Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:05 pm Bill Clinton was accused of perjury and receiving oral sex in the Oval Office.

No, Slick Willie was impeached for lying under oath about telling others to lie under oath so he could beat a sexual harassment case.

Trump talked about wanting to be a star so he could get away with it, Slick Wille actually did it.

However you want to characterize it, he wasn't advocating sexual assault.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:55 pm However you want to characterize it, he wasn't advocating sexual assault.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3664.

As I noted in my response as we are living after the end of the world, there is now questions raised about whether sexual assault is wrong, whether sex with 14 year old 'really is' pedophilia, whether anything done by my side is wrong and only wrong when the other side does it. As I said it's after the end of the world. https://youtu.be/c3alIZ7llxQ

We used to argue whether a conservative approach or a liberal approach was better for the great good of society. Now that we're after the end of the world, it doesn't matter whether or not society is good or more people are helped. It's just me and mine that matters.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:55 pm However you want to characterize it, he wasn't advocating sexual assault.

Oh yes he was.
Slick Willie was leading by example of what you could get away with if the liberal media/Hollywood was on your side.
All that Trump did was acknowledge the hypocrisy of the alt-left, not that he actually did it but could get away with it, that is if he was a real soap opera star of Hollywood.

https://youtu.be/wFEqVARTYkY

Now tell us Alias, would Jesus approve of sexual assault like the liberal media did for Slick Willie?
Of course not, hence more proof of the relevance today of the historical Jesus.

John T wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:03 pm...would Jesus approve of sexual assault like the liberal media did for Slick Willie?

Mark 3: 1 - 6 (RSV)

[1] Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered hand.
[2] And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him.
[3] And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here."
[4] And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.
[5] And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
[6] The Pharisees went out, and immediately held counsel with the Hero'di-ans against him, how to destroy him.

Not only "Would they...".
They did.

Given the Symbolic Assignment that "A man with a Withered Hand could not write", the "Jesus" character is here telling the Scribes that they are free to write about what they saw years ago. A similar Story is told of the "Woman Bent Over for 18 Years". She is released from her affliction. The Scribes have kept their jobs and would not tell what they knew.

"Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.

This makes no sense when paired with "A" healing of a Man with the Withered Hand. When seen in the light of the protection of the powerful, the Scribes and the Pharisees, it makes sense.

"What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?..."

Oh, Woe to you, Main Stream Media and Democrat Party functionaries!

But the question is - do you think sexual assault against women is morally wrong?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:35 pm But the question is - do you think sexual assault against women is morally wrong?

Of course. But there is no theology or political ideology that inoculates one from being a black soul. Many people make the mistake of believing that following a particular religious (say Jewish) or political (say a "progressive" Democrat) will magically turn you into a good person. It simply brings you a different set of defenders when you behave badly, because they perceive benefit from your political or religious standing. Hence Conyers is defended by Nancy Pelosi, and many feminists (Gloria Steinem most famously for slut shaming of the women) forgave behavior like Bill Clinton's abuse of power over teenage interns and maybe even a rape or two in Arkansas before that as due to the women being bad or loose -- defenses we'd never give right wing conservatives.

The truth is ideology makes no difference, nor does religious background, or supposed creedal confession of any kind. People are people, and in power some behave very badly. We see it from every ethnic, every political, and every religious background. People who are bad will ape the words and behaviors in public to allow them to do what they want in private.

IMO we have brought this upon ourselves by placing partisan politics above the concepts of good and honorable behavior. (In the process we have forgotten how to find common ground with each other and even to communicate -- instead we toss insults and act rude and nasty). We have torn down social norms, but not replaced them. We have no consensus (look at YouGov's findings on what people think constitutes sexual harassment - hardly anything tops 75% and there is variance in opinion based on nationality, age, gender, nothing like common agreement). The old consensus was boys will be boys, but it's a good thing that is gone. Now we have to go through a period of witch hunt and lynching, some deserving targets, others just caught up by the carried away mob (Al Frankin appears to mostly be a mild groper, behaving boorishly like a James Bond film character from the 1960s or 70s, but not a rapist like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby).

So in the UK most women think it's OK to put your hand on her butt, in France it's OK to say dirty jokes. And so it goes. Looking at a Woman's breasts is only seen by a minority of older women as offensive, but by a high percentage of younger women (there is something else going on with that and we all know what that is). Clearly there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes sexual harassment and consent from say Angela Lansbury and Emma Sulkowicz.

Anyway we need to have a discussion about what is OK and what is not. Somethings are obvious. Others hard to say. Overall we are heading in a more prudish and Victorian direction than we were in the 70's. I think we will look back on this and find good from it, and excess (we always over correct).

I would like to see the States in the US act by imposing minimum marriage age. Most states lack one, so child rape via marriage occurs in every State by the tens of thousands. Liberal California one of the highest rates. IMO this is part of the same discussion about acceptable behavior.

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:34 pm

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:52 am
I really think there is very little difference between the minimal Jesus myth and the Jesus myth. It's just the word 'minimal' or 'minimal (historicist)' if you pardon the added complexity. Either way we are rescuing a basically implausible historical construct (= that God was actively involved in the world through an intermediary, Jesus). The minimal Jesus is just an added mythical layering.

I think you are correct that the Historical Jesus in the sense of the Jesus that can be established by critical historical methodology, (what Meier calls the consensus of the unpapal conclave), is not in itself particularly relevant to modern concerns.

However the Historical Jesus in this sense is definitely not the real Jesus. For good or bad the real Jesus did and said lots of things that cannot be solidly established by critical historical methods. Those who believe that Jesus is relevant to modern concerns are taking the picture of Jesus recorded by his followers to be closer to the real Jesus than can be solidly established by historical criticism.

I would add only a further bit:
Those who believe that Jesus is relevant to modern concerns are taking the picture of Jesus recorded by his followers

1) to be closer to the real Jesus than can be solidly established by historical criticism, and

2) ...that it is a good picture from a moral POV.

According to Hector Avalos, even if Jesus existed and was remembered perfectly by the Gospels, his morality is bad on many points from a modern POV, ergo that hypothetical Historical Jesus would continue to be not relevant even under these conditions.

Yes, all good points regarding the changing definition of good and evil over time by liberals.
However, Jesus made it clear that the 10 commandments would be in effect until heaven and earth passed away. Matt: 5:18

Western civilization laws are more or less based on the 10 commandments and when followed they prosper.
So, once again the existence of Jesus still has relevance today.

That is the corner stone of religion, a set of moral codes to live by, for better or worse.

John T