Oh look Maani, nobody said nothing.

LOL.

samosamo:

You to Raechel: “Good comment, but you’ll find that these people are not amused in the depiction of levity of their savior and religion, just as the muslims don’t. It’s just so sacrosanct that there is no room for interfering with their belief in what they consider valid beyond reproach.”

Hmmm…

Did you bother reading my first post?

“Look, I’m a minister, but I have a sense of humor and don’t usually mind when you do cartoon of a religious nature, even when you are “bashing” Christianity.  (As the saying goes, I may not agree with what you say (or draw), but I will defend to the death your right to say (or draw) it.”  I don’t even mind that you generally draw Jesus as a a white, probably American, seemingly freckle-faced, almost certainly obese boy.  However, this cartoon simply seems gratuitous - and not really all that funny.”

What part of that fairly lengthy comment don’t you get?  I most certainly DO have a sense of humor, even about my religion.  Simply because a few of us decide to have a mature, “scholarly” discussion about our faith/religion does not mean we have no sense of humor about it.

Yes, some, perhaps even many, Christians lack a sense of humor about their faith/religion, and bridle at almost any “fun-poking,” taking themselves a bit too seriously.  But your “painting with a broad brush” and generalizing the way you do is little more than a regurgitated canard, and is, in fact, more of an insult to me as a Christian than Mr. Fish’s cartoons.

Peace.

Good stuff Maani.

How some words and phrases are read is very important… much like a speaker stressing certain words while he delivers a speech, and then he may stress other words the next time he delivers that same speech, and the meaning may change with the changing of his tones and inflections.

With the Word, to do that is still possible ( not saying I am 100% right on what I’m suggesting, but it is something I too have looked into… and that’s why we must consider:

The physical example of baptism with its to-be-believed-in spiritual quality in 1 Peter 3:9-

“After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand — with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.”

Read it a few times with a different delivery.

Literally it says that ‘this water’ now saves you, not like a bath, but a pledge ( your vow coinciding with the promise )... and then the visual / ancient reference linking baptism to the ark being separated by the world by the water…

And in Acts 2:38, when folks change the word “for” the forgiveness of sins and replace when explaining / teaching / interpreting, to “because of” ( as that syntax fits in English and can be replaceable, but doesn’t not fit in this context ).... is wrong I think… for it then unwinds the direction all the other baptismal references point to.

And with Nicodemus, that learned teacher didn’t have a clue what Christ was talking about ( a spiritual rebirth )...

And back to your distinction from a Jewish believer who rather not be baptized, seems to be they really don’t believe what the bible says about baptism and how it fits with the Way.

****************

By Raechel, February 15 at 1:29 am

Good comment, but you’ll find that these people are not amused
in the depiction of levity of their savior and religion, just as the
muslims don’t. It’s just so sacrosanct that there is no room for
interfering with their belief in what they consider valid beyond
reproach.

Mr. Fish had, not long ago, a frame with jesus’ mother
explaining the birds and the bees. I would think you might just
find the same people commenting here as back then rushing to
damage control.

Nap:

Thank you again for your comments.  Rather than parse them this time, let me simply make two comments.

First, re Romans, I believe it may be presumptive to claim, as fact, that Paul was speaking only to those who had been baptized.  Indeed, the only mention of baptism in the entire Book does not seem to support an absolutely “prerequisite” baptism in order to be a “Christian”:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Consider his phrase: “...as so many of us AS WERE BAPTIZED…”  Not “all,” but “so [as] many as were.”  Thus, either Paul is speaking to more than just the church in Rome (which we know is NOT the case, since Romans 1 makes clear that that is definitely who he is speaking to), or he is implying that not everyone in the church at Rome had, in fact, been baptized.  Yet he does not suggest that NOT having been baptized in any way affects their faith or belief, or makes them any less under grace than those that did.

That said, I ask (rhetorically) again: If I “confess with [my] mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in [my] heart that God hath raised Him from the dead” - but I am not baptized - does this mean my faith and belief are somehow incomplete?  Does it mean I am not under grace, or will not receive salvation?  The real question here is, which is more important: that I be baptized (which you agree is simply a “ritual” if one does not have the faith and belief behind it), or that I “confess” Jesus and believe “in my heart” that He was raised from the dead - i.e., that I have the faith and belief, but am not baptized?

I would suggest, based on Paul and others, that if one does as Paul suggests in Romans 10 (but only if one does it sincerely, honestly and humbly), baptism becomes at most a simple matter of “cementing” one’s faith and belief (a “public profession,” if you will), and arguably even superfluous.  I would add that doing as Paul suggests in Romans 10 would seem to be a form of baptism by the spirit, as opposed to the “ritual” of baptism by water.  I believe the former to be far more critical to one’s faith and salvation than the latter.

Certainly I could be wrong.  That is always a possibility, and I am mindful of that.  But based on everything I have read, learned and, perhaps most importantly, been “led” to understand over a period of almost three decades, I remain strongly convinced that, although certainly relevant and even important for some (and perhaps most), baptism by water is not a prerequisite for attaining grace, salvation and redemption.

Peace.

Places I would suggest / ask for a bit more clarity is:

In Romans 10, isn’t Paul speaking to those in the church.  The letter is addressed to the church.  Those already who’ve been baptized into Christ, in the Name.  Those who’ve already begun their walk with God ( specific audience who’ve already tasted the good fruit / who’ve believed and been baptized ).  He is reaffirming what they did when they confessed Him to be Lord.

Matthew 28 is the commission to ‘make disciples’ and He specifies an order… and it doesn’t read too complicated.  He ‘commands’ his disciples to further make other disciples, of all nations… and that he’ll be with them always ( a faith-based mission, not simply a mission of dunking and accounting ).

As the scriptures depict, isn’t the moment one is brought into the fold the moment they are christened?  With Christ it was obvious for John and witnesses to see.

Day of Pentecost was another one for all to see and either believe or be a witness ( miraculous sign ).  And when the gentiles under the roof of that Roman leader, was another one noted… yet the immersion in water by the believer ‘for the remission / forgiveness of sins’ was prescribed, as ordered / exampled / commanded to do so by Christ.

Not an outward showing, but the pledge of a good conscience towards God.  The moment of taking the marriage vows. 

Doesn’t the sinner die to their sins, as they are baptized into His death?  The man on the cross didn’t need baptizing because Christ hadn’t died yet, so Christ saved Him by His Word, which still saves Today!  Folks just need to OBEY!

The order is prescribed in Acts 2:38, and again at the end of that chapter… almost like a step by step approach.  Yet, without faith… all a show, religion, tradition…

I think it dangerous to replace a prescribed ‘way’ found throughout the new testament to be ‘suggestive,’ for that actually empties the faith in the Word needed to see God move.

And in regards to faith AND baptism, of course!

Getting baptized, if you don’t actually believe the Christ nor the message, is simply getting wet.  On the other hand, refusing to humble oneself and be baptized by another, for all to see or none to see, but to obey the scriptures and ‘follow me’ as Christ commands…. well, not sure if I’ve deviated or the Way has been further maligned…

Nap:

Thank you for your comments, all of which are on point.  However, as always, it is critical that we keep everything clearly in context.

Re Mark 16:16, note what Jesus does say - “...whoever does not believe will be condemned” - and what He does NOT say, “...whoever does not get baptised will be condemned.”  Thus, Jesus is making a clear distinction between which of the two is more important: belief, not baptism.

Re John 3:15, taken in context this applies ONLY to Jesus Himself, not to others.  Thus, he “permits” His own baptism (despite the fact that He does not need it) in order that HIS righteousness (the totality of His “mission” here) is fulfilled.

Re Acts 2:38, Peter certainly “offers” baptism, as He has been told to do.  But there is no indication here that it is “required”; the “remission” of sin can also be accomplished through repentance, which does not require baptism.

Re Acts 10:47, this passage actually supports what I am saying: i.e., it is clear that the people that Peter is about to baptise have ALREADY received the Holy Spirit; i.e., they have already been “indwelt” by it, even PRIOR to baptism.  It would be odd to suggest that, should these people NOT have then been baptised, their “indwelling” would have been “revoked” in some manner.

Re Matt 28:18, once again, Jesus is certainly “suggesting” baptism, but nothing here indicates its “requirement.”

With respect to salvation, Paul clears up all prior matters in a single, two-sentence admonition: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:9-10).  Nothing here about baptism.

Don’t get me wrong; I am all in support of baptism, as it really helps to “focus” the person seeking grace, salvation and redemption.  And I myself was baptised, and I baptise others.  But nothing in Scripture convinces me that baptism is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for grace, salvation and redemption - and there are passages that seem to clearly indicate otherwise.

Peace.

Maani, since you made a point between a believer being baptized and a believer not being baptized, could that be almost a direct reference to Mark 16:16?

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

In response to Dihey you are using the Jewish specific example.

What I’m getting at is: isn’t baptism also a requirement to fulfill all righteousness? ( John 3:15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. )  Jesus didn’t need to be baptized, but did so anyway… and everyone ever a part of his and his disciple’s ministries were baptized in, and surely after the Acts 2:38 lesson to the end of that chapter and throughout Acts.

And after the gentile believers received the sign of salvation by the holy spirit appearing upon them, they also were baptized as Peter asks “can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?” ( Acts 10:47 ), keeping in accordance with the way, as Jesus did and commanded ( and baptizing them in the name .... Matthew 28:18 ).

I know, left-field topic over this silly cartoon, but from where I see, baptism is pretty essential for some reason.

Nap:

Thanks.

Dihey:

“If I understand you correctly then all followers of Jesus were and still are crypto-Jews.”

Well…not really.  After all, the gentiles were never Jews to begin with, so simply accepting a Jew as their “savior” (or even simply agreeing with and following his ministry) does not make them crypto-Jews.

Indeed, the issue of crypto-Jews is actually a hot topic of debate in scholarly circles.  For example, some take the position that a Jew who accepts Jesus as divine, but does not get baptized, would be called a “messianic Jew,” as opposed to a Jew who converts (through baptism), who would then be called a “Christian.”  Is there really such a distinction?  After all, except in Catholicism, baptism is not actually “required” in order to be a Christian (i.e., one who is under grace, and who receives salvation and redemption).

If simply following the teachings of a Jew (and accepting a Jew as “savior”) makes one a crypto-Jew, then I suppose your comment is correct in one sense.  But it seems to me that the issue is somewhat more complex than that.

Peace.

Well illustrated Maani.

Dihey:

I welcome your comment.  However, it is critical that Scripture be stated properly, and in context.  What Jesus said was, “Think not that I come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matt. 5:17-18).

“Destroy” is very different from your word, “change.”  Jesus did in fact come to “change” Mosaic law, in as much as it was being used by the Temple priests, scribes, pharisees et al in a corrupt and limiting way.

As I noted, Jesus taught that the “spirit of the law” was greater than the “letter of the law.”  This is best demonstrated in the remainder of Matthew 5, which is referred to as the “You have heard that it was said…But I say unto you,” passages, in which Jesus takes passages of the (“letter” of the) Mosaic law and “changes” (modifies) them by showing what the “spirit” of that law really is.  The two most well-known examples of this are the “You have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you that you resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” and “You have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy.’  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless those that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you.”

These were RADICAL “changes” (modifications) to the Mosaic law.  And the Temple priests, scribes, pharisees et al were absolutely scandalized by them!  Here was someone telling THEM what the law should mean!  Harumph!  LOL.

And keep in mind that all of this comes directly after the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus turns everything on its head, speaking to the masses but not-so-subtly to the Temple priests et al, letting them know that power and arrogance were not more important virtues (and were arugably less so) than meekness and humility: it was not the powerful and arrogant Jesus said would inherit the earth, etc., but the meek, humble and peacemakers.

Thus, Paul did not “pervert” anything; indeed, when he finally met up with some of the original apostles and disciples three years after his vision on the road to Damascus (and bringing the gospel to the Gentiles), he was largely “accepted into the fold,” and although there were (from what we can glean historically) disagreements between him and some of the others (particularly Peter), they all agreed on the (you’ll pardon the expression…LOL) fundamentals.

Peace.

samosamo:

Me: “Suffice to say that in my faith-based library of many hundreds of books (all of which I’ve read), and my over two decades of religious studies, I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of scholars agree that Jesus existed.  The number who do not is small, and none are considered ‘major’ csholars.”

You “Now who is running the ‘my way or the highway’?”

You are being obtuse.  I am not suggesting it is my way or the highway.  I am making a statement of fact: the vast majority of Biblical scholars - for the past two centuries, and particularly in modern times - agree that Jesus existed, whoever He might actually have been.  I challenge you to provide the names of even TEN who do not.  I will match you with 100 who do.

You: “But on top of that you accuse me in what I would think only a charlatan would do underhandedly, of having no morals.”

Excu-u-se me?!?!  Is THAT what you are reading into my comments?!  How bizarre.  I never said or even suggested anything of the sort.  Either you have a psychological issue you need to deal with, or you are being deliberately combative.

You: “I WILL stay with what I have as you offer nothing that any curb service church doesn’t offer.”

Hmmm…  Actually, except for knowing that I believe Jesus to be divine, you know absolutely NOTHING of what I believe or don’t believe - or what I “offer” - since I have not discussed my beliefs or ministry here.

I am beginning to think you are simply an anti-religious troll who is looking for a good fight. However, although I definitely enjoy a good discussion or debate, I am a pacifist and have zero interest in fighting.

Peace.

****************

Beat me to it, expected I guess. What you just dumped on me is
what you did before with reference (Aesop’s). So I am to re-read
(Aesop’s) to get on your page? Extraordinary.  No diversity,
individuality, do as some master says.

Let me get your quote:

““Suffice to say that in my faith-based library of many hundreds
of books (all of which I’ve read), and my over two decades of
religious studies, I can assure you that the overwhelming
majority of scholars agree that Jesus existed.  The number who
do not is small, and none are considered “major” scholars.”“

Now who is running the ‘my way or the highway’?

But on top of that you accuse me in what I would think only a
charlatan would do underhandedly, of having no morals. For a
minister, you sure do work in mysteriously devious ways and
most especially since you haven’t an inkling or a clue to what I
do possibly believe, all you know… no make that ‘guess’ is that I
don’t fall in lock step with whatever snake oil you are peddling
which definitely makes me NOT WANT to have anything to do
with your brand.

You’re some minister. Never known one to do the best he could
to distance others, turn on alarms, and to have all this mastery
of 2 decades of religious study you really seem too eager to
alienate people from whatever it is you delve in for solstice for
the spirit. I WILL stay with what I have as you offer nothing that
any curb service church doesn’t offer. In fact Mr. Fish gives more
than anything your religion could give me.

The word is esoteric, been around for many a long year.

samosamo:

Forgive me.  Apparently, you are either foreign or simply do not know about Aesop’s fables - a book of stories which lead to “morals” (not “morality,” but axioms or aphorisms).  The one you might know is the tortoise and the hare: they have a race, and the hare is so sure it will win, it races ahead and takes a nap.  But by the time it wakes up, the tortoise, slow as it is in comparison, is crossing the finish line.  The “moral” of this story, which I am sure you have heard, is “slow and steady wins the race.”

The reference I was making to the fox and the grapes is the story from which the phrase “sour grapes” comes from.

That said, when you make a statement that essentially says “I and my sources are right, and you and your sources are wrong,” you not only cut off debate, but you display an arrogance that does little to support your side.  I, at least, admitted that there are some scholars who question Jesus existence.  I merely noted that they are few and far between, and are not considered “major” scholars.  For someone who was adamant about my naming MY sources, you seem awfully reticent in naming yours.  My sources include everyone from Josephus (2nd century historian of the 1st century) to Thomas Aquinas to every well-known scholar of the present day, Christian (both “mainlne” and gnostic) and other.

Your argument is like that of the climate change deniers, who claim that “the science isn’t settled.” Of course it is: climate change is occurring.  Where the deniers MAY have an argument is whether or not humankind is and has been responsible for accelerating that change.

Ultimately, your approach to discussion and debate is basically “my way or the highway.”  If so, no problem: I love traveling.

Peace.

****************

Why am I not surprised that you are trying to get me to read a
‘fable’ or maybe something more like a cartoon for some kind of
instruction? That seems demeaning to those scholars and the
authors of those books you covet as the last word on the
existence of someone who “was the son of God; a prophet; a
rabbi; a nice-guy-with-some-really-good-ideas; or just
another lunatic messianic figure of the time.”

As for ““As I have explained before, there is very little
disagreement among scholars that the historical Jesus existed”“,
I find many scholars who question the existence of an historical
jesus. Scholars and researchers from all the way back to year 1.

I find mr. fish’s frame quite enlightening as it is.

samosamo:

Ever read the Aesop’s fable about the fox and grapes?  LOL.

Peace.

****************

Won’t do my homework for me. How quaint. Well your books and
the authors/scholars you don’t name are at the least incomplete
and mostly wrong. Any further discourse about this is as useless
as discussing that other side of faith, politics.

Nicely done Maani. I have two degrees in religion my self, and I agree. Still Mr.
Fish can be an amazingly incisive and artistically satisfying cartoonist. His Liberal
Phil cartoon is my all-time favorite, but his forays into religion always give
evidence of profound ignorance on the entire subject. His disillusionment,
however, with the hypocrisy of the state Enlightenment religion is the theme that
he expresses ever so well again and again. This puts him in bed with the way of
religion a great deal more than he knows. The ancient Hebrews were worshipping
“the which really is,” a god with no real name but a place-holder derived from the
verb “to be.” The theories and superstitions that inevitably wormed their way in
later are another matter entirely. In expressing truth to power Mr. Fish can often
be a real ancient Hebrew Prophet as genuine as Amos or Jeremiah, but he has
allowed the ideals of the secular Jewish media to poison his attitude toward
religion.

samosamo:

I am not going to do your research for you.  Suffice to say that in my faith-based library of many hundreds of books (all of which I’ve read), and my over two decades of religious studies, I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of scholars agree that Jesus existed.  The number who do not is small, and none are considered “major” scholars.

You might also consider Occam’s Razor. (Admittedly not a “scientific” way to determine the truth of a hypothesis, but something that scientists and atheists often use to refute religious claims).  What is more likely: that the very existence of Jesus is part of a vast conspiracy starting in the first century?  Or that Jesus did in fact exist, but that “who he was” was somehow “manipulated” into a “conspiracy” of sorts?  I would accept (though obviously disagree with) your belief in the latter, but not the former.

Jesus was a 1st century messianic figure about whom much was written by people who were “there,” including the gospel writers.  (Yes, they wrote their gospels three decades after Jesus’ death, but they were nevertheless “there.”)  Jesus was not attempting to start a new religion.  Rather, He was a Jew whose primary ministry was to teach Jews how to be better Jews (particularly re the “spirit of the law” vs. the “letter of the law”).  It was only when His own people (largely, though not entirely) rejected His message that He brought it to the Gentiles, through whom a new religion was, in fact, formed.

Was Jesus “divine?”  Many (including myself) believe Him to have been so.  Yet that is almost (almost!) beside the point.  Jesus’ ministry was based on 11 precepts: love, peace, forgiveness, humility, compassion, patience, charity, selflenessness, service, justice, truth.  Whether or not He was divine, a prophet, a rabbi, a nice-guy-with-some-good-ideas or even just another 1st-century messianic lunatic, one could hardly argue against those precepts being the best template for living on and sharing this planet that have ever been put together in one place.

Peace.

Mr. Fish was abused as a child and can only blame God for it… and he gets joy from getting under the skins of religious folks who seem offended by his immature scribbles that some call drawings or art.

Hey, Mr. Fish….....

No psuedo intellectual crap from me.  I laughed my ass off.  Keep up the good work.

****************

““a nice-guy-with-some-really-good-ideas; or just another
lunatic messianic figure of the time.”“
***************
I would come closer to believing this but I don’t. You speak
scholars, which ones? I ask, then, which scholars and historians
of the era he was supposed to have lived and died?
And for curiosity, how far back have you delved into the origins
of religion?

****************
““personage of Jesus simply shows a lack of knowledge of first
century writing and history.”“
*********

What I have read is that there were many re-writings of that era,
and most of it in the second century by any number of different
writers. Can you go further back before judeo/xanity came
together and whence it came?
What is this b.c. and a.d. and the significance of it them?

samosamo:

As I have explained before, there is very little disagreement among scholars that the historical Jesus existed: only a handful question this among hundreds of scholars - whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, agnostic or atheist.

What there IS disagreement on is whether he was the son of God; a prophet; a rabbi; a nice-guy-with-some-really-good-ideas; or just another lunatic messianic figure of the time.

So feel free to believe the last (which I assume is the case).  But questioning the existence of the personage of Jesus simply shows a lack of knowledge of first century writing and history.

Peace.

****************

Maybe it would concern me if I were to believe the
personification of jesus existed as a real person instead of a
mythology.

I agree. It is just plain bad taste for Jewish web sites to trash Christian
iconography so intentionally to so little purpose. When the gentiles do this Jews
scream bloody murder. The object it to get through the coming crash or military
defeat without a massive anti-Semitic event, and this kind of thing will not help.

Mr. Fish is one of the great cartoonists of the age, but he also turns out a lot of
childish crap. My guess is he is not married.

Mr. Fish:

???  Look, I’m a minister, but I have a sense of humor and don’t usually mind when you do cartoon of a religious nature, even when you are “bashing” Christianity.  (As the saying goes, I may not agree with what you say (or draw), but I will defend to the death your right to say (or draw) it.”  I don’t even mind that you generally draw Jesus as a a white, probably American, seemingly freckle-faced, almost certainly obese boy.

However, this cartoon simply seems gratuitous - and not really all that funny.

Don’t you have anything else to draw other than anti-religious cartoons?

Just asking…