Religous debates and questions

I don't want to worry you, Petty, but I think Odo has indeed got his point acrosss --- blasphener!

Nonsense Orwell. I was merely querying Eru's eyesight and offering up, by way of a focal point, a most robust piece of His creation to focus on.

Yes, Our Blessed Lord could well wear his glasses more often, I think -- I mean, surely he wasn't wearing ' em when He made Odo!

Burp.

Oh Eru, Greatly Respectable,
Where have you put your spectacles?

On a cloud, or behind a mountain ?
Deep in a lake in font or fountain?

In the fiery depths Underground?
Or far beyond horizons profound?

Perhaps within the ring of Uranus?
Or on a wet road aquaplanus?

Oh Eru, Greatly Respectable,
Where have you put your spectacles?

From "The Needlehole Litany. Psalm 7."

Wisey Banks

I suspect another Time of Utter Chaos is Upon Us!

I love chaos me. Burp.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Can Eru see this?

Eru MADE that.

Then He wont mind me showing it off then!

Are there any (serious) questions so far before I go onto the next bit?

Ok assuming there are no pressing questions on minds then!

So moving on with the next bit:

I want to talk about a bit of the gospels that scholars refer to as 'mytholigical'. This does not mean not true, it means simply that it involves a supernatural entity and therefore cannot be considered historical.
When Jesus begins his Ministry some time either just before or just after the death of John he goes into the desert to fast for 40 days and is tempted by the devil. This section is generally considered not to be true in any literal sense but I think to dismiss it would be a mistake. The authors did not include it by accident and I believe it tells us some fundemental things about Jesus the man.
But lets look first at what the NT says happened.

Following his baptism by John Jesus went out into the desert alone for 40 days to fast and pray. Whilst there he was met by Satan who makes several offers to Jesus: to prove himself by turning stones to bread, by throwing himself off the Temple to be caught by angels, and to accept dominion of the world. And in return all Jesus has to do is worship Satan. Jesus refuses on all counts quoting scripture as his replies.


OK so what can we tell from this? Well first we can assume its quite likely Jesus did begin his ministry with a period of fasting, prayer and contemplation. The 40 days part we can equally dismiss, not only because it would be have been a very dangerous thing to do for that length of time (and without water it would be fatal) but more so because 40 is a number qwhich comes up in the OT- in the Noah story it famously rained for that long, in the Exodus story they spent that long wandering. Its use here is almost certainly simply to place Jesus in the same tradition.

Now we have to take a look at Satan. In Hebrew the word means 'adversary'. And originally he was not an opponent to God but on Gods side- although he seems capable even then of the dodgy as the first time God asks him to do something it is to test Job's faith by being very unpleasant to him and making him suffer.
By the time of the Babylonian captivity of 597-537bc Satan has moved up in rank to be an opponent to God. By the time of the NT this transformation is complete and Satan has been given his own sphere of influence in opposition to God.
Judiasm did not develop in isolation. It was the first religion to be montheistic (excepting the shortlived Aten religion of Egypt) but it did not start out that way. We know from excavations of early Jewish homes that God originally had a female consort for example (her statue has turned up in over 90% of all domestic dwellings excavated from that time).
And during the captivity ion Bablyon the Jewish elders were prisoners in the most cosmopolitian city the world had ever known to that time- every religion was represented, shrines to different gods and goddesses on every street corner- it was a meeting place of ideas and it was during this time much of the OT seems ot have been comoposed.
There was also a religion which began earlier than Judiasm and which influenced every other rleigion in the middle-east over time and which was certainly present in Babylon- this was Zoroastrianism, which began in Persia. It had a duality, a good God and a bad God.
It seems when the Jews switched to monotheism they had a bit of a problem explaining why life was therefore often very shit and nasty. Over time the Zorastrian influence on religious thought seeped into Judiasm and Satan was slowly elevated into the role the bad Zorastrian God had held in their religion- with one important difference the Jews did not call Satan a God.
But the thinking in the context of the times and the influences of the time is quite clear in retrospect. Judiasm, just like Christianity, did not start fully evolved and worked out, it developed over time influenced by the times.

The most important thing about this temptation section is that it reflects events which happen later in Jesus ministry. Jesus does suffer doubts towards the end, he refuses to prove himself on more than on occasion by giving signs.
This opening to his ministry, which is in Luke, Mark and Mathew, although only two of them goes into details, sets up what sort of a person Jesus is.
He is dedicated. He has some doubts about himself but not in God, when he responds to the devil he does so not as himself but in the third person, quoting scripture. His religion is his shield.
Jesus' later reluctance to show signs via miracles as proof of who he claims to be is reflected in his refusal here to Satan to prove himself by a big display. I am inclined to think of Islam and Muhammed here who went out of his way to try to make people understand it was the message which was important, not the man who brought it. Jesus displays similar thinking here. He is not going to do this by being showy but by delivering his message. And his message, which was an extension of John's message, was that the end as prophesied in Isiah was at hand, now was the time to repent becasue God was coming within their lifetime to change the world.
But to Jesus the message was more important than his own ambitions. Ironic given the end result of the movement he started would be for him to be effectively deified over time.

It is worth giving some thought to the last temptation- that of dominion over the world. We know Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God was coming. He expected it seems that he would have a role in that and eventually he expands this to include his followers having a role in the Kingdom. Jesus refuses Satans offer by quoting one of the most well known passages which Jews were supposed to repeat twice a day, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and only Him shall you serve.'
But can we glean anything from this of what sort of Kingdom Jesus was expecting? He was crucified mockingly under the tilte 'king of Jews' and after his death his followerd dubbed him Messiah, meaing 'annointed one', the leader of Israel. And here, right at the start we have a story in which he is offered the world as his Kingdom.
It is notable that Jesus reply to this is to use his religion as a shield. He does not object to being made the ruler, only to having to worship Satan to get it. The message seems to be Jesus will rule but in Gods Kingdom not any other. This is an important facet to Jesus.
To do what he did, to go out on the road, to preach, heal, teach and gather followers, to speak to crowds and proclaim the world was about to be changed forever by Giod requires a certain amount of self-belief and even arrogance. Jesus seems to display this right from the begining. He was not just preaching that Gods Kingdom was coming in his lifetime, but that he (and by extension his followers) would have prominant places in it. We cannot be certain but it is possible it was this side to Jesus, this belief in his own prominant role in the kingdom, which gave John (and others, notably his family) their doubts about Jesus.
We will come back to the subject of what his followers expected later in the section on the aftermath of his death.

Overall then the point of this mythological meeting with Satan at the start of his ministry is to tell us who Jesus was. What sort of man. And the answer is dedicated, willing to endure hardship for his beliefs and not tempted by fame, fortune or power (which if his healing skills and orotary were as good as his reputation for them was he could have had) yet he is prone to suffering self-doubt in himself and his own ability to do what he believes God is asking of him. And he sees himself as having a pivotal role alongside his God when the Kingdom comes.


Right buckie break- back with more later, probably.

Nice Petty, but I dont think it was arrogance, more like certainty in his belief like you said. I think Jesus was the least arrogant man from what I know of him.

I dont mean he was just arrogant. Only that that sort of person, the sort who puts themselves out there to the public, requires a bit more arrogance than the average person in their make-up to do it. Jesus could have quietly got on helping the poor, healing for free, being a sort of low-key Mother Teresa of his times- but he did not do that- he went public, he gathered followers, he gave big speeches, he made some pretty arrogant sounding proclamtions about whole cities and his display in the Temple at passover is calculated for maximum attention. And ther eare clues in what those close to hi thought that point to his arrogance (but I will cover that shortly in the family section).
I think therefore highlighting that aspect to his personality is legitmate. I have no doubt it was driven by his belief however.

I think there is the arrogance of power and the arrogance of conceit and vanity, I dont think he had either, I think he was driven by a longing to build the Kingdom of god, (whatever that is), not for himself but for other humans. He was single minded and not even the threat of torture and death could stop him. He was unconcerned for himself, (something arrogant people always are, they care only for themselves). Its a bit like Monks and hermits, you could say they are arrogant cutting themselves off from the World to contemplate, but they have this inner need to join in with the spiritual (whatever that is).

I dont want to go into it too deeply as it comes up in the next bit I'm working on at the moment. But I know what you are saying, I just think there are aspects to how others view Jesus that hint at them finding his position to be open to at least appearing arrogant. Perhaps ego would be a better word, he had a big ego.

ps I also would not agree he was working selflesly for the Kingdom and want sit only for others. Quite the contary he puts himself at the heart of it.

I will follow for the moment roughly the chronology of the gospels (roughly because they dont always agree) and look at what Jesus did first having decided to set out with his own message.
It was worth again considering this message. Jesus began as a follower of the Baptist. We can assume therefore that he agreed in broad outline with what the Baptist preached- that the kingdom was coming, now was the time to repent.
So what was different about Jesus message? Why did John, even till the end voice doubt? Why did John's followers not join Jesus after John's death? Why did Jesus become such a contentious figure so quickly? If it was the same message as John why was it nowhere near as popular as John's message?
Well there is nothing in anything attributed to John which places John in the Kingdom. John does not seem to believe he will sit in rule in the kingdom. It is Gods Kingdom.
Jesus preaches something subtly different. He preaches that the kingdom is coming yes, but that he, Jesus and his followers will not only live to see that day, but they will all be given top jobs in it when it comes. John preached the Kingdom was nigh and all would be jusdged in it. Jesus preached the Kingdom was nigh and he and his followers would have positions of authority in it. This is quite a significant difference.
It is this belief in his own pivotal role that seems to be the main difference in the belief Jesus preaches and that preached by John. And I would also suggest it was this belief which prevented John's followers turning to him and which caused some of the resentment shown towards Jesus and his followers. Jesus in other words was a bit of a radical in his views because he put himself in the Kingdom ruling as a sort of viceroy to God.

The first thing Jesus does to start is ministry is to preach his case in his home village of Nazareth. It does not go well. We also get the names of his siblings in this passage. The crowd say to him, "Is this not the carpenters son? The son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with him?' Effectively his fellow villagers, the people he has grown up around are saying, "Who do you think you are? You are just Jesus the carpeners son. We know your family." And they refuse to listen to him. Jesus leaves saying, "A prohpet is not without honour, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

This exchange tells us a lot. It tells us that despite the Bibles attempts to put it beyond doubt that it was obvious to all Jesus was the Messiah, it clearly was not obvious to those who knew him. They seem to have found his message objectionable and that he was getting above his station as a carpenters son. (And bear in mind in Judiasm anyone could speak on the Law, so Jesus must have been doing something else to provoke this response. Was it that it was ridiculous for a carpenters son to claim he would rule in the Kingdom of God when it came?)
Jesus response is telling too. Its quite bitter, this no doubt hurt him. Presumably his own family did not even support him as he claims to have got no better a response 'in his home', and this clash with family comes up again later. Jesus even tells those who would follow him to give up their families to do so.
It is also worth noting that the crowd refer to Jesus as the carpenters son and as the son of Mary. There is no mention of Joseph. He drops out of the NT right after the childhood accounts and is never mentioned again. What happened to him we will never know. Perhaps he died of illness. Perhaps even he divorced Mary. We simply do not know. But what we do know is it seems Jesus at least partly grew up without a father in his life.

After being shunned at home Jesus headed towards the Sea of Galilee and Capernacum. He may already have had friends there, or perhaps he just leftr home and set off wherever he felt God led him. Either way it was by the sea of galille he called his first disciples, which I spoke about earlier.
The most notable thing about the recruiting of the first disciples is that they give up everything immediately to follow Jesus, with no guarantees, or even questions asked, about how they are going to sustain themselves or what their families might say.
Assuming the gospel accounts are more or less honest- Jesus recruited his first disciples from among the lowly fisherman on the Sea of Galille, and they gave up everything to follow him- then its probable they had at least already heard of Jesus. They may even have been former followers of John, who had many sympathisers who were not necessarily 'members' of his following. Or perhaps Jesus was just very persuasive and charismatic.
The gospel writers themselves seem uncertain why people just followed him and two of them include different miracles involving fish to explain why the fisherman were convinced enough to immediately drop everything and go with him.

By the end of the section on recruiting the disciples we have more than 12. Jesus would have had an inner circle, all the gospels point to this they just cannot agree on the names of those in it. The number 12 however was probably used by Jesus to refer to his inner circle, even when there were more or less than that number with him. It was representive of the 12 tribes of Israel and jesus belief that in the Kingdom God would retore the 12 tribes and therefore Israel (this is a belief in a divine act as 10 of the 12 had been lost to history for hundreds of years).

The gospels do agree however that in the inner circle were Simon (later called Peter by Jesus- which could be translated into the nickname 'the rock' or 'rocky'), the two sons of Zebedee, James and John (these two became prominant in the aftermath of Jesus death and were among those who formed the early church).
The rest of the inner circle the gospels do not agree on the names of and we have a variety of contenders, most of whom get no active roles beyond one or two lines.

Probably the most inrtresting thing about Jesus disciples as presented is that that they are often either not very impressed, puzzled, confused or doubting about Jesus. This is a bit odd. After Jesus does the miracle with the fish and loaves his disciples it is said 'did not understand about the loaves. But their hearts were hardened.'
The disciples often come over as a bit uncertain about Jesus and his claims, so why are they following him?
Modern scholars tend to say that the gospels overplay the uncertainy, the lack of comprehension shown by the disciples, but I think the tradition probably goes back to Jesus himself or the early church would have expunged it. My own view is that at the time when Jesus was preaching his followers did not always fully understand him, or necessarily agree with him. The passage in which he is annointed and favours Mary over his discpiles hints at tensions in the camp for example.
My own view is that thosed who followed Jesus and espeiocally those who formed the early church went through a bit of a conversion following his death. And that doubts and disputes they had with him in life were put aside. But i will return to this in detail when I get to Jesus death.



Right time for another buckie break. Two in one day. Havent done that in a while!

I have to say these last two sections were about the most revealing writing on Christ, Judaism and Christianity I've ever read. Well done Petty!

As far as the doubting apostles go, I always felt Tim Rice's text for JC Superstar was shockingly reality based for what was essentially a passion play. He has Judas turning against Jesus because the ministry has become more focused on the man than the mission: "You've started to believe the things they say of you, you really do believe this talk of God is true. And all the good you've done will soon be swept away: you've begun to matter more than the things you say."

It seems reasonable that Jesus may not have started with the idea that he and his followers would have a role in Heaven, but as his following grew his feeling of self importance grew as well.

Some very interesting points Petty. A question about John the Baptist, when Jesus was baptised by him I always got the impression that John knew that Jesus was the One he had been waiting for. As if suddenly he knew that this man was Gods chosen one? Also what do you think of the Gospel of Mary they found, do you think she was his most closest follower and could it have contributed to some tension between the men, them doubting him?

I think Petty has a point in disregarding the gospel's take on John's knowledge of Jesus. I think right after the baptism the 4th gospel has the sky opening up, light descending like a dove upon jesus, and a voice thundering out "this is my son, with whom I am well pleased!".

After which John seems to go "right then....carry on!" and goes on about his business as though not much had happened. Sort of lends doubt to the whole thing.

I will be doing a bit somewhere on the women in Jesus life Mrs Figg and in fact the general role of women at the time as a comparison.

On the point of John I am afraid it is of such obvious later composition that when you are studying just the histroical life of Jesus it cannot be trusted at all.
As Halfwise points out at the Baptism in the gospel of John God all but does a Monty Python and poke down a big finger at Jesus booming "He is the choosen one."
Which rather makes the whole bit with John questioning if Jesus really is the one from his cell a bit silly. If what the gospel of John says was true no one present at that baptism (probably a few hundred as these were mass events) would have had any doubt.
Plus John followers would certainly have transferred to Jesus after John's death, or at least a significant number of them, had John clearly endorsed jesus as his successor. It is clear however John did not do this, and worse he cast doubt over it.
As well as being very unlikely the Gospel of John does not match the actual events that happen.

Franco Zeffirelli's film Jesus of Nazareth has a lot to do with how I see Jesus, I was very young when I saw it and it kind of still colours the way I see Him, I know its a romantic view, but it seemed so real that I still have a hard time separating the reality and the Monty Python aspects of the story from this idealized image.

It is also worth noting that the crowd refer to Jesus as the carpenters son and as the son of Mary. There is no mention of Joseph. He drops out of the NT right after the childhood accounts and is never mentioned again. What happened to him we will never know. Perhaps he died of illness. Perhaps even he divorced Mary. We simply do not know. But what we do know is it seems Jesus at least partly grew up without a father in his life.

The carpenter's son quote is from Matthew, probably cribbing heavily from Mark, which I seem to remember is considered the older and more historical of the Gospels. Mark 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of...." Isn't it reasonable to assume that Matthew transferred the trade to his father so that the Messiah wouldn't appear to be a tradesman?

I have always assumed that Joseph was the carpenter referred to in Matthew, and that he'd lived long enough to pass on his trade to his son, but that he was not around at a time that the writers of the epistles and early gospels would have had any reason to know of him, (unlike Jesus' mom). His only importance to the writers was to try to tie the genealogy back to King David, right?

It can be hard to get the images the Church have put out there for centuiries out of your head. And more the narrative of a selfless individual whose only thoughts were for the poor and needy.
Loosing all that for an image of a young man burrning with religous passion and self belief who joins a religous movement, forms a break away movement, falling out with his family over it and perhaps becoming increasingly cocky as his reputation and followers increased does not sit so well alongside the Church interpretation of the Bilbe.

Halfwise I must rewatch JC Superstar- not seen it in years and years and to be honest I never payed it much attention then. Seems it might be worth a relook.

David- There are a few passages during jesus ministry in which his family feature (not least at the end) and it is only ever his mother and siblings present. There is no reason to leave Joseph out of these scenes narratively so the assumption leans towards him simply not being there. The reason the gospels don't contain anything about Joseph during Jesus' adult life time is most likely becasue they had absolutely no material about him to draw on. But to not even mention he was present by name , plenty of people, including some disciples, only get mentioned by name and dont say or do anything, seems to speak of his actual abscence. And Judiasm is big on the imagery of Father and Son, as is the NT. If there was any material between Joseph and Jesus to use they would have. And if Joseph had been alive during Jesus ministry it is likely that some story about him would exist.
At least that is how I intepret the information.

I agree it is highly likely Jesus was a carpenter same as his father. It was a good job to have, it would have payed a lot better than fishing, if not more than farming it was less back breaking work. Its worth remembering though outside of the Church insiting it is so there is nothing in the Bible outside of the birth narratives (which are highly suspect as I covered at the start) that Jesus was Mary's first born. James, his brother seems to have been the golden boy of the family and may even have been the elder. So where in the family Jesus was born would most likely also have effected what was expected of him and possibly the sort of trade or work he might be expected to go into.
Its easy to imagine his decision to give everythig up and go follow John was not met with universal approval within his family (although it may not have casued a ruckus as John was a cousin). But Jesus ability to go off and do his own thing does hint towards him not being the eldest sibling, who usually got the best education and the family business to carry on.

The most plausible explanation for me is that Joseph was a tradesman (some people have quibbled about the translation of carpenter) who lived with his family at least a dozen years after Jesus' birth to pass along the trade to Jesus, then either died or abandoned the family. Divorce would probably not have left Mary and the kids as a family, with Jesus practicing his father's trade in the same region.

Either way he wouldn't be a part of the story by the time of Jesus' ministry.