Saved?

    Enquiring Minds™ need to know...
    :wink:
  • I'll come back later for serious discussion. Meanwhile, feel free to banter on.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Thank you, but if we wish to continue to discuss Jonah, Nineveh, and what Jesus said about them in our own way, we will.
    :wink:

    And you still haven't answered my question as to what you think Jesus meant by the word 'generation'. Was he speaking literally, or figuratively?

    I don't know, but I'd like to hear what you - and not some obscure scholar - think.

  • It is all rather hilarious. I don't know if it's meant to be.
  • I rather think not, at least from the OPer's POV...

    However, the point about what Jesus meant is interesting, though I doubt if I'm likely to get a simple answer.
  • Martin54: Is there any point in continuing this adventure in missing the point?

    Is there a point to be missed?
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54: Is there any point in continuing this adventure in missing the point?

    Is there a point to be missed?

    The point that any literal 'understanding' at all is not the point?

    The point is incarnation and all it points to.

    Not the limitations of the finger.
  • I thought the point (well, the most recent one, anyway) was what Jesus might have meant by his reference to Jonah, and Nineveh, and also what he might have meant by his use of the word 'generation'.

    But, as you see, the point remains unanswered...so far.

    Mind you, I may have missed an answer somewhere earlier on in this labyrinthine thread.
  • RublevRublev Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    I suppose Jesus did feel that His own generation had a unique opportunity to respond in person to the offer of salvation. Their own 'Interview with God' if they should choose to take it up. And the ones who did take it up and had the longest recorded conversations with Jesus were the most unlikely of all: the Samaritan woman, the Syro-Phoenician woman, the woman taken in adultery, Blind Bartimeus and Zaccheus. How blessed are those who know their need of God!
  • Rublev wrote: »
    I suppose Jesus did feel that His own generation had a unique opportunity to respond in person to the offer of salvation. Their own 'Interview with God' if they should choose to take it up. And the ones who did take it up and had the longest recorded conversations with Jesus were the most unlikely of all: the Samaritan woman, the Syro-Phoenician woman, the woman taken in adultery, Blind Bartimeus and Zaccheus. How blessed are those who know their need of God!
  • I thought the point (well, the most recent one, anyway) was what Jesus might have meant by his reference to Jonah, and Nineveh, and also what he might have meant by his use of the word 'generation'.

    But, as you see, the point remains unanswered...so far.

    Mind you, I may have missed an answer somewhere earlier on in this labyrinthine thread.

    He was interweaving three days and three nights in Jonah and His life - generation - and the repentance of Nineveh due to Jonah (fulfilling their messianic prophecy) and His generation's failure to see Him fulfill theirs?

    Or like the Transfiguration fulfilling Jesus' 'prophecy', that's not complicated enough?
  • I've no idea how I did that, but I just copied a post on my smartphone (!)
  • No matter - it was worth repeating!
    :wink:

    I liked your little homilette on 'Interview with God'...nicely put, and an interesting slant.
  • I just thought you were just emphasising your point, Rublev!
  • The Ship is very Biblical in its genre. Like the OT its texts are all in conversation with one another. What we don't have is a canonist to separate the sheep from the goats. Although there is a Hell Host and I suppose he keeps the apocalyptic threads separate from the non apocalyptic ones.
  • Yes, and so it's up to those initiating/contributing to threads to try to keep things clear!

    Alas, we are but a miserable company of poor, perishing sinners, so we don't always get it right...
    :weary:
  • Or to put it another way, 'We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    The divine Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde.
  • A deep Christian thinker who wrote the remarkably insightful Portrait of Dorian Grey, The Happy Prince and The Selfish Giant (my favourite of his books).
  • Rublev wrote: »
    A deep Christian thinker who wrote the remarkably insightful Portrait of Dorian Grey, The Happy Prince and The Selfish Giant (my favourite of his books).
    Not to mention that magnificent The Importance of Being Earnest.

    I was just thinking yesterday that I need to read The Picture of Dorian Grey again. It's been decades.
  • It would make a good subject for a Book Group discussion. It's a chilling illustration of the downward moral spiral. His story about The Fisherman and his Soul is even more disturbing.

    But the award for the most blood curdling of all has to go to The Screwtape Letters by C S Lewis. I'm not reading that one again!
  • .
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Rublev wrote: »
    A deep Christian thinker who wrote the remarkably insightful Portrait of Dorian Grey, The Happy Prince and The Selfish Giant (my favourite of his books).
    Not to mention that magnificent The Importance of Being Earnest.

    I was just thinking yesterday that I need to read The Picture of Dorian Grey again. It's been decades.

    I totally failed to be impressed with Earnest. But I love his fairy tales.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    .
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Rublev wrote: »
    A deep Christian thinker who wrote the remarkably insightful Portrait of Dorian Grey, The Happy Prince and The Selfish Giant (my favourite of his books).
    Not to mention that magnificent The Importance of Being Earnest.

    I was just thinking yesterday that I need to read The Picture of Dorian Grey again. It's been decades.

    I totally failed to be impressed with Earnest. But I love his fairy tales.
    Ah, tastes and all. My first exposure to Earnest was the 1952 film, and to me there is little that surpasses Dame Edith Evans as Lady Bracknell.

    /tangent
  • An inimitable performance. But what happened to the quote about The Handbag!
  • A magnificent performance, indeed. Her Ladyship would have been a formidable adversary on the Ship (see what I did there?).
  • If there was a thread on Advantageous Marriages.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Rublev wrote: »
    An inimitable performance. But what happened to the quote about The Handbag!
    That's in Act I. The part I posted is from Act III. (But here you go.)

    @Bishops Finger, I think Her Ladyship would have been a formidable adversary anywhere. :wink:

    And surely the train lovers on the Ship might enjoy the encounter, given Lady Bracknell's "recent" interest in the larger railway stations of London, and persons or families whose origin was a Terminus.
  • ... The Brighton line.
    The line is immaterial!

    Thanks Nick!
  • Gettting back to the subject of this thread which is the Historical John the Baptizer, let me repeat most (not all!) of the posts from pages 6 and 7 to demonstrate what good discussion can really be like. (Some good discussion had also preceded this.)

    James said:
    Having looked at the only two John the Baptist Q passages (in Luke 3 and 7 which are almost word for word the same in Matthew's version), and having concluded that they are largely historical and even fit in well with the opening description of the Baptizer in Mark 1:2-8 (though Mark does not at all mention the fiery wrath part!) let us now go to Mark 1:9-12, the baptism and temptation of Jesus, and ask how much of that is historical--or not.

    Rublev said:
    I would say that the Baptism of Jesus by John was historical. It appears in all 4 gospels. Josephus calls John 'the Baptist.'
    --And it has the criterion of embarrassment that it should really have happened the other way round (the very words put into John's mouth).

    James said:
    Absolutely! But the words put into John's mouth were put there only by Matthew, a clearly non historical intrusion into the text of Mark which has not even the slightest suggestion that Jesus and John knew each other, or that John knew what happened to Jesus at his baptism (vision, Spirit, voice). Matthew also changes You are my Son to This is my Son another Matthean tampering with Mark, neither of which are historical.
    ---But yes, the Baptism of Jesus as related by Mark is historical!
    ---And it was a purely subjective experience of Jesus, as was the following temptation, also historical and attested by both Mark and, more extensively, by Q.

    Rublev said:
    This is my reading of the four gospels too - that Mark invents the gospel genre as a special kind of literary/theological biography of the meaning of the life and death of Jesus Christ. His theological agenda is to present Jesus as the Messiah (Mark 1: 1). And the other three evangelists adapt his template to their own theological perspectives. Probably mainly to suit their respective readerships. But also to bring in other theological reflections and insights about Jesus and Christian discipleship. So that would make Mark the most 'historical' version in the modern sense of the the word.
    ____________
  • BroJames quoted James
    "Absolutely! But the words put into John's mouth were put there only by Matthew, a clearly non historical intrusion into the text of Mark."
    and said:
    With what evidence do you make this assertion?

    James answered:
    A simple comparison of the texts, plus Matthew's non Markan, non Lukan alteration of the words of the divine voice. Matthew had theological reasons to want John to be a witness to Jesus, and Luke did too (the birth stories) but both kept the earlier attested Q question sent by the Baptizer to Jesus: Are you the one...?

    Rublev said:
    Mark's version has no conversation taking place. Matthew has added a dialogue. It's the only recorded conversation between John and Jesus. The words contradict the actions in the scene. It's an explanation for Matthew's readers. Actually, it is not a very convincing explanation. Why would it fulfill all righteousness when Jesus is righteousness personified?

    James said:
    Amen!

    James: quoted BroJames again: With what evidence do you make this assertion?
    and said:
    Simple logic, plus the fact that there was a strong tendency to portray the Baptizer as a witness to Jesus, seen even more extremely in the legendary Lukan birth stories and especially in the Gospel of John.
    --Historically, Jesus gave glowing witness to the Baptizer ("a prophet and more than a prophet," "as great as any one ever born of woman" "the one sent to prepare the way" in the Matthew-Luke Q passages) but NOT John to Jesus.

    Rublev said:
    Yes, now that you mention it they both attest to each other in the narrative. The gospels like to use parallel examples and contrasting examples for emphasis. So Elizabeth parallels Mary. But Zechariah contrasts with her.

    James said:
    If the Baptizer as in G of John chp. 1 really had called Jesus "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" before Jesus was even baptized or began his ministry, or had testified that God's own voice told him directly from heaven that Jesus was his Son, the Baptizer would have been the first Christian!
    ________________________
  • BroJames asked:
    Are you saying that John wasn’t a witness to Jesus? Or merely that Matthew and Luke wanted to make it clear that he did.
    --In either case why go for the ‘non-historical’ option out of the various possible ways of explaining the difference. Why do you need the material to be non-historical?
    --It’s very difficult to assess, and therefore to engage with the merits of your proposition when there are so many unexplained or unexamined assertions in them.

    James said:
    If the Baptizer as in Gospel of John really had called Jesus "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" before Jesus was even baptized or began his ministry, or had testified that God's own voice told him directly from heaven that Jesus was his Son, the Baptizer would have been the first Christian!

    BroJames asked:
    Are you saying that John wasn’t a witness to Jesus?.

    James answered:
    Historically, no. He was not. Any claim gainsaying that is legendary.
    And if you want the most careful detailed examination of that, see the Catholic scholar John P. Meier's excellent A Marginal Jew Vol. II, The Historical Jesus: Mentor. Message, and Miracles.

    Rublev said:
    Yes, I'd take the 'Lamb of God' of John 1: 29 as John's own theological theme rather than strictly historical. John underlines it in his Passion narrative by presenting Jesus as silent before Pilate like a sacrificial lamb. And dying on the same day as the Passover lambs. His legs are unbroken on the cross in accordance with the law of Leviticus regarding the Passover sacrifice. So it's an added layer of theological reflection in John's gospel. The theological meaning was more important to him than the historical chronology of Mark's version. Which is why he doesn't bother with the chronological Synoptic outline of events and uses his own theological framework instead.
    ____________
  • Martin said:
    Any claims about either of them are second order at best. None are by eye witnesses. None are corroborated. So what?

    Rublev said:
    So Mark is the most reliable historical source among the gospel traditions. He has the least theological layering and construction in his text. He presents the life and death of Jesus the Messiah. His chronology of events becomes the template for Matthew and Luke.

    James said to Martin: Actually, the Matthew-Luke Q passage in which the Baptizer sends to question Jesus whether he is "the one who is to come" may have been written by an eyewitness, if the early church tradition is correct that the Apostle Matthew wrote an early collection of the logia of Jesus for use in the church he was leaving to go and preach elsewhere. That is not certain, but it is not impossible.
    ___________
  • BroJames asked:
    So is your argument (or Meier’s if you like) that the ‘after me… ’ statement, or something like it, paralleled across all four Gospels was not said by John, or that when he said it he was not referring to Jesus?

    James replied:
    Lord, no. John certainly spoke the "after me" statement, reflected in both Q and Mark. All the traditions see him as Jesus' forerunner. But when he was in prison east of the Dead Sea and began to hear about what Jesus was doing in Galilee, he sent disciples of his to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is to come, or must we wait for someone else?" A Q passage! In other words, he was asking Jesus whether he might yet prove to be the "one more powerful than I" John had predicted, the one who would "separate the wheat from the chaff and gather the wheat into the barn and throw the chaff into unquenchable fire."

    BroJames wrote:
    --or that when he said it he was not referring to Jesus?

    James
    Correct.
    ________________
  • BroJames asked:
    So the Gospels, although unanimous (albeit in different ways) that John was testifying to Jesus are all wrong?

    Rublev answered:
    I would say that the historical Jesus went to be baptised by the historical J the B. And this is why it is recorded in all 4 gospels. He was baptised in a crowd of others. But there was no opportunity for conversation - which is why Mark doesn't record one. I don't tend to have them in the middle of my baptisms either. After the execution of John Herod hears of the ministry of Jesus and wonders if this is John risen from the dead. So the ministry of Jesus was historically later than that of John. It could well be that the baptism of Jesus was a spiritual awakening experience for Him which inspired Him to take up His similar ministry. The historical John is given a theological revision in the gospels later on to explain the significance of his baptism of Jesus. Only it's a bit of a difficult circle to square. And it shows up in the uneven gospel texts. But you could interpret the baptism of Jesus in terms of the 'witness' of John. I think this is exactly what the gospel writers are doing here.

    James also answered:
    Both early Q parallel passages contain nothing that suggests that John testified specifically to Jesus as the expected one . Indeed, in the second Q passaage, John even sends to ask Jesus whether he is. And the Gospel of Mark contains nothing that suggests John knew or ever witnessed that specifically Jesus was the expected one.
    --In both earliest sources, Jesus witnesses to John. but John does not witness to Jesus. (The witness to John in Mark is suggested by the fact that Jesus submitted to John for baptism, but also by Mark 11:27-33 where the implication of Jesus is that the same one who gave John authority to baptize also gave him (Jesus) authority to do what he is doing (riding a donkey into Jerusalem messianically, throwing the money changers out of the Temple, teaching in the Temple courts).

    James quoted BroJames: So the Gospels, although unanimous (albeit in different ways) that John was testifying to Jesus are all wrong?
    --and answered:
    The earliest gospel traditions simply do not testify that John said that "Jesus of Nazareth" was the expected one. The earliest tradition even has him sending to ask Jesus if he might possibly yet prove to be the one John predicted.
    ____________
    At this point Doublethink said:
    I have read the whole of this thread, and I wanted to clarify something - by ‘errant’ do you mean John is errant because:
    * He taught the world would end shortly after his/Jesus ministry
    * He had doubts about Jesus ministry toward the end of his life
    * He is not a perfect fit to his prophesied role as harbinger in some aspects
    * Some combination of the above

    James answered Doublethink:
    Thank you for your thoughtful question. Number one above only, dropping the word Jesus.
    John "errantly" thought/taught that the wrath of God would soon fall on Israel and the world. Jesus was "errant" for thinking the same, but with more emphasis on the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. Paul and all the early Christians were "errant" in that they expected Jesus' return and the coming of the Kingdom within a very short time.

    Doublethink said:
    Of course the end of the world always happens when you die. Arguably then John was right, until the .resurrection. And Jesus was always right.

    James said:
    Some of the early church fathers used that argument about the end comes to each of us when we die to try to explicate the difficulty in some of Jesus' words, for instance, "There are some standing here who will not experience death before the Kingdom of God comes with power (Mark) / before the Son of Man comes in his Kingdom" (Matthew). (Well actually, it doesn't work too well for that last statement, does it...?)
    --You say, Jesus was always right. That sounds like a faith statement. The evidence is strong, however, that Jesus was into imminent eschatological expectations, which is understandable, as his world view was largely based on Daniel chapters 2 and 7 and the expectations of the Hebrew prophets.
    --Dale Allison is one of the best historical Jesus scholars now working and is totally convinced, as I am, that Jesus had imminent apocalyptic expectations. Yet Allison has written that "Jesus was mistaken but not wrong."

    At this point, a very good discussion degenerated into jokiness and banter and got personal, causing a Host to intervene.
  • That is the kind of discussion I would like to have here more often, the kind of discussion I would like to be allowed to have here. It was polite, objective, and truth-seeking.

    I am not an absolutist, though I do have some strong convictions regarding historicity. And yet I am willing to have any of my convictions questioned and assessed--right now and later.

    AND I would like next to be allowed to share two things:

    First, an overview of what I see as the historical and non-historical gospel information we are given about the Baptizer, and why it seems to me that almost anyone should feel compelled to see and grant that overview.

    And second, when that is finished, I would like to raise and examine the question,
    Is it possible that the historical John the Baptizer ever DID actually express faith in Jesus as the Messiah?
  • So, JBII, having established that Jesus was 'errant', what are the implications? Are you trying to say something profound about the nature of Christ? ISTM you are rather long-windedly telling us what I suspect most of us already hold that Jesus didn't know everything. What's new? What's to discuss?

  • Holy Jesus mother of God who has time to read all that?
  • BroJames asked:
    So the Gospels, although unanimous (albeit in different ways) that John was testifying to Jesus are all ...

    James also answered:
    Both early Q parallel passages contain nothing that suggests that John testified specifically to Jesus as the expected one . Indeed, in the second Q passaage, John even sends to ask Jesus whether he is. And the Gospel of Mark contains nothing that suggests John knew or ever witnessed that specifically Jesus was the expected one.
    --In both earliest sources, Jesus witnesses to John. but John does not witness to Jesus. (The witness to John in Mark is suggested by the fact that Jesus submitted to John for baptism, but also by Mark 11:27-33 where the implication of Jesus is that the same one who gave John authority to baptize also gave him (Jesus) authority to do what he is doing (riding a donkey into Jerusalem messianically, throwing the money changers out of the Temple, teaching in the Temple courts
    ____________
    At this point Doublethink said:
    I have read the whole of this thread, and I wanted to clarify something - by ‘errant’ do you mean John is errant because:
    * He taught the world would end shortly after his/Jesus ministry
    * He had doubts about Jesus ministry toward the end of his life
    * He is not a perfect fit to his prophesied role as harbinger in some aspects
    * Some combination of the above

    James answered Doublethink:
    Thank you for your thoughtful question. Number one above only, dropping the word Jesus.
    John "errantly" thought/taught that the wrath of God would soon fall on Israel and the world. Jesus was "errant" for thinking the same, but with more emphasis on the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. Paul and all the early Christians were "errant" in that they expected Jesus' return and the coming of the Kingdom within a very short time.

    Doublethink said:
    Of course the end of the world always happens when you die. Arguably then John was right, until the .resurrection. And Jesus was always right.

    James said:
    Some of the early church fathers used that argument about the end comes to each of us when we die to try to explicate the difficulty in some of Jesus' words, for instance, "There are some standing here who will not experience death before the Kingdom of God comes with power (Mark) / before the Son of Man comes in his Kingdom" (Matthew). (Well actually, it doesn't work too well for that last statement, does it...?)
    --You say, Jesus was always right. That sounds like a faith statement. The evidence is strong, however, that Jesus was into imminent eschatological expectations, which is understandable, as his world view was largely based on Daniel chapters 2 and 7 and the expectations of the Hebrew prophets.
    --Dale Allison is one of the best historical Jesus scholars now working and is totally convinced, as I am, that Jesus had imminent apocalyptic expectations. Yet Allison has written that "Jesus was mistaken but not wrong."

    At this point, a very good discussion degenerated into jokiness and banter and got personal, causing a Host to intervene.
    BroJames asked:
    So the Gospels, although unanimous (albeit in different ways) that John was testifying to Jesus are all wrong?

    Rublev answered:
    I would say that the historical Jesus went to be baptised by the historical J the B. And this is why it is recorded in all 4 gospels. He was baptised in a crowd of others. But there was no opportunity for conversation - which is why Mark doesn't record one. I don't tend to have them in the middle of my baptisms either. After the execution of John Herod hears of the ministry of Jesus and wonders if this is John risen from the dead. So the ministry of Jesus was historically later than that of John. It could well be that the baptism of Jesus was a spiritual awakening experience for Him which inspired Him to take up His similar ministry. The historical John is given a theological revision in the gospels later on to explain the significance of his baptism of Jesus. Only it's a bit of a difficult circle to square. And it shows up in the uneven gospel texts. But you could interpret the baptism of Jesus in terms of the 'witness' of John. I think this is exactly what the gospel writers are doing here.

    James also answered:
    Both early Q parallel passages contain nothing that suggests that John testified specifically to Jesus as the expected one . Indeed, in the second Q passaage, John even sends to ask Jesus whether he is. And the Gospel of Mark contains nothing that suggests John knew or ever witnessed that specifically Jesus was the expected one.
    --In both earliest sources, Jesus witnesses to John. but John does not witness to Jesus. (The witness to John in Mark is suggested by the fact that Jesus submitted to John for baptism, but also by Mark 11:27-33 where the implication of Jesus is that the same one who gave John authority to baptize also gave him (Jesus) authority to do what he is doing (riding a donkey into Jerusalem messianically, throwing the money changers out of the Temple, teaching in the Temple courts).

    James quoted BroJames: So the Gospels, although unanimous (albeit in different ways) that John was testifying to Jesus are all wrong?
    --and answered:
    The earliest gospel traditions simply do not testify that John said that "Jesus of Nazareth" was the expected one. The earliest tradition even has him sending to ask Jesus if he might possibly yet prove to be the one John predicted.
    ____________
    At this point Doublethink said:
    I have read the whole of this thread, and I wanted to clarify something - by ‘errant’ do you mean John is errant because:
    * He taught the world would end shortly after his/Jesus ministry
    * He had doubts about Jesus ministry toward the end of his life
    * He is not a perfect fit to his prophesied role as harbinger in some aspects
    * Some combination of the above

    Doublethink said:
    Of course the end of the world always happens when you die. Arguably then John was right, until the .resurrection. And Jesus was always right.

    James said:
    Some of the early church fathers used that argument about the end comes to each of us when we die to try to explicate the difficulty in some of Jesus' words, for instance, "There are some standing here who will not experience death before the Kingdom of God comes with power (Mark) / before the Son of Man comes in his Kingdom" (Matthew). (Well actually, it doesn't work too well for that last statement, does it...?)
    --You say, Jesus was always right. That sounds like a faith statement. The evidence is strong, however, that Jesus was into imminent eschatological expectations, which is understandable, as his world view was largely based on Daniel chapters 2 and 7 and the expectations of the Hebrew prophets.
    --Dale Allison is one of the best historical Jesus scholars now working and is totally convinced, as I am, that Jesus had imminent apocalyptic expectations. Yet Allison has written that "Jesus was mistaken but not wrong."

    At this point, a very good discussion degenerated into jokiness and banter and got personal, causing a Host to intervene.

    Far too long and I did not read any of it. Just because you or anyone else starts a thread, you don’t have the right to own the thread or dictate its direction. Any poster can take the thread in any direction and be answered by others. I found that out by personal experience years ago.

    I see what you say but can’t see why you persist. Much of this was thrashed out at the beginning of the twentieth century by Schweizer and others.
    I havehad to delete several paragraphs of the original post as the whole thing was too long to be posted.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    To be fully human is to be errant. And? Apart from this being the wrong thread... how... errant.
  • Kwesi: So, JBII, having established that Jesus was 'errant', what are the implications? Are you trying to say something profound about the nature of Christ? ISTM you are rather long-windedly telling us what I suspect most of us already hold that Jesus didn't know everything. What's new? What's to discuss?

    I have posted the above post to the Errant Jesus thread, where I think it more appropriately placed.
    ********************************************
    Martin54 To be fully human is to be errant. And?

    Spot on, Martin54, Spot on.


  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Martin54 To be fully human is to be errant. And?

    Spot on, Martin54, Spot on.


    Martin's pertinent 'And?' reminds me of the controversy surrounding the Reverend Edward Irving (1792-1834), who was kicked out of the Church of Scotland because of his views concerning the 'peccability' (I think that's the word) of Jesus.

    Irving firmly believed that, in order to be fully human, Jesus had to have been born with the capacity for sin, as are we all, the difference being that He did not commit any actual sin.

    So was Jesus 'Errant', or just constrained by his humanity?

    ETA - I seem to have made a similar mistake as others, and put this on the John the Baptist thread, but hey - who cares?

  • @Mousethief
    I wan't aware that Jesus was the mother of God. I don't even think Mary was.

    @Lothlorien
    You said, Any poster can take the thread in any direction and be answered by others.
    And yet one of the Hosts has pointed out that jokiness and banter do not contribute to a serious discussion, especially with regard to a sober consideration of scriptural here texts, and especially here in Purgatory, intended for serious discussion.

    @Kwesi, @Lothlorien @Martin54
    In case you haven't figured this out, I am interested in honesty in biblical studies.
    To say that this has all been settled by Schweitzer, or has been thrashed out long before our time, or that it is common knowledge in our churches, or that the full humanity of the historical Jesus, including even his obvious "errancy" or mistakeness should in no way be troublesome, flies in the face of what I run into all the time: "But -- but if Jesus was mistaken about the end of the world, how can he possibly be the Son of God?"

    I also find what to me is incredible resistance from some of you who participate here to the very idea that the historical John the Baptist -- probably best seen in the Q material of Luke 3 and 7 -- simply could not have been as he is represented in the first and third chapters of the Gospel of John, or in Matthew 3:14 and 17, or in Luke 1:44, including Luke's entire birth story of the Baptizer.

    I will have more to say about that later today, in accord with my last post above about an overview of the Baptist material.
  • We never run in to that.
  • That's an interesting question. Could Jesus sin? And did Jesus sin? He is both fully human and fully divine. According to Hebrews He was tempted in every way just like us, yet was without sin (Heb 4: 15). The doctrine of the immaculate conception also transferred this to Mary so that Jesus could be born without Original Sin.

    In the Temptations, at Gethsemane and at His trial Jesus overcame human temptation and lived a Spirit filled life in which He only did what the Father was doing (John 5: 19). Is this the explanation of His miracles or were they intended as signs which attested His divine identity and the increasing of the kingdom of God? The apostles performed miracles too, although being fallible humans, as the gospel advanced further across the spiritual frontiers. But Jesus was not immune from anger or from conflict in His human life (Mark 3: 5). The gospels record these quite matter of factly and do not see them as examples of human weakness.
  • JBII: "But -- but if Jesus was mistaken about the end of the world, how can he possibly be the Son of God?"
    But what if he was raised from the dead?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Rublev wrote: »
    That's an interesting question. Could Jesus sin? And did Jesus sin? He is both fully human and fully divine. According to Hebrews He was tempted in every way just like us, yet was without sin (Heb 4: 15). The doctrine of the immaculate conception also transferred this to Mary so that Jesus could be born without Original Sin.


    In brief, yes, he could, and no, he didn't.

    See how few words are needed? :wink:

    One of the reasons why I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception is that it detracts from the reality of Jesus' humanity, I think, and, although I appreciate that many people do believe it, I can't see why they deem it so important.

    Material for another thread, I guess...perhaps entitled 'What shall we do with an Errant Mary?' :wink:


Sign In or Register to comment.