It’s less of a “no true scottsman” and more like…legit there’s a trillion different interpretations and sects of the Christian faith. The entire religion is basically “no true Scottsman” cuz nobody can actually agree on an interpretation.
Thag Simmons
Maintaining a single unified interpretation of a religion spread across thousands of cultures over thousands of years is probably impossible unless you are the Borg, and even then it’d be challenging
Marianne
We will add your theological and ecclesiastical distinctiveness to our own
Abdomino
Even Warhammer 40K, home to writers with no sense of scale or bureaucracy and a militiantly theocratic society knows that orthodoxy is a hard task. As long as the local planet’s religions can be renovated a bit to check off some basic requirements, they’re good to go.
Jamie
It’s striking exactly how weird Judaism and Christianity are among world religions. Most religions aggressively adapt themselves if you jump over a mountain or other interesting terrain feature. But Judaism had the innovation of writing it down in a book and standardizing stuff in order to maintain cultural tradition. This didn’t stop it from fracturing (there are a number of non-Rabbinical Jewish traditions from the post-Exile, pre-Talmud era; check out Sam Aronow on Youtube), but it showed that it was possible. That was 200ish AD. Christianity (in the form of Constantine in 300ish AD) basically stole that idea and tried to force everyone to agree on the same kind of Christianity, hence the active persecution of “heretics”. Before that canonization, there was a flowering of Christian sects (the most notable group being that of the Gnostics, which is an academic umbrella term for a bunch of different heterodoxies). The RCC is a schism from the Orthodoxy, and inside the RCC are a whole bunch of carefully controlled not-quite-heresies called “monastic orders”. A big part of the RCC is holding summits where people hash out doctrine. And then Henry VIII and Martin Luther kicked the last shreds of that house of cards over and Christianity got to diversify again, for better or worse.
People think that the RCC’s united facade is the standard template for religion, but there was really absolutely nothing in history even remotely similar to it. Not even the RCC itself.
Delavan
Sabellius, Arius, Nestor, and a thousand other “heretics” approve this message.
Judaism might slightly disagree, however. Aside from certain brands of post-1800s Orthodoxy (which, interestingly, came *after* the Reform movement), it doesn’t pretend to unity. Rabbinical Judaism is much more the history of contrasting schools of legal interpretation, and the whole point of the Talmud’s structure and later Midrashim is to preserve those debates. When a Jew says “everything is Torah” they include the contradictions – it’s probably one of the reasons there are so many excellent Jewish political theorists/philosophers/historians/lawyers. The whole religion is constructed as an argument around textual interpretation, without much of a coherent doctrine. It’s still *unique* in it’s focus on a single text, but it’s not unique in the same manner as Christianity… and there’s no way to annoy a Jew more quickly than to say something like “Judeo-Christian” because that really does cease to be a thing with the execution of James the Just.
thejeff
Didn’t really end quite that quickly, I think. Sects like the Ebionites and Nazarenes continued for quite some time, though they were outnumbered by the proto-orthodox.
As for Judeo-Christian, I do think there needs to be a term for various religions deriving from the old Israelite beliefs. That particular one is used to exclude Islam, which makes little sense. “Abrahamic religions” or the Muslim “People of the Book”.
Bruceski
The issue is that it’s a usable term for theologians in specific situations, but in general use implies unity where there isn’t any. No public speaker has ever followed “Judeo-Christian” with something distinctly Jewish, just Christian with the implied assumption that Jews are on-board.
See for example the Ten Commandments as a monument, the idea of forgiveness as something that needs to be given before atonement, or the idea that life begins at conception.
Delavan
Bruceski’s comment is exactly what I was getting at. Abrahamic religions also frequently suffers from the same problem in the West. People of the Book is better, since the islamic world when that term was created was much more accepting of Jews.
In general, we need far, far less use of the umbrella terms and more understanding and respect for the differences. Even many theologians suffer from jewish theology erasure.
thejeff
Agreed. It’s awkward terminology and often misused.
The umbrella terms remain valuable, I think, but only when talking in larger terms – contrasting with Hinduism, Buddhism or other faiths with very different roots.
Erik
“certain brands of post-1800s Orthodoxy (which, interestingly, came *after* the Reform movement)”
Yep, and sometimes in reaction to it
True Survivor
I was in the library the other day and succumbed to the siren song of a little book I found by the name of Heretics by Jonathan Wright. I didn’t do the homework I probably needed to, but it was definitely a fascinating read about religious schisms and dead splinter faiths in Christianity. There were some ones that would be considered very strange by today’s standards. For example, a couple had this whole thing going on where they concluded that given the sinful, suffering nature of the world that their must be at least two deities – a Creator Deity that fashioned an imperfect world and the God of Jesus who sent him in pity upon mankind.
thejeff
That’s the basic Gnostic idea, probably drawn from Zoroastrianism.
Psychie
I’m not familiar with that book in particular, but I had a course on the history of occult sciences in college and there was one particular heretical order that really tickled my fancy, I think it was like the gnostic order of the serpent or something similarly generic from the 13th or 14th century (I can’t recall if the prof said 13th century or 1300s). They basically found a biblical justification for hedonism. I’m probably oversimplifying but the basic argument is that since Jesus died for our sins, if we don’t sin, then Jesus died for nothing, so therefore it is *better* to sin, confess, and repent as much as possible (so long as you don’t cross certain lines, like murder) than to live as free from sin as possible. AFAIK the most common sins they practiced were lust, including adultery, and gluttony, so they basically had church sanctioned orgies and feasts and engaged in lots of swinging, because the bible said so. Naturally the Catholics put them all down for their heresy.
I’m sure there was a whole lot more to it than that, and my memory of the discussion is very fuzzy and incomplete, so I could be wildly misrepresenting the group in question, but I think they’re my favorite Christian sect of all time.
I don’t think he has one; she’s contrasting his stance on morality with Paul’s, and that’s a whole scripture thing.
I also wouldn’t call it a No True Scotsman. I don’t think she’s saying that Jennifer isn’t a Christian, just that she isn’t as serious or focused about it as others, and that’s both true and not necessarily any sort of insult.
Psychie
I think what makes it particularly relevant in this context is that both Becky and, more relevantly, Joyce know that whatever kind of Christian Jennifer is, she would in no way judge or shame Joyce for taking birth control. That’s not saying that Lucy or Becky *would*, especially given that she’s not taking to have sex but rather for a medical reason, just that Joyce is liable to *interpret* their involvement as carrying judgement, making the whole process more difficult and/or painful than it has any need or right to be for everyone involved.
Jennifer’s faith isn’t what matters, it’s Joyce’s interpretation of that faith, or rather what box she occupies in Joyce’s head. Lucy’s involvement would trigger Joyce’s left over Christian guilt from her upbringing because she identifies Lucy as a “real” Christian, even if she isn’t as fundamental as Joyce was, whereas they all know Jennifer is/has been promiscuous and thus shouldn’t poke at that particular wound.
Early theological argument. Paul nee Saul believed that Gentiles could go straight to be Christians; James argued that they had to convert to Judaism first, then become Christians. This, in particular, would have meant that the Gentile men would have to agree to circumcision prior to being allowed to become Christians.
Natch, this was a bit of a negative selling point, and Paul’s argument that Christianity had to take a less hardline approach in order to expand eventually won out.
Now, honestly, Becky’s not really thinking this through. While it’s true that Paul re-injected all the OT rules against women and homosexuality into his interpretation of Christianity (and is thus generally given the side-eye by leftist Christians), James’ approach would’ve pretty much led to the same result.
thejeff
Yeah, I’m kind of curious what Becky thinks James’ version of the religion was.
I’m reading the comments because I have 0 knowledge of Christianity books and I’m just more and more confused
Needfuldoer
Same. I know the major stuff in broad strokes, but I’ve learned more about the minutiae (and all the interpretations thereof) from these comics and comments than anywhere else.
“James the Just”, brother of Jesus and leader of the Jesus movement based in Jerusalem from some point after Jesus’s death. Stayed with a more Jewish, Torah observant version of the movement, in opposition to Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.
Mind you, I’m not at all sure what Becky thinks a James the Just version of Christianity would be like. Pretty sure it wouldn’t include keeping strict Torah Law.
No, because Jesus said that in Him was the completion of the Law, and Man no longer had to keep it.
thejeff
Jesus also said that “until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Or at least a later author wrote that he said that. This was the big conflict of mid-1st century Christianity and the Gospel writers were part of the conflict. In different Gospels Jesus says things that can be taken to be on different sides of that divide. Which of them, if any, he actually said, we really cannot know.
I know it doesn’t fit with the whole “The Bible is inerrant,” deal you often get from Christians, but the authors of the various books in it disagreed a lot. A lot of the anti-queer stuff in the New Testament is from Paul, he also said salvation comes through faith alone. James disagreed, and said salvation requires “works”, because works demonstrate faith. You’ll see a lot of linguistic gymnastics to pretend that’s not a disagreement.
Ah, I have heard that Catholicism believes in “works” as opposed to Protestant branches like Puritans who emphasize faith alone and “conversion experiences”, thank you for clarification of the roots of this division.
Huehuetotl
Paul’s interpretation is pretty much standard for most protestants, not just the puritans. But the Catholic idea of “works” is more like sacraments, and I think a better reading is that works is like mitzvah, some are rituals, but a lot are doing good deeds: feeding the hungry, tending to the sick, making sure widows and orphans are taken care of, that kind of thing.
Jamie
The doctrine of “sola fide” (faith alone) comes from Martin Luther, a monk who was very pissed that Catholic priests accepted money (“indulgences”) as a way to pre-pay for your sins instead of getting people to actually act less sinfully. It’s basically the entire thing that kicked off the Protestant Reformation (which was political as much as it was religious; history’s complicated).
Whether or not you decide to root the division in the canonized text itself is… up to you. Like, Paul wasn’t a big fan of money either. Or marriage. But importantly, the existence of such a division in the text didn’t matter when most people couldn’t read and had an interpretation handed to them by Catholic priests. Luther and the new-fangled printing press helped upend that order and with the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) effectively handed interpretative power to whoever.
He hadn’t planned or wanted that, but it was kinda too late.
The Bible reads much better if you jettison Paul’s stuff. He’s a misogynist too. Intolerant bigot. Contradicts a lot of the feeling from the gospels. I’m with Becky.
Of course she’s also recently (IIRC) converted to Good Works are important and Faith Alone is Not Enough— very heavily stressed in the US branch of the Episcopalian church.
There’s also the thing where Paul was a self-loathing Gay person. Or at least many Gospel authorities think he was.
Viktoria
I’ve seen him interpreted as ace, actually, which makes a lot more sense imo. Self-loathing gay is a good way to push blame for his homophobia back on the people it targeted. Ace in a time before that word existed turns his “all sex is evil, but if you really must, het only while married for the purpose of procreation” into an almost funny “wait, people actually enjoy sex?!?” sitcom misunderstanding.
thejeff
Maybe, but celibacy as part of religion isn’t that uncommon. The Essenes at the time definitely disapproved of women and of sexual relations, even within marriage, though marriage wasn’t forbidden at least to some Essenes. I doubt all such were invented by ace people. Paul’s attitude wasn’t that extreme really.
Especially for a believer in an apocalyptic cult, expecting God to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven at any time.
Kimi
Considering how some people viewed other people in that time period (including how Romans viewed women), I think you have to take some things within a historical societal context. Especially since the letters were written to specific groups in that time period. Concepts of words change, especially through translation. It’s like the US Constitution being written before things like the internet, nuclear weapons or assault riffles existed, so them talking about weapons doesn’t include our current understanding of what weapons can be. Even in talking to someone in person in the same time period, personal perceptions/definitions of words and ideas are different due to personal experiences.
Nicoleandmaggie
Pretty sure Paul was a bigot and the gospels weren’t bigoted no matter the translation. I don’t think we have to care about the historical context about something people are trying to live by today. It’s irrelevant unless you want to say Paul was a product of his time, unlike Jesus, and they made a mistake sticking him on the end of the Bible.
It’s easy to see “…salvation requires ‘works’….” as implying an ordering: do works and then one is saved. The usual formula in my experience is to reverse the implied order: one who is saved is then moved to works because sometimes love requires action.
But even that works/faith divide is a misreading of the early divide between Paul and James, which was focused on whether Gentiles who wanted to follow Jesus need to become Jews. “Works” didn’t mean what we think of today, but rather following Torah law. A lot of focus on the dietary restrictions and of course circumcision – both things that would be a big turn-off to prospective converts.
James the Just – brother of Jesus, and known for being more “works-oriented”. Also known from Acts as an opponent of Paul in terms of Roman assimilationism and sola fide/faith-alone doctrine. There’s also some scholarship on Acts that paints James and Paul as quite thoroughly opposed to each other. One of the big challenges in biblical interpretation is that the canonical New Testament gospels, aside from John, are based on the Pauline “sect” of christianity. Some scholarship – controversial among christian scholars, less so among jewish scholars – suggests James still had Christianity tied to the temple, and it was more one sect of judaism than a new religion. He may have also been more of a follower of Shammai than of Hillel – which fits with the works/ritual focus. Basically, Paul was a Roman/Greek assimilationist, and possibly a cousin of Herod the Great (certainly a Roman citizen, that’s uncontroversial)… whereas many other very early Christians were not.
Unfortunately, following the Bar Kochba revolt, those associated with James fled Israel into the Syria and Persia. (Syrian Orthodox churches still use the Liturgy of St. James.) Those associated with Paul spread through Rome, which is part of why the Pauline letters and interpretations are given primacy in most Christian denominations.
Seconded. I liked Lucy’s line in panel two, but Becky’s punchline left me scratching my head.
Delavan
You’re both welcome. I credit decades of soul-searching and most of a political theory PhD in lieu of the priesthood/rabbinate. If you ever want a similar lecture on Dante’s political theology, I’m also happy to provide *laugh/cry*
Jesus’ brother. Early head of the church in Jerusalem before he was put to death by Rome in 70 CE. Disagreed a lot with Paul (especially because Paul claimed to know Jesus better than James – again, Jesus’ actual factual brother). Reputed to be pretty nice. We have more extrabiblical evidence of him existing than his brother.
James the Just was Jesus’ younger brother. He was a major leader in the early Church, but the Gospel authors kinda go out of their way to avoid mentioning him. Willis is more familiar with this stuff than I am, but my general understanding is that he and Paul didn’t see eye-to-eye and that the whole “Mary was a virgin” thing is something that more Paul-aligned sources used in an attempt to discredit him. I think some branches claim that he was actually Jesus’ cousin and that the word “brother” was being used figuratively. (All the stuff about Mary’s virginity is, of course, ultimately done to tie into a passage in the book of Isaiah that Christians retcon into being about Jesus. Said passage used a term that could mean either “virgin” or “young woman” in Hebrew, but was specifically translated as “virgin” in the Greek translation that the New Testament writers were working from.)
Specifically from memory, “cousin” is the official Catholic position, while the Orthodox Church attempts to split the difference between it and the common Protestant position (Jesus’s brothers and sisters were Joseph and Mary’s) by having James and the others be Joseph’s but from a “first wife” who died some time before Mary.
It’s always weird when I talk to people who are really christian cuz like…I spent most of my life being around people who were christian as like…a technicality.
In that very vocal, relatively large segments of US Christianity have made opposition to any kind of birth control a required element of their faith. Kind of like, y’know, Joyce and her whole complex around it.
196 thoughts on “Helper”
Ana Chronistic
so it’s the Gourd vs. Lost Shoe factions, I see
darkoneko
Both of them are Star Wars fans, too !
Thag Simmons
Lucy somewhat more openly but probably somewhat less intensely
Shitbird
Wut
The Wellerman
Who’s James the Just?
The Wellerman
Or rather, what’s his relation to this “No True Scotsman” stance Becky has on faith?
Yotomoe
It’s less of a “no true scottsman” and more like…legit there’s a trillion different interpretations and sects of the Christian faith. The entire religion is basically “no true Scottsman” cuz nobody can actually agree on an interpretation.
Thag Simmons
Maintaining a single unified interpretation of a religion spread across thousands of cultures over thousands of years is probably impossible unless you are the Borg, and even then it’d be challenging
Marianne
We will add your theological and ecclesiastical distinctiveness to our own
Abdomino
Even Warhammer 40K, home to writers with no sense of scale or bureaucracy and a militiantly theocratic society knows that orthodoxy is a hard task. As long as the local planet’s religions can be renovated a bit to check off some basic requirements, they’re good to go.
Jamie
It’s striking exactly how weird Judaism and Christianity are among world religions. Most religions aggressively adapt themselves if you jump over a mountain or other interesting terrain feature. But Judaism had the innovation of writing it down in a book and standardizing stuff in order to maintain cultural tradition. This didn’t stop it from fracturing (there are a number of non-Rabbinical Jewish traditions from the post-Exile, pre-Talmud era; check out Sam Aronow on Youtube), but it showed that it was possible. That was 200ish AD. Christianity (in the form of Constantine in 300ish AD) basically stole that idea and tried to force everyone to agree on the same kind of Christianity, hence the active persecution of “heretics”. Before that canonization, there was a flowering of Christian sects (the most notable group being that of the Gnostics, which is an academic umbrella term for a bunch of different heterodoxies). The RCC is a schism from the Orthodoxy, and inside the RCC are a whole bunch of carefully controlled not-quite-heresies called “monastic orders”. A big part of the RCC is holding summits where people hash out doctrine. And then Henry VIII and Martin Luther kicked the last shreds of that house of cards over and Christianity got to diversify again, for better or worse.
People think that the RCC’s united facade is the standard template for religion, but there was really absolutely nothing in history even remotely similar to it. Not even the RCC itself.
Delavan
Sabellius, Arius, Nestor, and a thousand other “heretics” approve this message.
Judaism might slightly disagree, however. Aside from certain brands of post-1800s Orthodoxy (which, interestingly, came *after* the Reform movement), it doesn’t pretend to unity. Rabbinical Judaism is much more the history of contrasting schools of legal interpretation, and the whole point of the Talmud’s structure and later Midrashim is to preserve those debates. When a Jew says “everything is Torah” they include the contradictions – it’s probably one of the reasons there are so many excellent Jewish political theorists/philosophers/historians/lawyers. The whole religion is constructed as an argument around textual interpretation, without much of a coherent doctrine. It’s still *unique* in it’s focus on a single text, but it’s not unique in the same manner as Christianity… and there’s no way to annoy a Jew more quickly than to say something like “Judeo-Christian” because that really does cease to be a thing with the execution of James the Just.
thejeff
Didn’t really end quite that quickly, I think. Sects like the Ebionites and Nazarenes continued for quite some time, though they were outnumbered by the proto-orthodox.
As for Judeo-Christian, I do think there needs to be a term for various religions deriving from the old Israelite beliefs. That particular one is used to exclude Islam, which makes little sense. “Abrahamic religions” or the Muslim “People of the Book”.
Bruceski
The issue is that it’s a usable term for theologians in specific situations, but in general use implies unity where there isn’t any. No public speaker has ever followed “Judeo-Christian” with something distinctly Jewish, just Christian with the implied assumption that Jews are on-board.
See for example the Ten Commandments as a monument, the idea of forgiveness as something that needs to be given before atonement, or the idea that life begins at conception.
Delavan
Bruceski’s comment is exactly what I was getting at. Abrahamic religions also frequently suffers from the same problem in the West. People of the Book is better, since the islamic world when that term was created was much more accepting of Jews.
In general, we need far, far less use of the umbrella terms and more understanding and respect for the differences. Even many theologians suffer from jewish theology erasure.
thejeff
Agreed. It’s awkward terminology and often misused.
The umbrella terms remain valuable, I think, but only when talking in larger terms – contrasting with Hinduism, Buddhism or other faiths with very different roots.
Erik
“certain brands of post-1800s Orthodoxy (which, interestingly, came *after* the Reform movement)”
Yep, and sometimes in reaction to it
True Survivor
I was in the library the other day and succumbed to the siren song of a little book I found by the name of Heretics by Jonathan Wright. I didn’t do the homework I probably needed to, but it was definitely a fascinating read about religious schisms and dead splinter faiths in Christianity. There were some ones that would be considered very strange by today’s standards. For example, a couple had this whole thing going on where they concluded that given the sinful, suffering nature of the world that their must be at least two deities – a Creator Deity that fashioned an imperfect world and the God of Jesus who sent him in pity upon mankind.
thejeff
That’s the basic Gnostic idea, probably drawn from Zoroastrianism.
Psychie
I’m not familiar with that book in particular, but I had a course on the history of occult sciences in college and there was one particular heretical order that really tickled my fancy, I think it was like the gnostic order of the serpent or something similarly generic from the 13th or 14th century (I can’t recall if the prof said 13th century or 1300s). They basically found a biblical justification for hedonism. I’m probably oversimplifying but the basic argument is that since Jesus died for our sins, if we don’t sin, then Jesus died for nothing, so therefore it is *better* to sin, confess, and repent as much as possible (so long as you don’t cross certain lines, like murder) than to live as free from sin as possible. AFAIK the most common sins they practiced were lust, including adultery, and gluttony, so they basically had church sanctioned orgies and feasts and engaged in lots of swinging, because the bible said so. Naturally the Catholics put them all down for their heresy.
I’m sure there was a whole lot more to it than that, and my memory of the discussion is very fuzzy and incomplete, so I could be wildly misrepresenting the group in question, but I think they’re my favorite Christian sect of all time.
not someone else
I don’t think he has one; she’s contrasting his stance on morality with Paul’s, and that’s a whole scripture thing.
I also wouldn’t call it a No True Scotsman. I don’t think she’s saying that Jennifer isn’t a Christian, just that she isn’t as serious or focused about it as others, and that’s both true and not necessarily any sort of insult.
Psychie
I think what makes it particularly relevant in this context is that both Becky and, more relevantly, Joyce know that whatever kind of Christian Jennifer is, she would in no way judge or shame Joyce for taking birth control. That’s not saying that Lucy or Becky *would*, especially given that she’s not taking to have sex but rather for a medical reason, just that Joyce is liable to *interpret* their involvement as carrying judgement, making the whole process more difficult and/or painful than it has any need or right to be for everyone involved.
Jennifer’s faith isn’t what matters, it’s Joyce’s interpretation of that faith, or rather what box she occupies in Joyce’s head. Lucy’s involvement would trigger Joyce’s left over Christian guilt from her upbringing because she identifies Lucy as a “real” Christian, even if she isn’t as fundamental as Joyce was, whereas they all know Jennifer is/has been promiscuous and thus shouldn’t poke at that particular wound.
Huehuetotl
Anyways, what Becky really means is that she doesn’t know if Lucy fucks.
Clif
Not till the third date.
https://www.dumbingofage.com/2021/comic/book-11/04-hompk/chill/
Freemage
Early theological argument. Paul nee Saul believed that Gentiles could go straight to be Christians; James argued that they had to convert to Judaism first, then become Christians. This, in particular, would have meant that the Gentile men would have to agree to circumcision prior to being allowed to become Christians.
Natch, this was a bit of a negative selling point, and Paul’s argument that Christianity had to take a less hardline approach in order to expand eventually won out.
Now, honestly, Becky’s not really thinking this through. While it’s true that Paul re-injected all the OT rules against women and homosexuality into his interpretation of Christianity (and is thus generally given the side-eye by leftist Christians), James’ approach would’ve pretty much led to the same result.
thejeff
Yeah, I’m kind of curious what Becky thinks James’ version of the religion was.
Jamie
The guy who is credited with writing the Book of James in the New Testament.
FYI, there’s a Book of James in the New Testament.
Shitbird
I’m reading the comments because I have 0 knowledge of Christianity books and I’m just more and more confused
Needfuldoer
Same. I know the major stuff in broad strokes, but I’ve learned more about the minutiae (and all the interpretations thereof) from these comics and comments than anywhere else.
StClair
Same-same.
thejeff
But almost certainly not the author of that book.
“James the Just”, brother of Jesus and leader of the Jesus movement based in Jerusalem from some point after Jesus’s death. Stayed with a more Jewish, Torah observant version of the movement, in opposition to Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.
Mind you, I’m not at all sure what Becky thinks a James the Just version of Christianity would be like. Pretty sure it wouldn’t include keeping strict Torah Law.
Opus the Poet
No, because Jesus said that in Him was the completion of the Law, and Man no longer had to keep it.
thejeff
Jesus also said that “until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Or at least a later author wrote that he said that. This was the big conflict of mid-1st century Christianity and the Gospel writers were part of the conflict. In different Gospels Jesus says things that can be taken to be on different sides of that divide. Which of them, if any, he actually said, we really cannot know.
Huehuetotl
I know it doesn’t fit with the whole “The Bible is inerrant,” deal you often get from Christians, but the authors of the various books in it disagreed a lot. A lot of the anti-queer stuff in the New Testament is from Paul, he also said salvation comes through faith alone. James disagreed, and said salvation requires “works”, because works demonstrate faith. You’ll see a lot of linguistic gymnastics to pretend that’s not a disagreement.
The Wellerman
Ah, I have heard that Catholicism believes in “works” as opposed to Protestant branches like Puritans who emphasize faith alone and “conversion experiences”, thank you for clarification of the roots of this division.
Huehuetotl
Paul’s interpretation is pretty much standard for most protestants, not just the puritans. But the Catholic idea of “works” is more like sacraments, and I think a better reading is that works is like mitzvah, some are rituals, but a lot are doing good deeds: feeding the hungry, tending to the sick, making sure widows and orphans are taken care of, that kind of thing.
Jamie
The doctrine of “sola fide” (faith alone) comes from Martin Luther, a monk who was very pissed that Catholic priests accepted money (“indulgences”) as a way to pre-pay for your sins instead of getting people to actually act less sinfully. It’s basically the entire thing that kicked off the Protestant Reformation (which was political as much as it was religious; history’s complicated).
Whether or not you decide to root the division in the canonized text itself is… up to you. Like, Paul wasn’t a big fan of money either. Or marriage. But importantly, the existence of such a division in the text didn’t matter when most people couldn’t read and had an interpretation handed to them by Catholic priests. Luther and the new-fangled printing press helped upend that order and with the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) effectively handed interpretative power to whoever.
He hadn’t planned or wanted that, but it was kinda too late.
darkoneko
ooh
Nicoleandmaggie
The Bible reads much better if you jettison Paul’s stuff. He’s a misogynist too. Intolerant bigot. Contradicts a lot of the feeling from the gospels. I’m with Becky.
Of course she’s also recently (IIRC) converted to Good Works are important and Faith Alone is Not Enough— very heavily stressed in the US branch of the Episcopalian church.
Opus the Poet
There’s also the thing where Paul was a self-loathing Gay person. Or at least many Gospel authorities think he was.
Viktoria
I’ve seen him interpreted as ace, actually, which makes a lot more sense imo. Self-loathing gay is a good way to push blame for his homophobia back on the people it targeted. Ace in a time before that word existed turns his “all sex is evil, but if you really must, het only while married for the purpose of procreation” into an almost funny “wait, people actually enjoy sex?!?” sitcom misunderstanding.
thejeff
Maybe, but celibacy as part of religion isn’t that uncommon. The Essenes at the time definitely disapproved of women and of sexual relations, even within marriage, though marriage wasn’t forbidden at least to some Essenes. I doubt all such were invented by ace people. Paul’s attitude wasn’t that extreme really.
Especially for a believer in an apocalyptic cult, expecting God to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven at any time.
Kimi
Considering how some people viewed other people in that time period (including how Romans viewed women), I think you have to take some things within a historical societal context. Especially since the letters were written to specific groups in that time period. Concepts of words change, especially through translation. It’s like the US Constitution being written before things like the internet, nuclear weapons or assault riffles existed, so them talking about weapons doesn’t include our current understanding of what weapons can be. Even in talking to someone in person in the same time period, personal perceptions/definitions of words and ideas are different due to personal experiences.
Nicoleandmaggie
Pretty sure Paul was a bigot and the gospels weren’t bigoted no matter the translation. I don’t think we have to care about the historical context about something people are trying to live by today. It’s irrelevant unless you want to say Paul was a product of his time, unlike Jesus, and they made a mistake sticking him on the end of the Bible.
Mark
It’s easy to see “…salvation requires ‘works’….” as implying an ordering: do works and then one is saved. The usual formula in my experience is to reverse the implied order: one who is saved is then moved to works because sometimes love requires action.
thejeff
But even that works/faith divide is a misreading of the early divide between Paul and James, which was focused on whether Gentiles who wanted to follow Jesus need to become Jews. “Works” didn’t mean what we think of today, but rather following Torah law. A lot of focus on the dietary restrictions and of course circumcision – both things that would be a big turn-off to prospective converts.
Delavan
James the Just – brother of Jesus, and known for being more “works-oriented”. Also known from Acts as an opponent of Paul in terms of Roman assimilationism and sola fide/faith-alone doctrine. There’s also some scholarship on Acts that paints James and Paul as quite thoroughly opposed to each other. One of the big challenges in biblical interpretation is that the canonical New Testament gospels, aside from John, are based on the Pauline “sect” of christianity. Some scholarship – controversial among christian scholars, less so among jewish scholars – suggests James still had Christianity tied to the temple, and it was more one sect of judaism than a new religion. He may have also been more of a follower of Shammai than of Hillel – which fits with the works/ritual focus. Basically, Paul was a Roman/Greek assimilationist, and possibly a cousin of Herod the Great (certainly a Roman citizen, that’s uncontroversial)… whereas many other very early Christians were not.
Unfortunately, following the Bar Kochba revolt, those associated with James fled Israel into the Syria and Persia. (Syrian Orthodox churches still use the Liturgy of St. James.) Those associated with Paul spread through Rome, which is part of why the Pauline letters and interpretations are given primacy in most Christian denominations.
Delavan
Unsurprisingly, I was also a James the Just stan growing up. So much so that I eventually converted to Judaism…
thejeff
Somehow I doubt that’s the route Becky’s on, though it would be amusing.
Delavan
Yeah, that would be a comic by Zach Weinersmith, not Willis LMAO
Nep
Thank you for the thorough explanation!
Steve C
Seconded. I liked Lucy’s line in panel two, but Becky’s punchline left me scratching my head.
Delavan
You’re both welcome. I credit decades of soul-searching and most of a political theory PhD in lieu of the priesthood/rabbinate. If you ever want a similar lecture on Dante’s political theology, I’m also happy to provide *laugh/cry*
The Lurker
Yeah, in my youth I would introduce my self as I’m James, like Jesus brother – same mom different Dads. tis boom!
BBCC
Jesus’ brother. Early head of the church in Jerusalem before he was put to death by Rome in 70 CE. Disagreed a lot with Paul (especially because Paul claimed to know Jesus better than James – again, Jesus’ actual factual brother). Reputed to be pretty nice. We have more extrabiblical evidence of him existing than his brother.
RassilonTDavros
James the Just was Jesus’ younger brother. He was a major leader in the early Church, but the Gospel authors kinda go out of their way to avoid mentioning him. Willis is more familiar with this stuff than I am, but my general understanding is that he and Paul didn’t see eye-to-eye and that the whole “Mary was a virgin” thing is something that more Paul-aligned sources used in an attempt to discredit him. I think some branches claim that he was actually Jesus’ cousin and that the word “brother” was being used figuratively. (All the stuff about Mary’s virginity is, of course, ultimately done to tie into a passage in the book of Isaiah that Christians retcon into being about Jesus. Said passage used a term that could mean either “virgin” or “young woman” in Hebrew, but was specifically translated as “virgin” in the Greek translation that the New Testament writers were working from.)
King Daniel
Specifically from memory, “cousin” is the official Catholic position, while the Orthodox Church attempts to split the difference between it and the common Protestant position (Jesus’s brothers and sisters were Joseph and Mary’s) by having James and the others be Joseph’s but from a “first wife” who died some time before Mary.
spriteless aunty
Wow, and here I thought virgin births were common wherever women are executed for adultry.
Yotomoe
It’s always weird when I talk to people who are really christian cuz like…I spent most of my life being around people who were christian as like…a technicality.
Needfuldoer
Right? I just nod and go “uh-huh” a lot.
Sombrero
Then, if you were a DoA character you would have spent most of your life around Jennifer. Lucky you.
Yotomoe
I’m definitely not cool enough to be friends with Jennifer. If I was though I’d love to be FWB.
Cattleprod
Any talk of what Paul actually wrote always initially registers to me as talking about who wrote which Beatles songs.
RassilonTDavros
Understandable.
Huehuetotl
Hey Jude – Paul
Jude – Jude, brother of James the Just
Stephen Bierce
–And You Don’t Mess Around With Jim!
Sirksome
I mean I’m not sure how much Christianity plays into taking birth control but I guess if that’s the criteria for them then who am I to judge.
C.T. Phipps
Becky: I’m sorry, Lucy, but there’s something creepy about you.
Lucy: CREEPY?
Becky: You remind me too much of Joyce.
*Becky becomes good friends with Liz*
Hoboturtle
Joyce, Lucy, Liz gather around. A jamboree of Joyce
Needfuldoer
And they all put up a “season 1 Joyce” mask because that’s what they think the others expect.
C.T. Phipps
I would honestly love the three Joyces to go hang out.
Joyce: WHY AM I THE GRUMPY ONE!?
Sarah: You’re the Sarah of the group!
Nerrin
In that very vocal, relatively large segments of US Christianity have made opposition to any kind of birth control a required element of their faith. Kind of like, y’know, Joyce and her whole complex around it.