http://jcnot4me.com/Items/theology/Second%20Coming%20stuff/matthew_24_verse_by_verse.htm
There are many more strange and violent passages, but I think this is probably a good start. It is also very important to note that Jesus never redefines the terms “messiah” or “kingdom of god”3 and gives his audience every reason to believe that he means them in the traditional violent sense. This, of course, he failed to deliver. He brought the Jewish people absolutely nothing of any practical use and so they, naturally, rejected him. Christians have made many attempts to interpret the above passages in ways that do not paint Jesus as being violent in the way that a literal reading of these passages clearly indicates. This should come as no surprise, given that they have had two thousand years to try and square old recorded sayings for their movement with new theological and political agendas. This article, and the one’s preceding it, are especially meant as an invitation for you to study these matters yourself. Read both sides of the various arguments and come to your own informed conclusions. For example, read Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, but also read Earl Doherty’s Challenging the Verdict. Read them side by side—chapter for chapter. See which of them treats the data more thoroughly and honestly. The answer should become very clear fairly quickly.
I have but one last thought to share on this matter, which is this: If it is the case that Jesus is merely being taken out of context in being made to appear violent, why is it so easy to accomplish this feat? Buddhism has been around half a millennium longer than Christianity. Where are Buddhism’s Inquisitions and Crusades? Why is it that scholars have not been forced to recant their positions under threat of torture because of “misquoting” Socrates or Confucius? Any theory that explains the violence done by Christians through asserting it is the fault of the sinfulness of human nature must explain why it is Christianity and not, say, Taoism that is renowned for bringing this sinful nature forward. 4
Am I saying that the Jesus character is bad because he is violent? Not necessarily. I'm just saying that the term “Prince of Peace” is somewhat ironic. If you have any doubts that the Christian tradition has a wrathful streak running through it, read Revelations.
http://www.luigicascioli.eu/traduzioni/en_argomenti.htm
http://www.drabruzzi.com/jesus_movement.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/mostlyharmless/jesus.html
1 Biblical quotes are based on the New Revised Standard Version, so as to get as close to the original material as possible.
2 The writers of the gospels misunderstood (or intentionally obscured) the term Nazir and took it to mean that Jesus was “from Nazareth,” but this is quite wrong. “Among the Mosaic Jews, to be consecrated to Yahweh as first-born or bekor meant being vowed for all one's life to be a Nazir (Nazirite, Nazarite, and sometimes even Nazarene), which is written in Hebrew n-z-r, Hebrew, like Arabic, being written without vowels. The Hebrew word n-z-r, of which the root is really Nazir, has without any anomaly managed to give the English word Nazarene. The Greek texts themselves use indifferently Nazeraios or Nazarenos. The Latin equivalent is Nazaraeus” (The Essene Origins of Christianity, Szekely, 95). “From the town of Nazareth” would have been written Nazarethan (Nazarethanus in Latin) not Nazarene (Nazaraeus). “The forms Nazeraios, Nazarenos, Nazaraeus, Nazarene all prove that the ecclesiastical scribes knew the origin of the word and were well aware that it was not derived from Nazareth” (The Essene Origins of Christianity, Szekely, 96).
Tobin discusses this issue here:
3 The quotes which my opponents are rushing to produce to prove me wrong on this are Luke 17:20-21 and John 18:36. In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus is supposed to have told the Pharisees that the Kingdom of God was within them. But nowhere else in the New Testament does he say anything similar, and immediately (17:22-37) after telling the Pharisees this he tells his disciples the “real story”—that the Kingdom of God will descend upon the world quickly, brilliantly, and violently. He compares it to the destruction of Sodom and the destruction of life on earth by means of Noah’s flood. Those that would now respond that Jesus told Pilate in John 18:36 that his Kingdom was not of this world should be informed that this scene might as well have had Jesus sipping mojitos with the Easter Bunny on the Moon for how likely it is. First of all, it’s in John, which should make us very skeptical right off the bat. Written long after the fact, it seems as if it was written just for the purpose of denying the traditional connection between Christianity and the violent messiah movement. Secondly, since Jesus alone is brought inside the palace for questioning, who is supposed to have recorded this conversation? Thirdly, if Pilate didn’t think Jesus was a threat, he wouldn’t have killed him—since he in particular didn’t give a damn what any Jewish mob had to say. On a larger scale, there are too many historical and internal inconsistencies in the Passion narrative in general to take any part of it at face value. It is largely a literary fiction that was written long after the fact to disguise (poorly) the real reason for the crucifixion.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
