[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[cybrxkhan]

Thank you for your answers, Plotinus!

Here again I don't know much about it, and indeed very little is known of Nestorianism in China anyway. I found a paper by Hans-J. Klimkeit ("Buddhists and Manichaeans in medieval central Asia", Buddhist-Christian Studies 1: 46-50, 1981 - available on JSTOR) which gives some information on this question. He says that Nestorian Christianity did indeed express itself in terms drawn from Chinese Buddhism, but that it seems not to have actually changed its doctrines. In particular, Christianity retained a strong doctrine of physical resurrection, and continued to emphasise it despite being criticised for it in Buddhist writings.

Klimkeit says:



He goes on to say that Manicheism was rather different, in that the Manichean texts not only use Buddhist language and imagery but seem to adopt their ideas as well, to the extent that it can be hard to tell whether a text is Manichean or not.

This is something I'm hoping to look into a bit more in the next month or two, though (I'm putting together a course for next year in which I hope to touch on this area), so I'll see what more I can dig out!

I wondered if I came across Klimkeit's article before when I was doing my research paper on the Manicheans, but I think I'm confusing it with another article that discussed Manichean-Buddhist relations in China. Anyhow, I can see what you mean with Manicheans possibly adopting Buddhist ideas; as the centuries went by and Manichean became more of an underground thing it's hard to distinguish sometimes whether a certain movement were unorthodox Buddhists, secret Manicheans, or they just took some random stuff from the Manicheans they thought sounded cool. As I discovered in my research it's one of the reasons why it's difficult to pinpoint exactly when the Manicheans finally died out in China... or, whether they actually died out at all.

Anyhow, I hope your course on the topic goes well - people like to think of Asian religions as boring hippie mystical stuff, but it can get quite complex too, as I've found out myself!




I do have another question, actually. Rather, I have this concept of God (not necessarily one I believe per se, but one I find interesting) but am not sure what it would be called in theological or philosophical terms, so my question is essentially whether there's a theological or philosophical standpoint, school of thought, Gnostic movement, etc., that advocated this sort of understanding of God.

Essentially, in this system, God is like Tolkien; that is, just like how Tolkien, say, created Middle Earth and its history, languages, geography, and so on, so did God. However, in such a situation, Tolkien - or God - is not omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscience in "his" "world" (for lack of better wording), but he is in regards to the world he created. When I thought of this it helped me understand one way how God could be outside of time and space, yet still... not be ultimately all-powerful, I suppose. Sorry if that was a bit confusing, I don't have much formal training in these sort of things so I'm not sure what would be the best way to express this.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, and the Gnosticism we briefly discussed above, I'm thinking there's similarities between this understanding of God and/or the Demiurge in some Gnostic movements, but I dunno whether I can say much more.

 

[Plotinus]

I do have another question, actually. Rather, I have this concept of God (not necessarily one I believe per se, but one I find interesting) but am not sure what it would be called in theological or philosophical terms, so my question is essentially whether there's a theological or philosophical standpoint, school of thought, Gnostic movement, etc., that advocated this sort of understanding of God.

Essentially, in this system, God is like Tolkien; that is, just like how Tolkien, say, created Middle Earth and its history, languages, geography, and so on, so did God. However, in such a situation, Tolkien - or God - is not omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscience in "his" "world" (for lack of better wording), but he is in regards to the world he created. When I thought of this it helped me understand one way how God could be outside of time and space, yet still... not be ultimately all-powerful, I suppose. Sorry if that was a bit confusing, I don't have much formal training in these sort of things so I'm not sure what would be the best way to express this.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, and the Gnosticism we briefly discussed above, I'm thinking there's similarities between this understanding of God and/or the Demiurge in some Gnostic movements, but I dunno whether I can say much more.

Sorry to have taken so long to reply, but yes, this is an image I've often heard to try to express divine timelessness. The idea is that God's relationship to the world is rather similar to that of an author to the book she writes. Just as the author is not "in" the book, and doesn't travel through the narrative as the characters do, so too God is not "in" our timeline and doesn't experience it from within as we do.

I haven't heard this idea used to explain divine omniscience and omnipotence, though, so your idea that God is omnipotent etc. within the world purely in virtue of his having "written" it, but is not necessarily omnipotent etc. in himself, is distinctive. I don't think it would be orthodox, though, because the traditional view of God is that he has the omni-properties necessarily in virtue of his own nature, not simply in virtue of how he relates to his creation. So he would have had these properties even if he had never created anything. So that's rather different from Tolkien knowing all facts about Middle Earth purely because he invented it.

You might be interested in the Gospel of Truth, a probably second-century text probably written by the probably gnostic theologian Valentinus (this is about as definite as anything gets in ancient gnosticism). That uses the imagery of a book to refer to Christ, who is effectively published on the cross. So the book idea refers to the relationship between the Father and the Son rather than between God and the world, but you might find it interesting to compare.

 

[El_Machinae]

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
...
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That's enough!" he replied.

Are there any implications to Jesus assuming the disciples couldn't simultaneously afford swords and cloaks? And, did the disciples already have those two swords on them?

 

[Berzerker]

and what were the swords for?

I've seen that passage used as evidence Jesus was not a pacifist and a response arguing the swords were to provide some other function, like violating a law or fulfilling a prophecy or some other purpose designed to further the mission

 

[Agent327]

and what were the swords for?

I've seen that passage used as evidence Jesus was not a pacifist and a response arguing the swords were to provide some other function, like violating a law or fulfilling a prophecy or some other purpose designed to further the mission

The answer was 'That's enough!' The next time a sword is mentioned is during Jesus' arrest. Peter apparently assumed the swords were to be used. They were, but not in a literal sense. Jesus tells Peter to put the sword away. But of course the Roman soldiers will have noticed the incident. Jesus would have known that Roman authority had little interest in a preacher preaching, even if that upset the Jerusalem priesthood. It's not a capital offense. Raising a sword against authority obviously is. Hence Pilate's subsequent question to Jesus: Are you the king of the Jews (his actual crime, as indicated with the INRI on his cross)? And his response: You said it.

So, it is precisely because Jesus was a pacifist (he had no interest in armed resurrection) that he needed swords present (and visibly drawn) at the time of his arrest. The reason for getting arrested was of course the priesthood getting stirred by his causing religious unrest, but Romans had little interest in such per se.

There is another mention of Jesus and 'the sword', where he says 'I have come not to bring peace, but the sword!' or words to that effect. Again, this is not a literal sword: brother will stand against brother, because his message will cause dissent (as it has ever after). And then there is 'he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword' (clearly not Jesus' interest).

You may also remember Jesus asking his disciples, while on the road: What do the people say that I am? And then: What do you think I am? with the response: 'You are the Messiah!' Again, this is important with respect to his later arrest. The Messiah (in the Jewish sense, which is the sense that matters here) would, according to the prophets and devout Jews, liberate Israel from oppression. He would, quite literally, be king of the Jews. And this would have been the only reason for the Romans to have him crucified.

 

[Berzerker]

thx, wrt Jesus' pacifism, didn't he beat the moneychangers with some kind of whip as he drove them out of the temple?

 

[Agent327]

You're welcome.

Pacifism doesn't exclude anger. There are several instances in the NT of Jesus getting angry. (And after all, the official doctrine states that Jesus was fully human, as well as fully divine.)

 

[El_Machinae]

So, who then is my neighbor?

I've always had trouble with this passage, because the question is never answered. It's a repeat of an OT passage, but I think the idea of who 'the neighbor is' is clearer, the fellow Israelite.

Is Jesus's "neighbor" my countryman? Is the neighbor any stranger? Is it anyone who was nice to me first?

What were the early thoughts on this topic? If you interpret that passage too lovingly, it implies universal charity. Too shallowly, and it's basically an extension of tribal instincts.

 

[Mouthwash]

What do you think of Reza Aslan?

 

[El_Machinae]

I like him! I find he has some really great insights that are well-articulated. I might never fully agree with him, but he's often given me something to think about, changed my thinking in subtle ways

 

[Plotinus]

The answer was 'That's enough!' The next time a sword is mentioned is during Jesus' arrest. Peter apparently assumed the swords were to be used. They were, but not in a literal sense. Jesus tells Peter to put the sword away. But of course the Roman soldiers will have noticed the incident. Jesus would have known that Roman authority had little interest in a preacher preaching, even if that upset the Jerusalem priesthood. It's not a capital offense. Raising a sword against authority obviously is. Hence Pilate's subsequent question to Jesus: Are you the king of the Jews (his actual crime, as indicated with the INRI on his cross)? And his response: You said it.

So, it is precisely because Jesus was a pacifist (he had no interest in armed resurrection) that he needed swords present (and visibly drawn) at the time of his arrest. The reason for getting arrested was of course the priesthood getting stirred by his causing religious unrest, but Romans had little interest in such per se.

There is another mention of Jesus and 'the sword', where he says 'I have come not to bring peace, but the sword!' or words to that effect. Again, this is not a literal sword: brother will stand against brother, because his message will cause dissent (as it has ever after). And then there is 'he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword' (clearly not Jesus' interest).

You may also remember Jesus asking his disciples, while on the road: What do the people say that I am? And then: What do you think I am? with the response: 'You are the Messiah!' Again, this is important with respect to his later arrest. The Messiah (in the Jewish sense, which is the sense that matters here) would, according to the prophets and devout Jews, liberate Israel from oppression. He would, quite literally, be king of the Jews. And this would have been the only reason for the Romans to have him crucified.

This is an ingenious interpretation, but I don't know if I find it totally convincing.

You're quite right that Jesus talks about swords in Luke's Gospel, and that one of the disciples later uses a sword during his arrest, though it's not Peter - the disciple is unnamed. It's John who identifies Peter as the violent disciple.

More importantly, this account of why Jesus was executed makes little sense to me. You say that the priests wanted him dead - but why? Because he was causing religious unrest? But that would be quite enough for the Romans to want him dead too. The Synoptics present Jesus' action in the Temple as the immediate occasion for Jesus' arrest (in contrast to John, for whom the raising of Lazarus is the tipping point). To perform a prophetic action in the Temple, involving a prophecy of its destruction, during Passover, would have been an extremely provocative action. That's quite enough for the High Priest, who was in charge of law and order, to have wanted him got rid of. And I don't know of any reason why Pilate wouldn't have simply OKed any such requests from the High Priest. Pilate was not exactly squeamish about executing people.

And to put the issue the other way around, if merely preaching wouldn't have interested the Romans, why would it have interested the High Priest and his minions?

The idea that Jesus hadn't done anything to warrant being executed, so deliberately had his disciples carry swords specifically so that he would be executed, strikes me as fanciful. What's the evidence for this? What's the evidence that Jesus intended to be executed at all, let alone that this was the means by which he sought to do it?

The "sword" sayings in the Gospel are certainly important and hard to interpret, but I just don't think an interpretation this neat will really work.

So, who then is my neighbor?

I've always had trouble with this passage, because the question is never answered. It's a repeat of an OT passage, but I think the idea of who 'the neighbor is' is clearer, the fellow Israelite.

Is Jesus's "neighbor" my countryman? Is the neighbor any stranger? Is it anyone who was nice to me first?

What were the early thoughts on this topic? If you interpret that passage too lovingly, it implies universal charity. Too shallowly, and it's basically an extension of tribal instincts.

You're right that Jesus doesn't answer the question; I take this to mean that he thinks we shouldn't worry about who our neighbour is at all, but should act in a neighbourly way ourselves.

John Chrysostom interprets the parable as an allegory about Jesus himself: the traveller is us, and the Samaritan is Jesus. That would be a typically patristic sort of way of reading it, but I think obviously not its original meaning. Remember that the early Christians always read the Bible through the lens of their own theology, taking it to be a sort of enormous cryptic crossword; they had very little interest in (or awareness of) the notion of the original meaning of the authors or of the characters.

What do you think of Reza Aslan?

I hadn't heard of him until this, so I'm afraid I don't have an opinion about him.

 

[El_Machinae]

It really matters, because the Golden Rule kinda depends on what you mean by 'others'.

 

[classical_hero]

So, who then is my neighbor?

I've always had trouble with this passage, because the question is never answered. It's a repeat of an OT passage, but I think the idea of who 'the neighbor is' is clearer, the fellow Israelite.

Is Jesus's "neighbor" my countryman? Is the neighbor any stranger? Is it anyone who was nice to me first?

What were the early thoughts on this topic? If you interpret that passage too lovingly, it implies universal charity. Too shallowly, and it's basically an extension of tribal instincts.

If you read the passage the answer is rather clear, it is those whom have need whom you can give help to. In the story only one person acts neighbourly to the injured man, and that was the Samaritan. When people have need and you can help then, they are your neighbour.

 

[Agent327]

That seems en entirely plausible and logical answer.

This is an ingenious interpretation, but I don't know if I find it totally convincing.

You're quite right that Jesus talks about swords in Luke's Gospel, and that one of the disciples later uses a sword during his arrest, though it's not Peter - the disciple is unnamed. It's John who identifies Peter as the violent disciple.

More importantly, this account of why Jesus was executed makes little sense to me. You say that the priests wanted him dead - but why?

Actually, I was reasoning from the viewpoint of Jesus foreseeing his own death. I did not say that the Jerusalem priesthood wanted him dead. If so, they would need official cooperation, i.e. that of the governor, being Pontius Pilate.

You say that the priests wanted him dead - but why? Because he was causing religious unrest? But that would be quite enough for the Romans to want him dead too.

I have disagree here. Romans rarely interfered in Jewish religious affairs, if ever. For one, they wouldn't know the first thing about such intricacies. A clear example of this is the Samaritans, who were shunned by orthodox Jewry (with a formula also repeated by Jesus, despite his parable of the 'good Samaritan').

The Synoptics present Jesus' action in the Temple as the immediate occasion for Jesus' arrest (in contrast to John, for whom the raising of Lazarus is the tipping point). To perform a prophetic action in the Temple, involving a prophecy of its destruction, during Passover, would have been an extremely provocative action. That's quite enough for the High Priest, who was in charge of law and order, to have wanted him got rid of. And I don't know of any reason why Pilate wouldn't have simply OKed any such requests from the High Priest. Pilate was not exactly squeamish about executing people.

And to put the issue the other way around, if merely preaching wouldn't have interested the Romans, why would it have interested the High Priest and his minions?

You seem to forget Jesus was not the only figure preaching at this time. To name but two, there was John the Baptist (executed by Herod) and such sects as the Essenes. Such religious movements were no threat to Roman authority, unless they took up arms. (Which indeed happened repeatedly and then caused severe trouble to Roman rule.)

The idea that Jesus hadn't done anything to warrant being executed, so deliberately had his disciples carry swords specifically so that he would be executed, strikes me as fanciful. What's the evidence for this? What's the evidence that Jesus intended to be executed at all, let alone that this was the means by which he sought to do it?

This is not what I stated. The essential thing was the Messianic preaching, or rather, the identification of Jesus with the Jewish Messiah, who would liberate Israel from oppression. Ergo, a clear political act, not a religious one - however religiously motivated such an act might be.

The "sword" sayings in the Gospel are certainly important and hard to interpret, but I just don't think an interpretation this neat will really work.

Again, I will have to disagree. There are no occasions where Jesus' words can be interpreted as 'using the sword' for whatever purpose. (Unless of course one is of the opinion that he frequently changed his mind on the issue.) The fact that people have felt to need to interpret any of Jesus' words on 'the sword' points precisely to the fact that he never explicitly mentions use of 'the sword' for whatever purpose. and again, the only instance of Jesus becoming violently angry himself is upon seeing the traders on the Temple complex - the instance upsetting the priesthood.

That is one. Secondly, there is (and this has been mentioned repeatedly, even by you on this thread) no reason to assume the Romans would ever have heard of Jesus during his lifetime - if not for the Temple incident (and even that left no mention in any Roman record). So for all intents and purposes Jesus was a non-entity to Rome. Now, I am fully aware that Romans wouldn't think twice about executing a non-entity. But the point is that they would need a reason first. And this, in all likelihood, the Temple incident provided. Not by itself, but because of the pretext it provided the Jerusalem priesthood to have him arrested for causing an incident. (Whether Pilate consequently actually questioned Jesus prior to execution may be questionable, but that is beside the point.)

 

[Tahuti]

Plotinus, is dualism (as in the duality of one god, like in Zoroaster) compatible with Orthodox Christianity?

 

[Plotinus]

It really matters, because the Golden Rule kinda depends on what you mean by 'others'.

Certainly, but the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) doesn't come in the context of the Golden Rule (Luke 6). It comes in the context of Jesus saying that one should "love your neighbour as yourself", which isn't exactly the same thing. So it's not necessarily the case that the interpretation of the Good Samaritan is connected to the interpretation of the Golden Rule, even assuming that both pieces of material go back to Jesus himself, which I think is considered to be likely.

Actually, I was reasoning from the viewpoint of Jesus foreseeing his own death. I did not say that the Jerusalem priesthood wanted him dead. If so, they would need official cooperation, i.e. that of the governor, being Pontius Pilate.

OK, but then that assumes that Jesus did foresee his own death and deliberately act to engineer it. That's certainly possible but it seems to me to be quite an assumption. What's the evidence for this? Obviously there are various verses in the Gospels where Jesus predicts his death, but why suppose that these are authentic and not just put in his mouth by the authors to make it seem like he knew what was going to happen?

I have disagree here. Romans rarely interfered in Jewish religious affairs, if ever. For one, they wouldn't know the first thing about such intricacies. A clear example of this is the Samaritans, who were shunned by orthodox Jewry (with a formula also repeated by Jesus, despite his parable of the 'good Samaritan').

Right, but that's surely the point. If the High Priest wanted someone killed, the Romans wouldn't have bothered quibbling, because they didn't interfere. They would just rubber-stamp it.

You seem to forget Jesus was not the only figure preaching at this time. To name but two, there was John the Baptist (executed by Herod) and such sects as the Essenes. Such religious movements were no threat to Roman authority, unless they took up arms. (Which indeed happened repeatedly and then caused severe trouble to Roman rule.)

Sure, but I don't see how that's relevant to what I said.

This is not what I stated. The essential thing was the Messianic preaching, or rather, the identification of Jesus with the Jewish Messiah, who would liberate Israel from oppression. Ergo, a clear political act, not a religious one - however religiously motivated such an act might be.

This does assume that Jesus claimed to be, or thought of himself as, the Messiah. The problem with this is that there's surprisingly little indication of this in the Gospels, where he consistently refers to himself as "Son of Man", a rather different title. It may well be that those passages where he does (rather diffidently) accept the title of "Christ" reflect later Christian beliefs about him rather than anything he actually said.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't have Messianic pretensions. But I think it would be unwise to make the claim that he did a premise in one's argument, because it's not at all certain.

Again, I will have to disagree. There are no occasions where Jesus' words can be interpreted as 'using the sword' for whatever purpose. (Unless of course one is of the opinion that he frequently changed his mind on the issue.) The fact that people have felt to need to interpret any of Jesus' words on 'the sword' points precisely to the fact that he never explicitly mentions use of 'the sword' for whatever purpose. and again, the only instance of Jesus becoming violently angry himself is upon seeing the traders on the Temple complex - the instance upsetting the priesthood.

I didn't say that Jesus did say one should "use" the sword; I only said that these sayings are difficult to understand. Again, one can't be certain that they're authentic, although their strangeness and lack of similarity to anything elsewhere in the New Testament might suggest that they are. It is, though, quite possible that Jesus did envisage some kind of use of violence - perhaps as part of a messianic attempt upon Jerusalem, like so many others - and that this element of his career has been largely whitewashed from the New Testament with just these few sayings about the sword remaining as vestiges. I'm not sure that that's very likely, but again, I don't think one can dogmatically rule it out.

Remember that the Jesus of the Gospels is not the historical Jesus. Indeed the Jesus of one Gospel is not the same as the Jesus of another Gospel; they all portray him differently. There are, no doubt, many overlaps between the Gospels' Jesuses and the historical one, but you can't straightforwardly take any saying or action attributed to Jesus in the Gospels as a historical fact about the real Jesus.

That is one. Secondly, there is (and this has been mentioned repeatedly, even by you on this thread) no reason to assume the Romans would ever have heard of Jesus during his lifetime - if not for the Temple incident (and even that left no mention in any Roman record). So for all intents and purposes Jesus was a non-entity to Rome. Now, I am fully aware that Romans wouldn't think twice about executing a non-entity. But the point is that they would need a reason first. And this, in all likelihood, the Temple incident provided. Not by itself, but because of the pretext it provided the Jerusalem priesthood to have him arrested for causing an incident. (Whether Pilate consequently actually questioned Jesus prior to execution may be questionable, but that is beside the point.)

I agree with all of this apart from the word "pretext". I don't see any reason to think that the priests had any ulterior motive in having Jesus arrested (although the Gospels try to attribute one to them), and I'm not convinced that there's any evidence that Jesus himself had an ulterior motive in getting himself arrested. It seems to me that the simplest explanation is probably the true one: the High Priest had Jesus arrested simply because he was causing trouble in the highly-charged atmosphere of Passover, and he wanted to get him out of the way before a riot started. And Jesus was causing trouble not because he wanted to get arrested but because he considered himself to be a kind of prophet making a prophecy about the imminent destruction of the Temple and the coming of the kingdom of God. Or, perhaps, because he wanted to start a social and political movement, perhaps aimed against the power of Rome.

This, again, isn't to say that your interpretation is wrong. It could be right. But I don't see good evidence for it in preference to the simpler explanations. Ultimately we can't be certain about any of this stuff.

Plotinus, is dualism (as in the duality of one god, like in Zoroaster) compatible with Orthodox Christianity?

I'm not sure what you mean by "duality of one God". If you mean the idea that God can be somehow both good and evil at the same time, or something like that, then I don't see how that could be orthodox in a Christian sense. Some Christian writers have insisted that God transcends all human categories, including good and evil. That's what Pseudo-Dionysius says. However, it isn't that God is both good and evil - rather, he's neither. And Pseudo-Dionysius does stress that although "God is good" and "God is evil" are both false, "God is evil" is more false than "God is good". So I don't think that's really what you're after, but it's probably the closest one can get within a non-heterodox context.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, the duality I mean indeed refers to the potential good and evil of god at the same time.

Anyway, to what degree do you approve of the idea itself? Would you connect it to Heraclitus 'unity of opposites'?

 

[Agent327]

OK, but then that assumes that Jesus did foresee his own death and deliberately act to engineer it. That's certainly possible but it seems to me to be quite an assumption. What's the evidence for this? Obviously there are various verses in the Gospels where Jesus predicts his death, but why suppose that these are authentic and not just put in his mouth by the authors to make it seem like he knew what was going to happen?

Obviously we can't know the answer to that question, so I didn't go into that. The narrative seems to assume that he does, however, irrelevant of the question whether that is anyway near the truth.

Right, but that's surely the point. If the High Priest wanted someone killed, the Romans wouldn't have bothered quibbling, because they didn't interfere. They would just rubber-stamp it.

If the person in question was a non-citizen, I'm sure that is correct. Which obviously puts the whole Pontius Pilate sideplot into question.

Sure, but I don't see how that's relevant to what I said.

It's relevant insofar as religious dissent in itself would have been immaterial to Roman authority. They couldn't care less. The gospel writers seem full well aware of this, going to lengths to explain why Jesus was executed.

This does assume that Jesus claimed to be, or thought of himself as, the Messiah. The problem with this is that there's surprisingly little indication of this in the Gospels, where he consistently refers to himself as "Son of Man", a rather different title. It may well be that those passages where he does (rather diffidently) accept the title of "Christ" reflect later Christian beliefs about him rather than anything he actually said.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't have Messianic pretensions. But I think it would be unwise to make the claim that he did a premise in one's argument, because it's not at all certain.

I agree completely. This has been quite a theological bone of contention, I believe. Also one should always keep in mind that the Messiah in question was the Jewish Messiah, not the Christian. Again, the questionability of Jesus being the Messiah was something the gospel writers seem fully aware of, which explains the less than credible insertion of the Bethlehem subplot.

I didn't say that Jesus did say one should "use" the sword; I only said that these sayings are difficult to understand. Again, one can't be certain that they're authentic, although their strangeness and lack of similarity to anything elsewhere in the New Testament might suggest that they are. It is, though, quite possible that Jesus did envisage some kind of use of violence - perhaps as part of a messianic attempt upon Jerusalem, like so many others - and that this element of his career has been largely whitewashed from the New Testament with just these few sayings about the sword remaining as vestiges. I'm not sure that that's very likely, but again, I don't think one can dogmatically rule it out.

Remember that the Jesus of the Gospels is not the historical Jesus. Indeed the Jesus of one Gospel is not the same as the Jesus of another Gospel; they all portray him differently. There are, no doubt, many overlaps between the Gospels' Jesuses and the historical one, but you can't straightforwardly take any saying or action attributed to Jesus in the Gospels as a historical fact about the real Jesus.

I am aware. I did not mean to speculate about the historical Jesus, merely try to sum up what remains of his possible views in the gospel texts. I will admit that I hadn't considered the 'armed insurrection' option, but if that was originally part of Jesus' mindset he did surprisingly little in preparation for it. If I may refer back to the 'two swords' prior to his arrest: one can hardly start an insurrection with just 2 swords. So even if one allows the theoretical possibility, it seems highly improbable to conclude this from the gospel texts.

I agree with all of this apart from the word "pretext". I don't see any reason to think that the priests had any ulterior motive in having Jesus arrested (although the Gospels try to attribute one to them), and I'm not convinced that there's any evidence that Jesus himself had an ulterior motive in getting himself arrested. It seems to me that the simplest explanation is probably the true one: the High Priest had Jesus arrested simply because he was causing trouble in the highly-charged atmosphere of Passover, and he wanted to get him out of the way before a riot started. And Jesus was causing trouble not because he wanted to get arrested but because he considered himself to be a kind of prophet making a prophecy about the imminent destruction of the Temple and the coming of the kingdom of God. Or, perhaps, because he wanted to start a social and political movement, perhaps aimed against the power of Rome.

This, again, isn't to say that your interpretation is wrong. It could be right. But I don't see good evidence for it in preference to the simpler explanations. Ultimately we can't be certain about any of this stuff.

Well, I meant legal pretext. The whole anti-Roman idea, however, doesn't seem to fit with what sayings have survived in the gospel texts. I'm thinking in particular of the 'Give God what is due to God, give Caesar what is due to Caesar' response to a question aimed in particular to catching Jesus admitting something anti-Roman. As far as I can tell his main opposition is always the Jewish 'righteous people' - to which in effect he himself belonged with his own particular idea of righteousness.

And once again thanks for your elaborate response; it is always a pleasure to read.

 

[Takhisis]

Remember that the Jews felt they were a superior people and Jesus wanted to be friends with everyone and universalise the faith. That would have upset the playing board for them.

 

[timtofly]

OK, but then that assumes that Jesus did foresee his own death and deliberately act to engineer it. That's certainly possible but it seems to me to be quite an assumption. What's the evidence for this? Obviously there are various verses in the Gospels where Jesus predicts his death, but why suppose that these are authentic and not just put in his mouth by the authors to make it seem like he knew what was going to happen?

What do we do with the betrayal of Jesus by Judas?

This does assume that Jesus claimed to be, or thought of himself as, the Messiah. The problem with this is that there's surprisingly little indication of this in the Gospels, where he consistently refers to himself as "Son of Man", a rather different title. It may well be that those passages where he does (rather diffidently) accept the title of "Christ" reflect later Christian beliefs about him rather than anything he actually said.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus didn't have Messianic pretensions. But I think it would be unwise to make the claim that he did a premise in one's argument, because it's not at all certain.

If he constantly showed by his actions that he was more than mere human, would he not need to reinforce with words that he still was a human?

I didn't say that Jesus did say one should "use" the sword; I only said that these sayings are difficult to understand. Again, one can't be certain that they're authentic, although their strangeness and lack of similarity to anything elsewhere in the New Testament might suggest that they are. It is, though, quite possible that Jesus did envisage some kind of use of violence - perhaps as part of a messianic attempt upon Jerusalem, like so many others - and that this element of his career has been largely whitewashed from the New Testament with just these few sayings about the sword remaining as vestiges. I'm not sure that that's very likely, but again, I don't think one can dogmatically rule it out.

If they were trying to white wash the revolutionary "theory" they may have needed to keep the two swords to add that one last miracle.

Remember that the Jesus of the Gospels is not the historical Jesus. Indeed the Jesus of one Gospel is not the same as the Jesus of another Gospel; they all portray him differently. There are, no doubt, many overlaps between the Gospels' Jesuses and the historical one, but you can't straightforwardly take any saying or action attributed to Jesus in the Gospels as a historical fact about the real Jesus.

If we have no record of the historical Jesus, how do we know that the Gospels do not represent the actual actions and life of Jesus?

I'm not sure what you mean by "duality of one God". If you mean the idea that God can be somehow both good and evil at the same time, or something like that, then I don't see how that could be orthodox in a Christian sense. Some Christian writers have insisted that God transcends all human categories, including good and evil. That's what Pseudo-Dionysius says. However, it isn't that God is both good and evil - rather, he's neither. And Pseudo-Dionysius does stress that although "God is good" and "God is evil" are both false, "God is evil" is more false than "God is good". So I don't think that's really what you're after, but it's probably the closest one can get within a non-heterodox context.

I can understand the need to compare God to the human experience and even judge God on his known actions, but would not God by his own definition be unable to be in any way characterized by any human attribute?

Humans were supposed to be the artificial creation of God on earth, but God cursed that condition, and effectively made it hard to be the characterization of God on earth.

In this condition with the knowledge of good and evil, how could we ever know what God is or consist of? Most people would say that God knew what good and evil was, and would not let satan realize that. Thus the whole point of giving one man that choice, satan would be able to have that realization. However none of the angels including satan will ever realize any of the human condition, which we have only half the story. We have yet to live out our original purpose.