The Goat Pen

Gee, Cletus. I’ve often disagreed with you, but I never pegged you as a racist.

But now, reading your spewing hatred of black people, and calling them “poor, ignorant and superstitious,” here in 2017, is shocking, unsustainable, and not okay. I thought white supremacists like you were mostly hiding in secret Klan meetings or Nazi gatherings. But here you are, preaching your vile hate speech against black people on the internet for the whole world to see. I bet you have a Confederate flag on the wall of your living room. Check your white privelege, you goose-stepping reactionary bigot.

"Don't worry, Prof, there will always be poor, ignorant, superstitious people out there to latch on to religion as a last gasp for some hope."

And there will always be people like Prof waiting to exploit and take advantage of them. Perversely enough, they call this "christian love'...

Christianity is worse than slavery...

You’d have to ask Cletus about that. He’s in favor of slavery.

[youtube]xmwAD7nHqaY[/youtube]

Is this an actual theology thread? Just finished Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist". Pretty good read and I came away feeling like he hit his general premises out of the ballpark. Almost all of the actual PhD's who have been studying this stuff for decades agree that Jesus did exist and when you apply the rigors and tools of history in a scholarly manner, there is sufficient evidence to suggest he was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher who traveled the backwoods regions of 1st century Palestine, recruited the poor, sick, and downtrodden to his brand of Judaism, and was ultimately crucified for sedition against the state. It's all about multiple independent sources that corroborate but not collaborate. He never claimed to be the "Son of God" or even a divine being, but within a century of his death folks did start saying and thinking that. He did claim the end times would occur in his lifetime and that he would become the earthly ruler of the kingdom of God. Mathew 25:31-40 regarding works getting you into heaven, per the criterion of dissimilarity, was something the real Jesus probably did preach.

"He did claim the end times would occur in his lifetime and that he would become the earthly ruler of the kingdom of God. "

That's more of less what Charles Manson was peddling. Coincidence?

hedge wrote:"He did claim the end times would occur in his lifetime and that he would become the earthly ruler of the kingdom of God. "

That's more of less what Charles Manson was peddling. Coincidence?

I was thinking more along the lines of Johnny Cash, but you do you.

"He did claim the end times would occur in his lifetime and that he would become the earthly ruler of the kingdom of God. "

Incorrect:

John 18:36 New King James Version (NKJV)

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.

Professor Tiger wrote:

"He did claim the end times would occur in his lifetime and that he would become the earthly ruler of the kingdom of God. "

Incorrect:

John 18:36 New King James Version (NKJV)

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.

Okay. Now you just need to find multiple independent sources that corroborate that bit of text. Take your time. I'll check back in a week or two and we'll see what you come up with.

Debates over religious minutia is so satisfying b/c you can be assured that a definitive answer will be discovered and agreed upon by all parties. The parties of god being so reasonable, you know...

At least I can point to SOME 1st-2nd century text to support the proposition that Jesus did not seek an earthly kingdom.

What early text can you cite that says otherwise? Maybe Clement of Rome? Josephus? Trajan? Polycarp? Tatian? Who you got?

Whether earthly or otherwise, the idea of ruling some realm is implicit. The desire of the rabble to revenge themselves of the perceived wrongs they had received (somebody has to be blamed for their miserable condition) and to usurp the wrongdoers is the cornerstone of christian theology. Evidently a few of the early promulgators of this new philosophy weren't so utterly stupid as to not realize that their chances to rule on this earth were minimal at best, so they invented a new realm where they could at least fantasize about finally being in a position of power...

Help me understand your position: Was early Christianity just miserable rabble with no chance to rule anything on earth, but then morphed into some giant international theocratic monster that has been terrorizing the whole world ever since?

Pretty much. The only thing you got wrong, much to your chagrin, I'm sure, is the "ever since" part. The first several centuries were spent getting enough followers to have a viable organization before it really could do anything. Then the next several centuries were spent consolidating those gains. Then came the golden era of christian terror, the early part of the 2nd millennium on thru the end of the middle ages. Of course I'm speaking of the catholic church here, but brutal one-two punch of Martin Luther and Henry VIII signaled the beginning of the end of their reign of terror. A couple of centuries of more or less constant war, which they decisively lost, was capped with the founding of America, a decidedly non-catholic country which, after about 150 year would prove a secular cultural power that would (and has) rendered the church more or less moot. Like most world historic power structures, it took a long to establish and a long time to diminish, but diminish it has and will continue to. So yeah, you got the "giant theocratic monster" part right, but the idea that the church has anything like the power and influence it once enjoyed is a joke. Even a rube like you recognizes that...

Professor Tiger wrote:At least I can point to SOME 1st-2nd century text to support the proposition that Jesus did not seek an earthly kingdom.

What early text can you cite that says otherwise? Maybe Clement of Rome? Josephus? Trajan? Polycarp? Tatian? Who you got?

You didn't cite an early text. You cited something that was probably added in by an overzealous scribe in god knows what year. John was the last of the 4 Biblical Gospels written (90-95 CE) and is the least reliable. You should read the book. John the Baptist was an apocalyptic preacher before Jesus. And Paul was one after. Jesus talking about a "Son of Man" passes the criterion of dissimilarity and points strongly to his own apocalyptic teachings. The fact that it has been largely removed from the modern Jesus legacy, much like how Sean Hannity only fills your head with certain talking points and leaves out other important information, doesn't mean you shouldn't seek out the truth on your own.

Christianity certainly proved apocalyptic in terms of human progress...

Tree wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:At least I can point to SOME 1st-2nd century text to support the proposition that Jesus did not seek an earthly kingdom.

What early text can you cite that says otherwise? Maybe Clement of Rome? Josephus? Trajan? Polycarp? Tatian? Who you got?

You didn't cite an early text. You cited something that was probably added in by an overzealous scribe in god knows what year. John was the last of the 4 Biblical Gospels written (90-95 CE) and is the least reliable.

Incorrect. I call your attention to the P52 manuscript fragment, of the Gospel of John, dates 2nd century. Then there’s also Codex
Sinaiticus, including John, 4th century. There’s also Codex Vaticanus, also including John, also 4th century.

Also, the Gospel of John and all its content was quoted in detail by countless early Christian theologians like Origen (2d-3rd century), Eusebius (3rd-4th century), Athanasios (3rd-4th century), Chrysostom (4th century), Jerome (4th-5th century), etc.

I’d call that pretty ancient and reliable.

By contrast, do you have the name, dates and list of extant writings by this “overzealous scribe” you spoke of, and put your faith in for textual criticism? I’d like to read him....

Yeah, "reliable" is the first word that springs into my mind anytime I see a post on this thread...

Tree, here are a few more to add to your list about the Gospel of John:

It is quoted by Irenaeus, 2nd century.

It's listed in the Muratorian Canon, dated late 2nd century.

It's also listed in Tatian's Diatessaron, dated late 2nd century.

It's included in the earliest official canons of Scripture in the early Church: Council of Carthage (397 AD) and St. Athanasios Paschal Letter (367 AD).

What does your "overzealous scribe" think?