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

Jesus and his NT Interpreters

Expand Messages
  • Brian McCarthy
    Mark, The remark that you critique in your message of 6/26, 6:56 pm was rightly noted to be non-historical in character and hence inappropriate for Cross Talk.
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 26, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark,

      The remark that you critique in your message of 6/26, 6:56 pm was rightly noted to be non-historical in character and hence inappropriate for Cross Talk. And so was replaced by my message of 6/25, 8:21 p.m. Did you miss it?

      But briefly in response to your message: 1) There is no evidence that late 2nd temple Israel was united in the expectation of A person--THE Messiah--who would soon come and who would combine
      a) the role of a new King David, a successful military/ political power-figure; (Given the number of children he and Solly are supposed to have produced helf of Israel must have been able--or at least ready--to claim davidic descent!)
      b) the suffering servant ideal of Is 53, (which may refer to an individual or a type or to Israel)
      c) the role of the speaker of the first few verses of Is 61--which are applied to Jesus only after being amputated from the rest of the poem of which they are a part--the whole of ch. 61.
      2) You speak hastily when you talk of "a great many Jews and pagans" being convinced ... "that Jesus had fulfilled etc"
      a) The failure to win over even a significant number of the Jews was already noted as a given by Paul in Romans 9-11;
      b) recent studies suggest that success in winning over pagans may have been slow in coming. What was remarkable was the 'staying power' of (parts of) the Christian movement.
      c) more important, scholars do not seem to be agreed on what it was that won people over to the various social formations that we group under the name 'Christian movement'. Perhaps in the case of the 'Great Church' it was its very real community/social solidarity/sharing--unlike the 'limited liability' character of most contemporary churches.

      For the reason mentioned in opening I dont intend to continue this particular argument, but felt it legitimate to reply to you.

      Brian McCarthy


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.