Crossan speaks truth. Remove the fantastic off the table and address the real heart of the matter: we need to change the world, we need to follow the word and example of Jesus. Does it matter if he actually walked on water? If he did or not is waste of a discussion. The discussion should be: what would Jesus' world look like? Do we want to be a part of it? If so, let's get to work-work-work. And most people don't want that work loaded onto their backs. They want "God" to do it for them. And that's precisely why the world is the same as it ever was. "God" isn't doing anything for us, get it through your thick skull humanity!
But he actually "walked the water". And "silenced the storm with his voice". What Crossan says, that these parables are symbols for something else, such as the currently pretty widespread interpretation of controlling ones own low drives by the "name of God" (or some such). A literal interpretation hides the more profound symbolic interpretation.
i cant believe that. maybe healings, and resurrection as some vision perhaps even with some corporal element but walking on water seems a bit too much.
So many darn scholars talk about what Christ meant without any care for what he said. As if they know better than Christ. It makes me so angry that millions of people talk about the views of Christ without taking into consideration the words he said. Humans are so good at judging others wrongly, there is nothing more they love to do than injustice, having pride, and being egotistical, the truth can be thrown out the window for all they are concerned.
I suppose the obvious question is how do we know if he said those things? how do we know what he said and what others claimed he said? if both parable and (supposed) fact ate presented as fact, without any distinction between the two, how do we know which is which?
If the two Jesus nativity narratives are parable, then it was dishonest of each gospel author to present his version as historical, which both of them do. Therefore, the next question to be considered is: What prevents the entirety of both gospels from being fictitious as well?
Well, because we can use other sources to determine what is factual and historical. The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is certainly a historical event. History records that John was in fact baptizing Jews by the Jordan river. (Flavius Josephus (37-c.100),Jewish Antiquities 18:116-119. There are many examples in the gospels that can be grounded in history. The ancient writers often weaved metaphors and parables into their accounts of historical figures. Suetonius did it for Ceasar Augustus telling of his divinely ordained birth as did the The Priene Calendar Inscription in stone recovered at Priene (an ancient Greek city, in Western Turkey) that records an edict proclaiming Caesar Augustus as the Savior of the world and his birthday as the Good News (evangelion).
important, to understand, observance, difference, mistake, discrepancy, birth of a child, to threaten, to kill, fiction, concern, to avoid a challenge, action, factionality, go and do likewise, help to the reader
I respect Crossan's interpretation, but he's very much overcomplicating it. The gospels' birth narratives are what the comic book world calls a retcon, or an after the fact retelling of a previous story meant to justify a new narrative. What likely happened is that when the apostles began evangelizing after Jesus' death, they would claim that Jesus was the messiah. The people to whom they were evangelizing would naturally be asking questions, and one of the most obvious questions Jews would be asking is, "where was this Jesus born?" Because, as most Jews understood, the messiah was supposed to be born in Judea to the "line of David." But Jesus came from the Galilee. How were the early evanglists supposed to reconcile this? Well, one solution would be to simply make up a narrative in which Jesus would be born in Bethlehem in Judea, the birth place of David. And this would be easy considering that even the apostles probably weren't completely sure when and where Jesus was born. Filling in the holes in the biography of a nobody is easy, because there's no one around to correct you. That's why we have two different birth narratives in the Gospels, both attempting to answer that initial question. One story was made up by one evangelist and found it's way into Matthew's Gospel. The other story was made up by another evangalist and found it's way into Luke's Gospel. It's really not so mysterious.
Yes i agree with you we have authors who make up the story that such an (in their eyes) important guy has to cast its shadow before. Every big figure at this time had special circumstances in his birth and this time they make up stars and stargazers. It is the very same as at his death when they invent risen dead which walk as Zombies through Jerusalem. They use various elements for various intents. Like the Bethlehem fiction had to be in the story as he should be a descendand of David. This is why they invent fictional (contradicting) male descendance. Then we have the other story line that god impregnated Mary so Jesus can be god. This was so typical as Zeus had dozen of God-Man children walking the earth. In the end we have a story filled with lots of elements which just were added by the authors or even earlier by beliefers.
like monty python. so I heard this guy preaching about the kingdom and what was his name? what? what was his name? Jesus I think,... anyway the point was. Jesus you think? you mean you dont even know?? Look.it really doesnt matter the point was he was adapting subtly but powerfully Johns apocalyptic proclamation and instead positing.. whered he come from then this 'Jesus I think' Er Nazareth I think, er no born in Bethlehem anyway the point is we shouldnt just wait for Gd to.come sort out our problems, we have to find the kingdom here and now Nazareth, Bethlehem..he's making it up! like me trying to teach RE in college 😳
OK...so they're parables...but doesn't that open the door the obvious question/problem of people asking: which parts are true and which parts are just parable? and how can we tell the difference? its all presented the same way--as fact--so which is which? and why don't any of the authors bother to state which is which?
No. They aren't presented the same way in the New Testament. Parables are obviously parables. The rest is filled up with symbols, up to and including the crucifiction.
Truth is not the same as fact. It's a recognized fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a man executed by crucifixion by Roman authorities. It's a truth that this same man began the reign of God on the earth by becoming God's king on the earth. It requires much more than facts to make the leap to this conclusion. The message is the point.
Whats this got to do with the birth ... snore They chose 25 dec because of osiris and tammuz and baccus and dyonysis and mythris all born 25 dec. The day the solstice ends!
What a shame that his parents didn't save his afterbirth (umbilical cord). Wow--that would've made a great item to pin on fancy board and have these idiots pray to! (Another idol for idol worshippers--one that "glowed in the dark"?) (Umbilical cords were easy to get ahold of--the Catholic Church could've made a FORTUNE off that one).
No, sorry. The truth still matters. If it's not true, that's important. Calling it a 'parable' doesn't change that. If everyone recognized that the Bible was just fiction, that might be different. But that's not what people believe.
Callum McCormick I'm not sure what an "absolute truth" even is. (Is it different from the "truth"?) But "could"? I could have leprechauns living in my basement, but there's no reason to believe that. Stories seem to be called "parables" to deflect attention from the fact that there's no reason to believe that they're TRUE stories - indeed, that there's often many reasons to think that they're not. Yet many people do think that they're true - and even act on those beliefs. Again, if everyone recognized that the Bible was just fiction, just "parables," I wouldn't have a problem with this. And that's actually what's important, don't you think? I, at least, do think that the truth of my beliefs is important.
Bill Garthright When you have esoteric understandings and exoteric understandings, it is expected that the exoteric will likely fade away, or become occult. The fact that some people take the parables literally doesn't matter. So what? It's like arguing that there's really a cave somewhere that Plato was speaking about in his famous allegory of the ccave. And like Crossan said -- the star leading people westward would have been recognized as a counter-parable to the simultaneous birth narrative of Caesar.
EnnoiaBlog The really funny thing is that none of you can agree on which is which. Your god, if he does exist, must be the world's worst communicator. Christians are on opposite sides of every issue and can't seem to agree on anything, even when supposedly going by the same holy instruction manual. Does it matter if some of the Bible isn't literally true - indeed, if some parts of the Bible contradict the other parts? Well, not if you have some mechanism for determining which parts ARE true, I guess. Do you? I mean, some RELIABLE mechanism which lets Christians come to a clear consensus on what's true and what isn't? Otherwise, that's just a fancy way of saying that you believe the parts you want to believe. Yeah, I already knew that. Do you have any good evidence backing up your beliefs? ... Hello? You still there?
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qbHbshrA1f0/mqdefault.jpg)
Crossan speaks truth. Remove the fantastic off the table and address the real heart of the matter: we need to change the world, we need to follow the word and example of Jesus. Does it matter if he actually walked on water? If he did or not is waste of a discussion. The discussion should be: what would Jesus' world look like? Do we want to be a part of it? If so, let's get to work-work-work. And most people don't want that work loaded onto their backs. They want "God" to do it for them. And that's precisely why the world is the same as it ever was. "God" isn't doing anything for us, get it through your thick skull humanity!
But he actually "walked the water". And "silenced the storm with his voice". What Crossan says, that these parables are symbols for something else, such as the currently pretty widespread interpretation of controlling ones own low drives by the "name of God" (or some such). A literal interpretation hides the more profound symbolic interpretation.
i cant believe that. maybe healings, and resurrection as some vision perhaps even with some corporal element but walking on water seems a bit too much.
@@ja-qk4vd
Light walks on water
This was wonderful. It sure cuts through all the baloney of the later 'doctrines' and such.
What a cool rational speaker.
Thanks for posting.
Thank you sincerely for all the facts!
JDC: my hero!
So many darn scholars talk about what Christ meant without any care for what he said. As if they know better than Christ. It makes me so angry that millions of people talk about the views of Christ without taking into consideration the words he said. Humans are so good at judging others wrongly, there is nothing more they love to do than injustice, having pride, and being egotistical, the truth can be thrown out the window for all they are concerned.
I suppose the obvious question is how do we know if he said those things? how do we know what he said and what others claimed he said? if both parable and (supposed) fact ate presented as fact, without any distinction between the two, how do we know which is which?
If he never existed ... he never spoke. Thats why
Both Rome and Jerusalem, and also Athen, all were troubled with the issue of kingdom!
I prefer a video presentation to a radio program,,,,it's more intimate.
If the two Jesus nativity narratives are parable, then it was dishonest of each gospel author to present his version as historical, which both of them do. Therefore, the next question to be considered is: What prevents the entirety of both gospels from being fictitious as well?
Well, because we can use other sources to determine what is factual and historical. The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is certainly a historical event. History records that John was in fact baptizing Jews by the Jordan river. (Flavius Josephus (37-c.100),Jewish Antiquities 18:116-119. There are many examples in the gospels that can be grounded in history. The ancient writers often weaved metaphors and parables into their accounts of historical figures. Suetonius did it for Ceasar Augustus telling of his divinely ordained birth as did the The Priene Calendar Inscription in stone recovered at Priene (an ancient Greek city, in Western Turkey) that records an edict proclaiming Caesar Augustus as the Savior of the world and his birthday as the Good News (evangelion).
important, to understand, observance, difference, mistake, discrepancy, birth of a child, to threaten, to kill, fiction, concern, to avoid a challenge, action, factionality, go and do likewise, help to the reader
I respect Crossan's interpretation, but he's very much overcomplicating it. The gospels' birth narratives are what the comic book world calls a retcon, or an after the fact retelling of a previous story meant to justify a new narrative.
What likely happened is that when the apostles began evangelizing after Jesus' death, they would claim that Jesus was the messiah. The people to whom they were evangelizing would naturally be asking questions, and one of the most obvious questions Jews would be asking is, "where was this Jesus born?" Because, as most Jews understood, the messiah was supposed to be born in Judea to the "line of David." But Jesus came from the Galilee. How were the early evanglists supposed to reconcile this?
Well, one solution would be to simply make up a narrative in which Jesus would be born in Bethlehem in Judea, the birth place of David. And this would be easy considering that even the apostles probably weren't completely sure when and where Jesus was born. Filling in the holes in the biography of a nobody is easy, because there's no one around to correct you. That's why we have two different birth narratives in the Gospels, both attempting to answer that initial question. One story was made up by one evangelist and found it's way into Matthew's Gospel. The other story was made up by another evangalist and found it's way into Luke's Gospel. It's really not so mysterious.
Yes i agree with you we have authors who make up the story that such an (in their eyes) important guy has to cast its shadow before. Every big figure at this time had special circumstances in his birth and this time they make up stars and stargazers. It is the very same as at his death when they invent risen dead which walk as Zombies through Jerusalem. They use various elements for various intents. Like the Bethlehem fiction had to be in the story as he should be a descendand of David. This is why they invent fictional (contradicting) male descendance. Then we have the other story line that god impregnated Mary so Jesus can be god. This was so typical as Zeus had dozen of God-Man children walking the earth.
In the end we have a story filled with lots of elements which just were added by the authors or even earlier by beliefers.
like monty python. so I heard this guy preaching about the kingdom and
what was his name?
what?
what was his name?
Jesus I think,... anyway the point was.
Jesus you think? you mean you dont even know??
Look.it really doesnt matter the point was he was adapting subtly but powerfully Johns apocalyptic proclamation and instead positing..
whered he come from then this 'Jesus I think'
Er Nazareth I think, er no born in Bethlehem anyway the point is we shouldnt just wait for Gd to.come sort out our problems, we have to find the kingdom here and now
Nazareth, Bethlehem..he's making it up!
like me trying to teach RE in college 😳
OK...so they're parables...but doesn't that open the door the obvious question/problem of people asking: which parts are true and which parts are just parable? and how can we tell the difference? its all presented the same way--as fact--so which is which? and why don't any of the authors bother to state which is which?
No. They aren't presented the same way in the New Testament. Parables are obviously parables. The rest is filled up with symbols, up to and including the crucifiction.
Truth is not the same as fact. It's a recognized fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a man executed by crucifixion by Roman authorities. It's a truth that this same man began the reign of God on the earth by becoming God's king on the earth. It requires much more than facts to make the leap to this conclusion. The message is the point.
They shouldn't have to and they don't.
Parables are purposefully confusing
Whats this got to do with the birth ... snore
They chose 25 dec because of osiris and tammuz and baccus and dyonysis and mythris all born 25 dec. The day the solstice ends!
What a shame that his parents didn't save his afterbirth (umbilical cord). Wow--that would've made a great item to pin on fancy board and have these idiots pray to! (Another idol for idol worshippers--one that "glowed in the dark"?)
(Umbilical cords were easy to get ahold of--the Catholic Church could've made a FORTUNE off that one).
constatntine chose Dec 25th , its a pagan holiday , Jesus is born in the fall .
Can I borrow five bucks?
No, sorry. The truth still matters. If it's not true, that's important. Calling it a 'parable' doesn't change that. If everyone recognized that the Bible was just fiction, that might be different. But that's not what people believe.
Why do you conflate 'parable' with 'fiction'? A parable could convey an absolute truth.
Callum McCormick I'm not sure what an "absolute truth" even is. (Is it different from the "truth"?) But "could"? I could have leprechauns living in my basement, but there's no reason to believe that.
Stories seem to be called "parables" to deflect attention from the fact that there's no reason to believe that they're TRUE stories - indeed, that there's often many reasons to think that they're not. Yet many people do think that they're true - and even act on those beliefs.
Again, if everyone recognized that the Bible was just fiction, just "parables," I wouldn't have a problem with this. And that's actually what's important, don't you think? I, at least, do think that the truth of my beliefs is important.
Callum McCormick Can you please define what an absolute truth is? How do we test it and by what standards?
Bill Garthright When you have esoteric understandings and exoteric understandings, it is expected that the exoteric will likely fade away, or become occult. The fact that some people take the parables literally doesn't matter. So what? It's like arguing that there's really a cave somewhere that Plato was speaking about in his famous allegory of the ccave. And like Crossan said -- the star leading people westward would have been recognized as a counter-parable to the simultaneous birth narrative of Caesar.
EnnoiaBlog The really funny thing is that none of you can agree on which is which. Your god, if he does exist, must be the world's worst communicator. Christians are on opposite sides of every issue and can't seem to agree on anything, even when supposedly going by the same holy instruction manual.
Does it matter if some of the Bible isn't literally true - indeed, if some parts of the Bible contradict the other parts? Well, not if you have some mechanism for determining which parts ARE true, I guess. Do you? I mean, some RELIABLE mechanism which lets Christians come to a clear consensus on what's true and what isn't?
Otherwise, that's just a fancy way of saying that you believe the parts you want to believe. Yeah, I already knew that. Do you have any good evidence backing up your beliefs? ... Hello? You still there?
Jesus is a fictional character therefore no birth!
.