Board index ‹ Jesus

[Trust No One]

Was Jesus an asshole? Even if we go by the popular fanfiction of the Gospels, Jesus was an asshole. He was definitely a jerk. I think the best argument against christianity is its fundamental nastiness

[jimwalton]

Of course not. Jesus was a rational, wise, kind, and helpful person. He cured sick people, was kind to people who others thought were rejects, spoke kindly to people, and said a lot of things that not only made sense but helped people live better lives. He never hurt anyone, was not guilty of sexual abuse, and didn't just care about his own fame. He cared for other people more than himself. Why is that so bad?

[Croc n' troc]

He also killed someone's fig tree for no reason, and f***ed up a few money-lenders, and stole someone's donkeys...

The healing thing seems suspect, since y'know, magic isn't real, and the whole living off the gifts desperate people give you thing is also kinda sketchy.

[jimwalton]

What makes you think the fig tree was privately owned? The incident of the fig tree was a parable. Jesus had just cleansed the temple because the religious system had become so corrupt: they were like a tree in full leaf but with no fruit.

The fig tree story and the cleansing of the temple are really one story in two different forms. The point is: "What is the truth supposed to look like?" When a person goes to the temple, he should be able to expect to find spiritual harmony with God, filled with God's life, prayer and worship, and fellowship with God. Instead he found uselessness instead of productivity, death instead of life, practices that were contrary to fellowship with God, and spiritual indifference. It was a situation requiring judgment. leaves, there is no fruit. He found uselessness instead of productivity, "death" instead of life, energy expended to no rational end. To make his point about the temple and the vapid emptiness of lifeless religious practice, he cursed the tree: "May you never bear fruit again!" And the tree withered. It was a parable of empty religious practices that never produce a love relationship with God, and it's worthy only of judgment and euthanasia. Spiritual bankruptcy and intractable failure, leading to an incorrigible situation cannot be revived, but only terminated. If someone hungry for spiritual food came to the temple at that time, they would go home still hungry, just like someone coming to the fig tree. Rather than perpetuating the negligence, hypocrisy and deceit, Jesus' actions showed that spiritual deadness calls for judgment. The rest of the chapter of Matthew 21 continues that theme. The point of it all is given in Matt. 21:43: "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."

So, as you can see, he's not being a jerk, but telling something I would hope you and I can even agree on: Being a hypocritical poser is deceitful and harmful, and it should be exposed and shut down.

> f***ed up a few money-lenders

I don't know what you're talking about here. What story is this? My guess is you're confused about something.

> stole someone's donkey

Matthew 21:3 indicates that the owner would be in agreement with Jesus using the donkeys. They weren't stolen. Mark 11:3 confirms they were just borrowed ("The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly."). Mark's account also indicates that the owners knew about it and allowed it (Mk. 11.6). So you're mistaken that Jesus was being an a-hole.

> The healing thing seems suspect, since y'know, magic isn't real.

I agree that magic isn't real. There's no reason to think Jesus' healing of people had anything to do with magic. There is no magic trick to heal blindness or to make lame people walk. There was certainly something very differently going on than mere magic.

> the whole living off the gifts desperate people give you thing is also kinda sketchy.

Again, I think you've misunderstood something. Where is this? Where do any of the Gospels tell that Jesus lived off the gifts of desperate people?

I'm going to guess and conclude at this point that your perspective of Jesus is based on a whole lot of misunderstanding and claiming things about Jesus that are never asserted.

[My Crocs]

You're missing a lot of context there, perhaps try rereading the gospels without anyone explaining it to you. It reads rather differently that way, particularly when you notice that Jesus was executed specifically for Hus violent attack on the money lenders.

[jimwalton]

Oh, THOSE money lenders. OK, of course I know that story. You'll notice as you read that his purpose wasn't to cause injury but to effect purity. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke's account, no one was hurt. He overturned the tables and spoke that they turned the temple into a travesty. He drove them out. What he is doing is trying to abolish the temple cult.

John is the only one who mentions a whip, but it doesn't say he hit anybody with it or any animals (since you want me to just read it). He overturned their tables, scattered their coins, and drove them out. It was a prophetic action, not a hurtful one.

We can talk more about the context if you want. But as I look at the context in all four records of the story, I don't see what you're claiming.

> Jesus was executed specifically for his violent attack on the money lenders

Matt. 26.57-68 looks like his "crime" is that he said he would destroy the temple and raise it up again, which was a claim to being the Messiah (an accusation of blasphemy, v. 65). That means he was executed specifically for blasphemy: making himself equal with God.

Mark 14.53-65, same thing: destruction of temple and build another. Accused of claiming to be Messiah. Condemned for blasphemy (Mk. 14.64)—making himself equal with God.

Luke 22.63-71, same thing: Blasphemy, making himself equal with God.

John doesn't tell us much about the trial before the Sanhedrin, but he does give Pilate's charge: "I find no fault with this man." The Sanhedrin had accused him of claiming to be king of the Jews.

So it seems that you have it wrong. Jesus was not executed at all for his attack on the money lenders, let alone specifically for it.

[Croc n' troc]

> his "crime" is that he said he would destroy the temple and raise it up again

Yeah, that's a weird post-hoc thing they put in there, but the Romans pursued him directly after the temple whipping, and that's actually something that would count as a crime in Roman law. The rest isn't completely relevant since it's not anything the Romans would be interested in prosecuting.

[jimwalton]

You sketch an interesting story, but I know there's no evidence for it, so you're just making something up. The extra-biblical historians who mention Jesus (Tacitus, Josephus, Ignatius, Lucian, possibly Thallus, and the Babylonian Talmud) don't give the reason he was killed. Only the Gospel writers do. So you've made something up here with no substantiation. There is no Roman, Jewish, or Christian record that "the Romans pursued him directly after the temple whipping."

[Croc n' trocc]

> There is no Roman, Jewish, or Christian record that "the Romans pursued him directly after the temple whipping."

Take out the headings and the chapter breaks, it's obvious from the gospel text alone that he was killed mere days after the temple whipping, with no other significant events in between.

[jimwalton]

Even without the headings and chapters breaks, you're still incorrect. Jesus was pursued by the Jews, not by the Romans. You're right he will killed mere days after the temple incident, with no other significant events in between, but it was the Jews who pursued him directly.