home
RSS
My Take: Jesus was a dirty, dirty God
January 5th, 2013
10:00 PM ET

My Take: Jesus was a dirty, dirty God

Editor’s note: Johnnie Moore is the author of Dirty God (#DirtyGod). He is a professor of religion and vice president at Liberty University. Keep track of him @johnnieM .

By Johnnie Moore, Special to CNN

(CNN) - Jesus was a lot more like you than you think, and a lot less clean cut than this iconic image of him that floats around culture.

You know the image. It’s the one where Jesus is walking like he’s floating in robes of pristine white followed by birds singing some holy little ditty. He’s polished, manicured, and clearly – God.

But despite the Christian belief that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, Jesus was a rather dirty God.

He was the “earthly” son of a carpenter, and life in the first-century was both more lurid and unfinished than our collective religious memory seems to recall.

To that end, I suggested recently to several astounded colleagues of mine that Jesus actually had to go to the bathroom, perhaps even on the side of the road between Capernaum and Jerusalem.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

What tipped them over the edge was when I insinuated that Jesus, like almost every other human being living in the rural world in that time, might have even had dysentery on an occasion or two.

Someone said, “You mean that Jesus might have had severe diarrhea?”

“Yep,” I replied, “That’s exactly what I mean.”

It seems like an obvious statement if you believe that Jesus was “fully God” and “fully man” (as most evangelicals believe and call the Incarnation), but to some of us it seems in the least, inappropriate, and at the most, sacrilege, to imagine Jesus in this way. We might believe that God was also man, but we picture him with an ever-present halo over his head.

But, actually, the Jesus of the Bible was more human than most people are conditioned to think.

I call this the dirty side of Jesus. He was grittier, and a lot more like us than maybe we believe, and that’s one of the reasons why so many thousands of people followed him so quickly.

They could relate to him.

He was the teacher from a small town who knew and understood the economic insecurity that was common in the first century. Times must have been rather tough for Jesus at points in his life, for he even spoke of being homeless, having to sleep on the ground with no roof over his head.

He also knew what it was like to have his message rejected and how it felt to be misunderstood. Jesus was regarded with such little significance in his hometown that one of his critics once remarked sardonically, “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” Jesus eventually had to move to different city (Capernaum) because his teachings so infuriated the people living in his hometown that they drove him out of Nazareth and even tried to throw him off a cliff.

'Jesus Wife' fragment gets more testing, delays article

The real Jesus had dirt underneath his fingernails and calluses on his hands. He probably smelled badly from sweating profusely in the Judean sun on his long hikes to Jerusalem, and Jesus was, without a doubt, rumored to be a hypocrite or absolutely mad for all the time he spent with prostitutes and those afflicted with leprosy.

Not exactly have a clean-cut image.

He had a rather shady reputation.

Some people thought he was a revolutionary. The religious leaders called him a heretic, and others even accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton - in no small part because of the vagabond group of disciples he had with him. No serious religious leader of his day would have ever recruited such people.

For his core 12 disciples, Jesus included a tough-as-nails, bombastic fisherman (Peter), a chief tax collector named Matthew (the most hated popular figure of the time), an eventual traitor who was stealing money out of the offering bucket (Judas), a prolific doubter (Thomas), two jocks nicknamed the “Sons of Thunder” (James and John) and Simon the Zealot, a member of a radical political party which believed in using violence to kick out the Romans.

Jesus was sarcastic, too.

He often snapped back at the Pharisees with a tone fit for late-night television, and in a terribly embarrassing moment for all those around him, Jesus even called these respected religious teachers “snakes” that were probably sons of “Satan.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

That’s not exactly the behavior of a sweet, self-help teacher with a halo over his head.

It’s the behavior of a frustrated man who might also be divine, but sure knows how it feels for annoying people to get under his skin.

Christians believe that Jesus chose to be born fully human, too, but why?

Lots of theologians have laid out opinions over the centuries, and in their opining they have tried once again to hijack Jesus’ humanity by defining it in philosophical terms. I believe it’s simpler than the philosophy and church councils and centuries of argument.

The brilliance of Christianity is the image of a God, named Jesus, arrived with dirty hands.

Jesus came in a time period when Greco-Roman gods were housed in gigantic temples and portrayed with superhuman powers and with superhuman physiques. Gods were believed to be far away from people on their mountains or hemmed up in their sanctuaries.

Jesus arrived in defiance of this prevailing imagery.

Jesus didn’t come flinging lightning bolts from a mountaintop, or playing politics in Rome. He came to live in a typical Middle Eastern village called Nazareth that was home to a couple hundred typical people. He didn’t decide to brandish his power, but to spend most of his time with the powerless and disenfranchised. And when he started a religious movement that reshaped history, he did it in the most profound and anticlimatic way:

He let himself be killed, and then he busted open a tomb.

In Jesus we meet a Savior who understood the desire to sleep just a few more hours, and who had to control his temper sometimes. In Jesus we find a God we can relate to because he chose to relate to us.

He was the God who became dirty so that the world’s souls might be made clean.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Johnnie Moore.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Jesus

soundoff (7,741 Responses)
  1. John P. Tarver

    Today we know species occur rapidly following a mass extinction and evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of species. Consider for a moment that only 1% of species exist from the last mass extinction barrier, yet your conclusion is that a slow change over time leads to species?

    January 7, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Evolution has everything to do with the origin of species. We may not understand every mechanism and its relative significance, but evolution clearly happens. DNA shows us that. There's plenty of evidence from our every day life – flu virus evolves (else we'd only need one vaccination in our life), most of the food we eat is domesticated by humans, animal breeding, etc.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • ME II

      relatively rapid change.
      The so-called Cambrian "explosion" happened over, what, 70-80 million years? Not that "rapid" by our standards.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • Origin of Life

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220143530.htm

      January 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • End Religion

      "Today we know ... evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of species."

      You may believe this, however what we know to be true is the opposite. You should know better than to commit that awful Top 10 Sin. Pack your flame retardant swim trunks!

      January 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • ME II

      @Origin Of Life,
      Interesting article, thanks.
      I'm guessing that is what is considered a 'metabolism first' hypothesis.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • Faithful

      Ive said it before...when scientists can make a living cell that can reproduce i will maybe start believing in evolution. If the cell is so basic to living organisms, then why is it so hard to make? In my mind the odds of something "living" being formed in the deep ocean and then somehow evolving and evolving into super complex organisms is less likely than finding a planet called Krypton.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Just because you think it's unlikely, doesn't mean anything. Evolution is confirmed, and happens. Your inability to accept science that is a pillar of modern medicine, and has spawned new fields of study says nothing about evolution and more about you.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • ME II

      @Faithful,
      Is that like saying, 'when man can make lightning, then I might believe in electricity'?

      January 7, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      It is interesting that you mention electricity as I am MSEE and if we could make lightning a whole new part of physics would open up to my sorceries.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • End Religion

      @faithful: even popcorn seems like magic if you don't know how it works.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • Faithful

      I am just making my hypothesis based on the evidence I have. Science does a lot for technology and medicine. However, science cannot create anything living or even create a cell from scratch. There seems to be a limit to what science can do. So why does it seem so ILLOGICAL and backwards thinking that there must be a "God" out there whose power formed these things. The Bible says that "God shall not be mocked" and it seems evident that God reserves some mysteries for only himself.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Faithful

      If you want to now talk logic, then it would be that "god exists" is an unjustified and unproven premise.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • ME II

      @John P. Tarver
      "...if we could make lightning a whole new part of physics would open up to my sorceries."

      Are you saying that we cannot make electrical arcs in open air? What "sorcery" is needed for that?

      January 7, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • ME II

      @Faithful,
      "There seems to be a limit to what science can do."
      There are limits to what we can do currently, yes, but we don't know what our ultimate limits might be. A thousand years ago flight would have been miraculous, but not now.

      "So why does it seem so ILLOGICAL and backwards thinking that there must be a "God" out there whose power formed these things."
      It is illogical because, filling in the gaps in our understanding with 'God' is not a answer, it is a substi.tute. It is actually a logical fallacy called Argument from Ignorance, or sometimes God-of-the-gaps.

      Just because I don't know how a sewing machine works, does not mean God did it.

      January 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
    • End Religion

      @faithful: "I am just making my hypothesis based on the evidence I have."

      religion includes no evidence as to god's existence, so be clear you are basing your creation guess on the bible.

      ***
      "Science does a lot for technology and medicine. However, science cannot create anything living or even create a cell from scratch."

      Due to the abortion debate we know religious zealots, contrary to current law, believe life begins at conception. Before conception: no life. Therefore when a scientist or doctor bathes unfertilized human eggs in sperm he is creating something living. When they are inserted back into a female some of them then turn out to be normal children. So scratch "science cannot create anything living" from your dance card.

      As for "even create a cell from scratch" – funny you should use that terminology. The following link's first paragraph is: "Scientists reported Thursday that they have created a cell controlled entirely by man-made genetic instructions - the latest step toward creating life from scratch. The achievement is a landmark in the emerging field of "synthetic biology," which aims to control the behavior of organisms by manipulating their genes."
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003336.html

      ***
      "There seems to be a limit to what science can do."

      For now. Your argument seems to be "because science can't tell me this moment exactly how life is created I will go with magic spells instead." Ridiculous.

      You've already admitted science's contributions to technology and medicine. Ten years ago your argument could have been "because I can't have an iPhone right now, I will assume god has allowed us all the communication devices we'll ever have."

      ***
      "So why does it seem so ILLOGICAL and backwards thinking that there must be a "God" out there whose power formed these things."

      because while there is always a tiny chance some creator exists, science works on evidence and probability. There is zero evidence for any god, therefore one probably doesn't exist. When you factor in the fraud of not only the bible but every other religion in the world, plus mankind's known penchant for creating gods to explain things he doesn't understand, you begin to see the likelihood of there being a god is miniscule.

      ***
      "The Bible says that "God shall not be mocked" and it seems evident that God reserves some mysteries for only himself."

      the church loves mysteries and unanswered questions because that is the only place god can survive.

      January 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
    • UncleBenny

      These "arguments" that science can't create living things and therefore only God could do it are really tiresome. We've been making efforts along those lines for what, six decades? The best current estimate says that the very simplest early life forms emerged about 3.5 billion years ago. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. So it took the Earth a billion years to create life. And you complain that we haven't done it in sixty years? Guess what, genius, we're a lot closer than you think:
      http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

      January 7, 2013 at 10:42 pm |
  2. John P. Tarver

    Every day DNA kills off more of Darwin's racist nonsense.

    January 7, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • ME II

      Evolution is not racist... it is a description of how nature works, that's all.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Um... what?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Which God?

      @ John P. Tarded. You just showed us the height of your ignorance. You should have stayed in hhigh school for another year or two.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Neanderthal is DNA removed, as an ancestor of man; or a breeding partner.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • ME II

      @John P. Tarver,
      Sorry, I don't understand that statement.

      January 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
    • UncleBenny

      It's hard to understand gibberish.

      January 7, 2013 at 10:43 pm |
  3. Iron Sharpener

    Truth Prevails and UR... spelling isn't a concern for this conversation. Then I wouldn't really expect that I'd make a big dent, but that's ok...I'll pray for you anyway.!! Don't let my spelling errors prevent you from being saved UR. My apologies for typing error, and be blessed!!

    January 7, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      What condescending and self serving tripe.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Wow...I love it when people like this act with such great arrogance...it only enforces my disbelief. So while you pray for us, we'll think for you.
      I'm not worried about being saved. I left the church many many years ago b/c it's a delusion for the weak minded. The greatest way to Atheism is to read the bible-you should try it some time instead of just spewing what your parents and preacher have spewed to you.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
  4. John P. Tarver

    Modern science tells us that Godd uses the mechanism of mass extinction to produce new species and yet we have whiners worrying about those duplicates killed in the flood.

    January 7, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • End Religion

      Modern christianity insists "Gawd dun it wiff Spelz!"

      January 7, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
    • Which God?

      @ John P. Tarded. How is that 6th grade education going for you?

      January 7, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • UncleBenny

      Are you even capable of making a coherent statement?

      January 7, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
  5. John P. Tarver

    A doctorate in theology should be printed on a roll, instead of sheep skin. Then they could just tear of a degree and thank God they do not live in Christ's time.

    January 7, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
  6. Iron Sharpener

    Bet..... wow..."why did Jesus and followers go through the torture"....FOR YOU.!! Jesus knew the only way to save you from eternal Hell because of your sinful nature, he must take the punishment/death and then there would be no reason why you would be eternally damned. This country and the world for that matter is a total mess. He gives you freedom of choice, and we blow it, but..he gives us mercy, and second chances...don't blow that.! Paul dies a horrific death, you think he's wondering if he made the right choice now? No..he's in Heaven. You really want to mess with salvation, why are you still here? I don't want you prematurely dead mind you, but if you don't believe and your not saved...what's this all for here?? Your going through the motions, your biding your time? Man.....please...please rethink that.!!

    January 7, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Renegatus

      Except Adam and Eve did not exist so there was no "fall of man" and no reason for Christ to die for our sins. Evolution negates "original sin".

      January 7, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • I wonder

      Iron Sharpener,

      What kind of god loves torture and blood sacrifice to soothe its hurt feelings when its flawed creatures mess up?

      What kind of god sends its flawed creatures to eternal torture because they can't put together its misshapen jigsaw puzzle pieces?

      What is your verified evidence that Paul is in "Heaven"?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • Bet

      Please learn to use the reply function.

      I believed as you do once. I studied the bible and have read it in several languages. I've also studies other religions and their texts.

      I don't believe in imaginary deities, inherited crimes, talking snakes, burning bushes or zombie Jesus. There is no evidence for them. There is plenty of evidence that these stories are copies of other popular myths of the time, though.

      The world is a much better place now than when Jeebus supposedly lived. Not because of religion or belief in a god, but because of modern science, medicine and technology. We are healthier, live longer and have better quality of life than at any other period of history. Your enjoyment of all of these things may depend on where you are fortunate enough to be born in the world, but at one time, they didn't exist anywhere. If you got sick and were lucky enough to see a "doctor", he might drill holes in your skull to let out the bad spirits, or burn herbs around you, but you wouldn't get an antibiotic.

      Of course, I'm sure you don't bother with all that "modern medicine" and just pray when you get sick. Just like you aren't using that awful "technology" to communicate with me right now.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • NickZadick

      We are here for exactly the same reason as all living things here on earth and beyond... to propagate the species. You see... we DO live forever!!....through our children!! I find it sad that theists waste their lives thinking that there is another after...there isn't!!

      I find it deeply ironic that you claim to pity us and pray that we "find god". You do not follow god! you follow a collection of bronze age fables and parables!

      Jesus dis not die for our sins! He was assassinated by the romans like thousands upon thousands of jews and undesirables. The bible even claims that his crimes were menial when they offered he be let go.

      Break free from the indoctrination and brainwashing!

      Live THIS life to the fullest and please ..we live ...we die...finito!!

      January 7, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'but if you don't believe and your not saved...what's this all for here??'

      Its actually all for nothing, there is no point to there being life on Earth, it just is. We are not special, there is no higher purpose to mankind, nothing. To the Universe we are quieter than a bird fart and not noticed.

      January 7, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
  7. Steve

    Don't you think Jesus just prayed and the dirt went away, his clothes became clean, his hair sparkled, never had a tooth cavity, bad breath or a hangnail? He could have zapped himself a palace and a chariette with chrome wheels too. What kind of an image would that be? No, he got blisters on his feet, sun burnt skin and an upset stomach just like the rest of the people in those days. If you think the movie "Passion of Christ" was too violent think again, it was probably worse.

    January 7, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
  8. Faithful

    The book "A case for faith" makes a analogy on the topic of our origin. If a person were to see the writing "I love you Beth" in the sand on the beach wold you think the waves caused it? If radio signals were received from outer space consisting of all prime numbers would you think it came accidentally? If you walked into a restaurant and on the wall was written a recipe would you deny that someone wrote it there? If these examples of intelligent design make sense then why do we over look the fact that our DNA also is a set of highly complex codes and commands in its own language telling the cell how to build itself, reproduce, maintain proper homeostasis. ect. Can you deny the fact the DNA is a coded language? Languages don't just appear out of nowhere

    January 7, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • ME II

      @Faithful,
      One issue with your analogies is that we know how recipes are written, what prime numbers are, and how to write in the sand. We have never seen DNA, or anything appear, by command of God. In other words, ignorance is no reason to suspect the supernatural.

      "Can you deny the fact the DNA is a coded language?"
      Yes, DNA is a chemical compound, not a language. it controls chemical reactions.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Natural languages are not designed; if they were we would expect English to be more consistent.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Bet

      DNA is a coded language of sorts, but it didn't "come out of nowhere" any more than verbal languages did. It developed naturally over billions of years. Verbal languages developed faster, because speaking doesn't require the same technology that DNA analysis does.

      The fact that DNA is a complex genetic code that we are in the very early ages of understanding doesn't automatically mean "god did it". It just means we don't fully understand how it works yet.

      The bible says that the sun revolves around the earth, and that the moon emits its own light. That doesn't make it true. And yet, it wasn't until 1992 that Pope John Paul II decided it was high time to give a half-hearted apology to Galileo.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • ME II

      @In Santa we trust,
      Perhaps you mean that our languages are not well designed?
      They are certainly not a natural occurrence, in that humans did make them up, right?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • ME II

      I would disagree that DNA is a language and perhaps not even a code. Although this is a messy argument, language communicate ideas, concepts, and/or information. DNA controls a chemical reaction.
      Sure, we may be able to gain some information by analyzing DNA sequences, but that is our understanding/interpretation of chemical sequences, not a reading of symbols intended to communicating information.

      There are no symbols, just chemicals. It's like using a rock to symbolize a rock, it is the thing itself.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Faithful

      However, the DNA codes have purpose. When Richard Hawkings made his stick figures in "The Blind Watchmen", they were nice pictures but none of them involved any function. The DNA codes specifically involve certain functions and counter functions. I don't see any type of coding involving function in the world not made by man

      January 7, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • ME II

      @Faithful,
      Not sure what Richard Dawkins' stick figures have to do with it.
      Just because DNA, along with other cellular systems, produces useful proteins does not mean that God created it.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • Bet

      @ MEII

      I agree with you that DNA isn't really a language. It's self-replicating nucleic acid that transmits genetic information and controls chemical reactions. But even in my field (molecular biotechnology) we do refer to it as a code or a "language" on a casual basis or when trying to explain it to a layman.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • ME II

      @Bet,
      Fair enough. It just seems, to me, to muddy the waters.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'Can you deny the fact the DNA is a coded language?'

      not in the manner of a language as we know it it isnt.

      January 7, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
  9. WASP

    ok what is it with the whole " i bet they wouldn't do that to mohammad" BS?
    is that seriously the best you flea brained christians can come up with?
    a scholar writes an articule just pointing out the fact that jesus would have needed to do the same bodily functions as the rest of us and all of a sudden you think your being attacked, so you try and drag muslims into the mix?
    why? what is the point of crying like some little school child " but teacher you didn't slap mohammad's hand"

    if you folks want to write an articule that targets the fact that mohammad would require the same things as the rest of us then please do and submit it to CNN to have it published, but please STOP FRACKING CRYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    January 7, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Bet

      I agree with everything you said, except the part where you called Johnnie Moore "a scholar".

      January 7, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Akira

      Lol.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'except the part where you called Johnnie Moore "a scholar".'

      thats true, he is in fact a professor of religion at a christian university.

      January 7, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I started to count the number of people who were posting that and then lost track. One can only hope that when people realize they're posting the same thing 200 other people just posted they might realize their little gems aren't quite the contributions of brilliance they thought.

      January 7, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
  10. palintwit

    Here are the top 5 American universities in the order of their ranking:
    1. Harvard
    2. Princeton
    3. Sarah Palin University
    4. Yale
    5. Columbia

    OK. I know what all of you are thinking. How did Yale get on that list?

    January 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
  11. Robert Holt

    I say, read the New Testament for yourself. The New Testament well presents the humanity and the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is divinity that became flesh to pay for our sins on the cross. No matter how dirty or dusty Jesus may or may not have been, His blood “…cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7.

    January 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Christ redeemed Adam's birthright of Life at the cross; there was never any salvation in the Law.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      You can't use the bible to defend jesus or god. That is completely circular.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • Renegatus

      The New Testament is true because the New Testament says it's true? That's the height of irrationality. Is your Omnipotent God also an irrational being?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Truth- It is identical to the circular thinking that because radiological dating is based upon the assumption that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that therefore radiological dating proves the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. At least Robert has faith to fill the gap, while y'all athiests are just plain gullible.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      John: At least we're honest is saying we don't know. Robert used the god of the gaps argument-we're not sure, therefore god (how dishonest!!!). We know how old the earth is because science (which is not compatible with your book of fairy tales) has been able to determine this...your book of fairy tales puts it at a much younger age (somewhere around 6000 years). Sorry gullibility falls to the theist here (if it were us, we'd maybe be agreeing that your god exists but we're not blind enough or gullible enough to accept that tripe).

      January 7, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • christ_child1991

      Well if we cant use the bible to defend God or Jesus then how are we supposed to defend them

      January 7, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
    • Sinnedangel

      So if that's so. When, at any point, does Jesus say or follow the values of Deuteronomy or Leviticus? So assuming that I am correct in that the New Testament pretty much does away with those two books, seeing as how they were more or less the rules for which to sin and not to sin, because Jesus died to wash us clean of our sins. What is the issue with Gay Marriage, Sodomy, etc., you know all of those little nit picky rules that Christians, Catholics, etc. like to base their laws and other BS off of? Why does it matter if we sin because Jesus died to wash away those sins? Obviously we don't want to push that limit, but isn't happiness, peace, and love what Jesus promoted? So why don't these religions practice that instead of Hate and Bigotry?

      But let me provide some examples of Leviticus and Deuteronomy:

      People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God, Leviticus 21:17-18
      The eating of fat is prohibited forever, Leviticus 3:17
      Here is another odd-ball,
      If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple, Luke 14:26

      January 7, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • ME II

      @John P. Tarver,
      "...the circular thinking that because radiological dating is based upon the assumption that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that therefore radiological dating proves the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. "
      Obviously, that is not how radiometric dating works. It is based on empirical evidence of the decay rate of different atomic isotopes and evidence of the amount of parent vs daughter isotopes found in nature.
      Radiometric dating is also consistent with other forms of dating such as, Helioseismic dating, ocean floor banding, plate tectonics, dendrochronology, and Thermoluminescence apparently.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      MEII- Radiological dating is a model based in the assumption that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and uses decay to make guesses about the relative age of rocks. I am MSEE, so end any notion that you understand such things better than a person educated in that field.

      January 7, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • ME II

      @John P. Tarver,
      "Radiological dating is a model based in the assumption that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old..."
      No, it isn't. In some dating methods, there are estimates about the amount of parent and daughter isotopes present in the past, but there is not an "assumption" about the age of the Earth.
      Additionally, there are methods that apparently don't even require those estimates:

      "Isochron dating is a common technique of radiometric dating and is applied to date certain events, such as crystallization, metamorphism, shock events, ... The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions are needed about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence."
      ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating, not that wiki is a primary source, but it has citations)

      "I am MSEE, so end any notion that you understand such things better than a person educated in that field."
      Apparently, your qualifications either don't apply, or are ficti.tious.

      January 7, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'Radiological dating is a model based in the assumption that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old'

      no its not, what are you on about? they didnt go 'hmm we are going to assume the earth is 4.5 billion years old, now lets get the radio dating to match that', thats a nonsense argument.

      January 7, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
  12. rbud

    Rather uninteresting anthropological sidebar, but what's the point? All animals, human and otherwise, defecate, and all living things have excrement of some sort. We don't watch people defecate in our TV sitcoms, either, but that doesn't make them gods or freaks. Just seems pointless.

    January 7, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
  13. Iron Sharpener

    so the proof is in sight and not faith eh ?? "The Brown Note & Others" pay attention...please! The Dead Sea Scrolls had been written THOUSANDS of years ago, a compilation of Biblical transcription. The Bible was a written testimony, a go-by if you will. Miracles seen by thousands..THOUSANDS..yet as educated as you seem, you disect it and spend more time trying to explain it away? Bottom line, Christians pray for you....I hope you get it soon before you my friend waist anymore time. The problem in the World isn't Jesus..it's the lack there of, we took him out of school, out of Government, and sounds to me like alot took him out of their homes. You have opinion, and opinion is just that...your's, I hope your heart changes, and I pray for alot more GOD and alot less...OPINION. Be Blessed.!!

    January 7, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Bet

      It's not very hard to fool thousands into thinking something is magic or a "miracle", particularly at a time when little was known about how the natural world works and education was limited to a very few wealthy, privileged men. These "miracles" took place thousands of years ago and have never been duplicated under modern conditions.

      People believe what they want to believe. I recently had a discussion with a woman who had broken a bone. She went to the doctor, had it set, a cast was put on, she received pain meds and antibiotics, used a wheelchair and crutches for six months, then had physical therapy. This is the standard medical protocol for a broken bone. Yet she discounts all of this and claims that god miraculously healed her. Which do you think is true? Was it the medical protocol or god?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • New Athiest

      Another popular religion claims that Mohamad moved a mountail. In from of thousands of witnesses.
      Why should I believe in your god and not thiers?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • I wonder

      Iron Sharpener,
      " Miracles seen by thousands..THOUSANDS"

      Oh yeah? For one, are you telling me that 4,000 + 5,000 Middle Easterners partook of miracle fishes and none of them saved some of those magic fish bones to sell as souvenirs?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Iron Sharpener

      I ask you read the RED words in the Bible first..and come back and ask me again..I don't think that'll be your first question, I'm confident your position on the matter changes. Why Christianity and not Muslim or any other religion? Millions of reasons, but here's my best attempt...God loves, Jesus died a grusome death to save you! My God loves, there's no hate, he taught patience love & mercy, and because he died...he showed you mercy.! I won't try to battle with you, God will pick up where I left off...I pray for you.!!

      January 7, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • JWT

      Jesus was never taken out of the schools (only mandated prayer was) and I can guarantee that jesus was never taken out of my home and I believe in your person god as much now as the moment I was born.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Bet

      @ I Wonder

      You'd think that the Romans would have taken note of these catered picnics. At the very least, you'd think they would have checked out the executed criminal that came back to life and was walking around, supposedly being seen by "thousands".

      January 7, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • frank

      "waist anymore time" ?? lol

      January 7, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • frank

      "Miracles seen by thousands.."

      Well it wouldn't have been a good story without that part.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Iron Sharpener: If you believe your god is loving then you have not read your bible. Your imaginary friend is an evil monster not worthy of worship. Your imaginary friend apparently killed off all its creation because it realized it had screwed up and wasn't happy (slightly absurd and fallacious). Your imaginary friend apparently agrees with incest. Your imaginary friend agrees with oppressing people. Your imaginary friend hates women and children and condones slavery.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
  14. Sher

    Jesus who????

    January 7, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Jesus bin Perez.

      January 7, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
  15. darth vader

    I am still alive ! and I have recieved devine intervintion . thats all!

    January 7, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
  16. Truthy McCynical

    Seriously, not in a million years would you see an article speculating about Mohammed's "severe diarrhea."

    January 7, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • The Truth

      You would likely call it blasphemous to claim Christ ate with who.res if the bible didn't already spell that out for us...

      January 7, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
  17. Mike E.

    Just a few questions... If Jesus did not exist, why would there be so many books, articles, scriptures, etc. written from that time? If it's fake or myth, do you think millions would fall for it?

    Also, if it's a fake story, why would so many people have experienced miracles, visions of Jesus or Mary, or other sightings?

    Finally, if Jesus was not a God or just a human, then why would his followers go through the worst torture and die spreading the word of God? Would YOU die for a lie?

    Christianity is not a religion based on proof. It is having faith. In the end, Christians do not need to prove anything. You do not have to follow Jesus or our ideas or beliefs. It is free will. But don't tell us we're wrong. We have a strong faith and you will not change that.

    January 7, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Bet

      Just a few questions... If Jesus did not exist, why would there be so many books, articles, scriptures, etc. written from that time? If it's fake or myth, do you think millions would fall for it?

      There are lots of books about Greek and Roman myths too, that doesn't mean they are true. People fall for myths all the time.

      Also, if it's a fake story, why would so many people have experienced miracles, visions of Jesus or Mary, or other sightings?

      When you can provide proof that these miracles are true, we'll discuss. To date, there is no proof of miracles in god's name.

      Finally, if Jesus was not a God or just a human, then why would his followers go through the worst torture and die spreading the word of God? Would YOU die for a lie?

      If someone truly believes that the lie is true and they are zealous enough, they will die for it. Ever heard of 9/11?

      Christianity is not a religion based on proof. It is having faith. In the end, Christians do not need to prove anything. You do not have to follow Jesus or our ideas or beliefs. It is free will. But don't tell us we're wrong. We have a strong faith and you will not change that.

      No one is asking you to give up your "faith". Believe in fairies and leprechauns if you wish. Just don't expect other's to believe it, or try to codify it into civil law. Don't expect any more respect for your imaginary god than you would give a a fifty year old, otherwise reasonable person who still believes in Santa Claus.

      January 7, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • WASP

      @mike:
      "Just a few questions... If Jesus did not exist, why would there be so many books, articles, scriptures, etc. written from that time? If it's fake or myth, do you think millions would fall for it?"

      1) yes billions have fallen for the same lie due to the fact their parents and others they were todl as children to trust told them that " this and that are real" without checking any of it for themselves.

      "Also, if it's a fake story, why would so many people have experienced miracles, visions of Jesus or Mary, or other sightings?"

      2) a miracle is a natural occurance that is unlikely to happen.
      2a) why is it people see images of mary and jesus but never of god himself? seems kindof odd wouldn't you say? could it have something to do with the fact your brain wasn't conditioned to have a image of god?

      "Finally, if Jesus was not a God or just a human, then why would his followers go through the worst torture and die spreading the word of God? Would YOU die for a lie?"

      3) this one is very simple to answer really. people will die for their convictions. i would give my life to protect my children without a second thought if the situation arouse.
      3a) most of the people that have died in the name of your god weren't the priests, popes etc etc etc it was the poor.

      Christianity is not a religion based on proof. It is having faith. In the end, Christians do not need to prove anything. You do not have to follow Jesus or our ideas or beliefs. It is free will. But don't tell us we're wrong. We have a strong faith and you will not change that.

      4) you have that correct: religion isn't based on proof, it's built off of the bones of older religions and on lies.
      you can't have "free will" and "god's plan" it doesn't work like that.
      if free will was invited to the party it would mess plan all up because it is unpredictible.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
  18. M.E.

    I can't say I exactly believe in Christianity, but I did once have a grand ole' time debating whether Jesus wore underwear and pajamas on Facebook. In a word, no. First off, underwear hadn't really been invented as we know them, a loin cloth was about as close as it comes. Second, if he bothered to wear anything to sleep at all, it would have been that aforementioned loincloth. Fabric tended to be rough, particularly if you were an impoverished homeless guy. Sleeping in them wouldn't be like curling up in the nice flannel jammies of today. Religious stories can't escape historic fact and while ancient fashion history is difficult to pin down, we do know from plentiful art of the era combined with knowledge of what was available in that time, generally what Jesus would have worn. It wouldn't have been much like the pristine white togas he's usually depicted in. Try natural colored roughly woven linen and such. Wrinkled, stained, and smelly, but comfortably light for the climate, lol.

    January 7, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Fashion Queen

      So what will he get to wear on his return

      January 7, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      A white tie wedding darling.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • Iron Sharpener

      Life for you must be great? No problems? Not a care? You have it all together? You seem to think salvation/eternal life is pointless to discuss??...that'll change...and I pray you have it figured out before you pass.!! You think 105* is hot...my friend, you may spend some time rethinking the sarcastic and more time looking at the long term. This life will pass in a blink, and then what? your worm dirt...why? Why ? How did man get here on earth, how is it there's so many intrical parts of the human anatomy that function, how do we breath oxygen, why ? He "The Lord" knows everything about you, every hair on your head, and more. I know you'll have trouble soaking that in, but being hell is thousands times hotter...and eternal, I pray for your mind to change today!! I pray HEAVEN is your eternal home.!! Look forward to seeing you there.....be blessed!!

      January 7, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Bet

      @ Fashion Queen

      It says in Revelation 4:3 that he comes back on a throne surrounded by a rainbow. Sounds fabulous, don't you think?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Bet

      @ Iron Sharpener

      Ooh, hell, fire and devils. You really get off on thinking about sitting on a cloud, drinking a mojito, and watching people get tortured, don't you? Makes you feel all warm and tingly inside.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Queen- God additionally promises to have the improperly attired, at the white tie wedding, tossed out into the street.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Iron Sharpener

      @Bet...no I don't, and I try not to think of anyone going to hell...that would be pointless and sad, especially since your still breathing...you can change that for yourself. I pray everyone is saved, is that wishful thinking...yeah a little, but if your breathing, and your thinking, and this changes anyones thoughts/heart on the matter..AMEN.!!

      January 7, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • UR

      Iron Sharpener,

      Anyone who doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" is either stupid or is a very messy and careless thinker and does not earn a scintilla of credence.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Bet: Wouldn't you rather be any place people who are in Iron Sharpener's elite club aren't? They can think they're going to heaven all they wish and imagine us burning all they wish but we won't be as bored as them and at least we'll be in the company of free thinking people.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Iron Sharpener

      Threats of an afterlife that the other person doesn't take seriously don't do anything. Just thought you ought to know.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • Iron Sharpener

      I'll put it out there anyway hawaiiguest. I believe, I believe...you get that part right? So in that I believe, I sow, and I keep on following his word. They do not come back fruitless, the fact that I follow shouldn't bother you...if it does, you have to ask yourself "WHY"?? In most cases people living in dark ..hate light, and I hope I have it lit up like the SUN my friend....GOD LIVES!! and he is Merciful, no questions after you pass....then it's over one way or another...BE BLESSED.!!

      January 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Iron: You're making claims that quite obviously we dismiss...the burden for proving those claims is on you, so where is your proof? You're completely clueless here...threatening us with eternal torture is meaningless if you have nothing to back your claim.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      You're really into the self-serving arrogance part of your religion aren't you?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
  19. John P. Tarver

    Mathew was a tax collector and John was a wealthy man like Jesus. Mathew and John were literate and the Greek they wrote still survives today. Luke was a physician, that is to say Artemisia and could also write. Paul was of course a "Jew's Jew" and was also wealthy and educated. The poverty story taught in church could not have produced the Gospels.

    January 7, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Schitzo

      What is a "Jew's Jew"?

      January 7, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Saul was Senhendrin, a married Jewish man with children, of the Jewish Council who had Stephen, the founder of the first Gentile church, stoned for his heresy. Paul calls himself a Jew's Jew and so from there came my reference.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
  20. goodasyours

    TO ME II - PLEASE READ LUKE - YOU CAN'T GET ANY MORE FIRST HAND THAN THIS

    January 7, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • Bet

      Except that you have no proof that Luke wrote it, or that Luke even existed.

      January 7, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      Luke never met Christ and even published a disclaimer about his story in Luke. If you want first hand Jesus see Mathew and John, although Mark is beleived to be Peter's rememberances. Peter was the poor man among these wealthy literate Theocracy destroyers.

      January 7, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      None of the gospels were written by the people they are named after and even if they were, it still isn't convincing enough.

      January 7, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
    • Really??

      All accouunts (stories really) were written decades after these "first hand" reports were supposed to have happened. There are no records in any of the real roman historians of his existance, and if the stories are true, he would show up in actual records, not just stories.

      January 7, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
    • John P. Tarver

      The Romans cruxified about 18,000 Jews during their occupation and did not care to record their passing. It was an effective terror tactic to keep the zealot in line.

      January 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @goodasyours,
      PLEASE READ MATTHEW, HE DISAGREES WITH LUKE!

      January 7, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.