On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:52 PM, mart <media314159 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> you think jesus is not divine? beg to disagree. ever seen pink flamingos?
>
> .
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>