Column 12 (Special Fun Fact edition): Mocking Christ

Did you know…

…that the people who mocked Christ during the Passion were liberals? It’s true!

Liberals over-rely on mockery, and have done as long ago as their mockery of Jesus Christ. It’s easy to try to mock what one does not understand. The extent to which liberals are so senselessly self-amused is itself amusing to watch. In many cases, the liberals did not even realize that what they were mocking (e.g., Northwest Octopus entry) was a parody of themselves.–Aschlafly 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT) [Columnist’s emphasis]

This admittedly, is a somewhat controversial statement, and sure enough, it did lead User:HardDisc to question the underlying assumption (which, incidentally, earned him a perma-ban):

[…]The Pharisees and Sadducees were extremely conservative. So were the Romans – nationalists if you ever saw one. Is this — *gasp* — a conservative falsehood, or an example of conservative deceit? —HardDisc 19:49, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

This led to a brief discussion on just who were the good guys conservatives in 1st century AD Jewish society, which ended with the following statement by mr. Schlafly:

Very interesting, Fox. Thank you. I might add that there is no evidence of the Pharisees or Sadducees mocking Jesus, which was the premise of the complaint by HardDisc above.–Aschlafly 18:20, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Whoa. Full stop. As we all know, mr. Schlafly is a man who takes his Bible very seriously. And I mean very seriously. With that in mind, can it really be the case that he does not know of Luke 22:63-65?

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

Or Luke 23:11?

11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

Not to mention Luke 23:35?

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Or Mark 15:29-32?

29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Admittedly, not all of these are clearly identified as Pharisees or Sadducees. However, given the prominent position of these groups in Jewish society at the time, some of them almost certainly are, especially rulers and chief priests mentioned in Luke 23:35 and Mark 15:31.

This raises a dilemma. Is it possible that biblical literalist like mr. Schlafly is unaware of key parts of the Gospels? Or is it possible that he would deliberately misrepresent Sacred Scripture in order to promote his own political agenda? Either seems unfathomable. This is a mystery to me.

However, all this still doesn’t really answer the question: Just who were the liberals who mocked Christ? Well, this whole Pharisees & Sadducees business has gotten me thoroughly confused, so let’s leave them out for the moment. Then the only people left would seem to be the Romans. Does that mean that the Romans were liberals?

Stop the press, I say.

EDIT: And good night, and good luck, of course.


27 Responses to “Column 12 (Special Fun Fact edition): Mocking Christ”

  1. 1 kelseigh June 12, 2007 at 12:40 am

    Remember, everyone who mocked Christ were actually Lib’ruls, but people thought they were Conservatives because Lib’ruls lie about their true leanings, and anyway Jeebus was a Conservative so true Conservatives wouldn’t mock him.

    Wow, that’s almost as incoherent as the stuff at CP.

  2. 2 PalMD June 12, 2007 at 12:59 am

    This whole period was widely known as The Great No Deal, a time filled with consternation and stool.

  3. 3 bilbo June 12, 2007 at 12:59 am

    I’m sure you all have seen this, but it is good to see Conservative back on his childish rampage once more.

  4. 4 PalMD June 12, 2007 at 1:01 am

    If you recall, on RW 1.0, Hell was a place reserved for Mormans.

  5. 5 human June 12, 2007 at 4:26 am

    Kels, I thought you were *quoting* CP….

  6. 6 kelseigh June 12, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    Honestly, I don’t know any more…

  7. 7 Linus June 12, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    I just told Andy that Jesus was the liberal back then, which is true, and that even today, some of his teachings are in some opposition to those of ultraconservatives. I wonder how he’ll take that. I’m both HardDisc and HolographicMedia.

  8. 8 lanfranc June 12, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    If you’re lucky, you could earn yourself a Godspeed!


  9. 9 Linus June 12, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    And I believe that the answer is this:

    Andy was raised by the vehement conservative Phyllis Schlafly. This was enough to result in one of his brothers becoming gay, likely in rebellion and as a result of their social isolation, IMO. Andy, on the other hand, has fallen into the mindset that “conservativeness” supersedes all else in importance, even Christianity, which gives it its primary reason for existence. This is evidenced by this incident and by his refusal to believe the Adulteress story, which is vastly more believable than the early portions of Genesis, which he thinks are infallible, likely because YEC is considered “conservative”. He doesn’t want to believe that conservatives could be in the wrong about something (e.g., that the death penalty isn’t perfectly in line with “love thy neighbor as thyself”, horror of horrors).

    So yes, I believe that the answer is that “he would deliberately misrepresent Sacred Scripture in order to promote his own political agenda”, intentionally or not.

    This is all IMHO, but I think it’s a good theory.

  10. 10 conservative June 13, 2007 at 12:47 am

    I am sorry but Moses had a messianic prophecy of Christ long before the Pharisees and Sadducees came on the scene: The true conservatives who truly believed Moses never mocked Christ!

    John 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.

    John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

    John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

  11. 11 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 1:00 am

    A question, out of curiosity. I don’t remember Moses speaking of a Messianic prophesy in the Books in which he appears. You mention posthumous sources (i.e. NT). I can’t believe Im even asking, but, do you have a citation of Moses making that prophesy? You are supposed to know the Bible WAY better than me, so I’m counting on you here.

  12. 12 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 1:05 am

    Deuteronomy 18:18-22, I believe.


    17 And the LORD said unto me [Moses], They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
    18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
    19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
    20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
    21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
    22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

  13. 13 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 1:08 am

    18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”

    21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

  14. 14 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 1:10 am

    He must mean another passage; this one is pretty non-specific. It could be talking about Mohammed.

  15. 15 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 1:18 am

    No, I’m pretty sure that’s the one. Of course, it has to be interpreted exegetically, that is, under the assumption that Christ is in fact the prophet in question, and in comparison with what all the other prophets of the Tanakh say about this Messiah.

  16. 16 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 1:20 am

    Oh. I guess that’s why me and religion never got along great.

  17. 17 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 1:37 am

    It does actually have some similarities with e.g. medicine.

    Let’s say you get a patient in with a bad headache. There’s no obvious cause for it, so you begin checking different things. Maybe you check the blood pressure and find it’s way too high. Then you start checking the internal organs to find the cause for that. In the end, you might have to treat the guy for a kidney problem in order to cure his headache.

    Biblical exegesis is much the same. You find a passage in one book that is not entirely clear. Then you have to go to an entirely different book that deals with the same issue from a different perspective, and finally combine the whole thing with something from a third book and some general knowledge of Jewish or Christian theology.


  18. 18 conservative June 13, 2007 at 1:37 am

    Palm, the Torah states that Moses wrote it and the link addresses the prophetic issue.

  19. 19 conservative June 13, 2007 at 1:42 am

    Conservative, Palm if you do some digging you will find evidence that points to Moses writing the Torah. Also, you will find that the Torah is very scientifically advanced and was way ahead of its time (please see the footnoted material in the CP Theory of evolution article. I am referring to this material:

  20. 20 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 2:03 am

    Um…interesting. You know, one mistake made by amateur historians (NOT BY YOU..this isn’t a dig) is assuming that because the ancients were ignorant of many things, that they weren’t as smart as we are. They were every bit as smart, and excellent observers of nature. Without certain tools, there was only so much they could come up with. The ancient Greeks came up with a concept of “atom” referring to an indivisiably small bit of nature. It is actually not related much to the modern concept, but it showed very sophisticated thought. Medicine of the ancients was based on invaluable observations, but also limited by the senses. Hippocrates, for instance, contains incredibly sophisticated descriptions of disease that are still clear today. When he writes of etiology (cause) however, it all breaks down, as he did not have the concepts or tools to go further.
    I cannot agree that the Torah was “ahead of its time” as it is not clear what that means, vis-a-vis what did contemporary sources think.
    BTW, the Jewish belief is that God wrote the Torah (Bible) and gave it to Moses to give to the Jewish people. Since that is a doctrinal matter, it doesn’t much trouble me, as Jews aren’t much into apologetics, but you might want to remember that this is the usual belief.
    Also, this is how civilized people discuss these matters. I am encouraged by your foray here.

  21. 21 conservative June 13, 2007 at 2:45 am

    Palm, using the aforementiond link please compare Ancient Egyptian practices (who were considered top notch at the time) with the Torah practices. Your argument uses a slothful inductive fallacy (see: ).

  22. 22 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 3:19 am

    Hmm..maybe i’ll have to rescind my “civilized” comment. I don’t think you understood anything I wrote. I actually AGREED with you, to a large extent. Did you catch that part? I agree that the ancients (yes I include the Hebrews) were sophisticated, intelligent people with a number of logical practices. These were basically based on PRACTICAL knowledge, codified into liturgy (or given divinely, for this argument it doesn’t really matter which). They did not have a theory of infectious disease as such, like Semmelweis. Many of their practices helped prevent disease, etc, but, like the Egyptians and Greeks, they didn’t really know WHY. It is still important that they did, however. Many of the Levitical practices were useful, many were not, or at least, not medically. For instance, isolating mentrurating women had a social and religions purpose, but not a medical one. Isolating lepers, as it turns out, can be helpful, but really, only long-term, close household contacts are at risk, so Jesus was right to walk among them. He was not at risk. In fact, the prejudice against lepers to this day is tremendous, despite the lack of casual transmission.

  23. 23 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 3:29 am

    BTW, History of Medicine is a little hobby of mine. Love the topic. I especially like how it demonstrates the intelligence of our forebears. However, I wouldn’t want to see a doctor who learned medicine from Hippocrates, Galen, or the Bible.

  24. 24 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 3:53 am

    Well, I enjoyed our little chat. I’d love to continue it, when you have a chance. If you really think I missed something from the articles you steered me to, let me know. They were interesting.

  25. 25 lanfranc June 13, 2007 at 7:45 am

    I think you need to read up on your sources, Conservative. The view that Moses wrote the Torah has been completely rejected by the great majority of Biblical scholars since the middle of the 18th century.

  26. 26 PalMD June 13, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    I guess KennyD isn’t coming back to play. I didn’t realize that this topic is one of the ones that got is tushy pushed out of WP.

  27. 27 Gulik3 June 13, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    I have to wonder why Schlafly & Co bother with such unclear, outdated labels as “liberal” and “conservative”. “Evil” and “Good” would shorter, snappier, more accurate, and more honest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

View Andreas Kjeldsen's profile on LinkedIn

Be a patron of the arts!

Support a poor writer.


%d bloggers like this: