Jesus and the Witch Hunters

[Unknown Soldier]

It's common for Christian apologists to deny any responsibility on the part of Jesus for the horrific acts on the part of his followers. Common defenses of the goodness of Jesus in the face of these crimes include denying that those who acted cruelly in his name were "true Christians" or insisting that such persons were acting against what Jesus taught rather than in accord with what he taught. After all, Jesus taught people to love each other and do good for each other, didn't he?

Yes, according to what we read, Jesus told people to love others including their enemies. But of course, that's not all Jesus said. In the Gospels we read in Matthew 5:17 that Jesus did not mean to abolish the law of Moses but to "fulfill it."

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

I think it's safe to say that Jesus knew that the law included this injunction from Exodus 22:18:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Obviously, if the witch hunters were acting against what Jesus said, then Jesus told his followers to disobey this law and do no harm to witches. Of course, Jesus never said any such thing as far as we know. By his saying he came to fulfill the law, Jesus was condoning the murder of alleged witches. So contrary to what apologists say, at least some of Jesus' followers did horrific crimes not against what he said but as a result of what he said.

 

[Keith&Co.]

.
I think it's safe to say that Jesus knew that the law included this injunction from Exodus 22:18:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Maybe not. I have read a few different takes on that verse's translation. It's not actually against witches.
But King James had a few difficulties with witches. Then when he sponsored a translation, it turned out to have clear support forhis side, against witches.
Jesus might be in Salem right now, trying to convince some poor tour guide that it said 'poisoner' before men twisted it around to their political agenda.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But King James had a few difficulties with witches. Then when he sponsored a translation, it turned out to have clear support forhis side, against witches.
Jesus might be in Salem right now, trying to convince some poor tour guide that it said 'poisoner' before men twisted it around to their political agenda.

I just checked the NRSV. It says "female sorcerer." That sounds like a witch to me. Jesus preached a wrathful God who created hell, Satan, and demons. Witches are just one step away from that as the Inquisition well knew. Yes, men twist information to their agendas. That includes the men who wrote the Bible and the men who try to defend it no matter what it says or what it does to people.

 

[Politesse]

When Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, that's not the same thing as saying he came to follow the Law as written. Or why did he harvest on the Sabbath, do labor on the Sabbath, touch the unclean, touch the dead, pronounce the repentant sinful to be clean without having made the appropriate sacrifices, rescue people condemned to be stoned for adultery, and so forth? Jesus was himself a magic-worker by any reasonable definition of that term, and encouraged his followers both male and female to likewise do miraculous works and all the other things he did, so I don't think it is plausible that he had it out for all witches regardless of their purposes and intentions.

I don't doubt that people do terrible things in the full belief that Jesus would want them to, but that doesn't mean we must agree that theirs is the best or only read of Scripture. I feel like you have a tendency in a lot of these threads to project a lot of your feelings about Christianity onto Jesus, a man about whom at the end of the day very little is truly known, described only in very scant detail by a handful of secondary sources.

 

[lostone]

Perhaps we should acknowledge a difference between what the NT alleges Jesus said and what little we know of from other sources as to what Jesus might have actually said. The NT was written long after he was claimed to have died, and the OT several centuries before then.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't doubt that people do terrible things in the full belief that Jesus would want them to, but that doesn't mean we must agree that theirs is the best or only read of Scripture. I feel like you have a tendency in a lot of these threads to project a lot of your feelings about Christianity onto Jesus, a man about whom at the end of the day very little is truly known, described only in very scant detail by a handful of secondary sources.

Everyone does that. All translation is a lie in the end, a fact we should all keep in mind. It doesn't mean we cannot discuss our different perceptions of a person or an event but we should do so realizing that we all project ourselves into these discussions. I suppose that happens because we wish to preserve our individual and group identities when they are threatened.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

When Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, that's not the same thing as saying he came to follow the Law as written. Or why did he harvest on the Sabbath, do labor on the Sabbath, touch the unclean, touch the dead, pronounce the repentant sinful to be clean without having made the appropriate sacrifices, rescue people condemned to be stoned for adultery, and so forth? Jesus was himself a magic-worker by any reasonable definition of that term, and encouraged his followers both male and female to likewise do miraculous works and all the other things he did, so I don't think it is plausible that he had it out for all witches regardless of their purposes and intentions.

One problem with what you're saying here is that Jesus never said to disobey the law that witches should be killed. He easily could have said so but didn't. That fact I see as very significant because he did have a lot to say about the law. He hated anybody he thought was in league with Satan including his fellow Jews, so it's a no brainer that he would hate witches.

I don't doubt that people do terrible things in the full belief that Jesus would want them to, but that doesn't mean we must agree that theirs is the best or only read of Scripture.

It's very easy to claim that acts of evil result from some supposed misinterpretation of a person's words. The problem with that excuse is that it can be used as an excuse for anybody's words including Stalin and many of the popes. As I see it, we all should speak responsibly taking care to choose our words wisely. If I knew that something I said led to some atrocity, then I would do everything I could to investigate the matter to see what went wrong and avoid making the same mistake ever again. I think that Jesus should be judged the same way. Even if he didn't intend to harm people with his words, he spoke recklessly and irresponsibly.

I feel like you have a tendency in a lot of these threads to project a lot of your feelings about Christianity onto Jesus, a man about whom at the end of the day very little is truly known, described only in very scant detail by a handful of secondary sources.

We do know that the Gospel has been very bad news for many people including myself. Whatever Jesus may have actually said, the fact remains that the words attributed to him have led to untold misery. I for one won't turn a blind eye to it.

 

[Politesse]

As I see it, we all should speak responsibly taking care to choose our words wisely

And yet, you rather recklessly and without much textual support push a very violent and socially maladaptive read of the gospels. Take out a few sentences here and there about atheism, and your postings could easily pass for a Southern Baptist minister's hate blog. Has it occurred to you that if people don't abandon their religion in response to your clever arguments, all you're really doing is endorsing the nasty interpretations favored by very worst factions within the faith? If you fear the harm the gospels might do you, telling Christians that violent fascism is the only faithful way to read the Scriptures is a strategy that could easily backfire.

 

[Politesse]

One problem with what you're saying here is that Jesus never said to disobey the law that witches should be killed

How you could do that while loving your neighbor as you do yourself is a mystery to me. Yes, I know that Very Bad People think that murdering people counts as "tough love", but I think that such people are lying hypocrites, and so should you. Abuse and violence are not "love". And loving God and your neighbor is, according to Jesus, "the whole of the Law", that same Law you are so blindly wielding as a cudgel.

 

[steve_bank]

The gospel Jesus never renounced Judaism, in fact he said people had grown lax about the law and divorce. He lumped fornication with murder..

He quoted the prophets and was said to lecture in temple.

He was a conservative rabbi, he was not founding a new church.

If you are Christian and you are fornicating or divorced you are headed for eternal damnation. So sayeth the Lord Jesus.

As I understand it post fall of Israel diaspora Jews convened to develop a biblical Jewish cannon and weed out harsh aspects like stoning.

Christians discriminate between witchcraft done by Christians like laying hands and casting out demons, and non Christian witchcraft.

Catholic priests are witches. Granted supernatural powers by a god, casting spells.

 

[Elixir]

He lumped fornication with murder..

Wasn't he s'posedly celibate?
What does a celibate know about fornication?

 

[Politesse]

Christians discriminate between witchcraft done by Christians like laying hands and casting out demons, and non Christian witchcraft.

Jesus wasn't a Christian.

 

[steve_bank]

If you are unmarried and not fornicating then you are celibate. Jesus equated divorce and remarriage to fornication.

The image I am getting is that of modern Christian zealots ranting about sex and homosexuality.

 

[Politesse]

If you are unmarried and not fornicating then you are celibate. Jesus equated divorce and remarriage to fornication.

The image I am getting is that of modern Christian zealots ranting about sex and homosexuality.

The text in question:

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

 

[Unknown Soldier]

As I see it, we all should speak responsibly taking care to choose our words wisely

And yet, you rather recklessly and without much textual support push a very violent and socially maladaptive read of the gospels.

The Gospels push a very violent and socially maladaptive morality. I'm merely citing what they say.

In any event, you are demonstrating your claim that people do indeed grossly misinterpret what they read. You are correct there and practice what you preach. Now, allow me to practice what I preach and point out to all my readers that I in no way have a violent or deliberate socially maladaptive agenda. I oppose violence and social disruption. My agenda is to expose the Bible as a basis for antisocial tendencies among the people who believe what it says, and I do not endorse the Bible in any way.

See that? Unlike Jesus or his followers, I acted on a misinterpretation of my words to clarify the meaning of what I'm saying to help ensure that no harm results. It can be done.

Take out a few sentences here and there about atheism, and your postings could easily pass for a Southern Baptist minister's hate blog.

I do hate. I hate ignorance, superstition, cruelty, and injustice. Do you want me to love ignorance, superstition, cruelty, and injustice? Do you love ignorance, superstition, cruelty, and injustice?

Has it occurred to you that if people don't abandon their religion in response to your clever arguments, all you're really doing is endorsing the nasty interpretations favored by very worst factions within the faith?

No. I never thought I was doing that unless by "endorsing" you mean exposing. Exposing the sanctification of cruelty is very obviously not the same as endorsing it.

If you fear the harm the gospels might do you, telling Christians that violent fascism is the only faithful way to read the Scriptures is a strategy that could easily backfire.

I don't think my exposing the Bible's advancement of barbarism will backfire if people don't wish to advance barbarism. However, I haven't failed to think that yes, if people don't hate cruelty and barbarism and in fact love it, then if they read what I say about it they may end up reading the Bible to get some ideas! In fact, I fear that people who do love violent cruelty are attracted to the Bible for that very reason. Charles Manson is but one example of a cruelly violent person who read the Bible to get ideas. Many Christians have taunted me saying that my arguments will never change their minds. It could be that they simply don't care who gets hurt, and my exposing how Christianity victimizes people only adds fuel to their fire.

Anyway, your comments are truly bizarre. If a person was citing antisocial ideas in Mein Kampf, would you criticize them for being hateful? Do you think it's hateful to oppose Hitler's anti-Jewish rhetoric? If not, then why object to my opposing Christ's anti-Jewish rhetoric?

 

[Politesse]

Anyway, your comments are truly bizarre. If a person was citing antisocial ideas in Mein Kampf, would you criticize them for being hateful? Do you think it's hateful to oppose Hitler's anti-Jewish rhetoric? If not, then why object to my opposing Christ's anti-Jewish rhetoric?

Are you... Godwinning your own thread?

Yes, if someone were quoting Mein Kampf as a guide to how the Bible should be "correctly" interpreted, I would consider that foolish if not suspicious behavior, even if they meant it as a ill-advised rhetorical strategy to donk on the Bible.

 

[Politesse]

No. I never thought I was doing that unless by "endorsing" you mean exposing. Exposing the sanctification of cruelty is very obviously not the same as endorsing it.

I have no problem with you opposing cruelty. But if along the way you're endorsing bad scholarship, I don't think your efforts will be very effective. Just because you're "right" about a big thing doesn't mean you're right about every argument you put forth in favor of it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

One problem with what you're saying here is that Jesus never said to disobey the law that witches should be killed

How you could do that while loving your neighbor as you do yourself is a mystery to me. Yes, I know that Very Bad People think that murdering people counts as "tough love", but I think that such people are lying hypocrites, and so should you. Abuse and violence are not "love". And loving God and your neighbor is, according to Jesus, "the whole of the Law", that same Law you are so blindly wielding as a cudgel.

It's no mystery to me if you just look at what Jesus said about love in the context of his story. The love he preached was akin to the love between master and slave. The slave must love his master or face severe penalties for failing to do so. Just like a slave might be expected to put his master's enemies to death, many Christians have felt compelled to put the perceived enemies of Christ to death. In fact, those Christians considered burning heretics as literally an act of faith in Christ.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Anyway, your comments are truly bizarre. If a person was citing antisocial ideas in Mein Kampf, would you criticize them for being hateful? Do you think it's hateful to oppose Hitler's anti-Jewish rhetoric? If not, then why object to my opposing Christ's anti-Jewish rhetoric?

Are you... Godwinning your own thread?

Yes, if someone were quoting Mein Kampf as a guide to how the Bible should be "correctly" interpreted, I would consider that foolish if not suspicious behavior, even if they meant it as a ill-advised rhetorical strategy to donk on the Bible.

That wasn't the question. He asked what's the difference in opposing anti-jewish rhetoric regardless the source. The subject of being hateful was your introduction. Christian loyalty to their bible and their religion causes them to do violence and be hateful. They are so loyal that it excuses and blinds them to their own behavior. That's the issue. More than likely they are simply engaging in groupthink and literal survival. But whatever you wish to call it the behavior is what it is and should be called out.

 

[steve_bank]

As a kid in the 50s I heard 'Jews killed Christ'.

Jewish slurs among Christians were common in my extended family.

A common Christian retort is those other Chrisane who do bad things are not really Christian, they mis read the gospels. I am a real Christian'.

The OT is an image of Jewish glory and power, a cultural myth. Christians revel in that image of glory.

We have to keep in mpnd that what we read as an English bible is at the end of a long chain of translations and certainly biased . Word choices in translations insatiably reflect a personal bias.

We have no context to deduce who JC really was. People invent a personal version of Jesus. Anyone who clams to be Chritian is Christian.

Contrasted to Judaism or Islam where there are specifics. Converting to Judaism involves a process.