Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly.
He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Meh…just another day in the world of an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church. You could probably find a gazillion vile nut cases just like this guy on any given day in one of these churches. They’re pretty much all wackos with a medieval theology.
Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me. – Matthew, 12:30, New Living Translation
To answer your question: to those who believe a certain version of Christianity, probably the vast majority of the world.
Most of us have been exposed primarily to the “nice” Jesus – the beatitudes, a few key biblical stories, and often cast in the theoretical “spirit of Christmas”. But a large number of biblical scholars have come to believe that the quotes attributed to Jesus are actually from two separate, distinct source documents one of which is the “let’s all get along” that we most often hear of but the other which is more of a warrior fighting off an occupying force. And the folks who are genetically bent towards tribal thinking and violence know those second set of quotes very well.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. – Matthew, 10:34
My sense is the bible’s been corrupted over many centuries. Of course the Qu’ran has been carefully preserved and that doesn’t prevent people from turning it on its head.
Well, yes, it did get lots of changes over the centuries – in fact there are more known changes that happened to the bible from the first compilation of Constantine to the Guttenberg printing press than there are words in the bible. A lot was added – some completely made up, others rewritten intentionally to distort the meaning, and other times just mistakes were made that persisted from copy to copy.
However, that doesn’t explain what I’m describing here. The basic structure of the bible remained the same throughout. Scholars have tried to figure out the source of each of the books and also tracked a lot of the books that were intentionally excluded from the Constantine bible.
There is a lot of theory that the later books of the New Testament, such as the letters from Paul, were actually in support of a different religion that later got merged with Christianity. The near total absence of references to Christ’s teachings from the gospels is a pretty large hint.
The gospels themselves have gotten the most study because they are the only books that allege to have the word of Christ himself. Pretty much everyone agrees they were written long after Christ’s contemporaries would have died so aren’t actually the words of the apostles. Furthermore, the order of the 4 gospels is clear as subsequent writers had as reference the earlier gospels.
However what’s missing is the source texts that the gospel writers used. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that source texts did exist – for example, some quotes allegedly from Christ appear in multiple gospels but at different points in the story. This suggests that the authors sourced a set of common sayings or quotes and built a story around them. This actually was a common practice at the time amongst the few educated scholars taught to write/read, and there are other less-repeated ancient documents that match this practice.
Of course, while even the most fundamentalist bible scholars generally concede many of these points, they staunchly resist the theory of a separate source document (“Q”) or documents that the gospel authors used, because conceding that pretty much gives the game away regarding the purity of the “word of God” idea. So instead they rely on the fact that no such “Q” artifacts have been found and desperately come up with rationales to explain the multitudes of errors and contradictions in the 4 gospels.
Probably the source documents did exist – almost certainly in fact, but they were likely lost during any one of many early Common Era events where libraries containing heretical documents were destroyed.
But, given that this is circumstantial and not certain, the next step – that there were two separate documents, with different purposes (“love thy neighbor” versus “I come not for peace but with a sword”) is another level of deduction/speculation. Likely true, but impossible to prove. As with most other fields of thought, when you have one side that holds steadfastly to an extremist position and others who are pushing the bounds of discovery, a lot of scholars find it comfortable to play the role of “centrist” between the two. Thus today most scholars do not buy into the “two Q” theory, but it’s pretty hard to explain the completely different tone of the two sets of Jesus quotes without it.
However, the more you dig into the history, the more you understand the context of the times in terms of common practices around the documents written and preserved, and the more you look at the documents themselves the harder it is to hold on to the theory that the whole story wasn’t a complete invention.
Good point. For a while Mr. “Wide Stance” and all the others were actually causing people to wonder if those who made the most noise might have something to hide.
Good Christ, we see what these terrified and hateful people are expressing with their “cramming it down our throats” nonsense. It is weird: the more homophobic the person, the more likely it is that they will include a throat-cramming statement in their rants. Their fear and anger openly expose them as laughingstocks to anyone outside their rabid flocks and fellow homophobes.
I would like to be the better person and say I feel sorry for this idiot because of what he believes, but actually I’m disgusted. Every time he gets the opportunity, he spews venom about one thing or another and he somehow manages to collect a flock of like-minded idiots to murmur “amen”. Amen, really? Like his hate-filled sermons deserve a mutual agreement and condonement?
The Bible has it’s purposes and it can be a source of guidance and comfort for those who choose to use it. But this guy, you’re doing it wrong.
Well, we must say that his statement does reflect the 1611 worldview quite well.
Note that Psalm 109 is the one that includes the sentence which these KKKristians claim as justification for their prayers that President Obama die NOW:
“Let his dayes be few: and let another take his office. Let his children bee fatherlesse: and his wife a widow. Let his children bee continually vagabonds, & begge: let them seeke their bread also out of their desolate places.”
Now THERE’s “Compassionate Christianity”, eh? Such nice, nice people…
Meh…just another day in the world of an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church. You could probably find a gazillion vile nut cases just like this guy on any given day in one of these churches. They’re pretty much all wackos with a medieval theology.
Who would Jesus hate?
Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me. – Matthew, 12:30, New Living Translation
To answer your question: to those who believe a certain version of Christianity, probably the vast majority of the world.
Most of us have been exposed primarily to the “nice” Jesus – the beatitudes, a few key biblical stories, and often cast in the theoretical “spirit of Christmas”. But a large number of biblical scholars have come to believe that the quotes attributed to Jesus are actually from two separate, distinct source documents one of which is the “let’s all get along” that we most often hear of but the other which is more of a warrior fighting off an occupying force. And the folks who are genetically bent towards tribal thinking and violence know those second set of quotes very well.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. – Matthew, 10:34
My sense is the bible’s been corrupted over many centuries. Of course the Qu’ran has been carefully preserved and that doesn’t prevent people from turning it on its head.
Well, yes, it did get lots of changes over the centuries – in fact there are more known changes that happened to the bible from the first compilation of Constantine to the Guttenberg printing press than there are words in the bible. A lot was added – some completely made up, others rewritten intentionally to distort the meaning, and other times just mistakes were made that persisted from copy to copy.
However, that doesn’t explain what I’m describing here. The basic structure of the bible remained the same throughout. Scholars have tried to figure out the source of each of the books and also tracked a lot of the books that were intentionally excluded from the Constantine bible.
There is a lot of theory that the later books of the New Testament, such as the letters from Paul, were actually in support of a different religion that later got merged with Christianity. The near total absence of references to Christ’s teachings from the gospels is a pretty large hint.
The gospels themselves have gotten the most study because they are the only books that allege to have the word of Christ himself. Pretty much everyone agrees they were written long after Christ’s contemporaries would have died so aren’t actually the words of the apostles. Furthermore, the order of the 4 gospels is clear as subsequent writers had as reference the earlier gospels.
However what’s missing is the source texts that the gospel writers used. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that source texts did exist – for example, some quotes allegedly from Christ appear in multiple gospels but at different points in the story. This suggests that the authors sourced a set of common sayings or quotes and built a story around them. This actually was a common practice at the time amongst the few educated scholars taught to write/read, and there are other less-repeated ancient documents that match this practice.
Of course, while even the most fundamentalist bible scholars generally concede many of these points, they staunchly resist the theory of a separate source document (“Q”) or documents that the gospel authors used, because conceding that pretty much gives the game away regarding the purity of the “word of God” idea. So instead they rely on the fact that no such “Q” artifacts have been found and desperately come up with rationales to explain the multitudes of errors and contradictions in the 4 gospels.
Probably the source documents did exist – almost certainly in fact, but they were likely lost during any one of many early Common Era events where libraries containing heretical documents were destroyed.
But, given that this is circumstantial and not certain, the next step – that there were two separate documents, with different purposes (“love thy neighbor” versus “I come not for peace but with a sword”) is another level of deduction/speculation. Likely true, but impossible to prove. As with most other fields of thought, when you have one side that holds steadfastly to an extremist position and others who are pushing the bounds of discovery, a lot of scholars find it comfortable to play the role of “centrist” between the two. Thus today most scholars do not buy into the “two Q” theory, but it’s pretty hard to explain the completely different tone of the two sets of Jesus quotes without it.
However, the more you dig into the history, the more you understand the context of the times in terms of common practices around the documents written and preserved, and the more you look at the documents themselves the harder it is to hold on to the theory that the whole story wasn’t a complete invention.
Yep. Hatred in the name of Jesus. Some folks have no sense of irony.
Methinks he doth protest too much…
Good point. For a while Mr. “Wide Stance” and all the others were actually causing people to wonder if those who made the most noise might have something to hide.
I wonder if Dubya would say that he has a “purty mouth”, ifyouknowwhatImean.
Good Christ, we see what these terrified and hateful people are expressing with their “cramming it down our throats” nonsense. It is weird: the more homophobic the person, the more likely it is that they will include a throat-cramming statement in their rants. Their fear and anger openly expose them as laughingstocks to anyone outside their rabid flocks and fellow homophobes.
Paging Dr. Freud…
That guy needs Valium BADLY! In fact, he sounds like a violence time bomb. The police should watch him instead of political protesters.
I would like to be the better person and say I feel sorry for this idiot because of what he believes, but actually I’m disgusted. Every time he gets the opportunity, he spews venom about one thing or another and he somehow manages to collect a flock of like-minded idiots to murmur “amen”. Amen, really? Like his hate-filled sermons deserve a mutual agreement and condonement?
The Bible has it’s purposes and it can be a source of guidance and comfort for those who choose to use it. But this guy, you’re doing it wrong.
And I’m sure he was one of the first to criticize Obama’s Rev Wright in the day.
Well, we must say that his statement does reflect the 1611 worldview quite well.
Note that Psalm 109 is the one that includes the sentence which these KKKristians claim as justification for their prayers that President Obama die NOW:
“Let his dayes be few: and let another take his office. Let his children bee fatherlesse: and his wife a widow. Let his children bee continually vagabonds, & begge: let them seeke their bread also out of their desolate places.”
Now THERE’s “Compassionate Christianity”, eh? Such nice, nice people…
Good job on this article! I really like how you presented your facts and how you made it interesting and easy to understand. Thank you.
Eastern Mediterranean Cruises