Tuesday, March 16, 2010

'Two trinitarian perspectives' or 'Jesus still hears you'

The distant father, seperated by transcendence
The historical Jesus, stowed away in the centuries
The unknown spirit, hiding in ambiguity

My living brother-Lord
your joyous presence
I'm wagered on the Fathers raising.


byron smith said...

I like it, but I'm not sure I get that bit.

If you don't already follow it, you might like to check out this blog from a guy in Victoria who just returned from studying in the UK, and especially the most recent post, which I read just before yours.

Mike W said...

well i tried waiting and leaning and nonsensical combinations of the two (weighting?). Wagering? Then i got bored and put tilting before I forgot to write the post.

Which is a long way of saying, I don't get it either. Perhaps I don't have a well developed understanding of our Father, except for pointing at Jesus and saying 'I want what he is having'

byron smith said...

Ah, so we are tilting/waiting on the Father's raising? I thought you were still talking about either the living brother or his joyous presence. But it makes sense, since the focus in the first perspective is on the relation of each member of the trinity to us.

I guess from a grammatical perspective, the final line breaks the pattern of the other five, since it is not simply a nominal group, but includes a process (i.e. the very tilting, who subject, as I said, is a little ambiguous). The other verbs (separated, stowed away, hiding, living) are subordinate to the relevant nouns.

Mike W said...

so, how to fix it, is adding an 'in those' ok. It is a bit too tthird person for my liking.

Then again, it is just a brain dump

Mike W said...

so, how to fix it, is adding an 'in those' ok. It is a bit too tthird person for my liking.

Then again, it is just a brain dump

Mike W said...

sorry, was it jason or paul who has just returned to victoria?

Off to bed, lovely to banter. I hope you're getting some work done! Oh thanks for the link the other day too, I'm always happy to take your great ideas and find a catchy title. See you soon

byron smith said...



PS Did you get my email yesterday?

Mike W said...

um, i dont think so, but I haven't looked on a computer, only on the phone.

Anders Branderud said...

"Historical Jesus"!?!

The persons using that contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes dependancy upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.

While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and ("spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.

There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: www.netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with "30-99 C.E.").
Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.

Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.

What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period... in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.

To all Christians: The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?

Mike W said...

anders, I'm not sure you understood the thrust of my post.

Nevertheless, I am happy for the emphasis you have placed on the fact that Jesus (yehoshua) was and is Jewish! The parting of the ways of christianity from its Jewish roots is indeed sad, especially when it is antinomian.

However, the assertion that the new testament is entirely a 4th Century redaction is a bit old hat. Literary scholarship has provided good reason for much of the data that was once thought to be the result of redaction. (see for example Tannehill on Luke Acts. Also, the theological concerns of the C4th church are quite different to the theological concerns of the NT documents, and even where there are similar questions, rather different approaches to answering them.

The charcterization of a division between pure jews and hellenistic christians was pretty much debunked in 1969 by Martin Hengel. It is now generally accepted that 1st Century Jews were quite hellenized, and that the hellenistic features of the NT were more the result of interaction with this hellenized Jewish culture rather than direct interaction with pagans.

The book of the Acts of the apostles shows a rather complex relationship between the earliest followers of jesus, the temple and wider judaism, that cant be reduced to simple Torah rejection. Even the advice of the early church to its new gentile converts were based on reasoning from the Torah (see acts 15 and the use of Leviticus 17 for example). The now massive amount of work on the New Testament writers use of the Torah, prophets and writings do not smack of the anti-Torah perspective you mention. (see the Baker 'Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament' or Richard Hays' 'Echoes of Scripture').

I find something like NT Wrights 'Jesus and the Victory of God' a far better reconstruction of the continuity and discontinuity of Jesus, both with his surrounding Jewish culture, and the increasingly gentile church which followed him.

I really do think we can trust the NT, thoughwe must always be careful in our reading not to import our own culture and questions back in.

If you do doubt the veracity of the entire NT, where are you getting your info about ribi yehoshua? Just the DSS?

Mike W said...

nor can the nature of 2nd Temple judaism be simply ascertained by either the DSS or rabbinic judaism.
The DSS represents not all of pharasaic Judaism but a small sect that saw itself in opposition to the Temple.
it is also naive to think that the the Rabbinic Judaism that emerged after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD can be equated with the situation before that. for one, much of Judaism was wiped out, secondly, it had to learn to live without the Temple again, and to understand what had happened.