|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Cross
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
What I couldn't find is what you reckon made Jesus think that getting himself crucified was such an important thing to do.
Others have said it better than me, but I think it is something about closeness to God being related to whether we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves.
Here is a man who was so close to God that he was God, and that walk ended up as the death of a criminal. Those who claim to walk the walk but do not pick up their own Cross are deceiving themselves.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
What I couldn't find is what you reckon made Jesus think that getting himself crucified was such an important thing to do.
Others have said it better than me, but I think it is something about closeness to God being related to whether we are prepared to sacrifice ourselves.
Here is a man who was so close to God that he was God, and that walk ended up as the death of a criminal. Those who claim to walk the walk but do not pick up their own Cross are deceiving themselves.
You'll need to talk me through this a bit more me ol' son. The record of everyone who knew him well is more than that Christ followed a path that got himself crucified. He actively chose that path knowing where it would end. He repeatedly wound up the power-brokers of the day and it didn't take any kind of divine foreknowledge to work out where that was going to end.
So what made him want to make himself a martyr? He could have demonstrated his closeness to God by carrying on helping poor people, encouraging people to live in a more altruistic way, valuing people who were marginalised. Why did he want to get himself killed?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
"Twisted": that's a bit loaded language, isn't it leo? Is it not possible that:
a) The first Christians saw in what Jesus had done something of a fulfillment of the words of Isaiah 53; and
b) Reckoned Jesus Himself saw what He was doing as fulfilling that prophecy?
Why is it beyond the realms of possibility that Jesus didn't see the cross as a fulfillment of prophecy, even though the original writer of those words in Isaiah wouldn't have had a clue about Jesus?
The history of the translation shows that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 223 were altered in laster times - as listed here and here.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
You'll need to talk me through this a bit more me ol' son. The record of everyone who knew him well is more than that Christ followed a path that got himself crucified. He actively chose that path knowing where it would end. He repeatedly wound up the power-brokers of the day and it didn't take any kind of divine foreknowledge to work out where that was going to end.
I think he chose to do what he had to do even though he knew it would lead to the cross. That is an important difference.
quote:
So what made him want to make himself a martyr? He could have demonstrated his closeness to God by carrying on helping poor people, encouraging people to live in a more altruistic way, valuing people who were marginalised. Why did he want to get himself killed?
I don't think he wanted to die. The vision of which he embodied was a road that led to the cross.
But you are right, if he could do this much in 3 years, why not 30? Again, I think, because the road he was on was inevitably heading towards Jerusalem and the cross.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think he wanted to die. The vision of which he embodied was a road that led to the cross.
But you are right, if he could do this much in 3 years, why not 30? Again, I think, because the road he was on was inevitably heading towards Jerusalem and the cross. [/QB]
We'll just have to agree to differ on that one then. The historical records we have look pretty consistent on Jesus's expectations.
On a slightly different tack, you talked upthread about Jesus being close to God and being God. Just trying to get my head around your take on the incarnation here (it's relevant - I'll explain when I know where you're coming from). How would you describe what "Jesus being God" means?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
We'll just have to agree to differ on that one then. The historical records we have look pretty consistent on Jesus's expectations.
He knew that was where it was going, I just don't believe he wanted it to. He sought first the kingdom, not the crucifixion.
quote:
On a slightly different tack, you talked upthread about Jesus being close to God and being God. Just trying to get my head around your take on the incarnation here (it's relevant - I'll explain when I know where you're coming from). How would you describe what "Jesus being God" means?
I believe Jesus was the incarnation of the unseen God. When you see Jesus, you see God. This is what God is like, any idea that is not like Jesus is not like God.
[ 17. April 2015, 14:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@ Mr Cheesy. Cheers for the above. What's not making sense to me is where God sits in all this. You said God can forgive whenever he wants and for any reason, and in practice saves people who recognise their need to be saved. Sacrifice is our response to that - but God doesn't need that to forgive or to save.
So what kind of God is happy for people to subject themselves to the privations, difficulties, torture and even death which comes with sacrifice when he has no need of this? Christ follows the way of sacrificial gratitude and kingdom-keeping and ends up crucified, leaving us an example to follow. What is it in God that wants us to follow this example of suffering when there was no need for it.
Being willing to give everything for someone who has given everything for you makes sense. On your view, it looks like God is happy for us to give everything, in gratitude for something that cost him nothing.
Looks like there's something missing.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@ Mr Cheesy. Cheers for the above. What's not making sense to me is where God sits in all this. You said God can forgive whenever he wants and for any reason, and in practice saves people who recognise their need to be saved. Sacrifice is our response to that - but God doesn't need that to forgive or to save.
So what kind of God is happy for people to subject themselves to the privations, difficulties, torture and even death which comes with sacrifice when he has no need of this? Christ follows the way of sacrificial gratitude and kingdom-keeping and ends up crucified, leaving us an example to follow. What is it in God that wants us to follow this example of suffering when there was no need for it.
I didn't say it wasn't needed, I just said it wasn't needed by God.
quote:
Being willing to give everything for someone who has given everything for you makes sense. On your view, it looks like God is happy for us to give everything, in gratitude for something that cost him nothing.
Looks like there's something missing.
It is a paradox (as I've also said before on this thread) - we only find life by losing it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Mr Cheesy
Let's work this through then. What need did the cross fulfil and for whom?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
"Twisted": that's a bit loaded language, isn't it leo? Is it not possible that:
a) The first Christians saw in what Jesus had done something of a fulfillment of the words of Isaiah 53; and
b) Reckoned Jesus Himself saw what He was doing as fulfilling that prophecy?
Why is it beyond the realms of possibility that Jesus didn't see the cross as a fulfillment of prophecy, even though the original writer of those words in Isaiah wouldn't have had a clue about Jesus?
The history of the translation shows that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 223 were altered in laster times - as listed here and here.
I don't think there's much doubt that the Servant Songs were about the nation of Israel. But, that isn't particularly relevant to the questions raised here.
It is equally certain that the first Christians applied those passages to Jesus. And, it's not just those passages. Go to the beginning of Matthew, "Out of Egypt I called my son", and read through the NT and you will constantly trip over references to OT passages about the people of Israel which are applied to Jesus. The NT authors hammer on at the subject that in Jesus we see all that the people of Israel should have been embodied in a single person - including being the Servant of God.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
Yes to Alan Cresswell and I think these passages, like others in the OT, can be interpreted in different legitimate ways. The Christian perspective isn't the only one.
Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are certainly in contrast to what was commonly expected about the messiah. He wasn't supposed to suffer and die like that.
Yet, throughout the gospels, Jesus repeatedly refers to his crucifiction as a fulfilment of scripture. It is so central that, IME, it doesn't just reflect the belief of the early church but Jesus' own understanding.
--------------------
“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Meike:
Yes to Alan Cresswell and I think these passages, like others in the OT, can be interpreted in different legitimate ways. The Christian perspective isn't the only one.
Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 are certainly in contrast to what was commonly expected about the messiah. He wasn't supposed to suffer and die like that.
Yet, throughout the gospels, Jesus repeatedly refers to his crucifiction as a fulfilment of scripture. It is so central that, IME, it doesn't just reflect the belief of the early church but Jesus' own understanding.
As an aside, there is a strain of modern rabbinic interpretation which sees the suffering servant as signifying the Jewish nation., particularly in the light if its being the subject of repeated persecution throughout history.
On your point of Christ identifying himself with the servant - yes I agree. The idea is so deeply bedded in the tradition it's difficult to see where else it could have originated.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't see why this matters. Early Christianity reinterpreted Isaiah. Even if that was not directly under the influence of Jesus Christ (personally I cannot see how it is possible to be sure about this) it was certainly from the earliest times.
Christianity reads the Jewish prophets in a different way to the rabbis. OK. Is this news?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Go to the beginning of Matthew, "Out of Egypt I called my son", and read through the NT and you will constantly trip over references to OT passages about the people of Israel which are applied to Jesus.
And Matthew often gets it wrong. He misreads 'nazirite'as 'Nazarene' and had 2 donkeys because he things 'a colt and the foal of an ass' is plural.
He write up the life of Jesus so that it fulfils prohecy.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course he does. So what? Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) are encapsulating the beliefs of the early Christians within the story of Jesus - that includes Jesus as fulfilment of prophecy. Matthew just over-eggs the pudding a bit by being a bit creative with his quotations.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Mr Cheesy
(In case you missed my post up-thread (on what we were on about yesterday))
Let's work this through then. What need did the cross fulfil and for whom?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I didn't miss it, I am just bored of being interrogated on things when I have already posted what I think.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Mr Cheesy
Right you are. Let me round this off from my end.
What you've got here is version of Abelard's moral influence theory of the atonement. It has some powerful insights, but as an atonement theory is seriously incomplete. Here's why.
First off, it doesn't need the cross. We can be moved by the costly example of someone following God without them dying at the end of it. No surprise that you never answered the question of what need the cross fulfilled and for whom.
It's also got an over-optimistic view of the human ability to overcome the influence of sin. Sin seems to be some kind of relative barrier that we humans can get around if we find the right motivation. Objective explanations say that sin is an absolute barrier that needs God to address directly, rather than just giving us a stronger incentive to get around it.
Third problem is there's nothing really unique about Christ. Plenty of people have got on the wrong side of powerful people and got killed as a result. So Christ is the perfect moral example of obedience - what does that achieve? Someone once said that if he were in a rushing river and someone jumped in to save him, and in the process lost his life, he could recognize the love and sacrifice involved. But if he was sitting safely on the land and someone jumped into the torrent to show his love, he could see no point in it and only lament the senseless act. Unless the death of Christ really does something, in what way is it a demonstration of love?
It works as a partial view of the cross, focusing on a personal response. But it's seriously incomplete and there's nothing specifically Christian about it (plenty of sacrificial moral exemplars in other faiths and none).
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Mr Cheesy
Right you are. Let me round this off from my end.
What you've got here is version of Abelard's moral influence theory of the atonement.
Nope, not really. The theory I most associate myself with is the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. But I would certainly put the Moral Influence theory as higher and more useful than PSA.
quote:
It has some powerful insights, but as an atonement theory is seriously incomplete. Here's why.
First off, it doesn't need the cross. We can be moved by the costly example of someone following God without them dying at the end of it. No surprise that you never answered the question of what need the cross fulfilled and for whom.
No, sorry, I didn't answer you because I didn't like your tone, and you shouldn't read into that something about my beliefs.
I believe in the trinity, the incarnation, the atonement and the resurrection. I just do not believe that blood is needed to pay for the price of sin to placate God, because I do not believe God is like that.
At no point did I say that the cross was not needed. It is, in my opinion, certainly not needed by God to pay the price of sin, but clearly there are other atonement theories which still hold the cross in high regard.
quote:
It's also got an over-optimistic view of the human ability to overcome the influence of sin. Sin seems to be some kind of relative barrier that we humans can get around if we find the right motivation. Objective explanations say that sin is an absolute barrier that needs God to address directly, rather than just giving us a stronger incentive to get around it.
Nope, you are just projecting here. At no point did I argue that humans are able to single-handedly overcome their own frailties. Quite the reverse, I have clearly said that only those who lose themselves and are prepared to sacrifice themselves find life.
quote:
Third problem is there's nothing really unique about Christ. Plenty of people have got on the wrong side of powerful people and got killed as a result. So Christ is the perfect moral example of obedience - what does that achieve? Someone once said that if he were in a rushing river and someone jumped in to save him, and in the process lost his life, he could recognize the love and sacrifice involved. But if he was sitting safely on the land and someone jumped into the torrent to show his love, he could see no point in it and only lament the senseless act. Unless the death of Christ really does something, in what way is it a demonstration of love?
This is what the Way of God looks like. If you want to walk with God, this is the way to walk. There is no other.
quote:
It works as a partial view of the cross, focusing on a personal response. But it's seriously incomplete and there's nothing specifically Christian about it (plenty of sacrificial moral exemplars in other faiths and none).
You are entitled to your own opinion, but very little of what you have ascribed to me above resembles my views.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course he does. So what? Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) are encapsulating the beliefs of the early Christians within the story of Jesus - that includes Jesus as fulfilment of prophecy. Matthew just over-eggs the pudding a bit by being a bit creative with his quotations.
As long as you accept that these little texts were expressing belief rather than what actually happened.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course he does. So what? Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) are encapsulating the beliefs of the early Christians within the story of Jesus - that includes Jesus as fulfilment of prophecy. Matthew just over-eggs the pudding a bit by being a bit creative with his quotations.
As long as you accept that these little texts were expressing belief rather than what actually happened.
How do you tell the difference? I mean, how do you tell, especially from this distance, that what "actually happened" (by which I mean as a matter of fact) was that Jesus did not fulfill Isaiah's prophecies about Israel?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
They can certainly be both. John is explicit, he's selected which stories to include in his Gospel for the purpose of expressing belief. I see no reason why the other Gospel writers were not doing the same.
And, comments by the author to say "and, this fulfilled such and such a prophecy" is quite clearly an expression of the belief of the early church that Jesus fulfilled prophecy. There are a few occasions where we have statements of fulfilled prophecy in the mouth of Jesus, the ones that He had to die and rise again being among them, but I don't think He routinely went around and after each thing He did or said turned around and said "and, there you are, I've fulfilled another prophecy".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
.....of course, most Jews neither then nor subsequently believed Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Indeed, the manner of his death definitively demonstrated he was not the Messiah. The argument on the Emmaus road, for example, represented a paradigm shift in the concept of Messiah. It was New Wine in New Bottles.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course he does. So what? Matthew (and the other Gospel writers) are encapsulating the beliefs of the early Christians within the story of Jesus - that includes Jesus as fulfilment of prophecy. Matthew just over-eggs the pudding a bit by being a bit creative with his quotations.
As long as you accept that these little texts were expressing belief rather than what actually happened.
How do you tell the difference? I mean, how do you tell, especially from this distance, that what "actually happened" (by which I mean as a matter of fact) was that Jesus did not fulfill Isaiah's prophecies about Israel?
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too.
And where subsequent gospels inflate previous accounts, that one blind man was healed, not two. one demoniac, not two.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too.
Is it? Wouldn't it be a rather novel and interesting manifestation of the prophetic passage if he had actually ridden on two donkeys?
I really don't think it is possible to "prove" beyond all doubt what happened. I think your point is a good one - namely that the Christ story is different to the one that the Jews were expecting and involved a very odd interpretation of OT passages - but so what?
quote:
And where subsequent gospels inflate previous accounts, that one blind man was healed, not two. one demoniac, not two.
Again, I don't know how anyone can really be sure about this. Even if inflation really happened, I can't see what it changes.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know how anyone can really be sure about this. Even if inflation really happened, I can't see what it changes.
To prove inflation, all you have to do is look at the parallel accounts in a synopsis.
What it changes is the view that the gospels are historical accounts. Ther are theology not history, though there may be some overlap.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, but that only changes if you think the Gospels are historical narratives or biographies. Since very few people, and I don't think anyone posting on this thread, actually believes that (many of them fundamentalist atheists, who find it a convenient fiction that they can use to bash Christianity) it's an irrelevancy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Alan - Is this a response to Leo's post, or a cross-post? (Knowing which makes quite a difference to your meaning!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too.
Is it? Wouldn't it be a rather novel and interesting manifestation of the prophetic passage if he had actually ridden on two donkeys?
If you look at the text carefully, it doesn't say Jesus sat on two donkeys. It says the disciples put their garments on the donkeys, and Jesus sat on them. The antecedent of 'them' is not 'donkeys', but 'garments'.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Alan - Is this a response to Leo's post, or a cross-post? (Knowing which makes quite a difference to your meaning!)
Sorry, for lack of clarity. It was a response to the post by leo immediately before my post.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Go to the beginning of Matthew, "Out of Egypt I called my son", and read through the NT and you will constantly trip over references to OT passages about the people of Israel which are applied to Jesus.
And Matthew often gets it wrong. He misreads 'nazirite'as 'Nazarene' and had 2 donkeys because he things 'a colt and the foal of an ass' is plural.
He write up the life of Jesus so that it fulfils prohecy.
But Matthew does not call Jesus a Nazarite, and there is no clear connection between Matt 2.23 and any identifiable prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures (Commentators' efforts to find how Matthew's text relates to the Hebrew scriptures are little more than educated guesses, whether they favour Matthew's accuracy or are doubtful of it).
Further, what makes you think it is more likely that Matthew (of all the NT writers) has failed to recognise the parallelism in Zech 9.9, than that he accurately recounts what Jesus did? (Possibly taking the mother along so that the colt would be more docile - especially if Mark is right and the foal had never been ridden.)
Certainly Matthew's grammar doesn't suggest that Jesus rode both the foal and its mother either sequentially (which would be clumsy) or simultaneously which would be ridiculous, if not impossible.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Meike
Shipmate
# 3006
|
Posted
What I find most interesting about the donkey ride is that Jesus seems to have arranged the event precisely to enact Zech 9.9. He could have walked into Jerusalem, why organize a donkey (or two)?
Posts: 250 | From: I like this place | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Having been to the Middle East, I can confirm that riding on donkey is a common feature of life.
I'd imagine 2000 years ago it was a rather larger feature of life.
If Jesus travelled as part of an extended journey from Galilee to Jerusalem (which is several days walk or donkey plus stops), a donkey is a fairly obvious way to travel.
I think we need to get over the idea that this was out of the ordinary. What is extraordinary is the literary way that the gospel writers contrast the entry into Jerusalem with the lavish entry of the Romans. That, I'm sure, is the point that is being made - with the interesting nod back to the ancient prophesies.
[ 21. April 2015, 09:18: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
..Just as a matter of interest, what proportion of ancient prophecies did Jesus fulfil?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too.
Is it? Wouldn't it be a rather novel and interesting manifestation of the prophetic passage if he had actually ridden on two donkeys?
If you look at the text carefully, it doesn't say Jesus sat on two donkeys. It says the disciples put their garments on the donkeys, and Jesus sat on them. The antecedent of 'them' is not 'donkeys', but 'garments'.
Moo
It says 'fetch the ass AND the colt.
The Hebrew style in Zecharia is parallelism and means ONE donkey.
And Matthew alters Mark's 'it' to 'them'.
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But Matthew does not call Jesus a Nazarite, and there is no clear connection between Matt 2.23 and any identifiable prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures (Commentators' efforts to find how Matthew's text relates to the Hebrew scriptures are little more than educated guesses, whether they favour Matthew's accuracy or are doubtful of it).
But the word he uses is one letter away from it in LXX - and he says it was to fulfil 'what was said by the prophets' without knowing which specific prophecy it was.
This article suggests a different interpretation.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
Even if that is more than just one guy's ideal/impression/theory - it still doesn't answer the point. Who cares?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, in my earlier example, it's likely that he sat on one donkey, not too. [BroJames' italics]
Is it? Wouldn't it be a rather novel and interesting manifestation of the prophetic passage if he had actually ridden on two donkeys?
If you look at the text carefully, it doesn't say Jesus sat on two donkeys. It says the disciples put their garments on the donkeys, and Jesus sat on them. The antecedent of 'them' is not 'donkeys', but 'garments'.
Moo
It says 'fetch the ass AND the colt.
The Hebrew style in Zecharia is parallelism and means ONE donkey.
And Matthew alters Mark's 'it' to 'them'.
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
And what I and Moo (I think) are saying is that Matthew's gospel does not suggest anything other than that Jesus (in your words) "sat on one donkey, not too [sic]". We are not disagreeing that there were two in the account, just that Jesus did not sit on both of them - which is what would have been needed if Matthew really misunderstood Zechariah's parallelism.
Additionally, I am saying that it seems very unlikely that Matthew, of all the gospel writers, would fail to understand Zechariah's parallelism, and that the mention, therefore, of two donkeys is not particularly because Matthew wants to strengthen the parallel (he would have known that it didn't), but because that is what happened for good pragmatic reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But Matthew does not call Jesus a Nazarite, and there is no clear connection between Matt 2.23 and any identifiable prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures (Commentators' efforts to find how Matthew's text relates to the Hebrew scriptures are little more than educated guesses, whether they favour Matthew's accuracy or are doubtful of it).
But the word he uses is one letter away from it in LXX - and he says it was to fulfil 'what was said by the prophets' without knowing which specific prophecy it was.
There is no known prophecy which says of the Messiah that he will be called either a Nazarite or a Nazarene. If the spelling were the same, there might be a more compelling argument treat the wording of the annunciation to Samson's mother. Since however the prophecy is hard to read as Messianic, and the words are spelt differently, a link with Judges 13.5 is tenuous at best
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Thank God Jesus wasn't modern.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
Even if that is more than just one guy's ideal/impression/theory - it still doesn't answer the point. Who cares?
One ought to care because the implications liberate people from as flat, literalist reading of scripture into a more nuanced and multi-faceted revelation.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
One ought to care because the implications liberate people from as flat, literalist reading of scripture into a more nuanced and multi-faceted revelation.
Who here is doing that? Who are you talking to?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Himself.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This article shows how Matthew altered the story of Jesus to fit in with (what he misunderstood as) prophecy.
Even if that is more than just one guy's ideal/impression/theory - it still doesn't answer the point. Who cares?
One ought to care because the implications liberate people from as flat, literalist reading of scripture into a more nuanced and multi-faceted revelation.
It might liberate people from such a reading if it wasn't so wedded to a flat literalist reading both of the text itself quote:
Matthew creates a ludicrous scene: Jesus stunt-rides two animals into Jerusalem.
and of the way Matthew uses the prophecy fulfilment motif quote:
The only possible purpose Matthew could have had in changing Mark’s straightforward narrative into such a spectacle is to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled prophecy to the letter.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
