Religous debates and questions

Sorry it took so long Lorient to get back on this point!

"I'm not sure where you get the idea that he didn't get along with his family"- Lorient

Mathew 13 54-58

And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch thtat they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenters son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren James, and Jo-ses, and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mark 6 1-6

Same as above with a few minor alterations- he heals a few sick before giving up and leaving is the main difference.

Mathew 12 46-50

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and bethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

None of this strikes me as good family relations. He is not believed in his own town. When his own family turn up to talk to him they are left outside and then publicly rejected by Jesus in favour of his group of mates. That had to hurt.
And when he begins his ministery in Mark 3, 21- 'And when his friends heard of it they went out to layhold of him: for they said, he is beside himself.'

Which is a Biblical way of saying they thought he was out his mind. And these friends who tried to stop him are not his disciples, he doesnt have those yet, these presumably were the friends he grew up with in his village.

The impression it gives me is his friends and family were opposed to his decision to go wandering the land preaching this dangerous stuff.
And during his ministry when he returned home to preach he was given a poor reception and publicly denounced and turned his back on his own family.

First two are more saying that Jesus was part of that common family, he was one of them. They didn't believe he had any authority, he was too common. Its not saying he was against his family.

I will get back to you on the third one.

Fourth one is also relatively easy, they did just as you said. His friend thought he was crazy. He had just ordained disciples and whatnot, out of practically nowhere, it is totally understandable that his (former)friends thought he was crazy. Just like today, you don't have everyone who conforms to the same ideas. He had followers, but its not like everyone liked him

I'm not sure about the rest of his family, because I don't think it mentions them after that point, but Mary and James both seemed to still have good relationships with him. I mean, James wrote testifying of Christ in the book of James (go figure) and I believe Mary was with him (mother Mary, not just the other one) even after he died.

Jesus was part of that common family, he was one of them.- Lorient

I read it quite the opposite. They were offeneded at him. They list his mother and his family and then say , 'are they not all with us'
Which seems to me to be seperating the community Jesus grew up in from Jesus.
They are offended at him and tell him even his won family agree with them. And Jesus in response says he is unwelcome in his own village and home. And he doesnt do many miracles their because no one believes what he says.

He had followers, but its not like everyone liked him= Lorient

True, but I think its part of a telling pattern- when he starts his friends think he has gone crazy, his family dont come back into the story except in a manner which seems less than positive, his father doent appear at all after his childhood, his mothers next appearence is when he is crucified- unsuprising she would still attend- he was still her son, even if they had fallen out- and quite probably like any mother would, what she fell out with him over was it ending up just that way, with him dead.

Did Paul not murder James on the steps of the Church?

Ok, when I said they saw him as a common man, one of them, I sort of meant that they didn't see him as having authority to teach them, he was a common man.

Back to the second passage in Mathew you mentioned. You're taking it very literally. When it says his "mother and brethren" it could mean his physical brothers, but, seeing how it is used elsewhere in scripture, it could mean anyone from his apostles to any of his common followers. Also, when it says disciples, it may not necessarily mean the 12, it could be (most likely) be referring to his followers, in this case his "mother and brethren". So he is not necessarily shunning them.

And I have never heard that Paul killed James. I'm not sure what happened to him but the best I can find (not in bible) is he was stoned. But I don't really know.

chris63 wrote:

{{{... but didn't see the jar for Forumshirans, Chris. }}}

Lorient Avandi wrote: I'm not sure what happened to him but the best I can find.. is he was stoned.

I've lost track of a lot of people like that too.

Stoned.

I am sure someone got murdered on the steps of the Church! But I cant find a reference to it beng James- of whom the end does not seem to be known as there a few different traditions as to what happened to him I found along the way.

I am afraid I dont put much trust in Paul- he is a liar by his own adminiton, freely saying at one point he will tell one side what they want to hear and the other side what they want to hear.
For me what we call Christianity would be better named Paulianity, as he was had more to do with the formation of the Christian Church than anything the real Jesus ever did.

"When it says his "mother and brethren" it could mean his physical brothers, but, seeing how it is used elsewhere in scripture, it could mean anyone from his apostles to any of his common followers." - Lorient

I see nothing in the passage to indiciate it is not meant literally- it makes perfect sense literally.
If in any other book or context you read the line, 'his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him,' you would, quite rightly, assume his bilogical family were stanidng out side waiting to talk with him.
Given this is established in the opening line the further use of family and brothers within has to be viewed in direct relation to the opening statement.
So when Jesus says in response 'Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!' it seems to me a clear rejection of his biological family in favour of his new spiritual one.
That the passages around it also state he was unable to perform many miracles there becuase no one believed him, and that they were offended by him and his childhood friends thought he had lost his mind, it only futher enhances the sense there was a disconnect between Jesus and his family and home village.
And futher to that his family never come into is Mission otherwise until he is dying. His father is never mentioned at all. Even when he dies. It is a different Joseph who provides a burial tomb even- his own father doesnt provide for Jesus' remains, a sacred duty normally in Jewish families.
It does not paint a picture to me of a man at ease with his own kin.

Don't forget Galatians 1:19 and other references of Paul where "the lord's brother" seems to be applied to James as distinct from the other Apostles or early Christians. It seems to have been a way to differentiate him from the other James's in the Church.

It seems from some quick reading that the real confusion comes in centuries later when the lifelong virginity of Mary and the celibacy of Joseph start becoming dogma, and brothers get harder to explain. Then reinterpretation becomes necessary to bring the gospels into line with the current teachings. The Church has had to adapt like that in almost every century I think, as it redefines itself to stay relevant.

Your last line there david is one reason why I find it all a bit ridiculous. That and the general idea of God.

Not really sure how people can trust in institutions that redefine what is right and wrong to stay relevant. Either something has been defined by god/his prophets e5c as right or wrong. You can't go and change it to keep the public coming through the door every week.

Lancebloke wrote:
Not really sure how people can trust in institutions that redefine what is right and wrong to stay relevant. .... You can't go and change it to keep the public coming through the door every week.

I don't think most people feel this way about their governments, or their financial institutions. I'm not sure why they'd want a religion that was inflexible from Roman times any more than they'd want a Roman governor under old Roman law, or to have to deal with old-school money lenders. Would you? I think it's actually the institutions that DONT change with the times that become obsolete.

At any time within any of these institutions there are people who are trying to consolidate power and people who are trying to overthrow the old power structure. There are people who are honestly trying to help other people, and people who are only trying to help themselves, no matter what service the institution provides. The details change but the processes stay the same. That's how I see it anyway.

Well, big differences between those things and religion. Governments should reflect the wishes of its people (in a democracy of course) and financial institutions are trying to make money. Both by nature need to change.

Religious organisations perpute to speak the word of god in some form or another. It is was defines what is right or wrong. How can that change? It's either right or it's wrong.

If God wants to remain relevant he needs to continue to adapt.

Lancebloke wrote:Well, big differences between those things and religion. Governments should reflect the wishes of its people (in a democracy of course) and financial institutions are trying to make money. Both by nature need to change.

Religious organisations perpute to speak the word of god in some form or another. It is was defines what is right or wrong. How can that change? It's either right or it's wrong.

God reflects the wishes of the people, Lance, but not all of the people, all of the time. God is like a Politician in many ways. Sometimes he's loving and caring - to please the peaceable; sometimes he's violent and aggressive to please the violent; and sometimes he's a woman, to please the ladies. Indeed, he's a Man for all Seasons --- except for when he's a Woman for all Seasons, that is. And thanks be to God for that. I mean, imagine if he had stayed that horrid Jehovah chap!

Lancebloke wrote:Well, big differences between those things and religion. Governments should reflect the wishes of its people (in a democracy of course) and financial institutions are trying to make money. Both by nature need to change.

Religious organisations perpute to speak the word of god in some form or another. It is was defines what is right or wrong. How can that change? It's either right or it's wrong.

I'm not sure I see the distinction Lance. Everybody needs to make money just as much a banks. Governments that don't reflect the wishes of the people can last for centuries, but governments that lose money can fail in a few years. Most wars that have been started by governments have been over wealth rather than principles. Not that many governments don't have noble principles at their core, but principles are expensive and you've got to pay for them!

Churches that don't fill the pews and the collection plates don't last long. There are always new charismatic preachers of the Word who are happy to steal another churches congregation, and church elders have to craft their message just as carefully as any other business if they want to stay relevant and keep their pews filled.

Also, I actually know of a few banks that do have principles, that have the financial security and well-being of their customers at heart (or so they say. I've noticed that many of them have been changing their message significantly in the last few years.) But I guess if a bank can't convince people to deposit money, they can't make money can they?

I see more similarities than differences. Both banks and churches are selling security, and if they don't market it in a way that inspires trust they fail.

Heck, even bank architecture often tries to look like religious architecture.

The more I think about this the less difference I see.

I meant the principles. Religion is supposed to be based upon the word of god and certain principles that have come from it/him/her. They shouldnt change.

Banks are based upon the needs of customers and shareholders. Their needs change and therefore so do the banks.

Banks are based on the needs of Banks (ask Odo if you doubt me! )

I'm reading Exodus at the moment. I'm yet again trying to locate it in comparative History terms! - yep, I'm doomed to failure again I'm sure! Anyway, it never fails to amaze how badly so much of the Bible is put together, and how much of it is ridiculous.

I think you're confusing religion with the institution of the church.

Religion is something you can study at the university, just like finance.

The church makes religious wisdom available to those who want it, just as banks make financial wisdom available.

Both institutions need to stay relevant to the needs of their customers if they're going to stay viable.

Many of both have failed by not adapting.

David H wrote:I think you're confusing religion with the institution of the church.

Religion is something you can study at the university, just like finance.

The church makes religious wisdom available to those who want it, just as banks make financial wisdom available.

Both institutions need to stay relevant to the needs of their customers if they're going to stay viable.

Many of both have failed by not adapting.

Religion will rejig itself. We'll never be free of it. (I think you've already suggested that, Dave). But no matter how it rejigs itself, it'll always be the same at heart - an essentially bad thing for Humanity.

remember to look at the lay religious movements of the medieval period. papacy excommunicated them
the orthodox clergy failed to meet the needs of an expanding urban and secular society
people turned to vita apostolica
the papacy then approved the humlati in effect approved the laity preaching


everything changes all the time

What Gypsy Gal said.

Orwell, I think the analogy of religion and finance speaks for itself.

Orwell wrote:
Religion will rejig itself. We'll never be free of it. (I think you've already suggested that, Dave). But no matter how it rejigs itself, it'll always be the same at heart - an essentially bad thing for Humanity.

Thinking some more...

If we're never free if it,
isn't it part of us?
At least some of us?
Sort of like penises?

Certainly there's been a lot of evil done by both,
but I'm not ready to concede that humanity
would be better without them.