Why are you so hung up on the size of the stones? I mean, yay, they were big. And so?
As for your other arguments--seriously, I'm in no mood to go delving into the meaning of genea, and whether Jesus was speaking in terms of a completely physical/literal end of the world immediately, or whether (as so often) he spoke on two (or more) levels at once, and was also referencing a) the crucifixion, and b) the destruction of Jerusalem--both of which have hefty claims to the title "Judgment Day".
It is worth pointing out, however, that he was speaking to his disciples--that is, to people who were more interested in what he was trying to communicate than in picking to death the literal details of his wording.
Okay. First of all, let me apologize for coming across so strongly on that one point.
And now let me defend myself a little by saying this: In my novel, Jesus' statement about the stones being thrown down morphs into what I think is one of the most beautiful sections of the book, covering two or three chapters. It even helped me make a discovery about Jesus that I think has significance. So, I have a vested interest in that saying, and that got me a bit carried away, I guess. (I may be more specific about that later.)
Apologies, and now I want to change the subject. I want to begin talking about why I think the story of Jesus can in a way become even more beautiful by utilizing the findings of good "historical Jesus" scholarship.
By the way, Dale C. Allison, who is perhaps THE most important historical Jesus scholar currently at work (actually, he claims Constructing Jesus will be his last Jesus book (I have my doubts) and he cautions against putting too much weight on the supposed authenticity or inauthenticity of any one Jesus saying. He is convinced that we should look for concatenations of his disciples' memories that fit well with one another.
I want to begin talking about why I think the story of Jesus can in a way become even more beautiful by utilizing the findings of good "historical Jesus" scholarship.
That sounds yet again as though you want to lecture us. You have a website where you can talk to your heart's content about what you think.
This is a discussion board, where inviting, listening to and considering the thinking of others is just as important as setting forth our own views.
Nick, everything I have said so far has opened up considerable discussions, so why would it be lecturing for me to share some things I really think are important? You can do the same. And, believe me, I am learning that almost anything I say will probably invite feedback and blowback. But now I would like to try at least to say some things I would hope most people could agree with.
ISTM that sometimes historical Jesus scholarship starts from an assumption that Jesus couldn't possibly have been God incarnate, miracles didn't happen, etc.
IMHO, that can be as limiting and askew as assuming the reverse.
Golden, that is exactly one mistake Thomas Jefferson made when he cut away much of the gospels for his "Jefferson Bible" (not his title), for to cut away from Jesus all the miracles attributed to him greatly distorts the historical picture of Jesus: Even if we grant that Jefferson as a Deist was right to disbelieve in miracles, that would not change the strong evidence that many people of Jesus' time who encountered him firmly believed that he was healing and exorcising demons.*
There are few texts more historical, imho, than Luke 7:18-35=Matthew 11:2-19 (Q), and Jesus' excitement in that passage indicates that he too believed that.
*Even his opponents had to admit his apparent success in casting out demons. They just said he did it by the power of Evil (Mark 3:22).
Nick, everything I have said so far has opened up considerable discussions, so why would it be lecturing for me to share some things I really think are important?
Because sharing what you think is important seems to be the goal. I note that a fair chunk of that discussion has had to do with how you've presented things and reactions to what you've said, not with the substance of ideas about the historical Jesus. You said at the outset that you want dialogue, but you haven't, I don't think, particularly invited dialogue.
There is a difference between
I want to talk about my thoughts on x, and then you can react to it; and
I think this is an interesting topic and I'd like to know what others think about it.
The first invites discussion about your statements, and carries some whiff of a teacher-student dynamic. The second invites an equal exchange of ideas, of listening ad well as speaking.
I would encourage you to spend some time reading through other threads to see how discussions typically flow.
@James Boswell II, what shows as 2:44 in your time zone will be different in other time zones depending upon users’ settings. I think I know which post you mean, but it would be better to link to the post.
<snip> I think really good honest scholarship tries to avoid subjectivity and does give a pretty good indication that Jesus did say a number of the things attributed to him, especially in the synoptic gospels, and especially in the earlier strata of information about him (Paul's letters, the Matthew-Luke parallels, the Gospel of Mark) and anything else that accords well with that.
From my POV the question at hand is not whether Jesus said these things. It is more about how we understand them.
ISTM that we have a tendency to assume that we understand what Jesus meant by his words, and when what we understand him to have meant doesn’t/didn’t come about we say he was wrong. The other logical possibility is rarely examined, in my view, which is that we have not rightly understood him.
So specifically when a modern website describe the Temple being rased to the ground we don’t say they do it know what they are talking about because a large portion of the Western Wall has survived, we recognise a piece of flexible English usage. Why, I wonder, are we not willing to allow the possibility that the retaining wall for the Temple mound was not considered to be part of the buildings of the Temple and/or that ‘not one stone upon another’ was a standard figure of speech for total destruction of a building used in the same general way that ‘rased to the ground’ is in English? Why do we choose to read his words in such a literalistic way?
I wonder if it is caused by the tendency to view certain verses as pithy aphorisms (e.g. John 3:16), which causes people to act as if every single verse stands apart as a little diamond? So instead of forming part of a larger whole, each verse has to have its own individual meaning to be closely dissected.
Which falls apart when you read the apocalyptic bits, because, AFAICT, most of it doesn't actually mean very much in itself but combines to form a poetic image of something very dramatic. But if you try to read it verse-by-verse, then you end up speculating on whether the ten-headed monster means the EEC.
Re: 11:21
"Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”
What is dishonest in saying that Jesus said and meant exactly that?
I find it very strange that literalists will be literalists until it become clear that something that was literally said did not happen.
I find it strange that I get criticized for being too literalist by those who apparently want to be literalists, but not when it raises questions they do not like.
Jesus: "There are some standing here who will not taste (experience) death before they see the Kingdom God come in power."
He said that to his twelve and others. But they did all die.
And Paul in the 7th and 15th chapters of 1 Corinthians LITERALLY said that Jesus would return before all of those to whom he was writing had died.
Also in the 4th chapter of 1 Thessalonians and the 11th chapter of Romans.
No one questions the authentic authorship of those letters by Paul. Be honest, he really was expecting Jesus to return so soon that even he advised the Corinthians meanwhile to stop marrying(!)-- chapter 7.
Be honest about that.
Who isn't? And Mark 9:1 was fulfilled 6 days later from the next verse. Be honest about that.
Not just Mark 13, but all the other Markan scriptures and the Q sayings of Matthew and Luke.
I am expressing an opinion that I had a hard time working toward as a youth and as a young college student and later. Numerous really excellent scholars (I list six of them on INFO page) agree that Jesus was expecting an imminent coming of the Kingdom of God in his generation. But enough of this. Time to go on to other interesting things.
The Kingdom came with His first preaching and the Church. There was no delay.
Golden, that is exactly one mistake Thomas Jefferson made when he cut away much of the gospels for his "Jefferson Bible" (not his title), for to cut away from Jesus all the miracles attributed to him greatly distorts the historical picture of Jesus: Even if we grant that Jefferson as a Deist was right to disbelieve in miracles, that would not change the strong evidence that many people of Jesus' time who encountered him firmly believed that he was healing and exorcising demons.*
There are few texts more historical, imho, than Luke 7:18-35=Matthew 11:2-19 (Q), and Jesus' excitement in that passage indicates that he too believed that.
*Even his opponents had to admit his apparent success in casting out demons. They just said he did it by the power of Evil (Mark 3:22).
Sorry if I'm lecturing.
What part does the supernatural play in morality? What, which, whose historical Jesus is associated with miracles? And Jesus' contemporaries' beliefs about Him, demonstrated by, and in the eruption of, the early Church, with no doubt, on their part or mine, prove what?
Michael F. Bird is a good evangelical scholar who wrote a paper on Mark 9:1 and started it off by making it clear that the Transfiguration could not be meant. How could Jesus have said that "there are some who are standing here who will not taste death before" -- six days later?
Michael F. Bird is a good evangelical scholar who wrote a paper on Mark 9:1 and started it off by making it clear that the Transfiguration could not be meant. How could Jesus have said that "there are some who are standing here who will not taste death before" -- six days later?
I will not waste time on this.
Do you want to put that in meaningful English? Just join up the dots a bit? Before dealing with the errancy of Jesus, which you haven't yet identified, remove the plank. You've wasted decades obviously.
Michael F. Bird is a good evangelical scholar who wrote a paper on Mark 9:1 and started it off by making it clear that the Transfiguration could not be meant. How could Jesus have said that "there are some who are standing here who will not taste death before" -- six days later?
I will not waste time on this.
You do realize you’re proving the validity of my observation that you seem to have no interest in discussion or in actually engaging with people?
Didn't Jesus also predict that the temple in Jerusalem would be rebuilt in three days?
No. He said, quote: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:19 John goes on to note that he was referring to his own body by "temple," and if anybody should know, it would be one of the twelve.
But naturally people got hold of the wrong end of the stick--either accidentally or on purpose. So in the mouths of the false witnesses at his trial and later, it morphed into:
Matthew 26:61
“This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”
Matthew 27:40
“You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”
Mark 14:58
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”
Mark 15:29
And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days.."
All of this is rather tempest in a teapot, anyway. If some nutcase runs around saying, "I am able to destroy the Statue of Liberty and rebuild it in three days," I might call for the guys in the white suits to come check him out, but it wouldn't be a crime. How precisely is Jesus supposed to be a threat, even if he HAD said what they reported he had? It's not like he could have been packing TNT somewhere.
You miss W Hyatt's meaning. Unless you're seeing his irony and raising it.
Okay. First of all, let me apologize for coming across so strongly on that one point.
And now let me defend myself a little by saying this: In my novel, Jesus' statement about the stones being thrown down morphs into what I think is one of the most beautiful sections of the book, covering two or three chapters. It even helped me make a discovery about Jesus that I think has significance. So, I have a vested interest in that saying, and that got me a bit carried away, I guess. (I may be more specific about that later.)
Apologies, and now I want to change the subject. I want to begin talking about why I think the story of Jesus can in a way become even more beautiful by utilizing the findings of good "historical Jesus" scholarship.
By the way, Dale C. Allison, who is perhaps THE most important historical Jesus scholar currently at work (actually, he claims Constructing Jesus will be his last Jesus book (I have my doubts) and he cautions against putting too much weight on the supposed authenticity or inauthenticity of any one Jesus saying. He is convinced that we should look for concatenations of his disciples' memories that fit well with one another.
I warmed to Allinson, despite everything, with this, '...a vast ignorance remains, and our reach often exceeds our grasp. Time after time, if we are honest, arguments concocted to demonstrate that Jesus really did say this or really did do that fall flat. Historians of Jesus, including myself, have too often assumed that we should be able, with sufficient ingenuity, to reconstruct the genealogy of almost every individual tradition. But it is not so. Some things just cannot be done, and desire does not beget ability'.
Earlier, Lamb Chopped said
"I'm in no mood to go delving into the meaning of genea, and whether Jesus was speaking in terms of a completely physical/literal end of the world immediately, or whether (as so often) he spoke on two (or more) levels at once, and was also referencing a) the crucifixion, and b) the destruction of Jerusalem--both of which have hefty claims to the title 'Judgment Day'.
"It is worth pointing out, however, that he was speaking to his disciples--that is, to people who were more interested in what he was trying to communicate than in picking to death the literal details of his wording."
_________________
I agree, Lamb Chopped, I am not interested in doing any of that either. And I do think his disciples took him quite simply and plainly at his words.
And that's one reason, I think, that Paul, writing to the church in Corinth some 25 years after the crucifixion, stressed to them that the time was so short and Jesus would be returning so soon that they might even consider giving up marrying meanwhile (1 Corinthians 7).
Why was he so convinced of that?
Perhaps because the disciples were growing old and Paul had heard that Jesus once told them that not all of them would die before the Kingdom would come and the Son of Man would come in his Kingdom (Mark 9:1; Matthew 16:28).
Also, perhaps because he had heard that Jesus had said people ought not to go on living normal lives, eating and drinking and giving and being given in marriage as they had in the time when the flood came and took them all away (Q saying Luke 17:27=Matthew 24:38).
Guys, I finally read The Dead Sea Gospeland it completely rocked my world. My eyes are open. My faith is deepened. My sex life is marginally improved. Everyone tired of beholding things as in a smudgy mirror, private message me with your email address and I will send you a scan. Such luminous knowledge must not be penned in by walls of mammon.
Martin,
if you are being sincere about warming to Allison, tell us more. Where did you find that quote, and what else (if anything) have you read of his?
I would be interested in a sincere comparing of notes and impressions without one upsmanship or rancor.
Nick, everything I have said so far has opened up considerable discussions, so why would it be lecturing for me to share some things I really think are important? You can do the same. And, believe me, I am learning that almost anything I say will probably invite feedback and blowback. But now I would like to try at least to say some things I would hope most people could agree with.
Look, you're NOT sharing. You keep saying "Go read my novel," or "check out my website," or teasing us with "I MAY share more about that later." That isn't discussion. That's ... annoying? Because this is a discussion board. For gosh sake SAY SOMETHING. You may get disagreed with, even vigorously, because that's the kind of thing that happens here. But refusing to engage while you withhold and tease--ain't nobody got time for that.
Didn't Jesus also predict that the temple in Jerusalem would be rebuilt in three days?
No. He said, quote: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:19 John goes on to note that he was referring to his own body by "temple," and if anybody should know, it would be one of the twelve.
But naturally people got hold of the wrong end of the stick--either accidentally or on purpose. So in the mouths of the false witnesses at his trial and later, it morphed into:
Matthew 26:61
“This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”
Matthew 27:40
“You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”
Mark 14:58
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”
Mark 15:29
And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days.."
All of this is rather tempest in a teapot, anyway. If some nutcase runs around saying, "I am able to destroy the Statue of Liberty and rebuild it in three days," I might call for the guys in the white suits to come check him out, but it wouldn't be a crime. How precisely is Jesus supposed to be a threat, even if he HAD said what they reported he had? It's not like he could have been packing TNT somewhere.
You miss W Hyatt's meaning. Unless you're seeing his irony and raising it.
Fine. Now which of his many meanings are you referencing? He didn't just leave a one-liner post.
And I thought I did openly, really share in my last post to you, after I said "I am not interested in doing any of that either." If what followed was not simple, honest sharing of how I think, I must not be capable of it.
Not sure if this is covered, but James, you seem to be punching at shadows on the Ship. I'm not a biblical literalist. Others may be, but I couldn't name any. I don't believe that the words of any of the gospels accurately reflect the words or the day to day life of Jesus Christ. People didn't write like that, and the gospels weren't written like that. I believe that the gospels were collections of stories told in a way to make a point. That point was the eschatological one you emphasise, that the Kingdom of God was coming, that you should repent of your sins and that in Jesus Christ lay our salvation.
You are right! The Gospels are thoroughly eschatological while not being a literal record of the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. The Gospels are also extremely fair dinkum. Paul, our earliest witness, is thoroughly eschatological. He is absolutely clear that this world is going to pass away very soon. Don't marry is his advice, unless you bloody have to, presumably because you are a horny bastard. It's not worth it because the Kingdom is coming right now, this very second!
Read some decent theology on how to deal with eschatology, if you haven't already. Read the post-war Germans, the ones who grew up in the Hitler Youth and served in the dying days of WW2. Read Moltmann, if you haven't already. I can't remember anything he wrote. That stuff doesn't stay in my head. But he blew my tiny little fucking mind. I remember that. Read eschatology. Pannenburg. I can't remember if he is German but read him. Don't pulp your novel. Some Christians will buy anything, so you might still make some dosh out of it. Dan Brown was mentioned upthread and he writes the cruddiest crud-filled crud you can read. Even my dog won't touch his books. Please note I haven't looked at your webpage or the book.
Didn't Jesus also predict that the temple in Jerusalem would be rebuilt in three days?
No. He said, quote: "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:19 John goes on to note that he was referring to his own body by "temple," and if anybody should know, it would be one of the twelve.
But naturally people got hold of the wrong end of the stick--either accidentally or on purpose. So in the mouths of the false witnesses at his trial and later, it morphed into:
Matthew 26:61
“This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’”
Matthew 27:40
“You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”
Mark 14:58
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”
Mark 15:29
And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days.."
All of this is rather tempest in a teapot, anyway. If some nutcase runs around saying, "I am able to destroy the Statue of Liberty and rebuild it in three days," I might call for the guys in the white suits to come check him out, but it wouldn't be a crime. How precisely is Jesus supposed to be a threat, even if he HAD said what they reported he had? It's not like he could have been packing TNT somewhere.
You miss W Hyatt's meaning. Unless you're seeing his irony and raising it.
Fine. Now which of his many meanings are you referencing? He didn't just leave a one-liner post.
Martin,
if you are being sincere about warming to Allison, tell us more. Where did you find that quote, and what else (if anything) have you read of his?
I would be interested in a sincere comparing of notes and impressions without one upsmanship or rancor.
Get on the Wonderful Worldwide Web, Google highway. Take the Wiki turn off.
He seems to be able to differentiate between what he knows to be true - which is less than thi sen, and less is, of course, more -
and what he wants to be true.
... I would be interested in a sincere comparing of notes and impressions without one upsmanship or rancor.
This is Purgatory, oh enemy mine, where I come to sharpen my thick, blunt, pitted, be-runed, ornately hilted broadsword and rapier wit.
You came with a wooden sword.
Jesus got plenty 'wrong', being a classic age enculturated Jew, but you have not established any of that, you don't even begin to address it; you aren't aware of it. It took me nearly half an Aspergersesque century.
Instead you come armed with literalism blind to itself by not being YEC fundy.
Toad, I would welcome your comparing my crud to Dan Brown's.
Thanks for telling me what I should read or should have read, but I think my own website list is superior to yours.
To Lamb Chopped and Martin: I will soon try to get down to the brass tacks of what I have to say.
But before I continue, I do want to go back and reference something Martin said. He earlier stated that Mark 9:1 was fulfilled a mere six days later in the Transfiguration. That is one of the standard fundamentalist-literalist bull shit claims, put forward in an attempt to deny that Jesus really did say that not all of his disciples would die before the end times arrived.
How or why would our intrepid Martin repeat such drivel?
Comments
As for your other arguments--seriously, I'm in no mood to go delving into the meaning of genea, and whether Jesus was speaking in terms of a completely physical/literal end of the world immediately, or whether (as so often) he spoke on two (or more) levels at once, and was also referencing a) the crucifixion, and b) the destruction of Jerusalem--both of which have hefty claims to the title "Judgment Day".
It is worth pointing out, however, that he was speaking to his disciples--that is, to people who were more interested in what he was trying to communicate than in picking to death the literal details of his wording.
Does it MATTER?
And now let me defend myself a little by saying this: In my novel, Jesus' statement about the stones being thrown down morphs into what I think is one of the most beautiful sections of the book, covering two or three chapters. It even helped me make a discovery about Jesus that I think has significance. So, I have a vested interest in that saying, and that got me a bit carried away, I guess. (I may be more specific about that later.)
Apologies, and now I want to change the subject. I want to begin talking about why I think the story of Jesus can in a way become even more beautiful by utilizing the findings of good "historical Jesus" scholarship.
By the way, Dale C. Allison, who is perhaps THE most important historical Jesus scholar currently at work (actually, he claims Constructing Jesus will be his last Jesus book (I have my doubts) and he cautions against putting too much weight on the supposed authenticity or inauthenticity of any one Jesus saying. He is convinced that we should look for concatenations of his disciples' memories that fit well with one another.
This is a discussion board, where inviting, listening to and considering the thinking of others is just as important as setting forth our own views.
IMHO, that can be as limiting and askew as assuming the reverse.
There are few texts more historical, imho, than Luke 7:18-35=Matthew 11:2-19 (Q), and Jesus' excitement in that passage indicates that he too believed that.
*Even his opponents had to admit his apparent success in casting out demons. They just said he did it by the power of Evil (Mark 3:22).
Sorry if I'm lecturing.
There is a difference between
The first invites discussion about your statements, and carries some whiff of a teacher-student dynamic. The second invites an equal exchange of ideas, of listening ad well as speaking.
I would encourage you to spend some time reading through other threads to see how discussions typically flow.
I wonder if it is caused by the tendency to view certain verses as pithy aphorisms (e.g. John 3:16), which causes people to act as if every single verse stands apart as a little diamond? So instead of forming part of a larger whole, each verse has to have its own individual meaning to be closely dissected.
Which falls apart when you read the apocalyptic bits, because, AFAICT, most of it doesn't actually mean very much in itself but combines to form a poetic image of something very dramatic. But if you try to read it verse-by-verse, then you end up speculating on whether the ten-headed monster means the EEC.
Who isn't? And Mark 9:1 was fulfilled 6 days later from the next verse. Be honest about that.
The Kingdom came with His first preaching and the Church. There was no delay.
I have dealt with that in my novel and demolished it. I will let it stand at that.
Of course it was and of course you haven't. Try shaving. And doing the dialectical hard work.
What part does the supernatural play in morality? What, which, whose historical Jesus is associated with miracles? And Jesus' contemporaries' beliefs about Him, demonstrated by, and in the eruption of, the early Church, with no doubt, on their part or mine, prove what?
What is historical about that text?
Well that's a good start.
I will not waste time on this.
Do you want to put that in meaningful English? Just join up the dots a bit? Before dealing with the errancy of Jesus, which you haven't yet identified, remove the plank. You've wasted decades obviously.
You do realize you’re proving the validity of my observation that you seem to have no interest in discussion or in actually engaging with people?
You miss W Hyatt's meaning. Unless you're seeing his irony and raising it.
Rationality is the game. And no, you're not. Not by choice.
I warmed to Allinson, despite everything, with this, '...a vast ignorance remains, and our reach often exceeds our grasp. Time after time, if we are honest, arguments concocted to demonstrate that Jesus really did say this or really did do that fall flat. Historians of Jesus, including myself, have too often assumed that we should be able, with sufficient ingenuity, to reconstruct the genealogy of almost every individual tradition. But it is not so. Some things just cannot be done, and desire does not beget ability'.
"I'm in no mood to go delving into the meaning of genea, and whether Jesus was speaking in terms of a completely physical/literal end of the world immediately, or whether (as so often) he spoke on two (or more) levels at once, and was also referencing a) the crucifixion, and b) the destruction of Jerusalem--both of which have hefty claims to the title 'Judgment Day'.
"It is worth pointing out, however, that he was speaking to his disciples--that is, to people who were more interested in what he was trying to communicate than in picking to death the literal details of his wording."
_________________
I agree, Lamb Chopped, I am not interested in doing any of that either. And I do think his disciples took him quite simply and plainly at his words.
And that's one reason, I think, that Paul, writing to the church in Corinth some 25 years after the crucifixion, stressed to them that the time was so short and Jesus would be returning so soon that they might even consider giving up marrying meanwhile (1 Corinthians 7).
Why was he so convinced of that?
Perhaps because the disciples were growing old and Paul had heard that Jesus once told them that not all of them would die before the Kingdom would come and the Son of Man would come in his Kingdom (Mark 9:1; Matthew 16:28).
Also, perhaps because he had heard that Jesus had said people ought not to go on living normal lives, eating and drinking and giving and being given in marriage as they had in the time when the flood came and took them all away (Q saying Luke 17:27=Matthew 24:38).
Bet you lost weight too.
But only marginally improved?
(My lawyer will be getting in touch with you, however.)
if you are being sincere about warming to Allison, tell us more. Where did you find that quote, and what else (if anything) have you read of his?
I would be interested in a sincere comparing of notes and impressions without one upsmanship or rancor.
Look, you're NOT sharing. You keep saying "Go read my novel," or "check out my website," or teasing us with "I MAY share more about that later." That isn't discussion. That's ... annoying? Because this is a discussion board. For gosh sake SAY SOMETHING. You may get disagreed with, even vigorously, because that's the kind of thing that happens here. But refusing to engage while you withhold and tease--ain't nobody got time for that.
Fine. Now which of his many meanings are you referencing? He didn't just leave a one-liner post.
The quote function is your friend.
But I really am interested in Martin's feelings about Allison.
You are right! The Gospels are thoroughly eschatological while not being a literal record of the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. The Gospels are also extremely fair dinkum. Paul, our earliest witness, is thoroughly eschatological. He is absolutely clear that this world is going to pass away very soon. Don't marry is his advice, unless you bloody have to, presumably because you are a horny bastard. It's not worth it because the Kingdom is coming right now, this very second!
Read some decent theology on how to deal with eschatology, if you haven't already. Read the post-war Germans, the ones who grew up in the Hitler Youth and served in the dying days of WW2. Read Moltmann, if you haven't already. I can't remember anything he wrote. That stuff doesn't stay in my head. But he blew my tiny little fucking mind. I remember that. Read eschatology. Pannenburg. I can't remember if he is German but read him. Don't pulp your novel. Some Christians will buy anything, so you might still make some dosh out of it. Dan Brown was mentioned upthread and he writes the cruddiest crud-filled crud you can read. Even my dog won't touch his books. Please note I haven't looked at your webpage or the book.
YESS!!! I was just singing that. Great minds.
The one nested within.
Get on the Wonderful Worldwide Web, Google highway. Take the Wiki turn off.
He seems to be able to differentiate between what he knows to be true - which is less than thi sen, and less is, of course, more -
and what he wants to be true.
Well done for engaging. I am cruel but fair.
This is Purgatory, oh enemy mine, where I come to sharpen my thick, blunt, pitted, be-runed, ornately hilted broadsword and rapier wit.
You came with a wooden sword.
Jesus got plenty 'wrong', being a classic age enculturated Jew, but you have not established any of that, you don't even begin to address it; you aren't aware of it. It took me nearly half an Aspergersesque century.
Instead you come armed with literalism blind to itself by not being YEC fundy.
Nothing in MarQ supports what you say.
Thanks for telling me what I should read or should have read, but I think my own website list is superior to yours.
To Lamb Chopped and Martin: I will soon try to get down to the brass tacks of what I have to say.
Me, as well.
How or why would our intrepid Martin repeat such drivel?