|
Post by turoldus on Oct 10, 2014 16:53:52 GMT
An old article by Adam Gopnik (certified atheist and anti-theist) on what Jesus really did and taught: nyr.kr/1rg5eBB
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Oct 10, 2014 17:12:23 GMT
An old article by Adam Gopnik (certified atheist and anti-theist) on what Jesus really did and taught: nyr.kr/1rg5eBBWhat is your position on that paper? What are you arguing?
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Oct 12, 2014 12:22:10 GMT
If one thing seems clear from all the scholarship, though, it’s that Paul’s divine Christ came first, and Jesus the wise rabbi came later.Seems an oddly dogmatic and outdated view of the supposed split between the historical Jesus and the supposedly Pauline view of the divine Christ, ignoring recent scholarship. See e.g. Dunn: James D.G. Dunn: Christianity in The Making Volume 2 p23: I have already countered much of the thrust of this antithesis between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith by arguing that faith did not first begin with Easter and that the continuity of impact made by Jesus, before, as well as beyond Easter points to a greater continuity between the two than has usually been recognisedVol 2 P27: The issue of continuity has been posed most sharply in contemporary controversy on how speedily a very high Christology emerged. As we shall observe...there is a substantial consensus in recent scholarship that Christology developed within a Jewish matrixJames D.G. Dunn: Christianity in The Making Volume I p132: The suggestion that the remembered Jesus was wholly insignificant, unfascinating and unintriguing, having no real impact prior to his death and resurrection is simply incredible. Peter and the others did not first become disciples on Easter day. There was already a response of faith, already a bond of trust, inspired by what they first and subsequently heard and saw Jesus say and do.James D.G. Dunn: Christianity in The Making Volume I P130 What we actually have in the earliest retellings of what is now the Synoptic tradition, then, are the memories of the first disciples – not Jesus himself, but the remembered Jesus. … From the first we are confronted not so with Jesus, but with how he was perceived. And the same is actually true of the sayings tradition: at best what we have are the teachings of Jesus as they impacted on the individuals who stored them in their memories and began the process of oral transmission.And of course the peerless (in my view) Larry Hurtado larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/early-high-christology-clarifying-key-issues-and-positions/ To be sure, there was further development across the first several decades, and then across ensuing centuries, particularly as Christians sought to express their theological views in terms of the philosophical categories of the larger Roman environment in the second and third centuries CE. But the earliest clear indications of believers treating Jesus as sharing in divine honor and as rightful co-recipient of worship are found in our earliest texts, dated ca. 50-60 CE. And, indeed, in these texts, this treatment of Jesus is taken for granted and as uncontroversial among believers, which suggests that it was by the time of these letters already traditional. As Martin Hengel once observed, in historical terms, more happened christologically within those first few years than in the ensuing 800 years of theological development
|
|