The Bible and Love and Christians

[frogboy4]

The 21st century in America anyway.



I was reading this essay on belief.net on the topic. It acknowledges that unmarried men were considered unusual during that time (though not completely nonexistant). In the end, it speculates that Jesus' apparent lack of family went along with his whole gospel of leaving the world for the sake of preparing yourself for the next life:



To be fair, I don't think it's completely impossible that evidence of Jesus' family could have been hidden overtime. The Bible was heavily edited over the years. So it's not impossible. It's just that it always feels like the classic conspiracy theory and I don't tend to give much credence to those without more proof. Reality is usually more boring than people imagine.

I understand, yet still find it to be an odd omission. This book is supposed to be perfect and this is another reason that I just don't see it. It's a convenient explanation and could very well be a legitimate one if not for the pile of other strange inconsistencies that keep me from giving any of it weight in my life. I don't think that some believers see just how uneven the Bible appears to other people. It is my belief that most Christians would likely take issue with such discrepancies if they had come from any other source or subject. Again, I guess it boils down to faith.

These days I have to wonder why this country's conservatives are so willing to enforce the social agenda of Christianity, but when it comes to the poor they are sorely lacking on compassionate policies - particularly lately. I think many of conservatives would call Jesus a pinko hippy if he came around and commented on their political agenda today. Just a thought that's always in my head.

Compassion is not just a buzz word - it's an action we take with the knowledge that we've been fortunate and should show equal respect to those who haven't.

 

[CensoredAlso]

These days I have to wonder why this country's conservatives are so willing to enforce the social agenda of Christianity, but when it comes to the poor they are sorely lacking on compassionate policies - particularly lately. I think many of conservatives would call Jesus a pinko hippy if he came around and commented on their political agenda today.

"If I feed the poor, I'm called a Saint. If I ask why they're poor, I'm called a Communist."

 

[frogboy4]

"If I feed the poor, I'm called a Saint. If I ask why they're poor, I'm called a Communist."

Yup, Catholics can be cool.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Reminds me of a 1929 German play by Bertolt Brecht called "St. Joan of the Stockyards" ("Die Heilige Johanna der Schlachthöfe"). A group of religious women (sort of a Salvation Army thing) go out to the poor, offering them food and telling them they need not be miserable in their poverty if they accept God. But one of the women starts to wonder just why these people remain poor and why there never seems to be any jobs. The other women warn her against such thinking, but she persues it anyway and becomes an advocate for workers' rights.

Naturally Brecht, being a Communist, didn't look too favorably on religion, lol. While we disagree on this point, lol, I actually think he did a valid point. Being religious shouldn't just mean sympathizing with the poor. It should also be about persuing justice for the poor.

But sadly some Conservative politicans choose to make excuses that the poor don't deserve their help. The same way some Liberal politicans think being tolerant means turning a blind eye to oppression. Human beings are united in their ability to live in denial.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

Naturally Brecht, being a Communist, didn't look too favorably on religion, lol. While we disagree on this point, lol, I actually think he did a valid point. Being religious shouldn't just mean sympathizing with the poor. It should also be about persuing justice for the poor.

Jesus definitely did more than just sympathize with the poor. He helped them. Just look at the account of when He fed the 5000 with two fish and 5 loaves of bread. His disciples told him to send the folks away so they could get their food but Jesus told them- "You feed them." And though all they had among them was a little boy's lunch, Jesus miraclously provided enough from that to feed everyone and still have 12 basketfuls left over.
There are a number of times in Scripture where it notes that Jesus saw the people and had compassion for them because He saw they were like sheep without a shepherd.
As a Christian, I'm called to do more than just sympathize for the poor- but to empathize and respond with compassion. Matthew 25, with Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, makes this abundantly clear. Whatever we've done to the least of these, we have done unto Him. (And conversely, whatever we have not done to the least of these, we have not done unto Him.)
"But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!" (Amos 5:24)
And look at Luke 4:14-21, where Jesus read from Isaiah 61:1-2 in the synagogue on the Sabbath Day and told the people there that that Scripture had been fulfilled that day in their hearing.
The whole book of James makes it clear that a true faith in Christ must be evident from the good works that that salvation from Christ produces.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

Then again, why is it okay for Jesus to be human for the sake of saving sins and not okay for him to actually be a human being in every sense of it. If he's the bridge between God and man then why the need for more separation? I think it boils down to the uncomfortable idea that Jesus didn't die a virgin. But hey, who knows?

Jesus had to be fully human in order to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world. He was fully God and fully man at the same time. He experienced every temptation that we face, yet was without sin.
I think He was a celibate, single man, based on Matthew 19:1-12. I don't see how being a single virgin would be an insult to God. Not everyone chooses to get married - it's not a required part of one's life in order to be fully human. 1 Corinthians 7 also talks a good deal about marriage and I think verses 26-35 would particularly typify Jesus' life. He was concerned about doing the will of His Father. The will of His Father was for Him to be "pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities" so that the "punishment that brought us peace would be upon Him" and "by His wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5)
I don't think the will of His Father was for Him to get married and have kids. (see John 5:16-47 for more on Jesus doing the will of His Father.)

 

[GonzoLeaper]

At least two gospels mention that hardly anyone believed her, simply 'cause she was a woman, though. Jesus even gripes about it in Mark, though the longer ending seems to have some authorship issues. Mark 16

Right, but the fact that the Bible is showing the women to be right is what's impressive for that time.

I agree with heralde- one thing that actually helps give the Resurrection account credibility is the very fact that it is women who first hear about Jesus' Resurrection and are entrusted with this message to tell the other disciples. (As Jesus says, to tell His brothers- which is signficant to note that the women are telling the men about this. Culturally, in that day, they wouldn't have readily taken a woman's word for it to be reliable. It's chauvinistic and wrong of course- but that's how the culture was then. And that's why it's hard to believe that detail would have been included in a legend because readers would have instantly doubted its credibility. The fact that women were the first to receive the news of Jesus' Resurrection only adds to its reliability as historical fact.) That passage in Mark 16 says that others did not believe "it", not "her". Thus, they didn't believe the message of Christ's Resurrection at first- as a lot of the disciples didn't at first. But I don't think it was because Mary Magdalene was a woman- I think it was their own doubts and unbelief and misunderstandings about what had to happen- that the Christ had to be crucified, then buried and raised on the third day. John 20:9 states this. In Luke 24, the disciples still could not believe it even when Jesus Himself showed up and told them He had risen. He ate a piece of broiled fish to prove to them that He wasn't a ghost and that He really was there in bodily form after having risen from the dead.
In both this passage and in Mark 16, Jesus does rebuke the disciples for their lack of belief. And of course, I can't forget Thomas who said he wouldn't believe unless he saw the nailprints in Jesus' hands and put his finger where the nails were and put his hand into Jesus' side. I love how Jesus then showed up to the disciples and told Thomas to do exactly that if that's what it took for him to believe. "Stop doubting and believe." (John 20:24-31)
Of course, then Thomas made his confession of faith and belief- "my Lord and my God!"
I think this passage just shows that God is willing to meet people where there are with their doubts and fears and make every effort for them to accept Him because He already loves and desperately wants to accept them into His loving arms. (Matthew 23:37)

 

[CensoredAlso]

Jesus definitely did more than just sympathize with the poor. He helped them. Just look at the account of when He fed the 5000 with two fish and 5 loaves of bread. His disciples told him to send the folks away so they could get their food but Jesus told them- "You feed them."

Oh most definitely! Even though it seemed impossible, Jesus found a way to feed them. And that's the lesson for all of us to find a way to help the poor and needy, even when it seems impossible.

One thing that actually helps give the Resurrection account credibility is the very fact that it is women who first hear about Jesus' Resurrection and are entrusted with this message to tell the other disciples. Culturally, in that day, they wouldn't have readily taken a woman's word for it to be reliable. It's chauvinistic and wrong of course- but that's how the culture was then. And that's why it's hard to believe that detail would have been included in a legend because readers would have instantly doubted its credibility.

Exactly, it is quite strange that the Bible has women being the first witnesses if they really wanted people of the time to believe the story. So in that way, the Bible is quite progressive.

 

[frogboy4]

Jesus had to be fully human in order to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world. He was fully God and fully man at the same time. He experienced every temptation that we face, yet was without sin.
I think He was a celibate, single man, based on Matthew 19:1-12. I don't see how being a single virgin would be an insult to God. Not everyone chooses to get married - it's not a required part of one's life in order to be fully human. 1 Corinthians 7 also talks a good deal about marriage and I think verses 26-35 would particularly typify Jesus' life. He was concerned about doing the will of His Father. The will of His Father was for Him to be "pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities" so that the "punishment that brought us peace would be upon Him" and "by His wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5)
I don't think the will of His Father was for Him to get married and have kids. (see John 5:16-47 for more on Jesus doing the will of His Father.)

At that time, being a single, unmarried man was an insult to God. Like so many other things, that's not so much the case anymore. Actually, marriage is quite encouraged and expected by Orthodox Jews.

Jesus' being single could have been his personal choice and I understand why it he would have chosen that life, but it was a very big deal and would have been explained if Jesus had indeed not been married. That's why I believe the historical figure of Jesus was married. The fact that the idea makes many Christians uncomfortable is odd. Instead of denying the possibility they should ask why it matters.

 

[CensoredAlso]

At that time, being a single, unmarried man was an insult to God.

The thing is, Jesus wasn't the only one who seemed to be single. John the Baptist was a loner and considered very much a wierdo in his community, yet at the same time he was respected by many as a prophet. So I don't think it's out of the question that Jesus would have been looked upon in the same way as outside of the norm and devoting himself entirely to God.

The Bible in its current form went through much editing over the years. People probably did view his single status as odd, but not everything made it into the final Bible. Ultimately there's more important things to cover. The Bible is not meant to be Jesus' biography with all the People magazine details. It's primarily a record of his teachings.

The fact that the idea makes many Christians uncomfortable is odd. Instead of denying the possibility they should ask why it matters.

If it was found to be true, I'd have no problem with it. But at the moment I reject it because it's purely conspiracy theory with no real evidence, that's all.