.
8/9/09, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Creationist theme park seized by IRS
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 1:35 PM
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Shane
> Mage <shmage at pipeline.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 8, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> and the [Israelite] king was the son of god. is my
> point.
> >>
> >
> > So what is then the difference between Jesus and
> David, Rehoboam, Athaliah,
> > Josiah et. al. (other than that they were real royalty
> and he was a failed
> > pretender to the Davidic throne)? What makes
> him "bigger" than a Solomon?
> >
> >
> i think we're miscommunicating, and this is probably
> because i'm not being
> clear.
>
> my point, i thought, is a small one: that the gospels in
> general, but
> certainly mark and to a large extent john (the two lacking
> a genealogy,
> btw), have it that jesus is actually *not* the son of
> god/king/messiah in
> this traditional sense, but that everyone misunderstands
> him as claiming to
> be king in this traditional sense. this misunderstanding is
> arguably *the*
> central theme of mark. i admit i find this theme probably
> more fascinating
> than most.
>
> paul doesn't use the misunderstanding trope anywhere that i
> can think of off
> the top of my head, but he also certainly does understand
> jesus as being son
> of god not merely "according to the flesh from david" but
> also "according to
> the spirit."
>
> i'm not claiming that jesus was divine in any sense at all.
> or that he was a
> king. i am only saying that people early in the tradition,
> and quite
> possibly jesus himself, understood jesus to be more or
> other than a davidic
> king. certainly the way mark plays the theme lends itself
> to the idea that
> "mark" made this part up after the fact. but i have to say
> that in my own
> work on the gospels i've often wondered if jesus didn't
> think something more
> of himself, too.
>
> in the end, i think that's all i was really saying here:
> that maybe jesus
> *was* that crazy. maybe he really *did* believe it. the
> opportunistic
> followers trope has a certain appeal (and is played
> brilliantly in "the life
> of brian," for example), but i'm not sure it's that much
> more compelling a
> historical analysis of what jesus himself actually
> thought.
>
> not that anyone else is interested at this point . . .
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Shane Mage
> >
> > This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but
> it
> >> always was and is and shall be: an everlasting
> fire,
> >> kindling in measures and going out in measures."
> >>
> >> Herakleitos of Ephesos
> >>
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>