GeorgeW

Hal, I am not sure that there "had" to be a specific liturgy followed by all synagogues. If so, there should be some evidence of it and apparently there is none or someone, including Bishop Spong, would have cited it. Also, it is worth noting that synagogue worship did not have a long history at that time. I think the oldest ones discovered were a couple of hundred years BCE. There is no mention in the Hebrew Scriptures of synagogue worship. As I recall synagogue worship took off after destruction of the 2nd Temple (70 CE)) and the beginning of rabbinical Judaism. George Update: I checked to see what Murphy ("Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus") has to say about synagogues. He says that not much is known about them before the 1st century. He says. "Archaeology does not help much since no building predating the first century can clearly claim to a synagogue [...] The synagogue most probably predates the first century, but little is known about it." Of course they are mentioned in the NT and by Josephus (37-100 CE) and Philo (20 BCE- 50CE). But, my point is that this was not a well established institution in Judaism at the time the Gospels were written with established clergy, liturgies and the like.

While Bishop Spong is certainly knowledgeable about the Bible, he is not inerrant. And, he is first and foremost a theologian which, IMO, can influence the objectivity of his scholarship. Having said this, I absolutely support his campaign against biblical literalism and his advocacy for tolerance on social issues like sexism and gay rights. George

Dutch, A good and appropriate link. Thanks. The following statement at the bottom of the page may explain why I was told what I was: "Over the years various attempts have been made to show a sequential correlation of Mark or other gospels to one or more forms of Jewish synagogue lectionary or, more loosely, to the Jewish liturgical year.1 None of these has been generally accepted,2 and some scholars have concluded that the whole enterprise is doomed to failure." George

Vin, I encourage you to do this and share it here. George

Vin, I am not aware of any such matrix. FWIW, after reading his book, I asked an acquaintance who was a professor of religion (at a large state university) whose specialty was 2nd-Temple Judaism and early Christianity what he thought of this theory. He said he was familiar with it, but "it did not have much of an academic following." George

I would quibble a bit with the "genuine" vs. "fraudulent" distinction. It is possible that some faith healing has a real psychological effect which would be as genuine as that performed by a credentialed psychologist. I suspect that conventional psychological treatments, to be effective, require some degree of trust (or faith). George

Hollis, I absolutely agree that many of the sayings you alluded to are not word for word from the mouth of Jesus. However, some of these, I think, do originate with Jesus. This exaggerated response seems to be a stylistic or rhetorical feature that runs through the Gospels. As an example, the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar (in The Five Gospels) say about plucking out an offending eye and cutting off a troublesome right hand (Mat. 5:29-30) that "It is also possible that the radical contrast these sayings represent echoes the voice of Jesus . . . The majority held that , although the sayings may have originated with Jesus, they have been remodeled to suit the circumstances of the primitive Christian community." The JS Fellows thought that the sayings in Mat 5:38-41 (turning the other cheek, giving your coat if sued for your shirt, etc.) were authentic to Jesus. They say, "These cleverly worded aphorisms provide essential clues to what Jesus really said. And the consensus among the Fellows of the Seminar was exceptionally high." George

Hollis, Do you think that Jesus intended a literal meaning of these rather extreme measures? Did he really mean we should actually pluck out an offending eye? I don't think so. I suspect that he was using exaggerated responses to indicate that we should go an extra mile or two in these situations. George

I think that a number of illnesses are psychosomatic and can be helped or 'cured' by psychological means which can include faith healing with a spiritual placebo effect. FWIW, I think that Jesus was a 'faith healer.' George

I think the problem is that some of us try to apply reason to this and reason isn't how religious belief works. This is written in what is considered to be divinely inspired and authoritative scriptures; therefore it is accepted. I think this particular belief has its theological origin in the sacrificial goat (azazel) of Judaism. George

Yes, I agree that his mission (agenda) was primarily to the Jews. I disagree with your assertion about his self doubt. There was a wide variety of views about exactly who he was after he was crucified. Bart Ehrman discusses this in great detail in Lost Christianities. However, any lack of clarity by Matthew, or any other Gospel writers, does not mean that Jesus had doubt about who he was. "Brave, courageous, bold, moral" and you wouldn't buy a used car from him? Hmm. George

Richard, I am pleased to see that you jumped right in. I would quibble at bit with the "know" statement about Jesus. I think "know" is much too strong. There are of course, different views about him by various scholars. I don't know exactly what you mean by "agenda," but IMO, there is a clear theme that comes through even with editing out what is likely to be later additions to the story. Also, I suspect that he did have a strong sense of who he was. It is later writers who cloud the picture. While we all "put our pants on one leg at a time" that doesn't mean that we are all equal in terms of intellect, morality, courage, leadership qualities, etc. I don't think just another Joe would have spawned such a reaction to his death. George

Rivianna, Thanks, this is the type of explanation I was looking for. I suspect that there are other takes on this as well. I would point out that while this understanding does not express apathy toward the poor, it does place a higher value on honoring someone who is about to die than feeding the hungry. And, John's Jesus (along with Mark and Matthew) seems to endorse this. George

I didn't mean to imply that this single verse would represent a theology or there was some universal agreement on the meaning. However, I suspect that this has been examined and explained by theologians and I am curious as to how it has been interpreted. I can see where this could be used to justify a focus on personal salvation with the plight of the poor not a high priority. George

I think that, in biblical times, material poverty seemed inevitable and would prompt an aphorism such that in Mark and Matthew. However, in our time, I don't think that it is, at least on a national (U.S.) level, Rather it is a matter of national priorities. When our society pays farmers not to plant; when we spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined; when billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries, I think it is hard to claim that poverty is inevitable. George

Several times in this thread, the biblical saying attributed to Jesus about the poor has been mentioned or alluded to: "For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me" (Mat. 26:11 also in Mark). So, I decided to check a little into this and see if I could determine what is meant since it seems contrary to the general theme of Jesus' ministry and the Bible in general. I could find very little commentary in material that I have at hand. However, I did find that the fellows of the Jesus Seminar (The Five Gospels) overwhelmingly voted that this verse is not authentic to Jesus. They say regarding the passage (Mat 10-13), "The words ascribed to Jesus are best understood as creative elements provided by the storyteller." Regarding the similar Mark passage, they say, "the second aphoristic statement is perhaps based on Deut 5:11." In any event, what do we make of it? Why would Mark and Matthew have said this? Would this justify someone accepting poverty as inevitable and intractable, therefore any action is a waste of resources? I would be interested if anyone has any information as to how this has been explained in theology. George

I think their position is without objectivity and careful analysis. By citing only the bad things that have been done by Christians, the case is clear. But, they often overlook the good things done by Christians. One could 'prove' the counter case by only citing Christian pacifists, abolitionists, Christian charities, etc. The truth is there have been Christians on both side of many historical events and social movements - slavery, unjust wars, civil rights, gay rights, etc. And, atheists have done both good and bad (see Stalin and Mao) as well. So, my conclusion is that religion, or the absence of religion, is not the determining factor in human behavior. As to how to answer, I think Joseph gives a good suggestion. However, as my grandfather often said, "convince a man against their will and they will be of the same opinion still." It takes an open and objective mind. George

FWIW, the Hebrew word for seed zera' is the same as the word for semen. My pastor (PCUSA) thinks that the biblical views about homosexual relations (male, there is no female prohibition) and masturbation are related to this concept. Semen was viewed like seeds which were limited in supply and not to be wasted. This was also a time in which "be fruitful and multiply" was a valuable survival strategy for one's family and tribe. George

Eldred, welcome. I look forward to your participation here. It is my impression that the Anglicans in Nigeria are very conservative. Are there progressive congregations there? George

'Compel' was probably not a good choice of words. Maybe 'require' would be better. George

Joseph, I would not try to compel you to do anything in terms of voluntary charity. That is your choice. However, as a voter, I would vote to compel you to pay taxes for programs that will assist those in need. This would include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the like. George

We could start with the Golden Rule or Kant's Categorical Imperative. Where do those come from? I think these are part of our genetic makeup as social animals. George

We have a different worldview. I think there is a moral imperative, whether Jesus said it or not, for the comfortable to help the distressed. George

By the way, while we are on this subject, I don't think anyone has brought up the fish metaphor: "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime." While I agree with this, I have generally seen it offered as a reason not to do something (feeding the hungry). I have seldom heard it used as a reason for why we should do something (like spend money teaching people agriculture, birth control, etc.). George

I could give you any number of rationalizations, but if I honestly examine my conscience, the truth is more like greed, comfort, pleasure. George