Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.

---

Posted                         

Thank you Chester.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that Christianity has always believed that we do have some idea of what Jesus really taught.

---

But the kerygma of people like Paul said very little about what Jesus taught. It wss all about what he did.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Od Lord, can you please use the Force to prevent this thread from becoming about how oral accounts are really reliable and that the text of the Bible is, despite all the evidence, really accurate?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
Od Lord, can you please use the Force to prevent this thread from becoming about how oral accounts are really reliable and that the text of the Bible is, despite all the evidence, really accurate?

---

I have the same prayer. Mainly because it is a dead horse and not the subject of this thread.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love.

---

And to the objection that if God loves us why do we suffer, my favorite answer, one that is commonly given, is that love wants the object of its love to be free.

And to the follow-up question about whether people are still free in heaven, and if so why is there not suffering there, my favorite answer is that true freedom, as Jesus is reputed to have said, is doing God's will.

I guess that wraps it all up pretty neatly with a bow.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.

---

Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.

---

Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?

---

Not sure what you are getting at

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Returning to the OP, my favorite answer to the question was that given by Brenda:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The big theology answer to that question is, so that He could have other beings to love.

---

And to the objection that if God loves us why do we suffer, my favorite answer, one that is commonly given, is that love wants the object of its love to be free.

And to the follow-up question about whether people are still free in heaven, and if so why is there not suffering there, my favorite answer is that true freedom, as Jesus is reputed to have said, is doing God's will.

I guess that wraps it all up pretty neatly with a bow.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.

---

Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?

---

Not sure what you are getting at

---

If we don't know what Jesus taught, then how do we know whether it was taught by the rabbis?

And how do we know what the rabbis taught?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
[QBScroll down about half way [/QB]

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The point of the question, though, was that you had suggested that we simply do not know what Jesus said because the sources are unreliable. So why do you have confidence in the sources for the arguably similarly unreliable sources of what the rabbis were teaching?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Not so much 'unreliable' as not intending to be word-for-word utterances. The gospels aren'rt biography - though oral tradition was very strong in later Judaism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.

---

Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?

---

Not sure what you are getting at

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.

---

Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?

---

Not sure what you are getting at

---

If we don't know what Jesus taught, then how do we know whether it was taught by the rabbis?

And how do we know what the rabbis taught?

---

Scroll down about half way

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.

---

Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?

---

Not sure what you are getting at

---

The Jesus of the Gospels taught plenty of things not to be found in any supposed rabbinical sources. Especially the stuff about Himself.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
We did. It's extremely badly written.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.

---

Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?

---

Not sure what you are getting at

---

The Jesus of the Gospels taught plenty of things not to be found in any supposed rabbinical sources. Especially the stuff about Himself.

---

That's in the 4th Gospel - which is probably not ipsissima verba

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
After all, there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis.

---

Jesus's teaching as recorded by whom?

---

Not sure what you are getting at

---

The Jesus of the Gospels taught plenty of things not to be found in any supposed rabbinical sources. Especially the stuff about Himself.

---

That's in the 4th Gospel - which is probably not ipsissima verba

---

And what are your criteria for judging whether Jesus actually said what's attributed to him (other than, apparently, it'd already been said by the rabbis)?

And it's not just in John's Gospel either.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
We did. It's extremely badly written.

---

Well if you did, you didnt communicate your thought about the content.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Scholarship,style of Greek, dating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
And very little in the synoptics.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And why do you think that so very many of the Jews of His time rejected his claims if he was just spouting the same stuff they'd already heard from other rabbis?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
if you'll forgive me, that's another assertion without an argument.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is rather my point, leo.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Anti-Semitic Jews. Is that like Judischen Judenhasser?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Anti-Semitic Jews. Is that like Judischen Judenhasser?

---

Never heard of him/it and google doesn't help.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is rather my point, leo.

---

But Jesus didn't claim to be messiah in the synoptics - messianic secret and all that.

---

quote:

---

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
if you'll forgive me, that's another assertion without an argument.

---

I have a whole blog devoted to it - the ourworking of 3 years discussions in the Council of Christians and Jews.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Anti-Semitic Jews. Is that like Judischen Judenhasser?

---

Never heard of him/it and google doesn't help.

Not sure that you've understood.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is rather my point, leo.

---

But Jesus didn't claim to be messiah in the synoptics - messianic secret and all that.

---

No that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:

quote:

---

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
if you'll forgive me, that's another assertion without an argument.

---

I have a whole blog devoted to it - the ourworking of 3 years discussions in the Council of Christians and Jews.

---

I'm sorry, but in general people tend to argue for their points here on the boards, not by proxy by waving vaguely in the direction of their blogs. That seems a fairly reasonable standard of discourse for a discussion board to me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No[t] that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:

quote:

---

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)

---

---

The only place in mark where this happens - the climax at the end of the continuiing 'messianic secret.'

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I repeat, there are plenty other teachings, sayings and claims made by Jesus - even in the synoptics - both about Himself and His mission which are nowhere to be found in the rabbinical material you have cited.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No[t] that this is really what we started talking about - which was whether you were right to claim Jesus taught nothing (or almost nothing) not to be found amongst "the rabbis" (and we weren't carefully excluding John at that stage, either) - but just for the record:

quote:

---

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:62)

---

---

The only place in mark where this happens - the climax at the end of the continuiing 'messianic secret.'

---

Ha! This "climax" is the disproof of the theory. I think this just shows what utter bunkum the "messianic secret" theory is. Is there any scholar out there who has held to it for the last 60 years anyway?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Is there any scholar out there who has held to it for the last 60 years anyway?

---

pretty much all of them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Wrede's [Messianic Secret] theory enjoyed its highest level of acceptance in the 1920s, and support for it began to decline thereafter as criticisms of the theory were provided based on multiple new arguments.

[...]

By the mid-1970s the Messianic Secret theory no longer existed as Wrede had proposed it.

[...]

G. E. Ladd , a former Baptist professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, stated that: "The 'Messanic Secret' is a clever theory, but utterly lacking in evidence".

---

quote:

---

Wrede's theory is not acceptable as it stands.

---

quote:

---

The major Christological contention of Wrede cannot be upheld. Even if the commands to silence after the miracles of healing are invented subsequently, the fact of these miracles (unless they too are invented) must constitute a messianic claim [...] the whole tone of Jesus' proclamation, from its first opening with 'The kingship of God has come near' (1.14-15), is messianic. A much larger demolition-job needs to be done on the historicity of Mark if all public messianic indications are to be removed from the lifetime of Jesus. The miraculous feedings are a sign that Jesus is a second Moses, and so a messianic figure. Peter's messianic confession cannot have been invented subsequently because of its slur on the chief apostle. The messianic entry into Jerusalem may have been built up, but the deliberate entry on a donkey must have been intended by Jesus messianically. Finally the cleansing of the Temple must have messianic overtones, as the reaction to it by the Jewish authorities shows, both in their demand for Jesus' authority and in the accusation at the trial.

It is further impossible to explain Jesus' own claims unless they include messianic overtones. In particular his assembly of his own little community of the Twelve, his own qahal (= community, 3.13-14), parallel to Israel, implies that he is the representative of the Lord who originally gathered Israel to be his own special people. The same (delegated?) divine authority is implied by the claim to forgive sin (2.10) and to be Lord of the Sabbath (2.28). Particularly related to the end-time expectation of the messiah is the claim to be the bridegroom (2.19).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Thank you for engaging with this (tangent) but you are looking too much to Wrede. Modern scholars like J. D. Dunn also posit it. As does Norman Perrin.

---

quote:

---

1) Even if the commands to silence after the miracles of healing are invented subsequently, the fact of these miracles (unless they too are invented) must constitute a messianic claim[.]

2) the whole tone of Jesus' proclamation, from its first opening with 'The kingship of God has come near' (1.14-15), is messianic.

A much larger demolition-job needs to be done on the historicity of Mark if all public messianic indications are to be removed from the lifetime of Jesus.

3) The miraculous feedings are a sign that Jesus is a second Moses, and so a messianic figure. Peter's messianic confession cannot have been invented subsequently because of its slur on the chief apostle.

4) The messianic entry into Jerusalem may have been built up, but the deliberate entry on a donkey must have been intended by Jesus messianically.

5) the cleansing of the Temple must have messianic overtones, as the reaction to it by the Jewish authorities shows, both in their demand for Jesus' authority and in the accusation at the trial.

It is further impossible to explain Jesus' own claims unless they include messianic overtones.

6) In particular his assembly of his own little community of the Twelve, his own qahal (= community, 3.13-14), parallel to Israel, implies that he is the representative of the Lord who originally gathered Israel to be his own special people.

7) The same [...] divine authority is implied by the claim to forgive sin (2.10) and to be Lord of the Sabbath (2.28).

8) Particularly related to the end-time expectation of the messiah is the claim to be the bridegroom (2.19).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this because I take it for geranted.

For more up to date scholars, you might consider:

R T France

Kingsbury, J. The Christology of Mark’s Gospel, chapter 1. Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983.

Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to St Mark, pg. 66 - 69, A & C Publishers, London, 1991.

Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (1991)

Joseph Fitzmyer

Paul J. Achtemeier, Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).

Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)

---

quote:

---

there is little or nothing in Jesus's teaching that wasn't also taught by the rabbis

---

quote:

---

Jesus didn't claim to be messiah in the synoptics[.]

---

quote:

---

To describe the whole ministry of Jesus as 'unmessianic' is to ignore totally the plain evidence of the gospels in favour of a comlplex theory as to how that evidence came to be arranged. If there is any agreement among New Testament scholars today, it is in believing that Jesus acted with authority and believed himself to have been commissioned by God: it is difficult not to use the term 'messianic' to dsecribe such authority. And were the Church - or the evangelist - to have imposed a messianic interpretation on to totally unmessianic material, one would hardly have expected the messianic secret to have emerged: rather, one would have expected much clearer statements of Jesus' messiahship.

[...]

If we ask how Mark makes use of the secret, then it is important to notice that it functions in precisely the opposite way to what one expects: it serves a a means of revelation to the hearers/readers of the gospel.

---