| 'Knowing' Jesus |
| 'Knowing' Jesus |
|
'KNOWING' JESUS In NT theology, 'knowing Jesus' is the equivalent to following Jesus (though 'knowing' in the late 1st century bordered on gnosticism). But here, I use it in a frustrated way. Christianity presents Jesus as 'of course', but a simple detailed reading of the NT presents a more nuanced view. And thus, I struggle with 'knowing' Jesus. This page is kind of a 'status' of where I am (which isn't saying much at all!). Underlying Conclusions (1) Clearly there's some sort of 'divide' between the Jesus of the synoptic gospels (Mark, 'Q', Luke, Matthew) and 'Paul'. Paul CLEARLY knows nothing of 'Jesus' nor even seems to care whatsoever what Jesus might have said. Paul's theology is essentially 'Jesus' got raised, the end-time is here, and gentiles can participate. Get ready. Done. His few Jesus'y segments can also be found in various greek writings, so that doesn't really work. Plus he has no respect for Jesus' disciples. Why? (2) Comparing the John writings to the synoptics, I can't see how they're talking about the same guy. The gospel of John certainly has details that hint of originality but John's theology matches the late Pauline writings, not the synoptics. (3) The non-gospel writings have so little 'Jesus', I'm NOT really sure that the synoptics are talking about a 'historical' Jesus. Even Acts (in theory by Luke) dispenses with almost all of Jesus (ironically retaining some John-the-Baptist teachings). The pattern is so overwhelming, I wonder if Mark and 'Q' describe someone else? Was 'Q's Jesus some other apocalyptic rabbi? (4) Looking at Mark and 'Q', the Jesus teachings to me appear quite intelligent ... certainly more so than the other NT writings. I'm quite impressed that Jesus rejected virtually ALL aspects of human pride, but didn't walk away from the common daily life of people. As important, 'Jesus' matches the OT, especially Isaiah. The other NT writers certainly don't. (5) The problem, however, is that there's sure a lot of 'the end is here' coming out of Jesus' mouth (along with Paul and everyone else). And like the skeptics of the 1st century, the end-time just didn't happen. Prophesy failed and per the OT, a failed prophesy was PROOF of no participation from God. So, 'ipso-facto', the Jesus of both Mark and 'Q' could not be from God. Squirming Around (1) As a minimum, I don't think the bulk of today's Christianity accepts the NT. First, they skip over all the NT problems and second, they don't follow what they don't skip over. They DO spend a lot of time talking about it, though. Even the Mormons do a better job of 'doing' Jesus (though they too had an embarrassing end-time prediction for the late 1800s). (2) It IS possible 'Apocalyptic Jesus' could be a creation of the gospel writers (they appear to happily alter the accounts as needed). But it seems hard to believe. Jesus' disciples would normally be the best witness, and after maybe 3 years of literally following Jesus, they were fully expecting the restoration of Israel (not the complete destruction of Israel). So, that doesn't work well. (3) Our pastor periodically mentions that he doesn't think Jesus in his physical form could see the future; only what God would reveal to him. I haven't asked our pastor, but I get the feeling he sees the same problem of failed predictions. I don't know that though. And I don't wish to ask. He's the most Jesus'y person I've ever met (besides my father). (4) If I look at ALL of the evidence, Jesus as THE prophet of God seems the most clear. Jesus certainly wasn't the 'messiah' (annointed king of Israel). Israel was blown to bits; there's a clue. Even now, I'd be hard pressed to say today's Israel connects to the OT. It has a similar name though. Current Conclusions (1) Jesus as the prophet of God before Israel's destruction best fits the evidence that I can see. Or put another way, Jesus was speaking for God. Resurrected? Certainly possible, just like Elijah and even Enoch 'taken up'. A 'sacrifice for sin'? Not supported in the NT itself (or the OT). A second God? Also not supported in the NT and certainly not the OT. (2) God as the object of worship. Who did Jesus say to pray to? God. Who did Jesus say was responsible for all of his mighty works? God. Who did Jesus most criticize? Religious leaders. Why?. (3) Jesus demoted? I don't think so. And I still feel most comfortable in a 'fundamentalist' church. Jesus revealing the eternity of God is ... well ... unbelievable. That sounds pretty important to me. (4) Lastly, I REALLY like Jesus. I know that sounds kind of irreligious. But as much as I don't think he was 'God', he IS right up there. And he WILL save me. By his REVELATION from God. In the time of Jesus, a rabbi was called 'Master' or its subsequent translation 'Lord'. So, yes, Jesus is my Lord and Savior. |
| Copyright ©, 2010, dmbarnhart |
| Prev Back Next |