Jesus was a Liberal

I’m sure you know, however, that USENET is full of provocative questions, and I’m the first to admit that SOME things I read on USENET go right to the anger center of my brain. That good ‘ole righteous wrath juice gets to flowing and sometimes I post something that I can regret at my leisure once the anger cools.

I learned a long time ago that at least for USENET, the Proverb is true:

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise dispenses knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. [Proverbs 15:1-2]

And I also remember what my father taught me:

Boy, your mouth is going to get you into more trouble!

Re: Second Coming of Jesus.

Someone asked me in E-mail what I thought of the idea that the Second Coming of Jesus might have conincided with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is my reply:

As you of course know, this is a large subject.

I am one of those who believe that all of the Gospels (except perhaps Mark) were written after 70 AD. If the destruction of Jerusalem were indeed the second coming, then I think the Gospels would have said so.

On the other hand, I think that it no accident that the proclamation of the “second coming” in Matthew 16:27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what he has done” is followed immediately with the story of the transfiguration (Ch 17). I think that at least Matthew means the reader to see the possiblity that the transfiguration fulfilled the prophecy.

In any case, from St. Paul, to Martin Luther, to the writers on the Internet today, many have predicted the eminent second coming of Jesus. They have all been wrong. It seems to me that there is some basic misunderstanding among all of these people as to what the second coming is, or how one can see it coming.

For my personal faith, I consider the second coming of Jesus to be his presence with believers which began after his resurrection and continues to this day. When Jesus was in the flesh, he was limited in time and place. Now he is universal–this is what I think is the best understanding of his coming with power and glory.

On the other hand, the world might end tomorrow. Thy will be done.

This is the text in question (maybe others):

As for the Wisdom who is called “the barren,” she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended by it, and expressed disapproval. They said to him, “why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them, “Why do you I not love you like her?” When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darknes, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness. [Gospel of Philip]

Well, one might ask the counter question, can you think of one legitimate reason why the canonical Gospels would have made up a differing story?

Well, I’m sure you could…

The simple fact that the canonical gospels are 1st century, and the Gospel of Philip is third century, leads me to take the latter as less authoritative.

Nevertheless, I think your question, needn’t be taken rhetorically, and perhaps there are a couple of good answers.

First, philosophically, gnostics saw the existential malady of humanity as the differentiation of the sexes. The concept of the “bridal chamber” was sacramental to the Gnostics. So a celibate Jesus would be anathema to them. [See also the ending of Thomas 114 – not cited below.]

Another more form critical answer might be this:

In the Gospel of Thomas (gnostic), there is this text:

Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life”. [114:1]

It is possible that Gnostic tradition preserved a gender-based resentment towards the female followers of Jesus, and perhaps even of Mary Magdalene in particular. Perhaps this tradition was turned more solid by later storytellers, either by inventing narrative to flesh out the story, or by bending the tradition towards a more gnostic view.

All one has to do is see “Jesus loved her best” as an immature reaction on the part of the male disciples (“mommy likes you best”) and allow for the “kiss” to have been added sometime over two centuries to make the story more interesting. The “blindness” was culture-based gender discrimination on the part of the disciples.

With this plausible scenario, Jesus and Mary could have been “just friends”.

Or the whole thing could have been made up out of whole cloth.

In these days when conservatives are very vocal politically, and when Christian Television is uniformly fundamentalist, it is possible to get into a “bunker mentality” and forget all the openness, love and generosity left in the world.

When I was in school, in the 50’s, we had school-wide announcements and prayers over the intercom. I don’t think anyone benefitted from them. One summer I took a course at a Catholic college, and every class was opened and closed with a prayer. A Catholic friend asked me why I wasn’t saying the prayers with the class. I told him that everyone was mumbling and I couldn’t tell what they were saying. We gave me the words and I joined in. But I don’t know that it was any great benefit then either. Prayer is something special. School Prayer is empty repetition.

Karl Marx has a clearly expressed critique of Ludwig Feuerbach; this critique is contained in Marx’s “Theses on Feuerbach.” Of course there is no expressed criticism by Marx of Søren Kierkegaard since Marx was not familiar with Kierkegaard’s works. But it is still of interest to compare the two viewpoints in light of the important influence of these two philosophers on modern theology. In this paper I will review Marx’s criticisms of Feuerbach and discuss their application (if any) to Kierkegaard. I hope to show that the criticisms do not apply.

Marx’s first criticism of Feuerbach (Marx: I, II, V, IX) is that Feuerbach did not conceive of the reality of human sensuous activity. Feuerbach’s analysis of Christianity is essentially a passive one (i.e. contemplative, and psychological (Feuerbach, xxxv), and it is clearly stated that for him, the relation between thought and matter is a passive one.) Hence, even if thought and ideas are not mechanistically determined, material relations are–since man can do nothing in response (activity). For Feuerbach then, the objects of the senses are objectively real as objects of contemplation, but not the human activity. Feuerbach could not account for the reality of a revolution. Continue reading →