An Apology

[Teresh]

Jesus fits neither into a "liberal" label nor a "conservative" label. In fact, in his day, the "conservatives" were the pharisees and temple priests, who he preached against all the time for being hypocrits. However, Jesus doesn't really fit into the "liberal" label either (although I think you could say he's closer to liberal than conservative in many ways -- read Matthew 5 and Matthew 25.)

Actually, the Pharisees were liberals... The Sadducees were conservatives. The Essenes were essentially the Jewish version of the Amish.

 

[christlovedeaf]

People like Pat Robertson give all Christians a bad name. He is a misguided fool who sees evil intent in everything. He's a paranoid, a fear monger, and he mixes his politics with his religion too often and too easily (and does injustice to both in the process).

Jesus fits neither into a "liberal" label nor a "conservative" label. In fact, in his day, the "conservatives" were the pharisees and temple priests, who he preached against all the time for being hypocrits. However, Jesus doesn't really fit into the "liberal" label either (although I think you could say he's closer to liberal than conservative in many ways -- read Matthew 5 and Matthew 25.)

Anyway, for those who distrust religion, don't take people like Pat Roberton or Jerry Faldwell as good representatives of the Christian Faith. They are far too ego driven to be good deliverers of Jesus' message. Jesus' calling is not about "learning and following all the rules". It's not about "defending marriage from homosexuals". It's not about whether you're "pro-choice" or "anti-abortion". It's not about making a spectacle of yourself by publicly passing judgement on whole groups of people. Jesus said to be careful judging people, because God makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust alike. Our judgement should be tempered with the thought that we're presuming to know what God would want. Personally, I don't consider myself wise enough most of the time to make that kind of public statement, and I find it a better use of my time to keep my mind on my own sins, and what I can personally do to make the world better.

I do wonder, for those who hold up morons like Pat Robertson and Jerry Faldwell as their reason for not giving Christianity a real try, do they do this as a straw man argument? Certainly there are those in the faith who make a mockery of it, and there have been those who called themselves Christians who have done evil things, but there are countless others who are more honorable, and who have taken Jesus' teachings to heart and made a positive impact on the world: Martin Luther King Jr., Billy Graham, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Teresa, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, just to name a few.

I also think it's possible for a rationalist to find the Christian system of morality to be reasonable. C.S. Lewis wrote a book called "Mere Christianity" that talks about this. I used to be an athiest, or at least a staunch agnostic, mostly because I'm a rationalist. Christianity seemed childish to me. However, after reading C.S. Lewis, I started to see how it's anything but childish, and it's worth learning more about. That's how I became a Christian -- not because some idiot tricked, scared, or shamed me into it, but rather because it just made sense to me.

So, friends, if you have a chance some time, grab a copy of "Mere Christianity" at the library. It's not a long book, and it's an easy read. Then decide for yourself. Is it worth reading Jesus' words yourself once you finish "Mere Christianity"? You're the only person who can answer that question, and from your perspective, the only person for whom it matters.

I agree with this. And its very true, Jesus has no political issues in this, and not only that, what Jesus wants is You (each of us). I like the sermon this morning about heart renovating. Its about Love. How we treat people, and it doesn't mean being open minded, but setting example of Christ. Each of us need to consider what Jesus called me to do, am I honor the Lord what I'm doing? Saying? Thinking? Etc... Yes, C S Lewis has a great example of his messages, and oddly, the sermon quote it from C S Lewis this morning. As of this month, 1 chapter a day, reading Book of Proverbs, and not only that sermon quote it plus Joyce Meyers talking about the Love last few days. Yes, all of us make mistakes in some ways, but learning from that. Yes, I don't support how Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson handling it. True, we should fight against spiritual darkness, but not people. On other threads I have mentioned that, watch Jesus, how He shared His messages and walk, which we should be the same. To open minded lead destructions and too legalistic kill the Spirit, must have the balance and right judgements, only by the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JLFWildKat]

edit: oh yeah, and once again to Evangelical Christians. I'm sorry

I'm really sorry.

haha! I'm not sorry!

Must be back on that crack again eh?

 

[Calphool]

Actually, the Pharisees were liberals... The Sadducees were conservatives. The Essenes were essentially the Jewish version of the Amish.

Yes, but compared to the Pharisees, Jesus was even more liberal (or "radical" if you prefer) in many respects. It's evident that Jesus' teachings have much in common with Pharisaic thought, and he was probably influenced by them. The Pharisees were liberal compared to the Sadducees (temple hierarchy) because they believed (like rabbinic Judaism that emerged from the diaspora following the destruction of the temple) that the books of the prophets were God inspired, while the Sadducees considered them suspect. The pharisaic / rabbinic tradition also underplayed the value of physical ritual sacrifice, whereas the Sadducees' entire faith system was built around it.

The Essenes were messianic separatists, so yes, there's a certain similarity to the Amish, although I'm not sure that I'd call the Amish any more messianic than any other Christian group, so that aspect of it doesn't hold. The Essenes might be more like "The Branch Davidians" of their time.

Nevertheless, I think my point holds. Neither liberals nor conservatives have a claim to the teachings of Jesus. He is both and neither in different respects.

 

[Teresh]

Yes, but compared to the Pharisees, Jesus was even more liberal (or "radical" if you prefer) in many respects.

I don't think that statement is really defensible. The Pharisees portrayed in the Mishnah are essentially identical to the way Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels. I can't see how he was any more or less liberal than any other Pharisee, nor can I see his philosophy being at all original.

 

[Calphool]

...I've come to learn what we know and what we think we know doesn't matter. I've recently denounced the myth of Creationism. Why? Because it doesn't hold water. Do I accept Evolution? Maybe.

I think we should look at Genesis with a different perspective than a lot of Evangelicals do (I hate that word, because it gives people claim to something that I don't think is theirs -- "evangelism". I'm as much of an evangelist as anyone, so someone who mixes their preconceived notions and religion shouldn't be allowed to steal that word from me! But I digress...)

Anyway, I think the Bible tells us much more about the WHY of what God does than it tells us about the specifics of HOW things were done. And, after all, isn't the WHY more important than the HOW? Is it important that the earth be created in precisely 6 days? What exactly is a day when the sun doesn't exist yet, anyway? If we step back from largely irrelevant details, there's a more important story. God created us because he wanted a companion. He wanted someone to teach, and to love. Going further, he watched his creation, and chose a particular group to be monitored closely and taught (in both negative and positive ways). Going further, he expanded this group to be less about tribal relationships and more about how individual people reacted to his revelation. He accomplished this expansion by incorporating the important details of the teachings of this older belief system with a newer one that re-emphasized what he was trying to accomplish from the very beginning.

These broad brush strokes are more important than the details. I don't need every single word of the Bible to be flawlessly interpretted for thousands of years to understand and believe in the broad strokes.

Any architect will tell you that a building which requires every single one of its millions of parts to perform perfectly is a very brittle and unstable building. I don't think God would entrust something as important as his biography to an unstable framework. It's the I-beams and the concrete that matter, not the light switch on the western wall of the seventh floor men's restroom. Those who are hell-bent on "defending the faith" should pay close attention to Matthew 6. The faith can largely take care of itself -- it's built on a solid foundation.

Our job is to be good disciples. If we're doing a good job of that, the rest works itself out. Rather than wringing our hands about the evils of the world, how many of us step back and think "What have I done in my life that might have been hurtful to someone and contributed, even in the slightest way, to them entering a lifestyle [drugs, alcohol, gambling, homosexuality, materialism, etc.] that maybe isn't their calling? Or, what have I done to reach out to someone who identifies themselves as homosexual, and simply talked to them? Walked a mile with them? This is much harder than blaming them and isolating them, isn't it? It carries risk. You might find that you like them, and that you can relate to their story (gasp!) in some way. What have I personally done to encourage someone doing something very difficult, but very important? It's a lot harder when we look in the mirror, isn't it?

God has a habit of picking the least, the last, and the lost as his people. It's in our interest to seek them out and tell them the story. Our job isn't to convert, but simply to relate. Coerced conversion is little more than brainwashing, and that's evil. It's a form of psychological rape, and I don't believe that God is a divine rapist.

The non-negotiables in Christianity are very few. If you think otherwise, I think it would be a good idea for you to review the first four books of the New Testament again. Pay special attention to the red text!

 

[Calphool]

I don't think that statement is really defensible. The Pharisees portrayed in the Mishnah are essentially identical to the way Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels. I can't see how he was any more or less liberal than any other Pharisee, nor can I see his philosophy being at all original.

Something tells me that a typical pharisee 2000 years ago would have considered it radical to call himself the son of God.

 

[deafdyke]

The Pharisees portrayed in the Mishnah are essentially identical to the way Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels.

But the thing is.......the way the Pharisees are portrayed in the Gospels, are of anal rule followers who needed to advertise their faith to the world.

 

[Calphool]

But the thing is.......the way the Pharisees are portrayed in the Gospels, are of anal rule followers who needed to advertise their faith to the world.

Well, I think Teresh's point is worth noting, and given that I'm not that knowledgable about the Mishnah, I'm more than willing to discuss and learn. Perhaps we can all broaden our horizons a bit. First, let's deal with my contribution to the discussion. The Gospels enumerate a number of differences between Jesus and the pharisees:

1) When discussing the sins of murder and adultery, Jesus extended the Law to include not just the acts of murder or adultery, but (IMO) more radically, even thoughts about adultery and murder. (Matthew 5)
2) Working on the Sabbath. It is reported that the pharisees were upset with Jesus that he healed people on the Sabbath. It seems that his position on honoring the Sabbath is a bit more liberal than the pharisees of his day (Matthew 12)
3) Disagreements about Levitical tradition: Tradition considered ritual washing to be very important. It is reported that when questioned by the pharisees, Jesus took a somewhat provocative position on ritual washing, saying that what truly made a man unclean were the thoughts of his mind and the words of his mouth. (Matthew 15)
4) Disagreements about Jesus' authority: When Jesus came into Jerusalem at Passover, just prior to the crucifixion, the crowds honored him as the Messiah. The pharisees told Jesus to tell the people to stop calling him that. His reply was "If I do that, the stones all around here would start calling me Messiah." (Luke 19) Later, after the driving out of the temple merchants, Jesus was brought in for questioning. It's difficult to separate who would have been a pharisee and who would have been a sadducee in these proceedings, but it's relatively certain that neither group agreed with Jesus himself on who he was. He would have been a radical in both their worldviews.
5) Differences over the Gentiles. Jesus seemed willing (if not enthusiastic) to accept Gentiles into the faith (Matthew 15:22-28). Clearly this wasn't his focus as it was for Paul, but he is portrayed as at least willing to do this. Given Pauls' struggles over circumcision and other rituals with the early church leaders, it seems that Jesus' (perhaps luke warm) acceptance of Gentiles was somewhat radical.


Nevertheless, we ignore at our peril when the Gospels and the Mishnah were written. The Gospels were written during the period just prior to and immediately following the Bar Kokbha revolt, and the last gasp of the Jewish state as a semi-autonomous province. The Mishnah was a bit later. We cannot know for sure if the Gospel writers were fair handed in how they treated the pharisees as they put the oral traditions down on paper. There would have been an external influence (Roman occupation and fear) that might have caused them to overemphasize some of the differences. Also, by the time the Gospels were written down, it's quite possible that the eye witnesses were becoming few and far between, so there would have been few who could have corrected any oversights. Similarly, we cannot know for certain that the compilers of the Mishnah were not influenced in how they chose to reflect on the Great Revolt, and what traditions they might have chosen to alter. Also, since the Mishnah was compiled after the Gospels were probably already circulating, it's conceivable that the Mishnah might have been influenced in some way by what the early Christians were saying about the pharisees and themselves.

However, if we take both the Gospels and the Mishnah as they exist to us today, and we do our best to distance ourselves from these historical complexities, is it fair to say that Jesus' teaching was more radical than a typical pharisee of his time?

Thoughts?

 

[Teresh]

Something tells me that a typical pharisee 2000 years ago would have considered it radical to call himself the son of God.

Son? Eh, maybe.

But Jews do refer to God as 'Avinu' (Our Father) in a number of different prayers, so I'm not sure how 'radical' it would really have been.

But the thing is.......the way the Pharisees are portrayed in the Gospels, are of anal rule followers who needed to advertise their faith to the world.

Hence, I argue that the portrayal of the Pharisees in the Gospels stems from the anti-Jewish bias of the Gospel writers. This bias resulted from the fact that few Jews converted to the new religion and that the writers needed to differentiate Christianity from Judaism in order to gain Roman and Greek proselytes.

1) When discussing the sins of murder and adultery, Jesus extended the Law to include not just the acts of murder or adultery, but (IMO) more radically, even thoughts about adultery and murder. (Matthew 5)

This is a Christian thing. Jewish law deals only with what individuals do. Essentially, having a bad thought isn't sinful unless you act on it. That said, bad thoughts can certainly lead to sin, so mindfulness is important as well.

2) Working on the Sabbath. It is reported that the pharisees were upset with Jesus that he healed people on the Sabbath. It seems that his position on honoring the Sabbath is a bit more liberal than the pharisees of his day (Matthew 12)

Protecting human life trumps every other mitzvah. If a person is sick, ill, dying, etc. Jewish law commands one to get them to a doctor, even if it means driving.

3) Disagreements about Levitical tradition: Tradition considered ritual washing to be very important. It is reported that when questioned by the pharisees, Jesus took a somewhat provocative position on ritual washing, saying that what truly made a man unclean were the thoughts of his mind and the words of his mouth. (Matthew 15)

Not going to get into this one. Ritual purity is a complicated subject.

4) Disagreements about Jesus' authority: When Jesus came into Jerusalem at Passover, just prior to the crucifixion, the crowds honored him as the Messiah. The pharisees told Jesus to tell the people to stop calling him that. His reply was "If I do that, the stones all around here would start calling me Messiah." (Luke 19) Later, after the driving out of the temple merchants, Jesus was brought in for questioning. It's difficult to separate who would have been a pharisee and who would have been a sadducee in these proceedings, but it's relatively certain that neither group agreed with Jesus himself on who he was. He would have been a radical in both their worldviews.

Well, there are plenty of reasons why Jesus isn't the Mashiach, but that discussion may be better performed elsewhere.

5) Differences over the Gentiles. Jesus seemed willing (if not enthusiastic) to accept Gentiles into the faith (Matthew 15:22-28). Clearly this wasn't his focus as it was for Paul, but he is portrayed as at least willing to do this. Given Pauls' struggles over circumcision and other rituals with the early church leaders, it seems that Jesus' (perhaps luke warm) acceptance of Gentiles was somewhat radical.

This isn't a Christian thing. The Pharisees in general (Jesus included) at that point in time tried very hard to get the Gentiles living among them (e.g. the Samaritans, other non-Jewish ethnic minorities) to be Jewish.

Similarly, we cannot know for certain that the compilers of the Mishnah were not influenced in how they chose to reflect on the Great Revolt, and what traditions they might have chosen to alter.

Well, there were some things that probably changed. Pharisaic outreach efforts being one. Generally, in Judaism if something obviously wasn't working, it gets changed. That said, there's no power structure in Judaism, so while the Pharisees were at the center of it (as are Rabbis today), we can infer that lay Jews were also very much involved in the process.

Also, since the Mishnah was compiled after the Gospels were probably already circulating, it's conceivable that the Mishnah might have been influenced in some way by what the early Christians were saying about the pharisees and themselves.

Not really. Depending on how you read the Mishnah and how much of it you read, it could be read as confirmation of the Gospel portrayal.

However, if we take both the Gospels and the Mishnah as they exist to us today, and we do our best to distance ourselves from these historical complexities, is it fair to say that Jesus' teaching was more radical than a typical pharisee of his time?

Not really. The Mishnah and later on the Talmuds (both of them) are at their heart redaction of rabbinic discourse. A topic gets set, and the laws about it are discussed. Generally, for any given thing, there's three or four opinions.

For example, the first mishnah of the Mishnah is Berakhot 1:1. It discusses the evening Shema, particularly when to say it. All of the rabbis give their views. The questions are basically open-ended and anyone allowed to develop their own answers.

 

[christlovedeaf]

If jewish gave his/her life to Christ does not convert into new religion, its God's fulfilling plans. Christians teaching is not "anti-jews". OT and NT is perfect align of scriptures.

 

[Calphool]

Son? Eh, maybe.

But Jews do refer to God as 'Avinu' (Our Father) in a number of different prayers, so I'm not sure how 'radical' it would really have been.



Hence, I argue that the portrayal of the Pharisees in the Gospels stems from the anti-Jewish bias of the Gospel writers. This bias resulted from the fact that few Jews converted to the new religion and that the writers needed to differentiate Christianity from Judaism in order to gain Roman and Greek proselytes.



This is a Christian thing. Jewish law deals only with what individuals do. Essentially, having a bad thought isn't sinful unless you act on it. That said, bad thoughts can certainly lead to sin, so mindfulness is important as well.



Protecting human life trumps every other mitzvah. If a person is sick, ill, dying, etc. Jewish law commands one to get them to a doctor, even if it means driving.



Not going to get into this one. Ritual purity is a complicated subject.



Well, there are plenty of reasons why Jesus isn't the Mashiach, but that discussion may be better performed elsewhere.



This isn't a Christian thing. The Pharisees in general (Jesus included) at that point in time tried very hard to get the Gentiles living among them (e.g. the Samaritans, other non-Jewish ethnic minorities) to be Jewish.



Well, there were some things that probably changed. Pharisaic outreach efforts being one. Generally, in Judaism if something obviously wasn't working, it gets changed. That said, there's no power structure in Judaism, so while the Pharisees were at the center of it (as are Rabbis today), we can infer that lay Jews were also very much involved in the process.



Not really. Depending on how you read the Mishnah and how much of it you read, it could be read as confirmation of the Gospel portrayal.



Not really. The Mishnah and later on the Talmuds (both of them) are at their heart redaction of rabbinic discourse. A topic gets set, and the laws about it are discussed. Generally, for any given thing, there's three or four opinions.

For example, the first mishnah of the Mishnah is Berakhot 1:1. It discusses the evening Shema, particularly when to say it. All of the rabbis give their views. The questions are basically open-ended and anyone allowed to develop their own answers.

Well, this has been very enlightening / interesting to me. I believe I'm going to have to go to the library tonight. I'd like to learn more about the Mishnah. I'd also like to read more about the areas where we concur that there is some kind of difference (like Jesus' teaching about evil thought), and that there was some kind of difference in belief on ritual purity. I wonder if this demonstrates' Jesus' Essene influence.

Also, I was wondering if you could point me to some source that would support your assertion that the pharisees of 2000 years ago were actively involved in converting Gentiles. The Gospels don't portray them that way (they portray them as exclusionists). In fact, Jesus tells a parable in which a pharisee "puffs himself up" by comparing how holy he is himself to a lowly tax collector, whereas the tax collector humbles himself and asks for mercy from God because he acknowledges how sinful he is. Jesus holds the tax collector up as a model of how his followers should behave. Of course a tax collector might not be a Gentile, he might be only a Gentile sympathizer, but in any case, I'd like to read about Jewish evangelism in Jesus' time.

 

[christlovedeaf]

There's a book written by J. Johns who wrote about ten commandments and the meaning and the purpose of the ten commandments. I watched him explaining about that, and its very good pointer about that.

 

[guido]

Must be back on that crack again eh?

Of course I'm not on crack. Drug use is a sign of a moral failure and deserves the stiffest punishment. Unless you're Rush Limbaugh. Then you just deserve our prayers and a speedy recovery.

 

[Momoftwo]

After reading this quote, I felt moved to apologize. I feel it is necessary for me to denounce my evil liberal ways and stop oppressing the minority of Christians in this country. What Pat Robertson said is true: us liberals, the media, and homosexuals are plotting pograms against God's children. To Pat and all you other Children of God, I sincerely apologize for the crimes of humanity I have commited against you. Satan controlled my heart and filled it with deceit. I've supported Hugo Chavez. I've supported the evil homosexual agenda to redefine your morals. I've not recognized the glorious truth of Creationism. For this, I am sorry.

I'm sorry that it happened to you.

 

[guido]

I'm sorry that it happened to you.

Yes, I'm very sorry, too. Ann Coulter and her Adam's apple are right. We liberals are a bunch of godless Neanderthals who are intent on destroying God and proclaiming ourselves as the new God. Please accept this apology.

 

[JLFWildKat]

LoL ok,,Well are you really sorry or not??

Of course I'm not on crack. Drug use is a sign of a moral failure and deserves the stiffest punishment. Unless you're Rush Limbaugh. Then you just deserve our prayers and a speedy recovery.