JON

By Parson Thru

Thu, 14 Jun 2018
  • 4613 reads
19 comments
 

JON (Jesus Of Nazareth)

they say

wasn’t a bad bloke

but was woefully unapprised

of the role he’d be expected to play

after his (alleged) death,

which seems a bit tight

when all’s said and done

to my way of thinking.

 

Nice buildings.

Certificate PG
Poem
Passed on
Spiritual

Comments

Submitted by Rhiannonw on

It is the role that he is playing now and will, that is important. In far more important things than nice buildings. But maybe you are unapprised of what he is really doing? Rhiannon

 

Submitted by Parson Thru on

Why did Paul and St Thomas Aquinas feel the need to erase him and start again? Who was John, who felt the need to eclipse him?

Parson Thru

Submitted by Rhiannonw on

PT, I'm baffled as to what you mean there??

Paul, the apostle wrote most clearly of the accomplishments and divinity and continuing work of Jesus Christ, and if by John you mean the apostle, the last book of the Bible, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, describes the vision he was given (obviously much of it is difficult to understand with symbolism) of the battle against evil til the end of this world, but also gives his vision of meeting the risen and glorious Jesus. So, he was at the feet of Jesus, wholly honouring him, never ever wanting to eclipse him.

Are you thinking of some stain-glass window legends? Thomas Aquinas was a Catholic 'theologian' and I don't really know what he thought altogether. But if he was looking at the Bible teaching, he wouldn't have been erasing Jesus.
Rhiannon

 

Submitted by Parson Thru on

:) I defer to your more detailed appreciation, Rhiannon. I've only read it through once and rely on people like Geza Vermes. The Church: incredible wealth, vanity, love affair with power; The currently-dominant US Christian model: Old Testament / Hebrew, not a lot of evidence of the example set by "Jesus" in the synoptic gospels there. By and large, it seems like Christianity would rather forget some of his rather embarrassing norms.

The "historical Jesus", I suppose, rather than the theological or instrumentalist one.

Parson Thru

Submitted by Rhiannonw on

When John saw Jesus, as recorded at the beginnnig of the book of Revelation, Jesus had stern words  for the churches concerning their drifting from his ways, and his honour and simple gospel of faith. The Old Testament rightly read prepares for the NT and the NT makes it clearer. A God of truth, law, justice, love and mercy and grace in both. There are many churches in US and all over the world seeking to live simply, serving others and to Jesus' glory. Rhiannon

 

Submitted by Parson Thru on

I'm glad your faith is strong, Rhiannon. I've nothing against that with anyone, as long as they don't bring it into politics or try to influence other people who choose not to believe. Sadly, history and recent events show us that too many believers believe it's their duty to control the way other people live. The Church itself is riddled with greed, vanity, hypocrisy and worse. It's not surprising many stay away. The closeness of flag and Church and justification for many inhumane actions down the centuries and still today (God on our side, God favouring economic exploitation and cheating people out of money) doesn't endear The Church to me. Call me ignorant but the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, if we give them the benefit of the doubt, don't portray someone who would go in for all of the above.

Parson Thru

Submitted by bosch on

Parson, oh  Parson:  first cause is unknowable, and thus irrelevant. religions come and go, though they rarely speak of michelangelo. the R. of several of my poems was a southern baptist true-believer.

both pretty audacious, and pretty discouraging to think we sapiens are as important as some religions posit. where's the joy in all that.

 

Submitted by Parson Thru on

No no no nooooo.

Bosch, break free of that tyranny!

Each and every sapien is pure sentience and conscious awareness of the whole lengthy mechanism of universal existence, of nature itself, which I intentionally hold back from calling creation. Hell's bells (if only there were any) religion is the creation of sapiens, not the other way around! Lay down in a field at night and look up. Befriend an astrophysicist! Journey into the great imagination of the sentient human mind. Religion is for pre-science. Joy is in being briefly alive and aware. Sorry if I missed the irony. :)

Parson Thru

Submitted by bosch on

calling most folks sentient is a stretch, and "aware", doubling down, to echo your closing line, sorry if i'm missing an irony, but communication, particularly written, is a difficult chore, rarely achieved. yes, religion is a human construct, and there have been multiplicitous ones. just backspaced out-of-existence prattle i've said before. kind of like this associational chatting, anyway,,,  

Submitted by Hydra on

Regardless of the subject, it's still a top notch poem. Sharp and succinct - which is how I like them.

Submitted by Parson Thru on

Thanks scorpio. I really appreciate that.

Parson Thru

Submitted by Di_Hard on

which of Vermez' books is the easiest for a non academic?

 

Submitted by Parson Thru on

"The Changing Faces of Jesus". I've been reading it for about 8 years! It spends long periods in a packing case. Interesting though. I had a friend who knew him at university.

Parson Thru

Submitted by Di_Hard on

thankyou

 

Submitted by Parson Thru on

My pleasure.

Parson Thru

Submitted by Rhiannonw on

Just to say that I hadn't realised that your phrase 'the historical Jesus' referred to Vermes' opinion as to distortion of the biblical records. There is excellent scholorship supporting the biblical records' clarity and incorruption, and their picture of the 'historical Jesus' is simple and wonderful, divine and divine intervention to bring salvation. Rhiannon

(Sorry if I'm keeping on, but you prompted me to try to find out about your book!)

 

Submitted by Parson Thru on

:)

We all pursue our version of truth.

Parson Thru

Submitted by Hydra on

Ironically, the fact that there are versions of truth would suggest they aren't. Sadly, I think people take the truth and twist it to their own ends; to gain power, to oppress, to maintain their own wealth at the expense of others, or in some way lord it over their 'inferior' peers. Yes indeed that sounds simplistic but I believe it is that simple. I've yet to see any version of a multi-versioned truth that strives for the benefit of all. That applies to our multitude of religions as much as anything else, that rely heavily on the inability to prove God does not exist in order to assert that he/she does. Which is rather like telling us a country is in possession of WMD because we can't  find any which proves they've hidden them.

Submitted by Parson Thru on

Hi Scorpio. Truth is a problematic concept. What is the lozenge-shaped object in the corner. Float above it and it turns out to be a perfectly rectangular table. Readings of religious texts are insoluble problems. Partly through design, partly because they've been tinkered with so much to adjust meaning, or been interpreted whilst being translated. I have parallel texts of French and Spanish poets and the translations are often interpretations - I guess they're mainly neutral, but they're different. Imagine if you wanted to impose your intent on a theology. You only have to look at the meltdown of trust in politics today. Too much stirring of the pot by highly-accomplished pot-stirrers. The truth lies in tatters. I think there are probably situations where there's a strong argument for more than one version of the truth. Accounts of history, of power relationships and so on. As for the truth striving for the benefit of all, when humans strive for the benefit of all perhaps the truth might, too. I like your analogy. Thanks for reading and commenting.

Parson Thru