Could the Historical Jesus have pointed Atheists towards appreciating diversity & common humanity?

[Omega Green]

I am of the current opinion, regarding the gospels, that Mark is the most reliable. I am also aware that it's transmission comes to us 40 years after the crucifixion, and that this is still - despite that fact - the closest gospel to the person. I recently was made aware of a cross-examination that is quite impressive and illustrates in it's own small way, how Jesus - if he existed - believed in unity in spite of diversity.

In Mark chapter 9 Jesus teaches "He who is not against us, is for us".

Now I was always aware of the following Matthew verse, my church leaders would cite it to encourage you to put a fish sticker on your car:

Matthew 12: "He who is not with me is against me".

The line of scholarship endorsed by Bishop Spong are suggesting that St. Matthew took and completely changed the inherent meaning and significance of the original markian saying; that under Mark, we find Jesus suggesting that our diversity can in fact be a strength; while in Matthew Jesus is turned into a religious figurehead complete with old testament zombies at the crucifixion, and has taught that - unless you're "with him", you must somehow be his enemy. The matthew teaching I always found strange and perhaps dogmatic. But if we go with the Markian original, Jesus appears to be saying that our diversity is actually a good thing; and that unless someone positively acts against you, then you and them share a common humanity.

What do others think?

 

[George-ananda]

What do others think?

That there is only one correct path, that of Jesus' way of brotherly love and love of God. I believe in reading the whole Gospels to draw meaning and this taking one verse at a time method can produce much confusion as verses really need to be read in the context of the whole message.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't see any revelance here. Mark, other than for it's textual significance, is not anything that couldn't be extrapolated anywhere else.

 

[Omega Green]

That there is only one correct path, that of Jesus' way of brotherly love and love of God. I believe in reading the whole Gospels to draw meaning and this taking one verse at a time method can produce much confusion as verses really need to be read in the context of the whole message.

Greetings George-ananda.

The first defense I received on this matter similarly appealed to context. But What possible context could Justify teaching contradictory approaches to the holy? I can't imagine Jesus standing for the following propositions:

"He who is not against us is with us and he who is not with me is against me".

They completely contradict one another. From Mark, Jesus points to our diversity within humanity as a good thing. It doesn't matter if your neighbor is a hindu or a muslim, unless they move against you, they are in some sense, with you. But Matthew completely inverts the teaching. Now, unless your wearing a pro-Jesus T-Shirt replete with a fish symbol sticker on your car, you can be cast as an enemy of Jesus. It's possible to be a non-traditional Christian without being opposed to Jesus. And the context in which these two verses appear, are, I think, in the final analysis irrelevant. One of them (and i forget which) has Jesus talking about casting out demons. But we don't say that Jesus was - in proper context - teaching that certain demons can be for or against us. These were generic propositional teachings of Jesus and I believe the version in Matthew has been distorted. Matthew was good at this; he introduced the notion that certain things were said and done so that "the scriptures could be fulfilled", and he introduced the mass resurrection of old testament saints at the time of the crucifixion. No other gospel even dares go there. Given the difference between Matthew and Mark, i'm more inclined to trust Mark. It was written first, and by someone who was not passionately obsessed with portraying Jesus as a religious figurehead.

 

[wizanda]

What do others think?

On analysis of Yeshua's words, we've got numerous points that clearly identify Oneness based on faith, not religion....

So when Yeshua healed the Roman centurions servant, he said that Roman Pagan Gentiles would be in the Messianic age, whereas the Jews won't.

Those who do the work of God are his brother, and sisters.

Yet unfortunately on your point, there is the exact same reference in Luke 11:23 “He that is not with me is against me. He who doesn’t gather with me scatters.

If we look at the context it was applied in tho, it is about him separating the house of Israel against its self.

So on the one hand Yeshua is trying to unite people through faith; yet is standing against religious beliefs, especially none essential ritualistic dogma, like that of the Pharisees, etc.

We also find the exact opposite in Luke 9:49-50 John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he doesn’t follow with us.” (50) Jesus said to him, “Don’t forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us.”

So it appears in doing the work of God we're to be united; yet on siding with the house of Israel/synagogue of satan, we're to be against them.

To clarify that last point, Christians have sided with the Jews, as both Paul and John were Pharisees, and reinstated them as being a chosen people.

Thank you for the question, had never noticed this before.

 

[Neo Deist]

Q: Could the Historical Jesus have pointed Atheists towards appreciating diversity & common humanity?

A: Yes.

 

[RationalSkeptic]

I am of the current opinion, regarding the gospels, that Mark is the most reliable. I am also aware that it's transmission comes to us 40 years after the crucifixion, and that this is still - despite that fact - the closest gospel to the person. I recently was made aware of a cross-examination that is quite impressive and illustrates in it's own small way, how Jesus - if he existed - believed in unity in spite of diversity.

In Mark chapter 9 Jesus teaches "He who is not against us, is for us".

Now I was always aware of the following Matthew verse, my church leaders would cite it to encourage you to put a fish sticker on your car:

Matthew 12: "He who is not with me is against me".

The line of scholarship endorsed by Bishop Spong are suggesting that St. Matthew took and completely changed the inherent meaning and significance of the original markian saying; that under Mark, we find Jesus suggesting that our diversity can in fact be a strength; while in Matthew Jesus is turned into a religious figurehead complete with old testament zombies at the crucifixion, and has taught that - unless you're "with him", you must somehow be his enemy. The matthew teaching I always found strange and perhaps dogmatic. But if we go with the Markian original, Jesus appears to be saying that our diversity is actually a good thing; and that unless someone positively acts against you, then you and them share a common humanity.

What do others think?

"He who is not against us, is for us."

How does this point towards appreciating diversity? Especially combined with "None come to the father but through me."

It seems to me that the writers where implying that the people who are not for them are against them, which ,coincidentally, is what the verse from Mathew says.

So it would seem to me that these two phrases are alluding to the same concept that is the most common consensus of the writers of the New Testament which seems to be "If your not with us your against us."

 

[MikeC.]

"He who is not against us, is for us".

Sounds diverse and humanist to me. But he's talking about someone performing miracles. Can somebody with no affection to him do them?

"He who is not with me is against me".

Sounds like he wants to gather his followers.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Diversity? Isn't that laying a modern liberal template onto whatever actually happened back then?

















diver