What Jesus Taught

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The gospels are not really all that vague but their meaning had to be changed plenty in order for Christianity to be a viable religion.

Jesus was the leader of a millennial-type group. He predicted that the world would end no later than 100 AD. (People alive in 33 AD would see the Second Coming. Promise!)

Since the game was over most normal responsibilities dissolved. You are plowing a field? Drop the plow and think about God. The world is ending, folks. No reason to worry about the next harvest.

Everywhere he went he told people to quit their jobs, walk away from their families. Someone in your family died and you want to go home for the funeral? Fuck that! Let the dead bury the dead. We are about the kingdom to come, not about some Earthly web of familial obligation. When you joined up with me you put all that stuff in the rear-view mirror for good.

Be like the lilies of the field. Do nothing except praise God and spread the good news of the imminent end of the world and be nice to poor and sick people as a method of praising God (by compassion to the least of his children) because the whole Earth racket is winding down.

That is what he preached. It's pretty much all he talked about!

Family? Jesus had little use for family. Family is a concept for a world that will be around in the future... children, grand-children, great-grand-children, etc.

(He was, however, quite concerned with divorce because this world was ending soon and you'd have some 'splaining to do when you and your two different husbands showed up at the pearly gates.)

A religion of "Drop what you are doing and sit by the side of the road waiting for the world to end" was, however, not going to take over the world.

So changes were needed.

That's why only 4 of the 27 books of the New Testament are really about whatever Jesus had to say. The other 23 are reworkings of the themes... talking about what Christianity might mean if the world didn't end before 100 AD, which was the whole point in the first place.

[cliffordu]

1. I'm interested in the comments to come...so I'll kick this.....

Recced it, too, but it didn't do any good.

[Emit]

7. Me too

curious and curiouser

[Gman2]

8. Jesus was killed, for NOT being millenial, and furthermore

Judas Iscariot was a millenialist. Much of his group of disciples were as well. The group was encouraged to drop everything. The encouragement to the nobleman to sell all he had, was a flip lesson. Many of Jesus lessons were flip. Furthermore, there is a warning NOT to be millenialist, in Revelations. The purpose of the threat of a dove strike, or sitdown, is in concurrence with the charge, likely rightly so, that Christianity is a slave religion. Used to eliminate the domination of the poor by the rich at least in eternity, and curse them to hell.

The splainin to do, is due to the ridiculous expectation, taken straight from ancestor worship, that your relatives will be fetching, not fetid. That heaven is about clouds and balkanization towards your own family.

Huckster Christ didnt start till far later. And didnt really ramp up till the tele. It is silly to blame Jesus for stargate. Nor millenialism, he taught to bear your burdens with grace. In the belief that it all works for good. Jesus bohemian lifestyle, of crashing on friends couches, offering gladly to pay tommorow, for a hamburger today, requires a support base. So, getting everyone to do general strike, would then require he and his band to wash dishes.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. You will perhaps excuse me for not regarding Revelations as pertinent to the historical Jesus

Unless we are biblical literalists and believe the council of Niccea to be divinely inspired we are left with some texts and a puzzle... what was this guy about?

Everyone will read it differently. I read it as a man urging a very clean break with the world that would be down-right irresponsible if one thought the world was going to be around long.

But very sensible if one expected an imminent wrap-up.

Just my take. (Billions disagree!)

[Gman2]

16. I think an occupied people will always tip millenial. Which is the opposite of now.

We are anti-millienial. Harkening back to bygone days. socalled better values. Perhaps this is a function of our till last week, being the dominant culture.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

3. Which is why when I read Lewis' famous

Lord, liar, or lunatic defense, my immediate reaction was "duh! Lunatic!"

I'm also very interested to see where this conversation goes...

[merh]

4. The least you could do is post some links which support your premise.

Not to be viewed as a "doubting Thomas" as to the validity of your version of Jesus' history, but I'm not sure where you get your facts.

For instance, what is your source for this?

Jesus was the leader of a millennial-type group. He predicted that the world would end no later than 100 AD. (People alive in 33 AD would see the Second Coming. Promise!)

[darkstar3]

5. Matthew 24;34

"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

This was shortly after Jesus had predicted his return and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the end of the world. Links aren't really required when all of the things spoken about by the OP are actually IN the Bible.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. I was being liberal in my interpretation

Rather than the interpretation of a passing generation (30-35 years?) I take it as someone alive today will still be alive then.

That's why I used 100 AD as a round number. One could also argue circa 70 AD with some plausibility.

Religions can survive a surprising number of bum predictions of the end of the world. The Millerites gave away all their possessions *twice* before finally deciding that it's too hard to pick a date for the second coming. So they re-branded themselves as the Seventh Day Adventists and are, in my experience, lovely people.

(And long-lived, being vegetarians and so pure they consider pepper a drug.)

[merh]

34. Gee, I never anticipated snark from you in response to a very simple query.

And you need to realize that you are relying on the chosen translations to give meaning to the passages you think support your position. You are using the same type of thinking as the fundies who believe the literal words as they overlook the message.

Some translate this passage as referring to a generation while others translate it to refer to a race of people.

Matthew 24:34 I tell you the truth, this generation/race will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

[darkstar3]

36. No snark intended.

It was a simple answer to a simple query. And your accusation of fundamentalist thinking falls flat when you consider that the secondary translation you provide makes no sense.

To state that this verse refers to a race of people is simply empty revisionist twaddle. What "race" could he possibly mean in context? It could only be the Jews, or humans as a whole, and neither makes any sense. The Jews figure into the end times prophecies, and so of course they couldn't pass from this earth before playing their part, The same goes for humans in general.

Of course, that's only a problem when we discuss the verse at hand. It is, as you have hinted at, merely a translation of previous translations of a transcription of a verbal history done many years after the supposed events by people whose link to the source was questionable at best. We in fact don't know, and can't know, the truth of what Jesus actually taught (or even if he existed to begin with). However, the materials we have from anywhere close to that time paint a compelling picture of a man convinced of the world's impending end.

[merh]

39. The secondary translation does make sense.

More so, if you consider the plight of the Jews, as focused on in both the OT and NT. The bible promises that the generation, the nation or family of Israel, will be preserved until all things he had been predicting were fulfilled.

It is not just the verse at hand that you read too literally, you seem to do so with the whole book. And yet, you argue that the man, Jesus, may not even have lived, may not even have existed but it is certain that he was convinced of the world's impending end. Do you not see that position as contradictory?

The fundies take the book literally. Others know that the book is a merely a guide, a book of messages, parables and lessons divinely inspired yet written by men.

[darkstar3]

40. You know no such thing.

Others know that the book is a merely a guide, a book of messages, parables and lessons divinely inspired yet written by men.
Divinely inspired? Prove it. Otherwise, you merely suspect. :)

I stand by what I said. The Jews figured into Jesus' end time prophecies, so it is simply redundant and pointless to say "the Jews will still be here until all of this happens." Your attempt to dismiss this fact as too "fundamenalist" is an ad hom. You either have something to support your particular translation in the face of its redundancy, or you do not. So far, you have not provided this support. The plight of the Jews does nothing to change the redundant, pointless, and non-prophetical nature of your attempted translation. Do you have anything that does?

[merh]

41. I didn't say I "know" - try to read what I write.

I said that Others perceive the book in that way.

And standing by what you posted doesn't make you correct, it just makes you stubborn.

You mock the book because "no one knows if Jesus lived", yet you use the literal references in the book to prove some point about timing and a generation thus proving the flaws of the book. The end time prophecies for the Jews and the Christians are still "yet to come" and the "nation of Israel" (the Jews) have survived, despite the efforts of others to destroy them.

Perhaps you should do some research on your own to realize that your literal translation is not the only translation. Perhaps you should actually study some of the religions with a desire to understand and not just to mock and find fault.

[darkstar3]

42. So you have nothing new to say,

and nothing to back up your auxiliary translation, but you wanted to repeat your ad hom dismissal of my point.

It may help if you try to read what is written, instead of trying to make it up as you go along.

[merh]

43. You haven't supported your actual translation.

You just provide me with a translation. Hell, even the sources that suggest the limited translation you rely on provide the different translation.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A34&version=NIV

Perhaps you will enjoy reading a discussion on the varied views and translations. Perhaps reading the link below will help you discover that closed minds lead to limited knowledge and, more often than not, they prevent understanding and respect for the views of others.

http://www.biblequery.org/Prophecy/Preterism.htm

[darkstar3]

44. Perhaps you could post something without attempting to insult the person you're posting to. n/t

[merh]

45. You began it.

And you have continued the snark and insults. You have not displayed a desire to discuss the issue. For you it has merely been about "so there" and "I'm right and you're not" and those ever annoying "gotcha" comments.

Your views are limited. I have merely offered different views and you reject them without any consideration. Sorry, but to me that is the sign of someone with a closed mind who doesn't care much about respect or understanding.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

47. I would just like to make an observation.

Let's step back for a second and take a serious look at a famous literary error, taken from O. Henry's classic, "The Gift of The Magi." I think it is illustrative.

One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies.

Contained in these first three lines is a famous and very obvious mathematical error: at least two cents in the sum given above are unaccounted for. This, however, is a minor error and can simply be overlooked by saying, "Oh, that's wrong," and moving on. There is no group of people that feel compelled to insist on some heretofore unheard-of meaning of the word "penny," or on the mysteriously unaccountable existence of some currency, now lost to history, minted by the United States valued at half of a cent, or two cents, or some combination thereof to constitute the value of the missing two pennies. We are simply able to accept that it is an error, and our worldview is not shaken in the least by recognition of that fact.

Now, having indulged this digression, let us return to the question at hand. What we have seen above is in great contrast to the reading of the Bible. Jesus here and in other places has adamantly insisted that some of the men living at the time of his speaking will still be alive at the time of his second coming. This, of course, has flatly failed to occur, throwing doubt onto the reliability of Jesus as an authority on even matters pertaining to his own life, let alone the greater condition of humanity. So this has resulted in a great deal of hand-wringing and the most spectacular feats of imagination and creative definition of words. "Generation" now can be made to mean "race," and since the original text is written in an arcane and now-dead language, the sleight of hand can be made to appear legitimate and authoritative. All this nonsense is of course unnecessary when you don't need to believe the events recounted in the story actually happened. This is what frees O. Henry's work from such absurd feats of mental gymnastics. Its message is not in any way diminished by the fact that the events recounted never actually happened, something that I'm not entirely certain can be said for the Bible.

(Perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but I think that the message of selfless giving in "Gift of the Magi" is more useful/relevant in our modern age than Jesus's message to abandon your family, home, livelihood, "let the dead bury the dead," etc., and wait for somebody who, after 2000 years, is beginning to look as though he's not going to show up.)

[darkstar3]

48. Thank you.

"All this nonsense is of course unnecessary when you don't need to believe the events recounted in the story actually happened."

Well said.

[iris27]

63. "Some translate this passage as referring to a generation while others translate it to refer to a

race of people."

Sure, except that the Greek word used here ('genea') is the same one used at the beginning of Matthew in his geneaology to mean "a generation" in the modern sense of the word (a timespan of about 30-odd years, or the cohort of people who were all born within this time). Elsewhere in the Bible it is used to mean "a brief time" or "an age"...but they are all time-related meanings.

Nowhere else in its appearances in the Bible is it translated to mean "race"...only here, where using its normal meaning would result in Jesus giving a false prediction (for any non-preterist Christian).

[olegramps]

65. There is no doubt that Paul believed that the Second Coming was near.

In fact when Jesus failed to appear after the passing of his generation there were many who abandoned the church. This is attested to by the church historian Eusebius. To survive the church redirected its main emphasis to life after death either to be spent in hell or heaven rather than a Kingdom on Earth. The major proponents of this reinterpretation were those trained in Hellenistic philosophy such as Justin who wrote two Apologies addressed to Emperor Antoninus. He was followed by Origen who was perhaps the most influential Christian philosopher in the history of the church as these church fathers attempted to synthesize the principles of Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism and Stoicism, with those of Christianity. He is said to have written 800 works, of which few survive, except his First Principles.

Few people today are very well acquainted with the Hellenistic philosophers and most importantly their influence on the development of Christian doctrine. If you take out the time to read just one dialog by Plato, the Phaedo, you will find the development of the basic concepts adopted by Christianity some 300 years latter. Most importantly was the development of his concept of the immortality of the soul that upon death gains reward or punishment. The ideal man, or philosopher, according to Plato leads a modest life, no lavish feasts or costly adornment and especially no sex. The true philosopher sought only enlightenment and deserves the rewards of bliss in the after life. Christianity developed into a aberrant form of Platonism with little in common with its supposed Jewish heritage. By the time Augustine and Jerome were converted it had undergone such extensive synchronism they could claim the most outlandish nonsense and easily crush any opposition.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. It is what he said when he came back from the dead

After the resurection but before ascending to heaven he spoke of the second-coming (when he would come back from heaven) and said that those alive today will witness it.

Anyway, it's just some typed words. I don't have a scholarly take on this but having read the gospels a few times my interpretation is that there is no sense of the next generations of man, no regard for planning... a serious drop-out and look to heaven movement.

(One could counter with things like Jesus saying the poor will be with us always, but since everyone accepts that the world is temporary in all variations of Christianity "always" is obviously not forever.)

[Gman2]

11. Look at how difficult we find fleshing out the future.

The only part of my childhood predictions that came true is that the rich can own jetpacks. All our fashions are retro at some level. same with music. Story plots as well.

Jesus saying the poor will be with us always, was a flip way of keeping the focus where he intended, not where the troll wanted. Like paying what is due to caesar.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Kurt Vonnegut wrote an essay saying that line was a joke

That Jesus was simply mocking Judas' self-righteousness, not saying anything deep.

I don't have a theory. Just thought I'd mention it.

[TexasObserver]

9. Many scholars believe many quotes attributed to Jesus were not his.

Many scholars believe each author of each book which allegedly quotes Jesus created the story to fit the sales pitch the author was making. Matthew was very interested in defining Jesus as the fulfillment of Hebraic prophecies regarding a messiah, so he built that case throughout his book.

The author of Matthew and the author of Mark both are believed to have drawn from another source, interestingly called "Q" (for STNG fans), for factual data.

One author wants to make sure the blame for the death is clearly upon certain Hebraic sects extant in those times. One wants to pave the way for Gentiles to be included. One finds the medical aspects interesting, probably because he was a physician.

The gospels use different quotes when talking about the same event. They quote Jesus differently. This fact alone should be sufficient for a reader of average intelligence to know that such a distinction between eye witnesses who were apostles can only mean one thing: don't get too hung up on the details. See the big picture.

Jesus appears to be a man trying to move the people of his region away from their old, stodgy, archaic religions that were designed to meet the needs of warrior kings 1000 years earlier. He uses metaphors to explain things, but his basic pitch is "be nice and everyone gets taken care of, there's enough to go around for everyone."

I don't believe the hell fire and brimstone stuff attributed to Jesus and neither do many of the the more liberal Biblical scholars.

In my view, the Jesus story is one part a historic enlightened man trying to get a message across, one part myth/legend with roots in astro theology - such as the son (sun) dying and being resurrected the third day - and one part Hebraic mythology trying to find a messiah. Most of the story is likely untrue. The true parts are probably amazing, because it means a real man preached lessons so radical they would kill him again today if he said them.

Imagine Jesus storming into the 700 Club and knocking over the TV cameras. From Pat Robertson on, most of Christendom bears nothing of the social messages Jesus taught. There's a sliver of liberalism in Christianity, and it is shrinking.

[Gman2]

14. On the contrary, Beck has breathed new life into that fight.

The debate has busted out of the church.

[TexasObserver]

19. I have no idea what your post means.

"On the contrary" what?

Who is Beck, and how has he breathed new life into "that fight"?

What does "the debate has busted out of the church" mean?

I'm not in any church, so the debate that I engage and that which liberal Biblical scholars engage is often outside "the church." The debate to which I refer is mainly outside "the church."

The church embraces the myths, legends and perversions of intent they find useful, and they should, since the church created them.

[Gman2]

20. This{There's a sliver of liberalism in Christianity, and it is shrinking.

Glenn Beck, by sticking his foot in his mouth, has refreshed the debate over Jesus liberal attitudes. The new rambo version bible is likely throwing out trial balloons. To see how a social/economic justice free bible is accepted.

[TexasObserver]

21. Oh, Glenn Beck!

I am vaguely aware of his antics because of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and thread titles here. I didn't realize he was getting into the Bible discussion.

Now I understand what you're talking about. The conservative Bible is the latest attempt to hijack the Jesus story and make it more money grubbing friendly. It's called "Prosperity Christianity."

Jesus was sure right about one thing: all the jackasses who claim to be doing "his" work, but are self serving schemers.

[rug]

15. You're describing William Miller, not Jesus Christ.

[CAG]

17. or Peter Pumpkinhead (for today's oblique reference to the band XTC)

[rug]

38. That's a good song but the reference is to the Adventist.

Google The Great Disappointment.

(P.S., it is not about Obama.)

[On the Road]

18. I Agree with a Lot of Your Comments

but I am not sure what Jesus had in mind by the end of the world.

Much of the language used in passages like the little Apocalypse (Mark 13) reflect the language of prophets like Isaiah and Ezekiel, who used phrases like "the moon will turn to blood" to refer to completely ordinary historical events like the Babylonian conquest. So "the Kingdom of Heaven" may have been right here on earth.

Now if that were true, why would Jesus claim that his kingdom was not of this earth? There is a very simple reason for that, namely that talking about a restoration of Jewish rule amounted to sedition and was a capital crime. You could not openly preach or write ideas like these without risk of arrest.

So while the militant Jesus of Revelations offends people, it might actually be closer to the truth than you might think.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. You make a good point

I dismiss Revelations as having anything to say about the historical Jesus, yet I am bound to our shared post-hoc assumptions about what the prophesied return would be like.

Jesus never really explained that so I should hold him accountable for the subsequent speculations of others.

[grantcart]

23. Your Christology is half right

The part about Jesus being consumed about eschatology has been known for about 100 years but after Pastors complete Seminary they go through amnesia because no one wants to be the one that stops the big party.

Jesus had no real timeline in mind so I don't know what your basis is for the 100 years but he thought that the end of the world was imminent.

What you omit, and it is a major error, is that he didn't think that the world was coming to and end because the calendar had run out, he thought that the world was coming to an end because he was fulfilling scripture and took on the mantle of the Last Prophet, or the annoited one.

Preaching a radical antiestablishment prophetic message would fulfill Ishiah and bring the end.

The reason that he thought that the world was coming to an end is that he correctly forecasted that the truce between the Roman occupiers and the Jewish institutions was about to come to an end. And in about 36 years after his death it did with the destruction of the temple.

It does not diminish the ethical importance of Jesus' teaching however, it simply means that for Christians, a new moral order was born during a time of great conflict.

There are a couple of serious problems that arose when the end times did not come and in fact did not appear to be coming in the near future. The first was to develop a Christology that would establish the identity of Jesus, and the other was to account for his murder.

Authors of Matthew and Luke (Matthew was writing a primer for future Christians and Luke was writing to the establishment) took on lyrical means to express their opinion of Jesus' identity and added virgin birth poetic imagery. The fact that Mark, the earliest gospel doesn't contain them and that Matthew and Luke have completely different versions of the virgin birth, as well as the inherent biological dilema have actually left all modern scholars with the opinion that the virgin birth myth should be seen as a theological and not factual truth.

The same is true with the resurrection appearences. Mark, in its original form, doesn't have any. Later scribes were so upset at this reality that they have added the ending which is commonly used today, even though all biblical scholars agree that it is an addition.

IMHO the most intriguing question of the New Testatment is not what did Jesus say or not say, but what was said and then left out.

To understand this simply ask yourself what was the greatest threat to humanity in the 20th century. The answer obviously was German Nazism and Stalin Communism. Yet if any politician were to get up and give a speech warning of the immediate dangers of these two he would be laughed off the stage.

For this reason your statement, "It's pretty much all he talked about" is 100% incorrect. It's pretty much the only thing that made sense to write down after history had wiped out most of his other sermons.

Jesus was murdered for a reason. He wasn't simply advocating a golden rule or waiting for the end of time. Jesus assumed the mantle of an anti establishment prophet. Luke makes the point by having his first official teaching the reading of Old Testament scripture:

Luke 4:18

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
because he has anointed me
to bring good news ot the poor

He has sent me to proclaim
release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's
favor.


The importance and placement of this passage for Luke cannot be understated. First century Jews thought that when a new prophet rose up that he would be the annoited one as identified in his quoting of Isaiah.

Two things would happen if this scripture was true 1) The arrival of the Christ and 2) Conflict with established power.

Luke doesn't want any ambiguity and has Jesus saying "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing"

While it is obvious that this first teaching did not take place as Luke wrote it (and in the same vein the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew) it does not mean it does not reflect a basic teaching of Jesus that you have omitted, that the prophecy of a true prohpet was happening, and as with all true prophets, would cause anger among the establishment, which he condemns.

Jesus preaching hit a populist cord as he walked around Judea and Samaria. In those days you either went to the temple or, for those not in walking distance, went to the nearest park to hear the preachers. Jesus was very popular for the sharpness of his message and for his ability to express it in parable.

What is certain however is that he wasn't just preaching about the end of times but offering up criticisms of the religious and secular powers.

You can see this in all of the gospels and given the fact that the gospels were written in part to apease the current establishment and encourage them not to persecute the Christian sect means that it passes the redaction test for certainty.

In Mark for example (Mark 3:8) he says that "The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians aganst him, how to destroy him.

But the Pharisees didn't conspire with the Herodians, they hated the Herodians, it was the Saducees that were the liberal cultural Jews who ran the temple and negotiated with the Herodians. However at the time of the writing of the New Testament the Saducees and the Herodians had already been wiped away and all that remained were the Pharisees and the new Roman prelates.

So the whole New Testament was written without Jesus's most stinging words aimed at the Saducees and the Herodians. A more gentle establishment friendly Jesus emerges. The New Testament was written as a contemporary document and rehashing the conflict with the Saducees, who no longer existed, would be as relevent as Obama standing up and talking about the dangers of the Nazi Germany.

So your Christology is only half of the real Jesus

"Do nothing except praise God and spread the good news of the imminent end of the world and be nice to poor and sick people as a method of praising God (by compassion to the least of his children) because the whole Earth racket is winding down."

He was preaching to them to go into conflict (but not armed rebellion) against the Saducees and the corruption of the temple.

Mark 11:15

And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who wer buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying:

Is it not written
My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations?
But you have made it a dent of robbers.

Following this we get in Mark several confrontations with the Saducees and the same tools of criticims that tear away most of the New Testament as being actual serves the reverse here and most biblical scholars consider it rooted in a historical incident.

Also the fact that a short time after this the Temple establishment hands Jesus over to Herod, who understood nothing of what Jesus was talking about, and was killed serves as a convincing confirmation.

Just as the first century gospel writers were reluctant to agitate and anger the established military powers American Christianity has sought to reinvent Jesus as a sacrificial lamb for individual salvation.

The former were facing the loss of their lives and the end of Christianity, the later faces the end of their self indulgent middle class mediocrity and social acceptance at the Country Club where the idea of Jesus cleaning out the temple by force is never heard when they sit in their pews.

It is also the reason I have been unable to sit in those pews for decades.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. That's a heck of a reply, Grantcart

There's always the "which Jesus?" question and I admit to splitting the matter as arbitrarily as anyone.

The Jesus of "Q" is obviously not God or even much of a Jesus. Mark is fairly close to "Q" and still not Jesus. Matthew is written for Jews (hence the plodding fulfillment of old testament prophecy). Luke is written for non-Jews. And John is the development of abstract Christ as a Platonist something-or-another.

Obviously Q is closer to an historical Christ if one existed but that's not the Jesus I think of. Mark is to journalistic. John is too trippy. So I guess my Jesus is 70% Matthew, 30% Luke. The Jewish version of Christ has the most authenticity to me, since he exists within his actual cultural milieu.

100 AD is a liberal and round figure... whenever the last of that generation passed. There's no date, but somewhere in there.

My Jesus is not a political figure, at least in terms of Rome v. Judaism. The fall of Jerusalem created the interest in Christianity but I do not think Jesus anticipated the literal fall of Jerusalem. I think he expected dramatic and unambiguously supernatural events to make Judaism and Rome irrelevant before the AD 70s.

But that's my Jesus. Not the man himself and not the Jesus that was created over the succeeding centuries but rather my guess at the public persona of Jesus that existed after his death but before the gospels. If you asked someone in Jerusalem in AD 45 if they had heard about that Jesus guy I think they would have recalled a bitterly anti-priesthood Jewish "The End is Near" guy.

If he was not a literal end-of-the-world preacher and had a foot in the real-politik world then he was probably an angry Gandhi at war not with Rome but with the Priesthood specifically. (Though of course any juicy anti-Roman stuff would have been excised so we'll never know.) But as he exists in the words of the gospels he has major beefs with conventional Judaism and considers Rome a distraction.

Since you are likely to read this, if Jesus was political I see him in a Gandhi-style war with the priesthood. Butchering fees were the chief revenue of the priests. That puts the endless fishing stories and allegories in a certain light. My guess/theory is that Jesus was executed for encouraging a beef boycott. Hitting 'em where it hurt. Seriously. Dude is all about fish. Taking fish straight from the sea is like Gandhi's evasion of the British salt tax by gleaning salt from the beach.

The loaves and fishes story is a metaphor for the people's ability to get by without patronizing the priests. IMO.

[cliffordu]

27. Wow, again.

You and Grantcart are a lot better versed in this than I would ever have guessed.

Nice conversation.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. Naw, Grantcart is versed. I'm just facile.

Grantcart seems to be versed on just about anything.

But if he tangles with me on painting or film he's in for a rude comeuppance!

:hi:

[cliffordu]

32. SOMEBODY needs to smack that suckah down.

[grantcart]

33. I dare you to bike on down here and do it

[cliffordu]

35. Get ready to rumble, grandma.....

Diogenese and I are comin' and we're bringing hell with us!!!!

[grantcart]

28. Jesus was not political

For him it was the unintended and irrelevent results of what Prophets do.

Matthew was written for the next generation of Christians

My friend and professor spent about 15 years of his life examining and documenting the "mirror archetecture" that the book of Matthew has that parrallels the structure of the pentituch.

http://www.amazon.com/Matthew-Commentary-Christbook-1-12/dp/0802811183

Despite the Marcan "secret" it seems obvious that Jesus did see himself as someone like Isaiah, the clearest evidence of this is the complete dedication to a speaking mission and cultivating a 12 disciple group that accompanied him. While not aiming at the political structure he knew that his criticisms of the Jewish religious authorities and the coming conflict with Rome would have political impact. He probably thought that the upcoming conflict would generate the final revelation of YHWH.

He was able to forsee the destruction of the temple because he saw that the vast majority of Jews had lost any connection with it and were following one of dozens of sects that were challenging temple authority. Many of these sects were taking on increasingly political and military dimensions and Jesus was probably one of several thousand intelligent Jews who saw that a violent confrontation with the Roman state was simply a matter of time.

The Loaves and Fishes story probably reflects the fact that it was the tradition for families to take a hike on the Sabath to gather in remote areas. Prudent families would pack picnics and be prepared for their needs while others would come at the spur of the moment staying longer than they thought. It was Jesus' words of compassion and sharing that motivated the people with food to share it with those that had come unprepared that was the miracle, that in sharing there was actually a surplus of food, a valuable lesson today.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. PS: Mark and Matthew should be reversed throughout my comments

You probably figured that out.

I am disgospelexic

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. PPS: apropos of little...

My preferred translation of the gospels is an odd one: Richmond Latimore.

I doubt it's still in print but if you know his Iliad and Odyssey you can imagine what a cool book his Gospels is.

(I think it's Gospels and Revelations, actually.)

[struggle4progress]

37. I really really like Lattimore's translation

[cliffordu]

26. Wow.

[Igel]

24. Odd.

He told everybody to leave their jobs, sell everything. But still he had supporters able to give him expensive things at times or to house and feed him and his.

This latter group of supporters got no such injunction.

Even the lad that was wealthy and whom he told to sell everything is an odd instance. He was righteous, but he loved his things too much. So to show that he didn't love his things he would have to sell them? Or, perhaps, the order pointed at the problem. "You there--you're a heroin addict." "Am not, I can quit whenever I want." "Fine, quit."

And others he didn't tell to sell everything. He didn't tell others to quit their jobs, even when working for the oppressive Roman empire. So perhaps a broader view is necessary.

Now, that would require making the Jesus' character more complex and nuanced, more 3-dimensional. We're willing to do it for a James Joyce or Tolstoy character, of course. Not nearly the political or the cultural/self-perception stakes involved with those.

Most of your other points have kludges or objections. Sometimes they're obvious kludges. Sometimes you have to wonder if the kludge isn't necessary because of the way the text is read--understand the text differently, ever so slightly differently, and the kludge is unnecessary. But then you have to question your assumptions and take perhaps a broader view. (Sorry. I don't do object oriented programming, so I need things like do-loops.)

[ironbark]

46. Only literalism renders gospels “not really vague”.

Dealing with the NT just as a story (not history) a large portion of the narrative is about the dangers of literal interpretation and subsequent expectations.
Israel was an occupied land, whole Roman Legions stationed to suppress zealots and the messianic expectation drawn from a literal reading of the OT.
The Messianic agenda was to cleanse and restore the temple, fight and defeat the Roman enemy. Israel wanted, needed, expected a Divine warrior king riding a white horse and wielding a sword of fire.

What they got was a carpenter on a donkey who told them to love the Romans and pay tax to Rome.

At the core of the NT narrative is an advisory on the pitfalls of taking scripture literally…because… you can’t always get what you want and don’t always get what you expect.

Despite this central NT narrative theme of warning against literalist expectations many Christians (and even some Atheists ;-) can be found who insist on an exclusively literal reading of everything-
Son of God, walking on water, water to wine, resurrection, end of world.
All of these gospel aspects have always been and still remain open to interpretation/s other than the literal.

The gospels are vague because there is and always has been great diversity in literal/non literal interpretation.

[darkstar3]

49. Then here's the question:

Is the part about Jesus metaphor, history, or some mix thereof?

[ironbark]

50. Which "part about Jesus"?

His very existence?
His reported acts/words?

Either way, for me the interest resides within an open reading of the narrative.
A story or message, even a ripping yarn, requires no historical provenance to be effective, meaningful nor for the message to be true.
(See ‘Fake’ by Orson Wells).

eg. For many/most the resurrection is about Jesus literally bodily coming back to life.
For me there is more meaning/truth in the resurrection being a metaphor for the
coming back to life of the ideas and the movement. For me the narrative is about
notions (“Love thine enemy…Do unto others…,etc) crushed, abandoned, denied
and stone dead at the point of crucifixion…..but subsequently resurrected and
promulgated.

[darkstar3]

52. I was talking about the entire story of Jesus from beginning to end,

and it seems from your post that you believe the entire story is metaphor.

If that is the case, then I assume you do not believe IN Jesus.

Here's the next question: Do you believe that the entire book, from Genesis to Revelation, is metaphor?

[ironbark]

53. To “assume” makes an ass out of….

…………oh…never mind….it’s a bit twee.

“...you believe the entire story is metaphor.”

No

“...assume you do not believe IN Jesus.”

No, assumption misplaced. (I neither believe nor disbelieve).

“...you believe that the entire book, from Genesis to Revelation, is metaphor”

No.

As I said before-“for me the interest resides within an open reading of the narrative”…some of the story may be literally true…some metaphor.

The historical probability of Jesus is of little interest to me.
An exclusively literalist or metaphorical reading of scripture seems shallow and absurd.

[darkstar3]

54. Oh boy,

First, take your tired cliches elsewhere, as I have no use for them.

Second, belief is a binary state of being. You either believe in Jesus, or you do not.

Third, I was trying to get an answer out of you as to how you see the bible, and now I have it. You see the bible as a mixture of metaphor and history. Now tell me how you know which part is which. And tell me also why you specifically feel that the bible should carry more literary weight than Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.

[ironbark]

55. And take ye your ongoing baseless assumptions

to the place the sun don’t shine ;-)

Then I shall be less inclined to tired cliché

“…belief is a binary state of being. You either believe in Jesus, or you do not.”

LOL!
And >WHICH< of the 30,000 divergent Christian denominations holds the Jesus that you demand I must or must not believe in?

Or is your true Jesus amongst the millions of non aligned beliefs regarding Jesus?

Your “binary” for or against, “either believe in Jesus, or you do not” is a complete crock that belongs in the same bucket as your prior Agnosticism= Atheism.

You define/describe a Jesus to be believed in or rejected and I might do either.
But don’t try to impose your binary mindset on me.
I’m free to choose, to believe some portions of the Jesus story and reject others, to take some as literal and some as metaphor.

“Now tell me how you know which part is which.”

I do not ‘know’, there is no certainty, I do not have, need or seek the shallow arrogance of certainty that leads to binary belief or disbelief. Nor is there a certainty that leads to- I know this is literal and I know this is metaphor.
The assessment (which part is which) is a subjective calculation of probability.
ie Jesus may be singular historical figure, Jesus may be invention of one or more people,we have nothing historical to confirm either proposition, am inclined on calculation of probability to suspect Jesus was singular historical figure, am not in any way obliged to ‘believe’ same.

“And tell me also why you specifically feel that the bible should carry more literary weight than Homer's Iliad and Odyssey”.

Sure….just as soon as you explain the origin of the assumption that I do “specifically feel that the bible should carry more literary weight than Homer's Iliad and Odyssey”.

Or, Oh boy, I’ll have to resort to tired clichés again.

[darkstar3]

57. Your entire post is nothing but an exercise in your own superiority,

and demonstrates high jackassery.

I made a simple point, and it cannot be disputed. Belief is a binary state. You either believe in something, or you do not. But, in order to oblige your incredibly egotastic fencesitting, I will phrase the question in a different way.

Is there ANY entity at this particular time that you would define as 'God' and believe in as such? It is a yes or no question, with a simple result, and one which I can already predict based on your prior answers. And since "no" is the answer, you are an atheist, my superior friend, no matter how much you might like that fencepost. And don't give me that bullshit about some future possible definition or proof that might change your answer from "no" to "yes". That is the future, not now. That means that, as of now, you are an atheist, and in the future you reserve to the right to become a theist. Stop looking down your nose at both sides of the debate and realize that you're already on one of the sides you like to denigrate. ALL agnostics are atheists by definition, because they lack belief, but not ALL atheists are agnostics, because some very few atheists choose to say specifically that they know there cannot possibly be a God. I can't draw a Venn diagram in regular text, but if I had a virtual whiteboard I could draw it out for you properly as if you were a child.

As for my assumption that you DO feel the bible should carry more literary weight, “for me the interest resides within an open reading of the narrative”…some of the story may be literally true…some metaphor." The interest that you assign to the open reading of this book gives it weight, weight beyond that which you would give to normal fiction.

[ironbark]

58. What “superiority” resides in objecting to your ongoing assumptions?

Perhaps it is the “superiority” of preparedness to answer your questions directly while you ignore mine and hasten on to your next question?

“I made a simple point, and it cannot be disputed.”

Your simple point has been disputed and refuted. Ignoring the refutation does not make it disappear.

“Is there ANY entity at this particular time that you would define as 'God' and believe in as such?”

Your gambit/question falters and fails at the point of “believe in”. I have good cause to speculate that
there may well be a God, it is a possibility, it may even be a probability. But there is nothing along the lines of evidence or experience that inclines me to “believe” nor is there any logical/rational imperative that I should choose between belief or disbelief.

“It is a yes or no question,”

No it’s not.
Nor is- “Have you stopped cheating on your wife…yes or no”

“…with a simple result, and one which I can already predict based on your prior answers”.

Assumptions of psychic insight fail you.

“And since "no" is the answer”

You don’t get to fabricate my answers unless you want to go on talking to yourself.
“No” is not my answer.
The ‘fencepost’ is the place to sit until sufficient data/experience is available. God is a maybe/maybe not proposition. A possibly, possibly not speculation…there is no logical reason for me to embrace ‘belief’ or ‘disbelief’ and your insistence/projection that I must or already have done so is bizarre.

I tend to read and answer posts line by line as I go…and at this point it got too weird for me-
“And don't give me that bullshit about some future possible definition or proof that might change your answer from "no" to "yes". That is the future, not now. That means that, as of now, you are an atheist…”

My answer that wasn’t ‘no’ is not allowed to be changed to ‘yes’ at any point in the future because you say so, and you decide what my answers are and you have decided I’m an Atheist?

Here’s a parting ‘belief’ based on empirical evidence (P57) and repeated direct personal experience-
The arrogance of certainty of the rabid Atheist is as frightening as that of the rabid Theist, both lead to congenital deafness to voices other than their own and both lead to bizarre assumptions of psychic insight. Both are prepared to make absolutist demands and/or impose their beliefs on others.
I believe with all my heart, soul and “superior intelligence” that I would rather a molten metal enema than be any such Atheist or Theist.

[darkstar3]

59. Dance all you like,

but if you currently lack belief in any gods, then you are an atheist. By your own admission you "neither believe nor disbelieve", which means you lack belief. It's really dirt simple, and not a single one of your incredible logical contortions can change that. Holding the lightswitch in the middle doesn't magically create a third position somewhere between on and off.

I believe with all my heart, soul and “superior intelligence” that I would rather a molten metal enema than be any such Atheist or Theist. And therein lies the source of your denial. You've managed to demonize both sides of this debate so thoroughly that you have convinced yourself that being a part of either one of them is a Very Bad Thing. I can't help you there sunshine, because like it or not, you fall under the very classic and simple definition of atheist, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it unless you'd like to start believing in some definition of God right now.

[tama]

60. A quote

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - Fitzgerald

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle

[darkstar3]

61. I fully understand

the fallacy of a false dichotomy, but it only applies when someone can actually provide a third option. Some states, no matter how hard you try to make them otherwise, are in fact binary. The light is either on, or it is off. The fish is either on your hook, or it is not. You believe that a deity or deities of any kind exist, or you do not.

I don't know how anyone can make this any clearer.

[tama]

62. To quote Korzybski:

“Whatever you say it is, it isn't.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_semantics

[tama]

51. Jesus the anarcho-primitivist:

"25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? 26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

It's simple, when people live as part of nature instead fighting nature (themselves) and trying to control it (with money, slavery, technocracy), nature provides for material needs. Nature is not some theology or theory, map is not the landscape.

"End of the world" is best interpreted as spiritual death known from all religions (basic shamanic experience) meaning freedom from fear of death and ego-control.

[Duke Newcombe]

56. I do not think those Books mean what you think they mean. n/t

[RagAss]

64. Read the Gospel of Thomas. That's the "cool" Jesus. The one I would want to meet.