Jesus Videos

October 12, 2004 11:19 AM

Jesus Videos(Scroll All the way down). Vintage 21, a "community of God seekers, God followers, and God doubters" has made a series of excellent videos which take a satirical look of what Jesus is NOT like.
posted by superbird (12 comments total)

what Jesus is NOT like.

it's very likely that he is not like you have been taught.

(John Dominic) Crossan dismisses most of the Gospel narrative of the Crucifixion and the events leading up to it as a dramatic fiction. In fact, he suggests, Jesus's first followers knew almost nothing about the details of what happened, and the description was written in order to make the story correspond to prophetic texts in the Hebrew Scriptures. There was no Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus's body was not buried in a tomb; crucified individuals almost never were. Instead, their bodies would be left on the cross or buried in a shallow grave where they would soon be dug up by waiting dogs. This is what would have happened in Jesus's case but "the horror of that brutal truth [was] sublimated by hope and imagination into its opposite."
posted by matteo at 11:50 AM on October 12, 2004

Jesus is not like a fish, although a lot of people draw him that way for some reason.
posted by tiamat at 11:53 AM on October 12, 2004

where's the funny?
posted by gwint at 12:01 PM on October 12, 2004

NT Wright would say that Crossan is wrong.

Guess historians can disagree.
Bonus points to the first person to say that a particular historian is correct and the rest are wrong.

Now, enough with the history. Let the Christian bashing begin!
posted by Seth at 12:02 PM on October 12, 2004

"A particular historian is correct and the rest are wrong."

What do I win?
posted by papercake at 12:15 PM on October 12, 2004

that's probably why Reverend Wright, unlike Crossan, is still in the clergy, Seth

not to mention, in the case of people walking on water and coming back from the dead and flying -- like Superman -- to heaven up above with their physical body, well, historians are not on a level playing field. there are those who have an easier time: they say it's impossible to walk on water, to come back from the dead, fly, etc and hence the historical Jesus couldn't do that as well. those who say Jesus did it, well, they should demonstrate how that is possible. they have to show us how you can physically walk on water if the body of Jesus did that. historically.

they can't. they have to rely on faith. which is perfectly OK. it's just not good history.

Crossan is on scientifically more stable ground. Wright's is shakier.
what about Hanina ben Dosa's miracles? did they actually happened as well? if not, why they didn't and Jesus' would have?
what about Buddha's miracles?


When I look a Buddhist friend in the face, I cannot say with integrity, “Our story about Jesus’ virginal birth is true and factual. Your story that when the Buddha came out of his mother’s womb, he was walking, talking, teaching and preaching (which I must admit is even better than our story)---that’s a myth. We have the truth; you have a lie.” I don’t think that can be said any longer, for our insistence that our faith is a fact and that others’ faith is a lie is, I think, a cancer that eats at the heart of Christianity


;)

posted by matteo at 12:44 PM on October 12, 2004

Jesus is a Rorschach Blot.

What Would Jesus Do? is a big thing here in the South. Last Sunday the Raleigh paper, The News and Observer, had letters to the editor in response to an Op-Ed on the Christian stance on the Iraqui war. Half the letters to the paper said Jesus would never condone war, half the letters said Jesus would want the U.S. to go to war.

That Jesus! He's a very bendable, twisty guy!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:23 PM on October 12, 2004

Jesus is a flip-flopper.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:00 PM on October 12, 2004

The video are very Monthy Python to me. I like that.
posted by elpapacito at 3:34 PM on October 12, 2004

Wow. Thanks to elpapacito for actually commenting on the comedic value of the videos for a change. ;-)
posted by superbird at 3:59 PM on October 12, 2004

matteo, I apologize if this sounds harsh, but you need to read some more books about the philosophy of science. Your comments here are extraordinarily misleading. I would suggest starting with Hume, since his argument regarding causality will be relevant but you will doubtless like his conclusions regarding natural religion.

Especially since you present the work of Crossan (a professor emeritus at DePaul University who I respect but is, or at least should be, tainted by his association with the thoroughly undisciplined Jesus Seminar) as superior to Wright (one of the top historians and New Testament scholars in the world, and a former professor at Oxford and Harvard).
posted by gd779 at 1:54 PM on October 13, 2004

well, I'd gladly re-read Hume, it's been quite a long time after all since my Liceo Classico and Università years, but I confess that probably wouldn't help me figure out the point of your comment. and of course I don't mean to sound harsh.
Hume argues, if I remember correctly, that it's unreasonable to believe in miracles because miracles go against the laws of nature. and that is exactly my point: prove me that a man can walk on water / come back from the dead after 3 days / fly to outer space, and then we can talk about the historical Jesus doing exactly that.
otherwise, reasonable people will have to consider the Canonical-Gospel-Jesus' miracles to be, well, a legend. a parable.
to "taint by association" a scholar like Crossan really tells me more than I need about your position. the Jesus Seminar "undisciplined"? Well, put any 100 historians in a room and then look at the "discipline". but I concede that the JS scholars are not as disciplined as, say, Vatican scholars.
I won't even comment on the Harvard's-dick-is-longer-than-DePaul's part of your comment. good history is not a function of how expensive tuition.
also, I never said Crossan is "superior" to Wright. what I said is Crossan's (or, say, Bart Ehrman's) work doesn't require me to believe in flying men who walk on water and come back from the dead. Wright's, on the other hand, does.
I don't have a problem with priests writing about the historical Jesus: I am a huge Raymond Brown fan. even a fundy scholar like Witherington can be interesting (even if in person he comes across as terribly arrogant & unpleasant).

the study of the historical Jesus is a hell of a difficult matter. if you add apologetics to the mix, it becomes even more chaotic. and less, ahem, scientific.
posted by matteo at 7:52 AM on October 14, 2004