Jesus As an Anti-Establishment Lazy Bum
Let me be frank here. I strongly feel the average person (religious or not) including any “Joe the Atheist”, who is married (supporting a wife and / or children) is one hell of a better person than the jobless wondering irresponsible single wisdom preacher the Gospels call Jesus.
This we do know about Jesus as drawn form the Gospels traditions:
Jesus was a jobless drifter who avoided work. Although, Matthew’s Gospel tells us Jesus' father was a “Tekton” or one involved in a technical trade (οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός), there is no evidence Jesus ever hit a lick at a snake or did an honest day’s work in his life! 55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.” (Matt. 13: 55 - 58)
Jesus only recruited men who would leave their jobs which in turn meant leaving their families destitute to be feed by and cared for by Jews who honored the Torah. “16 As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” 18 Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. 19 Going on a little farther, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who were also in the boat mending the nets. 20 Immediately He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went away to follow Him.” (Mark 1: 16 - 20).
Jesus tells his disciples to be irresponsible bums just like himself: 3“Go; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 “Carry no money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. 5 “Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house.’ 6 “If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 “Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8 “Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 “But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 “I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city. (Luke 10: 3-12).
Irresponsible free loading is what Jesus expects of all who want to follow him: “57 As they were going along the road, someone said to Him, “I will follow You wherever You go.” 58 And Jesus said to him, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” 59 And He said to another, “Follow Me.” But he said, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.” 60 But He said to him, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God.” 61 Another also said, “I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.” 62 But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9: 57- 62).
And as to Jesus’ complaint “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” My reply: Man, get a job you free loading bum!
Be a responsible Jew for at least once in your life!
Jesus expects free food and gets mad and attacks a fig tree when he does not get his way: 18 Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. 19 Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered.” (Matt. 21; 18-19, see my discussion on this temper fit here)
Jesus sizes on every opportunity to get a free meal and lodging: “1 He entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich. 3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature. 4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. 5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, “Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly.” (Luke 19: 1 - 6)
Jesus is a party-hardly animal who makes himself present if there is food and alcohol around as noted by the religious Jews who saw moderate use of food, fellowship and wine as not sinful, but criticized Jesus' over indulgence: “The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'“ (Luke 7: 34).
Likewise, Jesus is on top of the fermentation process for increased alcohol content and knows his wines: “"And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good enough.'" (Luke 5: 39)
Plus, Jesus, as a jobless miracle working party animal was the one to approach to keep the alcohol flowing and it should not go unnoticed that partying and alcohol is known as Jesus’ first so-called miracle: “1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” 6 Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. 9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, 10 and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. (John 2: 1 - 11).
Jesus and his disciples are so broke from free loading they can’t even afford a sword except they sell their clothes: “Then he said to them, "But now, whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet. Whoever has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword”(Luke 12:36) The result was probably the naked man in Mark 14: 51 - 52: “51 A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 52 But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.”
Jesus use for women is that of role reversal: Women should provide for him! Jesus is constantly seen as an irresponsible Jewish man who will not hold down a job, family and the responsibilities that all religious Jews expected of a real man as required in the Torah. Thus, the Gospel tradition gives us a Jesus sponging off Martha and Mary and even encourages Mary for not working: 38 “Now as they were traveling along, He entered a village; and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord’s feet, listening to His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; 42 but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10: 38 - 42).
Jesus is heals Peter’s mother-in-law so she can wait on him: 14 “When Jesus came into Peter’s home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. 15 He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him. (Matt. 8: 14 - 15)
Jesus sends his disciples into Jerusalem to find FREE room and board for them to free load on for the Passover: 12“On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?” 13 And He sent two of His disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is My guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 15 “And he himself will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; prepare for us there.” 16 The disciples went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover. (Mark 14: 12 - 16 any God fearing responsible Jew would have worked and earned his Passover lamb!)
The birth narrative (in Matt. 2: 11 “After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.”) was probably a failed attempt to try and explain why Jesus never had to hold down a job in his life; or, as we would say, Jesus was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
By contrast to a free loading Jesus, in 2 Thess. Paul emphatically states that the religious loafer and free loader who will not work, should not be given food to eat either: “For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; 9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. 10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11 For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. (2 Thess. 3: 8-11).
Paul supported his own ministry as a tent maker and even headed up a collection for the poor Jewish in Jerusalem in Acts 15, by contrast, Jesus was a free loading bum who to sponged off society and claimed his life style was proof God would protect and provide for anyone who did the same.
In the final days, Jesus’ free loading ride in life finally caught up with him and fell though as both the Torah loving Jews and the Roman authorities finally had enough of this free loading trouble making bum.
He ended up crucified and his jobless disciples had to leave, once again becoming responsible Jews returning to support themselves and their families; some, such as Peter and Andrew, returned to fishing.
This we do know about Jesus as drawn form the Gospels traditions:
Jesus was a jobless drifter who avoided work. Although, Matthew’s Gospel tells us Jesus' father was a “Tekton” or one involved in a technical trade (οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός), there is no evidence Jesus ever hit a lick at a snake or did an honest day’s work in his life! 55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.” (Matt. 13: 55 - 58)
Jesus only recruited men who would leave their jobs which in turn meant leaving their families destitute to be feed by and cared for by Jews who honored the Torah. “16 As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” 18 Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. 19 Going on a little farther, He saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who were also in the boat mending the nets. 20 Immediately He called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went away to follow Him.” (Mark 1: 16 - 20).
Jesus tells his disciples to be irresponsible bums just like himself: 3“Go; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 “Carry no money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. 5 “Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house.’ 6 “If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 “Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8 “Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 “But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 “I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city. (Luke 10: 3-12).
Irresponsible free loading is what Jesus expects of all who want to follow him: “57 As they were going along the road, someone said to Him, “I will follow You wherever You go.” 58 And Jesus said to him, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” 59 And He said to another, “Follow Me.” But he said, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.” 60 But He said to him, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God.” 61 Another also said, “I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.” 62 But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9: 57- 62).
And as to Jesus’ complaint “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” My reply: Man, get a job you free loading bum!
Be a responsible Jew for at least once in your life!
Jesus expects free food and gets mad and attacks a fig tree when he does not get his way: 18 Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. 19 Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered.” (Matt. 21; 18-19, see my discussion on this temper fit here)
Jesus sizes on every opportunity to get a free meal and lodging: “1 He entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich. 3 Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature. 4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. 5 When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, “Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly.” (Luke 19: 1 - 6)
Jesus is a party-hardly animal who makes himself present if there is food and alcohol around as noted by the religious Jews who saw moderate use of food, fellowship and wine as not sinful, but criticized Jesus' over indulgence: “The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'“ (Luke 7: 34).
Likewise, Jesus is on top of the fermentation process for increased alcohol content and knows his wines: “"And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, 'The old is good enough.'" (Luke 5: 39)
Plus, Jesus, as a jobless miracle working party animal was the one to approach to keep the alcohol flowing and it should not go unnoticed that partying and alcohol is known as Jesus’ first so-called miracle: “1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; 2 and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” 6 Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. 9 When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, 10 and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. (John 2: 1 - 11).
Jesus and his disciples are so broke from free loading they can’t even afford a sword except they sell their clothes: “Then he said to them, "But now, whoever has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet. Whoever has none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword”(Luke 12:36) The result was probably the naked man in Mark 14: 51 - 52: “51 A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 52 But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.”
Jesus use for women is that of role reversal: Women should provide for him! Jesus is constantly seen as an irresponsible Jewish man who will not hold down a job, family and the responsibilities that all religious Jews expected of a real man as required in the Torah. Thus, the Gospel tradition gives us a Jesus sponging off Martha and Mary and even encourages Mary for not working: 38 “Now as they were traveling along, He entered a village; and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who was seated at the Lord’s feet, listening to His word. 40 But Martha was distracted with all her preparations; and she came up to Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to do all the serving alone? Then tell her to help me.” 41 But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; 42 but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10: 38 - 42).
Jesus is heals Peter’s mother-in-law so she can wait on him: 14 “When Jesus came into Peter’s home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. 15 He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him. (Matt. 8: 14 - 15)
Jesus sends his disciples into Jerusalem to find FREE room and board for them to free load on for the Passover: 12“On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?” 13 And He sent two of His disciples and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says, “Where is My guest room in which I may eat the Passover with My disciples?”’ 15 “And he himself will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; prepare for us there.” 16 The disciples went out and came to the city, and found it just as He had told them; and they prepared the Passover. (Mark 14: 12 - 16 any God fearing responsible Jew would have worked and earned his Passover lamb!)
The birth narrative (in Matt. 2: 11 “After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.”) was probably a failed attempt to try and explain why Jesus never had to hold down a job in his life; or, as we would say, Jesus was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
By contrast to a free loading Jesus, in 2 Thess. Paul emphatically states that the religious loafer and free loader who will not work, should not be given food to eat either: “For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; 9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. 10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. 11 For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. (2 Thess. 3: 8-11).
Paul supported his own ministry as a tent maker and even headed up a collection for the poor Jewish in Jerusalem in Acts 15, by contrast, Jesus was a free loading bum who to sponged off society and claimed his life style was proof God would protect and provide for anyone who did the same.
In the final days, Jesus’ free loading ride in life finally caught up with him and fell though as both the Torah loving Jews and the Roman authorities finally had enough of this free loading trouble making bum.
He ended up crucified and his jobless disciples had to leave, once again becoming responsible Jews returning to support themselves and their families; some, such as Peter and Andrew, returned to fishing.
66 comments:
Well, Harry, I assume you didn't feel this way about the character of Jesus when you were a Christian. Was it rational argument, some epiphany about his character or both that drove you to reject Christ? If it regarded his character, how did you start out telling everyone what a great holy man he was and now have ended up seeing as a bum? I mean, the story hasn't changed any.
WOW, I feel sorry that I am even commenting on such as ridiculous post topic. Not only does your view of Jesus differ radically from the liberal view of Jesus that even Loftus ascribes too, a doomsday prophet, but is totally without merit because:
IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT :
"He ended up crucified....."
He came to earth to be crucified, he decided to die, even when he could of avoided it by simply being quite when the High Priest asked him if he was God.
But of course, from the posts that I have read of yours; the are all are END OF THE EARTH far liberal interpretations. Written to incite comments and outrage. WELL I MUST SAY, you succeed AT THAT! But what concerns me is that you don't seem to be honestly searching for truth or trying to give a realistic picture of reality ... I thought that was what this forum was about?
and don't forget to add to this:
"and his jobless disciples had to leave once again becoming responsible Jew returning to support themselves and their families; some such as Peter and Andrew returned to fishing."
That the ended up leaving their fishing boats once again because they has seen the risen Jesus and consequently went to die for this truth.
I must ask, did you work with a news station or journalist prior to becoming a blogger? BECAUSE you sure know how to put a SPIN on a story!!!! (and even that is an understatement).
Have a wonderful day and Jesus died for you and loves you.
You sure seem to have a lot of anger for someone whom you've only read about from 2000 years ago.
BTW, do you not consider teaching (even rabbinic) to be work?
The lifestyle you take such offense at was not an uncommon lifestyle for a Jewish rabbi in the first century.
The gospels clearly indicate that Jesus was a considered a rabbi. In fact, approximately 60 times in the N.T. Jesus is called “Rabbi” or “Teacher” (which is what “rabbi” means; cf. John 1:38-39
This is what he called himself.
Matthew 26:17-19 (ESV)
17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?”
18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.’ ”
19 And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover.
Everyone from his followers to his enemies recognized him as such.
And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he said, “Rabbi, what is it?” (Luke 7:40)
A lawyer asked him a question to test him: “Rabbi, what is the greatest commandment in the Torah?” (Matthew 22:35-36)
And behold, a [rich] man came up to him and said, “Rabbi, what good thing must I do to have eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16)
And someone in the crowd said to him, “Rabbi, order my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” (Luke 12:13)
And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Rabbi, rebuke your disciples.” (Luke 19:39)
Some of the Sadducees came up to him…and they asked him, saying, “Rabbi….” (Luke 20:27-28)
Other religious leaders sought him out for instruction and showed him honor and respect.
John 3:1-2 (ESV)
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”
So you should either take off your Jewish friendly airs or give this Jewish rabbi the respect he deserves. Your hypocrisy is showing.
BTW, a very good paper on Jesus as a rabbi can be found at
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rabbi_kostenberger.pdf
While this only deals with the fourth gospel, he references significant work done in the synoptics.
To your other points:
Are you really proposing that Jesus was crucified because he was a drain on society? Enough said.
Peter's and Andrew's fishing vacation was short-lived. After they saw the risen Christ, and the Spirit came at Pentecost they went back to preaching and teaching like their Master.
As for Paul, as you suggested, I’ll just paste what I wrote in response to your “Faith, Sex, and Wealth” post which prompted this one. I will leave it intact, even though certain comments are addressing your tone which may be more evident there than here. I will note that you never responded to my refutations directly.
________
Now Harry, I gave you a point by point response to show you precisely where your understanding of the texts is in error, and I showed you your faulty presuppositions that lead to your erroneous conclusions; and your response to me is that I’m engaging in self-delusion and rationalization? That’s it? Please, if this is the case, demonstrate from the texts and from my post where I am wrong. Otherwise, your response amounts to nothing more than childish name-calling.
I’m just looking at the words of the text Harry. The language is clear. From reviewing your profile, I don’t think these things should be hard for you to understand. I think it’s clear to anyone who can read this exchange where the delusion and rationalization lie. Since I’m not interested in name-calling or empty “argument” I’ll respond to your latest and move on unless I receive a rational response.
Reading your post, it’s obvious that your response is aimed either at inciting a reaction or is more basically, just an avenue for venting some significant pent-up anger. As groundless as your article was your response is equally irrational. Your entire rant misses a very relevant and plain fact – really, did You READ the text you quoted?
You want to maintain that Jesus would not have lived up to Paul’s standards regarding work; that Paul would have classified him as a “freeloading bum” and a “busybody” and called for him to repent. (You, of course add further words to express your contempt: leech, and sponge).
The problem with your failed assault is that Paul, in several places, including the very text you quote, gives his unreserved support for the principle that those who engage in the work of the ministry have the right to gain their living and support from that work. In II Thes. 3:9 (your text) Paul states very clearly that he and his fellow ministers “have a right” to the support of those to whom they ministered. In other places he applies this more broadly to all faithful ministers of the gospel, and cites his authority for this principle.
In I Cor. 9 he asserts his right to this support and rests his argument on the fact that Peter and the other apostles also have this right.
1 Corinthians 9:3-6 (ESV)
3 This is my defense to those who would examine me.
4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?
He doesn’t argue against their right, but argues for his own based upon theirs. No rebuking and calling for repentance here.
In the next verse he goes on to argue from broader principles:
7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?
This principle finds its authority for Paul in the Law of Moses, it is seen in the history of the temple service and ultimately is commanded by the Lord Jesus.
8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?
9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?
10 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.
11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.
13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?
14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
So we find, contrary to your absurd assertion, that not only does Paul not condemn the practice of the Lord and his apostles, but he quotes his Lord in support of it. He also applies it to faithful elders/pastors.
1 Timothy 5:17-18 (ESV)
17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.
18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”
The Scriptures he quotes are Deut. 25:4, and Luke 10:7
Luke 10:5-8 (ESV)
5 Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’
6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you.
7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.
8 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you.
Paul agrees with his Master that a worker is worth his wages. This is the Scriptural teaching that he submits to. He quotes the Law from Deuteronomy and the Lord from Luke as his authority.
In II Thes. 3 he is condemning idleness. If you are inclined to think that Jesus was idle, I suggest you read Mark sometime. That should correct your error.
Now for your direct questions:
>>>A. Other than his one set of clothes, what did Jesus ever owned?
A. The Scriptures don’t tell us exactly. But I suppose like all of us, he owned what he either earned or was given. There doesn’t seem to be much of a point here.
>>>B. Please explain why Jesus demanded his disciples leave their daily jobs along with their ability to earn an income (anti-Paul) to live off people who DID act responsible and who did hold down jobs? (Jesus sponged off Mary and Martha Luke 10: 38 – 41 like a leech!)
B. Quite apart from justifying your invective, I would simply say, because the work of the ministry is work, and men who give themselves to it deserve to get their living from that work; pretty simple really, and perfectly consistent throughout the Scriptures.
You may not think it’s work, or you may not like it being done, but that’s why you don’t pay the worker. But those who receive the great benefits that come from faithful gospel ministry think differently and willingly support such men. I don’t know what work you’re in, but if I had no personal desire for your services, I wouldn’t begrudge someone else the right to pay you if they gained a benefit from it; so, why so much hostility? Really, what has some Christian or minister done that has so angered and provoked you?
Truthfully Harry, I’ve rarely met a man so full of bitterness. You really make yourself and your cause look bad. You would do better to remain silent. But I hope rather, that you would earnestly seek the forgiveness of the One you so insolently and rashly seek to offend. I wish you well.
Peace,
Rick
You are absolutely right Harry.
I also want to make a related comment: I think that non-Christians should not be so quick to say that "Jesus was a good moral teacher" or that he was "honestly mistaken". Sure, Jesus said some nice stuff about loving each other, but how many cult leaders say things like this? And how many of those cult leaders would we want to admire?
Lets see now. When I read the Gospel accounts (as many pious God fearing Jews have done) reconstructing a totally different Jesus (One more to the likings of the late Red Skelton’s Freddy the Free Loader), I'm a bitter person who hates Jesus (and since Jesus is part of the Trinity, now I hate God too).
My question is, have you ever read what the Jewish Talmud says about Jesus; that he was a bustard?
But if you read the Talmudic interpretations of the life of Jesus, you might (as many Christians did after WWII) think the Holocaust was justified or, as the Gospel of Matt. so clearly states: “May his blood be on us and our children.” (Matt. 27: 25)
Jeff Carter, may I quote Paul here? “When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.”
I Corinth. 13:11.
Christ Follower claims: “That the ended up leaving their fishing boats once again because they has seen the risen Jesus and consequently went to die for this truth.”
Might I ask for your sources here? Could it be Fox’s Book of Christian Martyrs?
All New Testament Apostles’ deaths are embellished legends as note by both Bart Ehrman and in text by J. K. Elliott (Questioning Christian Origins and his revision of M.R. James’ The Apocryphal New Testament).
Might I suggest to all the Christians who think I bitter: Have you listen to the Sunday sermon rants of the Southern Independent Fundamentalist wind sucking radio preachers.
Again, Rick, please back up your life of a free loading Jesus from the Torah.
Lets face facts, God’s own divine code (Hebrew Bible) condemns the Gospel Jesus to death!
In my view this is one of the more weakest posts here. People at that time were poor by our standards, and I would even venture that some of the lazy people would have to work harder then anyone lazy in our time. It's not like they had running tap water, or a local grocery store, or have the leasure to make such posts on the internet. I think by virtue of what I am seeing, we today are fastly becoming a group of people adept at using our fingers in "E-WAR'S" (electronic wars)but loosing some of that brain power that people of long ago seemed to have.
Even the Jesus Seminar concedes that Jesus was at least both a teacher and a healer. Huge crowds *sought him out* for both reasons. I don't see crowds flocking to any of the 'anti-establishment lazy bums' (as you call them) that I see regularly in Cambridge.
It's so patently anachronistic to compare the first century Jesus to a modern day 'anti-establishment lazy bum' that I don't even know why I'm wasting my time commenting on this. Was Socrates an anti-establishment lazy bum? Diogenes? Think about it: your reasoning would force us to conclude that today's 'Joe six pack' is 'a better person' than Jesus and Socrates -- the two people who are looked to as paragons of virtue more frequently than any others in the West.
Let's look at your argument this way: If what you're saying is true, then we should see nothing outrageous with, say, your average Walmart employee claiming, "I'm a much better person than either Jesus or Socrates!"
Now, does that *honestly* sound right to you? Would you look at such a person nodding your head in agreement, or tell him that he should think just a little bit more, and a little more seriously, about himself, morality, Jesus and Socrates?
>>>My question is, have you ever read what the Jewish Talmud says about Jesus; that he was a bustard?
But if you read the Talmudic interpretations of the life of Jesus, you might (as many Christians did after WWII) think the Holocaust was justified or, as the Gospel of Matt. so clearly states: “May his blood be on us and our children.” (Matt. 27: 25)<<
The gospels clearly state that Mary became pregnant before she and Joseph were married. Of course I expect unbelieving Jews who reject all Jesus’ claims about His origin, mission and destiny to call Him a bastard. I’m sure you call Him one as well. The bible itself records such accusations made directly to Jesus. Is this supposed to be a serious challenge?
As for killing people over it? No, I don’t think that’s a good idea.
>>>Might I suggest to all the Christians who think I bitter: Have you listen to the Sunday sermon rants of the Southern Independent Fundamentalist wind sucking radio preachers.<<
That there are many bitter people in the world does not preclude you from being one. It is a reasonable conclusion from the evidence you provide that you are, indeed, a bitter man.
>>>Again, Rick, please back up your life of a free loading Jesus from the Torah.<<
You tried to press Paul into service as your ally in condemning Jesus. I demonstrated that your effort fails miserably because Paul appealed to both the Lord Jesus Himself on 2 occasions and to the Law on 2 occasions to support the practice you condemn.
Now you ask me to support it from the Torah? You do realize that Deuteronomy is part of the Torah. I posted my response a second time at your request. I’m not going to do it again. Go back and READ it this time Harry, and if you have an answer, offer it. Otherwise, as I’ve suggested, the more you write the worse you look.
>>>Lets face facts, God’s own divine code (Hebrew Bible) condemns the Gospel Jesus to death!<<
Would you care to substantiate this charge or are we just supposed to take your word for it? I mean you have demonstrated yourself to be so reliable so far…
Perhaps I should have followed my initial inclination and prayed for you without responding…reason doesn’t seem to be very effective with you.
As I said before, unless you have reasonable response, or would even like to ATTEMPT to interact with what I've said (which to this point you haven't done), this will be my last post.
Peace,
Rick
dvd : In my view this is one of the more weakest posts here. People at that time were poor by our standards, and I would even venture that some of the lazy people would have to work harder then anyone lazy in our time.
RE: Over 90% of my post was quoted directly from the New Testament.
If we exclude the half god/half man Jesus, we are left with a free loading bum; plain and simple!
Even the Old Testament prophets, such as Amos, are depicted as holding down a job to earn an income and, unlike Jesus, not bumming off society.
I can see it now: Miracles done for free room and board.
dvd, might I ask you just who took care of Peter’s wife while he was out running around with Jesus and trying to figure out exactly what the hell Jesus was up too (at one point Jesus is going to build his Chruch on Peter; the next time Jesus is calling Peter "Satan"!)?
At least we have a welfare system to help single mothers, but under Jewish law, Peter’s wife was his property and his responsibility; a responsibility Jesus encouraged his disciples to run from!
Might I ask all you Christians a question?
If I end up burning forever Hell; would I (from a spiritual / theological perspective) be considered “On Fire for Jesus”?
So even an atheist can be spiritualy "On Fire for Jesus!"
Henry
In Acts we are told the early community of faith was not in need of anything, everyone took care of everyone else. I don't think Peter's wife was an issue, and she probably supported his great mission.
I think you should take a step back and seriously consider that this is a wrong approach. Perhaps, it is a correct approach for you at this moment, but if you want to communicate something that people will grab a hold of and listen to as Christians, then you might try a different approach.
Rick said - "The gospels clearly state that Mary became pregnant before she and Joseph were married."
Deuteronomy 23:2 Clearly states that a bastard child shall not enter into the congregation of the lord even unto the tenth generation.
What christians fail to see is that, the whole story about jesus was a cover up story to hide the fact that Mary was raped by her rabbi, because any woman/girl having a baby out of wedlock was to be publicly stoned to death (with no exceptions)including the perpetrator, but who else except a rabbi or high priest could have invented such a bazaar story and so many willing to believe it?
In order to save his and Mary's butts from immediately being stoned to death, the rabbi or priest had to quickly concoct an escape plan...ah yes the ole visitation from angels plan.
Mary, having been quite an attractive girl, she arrived daily to church for morning prayer and the ole horney priest figured out a way to lure her into his liar.
The priest told the innocent naive Mary one morning that he could initiate her into the kingdom of heaven, so he took her back into the church and had is way with her, basically any man's desire even unto this very day, this is nothing new here.
The probability of this story being the real true jesus story almost 100%.
I have a cousin that could not keep a public job and refused to work, until he started quoting scripture in front of people and they just fell in love with him, he is now a pastor at a huge church with a huge salary and home and car and clothes furnished with all kinds of benefits, you can easily find him on the golf course or in a fine restaurant any day of the week.
Not bad for to work only one hour a week for 52 weeks of the year.....work 52 hours a year if you want to call that work, get constant praise...they even pass the plate around before he gets started preaching this guarantees his money before he even starts preaching his Mary and her rabbi raping her and the stoning to death escape plan.
Keep up the good work, Harry
Harry,
While I certainly like the idea of Jesus as a homeless bum (kind of a shocking image for many people), I don't think that you're really being honest with what we know about Jesus.
First off, as Rick mentioned above, such a lifestyle (going around preaching and teaching) was not uncommon for rabbis. There were many wandering rabbis in that day and age. As well, if you don't like that, you also had the cynic philosophers, many of whom would have been "free-loading bums" by your definition. What you are in effect doing is placing a moral judgment on such a vocation - saying that by today's cultural standards, we would view that as wrong or lazy. This might be the case, but it would not have been seen the same way in Jesus' day (at least not likely by most). I just want to point out that your view is more of an imposition of today's culture onto yesterday's, rather than an indictment of Jesus' actions.
Second, there appear to have been supporters of Jesus' ministry who followed him around in addition to the disciples. I can't remember the exact verse (and can't be bothered to look it up at the moment), but there is an indication in one of the Gospels that some of the women (Joanna was one, I recall) who followed Jesus were essentially sponsoring his ministry. If such people are willing to provide him with money for whatever he did (teaching, healing, etc.), then perhaps he wasn't "freeloading" quite so much as we might think at first glance.
And third, even going by today's standards, we might liken Jesus to some sort of motivational speaker. Such a person today goes around from place to place and teaches people about whatever topic they were brought in for. Then, the place that asked him to come pays for him. In other words, we see this as a legitimate means of employment - the person teaches a lesson, and then they get paid for that lesson. Is this not the same thing Jesus was doing, only without shnazzy Powerpoint slides?
And apropos bums that have nothing better to do all day long than being completely unproductive for the human society that they live in, and which also helps support them:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap7kreDRzgQ
I going out of the state today, but I’ll respond to Rick, Eric and Jeff when I return to night.
One problem I see is that while Paul is said to have had formal rabbinical training, he is NEVER called a rabbi. On the other hand, Jesus hand no training and, as pointed out, he is called a rabbi or generally understood as a teacher. As I pointed out, even the town people did not fall for him as a wisdom / rabbi teacher and he only seems to be called one by those who did not really know him.
More later.
Harry,
Your appeal to the Talmud is moot. Those passages you reference are written hundreds of years after Jesus, and they are spiced with anger and hatred from the unfortunate persecution of Jews by Christians. That appeal only reinforces the notion that you are unreasonably angry.
on my earlier post, strike "unfortunate" and replace it with "sinful"
Harry,
So I understand that you now believed you have matured and that so-called maturity informs your attitude about Jesus. What I am asking is, What do you know see about the CHARACTER of Jesus - not biblical textual claims or the origin of the universe, but the reported behavior of the man himself - that you supposedly didn't see before?
“Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”
To me, those words have always sounded like Jesus freely admitting he was a con man.
What do fishermen do with their catch? Gut them and eat them, or sell them.
What do fishers of men do with their catch?
Take their money, of course, as much as can be taken, and for as long as possible.
Rick,
After defending your preferred version of Jesus, you ask our blogger, Harry,
...why so much hostility? Really, what has some Christian or minister done that has so angered and provoked you?
and you follow it up with your assessment,
Truthfully Harry, I’ve rarely met a man so full of bitterness. You really make yourself and your cause look bad. You would do better to remain silent.
In Harry's post, instead of hostility or bitterness, I see a rather reasonable analysis of how the Biblical text portrays its object of worship.
Also, without a doubt, Harry does not make himself or his cause look bad any more than the thousands of distinct Christianities are made to look bad by those Christians who are atheists, by other Christians who believe that Jesus was not divine and did not perform miracles, or by still other Christians who do not believe in heaven or hell.
And, most certainly, Harry, personally, would not do better to remain silent. Silencing of any voice of reason diminishes us all.
I'm sure, Rick, that you wouldn't want to shut up other Christians, yet regardless of what your particular Christianity may look like, whatever you do that you think of as distinctly Christian, thousands of other Christianities disagree with you. Fact is, consider any point of Christian doctrine you think of as sacred - virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, son of a god, existence of gods, Satan, angels, demons, witches, assumption of Mary, original sin, hell, existence of souls, etc. - and you will find other Christians, no less pious or devout than you, who disagree with you so strongly, and who find your theology so deplorable, that they will have founded a completely different Christianity which - and they will be certain of this - has corrected your error.
You, too, can construct your own Christianity, as have so many others, around what you can be absolutely certain are the damning mistakes and ungodly affronts committed by other Christians.
Here on this blog, Rick, there are a few writers and commenters who see the world, and, more specifically, your religion, differently than you do. I find it odd that it is here you choose to mount a defense of your preferred version of Christianity and Jesus against reasoned skepticism and dissent, when, realistically, alternative Christianities pose a greater danger to the one you love most. No skeptic or skeptical argument threatens your specific Christianity as much as the ceaseless proliferation of new, improved, and, as always, true, Christianities. It is here you choose to stand your ground battling reason, instead of engaging the more profound theological threat posed by other Christians.
We are but a handful of people who might tell you you are wrong, and explain why we think so, while your head-to-head theological competitors are millions, assured by the same sacred text that you read that they are right and you are wrong, telling you you are going to hell, often for no more reason than "Moroni told Joseph Smith," or "It was revealed to Mary Baker Eddy," or "The Pope says so," or "James Dobson says it, I believe it." Ironically, all of these four fall under the umbrella label of "Christianity" and each of them denounces the teachings of the other.
Just as you will no doubt dismiss other Christianity's claims that your theology leaves you hell-bound, most of the bloggers and commenters here, by the same light, dismiss all Christianities, including yours, and your Jesus right along with it.
It is you, Rick, and your fellow mutually-damning Christians who really make yourselves and your cause look bad.
For my part, I am bitter and hostile about the observably adverse moral, spiritual, emotional and intellectual affects Christianity has had on mankind. I'll elaborate a bit later if I get time.
Russ,
I appreciate the thought-out response. I also appreciate that, although you admit to your bitterness, you don’t come across in a shrill tone. Given these things I would not accuse you of making yourself or your cause look bad. Harry is different – at least what I’ve seen so far. What you quote from me was written after Harry first posted what amounted to a juvenile and terribly weak article loosely based on demonstrably faulty reading and reasoning. When I demonstrated thoroughly where he was clearly mistaken, he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others, and yet failed to address even one point of refutation I had made. This, I submit, makes him look bad. If these attacks of his are the best that he as an atheist has to offer, I submit he makes his cause look bad. My recommendation to him to remain silent was not to limit his freedom to speak – it was just friendly advice.
>>> And, most certainly, Harry, personally, would not do better to remain silent. Silencing of any voice of reason diminishes us all.<<
I agree with the principle. I just have not seen a Harry that resembles a voice of reason. Sorry.
>>> I find it odd that it is here you choose to mount a defense of your preferred version of Christianity and Jesus against reasoned skepticism and dissent<<
First, I have done nothing remotely close to mounting a defense of Christianity (see below). Second, I have not responded to reasoned skepticism (see above). Third…well, I don’t really have a third right now…back to first….Harry’s post was posted on another site that I visit once every 6 months or so. It linked to this site. I have never been here prior to 4 days ago, but when I read what I consider to be an ignorant and ridiculous reading of some very plain texts, I decided to respond and help the author out. I was not really defending Christianity as much as defending literacy, reading, and the English language. Seriously. I saw no threat or legitimate critique in what he wrote. I thought it was rather pitiful. I had no need to rise to the defense of “my preferred version of Christianity.” I just have a particular dislike for the combination of ignorance, arrogance and irrationality. I really hesitated to respond initially – perhaps I shouldn’t have, I don’t know.
Anyway, I note what you say regarding the diversity of those who call themselves “Christians.” I don’t know which of these would tell me I’m “going to Hell” as you say. None of those you’ve listed would. Of course, historical, orthodox Christianity has never considered “Christian” those who admittedly worship a different god. If they did the language would not be very useful. Of those who accept the early ecumenical creeds as codifying biblical truth regarding the nature of the one true God, there are some significant differences between the three major divisions of Christianity regarding the means of receiving the benefits of Christ. But you make it sound as though every church is condemning every other church to Hell. It’s just not the case. I don’t deny that there are many differences on lesser issues. But the vast majority of orthodox Christians agree on most major issues. I personally don’t consider any of this a threat to, as you say, “my preferred version.” But I will try to reason with anyone who will be reasonable…within reason. But, I feel my time here may be concluding...there really is an abundance of banality here...but I may come back to see you expound on your bitter theme.
Peace,
Rick
The bible = book written by religious leaders as a means to indoctrinate manipulate and create a job for themselves that came with both reverence and many special benefits.
They back in those days no doubt wrote said and did anything! that might help to keep this job to continue to seem worthwhile and as a benefit to those who paid for it.To retain this position for themselves and those religious leaders that came after them.
Trouble is people are not so easily led today,they question matters.Unlike much ignorance in the olden days that along with much written confusion, allowed that people continued to believe often even without question.Today these thoughts & suggested facts etc are checked and questioned double checked and compared with the modern day intelligence we now possess.Something that these religious mens writings of old didnt quite really account on happening!.
Yet today it is just as vital to the many holding down these positions as it was in years gone by ,that those who provide this position keep believing.As without belief there is no position left to benefit from.
And so we still hear of the miracle's etc.The signs are still said to be seen by the special anointed few.And god is still said to be speaking to them etc.
Strangely Harry some of these same anointed men of today these miracle workers and receivers of divine messages etc from the supposed god.Are sooner or later found out to be little more than plain frauds that have preyed on all those they hoped to benefit from.
Yet religious man is a strange animal.Just as beliefs were once dreamed up long ago,today all manner of reasons can be dreamed up again that allow for this type of fraudulent behavior to seem quite natural and understandable.
Supposed miracles worked in the past of these fraudulent men, are still to be seen as quite honest!words supposedly spoken with god still seem possible.
And the thought of just how EASILY one can be FOOLED just doesnt really register with that many.
A few hymns and a natter with the rest of the throng and most of these folk carry on like nothing what so ever has really happened.
Its amazing what responses the natural drug adrenaline can have.
Rick, you love to run off references to Jesus as a rabbi. So, as a Jew, which of the known groups was Jesus as a legitimate rabbi a member of: The Scribes, The Pharisees, The Sadducees, or was he a religious Zealot?
Are was he, as I claimed, a jobless wandering bum / teacher who recruited uneducated people to his anti-establishment cause?
Rick: “To your other points:
Are you really proposing that Jesus was crucified because he was a drain on society? Enough said.”
Re: That’s totally a miss-reading of my post! I said his irresponsible mouth got him in trouble with both the Jewish and Roman authorities. Rick, maybe if you got your facts right, you would not be a Christian either!
Rick claims: “after Harry first posted what amounted to a juvenile and terribly weak article loosely based on demonstrably faulty reading and reasoning. When I demonstrated thoroughly where he was clearly mistaken, he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others, and yet failed to address even one point of refutation I had made.”
Fact is Rick, you are claiming that the Gospel account itself is “a juvenile and terribly weak article loosely based on demonstrably faulty reading and reasoning.” since over 90% of my post was simply quoting the Gospel accounts themselves. All I did was post a one or two sentences of introduction and let the Gospels speak for themselves.
Again, Rick you are totally in error when you state: “When I demonstrated thoroughly where he was clearly mistaken, he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others, and yet failed to address even one point of refutation I had made.”
Get real Rick! All you ever did was try and use the entire New Testament and modern Systematic Theology to keep your Jesus as the anointed Christ. All I did was to quote the Gospels to show him to be a lazy bum.
And here is where I caught you in a bold face lie: “he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others, and yet failed to address even one point of refutation I had made.”
So Mr. truthful Christian, please quote me in any of my comments to this post when I call your are any commenter a name!! I called Jesus and lazy bum and meant it! But seeing how Jesus never committed on my post, either quote me verbatim calling any commenter to this post a name or keep your unfounded slanderous remarks to your self.
Rick to Russ claims: “Anyway, I note what you say regarding the diversity of those who call themselves “Christians.” I don’t know which of these would tell me I’m “going to Hell” as you say. None of those you’ve listed would. Of course, historical, orthodox Christianity has never considered “Christian” those who admittedly worship a different god.”
Re: Hey Rick, call Father Thomas at Saint George’s Greek Orthodox Church here in Greenville and, if you are not Greek Orthodox, tell him so just as I did and have him tell you the same as he told me; that Christ will condemn you at the judgment.
Have you listen to the Catholic Global Radio Network (EWTN)? Do you think Protestants are “saved” according to Canon Law (The body of Roman Catholic dogmas imposed by authority in matters of faith, morals, and discipline)?
And Rick, you need to get your facts correct when making baseless claims to Russ! According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Christian religious truth is called “Doctrine” or “Dogma” and is defined as “a religious truth established by Divine Revelation and defined by the Church.”
Rick, which church is what Russ is asking? Can you tell us?! The Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Church? They split and Excommunicated each other in the seventh century.
Well Rick, what about the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant sects? I hope you have read some of the accounts of the Inquisition and how, even if you recanted Protestant heresy, you where still burnt at the stake, only, as grace given by the Catholic bishops, you were choked to death first and then you body was brunt…“Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.” and since Heaven/ Jesus condemns sinners to Hell, the Catholics would give the heretic a head start in the fires of Hell!
Rick, I really don’t have time to waste with you. Educate yourself and then come back here to DC and maybe then you can carry on a half way intelligent discussion!
Hey, Harry,
what's Your experience with the Eastern Orthodox? (C'mon, tell, tell, tell!)
Harry,
You claim that a Torah reading, a pious Jewish reading, would reveal Jesus as a bum. But it seems to me that your definition would also include judges, Levites, and prophets.
What place of honor does the Talmud give to these classes?
And I don't like ad hominem attacks (John Loftus is better at avoiding this) but in your last quote you said that "Rick, I really don't have time to waste with you...educate yourself...and maybe you can carry on a half way intelligent discussion." If that isn't a personal slur, then you are being too specific in your definition of defamation.
Lvka, this was taken from a post here at DC date Dec. 7, 2007:
Finally, to show just how religious truth can be fabricated and propagated by an ancient and established orthodox Christian tradition, I would like to recount my situation with the Orthodox Church in Greenville, S.C.: Saint George Greek Orthodox Church.
While attending its annual Greek festival, I went inside to get an introduction to the Greek Orthodox Church and its icons. As I entered, I was given a printed brief history which included the statement that the Greek Orthodox tradition was the TRUE Christian Church established by Jesus himself.
On the wall in the church is a large icon mural of a knight on a white horse who had just slain a dragon. The guide told the visitors that the icon depicted Saint George as a righteous knight who killed a dragon (a creature pictured with bat wings and a snake like neck and head) who had terrorized a village for a number of years. Thus, by killing the evil dragon, George became a Saint and he is honored with this event by the name of this church: Saint George Greek Orthodox Church.
After thinking about this dogma as depicted in one of their holy icons, I decided to call
Saint George Greek Orthodox Church and ask if it was a fact that dragons really existed.
The church’s secretary told me she would have the priest (Father Tom) call to explain the icon.
The phone rang one morning and it was the orthodox priest (Father Tom) from St. George Church who seemed to have been given the impression that I was a potential member.
In short, after a few formalities, the text of the conversation went something as follows:
Harry: Could you tell me about Saint George Killing the dragon.
Father Tom basically recounted what the church guide told me and the other visitors.
Harry: So there were real dragons that flew and could terrorize a medieval village?
Father Tom: Well, the dragon which was killed was in reality Satan and by killing Satan, George freed the village from its destruction.
Harry: So Satan is now dead?
Father Tom: No, Satan is not dead! St. George killed the dragon just as the icon depicts.
Harry: So, again, were there real dragons that flew and could terrorize a medieval villages?
Father Tom: (now getting angry) Who are you? You are not a Greek Orthodox are you?
Harry: No (I decided it was best not to tell him I was an Atheist).
Father Tom: I’ll tell you one thing. You and the rest of you so-called Christians will stand before Christ at the judgment and there you WILL give an account on just why you are not Greek Orthodox.
With that he hung up and I knew no more about the matter of dragons and the icon than before he called.
In the end, I had questioned a divine dogma. When I pushed the point of the fabrication of religious “Truth”, I was given the wrath of God as a future judgment for my soul. And that's par for the course!
Christ Follower said...
He came to earth to be crucified, he decided to die, even when he could of avoided it by simply being quite when the High Priest asked him if he was God.
Why do Christians always distort the bible to support their theology. It is a common ploy by fundamentalists to say the bible says things that it actually does not say, in order to support their theology.
The High Priest asked him if he was the Christ, Son of the Blessed (Mar 14:61). As a former unitarian Christian I had to constantly correct trinitarians on their distortions and eisegesis. Today I heard the "bible answer man" Hank Hannegraff make the same mistake/lie when he said Peter's great confession was that Jesus was God, when in reality Peter called him the Christ, Son of God.
Christians continue to undermine themselves with these kinds of distortions.
Deist Dan
Harry makes some interesting points. Considering the Jesus specifically taught that his disciples would see his return in his lifetime and judgment of the world, it isn't a surprise that he encouraged them to live rather unproductive lives of wandering preachers that the end of the world is at hand so repent and believe the "good news". Those that then heard this I assume would then also sell their possessions and become wandering preachers. Had everyone accepted Christianity, one wonders what the world would look like today (there would no longer be productive people to leech off of.)
Christians simply don't live off of the teachings of Jesus anymore, in fact there are groups of Christians (dispensationalists) who have rejected his teachings outright. They say his teachings were for jews only and were part of the old covenant system. They say Christians are to live under Paul's teachings instead because he was given a unique new understanding that Jesus and the 12 were not previously teaching!
Talk about madness.
Harry,
Since there is something in this post that at least appears to be an attempt to actually respond to something that I said to you, I will take the time to clarify for you my intention so you can be disabused of your faulty perception. If you read things more closely you would not keep coming to wrong conclusions.
>>>Rick, you love to run off references to Jesus as a rabbi. So, as a Jew, which of the known groups was Jesus as a legitimate rabbi a member of: The Scribes, The Pharisees, The Sadducees, or was he a religious Zealot?<<
First I want to point out that Since I first responded to this article, this is the third time you’ve pressed a question on me on this topic, while to this point you have failed to offer even one response to the refutations of your positions that I have made not only here but to the previous posts I have addressed. By contrast, I have answered every “argument” you’ve put forth and every question you’ve put to me (including those on the previous article). I consider your display here to have demonstrated quite sufficiently that I have given you more than reasonable opportunity to engage in meaningful discussion, but you have been either unable, unwilling, or both.
To your question:
I didn’t claim that Jesus was a rabbi who had his authority and status conferred on him by human institutions that had no Scriptural origin. My words were “The gospels clearly indicate that Jesus was a CONSIDERED a rabbi [as I said, by everyone from his followers to his enemies]. In fact, approximately 60 times in the N.T. Jesus is called “Rabbi” or “Teacher” (which is what “rabbi” means; cf. John 1:38-39)” [of which I gave you several examples].
In support of this I pointed you to a very helpful paper. If you read it you would not be so confused. To help you I will paste a couple of paragraphs here.
“Third, a distinction must be made between rabbi as an address for teachers prior to AD 70 and rabbi as a fixed title in the period of full-fledged rabbinism. The present essay uses the term “rabbi” in the former sense without implying in any way that Jesus conforms to the formalized picture of the institutionalized rabbinate after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD 70 and the bar Kochba revolt in AD 135.28 Moreover, calling Jesus a “rabbi” does not necessarily imply buying into the theory that Jesus had a highly sophisticated didactic philosophy, including teaching his students to memorize large portions of his words or other similar methods.29
Fourth, the effort to demonstrate that Jesus’ contemporaries viewed him first of all as a rabbi in keeping with established Jewish custom does not intend to level all distinctions between the teachings and actions of Jesus and those of other Jewish rabbis. To the contrary, it will be seen that Jesus adapted this model in a number of ways and [p.104] even broke common convention in his actions as well as in his teaching. In particular, Jesus’ messianic consciousness led him to interpret OT messianic interpretations with reference to himself, something no other rabbi of his day would have dared to do.”
You really should read to see how he establishes his thesis. Again, it would relieve you of the significant burden of ignorance.
>>> Rick: “To your other points:
Are you really proposing that Jesus was crucified because he was a drain on society? Enough said.”
Re: That’s totally a miss-reading of my post! I said his irresponsible mouth got him in trouble with both the Jewish and Roman authorities.<<
It is possible that I didn’t get your intention, but only because your words didn’t convey your intention.
I was referring to what you said at the end of your post. You said, >>In the final days, Jesus’ free loading ride in life finally caught up with him and fell though as both the Torah loving Jews and the Roman authorities finally had enough of this free loading trouble making bum… He ended up crucified …<<
HIS FREELOADING LIFE CAUGHT UP WITH HIM AS THE JEWS AND THE ROMAN AUTHORITIES HAD ENOUGH OF HIM. HE WAS CRUCIFIED. Since the only “trouble making” you talk about is him “freeloading” it is a reasonable assumption that you were saying this is why he was crucified (unless you want to say his trouble making was that he was "a party animal"…sigh…).
I don’t know how you can say, “That’s totally a miss-reading of my post!” [sic]
>>> I said his irresponsible mouth got him in trouble with both the Jewish and Roman authorities.<<
Harry, you SAID no such thing!
Besides, that was ONE sarcastic comment made in passing. Why have you not yet addressed a single developed argument in refutation of your posts? Any of them?
>>>Rick claims: “after Harry first posted what amounted to a juvenile and terribly weak article loosely based on demonstrably faulty reading and reasoning. When I demonstrated thoroughly where he was clearly mistaken, he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others, and yet failed to address even one point of refutation I had made.”
Fact is Rick, you are claiming that the Gospel account itself is “a juvenile and terribly weak article loosely based on demonstrably faulty reading and reasoning.” since over 90% of my post was simply quoting the Gospel accounts themselves. All I did was post a one or two sentences of introduction and let the Gospels speak for themselves.<<
Fact is Harry, you’re clueless here. Pay attention.
FIRST, if you read what I said you would know that the quote you take from my response to Russ was referencing the quote he took from my 2nd response to you. I was justifying what I had said to you there “...why so much hostility? Really, what has some Christian or minister done that has so angered and provoked you?
Truthfully Harry, I’ve rarely met a man so full of bitterness. You really make yourself and your cause look bad. You would do better to remain silent.”
I was explaining to him why I said you make yourself and your cause look bad, from my first interaction with you.
1. The article you wrote on sex and wealth “amounted to a juvenile and terribly weak article loosely based on demonstrably faulty reading and reasoning.” (Which I demonstrated).
2. “When I demonstrated thoroughly where [you] was clearly mistaken, [you] responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others” (which you did).
3. In your response you “failed to address even one point of refutation I had made” (which to this point you still have failed to do).
I submitted then, and have now been repeatedly confirmed in my assessment that you make yourself and your cause look bad, and that you would do better to remain silent.
Now, if you read with a little care, you would not make such basic mistakes. I was not talking about the “bum” post but the “wealth” post. Perhaps if you actually responded to my refutations you would not be so confused.
Remember, with my refutation of the “wealth” article, you didn’t address my response but started with the name-calling and changed the subject to “Jesus didn’t live up to Paul’s work standards.” With my refutation of that post, you didn’t answer my refutation, but said you wanted to start a new discussion on the topic and invited me to cut and paste my response when the new article was posted. When you posted your expanded version here as “Jesus the Anti-Establishment Bum” I addressed your new points, AND pasted my response to your old points prefaced with this note: “As for Paul, as you suggested, I’ll just paste what I wrote in response to your “Faith, Sex, and Wealth” post which prompted this one. I will leave it intact, even though certain comments are addressing your tone which may be more evident there than here. I will note that you never responded to my refutations directly.”
For the record, I will note again that AFTER having posted them here, at your request, you STILL have not responded to those refutations. That makes you 0 for 2 Harry.
So, no Harry, I was not describing the Gospel account, but your “wealth” article, as “a juvenile and terribly weak article loosely based on demonstrably faulty reading and reasoning.”
SECOND, the description could fit your “bum” article as well if you understand that stringing together a bunch of verses connected only by your faulty understanding and erroneous commentary makes for a very weak article for many of the same reasons. But I wasn’t making that point.
THIRD, the “bum” article is closer to 70% Scripture, not “over 90%", but clearly accuracy is not your strong point. Besides, you could have posted whole chapters rather than select verses and made it 99% Scripture, and that would not make your understanding or assessment accurate. The error is found in your mind, Harry, not in the texts….
Brad, as far as Jesus being a prophet goes, let me quote Zechariah 13: 2 “It will come about in that day,” declares the LORD of hosts, “that I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, and they will no longer be remembered; and I will also remove the prophets and the unclean spirit from the land. 3 “And if anyone still prophesies, then his father and mother who gave birth to him will say to him, ‘You shall not live, for you have spoken falsely in the name of the LORD’; and his father and mother who gave birth to him will pierce him through when he prophesies.
All Judges ended in Israel with the rise of Saul a King.
Levites are attendants for the original Solomonic Temple end with it destruction in 586 BCE.
The second temple or Herod the Great’s Temple was staffed by professional Sadducees who themselves ended as a Jewish sect in the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE.
Since Jesus did not copy any text, he was not a scribe.
Since Jesus did not work in the Temple as a secular Jew, he was not a Sadducee.
Since Jesus did not live at Qumran, he was not an Essene.
Since Jesus often broke the Torah, he was not a pious Pharisee.
So, Brad, if you follow Rick's rabbi theory, just what Jewish sect is left?
Thus, since Jesus fails to qualify for any of the know rabbinic positions, he was just as Morton Smith said (Jesus the Magician; London, 1978) a charlatan. Thus, I call Jesus a jobless bum!
I’m not a Rabbinic scholar, so your best bet is any books by Jacob Neusner or a local rabbi.
As for as Rick goes, he was caught in a personal attack on me and in a flat out lie. I make no apologies!
>>>Again, Rick you are totally in error when you state: “When I demonstrated thoroughly where he was clearly mistaken, he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others, and yet failed to address even one point of refutation I had made.”
Get real Rick! All you ever did was try and use the entire New Testament and modern Systematic Theology to keep your Jesus as the anointed Christ. All I did was to quote the Gospels to show him to be a lazy bum.<<<
Again Harry, You’re confused. I’m referring to the refutation of the article on “wealth.” I did not use “modern Systematic Theology” and I addressed ONLY the Scriptures YOU put forth in your futile attempt to establish your case, NOT the entire New Testament. If I didn’t know you were so prone to making simple mistakes, I would be tempted to attribute it to blatant dishonesty. Again, if you would have addressed those points…oh forget it.
>>>And here is where I caught you in a bold face lie: “he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others, and yet failed to address even one point of refutation I had made.”
So Mr. truthful Christian, please quote me in any of my comments to this post when I call your are any commenter a name!! I called Jesus and lazy bum and meant it! But seeing how Jesus never committed on my post, either quote me verbatim calling any commenter to this post a name or keep your unfounded slanderous remarks to your self.<<
What I said was truthful and demonstrably so. It is only your dullness that prevents you from seeing it. But I won’t have my words qualified and confined by your faulty understanding.
First, IT WASN’T THIS POST
Second, I DIDN’T SAY IT WAS ANOTHER COMMENTATOR.
I said, ““he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others”
Here are the examples:
Of me you said, Rick…you have the virtually unlimited ability of a faithful believer to engage in self-delusion and rationalization to justify and protect your view of Christianity.
This is an ad hominem abusive.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
This is PRECISELY what you did.
Here are the other examples of name-calling:
Of Jesus you said:
he was, according to Paul, a free loading bum, who in his later years was a “busybody” that ended up getting himself killed by the Romans (If only Jesus could have sat at the feet of Paul and repented of the error of his ways / sin!).
Jesus sponged off Mary and Martha Luke 10: 38 – 41 like a leech!
Jesus was a free loading bum who demanded others to sponge off society too as proof that God would protect them
Your post overall, with its absence of any meaningful interaction, and its hostile tone and content, certainly fits the description I gave it, and I still contend it makes you look bad.
I was briefly describing what I did get as a response to highlight by contrast what I didn’t receive, “yet [he] failed to address even one point of refutation I had made.”
So, my remarks were not at all unfounded.
However, your charges of slander and calling me a liar remind me of another false charge you made. I asked you to substantiate it, but you haven’t done so. Let me remind you.
You said, >>>Lets face facts, God’s own divine code (Hebrew Bible) condemns the Gospel Jesus to death!<<
To which I challenged:
Would you care to substantiate this charge or are we just supposed to take your word for it? I mean you have demonstrated yourself to be so reliable so far…..
Of course, you haven’t and CAN’T substantiate this because it is not true, which ironically, makes YOU the one who is condemned by “God’s own divine code”…..Thou shalt not bear false witness…”
A to the rest of your post Harry, go back and READ my response to Russ, because your questions display an ignorance of what I said there.
But tell me, why is it you want to engage me on points in a post I made to Russ, when you have yet to attempt to answer:
1. My refutation of your “wealth” article.
2. My refutation of your subject change post about Paul and Jesus.
3. My response to your ridiculous claims in the “bum” article
Your games have become unbearably tedious. I say 3 strikes….out.
>>>Rick, I really don’t have time to waste with you. Educate yourself and then come back here to DC and maybe then you can carry on a half way intelligent discussion!<<
Uh……yeah……
….wiping dust…
Jeff stated: “There were many wandering rabbis in that day and age. As well, if you don't like //Second, there appear to have been supporters of Jesus' ministry who followed him around in addition to the disciples //If such people are willing to provide him with money for whatever he did (teaching, healing, etc.), then perhaps he wasn't "freeloading" quite so much as we might think at first glance.// And third, even going by today's standards, we might liken Jesus to some sort of motivational speaker. Such a person today goes around from place to place and teaches people about whatever topic they were brought in for.”
The problem is Jeff, Jesus is held out as a sinless example by which everyone should emulate even though people are told they will never make it. Not only that, but he and god are one and the same! I don’t see any other Cynics or Jewish rabbis making such a weird and wide claim.
Maybe for about 27 years Jesus just bummed off society and had a group of followers like Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones and Charles Manson; and just like the four name I just mentioned, sooner or latter Jesus began to think he was himself a god and then a violent death follows. I think the same was what happen to a jobless End of the World bum/ prophet named Jesus.
I do not see any motivational speakers making such outrageous claims that would incite religious hatred unless its one like the Imperial leader of the KKK.
Jesus’ problem is that he tried to use an ancient established religion, Judaism, to just like Joseph Smith, David Koresh, Jim Jones and Charles Manson for his own benefit and he got burnt just like they did.
Religious claim can take the cult leader very high and very fast just like a rocket with finical funds pouring in. But, just like a rocket, if the religious engine is pushed too hard and too fast, its explosion will killed the cult leader.
If Jesus simply stayed a minor religious bum, he would have died on the side of some Judean roadside as an unknown. But, when he saw how some wide religious claims could push his cult following high and fast, he, like all humans driven by money and greed for power which are not earned honestly, rode it until it to the explode on a Roman cross.
It is clearly stated in Mark 6:3, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3)
It was common in Bible times for a son to take the occupation of his father, and so it was with Jesus.
But the point of the post is still valid and true. As a carpenter, Jesus obviously wasn't very good or we'd have some references to it. Then again, he called all others away from their work, so he couldn't have been a working carpenter for very long!
But as McCall pointed out, all we have of Jesus is a preaching freeloader. We can therefore condemn Jesus in the same vein that we fault all preachers and evangelists and spin-doctors for being supported by congregations of working citizens while spreading myths without doing legit work.
(JH)
Re: On my view of Jesus as a rabbi, see my response to Brad.
Rick stated I said: “>>> I said his irresponsible mouth got him in trouble with both the Jewish and Roman authorities.<<”
Harry, you SAID no such thing!
Besides, that was ONE sarcastic comment made in passing. Why have you not yet addressed a single developed argument in refutation of your posts? Any of them?"
Wake up Rick! Judea was full of people with leprosy, mentally ill (the religious demon possessed), the lame, blind and with birth defects. They need to bum off society because they could not work and begged at the Temple and on the Jerusalem streets daily. I see no stories in Josephus where, just for bumming an existence they were crucified.,
On the other hand, Jesus was lazy and one who saw just how much money and power religion could bring him as he noticed the deification of the human Roman Emperor and the money and power the Temple Sadducees had.
For someone wanting the easy way out of a poor man's level of living, religious leadership, just like the Benny Hinns and the entire Jimmy Swaggart family today is an easy and rich life style.
For more on this and Jesus, please read my response to Jeff above.
Rick claims: “1. The article you wrote on sex and wealth “amounted to a juvenile and terribly weak article loosely based on demonstrably faulty reading and reasoning.” (Which I demonstrated).”
But yet you happily stated Rick said...
I think the assessment of Islam’s view of sex is on target. It is hypocritical. The author would have done better to leave the issue there. When He gets to the Christian (biblical) view of wealth, he stumbles seriously”
So Rick, as long as I take an objective look at Islam, that's fine since you think it’s a false religion / wrong religion anyway. But a for the Bible and Christianity goes, that hit a nerve!
As for Paul, Rick, you seem to think the Gospel accounts per-date his letters and that Paul even had the four Gospels at hand. Nothing could be further from the case!
Paul develops a systematic theology between work and faith as expressed in his final account of Romans which evangelical Gospel Tracts quote over and over to try and lead people to Christ.
Now, try this with the Synoptic Gospels or even John and you’ll get nowhere. Even salvation tracts know this!
Paul’s Jesus was a Christ of faith, not a Gospel bum.
And finally and again:
So Mr. truthful Christian, please quote me in any of my comments to this post where I called you or any commenter a name!! I called Jesus and lazy bum and meant it! But seeing how Jesus never committed on my post, either quote me verbatim calling any commenter to this post a name or keep your unfounded slanderous remarks to your self.
Rick, looks like I'm not the only one who isn't living up to expectations!
I think the assessment of Islam’s view of sex is on target. It is hypocritical. The author would have done better to leave the issue there. When He gets to the Christian (biblical) view of wealth, he stumbles seriously”
Hah, I loved that. Especially since, if Rick actually knew any Muslims, actually read a book about Islam, or asked any imam this side of Saudi Arabia about the nature of Jannah, he would be treated to the exact same sort of "you just have no idea what you're talking about"-based argumentation that he's subjecting us to.
Yes Harry, your post reminds me of the Rastafarian way of life, where I can see Jesus's "anti-establishment" influence implemented. Rastafarians are not religious, and it's not that they're lazy, but with Jesus's way of life as a precedent, it makes it easier and I guess a little meaningful to be rebellious. So if being a rebel keeps you down from being recognized according to society's standard, then so be it, think whatever you want. (The least shall be first anyways.)Basically, I think Jesus has influence good in many, but here is a case (out of many) where I think his influence doesn't help.
Bad Hermeneutics, observation and logic.
Why reference to the Greek, when you do not know Greek? Why fluff the biblical texts with your own anger, frustration and opinions, when you know that your authority on these issues is equivalent to that of a layman?
I am not trying to be rude, I just don't understand why people who do not possess the knowledge or scholarship, address topics they know nothing about. Even Christians do this.
Rick,
Tone is an essential part of the communication process, and while I do, for the most part, endeavor toward civility, I can be as shrill, scathing and strident as anyone else might be as the need arises. Since written communication lacks the auditory, visual, tactile and olfactorial sensory cues that make face-to-face dialog a richer, and less error-prone undertaking, textual interchange places on its participants greater demands to clearly establish a base emotional tone and voice.
(For me at my very worst, see "The Bizzaro Beliefs of Christianity" by John W. Loftus from 11/23/2008.)
To be sure, we must all tolerate honest ignorance in others since honesty demands that we acknowledge that we ourselves are ignorant of most things: none of us has the capacity to possess a full understanding of even one non-trivial area of interest. But, when ignorance shrouds itself in clerical garb, pretends to be certain knowledge, and invasively perpetuates itself by intentionally infecting the vulnerable, like credulous children and adults beaten down by circumstances, my tolerance sometimes fails me.
Let me respond to the remainder of your comment.
In Harry's post, here, you have one version of how the accounts of Jesus can be construed. As I see it, Harry's Jesus-Was-A-Lazy-Bum reading of the New Testament is every bit as legitimate an interpretation of those texts as are the widely varying interpretations preached from the pulpits by the Christian clergy, orthodox or otherwise.
Another popular take on the Biblical Jesus comes from many fundamentalist Christian clergy. It describes a Jesus who is everywhere you are, and, who, according to the gospels - note that the gospels establish no apologetic preconditions, except belief - will answer each and every prayer.
And here's one more variation on the Jesus theme. Harry Cook is one example of "orthodox" active Christian clergy who neither understand nor preach that Jesus was divine, and who think of the supernatural elements of Christianity as "mumbo-jumbo" or "phoney-baloney." You can read some of Harry's essays and sermons at harrytcook.com. Harry has been active Christian clergy, Episcopal priest, for over 40 years. I once asked Harry if I correctly understood his position on the supernatural. His e-mail response was, in part (used with permission):
1.Supernaturalism is phony-baloney stuff. Nature is enough for human beings to deal with. I give it no thought whatsoever.
2. Jesus didn't believe Hillel the Elder was sacred (or maybe you mean "divine.") And neither did most followers until the fathers of the Nicene Council decided by majority vote that such was so. There are plenty of us in the clergy who, on the basis of evidence and its research, that "Jesus" as he is variously depicted in the gospels is a fiction -- ok, a "sacred" fiction if you want.
3. Some one is on record in the early part of the First Century C.E. as having articulated a marvelous ethical vision of how human beings can live together in peace, security and opportunity. It's all summed up in the Jesus riff on Hillel's summary of Torah: WHAT YOU HATE, DO NOT DO TO ANOTHER or "do unto others..." The day that the critical mass of human beings adopt that wisdom and live by it is the day the world will be saved from itself. Maybe then I'll be ready to talk about the divinity of whoever said that stuff in the first place.
4. I do not consider morality or ethics to have a supernatural source. The celestial hand proffering the etched tablets to Charlton Heston (apparently unarmed at the time) is a metaphor representing the much longer and more difficult process the ancient Hebrews endured in figuring out how to keep people from killing each others. They figured out that if you made stealing taboo, fewer people would kill to get. And if you made envy taboo, few people would steal. Since it was the elders in the early tribes who figured out that stuff, it was necessary to mandate the honoring of father and mother, and after those early generations passed away, successor elders transferred the tribal honor to the spirits of the dead elders and, finally, to an unseen god whence the elders had come in the first place.
I personally know many Christian clergy who are of the same mindset, but are unwilling to give public air to those thoughts. I mention Harry because he permits it, and he expresses the same ideas from the pulpit as he does in his books, articles and essays. While Harry is one of the rare clergymen who are open and honest with ideas like "'Jesus' as he is variously depicted in the gospels is a fiction," he is also, as he notes above, not unique. I have many friends and family members who are atheist Christian clergy, former clergy, and laymen, and they are all from "orthodox" denominations.
What fascinates me most about Biblical Jesus is its inherent malleability. Here, from one text three different people arrive at three mutually exclusive versions of Jesus: Harry McCall's lazy human Jesus, Fundamentalist Clergy's personal prayer answering Jesus, and Harry Cook's fictional Jesus. Human. Divine. Fictional. All three Jesuses come from persons with Christian roots and, what seems to me to be the least desirable version of Biblical Jesus for most theistic Christians comes, not from the former Christian, but, instead comes from an active "orthodox" Christian clergyman with a vast scholarly background.
You noted, Rick, that you
...consider [Harry McCall's post] to be an ignorant and ridiculous reading of some very plain texts...
and
I just have a particular dislike for the combination of ignorance, arrogance and irrationality.
For the same reasons that I would not label Harry Cook's version of Jesus(fiction) with the adjectives you have chosen, neither would I apply them to either Harry McCall's version of Jesus(lazy bum). Fundamentalist Clergyman's version of Jesus(personal supernatural prayer-answering buddy) is truly deserving of such insults. Why is that?
From evolution we know incontrovertibly that Biblical accounts of creation are simply the wrongheadedness of ignorant desert tribes. Period. There were no Adam and Eve as depicted in the Bible, so there was no original sin from which we needed to be forgiven. If some Jesus actually existed who inspired the cult of Christianity, then the Biblical accounts do not even relate a sacrifice of any sort. Instead, they tell a tale more akin to this: heavenly host dips finger into humanity, waits a while, then retracts it. Nothing attributed to Jesus was original, everything about him having been snitched from other mystical traditions: birth, death, resurrection, teachings, miracles, descent into hell, ascent into heaven.
My decades of study and experience tell me that of the three Jesuses outlined here the personal supernatural prayer-answering buddy of the fundamentalist clergyman is undoudtedly the least consistent with current and historical observations of the human condition. As I see it, Rick, we all need each other. We need to help and we need to be helped. If we are actually helping, we're not praying. If we're praying, we're not helping. People help people. Gods might be undeservedly credited, which of course further reinforces the superstition, but in every instance of humanitarian concern it is people, and people only, who provide relief.
Rick, if you at all resemble others calling themselves Christian, you will have created your own distinct personal version of Jesus, making none of these three Jesuses acceptable to you. Indeed, if that's the case, you have set the cornerstone for a new Christian sect, thus budding yet another branch on the ever-evolving tree of Christian storytelling. I don't intend to demean by calling Christianity "storytelling," but mythology is hardly adequate since most acknowledged myths have far more stable content.
Ancient Greek, Roman, Nordic, and Celtic myths, for instance, are much the same today as they were a couple of centuries ago, but Christian practitioners constantly change their conceptions of their gods, devils, saviors, heavens, hells, demons, and angels while they continually update their inferences and revelations about doctrine.
The distinctions are, of course, obvious if we compare between religions. In the Abrahamic religions we are taught that there is one god, yet simple observation tells us that neither the respective clergy nor the layman believes that to be the case. The Jewish faithful do not believe that their god has sent them a messiah, while Christians believe that their god, supposedly the same one of the Jews, has done just that. In Islam Jesus was a prophet, but the god Muslims listen to has told them that Jesus was not the right one. These religions obviously worship different gods which tell them different things. Religious rhetoric in the media puts it in no uncertain terms that, though some will admit intellectually to the notion of there being only one Abrahamic god, respective members have distinct incompatible messages revealed to them, though, at least textually, they all share the notable doctrine of death to apostates.
The same distinctions hold true within Christianity. Different members, families, congregations, denominations, and sects receive many distinct revelations from their gods that are often incompatible, contradictory, or mutually exclusive.
God sends sinners to hell; God sends no one to hell. God in heaven lets the saved watch sinners being tortured in hell; God would never do such a thing. There is a hell; there is no hell. God lives right here among us; God is outside time and space. Hell is real; hell is only a psychological threat. God is real; God is fiction. God will send you to hell if you think abortion should be allowable; no, God says a woman should be free to decide on how to use her body, including reproduction.
All of these are ideas and beliefs held by and expounded by many Christian clergy and laymen. They describe different gods with different wants, needs, desires, and intentions, who voice different things to different people. These different god variants all represent the personal thoughts and insights of individual people, most often clergy, couched in the power and authority of deities. From childhood on in most religious traditions, the faithful have impressed upon them that a plain ol' person can be safely dismissed for having stupid or bizarre ideas, but make that same plain ol' person a cleric wielding that same stupid or bizarre idea as revelation from god and you are obliged to take it as your own. Christian Scientists, who often let their children die of diseases easily cured by a quick trip to a doctor, surely exemplify the stupid and bizarre ilk.
I don't know if I'll get around to explaining my bitterness and hostility about the observably adverse moral, spiritual, emotional and intellectual affects Christianity has had on mankind, but I've touched on parts of it here as the perpetuation of superstition masquerading and accepted as beneficial to mankind, and the egregious moral affront that is Christian Science.
But the point of the post is still valid and true. As a carpenter, Jesus obviously wasn't very good or we'd have some references to it. Then again, he called all others away from their work, so he couldn't have been a working carpenter for very long!
I would take a cabinet made by the sinless one anyday!
Jesus worked until the age of thirty, went into a three year season of teaching and healing after fasting in the wilderness for forty days and being baptised by John the Baptist. He had presumably made enough money in his business to sustain three years of "freeloading".
After his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, his followers (120 of them) waited for forty days in the "upper room" (expensive board room in Jerusalem) for the Holy Spirit to fill them, before thousands were added to their number daily and they all shared their property and hanged out at the temple (a massive place, bigger than any mall, theme park or stadium I've ever been to).
Reading the Bible with a little imagination and common sense shows where the "lazy bum" thinking takes you - to unqualified stereotypes! There is much to read between the lines.
Jesus was an amazing person, loved by multitudes and hated by a few. The same applies today.
Harry, in regards to your response to my post:
First off, let me say that I think we would both agree that pastors, priests, etc. are all meaningless professions. They exchange their services for a salary, but their services are devoid of truth and meaning. It's this sense that I think you're talking about "freeloading."
I see it in a different sense, however. To me, the position of pastor may be a meaningless profession, but it is still a profession. Pastors don't (generally) sit around begging for money. That's being a lazy bum. They at least perform services, such as sermons, weddings, funerals, visiting the sick, etc. They are providing goods and services, whether you happen to like those goods/services or not. It is in this sense that I can see Jesus as providing an essentially meaningless service without calling him a "freeloader" or "lazy bum." These have negative connotations that I don't think are justly applied to either him or those today that share a similar profession.
I mentioned motivational speakers before, and you made a big to-do about how Jesus was different. However, the content of their messages is not the issue. To me, even if a travelling speaker went around proclaiming that every person could be transported into another dimension and dance with aliens, and gave a six-step process on how to do that, if people were willing to pay to hear his message, I would see it as a legitimate business. Irrelevant, of course, and stupid for sure, but still legitimate. Perhaps I'm simply arguing semantics, but I don't think it's necessary to categorize people with a meaningless job as "freeloaders." If Jesus spent his life in a leper colony, begging for money, he could be a lazy bum in my eyes.
Phil stated: “Why reference to the Greek, when you do not know Greek? Why fluff the biblical texts with your own anger, frustration and opinions, when you know that your authority on these issues is equivalent to that of a layman?”
Wow Phil, I only thought God was all knowing! Now, totally new to me, is that I do not know Greek; I totally miss-read the Biblical text; plus I’m just an uneducated layman.
You have all the zeal of a misguided Origen who cut his nuts off to keep from sexually sinning!
Lets see: One of my undergraduate Greek professors was a classmate with Harvard’s Frank M. Cross (Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages, emeritus) at McCormick Seminary and did his THM on the Synoptic Greek text.
My graduate Greek professor, Keith Nickle, earned his ThD in New Testament under Karl Barth and Oscar Cullmann at Basel.
My Old Testament Professor, Ludwig Dewitz, earned his PhD in Semitic languages at Johns Hopkins and W.F. Albright was his advisor.
Dewitz taught Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian and Sumerian at Emory University and Hebrew and Aramaic at Columbia Theological Seminary.
Phil again stated: “ am not trying to be rude, I just don't understand why people who do not possess the knowledge or scholarship, address topics they know nothing about.”
Tell you what Phil, I work out of Columbia SCDOT Radio Shop. I can shoot down I-20 and meet you at Cracker Barrel Old Country Store near Columbia International University if you want to back up your claims in person. What do you say?
And all the atheists at DC marveled at daniel hutchinson’s scriptural claims saying: “Truly I tell you, I have not seen such blind faith in the Biblical text in all of fundamentalism!”
But I do have one more question Rabbi Hutchinson: Are the Gospel words printed in red the real statements Jesus spoke?
Great points to Rick, Russ.
At times I feel there can be as many interpretations of Jesus as there are Hindu gods.
Charles Manson’s reading and interpretation of the Book of Revelation caused him to lead a murderous cult of death to hopefully start a race war in the last days and give rise to a new earth rule by his / the Mason cult.
People like Rick think that when their Jesus returns he will make a bee line straight to his denominational headquarters and hug their Christian sect leader thanking him for holding fast to the one and only “True Faith”.
Harry,
I'll give you the fact that the Judges ceased from the Monarchy on.
But you took that Zech. quote way out of context.
And to suggest that there weren't Levites who traced their genealogies in the first century is just wrong.
So you try to eliminate Jesus from all of the competing sects of the time, but you completely leave out the most important ingredient: apocalypticism. That covers all of the sects you mention, from Qumran to Galilee, from zealot to Sadducee. A good Jew's one hope was a Messianic salvation. To gloss over that is almost revisionist. And all of those sects, with exception of possibly the Saducees, looked to the prophets and the priesthood as Israel's eventual salvation. Just look at who they quote in their writings and what their vision is for the renewed Israel. How could you miss that? That's the one thing anyone should know about 1st century Palestine.
As John Loftus rightly points out, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, the one profession that meant anything to a regular Jew living under Roman Occupation. And His message took hold over all of His competition.
So not only did Jesus do the one thing that Jews looked for back then, He did it better than hundreds of His contemporaries.
Brad claimed: I'll give you the fact that the Judges ceased from the Monarchy on.
Re: Yes, with the rise of Kingship in Israel.
Brad: But you took that Zech. quote way out of context.
Re: I was simply using the text that the late R.H. Charles cited to show why canonical prophets ceased in Israel. R.H. Charles authored The International Critical Commentary two volumes on Revelation, edited Oxford’s two volumes:
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament and was the greatest English eschatological scholar of his day (d. 1931). Do I need to quote you the page number in his book; Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life In Israel, Judaism and Christianity where he used Zech. just as I quoted him?
Brad: And to suggest that there weren't Levites who traced their genealogies in the first century is just wrong.
Re; That’s not what I said. I said their temple control ended in 586 CBE.
I beleive you think there was a totally pure and separate Levitical blood line especially after the Exile. If so, then you have your work cut out for you!
To claim Jesus came from a pure priestly blood line or that enven his geneology is correct is just plain wishful thinking by just comparing Matt. with Luke.
Brad: So you try to eliminate Jesus from all of the competing sects of the time, but you completely leave out the most important ingredient: apocalypticism. That covers all of the sects you mention, from Qumran to Galilee, from zealot to Sadducee. A good Jew's one hope was a Messianic salvation. To gloss over that is almost revisionist. And all of those sects, with exception of possibly the Saducees, looked to the prophets and the priesthood as Israel's eventual salvation. Just look at who they quote in their writings and what their vision is for the renewed Israel. How could you miss that? That's the one thing anyone should know about 1st century Palestine.
Re: I showed you that Jesus was not a member of any known Jewish sect and I stating that he was not a failed apocalyptic prophet (not recognized in Judaism via Zech. above)is not what I said. This goes back to J. Weiss (1892), Albert Schweizer (1906, who saw Jesus a an failed apocalyptic prophet who went up to Jerusalem to bring in the end of the age and he himself ended up crucified by the Romans. This apocalyptic prophet view is still held by such noted modern scholars a Dale Allison and Bart Ehrman.
But to say Jesus was then viewed as you now view Jesus (not only the messiah, but an accepted apocalyptic prophet in Judaism) is blatantly wrong!
Brad: As John Loftus rightly points out, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, the one profession that meant anything to a regular Jew living under Roman Occupation. And His message took hold over all of His competition.
Re: I have no problem here as I stated above. The major work here is: Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era by Jacob Neusner, William Scott Green, and Ernest S. Frerichs.
The Foreword reads:
While Jews in ancient Israel had much in common, in fact there existed no such thing as an orthodox Judaism. Diverse Judaisms, each with its own way of life, world view, and definition of the social entity (or Israel) to whom it spoke, flourished. Since there was no single Judaism, there was no single Messiah-idea or Messianic doctrine. Various readings of the Messiah theme reached definition in the various unrelated religious systems or Judaisms produced by those Jews--hence "Judaisms" and "their Messiahs." In this book, distinguished specialists in late antiquity Judaisms, including Christian scholars, take up the differing place and role of the Messiah-idea. Dealing with the best-documented Judaic systems--the Essene community at Qumran, Christian Judaisms represented by Matthew and Mark, the nascent rabbinic Judaism portrayed in the Mishnah, the Judaic system implicit in the writings of Philo--each author works out how a given system treats the Messiah theme.
Brad: So not only did Jesus do the one thing that Jews looked for back then, He did it better than hundreds of His contemporaries.
Re: This is just your wishful modern Christianized thinking. If true, the Gospels would not have shifted the death and blame of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews as Bart Ehrman notes.
Plus, according to the accounts of Josephus, Jesus, like all the other so called Hellenistic messiah ended up dead and rejected by Judaism.
Harry,
I think you miss the forest for the trees here. I couldn't argue that there were competing sects and readings of messianic prophecies in 2nd Temple Judaism. It's pretty clear that the Essenes and Pharisees had different apocalyptic views, there were even different competing schools within the Pharisees. But the main point is that all of them looked toward a restored Israel and a restored priestly system. They were all waiting on the Messiah. The Saducees were the only ones who didn't look to it because they were already comfortably wealthy and didn't want to rock the boat.
In this context, Jesus' ministry spoke directly to the Jewish peasant. He spoke to their one hope, amidst competing messianic visions, and His message took root. Surely you aren't going to argue for some sort of Jewish/Hellenistic dialectical for Christian origins. That theory died a long time ago.
And I think you cite Dale Allison a little too quickly. I don't think he would concur with your conclusions. Come to think of it, Ehrman probably wouldn't either, though he would go along with you in denying the resurrection.
Now as for the Zechariah quote, surely you can see that God is cleaning out the false prophets from Jerusalem. And the larger context is the Messianic vision of Zechariah (chap. 13,14).
You see, you don't have to identify Jesus with a certain sect in order to place Him historically within the Jewish hope. And the fact that His message spread to the wider world doesn't mean that His ministry somehow didn't fit in the context. (BTW, where did I try to connect Jesus with some priestly bloodline?) I have a hard time seeing how a lazy bum could inspire the movement that He did, but maybe that isn't historical, it's only "wishful thinking."
And quoting Josephus doesn't help your cause, because he is writing after A.D. 70. Josephus attributed the messiah to a Roman emperor. Do you think he represents 2nd Temple apocalyptics?
But you have still missed the real point of my post, that your standards would condemn the Judges, Levites, and Prophets in their own day. You show undue contempt for Jesus and for ministers in general. Would you level the same charge against Martin Luther King Jr.? He was certainly anti-establishment and lived off of other's contributions.
Harry,
From your last post to me:
>>>Rick stated I said: “>>> I said his irresponsible mouth got him in trouble with both the Jewish and Roman authorities.<<”
Harry, you SAID no such thing!
Besides, that was ONE sarcastic comment made in passing. Why have you not yet addressed a single developed argument in refutation of your posts? Any of them?"
Your response:
>>Wake up Rick! Judea was full of people with leprosy, mentally ill (the religious demon possessed), the lame, blind and with birth defects. They need to bum off society because they could not work and begged at the Temple and on the Jerusalem streets daily. I see no stories in Josephus where, just for bumming an existence they were crucified.,<<
Either you are very easily confused, or very adept at trying to confuse. I was addressing WHAT YOU SAID – NOT what you thought but didn’t say, NOT what was the actual historical situation, NOT what I believe, or what ANYONE ELSE believes, BUT WHAT YOU SAID.
I can only know what you think if you tell me. I went by what you told me, which was NOT what you later claimed you had said (above).
(BTW, I’m not yelling but emphasizing. For some reason, I guess I haven’t gotten the hang of the HTML codes.)
>>>On the other hand, Jesus was lazy…<<
As I said earlier, if you’re really inclined to think this, read Mark sometime.
>>> Rick claims: “1. The article you wrote on sex and wealth “amounted to a juvenile and terribly weak article loosely based on demonstrably faulty reading and reasoning.” (Which I demonstrated).”
But yet you happily stated Rick said...
I think the assessment of Islam’s view of sex is on target. It is hypocritical. The author would have done better to leave the issue there. When He gets to the Christian (biblical) view of wealth, he stumbles seriously”
So Rick, as long as I take an objective look at Islam, that's fine since you think it’s a false religion / wrong religion anyway. But a for the Bible and Christianity goes, that hit a nerve!<<<
No Harry, if you’ll remember I answered your supposed argument (about Christianity and wealth) point by point because it was manifestly weak, and groundless. You remember, that was my 1st response, which you have YET to address – the one that caused you to change the subject and say you would rather talk about something else (this article).
So no, you didn’t hit a nerve. But your constant avoidance of relevant issues, your use of just about every informal fallacy in the book (as well as many formal ones), and your juvenile attitude have long since gotten on my nerves.
As to Islam, perhaps I’m wrong, but I did see what appeared to be some objectivity, or at least some factual accuracy, (along with a lot of juvenile musings), with that part of your article. But any degree of objectivity was noticeably absent in your dealing with Christianity. At any rate, I agreed with your conclusion about Islam and sex, but found nothing in your argument or conclusion about Christianity and wealth that resembles reality, for the reasons fully demonstrated.
Besides, my opening 15 words were my brief attempt to address the 1st half of your article and to make the nicest comments possible about it overall, while drawing a contrast and making it clear that whatever may be worthwhile in the 1st half, didn’t make its way into the 2nd. I still maintain you have done better to have left off the 2nd part altogether.
>>>As for Paul, Rick, you seem to think the Gospel accounts per-date his letters and that Paul even had the four Gospels at hand.<<
That’s a pretty big assumption Harry! Again, I’m astounded at your ability (deliberate perhaps?) to miss the obvious and see what’s not there.
Do I think Paul had the four gospels at hand? No.
As to their relative dates, the gospels span decades in the dates of their writing, Paul’s letters span decades in the dates of their writing. As you know, different theories and reconstructions exist as to their exact dates and their relative dates one to another.
But Harry, this is just another Red Herring. The point at hand is the fact that PAUL, in I Cor. 9:14 said, “the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” You can worry about how he knew the Lord commanded this, or what his sources were, but that’s irrelevant to the fact that PAUL BELEIVED the Lord commanded it, and therefore HE NOT ONLY WOULD NOT CONDEMN THIS PRACTICE as you stated he would, but PAUL USED THIS AS HIS AUTHORITY (along with Deut.25) FOR THE ONGONING PRACTICE FOR BOTH HIMSELF AND HIS FELLOW MINISTERS (meaning ALL fellow ministers – which is made clear in the preceding verses - I Cor. 9:3-14, in I Tim. 5:17-18, and in II Thes. 3:9). BTW, here I am yelling, I hope you hear it this time.
Again, I’ll point out the fact that the II Thes. passage (v.8-11) is the text you tried to use as the basis for Paul’s supposed Jesus-condemning-superior-work ethic. Yet, in that very passage, he supports and claims the right for faithful gospel ministers to get their living by the gospel.
So you can’t have Paul as your authority to condemn Jesus. You can’t have Moses as your authority to condemn Jesus. You have only yourself, and I’m afraid you’re going to find the tables turned on you.
>>>Paul develops a systematic theology between work and faith as expressed in his final account of Romans which evangelical Gospel Tracts quote over and over to try and lead people to Christ.
Now, try this with the Synoptic Gospels or even John and you’ll get nowhere. Even salvation tracts know this!<<
Another Red Herring. So What?
>>>And finally and again:
So Mr. truthful Christian, please quote me in any of my comments to this post where I called you or any commenter a name!! I called Jesus and lazy bum and meant it! But seeing how Jesus never committed on my post, either quote me verbatim calling any commenter to this post a name or keep your unfounded slanderous remarks to your self. Rick, looks like I'm not the only one who isn't living up to expectations!<<
Actually Harry, at this point your are living up to my expectations for you – they have been brought that LOW.
Now go back and READ where I gave you your quotes to support exactly what I ACTUALLY SAID YOU HAD DONE. (Back to not yelling)
Okay, since this is the 2nd time you’ve called me a liar on this point, and now you carry on as though I had not answered your false accusation, acknowledging neither my defense nor your mistake, here’s the exchange (John, I know this adds to this post considerably, but please let it in)
_____________________________
>>>And here is where I caught you in a bold face lie: “he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others, and yet failed to address even one point of refutation I had made.”
So Mr. truthful Christian, please quote me in any of my comments to this post when I call your are any commenter a name!! I called Jesus and lazy bum and meant it! But seeing how Jesus never committed on my post, either quote me verbatim calling any commenter to this post a name or keep your unfounded slanderous remarks to your self.<<
What I said was truthful and demonstrably so. It is only your dullness that prevents you from seeing it. But I won’t have my words qualified and confined by your faulty understanding.
First, IT WASN’T THIS POST
Second, I DIDN’T SAY IT WAS ANOTHER COMMENTATOR.
I said, ““he responded with a series of ad hominem abusive slurs and name-calling against me and others”
Here are the examples:
Of me you said, Rick…you have the virtually unlimited ability of a faithful believer to engage in self-delusion and rationalization to justify and protect your view of Christianity.
This is an ad hominem abusive.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
This is PRECISELY what you did.
Here are the other examples of name-calling:
Of Jesus you said:
he was, according to Paul, a free loading bum, who in his later years was a “busybody” that ended up getting himself killed by the Romans (If only Jesus could have sat at the feet of Paul and repented of the error of his ways / sin!).
Jesus sponged off Mary and Martha Luke 10: 38 – 41 like a leech!
Jesus was a free loading bum who demanded others to sponge off society too as proof that God would protect them
Your post overall, with its absence of any meaningful interaction, and its hostile tone and content, certainly fits the description I gave it, and I still contend it makes you look bad.
I was briefly describing what I did get as a response to highlight by contrast what I didn’t receive, “yet [he] failed to address even one point of refutation I had made.”
So, my remarks were not at all unfounded.______________________
>>>As for as Rick goes, he was caught in a personal attack on me and in a flat out lie. I make no apologies!<<
Harry, I won’t expect an apology from you, but at least it can be seen by others that your accusation is false. For your sake, I hope you would admit it at least to yourself.
I don’t know if anyone is actually fooled by your diversionary and evasive tactics, as obvious as they are. But if so, that is very sad indeed. Do you care at all about honesty, or do you feel justified to use any means you can to condemn what you hate? Seriously?
I won’t be looking for a response so no need to offer one to me. Feel free to say whatever you want for the rest to see.
Rick
Russ,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond so fully. I certainly agree that written communication does have its peculiar challenges. I also agree that honest ignorance requires our patience and tolerance. It's the dishonest kind that I particularly struggle with.
I think there is an inherent danger when ignorance is clothed in any (real or self-appointed) authority (clerical or any other). But to get to the bottom of this, we have a lot of work to do on the questions of what constitutes legitimate authority? Who, if anyone confers it? Is it inherent in us? Attained? If so. by what standard? Who determines that standard? What about ignorance? What constitutes knowledge? What is our epistemological warrant for believing anything? Your answers will differ from mine here, as does your assessment of the diversity of views on Jesus. My explanation for the diversity you patiently outline won’t satisfy you, anymore than yours satisfies me.
One area I would point out as mistaken is this assessment:
>>>Rick, if you at all resemble others calling themselves Christian, you will have created your own distinct personal version of Jesus, making none of these three Jesuses acceptable to you. Indeed, if that's the case, you have set the cornerstone for a new Christian sect, thus budding yet another branch on the ever-evolving tree of Christian storytelling.<<
Agreeing with what you said above about relative degrees of knowledge and ignorance, I think it is consistent to conclude that no Christian or non-Christian has absolute knowledge of Jesus as a person. I would say what knowledge we do have comes from what is revealed in Scripture. That people arrive at different conclusions about what they find there is attributable to many factors. But, I believe, if language is of any use to us at all, that the majority of the most significant truths about Christ revealed in Scripture can be fairly readily discerned. Again, there are explanations for people’s lack of discernment. As for those “Christian clergy,” as you put it, who are deceptive about what they really believe – they make it hard for me to give them much credibility.
That I don’t necessarily buy that any of the pictures you gave of Jesus are entirely accurate is in line with what we both said about relative degrees of knowledge. I do, of course, hold to the Deity of Jesus, which would leave only the fundamentalist picture you paint as my sole option of the three. The problem is that I see that the gospels DO qualify the issue of answered prayer. So I find your description a bit caricatured.
The idea that I don’t think any of the pictures you painted are completely biblically accurate would mean that I’ve laid the cornerstone for a new Christian sect is a non-sequitur. I stand firmly in the stream of orthodox Christian teaching regarding Jesus as it has been taught from the times of the apostles - indeed from Christ Himself.
I would add that your use of the term “orthodox” is unique. Historically it has referred to Christians who hold to the Christian faith as codified in the early ecumenical creeds of the church. For this reason I would not count your Harry Cook among the “orthodox.” Otherwise, the language starts to become meaningless.
Clearly, our differences are in foundational matters that brief interaction here won’t resolve. I’m curious though, for how long would you say you were a Christian? Where you in the ministry? What Christian group or denomination did you associate with?
As I say, we clearly see things differently, but thanks for striving for honesty and civility.
Peace,
Rick
Brad stated: In this context, Jesus' ministry spoke directly to the Jewish peasant. He spoke to their one hope, amidst competing messianic visions, and His message took root. Surely you aren't going to argue for some sort of Jewish/Hellenistic dialectical for Christian origins. That theory died a long time ago.
Re:Really, the language of Palestine at the time of Jesus was Aramaic, was it not. Even the movie The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson has Jesus speaking Aramaic.
Brad: “Surely you aren't going to argue for some sort of Jewish/Hellenistic dialectical for Christian origins. That theory died a long time ago.”
Please answer these:
A. In which town does the Book of Acts tells us where Christians were fist called Christians? Palestine or Asia Minor
B. As a Diaspora Jew, where was Saul / Paul was from? Palestine or Asia Minor
C. Where did Peter have a vision that all food was “clean”? Palestine or Asia Minor
D. Who does the Book of Acts remove after about chapter 14 as the new Christian leader? An Aramaic Palestinian named Peter / Cephas or a Hellenistic Jew named Saul / Paul
E. Where does Christianity have the most success? Palestine or Asia Minor
F. Where was the requirement for circumcision heatedly contested? Palestine or Asia Minor
G. The Christian Creeds as cited by Catholics and Orthodox and high church Protestants, but believed by low church Baptist / Pentecostals formulated? Palestine or Asia Minor
H. Where do the Early Church Fathers live and write orthodox dogmas? Palestine or Asia Minor
J. Where is the center of the early Christian seat of power become established? Palestine or Asia Minor / Rome
K. The Gospels themselves, especially the Synoptic Gospels, where were they most likely composed? In Semitic / Aramaic Palestine (The Aramaic proto-Matt. can be substined)? Palestine or Asia Minor
L. The Gospel of John which uses Greek philosophical term such as the “Logos” and other philosophical concepts to advance Christianity. Where did they acquire these terms? Palestine or Asia Minor
M. Where was Christianity a failure? In a country that Jesus never left; Palestine or in Paul’s Asia Minor
N. In the Book of Revelation, where are the Seven Churches to which the letters are addressed? Palestine or Asia Minor
O. Where were the formulations for Jesus’ Christology given its ground work?
In Palestine or Asia Minor
See Henry Chadwick’s: Early Christian Thought and The Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen (Oxford, 1966) and his: The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great (Oxford History of the Christian Church, 2001)
P. What was the Biblical text of the New Testament church as cited in the Gospels and the Epistles? The Palestine Hebrew text or the Hellenistic Septuagint LXX
Q. The word “church” as used 3 times in the Gospels, is it a Hebrew / Aramaic (Semitic) term or a Greek Hellenistic term?
Brad, I can go on which my facts, but then you did not prove anything with you simple statement of Jewish/Hellenistic dialectical denial.
Brad: “But you have still missed the real point of my post, that your standards would condemn the Judges, Levites, and Prophets in their own day. You show undue contempt for Jesus and for ministers in general. Would you level the same charge against Martin Luther King Jr.? He was certainly anti-establishment and lived off of other's contributions.”
Based on William Dever (Who Were the Israelites) and Israel Finkelstein (The Quest for the Historical Israel), Judges, Levites probably NEVER existed.
As for Prophets, as I said, men like Amos had a job.
In the end, Jesus as a jobless and Jewish bum did not even start Christianity. That was left to responsible people such as Paul and the working Hellenistic west.
In this sense, Jesus (as believed today) is a hypocrite getting honor he does not deserved for work and teachings he never did.
So, Brad, even in the historical theological development, as I pointed out above, Jesus remain the lazy bum of Palestine who had to use the theological development of hard working Hellenistic Greeks such as Paul, who, in my opinion should have been the first Pope and not a ignorant Palestinian Jew and Jesus top aposlte named Peter.
K. Should have read: (The Aramaic proto-Matt. can NOT be substined)?
There are major problems with Eusebius'citing Papias for a factual Hebrew Matt.
Rick stated: (BTW, I’m not yelling but emphasizing. For some reason, I guess I haven’t gotten the hang of the HTML codes.)
OK Rick, here is what you do:
It’s best to copy and past the individual “HTML” tag below the comment box you want.
Use the ^b^ to create boldness. (I’m using the up ^ arrow instead of the right and left arrows so when I post this comment back to you the tags will not be read as codes in my comment and deleted).
If you want to state something in bold print, encode it this way:
^b^That is just what I said.^/b^ When you post, the sentence “That is just what I said.” will post in bold print in the comment or as: That is just what I said.
Do the same with the i tag for italics: ^i^That is just what I said.^/i^ This will then post as:
This is just what i said.
Always be sure you use the same letter HTML tag code at the end. The only difference is you must use a lash “/”before the ending HTLM letter or the comment will not post.
Use ^/b^ to end a bold emphasis; and use ^/i^ to end an italic emphasis.
^a^ and ^/a^ are used to link a website.
I hope this helps.
Well Rick, it looks like in your last reply to Cipher at my other post, you now know how to post with the HTLM tags. Great!
Since I just gave Brad some questions to chew on, I’ll reply to you either tonight or tomorrow.
However, unlike Jesus, who never held down a job in his life, I have to earn a living and it’s time to do that now.
So, latter Dude.
I said,
"I think the assessment of Islam’s view of sex is on target. It is hypocritical. The author would have done better to leave the issue there. When He gets to the Christian (biblical) view of wealth, he stumbles seriously”
Philip resplied,
Hah, I loved that. Especially since, if Rick actually knew any Muslims, actually read a book about Islam, or asked any imam this side of Saudi Arabia about the nature of Jannah, he would be treated to the exact same sort of "you just have no idea what you're talking about"- based argumentation that he's subjecting us to.
Philip,
I’m not sure I get your point. Are you saying that I was wrong to agree with Harry?
Remember, I didn’t assert anything in particular about Jannah. I only agreed that, given the description Harry gave, the Islamic view on sex is hypocritical.
So please make it clear. Are you saying Harry was right or wrong?
Rick
Rick,
I'm saying it's predictable that you would agree that Islam is hypocritical and fraught with problems, but disagree with Harry's critique of your own faith.
Harry,
First, I'm amazed at your energy to respond to everyone. I can't even read those posts from Rick :)
Now concerning the dialectical theory that I dismissed, let me ask you some questions.
1. Where is Caesarea, in Palestine or Asia Minor? (Peter and Acts 10)
2. Where was the setting of the entire first volume of whoever wrote Luke/Acts?
3. Does the LXX contain any Greek mythology or philosophy?
4. Was Paul a Jew or not?
5. Does Paul quote from Greek philosophers or from Scripture?
6. Does Paul use the Socratic method or does he use midrash?
7. Where did Paul go to confirm his message in Galatians?
8. Where was the controversy over circumcision decided?
9. Can't you see Semitic (Aramaic) syntax under the Greek vocabulary in Matthew, Mark, and John?
10. Do you see the difference between ancient historiography and Greek "chreai"?
11. Do the early church fathers quote philosophy or scripture in their writings?
12. What did Paul think of Pagan idols in Acts 16, on Mars Hill?
13. How was he received by the philosophers on Mars Hill?
14. Where did Paul go first in cities, schools or synagogues?
15. What is Paul talking about in Romans 11?
16. What do you make of the liturgy in 1 Corinthians 15?
17. What kind of imagery does the author of Revelation use, Greek or Jewish?
18. What Greek thought does Paul synchretize?
19. Where did all of the events take place?
20. Does Paul ever question Peter's apostleship?
I could go on, too...
Please don't cite the authority of Finklestein or Dever. Surely you know that they are on the fringe of ANE archaeology. Do I need to bring up the Tel-Dan Stele? Or I could cite Kitchen as my authority if you wanted to argue about that.
What remains is that you posted a polemic laced with ad-hominem attacks and de-contextualized quotes, and Jesus still fits right into the very Jewish 2nd Temple Apocalyptic/Messianic Tradition, and His message and story won out over all the other competitors.
Philip said:
Rick,
I'm saying it's predictable that you would agree that Islam is hypocritical and fraught with problems, but disagree with Harry's critique of your own faith.
Yeah...OK... I suppose that would be predictable. I'm wondering why it would be notable though?
Rick,
In your comment to me you stated,
So I find your description[of Jesus] a bit caricatured.
Forgive me if I didn't make my self clear. I was not expecting you to consider accepting any of the three Jesuses I mentioned. My point was simply that Biblically-based conceptions of Jesus vary widely, even among those calling themselves Christians. Clearly, your preferred version of Jesus is yet another distinct Jesus. I didn't intend to caricature. I wanted only to point out that the Jesus you hold dear is but one of many Jesuses assembled from the same exact text. It is also useful to note, though, that my caricature is a rather common Jesus among Christians.
Realize that if we broaden our view to include the Book of Mormon or the Gnostic Gospels, we escalate the number of versions of Jesus that are reasonable to fabricate or composite from the words on the page. One of my favorite Gnostic Jesuses is the one who transfigures his playmates to and from livestock.
Unfortunately, when the votes determining Biblical canon were counted, transfiguring Jesus and many other truly hilarious Jesuses were rejected. Rick, just like you, Harry McCall, Harry Cook and Fundamentalist Clergyman, those who selected the Biblical canon, did so based on personal preferences. The Jesuses - gods, too, for that matter - that one can choose from in contemporary Christianities derive from choices made by persons who would burn you at the stake for saying the Earth orbits the Sun or for possessing an electronic Christmas card playing "Joy to the World." To be sure, the self-serving theology those clerics concocted lead to them having centuries of control over society and the minds of men, but it did not result either in a better understanding of the natural world or moral actions that benefitted mankind in general.
Beyond this, as I noted in my last comment,
In the Abrahamic religions we are taught that there is one god, yet simple observation tells us that neither the respective clergy nor the layman believes that to be the case. The Jewish faithful do not believe that their god has sent them a messiah, while Christians believe that their god, supposedly the same one of the Jews, has done just that. In Islam Jesus was a prophet, but the god Muslims listen to has told them that Jesus was not the right one. These religions obviously worship different gods which tell them different things.
From this alone, Rick, I cannot conceive of how anyone could accept this as a deity worthy of worship. This sketches a god that pits one portion of its own believers against another, with fatal consequences for many innocents.
Instead, of "believing" that this manifests a god who tells some the truth while it lies to others, we can rely on the observed history. The founders of both Christianity and Islam coupled the predominant existing religion, Judaism, with their own newly-claimed revelations while they ignored many salient claims of the base religion.
New people in new generations have new revelations and they sometimes incorporate them into new religions. Those bootstrapping Christianity and Islam simply grafted new ideas onto an existing ideology having time-tested built-in power and authority.
Your comment notes,
But to get to the bottom of this, we have a lot of work to do on the questions of what constitutes legitimate authority? Who, if anyone confers it? Is it inherent in us? Attained? If so. by what standard? Who determines that standard? What about ignorance? What constitutes knowledge? What is our epistemological warrant for believing anything? Your answers will differ from mine here, as does your assessment of the diversity of views on Jesus. My explanation for the diversity you patiently outline won’t satisfy you, anymore than yours satisfies me.
From this I take it that you don't mind dipping a toe in the philosophy pond, now and again. I'm not interested in philosophy-speak, that is, the philosopher's jargon which more often than not inhibits constructive dialog. I'm only concerned with the normal reason and rationality of the mentally unimpaired. While those trained in philosophy might have broader knowledge and more experience, they are not the only philosophers.
If I repeat things you know, please bear with me. I'm not trying to be condescending, it's just that I don't know what you do and do not know.
Most pertinent, here, I think, is that the philosopher knows there are many ways to be mistaken.
Visually, for instance, the naked eye sees much, but it is also blind to much. The telescope shows us some of the things naked eyes miss and the the microscope uncovers still others, but we still miss a lot. The human visual system is subject to misperceptions and distortions due to many things. It has a known blind spot, for instance. When going in and out of sleep, somtimes dreams, visual hallucinations and the conscious world merge indistinguishably. Misreadings of the world happen due to daydreams, changing light, reflections, fog, rain, and snow. Our minds innately recognize patterns suggesting faces wherever they occur, on clouds, pizza, or baboons, for example. Our eyes and visual systems are vulnerable to diseases, and injuries which can severely alter the way we see the world. Cognition of visual data is influenced by presuppositions, knowledge, experience, state of health, state of mind, distractions, chemical and drug effects, and the pack mentalities of crowds or groups. So, just considering our eyes, we are highly suseptible to seeing the world incorrectly. The other human senses suffer from similar defects, and to follow up an error in perception or cognition with the error of attributing it to a deity or other supernatural cause, due to ignorance or intellectual laziness, commits a still more severe injustice.
Returning to the origninal post topic, in terms of high-level cognitive functioning, we can interpret texts in a variety of ways, literal, allegorical, or metaphorical, for example. As we assign differing weights to these interpretive tools while considering the numerous written depictions of Jesus - Bible, Gnostic gospels, Book of Mormon, etc., which are still text, after all - the patchwork quilt of Jesuses becomes even more variegated.
Though it may sound harsh, as I see it, anyone who is not insane yet calls himself a Biblical literalist is a lier, pure and simple. It is not possible to be a sane person while conducting oneself according to Biblical tenets. Even self-proclaimed Biblical literalists don't kill non-believers as they are commanded. They do not cut off hands for petty crimes. They do not kill adulterers. They do not sell their daughters into slavery. Lots of them eat pork and shellfish, and wear fabrics made from more than one kind of material. Most do not kill homosexuals as commanded. They do not banish their menstruating daughters or wives to an outbuilding throughout menstruation, and when it's completed they do not sacrifice doves. Christian men do not refrain from sitting on the same furniture that menstruating women have sat on. Many women are priests, preachers, pastors, ministers, so they teach men and speak up in church, both of which they are warned against in the New Testament.
Look across the "orthodox" Christianities and compare the extents to which they attribute Biblical content to literalism, allegory and metaphor. If a specific congregation makes a statement of faith using the Athanasian Creed, we still have to look far deeper to determine whether they view it literally or metaphorically.
Here's a part of that creed with a couple portions relevant to our dialog bolded.
Athanasian Creed
Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the CATHOLIC faith.
Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
...
He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and ROSE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the CATHOLIC faith.
One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.
(Note that in some versions of this the CATHOLIC is all lower case, catholic, while other versions have it, Catholic. If catholic, here, implies universal, they still are wrong since, demonstrably, Christians do not conduct themselves according to scriptural dictates.)
Rick, you mentioned orthodoxy, as though that should place some Christianities on a sound footing, but even among those Christianities faithfully reciting the various creeds you refer to, which don't all suggest the same points of doctrine, by the way, the degree to which they take them literally is more important than the actual words. Concisely, not all Christianities share the same semantics for "rose from the dead." To some "rose" means "bodily risen;" to others, "rose" means "spiritual rising."
Then, too, Rick, associating yourself with "orthodox" Christianity does not mean you rub elbows with exalted company. If the God of orthodox Christianity had anything useful to share with humanity, it's kept it to itself.
For centuries, that god kept knowledge of germs from people while giving church leaders the revelation that demons cause disease. Over the centuries untold millions of people died chained to walls or burnt or hung or eviscerated or tortured to death or bled to death for common afflictions that today are treated with human dignity and respect: epilepsy, diabetes, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, colds, flus, parasites.
For most of the two millenia since the time your savior lived, that Christian god you so assuredly put your faith in, did nothing at all to alleviate the ignorance of its religious practitioners, nothing to alleviate the suffering of the masses. That god could not even tell them to be compasionate human beings. And the Bible you endorse as the word of that god, did nothing to make those cruel and heartless men of god better people either. They were living by it. It was all they had as a guidebook. It was all they would allow as a guidebook.
Still, for century after century, orthodox Christianity failed miserably to live up to any promise of health, hope, heart or humanity. Largely under threat, people flocked to those orthodox churches to be psychologically abused, to be told that their maladies were manifestations of their god's anger with them and they deserved what god was dishing out. Plagues and pandemics claiming tens of millions of lives were exacerbated by the socially demanded attendance at orthodox churches.
In earlier times, Rick, the religious appeal to faith might have been somewhat justifiable since the orthodox church's response to dissent was to execute the dissenter. Until relatively recently, even though disagreeing with the church no longer bore the death penalty, people still had no way to assess whether those without faith were any better or worse off. Today, there are lots of non-believers - whole societies(Sweden, Denmark, UK, Finland, Japan, to name a few), in fact, are now largely non-theistic - and, technology like the internet to convey the information, so making a comparison is quite straighforward. The numbers point to one undeniable fact: if God makes life better for those he likes, he clearly likes atheists better than believers.
Comparing the US to Sweden, in most measures of social and personal health and well-being, Sweden comes out the winner. The US has a god to take care of it but Sweden ranks far more favorably than the US by having lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy, lower violent crime rate, access to healthcare for all citizens, including prenatal care, higher income levels, higher education level, lower drug abuse rate, lower average personal debt, lower abortion rate lower acoholism rate...the list is very long. For 2007, Sweden was the most generous nation on the planet per capita.
In theocratic countries where god and religion are law, the quality of life indicators are poorer still than they are for the US. Iran, for instance, at least in name, worships the same god as Christians do.
To me, Rick, the bottom line is this: faith observably counts for nothing and it never has. In polls and studies conducted by Christians and non-Christians alike, practicing Christianity in the US confers no benefit. In fact, fundamentalist Christians in the US, compared to the population at large, have significantly higher rates of abortion(Catholics actually win this one though), spouse abuse, child abuse, violent crime including murder, divorce, diabetes, obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, and lower levels of income, education, access to health care.
The Swedes who realize that they have a responsibility to each other and act accordingly as a society, share a quality of life envied the world over, and they do not need the superstition of religion to make it happen.
I'll end with a couple interesting facts. First is that the two most generous philanthropists who have ever lived are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both atheists. Second is that although the US is pretty much jam packed with Christians, being so hasn't helped us at all over the eight years of the Bush administration. Millions of people have been thrown into poverty, lost their homes, lost access to health care, lost jobs, lost retirements and pensions, all while the federal government was on the wildest spending spree in history, almost 6 trillion dollars of overspending with nothing to show for it. As a nation we reek of god and Jesus and faith, while, as always, the object of faith is nowhere to be found. My point here is simply that to be caring and compassionate does not require Christianity or religious belief of any kind, and being Christian carries with it no guarantee of benefit.
Personally, I think that after two thousand years of abject failure by Christianity, mankind owes itself a break from the divisive tribal superstitions.
Harry McCall said...
But I do have one more question Rabbi Hutchinson: Are the Gospel words printed in red the real statements Jesus spoke?
"Don't let anyone call you 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters." Matthew 23:8
I don't have html code to make it red, so I made it bold, to emphasize what Jesus says.
P.S. I think Jesus loves this blog. I also think it's cool. I'm enjoying reading what folk have to say.
I have not left this post and I have replies to both Brad and Rick in the works.
I have been busy with a new post entitled: Some Guides for Tools and Versions on the Study of the Biblical Text
1. Where is Caesarea, in Palestine or Asia Minor? (Peter and Acts 10)
My question should have emphasized that of the 3 know Caesareas, the one Peter received his vision at was originally called Strato’s Tower after a king of Sidon and was Hellenized under the Achaemenid. It was captured by the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus in 103 BCE. In 63 BCE is was given to Herod by the Roman Emperor Octavian and was attached to the province of Syria at the time of Peter. Herod rebuilt it named it after the emperor.
Thus, while this Caesarea was located in Syria at the time of Peter, the Jew made up the minority in a city with a Graeco-Syrian majority. My point would be that Peter’s vision happened in a Hellenized city and not Jerusalem.
2. Where was the setting of the entire first volume of whoever wrote Luke/Acts?
Because of the polished Greek in Luke/Acts, either Asia Minor or Alexandria Egypt.
3. Does the LXX contain any Greek mythology or philosophy?
Yes, Greek terms pregnant with Greek religion and philosophy flow in the LXX. Yahweh is now know only as the Greek theos, Sheol is now Hell, the ages of the pre-flood males strat hing and decrease in the MT text while they start low in increase in the LXX text. A great study here which would prove my point over your’s is: Did Moses Speak Attic?: Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series, 317) by Lester L. Grabbe.
I have this book in my personal library.
4. Was Paul a Jew or not?
Paul was a Hellenistic Jew of the Diaspora from Asia Minor.
5. Does Paul quote from Greek philosophers or from Scripture?
Paul is at home preaching on Mar’s Hill in Athens. Paul was a Jew educated in Greek thought who basically crated Christianity with his systematic theology. Now compare this to Peter and the 12 Apostles who where uneducated Palestinian Jews.
Soon after the conference in Gal. 2:11 - 14 shows that Paul was branding Peter and Barnabas as hypocrites. The reason for this seems to have been the Jerusalem church leaders who Jewish theology was a a continuation of that of Jesus in that they tried to impose these same Jewish dietary regulations on the Hellenistic Christians at Antioch at which time Barnabas complied and betrayed Paul’s Greek principles. Barnabas, was closer to Peter than to Paul and tus was unwilling to make a complete break with Judaism.
Finally the opening and concluding greetings to his letter to the Romans (Chapter 16 in particular) Paul letter show a strong band of loyal Hellenistic friends, the majority bore Greek names and lived in probably in Asia Minor.
6. Does Paul use the Socratic method or does he use midrash?
Midrash is composed of halakhic midrashim and haggadic midrashim. Paul did not expound these code as comprised in the Talmud, but only dealt with the Torah (Greek Nomos) under grace as a new view of God. Paul was a total break from the strict legal code as compile in the Jerusalem Talmud.
7. Where did Paul go to confirm his message in Galatians?
If Galatians 2: 11 - 14 is compared to Acts 15, we are given a totally different perspective. The Books of Acts does not know and quotes none of Paul’s letters. Though Acts 22: 3 claims Paul was taught in Jerusalem under Gamaliel and that Paul’s pre-conversion name was Saul; but nowhere are these confirmed by Paul himself.
The historical value of Acts must take second place when it disagrees with Paul’s undisputed letter: Romans, I & II Corinth., Galatians, Philippians and I & II Thessalonians and Philemon which date from 51 - 57 CE.
Acts propose is to ease the transition from the falling Jewish Jerusalem church to the rapidly expanding Hellenistic churches founded by Paul and others such has the Phipip and the early Barnabas. Acts intent is to try and down play the major differences between Peter and Paul.
8. Where was the controversy over circumcision decided?
Acts can not be trusted a historical (as noted by Walter Bauer).
9. Can't you see Semitic (Aramaic) syntax under the Greek vocabulary in Matthew, Mark, and John?
The nearest to this is the Greek of the Book of Revelation. There are a few phases in Matt. (Matt. In The International Critical Commentary by Davis / Allison; vol. I pp. 7 - 85). John is highly polished Greek with Greek philosophical concepts such has Jesus as the preexistence logos and the it concept of theos.
10. Do you see the difference between ancient historiography and Greek "chreai"?
I’m not sure of your point if one compares Greek ancient history of Herodotus to the chreia in Xenophon. In just what ways are ancient Near Eastern Wisdom literature different from the Synoptic gospels?
11. Do the early church fathers quote philosophy or scripture in their writings?
Both Philo of Alexandria and the Church Fathers use Greek philosophy to make out dated concepts live and more refined for the age. In particular, Neo-Platonism played a major role in the Nicene Creed and the following creed dealing with Christology.
Notice the theology of “Apocatastasis” in Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa.
12. What did Paul think of Pagan idols in Acts 16, on Mars Hill?
Again, Acts is not about history as much as it about harmonizing theology and establishing orthodoxy. For example, Timothy’s circumcision is done or head up by Paul in Acts 16 :4, where as in Gal. 2: 3, Paul gives us a different anti-circumcision view.
Paul’s arrest and imprisonment in Acts 16 is modeled on that of Peters in Acts 12.
13. How was he received by the philosophers on Mars Hill?
Openly. Paul even used an idol (anti - 3rd Commandment) to advance his concept of God. A great Hellenistic approach!
14. Where did Paul go first in cities, schools or synagogues?
Acts places Paul in conflict with the Jews in their synagogues, while Paul’s letters show he was concerned with the churches he founded (except Romans).
15. What is Paul talking about in Romans 11?
Paul’s Hellenistic theology to replace Jesus’ / Peter's and James’s Palestinian Jewish theology.
16. What do you make of the liturgy in 1 Corinthians 15?
Paul was not an eye witness (I Corth. 15: 3) and, for a man who probably never saw Jesus alive, referees to a spiritual Christ as he understand him. Thus, the conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem Jews (Peter and James).
Even the phrase “as it were to one untimely born” is equal to what we would call a miscarriage / abortion.
17. What kind of imagery does the author of Revelation use, Greek or Jewish?
Imagery based on apocalyptic theology such as found in I Enoch and the Books of Elijah.
Though it used ancient heroes from the Hebrew / LXX texts, this type is totally new / Apocalyptic.
18. What Greek thought does Paul synchretize?
Hellenistic
19. Where did all of the events take place?
Asia Minor / Rome as opposed to Palestine; the same places Paul’s letters were addressed.
20. Does Paul ever question Peter's apostleship?
No, but he strongly opposed Peter and Peters Judaizing evangelist whom Paul referees t as his opponents in 1 & II Corinth., Gal. 1: 8-9 & 2: 4 - 6 compare this to 2: 11). Paul discuses these opponents more in Gal. 4: 17, 5: 2, 7-8 and 6: 12 - 13.
Acts tries by and large to minimize the differences between Peter and Paul.
I could go on, too...
Please don't cite the authority of Finklestein or Dever. Surely you know that they are on the fringe of ANE archaeology. Do I need to bring up the Tel-Dan Stele? Or I could cite Kitchen as my authority if you wanted to argue about that.
Did you not watch the Nova PBS special on Ancient Israel? Dever is the top American archaeologist (emeritus). Donald B. Redford is an good counter to K.A. Kitchen.
What remains is that you posted a polemic laced with ad-hominem attacks and de-contextualized quotes, and Jesus still fits right into the very Jewish 2nd Temple Apocalyptic/Messianic Tradition, and His message and story won out over all the other competitors.
Modern Christianity has little resemblance to Jewish Christianity or the early Jesus sects.
Fact is, at over 20,000 Christian sects and growing, the terms "Christ" and "Jesus" are only changing names in an ever growing theology.
Harry,
Wow, we have some long posts here. Let my try to boil it down.
Your main argument is that Acts is not a historical source, and that it is meant to put the focus on Paul as the emerging leader of the early church. I think that the main flaw in that theory is that the author of Luke is the same as the author of Acts. Luke is set entirely in Palestine. Unless you are prepared to argue that it wasn't the same author...
John used the Greek word "logos" in chapter 1, but his vocabulary is probably the most limited of any other NT writer. Not only that, but much of Jesus' discourse in the gospel has the characteristic parallelism of Hebrew/Aramaic. Matthew and Mark do much of the same. There Greek is far from "polished". Paul, Luke, and the author of Hebrews write in much stronger Greek.
And I don't know why Acts has to mention that Paul wrote letters. Acts is about what the early church did, so I don't see why they would chronicle the letters that Paul wrote.
Plus, the heart of the message according to all the Apostles is that Jesus died and was resurrected, confirming His deity. Dietary and circumcision conflicts were understandably secondary concerns which did not split up the Apostles' testimony. It is always Jesus, not Paul, James, Peter, or Apollos.
And Paul was a Jew (Phil. 3:4-7, and Romans 11).
Brad: Your main argument is that Acts is not a historical source, and that it is meant to put the focus on Paul as the emerging leader of the early church. I think that the main flaw in that theory is that the author of Luke is the same as the author of Acts. Luke is set entirely in Palestine. Unless you are prepared to argue that it wasn't the same author...
First, Acts, like the Book of Genesis, is a theological treatise and can't be considered a historical record outside the conservative world of Bible dogma and theology.
As a comparison, Genesis contains names of historical places that existed at the time it was composed such as: Canaan, Edom, Goshen, Jordon and still exist such as Egypt, but the truth of Genesis ends there. Like Acts, Genesis is concerned with the promised to Israel and how Yahweh select his people after chapter11just as Acts is concerned with the spread and establishment of the Church.
If these references to historical places vindicates the historical truth of Acts, the just how do you now deny the truth of all the Apocryphal Acts and Gospels?
Matthew used the outline of the life of Moses for the life of Jesus just as your Luke used the life of Elijah as a guide for the life of Jesus also.
Secondary, all we have is an educated guess as to the author of Luke/Acts based mainly on the word Theophilius (Loved by God or a theological name itself) Acts 1: 1 / Luke 1: 3.
Objective scholars have no idea where the Gospels where composed and by whom. Your, “Luke is set entirely in Palestine.” is simply conjecture.
Brad: John used the Greek word "logos" in chapter 1, but his vocabulary is probably the most limited of any other NT writer. Not only that, but much of Jesus' discourse in the gospel has the characteristic parallelism of Hebrew/Aramaic. Matthew and Mark do much of the same. There Greek is far from "polished". Paul, Luke, and the author of Hebrews write in much stronger Greek.
The Christology of John is for more advance than the Synoptics. Like the concept of God in Plato and Neo-Platonism, Jesus (in agreement with Gnosticism) is eternal and does not have a human birth which can corrupt a divine concept.
Moreover, to quote D. Moody Smith: “The disparity between the Johannine Jesus who constantly speaks if his own role and dignity, and the synoptic tradition of Jesus’ sayings is difficult to reconcile, and it is generally agreed that the Synoptics represent more accurately the mode and themes, as well style of Jesus’ speech. (Gospel of John in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, p 482).
“Because of the polished Greek in Luke/Acts, either Asia Minor or Alexandria Egypt.”
I used the word “polished” in response to your Semitic charge in question 9. Thus, the Greek of the Gospels and Acts is “polished” when compared to the Semitic Greek Book of Revelation.
Plus, any scholar who teaches Greek will tell you (provided they have read widely in the New Testament) that Acts is one on the more difficult Hellenistic texts in the Christian canon not only by syntax, but by the use of new words.
Brad: And I don't know why Acts has to mention that Paul wrote letters. Acts is about what the early church did, so I don't see why they would chronicle the letters that Paul wrote.
The exegetical rule of thumb is to accept Paul over Acts mainly when Paul letters provide a different account and chronology. This is discussed in one of the standard works on Paul and Acts in Robert Jewett: A Chronology of Paul's Life
Brad: Plus, the heart of the message according to all the Apostles is that Jesus died and was resurrected, confirming His deity. Dietary and circumcision conflicts were understandably secondary concerns which did not split up the Apostles' testimony. It is always Jesus, not Paul, James, Peter, or Apollos.
The second part of your statement is very troubling in light of Galatians 2. Plus, Paul’s brand of Christianity was attacked by Peter and the Judizers and his Christian opponents:
See: The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians : A Study of Religious Propaganda in Late Antiquity by Dieter Georgi
Brad: And Paul was a Jew (Phil. 3:4-7, and Romans 11).
I never denied Paul as a Jew. Paul’s Hellenistic Judaism (as opposed to Acts Saul figure) was much different than the Jews of Palestine who held animosity against the Seleucid Greek kings especially Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
Brad, I think you would have to agree that this discussion has moved well beyond the title of this post.
Agreed, Harry.
Let's "agree to disagree" for now.
Agreed.
Thanks for the exchange Brad.
Man that post was hilarious! I'm an agnostic with my own views about reality, existence, and the universe. Not a fan of Christianity. I envisioned Jebus as an alcholic hippie whose only semblance of a job was being a wizard. All of my fellow Christianity hatin atheists and agnostics out there check out my blog. Theres shirts for our kind. Lulz
Post a Comment