tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post1526464182592179577..comments2024-03-28T20:47:47.445-04:00Comments on Serene Musings: Take Up Your CrossScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-19114394502229273022010-04-13T22:12:14.694-04:002010-04-13T22:12:14.694-04:00Fred, you are absolutely correct on your point abo...Fred, you are absolutely correct on your point about "born again" and "born from above." Indeed, it is a play on words that only works in Greek, and which is lost in translation to English (and which, as you noted, wouldn't have worked in the language of Jesus either). <br /><br />As for the apocalyptic vs. wise prophet image of Jesus, I really never took very strongly to the image of an apocalyptic Jesus because when I first started reading and studying a lot of Biblical scholarship, I was reading scholars like Borg, Crossan, and John Shelby Spong, all of whom (as you noted) describe Jesus in wise prophet terms. It was not until later that I started reading scholars who argue the apocalyptic Jesus (Schweitzer, Ehrman, etc), and I have always tended to feel that their arguments are weaker than the likes of Borg and Crossan. Borg, in particular, has had a very profound impact on my faith. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that Marcus Borg's books saved me from turning to agnosticism. <br /><br />I also share your thought process on personal motivations and psychology, however. Do I just like the wise prophet Jesus because he's more palatable than the apocalyptic Jesus? It's impossible to ultimately say, of course, but having studied both arguments, I am more persuaded by the evidence of the former.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-39681021935927526522010-04-11T21:35:42.957-04:002010-04-11T21:35:42.957-04:00Thanks once again Scott,
With the risk of sounding...Thanks once again Scott,<br />With the risk of sounding boring, I agree with you once again. <br />For some time I looked at Jesus as a full on apocalypticist and took many of his teachings in that context. I think that the arguments for this view of the historical Jesus are persuasive and well developed by noteworthy scholars such as Bultmann, Schweizer and Erhman to name a few of the big guns. I was not very convinced by the arguments presented by the likes of Borg and Crossan that Jesus was more of a prophetic sage delivering wisdom teachings aimed at revealing Gods Kingdom here on earth in the present if we only know how to find it. I always thought the message Jesus was preaching was that you had better straighten up and fly right before the imminent end times or God is going to smoke you. <br />These days however, I am tending more toward the Robert J. Miller, Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan view of things and am starting to buy the findings of literary criticism indicating that the apocalyptic Jesus was more of a construct of the early Christian community (undergoing persecution from the Romans) than an accurate representation of Yeshua. Maybe I am just kidding myself because this is what I want to believe since the wisdom teachings have always been the message I have taken from the new testament in any case. Whatever the psychology of the matter, I am pretty comfortable with where I am, or the direction that I am heading.<br />The point of this long winded introduction … your interpretation of “ Take up Your Cross” fits in very well with my developing understanding of what Yeshua was all about. To me, it sounds much more plausible (and palatable) than the born again meaning that your Evangelical friend reads into it. With all due respect to your friend, I don’t see the born again experience as being an emphasis at all in the Greek scriptures, in fact I don’t see it mentioned.<br />Yeshuas discourse with Nicodemus is an inaccurate interpretation in many English versions. <br />The NIV is typical in John 3:3-8 ..<br /> 3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." <br /> 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!" <br /> 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[ must be born again.' 8The 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." <br />This dialog only makes sense if you understand that Jesus is using a double entendre and that in Greek “born from above” and “born again” can be the same expression. Jesus says to Nicodemus “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is BORN FROM ABOVE”. Nicodemus understands the alternative meaning of the double entendre, that Jesus has meant “BORN AGAIN” by asking "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus then confirms his intended meaning to Nicodemus by repeating himself, “YOU MUST BE BORN FROM ABOVE”. <br />There are two points here. To my mind BORN FROM ABOVE, is a bit different from BORN AGAIN and Jesus is taking the time to emphasise this. Maybe you can go ahead and say that it is just semantics and it’s all the same and the born again experience is a requirement for salvation. <br />More subtle but very important is that the double entendre that confused Nicodemus (BORN AGAIN or BORN FROM ABOVE) only works in Greek. There is no way you can reconstruct this conversation in Aramaic or Hebrew, it doesn’t work. This conversation may not have happened or at least it didn’t happen the way John reports it unless Jesus and Nicodemus were speaking in Greek which seems unlikely. <br />I am afraid that the Evangelicals may be missing the point.Fredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17130125607109135131noreply@blogger.com