I never said everything was wrong. Caricatures usually have some semblance of truth in them. Given such polemical sources you have to justify any historical reconstruction of the Pharisees based on them.
Just dismissive of inerrancy and accept critical scholarship over pious imagination. That means my goal is to understand the Gospels at the highest level possible. This helps me glimpse what I feel God was trying to teach us. Sometimes we have to look past the literal in the Gospels (just like we do in Genesis). I saw you dismiss roughly 18/25 lines from the creation accounts. I’ll bet I can get that number a lot higher if we kept going. In the Gethsemane thread in post #171 you wrote: “Yes unlike you, I accept the truth of the accounts told in the gospels. I do not pick and choose according to what fits a more comforting theology.”
Strong words for sure, but how does one profess to “accept the truth of the gospels” and simultaneously state in post 97 that Jesus probably sensed his death but didn’t “always think it was a forgone conclusion or absolutely necessary. He prayed to the Father that it would not happen. That is a fact of scripture.”
Did you forget to take seriously all the other “facts” of scripture where, just mentioning the ones in the Gospel of Mark alone, Jesus plainly teaches his disciples that he must be killed and rise after three days and repeats it multiple times (Mark 8:31-33, Mark 9:9-10, 12-13, 30-32, 10:45, 14:32-34). That Jesus plainly spoke of this and harshly scolded Peter (Get behind my Satan!) over it is clearly narrated in scripture. He goes so far as to say he must give his life as a ransom for man. After coming down the mountain from a conversation with Elijah and Moses at his transfiguration, Jesus seems to show certainty in what will happen to him when he forbids the Peter, James and John to talk about what they witnessed until he rises from the dead. [its a foregone conclusion!]
You suggest I appear to be dismissive of the Gospels and not take them seriously but you won’t ever find me pretending to treat the Bible in a different method than I actually do. It is inspired by God insofar as it serves his intended purposes for it.
Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
You said, “Should we look for the body of the old man who was executed? NO.”
John 3:3 “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” 5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
In union with Christ in His death and resurrection our spirit dies and a new spirit is born, a new creation, a new being. Born of God. Nicodemus, I am telling you about the spirit which can’t be seen. But as certain as Jesus became sin, we are born a second time by the Father’s will and with His life in us. It is the New Creation that is circumcised from the flesh, no longer united to the Law of Sin that is in the flesh. The real, old man was put to death and a new man raised to life.
Good News Indeed! Good enough to proclaim to all people.
Hey everyone. Do you want to be free from your slavery to sin? In Christ you can be free from its lordship.
Yes, addiction colors one’s thinking, but it does not destroy one’s power to think. You make a series of statements that are not backed up by fact. If an addicted persons were unable to think, unable to repent, then they could not be cured.
The reason why I brought up AA in my discussion is to anchor it in some kind of reality. If addicts could not think. than they could not escape the power of addiction, but they can and they do, not by depending on their own strength but by depending on the strength of a Higher Power and the support of others. God is able where we are not, but still we must come to our knees and seek God’s help. God is there for us when we understand that we cannot save ourselves.
If the addicted cannot think, cannot chose between eight and wrong, then they are less than human. This cannot be. Evil/wrong cannot be less than good/right. People prefer the “easy” way out. That is often not possible so we are caught in our own trap until we decide to go God’s way, which is not easy.
We are sinners saved by grace. We are addicts, who have been set free by God’s Love. I hope this helps.
I agree essentially. What I mean is this. They do interventions on alcoholics for the very reason you touch on and many never get it. Most die drinking. They don’t think clearly. Even with a trained professional and surrounded by loved ones, they often remain in denial. The addiction thinks for them. It is very difficult to help them to see the damage the drug is doing. It has become their best and only friend, despite the devastation. It is a phenomenon all its own. The intervention is designed to break through their sick thinking. It is an illness, I think, of some kind. A real medical condition. I know it is odd to think we have free will and can choose, so people are without excuse, yet addiction is subtle and powerful. I heard a priest say alcoholics/drug addicts are too sick to sin. They have to be restored to health so that they can sin again. ?
1 Cor 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Be on your guard that you don’t listen to the ideas of the carnal mind, it’s not subject to God’s law and can’t be. Carnal minded psychologist and doctors call drunkenness a sickness, God calls it sin and those who are drunkards will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But the love of God constrains us to go into the world and proclaim liberty to the captives. It is Christ who sets men free.
When a freshly new born babe in Christ I heard Leonard Cohen sing Suzanne.
"And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching from his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain only drowning men could see him
He said all men will be sailors then until the sea shall free them
But he himself was broken, long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human, he sank beneath your wisdom like a stone.
Now, Suzanne takes your hand and she leads you to the river
She’s wearing rags and feathers from Salvation Army counters
And the sun pours down like honey on our lady of the harbor
And she shows you where to look among the garbage and the flowers
There are heroes in the seaweed, there are children in the morning
They are leaning out for love and they will lean that way forever
While Suzanne holds the mirror
And Suzanne holds her mirror
Watch for a little cough in the film Anastasia with Yul Brynner and Ingrid Bergman, 1956, when hope is gone. Watch for it carefully. Tell me what you think.
Not meaning to be rude Ralphie, but I have no understanding of the song, and no desire to watch the movie. But thank you for thinking of me.
Can you maybe just tell me what your point is:)
Sure. The words to the song are self explanatory. He grew in wisdom and stature. I don’t think He ever stopped. The greatest thing I can do is reach out to forgotten children and pay attention to them.
Are you familiar with the The Russian Imperial Romanov family (Emperor Nicholas II, his wife Empress Alexandra and their five children: Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei)? They were all shot and bayoneted to death by Bolshevik revolutionaries under Yakov Yurovsky on the orders of the Ural Regional Soviet in Yekaterinburg on the night of 16–17, July 1918. Or, were they?
Mary endured the execution of her son. She was present for that horror. He endured her agony as He watched her watch him. I haven’t heard anyone discuss that dark, dark dynamic. Jesus sacrificed himself even though it caused his mother unbearable anguish. It is impossible for me to appreciate that kind of love, the love for us that kept him pinned to some wooden timbers and prevented him from calling on legions of angels to rescue them.
It is my opinion that most of us don’t think about that kind of love enough. I should say, I don’t. We/I read over this scene and realize it was a tragedy without comprehending fully what He went through there for us. Pointing out that his mom was right there is a reminder of the depth of the price He paid.
Yes, this film captures the nature of real love in a special, unexpected way. I need constant reminders that Jesus loves all of us so. Without love, I am absolutely nothing.
That is a rough scene. A mother watching her child crucified. I think you will enjoy this article. It casts Mary’s entire trip to Jerusalem for passover in powerful terms:
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
133
She was in town for the Passover and her huge brood of artisans, who accompanied her, couldn’t afford a donkey for her and themselves? Why do you need to walk 75 miles to love God?
Most have considered Jesus a poor Galilean and think Joseph was dead already. Even if Jesus was a master builder and not as poor as sometimes thought, once he starts his multi-year ministry, it seems income sources run dry.
I’d also guess Mary was not far over 40 given she would presumably have married Joseph really young. Not too old to make that walk unless she had health conditions.
The page waxes poetic for effect. As do the Gospels sometimes in a sense. No harm in continuing the tradition and painting a possible interpretation for dramatic effect as long as we understand what we are doing. The key is a mother watching her own son crucified. Everything else is a side dish.
Assuming Mary was actually there. But I can’t see a good reason why she wouldn’t be there for Passover and crucifixion was meant to be public display so…
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
135
33 from 40 eaves 7. So she was 50 odd. Jesus and his younger (and way older if you like) brothers would have built Caesarea Philippi with him as foreman. They’d have had donkeys.
If she was 12 in 4BC, assuming that year and assuming a death around 29-30CE that is 45ish.
But yes, if they were a bit specialized you may be right. I think the poverty of Jesus may be overstated at times. Or stated from the perspective of a modern person dealing with 1st world-country problems.
But this all depends on the cost of a donkey and how many would be needed. Many sites describe these as group pilgrimages… maybe a safety in numbers thing. They could have worked for others who owned donkeysbsbd if they possessed one it may have been for supplies and there may have been elders in greater need than Mary in the family.
The correct answer is we don’t know. That Mary rode a donkey is no more historically knowable than that she walked like most poorer folk at the time.
Vinnie
Vinnie
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
137
She gave birth at 12? God impregnates children? Menarche is delayed in protein deficient cultures. So it wouldn’t start until 16-18 and the first year is overwhelmingly infertile. She was a very sophisticated young woman, used to travelling alone. And had access to a donkey, young. [OK, opinion is 14th year. Age 13. For classical period menarche. 14 for fertility. Add a couple of years for decency. Tho’ the Romans didn’t.]
My understanding was 40 was not the new 30 in 10CE. They didn’t wait until girls graduated college and had a career as you well know. When girls “flowered” they were fair game for marriage I thought. I was under the impression most women married by mid teens to men who may have been almost twice there age in antiquity. Might not put a nice spin on the birth narratives but isn’t that the way it was? 12, 14, 15? If Mary was pledged to be married it’s certainly wishful thinking and anachronistic to think she was of modern legal age at the time. But I’m open to read some ancient sources and be pleasantly corrected.
@Klax I found this online. I have Fredrisken’s work on Jesus so in my mind she is a legit scholar based on the merits of her work:
“The Bible offers no evidence that Joseph was older than Mary. “We know virtually nothing about Joseph, and no age is mentioned for either Joseph or Mary in the Gospels,” says Paula Fredriksen, professor emerita of scripture at Boston University, and author of Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews . In fact, according to Jewish law and customs of the day, Mary and Joseph probably would have both been young when they married. “Girls were usually engaged sometime between the ages of 12 and 15, and would be married sometime thereafter, at 15 or 16, and boys would have been 19 or 20,” Fredriksen says.”
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
140