Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on December 18, 2015, 03:52:49 PM
-
Did John the Baptiser Radicalise Jesus into his way of teaching about the apocalypse?
-
Did John the Baptiser Radicalise Jesus into his way of teaching about the apocalypse?
If he tried, he did a pretty poor job, because Jesus was far more radical than JtheB and on far more issues. In fact, if the records are to be believed, Jesus had already shown far more radical thinking than JtheB before his baptism.
-
The ISIS mob are radicalised and steps are being taken to eliminate them. So maybe it isn't so surprising Jesus was eliminated too if he was a radicle and regarded as a threat to the religious establishment.
-
If he tried, he did a pretty poor job, because Jesus was far more radical than JtheB and on far more issues. In fact, if the records are to be believed, Jesus had already shown far more radical thinking than JtheB before his baptism.
Which records are those?
-
The ISIS mob are radicalised and steps are being taken to eliminate them. So maybe it isn't so surprising Jesus was eliminated too if he was a radicle and regarded as a threat to the religious establishment.
Bonkers.
Also a radicle is part of a pea or bean seed...........as any ful kno.
-
Which records are those?
The records in which JtheB and Jesus are mentioned.
-
The ISIS mob are radicalised and steps are being taken to eliminate them. So maybe it isn't so surprising Jesus was eliminated too if he was a radicle and regarded as a threat to the religious establishment.
In which case, the Jewisih authorities were concerned about him and would have been very sure that they kept track of those who had been his followers and any story that thay might have come up with consequently. They would also have wanted to be sure that they knew where any body might be at any stage after the execution.
Ironically, Floo's post therefore negates other people's posts that have suggested that they authorities wouldn't have taken much interest in what occurred post-execution of the 'radical' who was a threat to them and their establishment.
-
They would also have wanted to be sure that they knew where any body might be at any stage after the execution.
How do you know this was the case?
-
How do you know this was the case?
Look at Floo's post which I quoted and then follow the logic trail, Gordon. I know its early in the morning, but I am surprised that you, of all people, haven't been able to do that.
Then consider what the US Seals are reported to have done with bin Laden's body and why.
-
How do you know this was the case?
If they thought it important enough to execute Jesus it would have been routine, but then I think Floo started looking at things in a modern sense.
Of course if no further action were taken then the authorities were satisfied that to the disciples the Jesus thing was over. That is no longer the case when we get to the acts of the apostles.
-
Look at Floo's post which I quoted and then follow the logic trail, Gordon. I know its early in the morning, but I am surprised that you, of all people, haven't been able to do that.
I've seen Floo's post thank you, which isn't my point.
You've advanced the idea before that the authorities at the time could have produced the body of Jesus to scotch any rumours of resurrection, implying that Jesus was seen by these authorities as being more than just a routine irritant, and here you seem to be using Floo's post to reinforce this very same point - which seems to be an assumption.
-
I've seen Floo's post thank you, which isn't my point.
You've advanced the idea before that the authorities at the time could have produced the body of Jesus to scotch any rumours of resurrection, implying that Jesus was seen by these authorities as being more than just a routine irritant, and here you seem to be using Floo's post to reinforce this very same point - which seems to be an assumption.
Exhumation would be the obvious line over doubts over a death of a high profile nature.
-
Then consider what the US Seals are reported to have done with bin Laden's body and why.
The similarity between a 21st century international terrorist who was internationally notorious at the point he was killed, and about whom there are no supernatural claims of his being God incarnate, and a local religious figure in antiquity involving claims of divinity are what exactly?
-
Exhumation would be the obvious line over doubts over a death of a high profile nature.
Possibly - assuming that the these 'authorities' (as Hope refers to them) at the point of Jesus being executed thought that; a) Jesus was high profile, and b) they were aware of resurrection rumours.
Are there any records that confirm these 'authorities' thought as much at the time?
-
I think it quite possible that the body of Jesus was removed by the authorities to stop the tomb becoming a place of worship, and possibly protest, for his supporters. But of course the resurrection scenario makes a much better story doesn't it!
-
The records in which JtheB and Jesus are mentioned.
Goal post shifting alert. You claim there are records which tell us that Jesus' teachings were more radical than John's. But now you think it is enough that they were just mentioned together.
Try again and give us references this time.
-
They would also have wanted to be sure that they knew where any body might be at any stage after the execution.
Why? Why would anybody have cared about the whereabouts of a dead body?
Most likely it was put in an unmarked grave and that was the end of it.
Ironically, Floo's post therefore negates other people's posts that have suggested that they authorities wouldn't have taken much interest in what occurred post-execution of the 'radical' who was a threat to them and their establishment.
Keep clutching at those straws.
Do you think the USA has posted a guard over the spot where they dumped Osama Bin Laden?
-
Possibly - assuming that the these 'authorities' (as Hope refers to them) at the point of Jesus being executed thought that; a) Jesus was high profile, and b) they were aware of resurrection rumours.
Are there any records that confirm these 'authorities' thought as much at the time?
Or they were so sure that Jesus was dead and contrary to your thesis that people believed that dead people rose from the dead, they didn't and therefore didn't bother checking.
-
Or they were so sure that Jesus was dead and contrary to your thesis that people believed that dead people rose from the dead, they didn't and therefore didn't bother checking.
I'm sure without looking that the vast majority of people in those days "knew" that some religious character or other had come back to life.
-
I'm sure without looking that the vast majority of people in those days "knew" that some religious character or other had come back to life.
Not according to Jeremy P who asked why people would bother about a dead body. Jeremy is just reflecting 1st century evidence that people didn't believe in resurrection. So you are wrong Len.
That golden I don't know much about religion was brought to you courtesy of the Len James Corporation.
-
Not according to Jeremy P who asked why people would bother about a dead body. Jeremy is just reflecting 1st century evidence that people didn't believe in resurrection. So you are wrong Len.
That golden I don't know much about religion was brought to you courtesy of the Len James Corporation.
I repeat:-
I'm sure without looking that the vast majority of people in those days "knew" that some religious character or other had come back to life.
-
I repeat:-
I'm sure without looking that the vast majority of people in those days "knew" that some religious character or other had come back to life.
They had heard it but in the same way that most of us had heard it still didn't believe it........sorry Len......gamma minus.
-
If they thought it important enough to execute Jesus it would have been routine, but then I think Floo started looking at things in a modern sense.
Actually, it wouldn't have been routine. The Jewish authorities had no recourse to the death penalty, at least not in public, and to do what they did with Jesus required the involvement of the Roman authorities.
Of course if no further action were taken then the authorities were satisfied that to the disciples the Jesus thing was over. That is no longer the case when we get to the acts of the apostles.
And, of course, the events of the early chapters of Acts were weeks and months after the crucifixion - so they wouldn't have had a great deal of time to be satisfied.
-
They had heard it but in the same way that most of us had heard it still didn't believe it........sorry Len......gamma minus.
Since neither you nor I were around at the time, it remains a matter of opinion. :)
-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/
-
I've seen Floo's post thank you, which isn't my point.
You've advanced the idea before that the authorities at the time could have produced the body of Jesus to scotch any rumours of resurrection, implying that Jesus was seen by these authorities as being more than just a routine irritant, and here you seem to be using Floo's post to reinforce this very same point - which seems to be an assumption.
Well, it posited by Floo, and all I was doing was pointing out that if that was the case, it gives the 'Christian pov' more support than otherwise. At the same time, and here we have Vlad to thank, this would not have been merely a routine irritant. Barrabas and the other messianic figures were calling for the military overthrow of the Roman authorites - so would have been arrested and punished by those same authorities. Jesus was challenging the Jewish authorities rather than the Romans and therefore, in the Jewish authorities eyes, the Jewish nation. I think you would agree that, if that was the case, they would want to make sure that his followers had no place to call his final resting place or uncertainty over his status, around which to build a martyr claim. That is why I mentioned the fact that bin Laden's body was disposed of in the way it was - at sea.
-
Since neither you nor I were around at the time, it remains a matter of opinion. :)
Nope The epistles of St Paul acknowledge that resurrection was not generally believed.
The acts of apostles acknowledges that.the Charsmatic utterances of the first Pentecost was initially received as being the results of a morning drinking session.
The miracles in the NT do not give any reason for us to think these things were widely believed.
-
Nope The epistles of St Paul acknowledge that resurrection was not generally believed.
The acts of apostles acknowledges that.the Charsmatic utterances of the first Pentecost was initially received as being the results of a morning drinking session.
The miracles in the NT do not give any reason for us to think these things were widely believed.
All educated people would have known that there were other "resurrection" beliefs in other religions from long before Jesus' time.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/
-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/
What the author of the blog fails to mention is that the idea of 'dying and rising' wasn't that prevalent within Judaism. So, to suggest that the gospel writers borrowed, from other sources, something that was foreign to their own way of thinking and that of their fellow Jews, is to stretch the analogy quite thin.
-
Even in the Old Testament it was not unknown.
http://www.pathlightspress.com/resurrection.html
-
What the author of the blog fails to mention is that the idea of 'dying and rising' wasn't that prevalent within Judaism. So, to suggest that the gospel writers borrowed, from other sources, something that was foreign to their own way of thinking and that of their fellow Jews, is to stretch the analogy quite thin.
See my previous post.
-
All educated people would have known that there were other "resurrection" beliefs in other religions from long before Jesus' time.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/03/jesus-just-one-more-dying-and-rising-savior-2/
But obviously didn't believe them.
-
But obviously didn't believe them.
Quite! They preferred their own 'come back to life' stories in the OT.
-
Possibly - assuming that the these 'authorities' (as Hope refers to them) at the point of Jesus being executed thought that; a) Jesus was high profile, and b) they were aware of resurrection rumours.
Are there any records that confirm these 'authorities' thought as much at the time?
Why have you put tyhe word 'authorities' in inverted commas, Gordon. Remember that, even by the 1st century, the Jews were a theocracy; what the religious leaders said and taught helkd a considerble amount of influence. If they didn't regard Jesus as 'high profile' why did they press for the death penalty - something that (officially) only the Romans could carry out? As for being aware of the 'resurrection rumours - no one was aware of them at the time of Jesus execution - they didn't exist.
Regarding records, I believe that the various secular records indicate that Jesus was executed by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish religious authorities. As I've pointed out before, there may well have been official Jewish documentation to this effect which would likely have been kept within the Temple precincts which, of course, were destroyed in 72AD by the same people as destroyed much of the Great Library at Alexandria.
-
Quite! They preferred their own 'come back to life' stories in the OT.
No because the NT epistles make it clear that people were highly sceptical of resurrection.
-
Why have you put tyhe word 'authorities' in inverted commas, Gordon.
Because it is a term you have used previously and I don't know exactly who you are referring to.
Remember that, even by the 1st century, the Jews were a theocracy; what the religious leaders said and taught helkd a considerble amount of influence. If they didn't regard Jesus as 'high profile' why did they press for the death penalty - something that (officially) only the Romans could carry out? As for being aware of the 'resurrection rumours - no one was aware of them at the time of Jesus execution - they didn't exist.
So, they wanted rid of Jesus, hence they sought his execution, which seems reasonable - but having done so the matter would have been closed: the 'problem', such as it was, is resolved from the perspective of the religious leaders.
Regarding records, I believe that the various secular records indicate that Jesus was executed by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish religious authorities. As I've pointed out before, there may well have been official Jewish documentation to this effect which would likely have been kept within the Temple precincts which, of course, were destroyed in 72AD by the same people as destroyed much of the Great Library at Alexandria.
So, no contemporary details that are external to the much later NT.
-
Did John the Baptiser Radicalise Jesus into his way of teaching about the apocalypse?
What was John's way of teaching about the apocalypse? And do you know what apocalypse means?
-
No because the NT epistles make it clear that people were highly sceptical of resurrection.
There have always been intelligent people about to counterbalance the tom-foolery of others.
-
There have always been intelligent people about to counterbalance the tom-foolery of others.
That's just a platitude Len offering no insights nor furthering any investigation.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.....or my favourite.....a stitch in time saved mine.
-
Because it is a term you have used previously and I don't know exactly who you are referring to.
Previously, I have almost always qualified the term with the adjective 'religious'; I assumed that by now most people would have understood that association, especially as it was these same people who are recorded as having requested the death penalty of the Roam authorities
So, they wanted rid of Jesus, hence they sought his execution, which seems reasonable - but having done so the matter would have been closed: the 'problem', such as it was, is resolved from the perspective of the religious leaders.
I would agree, if it had taken years for any 'resurrection'claim to have surfaced, but the fact that it surfaces at the very next religious festival - Shavuot - a mere 50 days later (hence the Jewish term Pentecost - '50th day') suggests that it hasn't gone away. Why else arrest the apostles and try to ban them from preaching and speaking about Jesus?
So, no contemporary details that are external to the much later NT.
"So, no contemporary details ..." can equally be laid against the vast majority of documentation from the period. And, of course, many of them give a Roman slant on the situation.
-
There have always been intelligent people about to counterbalance the tom-foolery of others.
Except that, when the 'tom-foolery of others' runs largely counter to a cultural understanding, one doesn't have to be particularly intelligent to 'counterbalance' it; nor does it mean that the majority are correct.
-
What was John's way of teaching about the apocalypse? And do you know what apocalypse means?
That word means whatever you want it to mean!
-
Except that, when the 'tom-foolery of others' runs largely counter to a cultural understanding, one doesn't have to be particularly intelligent to 'counterbalance' it; nor does it mean that the majority are correct.
Absolutely! Believers still outnumber the enlightened.
-
Absolutely! Believers still outnumber the enlightened.
Or perhaps the enlightened are the believers :D
-
Or perhaps the enlightened are the believers :D
We'd need some evidence for that ;)
-
That's just a platitude Len offering no insights nor furthering any investigation.
Nope, anybody with intelligence will recognise the truth of it.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.....or my favourite.....a stitch in time saved mine.
Indeed! If "God" had had the intelligence not to create evil, he would have saved us all a lot of heartache.
-
Or perhaps the enlightened are the believers :D
They can't be! So many of the beliefs of believers are contradictory.
-
That word means whatever you want it to mean!
That applies to the whole of the Bible texts. Hence the countless factions.
-
That applies to the whole of the Bible texts. Hence the countless factions.
True.
-
That word means whatever you want it to mean!
Sorry, Floo, but not only does the word 'apocalypse' have a pretty narrow meaning in ordinary language, it also has a pretty narrow one in a religious sense.
As for the use of it in the OP, I'm not sure that JtheB even referred to the apocalypse.
Its possibly also worth pointing out that, though JtheB was 6 or 7 months older than Jesus, as cousins they would probably have met each other on several occasions before the 'baptism' event (remember that John's father was one of the Temple priests). John would likely have been aware of Jesus' precociousness - especially his facing up to the teachers in the Temple when he first went to Jerusalem (Luke 2).
-
We'd need some evidence for that ;)
In the same way that we would need evidence for the opposite.
-
Indeed! If "God" had had the intelligence not to create evil, he would have saved us all a lot of heartache.
Would we have a 'heart' to have heartache in? After all, what you are asking for is a robot creation.
-
In the same way that we would need evidence for the opposite.
Er, no, actually.
-
They can't be! So many of the beliefs of believers are contradictory.
So, perhaps that shows that they are the enlightened - that reality is multiple and far more diverse than that which you espouse.
-
Would we have a 'heart' to have heartache in? After all, what you are asking for is a robot creation.
Not necessarily - this is a non sequitur.
-
Would we have a 'heart' to have heartache in? After all, what you are asking for is a robot creation.
It's a figure of speech, Hope! Sometimes I wonder if English is your first language. :(
-
That applies to the whole of the Bible texts. Hence the countless factions.
Perhaps that also explains why secular historians and scientists look at the same documentation and reports and come up with differing explanations. ;)
-
So, perhaps that shows that they are the enlightened - that reality is multiple and far more diverse than that which you espouse.
And your methodology for supporting this unsupported belief is what?
-
Perhaps that also explains why secular historians and scientists look at the same documentation and reports and come up with differing explanations. ;)
They have a methodology to work with, for starters.
-
Er, no, actually.
Do you have any evidence for why we wouldn't need such evidence you feel we wouldn't need? ;)
-
So, perhaps that shows that they are the enlightened - that reality is multiple and far more diverse than that which you espouse.
A splendid reality! Riddled with contradictory arguments!
At least non-believers are consistent in it.
-
Do you have any evidence for why we wouldn't need such evidence you feel we wouldn't need? ;)
Len was right to wonder about English not being your first language.
-
Sorry, Floo, but not only does the word 'apocalypse' have a pretty narrow meaning in ordinary language, it also has a pretty narrow one in a religious sense.
As for the use of it in the OP, I'm not sure that JtheB even referred to the apocalypse.
Its possibly also worth pointing out that, though JtheB was 6 or 7 months older than Jesus, as cousins they would probably have met each other on several occasions before the 'baptism' event (remember that John's father was one of the Temple priests). John would likely have been aware of Jesus' precociousness - especially his facing up to the teachers in the Temple when he first went to Jerusalem (Luke 2).
If he had been my son he would have been in trouble BIG TIME for wandering off like he did. It certainly wasn't to his credit! >:(
-
And your methodology for supporting this unsupported belief is what?
My 'methodology' - not sure about anyone else - is by observation.
-
My 'methodology' - not sure about anyone else - is by observation.
That's only ever part of a methodology, not the whole thing, but it's unlike you to answer a straight question so let's run with what little bit we've got so far. Observation of what?
-
If he had been my son he would have been in trouble BIG TIME for wandering off like he did. It certainly wasn't to his credit! >:(
I think you will find that he got into a great deal more trouble than your 'BIG TIME' would account for. After all, it appears to have happened in front of the senior Jewish rabbis.
As for whether it was to his credit or not, it depends on whether one believes that challenging authority is a good thing or not. Clearly you don't. ;)
-
They have a methodology to work with, for starters.
Yes Shaker and science gives us facts about matter energy and that's it.....as those poor saps the Vienna logical positivist a found out.
As Mae West would have said....stop tryin to make out ha own science ya big sap.
-
Not necessarily - this is a non sequitur.
Which is the non-sequituur - the reference to a robot creation or to the lack of a 'heart' to have heartache with?
-
Which is the non-sequituur - the reference to a robot creation or to the lack of a 'heart' to have heartache with?
The former.
-
Len was right to wonder about English not being your first language.
Which is ironic as my question was perfectly legitimate grammatically, and the meaning of it was also perfectly valid.
-
A splendid reality! Riddled with contradictory arguments!
At least non-believers are consistent in it.
And the contradictory arguments are what? That reality is far more complex than you and others care to accept?
-
The former.
Are you arguing that evil might have entered the system independentally of God?
-
And the contradictory arguments are what? That reality is far more complex than you and others care to accept?
Although you keep drearily boring on about reality being more than that which is amenable to scientific investigation, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed that each and every time you've been politely asked to back up this claim, you have refused to do so.
Nothing new there at all, of course.
-
Are you arguing that evil might have entered the system independentally of God?
Well, any atheist would say that not only might it have entered 'the system' independently of God, it did so, or they wouldn't be atheists.
But as a matter of fact, no, that wasn't what I was arguing at all.
-
Although you keep drearily boring on about reality being more than that which is amenable to scientific investigation, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed that each and every time you've been politely asked to back up this claim, you have refused to do so.
Nothing new there at all, of course.
But the there is another question which you dismiss in what is to you a humorous put down but in reality a sign of gutless ness and that is demonstrate philosophical materialism from methodological materialism. Philosophical materialism is the assumption you are showing in this reply namely that the only reality is that which is amenable to scientific investigation.
-
Bore off somewhere else Vlad.
-
Although you keep drearily boring on about reality being more than that which is amenable to scientific investigation, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed that each and every time you've been politely asked to back up this claim, you have refused to do so.
Nothing new there at all, of course.
And that is where you are wrong, Shaker. On more than one occasion, I have noted various aspects of life that folk of your ilk have been unable to explain scientifically - coming up, at best, with the symptoms of the aspect as opposed to an explanation of the core issue.
In other words, as Vlad points out, you are requiring that scientific investigation must be validated by scientific investigation itself.
-
Bore off somewhere else Vlad.
You can't hack your own medicine Pal.
-
And that is where you are wrong, Shaker. On more than one occasion, I have noted various aspects of life that folk of your ilk have been unable to explain scientifically
So even assuming this to be true - and I recall no such occasions so links would be tremendously helpful. Not that you'll provide them, obviously - it means that something is unexplained, end of story for now, not that your addled speculations and airy-fairy handy-wavy maunderings are correct.
Because that would be a very silly and fallacious way of going on indeed, wouldn't it?
-
You can't hack your own medicine Pal.
Just bored shitless by this psychological issue of some sort you have with injecting philosophical naturalism into any and every discussion. If there was a discussion about sprouts you'd crowbar it in there somewhere.
Added to which I prefer to tackle one clueless chump at a time, so as soon as Hope runs away again when he can't substantiate his claims about his worldview, I'll turn to you.
-
Just bored shitless by this psychological issue of some sort you have with injecting philosophical naturalism into any and every discussion.
Added to which I prefer to tackle one clueless chump at a time, so as soon as Hope runs away again when he can't substantiate his claims about his worldview, I'll turn to you.
Looking forward to it.
-
I think you will find that he got into a great deal more trouble than your 'BIG TIME' would account for. After all, it appears to have happened in front of the senior Jewish rabbis.
As for whether it was to his credit or not, it depends on whether one believes that challenging authority is a good thing or not. Clearly you don't. ;)
Would you have been thrilled if your kid of 12 had disappeared without telling you where he was going, and you have to retrace your steps to find him? I bet you would have given him a telling off and then some. Mine would have been grounded for a good long time!
-
Lenient of you - look what happened to Jesus.
-
Lenient of you - look what happened to Jesus.
And clip around the ear too, in all probability!
-
What the author of the blog fails to mention is that the idea of 'dying and rising' wasn't that prevalent within Judaism. So, to suggest that the gospel writers borrowed, from other sources, something that was foreign to their own way of thinking and that of their fellow Jews, is to stretch the analogy quite thin.
No not really. Syncretism happened back then and 1st century Palestine had been part of the Greek World for three hundred years. It would only be natural for sects to emerge combining Greek and Jewish ideas.
-
Jesus told the disciples of John that the dead were raised. If they weren't disposed to believe it, he would only have made it seem like he was crazy.
Seems more like that was on the list of expectations that your working magician had to fulfil, and if he hadn't ticked that box, folk would have thought he wasn't much good.
-
Did John the Baptiser Radicalise Jesus into his way of teaching about the apocalypse?
Huh!... you drinking?
Get a grip.... how could John the Baptist """radicalise""" Jesus in his way of teaching ANYTHING?
For a start John sent messengers to ask Jesus if he was the one or should they expect another.
How by any stretch of the imagination suggest that John could have had any affect on the teachings of Christ.
You are really taking the mickey...
-
No not really. Syncretism happened back then and 1st century Palestine had been part of the Greek World for three hundred years. It would only be natural for sects to emerge combining Greek and Jewish ideas.
I quite agree, jeremy, but the Jews also had an understanding of resurrection that had been around for many centuries, but which - rather like the original (spiritual) concept of Messiahship - had gone out of fashion some time before Jesus' day. Interestingly, it was the syncretistic sects that were most argued against by the early church leaders.
-
Would you have been thrilled if your kid of 12 had disappeared without telling you where he was going, and you have to retrace your steps to find him? I bet you would have given him a telling off and then some. Mine would have been grounded for a good long time!
Whether or not a parent is 'thrilled' or otherwise by the behaviour of a 12-year old is somewhat different to whether or not the challenge to authority (as was the case here) is acceptable or not.
I am sure that even you, Floo, would have been angry in the first instance - most parents would, but would then - in a different way, and probably at a later date - have probably be pleased with one of your children had they challenged the interpretation of a law in an appropriate way at the age of 12.
-
Lenient of you - look what happened to Jesus.
A real dressing-down in front of the rabbis he was debating with. Not sure that 'grounding'was relevant in those days - after all, Jesus would just about be regarded as an adult (hence his being allowed into the Temple precincts in the first place) and he was probably needed in his parents' carpentry business.
I think that is part of the problem with many of your expressions of dismay, Floo (and Shakes); you judge everything by 21st Century Western practice, not that of 1st Century Palestine.
-
Whether or not a parent is 'thrilled' or otherwise by the behaviour of a 12-year old is somewhat different to whether or not the challenge to authority (as was the case here) is acceptable or not.
I am sure that even you, Floo, would have been angry in the first instance - most parents would, but would then - in a different way, and probably at a later date - have probably be pleased with one of your children had they challenged the interpretation of a law in an appropriate way at the age of 12.
I would still not be pleased if my kid of twelve had behaved in such an outrageous way, even if he had right on his side. I speak as one who has any extremely intelligent grandson, now nearly 14, who challenged his mother at the age of two to explain how she knew Jesus existed as she couldn't see, hear or feel him! Our lad would certainly have given Jesus a run for his money. On the occasions he has consented to go to church with his mother he has interrupted the sermon and challenged the preacher, very politely, on some point they had made with which he didn't agree, YE GODS! As you can imagine he doesn't get taken to church very often. ;D As the boy has Asperger's syndrome he thinks his behaviour is reasonable! Now there's a thought, I wonder if Jesus had Asperger's syndrome too, it appears he was intelligent; a lot of very bright people have Aspergers.
-
I would still not be pleased if my kid of twelve had behaved in such an outrageous way, even if he had right on his side. I speak as one who has any extremely intelligent grandson, now nearly 14, who challenged his mother at the age of two to explain how she knew Jesus existed as she couldn't see, hear or feel him! Our lad would certainly have given Jesus a run for his money. On the occasions he has consented to go to church with his mother he has interrupted the sermon and challenged the preacher, very politely, on some point they had made with which he didn't agree, YE GODS! As you can imagine he doesn't get taken to church very often. ;D As the boy has Asperger's syndrome he thinks his behaviour is reasonable! Now there's a thought, I wonder if Jesus had Asperger's syndrome too, it appears he was intelligent; a lot of very bright people have Aspergers.
Asperger's? Come on Floo surely you must have realised that Jesus' problem was that he spent too long on his I Pad.
-
Asperger's? Come on Floo surely you must have realised that Jesus' problem was that he spent too long on his I Pad.
So does my grandson! ;D
-
I would still not be pleased if my kid of twelve had behaved in such an outrageous way, even if he had right on his side.
OK, Floo, since you are keen to talk about your own experience/opinion, let's put the age at 16 or 17. In Jewish culture, even today, a boy becomes an adult at 13, when he has his Bar-Mitzvah (and I believe a girl becomes an adult at the same age). For a person to be treated as one of the 10 'men' (I believe that some forms of Judaism now say 'people' to include women) that constitutes a quorate synagogue - and therefore a service can be held, they have to be adults as Judaism understands the term. For Jesus to have been even allowed into the area of the Temple where the rabbis and religious leaders were have required him to be an adult. Are you still suggesting that he shouldn't have been allowed to 'do his own thing' without telling his parents?
-
For Jesus to have been even allowed into the area of the Temple where the rabbis and religious leaders were have required him to be an adult.
OK so the story is a fabrication. That makes sense.
-
OK so the story is a fabrication. That makes sense.
So, you're saying that in 1st Century Palestine a 12 year old boy couldn't have been an adult? After all, the age definition of the term even here in the West has changed considerably over the centuries.
-
So, you're saying that in 1st Century Palestine a 12 year old boy couldn't have been an adult? After all, the age definition of the term even here in the West has changed considerably over the centuries.
Oh come on a boy of 12 is NOT an adult, otherwise his parents would not have been so concerned about his disappearance, don't make excuses! :o Luke 2v 41/52
-
So, you're saying that in 1st Century Palestine a 12 year old boy couldn't have been an adult? After all, the age definition of the term even here in the West has changed considerably over the centuries.
No, you are. You just went to great pains to point out that a Jewish boy becomes a man at 13.
-
No, you are. You just went to great pains to point out that a Jewish boy becomes a man at 13.
(Be)Comes - present tense. I was pointing out that even now the Jewish understanding of adulthood differs greatly from yours and mine. As I also pointed out, for Jesus to have even been allowed into the area of the Temple where his parents found him, he would have to have been deemed to be an adult.
Its this very kind of lack of information that you and others here seem to have that I was referring to on the 'Was Jesus gay' thread.