If Jesus Christ had lived today...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jesus would have been a little footnote in our news casts when he would be alive.

Remember, Jesus wasn't a huge figure to everyone outside of Israel when he was alive.

that's because, as he stated, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Mat 15:24)  The plan from the beginning was to preach the gospel to the Jews, have the majority of Jews reject it, thus opening up the Gentiles for salvation.

Likewise, Joseph wasn't a huge figure to the Gentiles until he was rejected by his brothers, after which he saved the Gentiles and then the Jews.  If Joseph's brothers had never rejected Joseph, then both the Gentiles and the Israelites would both have died.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

This seems to be the most accurate post on the thread.

Right, because they are always crucifying people claiming to be Jesus.  I dislike the Fundie right as much as anybody, but this kind of thing just makes you guys look like fools.

No, not at all.  They "crucify" people on a regular basis for preaching love, mercy, peace, compassion and inclusion. 

Think about this.

Jesus was all about reconciliation.  He brought a small businessman and a tax collector into his inner circle.  Now, the small businessman was Peter -- a fiery fisherman with a blazing temper.  Matthew was a tax collector.  And unlike today's tax collector, who is collecting filthy lucre for OUR government...Matthew was collecting taxes for Rome.  He was a Quisling.  He was kissing the ass of the occupying power, collecting taxes from his own people (almost certainly cheating them in the process) and then handing the cash over to the Romans (but likely taking a healthy cut for himself).

Jesus goes to Matthew's house for dinner.  In addition to the whores and outcasts in attendance, there are Matthew and his traitor-to-Israel buddies.  Sitting and dining with Jesus.  In Zeffirelli's wonderful Jesus of Nazareth, the scene is imagined this way:  Peter sulks outside Matthew's door.  Peter likes this Jesus.  He wants to follow him.  But Jesus has gone too far.  Now, he's sitting with the kind of Jew who would collect taxes for the Nazis.  He won't come in.  He begged Jesus not to go.  He warned him that he was taking things too far.

But sitting in Matthew's luxurious parlor, Jesus says, "I want to tell you a story..."  And he speaks of the prodigal son.  I don't know if it unfolded exactly as Zeffirelli imagined, but it hardly matters.

People who forgive the sins of collaborators (to say nothing of embracing those who sin differently than the majority) usually end up on a cross.  Either literally or figuratively.

and that was supposed to be a critique of the religious right?!

1) the tax collectors had to repent of their sins like everyone else, but they were NOT violating scripture by being tax-collectors, which is why Jesus never required them to repent of their occupation. 

Luke 3:12-13  Even tax collectors came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?" 13 "Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them.

2) to the "whores", as you put it, they were obviously taught to repent of their prostitution, which is why they received forgiveness.

3) the story of the prodigal son is a story of repentance followed by forgiveness.

You can't remove repentance from forgiveness.  You may think you can, but you can't.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

This seems to be the most accurate post on the thread.

Right, because they are always crucifying people claiming to be Jesus.  I dislike the Fundie right as much as anybody, but this kind of thing just makes you guys look like fools.

No, not at all.  They "crucify" people on a regular basis for preaching love, mercy, peace, compassion and inclusion. 

Think about this.

Jesus was all about reconciliation.  He brought a small businessman and a tax collector into his inner circle.  Now, the small businessman was Peter -- a fiery fisherman with a blazing temper.  Matthew was a tax collector.  And unlike today's tax collector, who is collecting filthy lucre for OUR government...Matthew was collecting taxes for Rome.  He was a Quisling.  He was kissing the ass of the occupying power, collecting taxes from his own people (almost certainly cheating them in the process) and then handing the cash over to the Romans (but likely taking a healthy cut for himself).

Jesus goes to Matthew's house for dinner.  In addition to the whores and outcasts in attendance, there are Matthew and his traitor-to-Israel buddies.  Sitting and dining with Jesus.  In Zeffirelli's wonderful Jesus of Nazareth, the scene is imagined this way:  Peter sulks outside Matthew's door.  Peter likes this Jesus.  He wants to follow him.  But Jesus has gone too far.  Now, he's sitting with the kind of Jew who would collect taxes for the Nazis.  He won't come in.  He begged Jesus not to go.  He warned him that he was taking things too far.

But sitting in Matthew's luxurious parlor, Jesus says, "I want to tell you a story..."  And he speaks of the prodigal son.  I don't know if it unfolded exactly as Zeffirelli imagined, but it hardly matters.

People who forgive the sins of collaborators (to say nothing of embracing those who sin differently than the majority) usually end up on a cross.  Either literally or figuratively.

and that was supposed to be a critique of the religious right?!

1) the tax collectors had to repent of their sins like everyone else, but they were NOT violating scripture by being tax-collectors, which is why Jesus never required them to repent of their occupation. 

Luke 3:12-13  Even tax collectors came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?" 13 "Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told them.

2) to the "whores", as you put it, they were obviously taught to repent of their prostitution, which is why they received forgiveness.

3) the story of the prodigal son is a story of repentance followed by forgiveness.

You can't remove repentance from forgiveness.  You may think you can, but you can't.

Once again, you've made another ludicrous leap.  Do you get so angry when you read my posts that you just respond without thinking?  I never said repentance wasn't part of the equation. I never said tax collectors were condemned by Scripture for anything (aside from those who cheated).

I was attempting to make the point that Jesus was an agent of reconciliation between extreme opposites whose interests were diametrically opposed.  Peter, essentially a small businessman...and Matthew, a collaborator with Rome.  Jesus never said it was a sin to collaborate with Roman oppression.  I get that.  He was more interested in the chasm of separation between Matthew's soul and the Father who tenderly loved that soul and was "not willing that any should perish". 

Peter almost certainly hated Matthew.  You do realize that people who are occupied by a foreign power, especially an oppressive one like Rome, are pretty likely to hate their fellow countrymen when such people help the occupiers.  You know what a Quisling is?  Matthew was one.  Any Israeli who collected taxes for Rome was a collaborator.  Was it a sin?  Jesus never said so.  Peter almost surely thought so.  And yet the Savior brought these two men together in forgiveness, reconciliation and brotherhood.

I am not sure how or where you convoluted my post in such a manner as to accuse me of taking repentance out of the equation, but I guess I am not surprised given the dislike you seem to have for me or anyone else here who might disagree with you on various issues.

hey, don't blame me bro, I was simply trying to find a connection between the examples you gave and your out-of-the-blue accusations against the religious right.

maybe you should explain your accusation with examples of the actions of the religious right.  Or at least explain how the actions of the religious right run contrary to the example Jesus set.  otherwise, you're simply throwing labels around, which is exactly what the Pharisees did.

Likewise, I have no idea where you get off accusing Peter of hating Matthew, for the scripture never even hints of Peter hating him.  In fact, the only time Matthew and Peter are mentioned in the same sentence is when scripture is listing the names of the Twelve.

Why do you constantly paint images in your mind of people hating other people?  Do you not know, that in doing so, you are smearing them?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Again, I didn't said Peter hated Matthew.  I extrapolated.  Matthew was a tax collector for Rome, but an Israeli.  Rome had occupied Israel.  Israelis hated Rome and Romans.  But they particularly hated Jews who collaborated with Rome.  Jewish opinions of Herod, for example, are well-documented historically. 

Can we be 100 percent sure fisherman Peter hated Matthew?  No.  But I never called it a certainty.  I said it was easily imagined that way.  As a small businessman who paid taxes, I suppose it's possible that Peter loved tax collectors like Matthew.  Is that easily imagined?  Is it logical?  Not at all. It's more plausable  that he simply tolerated Matthew and his ilk, but bore them no malice.  I am sure a handful of Poles liked the occupying Nazis and a few more tolerated them and had no feeling one way or the other.

But isn't it more logical to infer that a Jewish fisherman with a fiery temper (if both Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts are to be believed) resented paying taxes and resented, even more, the thought of paying taxes to Matthew (or Levi, if you prefer), a collaborator?

Which is more likely?

I do realize many scholars, more theologically liberal than me, don't believe anyone named Matthew or Levi ever wrote the Gospel.  Some of them attribute it to St. Mark. But it's my conviction the Gospel of Matthew was written by Levi the tax collector, whose life was changed forever when a raggedy carpenter named Jesus bar Joseph invited himself over for dinner.

"Now, eventually you do plan to have Religious Righties on your Religious Right Tour, right?"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"Now, eventually you do plan to have Religious Righties on your Religious Right Tour, right?"

And this means.... 

it's an alteration of my favorite line from the movie Jurassic Park when Jeff Goldblum was supposed to be on a dinosaur tour but he saw everything but dinosaurs.

and in the context of this thread it means...after making the initial comment of:

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

…you've spent a lot of time either 1) spewing things that are obvious (e.g. Jesus is in the business of reconciliation) or 2) creating biblical fiction (e.g. Peter hated Matthew)...

...but you've never backed up your original comment about the religious right and you’ve failed to bring your disjointed argument full circle, and I getting a little tired of waiting for you to make a point.

You’re like one of those girls who have been dumped on by some guy in her past, and now she is forever emotionally damaged.  You need to place a period at the end of the sentence and get on with your life.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

First, you say I spew things that are obvious.  That Jesus was in the business of reconciliation is the most recent example.  I'm delighted you consider this true.  I freely admit to doing a lot of this.

My point was that you never tied “reconciliation” back to your point about the Religious Right.  And since you never tied it back, you might as well have stated that the sky is blue.

---

Second, you say I create Biblical fiction and your example is that I said Peter hated Matthew.  You either don't read what I write or you simply wanted to insult me, rather than offer anything constructive.  Because I did not say Peter hated Matthew.  Anywhere.  I said that conclusion was a logical one, not a certain one.  You have yet to respond to my question to you.  What is more likely?  That Peter loved Matthew? 

Your whole Peter/Matthew theory is pure conjecture and is therefore irrelevant to me.  If you’re looking for a person to debate with you whether or not Adam had a bellybutton, I’m not that person.

Worse still is the fact you never tied it back to the Religious Right, which leaves the reader (me) wondering if you’re attempting to give a simple example of Jesus’ skills of  reconciliation (which you also didn’t tie back) or if you’re attempting to claim that the Religious Right hates all those who work for the IRS.

---

Third -- my original comment about the religious right stands.  The religious right is mostly an agent of hate and intolerance…[because they refuse to stop preaching that homosexuality is sinful]

Next time, form your argument this way:

“If Jesus Christ had lived today, he would be crucified again by today’s Religious Right because they continue to preach against homosexuality and their so-called “leaders” are notorious for making ignorant comments on TV.”

It would save us all several headaches and make your argument more concise.  Also, please don’t attempt to enter law school; you’d make a lousy attorney. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

please don’t attempt to enter law school; you’d make a lousy attorney. 

That may be the highest compliment anyone here has paid me and I thank you.  I would make a horrible lawyer.

As if all lawyers were dirty, right?  Believe it or not, there are some lawyers who are both competent and judicial, neither of which describe your argument. 

As to the quality, content and depth of my argument here -- or in my other posts -- I'll let the rest of the people in the forum decide if they think I don't know what I'm talking about.  Or if you are someone who refuses to face facts.

You speak of “quality, content and depth” and “facts” of your argument?  Well, what about “corruption”?

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to discredit a group of people, having placed on public display many of their flaws from information you have obtained through your unhealthy obsession of them.  And you have painted a picture for this whole forum to gaze upon, depicting Christ Jesus being crucified by the Religious Right. 

But in the closing argument of your prosecution of the Religious Right before the jury, if you had taken a closer look at the painting you have presented to them, you would have found yourself in it nailing Christ to the cross. Because, as a Christian, you yourself should understand that you had an equal role in crucifying Jesus.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You have gone to great lengths in this thread to discredit a group of people, having placed on public display many of their flaws from information you have obtained through your unhealthy obsession of them.  And you have painted a picture for this whole forum to gaze upon, depicting Christ Jesus being crucified by the Religious Right. 

He hasn't actually.

oh, then I guess you didn't read the beginning of this thread:

He would be crucified again.  By today's "religious right".

---

He simply laid out examples, none of which you can really dispute as being factually incorrect though you can debate the cause and effect of them and indeed whether or not they are relevant. He has not made these people up, nor has he made up these situations. You asked him to name them and he did.

Comment on them.

You want me to comment on them?  How would I know enough about them to comment on them?  I'm not the one obsessed with them; that would be JSojourner.

What does it matter if all the charges JSojourner makes are true?  Does the truthfulness of the charge change the hypocrisy of JSojourner’s charge?

Heck, if I spent as much time as JSojourner studying people I don’t like, I too would forgot that we are ALL accomplices to Jesus' crucifixion.