my thoughts on the real jesus

so, all my life i have never thought of Jesus as anything but real. as real as Plato, Caesar, Shakespeare or Beethoven. although i never heard about them in my world, i know they existed in the past and i believe the same with Jesus. I experience Jesus in my life and know the difference he makes changes me and encourages me to do better. He is real to me. So this idea of a historical Jesus that contradicts that which is found in the traditional gospels seems a non-issue to me. i don't worry about it either way. I at least appreciate the fact that they acknowledge his existence and do not just blow him off.
What i wonder about most is why they (the scholars in the Jesus Seminar) put themselves through such struggle in trying to find the "real" Jesus. is faith not enough? the Pauline texts encourage us to have faith and trust in Christ and let that be enough! if one denies the Jesus that has been followed for nearly 2 thousand years in search of a different person, one misses the point. I love how johnson pointed out that those NT professors who were in the Jesus Seminar ended up unable to do their task as a professor due to their concern over finding the real Jesus. my solution is just to have faith in the Jesus that brings change. real, genuine change for the better. that is all.

son of a father

i find the name of barabbas interesting. in fact, i find the whole scene interesting. we look at barabbas as nasty and deserving of murder and wonder why the crowd wanted him released instead of Jesus. we have to remember that the crowd was only trying to please the roman government and show them they were not rebellious and following this "king of the Jews". not only that, but its quite possible that barabbas was a "robin hood" type, stealing from the romans and giving to the poor. whatever the case, Pilate's decision was based on what they wanted! what irony in this situation! we find irony even in the name of barabbas, simply meaning "son of a father". while one son of a father is being realeased, the other, the Son of the Father, is condemned to death. i find this incredible and quite intriguing.

a vague prediction

matthew 24. luke 21. mark 13. what do they mean? much of my previous influence (through my mid teens) on the interpretations of these came from a well known book series that shall be left unnamed, perhaps put behind me, if you will. i find that Jesus addresses the destruction of the temple here with the disciples, not the coming of a 7 year period preluded by rapture. to them, the end of the world would be the destruction of the temple.
Jesus gives several hints to when it wouldnt be, but not signs to the coming of the end. he mentions that men will falsely come in His name, wars will break out and earthquakes will come, but those are not signs of the end. Instead, he tells them to be ready at all times because no one knows when.
the most dynamic thing i find in this chapter is the coming of the Son of Man. that comes without warning and there is no way to determine when it will happen. i like how Garland points out that Jesus was certainly ambiguous for a reason. we are not meant to know when, just that it will happen and be ready for it, whenever that might be.

project

so i looked forward to the all night project from the time it was announced to when we actually started. the night actually exceeded my expectations. i learned so much in one night it is unbelievable. i found out that i know a lot about the gospels, yet i dont know a lot about the gospels. it really makes me upset with myself because in this nation im free to know them as well as i want to know them, but i dont. i now appreciate the gospels much more than i used to, because it was hard enough for me to remember the dialouge from the ones i had already read!
it did a lot for me spiritually, too. i developed a passion for the gosepls, wanting to read them and learn more. originally it was just to check back on the work, ill admit. but when i read i caught the passion and importance of the words of Christ more than i ever had before. i knew that the words of Jesus were and are important, but now they have taken me even more than they used to.

take a number

i have never understood the conversation about dogs and bread between Jesus and the Greek woman until i read about it in Garland. i always thought that the conversation was literal and therefore made little sense. but knowing that it is a riddle (and the meaning of it) changes the text for me. there are still some difficulties in the text for me however. i have a hard time dealing with the fact that Jesus inserted a subtle insult in there by calling her a dog, what the jews called the gentiles. the woman is not bothered with the insult and knows that she is a dog, a gentile who has to wait for God to deal with the jews first. amazingly this does not bother her and she presses on, not taking no for an answer. she shows an incredible faith and a desire for Jesus, pusruing him no matter what might seem to stand in her way.

the demoniac

i am simply blown away by this text. mark 5:1-20 tells a beautiful story of a man who was posessed by Legion. the amazing thing about it is the demon's reaction. he honors Jesus by telling him his name and aknowledging his power over him as the Son of the Most High God. in contrast, when the man goes back to the town the people recognize him as the former demoniac and ask Jesus to leave. their fear of Jesus and his power is so great that they dont want anything to do with him. however, the one who experienced that power does want Jesus around but he does not stay for his sake. i just cannot help but wonder where we lost that fear. i am guilty of looking at Jesus as the sunday school poster sort of man who holds a toddler up in the air and smiles. while that is a part Jesus' personality, i think i should (and so should everyone else) remember the Jesus that got on the edge and scared people with his power. he drove demons out of a man who could not be controlled by anyone else! someone like that SHOULD be feared, yet like the man healed in this text, embraced into one's life as well.

what makes it right, anyway?

what truly made the picking of grains on the sabbath a non issue? was it due to their hunger, Messianic right, or were the rules taking the Sabbath too far? DJG 717 addresses this and comes to the conclusion that Jesus saw it better to do good and benefit others than dwell on the laws of the scribes. as is a theme throughout the gospels, many had missed the point, just as they did here. the sabbath was to help the jews and give them a time of rest, not to create concern over doing to much work. when they focused on what they did or did not do, the focus was taken off God, which is what the Sabbath was designed to do!

impact of sharing

one thing struck me as i read the story of the leper being cleansed and then the paralytic lowered from the roof by his friends. the trouble experienced by the friends was rooted back to the man who shared his faith after being healed. the text tells us that even though Jesus told him not to say anything he spread the news about what happened everywhere. his sharing of his faith forced Jesus to go to deserted places, yet people from everywhere folled him. i find it amazing that the excitement about one man to share caused such a situation for Jesus. he could not go anywhere alone since everyone knew about his healing power. it makes me think - what if i would have that same desire and share my faith no matter what? what would be the result?

all in God's plan

i like what garland had to say about the beginning of mark. he pointed out that the coming of john the baptist and Jesus seem to be out of the blue, they were in God's plan from the beginning. mark uses the old testament from the torah and both major and minor prophets to make it clear that God had planned this all along. he also refers to isaiah, further emphasizes the fulfillment of prophecy was found in Christ. we must not forget that the original readers of this material were already familiar with the story of Jesus, as well as old testament prophecies. by connecting the two here he makes a connection with his audience and an overall theme that God set Jesus and john the baptist to start the beginning of Christianity.

bobby dixon

more than it seems

i heard before about the symbols of the gospels as a man, ox, lion and eagle but i had only before assumed that the names came out of the personalities of the gospel writers. while that is true, burridge brings me to the understanding that it had more to do with the portrayals of Jesus. i used to think of the gospels as trying to tell the same stories but they were twisted because of personality, but really they were each trying to show a specific side of Christ. He had several characteristics and for all gospels to point out the same side would be pointless. instead we see the layers of Christ's personality, just as the writers intended.

bobby dixon