Did Jesus steal the donkeys?

TTV 14.5.2024:  I am currently slowly getting through Tolstoy's classic War and Peace. It of course relates, some fifty years after the event, the invasion of Russia, as far as Moscow, of the then feared and indomitable French army of Napoleon Bonaparte, which eventually ended in disaster, much as what happened to a certain dictator some 130 years later. 

We can draw our own parallels and conclusions in regards to current events, with the proviso that humans and nations never seem to learn, nor do their leaders, quite immune and callous as to the immeasurable suffering they cause in pursuit of their egos and ideology.

However of all the superlative prose in this epic work, one paragraph struck me with particular force and I will copy it here:  

"And it never enters anyone's head, that to admit a greatness not commensurable with the standard of right and wrong, is merely to admit one's own nothingness and littleness. For us who have the standard of good and evil given us by Christ, nothing can claim to be outside the law. And there is no greatness where simplicity, goodness and truth are absent." (Book 4. Part 3: 18)

In the current political climate and the terrible conditions prevailing in at least Ukraine and Palestine and to the stance taken by governments and political and religious leaders (or not as the case may be), no words could be more cogent or applicable.

Dom Lowe

It's simply not overpoweringly forced onto the masses these days as it used to be Tim, church attendances are declining rapidly as we discover more about the universe and let science show us the way instead of 2,000-year old middle-eastern goat-herders stories . . .

• 9h
• Like
• Reply

Active

Tim Veater

Dom Lowe "2,000-year old middle-eastern goat-herders stories . . ." I've seen that line before I think. It's interesting to surmise what the past 2000 years (at least) would have been like without them. I have a feeling if they had not been, someone would have invented them. Presumably Norse gods or one of the other belief systems would have filled the void. We are unavoidably, including our scepticism, a product of our culture. If you strip Europe of its Christianity, it would no longer be recognisable as such. But all this is a separate matter to the first century man called Jesus, in that still ravaged middle eastern territory, what he claimed and what he taught, that remains an unassailable moral standard by which to live, whether you accept the metaphysical aspects or not.

• 8h
• Like
• Reply

Dom Lowe

Aye, that’s a phrase I use often Tim, I guess what made a good story to them is less relevant to us today and I agree, were it not for these stories others would’ve taken their place.

Yes the stories tell us he was good bloke but the stuff that accompanies that like the immaculate conception, feeding of the 5,000, healing a blind man, the resurrection etc is just ridiculous.

Matthew 21:2 he tells his disciples to steal a donkey because god said it's ok and they do it.

Mark 11: 12-25 he kills a fig tree because it's got no fruit, even though it's not in season.

Mark 5:13 he sends a herd of pigs over a cliff to their deaths by casting out demons 

Matthew 15:21-28 he calls a non Jewish woman a dog when she wants him to heal her sick daughter, says he's only been sent here to help the Jews, only when she begs and calls herself a dog does he help, does the miracle anyway but is still is a bit of a dick about it!

Luke 14:26 he tells people to hate their mothers fathers etc. and hate themselves in order to follow him and he's not here to bring peace but a sword.

And there are plenty more examples which don’t meet my moral standards . . .

• 4h
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Active

Tim Veater

Dom Lowe He was certainly a memorable character then? Very human - warts and all. lol

• 1h
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

Active

Tim Veater

You put an interesting spin on the events as reported nearly two thousand years ago. More than the person who wrote them even! But just to deal with your first example, nowhere does it actually say, 'God said it's OK'. That must be your interpretation. What it does say, is that it was to fulfill a prophesy. As we know, if the writing of these disciples can be believed, both they and Jesus were familiar with all the Old Testament writings, and were always aware of their significance. Some still see history and events in that light - as a Divine unfolding. I am not saying I necessarily agree, but what cannot be denied is that it is deeply embedded in the human psyche. People see their individual lives in that way also, how in a sense life is but an unreeling of the inevitable when viewed backwards, as it were. A process of fate or predestination. Nor does it imply he was 'stealing' the two animals. Leaving aside the possibility of supernatural powers, Jesus obviously knew they were there in advance. What is to say the owner was not a supporter who had agreed to lend them? We hear no more about the animals after the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, so presumably the animals returned to their owner. In a modern context in films how often does the hero take over a car to chase the villain or carry out an heroic act. Nobody in the cinema objects on moral grounds. All the 'Gospels' written within seventy years, and incredibly preserved to this day, take a different slant on the events. Of them, Matthew's is the most Messianic, making the case for a divine work of redemption and renewal; a transference of the ancient Abrahamic promises, to the Gentiles. In other words a seismic cosmic event, that Jews to this day, find offensive. Jesus was at that moment the celebrity being worshipped by the crowd, presumably the same crowd that only a few days later was calling for his death. That in itself is a powerful lesson in justice and the fickle nature of human values. These are poignant scenes as memorable as Shakespeare, our preeminent dramatist, ever wrote. It is hard work to decipher them or to say what is fact or fiction. Everything turns on understanding and interpretation. The stories operate on multiple levels. We draw meaning and inspiration from them as we would from a work of art. I am reminded of that section in 'Dead Poets' Society' on the meaning of poetry, where to analyse it according to strict rules is to destroy it. Whether we like it or not, we are in the grip of history, both personal and global. We cannot escape it. The events of two thousand years ago still resonate to this day, however we choose to interpret them but dismissing them out of hand and completely? Tell it to the Marines, LOL. Kind regards, T.

Dom Lowe

The floor is yours Reverend Phipps, I await with bated breath . . .

• 4d
• Like
• Reply

2

Matt Phipps

Sorry for the delay gents, gin with elderflower mead packs a punch and certainly gives you a head the next day.

Anyways:

Tim, you suggest that the gospel stories are wrapped in prophecies and spiritual significance, as though that should shield them from critique. But if we're seriously considering these stories as moral guides, we need them to hold up under scrutiny—not hide behind claims of divine prophecy. If anything, these prophecies often feel more like convenient plot devices than genuine moral lessons. When Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, are we really supposed to take from that a deep spiritual lesson, or does it rather highlight a capricious use of power?

As for the whole business with the donkey, suggesting it was a prearranged affair is a stretch. The text gives no indication of consent from the owner, which makes it look a lot like theft. If we're to draw lessons from this, we need clear moral directives, not assumptions based on thin air. In modern terms, it's like justifying carjacking by saying it was probably prearranged with the owner—a shaky defense in a court of law, and hardly a robust moral example.

Concerning miracles, your acceptance of events like the resurrection and the feeding of the 5,000 without empirical evidence leans heavily on faith rather than reason. From an atheist viewpoint, endorsing these stories as factual without solid evidence undermines their credibility and detracts from any moral teachings they aim to convey. Miracles as proof of divinity demand extraordinary evidence, not just written accounts from centuries ago.

Moreover, your point about not over-analyzing these stories to appreciate their poetic value doesn't hold up if we are also asked to accept them as literal truth and moral guidance. The moral and ethical standards we follow should be clear and consistent, not subject to whimsical interpretation or reliant on supernatural justification.

Lastly, while these stories undoubtedly shape cultural and historical understanding, to suggest that their significance should prevent us from questioning their factual accuracy or moral integrity is to put tradition over truth. Just because something is deeply embedded in history doesn’t mean it’s beyond reproach or shouldn’t be reevaluated in light of new understanding and ethical developments.

So yes, while the influence of these narratives is profound, our interpretation and valuation of them must continually evolve, embracing skepticism and critical thinking as tools for understanding, not obstacles to it. In this way, we ensure that our moral compass is guided by reason and ethics, not blind faith or unexamined tradition.

• 3d
• Like
• Reply

Matt Phipps

As for " what bit of Jesus is not truthful and inspirational"

First, on truthfulness: many of the miraculous elements—like walking on water, turning water into wine, and rising from the dead—are scientifically implausible and lack external historical verification. These stories are sourced from texts written decades after the events they describe, by believers invested in promoting a particular theological agenda. This lack of contemporary evidence outside the biblical texts raises legitimate questions about their factual accuracy.

As for inspiration, while Jesus’ teachings on love, charity, and forgiveness are undoubtedly inspirational, other aspects of his reported teachings can be problematic. For instance, statements like those in Luke 14:26, where he suggests his followers must hate their family to be his disciples, or in Matthew 10:34, where he says he came not to bring peace but a sword, challenge the notion of him as a purely pacifistic or moral teacher. These passages suggest a more complex and sometimes contradictory figure, which can be less inspiring when scrutinized.

In both cases, if we're engaging critically and seeking a figure whose life and teachings are wholly truthful and inspirational by modern standards, these concerns must be addressed rather than glossed over.

• 3d
• Like
• Reply
• Edited

2

Jenny Dalby

Matt Phipps Dom Lowe Tim Veater - I had no idea of the stories about taking donkeys and cursing fig trees. Interesting and I suspect that context of how they’re positioned will be key to understanding what was intended. I believe I am humanist. I don’t believe in God but I always thought I believed in Christian values (although that has been severely tested when I’ve come across bigotry and exclusion, so say because it’s in line with bible teachings) but maybe there is more against the values than I realised…? I shall stick with my own code for decision making ‘do I feel any shame and can I sleep at night’!

• 3d
• Like
• Reply

3

Active

Dom Lowe

The power of Jesus Tim 

• 1h
• Like
• Reply

Active

Tim Veater

Dom Lowe I was watching a BBC i-player programme last night, on the 80's American 'Alamo' religious cult, where young people worked for nothing and made the founders millions. It turned sadistic and ended up beating and abusing the children, often with the besotted parent's permission. There are no hard and fast lines. Evil can definitely lurk under the cloak of religion as it can under any set of beliefs or none. The only reliable indicator is how, objectively, individuals and societies behave. On that we probably agree?

• 42m
• Like
• Reply

Active

Tim Veater

Matt Phipps Have just found this Matt, so apologies for not responding sooner. I can go along with a lot of what you think and say. When someone uncovers a fine tessellated Roman mosaic, they are uncovering real history but not the actual time, that can never be recaptured. There is a parallel with historical writings. We read them contemporaneously but they are in fact remnants of a different age and outlook, circumstances that we can hardly imagine. We cannot shake off our present world view, created by all the philosophical and technological events that have intervened. We may have gained but we may also have lost. In many ways we have become arrogant and self satisfied, materialistic and selfish to the detriment of our emotional and spiritual lives, even denying the existance of the latter. The evidence is all around both in behaviour and environmental impact. Impressive as they may be, I have always thought the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to be rather sad characters, who have replaced one form of dogmatism for another. In the absence of Christianity it is a question we all ask ourselves, 'What do I in fact believe?' The world and universe is one big 'miracle' and not merely by virtue of the order of it all. Science has made us blaze, as if this is only to be expected. What if we applied the same scepticism to it as we do to Christ's reported miracles. A limitless universe of countless galaxies is just too fanciful to believe. In that context walking on water is a no brainer.