Radcliffe Emerson

Some folks, I believe, don't understand some of Jesus' teachings.

How many people know that the teachings about "turn the other cheek", "if asked to carry something a mile, carry it for two", "if someone asks for your shirt, give them your cloak as well", are INSULTS to Romans, not Jesus telling people to be nice?

Jesus said "When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other." Striking someone on a right cheek either meant you were being backhanded, or hit with someone's left hand, both of which were ways Romans insulted Jews. Jesus told his followers to throw the insult right back by offering the other cheek.
A Roman was allowed to inscript a Jew to carry his pack for one mile, but he could not make the person carry it for two miles. By offering to carry it an extra mile, the Roman soldier was humiliated.
If a fellow Jew sued someone for their shirt because they couldn't pay a debt, offering their cloak was an insult, because the accused would then be naked and that was offensive to Jews. It's likely the accuser would not take either the shirt or the cloak at that point.
These teachings are not "be nice, meek and mild teachings", they are meant to start trouble, or to resist authority.
And, Jesus said you must hate your parents to follow him, all unbelievers would be burned in fire (regardless of the type of person they were). Notice it doesn't say Christian ministers who abuse kids will be burned in fire, but just unbelievers. (that's extra on my part, but I've seen to much of this "Jesus forgives me" crap over the years from child abusers.
He treated his own mother with disrespect, calling her "woman", which is offensive in that culture to call your own mother.
He said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. Doesn't sound like a wonderful prince of peace to me.
Jesus was not even a nice person, let alone someone worth worshipping, at least not the Jesus I gleaned from the bible when I read it.

Shadownought

Very interesting stuff.

Do you happen to have any links or references handy that I can follow this up on?

Radcliffe Emerson

I was given this info over the summer by a friend who studied at a Methodist seminary. I'll try to contact him and see if he can cite any sources for what he learned.

Toto

The same themes are on these web sites:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/E...50/gospel.html

and

http://www.tamfs.org/new/ga213/peaceFellowship.asp

among others, but unattributed to any original sources. These web pages seem to think that Jesus was proposing creative non-violence, as opposed to passivity.

I would be interested in learning if there is some good history behind this, or if it is urban legend passed among Christian ministers trying to make sense of Jesus' words.

Vinnie

This thread caught my interest but lost it fast. There is no citation of sources, no statement on how the context of these sayings was determined etc.

What ancient source or sources states that Romans had a regular practice of enlisting Jews to carry their packs for a mile?

How can I know that some Jewish people actually sued others for a shirt because they couldn't pay off their debt in the first century?

And how can I know to carry the pack two miles and to give the cloak was meant as a biting insult rather than a call to humility as the context seems to suggest?

The exegesis thus far has been unsubstantiated. What about "render unto caesar what is casesars? What about replay curses with blessings? What about love thy neighbor as thyself? What about do unto others as you would have done to you? Why should I blindly accept the proposed context for these sayings when in fact they are NOT the context that GLuke and GMatthew have them in???

One thing in your post was certainly true: the first line cited directly below:

Lets look at the context of Matthew's "turn the cheek line"

5: 38 You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Someone may have missed the line in bold above.

Furthering the absurdity that is this thread, let's look at Luke's version:

6:27-36
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.


What about his comments on Corban and his agreement with the commandment telling us to love our father and mother? Hate can be an idiom meaning to love less. Many sober reconstructions have thus interpreted Jesus' words. Its kind of strange that a man who told us to love our enemies would tells us to hate our parents--those nearest and dearest to us and at the same time endorse the commandment telling us to love them. Doesn't that seem strange to you too??

Citation ?

And that comments veracity is demonstrated by what ancient source or sources?

And the context of that passage is?

Vinnie

CX

I have to say I'm mostly with Vinnie on this one. Most of this stuff sounds hokey and I've never come across it in my reading. Then we're told "I heard it from a friend" and it starts to sound more and more like urban legend. I, too, would love to see some references on this (not that I'm saying they don't exist).

On the other hand I have always been a bit confused by people (including non-Xians) thinking Jesus was such a great guy. Particularly in the U.S. where our basic fundamental values (i.e. personal liberty, capitalism etc.) couldn't be more contrary to Jesus' essential philosophy. Based on the NT depiction of him (which is no doubt heavily colored by myth) he was a wandering kook, who hated his family, rejected the established values of the time, promoted an extremely ascetic lifestyle and favored a socialistic community structure. And who thought the end of times was just around the corner. If Jesus came today, he'd either be locked up asa nutcase or standing on a street corner shouting through a megaphone and riding around in a 1968 VW Microbus with religious tracts painted all over it.

Radcliffe Emerson

I have emailed my reverend friend questioning if he has any sources.
But I could reply with:

"How do I know Jesus even existed? There is absolutely no proof outside the bible".

Josephus' mention isn't credible, several scholars have stated it's not original.

Radcliffe Emerson

Just about anyone who bothers to study the Middle East knows the term "woman" is derogatory, especially when directed at one's mother.

And Jesus telling people to hate their parents isn't strange to me at all, because quite frankly, my opinion of him from the biblical description is, if he existed and was a real person, he was an *sshole.

Vinnie

What is this nonsense? What does this thread have to do with mythicism? You started a thread filled with eisegesis and nonsensical interpretations of sayings attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels that were woven from whole cloth. When called on these ridiculous understandings you revert to a totally irrelevant and fallacious argument that "several scholars state Josephus' reference was not original". What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything you were talking about or anything in my response? While you are figuring it out take a gander at this:

*Vinnie's waves his magic wand and says "Abra Cadabra"!* Magically manyscholars appear in front of your several scholars and they say the passage contains an authentic references to Jesus and accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Sadly, nothing gets resolved by these shallow arguments/magic tricks.

Well then, that is good news since I take it to mean that it won't be very hard for you to document your claim considering how basic and trivial it is.

That's not surprising considering that your commentary on the sayings and personality of Jesus demonstrates unequivocally that you know little or next to nothing about the man behind the Gospels.

Vinnie

Radcliffe Emerson

Questions were asked "How do I know Roman soldiers did this?, etc"
I don't find my answer "How do I know Jesus existed in the first place?" to be any different.
And I've read the bible from front to back, starting with Genesis and ending in Revelation, took 2 and a half years.
And I do not find Jesus or the God the bible claims to have any worthwhile attributes.