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.

[Danmark]

The genesis of this topic is http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=30
An atheist perspective was enunciated in the OP there, that seemed to be as much of a misinterpretation of scripture as some Christians make to claim the authors of the Bible did not think of the Earth as flat, covered by a dome, or that the Hebrew God did not endorse genocide and theft to benefit the 'chosen people.'

Matthew 15 is very interesting chapter. In it Jesus employs two stories that have their humorous elements. The first is when he confounds both his followers and the Pharisees by telling them it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out, his words. The second is when he appears brutally sarcastic when he tells the Canaanite woman his 'bread' is not for the 'dogs.'

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.� 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,�[a] 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’�
What Defiles a Person

10 And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.� 12 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?� 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides.[c] And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.� 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.� 16 And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?[d] 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.�

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman

21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.� 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.� 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.� 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.� 26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.� 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.� 28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.� And her daughter was healed instantly.[e]

[tasteslikecorn]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

In the Hebrew sense of the word, Jesus was certainly a zealot, meaning he was zealous on behalf of God. Zealotry was also a first century Jewish political movement that sought to incite rebellion in an effort to rid the Judaean province of Romans. Jesus was also most likely a Zealot under this definition as well, even though his movement was apparently non-violent resistance. Obviously you meant "Zealot" in the modern negative connotation, but it's a term with a complicated and diverse history.

A reading of the first recorded Gospel, Mark, seems to support your statement that Jesus didn't speak of himself as being divine, as he went about his kingdom of God movement keeping his so-called "Messianic secret."

[Danmark]

I'm hoping others will contribute examples of Jesus seeking to honor the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. In particular I hope to hear from Jews on the forum or others who are conversant with the Talmud.

I'll suggest that the concept of the Eruv is something with which Jesus would have had no patience. I have only a minimal understanding of it, but the Eruv is a Jewish convention that arose as a reaction to the strict rules of the Sabbath or Shabbat.
The Jewish law about observing Shabbat effectively prevent almost any travel on that day since travel would involve carrying items forbidden to be carried on Shabbat. Today that would include eye glasses or car keys. The Eruv is a small symbolic shelter or even a wire suspended from posts, that functions as a ritual 'house' to allow more extensive travel. Wikipedia puts it succinctly:

An eruv accomplishes this by integrating a number of private and public properties into one larger private domain, thereby countermanding restrictions on carrying objects from the private to the public domain on Sabbath and holidays.

It is my surmise that Jesus would have dispensed with this strict interpretation and the convoluted ritual to get around it by saying something typical of him:
'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.' [Mark 2:27]

Jesus would have focused on the point of shabbat being to rest and relax and contemplate and honor God, rather than to be fearful of doing anything, or to devise ways around the strict interpretation of the law.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

In the Hebrew sense of the word, Jesus was certainly a zealot, meaning he was zealous on behalf of God. Zealotry was also a first century Jewish political movement that sought to incite rebellion in an effort to rid the Judaean province of Romans. Jesus was also most likely a Zealot under this definition as well, even though his movement was apparently non-violent resistance. Obviously you meant "Zealot" in the modern negative connotation, but it's a term with a complicated and diverse history.

A reading of the first recorded Gospel, Mark, seems to support your statement that Jesus didn't speak of himself as being divine, as he went about his kingdom of God movement keeping his so-called "Messianic secret."

You are correct, I meant the term in its modern usage. Whether he was a 'Zealot' in terms of the that movement 2000 years ago, I don't have a strong opinion. But I note that Jesus seems to be most concerned with the inner man, an almost Zen like appreciation of contemplation and the unity of man, rather than a political consciousness. It must have shocked the Zealots when he suggested that when a Roman soldier commanded a Jew to carry his armor one mile, to carry it two.
[Matthew 5:41*]

________________________
*See http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-41.htm

[Ooberman]

I'm hoping others will contribute examples of Jesus seeking to honor the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. In particular I hope to hear from Jews on the forum or others who are conversant with the Talmud.

I'll suggest that the concept of the Eruv is something with which Jesus would have had no patience. I have only a minimal understanding of it, but the Eruv is a Jewish convention that arose as a reaction to the strict rules of the Sabbath or Shabbat.
The Jewish law about observing Shabbat effectively prevent almost any travel on that day since travel would involve carrying items forbidden to be carried on Shabbat. Today that would include eye glasses or car keys. The Eruv is a small symbolic shelter or even a wire suspended from posts, that functions as a ritual 'house' to allow more extensive travel. Wikipedia puts it succinctly:

An eruv accomplishes this by integrating a number of private and public properties into one larger private domain, thereby countermanding restrictions on carrying objects from the private to the public domain on Sabbath and holidays.

It is my surmise that Jesus would have dispensed with this strict interpretation and the convoluted ritual to get around it by saying something typical of him:
'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.' [Mark 2:27]

Jesus would have focused on the point of shabbat being to rest and relax and contemplate and honor God, rather than to be fearful of doing anything, or to devise ways around the strict interpretation of the law.

Out of curiosity, how much of Jesus's stance against the "fundi's" of his day is a big deal because it was so pervasive, or because it's a convenient meme to tell after the decline and fall of the Jewish religion in general?

Maybe many people questioned strict adherence, and as the general population was becoming more Helenized, the clergy was forced to circle the wagons. Maybe there was a 'reformation' was happening, anyhow, and Jesus gets the credit for it after the fact?


It seems to me, one way to understand what people believed, or how they viewed religion then, is to look at the people now.

After all, the big story of 0-120CE Palestine isn't a religious squabble among religious zealots (not saying they were crazy, just wrapped up in their religious views), but the larger sweeping history of Rome as it ran roughshod over nation after nation.

[Danmark]

I'm hoping others will contribute examples of Jesus seeking to honor the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. In particular I hope to hear from Jews on the forum or others who are conversant with the Talmud.

I'll suggest that the concept of the Eruv is something with which Jesus would have had no patience. I have only a minimal understanding of it, but the Eruv is a Jewish convention that arose as a reaction to the strict rules of the Sabbath or Shabbat.
The Jewish law about observing Shabbat effectively prevent almost any travel on that day since travel would involve carrying items forbidden to be carried on Shabbat. Today that would include eye glasses or car keys. The Eruv is a small symbolic shelter or even a wire suspended from posts, that functions as a ritual 'house' to allow more extensive travel. Wikipedia puts it succinctly:

An eruv accomplishes this by integrating a number of private and public properties into one larger private domain, thereby countermanding restrictions on carrying objects from the private to the public domain on Sabbath and holidays.

It is my surmise that Jesus would have dispensed with this strict interpretation and the convoluted ritual to get around it by saying something typical of him:
'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.' [Mark 2:27]

Jesus would have focused on the point of shabbat being to rest and relax and contemplate and honor God, rather than to be fearful of doing anything, or to devise ways around the strict interpretation of the law.

Out of curiosity, how much of Jesus's stance against the "fundi's" of his day is a big deal because it was so pervasive, or because it's a convenient meme to tell after the decline and fall of the Jewish religion in general?

Maybe many people questioned strict adherence, and as the general population was becoming more Helenized, the clergy was forced to circle the wagons. Maybe there was a 'reformation' was happening, anyhow, and Jesus gets the credit for it after the fact?

I have no way of knowing how much the writers of the Gospels were affected by influences other than a desire to make an accurate record of events. The Gospel of 'John' of course is an exception. It is obviously written with a theological objective. What does stand out to me is how often his own disciples are recorded as not understanding his message. Matthew 15 is a case in point. Jesus' message seems not to fit either the legalistic Pharisees, or the militaristic Zealots. He must have had an incredible personal charisma, because his message appears not to fit any particular faction. Perhaps that is why he was killed and also why he has appeal to this day.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The affirmative of the debate is that neither the typical atheist, nor the typical Christian understand him or his mission properly.

Since we have no ability to confirm the writings, words, or notions attributed to Jesus, ain't one here among us can say we know what he'd have to allow in the way back when, much less in the here today, least not and show we've got it right.

I see tales of just another religious person, incapable of showing he knows the mind of God, made into an icon and little else, if even that notion approaches the truth of the matter.

[tasteslikecorn]

[Replying to post 7 by Danmark]

I think sometimes John the Baptist doesn't get enough credit for being the opening act that captured the Jewish imagination and set the stage for whomever came next. John's message that if the Jews were cleansed and returned to the desert, God would reenact the Exodus and deliver the Jews from the new Egyptians (or Babylonians if you prefer) was an incredible galvanizing movement. When John was killed, thousands of expectant Jews asked themselves "what's next?" We are told that Jesus was a disciple of John and it is also demonstrated that it was not a given within John's community that Jesus would fill the void, or else Jesus would not have been asked by other disciples of John whether Jesus was the heir apparent. John was seen by many as a second Elijah, but they hoped he could become a second Moses. Jesus stepped into some very big shoes. He then had to reevaluate John's approach and evidently concluded that God's intervention was going to be less of a hurricane, and more of a whisper, resulting in his Kingdom of God/The Way movement. By the time Mark is written after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, the author is trying to make sense of these two popular movements and what they might mean for the future of the Jewish state.

[Danmark]

From the OP:

The affirmative of the debate is that neither the typical atheist, nor the typical Christian understand him or his mission properly.

Since we have no ability to confirm the writings, words, or notions attributed to Jesus, ain't one here among us can say we know what he'd have to allow in the way back when, much less in the here today, least not and show we've got it right.

I see tales of just another religious person, incapable of showing he knows the mind of God, made into an icon and little else, if even that notion approaches the truth of the matter.

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.