No More Jesus Discoveries, Please!

March 20, 2007 - 6:47pm

Christian Century has launched a blog for the magazine. The idea is to connect their readers with their writers and start some conversations. That's always a good thing.

Anyway, I was nosing around Theolog and noticed a good article by James Howell on the latest ridiculous craze about Jesus, bones, bone boxes, and all of that. None of it has any credibility, but it does bring up some interesting issues. I think James hits it on the head.


a Christian Magazine 
Christian Writing

rlp

 

rlp's blog
Christian Century | Link to another source
Speaking of cool new Jesusy
Submitted by Anonymous User on March 21, 2007 - 12:28am.

Speaking of cool new Jesusy blogs, have you seen this one?

http://www.wittenburgblog.com/

-Toby.
http://hittingbedrock.blogspot.com

login to post comments
This statement from the
Submitted by Anonymous User on March 21, 2007 - 5:54am.

This statement from the article: but then didn’t Jesus say we should “Rejoice and be glad” when we are reviled on account of Jesus? really stood out for me. It makes it sound like Jesus is encouraging Christians to act like jerks so they can be reviled, thereby making Jesus happy. I'm interested in the scriptural reference for this quote. I'm also interested in your thoughts on this quote. It troubles me to think that Christians rejoice at being reviled, instead of asking themselves if their actions may not truly reflect Jesus. No wonder so many of them don't seem to care about what others think.

Thanks,
BuddhaBoy
pondside@bigfoot.com

login to post comments
The quote comes from the
Submitted by iandunn on March 21, 2007 - 7:36am.

The quote comes from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

You're right that Christians shouldn't take pride in being "Jerks for Jesus," but any Christian that tried to use this passage to support that would be misinterpreting it. He said that we are blessed when we are doing things because of him and people falsely say things against us. So, the Christian has to be doing something good, something that Jesus would encourage, and the things people are saying have to be untrue for this passage to apply.

This passage wouldn't apply to someone like Fred Phelps (the 'God Hates Fags' guy). He isn't following Christ's teaching or example, and when people point out that his ideas are not representative of Christian beliefs they are telling the truth.

It's really meant to apply to people that are persecuted for doing things that Jesus did, like taking care of the poor or teaching the truth about God. It's meant as an encouragement to people who are suffering for doing the right thing.

login to post comments
It's meant as an
Submitted by Anonymous User on March 22, 2007 - 7:40pm.

It's meant as an encouragement to people who are suffering for doing the right thing.

But how do we know if we're suffering for doing the right thing, or suffering for doing the wrong thing?

Regards,
BuddhaBoy

login to post comments
I think Jesus's rhetorical
Submitted by Kurt on March 21, 2007 - 8:51am.

I think Jesus's rhetorical strategy through that whole passage is to grab people's attention by stating his point, or points, in the most striking possible terms. That includes exaggeration and humor. "If someone backhands you in the face, tell them 'Thank you! May I have another?' " That kind of stuff.

login to post comments
I agree with many of his
Submitted by TheEdge on March 21, 2007 - 9:40am.

I agree with many of his sentiments except for one. If these are Christ's bones, I do not think I would be able to remain faithful. It's a common catchphrase but worth repeating..."either Christ was who He claimed and did rise from the dead or He was a lunatic." The entire Gospel message is bunk if Christ was not resurrected. It is the cornerstone that differentiates Christianity from other Faiths that follow very dead prophets.

Having said that, I am quite certain that these bones do not belong to Christ! Furthermore, how can such a claim be proven in the first place? We don't have a DNA sample for comparison.

login to post comments
I remember hearing sermons
Submitted by Anonymous User on March 22, 2007 - 8:37am.

I remember hearing sermons to the effect that "Jesus is liar, lunatic, or Lord." To my way of thinking, bones don't really change that. I'll admit, though, that I find a literal reading of a 5000 year old book to be rather naive. I believe it to be much more closer to allegory on a number of accounts.

If one wants to insist on a resurrection and a physical body for dead Jesus, then it isn't beyond belief that the same God who made Adam from dust also re-created a dusty body for Jesus. As for me, I'm not sure that those are critical points for Christianity.

Perhaps a few words in the Bible are wrong. Perhaps our understanding of them is wrong. Perhaps the whole thing is wrong. Or perhaps we're just focusing too much on the wrong things.

Sorry for the confusion.

XT

login to post comments
I've decided to shut myself
Submitted by Anonymous User on March 22, 2007 - 12:24pm.

I've decided to shut myself out of the science vs theology arguments. I'm not bragging or anything, but I feel I have enough faith to keep it from bothering me. I do worry about where people lead themselves and others, though.

Personally, after so many different speculative findings that have been everywhere in the news, I've gotten wise to it. I just wish others wouldn't get so attached to these "finding" as they do.

login to post comments
The bones aren't His, so I
Submitted by Anonymous User on March 22, 2007 - 1:57pm.

The bones aren't His, so I see no point in beating that dead horse.
He is alive!

As for Jesus' "rhetorical strategy";
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

This is a statement of fact. The work of the prophets is to proclaim the Word of the Lord, thereby encouraging and exhorting, but also correcting and disciplining. When one faithfully proclaims His Word there will be consequences. When one is obedient to the Lord many will be offended.Therefore,those who are faithful to the WORD and His Word, will be reviled, and persecuted.The reward for these will be great in heaven, so we rejoice in the persecution. Jesus never suggested anywhere that we act like "jerks" in His name, and He is most certainly not being rhetorical.
He is saying we will receive a prophet's reward just the same as the OT prophets would receive.
Read John 14:12-14 and Matthew 23:29-36 for reference.

login to post comments
Hi, You said When one is
Submitted by Anonymous User on March 22, 2007 - 7:37pm.

Hi,
You said
When one is obedient to the Lord many will be offended.

So does that mean that all of the loving homosexuals who offend self-righteous Christians, those homosexuals who are reviled and persecuted, will reap rich rewards? Or is it the Fred Phelps types (God Hates Fags) who are headed to heaven. And how are we to know for sure?

Regards,
BuddhaBoy

login to post comments
I wasn't using "rhetorical"
Submitted by Kurt on March 22, 2007 - 4:40pm.

I wasn't using "rhetorical" in a negative sense. By rhetoric I just mean the art of communicating ideas through words, using various techniques to engage the audience's attention and to make the message easier to understand and remember. Parables, metaphor, humor, hyperbole, name-calling--these are all rhetorical techniques used by Jesus, in plain display in the gospels. No interpretive gymnastics required to see them.

The Matt 23 passage in fact contains an example of name-calling ("brood of vipers") and metaphor ("as a hen gathers her chicks"). Or maybe that last one is a simile. Dang, I can never remember which is which. Ah, not to mention personification (the city of Jerusalem addressed as a female person.)

Have I said anything to impute error to Jesus? Or to deny his deity? I don't think so.

login to post comments
Buddha Boy I said all who
Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2007 - 2:02pm.

Buddha Boy
I said all who are "obedient" to the Lord.

Homosexuality is sin, therefore it is in essence disobedience.It is one sin among many. God hates no one. However he is righteous and holy, and He wrote the book.
http://jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com/2007/02/gods-order-mans-rebellion.html

approvedworkman
jeremiahsquestion.blogspot.com

login to post comments
Wow, I'm impressed that
Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2007 - 7:27pm.

Wow, I'm impressed that you're best buddies with the Lord, in that you're so certain about what is sin and what isn't. Since you seem to know so much, can you let me know if being arrogant is also a sin? I had the impression that Jesus would hang around the outcasts of his day and befriend them. How do you think he befriended the outcasts of his day? By calling them sinners?

Best regards,
BuddhaBoy

login to post comments
BuddhaBoy: Sometimes yes,
Submitted by Kurt on March 23, 2007 - 8:34pm.

BuddhaBoy: Sometimes yes, oddly enough. Check out the gospel of John, chapter 4, verses 16-26.

Approvedworkman: You might pause and ask yourself whether there's a difference between the way you go about calling people sinners and the way Jesus did it.
--
Postscript: After I wrote the above, I thought hmm, what's different about Jesus? For one thing, he gets to know the people he's talking to. So I went to Approvedworkman's blogsite, followed some leads, and found ... evidence of diligent investigation into Eastern Orthodoxy, the Emerging Church movement, and Postmodernism. In other words, I don't think Approvedworkman is one of the "All I ever need to read is the Bible" crowd. Just for some added perspective.

login to post comments