Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (34473)	4/11/1999 11:17:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hi, N.! Thank you for stopping by. Maybe you can help me with a couple of questions from time to time? It seems to me, and I admit that I am not a Bible scholar, that Christ's message must, in fact, have been contrary to the Jewish status quo, because they allowed him to be crucified, they did not support him or protect him. He was not accepted by the religious authorities. Jesus said that if your ass fell into a ditch on the Sabbath, pull it out, contrary to Jewish law. He said not to get a divorce, even thought the Jewish religion allows it "out of the hardness of your hearts." Stuff like that. I know he said he did not intend to change one letter of the law, but he also said, don't practice "an eye for an eye." He said, "love your neighbor as yourself," even if your neighbor is a Samaritan, and I can't believe this was consistent with what I read in the Old Testament, about the Chosen People. My perception is that Christ dismissed the parts of the Old Testament and Jewish law that were inconsistent with his teachings. Am I wrong?

To: E who wrote (34473)	4/12/1999 12:53:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

N., you have the advantage of me (although I am sworn to silence as to why). Howsomeover... Re your first objection: But the original Jesus was not a founder of a world religion. In my post, I had added: even if others founded it in his name. My assumption was that there was enough that was totally original in Jesus' teachings to serve as a basis for a new world religion. Onward, to the obvious point: one man's Jesus is another man's poison. As you know, it is perfectly possible to construct totally different Jesuses, drawing on one or another text in the Gospels. There is enough contradictory material in the Gospels to do that. You may reject the passsages that do not fit into your picture as "inauthentic", or you may simply forget them. As an example, let's take the passage you cited, through E., in a previous post, a passage from Luke that according to some Biblical scholars "hints of battle preparation." Jesus, preparing for his night of prayer on Gethsemane, tells his disciples his end is near, and advises them to equip themselves with swords. Now, let's go to Matthew. No injunction to the disciples to equip themselves with swords. Moreover, when one of them draws the sword he already had and cuts off the ear of the High Priest, Jesus tells him: "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." So, who is "right"? Matthew or Luke? Frankly, I do not really care. I prefer Matthew's version simply because he gives Jesus a great line, whether Jesus said it or not. However, Such inconsistencies bother some people, like Vladimir in "Waiting for Godot", who puzzles over the fact that of the four accounts of the Crucifixion, only one speaks of a thief crucified along with Jesus being saved. (I must post that!) As for "the Law", I repeat that my own impression is that Jesus made a distinction between The Law of God and The Law (or Custom) of Man. Those three passages I used to support my view were picked simply because they were easy to find, being all close to one another in Mark, not because they were the only ones of their kind. (I don't have a Concordance -- can you believe it?) As for the scholars who dismiss those examples of Jesus' violation of traditional Jewish Law as nothing more than a matter of "eschatological expediency", it's an interesting theory. But what proof can there be? I am all for letting the mystery around the person of Jesus -- as around the true identity of Shakespeare -- remain. We need some mystery (i.e., poetry). And we need contradictions, too. Was it Keats who said that the mark of an intelligent mind was the ability to entertain two contradictory ideas simultaneously? Somebody said it, anyway. Why does it have to be either Jesus Meek & Mild, or Jesus the Mad Fundamentalist? Jesus the Eschatologist or Jesus the Wandering Sage? Jesus the Ascetic or Jesus the Carouser with Publicans and Assorted Other Low Life? (Why, we even have people arguing over whether Jesus was gay or straight! Shall I post an article on that one, too?) As for hellfire, do you think Jesus meant it literally? Or as a metaphor? Joan E.