Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Did Jesus Own a House?
Michael Halcomb combed through the Scriptures and tried to discover whether or not Jesus was a homeowner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe in a reader
Got a tip?
Email John at zeraygazette at yahoo dot com
Geekery/Pop Culture
NeatoramaTopless Robot
Great White Snark
Popped Culture
Matthew Caverhill
Johnny Cat
Blogging Buddies
Jeff the BaptistIronic Catholic
Dan Trabue
John Meunier
Divers and Sundry
Bob's Brainstorms
Jockey Street
Operation Oxmyx
Humor Links
The OnionCracked
Questionable Content
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
xkcd
Abstruse Goose
Miscellaneous
PostSecretInstapundit
Ace of Spades HQ
Hell in a Handbasket
Brian J. Noggle
8 comments:
I don't know if he owned a house, but he DID have a Honda.
"The disciples all continued in one Accord in prayer and supplication..."
I find the proof-texts this fella offers less convincing than the proof-text of “the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” None of them are fool-proof, but it seems to be stretching to suggest that those few passages he references are talking about Jesus’ home.
This comment, “Now, a plain English reading of this verse leaves no room for speculation really that Mark places the event he’s speaking of, in the home of Jesus…” does not impress me. My plain English reading of that verse suggested to me that he had returned to his hometown, or to Mary’s home.
One can of course, disagree. I’m just saying that it’s a big stretch to say that it leaves no room for speculation. I don’t see it as clear at all and that there certainly is room for speculation.
All of this is not to say that I think definitively Jesus was homeless the last few years of his life. I’m just saying that one verse suggesting homelessness and one verse suggesting (at a stretch) a home that may have belonged to Jesus does not a certainty make for either supposition.
John,
Thanks for the mention! :)
Dan,
I'm not sure what your definition of "proof text" is but it surely does not fit what I posted, which is exegesis. I provided literary, textual and socio-historical analysis; how in the world is that prooftexting?
Perhaps my statement about a "plain English reading" is a little out of balance. If I may, I'd like to correct that: "A plain Greek reading of the text leaves no room..."
I would like to keep this conversaton going with you; perhaps you will prove me wrong, I'm open to that by all means. But at least on this post, you give no good evidence or reasons why I'm wrong; you counter none of my claims or proofs; you simply label me a prooftexter but you yourself offer no proof. (By the way, I am not saying this with an angry or snotty tone, it's hard to show "calmness" over the internet when in a debate.)
Please, post your rebuttals on my blog; I'd love to engage you in this if you have some good arguments against me. Yes, one can disagree, but I don't want to disagree just to simply disagree, I want to know if I'm right or wrong. Please, if you have the time and are able, come post at Pisteuomen.
By the way, I'm getting ready to start a new series on things in Mark's account that you might find stimulating but certainly not as prooftexting! I might like you to take that claim back because I've done nothing of the sort.
www.michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com
Thanks again John.
"post your rebuttals on my blog; I'd love to engage you in this if you have some good arguments against me."
T Michael (T? Michael? Mr. Halcomb?), you should know I mean no offense, I just didn't think the argument was well supported.
I have no rebuttals - your suggestions are all within the realm of possibility. This topic just seems to fall into that category of unknowable knowledge. That is, your exegesis just seems like hunches - "maybe because the writer used the word "home" in this sentence, he is indicating Jesus' home".
Or, more specificially, how do you get from "follow me" to "follow me and let's go to my house"? Is not the context of that statement, "follow me in my way of life and leave behind your way of life?"
Or, "While Jesus uses the metaphor of a wedding here, the analogy might suggest that the while He was having a meal at His home"... well, maybe. But it might also suggest that he was dining at the governor's house or maybe at the local pub.
Maybe I'm just a poor dumb Kentucky boy who doesn't understand exegesis, but you seem to be making just incredibly huge leaps. Sure, all your suggestions are a possibility, but I see nothing in the text to suggest there's any reason for us to consider them as any more likely than any other suggestion.
You may well be right, that Jesus wasn't homeless. I may have just been reading the passage about having no place to lay his head and making a leap to the what-seemed-obvious-to-me (and many others) conclusion that he was homeless for so long that it's hard for me to see any other possibility.
It's just that, to me, you have made some huge leaps. As I said, I intended no offense, I just don't see any significant evidence in your hypotheses, just some guesses.
How 'bout my theory about a Honda?
Now that I can agree with!
Actually, that was a trick question: The DISCIPLES owned the Honda, since they were in one Accord and it doesn't mention the Accord belonging to someone else...
Post a Comment