Vatican rules that appearances of Jesus in Normandy in the 1970s were not genuine in part because his predictions of the end of the world by the year 2000 didn't pan out lol

 

Vatican Finally Shuts Down French Town’s Decades-Long Jesus Claim

 ... The instruction also noted that the reported appearance of Jesus had said the world would end before the year 2000. “Clearly, this purported prophecy was not fulfilled,” it said.

Um . . . 

I am coming soon.

-- Revelation 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20 

The ringleader of unbelief in the resurrection is Peter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. 

-- Matthew 28:16f. 

The unique word for doubt here is used elsewhere in the NT only of Peter when walking on the water. Apparently doubt and Peter go together in Matthew's mind.

Immediately Jesus reached out with His hand and took hold of him, and said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"

-- Matthew 14:31

 

Peter does not figure in the resurrection narrative of Matthew, and only indirectly figures in Mark. In Luke Peter acts as an investigator of the empty tomb claim of the women, but comes away only with questions. He is also named as a recipient of a special appearance of Jesus, but this is so perfunctorily reported it is strange. A fuller account involving him is provided by John, which contrasts with the presentations of Matthew and Mark which refer to the persistent incredulity of the eleven summarily.

 

In John 21 the three core intimates of Jesus, Peter, and James and John the sons of Zebedee, go back to their old lives, despite seeing the resurrected Jesus in John 20 gladly. The impression is anti-climactic, to the extent that some see two competing and separate narrative endings to John in the accounts.

 

Doubting Thomas, privileged with a special appearance of Jesus in John 20, joins the three in John 21, as does Nathanael (of "in whom there is no guile" fame), and two others who are not named (probably Andrew is one, the brother of Peter and a partner with Peter in the fishing company, Zebedee and Sons).

 

That makes seven of eleven remaining disciples who do not go back to Jerusalem rejoicing as Luke would have it. They do not go into all the world making disciples after being clothed with power from on high. They go back to making a living in Galilee, about which Luke knows nothing. And it is Peter who leads them by example.

 

There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing. 

 

-- John 21:2f.   

It all flies in the face of the robust conception of belief and a changed life which the resurrection is supposed to have elicited from his closest followers. How we get from this sorry business in Galilee in John to what the disciples supposedly later do with their lives in Luke/Acts in Jerusalem remains a mystery.

The traditions about the resurrection in the gospels are deeply unsettled.

Imagine how unreliable "eyewitness" accounts from antiquity must be when normal vision not requiring correction is such a rarity anyway

 

 

 

Reported here: 

In 2016, approximately 76 percent of adults in the U.S. stated they wore some form of vision correction.  

Widespread use of eyeglasses is an outgrowth of their late invention, during the Italian Renaissance, with ubiquitous production with plastic lenses dating only from the 1980s. Before that, things looked, well, kind of grim for an overwhelming majority of people.

St. Paul, who probably had very bad eyes from birth, yet boasted that he had seen the Lord.

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 

-- 1 Corinthians 9:1

Paul's conversion, however, bespeaks a probably lifelong preoccupation with his poor eyesight. It specifically involves being blinded, and then scales falling from his eyes when he recovers his sight well enough to be considered normal again, and this again miraculously (Acts 9:8f., 18, 27).

But evidently this was not a full restoration of his sight.

According to Acts 23:1ff. Paul still could not spot the high priest in a crowd of people he was addressing. He says the Galatians would have given him their own eyes if they could have (Galatians 4:15), admitting that he is infirm (Galatians 4:13), and that he must write to them using "large letters" (Galatians 6:11). The Galatians knew the man and the truth about the man.

By the time he is dictating Romans, he is now older and his eyes have grown so bad that he requires an assistant to write the epistle. This person even makes an appearance at the end of it in order to explain why the penmanship doesn't match Paul's (I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord. -- Romans 16:22).

We are to believe Paul was granted a miracle of an appearance of Jesus, but not a complete healing.

Like so much else outside the miracles recounted in the Synoptic tradition performed by the historical Jesus, one cannot help but feel let down by these details involving the achievements of the risen Saviour.

And a post-conversion St. Paul who could not see well enough to recognize the high priest may reasonably be doubted to have been able to recognize Jesus pre-conversion, risen or otherwise.

Isn't that obvious from Paul's own testimony?

Who art thou, Lord? -- Acts 9:5

Who art thou, Lord? -- Acts 22:8

Who art thou, Lord? -- Acts 26:15

Appearances may be deceiving!

 

Take the picture of a man in the greenness and vivacity of his youth,

 

 

1978

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and in the latter date and declension of his drooping years,

 

2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and you will scarce know it to belong to the same person.

 

-- Robert South (1634-1716)

 

 

Luke strangely tells us all about an appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the two traveling to Emmaus, but nothing about one to Peter on the same day

No gospel at all bothers to tell us about this important appearance to Peter, which Paul puts at the head of his list (I Corinthians 15:3ff.) with the one to himself last.

Luke tells us Peter finds no body in the tomb on the first day of the week, but by the end of this same day Peter is matter of factly said to have had his own encounter with the risen Jesus distinct from an appearance to the eleven, which quickly follows in its turn, as does Jesus' ascension into heaven. There is no appearance to Mary at the tomb, and instead of an appearance in and ascension from Galilee as in Matthew Luke has all this in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

The compression of events by Luke is noteworthy for its similarity to the summary quality of the other accounts. It's almost as if there is a felt need of discomfort by all to get the story over with as quickly as possible. Perhaps because it's so uncertain? 

Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. ... And certain of them which were with us [the Emmaus travelers] went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. ... And they [the Emmaus travelers] rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, [who said], The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.

-- Luke 24:12, 24, 33-34

The supplied ending to Mark's gospel seems to cover all the bases of the resurrection appearances, but for one thing

Codex Vaticanus has Mark end with 16:8

It has an appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary Magdalene (16:9), an appearance to the two traveling, presumably on the road to Emmaus as in Luke (16:12), and to the eleven disciples who are all together at a meal (16:14), but it is completely lacking an appearance to the disciples and Peter in Galilee predicted by the angel in the first place!

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

-- Mark 16:7

The angel at the resurrection appearance to Mary in Matthew didn't get the Garden appearance memo

 

 

And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. ...

And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

-- Matthew 28:7, 9

Pope Francis call your office, Jesus believed in eternal punishment

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

-- Mark 9:43ff.

Want of figure, and a small estate

   

 To the world, no bugbear is so great,

As want of figure, and a small estate.

-- Alexander Pope

 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. 

 

-- I Samuel 16:7

O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever.

 

 -- Psalm 136:1, 23

A social Darwinist dangles a preposition in defense of materialism against feminism, with a dash of Freudianism thrown in

Some choice! Would you like the bullet in your head, madam, or in your heart?

Here:

[M]ediocrities never lack admirers among the Second Sex, who, having very little judgment, are naturally taken with the vulgar world’s appearances. Women are by nature very willing and eager status whores, although certainly this ugly truth is not something that any man wants to believe, least of all the conservative Christian, who is happy to make “a victim” out of a shameless whore-on-the-payroll like Holly Madison. In women the ordinary man is looking for a mother figure whom, however, he shall also sleep with. From a moral point of view, man has throughout his savage history been an essentially evil being. Shaped in response, woman finds that the proverbial “nice guy” is the last thing she craves. In the face of evil, woman thinks, “He is worthy.” “Nice guy,” in her subtle vocabulary, is code for wealth, and, God willing, a way to philistinism.

When there is no God to inform reality, your only choice is servitude to the distortions of full-throated ideologies.

Imaginary appearances

 

 

Imaginary appearances offer themselves

to our impatient minds,

which entertain these counterfeits,

without the least suspicion of their cozenage.

-- Joseph Glanvill (1636-1680)

Why did Jesus appear to go quietly to his death?

 

Jesus is reported to have said little at the trials which shortly preceded his execution.

This is often understood to mean that Jesus previously had resigned himself to the idea that it was God's will that he be crucified, but only after wrestling with God in prayer in the garden before his arrest, so that he did nothing to stand in the way of the inevitable once events had gotten underway in earnest. This "Stoical" demeanor later became an important part of early Christian preaching about Jesus' crucifixion, for example as reported in Acts, and became an important model for taking persecution with equanimity:

The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth.

 

-- Acts 8:32

This fact of Jesus' silence at his trials is well known from the Synoptics:

And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace.

 

-- Matthew 26:62f.

And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing.

 

-- Mark 14:60f.

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.

 

-- Matthew 27:11ff.

And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it. And the chief priests accused him of many things: but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.

 

-- Mark 15:2ff.

And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him. Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

 

-- Luke 23:8f.

But you would be hard pressed to find this silence in the Fourth Gospel.

In John, by contrast, Jesus is not at all silent but has quite a lot to say at his trial, as a reading of John 18 amply testifies. And there is no evidence of any personal struggle in prayer, either, in the Garden of Gethsemane preceding his arrest, but rather a bold, self-assured confrontation with his betrayer. The only evidence of silence from the whole episode is more of Jesus pausing for effect than refusing or being unable to speak:

And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.

 

-- John 19:9

But that too passes as Jesus shortly does give reply.

In comparison to the Synoptics John's account is almost surreal, as if there is lurking there a Jesus who could actually be thinking he's not going to die and that God is still going to intervene at the very last second. In the end all the human drama is wrung out of John's wooden account in the service of a comprehensive theology about a descending and ascending incarnate Logos. 

But if it may be doubted that John is writing history, reasons remain to doubt the Stoical model susceptible from the Synoptic accounts as well.

For one thing, from the accounts of the struggle in prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane one cannot conclude there was any succor such that Jesus was now prepared to go quietly to his fate. The closest thing we get to that is in Luke 22:43, where we are told an angel appeared from heaven to strengthen Jesus. (Who was awake to see this?) But immediately after that Jesus is back on his knees praying again, in worse shape than before, sweating blood.

For another, Matthew 26 and Mark 14 omit the appearance of any angel, but the ongoing anxiety despite prayer is palpable in both accounts in that Jesus repeats his prayer three times asking that "this cup pass". While Luke has Jesus engaged in supplication only twice, all three include some form of the petition "not my will but thine be done", as if Jesus is still dwelling on what he wants to be the reality, but still is not.

Furthermore, the psychological terminology used in these accounts in the Garden is striking but is rarely allowed to paint a picture of the depressed state of mind into which Jesus is descending.

And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful (λυπεῖσθαι) and very heavy (ἀδημονεῖν).

 

-- Matthew 26:37

The terms signify grief leading to tears, and a feeling of being lost and totally out of place (the KJV translation shown leaves quite a lot to be desired).

Mark says he was struck with terror, and felt lost:

And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed (ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι), and to be very heavy (ἀδημονεῖν).

 

-- Mark 14:33

As if those terms weren't enough, both Matthew and Mark pile up worse ones in the immediately following verses. Jesus is "beyond sorrowful", so sad he could die.

Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Περίλυπός), even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

 

-- Matthew 26:38

And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful (Περίλυπός) unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. 

 

-- Mark 14:34

And Luke piles on that he was in utter agony, a terrible struggle with himself.

And being in an agony (ἐν ἀγωνίᾳ) he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

 

-- Luke 22:44

What we have here is a man falling into a major depression, full of fears, feeling as if lost in unfamiliar country, isolated and alone, suddenly driven to repetitious behavior, perhaps seeing things, and speaking of dying.

It's a short step to catatonic stupor, in which you say nothing and become so rigid you just stand there and take it.

Calling J. Gresham Machen a forgotten libertarian is as unhelpful as calling Jesus a socialist

In a short essay entitled "Rendering Unto Caesar: Was Jesus a Socialist?" which the author rather embarrassingly calls "epic", Lawrence W. Reed never quite gets it that the idea of socialism is a phenomenon of the modern age which didn't present itself to the minds of pre-modern men and that those like Gorbachev who paste the term on figures of the past are doing more to obscure their thoughts than to elucidate them. Regrettably Reed goes on to commit the same error himself.

Socialism is an intellectual category which only lately in history arose in reaction to the appearance of industrial capitalism in the Enlightenment West. To paint Jesus with the hues of this corner of time completely ignores his own time and its conditions in which as a prophet he preached the imminent coming of the kingdom of God in unique historical circumstances. But it will hardly do to also make Jesus a defender of capitalism, which couldn't be more anachronistic. A good student of Jesus' teaching would not miss, as Reed does, that personal poverty and distribution of assets to the poor was a condition of discipleship according to the Synoptic tradition. Jesus believed this precisely because it represented repentance to him, without which one would not survive the end of the world and God's judgment which were fast and certainly approaching.

Of course this underscores a major difference with St. Paul, whose thought was a preoccupation of the New Testament scholar John Gresham Machen, the subject of the recent essay by Reed entitled "God’s Forgotten Libertarian". If repentance required various acts of renunciation of the world to Jesus, to Paul it above all required belief in the lordship of Christ, whom Paul believed was still soon to return in judgment.

The irony of Reed's title is that like socialism, libertarianism is also a late product of the modern age, precisely from the clutches of which Machen sought his whole life to rescue thinking about Paul, especially in The Origins of Paul's Religion (1921).

It's difficult to imagine a better way to misrepresent Machen.

And Paul.

Libertarian Christianity would have been an utter contradiction in terms to the apostle to the Gentiles for the simple reason that there could never be any notion of personal autonomy in Christianity, as if one could give oneself one's own law to live by apart from the law of Christ, or could live in blissful isolation without being a member of the body of Christ or without a duty to the rest of humankind, or could actually own oneself. These are all core notions of libertarian individualism which are at war with basic Pauline ideas:

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

 

-- 1 Corinthians 6:19f.

Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price . . ..

 

-- 1 Corinthians 7:22f.

Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.

 

-- 1 Corinthians 10:24

Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

 

-- 1 Corinthians 10:33

[Charity] . . . seeketh not her own . . ..

 

--1 Corinthians 13:5

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

-- 2 Corinthians 13:5

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

 

-- Galatians 2:20

Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

 

-- Galatians 6:2

So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

 

-- Romans 12:5

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

 

-- Philippians 2:4

Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.

 

-- Philippians 4:11f.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves . . ..

 

-- 2 Timothy 3:1ff.


Christianity may have become many things, but what it most certainly is not in its origins is a materialist philosophy. Those who say otherwise like Reed unfortunately know not whereof they speak. 

NT Wright settles for remnant theology to resolve the conflict between kingdom and cross

Here, imagining that God's kingdom is really present in a new form because of the cross even though the concept of final judgment and a transformed world, so prominent in the mouth of the Jesus of the Gospels whom he seeks to recover, rescue and defend, makes narry an appearance. You will find neither the term "judgment" nor the concept once in the essay.

"Kingdom and cross are woven tightly together in some of the very texts which the gospel writers themselves highlight in their interpretation of the story of Jesus. There are of course many, many more, all of which point to the following conclusion. When we see the story of Jesus as the climax of the story of Israel, we should not be surprised to discover that the suffering of Israel, and of Israel's supreme representative, is to be understood in terms of the longer and larger purposes of Israel's God - in other words, the establishment of his worldwide healing sovereignty. Conversely, we should not be surprised to discover that when this God finally claims the nations as his own possession, rescuing them from their evil ways, the means by which he does it is through the suffering of his people - or, as in the story the gospels themselves are telling, the suffering of his people's official, divinely appointed representative."

If that's the best he's got, the greatest living New Testament scholar is nothing but a tired trimmer for whom passages such as "many are called but few are chosen" must be roughly resolved into the single personality of the Messiah who suffers the judgment in the stead of everyone else, an allegorical interpretation designed to escape the difficulty of the plain meaning of the many warning sayings and calls to repentance of the Gospels, not a serious attempt at interpretation. I heard it in preparation for Lutheran seminary already in the early 1970s. 

NT Wright remains NT Wrong, a creature of orthodoxy first and foremost.

Even The Resurrected Jesus Of John's Gospel Speaks Of Himself In Subordinationist Terms

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

-- John 20:17

And while we're at it, did Jesus ascend between this appearance and eight days later, when Thomas is positively encouraged to touch him, as Mary is not?

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

-- John 20:26f.

If so, then there are two ascensions, as some teach, or perhaps more accurately, multiple ascensions.

Phil Jenkins says some silly things about the Gospel of Mark

Here:

It’s obvious to assume that Mark, a skilled and thoughtful writer, did not mean to end the book thus, and that an original ending has been lost. But that is where the story gets puzzling. If we assume the standard theory of the composition of the gospels, then Mark wrote about 70. Perhaps a quarter century afterwards, his book was used by both Matthew and Luke, who incorporated virtually his whole text, and it is clear that neither author knew any other or fuller ending. If an ending was lost, it vanished very early indeed, if it was ever written. At least by the second century, various editors added their own conclusions to satisfy what they felt to be the gaping hole at the end of Mark, and one survives in the KJV as Mark 16.8-20. ...

If it really was meant to end at 16:8, Mark may be the greatest anti-Christian, anti-Jesus movement, tract ever written. It could scarcely have been so highly regarded as it was, still less accepted as the basis of other traditions. ...

It’s very likely indeed that the next scene would have been something very much like John 21, with a Resurrection appearance (a) to Peter (b) in Galilee. If the ending of Mark’s gospel actually did exist and then was lost, this is presumably just what it would have looked like. (Rudolf Bultmann was one famous scholar who argued this).

-------------------------------

First of all, Mark is not a "skilled" writer. His Greek is everywhere clumsy, as John C. Meagher noted long ago, may he rest in peace. The almost laughable uses of kai, euthus, and gar represent just three examples well known to students of Mark's style, if it can be dignified as style. Mark has some facility with Greek as a second language, and evidently is using it to communicate to a special audience of similarly situated individuals, perhaps in Rome.

Matthew and Luke "incorporated virtually his whole text", but not in the verbatim manner this suggests. Those authors frequently change details of Mark's content, and improve upon his Greek significantly. This means they are correcting Mark as much as they are using him.

The absence of a proper ending which then fails to show up in Matthew and Luke indeed shows the early absence of the ending, but it is also another reason why Matthew and Luke felt the need to write their own compositions. They believed Mark to be inadequate, and inadequate on a number of levels. Luke especially shares this attitude about the inadequacy of the previous accounts with which he is familiar, and presumably "John" would not have written his account subsequent to the Synoptics if he thought they were adequate, else he had not departed from them so radically.

The use of Mark as architecture for composition by Matthew and Luke pays respect to Mark, it is granted, but was Mark really "so highly regarded"? The dearth of early manuscript evidence for Mark speaks against it. A highly regarded gospel would be copied more often from the beginning, and more copies would survive from that time than do.

Finally, the suggestion that what we have at the end of John, as hinted at by the Gospel of Peter, constitutes what is missing from Mark is plausible. However, students of the Fourth Gospel know that John is not a unity either. The prologue, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the final chapter all look like additions, which means that the narrative ending we are looking for in Mark has its basis only in material which is itself mainly the phenomenon of later editorial activity, some of which was not canonized. Not firm ground to stand on.

Bart Ehrman Is Mistaken To Think Jesus Thought The Son Of Man Was Someone Other Than Himself

Here is Bart Ehrman most recently on this subject:

And [Jesus] talked about someone else, rather than himself, as the coming Son of Man. ... His message is about the coming kingdom to be brought by the Son of Man. He always keeps himself out of it. ... I have already argued that he did not consider himself to be the Son of Man, and so he did not consider himself to be the heavenly angelic being who would be the judge of the earth. 

Against this Mark 2:10f is plain enough:

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

Of course, Ehrman evidently discounts the authenticity of this and similar sayings on the grounds of their character as miracle stories, but as Albert Schweitzer taught us long ago, the thorough-going eschatological interpretation means that we can accept the presentations of both Matthew and Mark pretty much as they are without doing serious violence to them.

 

Of course, there are other self-referential examples which are not miracle stories.

 

And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. 

 

-- Luke 9:57f.

To be clear, Ehrman is right to stress that it was God who would initiate the events of the heavenly appearance of the Son of Man to execute judgment on the world, not Jesus. Indeed, Jesus is completely passive in this regard throughout the Gospels (which incidentally completely nullifies the zealot hypothesis), and even right up to the bitter end, only giving up it seems on the cross: "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46/Mark 15:34). The problem of how Jesus still imagined himself in this role of Son of Man even as he tells the high priest at his trial that the high priest would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds remains nearly insoluble, not to mention that the subsequent Johannine interpretation and the presentation of the exalted Jesus in Acts performing the comparatively most trivial, even superstitious, divine interventions completely reject it. But the value of Schweitzer's original conceptualization is that Jesus thought this way at several points during his ministry but remained undeterred by events which showed him that he was mistaken, especially early on in Matthew 10 when he thought the end would come before the disciples had finished going throughout Israel on their mission trip (an expectation by the way which is completely incompatible with a suffering servant of the later passion narrative and for that reason absolutely remarkable for its survival as witness to Jesus' original self-conception). And then it seems Jesus expected it again on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, only to be disappointed again, and then in the Garden of Gethsemane when he boasts that he could call down the heavenly legions, and then finally at his trial. But in all instances Jesus holds himself back as it were, dare we say it, the way only a crazed fanatic does when faced with the immediate improbability of his own false expectation.

There is more than a hint of mental illness in all of this, which many people suffering from bipolar disorder will instantly recognize. And we can see Jesus' progeny in the many end-time enthusiasts of our own time, whose message often attracts a certain sort of personality.

It is not meant as an insult to someone worshipped as a god, nor to his worshippers.

Desperate times produce extremes of their own, for which we should above all show compassionate understanding. 

Is Missionary Self-Defense Taught By Jesus?

Is missionary self-defense taught by Jesus? The short answer is, No.

But Robert Gundry seems to think so, here, in criticism of the Zealot hypothesis revived by Reza Aslan:

Though Jesus wasn't "a violent revolutionary bent on armed rebellion," he "instructs his disciples immediately after the Passover meal" to go sell their cloaks and each buy a sword, as for a violent revolution. So says Aslan, but he fails to mention the context of an evangelistic mission requiring not only a sword for self-protection but also a purse, bag, and sandals for travel, just as he fails to mention that Jesus' bringing a sword has to do, figuratively and contextually, with division in families over whether to follow Jesus, not with revolution against Rome (compare Jesus' saying in the different context of violence that "all who take the sword will perish by the sword"). Undoubtedly Jesus was crucified as "The King of the Jews"—i.e., as a messianic rebel—but Aslan has to doubt or deny that the Sanhedrin shifted from the religious charge of blasphemy, under which they condemned Jesus, to a false political charge of sedition when arraigning him before Pilate [emphasis added].

The key evidence is in Luke 22.33-38:

And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

The first thing to be said about this is that if Reza Aslan has to doubt or deny a shift in charges by the Sanhedrin, Gundry has to believe and assert a shift in context to the evangelistic in this passage which is plainly absent.

To be sure, Luke here makes Jesus allude to Luke 9.3:

And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

But now Luke makes Jesus reverse this command in the new context, and what's new about it is that Jesus plainly anticipates there will be a threat to the safety of the disciples, who like Peter will deny him and run away. Jesus isn't anticipating some new missionary activity for the disciples. He's imagining their scattering, and so their vulnerability, sheep without their shepherd.

If I were going to be mean, I'd call Jesus a situation ethicist on Gundry's reading. But Gundry's idea of new missionary activity is clearly by analogy from the previous instruction, not in evidence in the new instruction itself. At least on Luke's presentation of Jesus' words, the new situation might logically require carrying weapons, but to imagine a missionary reference at this point in the narrative looks strained, to say the least. And why weren't weapons needed before? Won't God continue to protect his own now without them? Faith as the grain of a mustard seed.

The problem is that Luke's overall presentation of the arrest of Jesus looks fanciful and muddled, quite apart from this reversal in the mouth of Jesus. It's almost as if Luke is trying to harmonize the unharmonizable. And this passage about swords seems to be representative of that.

For example, in 22:24 the whole question of who would be the greatest among the disciples intrudes unnaturally in the narrative, after Jesus' prediction of his betrayal by one of his very followers at the Passover meal, as if to suggest the disciples are a bunch of narcissists at the hour of Jesus' greatest need. And hadn't Luke brought up this argument going on amongst the disciples way back in chapter 9 already? Why bring it up again? Matthew by contrast knows nothing of this controversy popping up at the Lord's Supper.

Then in 22:43 an angel appears to Jesus to strengthen him at the Mount of Olives, but since the disciples are all asleep as this occurs, who is there to observe this, that Luke might know of it, hm?  Did a little birdie tell him? Matthew does not know of it, even though he claims to know about many appearances of angels otherwise, including to Jesus' father, Joseph.

Additionally, what sense does it make that one of the disciples took off an opponent's ear with a sword and didn't get arrested for it on the spot with Jesus, if Jesus is perceived by his opponents to be an insurrectionist King of the Jews on the Zealot hypothesis? Arrest the ring leader, along with his armed followers, right? In Matthew at least, where there is no new talk of acquiring weapons for such a situation, Jesus rebukes the resort to weapons forthrightly, and the offending disciples escape, as they do also in John but not without a second divine sign in addition to the healing the ear that was cut off.

And, of course, in the past missionary activity the disciples have had to eschew self-defense instruments such as staves according to Luke's own account, but now suddenly they already are seen to be in possession of swords! "Oh look, here's two", they say now, like Jesus didn't know they've had them all along.

Is that narrative to be believed while at the same time Jesus expresses indignation at his opponents for coming for him by night with weapons? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black on Luke's reading? Neither Matthew, Mark nor John (!) make Jesus look quite so foolish, allowing weapons for us, but not for you.

There's something funny going on in the tradition about all of this, which may be illuminated by examining all the passages in the gospels mentioning swords and staves, where you will find not the slightest hint of approval for carrying weapons of any kind, except perhaps in two places.

In Matthew 10:34 we have this:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Yet the explanation following this makes it clear, as Gundry points out, that this is a metaphorical sword, one meant to explain repentance in the most radical terms as that which divides the follower of Jesus even from normal human relationships, as the case may require, just as a real sword would:

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

That leaves us with Mark 6:8 only, which isn't even about a sword, but only about a staff, truly more of a defensive weapon than is a sword, which is an offensive one:

And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse.

Mark, unfortunately, is not supported in this reading by Matthew nor by Luke, who both correct Mark and say Jesus commanded them to take not even that. Interestingly, when Luke's Jesus refers to this in chapter 22 (cited above), however, he merely summarizes what he had made explicit in chapter 9, glossing over the staves entirely, which he had earlier specifically prohibited. Luke is making Jesus look rather fast and loose with the facts here.

Was that intentional on Luke's part? I think so. Luke is writing from a later period, coping with the new reality of the kingdom's coming having been already long delayed. He is at pains to rationalize the Christian's continued existence in an increasingly dangerous world, and finds the earliest tradition about the imminently coming kingdom and its ethic of no possessions, not even weapons, difficult to reconcile with reality. The remarkable thing about that is how he knows that tradition and records it in the starkest possible terms (14:33), which no one else does (So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple). It's almost like it bothers him. And, of course, Mark's unique saying about keeping a defensive weapon would be in keeping with Luke's point of view because, like Luke, Mark is associated with the later, Pauline perspective, which has already rationalized to some extent the failure of the parousia.

It is fashionable to ridicule Luke the historian as anything but an historian for reasons such as this. On the contrary I would say that his realism about the on-going perils of human existence in the face of a delayed parousia mark him as a reliable recorder of the transition from failed apocalyptic faith to the phoenix of catholic faith.

But it will not do for us to sweep aside the Jesus who thoroughly disavowed the role of human agency in ushering in the reign of God and who believed to the bitter end that God himself would bring it to save the faithful few who repented and were waiting for it. Nor can we sweep aside Jesus' expectation of this imminently coming kingdom for one rationalized as delayed indefinitely in order to save the many who would be able also to repent and believe.

Both views trim the sorry evidence.

Peter Berger Misunderstands Interim Ethics

 

Peter Berger, writing in The American Interest, here:

The British writer Ferdinand Mount described the Sermon of the Mount as perhaps the greatest sermon ever, but that it was written for bachelors—that is, for individuals with no responsibility for the future. Probably Jesus’ message about the Kingdom of God was apocalyptic—a message about a radical shift in the nature of reality (which means that Paul was not far off). We know that many of his followers, and perhaps Jesus himself, expected that the apocalyptic event would happen in their own lifetime. Thus, as some scholars have put it, the moral teachings of Jesus (and possibly Paul’s as well) were an “interim ethic”—how to live in the short time before the coming of the Kingdom. If you expect the world to end next week, you won’t bother to change the oil, though you still want the windshield wipers to work. In that interpretation, the Sermon on the Mount was meant to describe the world after the coming of the Kingdom (though some of Jesus’ followers may want to anticipate this blessed condition in their present lives). Be this as it may, it is very doubtful indeed that Jesus intended these teachings to be a behavioral code for the next two millennia. In any case, any society larger than an Amish village would not survive for very long if it tried to live by such a code.

This is good as far as it goes, and God knows we don't read enough people talking about these issues, but it does seem to miss two things.

One, the Sermon on the Mount isn't just for bachelors. It's also for spinsters.

Apocalyptic ethics overthrow all human conventions because true repentance is impossible without them. There are no more husbands, fathers, wives, mothers and children per se in the kingdom of God, which is coming suddenly with the appearance of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven. There is no time for funerals, for working at a job, for building bigger barns in your retirement to hold all your increase. "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Mark 3:34f.).

Two, the world after the coming of the kingdom is not really describable because it is transformed by divine action.

What is remarkable about it is how few, however, take seriously what this means in terms of justice in the teaching of Jesus. The assumption is usually that there are many human players left in a too-worldly kingdom of God populated by shiny happy people who have received the grace of God, whereas Jesus is at pains to describe God's coming judgment in which evil and evil-doers are swept away. The angels first come at the harvest not to rapture the few into the air to ever be with the Lord, but to gather the many tares and hurl them into the fire. As interim ethics, Jesus' teaching is survival ethics, and temporary because terrestrial, designed to help his hearers escape the wrath that is coming. Beyond that, the future is not really ours to see.

Perhaps more than anything else, it is the failure of this vision to materialize historically which has been lurking in the background in the mind of modernity and fueling the conviction that God is dead. 

The Absence of the Presence

If the experience of the divine presence can be as underwhelming in charismatic circles as it has been in sacramental Christianity, it is at least as equally elusive in what we may unhappily call "mystical" Christianity where a "personal relationship" with Christ is the emphasis.

Hard and fast borderlines between these forms do not exist universally, of course, and some mixture of these may be observed, depending on peculiar historical developments dominant in the experience of the individual congregation, especially since the 1970's when a great deal of interpenetration of ideas has occurred. For those sitting in the place of the unlearned, the sacramental churches may be represented as the far right of the spectrum, its mystical side is on the left but perhaps more to the center with the tongue talkers way out in left field. These last speak of being filled with the Holy Spirit in something called the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and so emphasize a direct and personal experience with the Godhead, and of a dramatic sort. Those to the center often claim to have a profound experience of conversion, but without the dramatic signs. Altar calls, emotional personal testimonies, and public dunkings are more their style. The most bizarre of the pentecostal types include those, I kid you not, who now even claim that God has actually restored missing teeth, in gold no less, and will do the same for you. Snake handling is oh so yesterday, while there is no question of the blind seeing and the deaf hearing. Hope springs eternal for the one who so believes: "the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father" (John 14:12).

The stodgy right wingers of the sacramental ilk or their rationalist brothers will sometimes glory in the fact of having no religious experience at all, and feel no regret about it either, which is why the authority and inspiration of Scripture is so important to them, for without that there would be nothing else. Among Lutherans of this type the old theological insight, simul justus et peccator, sums up human experience in Christ in formal, legal terms from God's perspective. The best analogy is the courtroom where the verdict of the jury and the sentence of the judge do not transform the essence of the person on trial. The person who goes free and the one who goes to jail differ in no wise from one another, except that the one knows this while the other does not. Technically freed from the consequences of sin, until the flesh is transformed in the resurrection the former is stuck with its baneful influences as much as is the latter. So he makes the best of it until then. It's schizophrenia only in the formal sense. Justification is forensic, but its temporal application requires other work outs first. Any kind of Christianity other than that, they will tell you, is madness in fact. That way lies manic depression at worst, fanaticism at best. No good can come of it. Mother Teresa, for all we know, now that her true feelings have seen the light of day, went to her grave in anguish over the absence of the divine presence in her experience. In public, she kept up appearances, as they say.

Mystical Christianity is all about human transformation, and it is no coincidence that its contemporary forms are heavily influenced by concerns, conceptions and terminology derived from the so-called science of psychology more than they are from the historic Christian faith. Ours is, after all, an age of enormous narcissism, a(n inevitable?) by-product of the success of the West. It is primarily a phenomenon of the twentieth century which has co-opted the first, and it comes as quite a surprise to its simpler devotees to learn that their hero, Saul of Tarsus, was an unwilling convert to Christianity who did not wring his hands in anguish over his sins when he "accepted" Christ on the road to Damascus. The Emperor Constantine was not brought to Christ in a fit of existential anguish about his failed life, substance abuse, and hurt feelings in his family but by a vision of the cross on the battlefield of war, if the sources are to be believed.

The stories of our converts are sniveling by comparison, and effeminate. We are constantly regaled with stories of slavery to drugs, alcohol, political power, sex and tobacco, none of which they were capable of overcoming without the help of Christ. When this was still a sane society, people told you to stop doing bad things because they thought God had so equipped human beings to stand on their own two feet. Not any more. The citizens of this country give the impression that they couldn't stop drinking for twenty-four hours let alone declare their independence from inside the confines of a paper bag, quite apart from the King of England.

It is not fair to single out the Christians for their bad behavior as if the same in non-believers is not also bad. It's just that their pretensions to transformation simply do not stand the tests of investigation. When no one else is awake early on Sunday mornings, they are out there on the highways in their freshly washed cars, as many of them speeding to church as the general population to work on a Monday morning. A Christian couldn't possibly pad a bill, especially if he's also your relative. We can't really treat you like one for whom Christ died unless you join our church. In fact, we don't really want to know you unless you do.

From where I sit, Christian or not, whether it's got tits or testicles, it's going to cause you trouble.