Ah, so you replied, but the reply wasn't good enough. That will be a low mark for your homework BF. I'm afraid your parents will be disappointed with your end of term report when it comes.
O please! Quit the wind ups, Shipmates. James Boswell is in enough trouble with Admin already.
And James Boswell. It is taking you a very long time to grasp the ethos of this place. Don't compound further your difficulties with Admin by making derogatory remarks about your Shipmates.
And I don't want to see a single comment or aside about this ruling anywhere other than the Styx.
Notice that I here gave @Bishops Finger a fulsome answer to his question and he never so much as said Thank You or replied in any way. That is just one more reason I am getting to the point where I think I shall stop answering him at all, for imho he only wants to be obscurantist. I think I have a right to make that decision, and will endure any criticism I may get for making it.
Bishop's Finger said:
"...if you don't want to answer me, I don't mind."
I'm so glad he doesn't mind, for I am no longer answering him.
Back to the subject of this thread: What to Do With an Errant Jesus?
*The Markan Jesus who submitted to the Baptizer's rite of water immersion intended for the sake of sinners' forgiveness of sins,
*and who said that "no one is good but God alone,"
*and who said that the Kingdom of God is "near" / "at hand,"
*and who could be "amazed" at Nazareth's rejection of him, including the family members in his own home,
*and who could "do no mighty work in Nazareth because of their lack of faith," though he tried and was at least able to "lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them,"
*and who frequently asked questions as if he did not know the answer ("who touched me", looking around to see who did it, and "what do you want me to do for you?"),
*and who told the two disciples who wanted to sit enthroned at his right and at his left in his glory that such a thing was not "mine to grant,"
*and who told his disciples and others "there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power,"
*and who at some time may have thought that Judas would be among those twelve who, he said, would "sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,"
*and who said that people would see the stars falling from the sky and the Son of Man coming "in clouds with great power and glory before this generation has passed away,"
*and who said that the punishment for all the sinsof all the generations would fall on "this generation," (for he must have believed that generation wold be the last generation),
*and who told the Council who were about to hand him over to the Romans to be crucified, "Yes, I AM the Messiah, and you [plural] will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" [indicating they would live to see it],
*and who also said, "but about the day or the hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father,"
and... and... and...and...
---that Jesus may have regarded himself as somewhat limited in some or many ways... ----and if he, the flesh and blood man were somehow transported among us today and had come to know all that we now know about history and science and the universe etc., etc., including all that happened later, down until today, he would surely want us honestly to acknowledge that he was in some sense "errant" -- would he not?
Jesus wasn't the Messiah that his generation were expecting. John the Baptist fitted the bill much better, except that he performed no signs. However, Jesus did teach the crowds and enter Jerusalem in the manner of the prophecy of Zechariah. And the cleansing of the Temple was a symbolic prophetic action.
Yes. My list emphasizing his limitations should not and cannot obscure the wondrously unique and amazing things about him. He was so different from what most people incluing the Baptizer were expecting that through most of Mark NO one knows what he is except, Mark says, the demoniacs, and he would quieten them "because they knew whohe was." Even when Jesus late in his ministry asked his twelve, "Who do people say that I am?" none of the answers....Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijay; and still others , one of the prophets -- no one was saying, You are the Messiah.
But when he asked the Twelve, "Who do you (plural) say that I am?" Peter answered for all of them. "You are the Messiah!"
The Baptizer in Q should be greatly credited for the fact that he was at least considering that Jesus might yet prove to the "the one who is to come"!
Yes, Jesus was known as the Messiah by revelation as Peter's Confession illustrates. The Parables were understood by the spiritually receptive who had 'ears to hear.' The demons could recognise the true identity of Jesus because they were spiritual beings. Paul experienced a similar phenomenon in Philippi with the slave girl who had a spirit of divination (Acts 16: 16-18).
"By revelation."
It sounds as if you regard Matthew 16:17-19 as historical. I do not. Mark's far more puzzling response, I think, is historical -- only that they are to tell no one (which Matthew too repeats).
Even the Catholic Bible surprisingly says that Matthew's addition of Son of the living God "supports the view proposed by many scholars that Matthew has here combined his source's confession with a post- resurrection confession of faith ... that belonged to the appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter 1 Cor 15:5; Lk. 24:34.
But I like the way you and I can see things differently, yet have an over arching unity about them.
Gentle reprimand: However, I do strongly disagree with some things you said above to Bishop's Finger and we must talk about that...
Yes, I think Peter's Confession of Christ is historical. Mark makes it the centrepiece of his gospel and brackets it with his introduction and the confession of the centurion (Mark 8: 27-30; 1: 1; 15: 39).
Yes, Jesus was known as the Messiah by revelation as Peter's Confession illustrates. The Parables were understood by the spiritually receptive who had 'ears to hear.' The demons could recognise the true identity of Jesus because they were spiritual beings. Paul experienced a similar phenomenon in Philippi with the slave girl who had a spirit of divination (Acts 16: 16-18).
Yes, Peter says some rather silly things at times, but on the important occasions he gets it spot on.
He's quite a hero really. He follows Jesus as far as the high priests courtyard on the night of His arrest. And he jumps into the sea in his haste to meet the Risen Christ. He deserved to become the head of the church. Mark makes him the chief apostle of his gospel as Luke does with Paul in Acts.
Yes, Jesus was known as the Messiah by revelation as Peter's Confession illustrates. The Parables were understood by the spiritually receptive who had 'ears to hear.' The demons could recognise the true identity of Jesus because they were spiritual beings. Paul experienced a similar phenomenon in Philippi with the slave girl who had a spirit of divination (Acts 16: 16-18).
Yes, Peter says some rather silly things at times, but on the important occasions he gets it spot on.
A bit like some Christians today, no?
Peter often gets described in sermons etc. as the one who opens his mouth, and puts his foot in it...
It's his obvious imperfections - and his willingness to eventually admit to them - that make him an 'attractive' character, IYSWIM.
Yes, I think Peter's Confession of Christ is historical. Mark makes it the centrepiece of his gospel and brackets it with his introduction and the confession of the centurion (Mark 8: 27-30; 1: 1; 15: 39).
I know I said I wouldn't be back but it turns out I unexpectedly have some time this morning.
I don't understand your reasoning here.
Peter is portrayed as a flawed character. Okay. So like loads of characters in Jewish stories and other mythology.
At the end of the story he is given a key line. Very dramatic.
And it is highlighted with exaggerated actions and words from other unlikely figures.
This doesn't seem like anything other than a literary device. I don't understand why or how this can be taken as proof that this person said these words.
Mark was Peter's disciple so he must have written the account that Peter wanted the believers to read rather than a flattering version of him. It is the 'warts and all' narrative of the fallible followers that makes the gospels so believable for me. As well as an encouragement that even though they lived with Jesus they didn't always get it right. Luke is more respectful about him in Acts, but is far more interested in recording the legacy of Paul. It's a pity that we don't get the full story of Peter.
Blahblah, you’re taking this question down to a different level from whether Jesus could err, and what that might mean.
What you’re asking is about the nature of the gospels as writings, the reliability of their transmission, and their value as historical evidence.
It is as if the thread is discussing the best layout for the rooms in a house, and you are asking about whether the building has adequate foundations. Both discussions make sense, but it will be hard for them to co-exist on a single thread.
Mark was Peter's disciple so he must have written the account that Peter wanted the believers to read rather than a flattering version of him. It is the 'warts and all' narrative of the fallible followers that makes the gospels so believable for me. As well as an encouragement that even though they lived with Jesus they didn't always get it right. Luke is more respectful about him in Acts, but is far more interested in recording the legacy of Paul. It's a pity that we don't get the full story of Peter.
So you apply the same reasoning to stories of Robin Hood, King Arthur, Owain Glyndwr etc, do you?
Literally nobody who writes interesting stories about mythical characters makes them a single type with no flaws. That's the nature of a repeatable, interesting mythical story.
That doesn't say anything about who they actually were. That's the silliest argument I have ever heard.
To me it is a sign of the modesty and humility of St Peter that although he becomes the head of the early Christian community he isn't concerned about being presented as the model disciple. Instead he is shown as being reassuringly human in his passions and flaws, his getting it right and his getting it wrong, just as we are ourselves. And that is far more valuable than any idealised hagiography could ever manage to be.
Quantifying the truth of the Biblical narrative is an interesting question. There was a thread about this just recently. Genesis contains myth, so is that myth literally true or a symbolic truth? The OT contains glorifying Chronicles of the House of David and how it rightfully replaced the House of Saul, so how true are they? The NT focuses upon the life and death of Jesus Christ which is historically attested by Josephus and Tacitus. I haven't encountered a serious historical argument to contest this is true.
Someone can be a historical character and have words attributed to them they didn't say. You appear to argue these words must be truly said by a specific person because the story is complex.
He's quite a hero really. He follows Jesus as far as the high priests courtyard on the night of His arrest. And he jumps into the sea in his haste to meet the Risen Christ. He deserved to become the head of the church. Mark makes him the chief apostle of his gospel as Luke does with Paul in Acts.
Totally agree. His silly remarks are far outweighed by the ones he gets right.
The closest we get to source analysis in the NT is the introduction to Luke's gospel which emphasises the testimony of eyewitnesses (Luke. 1: 1-4). The gospels were written in C1 AD and the apostles were well known to the early church. So what would be the point in inventing stories concerning fake disciples?
A whitewashed account of St Peter which omitted his failures and praised his accomplishments might have been seen as appropriate considering his position in the church. But we don't get that either. And so I see that as evidence of authenticity in the gospel narratives.
I'm not saying the disciples were faked. I'm not sure how else to say it: they could have existed, they could have behaved and spoken in many types of ways.
Saying that there is no way of assessing the attribution of words does not mean the characters did not exist.
I live within 100 years of the life and death of Winston Churchill. How accurate do you think I'm going to be now if I seek to write a book of his quotes?
Given that we live in a literate and historically conscious society this is not really a challenge. Numerous authors still continue to write reams of books about Churchill and Hitler. And if writers make false attributions they will be quickly contested.
I live within 100 years of the life and death of Winston Churchill. How accurate do you think I'm going to be now if I seek to write a book of his quotes?
Good question. What access do you have to people who spent time in his company? What other sources do you have to draw on, and what is their reliability? If you don’t reference your sources, and only your version of his quotations survive in a thousand years time, how will anyone be able to verify the accuracy or otherwise of your work?
These kinds of questions have been addressed by others much better qualified than I am, and good arguments made for a basic acceptance of the gospel accounts.
But any adequate answer to the questions will be book length, and not ideally suited to the constraints of an internet discussion forum. If you are interested, I could point you to some possible books, but I get the sense that you are not really interested. In any event that discussion would be better carried on in a new thread of its own.
I think many historians accept a historic Jesus, as a Jewish preacher, really as a matter of parsimony, but that doesn't extend to miracles or divine status. I don't think history can make any comment about that. As to specific stories and details, you can apply historical method, e.g., multiple sources, but it's sketchy.
I live within 100 years of the life and death of Winston Churchill. How accurate do you think I'm going to be now if I seek to write a book of his quotes?
Good question. What access do you have to people who spent time in his company? What other sources do you have to draw on, and what is their reliability? If you don’t reference your sources, and only your version of his quotations survive in a thousand years time, how will anyone be able to verify the accuracy or otherwise of your work?
These kinds of questions have been addressed by others much better qualified than I am, and good arguments made for a basic acceptance of the gospel accounts.
But any adequate answer to the questions will be book length, and not ideally suited to the constraints of an internet discussion forum. If you are interested, I could point you to some possible books, but I get the sense that you are not really interested. In any event that discussion would be better carried on in a new thread of its own.
I was simply trying to illustrate the difficulty. In fact it is a more difficult challenge, even for a 20th century public character, because a) lots of things we think he said were actually written and spoken by someone else and b) many of the existing sources are second or third hand.
The chances of being able to determine if Winston Churchill on one day in May 1938 met and said to my great aunt that he had pretty ankles is slight.
If we are talking about Rasputin, a character who lived in another country and spoke a language I don't understand, the difficulties are that much greater.
The chances of being sure about anything anyone spoke 2000 years ago are nil.
The C1st Romans, Greeks and Jews were all historically conscious societies. Luke is a highly self-aware ancient historian who is very concerned with sources, dates and writing an orderly account for his readers.
However, ancient history does not follow the same conventions as modern history. Literary and rhetorical devices were considered a sign of sophistication. So ancient historians like Thucydides and Livy gave their victorious generals stirring eve of battle speeches. What should have happened took a higher priority than reporting the factual truth. But in their culture that was a better truth.
This is where redaction criticism comes in - the comparison of the four gospels to identify how they mirror or differ from one another. And to consider the reasons why. This is the theme of JB2s threads. And very interesting too.
I live within 100 years of the life and death of Winston Churchill. How accurate do you think I'm going to be now if I seek to write a book of his quotes?
Good question. What access do you have to people who spent time in his company? What other sources do you have to draw on, and what is their reliability? If you don’t reference your sources, and only your version of his quotations survive in a thousand years time, how will anyone be able to verify the accuracy or otherwise of your work?
These kinds of questions have been addressed by others much better qualified than I am, and good arguments made for a basic acceptance of the gospel accounts.
But any adequate answer to the questions will be book length, and not ideally suited to the constraints of an internet discussion forum. If you are interested, I could point you to some possible books, but I get the sense that you are not really interested. In any event that discussion would be better carried on in a new thread of its own.
I was simply trying to illustrate the difficulty. In fact it is a more difficult challenge, even for a 20th century public character, because a) lots of things we think he said were actually written and spoken by someone else and b) many of the existing sources are second or third hand.
The chances of being able to determine if Winston Churchill on one day in May 1938 met and said to my great aunt that he had pretty ankles is slight.
If we are talking about Rasputin, a character who lived in another country and spoke a language I don't understand, the difficulties are that much greater.
The chances of being sure about anything anyone spoke 2000 years ago are nil.
I'm afraid I agree, largely, and it's what I've been banging on about, from time to time (when not being shouted down), on several of these threads.
Yes, we can have some idea of what might possibly/probably have been said, and/or meant, in the Gospels, and other writings, but absolute certainty, and proof, is not to be had.
Which, maybe, is where 'faith' (however you might define it) comes in, but that's possibly a theme for another thread
There is some 'should have happened' going on with the gospel writers. Mark is the original upon whom Matthew and Luke improve. And John throws the Synoptic template out of the window and writes his own radical spiritual gospel.
By comparing the two accounts we can see that Matthew edits Mark's account to uphold Jesus' glory. (Matthew contains 90% of Mark so a good question is why did he feel the need to bother?)
I suspect that the rabbi J the B being the forerunner of Jesus is what should have happened in the eyes of the gospel writers.
Certainties and uncertainties tend to be culturally determined. You can discuss the burden of proof for them both. It's interesting to explore a presumed certainty. Such as the role of the historical J the B.
@Blahblah
You said,
"The chances of being sure about anything anyone spoke 2000 years ago are nil."
_______
You can be pretty sure that the historical Jesus (the Jesus we can with some degree of confidence reconstruct from the sources using historical methodology) DID probably say a number of the things attributed to him. For example, when the early source Q quotes him as saying that his enemies have called him a glutton and a drunkard* a friend of tax collectors and sinners, he probably did say that, for the church would never have put such offensive words in his mouth.
Another example, when he mentions that his opponents have accused him of doing exorcisms by the power of Satan, you can be sure he probably said that, for the church would never have put such offensive words in his mouth.
If you are really interested, you should study the atheist Bart Ehrman's take on the historical Jesus, or even better the Catholic John P. Meier's take. Both extensively review the criteria we use to determine the historicity or non historicity of numerous of Jesus' statements. On the other hand, if you want to go with the idea that it's all mythology, you can do that with Robert Price's The Incredible Vanishing Son of Man , wherein he dismisses practically everything about Jesus as being mythological. (I think he is demonstrably wrong, and Bart Ehrman has shown that imho.)
___________
*Mosaic legal terminology for one so reprobate as to deserve death by stoning (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
**There were other Jews in Jesus' time who had strong reputations as
"exorcists" (see Josephus). Jesus seemed especially effective in that regard, so much so that even his opponents had to admit that he (apparently) did it, but did so only with the help of the Evil One.
Comments
I wasn't very good at Maths, generally, as you will gather. 'Joey' T, the Maths master, was elderly, impatient, and irascible...
And James Boswell. It is taking you a very long time to grasp the ethos of this place. Don't compound further your difficulties with Admin by making derogatory remarks about your Shipmates.
And I don't want to see a single comment or aside about this ruling anywhere other than the Styx.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Bishop's Finger said:
"...if you don't want to answer me, I don't mind."
I'm so glad he doesn't mind, for I am no longer answering him.
What to Do With an Errant Jesus?
*The Markan Jesus who submitted to the Baptizer's rite of water immersion intended for the sake of sinners' forgiveness of sins,
*and who said that "no one is good but God alone,"
*and who said that the Kingdom of God is "near" / "at hand,"
*and who could be "amazed" at Nazareth's rejection of him, including the family members in his own home,
*and who could "do no mighty work in Nazareth because of their lack of faith," though he tried and was at least able to "lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them,"
*and who frequently asked questions as if he did not know the answer ("who touched me", looking around to see who did it, and "what do you want me to do for you?"),
*and who told the two disciples who wanted to sit enthroned at his right and at his left in his glory that such a thing was not "mine to grant,"
*and who told his disciples and others "there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Kingdom of God come with power,"
*and who at some time may have thought that Judas would be among those twelve who, he said, would "sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,"
*and who said that people would see the stars falling from the sky and the Son of Man coming "in clouds with great power and glory before this generation has passed away,"
*and who said that the punishment for all the sinsof all the generations would fall on "this generation," (for he must have believed that generation wold be the last generation),
*and who told the Council who were about to hand him over to the Romans to be crucified, "Yes, I AM the Messiah, and you [plural] will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" [indicating they would live to see it],
*and who also said, "but about the day or the hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father,"
and... and... and...and...
---that Jesus may have regarded himself as somewhat limited in some or many ways...
----and if he, the flesh and blood man were somehow transported among us today and had come to know all that we now know about history and science and the universe etc., etc., including all that happened later, down until today, he would surely want us honestly to acknowledge that he was in some sense "errant" -- would he not?
But when he asked the Twelve, "Who do you (plural) say that I am?" Peter answered for all of them. "You are the Messiah!"
The Baptizer in Q should be greatly credited for the fact that he was at least considering that Jesus might yet prove to the "the one who is to come"!
It sounds as if you regard Matthew 16:17-19 as historical. I do not. Mark's far more puzzling response, I think, is historical -- only that they are to tell no one (which Matthew too repeats).
Even the Catholic Bible surprisingly says that Matthew's addition of Son of the living God "supports the view proposed by many scholars that Matthew has here combined his source's confession with a post- resurrection confession of faith ... that belonged to the appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter 1 Cor 15:5; Lk. 24:34.
But I like the way you and I can see things differently, yet have an over arching unity about them.
Gentle reprimand: However, I do strongly disagree with some things you said above to Bishop's Finger and we must talk about that...
But now I must to bed; it's 12:32 am here.
12:39am
A bed, a bed! My kingdom for a bed!
Yes, Peter says some rather silly things at times, but on the important occasions he gets it spot on.
A bit like some Christians today, no?
Peter often gets described in sermons etc. as the one who opens his mouth, and puts his foot in it...
It's his obvious imperfections - and his willingness to eventually admit to them - that make him an 'attractive' character, IYSWIM.
I know I said I wouldn't be back but it turns out I unexpectedly have some time this morning.
I don't understand your reasoning here.
Peter is portrayed as a flawed character. Okay. So like loads of characters in Jewish stories and other mythology.
At the end of the story he is given a key line. Very dramatic.
And it is highlighted with exaggerated actions and words from other unlikely figures.
This doesn't seem like anything other than a literary device. I don't understand why or how this can be taken as proof that this person said these words.
What you’re asking is about the nature of the gospels as writings, the reliability of their transmission, and their value as historical evidence.
It is as if the thread is discussing the best layout for the rooms in a house, and you are asking about whether the building has adequate foundations. Both discussions make sense, but it will be hard for them to co-exist on a single thread.
The words, and characters, may ring true, but that's not quite the same thing.
So you apply the same reasoning to stories of Robin Hood, King Arthur, Owain Glyndwr etc, do you?
Literally nobody who writes interesting stories about mythical characters makes them a single type with no flaws. That's the nature of a repeatable, interesting mythical story.
That doesn't say anything about who they actually were. That's the silliest argument I have ever heard.
Nope, the lives of the saints was never a part of my Christian vocabulary.
Are you telling me those stories projected the saints as having faults which somehow makes them true?
They are relatively complex characters. That doesn't mean that the stories are true.
Totally agree. His silly remarks are far outweighed by the ones he gets right.
A whitewashed account of St Peter which omitted his failures and praised his accomplishments might have been seen as appropriate considering his position in the church. But we don't get that either. And so I see that as evidence of authenticity in the gospel narratives.
Saying that there is no way of assessing the attribution of words does not mean the characters did not exist.
These kinds of questions have been addressed by others much better qualified than I am, and good arguments made for a basic acceptance of the gospel accounts.
But any adequate answer to the questions will be book length, and not ideally suited to the constraints of an internet discussion forum. If you are interested, I could point you to some possible books, but I get the sense that you are not really interested. In any event that discussion would be better carried on in a new thread of its own.
I was simply trying to illustrate the difficulty. In fact it is a more difficult challenge, even for a 20th century public character, because a) lots of things we think he said were actually written and spoken by someone else and b) many of the existing sources are second or third hand.
The chances of being able to determine if Winston Churchill on one day in May 1938 met and said to my great aunt that he had pretty ankles is slight.
If we are talking about Rasputin, a character who lived in another country and spoke a language I don't understand, the difficulties are that much greater.
The chances of being sure about anything anyone spoke 2000 years ago are nil.
However, ancient history does not follow the same conventions as modern history. Literary and rhetorical devices were considered a sign of sophistication. So ancient historians like Thucydides and Livy gave their victorious generals stirring eve of battle speeches. What should have happened took a higher priority than reporting the factual truth. But in their culture that was a better truth.
This is where redaction criticism comes in - the comparison of the four gospels to identify how they mirror or differ from one another. And to consider the reasons why. This is the theme of JB2s threads. And very interesting too.
I'm afraid I agree, largely, and it's what I've been banging on about, from time to time (when not being shouted down), on several of these threads.
Yes, we can have some idea of what might possibly/probably have been said, and/or meant, in the Gospels, and other writings, but absolute certainty, and proof, is not to be had.
Which, maybe, is where 'faith' (however you might define it) comes in, but that's possibly a theme for another thread
By comparing the two accounts we can see that Matthew edits Mark's account to uphold Jesus' glory. (Matthew contains 90% of Mark so a good question is why did he feel the need to bother?)
I suspect that the rabbi J the B being the forerunner of Jesus is what should have happened in the eyes of the gospel writers.
You said,
"The chances of being sure about anything anyone spoke 2000 years ago are nil."
_______
You can be pretty sure that the historical Jesus (the Jesus we can with some degree of confidence reconstruct from the sources using historical methodology) DID probably say a number of the things attributed to him. For example, when the early source Q quotes him as saying that his enemies have called him a glutton and a drunkard* a friend of tax collectors and sinners, he probably did say that, for the church would never have put such offensive words in his mouth.
Another example, when he mentions that his opponents have accused him of doing exorcisms by the power of Satan, you can be sure he probably said that, for the church would never have put such offensive words in his mouth.
If you are really interested, you should study the atheist Bart Ehrman's take on the historical Jesus, or even better the Catholic John P. Meier's take. Both extensively review the criteria we use to determine the historicity or non historicity of numerous of Jesus' statements. On the other hand, if you want to go with the idea that it's all mythology, you can do that with Robert Price's The Incredible Vanishing Son of Man
___________
*Mosaic legal terminology for one so reprobate as to deserve death by stoning (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
**There were other Jews in Jesus' time who had strong reputations as
"exorcists" (see Josephus). Jesus seemed especially effective in that regard, so much so that even his opponents had to admit that he (apparently) did it, but did so only with the help of the Evil One.