No Robots

Christ's parables are mashalim:

The meshalim in Hebrew, however, was often intentionally confusing or deliberately obfuscating in nature--much more like the Greek enigma (riddle).

Christ uses standard midrashic technique:

Midrash minimizes the authority of the wording of the text as communication, normal language. It places the focus on the reader and the personal struggle of the reader to reach an acceptable moral application of the text. While it is always governed by the wording of the text, it allows for the reader to project his or her inner struggle into the text. This allows for some very powerful and moving interpretations which, to the ordinary user of language, seem to have very little connection with the text. The great weakness of this method is that it always threatens to replace the text with an outpouring of personal reflection. At its best it requires the presence of mystical insight not given to all readers.

It is important to bear in mind that all Christ's words are imbued with the idea of spiritual separatism, that only the few who are spiritually receptive are truly capable of understanding his meaning.

perfectidius

D-Ray,

If you posit a list of things Jesus said were ethical to do, and then check his behavoir against it, you will find inconsistencies, such as the ones I pointed out, his praying in public, his doing his acts of righteosness in public, his speaking in obscure parables to deliberately confuse, when he teaches against the law, but at one point in Matthew says the entire law is eternal and should not be valiated.

It is not difficult to see the inner tensions in a text like this, if you are looking for it. Whenever a human being wants to present a version of the "the ideal" as MAtthew, Mark, and Luke have done, they are going to make mistakes, being only human.

That being said, I will list off some of Jesus' discrepencies, assuming the synoptic gospels present his actual life and mission. Since I am doing this off the top of my head, I do not have exact verse references (I am assuming you are familiar with the gospels--this is by no means a scholarly critique).

ONE -- Jesus says that he specifically chose his disciples, even "the devil" Judas. A few times, he anticipates what Judas will do to betray him. And than he says "Woe to the man who betrays me. It would be better if he were never born." Yet Jesus could have spared Judas his fate worse then death by saying right at the beginning: "I think we are going to have loyalty issues. I wish you well, but if I do not want you as an immediate disciple at this time." Or something equally gentle but firm, so that Judas would not dishonor himself through suicide. Assuming that Jesus knew what would happen, he either chose it deliberately or let it happen, which is not something to do to one who is a close follower and friend. This is a contradiction insofar as Jesus said, "Lead us not into temptation" to God, but himself leads Judas into temptation.

TWO -- Delve into the sermon on the mount, since this is an "epitome" of his teachings, according to MAtthew. He says there that if you have any difficulty with your adversary, reconcile with him quickly, lest you be taken to court. He never reconciles himself with the Pharisees, and is taken to court at the end.

THREE -- He says to give to anybody who asks you. But when a demoniac is cured by Jesus, and in gratitude asks to follow Jesus, Jesus prevents him.

FOUR -- His phrase "Judge not lest you be judged" he breaks in spades.

FIVE -- He says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto," but as you said, he calls a woman a dog, since she is not Jewish, he insults his critics, he insults his disciples.

SIX -- He repeats the command that we ought to honor our parents, but at one point he disowns his mother, and says his disciples are his mother.

SEVEN -- He says that what goes in the mouth does not corrupt, but only what comes out. This seems to be a rejection of the Jewish dietary code.

EIGHT -- He says that you must be humble to get to heaven, but in any debate, Jesus always has the last word, and makes his enemies look like fools. He never seems to learn from his enemies, which would be humble, or say that they are wise, or seem to respect or compliment anybody (at one point, it says that Jesus respected no man). In other words, Jesus may have been humble towards God, but he was arrogant towards men, as Blake noted.

NINE -- He said the greatest man must be a servant to all. But it seems he himself led a celebrity career of healing people and becoming famous for his wisdom, unlike a real "slave" or "servant" which have to do much inglorious hard work.

TEN -- He says that Elias (John the Baptist) came to join father and son, but that he came to sever them. He didn't respect the family unit much. This is not a contradiction, however. Buddha didn't either, and it goes with religious zealosy.


As I said, off the top of my head. Also, he tended to speak in hyperbole, so his yes wasn't yes, but YEEEEES!!!

Daniel

perfectidius

Thanks, no robots, that is interesting to me.

However, just to clarify, I do not think it is wrong to teach in parables, or riddles or koans. I was putting this tecnique next to his injunction to speak in simply "let your yes be yes, your no, no."

He does not always speak in simple easy to understand ways.

Daniel

No Robots

Yer most welcome! I love talking about this.

Here (Mt 5:33-37) he is just trying to get people to stop the superstitious practice of swearing oaths. He would undoubtedly condemn the practice of swearing on the Bible!

perfectidius

Dear No Robots,

That is not how I understand the verses to be. Yes, he is speaking in reference to oaths. With the immediate context it reads like this:


You see that this is in special reference to legal matters: don't divorce, don't sue anybody, but if sued, give them whatever they ask. I think the special emphasis in these verses is about worrying about what you can control, because he says resist not evil, but give anything anybody asks. And then he says don't swear by God or the earth because you have no control over these things. But you do have control over your speech.

When he says "let your communication be yes yes, no no," I interpret this to mean that we ought to speak in such a way that nobody would expect us to make an oath. We get a reputation for speaking in a way that people don't have to get us to swear or clarify, but simply say "this is a man who says it like it is."

Note that this entire section is about "exceeding the rigtheosness of the Pharisees" and also, like the entire sermon, living a genuine life outside of social conventions. "Do not worry about food or drink"--that is, don't work. "Settle things with your adversary"--that is, avoid any use of the courts. "Swear not at all," that is, any conventional proof of your truth. He says that relating well to your brother is more important than your religious duties too.

"Let your yes be yes," is given as the alternative to swearing. But this cannot exist merely in the moment when somebody wants you to swear. IT is about having a character and reputation for simple honesty.

However, the parables are often indirect, not only to give insiders a bonus, but to make the outsiders even more confused: "He who has will be given more, he who does not have, even what he thinks ha has shall be taken away," or, in moderm parlance: "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

The practice of swearing oaths was not mere superstition, but was grounded also in the Torah, which he quotes. Thus it is curious that he says anything beyond a simple "yes, yes," "comes from the evil one."

Perhaps this refers to magic, superstitions, and magic, or perhaps in reference to "the evil one" as liar.

It is important to note that Jesus knew and seems to have intended his parables to worsen certain hearers.

Daniel

No Robots

Well, he's quite willing to challenge conventional understanding of Torah.

I look at his approach as realistic rather than as intentional. He knew people would misunderstand him no matter what he said. He also knew that this misunderstanding would be to their own detriment. The power of his thought, when misused, has indeed proven to be catastrophic.

At a deeper level, the point is that those who pride themselves on understanding are quite often mistaken not only in the detail of the question under dispute, but in the entire foundation of their thinking. For example, mythicists are mistaken on the nature of Christ, but this mistake is simply one manifestation of their generally distorted thought-realm. When their error on the specific question of Christ is made obvious to them, it undermines all the rest of their thought. Thus, even that which they thought they were sure of is taken away.

perfectidius

So do you consider yourself one who is "in" on the meanings of the parables. I don't ask this as a challenge or even an explanation of the parables, but merely how you understand yourself in relation to the text.

Do you happen to know any nonChristian parables that you have grown by?

Yes, perhaps he didn't want "who does not have to have even less"--I can't think of anybody who would want to worsen other people. However, he has some points that have caused much controversy that he should have been clearer about, if he wanted to help us in the long term. For instance, the business of "the unforgivable sin" seems deathly important, yet it is presented cryptically.

Daniel

No Robots

Yes. I was born and raised an atheist, but was always "in tune" with what Christ says. I don't say that I know and understand everything about it, just that what I do understand resonates very deeply within me.

No, not really. I mean, with him you have all the greatest parables. Why go looking for more? There is other wisdom that I do try to hold in my mind. Lately, I'm quite devoted to this:

On his travels, Gilgamesh meets a goddess who tries to persuade him to end his quest for immortality with these words:

Gilgamesh, whither rovest thou?
The life thou pursuest thou shalt not find.
When the gods created mankind,
Death for mankind they set aside,
Life in their own hands retaining.
Thou, Gilgamesh, let full be thy belly
Make thou merry by day and by night.
Of each day make thou a feast of rejoicing,
Day and night dance thou and play
Let thy garments be sparkling and fresh,
Thy head be washed, bathe thou in water.
Pay heed to the little one that holds thy hand,
Let thy spouse delight in thy bosom,
For this is the task of mankind.

The unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the spirit, meaning holding in contempt everything that we mean by the human spirit: freedom, love, honour, duty. How can this be forgiven when the man who is guilty does not even recognize it as a transgression?

FathomFFI

I don't believe that's the proper interpretation of those verses. Have a look HERE at my theory.

perfectidius

You say that you are unfamiliar with nonChristian parables, and yet say that Christ's are the greatest? Thus you present me with a parable of my own to dissect.

Make your teeth rounder on this menu of morsels: The Gateless Barrier, a set of Zen Koans.
I look at your interpretation as a personal one, valid for you, but not one that is going to appease the angst of Christians sweating about whether they have committed something that will never be forgiven.

Ideosyncratic interpretations that strengthen us personally are of course most valuabe, in one sense.

Daniel