Clever article Peter.

The call-back callers would also point out the dubious background of the Nazarene. He was after all a product of rape. His father was also a notourious murderer of millions through various premediated means. This was nothing short of mass murder using various weapons of mass destruction.

But in the Nazarene's defence, it could be argued that he was fighting an insurgent war against an invading oppressor. The capture of this key terrorist and his supsequent imprisonment (at Camp Jerusalem) by the invaders would surely have been worth the money they paid to their informant Judas. The execution by crucification was reserved for crimes against Rome and was perfectly justified for such a terrorist and criminal.

Coach

Phillipians clearly states that Jesus was given his name AFTER death.
What was his name before death?

I believe that Jesus (while not the intended target) is horribly misrepresented. Nevertheless it is probably true that Jesus would have a tough time being accepted by many today including some Christians. Some Christians would reject His apparently intolerant/authoritarian action of chasing the “battlers” from the temple with a whip for their disrespectful actions and His call to take up His cross. Others would struggle with His building a Church on Peter after a trilogy of sin.

In defence of “immoral” Jesus

I wish I could say “So if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is much better for you to lose one of your limbs than to have your whole body go off to hell.” without the need to self mutilate to avoid hypocrisy. He was as moral as a man has ever been and no better role model has existed.

While lacking acceptance among those with a vested interest in self indulgence he drew ordinary decent folk like a moth to a flame even if he also welcomed all sinners who were willing to change their ways and follow Him. He did not hesitate to rebuke the moral have not and want nots who refused to give proper worship to God or to follow the moral laws including loving their neighbours.

Ordinary decent folk followed him all over the countryside sometimes in the thousands. Jesus spoke publically every day in and near the temple at Jerusalem but was arrested privately. There was an obvious fear that arresting Him publically could create a public disturbance.

Finally he didn’t come into someone else’s place and start complaining. When he was outraged in the temple He was in His own home. He is God. The people desecrating the temple were intruders. The King would welcome their proper worship and welcome them to the wedding feast of His Son but if they visit His house they should follow the 'house rules'.

fdixit,

I have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas somewhere that gives his name as Benjamin Pandira (or Pantera).

I don't know or remember where the author sourced this from.

Nice article.

My reading of this article wasn't that jesus was immoral (title not withstanding) but more a judgment of the hypocrisy of today's fundamentalist christian sect, as exemplified by the talkback italics.

In this I believe the author hammers home an excellent point. Not many seem to adhere to the old 'what would jesus do' credo, instead preferring the 'holier than thou' attitude.

This of couse, is generalizing in the extreme and is a disservice to their compassion and humanity.

It's just a shame that they don't seem to be the influential christians, who shield themselves from the riff raff to whom jesus extended open arms.

BTW can anyone point out where jesus approved of the church as an institution? I thought his whole rap was about god and the individual sharing a personal relationship, without need for intermediaries.

An interesting and entertaining read, and the author makes some good points. However, I think he rather over-plays his hand. The distinction between morals (as conventions or customs) and ethics (as doing the right thing) is not as clear cut in practice as the article implies – indeed, the article gets its shock value precisely from that fact that, in everyday usage, to call something immoral is to imply that it is unethical, not merely that it is unconventional. Jesus certainly broke many of the customs and conventions of his day in a way that shocked those around him, and his values were very different from those prevailing in the culture of that time (and this). But he was never unethical.

Calling Jesus “immoral” is rather pedantic sleight of hand is on a par with arguing it’s ok to call aborigines “uncivilized” because they never lived in cities, or people like me “sinister” because I’m left handed.

However, the key messages of the article are valid – that Jesus deliberately sought and befriended people who were socially unacceptable and sinners, that his behaviour was deemed shocking and scandalous by his contemporaries, and that modern-day Christians (like citizens of the first century Roman empire) often confuse their own conventions and values with fundamental ethical imperatives.