So did Jesus live or what?

[CapelDodger]

Turn the other cheek was something of an insult at the time.

Wasn't it more an act of defiance? Passive-aggressive, in jargon. It's an insult in a way, a denial of someone's status by not reacting appropriately as an inferior. A challenge. ("Pick up the gun." ) Go on, make me a martyr - and martyrdom features big-time in Pauline Christianity, let's face it. It may not have featured so much in the Jerusalem Church, and I'm guessing it didn't.

I don't know if the "cheek" pun works in Latin, but a riot was reportedly set off by a Roman soldier mooning the Temple from the fortress above. Must look up the details.

 

[ceo_esq]

Unless the same text is involved in both claims you're simply pointing out the inconsistencies in Matthew.

As no one pointed out passages in Matthew where Jesus unambiguously preached violence, whereas several passages exhorting Jesus' followers to nonviolence were adduced, the only inconsistency identified was between the actual text of Matthew and Ossai's reading thereof.

 

[CapelDodger]

As no one pointed out passages in Matthew where Jesus unambiguously preached violence, whereas several passages exhorting Jesus' followers to nonviolence were adduced, the only inconsistency identified was between the actual text of Matthew and Ossai's reading thereof.

Ossai may not have pointed out any passages, but he has certainly read passages that he so interprets. If there's no chapter and verse mentioned, it doesn't mean there isn't chapter and verse. And "unambiguously" is a weasel word. Look at what happened to "Turn the other cheek". Ambiguity is to argument as vacuum energy is to space-time.

 

[jjramsey]

Ambiguity is to argument as vacuum energy is to space-time.

However, if we have ambiguous passages that may be interpreted as preaching violence, but the larger context has passages that clearly advocate nonviolence, then it makes sense to resolve the ambiguity by interpreting the passages to fit with the larger context.

 

[ceo_esq]

However, if we have ambiguous passages that may be interpreted as preaching violence, but the larger context has passages that clearly advocate nonviolence, then it makes sense to resolve the ambiguity by interpreting the passages to fit with the larger context.

Indeed, the couple of passages that were advanced in favor of the "violent preaching" thesis were, in fact, not especially ambiguous. They could not reasonably be understood as exhortations to violence at all.

 

[Melendwyr]

However, if we have ambiguous passages that may be interpreted as preaching violence, but the larger context has passages that clearly advocate nonviolence, then it makes sense to resolve the ambiguity by interpreting the passages to fit with the larger context.

Then the real question becomes: Were these highly unusual teachings about non-violence and living peaceably under the Romans made before or after the failed Jewish rebellion and the destruction of Jerusalem?

 

[jjramsey]

Then the real question becomes: Were these highly unusual teachings about non-violence and living peaceably under the Romans made before or after the failed Jewish rebellion and the destruction of Jerusalem?

Not all messianic movements were violent. In some movements, such as those at Qumran and arguably John the Baptist's own ministry, the initiative to bring about the kingdom of God was at God's end, and the obligation on the human side of things was repentence in order that the benefits of the coming kingdom be received. So Jesus' message isn't that unusual, especially if his ministry is a spin-off of John the Baptist's.

 

[CapelDodger]

Not all messianic movements were violent. In some movements, such as those at Qumran and arguably John the Baptist's own ministry, the initiative to bring about the kingdom of God was at God's end, and the obligation on the human side of things was repentence in order that the benefits of the coming kingdom be received. So Jesus' message isn't that unusual, especially if his ministry is a spin-off of John the Baptist's.

At least we can be confident of John the Baptist's real existence, but the nature of his movement is more obscure. He was regarded as a threat to public order by the powers-that-were. If there was a movement based at Qumran its non-violent nature is uncertain. There certainly were violent zealots whose religious views coincided closely with them. The Jerusalem Church was eclipsed by the destruction of Jerusalem, which does suggest that it was actively involved in the insurrection. Had it retired to Galilee and gone fishing it would probably have survived.

The Jesus Church may have survived in part, and been carried to Alexandria by refugees. That might explain the Gnostic movements.

IIRC, there's still a religious group that dates back to the Baptist, the Mandeans, found amongst the Marsh Arabs of Southern Mesopotamia. I know nothing more about them than that, never having met one. It would be interesting to know their take on Jesus.

 

[jjramsey]

If there was a movement based at Qumran its non-violent nature is uncertain.

Go and read: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_15.html

 

[CapelDodger]

Go and read: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_15.html

I don't see anything definitive there showing the Qumran Community to be non-violent. The Dead Sea Scrolls are big on Daniel and his apocalyptic style, and Daniel is closely associated with the Maccabees, who were definitely violent. So it's not unreasonable to suggest they were expecting a Holy War, in which they would participate.

 

[jjramsey]

I don't see anything definitive there showing the Qumran Community to be non-violent. The Dead Sea Scrolls are big on Daniel and his apocalyptic style, and Daniel is closely associated with the Maccabees, who were definitely violent. So it's not unreasonable to suggest they were expecting a Holy War, in which they would participate.

Once the Messiah came, perhaps, but their behavior in the meantime is pretty much passive. IIRC, they are waiting in seclusion for the Messiah (or Messiahs) to come, not plotting an overthrow themselves, but I may have some of the details misshuffled in my mind.

More to the point, note second and third paragraphs:

However, there were clear contradictions. Sometimes, the Messiah is a warrior, sometimes he is a man of peace. Daniel 7:14 describes the triumphant son of man coming with power, but Isaiah 42.3 states that he does not even break a bruised read. Daniel 7:13 has him arriving over the clouds, but Zechariah 9:9 states that he will be riding a donkey.

To make sense of such contradictory messianic notions, the sect at Qumran speculated that there were two or perhaps even three Messiahs (more). A question that we have not systematically explored, is: what was the Messiah expected to do?

The page about the "Messiah as Sage" may be more on point: http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_08.html

Given the mishmash of ideas on the Messiah, it isn't that surprising that someone would preach living peacefully with the Romans, especially if it wasn't on the grounds of wanting to be nice to the Romans so much as waiting patiently for God's vengence, which was what I was trying to get at in the first place.

 

[CapelDodger]

Given the mishmash of ideas on the Messiah, it isn't that surprising that someone would preach living peacefully with the Romans, especially if it wasn't on the grounds of wanting to be nice to the Romans so much as waiting patiently for God's vengence, which was what I was trying to get at in the first place.

The Messiah is indeed a foggy concept, and can only be called in evidence when some movement defines it. Some will await the vengeance of their god through the agency of a Messiah in a Holy War that they are saving themselves for. Some will expect the vengeance to be direct, followed by a Messiah to tidy up. The Qumran document stache provides no single Messianic definition. It seems more like an attempt to rescue at-risk collections of scrolls without discrimination.

 

[Huntster]

The Messiah is indeed a foggy concept, and can only be called in evidence when some movement defines it.......

Like, say, a new religion based upon the teachings of that Messiah, and that has lasted ever since (nearly 2,000 years)?



I was driving down the road today and passed a church. It is one of many churches around here, and it made me think of you folks (yeah, really!).

I gotta know:

Do you folks get depressed, frustrated, or angry when you see all these churches that get filled with the faithful every weekend?

Or are you all just satisfied that you're so much more intelligent than the great majority of humanity who foster their spiritual development?

 

[Z]

Like, say, a new religion based upon the teachings of that Messiah, and that has lasted ever since (nearly 2,000 years)?



I was driving down the road today and passed a church. It is one of many churches around here, and it made me think of you folks (yeah, really!).

I gotta know:

Do you folks get depressed, frustrated, or angry when you see all these churches that get filled with the faithful every weekend?

Or are you all just satisfied that you're so much more intelligent than the great majority of humanity who foster their spiritual development?

Boy, if this wasn't a stupid post, I don't know what is...

I'm rather pleased to see how empty the church parking lots are these days. Why, every weekend, there are more cars parked at the shopping centers and theatres than at the churches, proportionately. Even the old Catholic church across the street only really fills up at funerals... of which there are at least two per month. No weddings or baptisms, though... another positive sign, I think.

But I do imagine that the atheists here are pleased that they are more intelligent and sensible than the majority of humanity who wastes time and effort praying and moaning for a future world that might never be, rather than enjoying and caring for the world they have today.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Tongues of fire - let the flames arise!

No, I smirk under my breath at the sheer gullability of 'the masses' (you can take that both ways, if you like) waisting their time in prostration before something unevidenced and, when inspected, unbelievable. It shows the effectiveness of mass-media campaigns (proselytizing) and mass indoctrination (community, cultural, traditional, and familial).

I'd be more satisfied if they'd stop trying to 'foster' their spiritual development down my throat.

Good day and happy new orbit around the Sun.

 

[David Swidler]

Like, say, a new religion based upon the teachings of that Messiah, and that has lasted ever since (nearly 2,000 years)?

Except that "this messiah" wasn't the Messiah. Didn't even fulfill the basic requirements of the prophets. Oh, if you mistranslate, distort, and take certain verses out of context you might have "support" for a few marginal characteristics. But we're still waiting for the real thing. You know, genuine Davidic descent (on his father's side), bringing peace (enjoy the irony of Palestinian gunmen running the show in Bethlehem). BTW, Jesus was a textbook case false prophet, and so deserving of death. Perform a few "miracles," claim divine connections and lead the people away from the faith of their fathers. I don't begrudge you your faith, but don't claim it makes any sense.

I was driving down the road today and passed a church. It is one of many churches around here, and it made me think of you folks (yeah, really!).

I'm sure I speak for the monolithic JREF collective when I say we're all intensely flattered by your thoughtfulness. After all, every last one of us is a faithless, arrogant, resentful sinner. I'd like to know: do you really think of me, an orthodox Jew, when you pass a church? Count me out next time. My people have had enough of your "love".

I gotta know:

Do you folks get depressed, frustrated, or angry when you see all these churches that get filled with the faithful every weekend?

Don't flatter yourself by assuming we care, or even notice.

Or are you all just satisfied that you're so much more intelligent than the great majority of humanity who foster their spiritual development?

No, because we lack the superiority complex that seems to plague you, and we're willing to change our minds when the evidence dictates it. Some of us do pursue "spiritual development," Huntster, whatever the hell that means. You want real spiritual development? Work on interpersonal relationships. Treat people as having inherent individual worth, not as targets for "witnessing." Worry about their physical well-being instead of whether or not they've accepted Jesus. God cares more how you treat everyone else than how you treat Him.

Me, I'm not "satisfied," because there's always more to do, and it's a waste of time to compare my own accomplishments with anyone else's. To paraphrase an early Hasidic leader, God doesn't want us all to be Moses. He wants us to be ourselves, and comparisons among unique entities are meaningless.

 

[Huntster]

...I'd like to know: do you really think of me, an orthodox Jew, when you pass a church?....

Actually, no. I was thinking of the God-haters.

...Count me out next time...

Okay.

 

[davefoc]

Hi Hunster,
I do spend a bit of time wondering about how religious folks see the world. I sort of enjoyed the idea that you would spend a bit of time thinking about how me and my fellow heretics see it.

I am not exactly sure why you used the phrase "god hater". I don't think that is a remotely accurate notion about how non-believers think. We believe there is probably no entity that exists that might satisfy the definition of a God. That doesn't mean we would hate that entity if it does exist. Before forming a hate/don't hate view of God I think we would like to have some idea of the nature of this God and since we don't think there is any evidence a God exists, we also don't think there is any information available about the nature of the hypothetical God. So at worst, I suspect most atheists are pretty neutral on the hate/don't hate question.

As to your question about how we feel about all the churches and about all the people that attend them:

I, personally, am somewhat ambivalent about that. It is pretty clear that people derive some benefits from church. There is the social aspect and there might be some kind of inner peace that is provided. I certainly hope that people that are attending church get that out of it and I don't begrudge them that in the slightest. I am happy for them if they are happy.

On the other hand, religion, can cause massive human disaster. Currently the Catholic Church requires priests and nuns to remain celibate. Coming from my point of view that is one of the largest human disasters in the history of the world. Being with a woman is a critical aspect of my life and my humanity and I believe that is true for most men. To have a significant portion of the population that denies themselves that because of beliefs based on lies is a truly sad situation.

And of course there is other miscellaneous pieces of non-sense like all this anti-gay crap and the denial of science in the face of overwhelming evidence that strikes me as pretty bad too. But the really big human disasters are the wars that get promulgated with religion as an excuse or at least a contributing factor and it would be nice if I didn't see people so wrapped up in something that has led to so much human misery.

I suppose we non-believers are similar to other people in that we would prefer that people agreed with us, but on the issue of religion, I am pretty well resigned to the idea that for some people believing in some kind of supernatural is an inherent part of their personalities and so my reaction to the fact that so many people are relgious is pretty much one of acceptance.

I will say that of the various religions I am aware of Christianity is both one of the most reasonable and one of the most ridiculous. I say reasonable in that it promotes ideas of peace and it promotes ideas of a somewhat ambiguous God that we can't exactly know the nature of. Nothing too harmful there. But my God man, have you ever given much thought to the fairy tale nature of the underlying Christian story? If you believe that story, what is there that you wouldn't have believed with the appropriate propaganda?

 

[CapelDodger]

I'd be more satisfied if they'd stop trying to 'foster' their spiritual development down my throat.

I'm sipping some cognac with my coffee here. A well-developed spirit, most satisfying.

Good day and happy new orbit around the Sun.

I'll drink to that.

 

[Huntster]

...I am not exactly sure why you used the phrase "god hater". I don't think that is a remotely accurate notion about how non-believers think....

Some don't, but I believe that some do.

...As to your question about how we feel about all the churches and about all the people that attend them:

I, personally, am somewhat ambivalent about that. It is pretty clear that people derive some benefits from church. There is the social aspect and there might be some kind of inner peace that is provided. I certainly hope that people that are attending church get that out of it and I don't begrudge them that in the slightest. I am happy for them if they are happy...

I sure enjoy it.

...On the other hand, religion, can cause massive human disaster. Currently the Catholic Church requires priests and nuns to remain celibate. Coming from my point of view that is one of the largest human disasters in the history of the world. Being with a woman is a critical aspect of my life and my humanity and I believe that is true for most men. To have a significant portion of the population that denies themselves that because of beliefs based on lies is a truly sad situation...

The celebacy of the Catholic clergy, especially during a historical era when sex is used as a tool of commercialism, and one of the results is an out-of-control sexual culture, is clearly a problem. And it has caused the Church great problems, and will be part of the overall catastrophe that will destroy the Church as we currently know it.

...But the really big human disasters are the wars that get promulgated with religion as an excuse or at least a contributing factor and it would be nice if I didn't see people so wrapped up in something that has led to so much human misery...

If, for example, we look at the current military action the U.S. is involved in in Southwest Asia, many would propound that it's a religious war. Some say it's all about oil. Some will say it's a war of colliding cultures.

What a bunch of ********. It all depends on whose ******** we listen to at any particular time. It (like all wars) is about control, who has it, who wants it, and who will ultimately get it (until the next time). Sometimes religious figures play prominently in these games, but the majority of the religious faithful are pawns, just like the taxpayers.

...I say reasonable in that it promotes ideas of peace and it promotes ideas of a somewhat ambiguous God that we can't exactly know the nature of....

I agree.

...But my God man, have you ever given much thought to the fairy tale nature of the underlying Christian story? If you believe that story, what is there that you wouldn't have believed with the appropriate propaganda?...

Yes, the presently accepted story of Jesus Christ requires an incredible leap of faith to accept. Many are called, but few are chosen.

I have given it great thought. In my life I've wavered between ambivolence and total acceptance. It's what we call "the Mystery of Faith".

Faith cannot come if one nurtures an ideology of doubt.