FREE TAPATALK APP

The idea · 15th July 2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Jesus told his disciples that he had to enter Jerusalem and [...] be killed, and on the third day be raised. Peter began to rebuke Jesus, saying, "Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you." But Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!

[...]

Jesus asked, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil." He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, who was going to betray Jesus.

(not an exact quote)

kuroyume0161 · 15th July 2005, 09:14 PM

I wouldn't say complainer as much as a vindictive a-hole. (Looks like I'll need to get my online Bible installed to start giving precise quotes before the pendantites get me!

He drove a heard of pigs into the sea to cast out demons.

He shriveled up a fig tree.

He had a major temper trantrum at the marketplace.

He was a little miffed when his apostles drew swords in the Garden of Gethsemane.

In the non-canonical books, he was known to mame, bewilder, and even kills friends, villagers, and strangers.

All in all, just the sort of swell fella I'd want as my saviour and god!

elliotfc · 16th July 2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
I wouldn't say complainer as much as a vindictive a-hole. (Looks like I'll need to get my online Bible installed to start giving precise quotes before the pendantites get me!

He drove a heard of pigs into the sea to cast out demons.

He shriveled up a fig tree.

Errr...do you feel sorry for the pigs, or the demons? Or both?

Personally I despise figs and everything about them, so I'm not too bothered on that one.

Would you call a pig farmer a vindictive a-hole? How about a forrester?

Quote:

He had a major temper trantrum at the marketplace.

Yeah but look at in more in context. He called it his "father's" house. Let's say some dude shows up at your parent's house every week to sell trinkets and there's a whole bunch of traffic and hippies hanging about. Wouldn't that tick you off too?

-Elliot

jjramsey · 16th July 2005, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc
Errr...do you feel sorry for the pigs, or the demons? Or both?

I'd feel sorry for the pig farmers. The pigs are their livelihood, after all.

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc
Yeah but look at in more in context. He called it his "father's" house. Let's say some dude shows up at your parent's house every week to sell trinkets and there's a whole bunch of traffic and hippies hanging about. Wouldn't that tick you off too?

This is a much better point. Maybe more to the point, though, how do we feel when someone trivializes something important by using it as an opportunity to rip people off?

elliotfc · 16th July 2005, 07:20 AM

How is "Get behind me Satan" commensurate to complaining? It sounds like an imperative to me. For example, let's say you have a kid who is making noise. The kid is making noise, and you say "Oh man I wish you'd stop making noise it's SOOOOOOOOOOO annoying". That is complaining. If you say "go to your room you little snot" that is not complaining. That's good parenting.

As for "did I not choose you...one of you is a devil", it seems he made a factual statement followed by what may or may not be a factual statement. Like, if you pick a watermelon from the store, you get home, you open it up, it's rotten, and you say "damn, this watermelon is rotten", I think it would only become complaining if you call up all of your friends and inform them about that fact for the next hour or so, or you spend the rest of the evening bemoaning the choice.

-Elliot

elliotfc · 16th July 2005, 07:22 AM

[quote]He was a little miffed when his apostles drew swords in the Garden of Gethsemane.[/b]/QUOTE]

How does being miffed make one a vindictive a-hole? Maybe if he would have had them shot for pulling out their swords...

Quote:

In the non-canonical books, he was known to mame, bewilder, and even kills friends, villagers, and strangers.

Maybe that's why they're non-canonical...

I think it's a stretch to read the NT gospels and conclude that Jesus was a vindictive a-hole.

-Elliot

kuroyume0161 · 16th July 2005, 09:34 AM

FYI (and you know that you know this), the canonical books of the NT were added by vote in a council. This in no way relegates the non-canonical books to some sort of lesser relevance - unless you can provide solid evidence that the canonical books were any less fictitious.

For a guy who preached 'turn the other cheek' and whatnot, he did quite a bit of whacking and smoting... (as a man-god, the best example would have been D. none at all).

Thomas · 16th July 2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc
I think it's a stretch to read the NT gospels and conclude that Jesus was a vindictive a-hole.

True. A rebel post-mortally transformed to a deity in order to quell an imminent uprising, might do him better justice.

jjramsey · 16th July 2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas
True. A rebel post-mortally transformed to a deity in order to quell an imminent uprising, might do him better justice.

I think that's a bit out of order. Wouldn't a rebel killed to quell an imminent uprising and then post-mortally transformed to a deity make more sense?

Thomas · 16th July 2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
I think that's a bit out of order. Wouldn't a rebel killed to quell an imminent uprising and then post-mortally transformed to a deity make more sense?

I don't think I said otherwise. I just used another syntax which paint with a wider brush - so it's not too specific on why he died.

I think he was (indirectly) killed by the state due to "rebellious activities" as well though.

elliotfc · 16th July 2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
[b]I'd feel sorry for the pig farmers. The pigs are their livelihood, after all.

Yeah, but if you sell pig meat from pigs infested by demons...that's a multi-million lawsuit waiting to happen. Mad pig disease to the 1954th degree!

Maybe Jesus was just saving the pig farmers future trouble?

Now if you're a lawyer, I could see why you'd have a problem with that.

-Elliot

elliotfc · 16th July 2005, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
[b]FYI (and you know that you know this), the canonical books of the NT were added by vote in a council.

A council guided by the Holy Spirit. Did you miss the memo?

Quote:

This in no way relegates the non-canonical books to some sort of lesser relevance - unless you can provide solid evidence that the canonical books were any less fictitious.

To the believer it does. Granted you are not a believer. I understand that. Just understand that the believer can hardly accept your opinion.

Quote:

For a guy who preached 'turn the other cheek' and whatnot, he did quite a bit of whacking and smoting... (as a man-god, the best example would have been D. none at all).

Did he? Quite a bit? We're talking about Jesus, right?

-Elliot

epepke · 17th July 2005, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elliotfc
Yeah but look at in more in context. He called it his "father's" house. Let's say some dude shows up at your parent's house every week to sell trinkets and there's a whole bunch of traffic and hippies hanging about. Wouldn't that tick you off too?

This is revisionist. The passage in Matthew is "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."

The money changers were there to exchange the local currency for silver sheckels, the latter of which was the only currency that was permitted to pay the Temple tax. People were selling doves because they were often used in sacrifices.

If Jesus had a problem with this, he should have taken it up with his Dad for making the rules in the first place.

ceo_esq · 18th July 2005, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
FYI (and you know that you know this), the canonical books of the NT were added by vote in a council. This in no way relegates the non-canonical books to some sort of lesser relevance - unless you can provide solid evidence that the canonical books were any less fictitious.

Yet so far as I am aware, the "canon" of texts dealing directly with the life of Jesus (that is, gospels) was pretty well fixed by the beginning of the second century. The non-canonical gospels, as I understand, are generally considered by scholars to be of lesser historical relevance for a host of reasons that include lateness of composition, forgery or errors in attribution, outlandish interpolations into narratives derived from "canonical" sources, and so forth.

At least some of these problems were apparent to the early Church as well. Admittedly, the term "relevance" is fluid. I do agree with you that, strictly speaking, gospels are not of lesser relevance because they are non-canonical (although the term "relevance" is rather fluid). However, it appears that to a significant extent, the excluded gospels are non-canonical because they are generally of lesser relevance.

Perhaps elliotfc or another poster with more specific knowledge regarding canonical vs. apocryphal gospels could correct or confirm this.

kuroyume0161 · 18th July 2005, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Yet so far as I am aware, the "canon" of texts dealing directly with the life of Jesus (that is, gospels) was pretty well fixed by the beginning of the second century. The non-canonical gospels, as I understand, are generally considered by scholars to be of lesser historical relevance for a host of reasons that include lateness of composition, forgery or errors in attribution, outlandish interpolations into narratives derived from "canonical" sources, and so forth.

At least some of these problems were apparent to the early Church as well. Admittedly, the term "relevance" is fluid. I do agree with you that, strictly speaking, gospels are not of lesser relevance because they are non-canonical (although the term "relevance" is rather fluid). However, it appears that to a significant extent, the excluded gospels are non-canonical because they are generally of lesser relevance.

Perhaps elliotfc or another poster with more specific knowledge regarding canonical vs. apocryphal gospels could correct or confirm this.

I'm definitely no expert on the apocryphal texts, let alone the canonical. But my studies so far seem to indicate, yes, that some were late in composition which made them suspect. And others were contaminated with religious beliefs of the region involved and so on. On the other hand, some were vetoed by the skin of their teeth, as it were. And others were accepted likewise. Others most likely never made it into the perview of the council.

The established church making these decisions at the time, no matter the honest and possible valiant attempts at inpartiality, had biases and agendas by this time. The early non-integrated sects of Christianity had many varied beliefs and dogmas which 'went forth and multipled' into many more related, segmented, diluted, and contaminated variations around the Mediterranean region. It is thus difficult to deem that the church that established the canonical books of the NT had enough information to make very qualified decisions on the veracity of all of the offered documents (noting that many that were not in line with the established and proposed dogma were either ignored, destroyed, or their supporters likewise discouraged in one form or another).

Just for an example, Revelations was a very controversial document which was arbitrated among similarly controversial documents of the same nature. Personally, from reading it several times and studies related to it, I think that Revelations is ill-fitted into the canonical texts. It, more or less, fulfills what the church at the time deemed to be prophetical to the future rather than have any semblence of virtue. Many of the apocryphal texts had much more, put nicely, sane accounts and revelations.

So, I'm open to more information concerning this, but after reading many of the apocryphal texts and the entire NT, I find little that prompts the relevance of one above the other, except wherein the sources are late or suspect.

15th July 2005, 07:24 PM	#1
The idea Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 1,547	Was Jesus a complainer? Quote: Jesus told his disciples that he had to enter Jerusalem and [...] be killed, and on the third day be raised. Peter began to rebuke Jesus, saying, "Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you." But Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! [...] Jesus asked, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil." He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, who was going to betray Jesus. (not an exact quote)
	__________________ I resolve to neither provoke nor appease evil.

16th July 2005, 06:36 AM	#3
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772	Quote: Originally posted by kuroyume0161 I wouldn't say complainer as much as a vindictive a-hole. (Looks like I'll need to get my online Bible installed to start giving precise quotes before the pendantites get me! He drove a heard of pigs into the sea to cast out demons. He shriveled up a fig tree. Errr...do you feel sorry for the pigs, or the demons? Or both? Personally I despise figs and everything about them, so I'm not too bothered on that one. Would you call a pig farmer a vindictive a-hole? How about a forrester? Quote: He had a major temper trantrum at the marketplace. Yeah but look at in more in context. He called it his "father's" house. Let's say some dude shows up at your parent's house every week to sell trinkets and there's a whole bunch of traffic and hippies hanging about. Wouldn't that tick you off too? -Elliot
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772

16th July 2005, 07:12 AM	#4
jjramsey Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,436	Quote: Originally posted by elliotfc Errr...do you feel sorry for the pigs, or the demons? Or both? I'd feel sorry for the pig farmers. The pigs are their livelihood, after all. Quote: Originally posted by elliotfc Yeah but look at in more in context. He called it his "father's" house. Let's say some dude shows up at your parent's house every week to sell trinkets and there's a whole bunch of traffic and hippies hanging about. Wouldn't that tick you off too? This is a much better point. Maybe more to the point, though, how do we feel when someone trivializes something important by using it as an opportunity to rip people off?
	__________________ "One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. . . . The point I am trying to make is that to be authentic freethinkers, to be authentic truth seekers, we must draw on the best information available to substantiate our claims." -- Gerald LaRue, Freethinkers United! Conference 1997, Orlando, Florida

16th July 2005, 07:20 AM	#5
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772	Re: Was Jesus a complainer? How is "Get behind me Satan" commensurate to complaining? It sounds like an imperative to me. For example, let's say you have a kid who is making noise. The kid is making noise, and you say "Oh man I wish you'd stop making noise it's SOOOOOOOOOOO annoying". That is complaining. If you say "go to your room you little snot" that is not complaining. That's good parenting. As for "did I not choose you...one of you is a devil", it seems he made a factual statement followed by what may or may not be a factual statement. Like, if you pick a watermelon from the store, you get home, you open it up, it's rotten, and you say "damn, this watermelon is rotten", I think it would only become complaining if you call up all of your friends and inform them about that fact for the next hour or so, or you spend the rest of the evening bemoaning the choice. -Elliot
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772

16th July 2005, 07:22 AM	#6
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772	[quote]He was a little miffed when his apostles drew swords in the Garden of Gethsemane.[/b]/QUOTE] How does being miffed make one a vindictive a-hole? Maybe if he would have had them shot for pulling out their swords... Quote: In the non-canonical books, he was known to mame, bewilder, and even kills friends, villagers, and strangers. Maybe that's why they're non-canonical... I think it's a stretch to read the NT gospels and conclude that Jesus was a vindictive a-hole. -Elliot
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772

15th July 2005, 09:14 PM	#2
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	I wouldn't say complainer as much as a vindictive a-hole. (Looks like I'll need to get my online Bible installed to start giving precise quotes before the pendantites get me! He drove a heard of pigs into the sea to cast out demons. He shriveled up a fig tree. He had a major temper trantrum at the marketplace. He was a little miffed when his apostles drew swords in the Garden of Gethsemane. In the non-canonical books, he was known to mame, bewilder, and even kills friends, villagers, and strangers. All in all, just the sort of swell fella I'd want as my saviour and god!

16th July 2005, 09:34 AM	#7
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	FYI (and you know that you know this), the canonical books of the NT were added by vote in a council. This in no way relegates the non-canonical books to some sort of lesser relevance - unless you can provide solid evidence that the canonical books were any less fictitious. For a guy who preached 'turn the other cheek' and whatnot, he did quite a bit of whacking and smoting... (as a man-god, the best example would have been D. none at all).

16th July 2005, 09:59 AM	#8
Thomas Still in Doubt Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A state of something rotten Posts: 1,646	Quote: Originally posted by elliotfc I think it's a stretch to read the NT gospels and conclude that Jesus was a vindictive a-hole. True. A rebel post-mortally transformed to a deity in order to quell an imminent uprising, might do him better justice.

16th July 2005, 11:39 AM	#9
jjramsey Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,436	Quote: Originally posted by Thomas True. A rebel post-mortally transformed to a deity in order to quell an imminent uprising, might do him better justice. I think that's a bit out of order. Wouldn't a rebel killed to quell an imminent uprising and then post-mortally transformed to a deity make more sense?
	__________________ "One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. . . . The point I am trying to make is that to be authentic freethinkers, to be authentic truth seekers, we must draw on the best information available to substantiate our claims." -- Gerald LaRue, Freethinkers United! Conference 1997, Orlando, Florida

16th July 2005, 12:41 PM	#10
Thomas Still in Doubt Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A state of something rotten Posts: 1,646	Quote: Originally posted by jjramsey I think that's a bit out of order. Wouldn't a rebel killed to quell an imminent uprising and then post-mortally transformed to a deity make more sense? I don't think I said otherwise. I just used another syntax which paint with a wider brush - so it's not too specific on why he died. I think he was (indirectly) killed by the state due to "rebellious activities" as well though.

16th July 2005, 08:33 PM	#11
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772	Quote: Originally posted by jjramsey [b]I'd feel sorry for the pig farmers. The pigs are their livelihood, after all. Yeah, but if you sell pig meat from pigs infested by demons...that's a multi-million lawsuit waiting to happen. Mad pig disease to the 1954th degree! Maybe Jesus was just saving the pig farmers future trouble? Now if you're a lawyer, I could see why you'd have a problem with that. -Elliot
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772

16th July 2005, 08:35 PM	#12
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772	Quote: Originally posted by kuroyume0161 [b]FYI (and you know that you know this), the canonical books of the NT were added by vote in a council. A council guided by the Holy Spirit. Did you miss the memo? Quote: This in no way relegates the non-canonical books to some sort of lesser relevance - unless you can provide solid evidence that the canonical books were any less fictitious. To the believer it does. Granted you are not a believer. I understand that. Just understand that the believer can hardly accept your opinion. Quote: For a guy who preached 'turn the other cheek' and whatnot, he did quite a bit of whacking and smoting... (as a man-god, the best example would have been D. none at all). Did he? Quite a bit? We're talking about Jesus, right? -Elliot
elliotfc Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,772

17th July 2005, 11:16 PM	#13
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953	Quote: Originally posted by elliotfc Yeah but look at in more in context. He called it his "father's" house. Let's say some dude shows up at your parent's house every week to sell trinkets and there's a whole bunch of traffic and hippies hanging about. Wouldn't that tick you off too? This is revisionist. The passage in Matthew is "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves." The money changers were there to exchange the local currency for silver sheckels, the latter of which was the only currency that was permitted to pay the Temple tax. People were selling doves because they were often used in sacrifices. If Jesus had a problem with this, he should have taken it up with his Dad for making the rules in the first place.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

18th July 2005, 12:01 AM	#14
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940	Quote: Originally posted by kuroyume0161 FYI (and you know that you know this), the canonical books of the NT were added by vote in a council. This in no way relegates the non-canonical books to some sort of lesser relevance - unless you can provide solid evidence that the canonical books were any less fictitious. Yet so far as I am aware, the "canon" of texts dealing directly with the life of Jesus (that is, gospels) was pretty well fixed by the beginning of the second century. The non-canonical gospels, as I understand, are generally considered by scholars to be of lesser historical relevance for a host of reasons that include lateness of composition, forgery or errors in attribution, outlandish interpolations into narratives derived from "canonical" sources, and so forth. At least some of these problems were apparent to the early Church as well. Admittedly, the term "relevance" is fluid. I do agree with you that, strictly speaking, gospels are not of lesser relevance because they are non-canonical (although the term "relevance" is rather fluid). However, it appears that to a significant extent, the excluded gospels are non-canonical because they are generally of lesser relevance. Perhaps elliotfc or another poster with more specific knowledge regarding canonical vs. apocryphal gospels could correct or confirm this.
ceo_esq Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 4,940

18th July 2005, 12:42 AM	#15
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	Quote: Originally posted by ceo_esq Yet so far as I am aware, the "canon" of texts dealing directly with the life of Jesus (that is, gospels) was pretty well fixed by the beginning of the second century. The non-canonical gospels, as I understand, are generally considered by scholars to be of lesser historical relevance for a host of reasons that include lateness of composition, forgery or errors in attribution, outlandish interpolations into narratives derived from "canonical" sources, and so forth. At least some of these problems were apparent to the early Church as well. Admittedly, the term "relevance" is fluid. I do agree with you that, strictly speaking, gospels are not of lesser relevance because they are non-canonical (although the term "relevance" is rather fluid). However, it appears that to a significant extent, the excluded gospels are non-canonical because they are generally of lesser relevance. Perhaps elliotfc or another poster with more specific knowledge regarding canonical vs. apocryphal gospels could correct or confirm this. I'm definitely no expert on the apocryphal texts, let alone the canonical. But my studies so far seem to indicate, yes, that some were late in composition which made them suspect. And others were contaminated with religious beliefs of the region involved and so on. On the other hand, some were vetoed by the skin of their teeth, as it were. And others were accepted likewise. Others most likely never made it into the perview of the council. The established church making these decisions at the time, no matter the honest and possible valiant attempts at inpartiality, had biases and agendas by this time. The early non-integrated sects of Christianity had many varied beliefs and dogmas which 'went forth and multipled' into many more related, segmented, diluted, and contaminated variations around the Mediterranean region. It is thus difficult to deem that the church that established the canonical books of the NT had enough information to make very qualified decisions on the veracity of all of the offered documents (noting that many that were not in line with the established and proposed dogma were either ignored, destroyed, or their supporters likewise discouraged in one form or another). Just for an example, Revelations was a very controversial document which was arbitrated among similarly controversial documents of the same nature. Personally, from reading it several times and studies related to it, I think that Revelations is ill-fitted into the canonical texts. It, more or less, fulfills what the church at the time deemed to be prophetical to the future rather than have any semblence of virtue. Many of the apocryphal texts had much more, put nicely, sane accounts and revelations. So, I'm open to more information concerning this, but after reading many of the apocryphal texts and the entire NT, I find little that prompts the relevance of one above the other, except wherein the sources are late or suspect.