Jesus rocks the boat

"Rocking the Boat" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Rocking the Boat” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

[BUY THIS CARTOON!]

I guess Jesus started rocking the boat at a very early age.

He started literally.

Then it became metaphorical.

Prophetical.

Deadly.

You may also like...

21 Responses

  1. Adam Julians says:

    Well yes he certainly did the metaphorical rocking the boat within a chapter or two seriously pissing a lot of people off and as a child causing his parents worry. So yeah I’m with you in that sense.

    Although the cartoon has Jesus appearing in a way that could be perceived as an annoying and tiresome brat. I suspect the reality was that he didn’t deliberately go out of the way to annoy someone by hindering their going about their livelihood or tire out his dad for no other reason than getting a rise out of them for sadistic pleasure. The deadly part about what he did was it resulted in his own death as we know form the story.

    I think though that there was fun to be had with being around Jesus for anyone who was welcoming to him and open to something beyond their own limited horizons.

    The fishermen leaving the comfort of the life they knew to be “fishers of men” for example?

  2. Bernardo says:

    John 21:6 fails rigorous historic testing as does most if not all of John’s gospel. Obviously, many are still caught up in the myths surrounding said illiterate preacher, man of magic.

  3. Caryn LeMur says:

    LOL! I LIKE this! Jesus as a human being, laughing, teasing, playing… what a wonderful concept! YES!

    He was a human being. He most likely enjoyed life, attended the local synagogue school, and learned a trade.

    And yes, later in life, he truly did ‘rock the boat’.

    And his words continue to do so. Amazing.

  4. Bernardo says:

    And now some words of wisdom after many years of studying the NT and related documents:

    From Professor Bruce Chilton’s commentary in his book, Rabbi Jesus, An Intimate Biography, pp 99-101- An excerpt:

    “What Luke misses is that Jesus stood in the synagogue as an illiterate mamzer in his claim to be the Lord’s anointed”.

  5. Adam Julians says:

    “many are still caught up in the myths… now some words of wisdom” might be able to generate some ku dos if it were not for the reality that it is folly to consider oneself superiour to even the most foolish of individuals.
    Of course to any non-thinking conformist that is easily manipulated then such words may be music to one’s ears.

    “He was a human being. He most likely enjoyed life, attended the local synagogue school, and learned a trade.” Yes and in rocking the boat, he was of service to humanity not doing it to be superiour to or lord it over anyone else.

    Amazing that this continues indeed!

  6. Bernardo says:

    And education still rules the day. To that end, contemporary NT scholars such as Professors Chilton, Crossan, and Ludemann are proficient in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, English and historical testing methods.

    And by the way, where in the NT or associated documents does it say that Jesus attended a local synagogue school and learned a trade?

  7. Education still rules the day? I was a teacher. The education system is just as corrupt as any other.

  8. Caryn LeMur says:

    Bernardo: what Chilton misses is that Jesus was considered a Rabbi with a number of disciples.

    According to the Biblical account, Jesus had many more than 12 disciples — those were his inner core group. His total followers were about 120.

    Given that Matthew was a ‘tax collector’ (a very literate profession, though despised), it is highly likely that among the 120 witnesses, that multiple followers were also quite literate.

    When I lived in Germany, the Americans would commonly learn ‘just enough German to get by’… but not the Germans. They were very proud of their ability to speak English as fluently as possible – and they were very, very good. Many also spoke French. Yes, tri-lingual.

    The culture that is visiting tends to not learn the local language. The local culture that can profit from the foreigners, tends to learn the foreign language(s) quite well.

    Thus, if that rule of thumb holds true (due to the normal profit/greed motive of humankind), then it follows that among the 120 followers, a number of those followers spoke two languages.

    Thus, from the earliest times, it is more reasonable the Jesus Group was both literate and capable of communicating in two languages.

    Concerning ‘wisdom’ – wisdom is capable of exploring multiple solutions to a given challenge, be it chemistry or history. Fundamentalism quotes a single position.

    Wisdom evolves with learning and is open to considering more hypotheses. Fundamentalism ‘simply knows’ what is right.

    Tells us about some of your early encounters with Jesus, or with religion. Tell us of your struggles, and your viewpoints. Tells us what you ‘lean towards at this present time’.

    So long as you keep coming across as a Fundamentalist Atheist, your writings will be ignored just as the Fundamentalist Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim.

    You, Bernardo, matter as a human being. Be human, and your writings will carry much more interest, and much more persuasiveness.

    But if you keep quoting your bibles, and then saying, ‘Well, that settles it for me. My set of bibles tells me so’, then you’ll find few here who read your comments or engage you.

  9. Bernardo says:

    And Caryn, you have degrees in Religious Studies, Languages, HIstory? And whose studies do you consult? And are you sure Matthew was a tax collector? Only the NT says so so you have no added attestations to prove it.

  10. Adam Julians says:

    You are appealing to the argument from authority again with talk of degrees etc Bernardo. It’s a logical fallacy.

    I have an honours in theology and a masters in biblical interpretation but that doesn’t mean I can’t be wrong. Same goes for any professor you quote. As stated previously Dawkins and Lennox are both Oxford professors but with different views.

    And so to your claim that the NT is not proof. Any atheist fundamental would say the same. Therefore I would ask you what your criteria would be for proof bearing in mind the argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

  11. Bernardo says:

    Dave, Details on your comment about educational systems being corrupt?

  12. Bernardo says:

    Rigorous historic testing requires multiple independent attestations. And by the way Matthew’s gospel was not written by the Apostle Matthew as per the studies of most contemporary NT exegetes.

  13. Seriously Bernardo? You don’t think education is controlled?

  14. Adam Julians says:

    Ok given your criteria for proof Bernardo, what “rigorous historical testing ” by way of “multiple independent attestations” can you give to validate your claim that the gospel of Matthew was not written by Matthew and that the Bible is an unreliable source regarding the profession of Matthew without using the logical fallacy of argument from authority?

  15. Bernardo says:

    Argument from the studies on the historic Jesus and on the authors of the NT:

    Again start with the studies of Professors Crossan and Ludemann followed by the epic NT review by the RCC approved tome by Professor Father Raymond Brown (878 pages) where he reviews the authors of all the NT documents, gospels and epistles.

    “The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription “according to Matthew” was added some time in the second century.”

    And Dave, education is controlled? Of course, what is taught requires approval by school boards. Without said control, there would be chaos and lack of proper curricula and wasted money. That does not make education corrupt. Are you referring by chance to the education received in religious schools?

  16. Adam Julians says:

    And yet again you take the approach of arguing from authority by quoting “professors” – a logical fallacy Bernardo. As you seem slow to understand what this entails and you claim that “education sill rules the day”, allow me to “educate” you if you will on why your approach is ineffective and offers no proof for the claims you are making.

    While it is not reasonable to dismiss claims of those that have demonstrated that they have a particular field of knowledge, neither is is valid to argue that a claim made by such is accurate purely on the basis that they hold a position of authority on a subject. It is entirely possible that the opinion of the person or institution that holds the authority is wrong no matter how prestigious a position they or it hold. Therefore the authority of a person or institution holds cannot alone be counted on to determine the accuracy of the claims that they make.

    An honours undergrad knows that they would be marked down for trying to make an argument that way. It displays a lack of critical engagement. Nobody would last long in a masters or PhD programme with such approach.

    I could argue “Bernardo is a myth” and it would be as valid as the claim you are making by argument form authority. It proves nothing.

    I don’t understand why you continue to argue in this weak manner. It’s easy to satirse your approach. Why make it look silly?

  17. Bernardo says:

    And Adam where do you get the authority to make judgments if you have not read the necessary NT and related documents? To get you started, read all the documents and reviews posted at:
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ . Let us know when you are finished so that you can proceed to Step 2.

  18. Adam Julians says:

    “where do you get the authority to make judgments” Any “authority” is not what I have but what is given by reason.

    Reason says that your position is weak for explanations given. You want me to read the link you provide then proceed to “step 2” in what you want to prescribe but you haven’t made any convincing argument yet for the proof you allege to have made for the position you hold about Matthew’s profession or the authorship of the book of Matthew.

    Ignoring that, won’t make it go away. Again, your approach is silly. I note your resistance to considering that.

    Thanks but I’ll give what you are asking me to do a pass.

    I’ll be open however to considering discussing the kind of issues with you should you take a different approach to the argument form authority should you show that you would like to do so.

  19. Bernardo says:

    So Adam, you are not interested in reading about and rationalizing the real story of your Jesus. Well, at least we pointed you in the proper direction.

  20. Adam Julians says:

    “you are not interested in reading about and rationalizing the real story of your Jesus” is a silly claim bearing in mind the academic robustness required of me in studying theology at honours level and biblical interpretation at masters, validated by the secular Aberdeen University in Scotland.

    I’ve answered your question about authority with reason giving authority and your attempt at making out that I am not interested in rationalising the “real story” about Jesus. It may be of benefit to you to be aware that whilst I shared of my diagnosis of dyslexia, the educational psychologist measured my IQ at 138 and in the 99 percentile for ability with vocubulary and abstract reasoning. Me boasting about this would be arrogant were it not for the fact that I am on the receiving end of accusation of impropriety which is what your comment is.

    So you see, you are playing to my strengths.

    Would you like to give it another go at trying to make out I am not heading in “the proper direction”?

    I would also be interested in who you would claim the “we” are in “we pointed you”. I don’t see anyone else but you attempting that.