Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 25 Jun 2017, 1:21 pm

Fate

Go ahead. Here's what I know, unequivocally: you don't know what you're talking about. The original audience did.


I'll let the insult go. But I am curious. Which "original audience" are you referring to exactly? And maybe that's a good place to start.

By "original audience" do you mean..

1. Eye witnesses to Jesus during his lifetime?

2. Or perhaps, those who were not eye witnesses to his ministry but who experienced the resurrected Christ?

3. Or those subsequent generations who neither witnessed his ministry nor experienced the resurrected Christ but, who came to believe based on others' testimony?

It's an important clarification for understanding this title.

The Christological title "Son of God" is a self disclosure title. Jesus did not use the term to refer to himself in the biological sense. The term was used to describe his unique relationship with God and by "the early church" to teach who they believed him to be.

This is not an "attack" on scripture as you suggest. On the contrary, clarity on this particular title comes from the best scripture scholars to emerge from the late 19th century Protestant Germans at Tubingen. Their work laid the foundation for modern scripture study.

We can continue this discussion if you like and maybe learn from one another. But my energy levels will not endure any more vitriol from you, especially when discussing matters of faith.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20492
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Jun 2017, 11:28 am

The "original audience."
(Jn. 10:27-33 ESV) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one."
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."


Why did they want to kill Him?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 11:12 am

Tons of theories about that Fate.

Here's a few worth mentioning:

1. His teachings were revolutionary, outside the mainstream and irresponsible.

2. His miracles were inexplicable and held suspect.

3. He was viewed as too politically dangerous given the Zealots desire for a galvanizing figure to led a revolt against Rome. This eventually was attempted after Jesus' death and, as you know, was put down in earnest with the destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. So the fear of a revolt was justified.

4. The overthrowing of the moneychangers in the Temple is cited by some as the straw that broke the camels back. His message threatened a very lucrative temple economy based sacrifices and temple taxes. This comes up again in the life of Paul as he disrupted economies throughout Asia Minor via his conversions to a faith that no longer required participation in said rituals.

5. Pilate was found to be involved with a plot to assassinate Tiberius or at least thought to be involved with Sejanus. The assassins were allowed to commit suicide or were brutally killed but Pilate was spared due to the fact that his wife found favor with Tiberius (his adopted daughter). Some say Tiberius and his adopted daughter were intimate. Of course at Capri anything was possible with Tiberius' fmaily. As a result of the discovered plot, Pilate is exiled to Judea where he spends the remainder of his life petrified of his wife falling out of favor with Tiberius. Some say he was sent there by Sejanus. Either way, he feared bad news about Judea reaching Rome. That eventually happens. One story has Pilate and Claudia sent to Spain on "vacation" never to return. Other traditions point to Claudia as a saint whose son was healed by Jesus. My point, when Jesus is brought before Pilate, it's a no brainer to get rid of Jesus. The last thing he wanted was for news of upheaval in Judea getting back to Rome or for him to no longer be considered Amicus Ceasaris.

Now I'm just having some fun with you on this last point (there are lots of traditions and anecdotes concerning Pilate and his wife), but the history to me is fascinating and ultimately points to the politics afloat at the time of Jesus's death that may have led to his demise.

I can go along with the quotes you've referenced but at the time, the reference was not a biological reference or homoousios reference. That comes later and was believed by the early church surely.

For Jesus, the term points to his unique relationship with God. Fate, you and the Father are one. Me and the Father are one insomuch as we are one in Jesus.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20492
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jun 2017, 11:43 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Tons of theories about that Fate.

Here's a few worth mentioning:

1. His teachings were revolutionary, outside the mainstream and irresponsible.

2. His miracles were inexplicable and held suspect.

3. He was viewed as too politically dangerous given the Zealots desire for a galvanizing figure to led a revolt against Rome. This eventually was attempted after Jesus' death and, as you know, was put down in earnest with the destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. So the fear of a revolt was justified.

4. The overthrowing of the moneychangers in the Temple is cited by some as the straw that broke the camels back. His message threatened a very lucrative temple economy based sacrifices and temple taxes. This comes up again in the life of Paul as he disrupted economies throughout Asia Minor via his conversions to a faith that no longer required participation in said rituals.

5. Pilate was found to be involved with a plot to assassinate Tiberius or at least thought to be involved with Sejanus. The assassins were allowed to commit suicide or were brutally killed but Pilate was spared due to the fact that his wife found favor with Tiberius (his adopted daughter). Some say Tiberius and his adopted daughter were intimate. Of course at Capri anything was possible with Tiberius' fmaily. As a result of the discovered plot, Pilate is exiled to Judea where he spends the remainder of his life petrified of his wife falling out of favor with Tiberius. Some say he was sent there by Sejanus. Either way, he feared bad news about Judea reaching Rome. That eventually happens. One story has Pilate and Claudia sent to Spain on "vacation" never to return. Other traditions point to Claudia as a saint whose son was healed by Jesus. My point, when Jesus is brought before Pilate, it's a no brainer to get rid of Jesus. The last thing he wanted was for news of upheaval in Judea getting back to Rome or for him to no longer be considered Amicus Ceasaris.

Now I'm just having some fun with you on this last point (there are lots of traditions and anecdotes concerning Pilate and his wife), but the history to me is fascinating and ultimately points to the politics afloat at the time of Jesus's death that may have led to his demise.

I can go along with the quotes you've referenced but at the time, the reference was not a biological reference or homoousios reference. That comes later and was believed by the early church surely.

For Jesus, the term points to his unique relationship with God. Fate, you and the Father are one. Me and the Father are one insomuch as we are one in Jesus.


This is why we cannot discuss this. I am not willing to cede that the Bible means other than what it says, have no interest in debating higher criticism with you or anyone else, and find it sad that people want to believe in a god who is subject to Man, in other words, no god at all.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1466
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 30 Jun 2017, 2:54 pm

This is why we cannot discuss this. I am not willing to cede that the Bible means other than what it says, have no interest in debating higher criticism with you or anyone else, and find it sad that people want to believe in a god who is subject to Man, in other words, no god at all.


Fair enough if that's your choice.

But for the record, I believe the books of the bible to be true. Not always factual but always true so long as they are taken within a context. And I think that's where you and I differ in our respective approaches, namely, Contextualism vs literalism.

Higher criticism of the bible has brought about a deep and beautiful understanding of the scriptures that has strengthened faith for millions and brought much needed reasonableness to our truth claims....all the while leaving plenty of elbow room for mystery and most importantly, the encounter of the wholly other, God.

"I find it sad that people want to believe in a god who is subject to Man" as well. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that statement but I know it's not me.

I adhere to the Nicene Creed with plenty of room for interpretation of the word "catholic" It is a summary of my faith encompassing beauty, mystery, grace and grit.

A literal interpretation of scripture doesn't work for me Fate. Never did. I respect the fact that it works for you, though I do find that surprising. Not in a condescending way at all, only that I've come to read your comments and arguments in thread after thread over the years and find your approach to Christian faith surprising.