New light on Jesus - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Jozrael · 10-25-2006, 05:45 PM

Alright, I was brought up as a fundamentalist Christian, and then rejected that path for my own, though I still hold many of the teachings close to my heart and at least nod my head in respect for most of the others.

However, I was involved in an intense debate with someone once, and I brought up the example of Jesus' moral fiber.

To which he burst out laughing. Evidently, he had several alternative takes on many of the stories of Jesus in the Bible that paint him as a much more vengeful, fiery man than the one focused on love and redemption.

The next two examples are from Luke 6:28, from the New English Bible translation.

"When a man takes your coat, give him your shirt as well."

Well, in ancient times, under Jewish law (the prevailing law of the area) any man who saw another's unclothed body was deemed unclean, and had to go basically straight away to a temple to purify himself. The person so unclothed was not held to this standard. So, by unclothing yourself more, you actually caused the other person monetary and temporal hardship to go rectify his impurity.

"If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left."

In ancient times, there were two distinct types of slaps. If you've ever been slapped with the front and the back of the hand with equal pressure (not a maniacal backhand compared to a playful frontal slap) you know that the front is much worse - it leaves you with a sharp stinging sensation rather than a dull impact from the back. Well, if you picture someone before you, slap their right cheek with your right hand (the dominant hand on most people, most often used) - you hit with the front. In ancient times, this was viewed as a sign of extreme disrespect to the slapped. Basically, it's how you'd slap your servant. Now, imagine them turning their left cheek to you - if you wanted to slap them again, you'd have to give them your <i>back hand</i>. This was viewed as a sign of censure among equals, of a much lesser negative status. You're forcing the person to treat you as an equal, which if done from an authoritarian point of view is extremely degrading to the slapper.

Finally, "If a soldier forces you to carry his pack for a mile, carry it two miles."

Back in ancient times, soldiers carried their packs long distances, to the point where it was exhausting. Law let them require of a citizen to give them a break and carry their pack for a single mile.

However, when a citizen carries it for any longer, there is a severe flogging for the soldier. 40 lashes.

Ouch.

Can you see any ulterior motives to carrying a soldier's pack for longer than a mile? You get to the next station.

"Stop! Citizen, stop!"

*Pant pant* "Officer, he made me carry this pack for 8 miles!"

"Soldier!"

"But! But!"

"Break out the lash!"

Etc. etc.

So, thoughts on how these make Jesus seem, or are they totally unimportant?

Elphaba · 10-25-2006, 06:09 PM

Jozrael, I am not a theologian by a long shot, but I believe that what you have described above is a comparison of the Old Testament text (which is essentually the Jewish Torah) to the New Testament (which is primarily the reported teachings of Jesus).

Granted, Jesus was a Jew and observed many of the important laws of the time. How he departed from the various Jewish sects is still being sorted out by the great theological minds of our time. It is clear to me that our understanding of the bible as laypersons, lacks any sort of historical grounding that would likely clarify the beliefs of the day.

You have presented interesting questions, and I hope you receive better answers than mine among the other tfp member.

Also, welcome.

The_Dunedan · 10-26-2006, 12:38 AM

It's important to remember the religious/political environment Jesus was raised in. His mother and maternal grandparents, and therefore probably his entire family, were Essenes; Jewish messianic mystics and quasi-anarchists who resisted Roman rule, frequently with violence. The "insurrection" in which Barabbas allegedly murdered a Roman was an Essene uprising, as was the war which led to the famous mass suicide at Masada. The library at Qumron which contained the Dead Sea Scrolls was an Essene facility, and is believed to have been part of a network of similar caves storing food, weapons, clothing, and the wrtings of Essene teachers and holy men.

As a consequence, Jesus would have understood and appreciated the concept of "monkeywrenching," of causing small, irritating, time-consuming inconveniances to the Roman authorities...like what could happen if a someone carried a Legionairre's pack for two miles. He was also, of course, hostile to the Pharisaic ruling class, with whom the Essenes had a long-running and very nasty set of theological disputes. Forcing a Pharisee to immidiatly run off and take a Mikvah, a ritual bath ( as for instance by "flashing" them ) is the kind of prank which seems, to me, right up Jesus' alley.

You also have to remember that many of these things have a number of meanings. Your friend is correct about the slapping; in the strictly physical sense, it could be used as a means of insulting a Roman or other higher-ranking enemy. As a Jew, Jesus was ineligible for Citizenship, remember. It also has a linguistic meaning; the word used for "cheek," in this case, was an Aramaic word which also referred to a facet of one's personality. So while in the literal sense it can mean to expose your other cheek to an enemy's insulting blow, it could also be understood as showing your enemy a different side of yourself...which could mean opening a big ol' can of whoopass. Jesus wasn't opposed to such things; he did flog the merchants out of the temple, remember, and instructed his disciples to sell their cloaks to purchase swords.

Yakk · 10-26-2006, 06:55 AM

Quote:

"If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left."

In ancient times, there were two distinct types of slaps. If you've ever been slapped with the front and the back of the hand with equal pressure (not a maniacal backhand compared to a playful frontal slap) you know that the front is much worse - it leaves you with a sharp stinging sensation rather than a dull impact from the back. Well, if you picture someone before you, slap their right cheek with your right hand (the dominant hand on most people, most often used) - you hit with the front. In ancient times, this was viewed as a sign of extreme disrespect to the slapped. Basically, it's how you'd slap your servant. Now, imagine them turning their left cheek to you - if you wanted to slap them again, you'd have to give them your back hand. This was viewed as a sign of censure among equals, of a much lesser negative status. You're forcing the person to treat you as an equal, which if done from an authoritarian point of view is extremely degrading to the slapper.

Your geometry is wrong

Let's take two people facing each other:

Code:

-=L R=-
O     O
-=R L=-

If you slap someone in the cheek, forehand, with your right hand, you slap their LEFT cheek.

Whatever source you got the above examples from lied, or was wrong, at least once. Lacking any other information about that source, I would assume all of the examples are bullshit unless backed up with a credible source.

Jozrael · 10-27-2006, 04:04 AM

Elphaba: I'm curious how it's comparing the New Testament to the Old Testament. I'm using Luke, the New Testament, involving the life of Jesus, and comparing it to the historical context of the time - also 'New Testament times'. Aye, I agree that most people's understanding of the Bible lacks all historical context, which I believe is very important - hence why I'm trying to clarify this with others. And thank you for the welcome, t'is appreciated.

The_Dunedan: I forget that the Bible's been translated many a time to slightly change its meanings. The thought about the cheeks crossed my mind, but because he mentioned 'right' and 'left' cheeks, I assumed it was both on the face. However, that could easily have been added by the Church if they realized that there was a second interpretation readily available.

Yakk: My geometry's totally right. My problem is dyslexia. My version also involves frequent confusion of left from right. :P. See, the point still stands that regardless of which cheek of theirs you slap with a forehand, if they turn the other cheek, you can't forehand them again. See, in your geometrically correct example, when you slap their left cheek and they turn their right cheek, you can't again forehand slap it.

So, he didn't lie or was wrong in that -one- example. He may very well be misinformed about everything else, admittedly! But his simple geometry is correct. And I really like the evidence The_Dunedan brought, he seems -quite- well-read on this subject. If you can bring up refuting evidence, please, by all means do so! I'm looking for these views that I presented to be challenged, not discarded or immediately taken as gospel. Thanks for your input!

Seer666 · 10-27-2006, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

Your geometry is wrong

Let's take two people facing each other:

Code:

-=L R=-
O     O
-=R L=-

If you slap someone in the cheek, forehand, with your right hand, you slap their LEFT cheek.

Whatever source you got the above examples from lied, or was wrong, at least once. Lacking any other information about that source, I would assume all of the examples are bullshit unless backed up with a credible source.

It was not the cheek itself that was the important part there. It was the side of the hand that hits it. by turning your head, you force them to back hand you to hit the other cheek, and the back hand was the insult, not the cheek hit. That part is still correct. So, no, his source wasn't wrong, at least about the geometry. I'm not a historian so I can't comment on the rest, but this is not the first time I have heard these points brought up. I do think they are worth some thought, I do believe that Jesus was not the total peace and love hippy they make him out to be. Think about it, he was the son of a carpenter, which in those times meant that he would have learned the family trade. Think about what that meant back then. It was you and a 200 pound slab of wood. The typical view of Jesus as some skinny little beatnic is way off. Now think of what kind of damage a man built like that would do with a whip when whipped up into a rightous rage like he was in the temple. That sound likea hippy to you? Jesus was a bad mother fucker that was not above bringing the pain.

The_Dunedan · 10-27-2006, 01:25 PM

Exerpted from a lecture I delivered to a Biblical Histry class as a teaching intern:

Now, in order to imagine the scene this must have created, you have to understand the physicality of Jesus. He was a Palestinian Arab, who probably stood on the tall side of the 5'4-5'6 height-range of the time. He would have been muscled like an ox, having spent the last fifteen or so years working as a carpenter with simple hand tools. He was a Gallileean, which meant he wasn't too well-thought-of by "polite" Jerusalem society. Worse yet, he was known to be several different kinds of a radical.
Imagine, if you will, a brawny Mexican carpenter barging into, say, the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, or the Sistine chapel, with a 20lb sldgehammer. Or, for a more neighborly tone, the First Baptist Church fundraising bazaar. He's shouting at the top of his lungs in Spanish and English, knocking over tables and souvenir stands and artwork, scattering all before him, and he's so pumped up with fury that people are tripping and stumbling trying to get out of his way. In the play "Cotton Patch Gospel," Jesus does just such a thing, after borrowing a sledgehammer froma nearby construction site and using it to break down the door.

10-25-2006, 05:45 PM	#1 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	New light on Jesus Alright, I was brought up as a fundamentalist Christian, and then rejected that path for my own, though I still hold many of the teachings close to my heart and at least nod my head in respect for most of the others. However, I was involved in an intense debate with someone once, and I brought up the example of Jesus' moral fiber. To which he burst out laughing. Evidently, he had several alternative takes on many of the stories of Jesus in the Bible that paint him as a much more vengeful, fiery man than the one focused on love and redemption. The next two examples are from Luke 6:28, from the New English Bible translation. "When a man takes your coat, give him your shirt as well." Well, in ancient times, under Jewish law (the prevailing law of the area) any man who saw another's unclothed body was deemed unclean, and had to go basically straight away to a temple to purify himself. The person so unclothed was not held to this standard. So, by unclothing yourself more, you actually caused the other person monetary and temporal hardship to go rectify his impurity. "If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left." In ancient times, there were two distinct types of slaps. If you've ever been slapped with the front and the back of the hand with equal pressure (not a maniacal backhand compared to a playful frontal slap) you know that the front is much worse - it leaves you with a sharp stinging sensation rather than a dull impact from the back. Well, if you picture someone before you, slap their right cheek with your right hand (the dominant hand on most people, most often used) - you hit with the front. In ancient times, this was viewed as a sign of extreme disrespect to the slapped. Basically, it's how you'd slap your servant. Now, imagine them turning their left cheek to you - if you wanted to slap them again, you'd have to give them your <i>back hand</i>. This was viewed as a sign of censure among equals, of a much lesser negative status. You're forcing the person to treat you as an equal, which if done from an authoritarian point of view is extremely degrading to the slapper. Finally, "If a soldier forces you to carry his pack for a mile, carry it two miles." Back in ancient times, soldiers carried their packs long distances, to the point where it was exhausting. Law let them require of a citizen to give them a break and carry their pack for a single mile. However, when a citizen carries it for any longer, there is a severe flogging for the soldier. 40 lashes. Ouch. Can you see any ulterior motives to carrying a soldier's pack for longer than a mile? You get to the next station. "Stop! Citizen, stop!" Pant pant "Officer, he made me carry this pack for 8 miles!" "Soldier!" "But! But!" "Break out the lash!" Etc. etc. So, thoughts on how these make Jesus seem, or are they totally unimportant?

10-25-2006, 06:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Jozrael, I am not a theologian by a long shot, but I believe that what you have described above is a comparison of the Old Testament text (which is essentually the Jewish Torah) to the New Testament (which is primarily the reported teachings of Jesus). Granted, Jesus was a Jew and observed many of the important laws of the time. How he departed from the various Jewish sects is still being sorted out by the great theological minds of our time. It is clear to me that our understanding of the bible as laypersons, lacks any sort of historical grounding that would likely clarify the beliefs of the day. You have presented interesting questions, and I hope you receive better answers than mine among the other tfp member. Also, welcome.

10-26-2006, 12:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	It's important to remember the religious/political environment Jesus was raised in. His mother and maternal grandparents, and therefore probably his entire family, were Essenes; Jewish messianic mystics and quasi-anarchists who resisted Roman rule, frequently with violence. The "insurrection" in which Barabbas allegedly murdered a Roman was an Essene uprising, as was the war which led to the famous mass suicide at Masada. The library at Qumron which contained the Dead Sea Scrolls was an Essene facility, and is believed to have been part of a network of similar caves storing food, weapons, clothing, and the wrtings of Essene teachers and holy men. As a consequence, Jesus would have understood and appreciated the concept of "monkeywrenching," of causing small, irritating, time-consuming inconveniances to the Roman authorities...like what could happen if a someone carried a Legionairre's pack for two miles. He was also, of course, hostile to the Pharisaic ruling class, with whom the Essenes had a long-running and very nasty set of theological disputes. Forcing a Pharisee to immidiatly run off and take a Mikvah, a ritual bath ( as for instance by "flashing" them ) is the kind of prank which seems, to me, right up Jesus' alley. You also have to remember that many of these things have a number of meanings. Your friend is correct about the slapping; in the strictly physical sense, it could be used as a means of insulting a Roman or other higher-ranking enemy. As a Jew, Jesus was ineligible for Citizenship, remember. It also has a linguistic meaning; the word used for "cheek," in this case, was an Aramaic word which also referred to a facet of one's personality. So while in the literal sense it can mean to expose your other cheek to an enemy's insulting blow, it could also be understood as showing your enemy a different side of yourself...which could mean opening a big ol' can of whoopass. Jesus wasn't opposed to such things; he did flog the merchants out of the temple, remember, and instructed his disciples to sell their cloaks to purchase swords.

10-27-2006, 04:04 AM	#5 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	Elphaba: I'm curious how it's comparing the New Testament to the Old Testament. I'm using Luke, the New Testament, involving the life of Jesus, and comparing it to the historical context of the time - also 'New Testament times'. Aye, I agree that most people's understanding of the Bible lacks all historical context, which I believe is very important - hence why I'm trying to clarify this with others. And thank you for the welcome, t'is appreciated. The_Dunedan: I forget that the Bible's been translated many a time to slightly change its meanings. The thought about the cheeks crossed my mind, but because he mentioned 'right' and 'left' cheeks, I assumed it was both on the face. However, that could easily have been added by the Church if they realized that there was a second interpretation readily available. Yakk: My geometry's totally right. My problem is dyslexia. My version also involves frequent confusion of left from right. :P. See, the point still stands that regardless of which cheek of theirs you slap with a forehand, if they turn the other cheek, you can't forehand them again. See, in your geometrically correct example, when you slap their left cheek and they turn their right cheek, you can't again forehand slap it. So, he didn't lie or was wrong in that -one- example. He may very well be misinformed about everything else, admittedly! But his simple geometry is correct. And I really like the evidence The_Dunedan brought, he seems -quite- well-read on this subject. If you can bring up refuting evidence, please, by all means do so! I'm looking for these views that I presented to be challenged, not discarded or immediately taken as gospel. Thanks for your input!

10-27-2006, 01:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Exerpted from a lecture I delivered to a Biblical Histry class as a teaching intern: Now, in order to imagine the scene this must have created, you have to understand the physicality of Jesus. He was a Palestinian Arab, who probably stood on the tall side of the 5'4-5'6 height-range of the time. He would have been muscled like an ox, having spent the last fifteen or so years working as a carpenter with simple hand tools. He was a Gallileean, which meant he wasn't too well-thought-of by "polite" Jerusalem society. Worse yet, he was known to be several different kinds of a radical. Imagine, if you will, a brawny Mexican carpenter barging into, say, the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, or the Sistine chapel, with a 20lb sldgehammer. Or, for a more neighborly tone, the First Baptist Church fundraising bazaar. He's shouting at the top of his lungs in Spanish and English, knocking over tables and souvenir stands and artwork, scattering all before him, and he's so pumped up with fury that people are tripping and stumbling trying to get out of his way. In the play "Cotton Patch Gospel," Jesus does just such a thing, after borrowing a sledgehammer froma nearby construction site and using it to break down the door.