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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • 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 2 of 21 , Aug 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 21 , Aug 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 21 , Aug 3, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 21 , Aug 3, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 21 , Aug 6, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 21 , Aug 11, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 21 , Aug 11, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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.