Humorless Jesus, the Jewish God's punchline

In Does Jesus Have a Sense of Humor? Austin Ruse (nyuk nyuk) tries but can't quite come up with any really good examples of Red Letter Jesus being funny.

Well, maybe because there aren't any?

And that's not because Ruse is, sorry to say, yet another example of a Catholic who is broadly unfamiliar with his Bible. He in fact oddly ridicules Biblical familiarity, calling G. K. Chesterton's negative opinion on the matter of humorless Jesus, for example, too Protestant, too sola scriptura.

Perhaps Ruse's best case is made with this though:

Consider also that Jesus is Jewish, and consider the Jews have always been funny. ... One final argument for His sense of humor which is ongoing. Here’s the proof: He chose us. That is hilarious. He chose you and me to do His work on earth. And we are so lame and even laughable.  

This is indeed amusing. But again, Ruse might have found it in St. Paul, if only he had read him:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 

-- I Corinthians 1:27.

The joke was, moreover, as laughable to Athenians as it was to Jews like Paul:

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. 

-- Acts 17:32.

Ruse finds some good material in the Old Testament for Jewish humor, which happens to emphasize the superiority theory of humor, where God laughs at the wicked and his prophet laughs at the impotent priests of Baal, but he glaringly leaves out perhaps the most famous example of the incongruity theory of humor in the OT, where God defies norms and acts contrary to expectations:

And [the Lord] said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? 

-- Genesis 18:10ff.

The main problem involved with all this is that there doesn't seem to be one unified theory of humor. It is a profound, perennial, and interesting problem of definition.

It shouldn't surprise us, for example, that we are hard-pressed to find examples of the relief theory of humor in the sayings of Jesus. The gospel writers aren't interested in portraying a Jesus who laughs to release pent up negative emotions. Instead they portray him sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. And Jesus is not interested in superiority. He is the servant of all, as his followers must be.

Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.

-- Ephesians 5:4.

There is much to be said instead for the incongruity theory, and to some extent the superiority theory, persisting in the New Testament, where reversal of expectations and fortunes both give to God the last laugh, with his elevation of the inferior, the lowly, the meek as the dominant theme.

But the comedy, it would seem, if there is any, is all from God's point of view. We are but the actors on the stage. We perform. He laughs.

And perhaps the biggest joke of all is that the star of this show is a bastard, born of fornication (John 8:41, 44). But Jesus, playing true to his part, couldn't possibly entertain this joke. He must be, like us, an actor.

His script, about the imminent end of the world, about only few finding eternal life, has nothing funny about it.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

We try, though:

Always deny there's any evidence to the contrary when promoting the virgin birth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 As does Walter Russell Mead, who says Christmas is a feminist holiday lol, here:

The early church wasn’t facing a sea of rumors about Mary’s prenuptial behavior, and if it had been, there are more convincing ways of scotching rumors than proclaiming a miraculous virgin birth. 

 Meanwhile . . .

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 

-- John 8:38ff.

A Roman Catholic wants you to believe "sinless Mary" is biblical

Here:

Grace is presented (esp. in Paul) as the antithesis of sin.

To be full of such grace (simple logic) is to be without sin.

Mary was proclaimed by an angel as “full of grace” (Lk 1:28); therefore, she is without sin.

You will search in vain for the translation "full of grace" in Luke 1:28 in the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New Living Translation, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, the Christian Standard Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Translation, the Revised Standard Version and the American Standard Version. Most of these say Mary is "highly favored".

Evidently the translators of these editions all must have been either a bunch of dummies, or a pack of anti-Catholic Protestant heretics to a man to get it so wrong, for so long.

The birth narratives of Jesus in Matthew and Luke were most likely composed to counter the calumny (to Christians) that Jesus was born of fornication (John 8:41). This became a bone of contention once Jesus' reputation had risen above mere "prophet" to deity. The solution to the charge of being a product of fornication was a miraculous birth to a virgin involving no human father at all.

But, of course, Mary then becomes the problem. She herself participated in sinful human nature, did she not, and therefore must have communicated it to her son, did she not?

So in Catholic theology a sinless Mary becomes necessary to stop the communication of sinful human nature to Jesus, based on tenous arguments such as above.

But then how did Mary escape the great chain of being? And if she did why was the birth of Jesus even necessary?

The whole thing quickly descends into more absurdity.

Some Evidence Of Outsiders' Dim View Of Jesus' Origins

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

-- Mt.1:18-19

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.

-- Jn.8:38-41

The Virgin Birth Claim Was Already Strong Enough To Be Attacked By The Time Of John

Jesus saith unto them,

"If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father.

Then said they to him,

"We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God."

Jesus said unto them,

"If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."

-- John 8:39-42