quantumspirit

2005 years ago...

He provided free health care to those too poor to afford cough drops.

He declared old religious laws to be obsolete, saying it is okay to eat pork; and stopped the stoning of an adulteress.

He made friends with tax collectors and harlots, and angrily scolded the religious right of his day.

Rather than turning wine into water, his first miracle was turning water into wine, and it was just for a wedding reception!

Moral relativism: he allowed his disciples to eat wheat on a sabbath, and healed people on sabbaths.

He actually discouraged praying in public (whose side was he on?), and encouraged people to pray behind closed doors.

spin

BC&H? Naaa.

And it's one two three what are we waiting for?
Don't ask me, I don't really care,
as long as its elsewhere

Toto

Now, spin. This might not be your cup of tea, but the opening post embodies a view of the Historical Jesus that is very popular, had been very popular with religious liberals, and might be worth discussing.

Did he? He cured a few people, but did nothing for public health or medicine in general. He didn't cure the poor because they didn't have money for real medicine, he cured people who would otherwise have died as a demonstration of his miraculous powers.

Where did Jesus say it is okay to eat pork? Didn't he also say that he came to uphold the law?

I'm not sure that the religious right can be identified with the Pharisees.

I think you're getting carried away with your words. Who turns wine into water? Wine turns into vinegar. And wedding receptions were major social events of the day.

Eating wheat on the sabbath is perfectly ok, it's working to harvest it that is the problem.

One of our favorite verses.

quantumspirit

Yes! this forum is called "internet infidels", a place for agnostics, atheists, and heretics. If you look at my profile, basic beliefs, it says "Jesus was a liberal". How much more heretical can you get? Even if it is 100% true, it is still heresy.

I am a Christian, but I also support same sex marriage, abortion on demand, and marijuana. I used to be very conservative, but Bu$h changed that. So as for marijuana, I've still never even pulled a Clinton.

spin

Still nothing to do with BC&H: it's the wrong forum.

And it's five six seven open up your pearly gates
Ain't no time to wonder why,
To elsewhere it's gonna fly.

Toto

quantum - you are welcome here, but realize that we try to go a bit beyond the pop culture view of Jesus, or the political uses of Jesus. I know that a generation of religious liberals thought that Jesus was a liberal. There are sayings attribued to Jesus that seem to support a more liberal agenda, but there is much more to early Christianity.

If you found out that Jesus wasn't really a liberal, would you change, or would you find another historical icon?

David B

There are accounts written after the time of anecdotal evidence that he cured a few people. There is anecdotal evidence that incredible sounding cures have been made by tv evangeleists, Hindu fakirs, Catholic saints and/or shrines, shamans of many traditions, psychic surgeons, and quack medics of all kinds. Not all of these have been subjected to close objective scrutiny, because they happened in the past, or the participants refuse, or no-one was around to scrutinise. However, every case that I know of that has been scrutinised has not been shown to involve anything supernatural.

Induction is not proof, but does constitute evidence. The claim that supernatural healings by Jesus' will happened is an extraordinary claim, needing extraordinary evidence. What makes the bible so different from any other source of anecdotal evidence about miraculous cures? Apart from the fact that it was written after the event, instead of being contemporary?

He said, as someone said above, that he had not come to change the law. He also said that he had not come to bring peace, but a sword, and that he had come to set family members against each other.

Allegedly. Might he not have taken support where he could, and scolded those who took a different interpretation of Judeism to his own. Appaerently there were loads of sects around all the time - as there are in both Judeism and Xianity to this day. Lots of them criticise others, lots of them try to convert who they can. And, as mentioned above, it is hard to make a direct comparison with current ideas of left and right, and conditions then.
Rather than turning wine into water, his first miracle was turning water into wine, and it was just for a wedding reception!

Moral relativism. According to the accounts, what he said at the time was right, in his view. Telling people to sell all they have to buy swords one day, telling people off for using a sword another day. A pattern seen in demagogues of all ages.

If so, what has this to do with liberalism?

David B

John Kesler

Mark 7:18-19, although it is uncertain if the declaration that all foods are clean is Jesus' or Mark's parenthetical comment.

Yes, in Matthew 5:17-18.

Vorkosigan

Even if the writer is attributing it to Jesus, I would say the vast majority of non-conservative commentators do not believe this goes back to the historical Jesus. Certainly if Jesus had left clear instructions about food laws, there would have been no wrangling about it among the early Xtian communities. Further, as our own Steve Carr points out, Jesus basically abrogates one of the most important rules of Judaism here, yet no enemy of Jesus in Mark's gospel says anything about it for the remaining 9 chapters.

Vorkosigan

John Kesler

Yes, and I mentioned the uncertainty about whether the declaration that all foods are clean comes from Jesus or is a parenthetical comment by Mark. It's possible that Mark or a later scribe wanted to make explicit what one must infer from Jesus' preceding words and the parallel account in Matthew 15. Gospel of Thomas saying 14 also discusses this topic when it says in part that, "[w]hen you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."