|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 28, 2016 2:51:08 GMT
I've been reading a bit on Jesus and memory studies over the past couple of years. I have followed The Jesus blog for some years now. Back then it was just Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne, but since then four other scholars have joined in. Through that I bought Le Donne's book "Historical Jesus". I also watched Chris Keith's inaugural address when he took up the position of Director of the Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham, London. These guys are mostly exploring the idea of memory as a social phenomenon, asking questions about how Jesus was remembered and what we should make of the memories recorded in the gospels, and how these studies seem to be opposed to much of form criticism. I'm not sure what it all proves yet, nor what I think about it, but it seems to be a growing field in NT studies. Bart Ehrman has not long ago published a book on Jesus and memory, and Raphael Rodriguez has done an 8 part review on the Jesus blog ( this is the last of the eight, and it provides links to the previous seven). I think it is well worth reading, as it gives an understanding of Ehrman's book, a critique of it, and a summary of where he thinks memory studies of the NT are at. I hope you find it worthwhile if you haven't seen it before. I'd be interested to discuss with anyone who reads it. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 9, 2016 12:21:14 GMT
Do you think anything concrete and real can really be known of Jesus when all we have to go by is what others have said of him and only in a book that begins with a talking serpent and is therefore fiction?
I do not think so and that is why we Gnostic Christians only show Jesus as an archetypal good man. Not a God.
Regards
DL
|
|
|
|
Post by gregmita on Jul 9, 2016 14:56:06 GMT
If nothing concrete and real can be known, then how do you know you can show Jesus as an archetypical good man? Plus, I thought Gnosticism teaches that Jesus was a divine being, in fact that all humans are divine sparks trapped in a prison of flesh? Do you think anything concrete and real can really be known of Jesus when all we have to go by is what others have said of him and only in a book that begins with a talking serpent and is therefore fiction? I do not think so and that is why we Gnostic Christians only show Jesus as an archetypal good man. Not a God. Regards DL |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 10, 2016 5:10:57 GMT
Do you think anything concrete and real can really be known of Jesus when all we have to go by is what others have said of him and only in a book that begins with a talking serpent and is therefore fiction? I do not think so and that is why we Gnostic Christians only show Jesus as an archetypal good man. Not a God. Regards DL The historians seem to think so. And they think this even though they may be atheist, Jewish, Christian, Islamic or agnostic. Yes, they do think that there is historical material in the synoptic gospels. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 10, 2016 16:38:32 GMT
Do you think anything concrete and real can really be known of Jesus when all we have to go by is what others have said of him and only in a book that begins with a talking serpent and is therefore fiction? I do not think so and that is why we Gnostic Christians only show Jesus as an archetypal good man. Not a God. Regards DL The historians seem to think so. And they think this even though they atheist, Jewish, Christian, Islamic or agnostic. Yes, they do think that there is historical material in the synoptic gospels. No historian that I know of would say that a miracle working Jesus ever existed. Especially knowing that Jesus is only known from a book that is clearly fiction.
Unless you decide to believe in talking serpents and a genocidal son murdering God, there is no real proof.
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Jul 10, 2016 16:58:25 GMT
If nothing concrete and real can be known, then how do you know you can show Jesus as an archetypical good man? Plus, I thought Gnosticism teaches that Jesus was a divine being, in fact that all humans are divine sparks trapped in a prison of flesh? Do you think anything concrete and real can really be known of Jesus when all we have to go by is what others have said of him and only in a book that begins with a talking serpent and is therefore fiction? I do not think so and that is why we Gnostic Christians only show Jesus as an archetypal good man. Not a God. Regards DL-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------All I am doing in thinking of Jesus as an archetypal good man is following the old tradition of doing so. I see that as no different than thinking of Marco Polo as an archetypal explorer.When the Gnostic Christians invented their myths to go against the Christian myths, I guess they chose to try to make the Jesus archetype that Christians used into an even better one. It is in fact possible, if early Gnostic Christians were Jews and Gentiles, as I suspect, were the first Chrestians whose works were usurped by Christianity. But again, this far up the time line, that is also impossible to prove.You are correct in that Jesus preached that all of us were equal in terms of divinity. Except that I do not think he used that term. Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.Note how we are all potential Jesus' or brethren and equal to Jesus.Jesus also said to seek God. Not to seek him as God. He did indicate though, through the pens of the scribes who invented Jesus, to follow his ways. His ways though have been hidden by a contradictory bible.RegardsDL |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 11, 2016 5:40:25 GMT
The historians seem to think so. And they think this even though they atheist, Jewish, Christian, Islamic or agnostic. Yes, they do think that there is historical material in the synoptic gospels. No historian that I know of would say that a miracle working Jesus ever existed. Especially knowing that Jesus is only known from a book that is clearly fiction.
Unless you decide to believe in talking serpents and a genocidal son murdering God, there is no real proof.
Regards DL
Historians deal in probability and miracles being improbable are not dealt with by historians. But historians do say that Jesus existed. I think that if you actually read the historians you will find that the historians find material in the synoptic gospels concerning Jesus that they consider historical. None of the synoptic gospels begin with a talking serpent. I think that you will find that what we know of numerous people in antiquity is only because "of what others have said about them". |
|
