Was Jesus as described in the bible a jerk?

Frank 013

Quote:
DH
I don't think you are really reading the story at all.

Then you are wrong.

Quote:
DH
If you did, you'd see the way that Mark uses the Fig Tree to introduce and exit the entire Temple event. Before the Temple, a Fig Tree; after the Temple, the same Fig Tree.

I did see that, but according to the text it seems like two different demonstrations. The fig tree example happens some 2 miles from Jerusalem Jesus curses the tree for not having fruit.

Later that day Jesus childishly tosses the tables of the money changers and calls them names at the temple.

The next day they pass the fig tree again and notice that it is dead,

What is the connection? I do not see one except maybe his childish tantrums.

Quote:
DH
Now, I wonder if Mark is telling us something about the Temple event by way of this Fig Tree? Obviously he is.

It is not obvious to me.

Let’s look at the scripture to see if your derived meaning makes sense.

Quote:
Mark 11:20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.

Mark 11:21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.

So they are passing the tree peter notices it and makes a comment to Jesus.

Mark 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

Mark 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

This looks like Jesus is saying ask and you will receive, you see that I cursed the tree to die, and it did, so it is with any thing I say. So ask for stuff and if I say yes than it will be so.

What I see here does not seem to be related to the temple events in any way. It looks to be a completely separate lesson about prayer, and a rather clear one at that.

Quote:
DH
Jesus is hungry for food, the Fig Tree does not feed him; he curses it; Jesus is hungry for God, the Temple does not feed him; he overturns it.

This seems like quite a reach, nothing written even remotely leads a reader to that conclusion.

Quote:
DH
This is not about holy spite or random acts of malicious magic, as your interpretation holds:

You have not shown this in any way. You have said what you think, but again the scripture does not support it.

How could Jesus be hungry for god? Jesus was god. Why kill something alive and beautiful from his own creation just to make a point? This is the action of a Jerk.

Especially since the message from the text seems to be one of Jesus’ ability to answer prayer, not temple bashing.

Quote:
DH
It is symbolism that captures how the Kingdom of God movement that Jesus participated in was in direct conflict with the centers of power of his day.

I do see this in the temple event but it is hardly symbolic, it is very clear that he despised those people and decided to trash their stuff and call them names, similar to what a Klan member might do to a black person’s church.

The message is clear from that passage alone.

Just as the messages about the fig tree are clear on their own.

It is when you attempt to put them together that the guess work must begin because they don’t really fit.

Quote:
DH
I think this is a crucial key to understanding the book of Mark.

It may be but so what? like I said the message is clear enough from the table tossing episode.

Quote:
DH
I think the Bible is a book that draws out our projections, presumptions, biases, and imagination...few other books do anything like this, or to such a degree.

You think this, why? Because you have been brainwashed to since birth. You are so far gone you don’t seem able to recognize the sickness of the book that is right in front of you.

Quote:
DH
Some approaches involve highlighting the voice of women: the feminist challenge to lift up the nameless females and challenge the patriarchy that pervades so much of the book.

Yea the feminists love the bible, that’s why they had it changed.

Quote:
DH
What is symbolic, metaphoric, analogous, parabolic: obvious, subtle, hidden, or camouflaged in the narrative?

This is an entirely speculative endeavor. And like I stated before your assumed starting position/character is not the one supported by the scripture.

Each of the passages I offered have meaning by themselves and it is rather clear. Context doesn’t change that as far as I can see. Its only when you try to dictate a noble meaning to these passages that metaphors, imagination and guesswork become necessary.

Quote:
DH
I think the process is far more illuminating and transformative that what you are attempting in this thread.

And I don’t, it is that way for you but that is because you and your people have spent hundreds of years trying to make sense of the ugly and transform it into something pleasant.

You are covering up a turd with rose petals and then saying how nice it looks.

It’s still a turd underneath so whatever you do don't drop it.

Later

Dissident Heart · Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: Holy Dung and Atheist Roses

Frank: You are covering up a turd with rose petals and then saying how nice it looks.

Turds are important: in many cases, they provide needed sustenance for fruits and veggies...fuel for the plant world. I am not covering turds with rose petals, but working to tend a garden with ancient fertilizer...it requires pulling a few weeds, keeping out vermin, and pruning vines.

You, on the other hand see only a toilet full of shit.

Frank: I do see this in the temple event but it is hardly symbolic, it is very clear that he despised those people and decided to trash their stuff and call them names, similar to what a Klan member might do to a black person’s church.

Besides the fact that Klansmen represented the status quo order of control, domination and oppression: the dominant hierarchy of social/political/religious order; and the Black Church were those kept out of political and social power, and seen as a threat to established racist norms...well, what more to say about your peculiar rosarch of the text?

Actually, Frank, the Jesus you describe in the Temple is very similar to Frank's approach to Christians: it is very clear that he despised those people and decided to trash their stuff and call them names. You should be a bit more appreciative of the shoulders you stand on when claiming to see further and more clearly. Really, your stampede through the Scriptures is very similar to how you interpret Jesus' stampede through the Temple.

I think this is clue to the Prophetic roots of Atheism and Freethinkers in Western Civilization. Jesus was calling upon those roots as he challenged the established norms and structures of power in his world: highlighting the abuses, malice and ignorance of those in charge; confronting the holiest of persons, locations and texts along the way.

It seems, out of this holy dung has arose the rose of Atheism.

MaesterAuron151 · Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: Holy Dung and Atheist Roses

Quote:
Does that excuse the bigot? I can best a KKK member in debate at will, but that does not excuse their bigotry.

Ok you're not working with me here.

My question was: If the episode was written by a bigot why would he have the caananite win the debate against Jesus? If you were writing a story to encourage atheism would you have an atheist confront a theist and lose? Certainly storys made to support certain views always demonstrate the opposing view point, but they don't let this viewpoint win.

And once again staying within the confines of the bible, Jesus being god must have known that the caananite woman could best his bigoted statements. So why bother saying them if he knew they were wrong? It was an act.

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Belief

Frank 013: I do think you might have misread Mad here, I do not presume to put words in his mouth but he does not believe that stuff any more than we do. But unlike us he just does not see any harm in believing it.

I believe some of it. I do think that there was likely a historical Jesus, and that you could trace a probable biography if you were very critical of the Biblical sources. Maurice Goguel's "Jesus and the Origins of Christianity" is a pretty rigorous example of this sort of work. But it looks to me as though a lot of the more recognizably mythical elements have distorted the picture, and often in direct contradiction to what seems, to me, to have been Jesus' intent.

Considering the short response I think I might have made him think… Maybe?

You can always hope. But I'm making shorter responses these days, and checking in less. So it might be just that.

misterpessimistic: Mad has offered defense for the bible in the past. I just want to know what I am missing by not being a biblical scholar! I keep hearing that phrase...

I could just as easily offer of a defense of the Rig veda, or of the Iliad (which also had a religious function). I don't think that I've ever mounted a defense of any of these works (the Bible included) as though they were indicators of absolute truth or divine revalation. For all I know, they might be, but that's not really a point that I'm ready to address. I suppose by comparison, my defense of the Bible is fairly complex, but that's only because I believe human culture to be a complex aggregate of relationships, which it is a mistake to underestimate.

Although, after reading the Dawkins book, I am considering raising the bible discussion from the dead (still born as it was)...but I am not sure I want Mad, Dissident or any of the other thiests picking and choosing the readings.

In defense of my own methodology, I wasn't "picking and choosing" the readings -- I was laying out the order of the readings. My purpose in doing so wasn't to make the Bible unassailable -- far from it, I was trying to use later books of the Bible to give some us some idea of the culture in which those earlier books were written. In other words, if Genesis was written during the Solomonic renaissance (which is our best historical guess, at the moment), then it might help us to understand Genesis if we first understand that period in Israelite history. Actually, I had tried to set up the reading so that we got a better historical (rather than religious) understanding of the Bible, and so that, in doing so, we'd have gotten a better sense of how it has effected culture and how changes in culture have effected it.

And if that failed, I also invited people to comment on the structure and make suggestions. There just weren't many people involved, though, so I didn't get much in the way of feedback.

Basically, I would like someone to answer my post in the Dawkins forum: what about the incest and giving away of daughters for gang bang sex to avoid confilct (oops! There I go using aggressive, inconsiderate words again...maybe I should say "Offering my young daughter to the pleasures of others" there, that makes it better).

The way I see it, how you judge those scenes depends entirely on how you answer the question: are we supposed to take those as moral guides? I don't think we are, so I don't see them as being any more pernicuous than, say, "Hamlet". Despite the fact that literalist, fundies continually take it that way, I don't think that the Bible was intended to be a monolithic, homogenous whole. It's a bit like the canon of Classical authors -- a group of works, each having its own purpose and method, that were bound together into a canon because they all had some import to and bearing on a particular culture.

Frank 013 · Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: Jesus the jerk

Quote:
DH
I am not covering turds with rose petals, but working to tend a garden with ancient fertilizer...it requires pulling a few weeds, keeping out vermin, and pruning vines.

This would be a convincing argument if it was the only or even best way to accomplish your agenda but it isn’t.

Quote:
DH
Besides the fact that Klansmen represented the status quo order of control, domination and oppression: the dominant hierarchy of social/political/religious order; and the Black Church were those kept out of political and social power, and seen as a threat to established racist norms...well, what more to say about your peculiar rosarch of the text?

I was talking about a modern Klansman.

Quote:
DH
Actually, Frank, the Jesus you describe in the Temple is very similar to Frank's approach to Christians: it is very clear that he despised those people and decided to trash their stuff and call them names. You should be a bit more appreciative of the shoulders you stand on when claiming to see further and more clearly. Really, your stampede through the Scriptures is very similar to how you interpret Jesus' stampede through the Temple.

I am not claiming anything of the sort I am asking how you get the nice and sinless Jesus from the scripture, which does not support that claim. I also commented on the extraordinary lengths and baseless assumptions you have to make to support that claim.

My poop analogy might have been in bad taste (heh), but it holds true that Christians have dressed up the Jesus character to better than the bible shows him to be.

Quote:
DH
I think this is clue to the Prophetic roots of Atheism and Freethinkers in Western Civilization.

Many people think that religion has gotten off way to easy for way to long and I tend to agree. Just as I would look harshly at a person who said that they believed in unicorns, I am holding religion to the same standards.

Quote:
DH
Jesus was calling upon those roots as he challenged the established norms and structures of power in his world: highlighting the abuses, malice and ignorance of those in charge; confronting the holiest of persons, locations and texts along the way.

And now I am doing the same thing, but you refuse to see any possible negatives with your perfect book. You won’t even consider my argument because you are too offended to be rational.

Quote:
MaesterAuron
My question was: If the episode was written by a bigot why would he have the Canaanite win the debate against Jesus?

The woman did not win the argument she assumed the role of the dog and asked for the crumbs that fall from the table that a dog would eat.

Also a bigot would view this as the ultimate act of compassion; and if that was the intent of this passage than a bigoted person might add it as such.

Saying something like “look how compassionate Jesus was he would even help those people!”

And the message that people of other races and cultures were lesser beings is one found thought the bible.

Later

LanDroid · Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: Kingdom?

Quote:
Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Was Jesus speaking the Truth when he said this? Had "the time" come? Was the kingdom of God near? I don't see how...

nickelplate416

There might have been a Jesus. However, I find it self-evidently implausible that Jesus as described in the Bible ever existed. It just doesn't make sense that someone would accomplish all these miracles and leave nothing in the way of historical records.

Edited by: nickelplate416 at: 1/23/07 7:07 pm

MaesterAuron151 · Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: Jesus the fictional character

Well keep in mind Jesus to the literate people would have been another common laborer turned Jewish revolutionary, and at that particular time not a terribly sucessful one.

Frank 013 · Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: Jesus the fictional character

Quote:
MeasterAuron
You'll have to elaborate here. What people are you referring to,

Romans, Rome’s enemies of note, scholars, criminals, historians, temple priests, governors, soldiers, just about any person who got attention during that time.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
what sort of records,

Census, Slave sales, historians writings, soldiers journals, execution records, criminal complaints, anything written by any one of Jesus’ followers that was dated to the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. Any kind of record dated to corroborate the life of Jesus.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
keep in mind to the Romans Jesus would have at the time been just another revolutionary who needs to get nailed to something.

But Jewish and Arab historians were also writing about events in their region both good and bad but never mention Jesus.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Did the Romans keep track of executions?

Yes, if Jesus was even 1/100th as popular as the bible said he was than there should have been a record, furthermore the events that took place before the execution were odd enough for the roman authorities to have taken note.

The Romans kept track of things as trivial as dog sales with meticulous accuracy so criminal records would be very thorough.

The Jews released a known murder and condemned an innocent man? This would have definitely been put to paper due to the sheer audacity of the act.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Of course, which makes it difficult to prove things either way since it greatly broadens the time frame we're looking at.

It broadens it by 4 years, hardly a great gap, but a gap nonetheless.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
I notice most of what you say comes with the tage "from that time period" what time period are we talking about?

The 30 or so years that Jesus was supposed to have lived.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Oh to answer my question. Most historians do think there was actually a Jesus. In fact the vast majority of them do.

But you forget that many never look at the true facts, furthermore most are reluctant to anger the Christian majority for they are organized, judgmental and condemning when their beliefs are questioned.

The fact is that most historians tread lightly when the subject of a historical Jesus is raised.

Quote:
Nickelplate
There might have been a Jesus. However, I find it self-evidently implausible that Jesus as described in the Bible ever existed. It just doesn't make sense that someone would accomplish all these miracles and leave nothing in the way of historical records.

You are correct there might have been a guy named Jesus that the myth was spawned from, but it is nearly impossible to believe that hordes of people in numbers so great that they fell one atop another just to get a look at this guy could have all just neglected to write anything down, or that someone witnessing the event did not take notice.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Well keep in mind Jesus to the literate people would have been another common laborer turned Jewish revolutionary, and at that particular time not a terribly successful one.

Well apparently he was not noticed by anyone literate. despite the claim that Jesus' followeres numbered in the thousands.

Even if the literacy level was 1% which is horribly low for the region and time period, there should have been several people among his followers who could have written something.

From the people at the temple where he supposedly toppled tables to the people at his trial, to the hoards who followed him, not one wrote a single word about this miraculous person or his deeds of compassion while he lived.

It was not until over a generation later that the first writings about Jesus began to surface.

In this way Jesus is much like Hercules, no evidence to support his life, the sun of a god and virgin mother, supposedly did great deeds, died horribly and was ascended to heaven.

So why not believe in Hercules? There is the same amount of physical evidence to support him as there is for Jesus. Wouldn’t it be hypocritical to accept one and not the other?

Later

MaesterAuron151 · Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: Jesus the fictional character

Quote:
The Romans kept track of things as trivial as dog sales with meticulous accuracy so criminal records would be very thorough.

The Jews released a known murder and condemned an innocent man? This would have definitely been put to paper due to the sheer audacity of the act.

But have the vast majority the records from this period survived? Or are we left with scraps from the violent decline and fall of Rome and subsequent conflicts in the region?

Quote:
But you forget that many never look at the true facts, furthermore most are reluctant to anger the Christian majority for they are organized, judgmental and condemning when their beliefs are questioned.

The fact is that most historians tread lightly when the subject of a historical Jesus is raised.

This is a common response of yours. I find it quite similar to a conspiracy theorist dismissing expert analysis of the Kennedy assassination balistics, or the 911 collapse as coming from people inside the conspiracy. Whenever educated individuals differ from what you're saying you always interject that they're just be saying it for social acceptance.

What you're talking about would be reasonable if it were that the majority entertain the idea that jesus might exist, or if we were talking about a slight majority like 55%. But out right denials of there being any historical Jesus are described as a "small minority". Besides acording to one of your other claims these historians should be mostly atheists, so why would the vast majority of them care what the Christian community thinks?

Quote:
Well apparently he was not noticed by anyone literate. despite the claim that Jesus' followeres numbered in the thousands.

Even if the literacy level was 1% which is horribly low for the region and time period, there should have been several people among his followers who could have written something.

Wouldn't writing something potentially lable them as a follower and thus another revolutionary who needs to get nailed to something?

Quote:
From the people at the temple where he supposedly toppled tables to the people at his trial, to the hoards who followed him, not one wrote a single word about this miraculous person or his deeds of compassion while he lived.

Were personal journals common at the time? How intact are the records of that period?

Quote:
In this way Jesus is much like Hercules, no evidence to support his life, the sun of a god and virgin mother, supposedly did great deeds, died horribly and was ascended to heaven.

So why not believe in Hercules? There is the same amount of physical evidence to support him as there is for Jesus. Wouldn’t it be hypocritical to accept one and not the other

I would entertain the possibility that Hercules was based off of a real person perhaps even a person with that very name. Same with Achilles, Hector, or Odyseus. I consider it arrogant to discredit legends and myths as nothing more then pretty stories. Even modern works of pure fiction are based on real events or have characters based on real people. For example Dr. Seuss' Butter Battle Book, is an allegory for the cold war. Bram Stroker's Dracula, is based off Vlad Dracula of Romainia and several other vampire myths and brutal nobles.

Human creativity simply can't create new ideas, we can only recombine old ones.

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:06 am Post subject: Re: Jesus the fictional character

Quote:
MeasterAuron
But have the vast majority the records from this period survived? Or are we left with scraps from the violent decline and fall of Rome and subsequent conflicts in the region?

This is one of the best recorded times in ancient history.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
This is a common response of yours. I find it quite similar to a conspiracy theorist dismissing expert analysis of the Kennedy assassination balistics, or the 911 collapse as coming from people inside the conspiracy. Whenever educated individuals differ from what you're saying you always interject that they're just be saying it for social acceptance.

There is a huge gaping difference between me and the conspiracy theorists, I am not refuting any expert analysis, there is in fact no evidence to support a living Jesus and there is evidence to support an imaginary or made up one.

It is in fact the experts that are in denial of the facts in this case. But not all, I will provide a list of historians who will admit there is no supporting material evidence for a historical Jesus.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
What you're talking about would be reasonable if it were that the majority entertain the idea that Jesus might exist, or if we were talking about a slight majority like 55%. But out right denials of there being any historical Jesus are described as a "small minority".

The number of people who are indoctrinated into belief does nothing to support the beliefs truth. Once nearly all people believed that the earth was flat, that did not make it true.

Another thing, what historians believe does not change the facts, there is no evidence whatsoever to support a historical Jesus.

Most people, historians included simply do not challenge the historical Jesus many are biblical scholars using scripture as a starting point, and even old history text books had Jesus in them. These historians have been tainted by belief long before they ever set foot in their first real history class.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Besides according to one of your other claims these historians should be mostly atheists,

I never said that most historians were atheist; I said that a good look at history and how it vastly differs from that of biblical scripture can make some people question the bases for their faith.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
why would the vast majority of them care what the Christian community thinks?

Because Christians have a lot of power in this country and in others, offending Christians (or any other religious group) can affect carriers, the ability to get grants, dig access and so forth.

I have seen (on the history channel) archeologists having to sign papers in order to get access to dig sites, the papers were to the effect that the archeologists would not release any information that seemed to differ from the biblical account.

You may live in a mostly tolerant religious atmosphere but Americans do not, if I claimed that I was an atheist at work that would likely be my last day I would be railroaded out very quickly. I saw it happen recently so don’t’ think I am exaggerating. The compassion and tolerance of Christians never ceases to astound me, but in a bad way!

Of course they have modeled their life lessons after those of a jerk so what should I expect right?

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Wouldn't writing something potentially label them as a follower and thus another revolutionary who needs to get nailed to something?

Not necessarily, Jesus up until the end enjoyed a good amount of freedom and respect, (according to the bible anyway) and there would have been no reason to assume any danger by recording the events witnessed.

Anyway this does not explain the local authorities completely missing the events mentioned even the events that they were allegedly involved in.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Were personal journals common at the time?

Very, especially solders journals and reports. We have thousands of historical examples from that century.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
How intact are the records of that period?

The records from that time period are very complete, the first century is one of the best recorded in ancient times.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
I would entertain the possibility that Hercules was based off of a real person perhaps even a person with that very name. Same with Achilles, Hector, or Odysseus. I consider it arrogant to discredit legends and myths as nothing more then pretty stories.

The possibility yes, but do you worship him as a god? Why just assume that these character names were from real people? Is it not just as possible the writers not wanting to confuse their heroes with real people just made up names?

Or is it arrogant to think of this as a possibility?

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Even modern works of pure fiction are based on real events or have characters based on real people.

We don’t worship those people and we recognize those personas as mythical/fictional, and in some cases can separate the historical from that of the mythical.

In the situations where we can’t we just accept them as myth, except for Jesus.

Quote:
MeasterAuron
Human creativity simply can't create new ideas; we can only recombine old ones.

That is exactly what Christianity is, a mishmash of older pagan, Hellenistic and Egyptian religions with the Jesus character taking up the roll of savior. Jesus might have actually been a living person but his deeds were certainly made up, but who knows the name itself might even have been purely fictional there simply is no way to know.

The problem is that we cannot separate the historic from the myth; we only have the fairy tale to go by. There is no support for the historical person so normally we would just say myth.

Unfortunately a very powerful and easily offended group of people would have a violent hissy fit if this were to happen.

Later

Edited by: Frank 013 at: 1/24/07 2:00 am

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:45 am Post subject: Re: Jesus the fictional character

Here is a small sampling of religious scholars and historians who agree with what I am telling you, I will bold some of my favorites.

Quote:
The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life.

-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

Quote:
It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.

-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)

Quote:
Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person.

-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT