Religous debates and questions

If you want my own view on it, and it is pure specualtion far outside the parameters of my main bit- but about 6 years (approx) after jesus was born Herod the Great died. When this happened there was an uprising in Sephorris, the city less than 3 miles from Nazareth. The Jews succedded in taking it over and destroying gentile gymnasiums and places of worship. Eventually Rome ordedred the Legate of Syria in, he levelled the place and the ringleaders were crucified along with a hefty number of their followers. Antipas, Herods son rebuilt Seppohiris into the 'gem of Gallilee' it was in Jesus adult life.
I reckon Joseph was involved in the uprising and that he met his end when Rome responded.
Pure speculation on my part of course.


On the point of tradesmen v carpenter- i use carpenter but really I probably should say tradesmen as its not absolutely clear what sort of tradesmen Joseph was (at the extreme end some claim this even means a rabbi of some sort). For me Jesus family and their relatives would seem to fit in the lower middle classes of Galillean life- pretty much where you would expect a family run business to be. It might not have been carpentry, but it could just have easily have been. It seems to have been a living of about that level.

Interesting speculation!

All your talk of God, Gods and Godmen is quite disturbing. I'll pray for your Immortal Souls, shall I? As a worthy Eruvian, I trust I needs do it! Not that I hold much hope for your Immortal Souls. My prayers, you see, must be Plain-talking Prayer ... and if it were up to me, you'd be damned down to darkest fiery Hell!

Eruvians? Never was much good at geography. Are you the guys with the llamas?

You've never heard of Eru Illuvatar? {{{Heathen! }}}

If there is a God he better, a- have a good sense of humour regards me. Or b - already have a place booked for me downstairs.

I dont think I stand much of a chance otherwise.

odo banks wrote:You've never heard of Eru Illuvatar?

Of course I know of Eru Iluvatar {{I usually spell it with one L }}
I just wasn't aware that Eru had a cult called Eruvians. Can you tell a humble farmer a little about your rituals and sacraments (I don't suppose they involve llamas, do they?)

Where there's a Banks theres a Cult! (Damn left a typo in that!)

A religion is not a cult for a start, David! Though you make me think, you do. Perhaps that's what's wrong with you Forumshirans - you don't know your own religious tenets or stories! I should have realized sooner!

Let me think about. I have something for beginners somewhere --- "Eruvian Tales for John and Betty," or something similar. Leave it with me, David... I might be able to Save you yet!

Well so long as youre spurious tales of dieties are just for a couple of folks called John and Betty thats all right then. I don't even know them!

odo banks wrote:A religion is not a cult for a start, David!

I mean "cult" in the most respectable way possible, of course. "The word was first used in the early 17th century denoting homage paid to a divinity and derived from the French culte or Latin cultus, ‘worship’, from cult-, ‘inhabited, cultivated, worshipped,’ from the verb colere, 'care, cultivation'."

I might be able to Save you yet!

You're certainly welcome to try, especially if your cult involves good potluck suppers!

Blimey what's that coming up the Rushock Bog hill backwards? Why its David, back-tracking at considerable speed! And now what's he doing? Ahh, I see. Crawling!

{{It's called diplomacy, Petty. No point making war, especially if they're willing to ply me with food and drink! }}

{{{{If this 'drink' is buckie I'll be going up that hill like a crab. No hold on, crabs go sideways. What do you get for going sideways?}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{{What do you get for going sideways?}}}

Eternal damnation! Yes, Petty, Eru sees all - Eru SEES!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{{If this 'drink' is buckie I'll be going up that hill like a crab. }}}

{{{I'm hoping buckie is the sacramental wine of Eruvians. At least it's a theory that needs testing }}}

Ok time for the next bit.

Throughout Jesus ministry it seems he met with some opposition. The NT is not exactly full of details on who these people who opposed Jesus were. The Pharisees most commonly get the blame, they rarely have names, and there never seems to be a follow up to what they say. Nevertheless it is clear the NT is recording some genuine opposition to what Jesus as doing.
On the surface this is quite odd. John was revered for his call to repent before the coming of the Kingdom and we think of Jesus as doing similar, as well as healing the sick, speaking up for the poor etc. But if all he had been doing were these things there would have been nothing to object to. And there is no smoke without fire. So what was the fire?
Well lets take a look at the incidents in the NT and see what he was accused of first.

1. Jesus cures a paralytic with the words 'your sins are forgiven.' Scribes 'murmur against him' he is accused of being arrogant giving to himself the ability to forgive sins, it is blashpemous.
2. On the sabbath Jesus desciples pick grain as they are hungry. Pharisees turn up to cirtisize them. Jesus defends their actions by quoting scripture; 'the sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the sabbath' and 'the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath'.
3. Pharisses attack the disciples for eating with unwashed hands. Jesus responds with an attack on a pharisee practice to do with money. Jesus declares all food to be clean.
4. On a different sabbath Jesus cures a mans withered hand. The Pharisees are so offended they and the Herodians hold a council to decide how to kill him.
5. Jesus tells a man who wants to follow him but has a dead father to bury first ,' Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.'
6. Jesus dines and drinks with sinners and tax men, he is accused of gluttony and drunkenness.


Lets take these cases 1 by 1.

1. Curing the paralytic and forgiving his sins.
There is major problem immediately here. Forgiving sin is not prohibited against by any known Jewish Law or Custom. Jesus actual words are 'your sins are forgiven', the passive voice is used to imply by God, it meant 'they are forgiven by God'- it is so implicit that the God bit is automatically assumed. So there is no offence here in reality. Jesus does nothing which any Jew of his day would have intrpereted as blashemy. Honi the Circle Drawer claimed to know the mind of God and was not accused of blasphemy for example. John said of people there sins wre forgiven (meaning by God) when they repented and he was publicly popular. The account does not make sense.

2. Plucking grain on the sabbath.
The first striking thing about this tale is that the Pharisses rather handily turn up in the middle of field seemingly just in time to accuse the disciples of picking grain, this is immediately a touch implausible. What were a bunch of Pharisses doing hanging about a field? But lets assume for some reason they were. How bad is the offense here?
There are two things to take into account- (i)delibretly plucking grain is a transgression of the Law. (ii)The Law can be transgressed under certain circumstances.
The difference between the two is crucial as the first is a delibrate act to flout the sabbath law the other is not opposition to the Law just a good reason why you couldn't keep it.
Jesus does not oppose the LAw here as he offers mitigating cirucmstances for why it has been broken. He does not say the sabbath law is wrong, or does not apply. His defence legally is not very good however it should be said, everyone would agree the sabbath was made for man, but its a poor excuse for having a snack, its hardly a life or death matter here. But had he said they had been on pilgrmage with him and had not eaten for days that would most likely be an acceptable trangression.
Transgressions of this sort, breaching of the sabbath did happen and often. The rules for a lot of stuff were not clearly defined, and defining them was one of the things people turned to groups like the Pharisees to clarify for them.
I will give an example, it was forbidden to carry food outdoors, it was considered work. But in a small community on a day off having a big collective meal is the best use of food. What do you do? Cram everyone in one house? A Pharisee soluton was roofed paths between houses, thus food could be carried to other houses without ever going or being eaten outdoors, technically. it was no longer work ust moving room to room. The point is there were huge grey areas about exactly what constituted the rules about the sabbath, and there were often exceptions or work arounds to problems it caused like the one given.
Jesus disciples if they did transgress the law were defended by mitigating circumstances, it probably would not have held up before the magistrates and they would be told to go make a sacrifice at the Temple to make up for breaching the Sabbath.
In other words it was a barely notable argument about the sabbath absolutely typical of the period.

3. Not washing hands before eating.
This is another unlikely one. There was a hand washing tradition before eating (and many other things) among Pharissess, but not among Jews in general. Amongst everyday Jews some did, some did not. And more the Pharisses themselves could not agree, some held the hands should also be washed before touching the sabbath cup others that just washing at the start was enough. Again there is nothing here of any real substance. What Jesus counters with, an attack on a Pharisee practice, if true, woud be seen by all, including Pharisees as an abuse of the rule so would not be contentious either. The bit about Jesus declaring all food clean is worth some notice however.
If true this is a complete rejection of the Law. Saying one part of it the Law was not true was the same in most Jews eyes as saying it was all untrue.
The first thing is Jesus does not actually say it, the author (Mark) tells us he did, 'he thus declared all foods clean.' and this absolute statement does not appear in the same story in Mathew. The food laws were however very contentious subject matter at the time the gospels were composed and we know from Acts and Letters there were a lot of arguing about it. Such a blanket statement in favour of the position the early Church itself held, but in contravention of all Jewish Law must be viewed with some supsicion therefore.
Another reason to doubt it is that its hard to underestimate what a huge offense this would have been, one of the worst things Jesus could have done would have been to say he was speaking for God and then gone about trangressing Gods Laws. And there is no indication Jesus did not observe the Law. He attends the Temple, he fasts (its only the disciples who are accused of not fasting) he does not work on the Sabbath and his closest associates observe the sabbath immediately after he is crucified. In other words the history of events, the actions afterwards in the NT do not in fact support Jesus every coming out and saying something so contentious. It woud have caused the sort of outcry against him that could not have been hiden by the gospel writers, and there is no evdience of such an outcry. Most scholars agree therefore it is an injected piece reflecting the disputes and concerns of the early church at the time of composition not of Jesus own time.

4. Accused of blasphemy.
This is the most implausible of a quite implausible selection. In the story the only action Jesus performs is to sepak, he does not touch the man, or bind his hand or perform any action which could be construed as work. Talking is not banned on the sabbath. And if by talking you can make an ill person better know one is going to say thats a bad idea. The notion that this was the final straw which led for those who opposed him to seek his death is therefore ludicrous.
We have as a counter to this texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, from the Essenes who were the strikest of all Jewish sects and even their rules would find nothing wrong in Jesus actions here.

5. Telling a would be folower to let the dead bury their own dead and to leave his dead father to follow him.
This is the first plausibly offensive thing Jesus does in the Bilble. This could have been taken very objectionably indeed. The Jews were very particular about their dead. Being near or in contact with a corspe gave you corpse impurity for which you had to be cleansed before you could enter the Temple. And Priests were forbidden from going anywhere near a corpse.
However Jews were expected to get corpse impurty at some point within a year living in small communities. It wasn't a bad thing as such just something you had to be cleansed of afterwards. And even a Priest was expected if there was no one else around to bury the dead.
If Jesus really said this it is genuinely shocking, Jews were commanded to honour their father and mother, this included making sure they were properly buried. What Jesus is doing here is telling another Jew to break that commandment because follwing him is more important. It is also therefore open to accusations of arrogrance as well as encouraging a flouting of not just the Law but a Commandment.
It is unlikely this passage is an inventon as it is fairly uncomfortable but on the other hand it is unlikely it was something Jesus said more than once, clearly it never got the ears of the Pharisees or the Magistrates or Elders as its such a scandolous thing to say it surely would have had serious repurcussions, and it is not amongst the things he is accused of when he is finally arrested. Thats not to say however rumour and gossip did not carry his attitude to the ears of others as Jesus seems to have bult up a growing rumbling of opposition to himself and statements like these would help explain it when other accusations the Bible makes more prominant as the reasons do not stand up to scrutiny.
6. Sinners and tax collectors.
Jesus called a tax collector to be a disciple, his name varies gospel to gospel but we will go with Levi here. Jesus dines with Levi and he also seems to have dined with sinners. And presumably drank with them too as he is accused of drunkeness and gluttony as well.
Firstly it will be useful to know what people meant by sinners in Jeuss day- who were these people? Sinners were Jews who were outside the Law because they did not keep it. This was quite a broad group, it would include prostitutes whose trade was outside the Law but also to many minds tax collectors who fell under the term 'wicked' in psalms as they were seen to 'prey on the poor'. The term wicked used in psalms had by Jesus day been replaced by sinners.
The important thing is Jesus was associating with people who other Jews considered to be not occasionaly breaking the rules but fundementally outside the Law by their behaviour.
We can look to John the Baptist here for a good comparison. John also preached to sinners, he famously preached to a group of prostitutes and got them all to repent and give up their trade- and for this he was widely praised and it did his reputation no harm at all and made him even more popular.
So why was Jesus critised for seemingly doing the same thing? What was the diffrence?
The difference was repentance. John preached repent because the Kingdom is coming. Jesus did not, he seems to have made no effort to get the sinners he assocaiated with to repent, his message was dangerously different to that which John had used. John used the stick Jesus used the carrot. He told them even if they did not repent when the Kingdom came God would forgive them because he loved them even if they did not love him. And that following him would be enough.
This is a dangerous notion.
I want to point out that depsite the centuries of being told Jesus called people to repent the word repent only shows up in assocation with Jesus in the New Testament 4 times in Mathew (and one of them is actually about John) once in Mark and 8 times in Luke. Luke, as has been mentioned, is thought to also have authored Acts- the only other place that repentence gets a big place in the NT outside of Revelations. It seems Luke was big on repentence and wanted to emphasize it as much as possible. But even taking Luke at face value that is a total of 13 times Jesus mention repentance.
As a comparison he mentions the Kingdom 55 times in Mathew, 20 in Mark and 46 in Luke. 162 times in total in the NT.
The upshot of this is that the evidence points to Jesus s not in fact preaching repentance as part of his mission. No doubt he hoped the sinners would repent, but he does not seem to have told them to do so, just that God loved them anyway. No doubt he hoped this idea would bring about change in them but its a radical idea in Judiasm. It is hardly suprising it brought people out in critiscm of him.
John was friends with former tax collectors and sinners. Jesus was friends with people who were still sinners and tax collectors and he did not tell them they had to change. The Kingdom would come in their lifetimes, Jesus would be there ruling by Gods side in it and God would love them all anyway.

Again the charge of arrogance is open here. In the two most likely stories for why Jesus generated oposition, and the only two containing acts or statements that would lead to significant opposition,the sinners and leaving the dead, it is his over riding belief that his mission is more important than all else which leads to the opposition. More important than repentance and more important even than obeying a commandment.
Even in the story of the eating the grain on the sabbath, unlikely as it to be true, it has hard not to take Jesus defence that 'the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath', assuming he meant himself as not being a bit arrogant.
The underlying impression these conflict stories give is that it was Jesus certainy in himself and the improtance of his mission which was the root of the opposition.

Ok up next- his final week. what lead to the execution? Are the trial accounts realisitic? What were the charges?

This Jesus chap sounds such a trouble maker. No wonder those Roman hobbits got rid of him... I mean, hanging around with all those questionable folk of the lower orders, and defying those in authority - and suggesting they were hypocrites... That's not polite! ... Not the sort of tale we need in Forumshire, Mr Tyrant - not at all...

I suspect the authorities of the day were, um, similarly minded as your good self Odo.

That's my suspicion, exactly, Mr Tyrant. Obviously they did what was needed to maintain respectability. Just as they do in the Eruvian Church.

Mr Tyrant, did not Eru Iluvatar say: "Damned are they who point out the accusing Truth of their Leaders who sitteth at the front of the Congregation, not down the back, whereof sit the poor, the meek, all troublemakers, saving only those who Obey Faithfully the Front Pew Sitters."

Wise words, Mr Tyrant. Very wise.

reading the latest segment has led me to realize something: when Jews are annoying, it's usually because they are nit-picking. When Christians are annoying, it's usually because they are picking and choosing.

Good point Halfwise- Christianity its a pick and mix- and the bits they pick they claim as absolute truth and the bits they dont they conventionally just forget about and don't mention.

Christianity is definitely a Hodge-podge religion.

I'm not a big fan of religion myself. I am going to be one of those annoying atheists that argues every point that anyone with a religious belief tries to give. Not because I am not open minded mind you... but I do like a good arguement/debate and I have also never, ever found an arguement to support any such beliefs.

I aim not to cause offence... but if anyone would like to try and bring up a point that they think justifies their belief, then I am happy to enter in to the discussion!!

In an arguementative mood today and the pick n mix comments above spurred me in to action.