The great story of Joseph points to Jesus (Jesus' adoptive father was also a son of Jacob, both Josephs were chaste men, both were dreamers, both saved lives by escaping to Egypt). Moses prefigures the Messiah in details of his birth (wicked king, dead babies, magi/magicians, special child; see Ex. 1-2; Matt. 1-2; Luke 1-2); in his journey from Egypt through the water, into the desert and to a mountain (Matt. 1-5); the wondrous rock which provided water (Ex. 17:6; 1 Cor. 10:1-4) and in Moses' prophetic role (Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:19ff). So also do the Tabernacle with the Glory of God (Ex. 25-40:34; John 1:14; Heb. 9:1-12), the priesthood (Ex. 28; Heb. 7:26-8:2); and the sacrifices (Lev. 1-5; Hebrews 9-10).
Edward, Does it not make more natural sense that the N.T. writers , in their effort to describe the phenomenal impact that Jesus had directly on them(more likely on previous generations than the writers themselves), 'saw' Jesus in these cherished stories and of their heritage and interpreted Jesus in light of them? Was this not a totally natural way for the brightest Hebrew minds to 'work with' and interpret the hope and love that they had in Jesus, who had been murdered right in his prime; simultaneous with the physical, religious and political destruction by Rome of the whole Hebrew religious culture? We can hardly appreciate the spiritual despair and economic desperation of the times when these gospels were created. This kind of creative interpretive writing was not uncommon then.( I can offer as a far less complex example what has come out of me. However foolish some my think my writing is, it a direct result of the crumbling of many of the most cherished assumptions, hopes and values that sincerely under-girded the first half of my life. Look at all the writing, from an otherwise non writing person, motivated by the need for a more suitable explanation of my faith that has poured out of me the past two decades. ) Extreme times can bring forth unimagined human creativity and new interpretations of life. The gospels are such creative work at a collective level. This is how a new religion came into being. It developed this way.
Look, for example, how different the gospels are as you move from the first written Mark to the last John. Mark says nothing about a virgin birth in Bethlehem or heavenly star or wise men and nothing about appearances of a bodily resurrected Jesus. He simply ends his gospel with an 'empty tomb', a powerful symbol going beyond words and rational explanations. It left its readers wondering in awe. When Mark was used as a basic outline ten years later Matthew another Christian community began to add these stories and 'Luke' continues such a piling up of archetypal O.T. based story when he writes in still the following decade. These were originally stand alone writings.
John's 'words of Jesus' coming another decade later no longer even sound like the words of a real human, certainly not a sane and balanced one. The Jesus in John is the near fully archetypal and mythical Jesus the Christ, no longer is a purely human Jesus of Nazareth hardly discernible. This discernment of the two Jesus in the gospel are helpfully referred to as Pre and Post Easter Jesus by Jesus scholar Marcus Borg (Two of his excellent books is Meeting Jesus Again For The First Time and The Heart Of Christianity.) 'John', whose gospel has always been considered quite different, selects his own themes, for example one is " Jesus the I am." He then has Jesus say many "I am" metaphorical statements to build his essay's theme and structure. (Sadly one of them has become the foundation that keeps many Christians from being able to genuinely embrace people of other religions, something that Jesus consistently did. I refer to " I am the way , truth, and life and no one comes to the father but by me." It is most unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth ever uttered this specific statement as beautiful and meaningful as it is.) The author using the theme of the 'I AM' was declaring to all Jewish readers that Jesus superseded even the heroic Moses who was told to refer to God as, I AM in the Exodus story. He is also saying that who was at first believed to be only Jesus of Nazareth is now only mythic-ally explainable to some Jewish communities as being nothing less than some kind of an incarnation of the eternal 'I AM.'
A majority of the gospel stories, including the 'miracle' ones, are O.T. stories the Hebrew people were so familiar with reinterpreted and applied to Jesus. For example the threat of baby Jesus being killed causing the family to rush to Egypt is a take on the 'baby Moses' death threat story in the O.T. Such examples go on and on. These are not fulfilled 'ahead of time' specific prophecies of Jesus as often taught but they are the creative writers 'seeing' Jesus in these stories and writing them into his life. The O.T. stories was their only natural resource through which to offer their archetypically inspired explanation of how their forbears had 'seen nothing less than God' in the presence, words and love of this Jesus from Nazareth. This can cause the post-modern human jaw to drop with wonder and astonishment as much any miracle story could invoke in our forebears.
Such a natural understanding of the nature and origin of scripture can be the basis of our present day gospel. The gospel writers all wrote with a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament before them along with some of the 'gospel' material that already been penned. As mortals they even accepted the mistakes in that Greek translation as being accurate, such as the Greek mistranslation of Issiah's word for "young woman' as 'virgin.' Luke and Matthew even use that mistaken translation as the basis for their whole new story of a 'literal virgin birth.' Because John's author uses such high metaphoric and symbolic language the Gospel of John did not easily make it into the cannon of accepted 'inspired writings' because of its 'Gnostic' character. John's Gospel's difference from the others is obvious from its opening lines which are anchored in the 'Logos' of Greek philosophy and also Gnostic religious concepts.
I would add also that most of the wonderful stories you list are well explained, instead of concrete history, as coming from the deep resources of the Collective Unconscious evidenced by the fact most have appeared as the very same theme with different dress in the cultures and religions of all time. The archetypes when active, even more so in more ancient and more generally unconscious times, have spun the various ways humans have interpreted the literal concrete outer world, giving new meaning, shape and purpose to human life. This is how the archetypes of the Collective Unconscious work. This, to me, is a far more acceptable way to understand the complex nature of the arrival of the Christian religion from it source in the life of one, Jesus of Nazareth. And no one can say that the reality of the Collective Unconscious has not been posited by a reality beyond itself that is rightly called God. I imagine that most people who clearly see the sound evidence of the postulate of the Collective Unconscious as the source of human religion also believe it likely there is something we know nothing directly about hat has, as it were, posited the Collective Unconscious in the first place. None of this makes void a belief in God, in the Sacred. Far from it. But it makes faith in God far less needing to be defended as 'as believing the unbelievable' thus insulting the hard-won present scientific understanding of the material world. This kind of information makes 'believing' more honest and meaningful for post modern humanity.
It is, I strongly believe, a mistake for us to not now see the kind of writings the gospels by their very nature are as well as the O.T. ones. The gospels are not biographies or on the spot reporting at all. They are brilliant, creative, yes inspired in the wonderful natural meaning of that word , well after the event writings. They are works designed to sell or evangelize the very real phenomenal impact that this most unusual, so far advanced and mature for his day, but precisely what was needed, human being had on a few which grew to be many.
I realize when one has a predetermined assumption, as I and most of the people I know have had, that we must think of the Bible as miraculously produced otherwise we are not of faith, causes what I suggest to be heretical in some circles. But nowhere do these documents and their very nature or from what we glean from Jesus' actual attitude and priorities insist or even suggest that we must 'believe the unbelievable ' because we are 'told to.' Or believe what 'denies our God given actual experience and responsible intellect as human beings.' We can claim this knowledge of scripture's nature and remain ones who live by trust in Jesus, thus as authentic post-modern Christians. This fading view of the Bible as 'Perfect and Total Book of God' and its miracle stories and 'proofs by fulfilled prophecy' have been made litmus tests, by much Christian orthodoxy, for what it means to 'have faith' or to 'be of faith.'. That is what I strongly reject and am saddened for it twists, or refuses to untwist in light of present objective learning, the Jesus story so that it becomes less relavant to the mindset and psychological state of the ordinary thinking person of our culture today.
Wishing you a joyful Christmas Season, Jim
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 03:59:00 -0500 "Edward Fudge" <edward@edwardfudge.com> writes:
Edward, Does it not make more natural sense that the N.T. writers , in their effort to describe the phenomenal impact that Jesus had directly on them(more likely on previous generations than the writers themselves), 'saw' Jesus in these cherished stories and of their heritage and interpreted Jesus in light of them? Was this not a totally natural way for the brightest Hebrew minds to 'work with' and interpret the hope and love that they had in Jesus, who had been murdered right in his prime; simultaneous with the physical, religious and political destruction by Rome of the whole Hebrew religious culture? We can hardly appreciate the spiritual despair and economic desperation of the times when these gospels were created. This kind of creative interpretive writing was not uncommon then.( I can offer as a far less complex example what has come out of me. However foolish some my think my writing is, it a direct result of the crumbling of many of the most cherished assumptions, hopes and values that sincerely under-girded the first half of my life. Look at all the writing, from an otherwise non writing person, motivated by the need for a more suitable explanation of my faith that has poured out of me the past two decades. ) Extreme times can bring forth unimagined human creativity and new interpretations of life. The gospels are such creative work at a collective level. This is how a new religion came into being. It developed this way.
John's 'words of Jesus' coming another decade later no longer even sound like the words of a real human, certainly not a sane and balanced one. The Jesus in John is the near fully archetypal and mythical Jesus the Christ, no longer is a purely human Jesus of Nazareth hardly discernible. This discernment of the two Jesus in the gospel are helpfully referred to as Pre and Post Easter Jesus by Jesus scholar Marcus Borg (Two of his excellent books is Meeting Jesus Again For The First Time and The Heart Of Christianity.) 'John', whose gospel has always been considered quite different, selects his own themes, for example one is " Jesus the I am." He then has Jesus say many "I am" metaphorical statements to build his essay's theme and structure. (Sadly one of them has become the foundation that keeps many Christians from being able to genuinely embrace people of other religions, something that Jesus consistently did. I refer to " I am the way , truth, and life and no one comes to the father but by me." It is most unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth ever uttered this specific statement as beautiful and meaningful as it is.) The author using the theme of the 'I AM' was declaring to all Jewish readers that Jesus superseded even the heroic Moses who was told to refer to God as, I AM in the Exodus story. He is also saying that who was at first believed to be only Jesus of Nazareth is now only mythic-ally explainable to some Jewish communities as being nothing less than some kind of an incarnation of the eternal 'I AM.'
A majority of the gospel stories, including the 'miracle' ones, are O.T. stories the Hebrew people were so familiar with reinterpreted and applied to Jesus. For example the threat of baby Jesus being killed causing the family to rush to Egypt is a take on the 'baby Moses' death threat story in the O.T. Such examples go on and on. These are not fulfilled 'ahead of time' specific prophecies of Jesus as often taught but they are the creative writers 'seeing' Jesus in these stories and writing them into his life. The O.T. stories was their only natural resource through which to offer their archetypically inspired explanation of how their forbears had 'seen nothing less than God' in the presence, words and love of this Jesus from Nazareth. This can cause the post-modern human jaw to drop with wonder and astonishment as much any miracle story could invoke in our forebears.
Such a natural understanding of the nature and origin of scripture can be the basis of our present day gospel. The gospel writers all wrote with a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament before them along with some of the 'gospel' material that already been penned. As mortals they even accepted the mistakes in that Greek translation as being accurate, such as the Greek mistranslation of Issiah's word for "young woman' as 'virgin.' Luke and Matthew even use that mistaken translation as the basis for their whole new story of a 'literal virgin birth.' Because John's author uses such high metaphoric and symbolic language the Gospel of John did not easily make it into the cannon of accepted 'inspired writings' because of its 'Gnostic' character. John's Gospel's difference from the others is obvious from its opening lines which are anchored in the 'Logos' of Greek philosophy and also Gnostic religious concepts.
I would add also that most of the wonderful stories you list are well explained, instead of concrete history, as coming from the deep resources of the Collective Unconscious evidenced by the fact most have appeared as the very same theme with different dress in the cultures and religions of all time. The archetypes when active, even more so in more ancient and more generally unconscious times, have spun the various ways humans have interpreted the literal concrete outer world, giving new meaning, shape and purpose to human life. This is how the archetypes of the Collective Unconscious work. This, to me, is a far more acceptable way to understand the complex nature of the arrival of the Christian religion from it source in the life of one, Jesus of Nazareth. And no one can say that the reality of the Collective Unconscious has not been posited by a reality beyond itself that is rightly called God. I imagine that most people who clearly see the sound evidence of the postulate of the Collective Unconscious as the source of human religion also believe it likely there is something we know nothing directly about hat has, as it were, posited the Collective Unconscious in the first place. None of this makes void a belief in God, in the Sacred. Far from it. But it makes faith in God far less needing to be defended as 'as believing the unbelievable' thus insulting the hard-won present scientific understanding of the material world. This kind of information makes 'believing' more honest and meaningful for post modern humanity.
It is, I strongly believe, a mistake for us to not now see the kind of writings the gospels by their very nature are as well as the O.T. ones. The gospels are not biographies or on the spot reporting at all. They are brilliant, creative, yes inspired in the wonderful natural meaning of that word , well after the event writings. They are works designed to sell or evangelize the very real phenomenal impact that this most unusual, so far advanced and mature for his day, but precisely what was needed, human being had on a few which grew to be many.
I realize when one has a predetermined assumption, as I and most of the people I know have had, that we must think of the Bible as miraculously produced otherwise we are not of faith, causes what I suggest to be heretical in some circles. But nowhere do these documents and their very nature or from what we glean from Jesus' actual attitude and priorities insist or even suggest that we must 'believe the unbelievable ' because we are 'told to.' Or believe what 'denies our God given actual experience and responsible intellect as human beings.' We can claim this knowledge of scripture's nature and remain ones who live by trust in Jesus, thus as authentic post-modern Christians. This fading view of the Bible as 'Perfect and Total Book of God' and its miracle stories and 'proofs by fulfilled prophecy' have been made litmus tests, by much Christian orthodoxy, for what it means to 'have faith' or to 'be of faith.'. That is what I strongly reject and am saddened for it twists, or refuses to untwist in light of present objective learning, the Jesus story so that it becomes less relavant to the mindset and psychological state of the ordinary thinking person of our culture today.
Wishing you a joyful Christmas Season, Jim
gracEmail®
Edward FudgeJESUS FULFILLS THE JEWISH BIBLE (2)
New Testament Scriptures are the primary witness of Spirit-enlightened men to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the implications of that story for humankind. These Christian writings also are a reflection upon the meaning of the older, Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Jesus Christ. The Jews divided their Bible into the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, and named it all the Tanakh--a word formed from the Hebrew words for Law, Prophets and Writings--all foreshadowing and prefiguring the Messiah and the great rescue he would accomplish (Luke 24:27, 44-48).
Reading the Old Testament points us to Christ, beginning with Creation (Gen. 1; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:14-15) and Adam (Gen. 3:15; Phil. 2:5-9; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-22, 42-49), and Noah and the Flood (Gen. 6-8; Matt. 24:36-39). The patriarchs point to Christ, whether Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; Gal. 3:8-9; Gen.14:17-20; Heb. 7; Gen. 17:5; Rom. 4:17, 23-25), Isaac (Gen. 22:2ff; John 3:15; 8:56) or Jacob (Gen. 28:10-12; John 1:47ff; Gen. 49:10).
The great story of Joseph points to Jesus (Jesus' adoptive father was also a son of Jacob, both Josephs were chaste men, both were dreamers, both saved lives by escaping to Egypt). Moses prefigures the Messiah in details of his birth (wicked king, dead babies, magi/magicians, special child; see Ex. 1-2; Matt. 1-2; Luke 1-2); in his journey from Egypt through the water, into the desert and to a mountain (Matt. 1-5); the wondrous rock which provided water (Ex. 17:6; 1 Cor. 10:1-4) and in Moses' prophetic role (Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:19ff). So also do the Tabernacle with the Glory of God (Ex. 25-40:34; John 1:14; Heb. 9:1-12), the priesthood (Ex. 28; Heb. 7:26-8:2); and the sacrifices (Lev. 1-5; Hebrews 9-10).
The pagan prophet Balaam spoke of the distant-coming Christ (Numbers 24:15ff). Finally, Israel's covenant with God prefigured Jesus Christ, with its covenant stipulations which Jesus kept, its covenant blessings which Jesus earned, and its covenant curses which Jesus bore (Deut. 28; Gospels). And Joshua, the successor to Moses, pointed to Jesus Christ, whose Hebrew name was the same as his, and who led God's people to their promised land (Deut. 31:7; Matt. 1:21).
You are currently subscribed to edwardfudge as: jjimhib@juno.com
Add edward@edwardfudge.com to your email address book to ensure delivery.Forward to a Friend | Manage Subscription | Subscribe | Unsubscribe |
No comments:
Post a Comment