So they only follow the old testament? Isn’t there already a word for that?
I’ve read the old testament…G-d, was pretty mean and spiteful, I can definitely see Christians taking comfort in the murdering and mass killings.
Good score!
“When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
Half this story is about the idiot SBC constituency. The other half is about top SBC officials who have somehow come to believe that the teachings of Jesus were anything but subversive to begin with.
Jesus were anything but subversive to begin with.
Can you cite an example of an idea that Biblical Jesus said that was subversive to established Jewish thought?
deleted by creator
Explain please. I don’t quite understand your question.
deleted by creator
Christianity is syncretic - is that not inherently subversive of the source?
Oh I think I see what you mean. To one extent every religion is. No one starts from page 1. I am not quite seeing however what Biblical Jesus borrowed from Rome that the Jews of the area hadn’t already. Can you list some examples?
And in this way it created common ground regional cultures, but the direction of the syncretization was also that of Romanization - the new mythos served to legitimize the earthly authority of Rome (and their territorial claims) in a way the teachings of the Jewish tribes had not.
Really only discussing what Biblical Jesus is supposed to have said. He was clear that he was only there for the lost sheep of the Jews, not for the rest.
deleted by creator
You seem to know what you are talking about, can you recommend a good starting book for the history for Christianity (or Islam)?
You make it sound very interesting.
So, you have never heard the Bible fable of why Jesus was crucified? Come on 😀
deleted by creator
Can you repeat back what I wrote? Thanks.
|Can you repeat back what I wrote? Thanks.
No
Best response. This guy has all the worst aspects of a biblical literalist and just seems like a bit of a dick
Saying directly next time, makes you look weak otherwise. Just free advice
You’re just as bad as a biblical literalist and you seem like kind of a dick
The whole “camel through the eye of the needle” bit is likely as radical as it looks at first glance. It was tried to be explained away through the centuries as more rich Christians started to appear, such as by claiming it was a small doorway in the city wall that would be difficult to get a camel through.
These claims don’t appear to hold up. Meanwhile, there were sewing needles uncovered with a recognizable design to modern ones, and you ain’t getting a camel through it. The way we would plainly read it today seems correct: rich people aren’t getting into the Kingdom of God.
Pharisees lived on donations not via state funds. For him to tell a rich guy to give away all his money was basically him telling a rich guy to give himself all the money.
Soliciting donations isn’t exactly subversive.
The passage where the man expels the people from the temple, accusing them of betraying the teachings seems very much subversive.
Here is a single man going against status quo and establishment. If that is not a good exemple of subversion, there is none.
Wasn’t it because they were commercialising the temple as well? US mega churches could learn something from that.
Don’t really know. I’m aware such a depiction exists but precise details are moot, for what I care.
I think it revolves around the temple grounds being used as a market and/or being a place where moneylenders were present, thus, again, going against the teachings advising against greed and materialism.
oh how i fuckin WISH they’d ‘learn something’ alright. I wish they’d learn it HARD and BITTERLY.
There is a lot of argument about that incident in the “Jesus was not supernatural but he existed crowd”. A few main solutions:
-
It was understood that the next Messiah would build the 3rd temple, but you can’t exactly rebuild the temple if there is a temple. So he was trying to bring about the events.
-
Roman coinage was dicey for strict monotheistic people to use hence the need to change it before you entered. It was a sore point for the holier-than-now crowd. Oh you use forbidden currency normally but change it at the temple? Morality when it suits you.
-
The temple had a dual-aristorcracy structure. The outside was run by one and the inside by another. The outside was more politically acceptable to attack. It definitely wouldn’t have been the first time one of the other Jewish factions had gone after how the Temple was run. By attacking the outside one he could set himself up as the quite a few “restorers of the Temple”.
-
The passage where the man expels the people from the temple, accusing them of betraying the teachings seems very much subversive.
Please see: Jeremiah 7:9-15, Jeremiah 23:11-15, Isaiah 1:10-17, Isaiah 66:1-2, Isaiah 59:1-2, Isaiah 56:7-8, Amos 5:21-24, and of course Micah.
The Jewish theocratic state had divisions of power. At that time it was mostly Pharisees and Temple. If Jesus had existed, he would definitely been on Pharisees side. Biblical Jesus was at least. It’s a bit like claiming any political commentary is subversive. There is a difference between being willing to take pot shots at the other political team and being against established order. The references I gave are only the ones that have survived. Most likely there were quite a few authors being very critical of how the Temple was run.
Here is a single man going against status quo and establishment. If that is not a good exemple of subversion, there is none.
I thought you Bible literalists believe he had 12 apostles plus over 500 camp followers. Which is it?
Pharisees and Sadducees are, in very broad terms, like Democrats and Republicans today. Sadducees tended to be wealthy and conservative, while the Pharisees were more about the common folk. At least on paper. In practice, maybe not so much. Like the way a lot of modern leftists hate the Democratic party, historical Jesus could very easily have hated the Pharisees while aligning somewhat with their stated positions. That certainly comes through in the literary version of Jesus.
Yeah I am going to reject this analogy right off the bat.
Also not sure why you are bringing the Sadducees into this. They were a rival sect not a political faction.
Political and religious faction was not that separated at the time. Or even now, for that matter.
You are allowed to back down from an argument btw.
No the analogy between Pharisees and Sadducees and DNC and GOP does not work.
You probably are just trying to be quippy but actually Jesus was quite subversive to established Jewish doctrine. You can see it in the parables.
One can see it in the Parable of the Woman called out for adultry. To deeply paraphrase with a shit condensed version : A bunch of Jewish scholarship - the folk who basically serve as biblical laywers - try and cast a woman in front of Jesus for judgement for her supposed flagrant overstepping of the rules with the prescribed punishment under Jewish law. This law is one of the actual commandment breakers and these community leaders demand Jesus judge her by their rule book. Jesus refuses. This is where we get the whole “he who is without sin cast the first stone” thing. Jewish law contained the punishment for adultry was not written by god, it was written by priests. Jesus does tell the woman not to do it again so God’s will is communicated so one could read this as a message to be wary of the laws of priests because they do not reflect the will of God. “Do not kill” and “do not covet” which means something closer to “be jealous of/desire” superceed those laws. It’s not on humans to take it upon themselves to render judgement. That is up to God.
This made the teachings of Jesus ridiculously unpopular amongst Jewish priests because they got a law for everything. One could look at the inclusion of Leviticus - a description of Jewish laws in the Christian Bible as a reminder that priests made those laws. They were unauthorized human expansions on the simple directives that came straight from the source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
Other parables to look into were “The unjust judge”. But yeah. Jesus was about as anti authoritarian as you could get.
One can see it in the Parable of the Woman called out for adultry.
3rd century forgery. Not found in early manuscripts of John or any other Christian works. Also not aligned with other things he said. Such as in Matthew where he talked about how he wasn’t subtracting from the law. Also doesn’t align with the incident with the “lepord” found in Mark, Luke, and Matthew. Where Jesus shows absolute respect for the legal authorities.
Jewish law contained the punishment for adultry was not written by god, it was written by priests.
I agree. God wrote nothing.
s not on humans to take it upon themselves to render judgement. That is up to God.
I thought we were talking about Jesus. Why are you bringing up Rabbi Hillel. You know the guy who said things like this, lived in that area, and died decades prior?
This made the teachings of Jesus ridiculously unpopular amongst Jewish priests because they got a law for everything. One could look at the inclusion of Leviticus -
So did Jesus. You don’t remember your Sermon on the Mount.
Other parables to look into were “The unjust judge”. But yeah. Jesus was about as anti authoritarian as you could get.
Proverbs and Leviticus.
Again, everything Biblical Jesus said was establishment.
I love how I cannot tell from this message whether you are a koolaid-drinking Christian Fascist or a Dawkins-huffing New Atheist. Both have a strong interest in this particular version of Jesus that you are pushing.
Most of us take it for granted that Jesus forgave the adulterer, and further, that only by his forgiveness can we enter the kingdom of heaven, according to contemporary vernacular Protestant American Christian Mythology. The Biblical Scholars like yourself - amateur or professional, earnest or polemical - will always debate like Talmudic rabbis about it, but we’re out here in the real world where people are alive and living their various gospel truths.
I love how I cannot tell from this message whether you are a koolaid-drinking Christian Fascist or a Dawkins-huffing New Atheist. Both have a strong interest in this particular version of Jesus that you are pushing.
Attack the argument and not the person.
Most of us take it for granted that Jesus forgave the adulterer
3rd century forgery.
and further, that only by his forgiveness can we enter the kingdom of heaven, according to contemporary vernacular Protestant American Christian Mythology.
And? There is an entire branch of Christian thought dedicated to figure out how to be saved. That source has just as much justification as Calvinism. Of course none of it is true, the only place we go when we die is the ground.
The Biblical Scholars like yourself - amateur or professional, earnest or polemical - will always debate like Talmudic rabbis about it,
I have discussed facts only.
but we’re out here in the real world where people are alive and living their various gospel truths.
So you are naked, barefoot, and demanding the rich to give up all their money?
Why are you acting like this.
I used to think logic was enough too.
In that case I am happy that you are now considering evidence instead of symbol shifting games.
Of course logic isn’t enough. Logic can tell you how to do something, but it can’t tell you why. In other words, logic can’t tell you why one outcome is better or worse than another. You need emotions for that.
Ah, but the proof that you mention that it was a 3rd century forgery was actually a 6th century forgery! You can always disprove something, but proving something is much harder if you don’t share the same base truths. But as Pilate said “What is truth?”… or was that a forgery as well?
It isn’t found in any of the earlier manuscripts and is not aligned with other actions and sayings that he said. All the gotchas wont change that.
3rd century forgery
When the specific bit of fiction was added to the book of fiction seems entirely irrelevant when it is the compiled book, including the later bit of fiction, upon which modern people claim to be basing their moral philosophy. I don’t believe the vast majority are reaching that verse and going “oh well this was added late so let’s skip over this part.” “Legitimate” (feels a funny concept for this topic, tbh) or not, it is included in most modern Christian’s interpretation of Christ
I think it is important to note what the truth is of the situation.
If the Bible can have one fictional story in it, it can have two, if it can have two it can have three.
The whole thing is allegorical fiction; debating which is most historically fictional is pointless when the vast majority only consider the thing as a whole, not individually. It isn’t that you’re not correct, it’s that your correctness is wholly irrelevant to how the Bible is consumed
The Bible is not allegorical to the vast majority of believers.
Saying he was the Messiah in and of itself was subversive to established thought.
The Jews at the time thought the Messiah would come in clad in armor, sword in hand, on a white horse, come to slay their enemies.
Instead he rolled up humbly on a donkey talking nonsense like “love each other, treat others kindly”
Saying he was the Messiah in and of itself was subversive to established thought.
They had a long long history of people making claims to kingship based on having a supposed message from God. Like Jeremiah which is clearly the story it was plagiarized from. Additionally, the narratives are contradictory on what exactly he said while interrogated. Which makes sense if you are just making it all up.
The Jews at the time thought the Messiah would come in clad in armor, sword in hand, on a white horse, come to slay their enemies.
Citation needed. Please use the Talmudic prophecies and the references of Josphius to back up your claim. There was a wide variety of different messiah prophecies in circulation at the time. Some of them yes we’re closer to warlike image you made, copying from the Maccabees and Samson. Others were much closer to Isaiah and Jeremiah. Just a guy going around preaching.
Instead he rolled up humbly on a donkey
Not according to Gospel of Matthew. In the Gospel of Matthew he was riding a horse and a donkey at the same time. The author of first Gospel liked to double stuff, made his lies easier to swallow I imagine. Or he just didn’t know Hebrew and Aramaic and misunderstood the last sentence repetitive structure of the poetry.
talking nonsense like “love each other, treat others kindly”
Like here?
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
-Matthew 10:34
Also all the nice stuff he said was from Hillel or Proverbs.
Wanna try again? Or just admit that he is a fictional character that con artists poured Jewish history and thought into.
“now”
No, these are the WASP teachings updated for American idiots. White Anglo Saxon Protestants. The mirror of the old Nazis. Very closely related.
Care to elaborate on his conservative teachings? Unless you’re stretching Jesus’ teachings to the letters of Paul.
Without Paul there really is no Christianity. Jesus would have just been one of the many minor prophets at best.
As for his conservative teachings, based on what he supposedly said and did he respected the laws of Moses. He argued over specific rulings but not the laws themselves.
liberals are not a religious group that claims to follow the teachings of jesus. Your point is?
Christians are a religious group who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught many liberal ideals. Some of these include:
- Helping others
- Not hoarding wealth
- Not judging others based on their life choices
At present, many Christians also consider themselves to, politically, be Republicans. The Republican party believes in none of what Jesus taught. They use Christianity to do exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught.
- Welfare? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps!
- Capitalism and profit at all costs
- Condemnation of non-heterosexual lifestyles
It sure seems to me that Republican Christians long ago decided that the teachings of Jesus are too liberal.
I appreciate you writing all this out, but…
I was replying to walnutwalrus’s comment:
liberals are rejecting “conservative” teachings of Jesus
And it appears something went wrong and my comment isn’t listed as a reply to that one. This changes the context significantly. Where did you find my comment?
The teachings of Jesus, if read for what they say, are the antithesis of the Republican platform.
Also note: the all-knowing God/man said nothing about abortion and it was a thing then, too.
It’s idolatry with a political party trumping (heh) the actual religious teachings.
I decided that I couldn’t be part of a hypothetical institution like the church in 2002! I loved the teachings but i saw none of them within the parishioners themselves, so i left to find my own way.
Real Jesus seems like a great, it’s all them gawdamn religions that pucks it up
He didn’t exist but even the fictional Biblical Jesus doesn’t seem that great to me.
Jesus teachings, assuming he was even real, boil really down to being a decent human being.
You don’t need a religious institution to live by that principle, you don’t even need to be a believer of anything supernatural, you don’t even have to believe he existed. Just be a decent human being, it’s really not that hard.
All those people and their labels, but they always end up just being control freaks and hypocrites, all throughout history. And then they wonder why others turn their backs on them.boil really down to being a decent human being.
Matthew 10:34-36
The gospel according to Wheaton:
And lo, Jesus said to the people, “don’t be a dick.”
assuming he was even real,
We can say that he lived with overwhelming certainty. Details are fuzzy and miracles either misinterpreted or made up but there was a guy by his name who was baptised by John the Baptist, travelled around arguing theology and collecting followers, and was crucified.
Yet all his records appear only like a hundred years after his alleged death. I don’t find that to be convincing credibility.
If a Historian were to write a book about Churchill today would you judge it just as unreliable as Tacitus, who wrote some what 70 years after Jesus’ death, wasn’t a Christian, had access to Roman state archives, and is generally considered to be a reliable historiographer? The man was a Senator if Christians had made up the crucifixion he would have called them out on it. We would see tons of Roman authors add libel to the list of reasons to discriminate against Christians. It would’ve been a whole thing.
Also what’s so exceptional about the mere existence and death of some random itinerant preacher that would require a particularly high standard of evidence? No historian is saying that he got resurrected or something.
If a Historian were to write a book about Churchill today
There’s very throughout recordings of Churchill and his life already, even from the time he actually lived.
Also what’s so exceptional about the mere existence and death of some random itinerant preacher that would require a particularly high standard of evidence?
The entire religion formed around his person? His “wonders”? If there’s such a big fuss being made about his life, then surely you’d have records of said life from when he was still alive, not very long after his death.
WTF do supposed wonders have to do with whether he lived or not?
If someone says “The pope can perform miracles” and I say “there’s no proof of that”, does that imply that I deny the existence of the pope? Do rumours of miracles even begin to make the existence of a person sitting on a chair in Rome less likely?
As to the fuzz about him: There were tons of itinerant preachers back them, not many were made martyrs by the Romans. Also, you know, I wouldn’t call it entirely unlikely that Jesus, as a person, was an exceptionally swell and nice guy, people liked him, considered him wise or even divinely inspired. People having followers certainly isn’t out of the ordinary, it’s been known to happen.
Or is the existence of Stalin suddenly up in the air because Tankies form a religion around the guy?
WTF do supposed wonders have to do with whether he lived or not?
Simple. If someone today would walk on water or turn water into wine, then it would be talked about everywhere, but not ages after their death. No idea why you find this so hard to comprehend.
Or is the existence of Stalin suddenly up in the air because Tankies form a religion around the guy?
No? There’s literally records of him existing, including video evidence. Stop being willfully obtuse. This is just bad faith bullshit arguing and you know it.
He did say, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," which would, at the very least, necessitate believing he existed.
Depends on how you want to interpret & translate it, not that I really care either way. If the afterlife were real and you’d deny entry to good people simply for not believing in Jesus, then you’re not even worth the worship anyway.
Hypocritical? Though hypothetical is funny in its own way
I’ve said it before, but, (assuming he existed at all) Jesus was a brown-skinned non-English-speaking Palestinian Jew who healed the sick and fed the poor (and didn’t charge money for either thing) and encouraged his followers to do the same, supported paying taxes, and showed open contempt for wealth and the wealthy.
If only he had also been openly gay he would be every single thing modern Christians hate.
Just wanted to point out it’s widely accepted, even by secular historians, Jesus was a real person. Him being a jew from Nazareth and being crucified for starting a quarrel in the temple are generally accepted as proven through non-biblical records.
Just wanted to point out that if we admit that he was not a real person, just a con James and Peter were running, the mystery is over and no one can sell any more books. If the History channel, or Discovery channel, or any UFO organization or any saint miracle has shown: once it is explained you have nothing left to draw in crowds.
The only records we have of the events are hearsay multiple times removed decades later.
He didn’t show open contempt for the wealthy as long as they lived up to his standards for faith, charity, and humility. It’s just that there were, and are, so dang few of those.
One slight correction: he showed open contempt for the money-changers scamming people at the temple.
You mean the guy who kissed the person he put in charge of the group’s money right before Peter denies him three times (roughly the same number as the number of trials, which Peter allegedly was seen going into the area where proceedings were taking place for at least one)?
The guy who had an unnamed beloved disciple reclining on him when he fed the disciple he kissed dipped bread at his final meal?
Who at his execution told this unnamed beloved disciple to take Jesus’s own mother into his household as if the beloved disciple’s mother?
Jesus might have wanted to be careful about all of that, as technically being gay in Judea was a death sentence under Jewish law. Though they couldn’t carry out the death sentence at that time and would have needed to appeal to the local Roman authority to carry out capital punishment, which would have put the local authority in a pickle deciding on granting local barbaric legality to quell rising dissent even though the crime charged would have been a common Roman practice alleged even about the emperor at the time.
So you know, if the story was something like the Sanhedrin wanting Jesus dead and Pilate reluctant, and his most conservative follower who he was seen arguing with potentially denying him at trial right around the time he was kissing and feeding his closest companion at the dinner table - well there might just be more to the story after all.
(Though a number of the other things you said probably aren’t the case - for example, the “give to Caesar” taxation thing is anachronistic for Judea in 30s CE which had no personal tax and no coinage with Caeser on it.)
and didn’t charge money for either thing
In Mark it was healing to get a free meal and in Matthew only after a women called herself a racial slur and begged at his feet.
Pretty sure most historians agree Jesus existed. Was he the son of God and as described in the Bible? That’s the question.
Polls aren’t proof except what people are willing to say to pollsters. Show me the evidence.
I’m not the one saying it, the historians who are much more qualified than me or you are, so go argue with them not me.
Argument from authority < arguments from evidence
Don’t be lazy. If you want to see evidence then look at what the authorities say. Historians don’t argue by pulling shit out of their arse.
Pretty sure I have. Why don’t you cite literally any of this supposed evidence?
Because you’re an unfathomably lazy motherfucker who needs to be spoon-fed the most basic of research skills such as fucking opening wikipedia and looking at the sources section.
But the tl;dr is that his existence is attested by non-Christian sources and further details can be filled in by critical analysis (such as early Christians having no theological interest in making up him getting baptized by John). He was prominent enough as an itinerant preacher to be mentioned by the histographers of his time.
Frankly speaking Buddha is on more shaky grounds, though his historicity is also widely accepted.
I can’t remember who said this but there’s a line about “if republicans can’t win democratically, they’ll abandon democracy before they abandon their ideals.” I guess the same goes for (some) Christians.
Conservative Christians praise Jesus and follow the example of God. Liberal Christians praise God and follow the example of Jesus. One judges, the other forgives. One smites, the other saves. One says “praise me”, the other literally says not to worship him but to follow his example.
Or they just make up shit as an excuse to do whatever they please for their own personal benefit while easing their conscious.
“Conservative Christians praise Jesus and follow the example of God. Liberal Christians praise God and follow the example of Jesus.” This is a very interesting insight, does it come from your own observation or from e.g. the bible?
And I am assuming USA, is that correct?
It was a quote from someone I heard on the internet a long time ago. Can’t remember from whom, so I guess it is my quote now. USA definition of liberal and conservative.
Jesus the lib cuck. Lol
Dude even cried. Can you believe it?!
deleted by creator
I read that there’s a group making a new version of the Bible that takes out all the “woke” stuff.
I think that’s just the old testament.
that is actually really funny
Always have been.
