Jesus as an opponent of the rich

[SoonerCoug]

As a practical matter, it doesn't make a difference if Jesus was literate. It doesn't change his ability to have been the Savior. Perhaps when he was writing in the dirt he was mocking the learned who opposed him. If he was illiterate, though, it makes his debates with the Pharisees and scribes even more amazing, as he had a deep understanding of the scriptures.

I agree completely.

[SoonerCoug]

Let's talk about which historians said Jesus spoke Greek. Lay it on us, AA. Who told you that Jesus was a Greek speaker?

This is what Josephus said about Greek in Palestine:

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.

Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

[All-American]

Let's talk about which historians said Jesus spoke Greek. Lay it on us, AA. Who told you that Jesus was a Greek speaker?

This is what Josephus said about Greek in Palestine:

I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.

Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

Ha! Can't imagine why Josephus wouldn't be guilty of exaggerating his bona fides even the teensiest amount.

But anyway, to answer your question, see my earlier response to you and the article ER posted.

[SoonerCoug]

Ha! Can't imagine why Josephus wouldn't be guilty of exaggerating his bona fides even the teensiest amount.

But anyway, to answer your question, see my earlier response to you and the article ER posted.

The Wikipedia article?

You're saying that it wasn't uncommon for Jews to learn Greek?

Why would you assume that Jesus learned Greek? Every legitimate historian that I have read or listened to says that it was highly unlikely that any of the apostles or Jesus were literate. Working class people in Palestine could not read or write. This was a rare skill at that time and place. They were fishermen and builders. So why would you think that he spoke even Hebrew much less Greek?

Josephus wrote a lot. He was part of a rare, elite class of Jews. Jesus was not like that at all. He was from a small town and started an extraordinary movement by appealing to poor, common folks.

They say that scenes of Jesus being mobbed were in part because he was unique as a FREE healer / miracle worker. I think this is a very appealing idea as to how he gained such popularity and such a great following.

Some have asked why Jesus continued to be worshipped as a Messiah after death when so many people claimed to be the Messiah at that time. Everyone who claimed to be the Messiah was crucified. In fact, the Romans actually left records of these other claimants but not of Jesus. But the Messiah should not have died--the mere fact that a Messiah died meant that it was NOT the true Messiah. (I'm using the ancient Jewish definition of Messiah--not the Christian definition.) Perhaps the reason Jesus was followed after his death is because his followers changed the definition of Messiah, denied his death, and continued worshipping him.

[All-American]

The Wikipedia article?

You're saying that it wasn't uncommon for Jews to learn Greek?

Why would you assume that Jesus learned Greek? Every legitimate historian that I have read or listened to says that it was highly unlikely that any of the apostles or Jesus were literate. Working class people in Palestine could not read or write. This was a rare skill at that time and place. They were fishermen and builders. So why would you think that he spoke even Hebrew much less Greek?

Josephus wrote a lot. He was part of a rare, elite class of Jews. Jesus was not like that at all. He was from a small town and started an extraordinary movement by appealing to poor, common folks.

Reread my response to you.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

They are one in the same

One in purpose, they have distinct personalities though.

[YOhio]

One in purpose, they have distinct personalities though.

#truth

[All-American]

One in purpose, they have distinct personalities though.

So . . . Jesus hides the wallets, and the HG snitches on him?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

So . . . Jesus hides the wallets, and the HG snitches on him?

You clearly didn't read the wiki article.

[Moliere]

Well what would be the motivation to lie about him being a tekton?

Galilee wasn't even on maps at the time. No roads. No synagogue. No bathhouses. Nothing much in Galilee. Certainly unlikely that he was educated. I suppose Greek authors could have lied about him being a tekton, but it's more likely that they lied about him being literate to appeal to a roman audience.

I suppose they could have lied about both equally. They could have lied about him being a tekton to provide greater emphasis for his social revolution. The NT was written in Jesus' day so it seems reasonable to me that to keep the revolution going they needed someone from the lower class. It's equally probable that they lied about his literacy to appeal to Romans. The problem is that both are in the NT and there isn't evidence one way or the other to dissuade either. There are guess and probabilities, but no evidence.

You have to ask yourself what would motivate them to write the things they wrote.

For example: why would they write that his mother was a virgin? The most likely explanation is that the pregnancy was not legitimate and there were rumors of this, so they wrote about the miracle of virgin birth to preserve or enhance his image.

The discussion is about what is most probable. People are welcome to believe what they want.

Was Paul Bunyan 100 feet tall? Did Paul Bunyan exist?

Stories are stories. It has nothing to do with whether Jesus was divine. It's about understanding what was written in the context of history. For example, people were generally dead by the time they were placed on a cross. That's just a fact. Crucifixion was reserved for traitors to the state. This says something about Jesus and an attempt at political revolution. These are interesting ideas worth discussing.

No one knows the answers to these questions. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth considering in terms of history and probability.

But if you operate under the assumption that Jesus was divine, it becomes very difficult to discuss facts, especially since you'll be inherently biased against anything historical that challenges your faith in or your image of the mythical Jesus.

I agree with all of this and appreciate you typing it out. This week I had a discussion with an exmo (my former YM advisor) who is now a Christian. He constantly disses the historicity of the BoM all while quoting Biblical scriptures. I finally asked him if he saw the Bible as historical, which he does. I left it there since any further discussion would likely be worthless given his view on the inerrancy of the Bible. However, I found it ironic that he finds the BoM not historical for many reasons that make the NT likely not historical either. Anyway, I like these discussions and hope to have more on this board where people are more open about it.

As to your original question, I definitely believe Jesus opposed wealth. Our church certainly doesn't oppose wealth, in fact our church sometimes holds up the wealthy as more righteous/important which is a pet peeve of mine. The BoM has many admonitions against wealth...but we tend to skirt those in church so as to not make the wealthy uncomfortable.

[ERCougar]

I suppose they could have lied about both equally. They could have lied about him being a tekton to provide greater emphasis for his social revolution. The NT was written in Jesus' day so it seems reasonable to me that to keep the revolution going they needed someone from the lower class. It's equally probable that they lied about his literacy to appeal to Romans. The problem is that both are in the NT and there isn't evidence one way or the other to dissuade either. There are guess and probabilities, but no evidence.

I agree with all of this and appreciate you typing it out. This week I had a discussion with an exmo (my former YM advisor) who is now a Christian. He constantly disses the historicity of the BoM all while quoting Biblical scriptures. I finally asked him if he saw the Bible as historical, which he does. I left it there since any further discussion would likely be worthless given his view on the inerrancy of the Bible. However, I found it ironic that he finds the BoM not historical for many reasons that make the NT likely not historical either. Anyway, I like these discussions and hope to have more on this board where people are more open about it.

As to your original question, I definitely believe Jesus opposed wealth. Our church certainly doesn't oppose wealth, in fact our church sometimes holds up the wealthy as more righteous/important which is a pet peeve of mine. The BoM has many admonitions against wealth...but we tend to skirt those in church so as to not make the wealthy uncomfortable.

As to your first paragraph, you ought to read a good book on the subject. I'm not at all an expert on this, but I've read a few books dedicated to the subject and it's been really enlightening. I think you'd find the process of how they come to these conclusions really fascinating. There are good reasons why historians judge certain facts to be more reliable than others. Just one off the top of my head--we can be relatively sure that Jesus was indeed crucified. It may be the surest event of his life. Why? Because it's a rather inconvenient fact to make up, because it goes directly against so much of the contemporary beliefs about what the Messiah was supposed to be.

As to your second, there is a certain contradiction when someone accepts the Bible and discards the BOM. Two mitigating factors though: 1) there are a lot of secondary sources that confirm some of the Biblical events (nothing for the BOM), and 2) accepting the Bible as metaphorical and not literal is commonly done (not so, the BOM).

And your third--totally agree. One thing I really like about Nibley is he's one of the few who really took the primary message of the BOM, which I'd argue is anti-poverty, to heart.

[Moliere]

As to your first paragraph, you ought to read a good book on the subject.

Can you recommend one? I'd love to read something on this.

[ERCougar]

Can you recommend one? I'd love to read something on this.

I thought Zealot was a great read, as I mentioned before. I hate how he footnotes (you'll see what I mean) and he has his own pet theories, but he explains them, for the most part, and I think the process of how they come to conclusions when there is so little direct evidence is really fascinating. Misquoting Jesus was also really interesting. Beyond that, I've just read excerpts from other stuff available online, that I couldn't specifically cite. You obviously run the risk of not getting the whole spectrum of opinion, as I apparently missed the majority of scholars who think Jesus spoke Greek.

[Moliere]

I thought Zealot was a great read, as I mentioned before. I hate how he footnotes (you'll see what I mean) and he has his own pet theories, but he explains them, for the most part, and I think the process of how they come to conclusions when there is so little direct evidence is really fascinating. Misquoting Jesus was also really interesting. Beyond that, I've just read excerpts from other stuff available online, that I couldn't specifically cite. You obviously run the risk of not getting the whole spectrum of opinion, as I apparently missed the majority of scholars who think Jesus spoke Greek.

This is one of my favorites but I think I lent it out to someone on this board and they haven't returned it yet

Will check out Zealot.

[CardiacCoug]

As to your original question, I definitely believe Jesus opposed wealth. Our church certainly doesn't oppose wealth, in fact our church sometimes holds up the wealthy as more righteous/important which is a pet peeve of mine. The BoM has many admonitions against wealth...but we tend to skirt those in church so as to not make the wealthy uncomfortable.

Yup, not just wealth but showy displays of wealth are not only acceptable but admired in the LDS Church, which has always bothered me.

Maybe this will draw Levin out (hope not) but once again I just can't fathom that anybody who really believes that Jesus will literally judge him and determine his eternal destiny after his death would live a typical American upper middle class lifestyle in which tens of thousands of dollars are spent on a home, cars, travel, other luxuries that are totally unnecessary while leaving orphans and widows in need.

I have to assume that 95% of Mormons don't take anything related to Jesus literally based on their lifestyles. That's of course OK with me because I don't take it any of it literally either.