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 ...
It wasn’t the elders who marvelled, it was the crowd listening to the sermon on the mount (Matthew 7:29). They marvelled because Jesus was speaking new things (Mark 1:27) but with authority (ie the legal authority needed to teach in regulated places like the Temple.) However his teaching was ‘not as the Scribes’, who also taught with legal authority but never said anything ‘new’, because they handed on the past traditions, and that was what they valued (rather than ‘new’ things - rather like some of the posters here). Jesus was never dismissed by the authorities as uneducated or side-lined as irrelevant. They saw him as a very real threat. But they never can refute anything he taught. Why not? If he was not an ordained teacher that would have been the first thing they would have said in their defense. But they didn’t! So maybe Jesus was ordained.
One of the main points of the incarnation is that Jesus was fully man - he needed to pray, + also to study maybe? And eat? How does this undermine the deity of Christ? Or was he not ‘fully man’? What ‘old’ does Jesus being a Rabbi contradict? And who said a rabbi was an aristocrat? Or gave someone ‘majesty’? Jesus definitely had majesty, but it was concealed beneath human flesh. Rabbis were ordinary men with ordinary jobs. Like being a ‘tekton’. From which the word architect is derived. They also taught God’s word. Have you listed to the mp3 yet?
Thanks for the debate.
Sure, Jesus ‘did many things that the greatest human teacher or doctor could not do.’ But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t also the ‘greatest human teacher or doctor’ as well. The fact is a Sanhedrin government member addresses Jesus as Rabbi + Doctor. (John 3:2). This is early in Jesus’ public ministry. Nicodemus would not have given those titles to an uneducated itinerant. If Jesus was indeed a great Rabbi and Doctor as a human (rather than an uneducated person) it gives his rejection by the Jewish authorities (which is what Isaiah is prophesying) even greater significance. It would be logical for the teachers at the Temple who recognised Jesus’ brilliance to recruit him. If you read the Mishnah it taught that Rabbis could go public age 30. Is that a coincidence? Jesus was fully human as well as fully God. Thanks for the debate.
‘Common knowlege for some’ was referring to the guestroom / inn confusion (Luke 2:7) not Nazareth.
‘No room at the inn’ has gotten in to our vocab - but it is not what the Greek says. The inn in the parable of the Samaritan is ‘pandoceion’ meaning ‘a public house for the reception of strangers’ —Strong’s Greek & Hebrew Dictionary.
What is translated as ‘inn’ in Luke 2:7 is ‘guest-chamber’ as per Luke 22:11 (the last supper). If you had a family living somewhere would you go to a motel or to your dad’s home? Thanks for the debate.
Apologies, ‘courtesy’ title was referring to Palter’s (the eye-roller) post on 7 April. Edersheim is definite that ‘Rabbi’ was a legal title and that you couldn’t just go round teaching in the Temple with no legal authority - that seems to have been forgotten.
Thanks for the debate.
You were talking about Matt 13.52?
i had a look and found in Strong’s Dictionary
1) new
1a) as respects form
1a1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
1b) as respects substance
1b1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon,
unheard of
—Strong’s Greek & Hebrew Dictionary
the new things (of God) fulfill the old - its not a question of being ‘better’
regarding your Isaiah 53 passage, Jesus was despised and rejected- on the Cross- but we’re not told how he was related to in the so called ‘missing years’... its not rejecting Biblical inerrancy to try and look at the Gospel writers’ original intentions, after thousands of years of re-translation.
the question doesn’t seem to be whether Jesus was an aristocrat but whether he was taken seriously by the authorities or not. as one of their own he would have been, which is all the more reason why the Isaiah 53 passage is true.
“it is odd how so many people so close to the event were prepared to die for this ‘mythological’ idea...”
My recollection is that a large number of Jews died for their religion at Masada. Does this too strike you as odd? In the present day, we’ve seen thousands willing to die for al Qaeda. I don’t think one can draw any strong inferences about the validity any any religious beliefs based on observations about the willingness of individuals to die for a cause.
Without taking time to read your entire article, possibly we can summarize it by saying they take a "minimalist" approach to ancient historical evidence.
I don't.
I'm more inclined to accept as historically true whatever ancient sources have not been proved false.
This means I accept the Bible as historically valid -- not to say it is a complete history of that time or place, but that what it tells us happened, did happen, certainly in the minds of those who saw and remembered it.
The Bible tells us that Joseph did not father Jesus, but did accept him as a son. It does not say directly whether Joseph and/or Jesus were small town carpenters or big city builders and "architects".
The former has always been assumed, but I am sympathetic with the idea that, well, Jesus "knew too much" for a small-town boy. He is wise in matters of human nature, authoritative in speaking with large crowds -- where does one learn such things? And he refers to Herod Antipas as "that fox" -- sounds to me like Jesus knew Herod well.
So I think it likely that Joseph & Jesus had a closer connection to Herod's capital city of Sepphoris than has traditionally been recognized. However, I'd never assert this beyond what the evidence suggests, and at most, that is all the evidence does -- suggest.
Apologies accepted, brother. I love all who search and respect the Word.
History is about human perspectives.
This whole line of argument does not necessarily discount the divine nature of Christ, actually it can lead to a deeper appreciation of it.
You do not seem to have read the book or even heard the mp3, but are quick to judge.
A possible issue in your well-intended comments is that Jesus, instead of being fully God and fully man, becomes fully God and half man/ half superman. When Jesus’ actions were all God (eg the transfiguration), the gospel writers make it clear. Most of what he did was as a man who was also the Christ, and as a model for what we should be doing as men who are not the Christ but are Christ-ians - little Christs.
also Jesus continually used parables etc and spoke on 2 levels of meaning. I don’t see why it should be any different age 12.
On a different note I’m intrigued that you don’t spell out the Name of God- I thought that was just a Jewish thing?
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Palter. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Jesus was the Son of God.
In Classical Greek the word tekton means one who works with wood, a carpenter, a craftsman, a creator, a builder. It is a very general term. According to the New Testament Jesus was a tekton as his occupation. The word τέχνη (techni=art) whicb has come ot us in words like technology, technocrat, etc. In Modern Greek it (technikos) usually refers to masonry (mason means builder) In the Gospels, Jesus is called - tekton - the Greek word that means not merely a carpenter skilled in making cabinets or furniture but a designer, construction engineer, or architect.
Jesus could have been a stone worker. Even though the Greek does not explicitly state what kind of Tekton Jesus was, according to the Church's Universal Tradition until the 11th century (because the Church was One until 1054), Jesus was a carpenter.
In 33 BC or so a carpenter would have been one of the more affluent members of a small town, a middle class man, as it were, and the proprietor of a business. Carpentry was not rag-picking.
Yes, the Son of the Divine Architect was the Architect, and He is the Construction Adhesive (the Atomic “Glue”) that prevents it from flying apart until He speaks the word, when it will roll up like a scroll, and the elements shall burn—”Big Bang”—not at the Beginning, but at the End!
Yes, but - Isaiah could be describing Jesus after he was scourged and tortured by the Romans. Prior to that, we would expect Jesus to be perfect, which was required of a sacrifice to God.
And he spoke Japanese.
I've already got the merchandising rites and you'll be seeing him in Happy Meals any day now.
The Jewish Messiah was not required to be a Rabbi, nor was it ever implied he would be one...magritte
If he was a builder then his material was probably stone as wood was in short supply in the middle east. Carpenters would have been building doors and windows, and furnishings. Even today, 80% of the world population lives in stone built houses.
I read years ago that Jesus and Joseph were more likely stone masons than carpenters. Not a huge thing until you re-read the Gospels and see how many references to rocks and stones there are. Also simply as a result of the natural environment of the area, working in rock was probably a lot more common than working in wood.
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.