Well, this isn’t a problem when we talk about more modern figures like Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens, etc–since they were the polar opposite of feminist.
Did anyone here actually say Jesus was a feminist? Why can’t you ever stick to the point?
Jesus was simply a man who treated women as persons worthy of serious attention in an era when most men (notably Socrates) treated them as social inferiors, barely worth talking to.
And as Bart has said, it was very likely women who contributed most to the preservation of his memory, in the years right after the crucifixion.
godspell wrote
Since nobody here is a scholar…
This is not an assumption I would make. Relatively recently I had a brief but interesting exchange (to me anyway) with an East Asian studies prof on another thread about Buddhism. You don’t know who’s out there. But this is kind of a stupid point to be harping on. Do I have to be a tenured academic to know enough about a subject to have an opinion?
Stephen falls into the latter category. He calls it ‘minimalism’ but that’s the same thing as saying he doesn’t want to ascribe any positive qualities to Jesus if he can possibly avoid it…
I’m not attacking Jesus nimrod. I’m attacking your facile view of Jesus. But right yeah you think your facile view of Jesus is identical with the real Jesus. Got it.
I think the question is “Why are we like this?”
I’m pretty dang sure your answer will NOT be that the cosmos is dominated by demonic forces.
Jesus doesn’t know…he knows…He understands…I don’t think he believes…He is not content…little did he know…he wants…
Someday you really are going to have to let us know how you got so intimate with the thoughts of Jesus. Does he appear to you? Or do you just hear a voice in your head?
Yes, Stephen, I want you to answer that question.
I will. But first I’m going to answer the question you didn’t ask. The one I would have asked first. Namely, what do I mean when I use the word “original”? godspell you simply assumed that I meant someone without precursor, without influences, someone who sprang into being like Athena from the head of Zeus. No such person has ever existed. Everyone has precursors. Everyone has influences. But not everyone is original. There have been those individuals who digested their influences and shat out something rich and strange. Who provided us with a new perspective. Or a new way of thinking. Or made an association that no one had ever before considered.
It’s rather odd to approach the figure of Alexander this way because his influence was too wide to make a single value judgement. You’d have to be more specific. My understanding is that he was a brilliant military strategist and administrator. I don’t have enough expertise to say what he contributed specifically to those fields. Perhaps it’s best to say he was more influential than original?
So, given my definition of originality what was original about Jesus?
Jesus came up with a much more compelling version of ideas he’d inherited–he made it come alive in a way the Essene texts never could. He made it accessible to a great variety of people in a way John the Baptist never could. He made it something worth sacrificing and even dying for to an increasing number of talented acolytes, before and after his death.
You have no basis for any of these judgments. You assume that because Christianity turned into a major world religion dominated the West, it must have had special beginnings. You Jesus is just as much a Jesus of faith as Billy Graham’s was. More sophisticated perhaps but just as much a projection.
Okay–‘Nimrod’? You know he was a Mighty Hunter Before the Lord, right? 😉
You use so many words to say absolutely nothing at all. And once again, completely flub your answer about originality. “Digested their influences and shat out something rich and strange.” Meaning that you know it when you see it. Okay, but somebody else will see originality where you don’t–or not see it where you do. So you have nothing. Pure subjectivity. Which is where you live. You set a bar only you can see, then decide who cleared it on the basis of personal likes or dislikes.
And you are the one assuming here. My feeling about Jesus’ originality stems from words and behaviors we have good reason to believe are his. Can we know for a fact? No, and neither can we know about Alexander. But this is history, and there is always an element of guesswork involved. It seems a reasonable guess that someone that inspiring was, in fact, an original. You’re free to disagree, but guess what? You just confirmed my guess about you by bringing up Rev. Graham! This is all about you rebelling against your own background. You don’t want to admit it, but you can’t help revealing it. The more you gab away, the clearer your prejudices become. And your pretensions.
You’re wary of getting into Alexander, because you don’t know much, and don’t want to get caught out on the facts. I’m no expert myself. But I’ve read overviews of Greek history that deal with him. His life story, as we have it, sounds like something a Hollywood screenwriter on drugs thought up (I’m not trying to say anything bad about Oliver Stone here). Probably a lot of it is based on fact, and all of it is embellished. Unquestionably, he had influences, like his father Philip, Aristotle, etc. And he did some fairly interesting things with those influences. You could easily make an argument for him being original, but in truth, conquering stuff is a pretty old game. And how hard is it to cut a rope with a sword?
Jesus basically conquered a vastly larger area of the world with ideas. His ideas, filtered through others, over time and space. Which were originally other people’s ideas, filtered through him, ditto. That’s how it works. That’s how it always works. You know that. You refuse to accept it applies to him. For purely emotional reasons. As you will reveal yet again, when you respond (and yet fail to respond).
I suppose it’s partly because you were raised to think of him as God (therefore the source of everything), and then realized he wasn’t. For me, that was liberating–I could finally know him as a person. And realize he was not less, but rather much more than the plaster statue I’d been raised with. That he was someone who asked vital enduring questions about the way the world is, the way people are, and how we could do better. I do allow for the mythology, and I allow for the prejudices he would have inherited (as do we all), and when I do all that, I see a man worth knowing about. I’m sorry you don’t.
I do, in fact, assume nobody posting on this forum is a professional scholar of history. Perhaps at some point in time. I’ve only been participating here a relatively short while. And in a short while, I’ll stop. Because this is just too easy. 😀
Hngerhman said
Jesus wanted people to live Kingdom lives now. How does one distinguish the rationale for this teaching being: (a) live Kingdom lives to gain admittance to the Kingdom when it comes, vs. (b) it will help usher in (in a relevant way) the Kingdom itself? Not mutually exclusive, but (b) is the one I don’t yet have my finger on.
This is good question
probably worth a new topic
Dr Ehrman seems to be holder of the (a) thesis, and I think rejects (b)
this is also very odd to me, as I know nothing in earlier scripture that implies anything of the sort
in fact I would encourage to you ask him this exact question and see how he responds
[i asked him something similar that is why I think he rejects (b)]
Let’s say you and other people live as if the Kingdom is here–but you are under the thumb of people who will never live that way, because power and wealth have corrupted them. If the Kingdom could come about simply by people of good will living together in peace, it would have come long ago. Jesus rejected, I believe, the notion that human society could ever rid itself of evil and injustice simply through good behavior by those who were inclined to it. Something had to force the change. Under the influence of Jewish Apocalyptic thinking, he developed his notion of how that would occur, similar to but probably also different from John’s.
But of course his daily existence was (b), not (a). (a) was never going to happen. There’s a difference between theory and praxis. They can often be at odds with each other. What we do, and what we think. And Jesus did tend to be of the ‘actions speak louder than words’ school. So watch what he does. That’s a good policy to follow in all things that involve human beings.
godspell said
Let’s say you and other people live as if the Kingdom is here–but you are under the thumb of people who will never live that way, because power and wealth have corrupted them. If the Kingdom could come about simply by people of good will living together in peace, it would have come long ago.
that sounds very logical/reasonable to me but is not the question
rather whether
. . . Jesus rejected, , the notion[s above]
I think to make that determination you would go to the sources. Is there anywhere in Gospels Jesus says he rejects that?
——–
secondly as
Hngerhman said
.(b) . [people’s actions] help usher in [with God] (in a relevant way) the Kingdom itself
not simply
.. that human society could ever rid itself of evil and injustice simply through good behavior by those who were inclined to it.
Again, look to actions, more than words. Jesus was not setting up communes where his followers lived apart from others. He was proselytizing, but for what? He had no intention of founding a new religious institution. His disciples lived hard lives of constant traveling, dependent on others for food and shelter, under threat from bandits and people who simply didn’t like what they had to say. What for? For the purpose of finding as many lost sheep as possible. Why? Because the time was near. But people being the way they are–all these terrible things happening–how could he have thought the Kingdom was coming soon? Unless it was going to happen regardless of how most people behaved.
Jesus may believe anyone can be saved, but he doesn’t think everyone will be. Many called, few chosen. Meaning that he can’t believe the Kingdom will happen simply because all or even most people behave as if it has come. Most never will behave that way. But find all those who are willing to try. As many as you can, anyhow. God will find the rest.
godspell: “Let’s say you and other people live as if the Kingdom is here…”
In Dr. Ehrman’s Triumph of Christianity, he says, “The ancient triumph of Christianity proved to be the single greatest cultural transformation our world has ever seen.”
Prior to this change, it was a culture of dominance, those with power expected to assert their will over those who were weaker. Rulers were to dominate their subjects, patrons their clients, masters their slaves, men their women. It was the commonsense, millennia-old view that virtually everyone accepted and shared, including the weak and marginalized and affected both social relations and governmental policy. It made slavery a virtually unquestioned institution promoting the good of society. It made the male head of the household a sovereign despot over all those under him; it made wars of conquest and the slaughter they entailed natural and sensible for the well-being of the valued part of the human race (that is, those invested with power).
There were no government welfare programs to assist weaker members of society: the poor, homeless, hungry, or oppressed. There were no hospitals to assist the sick, injured, or dying. There were no private institutions of charity designed to help those in need.
Christians urged an ethic of love and service. One person was not more important than another. All were on the same footing before God.
All the above was taken from the book.
Perhaps Jesus began the change to make us more as though in “the kingdom of God”.
There is a long way to go. But David Brooks’ Second Mountain tells about how living for power, status, money becomes meaningless. It’s only when we find a way to live as Jesus advocated do we find real satisfaction, joy and purpose.
I know I’m banking on your tolerance for my jumping in here. Just know I appreciate your graciousness!!!
And please don’t try to engage me in actually explaining any of this. Maybe you could read the book? It’s terrific so far.
I agree with all of this, but one cannot deny the fact that most of the evils Jesus decried continued–and prospered–under Christianity. Christianity was not what he intended, or even imagined. It was an unintended side-effect of his ministry. And this is universal to all great prophetic figures–nothing succeeds as planned. Life is too complex. And also, whatever God there may be works in decidedly mysterious ways. And perhaps finds us equally confusing at times. 😉
I agree with the statement that the two are not mutually exclusive–perhaps the best word would be synergistic. I would not care to opine as to whether any equivalent term existed in Aramaic or Greek back then. The underlying idea probably did. The Empire was constantly striving for synergy, but it was synergy based on the threat of physical force.
Back to Jesus and marriage
today Dr Ehrman has posted a very interesting piece
** you do not have permission to see this link **
which proposes seeing Jesus as first man,
if so, would there be a implication or bearing on whether he or others should marry or not, in the Kingdom?
it is something I don’t know, but think is an interesting concept to consider.
[not exactly relevant to Jesus own views, because, we have been particularly excluding what Paul thought on this matter]
Bart also finds the theory interesting, but on the whole, he doesn’t buy it.
Of course, John Milton had this idea a long time ago.
Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of EDEN, till one greater Man Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
But in that poem, Jesus is clearly a pre-existent divine spirit, since he is the one who drives Satan and his rebellious minions out of heaven (with a whip, no less), long before he takes mortal form on earth.
I’m sure parallels with Adam were made, but there would have been a lot of ideas floating around. We have no more than a fraction of them.
Question–how old is the idea that death only exists–at least for humans–because of The Fall of Adam and Eve? While Augustine was the first I know of to really flesh that out, and suggest Original Sin is an STD, you can find hints in Genesis–Adam and his immediate descendants are said to live enormously long lives, culminating in Methuselah’s 969 year span. The implication being that the further we got from Eden, the shorter our lives were.
So might Jesus not have thought that if Eden were somehow restored, in the form of The Kingdom, nobody would die? Or at least live a very very long time.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)