Fundamentalism

Vader

do you tink that when so much has changed since the writing of the bible that it is wise to interpret everything literally. Im not saying anyone here does its just a question.

I was just thinking that if there is a God and he gave his children free will that would he then not encourage us to interpret things for ourselves


(or even if you think back to the parable of the prodical son and how he was allowed to discover and learn for himself),

Sarky

My opinion: Extremism of any form is dangerous and counter-productive to the general good.

mr_angry

I think most of the new testament is fine - most of the parables Jesus told still bear relevance today, if you adapt them to the placenames and occupations of our own society.

The old testament, on the other hand, is really written for an uneducated society, and many of the volumes are comprised of what I would call "simplified examples" of the works of God. For example, I don't think the world was created in 7 days, and I don't think God created Man directly - there's plenty of evidence to tell us that we evolved from apes.

Nothing wrong with living life the way you want to, fundamental or not, as long as you don't force your beliefs on the others.

DadaKopf

This is a tricky question. It seems, now, that fundamentalism is more a historical phenomenon than an divinely inspired urge. Fundamentalism, thoughout history, has always emerged at times of great conflict, inequality and poverty. It is a social phenomenon. Unfortunately, the tendency in such circumstances, secular or religious, is a recourse to a perceived "purer" doctrine.

This may explain, for example, why Islam, Christianity and Judaism take on a fundamentalist interpretation in regions torn by conflict and deprivation.

Where does this leave biblical interpretation? I think the wisest position to adopt is the hermeneutical position. Here's a link about Paul Ricoeur's theory of interpretation, which I think is pretty good: http://capo.org/premise/95/sep/p950812.html

Ricoeur shows how the scriptures can only be understood symbolically, as distanciated representations of embedded meanings that may only be vaguely grasped through a subjective process of interpretation. There's no room for fundamentalism in biblical hermeneutics. He's a priest and eventually ended up fusing his hermeneutic theories with phenomenology and modern theories of communication and developed some early theories of postmoderism.

Here's a page on interpreting the Bible: http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/body.htm

mr_angry

The fact is, that when people are dirt poor, they are willing to accept the leadership of anybody who proposes a solution to their poverty. The only way to counter fanatical leaderships is to tackle poverty.

Vader

What I really dont like is the hypocracy that often comes with fundamentalist christian leaders. How can Bush honestly claim to belong to that sector anyway? (although its not him I have in mind)

Really I do have a lot of experience of the whole one bad apple thing....

Yoda

Fundamentalism is the view that the text is The Word of God and has to be interpreted literally. This view is often very naïve given the fact that few fundamentalists are able to read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. (Interesting difference with Islam; the Arabic text of the Qur’an is considered essential.)

So much of translation theory impacts on how the text itself can be understood; it takes a lot of study to read what is actually there. Doing so can increase the understanding of the text – but it also tends to mitigate against literalist fundamentalism, and to lead the student into an understanding of the symbolic nature of what's in the text.

The fundamentalists who read Genesis 1 as though it were a geology text, for instance, simply don't know how to read.

Manach

I will grant that those who take a strict literal meaning from the Bible are ni'gh unshakeable in their belief, which given how many translation changes that book has gone through, is quite a feat.

Walls

They don't just take a fundamental view of the bible or original text though, they view the world through fundamental views as well.

watty

Originally posted by mr_angry
I think most of the new testament is fine - most of the parables Jesus told still bear relevance today, if you adapt them to the placenames and occupations of our own society.

The old testament, on the other hand, is really written for an uneducated society, and many of the volumes are comprised of what I would call "simplified examples" of the works of God. For example, I don't think the world was created in 7 days, and I don't think God created Man directly - there's plenty of evidence to tell us that we evolved from apes.

Nothing wrong with living life the way you want to, fundamental or not, as long as you don't force your beliefs on the others.

The Hebrew for day is "Yom". This is NOT used in the Genesis account.

Most of the difficulties people have with the Old Testement are:
1) Taking things out of context
2) Not actually reading a modern translation, but a 2nd or 5th hand popular misconception based on King James or Vulgate versions
3) Lack of differentiation between "factual" parts (i.e. History) and "poetic" / Prophetic parts.

Genesis changes quite marketedly with arrival of Abram.

Also the Bible is neither meant to be a treatise on Science nor a History book though there is *some* science and a lot of History. It is about God revealing himself to Man.

Most "Fundiamentalists" come to the Bible with a pre-concieved idea of what it says. Overall the bible in a Modern Translation is MUCH more reliably the text than writings of Julius Caesar and most of it is in less doubt than what *actually* might have been the text of "Hamlet" (There are two main contridictory versions).

Someone off the street in Jerusalem or Hiafa can read the accepted text of the old testement directly (Apart from bits on Daniel which are in Aramaic) in Hebrew. (Not just Jews but many Christian and Moslem Arabs too). Try reading Chaucer in the original text. Most English speakers can't.


Amazing really.

Conclusion:
If the Bible passage is Poetic or Prophetic or obviously a related parable/allegory etc, then it should not be taken literally, it needs "interpreted". (This applies to ALL of Genesis before Abram/Abraham). If the passage is not one of these, then it should be taken literally, but within the textual and cultural context.

For example. Jesus in the Gospels does not actually be reported saying "I am God". However the cultural and religious context of the Pharasies meant that Many, Many things Jesus did and said announced he was both the Messiah AND God.
(Which was a shocker and Blasphemy to *THEIR* fundimentalism!)

He publically forgave sins. In Judaism then and now that is SOLELY God's perogative. No-one else can.

Early on he healed a man of Leprosy and sent him to the Priests. This was a "messiah calling card".

There are many many passages a Jewish Historian or expert Orthodox Jew today would recognise as SCREAMING "Messiah" or "God".

Almost all the first Christians where Jews. For a Orthodox Jew (or indeed anyone "educated") there are only three possible reactions to reading the New testement accounts.

1) Jesus was Mad (Blasphmey due to insanity)
2) He was Possessed with a Demon (Blasphmeny from the "Accuser" / Deamons)
3) He is the Son of God (=God) and the Messiah (=the Christ)

Jewish Historians actually study NT for elemnts of History about that period and no educated Jew today or ever in the past denied that Jesus Lived and did most of what is recorded.

It is only non-Jews that are silly enough to think it is all made up.

watty

Originally posted by Yoda
The fundamentalists who read Genesis 1 as though it were a geology text, for instance, simply don't know how to read.

I'm a fundamentalist of a different sort. I would agree 100% on your statement Yoda.

But I will argue that there really was a man called Abram that left Ur. That is quite a different style of text.


Daniel again is a book with real historical people, places and events (to be taken at face value, literally) intwined with Prophetic vision and Poetry.

The Gospels are for their time very historical narrative and not at all in the style of myth, legend, Allegory etc (other that the obvious stories related by Jesus etc).

The Epsitals are very much the letters of a well educated Greek speaking Christian/ Jew from a Rabbinc / Pharasie background.

Revelation is totally Prophetic. Obviously the Churches listed at the start did exist. Anyone trying to take anything "literal" from Revelationm is onto a loser. It is Chock Full of Old Testement allegorical imagary and "coded" prophetic vision. It would need reading in Greek, with reference to Hebrew of Ezekial and Daniel and Aramaic of Daniel and basically knowing the OT off by heart to get context of allegory and Prophetic vision.

There are NOT many good commentaries on Revelation. Also must "fundamentalists" have a poor or zero understanding of the whole area of Jewish Numerology.

Nevertheless some facts can be deleved from Revelation that agree with other books.

* Eventually their will be a final Judgement, and not just a punishment, but finally an end to "wrongs".

* Just when everything seems to getting really solved "world peace wise" it will go really bad (beginning of end). OK.. So Bush is NOT the Anti-Christ as he is making Wars NOT Peace!!!!

* There will be someone Really Bad who seems quite good. (This rules out people like Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Blair etc... they are all obviously bad from the beginning, or not bad enough or don't seem good enough


Anyone that claims to get anything very more specific is reading with his own preconcieved "fundamentalism". Most of the language is too symbolic. Compare it to Luke and Acts (which can be taken "literally")

Yoda

LurkingIcon said
The Gospels are for their time very historical narrative and not at all in the style of myth, legend, Allegory etc (other that the obvious stories related by Jesus etc).

Um, and the impregnation of a woman by an angel, and the star and three wise men, and things of that sort. And plenty more. There wasn't a stenographer sitting outside Elizabeth's house, now.

Sarky

the impregnation of a woman by an angel,

Shouting "It's a miracle!" instead of "I just couldn't wait to get married!" was probably a lot better for Joseph's health.

neuro-praxis

There are so many problems here I can't even begin to address them.

Ricoeur was the inspiration of such hypocritical fools as Andrew Furlong. Enough said.

Mary was not impregnated by an angel.

Jesus clearly said He was the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, the Son of Man and the only way to the father, the light of the world...shall I go on? Any net search will find you a dozen places in scripture where he claims to be God. That is, after all, why He was crucified. That was His crime: claiming to be God - blasphemy and punishable by death.

I am so tired of these misconceptions. There are too many to cope with. Go to a bible study or even a theological course. Learn. Disagree if you like, but at least learn about the topic.

Excelsior

Lewis, Professor of Literature at Oxford, expert in 16th Century poetry and the anceint myths, said this of the Gospels,

"I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion- those narrow, unattractive Jews, too blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them— was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this. Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it. And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time, as Plato’s Socrates or Boswell’s Johnson (ten times more so Eckermann’s Goethe or Lockhart’s Scott), yet also numinous, lit by a light from beyond the world"

Always a good idea to get our textual criticism from experts, as opposed to say, making it up folks. The Bible must be interpreted but there is a compelling case that must be listened to when we interpret it.

DadaKopf

by neuro-praxis
Ricoeur was the inspiration of such hypocritical fools as Andrew Furlong. Enough said.

No, not "enough said". Why don't you explain what you mean. Who do you have a problem with? Ricoeur, or Furlong, or both? If so, why.

All your other points were perfectly warranted.

neuro-praxis

Sorted in IRC, I think.

sanvean

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Ricoeur was the inspiration of such hypocritical fools as Andrew Furlong. Enough said.

So, because Ricoeur inspired the 'hypocritical fool' Furlong, Ricoeur doesn't need to be addressed? This is perhaps the worst, most inane, argument (and is usually used by someone who's argument is somewhat less than concrete.

Usually followed by something along the lines of:

I am so tired of these misconceptions. There are too many to cope with. Go to a bible study or even a theological course.

And while Jesus did indeed claim himself to be the Messiah, the way to the Lord, and while there are certain undeniable instances where the crowd recognises that Jesus is alluding to himself as God (especially where he gets stoned by the crowd after he says before Abraham, I am) it is interesting that in no passage does he say it explicitly. That's left for John to say some decades after the man himself passed away.

Yoda

Originally posted by Excelsior
Lewis, Professor of Literature at Oxford, expert in 16th Century poetry and the anceint myths, said this of the Gospels,

"I was by now too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion- those narrow, unattractive Jews, too blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them— was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this."

If that's C. S. Lewis, he's a Christian apologist, not a "disinterested" literary critic, in fairness. If it's not Lewis, well, I'd still disagree. The Jews blind to the non-Jewish world? How could they be? They lived there. No myths in Jewish tradition? The parting of the red sea and the talking burning bush seem pretty mythic to me. (I don't mean that in a bad way. Myth is important.)

Nothing mythical in the Gospels, though? Hard to credit. Angels announcing (whoever did the impregnating, Neuro-praxis), Angels appearing to shepherds, magic stars, kings or astrologers presenting the newborn with expensive gifts, voices from heaven, all manner of miracles.... You can find this sort of thing in any of the world's mythologies.

JustHalf

Yoda, no-one who would comment on such a thing could ever be called "disinterested". And Lewis talked about the Jews being "blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them".

If I recall correctly, Lewis was recalling a time when he was still an atheist.

sanvean

Originally posted by JustHalf
And Lewis talked about the Jews being "blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them".

Which is still unfactual. The Jewish religion absorbed just as much from the pagan world as did other religions. See the comparisons between Genesis and the Enuma Elish and Noah's Flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Also, you can see just how influenced by the pagan world the Jewish religion had become when you read the passages dealing specifically with certain (evidently popular) deities (eg, Asherah and Baal). Hell, even Israel indicates worship of a foreign (ie, not Yahweh) god.

watty

Originally posted by Yoda
INothing mythical in the Gospels, though? Hard to credit. Angels announcing (whoever did the impregnating, Neuro-praxis), Angels appearing to shepherds, magic stars, kings or astrologers presenting the newborn with expensive gifts, voices from heaven, all manner of miracles.... You can find this sort of thing in any of the world's mythologies.

I have read a LOT of mythology. Admittedly some Miracle and hard to swallow statements are made in Gospels.

But I would argue that they don't at all have the "flavour" of myth.

And "magic" as such is almost non-existant in the Gospels. In popular* sense, totally non-existant


*Earthsea books (Ursula LeGuin), Harry Potter, Worst Witch, Dennis Wheatly books, Stephen King etc. Or even the kinds of "miracles" assigned to many "Saints" by Catholic Church, or Mythic tales about St. Patrick (Who did exist, but certinally did NOT visit most of the places, nor do most of the things he is alleged in popular folk tales.

It is no accident that NO church accepts "The Gospel of Thomas" as factual or canonical. (Which I have read along with Tobit, Macabbees, Judith etc, some of which does contain historic events, but not regarded as Canonical -- Even the "Catholic" Jerusalem Bible distinguses the "extra" bits in it as not the same status as the rest).


Vineyards turn water to wine every year. Jesus did it somewhat quicker in Cana!

The Bible does NOT claim that the Egyptians where drowned chasing the Hebrews in the Red Sea (A mistranslation). It was the Sea of Reeds. This however while making the Hebrew crossing easier, makes the drowning a bigger "miracle". But it is Mediterrian coast and it HAS seen Tsumami due to volcanic/earthquake collapse in Greek/Turkish area. Not to hard for God to arrange suitable timing....

Anything we don't understand tends to be either "rubbished" or regarded as "Magic" or a Miracle.



C.S. Lewis even when an ardent Atheist, thought some people (especially "liberal" or "enlightend" Christians) talked a lot of rot about the bible. esp. the Gospels.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JustHalf
And Lewis talked about the Jews being "blind to the mythical wealth of the Pagan world around them".

---

Which is still unfactual. The Jewish religion absorbed just as much from the pagan world as did other religions. See the comparisons between Genesis and the Enuma Elish and Noah's Flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh.

No that is NOT what he meant.

And of course (Lewis points this out in one of his books), if the VERY distant events in the Poetic / mythic style part of Genesis (BEFORE Abram arrives on pages), did happen in pre-history, it would be odd indeed if other cultures, myths and ledgends did not incorporate them.

For example there are many untrue myths about St. Patrick. But we know he really existed and was really sent by Pope (Or was he still just Bishop of Rome then?) to sort out connection to EXISTING Celtic church (not to convert Ireland as is popularly believed).

Similarly echos of Christian truth in Myths or even other religions does not invalidate any historic events or revelation about God.

Yoda

LurkingIcon said

I have read a LOT of mythology. Admittedly some Miracle and hard to swallow statements are made in Gospels. But I would argue that they don't at all have the "flavour" of myth.

Eh? What does that mean? Narrative structure? Narrative style? Either is different from the content.

And "magic" as such is almost non-existant in the Gospels.

Eh? Well, either the the transformation of the molecular structure of water is an explicable physical event or it is "magic", surely. The "miracle" is either a "true" and explicable physical event, or it is a "myth", a good and inspiring story.

It is no accident that NO church accepts "The Gospel of Thomas" as factual or canonical.

What is your point? The Gospel of Thomas is a very important book; one commentator has described it as "Jesus untouched by the Church", which, historically, it certainly must be. It was buried at a period in time when Church "authorities" were trying to get rid of all the writings which didn't agree with what they wanted in their Canon. They were largely successful. We are fortunate that the Gospel of Thomas was hidden until it was discovered in 1945. As you know from reading it, it contains no biographical narrative, and no miracles. Just spiritual teachings. Powerful ones, too.

The Bible does NOT claim that the Egyptians where drowned chasing the Hebrews in the Red Sea (A mistranslation). It was the Sea of Reeds.

It claims that Moses parted it, whatever sea it was. (You're right; the Jewish Publication Society's 1985 translation does render it "Sea of Reeds"; the Jerusalem Bible 1997 renders it "Sea of Suf" (יַם-ס֑וּף ym-swf).)

neuro-praxis

For sanvean, from Mark chapter 14.

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[6] the Son of the Blessed One?". 62"I am," said Jesus.

[6]Or Messiah

You want to discuss Ricoeur, Sanvean, then be my guest. Tell me what you think of his symbolism theories that deny the possibility of non-delusional personal experience and I will tell you what I think of them.

I suspect you aren't too familiar with Ricoeur (and if that's the case that's both fine by me and also, I would think, quite lucky) but don't pick fights on subjects you aren't prepared to argue for.



edited for poo spelling

Manach

Even the "Catholic" Jerusalem Bible distinguses the "extra" bits in it as not the same status as the rest
Trent formulaised the Bible based on Church councils held at Hippo & Cartredge, and all section are canon, and are just as much part of the Bible as any other part of the OT.

watty

You have read the reports from the Concil of Trent and the preface to the Jersualem Bible then?

Manach

Gee no, regretfully I don't speak the languages which these councils were written in or have read through God alone knows how many pages. I instead relied on secondary sources, which quoted and paraphrase them and this source has been declared Nihil Obstat. I am not a biblical scholar, but in other academic fields this is acceptable, ie drawing info from non-primary sources.
BTW, I do infact have the New Jerusalem Bible (pocket edition), and no such mention exists

pooka

Hi folks,

I'm pretty much a lurker, and don't have time to replicate my thoughts across multiple bulletin boards, but I posted on this topic at

http://mikado.eeng.may.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6153

a while back. Second post in the thread. Warning: it's long. But it does have a fair number of references concerning the canonisation of Scripture by the Christian church.

Hope this is useful to you,

Cian

sanvean

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
You want to discuss Ricoeur, Sanvean, then be my guest. Tell me what you think of his symbolism theories that deny the possibility of non-delusional personal experience and I will tell you what I think of them.

I suspect you aren't too familiar with Ricoeur (and if that's the case that's both fine by me and also, I would think, quite lucky) but don't pick fights on subjects you aren't prepared to argue for.

I studied Ricoeur in college, but alas, haven't kept up with him. My point was not that I wished to discuss Ricoeur, but rather that your reasoning (that because Ricoeur influenced Furlong, then Ricoeur must be a fool) was flawed. You still haven't made a convincing argument as to why you disagree with Ricoeur.

Re: Mark 14 (61?): I would hope this isn't the most convincing evidence of Jesus' divinity. The Jewish religion had many different theories as to the characteristics of the Messiah. I am sure Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah, but I don't think he saw himself as God incarnate.

watty

Well the Jewish experts then thought what He did and said implied that.

And if a Jewish Expert reads the Gospels today, they still think that!

That is "part" of why they wanted him crucified. It was enevitable.

That is the WHOLE problem Judiaism has with Jesus (Yeshua), not that he claims to be the Messiah, but that he claims the Messiah is not just a man but God, in MANY of the deeds and says. But always obliquely so that only one well tutored would see the implication.

To the ordinary people and almost all those early Christians who were Jewish, he appealed on a quite different level.

In fact the un-mistakeable conclusion is that he wanted to provoke the Pharasees and Saducees. He left them no middle way.

They had a preconcieved Idea of what God would do for Israel and what the Messiah (a man) would be like. They had no space left by the end of his ministry. They had to either follow him as God made flesh as the Messiah (=The Christ) or reject him as a Blaspheming madman.

IF you don't accept that Jesus by almost all his Ministry claimed to be Divine, I can always look up all the passages that MOST UPSET Jews!

watty

Originally posted by Manach
I do infact have the New Jerusalem Bible (pocket edition), and no such mention exists

Check out a Study edition with Commentary. I don't have the new one. I have the original edition in two versions, and ordinary study version (big) and a more complete study edition (needs caution when lifting!).

I have Jewish commentaries on Ezekial & Psalms (in English with English & Hebrew texts side by side). It is interesting comparing those with Matthew Henry's Commentary on the AV as to how much he obviosly borrowed from Jewish Talmudic scholarship.

I must get the "New" Jerusalem Bible and compare it with my NIV and JB Philips.

Comparing differences in Translations in Ezekial:

NIV: " and the Scribe put a mark on the foreheads of the faithull " (approx)

Jerusalem: "a cross" (c.f. Ash Wednesday?)

Jewish Art Scroll Tenach series (in English): " taf"
(often the english text does not translate, but transliterate to English letters and then footnotes back to Talmudic times etc explain why. Like references to Ezekial are NOT translated "son of man" or "son of Earth" as in other versions (BOTH are correct) but always translitterated as Ben Adam as the translators / commentators regard the unusual construction too significat to give just either translation to!)

Taf is last letter in Hebrew alefBet or alpabet. It does not resemble a cross at all in any modern hebrew script I know.

BUT in Old Hebrew script the mark "X" is letter "taf"

In Hebrew "Taf" has also aways meant "mark" (In modern Hebrew a keyboard or typewriter is soimething like Taffeen .. a thing that marks).

So ALL three translations turn out to be saying the SAME thing. Amazing.


One wonders now indeed the origin of unlettered people putting X as their "mark" or expressions like X marks the spot!

Excelsior

What crime was Jesus convicted of by Pilate?

He was brought before the Romans by the Jewish priests on the accusation of claiming divinity, which was illegal as the Emperor was defined as a deity.

i.e.- He claimed to be God.

Yoda

Pilate convicted Jesus of sedition, because Jesus would not refute being called King of the Jews.

You might want to reread the story, Excelsior.

Excelsior

Its an astonishingly arrogant approach that you bring Yoda. It automatically gets people's backs up and gets them ready to heighten things into conflict.

You ask me to re-read the story but you should maybe admit that all you are extending here is your opinion about Jesus. You are trying a confidence trick on the readers of this board; if you state your opinions strongly enough maybe they will be passed off as fact. Yet, you just have an interpretation- like all the other hobos with faith, which is an interpretation.

In the accounts I have read, which are the most influential accounts, Jesus is killed because he refuses to defend himself against the accusation that he claims himself divine.

By that I mean that he refuses to deny that he is the king of the Jews. The king of the Jews is the Roman emperor who is a god. Therefore, I feel I don't need to re-read or re-assess my interpretation that Jesus was crucified on the charge of claiming divinity.

Yoda

Pilate convicted Jesus of the crime sedition, not of claiming to be a god. The text says so. Matthew 27. Mark 15. John 18.

I have views about Jesus, but they have nothing do do with the correction I offered here. You said that "claiming divinity... was illegal as the Emperor was defined as a deity", which isn't the case. That simply isn't in the text. The text doesn't support your interpretation. You might want to reread it, as I suggested.

watty

Strictly speaking from a Roman point of view, Jesus was guilty of nothing. Pilate said he found the man had committed no crime against roman law, only your own religious law. The preists had no authority to kill anyone.

The preists then brought forward the sedition idea (He claims to be King of the Jews, a secular threat to the Romans, sedition.) Also their supporters whipped up a near riot. Pilate partially for political reasons (previous religious riots had gone badly) agreed to go along with the sedition charge (even though personally beleiving Jesus innocent).

The Romans where not monotheistic emperor worshippers. They had lots of gods and allowed subjects a degree of religious freedom (then, not later) to worship their own God(s).

Jesus *DID* claim in many indirect ways to be divine and did not defend himself from that accusation, but that was NOT the basis of Roman execution then. It was an obviously trumped up charge that would never have stood in a Roman Court. Pilate even tried to get Jesus released (as was custom to pardon someone at passover), but the Priest's supporters led the chant for Barrabas to be released.

Pilate did not properly apply Roman Law, but any hypothetical investigation would have found no doubt that he took the safest route in a dangerous situation sacrificing one Innocent man to save many lives (Roman and Jew) that would have been lost if he had lost control.

Yoda deos have an "ax" to grind and may be a little confrontational, but he is right, from ROMAN point of view he was not Crucified for claiming divinity (But of course this *WAS* why the priests wanted him executed).

The Romans never sought out Jesus nor arrested him. It was the temple officals.

watty

Originally posted by Excelsior
In the accounts I have read, which are the most influential accounts, Jesus is killed because he refuses to defend himself against the accusation that he claims himself divine.

In a general cause and effect sense, yes this is broadly true. In a particular sense of the Roman Authority, no, the Roman law "broken" was sedition. The Temple "religious law" had no authority to pass any sentence, nor any punishment other than that a Catholic Parish Priest could hand out today.

I say "broken" as it is obvious from the text everyone knew it was a false accusation. Jesus had been very careful on that score, perhaps one reason his ministry obliquely claimed Messiahship rather than any statement as a outright statement would have been misconstrued (I.e. too many people looking for a "messiah" like Resistance Leader, not a divine person. Not many expect a divine messiah.).

Excelsior

Lurking Icon, I acknowledge that the Gospels are documents that must be taken on faith. As far as "historical" quests for Jesus are concerned, I side with Schweitzer when he said that particular booking office was closed.

Fundamentalism could be described as a faith that is unwilling to be questioned to the extent that its faith is no longer based on reasonable premises.

As un-PC as it is at the moment (Sunday Indo articles and all), I believe that the Jewish religious hierarchy murdered Jesus as he posed a threat to their power, dominance and wealth. Pilate went along with it as any reasonably cunning imperialist would- to please the masses.

From a Roman perspective I have no doubt that the charge of sedition is the one that was brought. However, the argument of the Jewish priests was predicated on the fact that it would be reasonable to believe that Jesus claimed divinity.

I don't want to get into pedantry with people here- I am certainly not equipped (yet) to go back to the greek and prove my point conclusively. I admit that I am borrowing from authority in what I write. I hope I have made it clear in this post though, that I don't want to convince you of my correct and incontrivertable position through argument. I have no axe to grind with you.

o sleep

this is *exactly* my point. if Jesus hadn't made oblique references to divinity (which I've no doubt he - or rather, the gospel writers, did) we wouldn't need this sort of debate. It's a bit of a contrast from Yahweh in the Old Testament declaring himself Your Lord and God. Jesus is one and the same, and yet makes no definitive statement along these lines. It's rather more in what he *doesn't* say (very convenient for an author who's attempting to demonstrate his own opinions on certain matters).

Yoda

What, qui tacit consentire? I think it's telling that Jesus doesn't make any such claim, and puzzling that so many people want to read that claim into what he did say simply because they believe (or want to believe) what Paul said.

Excelsior

Well at this point I bow out. I don't think that the Christians here are the ones suffering from fundamentalism as evidenced by the last post by Yoda.

You clearly aren't coming to this subject with any kind of objectivity beyond some vague emotional feelings about "searching for historical truth" or some similarly abstract concept.

Once again, I re-iterate that I recognise your opinions to be a valid interpretation. But they are no more a faith issue than my interpretation. The person of Jesus, regardless of your opinion on his claimed (or unclaimed) divinity defies categorisation as with any other historical figure. It is a faith quesiton.

Yoda

I took an interest in this thread because I've met a lot of "fundamentalists" who simply don't know how to read. I am not saying you are one of them, though I did suggest that it was incorrect to attribute things to the story which aren't in the actual text. Such as saying that Pilate sentenced Jesus to death for claiming to be divine. He didn't; he did it to preserve the peace in his administration, and, according to the interview, he didn't get Jesus to affirm either kingship or anything else.

Objectivity means looking at what is actually there, not reading into it what one wants to be there.

watty

Originally posted by Yoda
What, qui tacit consentire? I think it's telling that Jesus doesn't make any such claim, and puzzling that so many people want to read that claim into what he did say simply because they believe (or want to believe) what Paul said.

Rubbish. He makes the claim to be divine again and again. The writer of John's Gospel more explicity says (in mystical language) "The Word made flesh"

The Jews could be called "Hostile Witnesses" in respect of Gospel record. Overwhelmingly in Jewish reading of Gospels, Jesus *IS* claiming to be divine. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring every piece of contextual historical evidence and simply reading the text in a "modern-western" untutored in Jewish belief and context state.

Would you read Shakespeare or Chaucer purely with 20th centuary cultural/religious/political understanding?

Facing the Pharisees, Jesus asked, "Forgiving sins" or Healing? They and he KNEW only God gould forgive Sin. He forgives than mans sin, and then, almost as an after thought heals him because of their "unbelief".

Unbelief in what? His diviinty or ability to Heal?

Yes, Yoda. Read the TEXT. see what it says. Look up the JEWISH significance of many of Jesus acts. Why did he single out and heal a leper at the beginning of his ministry and send hom to the Priests?

What about John's Baptism of Jesus.

Christianity is centrally that Jesus *IS* God. This is why the Jews "chucked out" the early Jewish Believers, anything less, even a Jesus as a "messiah" and they could have continued as a "sect" or denomination within Judiaism. It is also the central dividing line from Mormons, Moslems and Jehovah Witnesses.

If I didn't see that the New testament all the way through all the Gosples, Acts, Epistles and Revelation claims Jesus is God, then I'd be better off a Jew.

This is not rabid fundamentalism, but "mere" Christianity. To continually come and faceciously argue in a Christian forum that Jesus is Not God, and the Gospels don't claim it (stating this opinion once is not unreasonable) is either Trolling or Proslytism for something else.

If you think the New Testement is very unreliable or corrupt, you may have that opinion, but to deny what the text says palinly and then tell others to read text is arrogant.

I'm not a Buddist and I do think that a lot of yoga is more about religion than health, but I don't fill buddist forums with a lot of self opinionated nonsense about the Budda (prince whatever his name was that gave up his riches etc, I know little about it). I won't even argue about "enlightenment" as I'm comming from a different direction and don't understands most of what I have heard.

But I have spent nearly 40 years studying Bible and 10 years or so undoing western modern preconceptions in reading the text. The writers were all Jews. (Even Luke the Gentile was a jewish convert before becoming a "Christian"). If you totally ignore the cultureal, religious and political context, then you can bearly be decribed as reading the text.

And almost everyone with an open mind and NO knowledge of Jewsih contect would find the New Testament, through and Through claims Jesus's divinity.

Yoda, you are distorting the text with your own anti-christian views.

Why are you such a regular poster in this forum? Is it becuase you feel the need to work off antagonism toward Chrisitianity or specifiaclly Catholicism?

watty

Originally posted by Yoda
I took an interest in this thread because I've met a lot of "fundamentalists" who simply don't know how to read. I am not saying you are one of them, though I did suggest that it was incorrect to attribute things to the story which aren't in the actual text. Such as saying that Pilate sentenced Jesus to death for claiming to be divine. He didn't; he did it to preserve the peace in his administration, and, according to the interview, he didn't get Jesus to affirm either kingship or anything else.

Objectivity means looking at what is actually there, not reading into it what one wants to be there.

Absolutely agreed. every line.

Goat bit...

But he was brought to Pilate because the Priests KNEW he claimed to be divine. It says so in the Text. That is why they wanted him executed.

Some in the Sanhedran though not just KNEW he CLAIMED to be divine, but they believed it too.

Some Catholics don't like this bit:
Jewsih arguement also is that only "God" can be without sin. Jesus is claimed in text to be born without sin. Nowhere is there in the text a claim that Mary, his mother was born without sin. A Jew told me, that if she had been, then she could have died sinless for mankind, (And effectievly could only be God, because only God is without sin).

Jews have difficulty accepting Jesus's claim. Paul calls the Gospel a stumbling block to the Jews (i.e. That Jesus is really God and not just claiming to be so) but Foolishnes to the Greeks (=Gentiles or non-Jews), (i.e. That someone can die and save mankind from sin, and rise again because that he is God).
Judaism totally accepts and understands the principle of the Gospel. "But can it really be that Jesus (Yeshua) is who he says he is?" Is the Jewish question (Not did he claim it, but can the claim be true). Many Christians and supposedly Christian societies over the last 1976 years (approx) have made that a hard question to ask and honestly answer for Jews.

Yoda

LurkingIcon said
Rubbish. He makes the claim to be divine again and again. The writer of John's Gospel more explicity says (in mystical language) "The Word made flesh"

This is exactly my point, about lack of attention paid to the text. The writer of John's Gospel is not Jesus, yet you back your claim that Jesus claimed to be divine again and again by citing something that Jesus didn't say. This is, well, I don't know. Dishonest? Misguided? Wrong? It suggests a less than rigorous care for the text.

What about John's Baptism of Jesus.

Clearly this is something that the writer of the Gospel thought important for his readers to take on board. It is not an example of Jesus saying "I am divine". He is certainly cagey about the question when it is put to him by Pilate.

If I didn't see that the New testament all the way through all the Gosples, Acts, Epistles and Revelation claims Jesus is God, then I'd be better off a Jew.

Actually, there are other options to understanding what being "Christian" is than that particular traditional view. Fundamentalism is, however, always a barrier to that, unfortunately, in my experience.

To continually come and faceciously argue in a Christian forum that Jesus is Not God, and the Gospels don't claim it (stating this opinion once is not unreasonable) is either Trolling or Proslytism for something else.

It is neither, really, and I didn't say that the Gospels and Paul's writings don't claim it. Jesus, though, did not, and I think that meditation on what he did actually say can be beneficial and inspiring to anyone interested in his ministry. What does it mean if we are all sons of men, and if we can do all the things he does and more? Those are things that the text actually says.

If you think the New Testement is very unreliable or corrupt, you may have that opinion, but to deny what the text says palinly and then tell others to read text is arrogant.

Relevance to this thread and my interest in it is the way in which "fundamentalists" make the text say whatever they want it to.

I'm not a Buddist and I do think that a lot of yoga is more about religion than health, but I don't fill buddist forums with a lot of self opinionated nonsense about the Budda (prince whatever his name was that gave up his riches etc, I know little about it). I won't even argue about "enlightenment" as I'm comming from a different direction and don't understands most of what I have heard.

Yoga is more central to Hinduism. While I have opinions about what can be found in a text (and I did study exegesis as part of a degree in the History of Religions years ago), I don't think that what I've been saying is "self-opinionated nonsense".

I do have an opinion on Enlightenment, though. Nirvana and the Kingdom of Heaven are probably both descriptions of the state of spiritual exaltation human beings can enter, and which both teachers (Siddhartha and Jesus) were trying to get their students to realize.

Yoda, you are distorting the text with your own anti-christian views.

I like Jesus just fine. I think Paul and the Church(es) have introduced a lot of impediments to accessing what Jesus was trying to teach.

Why are you such a regular poster in this forum?

I like the exchange of challenging ideas. Sometimes I like to present them.

Is it becuase you feel the need to work off antagonism toward Chrisitianity or specifiaclly Catholicism?

No, not at all. I like to try to make people think outside of their expectations. My experiences with Christianity (American Episcopalian Anglicanism in my teens) were all positive and fulfilling.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Yoda
This is exactly my point, about lack of attention paid to the text. The writer of John's Gospel is not Jesus, yet you back your claim that Jesus claimed to be divine again and again by citing something that Jesus didn't say. This is, well, I don't know. Dishonest? Misguided? Wrong? It suggests a less than rigorous care for the text.

This is a point of retreat. How can we say that what John wrote in the Gospel as Jesus' words are actually there? If one does not trust John when John makes claims as to Jesus' divinity, why should one trust him when he writes the words of Jesus?

You are left in a bind. If you trust that John accurately recorded the words of Jesus, why not trust the rest? And if you do not trust the rest, why trust his record?

You cannot make your case the way you are making it. You cannot make a solid argument based on a foundation which you yourself are calling shaky.

Originally posted by Yoda
I do have an opinion on Enlightenment, though. Nirvana and the Kingdom of Heaven are probably both descriptions of the state of spiritual exaltation human beings can enter, and which both teachers (Siddhartha and Jesus) were trying to get their students to realize.

Surely a Kingdom requires a King?

If I remember correctly, Buddhism denies the existence of such a figure, so the teachings of Siddhartha and Jesus are incompatible.

Please don't start claiming some crazy nonsense that links Jesus and Siddhartha in such a direct way. Jesus certainly didn't teach anything like Buddhism.

(If you want to discuss this point further, start another thread. Any discussion on this point, on this thread, will be deleted - it will split the discussion too much).

Originally posted by Yoda
I like Jesus just fine.

You don't like Jesus fine. You deny the accuracy of the only substantial accounts of Him. You know Him neither directly (through personal relationship) or indirectly (through reference).

llatsni

Originally posted by Yoda
What, qui tacit consentire? I think it's telling that Jesus doesn't make any such claim, and puzzling that so many people want to read that claim into what he did say simply because they believe (or want to believe) what Paul said.

NO...

Jesus does claim to be God, but not in the way that our modern english speaking brains would like. He DOESNT say "me = God"... but he DOES however use something much more profound and significant. Anyone could go around saying that they were God, but he chose to 'prove' it through his specific choice of words.

The "I am" he uses in the Gospel text below is the same as the comparitive text from the OT. This is a term always attributed to Yahweh, it means Yahweh alone is God. This use of "I am" shows a much more powerful and significant identification with Yahweh than simply him saying that he is God.


Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

John 4
26 Jesus saith to her, `I am [he], who am speaking to thee.'
Isaiah 52
6 Therefore doth My people know My name, Therefore, in that day, Surely I [am] He who is speaking, behold Me.'

John 6
20 and he saith to them, `I am [he], be not afraid;'
Isaiah 43
5 Be not afraid, for I [am] with thee, From the east I bring in thy seed, And from the west I gather thee.

John 8
18 I am [one] who is testifying of myself, and the Father who sent me doth testify of me.'
24 I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.'
28 Jesus, therefore, said to them, `When ye may lift up the Son of Man then ye will know that I am [he]; and of myself I do nothing, but according as my Father did teach me, these things I speak;
John 13
19 `From this time I tell you, before its coming to pass, that, when it may come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he];
Isaiah 43
10 Ye [are] My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I [am] He, Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none.

John 8
58 Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;'
Isaiah 43
10 Ye [are] My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I [am] He, Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none.

watty

Originally posted by llatsni
NO...

John 8
58 Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;'

Jews hearing THAT.... Wow. Lucky to not get stoned to death on spot. No-one listening or reading later (with Jewish context) whould hav ANY doubt that it is the same as someone in Grafton Street Saying

"Hey you lot! I'm God!"

Yoda can't have it both ways. You can't just pick the bits of the Gospels that give you an nice warm glowy feeling.

I know little of Buddism, but I thought that "The Kingdom of Heaven" as Jesus talks about it (a lot) and "Nirvanna" are diametrically opposed ideas, in sense that becoming "one" with a Family, (adopted, but indistigusabley treated to natural born members) and becoming "one" like a rain drop entering into a puddle are diametrically 0pposed ideas. (I'm not whatsoever suggesting that Nirvanna is like Hell or a puddle full of raindrops).

sanvean

Originally posted by JustHalf
This is a point of retreat. How can we say that what John wrote in the Gospel as Jesus' words are actually there?

We can do a number of things. Compare them to what Jesus is recorded as having said in the other gospels. Investigate his use of language, terms, references, phrases, and see whether these correspond to what the other gospels say. investigate whether we can date certain phrases and texts as being authentic, or at least older than the others

If one does not trust John when John makes claims as to Jesus' divinity, why should one trust him when he writes the words of Jesus?

One shouldn't. John's gospel, far more so than the other three, is an attempt at developing a theological understanding of Jesus. He has his belief stated in the beginning and then progresses the argument thencforth.

You are left in a bind. If you trust that John accurately recorded the words of Jesus, why not trust the rest? And if you do not trust the rest, why trust his record?

Not really. You are saying there is an either/or situation here. There's not. It can be degrees.

You cannot make your case the way you are making it. You cannot make a solid argument based on a foundation which you yourself are calling shaky.

It seems fine to me. He doesn't seem to be contradicting himself, and is arguing his point clearly and simply.

watty

Well I agree Yoda is arguing his point..

The type of Litary critism Sanvean talks about has always been dubious. Famously when foolishly applied to modern authors the authors have laughed at the nonsense produced. John isn't going to answer back.

In my opinion, yes John is more theological and mystical in Style cf Luke's attempt at a purely Historical account (and a creditable Job Luke does even in Modern terms cf Gilligan and The arms Expert, also "conviently" dead).

But yet Luke and John say the same things.

sanvean

Originally posted by watty
Well I agree Yoda is arguing his point..

The type of Litary critism Sanvean talks about has always been dubious. Famously when foolishly applied to modern authors the authors have laughed at the nonsense produced. John isn't going to answer back.

In my opinion, yes John is more theological and mystical in Style cf Luke's attempt at a purely Historical account (and a creditable Job Luke does even in Modern terms cf Gilligan and The arms Expert, also "conviently" dead).

But yet Luke and John say the same things.

You're confusing what I wrote with (for example) applying a marxist theory on the Old Testament. Or a feminist critique on Shakespeare. I would agree, very foolish. And you're right, Paul can't argue back to what historical criticism would apply to his gospel, but then he can't argue back to what discussion you are applying to it. And any attempt at understanding a text can be ridiculed by the author if still present to argue the case. it works both ways.