When I want to know that being waterboarded isn’t fun or that fecal matter doesn’t taste like yummy chocolate cookies, I don’t feel the need to fight that ignorance by direct experimentation. I’m perfectly satisfied with reputable second-hand accounts. As I categorize my prior experiments with reading ancient literature (heck, anything older than 100 years, but scriptures in particular) to be on the same half of the fun/unfun scale as the above examples, I’ll generously allow people who wish to support the case that Jesus was more into pacifisim and public works than preaching and gathering followers to make their own cases. Or not to do so, as they prefer.
.
Wow. Reading a book == torture? That’s so sad.
.
Apparently only if the book was written more than 100 years ago.
Reading something that was written many years ago = torture.
Reading something that was written recently to tell us, secondhand, what something written many years ago actually says = ?
Why yes, being on the same half of the fun/unfun scale means equality.
In other news, receiving a birthday card is determined to as fun as having sex!
Heh.
Wow. You totally missed the point of that.
Jesus was saying that no matter what you do, you cannot end suffering, and the goodness of an act is not added up in a mercenary calculation. There will always be poor people (no matter what happens materially some people will always wind up on the bottom), but that fact does not hold us all hostage to them. We would be unChristian if we perpetually went about trying to do without anything, without every giving or enjoying life, and certainly if we did without giving to others in order to help some abstract poverty.
Aside from which, Perfumed Oil was hardly an exhorbitant gift in any case. People used it pretty commonly for special occasions in those days, and pretending it was some priceless treasure is pretty absurd. Well-off people used it regularly to clean themselves in baths. It’s oil… with some perfume.
I suppose one question is, are Christianity and Christians so very very good because of a strong message of peace, brotherhood, and helping the poor? Or is whatever the bringing of the sword implies so very very good because it’s brought to us by Christianity?
nt
.
I would not say Jesus was “really all peace and love”.
I would and did say Jesus was really all spirit of the law not letter of the law, and that he felt the law (in the spirit if not always in the letter thereof) was really all peace and love.
I read the passage in Matthew you reference here, and the whole chapter, and the two chapters bookending it. It still comes across as pretty militant.
Perhaps you could explain the context which can take “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” and twist it to mean that Jesus really came to bring peace, and not a sword.
Then perhaps you can explain why a perfect God writing a perfect book requires Lord Ashtar to explain why God really meant the exact opposite of what he wrote in his perfect book, rather than just writing down perfectly what he actually meant to say.
What we read in the Bible can’t be all of what Jesus taught, and we don’t know if what we read in the Bible is all accurate. Jesus was a master teacher of spiritual principles living in the physical world. I don’t think He ever meant us to focus on Him, but to focus on His teachings. He may, or may not have lived up to His teachings on all occasions, I don’t think we can tell that by the scriptures.
Jesus brought His message within the customs and language of the time He lived. Not everything He said then may apply now. But having said that I believe He taught peace and love, and intended others to follow the teachings in order to find that peace and love He talked about. The core of His teachings were about loving one another, helping others, and detaching ourselves from the material world so we could see and enjoy the spiritual one.
What He taught was not new material, others had said it before, He was surrounded by huge crowds because He had spiritual abilities to heal, and perform other miracles. What happened after His death, the building of the church, I believe was not His intention. Remember He said “ye can do as I do, and even more.” A goal for us to attain.
From an objectively critical historical perspective, it’s difficult to impossible to have much certainty about what Jesus really thought or taught. We don’t know for sure which of the sayings attributed to him are authentic, and many of them – perhaps as much as 75%, are probably not authentic to Jesus. If the Gospels are accepted in toto as authentic, then Jesus’ message is still difficult to divine in that it’s contradictory, scattered and sometimes quite obscure.
The sayings which historical critics have the most certainty about tends to be the Q material, which does consist of the “peace and love” message – the Beatitudes and the parables. Still, there is considerable debate over whether Jesus was primarily a wisdom teacher (a view advocated by scholars like Crossan and Funk) or an apocalyptic prophet predicting the end of the world (a view held by Bart Ehrman).
I guess the most accurate thing to say is that historically, we don’t know if Jesus was “all peace and love,” and that the Gospels themselves are inconsistent about it.
ETA, I will say that I think Paul’s message is pretty clearly peace and love, and Paul is the closest thing we have to a primary source about Jesus.
KJV, Matthew 10:37: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
KJV, Matthew 15:8-9: This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
KJV, Matthew 22:37-43: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
May I also note that when Jesus spoke of God as his Father, he was not referring to some generic Deity which we can make represent all the good things that we value. He was referring to YHWH of the Hebrew Bible, and claiming to be at the very least the Main Representative of YHWH. Jesus may have repudiated some of the harsh aspects or interpretations of OT Law, but he never repudiated YHWH as being the One True God.
Jesus was washing the disciples feet, not asking them to wash his.
I imagine begbert2 was referring to this:
Christ, it’s like we saw totally different movies.
Bingo - though that’s a minor point either way. A light jab at a mild inconsistency, added with the intent of lightening the mood, if you will.
In drama and literature classes in college, when we were asked to spot the Christ figure, I don’t think it ever entered our minds to search for an angry, egocentric character. Usually it was someone who made sacrifices for others or someone who was misunderstood and paid with his life.
If you choose to believe the New Testament, there are a few often quoted verses which would indicate that Jesus had a human and puzzling side. I don’t have an explanation except that maybe he wasn’t perfect. But overwhelmingly, he taught peace and love. Would you sit down and offer wine and bread to the person that you knew was about to betray you to the authorities? That’s a pretty loving thing to do.
He was a forgiving person. That takes a lot of love. He encouraged kindness. He was empathetic. If you believe the Scriptures, it’s there.
But if you’re not sure of the Scriptures, sometimes you can see his teachings in the lives of others who live incredibly gentle lives doing for others. I’ve known some who credit the teachings of Jesus. I’ve known other Christians who have as much trouble being “good” as I do. Don’t look at our lives to know what Christianity is about. Look at the teachings.
You know it’s a strange thread when I like both lekatt’s answer and Diogenes the Cynic’s answer. (Old timey head rush!)