TEC Documentary hypothesis (page 12)

THE GLADIATOR

'He wasn't terribly supportive of anything other than following him to heaven.'

He supported the Hebrew desert god Jehovah.

Pistoff

The implication is that Jesus was more of the same old prophet; if we accept at least some of the given text, that isn't true.

Saying he didn't speak out about pedophilia and rape gives the impression he condoned them; no evidence of that.

I am not a believer in the Christian view of Jesus, but I take at least a portion (ok, the Q portion) of what Jesus said to be accurate.

As such, he would have been a radical departure from business as usual, the oppress women and children and follow the leader mentality of the ancient near east.

mP

SoonToBe:

I also think Job is a great book. It questions why life is unfair, and why there is suffering even for moral people. It furnishes no answers to these questions. It is left as a mystery.

mP:

Do you believe Job when its said that the Zodiac and Astrology control our lives in Job 38:32 and other places ? DO you think its good advice telling people to believe such stupidities ?

mP

Pistoff:

from mP:
"He never condmened slavery, pedophila, rape, abuse of women and was racist."
What a ridiculous statement. Where do you see Jesus passive about these subjects??

mP:

My statement is absolutely true, if i am wrong show me the scripture where he condemsn any of the above.

Pistoff:
Where does rape occur and Jesus remain silent? Or slavery? Are you thinking of Paul? Are you thinking that the issue of pedophilia was discussed in ancient times like it is today?

mP:

HOw could Jesus be so blind and never condemn any of the things i mentioned above ? GIven nearly half th epopulation was enslaved and half the population were oppressed women how could he miss thie large social group ?

Thats 3/4 of all people living a tough life that could use some support from a SO CALLED MORAL GREATER TEACHER and he says nothing not once against either ? The best he can do is continue dozens of times to tell them and others to pay tax ? Is he a stooge for rich Caesar ?

For me the prupose the oppression of women in the past in all cultures was to enslave them and give them no rights. Its that simple.

The great proof in all these discussion is not personal opinoins but scroptures so show me if im wrong ?

mP

Cofty:

The book of Jonah is my favourite example. The fish was just an amusing detail, the real miracle was the wholesale repentance of Nineveh. It was like saying that a pastor walked through the streets of Kandahar and all the Taliban threw down their guns and put on WWJD bracelets. The point of the story is xenophobia. Jonah cared more about the demise of a tree than the destruction of a city.

mP:
Interestingly Jonah means dove. The dove like the hawk or falcon was a symbol of the sun. We can see that Jonah, Fish etc are all pagan symbols of the same mystical sun worship. The fish symbols xians stick on their cars are of course pagan, just like dec 25, and easter.

mP

EnirelyPossible

12 apostles and not one of them a woman? Jesus support of women is completely missing. Jesus condemnation of slavery is missing. Jesus condemnation of women as property is missing. Jesus condemnation of all sorts of things is missing. He wasn't terribly supportive of anything other than following him to heaven.

mP:

Thanks for the commentary however, jesus never promises women goto heaven either. He barely wanted to help the sick Samaratian woman because she was a dog. The label dog is tremendous insult in arab countries because they consider dogs dirty dirty animals. In the story he completely ignores her and wants to walk away.

This story shows the racist angle very clearly. Two bad marks for jesus here.

mP

Pistoff:

As such, he would have been a radical departure from business as usual, the oppress women and children and follow the leader mentality of the ancient near east.

mP:
Thats a mighty big statement to make, given you have failed to show how Jesus was different from the cruel nasty ways of the OT. Please show scriptures.

Pistoff

I am not sure you have read the gospels.

As a disclaimer, remember, I don't believe in the christology that surrounds Jesus, and I agree with the Q hypothesis.

Still, the core sayings of Jesus paint him as someone out of the mainstream.

Love your neighbor as yourself

Love your enemies and pray for them

Turn the other cheek

These are ideas that were foreign to both Jewish religious thinking and to the Romans who occupied Palestine.

Consider the idea presented in the parable of the good Samaritan; what would it's equal be today? For a redneck southern christian, would it be a young black man in a hoodie who saves the traveler? For a christian Tea Party member, would it be a mexican illegal? For an American would it be a Muslim in full hijab? Jesus was challenging his audience to consider ethics rather than racial lines, to consider that a someone from a hated minority might just have higher ethics than the most righteous appearing Jew. That is not the same old thinking you suggest.

You have once again completely missed the point of the Samaritan woman. He spoke to her; that was anathema to Jews, both to speak to a woman and a Samaritan, who were considered rank pretenders to being god's people.

The gospels, which is the only thing this conversation can be based on, portray Jesus as an iterant preacher whose ethics were to ignore the dictates of law in favor of morality, to include women in his entourage and to adopt a worldview opposite that of jewish and Roman mores.

EntirelyPossible

The implication is that Jesus was more of the same old prophet; if we accept at least some of the given text, that isn't true.

Some of the text such as ...?

Still, the core sayings of Jesus paint him as someone out of the mainstream.

Uh, not really. First, all of those things pre-date Jesus, and saying three nice things while condoning by silence all of the horrible stuff doesn't make him "not mainstream". What made him not mainstream was challenging the ruling class to a dick measuring contest.

tec

If you tally Jesus good messages with his bad messages, guess which comse out on top ?

The good ones. The only 'bad' messages are for those who practice judging others, hypocrisy, lies.

The only good line Jesus ever had was his love thy neighbour. His own disciples were thugs. MOst of them were violent, carried swords and members of terrorist of groups. Iscariot = Sicarri, John sons of Thunder (Maccabees = Thunder in Hebrew), and so on.

I'm sorry, but the above is 'bearing false witness', and judging... based on your own opinion. You do not have proof of any of these things... and yet you toss accusations and judgments about people you do not know around as if you're handing out candy.

He never condmened slavery, pedophila, rape, abuse of women and was racist.

Pistoff answered this better than I could, so i defer to his words.

What is exactlyis there to be impressed with ? WIth all the evil in the world at those times, the most important social topic he can commentary on after the kingdom and loving his father is to pay tax.and be an obedient slave ? WTF is going on here ?

What is going on is that you have an agenda and a bias and so you see what you want to see... to confirm your 'non-belief'.

Someone offering Life, someone speaking for the oppressed and burdened, someone preaching forgiveness, love, mercy; someone preaching to turn the other cheek and love one's enemies... and not just preaching these things but LIVING them... that is something to be 'impressed' by. Or is this world so jaded that it is just something to tear down and find fault with?

Please dont get dirty about semantics, i add Law of Moses to help focus on what we are talking about removing all ambiguity. Im sure we all know that it refers to the Torah and the laws it contains. Its not a commentary, its a instrument of convenience

Please do not miss the point. There is nothing wrong with the law... but there are some things that were added to make allowance for the hard-heartedness of the people. Because THEY could do no better. The law itself is covered under love. If something in the law is in conflict with love, then you might consider that you are interpreting that law incorrectly.

(and if you think laws cannot be 'interpreted', then you should probably spend some time talking to lawyers)

How can htere be any truth in a book that writes every major story twice with contradictions ? WIth so many doubles which is truth ?

Be assured that I was speaking of Christ. He is the Truth. With so many doubles, as you put it... if you want to know what is truth, then look to THE Truth (Christ) to know.

Simple.

There are 4 gospels that all contradict each other. Only one can be right, so the other three must be removed.

For one, this is a fallacy. Minor differences are not contradicting accounts. Some accounts having some things that are absent in others is just different viewpoints from different witnesses. Makes more sense that this would happen, than that the accounts would be identical.

Apply that to all of the other things that you think must be removed, and your numbers are significantly lower.

In any case, there is a much easier way to know if something is true or not... and that would be by looking AT the Truth.

Go thru and for each law write down which social group they benefit. The overwhelming number is rich kings and priests. We have entire books devoted to sacrifices and this and that for priests. How man y books do we have to orphans or raped virgins ?

Go through and read it for yourself. The commandments benefit any group. The law on divorce was an addendum to protect women. Prophets condemn the practice of showing partiality in courts, as well as not caring for orphans. Perhaps if you want to talk about the law and what the Israelites thought of rape and such, you should talk to a rabbi or two today, and get their take. There is even a law that says that one can NOT turn a runaway slave back to their master, but that one has to offer sanctuary and care to that one.

Peace,

tammy

TEC Documentary hypothesis

Share this