Martial Arts & Religion

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yeah. But this is forever strangely out of sync with the Sermon of the Mount.

What part?

[Cataphract]

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

and probably some more. But this is a good example, I think.

[David Jamieson]

That quote may not mean what you think it means.
It is not an advocation or call to arms.
That said, as I stated above, pacifism is not something that any religion that is guided by a moral code can subscribe to.

It is what it is.

People can interpret the crap out of what someone else is supposed to have said in order to fit their own ideology or understanding.
You say it's not, but there it is, written.

[David Jamieson]

and probably some more. But this is a good example, I think.

Believe it or not, colloquialisms get lost on future generations as well.

"Turning the other cheek" is akin to giving the finger. It's an act of defiance, not bending the will.
That was the usage of the term in the Messianic period in Judea under the Romans.
Jesus, being of the lineage of David, in the right order was in fact the King of the Jews.
he disliked Roman occupation and he disliked the client king Herod, a Persian who the Romans installed in order to maintain control and drain wealth from the region.

Mind you, it's easy to think of it in mystical terms when it is so far in the past that it is impossible to get the facts straight.

[Cataphract]

"Turning the other cheek" is akin to giving the finger. It's an act of defiance, not bending the will.

Understood, but nonviolence is often the direct opposite of cowardice and weakness. Think of Gandhi's campaign based on ahimsa.

he disliked Roman occupation and he disliked the client king Herod

That doesn't make him a proponent of violence.

Mind you, it's easy to think of it in mystical terms when it is so far in the past that it is impossible to get the facts straight.

I don't think about Jesus of Nazareth in mystical terms at all. I just read and interpret what he said according to the evangelists.
Either he used irony bordering on double speak, or "turn the other cheek" is one of his parables that contrasts directly with "an eye for an eye".

Consider also: "Return your sword to its place, for all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword." and "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."
If he endorsed acts of violence, this is a strange way to get that point across.

[David Jamieson]

Understood, but nonviolence is often the direct opposite of cowardice and weakness. Think of Gandhi's campaign based on ahimsa.


That doesn't make him a proponent of violence.


I don't think about Jesus of Nazareth in mystical terms at all. I just read and interpret what he said according to the evangelists.
Either he used irony bordering on double speak, or "turn the other cheek" is one of his parables that contrasts directly with "an eye for an eye".

Consider also: "Return your sword to its place, for all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword." and "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."
If he endorsed acts of violence, this is a strange way to get that point across.

yeah, it's an interesting story to say the least and it is rife with many contradictions.
The principle message is the same as all religions IE: Be good to each other and avoid being a jerk.

But still, he wrecked the place when he got mad at the money changers on the temple grounds. I mean geez, they weren't in the sanctum sanctorum or anything and it's commonplace for churches and what not to collect as much money as they can these days. the new evangelicals of course with their mega churches being huge collectors of silver and gold...

Anyway.

[Cataphract]

We don't even have a single piece of historical evidence for his very existence. It's hard to tell what exactly happened and what he really thought. But you're right. The general message is: Be good to each other and avoid being a jerk.

PS. The Messiah was originally supposed to kick the Roman occupants out of Palestine. Jesus loosing it and flipping some tables in the temple is still quite civil by comparison.

[David Jamieson]

We don't even have a single piece of historical evidence for his very existence. It's hard to tell what exactly happened and what he really thought.

It is pretty much universally accepted by scholars that Jesus has true historicity.
Granted there are some scholars in Europe who feel it is still open for debate, but Islam recognizes his existence and even Judaism does.
If they ever come up with Pilates orders in some roman judicial records treasure trove one day, I imagine that will seal the deal.

there are 4 texts outside of scripture that make mention of him as well. Not the least of which being Tacitus and Josephus. Josephus was a Jewish rendering and they don't use Roman history as part of their writings and so, it really becomes apparent.

Anyway, the same can be said of Socrates. He is only know to us through Plato and Aristotle and others who came after. But Socrates never wrote anything himself like his protege Plato did or Plato's protege Aristotle.

there are ideas that do align with the physical existence of Jesus. The question is, was he the one and only son of god? Because I remember quite clearly that Jesus himself stated outright that we were all Children of God, including himself. This is a very similar idea to what the Buddha had posited 500 years before Jesus. That we all possessed the divine within us, which was drawn from Hinduism, which of course was far more ancient than the Buddha as well.

Anyway, this is why I believe the divine is universal. There is no one way. We all have purpose, even the evil ones and that even the evil ones are children of god and have purpose, if nothing more than to give meaning to goodness because without evil, we would not know or understand what goodness is.

The lessons is that we are binary creatures in a 3d understanding of the universe and we do not transcend that fact until we are no longer part of it.

But I digress...

[Cataphract]

It is pretty much universally accepted by scholars that Jesus has true historicity.

Do you seriously expect theologians to say: "Hey, there possibly never was a Jesus and we just hogged faculty rooms for two millenia. Sorry."

Granted there are some scholars in Europe who feel it is still open for debate, but Islam recognizes his existence and even Judaism does.

Islam and Judaism clearly trump Europeans.

If they ever come up with Pilates orders in some roman judicial records treasure trove one day, I imagine that will seal the deal.

Yes. But until that the historical existence of Jesus is - an opinion. Or subject to spiritual insight or something. The the historical references on him are scant and have probably been edited and reedited by Christian scribes.

Don't get me wrong. I think it rather probable that a former follower of John the Baptist by the name of Jesus preached, healed and traveled the Levant. And don't get me started on Socrates.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It is what it is.

People can interpret the crap out of what someone else is supposed to have said in order to fit their own ideology or understanding.
You say it's not, but there it is, written.

Ah dude, if it was ever so simple...
Note how Jesus is recorded saying "That's enough..."

Just saying that His disciples were notorious for hearing one message and understanding another, how many times did He get frustrated with them?
Jesus was most certainly not a pacifist as we know the term, BUT He did warn that violence begets violence.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The principle message of Jesus was the one He said over and over, " The Kingdom of God is Here..."

The historicity of Jesus the person is beyond doubt.
He is attested by more documents than any other historical figure of that time.
Here is Bart Ehrman responding to those that believe Jesus never existed ( most people will know who Bart Ehrman is):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html


One thing I learned very quickly when I was studying for my degree in Theological studies is that the lay person ( which I was, even though I already knew far more than the average lay person) has very little idea about Christianity, the bible and Jesus.
Most of it is based on what they are told, movies and Milton, LOL !

[Cataphract]

The historicity of Jesus the person is beyond doubt.

How can anything be beyond doubt, when there is no proof?

He is attested by more documents than any other historical figure of that time.

He isn't attested. That's the point. Augustus is attested. The sheer number of documents written about something is no proof for or against its existence.

Here is Bart Ehrman responding to those that believe Jesus never existed ( most people will know who Bart Ehrman is):

He resorts to ad hominem attacks and a number of other logical fallacies. Jesus existed because he (Ehrman) wrote a book about it. Everything else is smoke screen.

[sanjuro_ronin]

How can anything be beyond doubt, when there is no proof?


He isn't attested. That's the point. Augustus is attested. The sheer number of documents written about something is no proof for or against its existence.


He resorts to ad hominem attacks and a number of other logical fallacies. Jesus existed because he (Ehrman) wrote a book about it. Everything else is smoke screen.

You need to be better research.
You can START here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
In the cited sources.
That is, IF you really want to know.

[Cataphract]

You need to be better research.
You can START here:

I knew the article, but thanks.
Why do I need to do research? That's what we have theologians and historians for, after all. If there was some conclusive evidence, I'm certain somebody would be more than happy to put it in that article you linked to. As I see it, there are mainly three independent sources - Tacitus, Josephus and the Talmud. All three are murky at best.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I knew the article, but thanks.
Why do I need to do research? That's what we have theologians and historians for, after all. If there was some conclusive evidence, I'm certain somebody would be more than happy to put it in that article you linked to. As I see it, there are mainly three independent sources - Tacitus, Josephus and the Talmud. All three are murky at best.

Considering we are talking about a 1st century Jewish peasant that was executed like so many others, it is remarkable that we have what we do have.
If you don't care enough to do the research, which is fine, at least give the benefit of the doubt to those that have.
I have yet to meet anyone, skeptics included that have done the research and believe that Jesus never existed.
Taken into the context of the times and who Jesus was, it is remarkable that we have as much info as we do.