Does the grit extend to Jesus himself? That is to say, do we get the Zen monk-style Jesus from modern Western media or do we get the anger-issues Jesus from the Bible?
> That is to say, do we get the Zen monk-style Jesus from modern Western media or do we get the anger-issues Jesus from the Bible?
Both of those are your interpretation of others' interpretations, and I question whether either of those is a widely held view. Personally, I don't see the media as depicting him as zen-like and I definitely don't read him as having anger-issues in the Bible.
Give it another read. He gets pissed off all the time and for the most bizarre reasons, like the time some people he was teaching don't understand his parable and he's asked why he teaches in parables if people have trouble understanding them and he throws a shit-fit.
I understand how someone could come to this conclusion, especially if you read the Old Testament and believe that Jesus and Jehovah are the same being. But I do think The Chosen has successfully captured the essence of the Gospels and made them much more relatable.
Man, that webcomic was supremely thoughless - no willingness to engage at all with the text, unlike Life of Brian.
That passage appears in the context of Jesus and his disciples making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate Passa, which takes place in April. Just after the fig tree incident comes the purification of the temple.
Everyone who has a fig tree in the garden knows that some varieties bear an early crop, which is what Jesus was hoping to find. And no one swears at trees, as the webcomic helpfully points out.
The only possible interpretation is that that tree wasn't a fruit tree at all but some random wild tree from the fig genus that doesn't bear edible fruit. The Jesus that appears in the gospels is averse to showy and thoughtless practice, and this is yet another instance.
I think it's clear in context that the fig tree is symbolizing the kingdom of Judah, who's leaders Jesus is very critical of. In the gospels, he says they will be disowned and their kingdom given over to another. The fig tree is a symbol of the kingdom of Judah and it really works in context.
You'd like to see a willingness to engage. "You are all dumb" never was a good argument, you get many more points for "Dogma X is outrageous".
You can make fun of the anti-homosexual tendencies of evangelicals as much as you like and they'll just reply that queers are gross and the bible says it. But if you point out that the prohibition of homosexuality appears in the context of cultic practices you meet them on their own ground and imply that they don't understand their own foundational text.
Funnily enough, I've seen similar arguments to "proof by mortification" in apologetics around historical Jesus - basically, if you were going to invent a Messiah, you wouldn't do it like this e.g., the first witnesses to the resurrection being women, in a very patriarchal world.
I'm fascinated by this view, where do you find support for it in the texts?
To me, and most Christians, it looks like jesis is appropriately angry, sad, happy and generally experiences a full range of human emotions in the gospels.
Jesus had his angry moments, but he's not an angry figure in general, but more specifically I'm pointing to the populist imagination: Jesus is generally not viewed as an angry figure, but rather overwhelmingly empathetic.
Whereas the God of the 'Old Testament' has some harsh actions and policies, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, threatening to punish the Israelites if they didn't follow his commands, telling Abraham to sacrifice is son, banishing Adam and Eve from Eden, etc. There's nothing comparable to that at all in the New Testament. The New Testament is fundamentally different in tone from the Old Testament in this manner.
At least up until recently, it would have been 'Old Testament Fire and Brimstone' , 'Jesus / New Testament, Peace and Love' in popular imagination.
> There's nothing comparable to that at all in the New Testament.
There certainly is. In fact, at one point, Jesus even brings up Sodom as an example!
See Matthew 23, where Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees "children of hell" and says that all the righteous blood shed since Abel will be required of them, prophesying the Siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple ("not one stone will be left upon another.") Or the famous incident where he drives people out of the temple with a whip. Or when he says hate is the same sin as murder and lust the same as adultery, and those who commit them will end up in hellfire (in the Sermon on the Mount, no less.)
Or the reason he so enraged the Jewish authorities, he repeated claims that they were going to lose the kingdom. For example, after he healed the centurion's servant: "When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Or when he says the Capernaum is going to have a worse time than Sodom: " And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."
Or his comments on people that don't forgive: "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."
Or the Parable of the Vineyard.
Or this particular memorable castigation from John: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
This is a view in the popular imagination, but it isn't really supportable after reading the gospels.
I don't agree at all, and your examples actually prove my point.
Yahweh was literally flattening cities, killing Egyptians with plague, destroying Cannanties by force, requiring his followers to sacrifice their children (!).
None of the 'hard advice' given by Jesus in the examples are remotely equivalent to this, nor do they paint a picture of an angry or despotic figure at all.
Jesus is laying Moral Judgment. That's not the same thing we see in the Old Testament.
I guess I fail to see the difference between God destroying Sodom in the Old Testament for their wickedness, telling Abraham he would spare the city if he could find even ten righteous men in it, and then Jesus claiming to be God in the New Testament (John 8) and saying that soon, Capernaum will be judged and face a fate even worse than Sodom because Sodom was morally better than Capernaum.
Don’t most other Christians (Trinitarians) believe Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, just also the (only) God, period?
(Also HN seems to have a fairly high tolerance for pedantry, so I hope nobody gets angry if I interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Mormon, is in fact, Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, the Restored Church. Mormon is not a religion unto himself, but rather another prophet of a fully restored Christian church made complete with the other apostles and prophets of the past and divinely inspired direction as continuously revealed by prophet Russel M. Nelson.
Many people have heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints today, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the nickname for members of Church which is widely used today is “Mormons,” and many of its users are unaware that they prefer to called members of the Church, of Jesus Christ.
There really is a Mormon, and members of the restored church believe his teachings, but they are just a part of the gospel doctrine they believe. Mormon compiled the Book of Mormon; another testament of Christ that complements, confirms, and clarifies the Old and New Testament. The Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of the religion, but arguably useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete religion. The Book of Mormon is normally studied in combination with the rest of the restored gospel, the whole system is basically Christ’s church with the fullness of the gospel revealed. All the so-called “Mormons” are really members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)
I think that's the most well-executed and on-topic mapping of the GNU+Linux diatribe onto a new subject that I've ever seen. I didn't realize what was happening until I got suspicious around "there really is a Mormon" and started reading from the beginning again, more carefully. Bravo.
What you’re referring to as Mormon, is in fact, Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Everyone knows this. They're just not going to use an awkwardly-long term to refer to them. We don't refer to "members of the Roman catholic church", we just say catholics.
Mormons do have a distinct take here in attempting to distinguish Yahweh (Jehovah), who they call Jesus, from Elohim, who they call the father. To say they're two distinct beings, and that all the Old Testament prophets were talking to Jesus and NOT the father, is uniquely Mormon.
Sort of. The trinity is a confusing concept as taught by mainstream Christians: three in one in three. But the God of the Old Testament is the Father, not the Son, IIRC.
I’m an exmo, so I’m well aware of what Mormon means. Including that it was widely accepted as an informal demonym for many years by LDS church leaders, and only recently became officially anathema. The reasoning presented for the change has not been terribly sound, I’m afraid, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a future prophet reversed it, as other decisions have been reversed.
> Don’t most other Christians (Trinitarians) believe Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, just also the (only) God, period?
It was divisive in the early church. Marcion of Sinope who compiled what might be the first known canon was a proponent that the god from the Old Testament and the one from the New Testament are different in the second century. He had quite a following but all his writings are lost. He was excommunicated for this view but Marcionism had a lasting influence on the church.
Just did a deep dive into the Bible, several versions (King James, etc.). No "Mormon" shows up anywhere in the text of the Old or New Testaments.
"Mormon" only shows up in the Book of Mormon, which most Christians do not accept as doctrine.
Through a peculiar turn of events, the nickname for members of Church which is widely used today is “Mormons,”
Because this was the term that Mormons themselves used to refer to themselves for over a century, see for example the (fka) Mormon Choir, the Mormon College, etc. It is only very recently that they began shifting their own self-identification away from the use of Mormon.
