fayfreethinkers.com

The La Crosse Tribune, in Wisconsin, ran a story that you can read on their web site at lacrossetribune.com about an artist Clara Goldstein depicting Jesus as a rabbi. Gundersen Lutheran Hospital in La Crosse asked her to remove the paintings. Viterbo College (pronounced Vih TUR boe) also refused to allow her to display them on their campus. There is a comments block below the story. Over 120 people have responded already. One of the respondents said this has become a national story. You may want to check it out and add your comment(s)

More than one translation of the bible has various disciples addressing him as Rabbi. It really gets to the fundy crowd, since they are adamant that Jesus was not a Jew. Showing him as a Rabbi totally says, "Yes he was." Even worse, to be a Rabbi, a man had to be married and it's not just Catholics who have a vested interest in Jesus being unmarried and celibate - Moses spouting his religious vitriol uses that to start his whistle-blowing arguments.

The pictures are now online at that site. You probably will wonder what the big deal is after viewing them.

I looked at them and agree - there really is nothing to make a big deal of, unless you're one of the "Jesus was not at Jew" fundies.

If you think Jesus was a rabbi freaks out fundies, try Cannabis and the Christ: Jesus used Marijuana to induce major spasms!

The article begins:

As doubtful as the following hypothesis might first seem to the reader, I might as well boldly state my case right from the start: either Jesus used marijuana or he was not the Christ. The very word "Christ", by the implication of its linguistic origins and true meaning, gives us the most profound evidence that Jesus did in fact use the same herb as his ancient semitic ancestors, and which is still used by people around the world for its enlightening and healing properties.

The Greek title "Christ" is the translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, which in English becomes "The Anointed". The Messiah was recognized as such by his being anointed with the holy anointing oil, the use of which was restricted to the instillation of Hebrew priests and kings (See CC#5). If Jesus was not initiated in this fashion then he was not the Christ, and had no official claim to the title.

The ancient recipe for this anointing oil, recorded in the Old Testament book of Exodus (30: 22-23) included over nine pounds of flowering cannabis tops, Hebrew "kaneh-bosm", extracted into a hind (about 6.5 litres) of olive oil, along with a variety of other herbs and spices. The ancient chosen ones were literally drenched in this potent cannabis holy oil.

This may explain a lot about "miracles" like healing arthritic geezers by laying on the hands (and oil.) Basically, Jesus led a cannabis cult.

No wonder a lot of scripture really doesn't make any sense. Strangley in the 60's after I had tried some run of mill sh*t weed then was introduced to imported inca I used to enjoy eating M&Ms and reading the New Testament and listening to Jimmy Hendrix and Mozart.
Thanks for the explanation and link.

In Orthodox Judaism (of coarse the "Orthodox" tag wasn't necessary then), there is are no requirements for becoming a rabbi. A rabbi is simply a teacher, someone particularly knowledgable about doctrinal and legal matters. So it is entirely possible that his followers considered him a rabbi while almost every other Jew did not, as was the case with the Ba'al Shem Tov 1740 years later.

Jesus himself referred to 2 branches/sects/whatever of Judism (Pharisees and Sadduces), and was possibly a member of a 3rd group (Essene) - by context he certainly wasn't a member of the first 2. As to "requirements" for being a Rabbi - while there were no formal schooling requirements, a male did have to have reached what would have been considered adulthood in that society - married, children (at least one child - preferably but not necessarily surviving beyond its 2nd summer), dwelling place of his own (as opposed to still living with his parents). Those very common in pre-industrial culture requirements for adulthood still cause fundies (and RCs) to foam at the mouth when applied to Jesus. (My own theory about Jesus' ministry is that he lost a beloved child and in a state of total emotional trauma he left his home and profession and took to the road preaching about a god of love taking care of those who died just to hang on to some approximation of sanity.)

DOUG
Personally, I don't think Jesus was a rabbit.

Who cares? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

For that matter, what's the deal with the bumper stickers that say "My boss is a Jewish carpenter". Why don't they just say, "My boss is Jesus"? What's the big point about him having been a Jewish carpenter? Is that supposed to be funny or clever or deeply meaningful or what?

Betsy wrote:Who cares? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

For that matter, what's the deal with the bumper stickers that say "My boss is a Jewish carpenter". Why don't they just say, "My boss is Jesus"? What's the big point about him having been a Jewish carpenter? Is that supposed to be funny or clever or deeply meaningful or what?

DOUG
Imagine the going price of Jesus furniture if it were to get on Ebay...

That's more christian weirdness - and totally apocraphal weirdness at that. Nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus was a carpenter, nor even that his "father" Joseph was a carpenter any more than it gives Mary's mother's name - and yet we have St. Anne long revered as Jesus' grandmother. If he WAS Essene, even if his father was a carpenter, he probably wouldn't have been. The Essene followed the Celtic tradition of fostering children out for education.

Hey in Mel Gibson's movie, Jesus made a table, so it must be true.

Betsy wrote:Hey in Mel Gibson's movie, Jesus made a table, so it must be true.

DOUG
When Darrel and I went to rent that movie, the clerk at the movie rental place said that the movie was Biblically accurate. Nonsense. It avoided lots of contradictions by just using one of the Gospels, as well as inserting a lot of nonbiblical material.

DAR
And of course the 9 straight minutes of the thrashing of the Christ with blood spurting everywhere was pulled directly out of Gibson's anti-semetic ass.
A biblically accurate movie of the gospels cannot be made for the same reason Christians cannot put together a consistent timeline of their Easter and resurrection stories. The stories have irreconcilable inconsistencies. This is to be expected considering they were patched together by different groups, decades later, by people who never met Jesus.

How'd they drag out 39 lashes (even with a cat o' nine tails) to 9 full minutes? Another good reason not to watch that thing.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:How'd they drag out 39 lashes (even with a cat o' nine tails) to 9 full minutes? Another good reason not to watch that thing.

DOUG
The 40 lashes or 39 lashes are the traditional count. The Bible gives no specific number. I made the same mistake, given my Catholic background from my formative years.

Mel has the guards whip the shit out of Jesus for a long time, then flip him over and do the other side of him. Lots of blood.

It is far and away the most violent movie Gibson has ever been associated with.

it was a horrible, stupid movie. i didn't want to go and my expectations were really low, which usually means you end up liking a movie more than you thought you would. not in this case. it was a very dark and violent look at mel gibson's interpretation of what may have happened. Actually, no one could have survived that kind of torture and then gotten up and dragged a giant cross through town. the severe beating with maces, and the blood loss would kill you.

The 39 lashes is traditional because it's OT - law of Moses says the penalty for heresy is 40 minus one lashes with a cart whip, as any more might be fatal. The Romans of the time used the cat o' 9 tails (a lovely little goody that was in use in the British and American armed forces until the 20th century) - so the recipient actually got 3x 39 or 117 lashes, and since the cat has bits of bone or metal at the tip end of each lash, it is rather bloody (no spurting, but lots of oozing). The Roman story, when they moved the power center from Jerusalem to Rome, was that they were just carrying out the Jewish decision and it was all the Jews fault (the old "jews killed jesus" schtick) - but that is why it is assumed 39 lashes, following the Jewish law, even if using Roman instruments. Forensic scholars say the man would have died from internal injuries within about 48 hours anyway, even if they hadn't hung him on the cross (or any other height, for that matter - crucifixion takes about 6-10 minutes to kill someone, once their legs are broken or they are too tired to hold themselves up any longer - it kills by suffocation - chest muscles can't lift the weight of the body to be able to get enough breath). That's why the Romans had to co-opt Simeon to help carry the cross piece - jesus was too damaged to carry it himself.

FYI - the 30 pieces of silver was also law of moses for turning in a heretic.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:The 39 lashes is traditional because it's OT - law of Moses says the penalty for heresy is 40 minus one lashes with a cart whip, as any more might be fatal.

DOUG
There is no reason to think Pilate would whip someone in accordance with Mosaic law.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote: The Romans of the time used the cat o' 9 tails (a lovely little goody that was in use in the British and American armed forces until the 20th century) - so the recipient actually got 3x 39 or 117 lashes, and since the cat has bits of bone or metal at the tip end of each lash, it is rather bloody (no spurting, but lots of oozing).

DOUG
This is more Catholic tradition at work. The Romans may have just used a regular whip. Or, more likely, the whole thing is made up. Many of the details of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus are nonhistorical. There is no reason to think the whipping is historical.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote: The Roman story, when they moved the power center from Jerusalem to Rome, was that they were just carrying out the Jewish decision and it was all the Jews fault (the old "jews killed jesus" schtick) - but that is why it is assumed 39 lashes, following the Jewish law, even if using Roman instruments.

DOUG
If Pilate tried him, why in the world would he care what the Jews would do? He was renowned for his disdain of what the Jews thought. He was eventually removed from office for being too harsh.

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote: Forensic scholars say the man would have died from internal injuries within about 48 hours anyway, even if they hadn't hung him on the cross (or any other height, for that matter - crucifixion takes about 6-10 minutes to kill someone, once their legs are broken or they are too tired to hold themselves up any longer - it kills by suffocation - chest muscles can't lift the weight of the body to be able to get enough breath). That's why the Romans had to co-opt Simeon to help carry the cross piece - jesus was too damaged to carry it himself.

DOUG
It's not as if any of this is historical reporting. The Gospel of John has nothing about this Simeon. It says Jesus carried his own cross.

The crosses were probably always in place. Why not use crosses already there instead of wasting wood each time one of hundreds of Jews gets crucified?

The stuff about suffocation is mere speculation by a biased doctor. People in the middle ages were hung by their arms for hours or days and survived.

No one really knows how crucifixions were done. There is only ONE--count it, ONE--known archaeological example, but reports of the era suggest that people could survive for days on a cross. Don't believe the Mel Gibson crap.