Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Hi John, ... What do you take as this evidence? ... Actually, not. It does not take long at all for legendary communications to arise. What we have in terms
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
      Hi John,

      On Aug 1, 2008, at 12:01 PM, John E. Staton wrote:

      > Gordon wrote, "Now,
      > could he have also been a healer? Of course. I have nothing
      > against
      > that idea, but I simply see no evidence for that view"
      >
      > Largely because you have ruled out any evidence that exists a priori,
      > Gordon!

      What do you take as this evidence?

      > It is a highly speculative investigation of the Jesus traditions
      > which leads to the view of Jesus as primarily a sage - one that by no
      > means convinces the whole academic community. Surely it counts against
      > your view that so much was written about Jesus performing miracles so
      > soon after his death.

      Actually, not. It does not take long at all for legendary
      communications to arise. What we have in terms of these Gospel
      wonder stories are clearly, well crafted stories that go with the
      theology and characterization of each of the sources. Most I think
      still posit that Mark was written slightly before or after the R-J
      War. I actually favor a date of about 80 CE. But either way, we're
      talking some 40 to 50 years between Jesus and that writing. That's
      MORE than a plenty enough time to craft such delightful,
      theologically powerful stories.
      > Whatever one's view of the date of the gospels,
      > there were obviously people alive who had actually *met* Jesus when
      > Mark
      > was written and when the tradition behind the gospels was being
      > forumlated.

      Just a note here, I don't think the NT Gospels are founded in
      historical reports, nor was their aim in any way to be
      "biographies." I think they were consciously written as theological
      works and that the creativity there in is exactly the same sort of
      creativity that went into the stories about Adam and Eve, Noah,
      Abraham, Moses, etc. etc. etc.

      > If Jesus was known *never* to have performed anything that
      > even looked like a miracle, these traditions would never have been
      > believed!

      Oh come on now:)! It has to do with what you are asserting "should
      be believed," right? I believe, for instance that Genesis 1 is a
      terrific theological formulation. I happen to believe it. I also
      collect fossils and think Darwin was one cool cat:)! Aside from
      that, people make up stuff all the time and get bunches of people to
      believe it. Those folks involved in certainty that there were WMD's
      in Iraq in recent years did a real swell job of that!

      > Indeed, if Jesus had not done some "deeds of wonder", why
      > would anybody have picked out such a nobody to make a midrash of the
      > Elijah-Elisha cyc;e of?

      See my note from this a.m. In the big old world of Imperial Roman
      Theology (to use Dom Crossan's expression) that with arms,
      officialdom and economic might proclaimed "the Pax Romani," I find it
      not surprising at all that those Jewish folks went dashing to their
      Scriptures to fully fund and found their "ministry of
      reconciliation." Actually, if this were a theological discussion
      group, I might talk about that as a matter of "signs and wonders,"
      but this isn't that sort of group, and so here I'll stick with history.

      > Indeed, I believe this is James Dunn's strongest
      > point: that *something* must have happened to cause people to say
      > these
      > things about Jesus.

      And he (and you) account that "something" in one way and I do so in
      another way. And just as an aside here, I simply want to note
      earlier this year there was a new special on MLK and the Civil Rights
      movement. Very, very well done. (forget which channel it was on)
      But it doesn't take a lot of "something" to cause a great social
      shift to get ignited. Such things as tired Rosa Parks not getting
      out of her seat had enormous social ramifications. And a mere
      Southern Baptist preacher and a group of friends... with word and
      marches... fundamentally changed America. "Something" doesn't have
      to be huge to make a huge difference and I think this thought well
      applies to Jesus and a small bunch of friends and what they did.

      > Perhaps we shouldn't get hung up on definitions of
      > miracle which are based on Hume, or on the Vatican's critieria for
      > canonising a saint. In those days there were no commonly acknowledged
      > "laws of nature". A miracle was a marvellous act, an act that caused
      > wonder. Maybe if the same thing had been done today, we would be
      > able to
      > account for it according to the laws of nature. That isn't the point.
      > The point is that if the Jesus tradition tells us anything, it
      > tells us
      > that he did acts that casued wonder. Whether he actually did this or
      > that act may be arguable, but that he did some acts which caused
      > people
      > to wonder must be certain.

      I love the word wonder, actually. It is primally what wisdom speech
      arouses... if heard, it makes one wonder??? The force of opening up
      and exciting imaginative responses to situations in the world if
      incredibly powerful. Words are very often exactly "the Something"
      that change the world.

      >
      > Best Wishes

      thanks and same to you.

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
      >
      > --
      > JOHN E. STATON
      > www.christianreflection.org.uk
      >
      >
    • Dennis Goffin
      Hi Gordon, Which are the words you don t think Jesus said? Thanks for your congratulations, but I left University College Leicester over 50-odd years ago.
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
        Hi Gordon,
        Which are the words you don't think Jesus said? Thanks for your congratulations, but I left University College Leicester over 50-odd years ago.
        Regards,
        Dennis Goffin BA Hons. French
        Chorleywood UK






        --- Original Message -----
        From: Gordon Raynal
        To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: Michael Ensley
        Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 6:35 PM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker


        Hi Dennis,

        I appreciate you clear position based on that set of words as
        central. I don't believe Jesus said those words. Per my note this
        morning, I don't think those words are centrally constitutional to
        what Jesus and friends were up to at the end of the 20's in and
        around Galilee. I think those words are from later admirers of Jesus
        and members of some of the communities that came from that
        constitutional work. And I find it none too surprising that there
        came to be a focus on Classical Prophecy and Apocalyptic Prophecy as
        time went on. So, I hope this clarifies our very basic disagreement.

        And congratulations on your "graduation:)!"

        Gordon Raynal
        Inman, SC
        On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:04 AM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

        > Without wishing to appear overly disputatious, I am forced to take
        > issue with the proposition that the man Yeshua is better
        > categorized as a sage, rather than an apocalyptic prophet. "Flee
        > from the wrath to come " could not be more representative of an OT
        > prophet, in my view, and that in a nutshell is the message, replete
        > with Zoroastrian eschatology, that Yeshua proclaims, like others of
        > his ilk in that century. That is not to say that he does not
        > proclaim also a hyperbolically demanding morality, merely that his
        > main message is about the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God on
        > earth.
        >
        > Dennis Goffin
        >
        > Octogenarian Graduate
        >
        > Chorleywood,Herts. UK
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
        >
        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-
        > subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-
        > unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-
        > owners@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gordon Raynal
        Hi Bob, ... I trust my note this morning clarifies the important broad understanding that healing played and how that data points to Jesus as involved in being
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
          Hi Bob,
          On Aug 1, 2008, at 12:55 PM, Bob Schacht wrote:

          > At 06:01 AM 8/1/2008, John E. Staton wrote:
          >> Gordon wrote, "Now,
          >> could he have also been a healer? Of course. I have nothing
          >> against
          >> that idea, but I simply see no evidence for that view"
          >>
          >> Largely because you have ruled out any evidence that exists a
          >> priori, Gordon!
          >
          > One of the things Stevan Davies examines in his book, Jesus the
          > Healer, is
          > this "evidence."
          > Davies adopts the indirect method, which gets around the direct
          > discussion
          > of miracles, by showing that whatever else might be said about
          > Jesus, his
          > contemporaries regarded Jesus as a healer. Gordon apparently does
          > not count
          > this as "evidence."
          >
          > Bob Schacht
          > University of Hawaii

          I trust my note this morning clarifies the important broad
          understanding that healing played and how that data points to Jesus
          as involved in being an agent of social healing. If "healer" (of
          indviduals) is generalized to include to "tending to/ paying
          attention to/ praying over/ talking with... telling stories...
          sharing their common Hebrew notions about the power of trusting
          God"... that sort of thing, then the term is okay by me. All of
          those things have quite a lot to do with regaining health, of
          course. I'm sure your mom and dad did those sorts of things for
          you! But as the general tendency is to want to dash to cross
          cultural studies and look at such as exorcism, then yes, I'll hold
          off from that designation. And one reason are the two story sources
          we have! The Markan/ Synoptic tradition majors in "exorcism." In
          John this is no where in sight. One can account for those
          differences easily enough in terms of theological framing and
          characterization choices. But again, I'm not against the idea that
          Jesus in some way may have been a folk tradition healer, but I just
          see no evidence to support that proposition. As noted this morning,
          I find this attribution to be part of a larger story telling agenda
          that is theologically rooted, not biographically rooted.

          Gordon Raynal
          Inman, SC
          >
        • Dennis Goffin
          Hallo again Gordon, Since sending my last note I have checked that the words I used are quoted by Matthew and Luke and are spoken by John the Baptist when
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
            Hallo again Gordon,
            Since sending my last note I have checked that the words I used are quoted by Matthew and Luke and are spoken by John the Baptist when Jesus came to him for baptism, John the Baptist was an apocalypticist and for Jesus to ask John to baptise him must clearly indicate that he sympathised with and endorsed the position John took. In his book "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet Of the New Millennium" Bart Ehrman makes the point on page 139 that the Christian church which succeeded Jesus was also clearly apocalyptic and therefore if the beginning and the end were both apocalyptic, the conclusion has to be that Jesus himself must have been a Jewish apocalypticist.
            Dennis Goffin
            UK





            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Gordon Raynal
            To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: Michael Ensley
            Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 6:35 PM
            Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker


            Hi Dennis,

            I appreciate you clear position based on that set of words as
            central. I don't believe Jesus said those words. Per my note this
            morning, I don't think those words are centrally constitutional to
            what Jesus and friends were up to at the end of the 20's in and
            around Galilee. I think those words are from later admirers of Jesus
            and members of some of the communities that came from that
            constitutional work. And I find it none too surprising that there
            came to be a focus on Classical Prophecy and Apocalyptic Prophecy as
            time went on. So, I hope this clarifies our very basic disagreement.

            And congratulations on your "graduation:)!"

            Gordon Raynal
            Inman, SC
            On Aug 1, 2008, at 10:04 AM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

            > Without wishing to appear overly disputatious, I am forced to take
            > issue with the proposition that the man Yeshua is better
            > categorized as a sage, rather than an apocalyptic prophet. "Flee
            > from the wrath to come " could not be more representative of an OT
            > prophet, in my view, and that in a nutshell is the message, replete
            > with Zoroastrian eschatology, that Yeshua proclaims, like others of
            > his ilk in that century. That is not to say that he does not
            > proclaim also a hyperbolically demanding morality, merely that his
            > main message is about the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God on
            > earth.
            >
            > Dennis Goffin
            >
            > Octogenarian Graduate
            >
            > Chorleywood,Herts. UK
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
            >
            > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-
            > subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-
            > unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-
            > owners@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Gordon Raynal
            Hi Dennis, ... Ehrman, and I guess still the majority, like to put out this line: JTB was an apocalyptic prophet, Paul was an apocalyptic theologian, so Jesus
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
              Hi Dennis,

              On Aug 1, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

              > Hallo again Gordon,
              > Since sending my last note I have
              > checked that the words I used are quoted by Matthew and Luke and
              > are spoken by John the Baptist when Jesus came to him for
              > baptism, John the Baptist was an apocalypticist and for Jesus to
              > ask John to baptise him must clearly indicate that he sympathised
              > with and endorsed the position John took. In his book "Jesus:
              > Apocalyptic Prophet Of the New Millennium" Bart Ehrman makes the
              > point on page 139 that the Christian church which succeeded Jesus
              > was also clearly apocalyptic and therefore if the beginning and the
              > end were both apocalyptic, the conclusion has to be that Jesus
              > himself must have been a Jewish apocalypticist.
              > Dennis Goffin
              > UK

              Ehrman, and I guess still the majority, like to put out this line:
              "JTB was an apocalyptic prophet, Paul was an apocalyptic theologian,
              so Jesus in the middle fit right in." (or some version of that).
              Some version of this kind of formulation seems to simply sum up that
              there is a pure unbroken stream of apocalyptic prophecy that all
              endorsed and had essential agreement about.... and then, that had to
              be played down and re-interpreted... well, because we're all still
              here:)! You will not be surprised to learn that I think this is not
              only inaccurate for the overall picture of the times, but also not
              even very helpful in terms of JTB, Jesus, Paul and other early
              followers of Jesus. So, in simple points:

              In that era, as before and after, I think Jewish folks were quite
              diverse in their overall theological outlooks and in how the genre of
              apocalyptic functioned. We get glimpses of that diversity in the
              little we know about the various factions and parties that are
              mentioned in the NT and known is such as Josephus and Philo. To
              conclude that Jews in that era were simply overwhelming "apocalyptic"
              and agreed on what that meant is, for me, a huge and broad
              generalization that is not supported in the literature and not ever
              very helpful. So...

              JTB, I think is best described in terms of the Prophetic traditions
              of Israel... one who utilized Apocalyptic Speech, surely, but is in
              fact best understood in what he was named for: Baptism. Central
              there is "to repent and believe."

              To Paul, he races all over the Scriptures to write his few letters we
              have. (I think the authentic Pauline corpus is limited to Romans, I
              & II Corinthians, Philippians, Galatians and Philemon and those show
              signs of editing). He definitely used the apocalyptic genre, but so
              also other genres of Scripture... including wisdom. I can accept
              that apocalyptic was central for him, but then please note what Paul
              says about what "God had done in Jesus Christ." (see I Cor. 1:30
              "He (God) is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for
              us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and
              redemption.") Note what comes first when Paul wants to write about
              the significance of the Cross. The Cross, of all things,
              communicates wisdom, first!

              And so to Jesus... I think his prime and core "missional speech" is
              that of the aphorisms and parables. That is wisdom speech, hence I
              think on the basis of his own speech and not the ways others
              theologized about him is the best way to judge how to understand the
              man and what he was up to. That mission agenda I presented yesterday
              can be interpreted apocalyptically, but it is not at heart an
              apocalyptic agenda. And I take quite seriously that Jesus didn't
              think it was, because I think these words are from Jesus:

              Q/Luke 17:20-21 "The Kingdom of God is not coming with things that
              can be observed; now will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There is
              is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."

              I think that is vintage wisdom thought. I think it is vintage
              Jesus. I know it can be reframed in terms of a future focused
              eschatology and indeed was in some strands of the tradition. But
              then I think those drawn to earliest Christianity were a diverse lot
              on these issues and thankfully we have glimpses of this in the
              various strands of literature we have.

              Hope this helps!

              Gordon Raynal
              Inman, SC
            • Jack Kilmon
              Dennis and Gordon: Forgive me for the length of this and also, asthe follow the Aramaic guy, for use of Yeshua instead of Jesus. There is a ton of
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
                Dennis and Gordon:

                Forgive me for the length of this and also, asthe "follow the Aramaic" guy,
                for use of "Yeshua" instead of "Jesus."

                There is a ton of literature on Yeshua's use of his self-description as the
                bar nasha (Son of Man) and disagreements on what that meant. If the Dead
                Sea Scroll corpus is a good barometer, the late 2nd temple period saw an
                emergence of Daniel-Enochian fervor. In both Daniel and the Enochian
                literature, the "son of man" plays a central role.

                Yeshua himself, NOT ONCE, refers to himself with certainty as the Messiah
                but instead refers to himself as the bar nasha/ben adam of Daniel and
                Enoch..."coming on the clouds, etc." It was Paul of Tarsus...hostile to the
                Nazarenes, who conferred the name of XRISTOS on Yeshua in his reconstruction
                of Yeshua as the Pauline "Christ Crucified."

                The cradle from which both Jewish and Christian "mysticism" arose was
                Enochian apocalypticism, the same cradle from which post-destruction Ma'asei
                Merkavah (which would eventually develop into Kabbala) and the Hekhalot
                literature arose which deals with "mystical" ascents into heaven.

                Anyone pursuing the ancient Jewish sources from which the Nazarenes arose,
                should read the considerable Enochian literary corpus now available thanks
                to the Qumran texts. The Books of Enoch and their related texts, Jubilees,
                Giants, Weeks, Parables, Watchers, Testimonies of the 12 Patriarchs, Dreams,
                etc. Enochian apocalypticism is a reflection of a Mesopotamian alternative
                to Mosaic" Judaism with its focus on Enmeduranki, the 7th antediluvian king
                of Sippar in the Sumerian Chronicles and a counterpart (or model) for Enoch.

                There was a considerable influence by Zoroastrianism on Judaism as a result
                to the Babylonian Captivity after which they brought the Enochian traditions
                to Jerusalem upon the return. The Jerusalem priests at that time hated the
                Enochian Jews (and it is my position that Jesus was an Enochian Jew) who
                supported the Maccabees thereby gaining favor with the Hasmoneans. These
                Enochian Jews became, IMO, the Essenes who subsequently developed serious
                issues with the Hasmonean priest-kings. I don't think anyonewould argue
                that the Dead Sea Scrolls are not strongly Enochian.

                The Jewish Nazarenes ("branchers") were heirs, IMO, to the Enochian
                traditions but Gentile Christianity imported a constellation of influences
                from Graeco-Roman sources. That Enochian Judaism was alternative to Mosaic
                nomian Judaeism can explain why Paul appears anti-nomian and why Enoch was
                not included in the Rabbinical canon.

                Quoted in the Book of Jude:

                "And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones To execute
                judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh
                of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, And
                of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
                (Enoch 1:9)

                Other references to the SON OF MAN in Enoch:

                "And there I saw One who had a head of days, And His head was white like
                wool, And with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance of
                a man, And his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. 2
                And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things,
                concerning that 3 Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, (and) why he
                went with the Ancient of Days? And he answered and said unto me: This
                is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, With whom dwelleth righteousness,
                And who revealeth all the treasures of that which is hidden, Because the
                Lord of Hosts hath chosen him, And whose lot hath the pre-eminence before
                the Lord of Hosts in uprightness for ever." (Part 8 Chapter 46:1-3)

                1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was
                inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the
                thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were
                with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man
                was named In the presence of the Lord of Hosts, And his name before the
                Ancient of Days. 3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before
                the stars of the heaven were made, His name
                was named before the Lord of Hosts. 4 He shall be a staff to the righteous
                whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he shall be the light of the
                Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart. 5 All who dwell
                on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless
                and celebrate with song the Lord of Hosts. 6 And for this reason hath he
                been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for
                evermore. 7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Hosts hath revealed him to the
                holy and righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, Because
                they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, And have hated
                all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Hosts: For in his name
                they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to
                their life. (Part 8 Chapter 48:1-7)

                The Book of Daniel, like Enoch, was written originally in Aramaic. It
                contains the most famous reference to the SON OF MAN.

                Daniel 7:13-14 (WEB)
                13 חזה הוית בחזוי ליליא וארו עם־ענני שׁמיא כבר אנשׁ אתה הוה ועד־עתיק יומיא
                מטה וקדמוהי הקרבוהי׃ 14 ולה יהיב שׁלטן ויקר ומלכו וכל עממיא אמיא ולשׁניא לה
                יפלחון שׁלטנה שׁלטן עלם די־לא יעדה ומלכותה פ

                13 I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of
                the sky one like a son of man (כבר אנש [kibar 'anash]), and he came even to
                the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 There was
                given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations,
                and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
                which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be
                destroyed.

                Yeshua spoke of himself, just as above in Daniel, at Matthew 24:30 And
                then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all
                the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in
                the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

                .....and at Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said:
                nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting
                on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

                As you can see, Yeshua refers to himself as the SON OF MAN (Aramaic bar
                nasha) of Daniel and Enoch andnot, IMO, as simply the bar nash/a idiom for
                "just a guy."


                Now let's see how many times Yeshua calls himself the bar nasha (son of
                man)...he never referred to himself with certainty or non-cryptically as
                the Messiah.

                Matthew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds
                of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his]
                head.

                Matthew 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to
                forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy
                bed, and go unto thine house.

                Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into
                another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities
                of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

                Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold
                a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But
                wisdom is justified of her children.

                Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

                Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall
                be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not
                be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

                Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's
                belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart
                of the earth.

                Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed
                is the Son of man;

                Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
                gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do
                iniquity;

                Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked
                his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

                Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with
                his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

                Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
                shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his
                kingdom.

                Matthew 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them,
                saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from
                the dead.

                Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew
                him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also
                the Son of man suffer of them.

                Matthew 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son
                of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

                Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

                Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye
                which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in
                the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
                twelve tribes of Israel.

                Matthew 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be
                betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn
                him to death,

                Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to
                minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

                Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even
                unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

                Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:
                and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son
                of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (this is
                right out of Enoch 7)

                Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of
                the Son of man be.

                Matthew 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so
                shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

                Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think
                not the Son of man cometh.

                Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour
                wherein the Son of man cometh.

                Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy
                angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

                Matthew 26:2 Ye know that after two days is [the feast of] the passover,
                and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

                Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto
                that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man
                if he had not been born.

                Matthew 26:45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep
                on now, and take [your] rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of
                Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

                Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto
                you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
                power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

                Yeshua is reported by Matthew alone to have claimed to have been the SON OF
                MAN (bar nasha) of Daniel and Enoch THIRTY TIMES....so why don't we believe
                him? Why do we believe Paul of Tarsus instead?

                An Enochian Jew, in the late second temple period, is one who believed in
                the Enochian apocalyptic such as the Essenes and Yohanan haMatbil.

                Jesus/Yeshua was indeed, IMO, an apocalyptic herald of the imminent malkutha
                d'alaha (Kingdom of God) in the Enochian tradition and, as such, outside of
                "normative" Mosaic Judaism. I think there are other indicators that this
                "Son of Man" from the ancient of days could be "Lord of the Sabbath" as well
                as the Mosaic laws (seen in the formula "It is written" or "You have
                heard"...ABC "but *I* tell you"...XYZ).

                So yes, he was apocalyptic but, in his mind, just not a "sage" but THE bar
                nasha that was expected by Yohanan/John (Matthew 11:3), the apocalyptic
                redeemer of Daniel 7:13-14.

                Jack

                Jack Kilmon
                San Antonio,TX


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Dennis Goffin" <dgoffin@...>
                To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 2:39 PM
                Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker


                > Hallo again Gordon,
                > Since sending my last note I have checked
                > that the words I used are quoted by Matthew and Luke and are spoken by
                > John the Baptist when Jesus came to him for baptism, John the Baptist
                > was an apocalypticist and for Jesus to ask John to baptise him must
                > clearly indicate that he sympathised with and endorsed the position John
                > took. In his book "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet Of the New Millennium" Bart
                > Ehrman makes the point on page 139 that the Christian church which
                > succeeded Jesus was also clearly apocalyptic and therefore if the
                > beginning and the end were both apocalyptic, the conclusion has to be that
                > Jesus himself must have been a Jewish apocalypticist.
                > Dennis Goffin
                > UK
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: Gordon Raynal
                > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                > Cc: Michael Ensley
                > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 6:35 PM
                > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker
                >
                >
                > Hi Dennis,
                >
                > I appreciate you clear position based on that set of words as
                > central. I don't believe Jesus said those words. Per my note this
                > morning, I don't think those words are centrally constitutional to
                > what Jesus and friends were up to at the end of the 20's in and
                > around Galilee. I think those words are from later admirers of Jesus
                > and members of some of the communities that came from that
                > constitutional work. And I find it none too surprising that there
                > came to be a focus on Classical Prophecy and Apocalyptic Prophecy as
                > time went on. So, I hope this clarifies our very basic disagreement.
                >
                > And congratulations on your "graduation:)!"
                >
                > Gordon Raynal
                > Inman, SC
              • Gordon Raynal
                ... Hi again... well that calls for even more congratulations! I think the apocalyptic speech given placed on Jesus lips comes from the evangelists (and
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
                  On Aug 1, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

                  > Hi Gordon,
                  > Which are the words you don't think Jesus said?
                  > Thanks for your congratulations, but I left University College
                  > Leicester over 50-odd years ago.
                  > Regards,
                  > Dennis Goffin BA Hons. French
                  > Chorleywood UK

                  Hi again... well that calls for even more congratulations!

                  I think the "apocalyptic speech" given placed on Jesus lips comes
                  from the evangelists (and maybe even that JTB speech piece). The
                  point of their focus on JTB and Jesus's utilizing this speech should
                  be clear enough after the R-J War. How to deal with that great
                  trauma could hardly be ignored and those resources of both Classical
                  Prophetic and Apocalyptic Prophetic materials provided rich fodder
                  for dealing with that trauma and framing what Jesus and friends were
                  up to in the late 20's in terms of it. Once more, that "what they
                  were up to" I think can best be described by Paul's words: "a
                  ministry of reconciliation." Or look at the Epistle of James for
                  "the Way of Wisdom in 3:17-18 and Paul's parallel "the Fruit of the
                  Spirit" in Galatians 5:22-26. Or look at the very opening of the
                  Didache... "The Way of Life" after the OT foundation is from the
                  aphoristic speech we find in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's
                  Sermon on the Plain. The core ethical praxis language was presented
                  by Jesus in wisdom forms of communication. Even if one wants to
                  affirm Jesus also utilized apocalyptic speech, that speech was
                  secondary and not primary. Why say that? See the Sermon on the
                  Mount, Mark 4:33 ff, etc.

                  Now let me say to all, I actually love the genre of apocalyptic.
                  Artfully used it makes for terrific fodder for great literature and
                  great movies. Some of my favorites are Sci-Fi movies. So, please
                  don't think I don't like and appreciate the genre. I simply do not
                  think from the resources we have that this was Jesus' speech. I
                  think that was wisdom speech and that the apocalyptic genre was used
                  by his interpreters to frame and interpret that speech later on. But
                  then there were other framings and interpretive tacks used, as well.
                  And the interesting thing about the broad use of apocalyptic is that
                  it required re-interpretation and we see this across the four
                  Canonical Gospels that we have and then outside in later Christian
                  resources.

                  Gordon Raynal
                  Inman, SC

                  >
                • Dennis Goffin
                  Quite simply, Gordon, how would you explain Matthew 16.27/8 ? For my part I endorse everything that Jack has written. Dennis Goffin Chorleywood, UK ... From:
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
                    Quite simply, Gordon, how would you explain Matthew 16.27/8 ? For my part I endorse everything that Jack has written.
                    Dennis Goffin
                    Chorleywood, UK





                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Gordon Raynal
                    To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                    Cc: Michael Ensley
                    Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 5:08 PM
                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker



                    On Aug 1, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

                    > Hi Gordon,
                    > Which are the words you don't think Jesus said?
                    > Thanks for your congratulations, but I left University College
                    > Leicester over 50-odd years ago.
                    > Regards,
                    > Dennis Goffin BA Hons. French
                    > Chorleywood UK

                    Hi again... well that calls for even more congratulations!

                    I think the "apocalyptic speech" given placed on Jesus lips comes
                    from the evangelists (and maybe even that JTB speech piece). The
                    point of their focus on JTB and Jesus's utilizing this speech should
                    be clear enough after the R-J War. How to deal with that great
                    trauma could hardly be ignored and those resources of both Classical
                    Prophetic and Apocalyptic Prophetic materials provided rich fodder
                    for dealing with that trauma and framing what Jesus and friends were
                    up to in the late 20's in terms of it. Once more, that "what they
                    were up to" I think can best be described by Paul's words: "a
                    ministry of reconciliation." Or look at the Epistle of James for
                    "the Way of Wisdom in 3:17-18 and Paul's parallel "the Fruit of the
                    Spirit" in Galatians 5:22-26. Or look at the very opening of the
                    Didache... "The Way of Life" after the OT foundation is from the
                    aphoristic speech we find in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and Luke's
                    Sermon on the Plain. The core ethical praxis language was presented
                    by Jesus in wisdom forms of communication. Even if one wants to
                    affirm Jesus also utilized apocalyptic speech, that speech was
                    secondary and not primary. Why say that? See the Sermon on the
                    Mount, Mark 4:33 ff, etc.

                    Now let me say to all, I actually love the genre of apocalyptic.
                    Artfully used it makes for terrific fodder for great literature and
                    great movies. Some of my favorites are Sci-Fi movies. So, please
                    don't think I don't like and appreciate the genre. I simply do not
                    think from the resources we have that this was Jesus' speech. I
                    think that was wisdom speech and that the apocalyptic genre was used
                    by his interpreters to frame and interpret that speech later on. But
                    then there were other framings and interpretive tacks used, as well.
                    And the interesting thing about the broad use of apocalyptic is that
                    it required re-interpretation and we see this across the four
                    Canonical Gospels that we have and then outside in later Christian
                    resources.

                    Gordon Raynal
                    Inman, SC

                    >




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Gordon Raynal
                    Jack, I want to thank you for this long and helpful note. While we obviously disagree about how to best understand the historical fellow named Jesus son of
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
                      Jack,

                      I want to thank you for this long and helpful note. While we
                      obviously disagree about how to best understand the historical fellow
                      named Jesus son of Joseph(?) and Mary, this sort of study is, of
                      course vital to understanding part of the broader context of the
                      times. I, of course, think that there were many who took to Jesus
                      who centrally worked from and espoused what you are laying out in
                      these resources. You get no argument about that from me. Indeed
                      (and let me once more borrow Paul's phrase) a real "ministry of
                      reconciliation" would aim at bringing diverse folk together, right?
                      I simply do not want to limit those who were attracted to follow
                      Jesus to the category of "apocalyptic" versus "non-apocalyptic."
                      First, I think the genre of apocalyptic can have many shades of
                      usage, as can the genre of wisdom speech. Second, I don't find it
                      overly helpful to "categorize" individuals just by this proposed
                      duality alone (as if this duality simply presents us with two clear
                      opposite camps). Third, I think "a ministry of reconciliation" aims
                      precisely at bringing diversity (and so diverse folks) together, and
                      hence pushing any supposed duality like this would be rather counter
                      productive to "the spirit" of the movement's very intent. This said,
                      let me simply also note about what both Matthew and Luke do with Mark
                      is not only access what you're providing as important frames to their
                      "Gospel of Jesus Christ" (and for Matthew most pointedly... Son of
                      Abraham, Son of David, Son of God, one like but greater than Moses
                      and Elijah, etc.... so also those "Sons of..."), but also add what?
                      Lots of wisdom speech. Accept Q or accept that Matthew had access to
                      more of these sayings and Luke copied from Matthew, both Matthew and
                      Luke round out their gospels with aphorisms and parables. At the end
                      of the day, and let us say that I am wrong about the wisdom speaker/
                      teacher/ sage being the best way to classify the historical fellow
                      Jesus in the late 20's, then **this speech** needs to be studied in
                      it's own right and in terms of the legacy of wisdom communication in
                      the Israelite scriptures, the post- Scriptural resources and then in
                      terms of the broader world of wisdom communication. And likewise
                      there is a bevy of materials from Israel's past to do just this. And
                      a good reading of such as Diogenes of Sinope won't hurt either.

                      So, thanks for this note. I find it very helpful, not to try to
                      focus on the fellow named Jesus, himself, but yes in terms of those
                      around him, those who surely were swept up on this small movement in
                      his lifetime and at least a good number of those who came on later on.

                      Gordon Raynal
                      Inman, SC
                      On Aug 2, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Jack Kilmon wrote:

                      > Dennis and Gordon:
                      >
                      > Forgive me for the length of this and also, asthe "follow the
                      > Aramaic" guy,
                      > for use of "Yeshua" instead of "Jesus."
                      >
                    • Gordon Raynal
                      Hi Dennis, ... Verse 27 has it s base in Mark 8:38, verse 28 in Mark 9:1. So, I think this is part of the language Mark created and was then redacted by both
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 3, 2008
                        Hi Dennis,

                        On Aug 2, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

                        > Quite simply, Gordon, how would you explain Matthew 16.27/8 ? For
                        > my part I endorse everything that Jack has written.
                        > Dennis Goffin
                        > Chorleywood, UK

                        Verse 27 has it's base in Mark 8:38, verse 28 in Mark 9:1. So, I
                        think this is part of the language Mark created and was then redacted
                        by both Matthew and Luke to fit his characterization of Jesus Christ
                        as fulfilling that Daniel, Enoch expectation. So in a word this is a
                        Markan creation.

                        And for whom you endorse, I am glad you have found the stir of this
                        discussion helpful!

                        Gordon Raynal
                        Inman, SC
                        >
                      • Dennis Goffin
                        Are you then saying, Gordon, that for example Mark 9.1 is not the words of Jesus but merely a Markan creation ? If so, where do you stop ? And are you also not
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 3, 2008
                          Are you then saying, Gordon, that for example Mark 9.1 is not the words of Jesus but merely a Markan creation ? If so, where do you stop ? And are you also not opening the door for it to be said equally that your favoured "sage" passages are likewise later creations ? I would also like to make the point that many of the parables you prize as part of your "wisdom" approach are on the subject of apocalyptic eschatology.
                          Dennis Goffin UK




                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Gordon Raynal
                          To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                          Cc: Michael Ensley
                          Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:14 PM
                          Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Paul's silence on Jesus as miracle worker


                          Hi Dennis,

                          On Aug 2, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

                          > Quite simply, Gordon, how would you explain Matthew 16.27/8 ? For
                          > my part I endorse everything that Jack has written.
                          > Dennis Goffin
                          > Chorleywood, UK

                          Verse 27 has it's base in Mark 8:38, verse 28 in Mark 9:1. So, I
                          think this is part of the language Mark created and was then redacted
                          by both Matthew and Luke to fit his characterization of Jesus Christ
                          as fulfilling that Daniel, Enoch expectation. So in a word this is a
                          Markan creation.

                          And for whom you endorse, I am glad you have found the stir of this
                          discussion helpful!

                          Gordon Raynal
                          Inman, SC
                          >




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Gordon Raynal
                          Hi Dennis, ... Yes. But I don t like that word merely applied to fine creativity! ... I don t actually draw a precise line in the wisdom sayings themselves,
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 6, 2008
                            Hi Dennis,
                            On Aug 3, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

                            > Are you then saying, Gordon, that for example Mark 9.1 is not the
                            > words of Jesus but merely a Markan creation ?

                            Yes. But I don't like that word "merely" applied to fine creativity!

                            > If so, where do you stop ?

                            I don't actually draw a precise line in the wisdom sayings
                            themselves, if that is what you mean. I think the report that you
                            find in the back of "The Five Gospels" is a fairly good listing of
                            the words that belong to the man Jesus, although my list is a little
                            longer. But actually I prefer to think not simply in terms of any of
                            those particular sayings as being definitely from Jesus' own lips,
                            but rather from the original wisdom banter (creativity) when Jesus
                            was alive. I think the hallmark of Jesus' own creativity is found in
                            those red and pink parables you will find noted in the 5 Gospels.
                            But to give you a "for instance" of what I'm suggesting (and this can
                            only be a guess, of course), but I can well imagine that Jesus
                            might have told the parable of Good Sam and a hearer/ fellow banter
                            partner, let's say Mary Magdalene or Peter, responding with the
                            aphorism, "Love your enemies" and Jesus repeating that, "yes, love
                            your enemies." I think this careful kind of "sayings study" can
                            really only get us that close to Jesus.

                            > And are you also not opening the door for it to be said equally
                            > that your favoured "sage" passages are likewise later creations ?

                            No doubt, it is possible. Such as Robert Price thinks the whole
                            character of Jesus is an invention and he concludes whether or not
                            there was a historical figure back there, the materials we have
                            simply don't give us access to him. Nothing new in this position.
                            I had lovely discussions with my Freshman history professor about
                            just this in the early '70s. I, however, think that we can find that
                            common mission agenda at the base of all of the resources we have and
                            the constitutional language that surrounds it, hence I think we can
                            find "the voice print" of the late 20's and in that "the voice print"
                            of Jesus, himself. And again, those words are wisdom words.

                            > I would also like to make the point that many of the parables you
                            > prize as part of your "wisdom" approach are on the subject of
                            > apocalyptic eschatology.

                            A couple of points here. One, I do think we find parables that come
                            from after Jesus included in the writings and that is just what I'd
                            expect. Second, "apocalyptic" is a genre. How one understands and
                            uses that genre is not simply "one way, implying one clear belief
                            structure." I actually love the genre in both OT and NT. Just
                            taught Daniel as part of a Spring SS class. Great book! And some of
                            my favorite movies are rooted in the genre. But I do not believe
                            that what Jesus and friends were up to for a very short time in the
                            late 20's is appropriately defined as "a millennialist apocalyptic
                            prophetic movement" as so many seem to think. Why? Because the
                            program itself is not millennialist and I think we can show how
                            apocalyptic writings and many other kinds of writings were used to
                            interpret the base program at a later time. Read such as Burton
                            Mack's book on Q or Kloppenborg's book on the layers of Q to see how
                            prophetic and apocalyptic language was brought to bear in
                            reinterpreting the original program. Said, "program" or "religio-
                            social initiative," if you prefer, could be and was recast in a
                            number of ways. We find tensions and conflicts in those recastings.
                            And per my long note... a program/ initiative produced a bureaucracy.
                            That always produces tensions, even in the most stable of times:)!
                            And so, because of growing reflections after the death of Jesus,
                            after the further movement growth (more people, more homes, more
                            towns and more diversity in those homes and towns), after further
                            social development and in terms of the rapidly changing times
                            themselves, we find this scurrying all over not only the Israelite
                            scriptures, but so also over cultural ideas and beliefs in more and
                            more places. And so, yes, in all of this and in the continuing
                            marvelous creativity that was ignited we find parables created that
                            are inclusive of the apocalyptic genre and original wisdom genre
                            parables reinterpreted with the apocalyptic genre thought. But
                            remember we also find the very same materials reinterpreted in other
                            manners. G. Thomas for me, like Q, can be broken apart in layers and
                            there we see the progression from an original aphorisms and wisdom
                            parables gathering to what 'd refer to as a spiritual/ meditative
                            layer of interpretation and on towards an abstract philosophizing
                            layer (I do not think it is appropriate to call G. Thomas "Gnostic,"
                            but in that latter stage, perhaps "proto-Gnostic"). So there was
                            also development of that variety.

                            Hope this helps,

                            Gordon Raynal
                            Inman, SC
                            Dennis Goffin UK
                            >
                            >
                          • Ron Price
                            ... Gordon, It seems to me that the JSem comes perilously close to circular reasoning on this issue. The fifth pillar of scholarly wisdom rejects an
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 11, 2008
                              Gordon Raynal wrote:

                              > The core ethical praxis language was presented
                              > by Jesus in wisdom forms of communication. Even if one wants to
                              > affirm Jesus also utilized apocalyptic speech, that speech was
                              > secondary and not primary. Why say that? See the Sermon on the
                              > Mount, Mark 4:33 ff, etc.

                              Gordon,

                              It seems to me that the JSem comes perilously close to circular reasoning on
                              this issue. The 'fifth pillar of scholarly wisdom' rejects an eschatalogical
                              Jesus, apparently before the completion of the source analysis. You appear
                              to be doing the same here, for neither of your supporting texts (in their
                              present form) go back before ca 70 CE when Mark was written - even worse if
                              we take your own date for Mark!

                              Bearing in mind that the Romans would have had no reason to crucify a mere
                              wisdom teacher, I am curious to know if you have any better defence for your
                              rejection of a primarily apocalyptic Jesus than quoting texts written at
                              least 40 years after his death.

                              Ron Price

                              Derbyshire, UK

                              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                            • Gordon Raynal
                              ... Hi Ron, I ll let you take up the matter of circular reasoning with the Jesus Seminar. They are still alive and active and I seriously suggest that you
                              Message 14 of 21 , Aug 11, 2008
                                On Aug 11, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Ron Price wrote:

                                > Gordon Raynal wrote:
                                >
                                >> The core ethical praxis language was presented
                                >> by Jesus in wisdom forms of communication. Even if one wants to
                                >> affirm Jesus also utilized apocalyptic speech, that speech was
                                >> secondary and not primary. Why say that? See the Sermon on the
                                >> Mount, Mark 4:33 ff, etc.
                                >
                                > Gordon,
                                >
                                > It seems to me that the JSem comes perilously close to circular
                                > reasoning on
                                > this issue. The 'fifth pillar of scholarly wisdom' rejects an
                                > eschatalogical
                                > Jesus, apparently before the completion of the source analysis. You
                                > appear
                                > to be doing the same here, for neither of your supporting texts (in
                                > their
                                > present form) go back before ca 70 CE when Mark was written - even
                                > worse if
                                > we take your own date for Mark!

                                Hi Ron,

                                I'll let you take up the matter of "circular reasoning" with the
                                Jesus Seminar. They are still alive and active and I seriously
                                suggest that you present this subject to them.

                                What I do want to comment about here is the need, as Crossan, for
                                example, has talked about, for subject clarification as pertains to
                                "eschatology" and related terms. We really need some language
                                clarity in this conversation. "Eschatology" gets tossed about, as
                                does "apocalyptic" (a genre term) by many as if, a.) that is the only
                                kind of eschatology and b.) as a kind of eschatology it is a uniform
                                belief structure. I think it would be most helpful if we could have
                                some term clarification in this important arena of description.
                                Hence the language of millenarian eschatology versus non-millenarian
                                eschatology, as the basic frame of options. And then within those
                                frames careful descriptions about how different pieces of literature
                                nuance those major options. And then, with the use of the
                                apocalyptic genre, how it is utilized and framed in relationship to
                                other genres. I think these conversations often get very confusing
                                as it is not entirely clear what a given person is affirming when
                                they use such terms as "eschatological" and "apocalyptic."

                                I don't have time today to spell out this analysis in full, but I
                                will again simply say here, I do not believe that the mission program
                                that we find laid out and then repeated or commented on in a number
                                of sources (Q, Thomas, Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, Didache and
                                indirectly in John) is itself "a millenniest" or "apocalyptic"
                                program, but rather one that had a very "here and now" focus in it's
                                foundation and expectation. And it is one that we see commented
                                upon, developed, given rationale and filled out with more theological
                                and ethical reflection from a number of different resources. And
                                with this, the core speech that I can attribute to Jesus and his
                                associates is wisdom speech. Wisdom speech is non-millennarian, but
                                then it may be framed by millennarian thought and so utilized in that
                                theological manner. In regard to the original program, I think the
                                core motivation and expectation is well defined in that term Paul
                                uses, "reconciliation." In terms of said original program (and not
                                the later framing of it... hence the careful need to differentiate
                                the original and the elaborations on top of the original) the "what
                                to do" if rejected, is as "here and now" as one can state it (words
                                about what to do if the householders don't receive the peace: "let
                                your peace return to you," and what to do "the sent one's" only find
                                rejection: "shake the dust off and move on." That the program came
                                to be framed in a number of ways out of the broad resources found in
                                the TANAK, should come as no surprise. And let me just emphasize
                                this: If a reconciliation movement actually works, unlike a partisan
                                movement that is built upon the gathering of like minded or closely
                                similar minded folks, then what one will surely expect is that said
                                reconciliation movement will have a number of voices/ viewpoints/
                                sectarian views therein. As said movement moves from a first
                                generation action plan to an enduring movement complete with a
                                growing bureaucracy and therefore greater number of defined roles,
                                power structures and rationales, then one should expect to find in
                                such a mixed movement a variety of ideas about roles, power,
                                rationales, etc. And do we find this? Yes, indeed we do. And
                                because we can find these sorts of things it is possible to sketch
                                out what was key and core and some of the developments therein.
                                >
                                > Bearing in mind that the Romans would have had no reason to crucify
                                > a mere
                                > wisdom teacher, I am curious to know if you have any better defence
                                > for your
                                > rejection of a primarily apocalyptic Jesus than quoting texts
                                > written at
                                > least 40 years after his death.

                                You state this as if it is a truism. Two things. Let me remind you,
                                if you do not know, that the stories tell us that Aesop was tossed
                                off a cliff for the telling of his fables. "Mere wisdom teacher"
                                makes it sound as if this is a generically safe activity that would
                                never rise to the level of making for real trouble. About that
                                alone, I disagree. But more importantly this view leaves out the
                                very connection of the wisdom speech and "the reconciliation
                                program." Need I remind you of the danger of actual reconciliation
                                movements in this world? Seriously... just run the list in the last
                                century of those who came to espouse serious reconciliation work and
                                so consider this list of names: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.,
                                Malcolm X, Anwar Sadat, Yitzak Rabin, Nelson Mandella (the only one
                                only to have to spend years in jail). In the face of authoritarian
                                regimes or very discordant times in particular places, those who
                                espouse reconciliation are hardly doing safe work. And if you go
                                down this list, one thing that is notable is that such persons often
                                arouse great enmity by doing reconciliation work within "their own
                                people." Just taking Malcolm X, as an example, he had a life
                                changing experience by going to Mecca and left fiery rhetoric behind
                                and was killed by some loyal to those who considered him a champion.

                                And to your closing point. I would simply invite you to do a careful
                                study of what organized activity Jesus was asking his followers to do
                                and a careful outlaying of the different stages of the development
                                therein that we can isolate. This isn't "a circular" invitation, but
                                an invitation to define an original core and differentiate as best
                                you can the stages of development you can find. And even if you
                                conclude that the original core is best described as a millennialist
                                program, I'll still invite you to focus on that wisdom language
                                **as** wisdom language and consider the place/ role/ function/
                                meaning of that language in relationship to the program.

                                Gordon Raynal
                                Inman, SC
                                >
                                > Ron Price
                                >
                                > Derbyshire, UK
                                >
                                > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.