Your worst Gospel analogy! John 11

[Thomas123]

John 11 The death of Lazarus

Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.”

The contrivance and the gall of it, simultaneously. The writer ,self-declared his intent from the start.

How do I convince you that this guy can raise himself from the dead after three days? Well here is a time when he raised a dead Lazarus, after four days interred.
Doubt me now?

Knock a temple and I'll rebuild it in three days!

Anything else you want done! This makes me cringe!
What is your worst one?
Thanks

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #3]


Hi Tam. Thank you. Of course you are right to point out that religion in 1st c Judea as every where and every when has a few bad apples in the barrel, like about 85% and these should be called out other than religion every when and every when crouching under the umbrella of sanctity and demanding that they be excused everything. In fact in my last forum, a discussion about James in Josephus led me to think that the knocking about that Jesus got at the hands of the Sadducees might not have been out of character for them.

Thank you.

However that is not really the point. While pointing out the shortcomings of the teachers of the Law might be well - intentioned and needed, anyone with a modicum of social grace would not have accepted an invitation to dine, polished off the olives and cheese, licked the plates, sucked the last drops from the wine -jug and then proceeded to blast the host with a denunciation that would have shamed a Scottish herring - seller with Turettes'.

If it is so terrible, why do you feel the need to exaggerate it? They had just sat down to eat. Have you considered that the rudeness might have been on behalf of the host (and his other guests)? We don't get an account of what the host said (at least not in this account). But it would be rude to invite someone into your house, then shame them for not following your traditions.

In the other accounts on this same topic (eating with unwashed hands), the other disciples are present and the disparagement is directed at them.

Perhaps by inviting him to dinner, he was being expected to then fall into place (perhaps there was some guile involved in the invitation?); speak well of them? But how could He do that? How could He even help them (or anyone else) if He did that? Some people can take correction when it comes a bit more gently. Some people need blunt and perhaps even what some might consider to be shocking or rude words.

In short, Jesus is not showing himself an admirable figure but someone you would never let over the door step again, never mind handing over your bank balance nd following him dragging a chipboard cross.

Aside from which, I have to point to the different placing and usage of these two passages in Matthew and Luke, signifying imported material not originally part of the Gospel Like the Lord's prayer.

That doesn't mean it is imported material. Perhaps Luke simply arranged these occurrences together in one spot.


Peace again to you.

I always like it when Bible apologists just make stuff up to try to explain away problems. One could reasonably suppose that this Pharisee and Jesus were not the only ones there. Why would not the 12 be invited, and friends or relatives of the Pharisee? However you have no business in accusing with no evidence the Pharisee of having said all sorts of nasty things to Jesus in hopes to excuse Jesus' staggering lack of common decency. But then Christians have never been reluctant to dish out accusations with no evidence and excuse their own rudeness (never you Tam ) as Righteous anger'. .

Please note that I never said "all sorts of nasty things" when I mentioned the Pharisee. We are not told what the Pharisee said. We are only told the response from Christ. Perhaps the Pharisee said nothing, but Christ knew - and so responded to - what was in his heart (and/or on his face). That was the case in other occasions, such as when He healed a man on the Sabbath, but the Pharisees and teachers of the law had been trying to find something with which to accuse Him. That is from Luke 6, an event preceding the event at Luke 11 (woe to you's).

On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. 7 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. 8 But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there.

9 Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?”

10 He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored. 11 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.

If Christ said something that people consider rude, keep in mind that there is also history preceding the event. The Pharisees and teachers of the law had been trying to trip him up before this time. Not to mention the fact that people who tell the truth are often considered to be rude. Though that just sounds like a way to dismiss an uncomfortable or undesirable truth by blaming the messenger for how he/she delivered it.

And it wouldn't matter, Transponder. If Christ went in and played 'nicey-nice', even in the face of guile or hypocrisy, someone would accuse Him of being two-faced (or perhaps just feared that he was insincere.) He would have helped no one by doing that; but he could have harmed some.


I realize that you said below that do not believe Christ said "nasty things" (though you might want to consider instead that it was the actions He called out that were the nasty things; He simply spoke the truth on them.)

But be of good cheer, my dear Tam for if you re - read my post you will see that Matthew has a quite different scenario with this being a denunciation of the ...hang on ... ...yes. In Luke, the Pharisee comments on not washing before dinner and Jesus, or Luke rather, imports the lecture on ritual cleanliness (which Mark does have) and adds the denunciation which Matthew has in the Temple (not at dinner) and to the Pharisees even though we know (but Matthew forgets) it is to the Sadducees that Jesus is supposedly talking. So while I'll concede that it does look like Jesus 'went away' from the Pharisees' house without eating and the other Pharisees plotted murder, I'm still arguing that we can't trust these scenarios anyway because the same material is used in different places and in different contexts and combinations.

Interesting to note that the account in Luke does not say that the Pharisee invited Christ into his own house, but rather just to eat with him. Whether it was his house or not, I do not know and the account does not say. I don't think it matters though... (more to come)

Which is why I think Luke and Matthew imported a lot (if not all) of their common material not found in Mark. It is demonstrable (I won't say obvious) that while the bit about cleaning cup and bowl is synoptic original material that all three use, the denunciation is not. And since Matthew and Luke use it in different places and contexts, we are looking at material separate from their Bibles (or whatever) and they had to decide where to put it. This happens again and again and it would be denialist to refuse to see there is a pattern.

It makes sense that Luke would have more, since Luke says himself that his writing is based on the testimony of multiple people, whereas Mark would be based mainly on one person (Peter), other than the few things he might have witnessed himself as a very young man.

I anticipate the apologetic of Jesus using the same argument art different times. No, because we never, ever, get the (postulated) Other occurrence agreeing with the other gospels. They are always looking like the same story in different places (1), and as the ex - detectives of the law will know, you keep your witnesses apart so they contradict themselves.

It could be that He said the same thing at different times. I do it. I'm sure you have done it. If the same situation applies, then why would the response be different? It could also be that the event surrounding the words got mixed up in the minds of some witnesses. Multiple witnesses to an event do not give the exact same testimony. Some see different angles than others; some see one thing but not another thing; some remember details wrong. Police are not looking for testimonies to be the exact same in every detail. It is the detail that IS the same that make that detail more likely to be true when dealing with witnesses.

So I never think in terms of Jesus saying nasty things. You and I can reason together amicably even if we disagree, and Gospel Jesus could surely argue his point without being vicious and he and his invites would have got their dinner.

Wouldn't that be insincere? "I'll be polite so I get my dinner, never mind the truth, never mind who this hurts, never mind the work I came here to do. I'm hungry." (and I never said that He never got His dinner; only that these words were given at the start of the meal, in response to the Pharisee and his reaction to Christ not ceremoniously washing his hands).

Please note that there are multiple exchanges before this time where Christ is what some would consider 'polite'. Perhaps the time for that was past. Perhaps this is what was needed to get their attention, to wake them up.


Some years back, my son wrote a letter to the principle (and other heads at his school I imagine). He did this on his own (which impressed me; he was no older than 13 at the time.) One of his friends and classmates was threatening self-harm. The school knew about this because my son brought it to my attention many months earlier and I brought it to the school's attention. But many months had passed and nothing had changed. My son decided to write them a letter, one with very strong language and swearing. He got called to the office and lectured for HOW he wrote to them. When he told me about this, I started out telling him pretty much what you said above. That he might have gotten his point across better if he had not used that kind of language. But I had to correct myself (and I told him so). He got their attention BECAUSE OF how he wrote that letter. Sure, he got a lecture about how he wrote it, but would he have gotten their attention otherwise (especially considering that my son has always been the mildest most easy-going person ever)? Past experience said no.

They may or may hot have done anything about the situation, but they cannot say they were not fully warned and AWARE of the situation. First with polite information, patience (patience that wore a bit more thin as each day passed and nothing changed), and finally a very strongly worded letter in the hopes that THAT would wake them up to the situation.

Focusing on Christ being 'rude' at a dinner instead of on the harm that the Pharisees were causing others, is like focusing on the swear language in that letter (something that got their attention) instead of the failure of the school to help a student in their care.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

I have to thank Tam for the passages that may indicate where Jesus got the idea that the forebears of the Pharisees (Luke) and all teachers of the law (Matthew) killed the prophets.

Thank you for the opportunity to go looking for them Transponder. Because the last time I went looking (in another discussion), I did not find them. I knew it was true if my Lord said it, but I did not find the backup from what is written the last time.

But it does have to be more specific than just Jews in general otherwise he's be blasting his own disciples as much as a synagogue - ruler or the Sanhedrin. It really has to be priests killing prophets, not Israelites in general (1).

I disagree. He is not holding people responsible for the sins of their fathers. (But the Pharisees and teachers of the law did that. Saying to that man blind from birth who Christ healed, 'you were steeped in sin from birth'; John 9). His words point out their hypocrisy, not to mention their self-righteousness. They claim they are better than their ancestors - that they would not have put the prophets to death (regardless of whether or not these are priests or lay people, both are their ancestors) in the same situation. Yet here they are doing that same thing - with Christ.

His words are relevant and directed at the people to whom he is speaking.


Peace again to you!

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #3]


Hi Tam. Thank you. Of course you are right to point out that religion in 1st c Judea as every where and every when has a few bad apples in the barrel, like about 85% and these should be called out other than religion every when and every when crouching under the umbrella of sanctity and demanding that they be excused everything. In fact in my last forum, a discussion about James in Josephus led me to think that the knocking about that Jesus got at the hands of the Sadducees might not have been out of character for them.

Thank you.

However that is not really the point. While pointing out the shortcomings of the teachers of the Law might be well - intentioned and needed, anyone with a modicum of social grace would not have accepted an invitation to dine, polished off the olives and cheese, licked the plates, sucked the last drops from the wine -jug and then proceeded to blast the host with a denunciation that would have shamed a Scottish herring - seller with Turettes'.

If it is so terrible, why do you feel the need to exaggerate it? They had just sat down to eat. Have you considered that the rudeness might have been on behalf of the host (and his other guests)? We don't get an account of what the host said (at least not in this account). But it would be rude to invite someone into your house, then shame them for not following your traditions.

In the other accounts on this same topic (eating with unwashed hands), the other disciples are present and the disparagement is directed at them.

Perhaps by inviting him to dinner, he was being expected to then fall into place (perhaps there was some guile involved in the invitation?); speak well of them? But how could He do that? How could He even help them (or anyone else) if He did that? Some people can take correction when it comes a bit more gently. Some people need blunt and perhaps even what some might consider to be shocking or rude words.

In short, Jesus is not showing himself an admirable figure but someone you would never let over the door step again, never mind handing over your bank balance nd following him dragging a chipboard cross.

Aside from which, I have to point to the different placing and usage of these two passages in Matthew and Luke, signifying imported material not originally part of the Gospel Like the Lord's prayer.

That doesn't mean it is imported material. Perhaps Luke simply arranged these occurrences together in one spot.


Peace again to you.

I always like it when Bible apologists just make stuff up to try to explain away problems. One could reasonably suppose that this Pharisee and Jesus were not the only ones there. Why would not the 12 be invited, and friends or relatives of the Pharisee? However you have no business in accusing with no evidence the Pharisee of having said all sorts of nasty things to Jesus in hopes to excuse Jesus' staggering lack of common decency. But then Christians have never been reluctant to dish out accusations with no evidence and excuse their own rudeness (never you Tam ) as Righteous anger'. .

Please note that I never said "all sorts of nasty things" when I mentioned the Pharisee. We are not told what the Pharisee said. We are only told the response from Christ. Perhaps the Pharisee said nothing, but Christ knew - and so responded to - what was in his heart (and/or on his face). That was the case in other occasions, such as when He healed a man on the Sabbath, but the Pharisees and teachers of the law had been trying to find something with which to accuse Him. That is from Luke 6, an event preceding the event at Luke 11 (woe to you's).

On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. 7 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. 8 But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there.

9 Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?”

10 He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored. 11 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.

If Christ said something that people consider rude, keep in mind that there is also history preceding the event. The Pharisees and teachers of the law had been trying to trip him up before this time. Not to mention the fact that people who tell the truth are often considered to be rude. Though that just sounds like a way to dismiss an uncomfortable or undesirable truth by blaming the messenger for how he/she delivered it.

And it wouldn't matter, Transponder. If Christ went in and played 'nicey-nice', even in the face of guile or hypocrisy, someone would accuse Him of being two-faced (or perhaps just feared that he was insincere.) He would have helped no one by doing that; but he could have harmed some.


I realize that you said below that do not believe Christ said "nasty things" (though you might want to consider instead that it was the actions He called out that were the nasty things; He simply spoke the truth on them.)

But be of good cheer, my dear Tam for if you re - read my post you will see that Matthew has a quite different scenario with this being a denunciation of the ...hang on ... ...yes. In Luke, the Pharisee comments on not washing before dinner and Jesus, or Luke rather, imports the lecture on ritual cleanliness (which Mark does have) and adds the denunciation which Matthew has in the Temple (not at dinner) and to the Pharisees even though we know (but Matthew forgets) it is to the Sadducees that Jesus is supposedly talking. So while I'll concede that it does look like Jesus 'went away' from the Pharisees' house without eating and the other Pharisees plotted murder, I'm still arguing that we can't trust these scenarios anyway because the same material is used in different places and in different contexts and combinations.

Interesting to note that the account in Luke does not say that the Pharisee invited Christ into his own house, but rather just to eat with him. Whether it was his house or not, I do not know and the account does not say. I don't think it matters though... (more to come)

Which is why I think Luke and Matthew imported a lot (if not all) of their common material not found in Mark. It is demonstrable (I won't say obvious) that while the bit about cleaning cup and bowl is synoptic original material that all three use, the denunciation is not. And since Matthew and Luke use it in different places and contexts, we are looking at material separate from their Bibles (or whatever) and they had to decide where to put it. This happens again and again and it would be denialist to refuse to see there is a pattern.

It makes sense that Luke would have more, since Luke says himself that his writing is based on the testimony of multiple people, whereas Mark would be based mainly on one person (Peter), other than the few things he might have witnessed himself as a very young man.

I anticipate the apologetic of Jesus using the same argument art different times. No, because we never, ever, get the (postulated) Other occurrence agreeing with the other gospels. They are always looking like the same story in different places (1), and as the ex - detectives of the law will know, you keep your witnesses apart so they contradict themselves.

It could be that He said the same thing at different times. I do it. I'm sure you have done it. If the same situation applies, then why would the response be different? It could also be that the event surrounding the words got mixed up in the minds of some witnesses. Multiple witnesses to an event do not give the exact same testimony. Some see different angles than others; some see one thing but not another thing; some remember details wrong. Police are not looking for testimonies to be the exact same in every detail. It is the detail that IS the same that make that detail more likely to be true when dealing with witnesses.

So I never think in terms of Jesus saying nasty things. You and I can reason together amicably even if we disagree, and Gospel Jesus could surely argue his point without being vicious and he and his invites would have got their dinner.

Wouldn't that be insincere? "I'll be polite so I get my dinner, never mind the truth, never mind who this hurts, never mind the work I came here to do. I'm hungry." (and I never said that He never got His dinner; only that these words were given at the start of the meal, in response to the Pharisee and his reaction to Christ not ceremoniously washing his hands).

Please note that there are multiple exchanges before this time where Christ is what some would consider 'polite'. Perhaps the time for that was past. Perhaps this is what was needed to get their attention, to wake them up.


Some years back, my son wrote a letter to the principle (and other heads at his school I imagine). He did this on his own (which impressed me; he was no older than 13 at the time.) One of his friends and classmates was threatening self-harm. The school knew about this because my son brought it to my attention many months earlier and I brought it to the school's attention. But many months had passed and nothing had changed. My son decided to write them a letter, one with very strong language and swearing. He got called to the office and lectured for HOW he wrote to them. When he told me about this, I started out telling him pretty much what you said above. That he might have gotten his point across better if he had not used that kind of language. But I had to correct myself (and I told him so). He got their attention BECAUSE OF how he wrote that letter. Sure, he got a lecture about how he wrote it, but would he have gotten their attention otherwise (especially considering that my son has always been the mildest most easy-going person ever)? Past experience said no.

They may or may hot have done anything about the situation, but they cannot say they were not fully warned and AWARE of the situation. First with polite information, patience (patience that wore a bit more thin as each day passed and nothing changed), and finally a very strongly worded letter in the hopes that THAT would wake them up to the situation.

Focusing on Christ being 'rude' at a dinner instead of on the harm that the Pharisees were causing others, is like focusing on the swear language in that letter (something that got their attention) instead of the failure of the school to help a student in their care.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Ok. Let's pass over the view I have that it's nothing Jesus (supposing he existed) ever said, which i won't labour, and take it as read. Whether Jesus was being invited to the Pharisee's house to the local sushi restaurant, the basics of politeness obtain. The story has it that the rites of cleanliness were not observed, which is the preliminary. The story only says that the Pharisee was 'astonished'. If he had been rude to Jesus, be sure it would not have failed to mention that. Jesus does not smile and explain the matter to him, he comes down on him like a ton of bricks. This does not make him look good, and attempts to excuse it to make the Pharisee somehow to blame doesn't look better. And, no it would not hurt Jesus or his reputation to respond with a bit of tolerance.

if we are going to look at other occurrences, I might cite Peter, horrified at Jesus' predictions of death. Jesus should know as I do that it was well - meant but snarls at Peter, whom he had just given the keys of heaven. Jesus does not only look acid -tongued and intolerant but downright unbalanced. Of course I blame Matthew's clumsy adaptation, not Jesus.

No, it will not do to appeal to misreporting or claim 'there was more'. Luke is pretty clear about the preliminaries. The Pharisee expressed 'astonishment'. Jesus goes into a tirade. If I had been a follower I'd have been thinking of going back to my day job. Also claiming that reports got mangled or there was more said leaves us wondering whether Jesus was even more awful than reported but Christian report cleaned it up a bit, hey? Why should this apologetic only work to make Jesus look good?

It is surprising (if I didn't totally mistrust Luke's write - up of the exchange) that Jesus would (in view of previous run - ins) would accept any invitation to dinner if he could see it turning into a denunciation or suspected that the Pharisee was setting him up. Two wrongs do not make a right. You refer to a situation in your experience. What you did not do is go to lunch with him and berate him in front of everyone. You would know better, I'm sure, that would only make you look bad.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

I have to thank Tam for the passages that may indicate where Jesus got the idea that the forebears of the Pharisees (Luke) and all teachers of the law (Matthew) killed the prophets.

Thank you for the opportunity to go looking for them Transponder. Because the last time I went looking (in another discussion), I did not find them. I knew it was true if my Lord said it, but I did not find the backup from what is written the last time.

But it does have to be more specific than just Jews in general otherwise he's be blasting his own disciples as much as a synagogue - ruler or the Sanhedrin. It really has to be priests killing prophets, not Israelites in general (1).

I disagree. He is not holding people responsible for the sins of their fathers. (But the Pharisees and teachers of the law did that. Saying to that man blind from birth who Christ healed, 'you were steeped in sin from birth'; John 9). His words point out their hypocrisy, not to mention their self-righteousness. They claim they are better than their ancestors - that they would not have put the prophets to death (regardless of whether or not these are priests or lay people, both are their ancestors) in the same situation. Yet here they are doing that same thing - with Christ.

His words are relevant and directed at the people to whom he is speaking.


Peace again to you!

It's arguable. I still don't see that historical ills done make descendants guilty. I know that cultural guilt is a bit of a Thing, but it's mean - spirited to belittle attempts to be better than former people. of course the Bible holds all people sinners from birth, even if they did nothing wrong, but afflictions were held (wrongly if we trust medical knowledge) possibly to be the result of personal sin or that of his parents, but hardly that of distant ancestors who might have knocked a prophet down and pinched his watch. Aside from the horrible idea that God was inflicting blindness on the man just so that Jesus could heal him, it is mean - spirited and unfair of Jesus to accuse the Pharisees or Sadducees of what their ancestors may have done. If that was the case, Jesus is guilty as a sinner of sins that David committed.