Whilst the Bible generally portrays Jesus as a good and clever man, is this the whole story? How does Jesus respond to those who meet with his disapproval? To Peter he says: "Get thee behind me, SATAN: thou art an offence unto me." ( Matt 16:23 ) The 'goats' in the parable of the sheep and the goats are condemned to: "EVERLASTING FIRE prepared for the Devil and his angels." ( Matt 25:41 ) To Christians in Laodicea he says; ' I will SPUE thee out of my mouth." ( Rev 3:16 ) Is Jesus over-rated?
Is Jesus over-rated?
by scout575 9 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Narkissos
Hi scout,
I'm not sure how ingenuous your questions are (understatement intended ); anyway there is a problem in questioning ancient texts from the perspective of suspiciously unquestioned modern standards.
As far as the Gospel picture of Jesus in concerned, you could have made it "worse" by focusing on Mark, in which the Jesus character has the hell of a temper (especially if you take some manuscript variants into account, such as "angry" instead of "moved with pity" in 1:41). Jesus hardly becomes really "kind" (khrestos?) before Luke.
-
scout575
Hi Narkissos,
OMG ( sorry about that, God ), you've blown my cover! ( I forgive you ). The questions that I'm raising are those that came to mind over years of Bible reading, and that gradually eroded my faith in the Bible. I haven't thrown out the baby with the bath water, mind. There's clearly some nice stuff in the Bible, but alot of stuff thats less than inspiring, to say the least. I'm asking the questions that I wish someone had raised with me many years ago. I strongly suspect that had that happened I would have stopped viewing the Bible as inspired of God, and left Christianity much earlier than I did. I know my questions are directed at a very 'niche' market, but I still think that its worthwhile posting them. Maybe there are some people 'out there' who will read them and one day be grateful for them. I know that I would have been VERY grateful for them, but thats just me.
-
tetrapod.sapien
ya, if this jesus is the one true god of the universe, then it shouldn't matter when he said what he said, he would be over rated by any standards, save those of the dark ages.
but of course, he is not the true god of the universe. i have no problem making this positive assertion about something i cannot prove with 100% confidence. but still, he is not. and so, he is really only over rated when compared to the faiths of those people who hold him to be the one true god of the universe.
TS
-
Narkissos
No problem scout,
I guess there are many ways to exit from a fundamentalistic mindset. Bible criticism is one, just not the only one. Spiritual growth (I mean outgrowing the fundy concept of God) is another. To each his/her own.
Back to the topic, I personally find the "rough n' tough" picture of Jesus in Mark (from the leper to the fig tree for instance) fascinating. I don't take it as anymore historical than the other (later) versions, but it's quite interesting that a "son of god" could be depicted as a sort of "anti-hero" rather than the all-wise, all-kind character one might expect.
-
jaffacake
ScoutThe questions you post remind me of the suppressed questions and doubts I grew up with. Some people actually did ask me similar questions back then. Maybe they had some impact at a subconscious level, but at the time I dismissed them.
Eventually, I faded from adventism, and over time I threw out the baby, the bathwater, and the bath.
Having been 'educated' about the Bible by my religious leaders, much of which of course conflicted with common sense and most of modern science, and then having moved on in my life, I could never return to my old ways. Once you see the old man working the levers behind the curtain, you can't go back to seeking the Wizard of Oz. Neither would it be possible for my new JW convert friends to tempt me down that similar path. Their memorial invites etc did however prompt me to research their religion, and my old religion, quite thoroughly, hence my membership of this board. I learned more than I bargained for.
There are many flavours of wizards of Oz, but none of these had anything to do with the really big questions that neither science nor religion have been able to answer yet - such as how did life on earth start?
But as for Christianity, now that's something completely different imo. Disagreements in this field can arise from people having very different definitions for the same terms, such as 'God' or 'inspired of God' or 'word of God' or 'truth' or 'Christianity' or 'creation' etc etc, or indeed through some of us not having very clear definitions at all. To me as an individual, there is little point in you trying to prove an object is either a rotten apple or not an apple at all, when I believe it to be a pear.
I think there is actually a growing market for your line of questioning, with the growth of fundamentalism in religion, including Christian fundamentalism, although I'm not sure how many fundamentalists visit this particular board.
-
scout575
Thanks Narkissos. The point that you mention regarding Jesus' cursing of the fig tree ( Mark 11:12-14 ) was never a problem for me because of ( are you reading this, Jaffacake? ) the WTS' very non-literalistic, non-one dimensional interpretation of it. They say that Jesus' cursing of the fig tree, wasn't an act of petulance, but was rather an object lesson for how God would deal with the Israelite nation: Jesus came to the nation of Israel looking for SPIRITUAL fruit and found none. Because of this dearth of Spiritual fruit, the nation would be cursed by God ( just as Jesus had cursed the fig-tree ). The text used to support this interpretation is Matthew 21:44, where Jesus says to the Jews: "The kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the FRUITS thereof."
-
scout575
Thanks again Jaffacake. Your comments remind me of the saying; "We don't see things the way they are, we see them the way WE are." In other words, we tend to see things according to our own pre-suppositions and not how they actually are. In an earlier posting you talk about the 'accurate face of God' and how this face is to be seen in the statement 'God is love' rather than in the face of God presented at 1 Sam 12:15.
Are you seeing the face of God that suits your own pre-suppositions rather than the face of God that the Bible actually presents as a whole? As you well know, the text that says: "God is love." is 1John 4:18. The accurate face of God? "Yes", you say. And yet, what does the apostle John say at 2 John 10,11? He says: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." Is this command to shun fellow believers who disagree with you, also a reflection of the 'accurate face of God'? I suspect that you would say: "No!" Is the 1 John 4:18 statement a statement from God that included no interpretation by John, and the 2 John 10, 11 statement a statement that does include interpretation by John?
Who decides which texts reflect the 'true face of God' and which include some interpretation by the Bible writers, and therefore don't reflect 'the true face of God'? Is it the 'mainstream theologians' that you mention, who decide on these matters? Is it personal choice? This may not be too much of a problem when it comes to texts that are obviously 'nice' or obviously 'not nice' but what about the texts that contain a mixture of 'nice' bits and 'not nice' bits? What then?
-
Narkissos
There is some merit to this interpretation within Mark as well, inasmuch as the fig-tree episode brackets (in typically Markan fashion) the so-called "purification of the temple," another violent action which triggers the Passion narrative. Btw, Luke avoids the embarrassing fig-tree story but has a (clearly anti-Jewish) parable instead (13:6-9). The awkward character of the Markan story is obvious in its introduction: "On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it (omitted by Matthew). When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs (last clause omitted by Matthew)." Moreover, the Markan conclusion has nothing to do with Israel: "In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. Then Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered." Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God (literally "have God's faith"). Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
Another characteristic of Mark, which is toned down in later Gospels, is the increasing difficulty of Jesus' miracles (7:31ff; 8:22ff; 9:14ff), which seems to culminate in the fig-tree story in which Jesus seems to be at odds with reality and comes up in rage with a negative miracle. All of this does not suit the later picture of Jesus.
-
jaffacake
Thanks Scout,
Some excellent questions.
I think your saying "We don't see things the way they are, we see them the way WE are." is close to what I had in mind, though unable to clearly express. With regard to the paradox of a punitive vindictive God versus a God of unlimited love, perhaps the whole point of this, and of the judgement teaching, is to show us something of the way WE are. This also reminds me of the two alternative faces of Islam.
But none of this has any relevance to non believers, and as I am not trying to convert you, nor anyone else, my posts are just trying to show there are alternative beliefs about what the bible and Christianity are.
If I were debating with a believer, I would go on to say that with the blinkers off, I believe there are clear pointers to what supersedes or sublates what in scriptures. I spent my early life being taught what to pre-suppose, wheras if the bible has any value at all, I believe it teaches us to go on a spiritual search of self discovery and deeper understanding of the revelation of God in Jesus.
On the question of 1 Sam 12:15 versus God is Love. If these are inconsistent, then I trust you will agree that the fact that one appears in the NT is very significant in itself. There are also Jesus words about 'the law and the prophets'. Moreover Hebrew scriptures had a very different emphasis and purpose. For example they were concerned with this life, not a life after death, until very late indeed.
I agree none of this is conclusive, but that is my point. I am suspicious of anyone who claims to have a true understanding of scriptures. I certainly don't make that claim and I think to make such a claim misses the whole point. To explain what I mean it would perhaps be necessary to discuss one specific topic in some detail. Perhaps this is not the time or place. Over a pint would be easier.hehe.
You may well be right about pre-suppositions, except that I always used to have JW style pre-suppositions because of programming. After 25 years without opening a bible or thinking of religion, I began studying just a little of how to begin unravelling what scriptures might really mean, if anything. The least I could do was try to tap into the most reliable methods that most recognised theologians and scholars would agree on, although there are inevitably areas of disagreement. I came to the task with an open mind, expecting if anything use the inconsistencies to disprove the validity of the bible to my old friend, who was converting to JWism.
On the shunning doctrine you mention, you seem still to take at face value the JW teaching of what those words mean. An alternative, rather than apply a different pre-supposition, is to apply different methodology. Instead of reading those 2000 year old words as JWs do and clumsily lifting them into a 21st century context, more can be learned from studying the context and background of that text, and by appreciating the practices at that time in that place. But that work has been done by better minds than mine - a favorite of mine being Raymond Franz.
You ask who decides? IMO it is indeed a matter of personal choice, that is if we are interested at all. But for those who wish to study scriptures, my advice would be to reject those 'teachers' who start from the point of view of having a preferred set of doctrines, reflecting pre-supposed ideas, and then fit scriptures into them, by using favourite texts, while ignoring others or distorting their meaning to fit.
For me the choice is simple. Either conclude sriptures have no meaning...as per the past 25 years of my life...or try to apply well established principles that reveal potential to resolve the paradoxes, errors, apparent inconsistencies etc, not only within the bible but with everything we know from science. I am surprised myself at how much I have been able to reconcile in my own heart and mind. If and when it all falls apart, then its back to agnosticism or atheism for me. At least I would be in better company and closer to 'truth' than if I joined some fundie 'Christian' religion.
Regards