Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-15-2011, 10:42 AM

Slavery, Abolitionism and the Ethics of Biblical Scholarship: Reflections about Ethical Deflections

Quote:

So how is it that most Christian academic biblical scholars never see anything that Jesus does as wrong or evil? The answer, of course, is that most Christian biblical scholars, whether in secular academia or in seminaries, still see Jesus as divine, and not as a human being with faults.

**

So how is it that most Christian academic biblical scholars never see anything that Jesus does as wrong or evil? The answer, of course, is that most Christian biblical scholars, whether in secular academia or in seminaries, still see Jesus as divine, and not as a human being with faults.

Such scholars are still studying Jesus through the confessional lenses of Nicea or Chalcedon rather than through a historical approach we would use with other human beings. In fact, Luke Timothy Johnson, a well known New Testament scholar at Emory University, remarks:

We can go further and state that the basic “historical” claims of the Nicene Creed are well supported: “He was born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried”…in essence, what the most universally used Christian creed asserts about the human person Jesus is historically verifiable.⁴

No Robots · 11-15-2011, 10:50 AM

Avalos makes no mention of Jewish scholars, which is par for the course among critics of Christian Bible scholarship.

Juststeve · 11-15-2011, 11:48 AM

Which of the alleged deeds of Jesus does Avalos contend should be viewed as wrong or evil? If he would specify perhaps we could speculate about what some do not regard those deeds as wrong or evil.

Steve

mountainman · 11-15-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Avalos makes no mention of Jewish scholars, which is par for the course among critics of Christian Bible scholarship.

I dont think he needs to. At least one Jewish scholar might agree with his overall thesis in a restrospective sense:

Quote:

p.20
"The Greeks like history, but never made it the foundation of their lives."

"To the biblical Hebrew, history and religion were one. This identification,
via the Gospels, has never ceased to be relevant to Christian civilisation."

p.23
"History had nothing to explain and little to reveal to the man who meditated
the Law day and night. The Torah is not only permanent in its value, but
regular in its effects."

Here the Jewish-Italian historian was talking about his Jewish father. A parallel can be drawn between the Bible and the Torah. The Torah and the Bible and the Koran and the Gita etc etc etc are all, by some, considered as objects of divine reverence etc etc etc.

Quote:

p.24
"The Law of the Jews was definitely beyond history".

Momigliano

The basic premise alluded to above is:

Quote:

most Christian biblical scholars, whether in secular academia or in seminaries, still see Jesus as divine ....

A very hard hitting article by Avalos.

The bible was authored in antiquity. Avalos is calling for its retirement. His claim paraphrased is that it's essentially Draconian and (thus?) a bit out of date for the 21st century. Avalos does not sound like someone who would subscribe to the historicity of the Matthean zombie event. Talk about polarities in 21st century "Biblical Scholarship".

No Robots · 11-15-2011, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Here the Jewish-Italian historian was talking about his Jewish father.

Here's what he had to say about another relative:

Felice soon became convinced that for the Israelites emancipation implied the responsibility of freeing Judaism from narrow-mindedness and from what was no longer historically valid in order to bring it back to its prophetic sources and to accept the moral preaching of Jesus as the final speaker of Israel's prophetism.--"Felice Momigliano: 1866-1924" / Arnaldo Momigliano. In Essays on ancient and modern Judaism, p. 144.

This is the line of thought that post-Christians refuse to deal with.

Toto · 11-15-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Which of the alleged deeds of Jesus does Avalos contend should be viewed as wrong or evil? If he would specify perhaps we could speculate about what some do not regard those deeds as wrong or evil.

Steve

In this article, Avalos alludes to Jesus' endorsement of slavery. There is more context in the article, and a reference to his book on the issue of slavery in Christianity.

I imagine that others might include the temple rampage, in which the property of hard working temple traders was destroyed. Or the bad advice Jesus gives about not worrying about feeding and clothing oneself.

aa5874 · 11-15-2011, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Which of the alleged deeds of Jesus does Avalos contend should be viewed as wrong or evil? If he would specify perhaps we could speculate about what some do not regard those deeds as wrong or evil.

Steve

Well, if Jesus was really human then there are lots of thing that are wrong in the NT.

The NT must be a book of DECEPTION.

Deception is Evil.

Jesus did NOT feed NINE thousand people with 12 loaves of bread and a few fish.

If Jesus was human who INITIATED that story to DECEIVE people into believing that Jesus did FEED the hungry crowd?

And there are lots more of these type of DECEPTIVE stories in the NT.

If Jesus was human then the NT as it is presented is EVIL.

Deception is EVIL.

Horatio Parker · 11-15-2011, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Which of the alleged deeds of Jesus does Avalos contend should be viewed as wrong or evil? If he would specify perhaps we could speculate about what some do not regard those deeds as wrong or evil.

Steve

From another source:

Quote:

There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.
You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.

Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him asHis chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.

Bertrand Russell "Why I am Not a Christian"

aa5874 · 11-15-2011, 08:43 PM

If Jesus was a man then the ENTIRE CANON are Compilation of DECEPTION and LIES.

How can it be Explained that EVERY SINGLE author of every book did NOT ever admit at all that virtually every single event about Jesus is Fiction.

This is most remarkable.

How could we have Christianity based on a complete mis-representation of Jesus as a man?

Jesus could NOT have been known as a man by any author of the NT.

Jesus was ONLY believed to have EXISTED as the Child of a Holy Ghost, who was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

BELIEF not history is the ONLY reasonable resolution for the NT Canon and Christianity.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-15-2011, 10:50 AM	#2
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Avalos makes no mention of Jewish scholars, which is par for the course among critics of Christian Bible scholarship.

11-15-2011, 11:48 AM	#3
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Which of the alleged deeds of Jesus does Avalos contend should be viewed as wrong or evil? If he would specify perhaps we could speculate about what some do not regard those deeds as wrong or evil. Steve

11-15-2011, 08:43 PM	#9
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	If Jesus was a man then the ENTIRE CANON are Compilation of DECEPTION and LIES. How can it be Explained that EVERY SINGLE author of every book did NOT ever admit at all that virtually every single event about Jesus is Fiction. This is most remarkable. How could we have Christianity based on a complete mis-representation of Jesus as a man? Jesus could NOT have been known as a man by any author of the NT. Jesus was ONLY believed to have EXISTED as the Child of a Holy Ghost, who was God and the Creator of heaven and earth. BELIEF not history is the ONLY reasonable resolution for the NT Canon and Christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.