The atheist in the next pew

[d63]

One last point on this(

(and I know I've said it before:



but due the simulacrum effect of a media that can't just report reality,
but must sell it as well,


Christianity suffers pretty much the same fate as drug users.


If someone goes to work everyday then comes home and smokes a joint,
that's not news.

On the other hand,
let someone kill another in the process of jacking their car to support their habit,
well?


By the same token,
should a Christian use Christ as an anchor in their everyday life,
there's nothing to report.

But let one stand in front of another church with a sign that says:

Remember, God still hates fags!

Then you've got something worth thinking about.

[d63]

[omar]

Hello Bob

--- But you know me, prophet in the wilderness … I have latched on to this idea as an alternative to throwing the whole lot out. I feel that there is something to be gained in Christianity, but it must grow up, otherwise it will contribute to the larger evil and essentially be the adversary that Jesus warned against. The history of the church is one big nightmare and yet it is continually gilded by theologians who try to preserve their role as the Scribes, some are Pharisees (in the good sense as well as in the bad sense) and some take on the role of Chief Priest, priests and (professional) prophets, all of whom we have met in biblical stories – if only we would recognize them in their modern day guises.
O- I hear you. I guess I have lost somewhat the faith in progress...I am a bit like the teacher in Ecclesiastes who says that all is meaningless and there is nothing new under the sun. Is Jesus, in a final and brutal analysis THAT special? Or was he a man of his age, his time, who attempted what others did as well, dying in the expectation that God was going to intervene, not thousands of years into the future but right then and there at his hour of need? You read John and you witness what Jesus became, not a man, but a mythological being part man, part god. But what of the gospel of Mark? There we see a man who dies in agony for an idea that he doubts at the end, in disbelief, dumbfounded. All that can be offered to someone like me is a choice.

--- It does point to the fact that those writing or at least copying the Gospels had an agenda of which neither Jesus would have known, nor which we fully know or approve of today.
O- How do you know? If you begin to doubt the scribes then you enter into a much bigger problem. Which parts of the scribes work do you trust and why? Does it become the projection of a modern prejudice onto a barbaric (by modern standards) age? The fact is that if the scribes could have had an agenda so too could Jesus, and it might be his agenda that the writers reported rather than their own. The direction, overall, of the scrives narrative, point to Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.

--- In my mind Jesus was a Jew who saw the need for reformation as it was described by the prophets.
O- Then why go to Jerusalem? Why did he see his death as unavoidable, if all he really wanted was to be a teacher? Jesus died like no other prophet because of the belief that his death would cause an intervention by God.

--- He didn’t foresee the legend that grew around him, which seems to me to be a distraction from the message we read in the Gospels.
O- The message of Christianity is his death. All else is window dressing. Jesus death was assumed to have had meaning, a purpose, over and above the importance of his words. Without Jesus death, a myth became, we would still be condemned, regardless of his message. Did Jesus believe in this? Debatable, perhaps not, but then that makes something other than Christian. But he too saw his death as necessary and consequential- the point of disagreement between his idea and the christians is that he did not advocate for a wait of thousands of years, rather he expected, as we see in Mark, an inmediate consequence to his saccrifice at the cross. Therefore according to his own ideas, his death was a failure. But by the novel re-interpretation, re-imagining of his death by the Christians, his death gained a new necessity which is the cleasing of our sins. The irony is that this destroyed the other half of his message eventually. No one now could walk in his shoes and do as he does, nor did it matter anymore as only belief made any crucial difference.

--- His God was less the warrior “JHWH Zebaoth”, but more the Lord of Hosts who becomes “Abba” and says “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit!”
O- Might does not make Him God, I get it, but He is, by His Spirit, the Lord of Hosts, the Commander of the armies of Israel and of Heaven. God's annointed had a military as well as religious conotation and at every turn we see Jesus confronted by what he lacks- military creddentials. But that does not mean that Jesus didn't agree with his detractors, but rather he thought that the Lord of Hosts would provide all the might he would need to emerge as the annointed of God.

--- No, Jesus says to the foreign woman that he has come to the lost sheep of Israel, but the Prophets make it very clear that those who reject the spiritual heritage will discover that he will call a people, who were not his people. And Jesus says at the Jordan, God “is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham!”
O- Is this what he said, faithfully reported, or a fabrication of scribes rewriting history to fit the official (Pauline) agenda? You let out that cat...

--- The direct intervention of God is in our midst, not there or there!
O- His "Dominion" was already effective in our midst, yes, but His dominion could not co-exist with the very real Dominion of Rome, also in their midst. So again, Jesus separated the roles, but remained committed to the jewish idea of a new Passover.

--- That is what evangelists would have you believe, but his was the message of the already present Realm of God, which was just waiting to be uncovered.

We have to see through the smoke screen!
O- So Bob, in your opinion, why did Jesus have to die? Why did Jesus openly sought his death, predicted his death (or is it all another trick of the scribes?) and lament, at the cross that God had foresaken him? Why was he executed if all he advocated was a spiritual realm under the dominion of Rome?

[turtle]

omar said "so bob, in your opinion, why does jesus have to die?"...my answer ---
because he was a human being just like the rest of us...

[omar]

omar said "so bob, in your opinion, why does jesus have to die?"...my answer ---
because he was a human being just like the rest of us...

Then you didn't understand the question. I am not inquiring about the physical necessity of his death in which case as a human he would die like the rest of us, but about the spiritual why. Jesus ask, in the most authentic of the gospels narratives, in my opinion, "why hast Thou foresaken me?" He was not asking because he knew it was his time to go, since there were no doctors around and no lawmaker to stay his execution, but because all things, he believes, are possible to Him, so why did he have to die NOW? Why didn't God intervene? This cannot be answered by: Because he was human like the rest of us.

[turtle]

omar said "so bob, in your opinion, why does jesus have to die?"...my answer ---
because he was a human being just like the rest of us...

Then you didn't understand the question. I am not inquiring about the physical necessity of his death in which case as a human he would die like the rest of us, but about the spiritual why. Jesus ask, in the most authentic of the gospels narratives, in my opinion, "why hast Thou foresaken me?" He was not asking because he knew it was his time to go, since there were no doctors around and no lawmaker to stay his execution, but because all things, he believes, are possible to Him, so why did he have to die NOW? Why didn't God intervene? This cannot be answered by: Because he was human like the rest of us.

but omar this is a story that is made up by people like
you and me....why does anybody have to die at a certain
time...

[Bob]

Hello Omar,

Sorry, been busy …

I hear you. I guess I have lost somewhat the faith in progress...I am a bit like the teacher in Ecclesiastes who says that all is meaningless and there is nothing new under the sun. Is Jesus, in a final and brutal analysis THAT special? Or was he a man of his age, his time, who attempted what others did as well, dying in the expectation that God was going to intervene, not thousands of years into the future but right then and there at his hour of need? You read John and you witness what Jesus became, not a man, but a mythological being part man, part god. But what of the gospel of Mark? There we see a man who dies in agony for an idea that he doubts at the end, in disbelief, dumbfounded. All that can be offered to someone like me is a choice.

Jesus was special in as much as he has been widely misinterpreted in the western world, indeed, all over the world, even though the Gospels hold examples of this misinterpretation. But he has been given an ear by so many people, that he is special. Would he be special in a modern world? Yes, but like many Gurus have been special to a relatively small number of followers. It is the interpretation of Paul, turning him into the incarnation of divine wisdom and a child (son) of God, as against a brother (if the trinity is indeed as equally balanced as some claim), that makes the life of this holy man into martyrdom from the beginning.

I have always read the crucifixion account as a man in command of his life to the end. He chose to die (relatively early) when he did, and he remained composed until the point when he surrendered his life to Allaha (Aramaic for God), whatever he conceived his Father to be.

--- It does point to the fact that those writing or at least copying the Gospels had an agenda of which neither Jesus would have known, nor which we fully know or approve of today.
O- How do you know? If you begin to doubt the scribes then you enter into a much bigger problem. Which parts of the scribes work do you trust and why?

I don’t, but Bart Ehrman presents a good case for it in his books.

Does it become the projection of a modern prejudice onto a barbaric (by modern standards) age? The fact is that if the scribes could have had an agenda so too could Jesus, and it might be his agenda that the writers reported rather than their own. The direction, overall, of the scrives narrative, point to Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.

Not if you follow Mark, he doesn’t …

--- In my mind Jesus was a Jew who saw the need for reformation as it was described by the prophets.
O- Then why go to Jerusalem? Why did he see his death as unavoidable, if all he really wanted was to be a teacher? Jesus died like no other prophet because of the belief that his death would cause an intervention by God.

I think that he believed that his death was an intervention, and one that was unavoidable – because that (according to tradition) is the way of all Jewish prophets.

--- He didn’t foresee the legend that grew around him, which seems to me to be a distraction from the message we read in the Gospels.
O- The message of Christianity is his death. All else is window dressing. Jesus death was assumed to have had meaning, a purpose, over and above the importance of his words.

And yet, when people wanted healing from him, he said his message was the important part, healing could be done far better after that. The most important thing is, that if his death is the only part, he didn’t have to live, but could just as well be a legend or myth.

If he lived, then something attracted people in the first place and it wasn’t a suicidal intention to give up his life as a human sacrifice. If you read the Gospels, there is undeniably a message there, by which people have given their lives direction. The importance of his death was something which Paul stumbled into, which threw him off of his horse and had him asking whether he had ever understood anything about God.

Without Jesus death, a myth became, we would still be condemned, regardless of his message. Did Jesus believe in this? Debatable, perhaps not, but then that makes something other than Christian. But he too saw his death as necessary and consequential- the point of disagreement between his idea and the christians is that he did not advocate for a wait of thousands of years, rather he expected, as we see in Mark, an inmediate consequence to his saccrifice at the cross. Therefore according to his own ideas, his death was a failure. But by the novel re-interpretation, re-imagining of his death by the Christians, his death gained a new necessity which is the cleasing of our sins. The irony is that this destroyed the other half of his message eventually. No one now could walk in his shoes and do as he does, nor did it matter anymore as only belief made any crucial difference.

I feel that there has always been a reinvention of the quest of Jesus, especially by Paul, because what he said didn’t seem to be fulfilled. But on the other hand, what if the fulfillment of his expectation was exactly the kind of church that we hear of in Acts and which Saul of Tarsus was trying to suppress? The communities obviously got into an extreme financial difficulty, which is why Paul made a collection and was finally arrested on delivering it, but the way they were celebrating Jesus was obviously seen as competition to orthodoxy in a way that orthodox Jews could not be patient with, and they were worried.

God's annointed had a military as well as religious conotation and at every turn we see Jesus confronted by what he lacks- military creddentials. But that does not mean that Jesus didn't agree with his detractors, but rather he thought that the Lord of Hosts would provide all the might he would need to emerge as the annointed of God.

That is a very modern apology, but “ecce homo” revealed a very normal crestfallen man, and induced the “crucify him!” when he was compared to the rebel Barabbas (a construed name if there was one). Jesus was conforming to the OT line of scribes who criticized the attempts of Kings of Israel to find strength in allegiances rather than in faith in God, and the more critical line of the Prophets who had God saying, “I can’t hear your songs anymore, I can’t smell the blood of your sacrifices…” and of course in line with John the Baptist. His teaching was, however, the answer and the liberation of a people held hostage by false priests and prophets, and covetous and idolatrous Kings.

Is this what he said, faithfully reported, or a fabrication of scribes rewriting history to fit the official (Pauline) agenda? You let out that cat...

You can’t overcome the supersession argument, since the OT is very clear that the Law is a blessing or a curse. I don’t see the curse necessarily as an explicit deed of God, but as a karmic consequence of what we do. It would also be very presumptive to see Israel as being any worse than any other people, but the special role they had must be in danger of being given to someone else. That isn’t just Paul, but the mainstream line of the OT.

His "Dominion" was already effective in our midst, yes, but His dominion could not co-exist with the very real Dominion of Rome, also in their midst. So again, Jesus separated the roles, but remained committed to the jewish idea of a new Passover.

There is no conflict between the “Basilea” of God and the dominion of Rome, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God!” unless the Caesar also wants your soul.

So Bob, in your opinion, why did Jesus have to die? Why did Jesus openly sought his death, predicted his death (or is it all another trick of the scribes?) and lament, at the cross that God had foresaken him? Why was he executed if all he advocated was a spiritual realm under the dominion of Rome?

I don’t think that he openly sought death, but he did seek confrontation and if that brought death, he was willing to go down that path. The lamentation is a quotation from the 22nd Psalm:

Psa 22:1 To the Chief Musician, on the deer of the dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me, and are far from My deliverance, from the words of My groaning?
Psa 22:2 O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; and in the night, and there is no silence to Me.
Psa 22:3 But You are holy, being enthroned on Israel's praises.
Psa 22:4 Our fathers trusted in You; they trusted, and You delivered them.
Psa 22:5 They cried to You, and were delivered; they trusted in You, and were not ashamed.
Psa 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of mankind, and despised by the people.
Psa 22:7 All who see Me scornfully laugh at Me; they open the lip; they shake the head, saying,
Psa 22:8 He rolled on JHVH, let Him deliver Him; let Him rescue Him, since He delights in Him.
Psa 22:9 For You are He, My Taker from the womb; causing Me to trust on My mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 I was cast on You from the womb, from My mother's belly, You are My God.
Psa 22:11 Be not far from Me; for trouble is near; because no one is there to help.
Psa 22:12 Many bulls have circled around Me; strong bulls of Bashan have surrounded Me.
Psa 22:13 They opened their mouth on Me, like a lion ripping and roaring.
Psa 22:14 I am poured out like waters, and all My bones are spread apart; My heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of My bowels.
Psa 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and My tongue clings to My jaws;
Psa 22:16 and You appoint Me to the dust of death; for dogs have encircled Me; a band of spoilers have hemmed Me in, piercing My hands and My feet.
Psa 22:17 I count all My bones; they look, they stare at Me.
Psa 22:18 They divide My garments among them, and they made fall a lot for My clothing.
Psa 22:19 But You, O JHVH, be not far off; O My Strength, hurry to help Me!
Psa 22:20 Deliver My soul from the sword, My only one from the paw of the dog.
Psa 22:21 Save Me from the lion's mouth; and from the horns of the wild oxen. You have answered Me.
Psa 22:22 I will declare Your name to My brothers; I will praise You in the midst of the assembly.
Psa 22:23 You who fear JHVH, praise Him; all the seed of Jacob, glorify Him; and all the seed of Israel, fear Him.
Psa 22:24 For He has not despised nor hated the affliction of the afflicted; and He has not hidden His face from Him, but when He cried to Him, He heard.
Psa 22:25 My praise shall be of You in the great assembly; I will pay My vows before those fearing Him.
Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek JHVH shall praise Him; your heart shall live forever.
Psa 22:27 All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn back to JHVH; and all the families of the nations shall worship before You.
Psa 22:28 For the kingdom is JHVH’s; and He is the ruler among the nations.
Psa 22:29 All the fat ones of the earth have eaten, and have worshiped; all those going down to the dust shall bow before Him; and He kept not His own soul alive.
Psa 22:30 A seed shall serve Him; it shall be spoken of the Lord to the coming generation;
Psa 22:31 they shall come and shall declare His righteousness to a people that shall yet be born; for He has done it.

He was executed, because the priests had arranged his death with Pilate.

[omar]

Hello Bob,

Sorry, been busy …


--- Jesus was special in as much as he has been widely misinterpreted in the western world, indeed, all over the world, even though the Gospels hold examples of this misinterpretation. But he has been given an ear by so many people, that he is special.
O- No more special then than Mohammed or Gautama. So, in such case, he is part of a category, one amongst many.

--- It is the interpretation of Paul, turning him into the incarnation of divine wisdom and a child (son) of God, as against a brother (if the trinity is indeed as equally balanced as some claim), that makes the life of this holy man into martyrdom from the beginning.
O- and it begs the question, who is, in the final analysis, the founder of Christianity. Who then is more special? A case can be made for Paul. Others had lived a life similar to Jesus before him, but they are obscure figures in history. The moral life, and sacrifice of Jesus is not unique, but the interpretation Paul gives is, and it is by him that Jesus becomes the foundation of the way. Socrates, Gautama, Jesus, all serve as sparks of creativity, but were not the necessary ingredients such as Plato and Paul.

--- I have always read the crucifixion account as a man in command of his life to the end.
O- Perhaps if you go by john's gospel. Mark, unedited, does not provide that impression.

--- I don’t, but Bart Ehrman presents a good case for it in his books.
O- He does, but see where that got him. It is admirable to see his integrity, but unlimited it can undo what it sought to support.

--- I think that he believed that his death was an intervention, and one that was unavoidable – because that (according to tradition) is the way of all Jewish prophets.
O- how was his own death understood, in Jewish terms as an intervention? No...I think that him and his audience were in expectation of a divine intervention, and his arrival in Jerusalem, precisely for Passover speaks (and spoke to the Romans as well) volumes.

--- If he lived, then something attracted people in the first place and it wasn’t a suicidal intention to give up his life as a human sacrifice. If you read the Gospels, there is undeniably a message there, by which people have given their lives direction. The importance of his death was something which Paul stumbled into, which threw him off of his horse and had him asking whether he had ever understood anything about God.
O- Let me state the point again: Jesus did have a message of spiritual purification that was an echo of the Baptist and which resonated in the life of both and the Jewish people. But the idea that he had to die was novel. It was not a death to galvanize the resolve of his people or some other reason for a willful suicide, but that the suffering of one righteous man would bring about the intervention of god again in the world of man. It was the key to reopen Israel's sacred history.


--- I feel that there has always been a reinvention of the quest of Jesus, especially by Paul, because what he said didn’t seem to be fulfilled. But on the other hand, what if the fulfillment of his expectation was exactly the kind of church that we hear of in Acts and which Saul of Tarsus was trying to suppress? The communities obviously got into an extreme financial difficulty, which is why Paul made a collection and was finally arrested on delivering it, but the way they were celebrating Jesus was obviously seen as competition to orthodoxy in a way that orthodox Jews could not be patient with, and they were worried.
O- Paul did shift the message of the Way but he also inherited and carried on some of it, including early on the idea of an inminent intervention and that because of this, as temporary residents of this world and citizens of the next, they had entered into a new paradigm of community.

--- That is a very modern apology, but “ecce homo” revealed a very normal crestfallen man, and induced the “crucify him!” when he was compared to the rebel Barabbas (a construed name if there was one). Jesus was conforming to the OT line of scribes who criticized the attempts of Kings of Israel to find strength in allegiances rather than in faith in God, and the more critical line of the Prophets who had God saying, “I can’t hear your songs anymore, I can’t smell the blood of your sacrifices…” and of course in line with John the Baptist. His teaching was, however, the answer and the liberation of a people held hostage by false priests and prophets, and covetous and idolatrous Kings.
O- While I agree you leave out that the critique by the scribes and the prophets was about the source of their confidence, ie human political alliances rather that faith that God would provide to the humble but faithful Israel. Jesus is David not Saul, but as David he would carry out the liberation of his people from the yoke of imperial power.

--- There is no conflict between the “Basilea” of God and the dominion of Rome, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God!” unless the Caesar also wants your soul.
O- passive resistance. There are other examples, like turning the other check. His death was a necessity in his mind but it wasn't so that that the status quo would remain. If you were convinced that those days were the last days, then there were more important things than picking a fight with the tax-collector. That did not mean that for Jesus the rule by Rome, the extensive crucifixions by Pilate were not a cause for indignation. If you were to give god what is God's, which in Jesus' mind was not happening, then it would be God who would exact revenge from Rome.

--- He was executed, because the priests had arranged his death with Pilate.
O- it is interesting that you quib about the editing of the bible so that it would follow an agenda and then quote a known example of the practice you deplore.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

I think that him and his audience were in expectation of a divine intervention, and his arrival in Jerusalem, precisely for Passover speaks (and spoke to the Romans as well) volumes.

Jesus is a metaphor for our life. God failed him like God fails us.

[Bob]

No more special then than Mohammed or Gautama. So, in such case, he is part of a category, one amongst many.

For the Jews, I think that Jesus did constitute something unique which, in the Pentecostal speech, Peter alludes to as the “firstling”. Although initially meaning the firstborn and the best, he is also saying that Jesus is the first of many.

… who is, in the final analysis, the founder of Christianity. Who then is more special? A case can be made for Paul. Others had lived a life similar to Jesus before him, but they are obscure figures in history. The moral life, and sacrifice of Jesus is not unique, but the interpretation Paul gives is, and it is by him that Jesus becomes the foundation of the way. Socrates, Gautama, Jesus, all serve as sparks of creativity, but were not the necessary ingredients such as Plato and Paul.

Agreed! All I can expound upon is the interpretation of followers and can therefore be misleading. I think that we have to be open for the possibility that the interpretation of Paul is the first theological house of cards upon which others were built. However, what his motives would be isn’t clear if he is just spinning a story which was the tragedy that Mark records. There is something more in there, but there have been too many editors to really get at it. I find that the comparison to other tradition is helpful, since there is nothing new under the sun …

Perhaps if you go by john's gospel. Mark, unedited, does not provide that impression.

Mar 15:37 And letting out a great cry, Jesus expired.
Mar 15:38 And the veil of the Holy Place was torn into two, from top to bottom.
Mar 15:39 And standing off across from Him, seeing that He had cried out so, and He expired, the centurion said, Truly, this Man was Son of God.

On the cross, struggling to get air, the “great cry” was his death. For me, it was the decision to end it there and refuse the gloating onlookers their glee. It is this which seems to inspire the centurion to say what he did (whether historical or not).

how was his own death understood, in Jewish terms as an intervention? No...I think that him and his audience were in expectation of a divine intervention, and his arrival in Jerusalem, precisely for Passover speaks (and spoke to the Romans as well) volumes.

I think there is something about the entry into Jerusalem, and there is also the possibility of two outcomes. It seems he was open to both, not knowing how it would end. However, his behavior seems to have been so provocative, that his end would be the logical consequence. The sequence in the Garden where the disciples fell asleep points to the chance that he would end up incarcerated or executed.

It seems that Peter had thought it to be a “firstling” sacrifice, since (Ex 13:2), “The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.” Paul saw the need for “the redemption of our bodies”, even those who “have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons”. It seem to be a turnaround of the fate of Abel, who was killed by his brother, because “the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.” Cain’s Israel would be expelled, whereas the followers of the new Abel would experience the “respect the LORD had” for Abel.

Let me state the point again: Jesus did have a message of spiritual purification that was an echo of the Baptist and which resonated in the life of both and the Jewish people. But the idea that he had to die was novel. It was not a death to galvanize the resolve of his people or some other reason for a willful suicide, but that the suffering of one righteous man would bring about the intervention of god again in the world of man. It was the key to reopen Israel's sacred history.

You might be right – but if you are, it didn’t work like that. I don’t think that it was suicide but that it is portrayed as a case of putting his life into the hands of his God to do whatever God saw fit with that life. There seems to be a basic sentiment in the OT that the righteous are born to suffer as witnesses to righteousness (essentially to God) at the hands of the unrighteous. That means that the more righteous I live, the higher the chances are of suffering at the hands of the unrighteous. This taken as given, Jesus may have held a secret hope that his presence could move people to live differently, as thousands initially did apparently, but was ready to accept the other alternative – in the hope that his martyrdom would have the desired effect.

Paul did shift the message of the Way but he also inherited and carried on some of it, including early on the idea of an inminent intervention and that because of this, as temporary residents of this world and citizens of the next, they had entered into a new paradigm of community.

There is this aspect of immanent intervention, but it is with the Pharisees, who prayed fervently that God would “come down” and intervene. The message of Jesus is that this has happened in their midst.
Mic_1:3 For, behold, JHVH is coming out of His place, and He will come down and walk on the high places of the earth.

While I agree you leave out that the critique by the scribes and the prophets was about the source of their confidence, ie human political alliances rather that faith that God would provide to the humble but faithful Israel. Jesus is David not Saul, but as David he would carry out the liberation of his people from the yoke of imperial power.

Acts 13:22 "I found David of Jesse, a man according to my heart, who will do all my will." (1 Samuel 13:14)

I find that it is the fact that David was a man “according to my [God’s] heart”, the unseen red-headed shepherd and musician, which was important here, not the warrior King who was not allowed to build the temple. This is also my main problem with evangelical Christians who are militant, claiming to live in the NT but quoting the OT and acting like Pharisees who were criticized for the same behavior.

passive resistance. There are other examples, like turning the other check. His death was a necessity in his mind but it wasn't so that that the status quo would remain. If you were convinced that those days were the last days, then there were more important things than picking a fight with the tax-collector. That did not mean that for Jesus the rule by Rome, the extensive crucifixions by Pilate were not a cause for indignation. If you were to give god what is God's, which in Jesus' mind was not happening, then it would be God who would exact revenge from Rome.

The thing about God’s revenge is that it is his revenge and we are called to see that God is not like mankind, and his dealings with mankind are not “reasonable”. However, we continually pre-empt that God will do this or that and fail to see that we could, like the Pharisees and Paul, suddenly find ourselves in complete opposition to the will of God.

--- He was executed, because the priests had arranged his death with Pilate.
O- it is interesting that you quib about the editing of the bible so that it would follow an agenda and then quote a known example of the practice you deplore.

This was an argument in the well known book from Frank Morison “Who moved the Stone” which I just found pressing.

[turtle]

i am the agnostic in the next pew....
i am bothered about the council of nicaea
held in a.d. 325....would you guys in the other pew please teach me more about the nicene creed?????

[Typist]

This just popped in to my head, feel free to rip it to shreds....

Is analyzing the Bible is similar to analyzing our dreams?

We've all had the experience.

As you're waking up, you're recalling some dream you just left. The dream was deeply personal, profoundly meaningful in some indefinable way. You can't quite put your finger on it....

You can sense that your subconscious is trying to share something that is deeper and more important than your day to day conscious mind is really willing or able to deal with, given it's relentless focus on mundane issues like errands, ego competitions etc.

You know there's something of value in your dream. You just know it. And you'd really like to know what, but...

When you try to analyze the plot line of your dream, it reads like a journal Salvador Dali might have kept while on LSD.

Although I am not even vaguely well informed about the Bible, my gut instinct tells me that trying to intellectually analyze the literal plot line is somehow missing the point.

Maybe it's like arguing with your girl friend about the toilet seat position, or who does most of the dishes etc. We get so wrapped up in such things, but somewhere underneath all that we know that none of it matters, and that what we should be focusing on is making sure our girl friend knows we love her.

[omar]

Hello Bob,

--- For the Jews, I think that Jesus did constitute something unique which, in the Pentecostal speech, Peter alludes to as the “firstling”. Although initially meaning the firstborn and the best, he is also saying that Jesus is the first of many.
O- I'll grant you that for Paul and the early Church Jesus was a special man, either as prophet or as the Word incarnate, but what about you? How is Jesus special to the modern spiritual man when he holds Jesus next to MLKJr, Ghandi, Buddha? How is he special if he, like them, passed away? I don't mean to belittle the great men of our history, but if you told Paul, he would have considered himself and his followers worthy of pity for following even a man like Jesus, if he indeed laid in the ground. That always seemed to me like a short-change of Jesus and his message, but that is the path that Christians chose.

--- Agreed! All I can expound upon is the interpretation of followers and can therefore be misleading. I think that we have to be open for the possibility that the interpretation of Paul is the first theological house of cards upon which others were built. However, what his motives would be isn’t clear if he is just spinning a story which was the tragedy that Mark records. There is something more in there, but there have been too many editors to really get at it. I find that the comparison to other tradition is helpful, since there is nothing new under the sun …
O- As a house of cards, Paul was at least initially limited by the living memory of Jesus and those in the council who had walked with him. Aside from John, I think the gospels present a faithful record of Jesus. The true house of cards began with John, with the collection of scriptures as holy and the eventual overheating at Nicea that flipped the Way into it's opposite.

--- I think there is something about the entry into Jerusalem, and there is also the possibility of two outcomes. It seems he was open to both, not knowing how it would end. However, his behavior seems to have been so provocative, that his end would be the logical consequence. The sequence in the Garden where the disciples fell asleep points to the chance that he would end up incarcerated or executed.
O- I think that since Jesus was the only one awake, and after he was quickly taken away, that the account is clearly a work of faith rather than of rememberance. But I often take the Bible at face-value. If so, then Jesus knew what was required of him, but struggled, as he should, with following thru with it. But, my point is that he wasn't attending to his crucifixion for the salvation of our souls. Rather he had lived a life for us to emulate. Constantly he chastises those that call him Lord, Lord, but fail to do as he commands. To trust in the Lord, his Lord, his Father to do what is right, in the end, was his hope, his trust, his faith. It is this that seemed betrayed at the crossed. He quotes a Pslam that to a jew would have had a very different meaning than to the Christologist, for the jew lived, for a very long time, weary of the after-life, the center-piece of that religion which they had overcome, comming out of Egypt. They kept then, as today, trust that God would intervene in this life, and save, even at the last minute, his Servant.

--- It seems that Peter had thought it to be a “firstling” sacrifice, since (Ex 13:2), “The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal.” Paul saw the need for “the redemption of our bodies”, even those who “have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons”. It seem to be a turnaround of the fate of Abel, who was killed by his brother, because “the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.” Cain’s Israel would be expelled, whereas the followers of the new Abel would experience the “respect the LORD had” for Abel.
O- People often think that Cain was rejected because his offering unacceptable, but it was his heart that was unacceptable. The rehjection of his sacrifice was a symptom of Cain's spiritual sickness, a sickness that led him to murder his brother rather than to learn from him. Seen in that light, I find it hard to work it into Paul's designs.

--- You might be right – but if you are, it didn’t work like that. I don’t think that it was suicide but that it is portrayed as a case of putting his life into the hands of his God to do whatever God saw fit with that life. There seems to be a basic sentiment in the OT that the righteous are born to suffer as witnesses to righteousness (essentially to God) at the hands of the unrighteous. That means that the more righteous I live, the higher the chances are of suffering at the hands of the unrighteous. This taken as given, Jesus may have held a secret hope that his presence could move people to live differently, as thousands initially did apparently, but was ready to accept the other alternative – in the hope that his martyrdom would have the desired effect.
O- I think that Job is telling as a record of jewish tradition, and indeed even ME traditions. The general consensus, which the author of Job sought to debunk, is that righteousness has an inherent value that must be respected, invariably, by God. Certainly the history of Israel and Juda failed to make a case that righteousness in itself was of value to God, but then as now it is what was generally believed, not just by the hebrews but by other peoples in the region.. You read Hesiod and there is a moral to the story. Other stories also point to a law, karma if you will. So I doubt that people expected their righteousness to gain them nothing. At the very least it was supposed to help them avoid suffering, for if the wages of sin are death, then the wages of righteousness is life.

--- There is this aspect of immanent intervention, but it is with the Pharisees, who prayed fervently that God would “come down” and intervene. The message of Jesus is that this has happened in their midst.
Mic_1:3 For, behold, JHVH is coming out of His place, and He will come down and walk on the high places of the earth.
O- I like the discussion Jesus has during his trial. He doesn't deny that he is the Christ. He tries to educate them that this trial, this flagelation, was in accordance with scripture. However, he added, one day they would have seen the Son of God come down in clouds, clothed in power, heading an army. This is the Christ the jews expected...Jesus simply postpones this expectation to a second comming. Probably all of this was redacted after the fact, as scribes were busy trying to explain why what happened HAD TO happen.

[turtle]

i am the agnostic in the next pew....
i am bothered about the council of nicaea
held in a.d. 325....would you guys in the other pew please teach me more about the nicene creed?????

turtle to the other parishioners....what do you say to the doubting thomas????

[Arcturus Descending]

turtle...

turtle to the other parishioners....what do you say to the doubting thomas????

That would greatly depend on how bound up the parishioner[s] was to his/her beliefs and dogma - and the individual that he/she is.
Some would ask "What is it that you doubt"?
What is it do you think is holding you back from believing? What are you getting out of not believing?
When did you first become aware of these doubts and what do you think it was lead to them?
And if an answer came, the parishioner[s] might simply share their beliefs and reasons for believing.

But sometimes they haven't reached that point yet where there is an answer. And at least for me I intuit that that is or can be a very good thing. That's where spiritual growth and true becoming lie - if only the doubting thomas does not run away from it.
And then of course there are those parishioners who would say nothing to the doubting thomas - they would simply pick up the stones and begin to stone him to death. After all, no real true believer could possibly tolerate another's disbelief and questionings. The non-believer must be gotten rid of. Let's not forget, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.
Run, thomas, run and run quickly and far away. Find a safe haven and continue to doubt until you either find the answers or learn to live peacefully with your questions.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

i am the agnostic in the next pew....
i am bothered about the council of nicaea
held in a.d. 325....would you guys in the other pew please teach me more about the nicene creed?????

No turtle ... cuz it's obvious you are on the web, where you can find out all you would ever want to know about 325ad ...

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

This just popped in to my head, feel free to rip it to shreds....

Is analyzing the Bible is similar to analyzing our dreams?

They say that the myths come from our dreams. Why should it be any different for the Bible?

[Arcturus Descending]

This just popped in to my head, feel free to rip it to shreds....

Is analyzing the Bible is similar to analyzing our dreams?

They say that the myths come from our dreams. Why should it be any different for the Bible?

This is probably true. They had to come from somewhere from the beginning - so either our unconscious as we lay dreaming or our conscious self, or waking dreams, our fantasies.

I think it's more than similar since myths and dreams come from the same place - human inspiration and the world surrounding us. They are beautiful, like so much kindling for the fire. They are a conglomeration of everything we have perceived, sensated or intuited during our waking life, even those things which our subconscious has picked up on and our physical awareness has not. If we ponder or analyze the myths of the bible, or any myths from anywhere, and/or ask ourselves: "What is this trying to tell ME" (I say ME because it is always personal/subjective) while at the same time, they are universal insofar as we all share the same humanity and beingness, they can and do point to who we are as human beings and in what direction we're going. They are all roadmaps and signs on the journey through life and everyone we meet through these myths and dreams we can say are us...or who we would want to be...or even who we would not want to be.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Parishioners are sitting in the pew. Need I say more ....

[Arcturus Descending]

Given the choice of either
1) understanding all of reality, or
2) getting along with (surviving) all of reality,
but not BOTH, which would you choose?

"Agreement" is all about finding a means to get along with others - Harmony - Surviving.

Perhaps I would choose no. 1, James. If we come to understand all of reality, would we necessarily have to get along with or survive all of reality. "Getting along' to me seems to imply a 'wanting to pleasementality, but perhaps i'm wrong here.
Wouldn't understanding all of reality simply allow us to flow into harmony and into Life...not that that is humanly possible - understanding all of reality, that is. But at least making it part of our life's journey is better than simply getting along...or following the herd.

And I could just as easily see agreement as compromise and compromise doesn't necessarily speak of harmony to me. There could be ongoing inner conflict there. And who is looking to simply survive? Is that harmony?

I don't know if any of that made sense to you but it does to me.

[James S Saint]

Given the choice of either
1) understanding all of reality, or
2) getting along with (surviving) all of reality,
but not BOTH, which would you choose?

"Agreement" is all about finding a means to get along with others - Harmony - Surviving.

Perhaps I would choose no. 1, James. If we come to understand all of reality, would we necessarily have to get along with or survive all of reality.

No, you wouldn't "have to" survive it.
You could just understand why you are dying and not do anything about it.
But considering the evolution perspective, after a while the rest of the world wouldn't have such people to argue with.

"Getting along' to me seems to imply a 'wanting to please" mentality, but perhaps i'm wrong here.

Judgment via "implication" and connotation distinguishes the feminine "mentality".

Wouldn't understanding all of reality simply allow us to flow into harmony and into Life...not that that is humanly possible - understanding all of reality, that is.

It MIGHT allow you to flow into harmony.
But ACTUALLY getting along (thus harmonizing), might require that you NOT understand it.
By choosing understanding over the actual goal, you presume that understanding would get you to that goal.
Why not simply choose the goal directly and cut out the middle-(wo)man?

But at least making it part of our life's journey is better than simply getting along...or following the herd.

Presumption that it would be just a "herd"?
I said getting along with reality, as in ALL reality; emotional needs, physical needs, perceived needs, societal needs, real needs.

And I could just as easily see agreement as compromise and compromise doesn't necessarily speak of harmony to me. There could be ongoing inner conflict there. And who is looking to simply survive? Is that harmony?

Then is that really "getting along" or just "going along"?

You seem to presume that there must always be an unsatisfied anxiety and thus no solution is a real solution even if it is proposed as only "the real" solution.

"I'm not going to take the real cure, because I know that most cures don't work."


--------------------------

There are 3 ways to ensure that Man never ascends to Heaven;
1) misunderstand it
2) disbelieve in it
3) fear it