Christianity - an influence for good?
There is a tendency to think of Islam as a religion which promotes violence and intolerance, as opposed to Christianity, which is thought to be more meek, mild, and benign.
This misconception rests upon a failure of historical perspective. If Christianity today appears to be a benign and peaceful religion, it is because modern secularism and the rule of law have drawn its fangs. In earlier, less accountable times, Christianity had the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, the medieval massacres of the Jews, and the massacres of South American native innocents.
Think of the advances which secular society has made towards the improvement of the human condition, in Western society, over the last 500 years; we are speaking of the transition from a feudal, religiously-intolerant society to a society governed by the rule of law and freedom of religious belief.
Now try to name one step along this road which was not bitterly opposed by the Christian religion. The emancipation of women; birth control; the abolition of slavery; universal free education; inoculation against diseases which cripple children; the universal franchise. Every modern development which has tended to reduce the sum total of human misery, and increase the general balance of health, happiness and prosperity, has been fought on the beaches and in the streets by one section or another of the Christian church.
If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament.
This misconception rests upon a failure of historical perspective. If Christianity today appears to be a benign and peaceful religion, it is because modern secularism and the rule of law have drawn its fangs. In earlier, less accountable times, Christianity had the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, the medieval massacres of the Jews, and the massacres of South American native innocents.
Think of the advances which secular society has made towards the improvement of the human condition, in Western society, over the last 500 years; we are speaking of the transition from a feudal, religiously-intolerant society to a society governed by the rule of law and freedom of religious belief.
Now try to name one step along this road which was not bitterly opposed by the Christian religion. The emancipation of women; birth control; the abolition of slavery; universal free education; inoculation against diseases which cripple children; the universal franchise. Every modern development which has tended to reduce the sum total of human misery, and increase the general balance of health, happiness and prosperity, has been fought on the beaches and in the streets by one section or another of the Christian church.
If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament.
Comments (154)
Yes, one random Christian guy fought against slavery a long time ago.
I know you know, and you know everyone else who knows anything about this knows, that the bible defends slavery and that certain scriptures were, for instance, used to justify slavery in the southern United States at large before the confederates were defeated.
You can claim that we have to delineate exactly which Christians we are criticizing, but they all take inspiration from the same scriptures from the same damn book - even if they don't all share the exact same interpretations.
Well, yes, it is true that some interpretations of the Bible were twisted. But who is really responsible because of this? Christianity itself or the people who are violent by nature? It is interesting how a single text allowed different interpretations. My criticism against alan1000 was based on how he accused Christianity generally.
He claims that Christianity and its branches are related to slavery (and other negative actions). But for example and paradoxically, the heroes of Ireland, were inspired by the Christianity-Catholic belief to get independence from England, for instance.
Look what Irish republicanism is about: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_republicanism
Not all Christianity is about the Spanish Inquisition. And in Spain, not all were Inquisitors, etc.
No, the slavery scripture is not twisted. It literally says that slaves ought to obey their masters. You are also committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. Just because some specific Christians might have been opposed to slavery doesn't mean that Christianity at large has not defended or condoned slavery.
I deleted it because it was extremely low quality. Please calm down and approach this topic in a rational, thoughtful, philosophical manner, or risk having more of your posts deleted.
1 Peter 2:16
16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as Gods slaves
18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh
Colossians 3:22
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Did you refer to the latter, right? Look how many interpretations we can get about that passage:
https://www.bibleref.com/Colossians/3/Colossians-3-22.html
Should I even continue with this?
I think it's a mistake to identify the entire Christian spectrum of religions with the individual religious institutions. Like all large-scale organizations, religious institutions, especially those with political and economic power (e.g. The Roman Catholic Church) tend to be extremely conservative. They resist change of any kind, because it threatens the hold they already have on their constituency. This is why there are so many Christian cults: any large enough group of people who opposed the status quo had to break off and form their church in order to implement the changes they wanted. Individuals or small groups who dissented were harshly disposed-of. (Except that one arrogant English king... but generations of his people suffered in the subsequent civil strife.)
When you say Christians, or Christianity, it sounds as if Quakers think just like Catholic bishops and televangelists are interchangeable with the Amish elders. They don't and they're not. They all hold up a Bible when preaching (so does Trump, when shilling) but it's not necessarily the same version, and they each read (if they do read) it quite differently. I used to have Jehovah's Witnesses come around
and quote me carefully underlined verses and become quite flustered if I asked how their passage compared to another one in the same book.
Yes, the war, personal violence and vengeance, oppression, duplicity and animal sacrifice are all in there. So are the compassion, humility, generosity and forgiveness. You can find passages to support any claim you make about a god, sin, accountability and human nature. It's a book of stories - biographies, historical accounts from a single POV, legends, predictions, census surveys, admonitions, miracles, geneologies, love songs, religious codes of conduct, anecdotes, morality tales, hymns of praise and supplication, lectures and one longish drug-induced hallucination. Oddly, the passages I hear most often quoted are from the letters of Paul, who got there fifty years too late and made himself boss.
Quoting alan1000
If we wish to understand how the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament" is itself of a misconception) answers the question, we should look at the duel aspects of the tree of knowledge (good and bad) and God's blessings which are also curses (child birth, for example).
Here is an informative article from The New Statesman that overturns some common notions about Christianity. As to whether its influence has been good: on plus side the article sites the origin of the idea of equal dignity. On the negative, the destruction of Rome.
In which man stealing is unequivocally prohibited which should have been enough to shut down the institution of American slavery, yet somehow I notice the pro-slavery crowd seems to have an affinity for the writings of Paul, in the New Testament. :chin:
I agree, Vera. Well written, yes. I forgot about the Quakers when they are an important group among Christians. Even Quakers tend to have different groups among themselves. There is even 'Nontheist Quakers'. Those who engage in Quaker practices and processes, but who do not necessarily believe in a theistic God, when this group can sound contradictory about the main cause of Quakers, etc. It is amazing how many branches have split inside Christianity.
I don't blame anyone for looking at "Christianity" as a force for bad given how few good Christians there are. I am no good example, and I love Christ. But the crusades, the inquisition, just like the hospitals and universities, that the "Church" built - these are what men and women do - these are good and bad, success and failure. They are not Christian. They are not the Church. And the worst of all, to wear a cross as you murder and torture as if you could presume to know anything about what God and Jesus would want you to do to others, as if the example you set was Christlike - the worst of evils.
All of the evils we do to each other are what we do. Christianity and Islam, and Judaism - these bring hope for salvation, and it is salvation from ourselves we need.
I just had to post something because it is Easter. Jesus, simply speaking his mind, was condemned by us, tortured and murdered, on a cross for all to see who we are - what we do. Not what Christ does. Not who a Christian is. And then he rose from his grave for all of us to see there is more in store for us. There is way to hope and joy, recompense for all of the torture and evil we've built.
I doubt this has any impact on those who, seeing the evils done in the name of Christ, are finding their own way. Ultimately, every saint had to find his or her own way, so we're all off to a good start here on this forum. But please just know that some Christians, that is, some people who love Christ like a brother, are just as crushed by the evils done in his name, over and over again.
There are so few Christians worthy of the name.
I have found this too. The few I have met didn't object to my atheism, but welcomed any help in their efforts to relieve the suffering of others.
Good people behave well; bad people behave badly, whatever they profess to believe.
The Crusaders were exactly the defence against the Muslims invaders, Ummayad in Iberia and Seljuks in Anatolia. The Crusades were self-defense against Muslim aggressors.
Inb4: "but they sacked Constantinople after!"
Not the point.
Quoting alan1000
That lasted several centuries, and didn't reduce to the stereotype of randomly burning people at stakes like you see in Hollywood movies with a mushed grey filter on. I am not going to lecture on its history because I am not able to do so, all I recommend to remediate the stereotype is to read a book on the subject, not by someone whose name is John, Billy, or Levin, but Pedro, Manuel or Martin. Not only that, but my greatest recommendation of all is to put your hands against your ears when protestants start lecturing on what is and is not Christianity.
Quoting alan1000
So starting from modern Panama there weren't any massacres? Strange. I recommend figuring out how many continents there are in the world, then we can move on to whether the indigenous (natives were often white) were indeed always innocent.
All in all, more of the same when it comes to this topic. The difference between Muhammad's message and Jesus' message is clear and evident. That variations on each exist does not change that each has a very distinct core from the other.
Also, people don't need religion to be horrible to each other. Khmer Rouge, Stalinist Russia, North Korea, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc. If the Abrahamic religions never existed, things probably wouldn't be all that different.
Neither influences leaders to formulate benevolent policies, nor their people to stop following aggressive and avaricious leaders.
In what context are humans NOT contradictory, inconsistent, and hypocritical?
Quoting alan1000
Sometimes liberation was sponsored by Christians, sometimes Christians were opposed to liberation movements at different times and in different places. Your blanket condemnation of Christianity overlooks a hell of a lot of historical complexity.
Which Christians opposed Jenner's smallpox vaccination in 1791, or the polio vaccination in the 1950s? Are you proposing that anti vaxxers are all Christians? (Some of them are.).
Apparently you think that Christendom has been an entirely religious playground for the last 2000 years? Are you not aware that there were other powerful institutions operating along side the church from St. Peter on down to 2024? Food for thought: Christianity was as strongly influenced by the Roman Empire as the Empire was influenced by the church -- maybe more so. It was corrupted from the get go.
Anyone familiar with the history of Christianity is aware of both its egregious failures and its shining successes. The church is a human institution and as Kant said, "nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind."
Good point, Lionino. The mass propaganda of Protestants against Catholics is well known. Not only to Spanish Inquisition but other recent crises in Europe. I understand there is a lot of debate regarding The Troubles in Northern Ireland, but one of the specific reasons was the critical differences between Catholics and Protestants. They couldn't live together.
A good example:
Coupled with Protestant immigration to "unplanted" areas of Ulster, particularly Antrim and Down, this resulted in conflict between the native Catholics and the "planters", leading in turn to two bloody religious conflicts known as the Irish Confederate Wars (16411653) and the Williamite war (16891691), both of which resulted in Protestant victories.
Anglican dominance in Ireland was ensured by the passage of the Penal Laws that curtailed the religious, legal, and political rights of anyone (including both Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, such as Presbyterians) who did not conform to the state church, the Anglican Church of Ireland. As the Penal Laws started to be phased out in the latter part of the 18th century, there was more competition for land, as restrictions were lifted on the Irish Catholic ability to rent...
**
More recently:
[i]In the mid-1960s, a non-violent civil rights campaign began in Northern Ireland. It comprised groups such as the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), the Campaign for Social Justice, the Derry Citizens' Action Committee, and People's Democracy, whose stated goals were:
An end to job discrimination it showed evidence that Catholics/nationalists were less likely to be given certain jobs, especially government jobs.
An end to discrimination in housing allocation it showed evidence that unionist-controlled local councils allocated housing to Protestants ahead of Catholics/nationalists...[/i] https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch1800-1967.htm
And many more examples... Which proves that inside Christianity, the groups can be toxic to each other.
@alan1000 pointed out that the violence of Christianity is extrinsic and not intrinsic, which is a fallacy, obviously.
And it's all the Protestants' fault. Obviously, since they made up all those terrible lies about Catholic church... Fake news!
As Freddy Zarathustra says
The Abrahamic doctrine of 'vicarious redemption via human sacrifice' (i.e. martyrdom, scapegoat violence) is evil .. à la "theodicy" (e.g. otherworldly ends justify all suffering means in this world). IMO, even a casual reading of the last fifteen or so centuries of history shows that 'Western Civilization' has developed inspite of Christianity and not because of it.
It's a little strange to make an appeal for historical nuance and then launch into a simplistic dichotomy of secular/good/progress and Christianity/evil/regression like:
The historical events you are talking about, with the exception of birth control, took place in societies where the overwhelming majority of people were Christians and attending religious services regularly. The issue of slavery in the British Empire and the US, or of serfdom's extremely late end in Russia, occured in contexts where almost everyone on both sides of the issue was a practicing Christian. Certainly, it was not the case that progressive policy in mid-1800s America/Russia/the UK was driven largely by explicitly secular movements. The "Battle Hymn of the Republic," is, of course, a hymn, John Brown was an Evangelical puritan, etc.
Free education is a particularly bad example because it was started and advocated for on religious grounds.
Nor does the dichotomy work going in the other direction, with secularism always being a force for progress and good. The Soviet Union was aggressively atheist and suppressed the Orthodox Church, dynamiting a great cathedral to make the world's largest swimming pool. But Stalin essentially recreated serfdom in all but name, made massive use of slave labor, and carried out a number of genocides against ethnic minorities. You could consider the abuses of Mao, the French Terror, etc. as well.
This seems like a weird application of current "culture war" categories to periods in history when they make little sense e.g. look at the documents produced by either side of the US Civil War and there will be allusions to religion everywhere.
Nobody. People are crazy; when they fall into the sway of religious and nationalist leaders, they act crazier than usual. It's fine to acknowledge that Christian sects are no saner than Muslim ones, and that they have been at one another's throats since long before Martin Luther protested the selling of indulgences https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/#google_vignette It's a history site, not a Protestant one.
But that's no excuse for a smear.
Quoting javi2541997
Is it? By whom? Which particular Protestants are waging what propaganda campaigns? If you accuse someone, you're expected to provide evidence. If you accuse millions of anonymous people, we should just let it slide?
Quoting javi2541997
How does the Inquisition suddenly segue into "other crises in Europe"? The persecution of heretics, Jews and Muslims was practiced by all Catholic countries, though it may have been done with more zeal in Spain - possibly due to the legacy of Muslim occupation. That's entirely separate from English, Flemish and German royal families fighting over thrones, or modern nationalists of predominantly Catholic and Protestant countries objecting to Arab immigrants. And it's nothing at all to do with the British occupation of Ireland.
If evidence is given, you will go "but it is just one person!". And I am not predicting the future more than I am describing the past:
Quoting ToothyMaw
Then we will be required to provide a literature-review of a topic that does not even exist academically.
Unfortunately, there is no meta-analysis of the gym being full Tuesdays and Mondays. But whenever I go Mondays and Tuesdays, it is full. I know that, so I go other days, and I am not worried about proving it to people who don't even go to the gym but want facts and logic about my claims.
Not even that, but the ones who protected the indians in America, especially Brazil, against European slavery were jesuits and other Catholic orders. Many jesuits in fact run away into the rainforests with indians. Later, the Portuguese crown, to grant peace between colonisers and clergymen, established that indians could be enslaved only under conditions of guerra justa. The search for indian slaves was de facto forbidden.
Humanitarianism does not start ex nihilo in England demanding other countries to abolish slavery, like it is professed in mainstream "history", but with the Catholic Church.
But then one would protest that the jesuits protected the indians to convert them to Catholicism away from human sacrifice and cannibilism how could they?! , though I wager that is a more noble motive than trying to increase the number of consumers for your industrial economy both of them end up with an increased quality of life for the targets anyway.
Quoting Lionino
What I said was: If you accuse one person, you are expected to show evidence against that one particular person. If you accuse and entire religion, you should be expected to produce evidence that either the doctrine of the religion or the majority of it practitioners are guilty of the transgression. And since I am one person, and you accuse me of doing something in the future, I'd like to see some some evidence that I ever went "but it is just one person!" in whatever context.
Christianity is not a good or bad influence on people.
People are a good or bad influence on Christianity.
I'm not going to put a lot of effort into presenting evidence, but if you read enough old Chick tracts, and observe enough of the people who pass them out, you will have your answer.
We are members of a species inherently wired for tribalism. Surely if systemic racism and sexism are worthwhile concepts, (and I'm inclined to think they are) then systemic anti-Catholicism doesn't sound implausible. In the US today there is not as much anti-Catholicism as their used to be. The Protestant tribe is feeling surrounded and feels the need for allies. (Not to mention the Supreme Court is packed with Catholics.) US Protestans see tribes other than Catholics as being of much greater concern for the time being.
As a preachers kid I've seen 'how the sausage is made'. I have first hand experience with having a pumped up oxytocin and/or vasopressin level at church camp. To see myself as at 'one with' and deeply loving and loved by those around me. To see such a mind altering experience as surely an experience with God, because how else could I explain such a dramatically altered state of mind? In that state of mind, we could see that it is clearly US that are on the right track.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-reboot/202307/the-neuroscience-of-tribalism
Yes, but anti-Catholicism, or any discrimination due to tribalism, is not the same as the kind of criticism in the OP. This is because, if you think tribalism is unavoidable because it is wired into humans, but that it also is what leads to discrimination against a group you are arguing shouldn't be discriminated against, your argument is against tribalism, not random anti-Catholic people on the internet who probably belong to no recognizable tribe. So, most of your post has nothing to do with the discussion started by the OP. I know that's obvious, but I still felt the need to say it.
Quoting Vera Mont
Christianity is made up of a bunch of different people with beliefs that exist on a spectrum, but they are all derived from the same scriptures from the same book. So, there is a reason why certain beliefs are more ubiquitous than others - such as the maligning of homosexuals.
I mean, do you think most Christian anti-homosexual bigots would be as fervently horrible if Christianity instead taught that homosexuals have as much inherent value as a straight person? If people just bring their own preconceptions and pre-formed beliefs to their religion, then why do Muslims hold different beliefs from Christians? Surely Arab people are not so different from white, blue-collar Christians in the rust belt by virtue of their race?
Correct. My response was to .
I get that, I'm just pointing out that this thread has been thoroughly de-railed and that we should try to at least engage with the OP in some way. I get that every discussion evolves, but this one appears to have devolved into a bunch of really tired, insipid arguments.
Ok.
Quoting alan1000
No that is not all we need. We need to understand as well, the neuroscience of tribalism, along with other things.
That is an acceptable demand, in court. But if I comment that elderly people drive poorly, people outside the internet will not demand studies on the matter, because they know my conclusion comes not from the authority of a peer-reviewed doctor but from my eyes.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Surely.
These oaths were basic to our democracy before education for technology replaced education for good judgment with education for technology and left moral training to the church.
The Hippocratic Oath that doctors took came from ancient Greek.
The Athenian Oath is important to democracy and something good might happen if children learn it in school.
Quoting Augustaks
Alan is clearly talking about those thought processes as determined by belief here, and if that is the case:
Do we really need to understand the neuroscience of tribalism to determine that someone holds a belief because it exists in their holy book? Are you implying that maybe they don't actually hold the beliefs they claim to hold for the reasons they supply? They literally say that they hold their beliefs because God ordained that they are true. I don't see how neuroscience can negate such a thing.
I mean, neuroscience could explain the physical processes behind such things, but knowledge of the exact physical processes is unlikely to be a hard pre-requisite for their admitted beliefs to be genuine.
If we are instead discussing how tribalism works on a neurological level, then the neuroscience of tribalism becomes more powerful in terms of explanatory power. But we are not discussing the nature of tribalism, but rather why they hold the beliefs they hold.
Quite a stretch don't you think?
We can't understand the thought processes of the Jews by looking only to the OT, and that's their sacred literature, as opposed to the Muslims who obviously rely upon other texts.
Every religion, culture, nation, civilization, and even person has a long complex history. You've got to look at the whole picture, from their wars, their successes, their struggles, important leaders, events, and on and on and on.
Quoting alan1000
You've summarized the views of the least sophisticated Christians and provided the exact opposite view of the least sophisticated Muslims. You're just telling me what your crazy Uncle sounds like when he comes over for dinner.
I haven't read any and I don't know what a Chick is. Are these tracts representative of all Protestantism? Might the American perspective colour your judgment? I don't know how many people share your perspective, but I do see why you wish to support an accusation against a religion you dislike. Since I dislike them all, I consider all religious intolerance equally intolerable.
Quoting ToothyMaw
And a wonderfully big, rich book it is! You can fish in it for justification of any damn thing you want to do.
It's the leaders who decide which bits to extol and which to ignore; the flock simply follows them, even to their own detriment, so strong is the desire to belong.
But it doesn't matter which doctrine you profess; it matters what you do. If you're a killer, you might kill for Allah, or Dixie, or the Holy Land or the empire, or to save democracy or your family from some purported threat, or revenge or as a punishment for crime, or for pleasure or profit. If a leader inspires lots of killers, they'll go kill for his cause - whatever it is, and give that cause a reputation for violence.
If a leader inspires lots of altruists, they'll go forth doing good works and give their cause a reputation for benevolence.
So do religious sects change from generation to generation, under the influence thinkers, reformers, zealots and megalomaniacs.
People who share your bias with you will accept your opinion as evidence? No doubt.
I think alan was not clear about what he was trying to say here. I can't read his mind, but I don't think he was saying that every Taliban member likes vanilla ice cream because of the Quran, for example, but rather that we can see the content of the Quran clearly reflected in their behavior.
If he was indeed saying what you think he was saying, then he is definitely wrong.
There are definitely more or less plausible interpretations of the bible, even if a lot of stuff can be justified. So, that is never a good point. That the leaders extol certain interpretations doesn't mean that the leaders aren't influenced by other Christians or scriptures which, once again, can be more or less plausibly interpreted.
I don't have the mental wherewithal to go over these arguments, and I doubt I could sway you, so I'll just let it ride.
I didn't say that. Perhaps I should have included "though they may disagree," after the second comma.
But it stops being curious when we realise that it is simply another example of that society's Gramscian reverance for their own minorities but contempt for many European nations.
The more I think about what alan meant, the less ambiguous it becomes. He presents a ham-handed, but consistent dichotomy between Christianity and secular forces, so I would think that when he (flippantly) claims that ISIS or the Taliban's thought processes can be explained by the OT he would say something like: "We need look only to the OT to understand the motivations for much of their most pernicious beliefs", but he fumbles it and just says that their thought processes are explainable purely by the OT.
It's probably because he views them as being so embroiled in a war against modernity that he can just totally write them off as barbarous idealogues that clean, western secularists have no common ground with. Which is sort of close to being true in some of the ways that matter - but to tie it all together that way is arrogant. We can all appreciate a good ice cream cone.
Wow. You really just said that. No one said that the lived experience of Catholics or Southern Europeans is invalid, but there is no evidence of a black legend perpetrated against, what? Modern white European Catholics? People revere the Pope the world over, revered more so than MLK ever was. Is it part of a black legend perpetrated against black Americans that MLK is not more revered than the Pope? No, the Pope is just the Pope, and people across the world have limited knowledge of the history of the United States.
As for microaggressions or generational trauma - they are modern constructions that developed alongside an increasing desire to accommodate disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals. Totally irrelevant to your black legend.
Quoting Lionino
What do minorities and European nations have to do with each other? I mean it sounds like you are complaining about minorities - whatever minorities they be - being elevated over white people.
I literally just did.
*Cue out*
Quoting ToothyMaw
Maybe nobody has said it, but they often imply it:
Quoting Vera Mont
The same level of scrutinity is never raised against minorities of Anglo countries. Not that I care particularly about what they do, but it is a funny irony that I noticed, an irony which makes us doubt the judgement of people who say things such as: "Christianity had the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of witches, the medieval massacres of the Jews, and the massacres of South American native innocents". All those items are related to the Catholic church, not the protestant, even though their host nations did bad stuff too. It seems like not a just investigation but the typical bias that we see coming from the people of certain societies.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Black legend does not just mean smear campaign. Black legend has a specific meaning, look it up.
Quoting ToothyMaw
I don't know how that connects to my post, I didn't bring up reverence.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Yeah it is constructed aka made up, that is my point. It is not a real thing, but they pretend to undergo it because it gives them attention/benefits/privilege, and people believe them. But when a Spanish or even Russian person says that they are constantly misjudged and stereotyped in the press and movies and whatnot, people demand "evidence".
Quoting ToothyMaw
Nothing, it is a comparison.
I know what a black legend is, and I used the term correctly.
My point in bringing up the Pope is that you wouldn't assert that there is an equally likely black legend including a representation of MLK just because there is a difference in perceived stature, and recognition of the accomplishments of, a group of people - namely black Americans - and another group of people. And, even if you did, it would likely be explainable by something other than a black legend. You need to supply some serious evidence for your claim that modern Catholics are the victims of such a thing.
Quoting Lionino
Okay, the concepts are technically invented by a mind, but people's feelings and difficulties are as real as anything else you can perceive with your senses. To say that the difficulties that someone raised in a violent Ghetto experience are just made up because the idea of generational trauma is an idea is really stupid. The same goes for the assertion that they are feigning difficulties for benefits and privileges. Nobody who has to worry about being robbed by a crackhead has time for that.
Make that all societies.
There are lots of biases and prejudices flying around, being reinforced by like-minded, same-interest factions.
That's the reason I dislike collective characterizations of any group, large or small, majority or minority. None of those bad things that were done by humans were done by all Cahtolics, all French people, all Muslims, all old people or teenagers, all men or women or whites or Asians. Those acts were committed by a variety of human beings for a variety of reasons. I don't judge them en masse, and I question anyone who does.
So what you are trying to say is that there is no black legend against Spaniards?
Quoting ToothyMaw
I guess you are.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Perfect proof of what I have been saying. Poetic almost.
Speaking of, mister Biden just announced:
They are replacing Easter (Catholic) with a celebration of men who think they are women. Very representative of their values, as if the entire planet does not know at this point. Can't wait for China to take over.
@javi2541997 Who is going to say that I am not unintentionally prophetic?
Yeah. Who would say otherwise? Sorry, I didn't pay so much attention in the replies of this thread because it is always the same. North European countries are good, South European countries are bad. Christianity is very evil, and it is against democracy, etc. It is funny how some say I should not judge in mass. But they quickly spread negative comments on the inheritors of the Crown of the Castile.
Who are the inheritors of the crown of Castile? Do they all behave in the same way? Who here has commented on them, negatively or positively?
I think you're just wrong about people's thoughts. I don't think I've heard anyone make the former claim without acknowledging the latter. It's Islam's resistance to update that puts it in the position it's in, in this context.
Me. I am Castilian.
Quoting Vera Mont
No. Absolutely not. But I think it is very difficult for me to prove it.
Quoting Vera Mont
Really? Is this new or what? :roll: We already discussed this, Vera... In this thread and another with Ciceronianus.
I had no idea, Your Majesty! I'd go an erase every negative comment I've posted about you, if you could please point them out.
Quoting javi2541997
I didn't think so!
Quoting javi2541997
Oh, I see. Telling the truth about the history of a nation. Can't be helped I'm afraid, especially as Ciceronianus is not my sock-puppet.
This sort of disingenuity is typically part of the issue we are talking about. But I have never seen you people performing cultural self-criticism, even the partisans of progressivism present their self-flailing "we are so racist, we are historically sexist" as a humble brag every time. Sorry, but Spain and France were much more skillful at being opressive than England, you just rewrote the history books to pretend you invented the steam engine even though you never did. Like today you are rewriting history books to pretend minorities invented the traffick light even though they never did.
Nice riposte! Covers all the bases.
It seems everyone is neglecting the pith and substance of the OP.
Comments like, not all Christians "this," or, blame Christians not Christianity, can be applied almost mot a mot to Islam (not all Muslims are terrorists or fanatically sexist). And, as alan1000 was directly suggesting, historically, vice versa. The blame we hurl against one religion can be hurled at the other.
I agree with the OP. We can criticize terrorism and oppression taking place in the name of Islam. We can criticize "forced" conversion, inquisition and crusades which took place in the name of Christianity. But we cannot criticize Islam or Christianity on those bases.
But the OP didn't make the distinction you did in your post. And that's why I recall I replied looking for more specific criticism towards Christianity, because Alan stated that this religion (or belief) has been - and is -, by nature, negative to its impact on the world. Just look at the examples: the Inquisition and Colonialism. Also, the supposed negative role of religion in education, sexism and oppression towards women, etc.
He didn't mention Bartolomé de las Casas or Francis of Assisi, amongst others, who did good things on behalf of Christianity.
Basically, the point in this OP was to criticise the role of religion and Western European countries for their evilness. You can clearly note that in the replies by Vera Mont.
Ok, well if that's an issue, I don't even need to look at your examples. It is clear to me there are numerous examples of good tgat has come out of Christianity in the broadest sense of the word. Jesus alone.
But in case the point is polemic, much good has come out of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on. Right?
Yes. I agree. I am aware that this is a controversial topic that is easy to criticise.
Quoting ENOAH
I couldn't have said it better! :smile:
What a good example, ENOAH. It is a pleasure to find someone who is open-minded regarding this religious topic. Well, apart from religion, I see important ethical values. I learnt this by reading Russian authors or Kazantzakis, not the Bible, ironically.
Historical Jesus of Nazareth: the courage and insight to say, to Judeans, in Occupied Judea, to love even your enemies...
Theological Christ: Wait. God is not there to condemn me? There to rescue me? God is love?
Social Jesus: care for the sick, the poor, the criminals.
But given this whole discussion, I feel compelled to say, there are similar positive contributions to History from all religions. As there has been "bad". Humans are good and bad. That's the Kazantzakis struggle, is it not?
I think about this one sometimes. IMO a peculiar teaching. I guess in some circumstances it would necessitate internally reaffirming your love of an enemy and then picking up your rifle (or whatever weapon you have) and ending his life e.g. in a time of war where your enemy is out to kill you. I suppose this is the right way to think about it?
And I get that, and completely agree that "yours" is the reasonable, and functional, and therefore worthy to adopt as true.
But (I'll admit I'm "romanticizing" -- I'm not theologizing) I like to think of, even the historical Jesus, as an "awakened" individual. More like Siddhartha than (and please God, I mean no offense, say, Islam's prophet, pbuh, or Moses, or the Bab, Bahu'allah, for e.g.).
I like to think he wasn't even addressing mundane experience (or what I call, History). He was addressing the imprisonment of our truly human nature, as he saw it: sure, maybe sinful, given he was Jewish, but, redeemable. However, only if we get out of our "heads" I.e., attachment to our ego's, and in turn to the objects to which they attach, and so on.
He addressed this in a few ways (brief e.g.s, not quotes but paraphrasing), "it's not what you eat that defiles you but your speech," "sabbath was made for man not vice versa," "If you don't hate your family, you cannot be in God's domain," "faith the size of a seed can move mountains". "Love your enemies" was like that. On one level it is obviously "impossible" or at least as you correctly pointed out, dysfunctional, to love your enemies. But to be a real human, free from the attachments of our incessant chattering, don't think that all you have to do is pay your tithe, perform your rituals, etc. "Love your enemies," That's "what you have to do."
Sorry! Ha! I guess that's kind of what you were getting at, nicely lumping it into the functional interface.
I think I agree with you. Def more Siddhartha than Moses.
I find him fascinating and radical. Very polarizing. I didn't grow up Christian and I get the sense that Christians from birth don't find Jesus polarizing but I do (because I was raised Jewish.) My academic interests are mostly with the Hebrew Bible, but on a personal/spiritual level I find Jesus fascinating. I kind of try to straddle the line and follow both, at least as far as it's possible.
I think Christendom (to use Kierkegaard's furious label) has made it very difficult for those born into it to properly relate to that (whoever he was) authentic Jewish sage, Jesus of Nazareth.
I grew up "Catholic," and, though it wasn't necessarily a "bad" experience, for me it was the hassle of rituals and the hypocrisy of self righteousness and exclusivity.
I often think we in the west idealize Buddhists or Jains, for e.g., and assume, because of the doctrine of ahimsa (noninjury) they must be peaceful people. Most likely, "they" are no different than you and me. Plato's cave doesn't discriminate.
If only Christians carried out Jesus's "teachings"; and I don't even mean social etc. If they sought, personally, to transcend convention and complacency on the level of "love your enemies" and "hate your family," oh, what a world this would be.
I think non-Christian probably stand a much better chance at understanding Jesus, frankly. I congratulate you on your openess and wish you good fortune in your academic pursuit of the Hebrew Bible (A fascinating topic. I love the books of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ecclesiates, Job, Hosea--for their expressions of the impossible human struggle to understand/relate to the "divine").
The others perhaps. This one, I doubt it.
Quoting ENOAH
Jesus wasn't a hippy. The teachings of Jesus are preached by the true Churches. The issue is that the Church doesn't preach your personal prejudices dressed in religious robes. And that goes for most non-denominational "Christians" in the west they are not Christian, just supremely arrogant.
What are the true churches and what teachings do they preach?
https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html
https://www.antiochpatriarchate.org/en/home/
I can't start to understand what you mean by these two questions. My guess is that you didn't start there, so I wasted my time posting the links.
I'm asking why these two churches and not The Church of England or Quakers? How do you determine which version of Christianity is true and which one is not - other than via personal preferences?
I'm unsure what you mean. Obviously not.
Quoting Lionino
And personally transcending convention and complacency on the level of "love your enemies" and "hate your family, is not a teaching? What, then, is the call to Holiness? The call to be like Christ?
But, with respect, far more importantly, on what authority do you claim that the teachings of Jesus are exclusive to the true Churches? [maybe I misunderstood] . And I don't mean that in the "protestant" sense, as in there isn't a "true" church. I mean it in the same way as if you were saying Platos teachings are dictated by Oxford University. Unless I was Russian Orthodox, for e.g., what the Russian Orthodox church teaches may have no bearing whatsoever on my understanding of Jesus. Why wouldn't that be legitimate?
I'm not looking for an argument. I do not have any emotional or sentimental basis for my questions. I'm just surprised at your statements. Maybe you were being ironic?
That statement, I won't touch. I sense it was hollow and not really intended for discourse.
It is not "these two churches", they were sites I provided since you asked. I am referring to the Catholic Churches, which are the Church, not nonsense like Mormonism. Reformists were formal heretics and modern Protestants are at least material heretics. I don't need to argue for the legitimacy of the Catholic Churches as they have continuity from the church established during the Roman councils, not something that some guy in Germany or England or Sweden that thinks his interpretation skills (of a translated bible) trump 2000 years of tradition has. A historical overview of the subject is available in many places and stands by itself.
The Church of England I don't know. I have heard some claim it is Catholic but I doubt it. But they also deny that they are Protestants? The only thing I know is that it was created because the pope refused to cancel some English king's marriage, so he made his own church since others were doing the same at the time. From that fact alone it is hard to take seriously as a traditional institution.
Quoting Tom Storm
It is not about worldview, I am saying it how it is. The teachings of Jesus are given through the Church, not through some Instagram hippie's interpretation of the Bible, which was compiled by the Church. It is like talking about the story of Harry Potter and referring to fanfictions online instead of the writings of JK Rowling. Well you are not talking about «Harry Potter» anymore, are you?
It is not equivalent, at all. It is more like Socrates' teachings are dictated by Plato and Xenophon. It is.
Quoting ENOAH
:yawn:
Ok, let's go there, where else would you get the teachings of Jesus from?
Sure. Why? Because Oxford is more remote from the source than the Church is from its? Perhaps, and I should be more thoughtfully precise, but I don't think it negates the point to the extent you might. That is, that of course there are secondary sources, and, as you point out, beyond. But their existence, while not to be devalued, while admittedly useful, do not render the primary source invalid to those who are not (simply) adopting the "views" of the secondary source (not intended to demean).
Quoting Lionino
I am prejudging your question to have a hidden polemic (against, those who claim the bible is the only source, perhaps? Or perhaps you're sitting on, "the church is the source of the bible" with an anticipated explanation about the canonization process, etc. Or that "the bible is not the only primary source.") Otherwise, why the question with an obvious answer. Anyway if it helps. I already assume though there are reasonable doubts, the history is what it is conventionally supposed to be; and, I assume so only for the purpose of discourse. Or, if not, then I am willing to suspend the concept of a historical Jesus and proceed with the question between the lines, "to understand the mythological (or the character) Jesus, is there any validity in drawing my own pictures and sharing them, or ought I restrict them to the pictures of tge church?
And by the way, if it is the latter, then I say, notwithstanding the degrees of removal, the Oxford analogy applies. And I'll go a step further and suggest, by analogy, it is similarly applicable to the way some view philosophy. Loosely put, if one expresses a novel philosophical proposition not included in the "teachings" of "Oxford," or not obviously traceable thereto, it is outright rejected.
There are places for insistence where orthodoxy is a reasonable imperative. Maybe with regard to strictly academically philosophical points, this forum is probably such a place. Maybe this is such a place of orthodoxy in fact for any hint of philosophy (in which case I ought to be reprimanded, if not suspended). But I don't think this to be a forum where one can, with a straight face, insist upon religious orthodoxy. But again, I could be totally misunderstanding.
I do try to carry out "love your enemy" but I also keep in mind "do not throw your pearls to the pigs" -- do not give one's best to one who is undeserving. Jesus's teachings can leave one ripe for exploitation, but Jesus knows this so he tells his disciples Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." Yet at least some of Jesus's followers do carry swords.
In any case, the world is complex and different dispositions are suitable for different circumstances. One of my favorite teachings is when Jesus tells his followers "the greatest among you will be your servant" and I love how Jesus turns servitude into something so powerful and potent and strong. In some crowds (typically more mature, spiritually elevated ones) an attitude of servitude and helpfulness will get you far but in others it could be quite dangerous. His teachings often beckon to an ideal -- very useful to know and keep in mind, but one ought to be "wise as a serpent" when it comes to implementation.
Another user, Count Timothy von Icarus, mentioned this idea of metanoia i.e. self transformation through the gospels through the internalization of these teachings and this, for me, is close to what I have in mind when I talk about Christianity, as an outsider.
Just my two cents.
No, because the source is given by it. On the topic of Oxford, not only is it removed but also holds no authority over it.
Quoting ENOAH
That is a lot of text for a very simple question. Again, where else do you get the teachings of Jesus from, besides the Bible?
We have the gospels and some are canonical and some are not. If people stick to the four canonical ones then we're interpreting from the same texts. The Catholic Church will have it's lens through which it interprets, just as the Jews will say one must know Talmud/oral law/study our own sages in order to understand the Bible (Tanakh in their case). I've found this approach somewhat stifling, personally.
If one seeks to understand Jewish tradition read the Talmud. If one seeks to understand Catholic tradition read Aquinas and/or Augustine etc. Regardless, these thinkers have valuable insights which aid in understanding the text quite greatly. But sometimes insights are also added purely for theological cohesion.
Yet the book can also be understood and insights gleaned from other sources outside of religious tradition. Literature, anthrpology, and archaeological findings can bear greatly on our understanding of Scripture.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Very true. Big confession that, while I pretend to myself not to, I am selective in
my constructed Jesus.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That simple statement expresses something way up there in the "hierarchy of
[constructing] truths."
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I respect that so much! No different than a Chritian or Jewish person earnestly seeking Satori (while presumably thousands of so called "native" adherents to zen light candles and think they are enlightened).
Fair enough. Then, the argument that the Church "gave" us the canonical Bible, etc. If I lived in Plato's time, born after the death of Socrates, and stood up in the Academy and disagreed with Plato's rendition of the trial, I'd be a fool. Agreed. But if the Academy somehow lived on today, as a student in Athens today, I might offer my interpretation of the trial, a radical interpretation, like Plto depicts Socrates choice to die as heroic, I think it was a tragic capitulation to the dualism Plato promoted, the Ideal (Justice) trumps the Real (the living body); and moreover I think Plato deliberately constructed it that way. I don't think the Academy would insist I stick to the literal interpretation of Platos dialogues. Do you? Or have I corrupted the analogy again. Are you able to see tge point regardless? Or, honestly, is there no point. I am sincerely stuck in my thinking, if you can free me, I am willing, please do.
Quoting Lionino
Hah. True. Sorry. Directly above too, no doubt. Where else? Yes, other primary sources--but you know this. Desert Fathers, church councils, theologians etc. All arguably teachings of the church. (I wont complicate this further by adding, from Vedanta, or JD Salinger, Bob Dylan, for e.g.) But even if get my teachings of Jesus from church generated/ordained sources, either I (mis)took your (mild) "objection" to mean there is no validity in exploring those teachings and diverging therefrom, or that's exactly what you're saying, and I disagree.
That I have learned unconventional things from the teachings of Jesus, things that seemingly wander far off of the path I may have started with my catechism, does not by itself render those teachings invalid in a forum outside of catchechism or mass. Or, maybe, they even simply re-present them, their true essence, their pith and substance, in an alternate way.
I just noted that. Ok. I'm relieved. Now I understand your approach to this. Ibrespect it. But I respectfully disagree. Even for Rowling, a fan might enrich her text far beyond its original place in History. Just as (and I don't necessarily believe this) Elvis Presley enhanced "Its alright mama"
Re-interpretations and reconstructions is how History moves. It's happening right here right now. Whether we see that or not. You might be confusing disliking my so called hippie construction with disliking reconstructions period. The first, I applaud you for. How then am I expected to learn? Tge latter, hate to break it to you friend, you have no control over.
You are referring to things like the Gospel of Thomas I am guessing? That is another topic altogether, but Church canon about the gospels has been established from a very early time, and they were aware of these gospels and perhaps others that are still lost.
Quoting ENOAH
It is not your construction (is it?), I don't know what you believe in. I am referring to people who say they follow Jesus but reject Church doctrine.
You said previously you like Jesus' teachings, but yet you are not Catholic or Orthodox, I imagine you are not even Protestant. You don't like Jesus' teachings, you saw things you personally agreed with and suddenly that is what you think Jesus preached. Those "Jesus followers" do the same thing, on top of other things.
Quoting ENOAH
If your bishop approves your interpretation and the Pope sanctions it ex cathedra, fine it won't happen anyway because whatever you may have thought of has been thought of before and addressed , otherwise, it has been rejected by a reason and insisting on it is heresy. Besides, Church doctrine is handed down through tradition. If you want to follow another tradition, you are not Christian.
Either be apostate or follow dogma. The alternative is heresy, which is foolishness.
Quoting ENOAH
400 years later and protestantism is still considered heresy ¯\_(?)_/¯
Quoting Lionino
Not factually correct, far from it, but that's not your fault. You don't know me from Adam. You are allowing your prejudices to cloud your naturally open mind. And you're inadvertently demonstrating the point which i am apparentky failing to communicate to you. But I won't use my particular encounter with Christianity as a "weapon" nor "sheild" (don't worry, I know we're not fighting). Instead, I'll reiterate that one can have a completely valid position on Jesus without it sticking neatly inside the party line. This sounds like a defence of the Reformation, but much of Protestant Christianity has simply replaced one Dogma with another. Jesus of N., I submit, if he was anything was, a prophet against Dogma. Do you require textual evidence? I warn you I'm impatient and lazy, so im hoping you already know that. You present yourself as knowing these things. Don't raise arguments tgat Jesus was a passover keeping adherent of Judaism and loved his Torah as evidence to the contrary.
Quoting Lionino
Ok, I can't tell if you're being facetious. If you're not. Full respect friend. But obviously we can end our discourse there. For you, clearly Jesus=Orthodoxy. For me it does not. I am not being facetious when I say, I love you for your orthodoxy. I have no inclination to persuade you otherwise. And it is likely I am going to willfully blind myself to anything I might learn from you since, I am already familiar with orthodoxy and you are, by your very responses, telling me there is only that.
Quoting Lionino
And I cannot disagree more, my only concern now is tgat my heresy hasn't offended you.
Quoting Lionino
And you realize there were quasi political motivations behind rejecting various apocryphal, like Thomas for its gnostic flavor, and notwithstanding its historical status possibly being on par with Mark? And so on. So I suppose, and I am compelled to reiterate that I am not being rhetorical, you believe the Holy Spirit guided them in that selection? If so, again, praise you and praise God. But that simply isn't my angle. And I feel it is better not to further explain to you, now that I know your angle. It would be tantamount to interfering in your marriage (look, I get tgat was a poor analogy, it's the feeling for me that I'm illustrating). I have no desire to interfere with your adherence to Dogma if Dogma is presumably what we commonly call spiritual for you.
I will add, regarding my view, since you bring up for me the terms orthodoxy and heresy, you do acknowledge Jesus was crucified for stepping outside the line. I.e., he was a heretic. And perhaps my following point is intended more for poetic value, and not literally, but feel free. For me, perhaps that is the essence of Jesus (now, Christologically speaking) that it turns out, God, go figure, is a heretic. No offense. Believe me. Discern the exact antithesis of offense, and that's how I meant that.
Of course, but we are not talking about having a position on Jesus, something that everyone is entitled to. What we are talking about is that having a position on Jesus is having a position on Church doctrine. Separating the two is nonsensical.
Quoting ENOAH
You would be shocked to find out I have no dog in this fight, I don't care about heresy. I am just saying it how it is, the whole "Jesus was a cool dude but the Church sucks" is dumb.
Quoting ENOAH
At his time, yes, but the Church dogma is broadly what Jesus preached. That's why it is called Christianity. If you are against central dogmas you are against what Jesus said hence not Christian. You are against central Buddhist dogmas? Not a Buddhist.
Quoting ENOAH
I am not even Christian.
Quoting ENOAH
I don't know, I wasn't there.
Quoting ENOAH
This is the original statement of yours. Here, you imply that:
1 You are in a better position to say what the teachings of Jesus than others.
2 That Jesus' teachings boils down to "uuuuh turn the other cheek".
Number 2 can only come from a place of someone who picks up their own personal prejudices from the gospels and ignores else.
The Church and the "instagram hippie" are often drawing from the same texts (e.g. the canonical gospels) but drawing different conclusions when it comes to interpretation. In Judaism we settle this tension through the Talmud by discussing these interpretations in depth. How does authoritative interpretation work in the context of the Church?
In Judaism there's also midrash which is expanded, extra-biblical "tradition" stories such as concerning, for instance, Abraham's childhood in Ur. These don't contradict Scripture, merely expand on it a bit in ways that inform our theology. I do not know whether the Church has this. These could be accused of being "fan fics" unless they're true.
The detail missing is that the text is compiled and edited by the Church. And the Church has continuity from the times of Constantine and supposedly from Peter whose remains are supposedly in the Vatican.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I don't know the details of that. But the big part are the Councils. Trento, Nicea, etc. Very basically,
bishops meet up and discuss things until a decision can be made. In Trento, the council officially condemned the selling of indulgences, which Luther criticised, and the Church admitted its mistake.
Ok. Yes. Sorry. That point, I understand and agree.
Ok, you may have reasonably inferred; I neither think 1 and 2, nor did I intend to imply I did.
I meant Jesus's words drawn from the canonicals and how these words are understood. That's considered divine revelation in Christianity so presumably wells of ink have been spilled trying to correctly interpret those teachings.
I find gThomas a fascinating document but having read it I do understand why it was not made canon.
Re: the Pauline "Christ" myth (i.e. conspiracy theory) conjured together by committee in Nicea during the 4th century CE reign of Constantine the Great from the diverse strands of hand-me-down hearsay gossip about 'an itinerant, Aramaic-speaking, wonder-worker who preached mostly to (& for) oppressed, poor, illiterate masses' in and around Galilee in Roman occupied Judea during the 1st century CE reign of Tiberius and who was named "Yeshua" (Iesus in Latin) ...
... addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892455
Paul draws inferences and these inferences deserve our attention because they do come from somewhere.
Most perplexing may have been the Biblical Jesus revolutionary teaching of non-violently offering the other cheek as the proper response to being physically assaulted by ones enemy.
Jesus also most profoundly washed his disciples feet, the act clearly revealing that he took corporeal form to serve, which of course included saving. As such a hopeful example of the humility of the divine, Jesus joined humankind in our miseries, joys and everything in between.
In large part, Jesus was viciously killed because he did not in the least behave in accordance to corrupted human conduct and expectation and in particular because he was nowhere near to being the vengeful, wrathful and even bloodthirsty God.
Followers of Islam and Judaism generally believe that Jesus did exist but was not a divine being [albeit Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet]. After all, how could any divine being place himself/itself down to the level of humans and even lower, by some other standards? How could any divine entity not be a physical conqueror far less allow himself to be publicly stripped naked, severely beaten and murdered in such a belittling manner?
Yet, for many Christians this makes Jesus even greater, not less.
Institutional Christianity seems to insist upon creating their creators nature in their own fallible and often angry, vengeful image; for example, proclaiming at publicized protests that God hates such-and-such group of people.
One can imagine that many followers of institutional Christianity those Christians most resistant to Christs fundamental teachings of non-violence, compassion and non-wealth likely find inconvenient, if not plainly annoying, trying to reconcile the conspicuous inconsistency in the fundamental nature of the New Testaments Jesus with the wrathful, vengeful and even jealous nature of the Old Testaments Creator.
Often being the most vocal, they make very bad examples of Christs fundamental message, especially to the young and impressionable.
What's bitterly ironic is that some of the best humanitarians Ive met or heard about were/are atheists or agnostics whod make better examples of many, if not most, of Christs teachings than too many institutional 'Christians' (i.e. those apparently most resistant to Christs fundamental teachings of non-violence, compassion and non-wealth).
Conversely, some of the worst human(e) beings Ive met or heard about are the most devout believers/preachers of fundamental Biblical theology.
Those texts were compiled by the Church. They were written in Kini Greek, translated to Latin. The early Church had several meetings with tens of learned men to discuss these things. I don't think there is any single individual alive who is more qualified to interpret it which is to go against the interpretation of the Church. Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too?
We've had our back and forth earlier and I was content to adjourn. But I am truly confused by your insistence and am curious to understand.
I still think it sounds like you wish to restrict even the opportunity to admire, enjoy, and be edified by Jesus to the teachings of the Church. Why? The Church has given itself that authority. Or do you think it to be truly ordained by (a) god?
If I'm not mistaken, you claim you're not even a Christian, yet confidently further restrict the Church so ordained, to just the Catholic one (you realize yet there are Orthodox and Protestants who would think otherwise--and as I said, I was raised Catholic, and have no bone to pick. Its just hard to believe you are seriously taking this stance).
You might be technically correct when you state that if you are against Xtian dogma you're not a Xtian, just as for Buddhists. But even if that were the case, I can't believe you're seriously claiming (as you seem to have been) that one who doesn't adhere to that Church's dogma, has no business formulating opinions about, and discussing, Jesus in a way which differs from such teachings.
Even in something as technical as math or science there are variations and progressions. Even the global "Church," as in the severed Body of Christ, has come up with several interpretations of Jesus. So, your insistence is confusing.
And if your reply is anything like "You can say whatever you want about Jesus, its just not Xtian, or accurate," I'd say that's not what most of your replies sound like. They sound like your saying You can't say anything about Jesus unless it conforms strictly with the teachings of (what?) the Roman Catholic Church as dictated from time to time by the Vatican?
And further, while you are correct to an extent about the ancient Catholic church compiling the Vulgate, precursor to the "Bible," that may give them authority over how their flock interprets the gospels, but not in any way a monopoly over the "right" interpretation. And note, copies of gospels, the letters of Paul had been circulating among the Churches in Greece, Italy and tge Levant long before there even was a Catholic Church. So what if I said I was formulating my hypotheses from those manuscripts in the Hellenic Greek in which they were written? Would that release me from the fetters of the Institution, and free me to think of Jesus in the ways those readings inspire?
With respect, it sounds like either you are repeating a polemic in support of the Catholic Church (in which case, all power to you) or you have so much contempt for the whole thing that it suits you to relegate all talk of Xtianity, Jesus included to authoritarian Dogma, institutional religion, the way some non-Muslims wish to insist that you cannot be a Muslim and not believe in the more fanatical version of Jihad.
Your insistence that all talk of Jesus needs to conform to Church teachings makes no other sense to me. And I assure you, I'm trying to understand.
Because it didn't suit the "orthodox" agenda, right? It was too gnostic. It presented too "mystical" a Jesus and ignored the urgency of the parousia which the early church was fixated on.
But not because there is anything antithetical to the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels, right?
No, people can do as they wish from an aesthetic point of view. My point is that by admiring the teachings of Jesus you are admiring a large subset of the doctrines of the Church the two are not separable. The story of Jesus is given to us by the Church.
Saying "the teachings of Jesus are..." and what follows is in disagreement with Church doctrine is going to be most likely an error, except if:
Quoting Lionino
-
Quoting ENOAH
I guess so, in the same way that JK Rowling gave herself authority over the Harry Potter IP. You see how that is distinct from simply "giving oneself authority"?
Quoting ENOAH
I will go over a few premises.
The Church was founded by Peter, one of the apostles.
The current Church is in traditional succession with the early Church.
Our only source of the teachings of Jesus (not a speculative, hypothetising reconstruction of a uncertain "historical Jesus") is the Bible.
The Church edited, translated, and compiled the Bible, as such to construct a narrative that aligns with the tradition followed as you say, the gnostic accounts were discarded for diverging from orthodox dogma.
That contents of the narrative have an intended meaning.
From these premises, it seems to follow that claiming that the teachings of Jesus are X instead of Y, as stated by the Church, is a mistake of the same nature as claiming a chapter of HP means X when JK Rowling specified from the start it means Y.
Yet Luther did. You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it.
Quoting ENOAH
Yes, although I do have to say even in the synoptics Jesus can get pretty gnostic. I did not pick up anything in there that was antithetical to the synoptics but I only gave it a brief look.
I think his legacy speaks for the quality of his ideas. Anyone can give their opinions about a topic, and many people may follow, but that speaks nothing of the truth of those opinions. Ridiculous example: Mormonism.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I wouldn't indulgences are doctrine, more like a corrupt practice.
Quoting Lionino
An interesting statement that leaves room for interpretation.
Quoting Lionino
But why were indulgences sold to the public? IIRC it was because through purchasing them one could supposedly lessen the time one's dead relatives spend in purgatory. I couldn't tell you the biblical basis for that one. Religions rely on scripture, but they also rely on tradition and reason and sometimes things just stray too far from scripture. I get the idea that that was Luther's function -- bringing Christianity back to scripture while curbing the excesses of tradition. He's an interesting figure. Nasty anti-semite, but not dumb.
Quoting Lionino
Ok, I did read that in your previous comments. Perhaps I superimposed a more polemical tone in how I read some of the "cloudier" language. Since that's your point, yes. While I think there's room for debate, I have no problem accepting that, and proceeding "aesthetically" as you say. Of course the so-called Bible from which I derive my heretical interpretation is a Church doctrine and therefore by definition any interpretation inconsistent therewith is heretical. I'm contrite for being so fixated that I didn't hear you speaking that simple undeniable truth.
However, two worthies of mention (unless more arise quickly enough)
1. Some interpretations following an independent reading might coincidentally be orthodox. I'm not suggesting the result nullifies that the process was aesthetic. I'm noting that it is reasonable to be flexible about the process if the end result bears orthodox "truth." It might even be viewed favorably as "independent" confirmation. Of course, for what that's worth to the Vicar of Christ which needs no independent verification. I'm just saying...
2. In fairness, the question, what kind of influence has Xtianity been? Does not necessarily call for an orthodox, or theological/ecclesiastical process. Or am I mistaken? In fact to have to answer that question, and associated ones like the role of the historical Jesus, within those confines would be futile. The answer is the Church is God's fiduciary on earth, period.
One would have to proceed historically, as sociological, or, as you said, aesthetically. So though you may have only been after that point quoted above and nothing else; and though I stubbornly bypassed it, I'm not sure why, when the historical Jesus was raised, it would be relevant to insist upon an ecclesiastical perspective, other than to point out, as information, that the ones you were commenting upon happened to be following an historical-critical approach potentially unsanctioned by the self proclaimed catholic and orthodox Church (again, no offense. I recognize much good in thd Church, that is not my focus)
Quoting Lionino
Yes, I now see the distinction. And, trust you see why it's not relevant (unless as info...). If the OP asked has the Harry Potter series been an influence of good, you would not insist that any analysis of restrict itself to an orthodox reading as intended by the author. Even an analysis of the very text.
Quoting Lionino
Yes. And I reiterate that you unblocked me on the first part, i.e. you can stop at mistake. But as a side note the second part raises an interesting variation which doesnt effect my acknowledgement of the first part, but may have implications. The point of the church is to dictate truths we must believe. There is necessarily no room for analysis. JK Rowling has written fiction. In fact, there are many who might argue her intent ought not shape our analysis. And as an author (I dont know) she might encourage creative analyses.
Our question in the OP is more like the analysis of fiction. Quick and simple illustration. These are not intended to follow any strict format of logic nor speak to the OP.
Q. Has Xtianity been a force of good?
A. No. It hasn't followed its own teachings.
Q. How so?
A. Jesus says love your enemies, there are
examples where they have not.
Objection. You can't speak to what Jesus says, you're not the Church.
That's what it seems like you are asserting.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sorry, Lionino, that's a good point by Bitconnect. I'm really trying to understand. You've already helped me get the first part, I had wrong. Do you recognize how nevertheless you have misapplied it, and assertively?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I agree with both points above. From my analysis which I acknowledge may or may not be orthodoxy,
1. Yes in the synoptics J can get pretty gnostic. I do not think agnosticism is not orthodoxy necessarily because the former did not conform to the historical J or the early church I.e., first 100 years of the C.E. It was a struggle for dominance of the early Church's opposing "interpretations" gnostic, Arian, Nestorian, etc. An earlier version of that is the struggle between Paul who thirsted for the spread of Christ to the so called Greeks vs those so called Judaisers who insisted that Torah etc be strictly adhered to. Though a compromise appears to have been made, Pauls language (which I would argue was far from antisemitic, but rather, along the lines of, hey brothers, if we're going to spread this thing, we need to let up stuff like circumcision and pork)** arguably, the tragic first seed of Xtianity's shameful history of antisemitism.
EDIT**I don't mean it was fine to insist to his fellow Judaens that we should abandon circumcision and pork. I'm saying that was a concern he was willing to bypass in his desperation to spread the new religion among the gentiles. And tragically from the early Church to very recent times, Paul's choices contributed to corrupt antisemetic interpretations of "the gospels," obviously both Jesus, Paul, and the majority of tge first Apostles, Acts and thereafter, were Jewish, and continued for a while to identify as such.
2. I agree Thomas doesn't "contradict" the canonical gospels, it expands with a multitude of gems which are vague enough that they ready themselves for
many interpretations.
Addendum: thank God it was left out of the canonical gospels.
I referred to that in a previous comment. Luther says that salvation is by faith. The Church says it is by faith and by deeds. That is doctrine. The structure of the institution (how many bishops, in what conditions a marriage may be cancelled, indulgences) is not about doctrine however.
Apologies.
I would need to review Paul's writings for antisemitism. The first time I really understood Xtian antisemitism was through the Gospels. I have a love hate relationship with the book. Brilliant, life changing teachings from Jesus but also the way the writers contrast Jesus's teachings to those of the Pharisees -- while theologically purposeful and reasonable, unfortunately really requires broader context.
It does bother me that some number of Christians seemingly only read the Gospels and just kind of keep it at that. I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews, but imho the radicalness of Jesus is bolstered in understanding the Pharisees in their broader context. In other words, if Jesus's enemies are just bad, stupid people and Jesus is criticizing them then Jesus is just sort of normal and good, but not radical. Just a reformer.
Luke, I remember, as being especially bad -- from memory, the writers say "the Pharisees, who love money, sneered at Jesus" -- yes, they "like" money because money allows one to contribute to charity and perform acts of good. Pharisaic ideology isn't bad Jesus just emphasizes the other side ("blessed be the poor") but there's reason behind the Pharisees - they're not just wicked. Jesus has a complex relationship with them as in the end of Matthew he tells his followers to do as they say but not as they do.
addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901070
You could start (and end) with his letter to the Galatians. But as I said, I don't think Paul was being antisemitic per se. Paul himself, Jewish, and likely a Pharisee.
What I think Paul was doing was responding to a mixed Jewish and gentile faction who insisted that gentile followers of Jesus must adhere to Jewish laws like circumcision and abstaining from pork and other unclean meats. Either, 1. He was sincere about his Christology that Jesus as Christ atoned for humanity, and emancipated it from law *see letter to Romans. Or, 2. He was an "evangelical" genius who realized the Greeks were more compelled by high christology than eschatology, purity laws and sacrifice.
But I'm either recalling or hypothesizing (read Gallatians and you might see why) that Paul's diatribe against the "Judaisers" was used as a weapon against people of the Jewish diaspora, particularly after the Empire converted to Xtianity. At the very least, it (unwittingly) painted a picture.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Of course contrary to the teachings of the so called Church, and with respect to that perspective, many have taken a historico-critical approach. And while I am not up to speed, I recall that both the gospels and epistles need to be understood in their historical (Pre-The One Holy and Apostolic Church) context. And--even unashamedly to the authors--you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.
We now view it as having recorded history. But to them it was a document glorifying a movement (and the authentic Paul Epistles were mostly addressing instructional concerns of his associated church communities) . The opponents to that movement were portrayed deliberately accordingly. As didactic. But also to set-up the system their way (the way we do still today; though it embarasses us). These are the bad guys so we depict them that way. And their depiction emphasizes their opposition. The Gospels were written after Paul had already established himself in the early church. The "negative" depiction of Pharisees and Saducees was not to record history, and almost certainly not to garner hatred against their own race and heritage as a whole, but to express that the new movement has at least loosened adherence to Tanakh and other traditions, displacing both with the person of Jesus, now truly "the Christ," and that (naturally) the establishment, Pharisees and Saducees opposed that.
I think your comments about Luke and ff, if understood in the context above, reveals that the early church, far from being antisemitic, were carrying on a Jewish tradition, opposing, not Judaism nor the Jewish race, just their "political" opponents in the Sanhedrin.
Revelations/The Apocalypse, which emerged much later, does the same but more cryptically, and now, shifting its focus with respect to their opponent, Rome.
Arguably, just as the Gospels and Epistles are misused to "justify" antisemitism; Revelations has been misused by Protestant factions to justify anti-Roman Catholicism.
What goes around, eh?
I take it that you have heard of Ford and Marx then.
I don't like either.
I get it, one can read hatred of the Jews into it. Many do. Too many who call themselves Christians do.
But thats not what I come away with at all - racial, ethnic divisions never made any sense after Jesus. The term white Christian drains all meaning from the term Christian. All of it.
God singled out and chose the Jews in human history to make clear where any human could go to seek Gods word. They can look to the words the Jewish people kept. Thats why Jesus was Jewish, why he had to be a Jew himself. He both the pinnacle of Judaism and the abolisher of all division among all peoples. His word was never for some ethnicity or race - it was for all on earth who could hear it. It just came through the Jews to simplify a starting point for the rest of us. We carry the Old and the New together now.
The Pharisees do not represent the Jews. They represent themselves, or terrible church leaders. And Jesus didnt hate them. So we Christians shouldnt judge them.
If the Pharisees represent anyone, they are like popes who sent men off to crusade, or priests who sexually abuse children, self adorned stewards of the word of God who used their position to sin against their fellow man. Soiling the very name of God. Jesus certainly said these things were sin, and that sin in the name of God was evil. But not once did Jesus specifically damn anyone to hell, so we cant begin to judge who Jesus might have us hate.
But the Jews represent all of us. Me (Italian Catholic American) and you (whoever you are). The people of earth, who, even standing right there closest to God would still not see him, and killed him. We all are like the Jews in the Bible. We all killed Jesus, at least most of us. No reason to pick out a particular group and hate them. Just blind to your own position right next to them.
If you hate the Jews, you hate yourself. And you completely misinterpret the story. (Its like using a Picasso or a Monet as an example of paint viscosity such that the paintings themselves become a distraction to ignore so you can talk about the components of red versus blue.)
And he was crucified most of all because of a Roman, not any Jew. Thats important for all the haters. Romans, like the soldier who asked Jesus to heal his child and Jesus did so immediately because of the Romans great faith, Romans killed Jesus. We are like the Romans, and the Samaritans. All of us.
But Jesus, who was not like any of us, became like all of us, a Jew, so if the Jews are to represent a particular group, its the particular group of all of us.
Division among men is a construction of men, like Adam hiding himself in clothes, dividing himself from God. We all do it. Divisions among us are real, but not because of Jesus, but because of what we make of him. We are the ones who divide ourselves from others. Jesus may be said to be the cause of division among us, but it is not along racial, or ethnic lines. Thats stupid.
Hating at all brings judgment on yourself - if you hate, no matter how good it feels to hate, you are already setting yourself below the person you are hating, no matter who they are. Jesus didnt do that. Christians shouldnt either.
Nice, Fire. The hypothetical moment when "we" divided/displaced "God's creation" our natural selves, with our constructions, choosing knowledge over life.
It doesn't have to be "bad," as I know you know. But it did kind of go bad, and so one of the hypothetical moments* when "God" surfaced into "our constructions," to "remind us" to construct away but to not to get "lost" in the constructions, I.e. as Jesus, we construct something out of that, call it Christianity, and here we are today. Has it been an influence for good? Of course. Some narratives prioritized life, applied the constructions to that end. Francis Assisi, et. many als. For bad? Yes, some narratives, in spite of Jesus, stayed lost, and took Jesus with them; constructing Jesus not to serve Life, the body-family-community-species, but to serve the constructions. As it happens those Narratives are attracted to Narratives of ego and power. And, it's as easy for a wealthy man to live in God's domain (Living) as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, so...
**also applicable to Buddha as Siddhartha, Vishnu as Krishna, and likelyva few so ons.
But it wasnt just a moment. It happens everyday, by each of us. Its a story constructed to tell me who I am now.
It wasnt bad to put clothes on. It wasnt the knowledge itself. It was knowledge of our own disobedience, that we knew what to do but didnt do it. This is what we hide, this is what we cover in clothes, our wills, our selves; we hide from each other and make room for sin in the empty space between us, that we construct.
The story in the Bible shows us what is happening right now. And in that context, the context of now, the story of Jesus is unprecedented. The story is that God so regarded us, he would become one of us and being our servant unto death for us, so that even though hidden we could be in his presence again. But we killed him, we still want to hide. Thats just like us, dont you think?
None of this can be subject to science or we again take the Picasso and see it as a good placemat for easy clean up after lunch - misses the significance of the Picasso to seek the uses and causes of something sublime.
Its fine if you need lunch to grab a Picasso place mat, but then any old painting would do. Why look to the Bible when there are better sources of history and philosophy and science? Jesus is unlike anything ever painted. He became the painter, like us, and painted himself, for us. He allowed us to be the ones who drew the blood he painted with. So that we might live again, forgiven even for killing him, not simply eating a piece of fruit.
I agree (I got carried away with the drama of the Eden myth).
Quoting Fire Ologist
Not bad, I agree. But I do see it as knowledge itself. Not as in the pivotal moment, but as in beyond its use for survival prehistorically (I imagine) clothes are made up of signifiers making knowledge (for me knowledge is meaning settled upon from time to time). What strikes me, is its uncanny appearance in Genesis. Quoting Fire Ologist Yes. Uncanny, eh? It's tragic that art can be admired universally in pretty much any form except religion. Has Christianity been an influence for good? Maybe the pith of the question is too obvious to ask, it has been an influence, period. Like DaVinci or Einstein, but on a much grander scale. We write good and bad, regardless of the influence.
Quoting Fire Ologist lest I misrepresent my angle, I'm approaching this particular segment of this thread as mythico-poetry, not theologically (not saying you are/aren't). But, yes. I do think so. He says, "wake up," and turn your attention. The "Thing" we're all looking for, because we lost it, is not where you're looking. God's world is the birds in the sky, the flowers in the field, who neither reap nor sow, labor nor spin. It's not in the gathering nor the knowing, it's in the living. Dont believe your constructions from time to time, believe in that eternally. Find your soul. What profit is in gaining the whole world but losing your living soul. And not only did his contemporaries kill that in order to remain with their attachments to knowledge, repeating the mistake in Eden, but the moment he died they constructed a fiction in his name, Christianity and we have pretty much been lost in that and its antitheses (heresy, atheism, secularism, science, Islam/Eastern "paganism", hedonism/materialism, communism) ever since.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Thank God, 'cause I've wandered so deep into "my" imagination here that science is a faint echo in a remote corner of--by the way--the same system, functioning to find truth, in the end, in the same way, settling upon what is most fitting/functional given all competing factors.
We could ask has Science been an influence of good? And the answer would be, like its sister, religion, it has been a remarkable influence. Good or bad is just how we write.
The idea of indulgences being sold for money gets at the basic root of the controversy, although the issue was more about an inability/lack of political will to control the practice (also people wanting indulgences for all sorts of non-financial actsa focus on "official recognition," essentially). There was never a theological position that you could "buy your way out of punishment after death," embraced as doctrine.
Rather, there was a widespread abuse of indulgences such that they were essentially being sold by people taking advantage of their proliferation outside of financial contexts, including many people with no standing in the Church who were impersonating clergy to work as professional "pardoners." This also gets at the extremely fractured jurisdiction within the church (and the temporal authorities) in this era.
What changed in the early 1500s was that the Pope forbade almsgiving or any other sort of financial donation to be associated with indulgences because of the wide room for abuse, rather than a shift in theology abolishing indulgences. However, there was also a theological move to get people to stop focusing on the indulgence itself, and instead on the intended spiritual/psychological purpose of penance. It probably helped that literacy boomed in this period with the advent of the printing press, which in turn dispelled a lot of the mystery around written certificates.
A lot of stuff on indulgences gets conflated with the controversies surrounding chantries, which were a significantly larger social force. These were establishments that largely focused on masses for the dead (presumably in Purgatory), and were established by nobles, guilds, etc. This isn't all they did, but the criticisms during the Reformation largely focused on their role in saying masses for the dead or the idea of the mass as a "work" in general.
Anyhow, it was very much a bottom up phenomena that was poorly managed due to perverse incentives rather than being an official sanctioned practice or doctrine.
That all said, the Church [I]has[/I] made major shifts in doctrine in plenty of other places. Utraquism would be a key example. The idea of the laity partaking in both the flesh and the blood of Christ (as opposed to just the host/body) was enough to motivate violent struggle; whereas post-Vatican II both are frequently given (it is at the discretion of the bishop IIRC). Clerical celibacy largely only for bishops originally. It became mandated largely to solve the issue of powerful nobles essentially bequeathing bishoprics as fiefdoms, a particularly pernicious sort of integralism.
Quoting ENOAH
But isnt making good or bad in the living for us? Isnt good for humans like birds chirping for birds?
Why place good or bad, that we make, on some less real level than any other being, like birds make?
You dont think the good or the bad we construct is then constructed, being whatever it is? Just because something is constructed only for humans and only by humans doesnt require that it not be real, not be, not be thereby constructed. Humans are being humans too.
I understand that reasoning, am willing to concede that you are more likely correct should this be decided conventionally. And yet..
Could it not have been both? That he was both an evangelist who was serious about spreading Xtianity and reasonably saw circumcision and dietary laws as a hindrance to that end and that he was sincere in his views that Jesus was God and that salvation occurred through faith in him? That the law shines a light on our wrongdoings and that we all fall short of it and that grace makes up the difference? That breaking even one makes one a lawbreaker?
gThomas lends further credence to Paul's disregard for circumcision. J's own words in the gospels regarding purity cast doubt on the applicability of Jewish/Pharisaic dietary laws. In any case, Paul is going to need a lot of grace and a lot of faith (at least according to a traditional Jewish view) -- I always found it very notable that it someone such as him would receive the revelation on the road to Damascus.
Yes.
Yes, unfortunately for the members of that movement and those who inherited the traditions of that movement.
I'll have to dig more into the history on this one. So Luke was written around 80-90 AD I don't know the extent to which the Sanhedrin was opposing or dealing with the Early Church in those days.
Sorry if I indicated that. I agree Romans is the source for a more complete recital of Paul's thinking, re Christ. Galatians, I raised as an epistle which could be misunderstood as antisemitic.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes, very much so it could have been that. Galatians simply illustrates a "desperation" not to have the evangelical success go backwards. But for sure you are correct.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes. Good point. I agree.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Again, what you imply is also correct. By then it was Rome. Makes you even wonder if the Sanhedrin was even as active in opposing Jesus as the gospels suggest, or if that too was "exaggerated" for political/identity reasons.
Many historians make the important distinction between Pilate's "Gerousia" and the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin at this point was most likely stripped of real political authority. Rather, the High Priest, along with Pilate's advisors, most likely made the real decisions regarding dissidents. It was the conflating of Pilate's Gerousia with the Sanhedrin, that was another sleight of hand. It is interesting that the story had to have him tried "twice" and some not at all, but only at Caiaphas' chambers. Also, what seems evident is that the accusations against Jesus were more about "raising the Temple to the ground", an affront to the High Priest, and the stability of Jerusalem, whether symbolic or not. So we have a rebellious Jew at the time of Passover, threatening destruction of the Temple, causing a disturbance, and the High Priest, in collusion with the actual authority (not the Sanhedrin), the Roman governor, known for ruthlessly killing Jews who had the slightest impulse to rebel (crucified thousands as accounted by Josephus and Philo of Alexandria); all of that tracks. The only part that seems shoe-horned is this notion that there was a first trial of the Sanhedrin.. The other sleight of hand is to believe Jesus wasn't at some point at least a student of the Pharisees, which he seemed to be, before being heavily influenced by John the Baptist and his Essenic form of Judaism. Mix that together, you get Jesus' most likely ideological underpinnings.
Fascinating. I have not kept up with New Testament scholarship for years. I can recall the pharasaic influence, plus some hint regarding the Essenes. I'm asking because it was still controversial last I looked. Is there a strong consensus that J the B was an Essene?
Also, I don't know if Scorces's The Last Temptation offends you (my guess from your text, is not, but if so, apologies). Though Fictional, I liked the depiction of the Essenes and J the B in that film.
It's not that controversial. At this point it might even be the norm to assume that. He just falls most naturally in that group. The emphasis on the Kingdom, Son of Man, use of baptism, End of Times, and asceticism point to a strong link to the group. James Tabor would be a good place to start in seeing the connections. Robert Eisenman also pointed to numerous connections. Geza Vermes also wrote books on the connection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp8rpLMoS1Y
Excellent, makes me even more confident in the Gospel of Thomas (regardless, I am an admirer) historically. As opposed to it being some post synoptics neoplatonist/gnostic set up. Or, if there are updates there too that you know of? I guess we're discussing how Christinity (as an institution) may have "erred" not on the side of good.
I won't lie, Im too "busy" (lazy?) to pick up a book on that topic, though a passion lingers. I appreciate the link to YouTube.
There may be historical elements. The parts that align with Q are probably more corroborated. However, it is pretty standard to regard the Gospel of Thomas' main thrust as gnostic, which in my view is a tangent, rather than a descendent of the original group.
Don't get me wrong though, I think the gnostic philosophy is fascinating, and see many parallels with it and Eastern philosophy, Neoplatonism (even though Plotinus disliked the gnostics), as well as Schopenhauer. I just don't think the philosophy represented Jesus and his movement in Judea proper, per se. More likely, it is what happens when Platonic and Near Eastern mysticism get intricately overlaid on top of a historical character in history. This doesn't mean that there might be some stories in there that preserved some truths of the original sect, such as Mary Magdalene's intricate connection, and the importance of James the Just, Jesus' brother.
Interestingly enough, I see Paul as a sort of "gnostic-lite". He wasn't fully gnostic (with a demiurge), but certainly the notion of "the Law" being overtaken by the "higher truth of Christ", has gnostic overtones. And I see Paul too as a tangent (quite deliberately so), from the original Jesus group as well.
Ok, right, and by original group, you may have meant gnostic, but that's my suggestion regarding Essenes, not a direct relationship to the "author(s)" of Th. But a relationship nonetheless. Unless, you're telling me the Essenes are established gnostic. But yes, I too am fascinated by First-second C gnostics, for ghe same reasons as those you referenced. When it is not offensive to orthodoxy, I like considering such an influence (even if a homeopathic trace) on the historical Jesus.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ok, you're sparking my memory now. You're saying Magdelene and James had gnostic ties, right. There are influences on the historical Jesus then. Not sure if you're saying not so for Th., that Th. is of the later gnostic, the ones that represented the various (two?) Heresies, Arianism(?) and I forget tge other guy, Marcion?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes! Without a doubt. Otherwise where the heck did he come from? He was supposedly a Pharisee, so not Hellenic philosophy, right? Yet his Christology gives goosebumps, even from a historical-critical read. Radically emancipating to the level of mystical. He makes Jesus's world functional "love even your enemies," mystical, like Moksha. But I fantasize a bit,
I know his eschatology was pretty much Biblical. Right?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Oh, OK. That might explain the "radical"? Or are you saying Paul was "presented" by the Church as a tangent from Peter/James for e.g.? Imagine genuine Epistles of Paul buried somewhere because it reflects accord with the Judaisers.
Not quite sure what you indicating here but to break it down...
I see gnostics as a tangent, not a descendent of the original Jesus movement.
I see the Essenes in some ways as a direct predecessor of the group via the historical figure of John the Baptist, and his probable influence on Jesus himself.
The Essenes do NOT equal the gnostics. There may be superficial similarities in terms of emphasis on the "mystical" and the "End of Times", but that doesn't mean they are the same. The Essenes were likely an extremist Priestly group, that wanted to purify before what they saw was an imminent fight with the forces of evil (basically Rome plus supernatural stuff). That is, if they are related to the Dead Sea Scroll Sect, which I think they were. John I don't see as being a part of the Dead Sea Scroll sect by the time Jesus came along, but certainly, whatever "milieu" of apocalyptic Judaism that the DSS represented, John, was "drawing from the same well" so-to-speak. The idea of a demiurge, secret esoteric knowledge that has to do with a spark of God, or in the Pauline case ("gnostic-lite), that the messiah's death and resurrection abrogates the original "Law", is nowhere in DSS/Essenic ideology. Quite the opposite, they were very committed to "The Law", but interpreted differently, and with a bent towards eschatology, and possibly notions of the the Son of Man, being an important figure, though this starts complicating the matter, as people jump right to "Son of God" which is also not really what that is (other than the usual figurative senses it meant since King David was called the Son of God).
Anyways, Quoting ENOAH
No no, I am not saying that Mary Magdalene had gnostic ties.. though perhaps later on she did(?), but rather that the historical figures of Mary Magdalene and James the Just were more prominent in some gnostic literature (like the Gospel of Thomas), and that THIS is probably an echo of something more historical. That doesn't mean that Mary and James were gnostics... just that they are discussed and emphasized as important, is all that I mean which is historical. All the other stuff about them, is probably vessels to sell their (interesting) philosophy.
Quoting ENOAH
Well I think we might agree here. You are seeing here that claims to be a Pharisee, but this might be doubtful. He definitely seemed to have worked for the High Priest, as a sort of lacky, that is more probable. Was he disenchanted and found the group fascinating? Perhaps... What does seem to be the case is he came from Asia Minor. There as a huge mystery-cult there based on Mithra. The idea of a god dying and resurrecting and symbolically rejuvenating and cleansing the adherent to the mystery school seems to be in line with what Paul's idea of Jesus death and resurrection was doing. Could he have smuggled the already existing ideas into the new Jewish movement with a dead charismatic leader? Ockham's Razor would point to most likely. So I see Paul as combining the mystery school elements of a dead and resurrecting god and the gnostic notion of a "higher truth", and making his own synthesis that became Pauline Christianity (aka Christianity). The original group, headed originally by Jesus' brother James after Jesus' death, slowly died out over time and had little resemblance to the Pauline churches his adherents formed around the Mediterranean.
Quoting ENOAH
No, I mean Paul was creating his own synthesis, and claiming Christ spoke to him. I think it was tangential to the original group headed by James, and that followed Jesus synthesis of Pharisaic/Essenic Judaism.
It does seem far more likely that Paul "created" his Christology and its context than what is depicted in the Acts.
Either way, there'd be no Xtianity as we know it, without that "notorious" event on the road to Damascus.
Acts is [s]propaganda[/s] apologetics for Paul.. trying to make it seem like his synthesis fit neatly into the original group. Galatians overrides Acts in terms of the irrevocable tension between this new ideology of Paul, and the original represented by James. I don't think they actually mended that rift. Rather, Pauline version simply overcame it hundreds of years later when these communities gained traction in the Hellenistic world, and then Constantine. The truth though is that the original sect was never going to spread like that anyways, being confined to basically the synagogues and at most the "god-fearers".
Quoting ENOAH
That is true. I would not call the original sect prior to Paul, "Christianity". Paul put the Christ in Christianity :smile:.
I'm curious, what do you see as the main differences between the original sect headed by Jesus and Paul's take on things? I see Paul as making certain inferences and elaborating/expanding on Jesus's ideas in his own ways. There's the Jesus layer and then the Paul layer.
Yes agree on the Jesus layer and the Paul layer. I laid out my view earlier that Jesus seems to be a mix of Pharisaic (specifically Hillelite) and Essenic Jewish thought. From what I gather, he was from a laboring background in Galilee (tektons), a part of the Galilean peasant class. These classes were pretty impoverished by Roman taxation, hence the emphasis on tax collectors in the NT. Fisherman especially around the Galilee were heavily taxed so that they could only eek out a subsistence rather than build capital in any modern sense of the word. My guess is Jesus found himself a student of the Pharisees, despite being from lower class background. Perhaps he was precocious, who knows. Maybe there were connections.. Whatever it was, he learned a kind of Pharisaic way of interpreting Mosaic law. It is evident in his view of fellow Pharisees (see the Talmud regarding the 7 kinds of Pharisees to see parallels, and also the infighting between Hillel and Shammai at that time before School of Hillel definitively won out. See also his debate tactics in defending his interpretation of Mosaic law, especially using later prophets as considered valid evidence. Also, there are references to following the commandments that only make sense in light of an oral tradition, not just the written Torah. However, this is partly overlaid with his propensity for eschatology, the End Times, the Son of Man, and the Kingdom of God, and the call of repentance, and communal living, that seems very much from Essenic teachings. No doubt, if his main mentor was John the Baptist in his later years, then this helped kicked off his itinerant preaching in the countryside amongst mainly the am ha-aretz (peasant/laboring classes), usually avoiding the bigger cities (Sepphoris was right next door to Nazareth and Tiberius was not far either, yet he avoided those cities), and then later he went to Jerusalem, a much bigger and more dangerous theater, where he developed enough of a name, that his actions at the Temple got him arrested and indicted by the High Priest and Pilate.
:up: Nazarenes ?
If Nazarenes and Ebionites are the same, then yes. If they are slightly different, then more like the Ebionites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5cNroueffQ
Actually this is the original video. The other one had some dude giving his interpretation of Tabor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLQ97erL1gc&t=686s
As an interesting tie-in, look at what Josephus says about James (with the caveat that the label, "the Christ" was probably a later Church interpolation),..
A little background... Ananus ben Ananus was the brother-in-law of Caiaphas... I find it MORE than a coincidence that this relative of Caiaphas, who had tremendous influence being of the reigning priestly family, and who had a vendetta against the dissidents of their family (groups like the Sicarii, the Jesus Movement/Ebionites etc..) JUST LIKE his brother-in-law, Caiaphas, carried out a similar mock-trial (with Sadducees.. again priestly elites) to prosecute his brother James and kill him in a similar manner. Notice also, the majority of the crowd was against this action. This flies in face of Matthew, John, etc.
Do you know of other Jewish thinkers in that period who liken soil to a mind in their parables? Or who emphasize the role of the child as something to strive towards? Or who specifically seeks out the sinful person? I guess we could consider Jesus as maybe doing an early form of baal teshuva outreach. There's just many seemingly unique elements of his thought that interest me.
There are probably parallels I can pull out of the Talmud, but I am not saying Jesus can never en toto NOT have his own sayings. I am simply pointing out that his approach to the Law and his emphasis on eschatological matters is not necessarily sui generis- there are other groups around that time. If Rabbi Akiva has a saying that no other rabbi has, does that mean Rabbi Akiva is totally other and apart from the Rabbis of his time because there were unique sayings attributed to specifically him? Of course not.
Jesus certainly seemed to model himself after the prophets of the Ketuvim (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Micah, etc.). Was this renewal program itself, something that John started with his call in the Wilderness? Perhaps. Hillelites were also more lenient in their views. The Zealot party which formed towards the 50s-60s CE, were associate with the Shammaites. There was even violence between the Shammaites and Hillelites at some points. Can Jesus represent a Hillelite with a more outward stance? Perhaps. An outward reaching Hillelite/Essene. Just conjecture, but if Jesus came from the poorer classes, would this not be something he would sympathize deeply with? So we see all the elements of his purported biography making sense.. His peasant/tekton background, his Hillelite stance towards the Law, and his Essenic stance (via John), towards the End Times and Kingdom of God. He was a synthesizer for sure.
According to Robert Alter Elijah is the template for Jesus. There are shared miracles (raising from the dead) and both are largely itinerant among other similarities.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I guess it depends how much we're willing to stretch the concept of "Hillelite?" How does one qualify as a Hillelite anyway?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Maybe. I don't deny as Essenic influence. But on purity Jesus seems different: "It is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what issues from it."
Quoting schopenhauer1
Possibly. IMO his saying "blessed be the poor" and "blessed be the poor in spirit" are part of a larger inversion of Jewish (and practical) wisdom. Doesn't money help us build a better world? Or give more to charity? But Jesus is decidedly unpractical. Ridiculously impractical. It is how one deals with this blatant impracticality that determines one's view of Jesus.
Yeah, not a fan of this dismissive, condescending way of asking this seemingly innocuous question, but in GOOD FAITH I'll answer it:
Jesus emphasis on "Do unto others.." and "Hear O Israel.." seems to be in line with Hillel when asked the most important aspects of the Law..
Jesus' more lenient interpretation of Law, for example Jesus's disciples being in danger or starving during the Sabbath.
Hillel was more open to outsiders as was Jesus
The way Jesus criticized OTHER pharisees, was the way perhaps, a Hillelite might criticize a Shammaite.. I see the sentiment that God gave Sabbath for man.. as sort of saying that the Law isn't there simply as a routine thing one must memorize, but because it has symbolic significance and the intent of one does it matters, not just that one is doing it to look good, for the sake of scrupulousness, etc.
Interestingly, his ideas of divorce are more Shammaite (divorce should be rare), so he had his own takes on things, but I am saying he had more of a lenient approach to the Law.
My overall point isn't that he was a Hillelite, that is speculation. Rather, it is that Pharisees often had HEATED and SERIOUS debates amongst EACH OTHER.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sure, but one of two things here:
1) The Essenic movement could have evolved or split since the Dead Sea Scrolls were mainly written 100-200 years earlier.
2) John and Jesus may not have been mainstream Essenic adherents, but an outwardly version of it (Elijah inspired, or whathaveyou).
Either way, there are too strong a parallels in form and content of the End Times, Son of Man, use of baptism, and shared communal living to just throw up one's hands and say, "Yeah they are not connected but look similar". That seems too incredulous to me.
But as to your specific quote, again, it's an emphasis of intent versus ritual. Does the text say exactly the context? Probably not. But if it is giving a "gist" of what Jesus' ideas were, it was that main take away.
Look at parallels with Isaiah:
This is a theme amongst prophets.. that ethical behavior is what is of utmost importance. This doesn't negate the rituals, but if one does rituals whilst discounting the poor or neglected of society, one is doing an injustice. Thus, as I said, he models himself after the prophets here. It's a critique he is trying to model himself. If he sees himself as the harbinger of the Son of Man (angelic figure who comes at the End Times.. right hand angel of God or whathaveyou), then this is his paramount message to repent to prepare for this End Times scenario.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
If you think the End Times are near, and you take the Prophets like Isaiah seriously, impracticality is perspective, isn't it? Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. If I recall, some did not even go to the bathroom on the Sabbath because the latrines were too far. That can be construed as impractical... Taking it too far.. Perhaps this is taking the social element too far. Either way, your evaluation of what he said isn't the matter here.
Also, I notice with you that you need Jesus to be "Othered" so that you can keep some sense of the modern Jewish view of things as CONTRA the character of Jesus. Or it seems from here. Rather, I see Jesus as part of the Jewish debates, and eschatology that was very much en vogue of his time. Again, not sui generis, but a variation of a rather commonplace theme in Second Temple, 1st century, Judea amongst the diversity of the Jewish ideas of that time, and the interplay of politics of Roman rule, Jewish Dissent, how to interpret the Law, what is the best lifestyle for a Jew, how to view the Temple in Jerusalem (corrupted or not.. legitimate or not at this point in time with Roman rule?)..
It does give the context. The Pharisees chide Jesus's followers for eating with unwashed hands and this is J's response. At first glance, for me at least, it just seems like Jesus does away with much of Leviticus. On Christian bibles it even has a footnote that says something like "all foods were declared clean."
Did you know that in Genesis when this notion of "clean" and "unclean" animals is introduced it originally refers to an animal's sacrificial fitness? It is originally referred to in the Noah story.
But the idea is generally taken like this: Evil speech defiles the soul, but anything consumed passes through the body and at some point exits it and it does not affect the spiritual plane.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. He once again here ties back to Genesis:
Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Havent you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female,5 and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? (Matthew 19)
J says divorce should only be permitted in cases of adultery and that not all of us are called to marry - an interesting early consideration of LGBTQ.
I interpret this as J saying that man should be able to do what he wants on the Sabbath. I think we're both Jewish so we're both away of the restrictive rules on the Sabbath that are intended to keep one from not working.
Not a Jesus theme, actually. His emphasis is more on molding internal attitudes and I guess what I'd call "inward purification" and fostering faith. His idea is that if you get the right mindset (the heart) and transform yourself internally the good deeds will follow, but emphasis on good deeds shouldn't be placed front and center.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, so that the outside may become clean as well." (Matthew 23).
I read J as incessantly concerned about man's salvation/the state of his soul as opposed to his body; he says don't try to predict when the end time occurs. His audience seems to be those who are really deep in the hole righteousness wise. And death is omnipresent in Jesus's view. It could occur at any moment, and death does lie closer to the unrighteous. I consider his impracticality in this light; the man is also positive about the existence of an afterlife, after all. J never instructs his followers on how to live longer lives or maintain good health. I suppose whether one lives to 30, 60, or 90 is no major factor for J.
Jesus said, "There was a rich man who had much money. He said, 'I shall put my
money to use so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouse with produce, with
the result that I shall lack nothing.' Such were his intentions, but that same night he died.
Let him who has ears hear." (gospel of thomas, non-canonical).
In any case, I'm onboard with your judgment that Jesus had a Pharisaic-Essenaic background. He is Jew. There's actually a lot about J's past that I question. For instance, in gJohn there's a well scene with him and a samaritan woman. I'm sure you know the deal with well scenes in the Tanakh. He is not an ascetic either.
Is this according to the NT or deconstructed? You realize the NT is selling a narrative, not history right? That Biblical and early Christian scholars try to reconstruct from the given religious text, comparing it to other sources, and what can be constructed of the time period right? You are simply doing your version of apologetics if you dont understand this point. Ill get to the other stuff which just makes me do a long sigh in that I have to address it.
The issue seems to be J's followers eating with unwashed hands. We don't need to take the footnote as gospel.
Do we have to take the gospel as gospel?
See here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/905403
I'm not sure how we would go about "deconstructing" this. I believe handwashing was a ritual at this point so it doesn't seem out of the question that one could be chided for not doing it. The ritual surely has a certain logic behind it. I would need to look into it further but presumably it serves to prevent impurities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Etc. etc. etc.
If you have a criticism about the basic premise I'm open to hearing it. I will take the scenario as gospel until shown otherwise. E.g. if handwashing wasn't a thing at that time that would be relevant. This position on purity is also stated in multiple gospels with more or less similar responses from J.
It's not the scenario per se.. You also realize the synoptic gospels build off each other.. Matthew and Luke and Thomas have a common Q, for example. Matthew elaborates from Mark which is prior to Matthew, etc. So of course there are similarities.... But, you are not addressing my main point, which do you agree that the NT was written and written and presented in a way to create a certain narrative Jesus?
And if you do accept this, do you agree that if you simply take what is presented at face value, and justify that it must be the actual history, this is a form of apologetics?
And if you accept this, do you agree that by arguing as if what is presented at face value, even if it is to say that the character of Jesus is wrong, by accepting what is presented, and then explaining your view in opposition to this, you are also participating in a form of apologetics (against the position of the Jesus that orthodox/fundamental Christians take as to what happened?).. There are many things in the NT btw.. Can we agree that the virgin birth didn't happen, and the Logos is tacked on? And that certain miracles were simply attributed and didn't happen, etc.? So we can at least establish that there are unreliable aspects to the NT..
Yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Maybe it happened differently or is theoretical, the basic issue is purity and not washing hands. I don't believe Job actually happened exactly as described but the book still presents important/true/profound ideas (one might even say divine revelation) and is true in its own sense regardless of whether it happened exactly the way described.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. A lot of mythology works its way in. I can't even get straight who J is exactly suppose to be -- the "son of man" of Daniel? The "suffering servant?" We all have our personal Jesus's. He is amazing character unlike anyone I have ever read. I think I mostly closely or generally think of him as perhaps the kin of David. I much prefer him over David though as a model for how to be in this world. J is absolutely amazing with women.
Right, ok, we agree that the NT isn't the most reliable source. However, I think as you are implying, we can take certain kernels of the historical person from it..
One of the things the NT is selling is that Jesus was opposed to the Pharisees. By the time the NT was written, the Gentile Church was already solidified under a Pauline understanding- one antagonistic to the newly forming Rabbinical and Synagogue Judaism that was forming in the Galilee (at varying times in Yavneh, Sepphoris, Tiberius, and Caesarea), and the diaspora, respectively. The antagonism in the NT between the "Pharisees" (predecessors of Rabbinic Judaism), and Jesus was reflected in these debates.
However, what is the historical context here is that Pharisees had their own disagreements. They believed that the Prophets held sway (the Sadducees did not, and the Essenes were also super interested in the Prophets, and especially eschatological matters, like in Daniel and Zechariah, etc.).
There were internal disputes at the time BETWEEN the sects.. Sadducees for example, didn't even RECOGNIZE the later prophets.. So clearly Jesus wasn't from that group. Even this character of Jesus is backing his notions using prophets..The Talmud itself, uses later Prophets to provide context to earlier Torah halachic understanding... I literally just pulled a random quote from a Talmudic passage, and it proved my case (using later prophets to justify earlier halacha):
So like a Pharisee, Jesus is debating OTHER pharisees, or at least in the vein of Pharisaic style debate.
Now there is a heurmeneutics that many historians agree makes logical sense.. "Whatever is embarrassing to Church doctrine left in the text most probably a historical artifact that was left in the text. A Pharisaic Jesus, for example would be embarrassing for Church doctrine..
But you have the character of Jesus say curious things like this:
Now one can interpret the character of Jesus in multiple ways.. but look at this passage:
[quote="Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 9:5:7] There are seven kinds of religious people: Religious on the shoulder, religious on credit, religious balancing, religious what is the deduction, religious I shall do it when I realize my guilt, religious from fear, religious from love. Religious on the shoulder, he carries his deeds onhis shoulder. Religious on credit, give me credit that I can perform commandments. Religious balancing, he commits one sin and observes one commandment and balances one against the other. Religious what is the deduction, what I have that is what I am using to deduct for doing a commandment [/quote]
Also look at this in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 1:4):
There were disputes that led to bloodshed between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.. If disputes got so heated that it led to bloodshed between to Pharisaic houses, would a bit of angry "Woe to the...(Shammaite?) instead of general "Pharisee", but more historically accurate?
In US politics, look at conservative and liberal aspects to any political party.. The election of Gerald Ford vs. Ronald Regan.. For what it means to be conservative.. Or a Southern Democrat vs. a Northern Democrat in the 60s.
All I'm saying is that perhaps legitimately internal debates became "seized upon" by the Gospel writers to make Jesus "other", which is necessary to help move him along as NOT an itinerant blend of Pharisaic and Essenic Judaism, but a sort of non-contexted, universal Cynic.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Well, I guess we have some common ground we can work from then in understanding this. I'll have to get back to the halachic stuff later. I think i just read your first sentence and kind of jumped on that in my first comment. It looks like you are open beyond a simple refutation of the Jesus as presented ver batim from the NT....
It's really just a love affair with a character. I know of no other character who jumps off the page like J.
I spoke with a rabbi once who told me that the Jewish messiah would never scrub his disciples' feet. But in J's world "the greatest among you will be your servant" so scrubbing their feet is basically his way of flexing. There is no other biblical character that I am aware of who embraces servitude so devoutly. But it's not a weak servitude - it's a servitude which is supposedly prepared to sacrifice oneself in an instant and the Pharisees call him on it.
I read J and think of him like an artist in a way -- he paints a vision of an ideal reality with his words. No one always enacts J's teachings. No one is going to go to prison and think "the greatest among you will be your servant."
Yet there is a time and a place. The standard is still there.
Hillel says "what is hateful do not do to others" which permits neutral actions. J says "in all things do unto others as you'd have done to you."
In most societies one strives upwards -- grow old, wise, build respect in your career, study hard, etc. etc. -- it's all true.
But you know what they say about respect:
Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be.
? Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
J pitches a fundamentally different vision -- a different side to things -- which doesn't necessarily invalidate the old, but can supplement it. I love reading both Jewish wisdom but I think virtually everyone could benefit from reading and pondering J.
In the Talmud grey hairs are seen as a sign of reverence and dignity. This isn't wrong, but J stresses the importance of getting in touch with one's inner child. I'd be interested as to whether other Talmudic thinkers reach this conclusion.
The focus, traditionally in Judaism, is that righteousness is a ladder that one should climb and the higher you reach on that ladder the better it is -- those people should occupy the best positions the 'seats of honor at the banquet'. J's focus is those on the margins of society 'blessed be the poor in spirit.'
He does say things like this and in gThomas he tells his followers that after he departs to have James the Just lead them -- James was known as a Judaizer within the early movement.