RE: [XTalk] Jesus of History does matter
- Vince Endris wrote:
>delves into it, I think one must see that most of what we know about theAbsolutely. Their circumstances will be more comparable to our own, and
>historical Jesus is just not as valid for living in the 21st century as,
>say, someone else who lived not as long ago and who might have gone though
>more of the things we have gone through.
we'll know more about them to boot! The only things that *really* set Jesus
apart from all kinds of notable figures of the 20th century (as well as
other times) is: 1) his alleged ability to perform miracles; 2) his alleged
claims to unique religious status. And presumably these latter two points
are NOT to be imitated, nor are those at the present time who do lay claim
to them generally well-regarded.
>So then, what is the historical meaning? Is it just to understand theI presume women's thought develops over time too. Perhaps we could study the
>evolution of Christianity for sociological reasons of how man's thought
historical Mary to get a sense of this? (Sorry for the sarcasm.) Seriously,
since there are so many better documented examples of such development, why
chose to work from this example? Moreover, it's early Christianity and its
document-able developments that provide evidence for shifts and developments
in ideas, not Jesus himself. We could take him right out of the picture and
know just about as much, sociologically, as we would with him IN the
>or what happens with Messianic movements so that we willAgain, there are plenty of exemplars of this about which we know a great
>know how to address them in the future?
deal. Why use examples like HJ about which we know almost nothing, when
there are so many better-understood examples around?
>If anyone could help me out with this I would greatly appreciate it.Well, I doubt my comments here helped much, but I couldn't resist, since it
is unclear to me, as well, why the *historical* Jesus matters
*historically*. Of course, the "historical" Jesus as a cipher for "how I
chose to reconfigure the uncomfortable dimensions of the traditional image
of Jesus" matters HUGELY for contemporary cultural and social matters -- but
as a symbol and a rhetorical lever, not as a real, past, genuinely
historical entity. Or so it seems to me.
University of Regina
Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new
MSN Search! Check it out!
- On Dec 31, 2004, at 10:44 PM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
> The difference that most Christians would ascribe toI would take a different tack: that Jesus was the "first fruits" of the
> Jesus is that he is divine, being one person of the
> triune Godhead, whereas everyone else who will be
> resurrected (whether physically or spiritually) is
> human, all too human.
general resurrection and that, by raising him from the dead, God has
promised to do likewise for those who are "in" Christ. I take this to
be Paul's take as well (see 1Cor 15.12-20).
However, I doubt that that this is the average pew-sitter's view, at
least in Evangelical circles. In my experience, their emphasis would
be on Jesus' crucifixion resurrection as an act of atonement, and what
was unique about Jesus was his innocence. That is, Jesus was a perfect
sacrifice, without sin, who could therefore atone for the sins of all
mankind. Those who take this point of view tend not to think of
"heaven" in terms of resurrection, and even Jesus' resurrection would
be emphasized much less than Jesus' crucifixion. Even the Left-Behind
crowd talks about the general resurrection of the dead as being "raised
up" or something, reserving the term "resurrection" for Jesus himself.
Patrick Narkinsky - patrick@...
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan