Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Joseph

[Danmark]

The theme of this topic is the exploration of Jesus, the Jew from Galilee and his mission. The theme borrows from Thomas Sheehan's 1986 book, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/thom ... rstcoming/

Rather than take the typical atheist perspective, the affirmative of this debate is that Jesus is an important religious figure who has something important to teach us today. Tho' I do not assert he was or is divine in some way different from other humans, he should not be dismissed as some crazy religious zealot. The affirmative of the debate is that neither the typical atheist, nor the typical Christian understand him or his mission properly.

[tasteslikecorn]

[Replying to post 7 by Danmark]

One of the few things that many biblical scholars agree on is that Jesus was probably a great healer. Not supernatural healing, but well-versed in the medicine of the day.

In the synoptic gospels, many of Jesus so-called miracles were metaphoric. For example, Jesus didn't feed the multitudes out of nothing, but in his Kingdom of God movement, what little food that was available came through the disciples hands and in the end, there was enough for everybody.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 7 by Danmark]

One of the few things that many biblical scholars agree on is that Jesus was probably a great healer. Not supernatural healing, but well-versed in the medicine of the day.

In the synoptic gospels, many of Jesus so-called miracles were metaphoric. For example, Jesus didn't feed the multitudes out of nothing, but in his Kingdom of God movement, what little food that was available came through the disciples hands and in the end, there was enough for everybody.

I heard a similar take on that story. That when the call for food went out, those who realized they had more then they needed shared theirs. This sharing shamed others to share as well. Then of course, as is typical in the retelling, especially with 'fish stories' a bit of exaggeration and embellishment filled the story out.

[tasteslikecorn]

[Replying to post 12 by Danmark]

Exactly, and the people that were reading the retelling had no problem understanding what the author was trying to say here. Of course today, with two thousand years of dogmatic build up, the story of the feeding of the multitudes becomes just another impossible to believe tale of the miraculous that pointed to Jesus' divinity. Of course, most people today don't ask themselves, why was Jesus taking what was already there and then there became more? Why didn't he make it appear out of nothing? If we didn't view it through the lens of church dogma, we should easily be able to see that what the story is meant to show is the power of a share-community.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

I should probably edit that sentence. What I meant is that I see what is actually written down in the NT is frequently distorted by all sides, to suit their purposes.

Such a condition'd then consider the NT as somehow authoritative, at which point, if only to me, we move into the realm of theology.

I'm sticking with my notion - absent some means of confirming Jesus ever uttered him an utterance, all we can do is speculate (not to mention the paucity of evidence the dude ever lived).

[Danmark]

My view is that is that Jesus' mission had to do with the 'Kingdom of God' being 'within you' in a sense not inconsistent with Zen Buddhism and other Eastern thinking, religious or otherwise. This is consistent with Jesus' effort to stress the spirit or intent of the law over the words. Much of this intent was lost when later generations ended up worshipping the messenger instead of listening to the message.

We see one example of this when he stresses anger and hatred as sinful, not just acting on that anger. We see this emphasis repeatedly in the 5th Chapter of Matthew.
One example:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."

When one gets angry, the prefrontal cortex is compromised. Ever done anything stupid when you were angry? Of course, we all have. That's because we actually lose IQ points (as much as 30+) when we're really angry.

Any strong emotion can lower our executive function and let the lizard brain have more control. I found this: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2 ... es-others/

"Angry runs on a spectrum, from irritation to rage. Shrand suggested creating your own anger scale from 1 to 10. For instance, his 10-point scale looks like this: “irritation, aggravation, annoyance, frustration, impatience, displeasure, anger, wrath, fury and rage.� Figure out your triggers for all 10 levels.

Pay attention when your anger surpasses level 5. That’s when our limbic system overwhelms the prefrontal cortex, Shrand writes in Outsmarting Anger. And that’s when we’re more likely to get into verbal or even physical fights.�….

What I found intriguing is that he puts impatience at number 5. Very helpful to have that as a sign post.
[lots of good stuff redacted]

Defusing Other People’s Anger

According to Shrand, you can deactivate another person’s anger by not getting angry yourself. In fact, doing so can connect you to others in profound ways. Take the following example. A stranger was putting up a yard sale sign on Shrand’s lawn. He was pretty annoyed, but, as he approached the man, decided to calmly ask him what he was doing. The man responded defensively.

But Shrand responded with a joke, which eased the tension. This led to a meaningful conversation. Shrand learned that this man – his neighbor – was having a yard sale to finally sell his wife’s belongings, three years after her passing. “His eyes welled with tears as he spoke, this man who just a few moments before had been a burly stranger engaged in a meaningless defensive posture,� he writes in his book.

I thought of this issue in regard to rule violations on DCR. I think many of our posts that receive comments or warnings are due to anger. I've noticed that if I am angry my typing is compromised. That's a good cue to wait, or at least to hit 'Preview' and read and rewrite before hitting 'Submit.'

[Danmark]

From Post 10:

I should probably edit that sentence. What I meant is that I see what is actually written down in the NT is frequently distorted by all sides, to suit their purposes.

Such a condition'd then consider the NT as somehow authoritative, at which point, if only to me, we move into the realm of theology.

I'm sticking with my notion - absent some means of confirming Jesus ever uttered him an utterance, all we can do is speculate (not to mention the paucity of evidence the dude ever lived).

I don't have a strong objection to what you write. I think the evidence strongly suggests there was a 'Jesus' character. The gospels may have embellished what he wrote, and included other stories about what happened. He may even be a composite character, based on other teachers as well. I certainly don't see him as an 'authority' in that he was God, or spoke for God. But, just as in the wisdom literature, and in particular the book of Proverbs, there is great wisdom presented, wisdom that we can all profit from by considering it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

I don't have a strong objection to what you write.

I note some have trouble refuting what I tell, 'cept for the old lady

I also note I don't think I've ever been able to refute a word you write.

...
But, just as in the wisdom literature, and in particular the book of Proverbs, there is great wisdom presented, wisdom that we can all profit from by considering it.

My problem here becomes one of the Jesus character so often being considered "God himself, overalls and all". Where good wisdom is presented in among horrible "wisdom", my concern becomes folks accepting all of it.

I'm reminded of the many Christians who present themselves as fine, honorable folks there on the sidewalk, but who then vote to restrict the rights of others, "'Cause God, or Jesus, or the both of 'em said so".


(I swear I ain't consciously trying to derail your thread, but consider my points here pertinent, if tangential.)

[tasteslikecorn]

[Replying to post 15 by Danmark]

Fantastic link...loved the anger continuum. I am a high school math teacher and one of my Calc students that is also on my tennis team shot me right to six or seven a couple of hours ago. I was already feeling impatient with some other students earlier in the day, and he just kind of picked up on the continuum where the other students had left off.

[Danmark]

From Post 16:

I don't have a strong objection to what you write.

I note some have trouble refuting what I tell, 'cept for the old lady

I also note I don't think I've ever been able to refute a word you write.

...
But, just as in the wisdom literature, and in particular the book of Proverbs, there is great wisdom presented, wisdom that we can all profit from by considering it.

My problem here becomes one of the Jesus character so often being considered "God himself, overalls and all". Where good wisdom is presented in among horrible "wisdom", my concern becomes folks accepting all of it.

I'm reminded of the many Christians who present themselves as fine, honorable folks there on the sidewalk, but who then vote to restrict the rights of others, "'Cause God, or Jesus, or the both of 'em said so".


(I swear I ain't consciously trying to derail your thread, but consider my points here pertinent, if tangential.)

On the contrary, Joey, your remarks are on topic. By emphasizing the divinity of Christ, the message has been diluted. The message of eternal life thru the 'God Jesus,' was too seductive. What was lost is that we can have peace on Earth here and now, by the same kind of denial of ego, and service to others that Jesus and other Eastern mystics have taught. I just wish I was a better practitioner of the art he tried to teach.

[tasteslikecorn]

[Replying to post 19 by Danmark]

Many of the misconceptions regarding Jesus can be blamed on the books of Matthew and John. Matthew's author, in an apparent attempt to not anger God by writing his name substituted "Heaven," which turned the "Kingdom of God (here on Earth)" movement into the "Kingdom of Heaven" movement, to be abused by tyrant after tyrant (no justice in this world, but you will get justice in the next). The book of John, written by an unknown Jewish mystic, is so difficult to decipher that it can be used to make almost any point in the hands of the manipulative.