Are you a Fan or a Follower of Jesus?

[blackout]

Really? It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of behaviour that didn't impress Jesus.

Luke 21:1-4:

1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

IMO, Jesus preached an extreme sort of faith. I don't see how it's possible to live a comfortable life while earnestly following his teachings expressed in the Gospels as best as one can.

There is no such thing as "following the bible" or "following the gospels".
There is only following YOUR OWN (chosen) interpretation/s of the bible, or the gospels.

People often interpret ... conveniently.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no such thing as "following the bible" or "following the gospels".
There is only following YOUR OWN (chosen) interpretation/s of the bible, or the gospels.

People often interpret ... conveniently.

Well, I have heard it called "The Big Book of Multiple Choice", which I do generally agree with: for any quote from Jesus that points one way, you can usually find something from Paul or in the Old Testament that points the opposite way.

That being said, I think the gospel accounts of Jesus' give a relatively consistent message: "you have to choose between the world and Me." Jesus does present being a disciple as an all-or-nothing matter.

Edit: that being said, when a religion that, IMO, was designed to only ever exist on the fringes of society becomes the religion of the majority and the religion of power, the message necessarily needs to change... but that's not really new - Christianity's been in that situation for nearly 2000 years.

 

[sky dancer]

I think it's safe to say that many religions consider being a disciple an all or nothing matter.

 

[blackout]

Edit: that being said, when a religion that, IMO, was designed to only ever exist on the fringes of society becomes the religion of the majority and the religion of power, the message necessarily needs to change... but that's not really new - Christianity's been in that situation for nearly 2000 years.

Wouldn't that make it ... not... the same religion?

 

[sky dancer]

Jesus died for political reasons, for challenging the leadership of Rome. It is so surprising that Christianity is political?

It is decades later, after the alleged historical life of Jesus, that he becomes a god whose death is spiritual salvation for others.

 

[sky dancer]

I was raised a Catholic. Much of the teachings NEVER made sense to me. A lyric from a Patti Smith song comes to mind. "Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine."

It's not surprising that I would find another spiritual path more enriching for me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wouldn't that make it ... not... the same religion?

That probably depends on one's definition of "religion".

But if modern Christianity isn't the same religion as ancient Christianity, then I'm not sure that ancient Christianity would count as a single religion either. There was just as much (if not more) of a wide range of beliefs between different sects then as there is between the Gospels and modern Christianity.

Jesus died for political reasons, for challenging the leadership of Rome. It is so surprising that Christianity is political?

To me it kinda is.

IMO, the main reason that Christianity gained political power in the first place was Constantine, and if Aurelius hadn't "primed the pump" a few decades earlier with his emphasis on monotheism through Sol Invictus, I don't think the Roman people (or Constantine) would've taken to Christianity the way they did.

I think a fair number of coincidences had to happen for Christianity to acheive the status it did.

 

[sky dancer]

The essence of Christ's teaching is pure. Love God and Love Thy Neighbor. The institutions that have grown up around Christ's teachings are another thing. It's been about power and domination.

 

[blackout]

Well, I have heard it called "The Big Book of Multiple Choice", which I do generally agree with: for any quote from Jesus that points one way, you can usually find something from Paul or in the Old Testament that points the opposite way.

That being said, I think the gospel accounts of Jesus' give a relatively consistent message: "you have to choose between the world and Me." Jesus does present being a disciple as an all-or-nothing matter.

You can fully participate in Life/the World
without (inwardly) investing yourSelf in it.

In other words, I participate in the world
as it SUITS ME (to the best of my ability),
but do not put that world (ie. societal construct)
up on a pedistal/me.
I'm not "upholding" or "raising up" the world,
I'm simply ... participating IN it.
(in the world, not of it and all that)

I see that people read more of what they have been taught
into "jesus' ' words, than is actually there.

Red(read) Letter Jesus
can give quite a different reading,
if you come to it ... uninfluenced.
(by churches, parents, paul, society, old testament etc)

I see Jesus the Christ,
encouraging Violet the Christ, however,
and .9 the Christ,
and so on,
but I read differently.
I really am not on board with the mainstream interpretations
of christianity at all.
If it's possible to read a LHP Christ'Ianity
I have done it.
I know there are Gnostic Christians
who do similarly.

It would take more time and effort than I can afford
to explain how I interpret the Christ/Kingdom messages
as such.
But then, my interpretation is for the few.
Not the many.

 

[waitasec]

No, these verses show the specific missions that Jesus was given and had to give to His disciples at the time. The people of Israel were first on the agenda, because they were the "lost sheep", and God's chosen people, and should be preached to first.

but of course...jesus was jewish after all....and equating canaanites to dogs is considered neighborly?

There were also practical reasons; who knew what kind of carnage may occur if the disciples preached to the Gentiles first, and the Jews found out that these disciples were preaching to all their neighbours "false" versions of their own faith? They wouldn't be happy, and would in future be more resilient against any conversion attempts. Thus, it would be safer and better to preach to the Jews first.

i wouldn't call it practical reasons per se, i would call it political reasons

Jesus never directly specified who someone's neighbour was, and if His message was not for the Gentiles he would have made it clear.

he did...quoting by leviticus.
considere the good samaritan story...
if jesus indeed meant neighbor was to mean everyone, why wasn't it a roman who helped the jew? samaritans were a part of the assembly of israel, were they not?

Some say that Jesus "realised" sometime in his ministry that His message was for the Gentiles as well. I have doubts about that, but here are the Bible verses that support this argument.

from what i gather, each gospel was written for a certain audience...
mark and matthew were for the jews, luke for the greco roman audience and john moved to the rest of the world because it was written much much later and all of jesus disciples had died before jesus was supposed to come back

Matthew 15:21-28
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

It shows that God had specified Jesus to be sent to the Israelites and preach among them, and His testing of the Canaanite woman shows that while Jesus was sent to the Jews, His entire teachings were for everyone, and praises the Canaanite woman's faith.

well if you call this a test... conceding that you are no better than a dog...
compared to being a child of god...
thats pretty despicable, but thats just me

Now, elsewhere in the Bible, it also states clearly that the Message is for the Gentiles. Jesus was sent by God to save the Jews and begin preaching the new message of salvation. His disciples are then commanded to carry on his work, but this time to the Gentiles as well:

Acts 13:47 "The Lord has commanded us, saying, I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth"

Rom. 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

can you find me that same sentiment in mark or matthew?
as i mentioned before luke and john were written for a different audience, in fact it is in acts that the word christian is used for the 1st time...
paul i'm not so sure about, sometimes it's as if his teachings trump some of jesus teachings...faith vs. works for example.

Everyone is our neighbour. There is no difference between them, and the Bible never specifies who is our neighbour, so you cannot come up with such an assumption that it does.

yes everyone is our neighbor, we in our current society have come to that understanding, but when in leviticus it was tribes against tribes...

isn't it interesting that god commands in lev 19
16 “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.

17 “‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

but then tells them to slaughter innocent women and little boys while keeping virgin girls alive for the sake of rape? (numbers 31)

in that case, god' has some pretty funny ideas about what neighbor means...

 

[jojo50]

Bill Maher made a great point and accused most Christians of being the biggest fans of Jesus and not his followers. Something which he takes to the nTH degree but, is, IMHO, not entirely without merit.

though i love Jesus, he wasn't sent to earth in order to have "fans". he was sent to teach us,then die for us. i'm a follower of Jesus, and believe his true teachings.

 

[Orias]

I'm a fan, not of what he taught, but the way he taught.

It teaches a lot to One who can understand their own psyche, instead of what they believe based off of fear and simple imposition.

A common trait all teachers share is that they follow themselves.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

but of course...jesus was jewish after all....and equating canaanites to dogs is considered neighborly?

One of the primary reasons of Jesus being sent is to fulfil the Messianic prophecies, and He had to be Jewish in order to fulfil them. And he was testing the Canaanite woman's faith.

i wouldn't call it practical reasons per se, i would call it political reasons

Perhaps, it makes little difference.

he did...quoting by leviticus.
considere the good samaritan story...
if jesus indeed meant neighbor was to mean everyone, why wasn't it a roman who helped the jew? samaritans were a part of the assembly of israel, were they not?

Simply because Jesus did not use a Roman in His story does not suggest anything. The Samaritans were arguably hated more than the Romans were. They challenged the Jews' beliefs, and said that they were wrong, believing that their own religion was "true", as they claimed that they followed the true Judaism that was around before the Babylonian exile. This kind of accusation would make Jews extremely angry, and so Samaritans were a prime example to use and show that no matter what religion, race (the Samaritans were ethnically different) or attitudes were, they were all your neighbours.

from what i gather, each gospel was written for a certain audience...
mark and matthew were for the jews, luke for the greco roman audience and john moved to the rest of the world because it was written much much later and all of jesus disciples had died before jesus was supposed to come back

Indeed. As you say, Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, and the story of the Canaanite woman is within Matthew, clearly telling Jews that the Message is for anyone and everyone.

well if you call this a test... conceding that you are no better than a dog...
compared to being a child of god...
thats pretty despicable, but thats just me

It was Jesus' test of her faith. He would not have said it if she could not take it. He was questioning her with the general Jewish attitude of the time, and testing her to see if her faith would prevail over her own personal emotions.

can you find me that same sentiment in mark or matthew?
as i mentioned before luke and john were written for a different audience, in fact it is in acts that the word christian is used for the 1st time...
paul i'm not so sure about, sometimes it's as if his teachings trump some of jesus teachings...faith vs. works for example.

Jesus says at the end of Matthew:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Jesus Himself makes clear that His message is for everyone. Why should only Jews be their neighbours, when Jesus' message and salvation is for everyone, and is made clear here? That would not make sense.

yes everyone is our neighbor, we in our current society have come to that understanding, but when in leviticus it was tribes against tribes...

Yes, but Jesus used it to represent the entirety of the earth. He makes it clear at the end of Matthew for all of the nations to be saved. Why would he specify that among those who can be saved (everyone), only the Jews should be treated as equals? It does not suggest this anywhere.

isn't it interesting that god commands in lev 19
16 “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.

17 “‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.

18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

These quotes show what was applicable to the Israelites at the time. Before Jesus' resurrection, the Jews were God's chosen people. Abraham was the only one in the world who kept to God's teachings, and so his descendants were blessed. God then sent his Son, Jesus, to bring the whole world back into a good relationship with God, rather than just the Jews.

but then tells them to slaughter innocent women and little boys while keeping virgin girls alive for the sake of rape? (numbers 31)

in that case, god' has some pretty funny ideas about what neighbor means...

Personally, I feel that these parts were Jewish justification for their deeds, by pinning the blame on God and saying that He told them to do it. Other Christians, however, would say that God ordered the slaughter of the children, because they would grow up to be adherents to an evil religion (which advocated human sacrifice), and so by killing them at this stage they could find entry into heaven. Personally, I'm not sure about that explanation though. Another explanation is that God advocated this to happen in order to prevent even greater evil from happening. He knows all, and knows what atrocities would happen in the future if they had been left alive. God also wanted to keep the Messianic line intact. But yeah, I'm not too sure myself. My response is that either it is Jewish justification, or that simply God is omniscient, and so whatever he advocates in the long run is always good, and that we simply cannot understand Him or what consequences the Jews may have faced if they had not carried out the slaughter.

 

[Wombat]

The essence of Christ's teaching is pure. Love God and Love Thy Neighbor.

Yup...and if you have got that down as a living reality I believe you can rightly call yourself Christian, Jew, Moslem, Buddhist.....

The institutions that have grown up around Christ's teachings are another thing. It's been about power and domination.

Yea....With a few notable but important exceptions.

I married into an Irish/Australian/Catholic mob....most of them either ignore or detest the Church hierarchy.........and the Nuns in the family, all part of "The institutions", are funny, brilliant, delightful and wise and do compassionate service with rare intelligence.

 

[waitasec]

One of the primary reasons of Jesus being sent is to fulfil the Messianic prophecies, and He had to be Jewish in order to fulfil them. And he was testing the Canaanite woman's faith.

because she conceded to the idea that as a canaanite she was no better than a dog?
jesus has a funny way of showing love...

Perhaps, it makes little difference.

it makes all the difference in the world

Simply because Jesus did not use a Roman in His story does not suggest anything. The Samaritans were arguably hated more than the Romans were. They challenged the Jews' beliefs, and said that they were wrong, believing that their own religion was "true", as they claimed that they followed the true Judaism that was around before the Babylonian exile. This kind of accusation would make Jews extremely angry, and so Samaritans were a prime example to use and show that no matter what religion, race (the Samaritans were ethnically different) or attitudes were, they were all your neighbours.

in jesus time tensions were rising between the romans and the jews...hense the revolt that caused the destruction of the the temple.
the romans were the ones holding the jews (and the samaritans) under their heal, where they not...?

the story of the Canaanite woman is within Matthew, clearly telling Jews that the Message is for anyone and everyone.

i disagree because according to jesus she was no better than a dog.

Jesus says at the end of Matthew:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Jesus Himself makes clear that His message is for everyone. Why should only Jews be their neighbours, when Jesus' message and salvation is for everyone, and is made clear here? That would not make sense.

but 18 chapters earlier jesus said...
matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."

if we take everything he says in this context then we are to believe he was referring to the jews who were spread out in all the KNOWN nations...

Yes, but Jesus used it to represent the entirety of the earth. He makes it clear at the end of Matthew for all of the nations to be saved. Why would he specify that among those who can be saved (everyone), only the Jews should be treated as equals? It does not suggest this anywhere.

politically he was trying to rally the jews for the impending revolt...against the romans...

These quotes show what was applicable to the Israelites at the time. Before Jesus' resurrection, the Jews were God's chosen people. Abraham was the only one in the world who kept to God's teachings, and so his descendants were blessed. God then sent his Son, Jesus, to bring the whole world back into a good relationship with God, rather than just the Jews.

john 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

not if you love EVERYONE...in other words, love those who believe as you do...

Personally, I feel that these parts were Jewish justification for their deeds, by pinning the blame on God and saying that He told them to do it.

so where do you draw the line...?either this happened or not in the name of the abrahamic god. this is the dilemma christians face for adopting judaism and twisting that tradition to form a new ideology, imo.

from my understanding, the jewish tradition has reconciled this dilemma...by recognizing the 1st 5 books as metaphorical...however the christian ideology takes it as literal...positing many contradictions to solve...

Other Christians, however, would say that God ordered the slaughter of the children, because they would grow up to be adherents to an evil religion (which advocated human sacrifice), and so by killing them at this stage they could find entry into heaven.
Personally, I'm not sure about that explanation though. Another explanation is that God advocated this to happen in order to prevent even greater evil from happening. He knows all, and knows what atrocities would happen in the future if they had been left alive. God also wanted to keep the Messianic line intact. But yeah, I'm not too sure myself. My response is that either it is Jewish justification, or that simply God is omniscient, and so whatever he advocates in the long run is always good, and that we simply cannot understand Him or what consequences the Jews may have faced if they had not carried out the slaughter.

look at the state of the world, look at history...other religions prevailed in spite of gods intentions or omniscience... for allowing the "greater evil from happening"...this is something the christian church has to reconcile for adopting an ancient tradition.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Given that I endeavor to be a follower of Baha'u'llah, the Founder of the Baha'i Faith,
I guess I'd qualify as a fan of Jesus.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[youfaith]

I have a hard time taking Bill Maher seriously. Sometimes he makes interesting arguments, but other times not so much.

 

[Sententia]

I have a hard time taking Bill Maher seriously. Sometimes he makes interesting arguments, but other times not so much.

He is a comedian... There are some good clips though

YouTube - ‪Larry King: Bill Maher On His Movie Religulous‬‏

 

[Antiochian]

Neither a fan nor a follower.

 

[gnostic]

IMO, the main reason that Christianity gained political power in the first place was Constantine, and if Aurelius hadn't "primed the pump" a few decades earlier with his emphasis on monotheism through Sol Invictus, I don't think the Roman people (or Constantine) would've taken to Christianity the way they did.

Not necessarily true.

They may not have central political authority or military power or backing prior to Constantine, the Early Church Fathers, or I would say the Pauline or Orthodox Christians, acted politically, even if it was among themselves.

As early as the 2nd century CE, those who followed the Pauline doctrines were pushing more for power within the church, and those who don't follow them, were branded as heretics. There were many different sects, with different interpretations to the gospels and the Pauline epistles. As early as Irenaeus, they had something like a council of bishops. My knowledge on church history is a bit hazy, because I don't know how far back this council existed; or I know is that it did exist when Irenaeus was around.

They may not have muscles to grind the so-called heretics or at least make their rivals toe-the-line back then, but they were definitely "political", and showed the sparks of animosity towards their rivals. Constantine proved how devious a group they would become, and with the emperor on their side, they were able to dictate what the future church would become.

By the time of 380 CE, the persecuted became the persecutors.