luke
(1744): written 40-60 yrs after death of Jesus
(1830): Zecharaiah asks a rational question, and is made mute [what kind of God is this?]
(1831): blessed is she who believed [what kind of a conception of faith is this? compare to dictionary definition]
(1831): social justice passage--"he has brought down the powerful..." [but, again, is this accidental to the position of Christianity? think of its evolution, into Church doctrine. why does it abandon this? why are certain parts of the text picked up on, at certain moments?]
(1833): "and for glory to your people Israel" [is this a God who looks after all people? or just Israel? two wholly different implied projects]
(1834): wrath/punishment, but as part of a compassionate project?
(1835): social justice passage--'whoever has two coats must share' [what might this imply, today?! and for our 'Christian' candidates?]
(1837): Jesus performing more miracles [well what, again, does this imply about Faith?]
(1838-1839): curing the leper [here, question of the prior condition--i.e., where does evil come from? Satan? things we bring on ourselves? 'your sins are forgiven you'. these two are inconsistent]
(1840): what role do the Pharisees play? [dogma vs. principle behind laws. in a sense, opens up space for a re-interpretation of laws, based on principle. in other words, it suggests (either implicitly or explicitly), that laws can shift (cf. circumcision, not washing before eating, the 'sabbath')]
(1840): social justice passage--"Blessed are you who are poor..."
(1841): "Woe to you who are full now..." [NB: (1) not, everyone will be full; (2) God is not doing this now--why? one can understand why Marx would call this opiate]
(1842): the good slave [restored to good health, but never freed, of course]
(1843-1844): "faith saves" the woman who wept at his feet [but she's seen miracles! what kind of conception of faith is this, again?]
(1845): rebuking wind and raging waves [well, why were they raging in the first place?]
(1846): miracle, after miracle
(1852): "ask and you shall receive" [plainly not true.]
(1854): injunction to fear God [what does this add to conception of Faith]
(1854): life does not consist in "abundance of possessions"
(1855): "blessed are those slaves" who work their asses off [hmm, what kind of model of social justice is this? inconsistent, at the very least]
(1858): why do you act humble, or do whatever else [b/c you will eventually be exalted? not because it's the right thing? how does this compare w/ previous ways of thinking about morality? very similar, and interesting, b/c it contrasts to Kantian, which is how we today think about Christian morality]
(1861): Lazarus vs. the rich man [doesn't bode well for the 1%, eh? implies a very serious moral obligation on us, no? again, inconsistently very radical, this text]
(1863): sucks to be a slave..
(1863): why isn't everyone praising God?! [what kind of god, again? discuss this passage]
(1864): Sodom is the model for judgement day, Lot's wife example to avoid [nuts! the most reactionary incident in the Bible in it's most progressive book]
(1871-1872): question of Judas' responsibility [whence evil?]
(1875): "we deserve our cruxificion" [on the one hand text proclaims radical forgiveness, on the other hand crucifixion is just desert? today we wouldn't accept this for any kind of crime. just another example]
corinthians I
(2002): class composition of early Christian community (poor are the foolish, the unwise) [this is critical to understanding the framing, here. use as introductory point]
(2006): civic judgement [same basis as today's 'uncivilized' communities who claim right to sharia]
(2007): "the body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord" [example of different, new attitude to pleasure and the body]
(2008): celibacy is highest [again, shifting mores]
(2011): Paul defending his laboring [interesting, in light of class base, again--see 2012]
(2014): Paul's misogyny ["Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife"]
(2015): again, the lower-class appeal--musn't humiliate those who have nothing
(2017) in contrast to Plato, a different conception of the interdependence of parts of the body. the 'weakest' is the most important [again, do we understand this as intrinsic to Christianity, engrained in it forever more? no, it's a product of whom Paul is appealing to, and it changes rapidly as Christianity evolves]
(2021): eternal soul argument. [more like an assertion]
(1744): written 40-60 yrs after death of Jesus
(1830): Zecharaiah asks a rational question, and is made mute [what kind of God is this?]
(1831): blessed is she who believed [what kind of a conception of faith is this? compare to dictionary definition]
(1831): social justice passage--"he has brought down the powerful..." [but, again, is this accidental to the position of Christianity? think of its evolution, into Church doctrine. why does it abandon this? why are certain parts of the text picked up on, at certain moments?]
(1833): "and for glory to your people Israel" [is this a God who looks after all people? or just Israel? two wholly different implied projects]
(1834): wrath/punishment, but as part of a compassionate project?
(1835): social justice passage--'whoever has two coats must share' [what might this imply, today?! and for our 'Christian' candidates?]
(1837): Jesus performing more miracles [well what, again, does this imply about Faith?]
(1838-1839): curing the leper [here, question of the prior condition--i.e., where does evil come from? Satan? things we bring on ourselves? 'your sins are forgiven you'. these two are inconsistent]
(1840): what role do the Pharisees play? [dogma vs. principle behind laws. in a sense, opens up space for a re-interpretation of laws, based on principle. in other words, it suggests (either implicitly or explicitly), that laws can shift (cf. circumcision, not washing before eating, the 'sabbath')]
(1840): social justice passage--"Blessed are you who are poor..."
(1841): "Woe to you who are full now..." [NB: (1) not, everyone will be full; (2) God is not doing this now--why? one can understand why Marx would call this opiate]
(1842): the good slave [restored to good health, but never freed, of course]
(1843-1844): "faith saves" the woman who wept at his feet [but she's seen miracles! what kind of conception of faith is this, again?]
(1845): rebuking wind and raging waves [well, why were they raging in the first place?]
(1846): miracle, after miracle
(1852): "ask and you shall receive" [plainly not true.]
(1854): injunction to fear God [what does this add to conception of Faith]
(1854): life does not consist in "abundance of possessions"
(1855): "blessed are those slaves" who work their asses off [hmm, what kind of model of social justice is this? inconsistent, at the very least]
(1858): why do you act humble, or do whatever else [b/c you will eventually be exalted? not because it's the right thing? how does this compare w/ previous ways of thinking about morality? very similar, and interesting, b/c it contrasts to Kantian, which is how we today think about Christian morality]
(1861): Lazarus vs. the rich man [doesn't bode well for the 1%, eh? implies a very serious moral obligation on us, no? again, inconsistently very radical, this text]
(1863): sucks to be a slave..
(1863): why isn't everyone praising God?! [what kind of god, again? discuss this passage]
(1864): Sodom is the model for judgement day, Lot's wife example to avoid [nuts! the most reactionary incident in the Bible in it's most progressive book]
(1871-1872): question of Judas' responsibility [whence evil?]
(1875): "we deserve our cruxificion" [on the one hand text proclaims radical forgiveness, on the other hand crucifixion is just desert? today we wouldn't accept this for any kind of crime. just another example]
corinthians I
(2002): class composition of early Christian community (poor are the foolish, the unwise) [this is critical to understanding the framing, here. use as introductory point]
(2006): civic judgement [same basis as today's 'uncivilized' communities who claim right to sharia]
(2007): "the body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord" [example of different, new attitude to pleasure and the body]
(2008): celibacy is highest [again, shifting mores]
(2011): Paul defending his laboring [interesting, in light of class base, again--see 2012]
(2014): Paul's misogyny ["Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife"]
(2015): again, the lower-class appeal--musn't humiliate those who have nothing
(2017) in contrast to Plato, a different conception of the interdependence of parts of the body. the 'weakest' is the most important [again, do we understand this as intrinsic to Christianity, engrained in it forever more? no, it's a product of whom Paul is appealing to, and it changes rapidly as Christianity evolves]
(2021): eternal soul argument. [more like an assertion]
