Was Christ a Revolutionary?

[jriccitelli]

I do not find it wise to address all of this, except for the fact that it is 'an example' of how rearranged your thinking can get when you do not accept Jesus as God.
At the end of the day it seems Dr. Bob does not recognize Jesus as Lord.
Dr. Bob see's Jesus and 'God' as two different persons, well then don’t just call Jesus dangerous and confusing - call Jesus a blasphemer, because He cannot be the Lord then (that is, according to Mr. Bob).
I do not know who Dr. Bob is (?), this is exactly why titles should mean nothing to someone trying to discern truth from error. This guy is a danger to himself.
I think 'Sponge Bob' makes 'way' more sense than this guy.

[kaufmannphillips]

Singalphile wrote:
The verses that I was aware of when I wrote my previous post are Matthew 25:31-34, John 12:34, and Mark 14:61-64.

The references from Matthew and Mark do not portray "the Jews in [Jesus'] day" using "son of man" and "messiah" or "king" interchangeably.

The passage from John is more complicated.

At first glance, it might seem that a (presumably Jewish) crowd conflates the messiah (ho xristos) and the "son of man," given their confusion over the dissonance between the messiah "remain[ing] for ever" and the "son of man" being "lifted up {viz., from the earth}."

But this does not necessarily indicate conflation of "messiah" and "son of man" in conventional Jewish thought of the day. Given the backdrop of recent events in verses 13-15, and given Jesus' remarks in verses 23 and 32, the crowd might be associating the two labels based upon the aggregate input they have received about Jesus: on one hand, folks are saying he is the messiah; on another hand, his own remarks might suggest that he is this "son of man," who seems to clash with the expected nature of the messiah.

Without both labels being applied to Jesus, the crowd might never have thought to conflate them. If so, what we would have is not conflation of the messiah and the "son of man," but a balking attempt at correlation: when the crowd tries to dovetail these two sets of ideas, applied to this one man Jesus, the crowd finds the result to be problematic. And so they ask, "Who is this son of man?" - a sally at resolving confusion by dissociating the two sets of ideas from each other.

But then again, John may be a theological fantasia, where players move less out of historical accuracy than they do for the purposes of the gospel's auteur. We would be hard put to demonstrate that the crowd's remarks have not been invented or transmogrified.

Also - if you wish to characterize Jewish thought and/or usage at the time of Jesus, it would be advisable for you to report from Jewish sources of the period, and not just from Christian ones.

[Singalphile]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Also - if you wish to characterize Jewish thought and/or usage at the time of Jesus, it would be advisable for you to report from Jewish sources of the period, and not just from Christian ones.

Well, the sources were both Christians and Jews, I believe, but I take your point. Otherwise, our respective opinions about of the gospels and Jesus are very different, which makes discussion somewhat difficult.

On the original article, I got through the first few numbers of his article the other morning. He (the author) does overstate his descriptions of the verses a bit, I think, but I take it that he is being intentionally provocative. Yes, Jesus was somewhat radical, I think, in the sense that His ideas were new and He spoke with authority and so on. But I think everyone's pretty aware of that. If Jesus was only a man exactly like you and me, then I guess you could call him a rebel.

[kaufmannphillips]

Singalphile wrote:
Well, the sources were both Christians and Jews, I believe, but I take your point.

Early Christian sources were "Jews" like early Mormon sources were "Christians."

Singalphile wrote:
On the original article, I got through the first few numbers of his article the other morning. He (the author) does overstate his descriptions of the verses a bit, I think, but I take it that he is being intentionally provocative. Yes, Jesus was somewhat radical, I think, in the sense that His ideas were new and He spoke with authority and so on. But I think everyone's pretty aware of that. If Jesus was only a man exactly like you and me, then I guess you could call him a rebel.

Let's raise the curtain on a little Imagination Theatre:

On December 21st, 2012, the world truly came to an end. No, not like so many people imagined, with cataclysmic climate change or nuclear holocaust. It came to this end with the humble birth of a baby girl in Indianapolis.

She was born in a country racked with doubts and cynicisms and blind impulses toward self-preservation. She was born to an unemployed teenage mother. She was born in a crowded waiting room at Community Westview Hospital, which was standing-room-only after contamination of the city water system. Elysha J(osfyn) Malkya was born, and the world was no longer the same.

She grew up tall and she grew up right, through Indiana days and Indiana nights. And in the spring of '44, she began an itinerant ministry that spanned the earth. She preached in badlands; she preached in slums; she preached in backwaters where a civilized body couldn't get power for his/her/zer iHand. Elysha's ministry was almost never recorded by technological means; but her words and actions endured in the flesh-and-blood who had eyes and ears for her.

And of course, some had eyes and ears thanks to her. In places where neglect and exploitation denied people the medical treatment that civilized bodies take for granted, Elysha brought healing with a touch of her hand. She gave sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf; she made the crippled dance and even restored life to the recently deceased.

But like her birth, these healings transpired in humble circumstances, outside of media spotlights. So while the healings eventually brought fame, they also afforded skepticism, especially amongst those who rejected Elysha's message. In her teachings, love and tolerance reigned supreme, and people who were invested in old forms of piety were not always receptive when her words and example shook the foundations of their world.

She dismissed sacred celebrations with food, like the Passover seder and the Lord's Supper, declaring that the food fit for celebrating the divine, was the food given with love to a body in need.

She socialized readily with militia and with insurgents, with Muslims and with Wiccans, with drag queens and with welfare queens, with paedophiles and with pornstars and with purveyors of poppies and coca and hemp.

She taught people to call upon the divine, but not by any name, saying that these names box in our consciousness and barricade us from others.

She spared little regard for times of devotion. She was excoriated for preaching that people should surrender to the "War on Christmas," and for telling congregants that they should leave in the middle of a worship service and go work on a single mother's car. She said even if standing right beside the baptismal waters, or if circling the Ka'aba, or if holding the scalpel for a bris, one should walk right away to help somebody in need.

She respected a wide variety of sexual relations - heterosexual, homosexual, monogamous, polyamorous - so long as the essential dynamic was love and service. She taught that adultery was not defined by certain acts, but by violations of this dynamic. She maintained that adultery was not justification for separation or divorce; quite consistently, she found these breaches to be justified only when required by a dynamic of love and service.

She preached that resources should be distributed, not based upon inheritance or skillful acquisition or personal accomplishment or even contribution to society, but simply upon authentic need.

She absolved people's personal debts and declared herself a rightful arbiter as queen of heaven, the intimate beloved who was one with the divine.

She brushed aside all concern for the sacrifices of the mishkan or Calvary or Eid al-Adha, preaching that the divine wanted not death, but life. She drew a sharp distinction between life-giving service, and death-dealing sacrifice.

She taught that the only imperative of jurisprudence was healing, with no inherent requirement for punishment or even restitution.

She insisted that the end of this world had come, not with an army of angelic warriors, but with an effusion of loving servants. She swore that this world was not to be won by conquest, but wooed into concordance with the divine.

She wooed people across the world with words from their sacred texts. She quoted Torah and Tripitaka, Veda and Avesta, Kojiki and Qur'an, Galatians and Guru Granth Sahib. She drafted the old words into new service, creatively and sometimes playfully, often without concern for their ancient meanings or applications. Her cheeks dimpled when she would point out that Wonder Bread originated in Indianapolis, and thus a queen was born in wondrous beth-lehem. People who loved her were delighted; others, who did not, were infuriated.

And so it was that Elysha incurred the murderous wrath of an anonymous fundamentalist. Her followers know that this was the moment of ultimate effusion. She saw the man rushing toward her with his explosive vest; with a beatific smile she reached out to embrace him, and held him compassionately as the burst of light consumed them both.

Centuries later, her followers continue the outworking of her ministry. They live to love and to serve, unconstrained by old ways and by new old ways. They know that all who embrace the divine will embrace Elysha the queen of heaven, even if it be in final milliseconds. Though misguided hatred may flare violently, even with last breaths, in the ultimate moment, these may know her and may melt together with her. For there is no divine without zer queen of heaven, and none will live on with the divine without her.


So ... if anybody here were cryogenically frozen tomorrow, and woke up to this story in the year 2444 ... would anybody here be reticent to follow Elysha Malkya?

[JMTC]

I believe some would follow her just upon hearing the facts and details about her life. They would exercise a greater faith than what I have. I am one who would want to examine both written and oral tradition as well as sources outside of the group she lived with. After weighing the evidence, I feel I would be comfortable in the conclusions I've madeabout her.

[JMTC]

Emmit,

What are your sources to back up the statement,

"Early Christian sources were 'Jews' like early Mormon sources were 'Christians'?

I've never considered Mormons to be a branch of the Catholic or Protestant faith. It's obvious that the early Christians were Jewish, and Gentile converts, but I see no link between the early Mormon church separating from any existing Christian denomination. If you study the Mormon faith as closely as I have you would see that they claim to be of Israeli descent.

Sorry for straying away from the "Rebel" thread but I am curious to know why you would attempt to link Christians with Mormons?

[Singalphile]

By the way, on that matter, I meant that the early Christians were ethnically/nationally Jews.

[kaufmannphillips]

JMTC wrote:
I am one who would want to examine both written and oral tradition as well as sources outside of the group she lived with.

In parallel, then, what "sources outside of the group ... lived with" would you examine for making conclusions about Jesus?

JMTC wrote:
I've never considered Mormons to be a branch of the Catholic or Protestant faith. It's obvious that the early Christians were Jewish, and Gentile converts, but I see no link between the early Mormon church separating from any existing Christian denomination. If you study the Mormon faith as closely as I have you would see that they claim to be of Israeli descent.

I am far from an expert on Mormonism, but there appears to be ample evidence that Mormonism branches from a Christian faith:

Joseph Smith claimed to have had a vision that indicated Jesus was the Son of God. In Pearl of Great Price, we find the account: "When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other - 'This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!'" {JS-H 1:17; cf. History, 1838–1856, volume A-1}. This is a clear parallel to the Transfiguration described in Christian scripture {q.v., Matthew 17:1–9, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36}.

Smith also indicated, "I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.'" {JS-H 1:24; cf. History, 1838–1856, volume A-1}.

And so we have Smith claiming a Christian vision; and reflecting upon it in Christian terms, comparing it to Paul.

Smith claimed that Moroni (or Nephi) quoted Christian scripture and validated Jesus as prophet: "In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when 'they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,' but soon would come.'" {JS-H 1:40; cf. History, 1838–1856, volume A-1}.

Smith claimed a revelation where Jesus said: ""And now behold according to their faith in their prayers, will I bring this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people. Behold I do not bring it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up. And for this cause have I said, if this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my Church among them. Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my Church, therefore whosoever belongeth to my Church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven: but it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments, but buildeth up Churches unto themselves, to get gain; yea, and all those that do wickedly and buildeth up the kingdom of the devil; yea, verily, verily I say unto you that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the Centre. Behold I am Jesus Christ, the son of God: I came unto my own and my own received me not. I am the light which shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not. I am he who said, other sheep have I which are not of this fold, unto my disciples, and many there were that understood me not. And I will shew unto this people, that I had other sheep, and that they were a branch of the house of Jacob: and I will bring to light their marvelous works, which they did in my name, yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them, and behold they shall not deny that which you have recieved, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine: yea, and the only doctrine which is in me; and this I do, that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention: yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention, concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures, and do not understand them: therefore I will unfold unto them this great mystery, for behold I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts: yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely. Behold this is my doctrine: whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my Church: whosoever declareth more or less than this the same is not of me, but is against me: therefore, he is not of my Church. And now behold whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.'" {History, 1838–1856, volume A-1}.

Here we find not only a pastiche of sayings from Christian scriptures, but a clear interest in the community be[com]ing the Church of Jesus Christ.

Smith claimed that John the Baptizer - acting at the behest of Peter, James, and John - conferred a priesthood upon him: "The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second.'" {JS-H 1:72; cf. History, 1838–1856, volume A-1}.

Smith articulated the following statement of faith:

We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

We believe that these ordinances are 1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; 2d, Repentance; 3d, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We believe that a man must be called of God by "prophesy, and by laying on of hands" by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, viz: apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists &c.

We believe in the gift of tongues, prophesy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues &c.

We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes. That Zion will be built upon this continent. That Christ will reign personally upon the earth, and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradasaic glory.

We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege let them worship how, where, or what they may.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul "we believe all things we hope all things," we have endured many things and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is any thing virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praise worthy we seek after these things.'"

This, of course, is strewn with Christian hallmarks - the sonship of Christ, faith in Christ, the atonement of Christ, the future reign of Christ, the polity of the primitive church, the Christian bible (though qualified), the Trinity (in construct; perhaps not in theological substance).


One could go on. I have not even discussed the appearance and activity of Jesus in the Book of Mormon.

But I will mention one bit from that venue, a matter of personal interest: in the Book of Mormon, Smith recapitulates the Sermon on the Mount {3 Nephi 12ff.; cf. these interesting articles - A & B}. In this redrafting, Smith sanitizes the difficult phrases from Matthew relating to the law.

Matthew has (quoting from the KJV, as historically appropriate): "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." {5:17-20}

But 3 Nephi has: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil; For verily I say unto you, one jot nor one tittle hath not passed away from the law, but in me it hath all been fulfilled. And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled. Therefore come unto me and be ye saved; for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my commandments, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Note that here the law has been fulfilled in Jesus, and the focus has shifted to Jesus' commandments. This certainly is not Israelite religion; this is Christianity. Smith shows himself willing to gloss the Matthean text; and when he does so, it is not to reintroduce Israelite religion, but to make the same sort of revolution that mainstream Christianity has made. Mormons were not keeping Shabbath or the annual festivals; Mormons were not keeping kosher; Mormons were not observing niddah.

{{ For what it is worth, cf. the gloss of Matthew 5 in Joseph Smith's translation of the bible, as represented here: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, heaven and earth must pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in now wise pass from the law, until all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so to do, he shall in no wise be saved in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach these commandments of the law until it be fulfilled, the same shall be called great, and shall be saved in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, except your righteousness shall exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." }}

JMTC wrote:
Sorry for straying away from the "Rebel" thread but I am curious to know why you would attempt to link Christians with Mormons?

Pertaining to the thread: both early Christians and early Mormons held ideas that were not representative of their "mother" faiths; and both had somewhat negative views of what the "mother" faith had become. So trying to characterize the "mother" faith by citing sources from the "new religion" is perilous: material found in these sources may be influenced by their own idiosyncracies or by their negativities; such material might not be representative of the "mother" faith itself.


Both "new religions" gave serious regard to visions that their leaders claimed to experience;

Both "new religions" developed unconventional conceptions of God;

Both "new religions" introduced or co-opted new ritual observances;

Both "new religions" introduced new bodies of scripture;

Both "new religions" used previous scriptures in their messenging;

Both "new religions" claimed continuity with roots of the "mother" faith;

Both "new religions" reacted negatively to contemporary phenomena found within the "mother" faith;

Both "new religions" adopted one or more practices repugnant to contemporary forms of the "mother" faith;

Both "new religions" were loathed by and/or deemed heretical by some adherents to the "mother" faith;

Both "new religions" deemed themselves an improvement over contemporary forms of the "mother" faith;

Both "new religions" afforded their adherents the power and prestige of special knowledge;

Both "new religions" gave common people an opportunity to imagine themselves as part of something great - a new order;

Both "new religions" feature good-hearted, moral, devoted people, who are enmeshed in theological fabrications.