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

Jesus, prophet & miracle worker

Expand Messages
  • Dennis Goffin
    Hi, Gordon, Thanks for your reply. I accept that you do not think that the explanation for the life and teaching of Jesus is that he was a prophet announcing
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Gordon,
      Thanks for your reply. I accept that you do not think that the explanation for the life and teaching of Jesus is that he was a prophet announcing the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God on earth.
      I should be interested to know what you think about the Zoroastrian/Zurvanite dualism and apocalyptic eschatology which characterises the NT and is a major strain in Judaism with the Persianisers (Pharisees) from 200BC onwards as evidenced in " A History of Zoroastrianism" Volume 3 Page 410, "The Servant Messiah" by T W Manson page 19 and" Zoroastrian & Parsi Studies" Section B, Parts 2,3 & 4 by John R Hinnells.
      Dennis Goffin UK




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Gordon Raynal
      On Aug 11, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote: Hi Dennis, ... You re welcome. And I d urge you simply to spend some time tracing out not only the nuances
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 11, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On Aug 11, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Dennis Goffin wrote:

        Hi Dennis,

        > Hi, Gordon,
        > Thanks for your reply. I accept that you do not
        > think that the explanation for the life and teaching of Jesus is
        > that he was a prophet announcing the imminent arrival of the
        > Kingdom of God on earth.

        You're welcome. And I'd urge you simply to spend some time tracing
        out not only the nuances of how prophetic and apocalyptic resources
        are used, but also the other strains of thought and expression that
        are relied upon (the Torah story heritage, Royal theology heritage,
        the Priestly heritage, the practical wisdom heritage and what I like
        to call "the puzzling" or "riddling" wisdom heritage). Attention to
        each "voice" and then the way these "voices" are combined and nuanced
        is important for seeing the uniqueness we find across the span of
        writings we have.

        > I should be interested to know what you think
        > about the Zoroastrian/Zurvanite dualism and apocalyptic eschatology
        > which characterises the NT and is a major strain in Judaism with
        > the Persianisers (Pharisees) from 200BC onwards as evidenced in " A
        > History of Zoroastrianism" Volume 3 Page 410, "The Servant
        > Messiah" by T W Manson page 19 and" Zoroastrian & Parsi Studies"
        > Section B, Parts 2,3 & 4 by John R Hinnells.

        I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. Clearly the "Z" dualism
        of the Persians and on to the philosophical dualism of the Greeks had
        major impact on Jewish and later, Christian thought. What I reject
        is that this impact was universal across all strands of Hebrew/
        Jewish and later Christian thought, and that even within groups that
        majored in millenarianism that there was simply one way to think/
        believe based in such a belief paradigm. Remember, yes, such as
        Daniel is a late work, but so also there are also late (extra
        canonical) wisdom works. Or again, remember that Josephus notes 4
        major parties in and around Judea (Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes and
        the 4th Philosophy) and the NT also talks in terms of such as
        Herodians, the Greeks (in John's Gospel), the followers of John the
        Baptizer, such as "magicians" (Honi the circle drawer) and
        "bandits." I think Jewish thought in the first century was quite
        rich and diverse and, per my note to Ron this morning, I think this
        "reconciliation movement" achieved the gathering of this diversity
        which made for the rich ideological soup we find in the resources we
        have. That the apocalyptic genre became highly useful to deal with
        filling out a theological portraiture of Jesus as "the once and
        future king," so to speak (***never*** just a prophet!), and then
        this being developed in terms of a full narrative portraiture after
        the trauma of the R-J War, so that it became a central theological
        feature for the tradition, I take as entirely understandable.
        Obviously "King Jesus" didn't just rule in the past, nor just rule in
        heaven now, but always will rule and will complete his rule. The
        apocalyptic genre is "just the stuff" to paint this out. But just
        within the Canonical 4 we see the nuance of the genre of apocalyptic
        and it is worth paying close heed to how those gospels variously
        present their characterizations of Jesus in relationship to the
        breadth of base materials utilized.

        Does this help?

        Thanks for your note,

        Gordon Raynal
        Inman, SC
        > Dennis Goffin 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
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.