Posted on 04/07/2010 7:19:43 AM PDT by Palter
Jesus was the son of a middle-class, highly educated architect, according to a new book, which claims the previous belief that Joseph worked as a carpenter has distorted the Bible's meaning.
The book- The Jesus Discovery- claims that Jesus rose to become the most senior Rabbi of his time, thus explaining how he was able to exert such influence and why his teachings became such a concern to the authorities.
Author Dr Adam Bradford, who works as a GP, drew his conclusions after studying and comparing the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures, as well as using human psychology to analyse the behaviour towards Jesus as depicted in the Bible.
Biblical scholar Dr Bradford said: "Jesus's high ranking position as a Jew seems to have been written out of history but in fact it makes more sense of the Bible.
'If Jesus was the son of a poor itinerant carpenter with some radical ideas nobody would have been that concerned about what he said.
'But, because Jesus was trained up to become the most educated Jew of his time it gave him the chance to exert extraordinary influence and let him get away with acts that normal Jews would have been imprisoned or chastised for.
'For example, when Jesus turned the money changers out of the temple there is no mention in the Bible of the police guards getting involved or there being a backlash. The money changers were an essential part of gaining revenue for the Temple so if Jesus was an ordinary Jew he would have been arrested or physically attacked.
'Christ enjoyed social privileges that would not have been available to an uneducated itinerant carpenter.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Actually since the gospels are about human beings interacting that might be a way to help understand what was going on.
John 7 describes 2 crowd reactions to Jesus - that one was from people who had never heard him before + didn’t know about the plot to kill him - check it out. They go on to call him demonised - do you take that at face value too?
Nicodemus calls him Rabbi in Jn3 - since he was a sanhedrin member, he would seem a reliable witness...
Isaiah is describing his appearance, not his intellect. Jesus was clearly a genius, even at age 12. Yes he carried our sin + sorrow; he was also called Rabbi by people who knew about it such as Nicodemus - this is not a ‘courtesy title’.
He was not attacked when he cleared the official temple market. Why not?
Check the academic reference here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7547540/Jesus-was-son-of-an-architect-book-claims.html
Do you know more than Dr Whitter?
What role did Jesus the man have then?
Did he have to pray - Yes.
Did he have to study? Same story, he was a Jewish man, the Christ, not an extra-terrestrial superman. That is what the incarnation is all about.
Same place any other very bright Jewish boy went.
Rabbinic school.
Guess that’s why Nicodemus called him Rabbi?
If you listen to the lecture at the templehouse site you will find this is based partly on Josephus.
The temple guard was a squad of priests. The priests benefitted from the market. So what were they doing?
Maybe Jesus had the legal right to do what he did, not just a moral right.
What part of the old does an educated Jesus contradict?
Are you saying he wasn’t a genius?
And that he wasn’t a genius at 12?
And that the teachers didn’t recognise it?
And that they wouldn’t have wanted him in their schools?
And that Mary + Joseph wouldn’t have wanted that?
So why did a Sanhedrin member call him Rabbi + Doctor?
For fun? Why did every section of Jewish society call him Doctor? Just all being polite? Even his enemies??
John 7:15 is quoting the crowd of visitors who are hearing him for the first time. Like the rest, they are astonished. They say he is ‘learned’ without having ‘studied’ = ‘discipled’. They go on to call him demonised! Do you accept that too? If not, why accept the other at face value?
They were reacting in astonishment to someone who was, very unusually, not teaching in the manner of a disciple, which was unheard of.
Scholars differ on the Hebrew spelling of Nazareth, hence the confusion. In any event, Joseph was a tekton, + would not have been restricted to working in Nazareth only. If you listen to the lecture, you will learn of the connection with Josephus and the main source of ‘tekton’ work during Joseph’s lifetime.
“So here’s my conclusion: if Joseph and/or Jesus were larger scale builders or “architects,” then they worked not in Nazareth, but next door, in Sepphoris.”
I’d buy that. The original poster claimed Nazareth was “not a podunk village.” Your response “Of course Nazareth was a small village” is more in keeping with my understanding about the size of the town. I didn’t know Sepphoris was only 3 miles away. So perhaps Joseph was an architect who commuted there. But as others have noted, placing Jesus in an upper middle-class family somewhat undercuts the biblical depiction of him.
And as long as we’re focused on evidence, I’m curious what you think about the evidence regarding whether a “historical Jesus” even existed, much less was fathered by Joseph: http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm
“If you listen to the lecture, you will learn of the connection with Josephus and the main source of ‘tekton’ work during Joseph’s lifetime.”
OK, and if you read this, you might have doubts about whether Josephus ever actually mentions Jesus Christ:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm
He was not trained by men. He is after all the Word of God.
They called him Rabbi because he was one who spoke with authority. "And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes." Mark 1:22
My post in no way questioned the intellect of the Son of God.
Rather, it was a comment on his line of work and his chosen socio-economic status, as described in scripture.
Moreover, I can’t imagine where you get the idea that anyone who knows scripture would think that Rabbi was a “courtesy title.”
Either you misread, or perhaps you were posting to someone else.
John routinely used “the Jews” to refer to the leaders of the Jews, as distinct from the multitudes or the crowds of ordinary people. Cf. “for fear of the Jews,” which meant the authorities. (See the note in the NIV Study Bible at John 7:15. Scholars generally concur that Jesus did not have formal rabbinical training as did Paul.) Concerning my use of the term “courtesy,” I was saying that they used “Rabbi” as a term for one who had earned the right to be called that by his inherent qualities rather than by having formal credentials.
John uses the term ‘The Jews’ in more that one way - the authorities, the ordinary residents of Jerusalem, and the pilgrim visitors. Jn 7:15 = the crowd of Jn 7:20, who say he is demonised. No one builds a doctrine on that. What evidence is there for an absence of formal education other than Jn 7:15 (who also say he is demonised)? Why would the son of devout Jewish parents lack education? When Jesus is described as teaching ‘with authority’, ‘exousia’ here also means legal authority or jurisdiction. Otherwise how could he teach in the Temple? Thanks for the debate!
I read the humanist paper + it says nothing new. Basically tries to rubbish all first century references to Christ with generalisations + ignores figures like Justin Martyr. Speaking of whom it is odd how so many people so close to the event were prepared to die for this ‘mythological’ idea...
My comment on Josephus was not the two (obviously disputed, why wouldn’t they be) references to Christ, but rather the references to Herod the Great - or is he another myth?
Try reading ‘Evidence that demands a verdict’, or ‘More than a carpenter’, by J McDowell.
Thanks for the debate.
Here’s another angle.
‘Authority’ here also denotes legal authority.
But the Scribes had legal authority.
So suppose the remark is meaning that ‘not as the Scribes’ refers to the content (ie ‘new’ Mark 1:27), rather than the authority. Then the comparison is not with legal authority to teach, but with the message itself.
Thanks for the debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.