# On religion vs. faith and the political Jesus



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

I'm listening to this writer interview right now.  Good thought-provoking stuff.

Reza Azlan on CBC Tapestry (listen link on the page)


The book is
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371532628&sr=1-1"]Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth[/ame]


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

There's maybe a quick Cliff's Notes of the ideas in the book in this TV interview, although the interviewer herself is prolly the worst interviewer ever:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt1cOnNrY5s]Stupidest Interview Ever by Fox News - anchor to REZA ASLAN - But you're a Muslim, right? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Chuckt (Oct 27, 2013)

It may take me a half an hour to respond since I have to watch a ten minute video and read a link.  I'm doing the work because you didn't post what this is about.  I'm listening to a video and I don't know what it is about.


----------



## Chuckt (Oct 27, 2013)

I think the link is this:

Reza Aslan on Jesus the Revolutionary | Tapestry with Mary Hynes | CBC Radio

I think the author is trying to sell a story.  The information in the link doesn't line up with what I know about the Bible.


----------



## Chuckt (Oct 27, 2013)

> It is difficult to place Jesus of Nazareth squarely within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time. He was a man of profound contradictions, one day preaching a message of racial exclusion ("I was sent solely to the lost sheep of Israel"; Matthew 15:24), the next, of benevolent universalism ("Go and make disciples of all nations"; Matthew 28:19); sometimes calling for unconditional peace ("Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God"; Matthew 5:9), sometimes promoting violence and conflict ("If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one"; Luke 22:36).



Reza Aslan on Jesus the Revolutionary | Tapestry with Mary Hynes | CBC Radio



> According to Christian pacifist John Yoder, Jesus rejected the existing political state of affairs and taught a form of radical nonviolence. Central to Christ's teaching, Yoder says, is His biblical mandate to "turn the other cheek" when encountering violence (Matthew 5:38-48).



Self-defense?



> Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.



-ibid.

The talk about Jesus being a revolutionary is pure hogwash.  Phd or no Phd, it is garbage and it is a waste of my time talking about this about someone who got a Phd and doesn't know Bible..  You don't start a revolution with turning the other cheek and short swords that are just for self-defense.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuckt said:


> > It is difficult to place Jesus of Nazareth squarely within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time. He was a man of profound contradictions, one day preaching a message of racial exclusion ("I was sent solely to the lost sheep of Israel"; Matthew 15:24), the next, of benevolent universalism ("Go and make disciples of all nations"; Matthew 28:19); sometimes calling for unconditional peace ("Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God"; Matthew 5:9), sometimes promoting violence and conflict ("If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one"; Luke 22:36).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since you started whining about not knowing what the subject was and then reposted the same link I gave in the OP as if you had to go figure it out, I'm going to assume you're not the most perceptive.

Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years.  What he tried to do as _masiach_, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists.  And that means throwing off the Romans, and _*that *_is what he was convicted and executed for.  The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.

All this BS about transforming him into a god came _much _much later.  It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition.  Nothing.

As Aslan also points out, this isn't a new perspective.  I came upon it forty years ago in my own study.  Viewing a person in their own time and in the real politics of their day makes a hell of a lot more sense than imagining a bunch of people in sandals who did nothing but walk around all day spouting platitudes.

Not sure how to address the various quotes above-- they don't really make a point or refute anything.


----------



## Chuckt (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years.  What he tried to do as _masiach_, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists.  And that means throwing off the Romans, and _*that *_is what he was convicted and executed for.  The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.
> 
> All this BS about transforming him into a god came _much _much later.  It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition.  Nothing.
> 
> ...



It is funny that he appeals to the Bible and then you say that isn't what it is about.  He appeals to the Bible but he is illiterate on the point that I pointed out.  I don't have need for such nonsense.  It is a waste of time and he is basically making it up based on theory (himself).

That is what the Jews wanted but that was not what Jesus wanted.

John 19:6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!" But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

John 18:11 Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"


----------



## BreezeWood (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years.  What he tried to do as _masiach_, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists.  And that means throwing off the Romans, and _*that *_is what he was convicted and executed for.  The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.
> 
> All this BS about transforming him into a god came _much _much later.  It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition.  Nothing.




there is a lot there to make sense of JC, with many similarities throughout history ...



.






.

Mao and company as well all seem to have illusions of godliness.


* however not to diminish a role by those above, a guidance they may truly have accomplished from a Divine source - is possible.

.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuckt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years.  What he tried to do as _masiach_, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists.  And that means throwing off the Romans, and _*that *_is what he was convicted and executed for.  The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.
> ...



I don't know what you mean by "appeals to the bible".  

But ask yourself this: how would you know "what Jesus wanted"?  Especially when for everything he said or did we have to depend on writings put down long after he was gone and then later edited?


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years.  What he tried to do as _masiach_, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists.  And that means throwing off the Romans, and _*that *_is what he was convicted and executed for.  The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.
> ...



I don't think Mao was driving out the Romans.  Not sure what your analogy is here.

The point of the view of Jesus as a real person is that he didn't claim to be a god -- that was appended onto him later by others, and it would presumably shock him to the depth of his Jewish soul if he were to come back to see what he's been made into.

What in the world that has to do with Mao eludes me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> I'm listening to this writer interview right now.  Good thought-provoking stuff.
> 
> Reza Azlan on CBC Tapestry (listen link on the page)
> 
> ...



Am I supposed to listen to a really dumb interview in order to find the one kernel of idiocy you think proves how smart you are, or will you tell us because we aren't nearly as smart as you think you are?

By the way, didn't you once give me a hard time about a typo in a link I posted? Does that make you especially stupid for having a typo in your link, or do you really think that ttp:// is a valid link?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> > > It is difficult to place Jesus of Nazareth squarely within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time. He was a man of profound contradictions, one day preaching a message of racial exclusion ("I was sent solely to the lost sheep of Israel"; Matthew 15:24), the next, of benevolent universalism ("Go and make disciples of all nations"; Matthew 28:19); sometimes calling for unconditional peace ("Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God"; Matthew 5:9), sometimes promoting violence and conflict ("If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one"; Luke 22:36).
> ...



He was not trying to bring back anything, there had never been a kingdom of God before Jesus started teaching about it. Since it had never existed, it cannot be defined the way you are attempting to, and we must look to what Jesus said about it to understand it. The only time JEsus specifically spoke about the kingdom to a person who was not a disciple was in John 3, and it is perfectly clear if you read that chapter that he is not talking about a land free of foreigners.

Nice try. In the future, if you want to understand something, don't listen to yourself.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I'm listening to this writer interview right now.  Good thought-provoking stuff.
> ...



Wasn't aware of that.  Thanks, fixed.  In your case I was fairly sure you did it on purpose -- your point IIRC was that the URL didn't work, and leaving out part of the URL ensured it didn't.

The first part of your post is meaningless noise.  I put the story up as an invitation.  Nobody's got a gun to your head to go listen to it.

But just for rhetorical S&Gs... how do you know it's "dumb" if you didn't?

Just a note for the scorecard -- that's not me in there, neither interviewer or interviewee.  So "how smart I am" isn't a part of this.  You may choose to worship my obviously superior intellect _without _this audio aid.  See?  I just saved you an hour of dangerous knowledge.


----------



## Chuckt (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> I don't know what you mean by "appeals to the bible".
> 
> But ask yourself this: how would you know "what Jesus wanted"?  Especially when for everything he said or did we have to depend on writings put down long after he was gone and then later edited?



He appealed to the Bible for what he wants to prove and ignores the rest that contradicts him.

How does someone from the 21st century know what Jesus wanted when he doesn't know and he is revising what Jesus said?


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Chuckt said:
> ...



Of course there was.  It was an expression for the Jewish nation.  Not talking about what latter-day editors and power-hungry priests wanted to morph it into.  When Jesus (or anyone) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to _themselves as a free people_.  So if you're advocating that, then *by definition* you're advocating the overthrow of Rome -- even if you're not saying it directly, which would be suicide.  And that's why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion as a deterrent to revolutionary forces (which is why Jesus had to be cagey about it), finally *did *crucify him: as an enemy of the state.  No more, no less.

Again, I'm not concerned with what's left of the bible as a source, especially after centuries of editing.  The Septuagint put that to rest.  Rather, I'm interested in what the real story is.  And that means looking at real history.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



How do I know it's dumb? The same way you know its dumb when Sarah Palin starts talking, the idiot who is talking is an idiot.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Ah, excellent, right to Poisoning the Well in lieu of analysis.
Windbag forfeits.  Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Can you provide contemporary citations for that, or are we supposed to bow to your genius? 

I suggest you explain to me how Christians managed to rewrite Jewish history to such an extent that they went from understanding the kingdom to be spiritual in nature to actually being something that had already happened, and needed to be restored. 

Unlike you, I can provide sources.



> Targum to Zech. xiv. 9 and Ob. 21; "Malkut Shaddai ": 'Alenu;  and "Malkut Shamayim": Ber. ii. 2, and elsewhere in Mishnah and  Haggadah): Reign or sovereignty of God as contrasted with the kingdom of  the worldly powers. The hope that God will be King over all the earth,  when all idolatry will be banished, is expressed in prophecy and song  (Ex. xv. 18; Zech. xiv. 9; Isa. xxiv. 23, Iii. 7; Micah iv. 7; Ps. xxix.  10), and with special emphasis in the later Psalms (xciii.-xcix.).  God's Kingdom is spoken of in Ps. xxii. 29 (A. V. 28), ciii. 19, cxlv.  11-13; Ob. 21; Dan. iii. 33 (A. V. iv. 3); Tobit, xiii. 1; Sibyllines,  iii. 47-48, 767; Psalms of Solomon, xvii. 3; Wisdom, x. 10; Assumptio  Mosis, x. 1; Song of the Three Holy Children, 33; Enoch, lxxxiv. 2. The  words "The Lord shall be King" are translated in the Targum, "The  Kingdom of God shall be revealed"; and the ancient liturgy culminates in  the prayer that "God may establish His Kingdom speedily" (see 'Alenu; &#7730;addish).  The Kingdom of God, however, in order to be established on earth,  requires recognition by man; that is, to use the Hasidæan phrase  borrowed from Babylonia or Persia, man must "take upon himself the yoke  of the Kingdom of God" ("'Ol Malkut Shamayim"; "Heaven" is a synonym of  "God"; see Heaven). This the Israelites do daily when reciting the Shema' (Ber. ii. 2); so do the angels when singing their "Thrice Holy" (Hekalot);  and in the future "all men shall take upon themselves the yoke of the  Kingdom of God when casting away their idols" (Mek., Beshalla&#7717;, 'Amalek,  2). Accordingly, says the Midrash (Cant. R. ii. 12), "when the Kingdom  of Rome has ripened enough to be destroyed, the Kingdom of God will  appear."


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuckt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what you mean by "appeals to the bible".
> ...



By "he" I guess you mean the author.  Of course he taps what's in the bible as one source, and lots of others as other sources.  If one source contradicts the other, well that's gotta be resolved, doesn't it?  Besides, you would't have to leave the bible to find contradictions; there's plenty right there.

Clearly if you're trying to paint a picture of who Jesus was and what he was about, you need more than the bible to go on.  For instance... what the hell was he doing before the age of thirty?  Was there nothing of interest in thirty years for a guy that was supposed to be God?  Inquiring minds want to know.

There might be a reason for that...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I forfeit because I know the guy is pretentious? Perhaps it would be better for you if you actually learn about your source before dismissing people who know him as cranks.

This is what the left leaning Nation says about him.



> Aslans broader claim to working as a historian, however, is another  matter. Frankly, he would probably have been cut a good deal more slack  by specialists had he simply said that he was working as an outsider to  the field, interested in translating work by scholars of early  Christianity for a broader audience. But his claims are more grandiose  than that and are based on his repeated public statements that he speaks  with authority as a historian. He has therefore reasonably opened  himself to criticism on the basis of that claim.
> And here, there is much to criticize. Aslan argues that Jesus was a  Palestinian peasant whose claims about the coming kingdom of God were  both self-conscious and literal. Setting himself up in active and public  opposition to Roman imperial authority, Aslans Jesus ran afoul of the  Romans and the Jewish elites who aligned themselves with Roman power.  From this reconstruction, Aslan derives the title of his book_Zealot_and his thesis that the crime for which Jesus was executed was treason.
> _Zealot_ reflects wide reading in the secondary literature  that has emerged in the scholarly study of the historical Jesus. In that  sense, as one colleague of mine puts it, Aslan is a reader rather than a  researcher. Aslans reconstruction of the life of Jesus invests a  surprisingly literalist faith in some parts of the gospel narratives.  For example, he argues, against the scholarly consensus, that the  so-called messianic secret in the Gospel of Mark (a text written four  decades after the death of Jesus) reflects an actual political strategy  of the historical Jesus rather than a literary device by which the  author of that text made sense of conflicting bits of received  tradition. His readings of the canonical gospels give little attention  to the fact that the writers of these texts were engaged in a complex  intertextual practice with the Hebrew scriptures in Greek, that these  writers were interested in demonstrating that Jesus fulfilled prophecies  written centuries earlierin short, that the gospel writers were  writers with (sometimes modest, sometimes expansive) literary  aspirations and particular theological axes to grind. Biblical scholars  have, over many decades, sought to develop methods of textual analysis  to tease out these various interests and threads.
> But Aslan does not claim to be engaged in literary analysis but in  history-writing. One might then expect his reconstruction of the world  of Jesus of Nazareth to display a deep understanding of second-temple  Judaism. Yet, his historical reconstruction is partial in both senses of  the term. For example, he depends significantly on the testimony of the  first-century Jewish historian Josephus, taking it more or less at face  value (which no scholar of the period would do). Meanwhile he amplifies  Jewish resistance to Roman domination into a widespread biblically  based zealotry, from which he concludes that Jesus was intent upon armed  resistance and the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.  Moreover, his reconstruction of the Judaism of the time is too flat and  monolithic. At best, his argument is overstated; at worst, it depends  upon scholarship that has been definitively challenged by more recent  work in the field and upon a method that cherry-picks from the ancient  sources.



Reza Aslan?Historian? | The Nation

Frankly, I would rather listen to Obama lie to me about how great my life is since he got elected than listen to Aslan pontificate on anything at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Just a quick question, since you are an expert and all, what do actual scholars think about Aslan's work? 

If he is outside the consensus, which he is, and scholars dismiss him as a crank, there might be a reason for that. Your unwillingness to admit you were wrong about him just proves you are the one with the problem.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Chuckt said:
> ...



Umm... huh?

"Wrong" about what?  I didn't venture an opinion about him; I just put up the interview and said it's thought provoking.

You seem to have a fixation with trying to shut people up.  Do you work for the Vatican?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You defended accused me of being stupid because I refused to listen to his claptrap, but you don't have an opinion of him? 

How typical.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I "defended accused you of being stupid"?  Where did I defended accused that?
How typical indeed.  Not the first time you made stuff up that doesn't exist.

No, I don't need your opinion, my opinion or the man on the freaking moon's opinion, your contrarianist desperate attempts to hijack yet another thread notwithstanding.  Poisoning the Well is for losers who have no ideas.  The idea of this thread is to present ideas for thought, not prevent them.

I know it chaps your ass to imagine that such a discussion might take place beyond your control.  That's too god damn bad.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The well was poisoned when I got here, all I did was warn everyone. You, however, prefer to slurp the poison.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

And I'm sure this "warning" carries the full weight of your reputation if you get my drift... 

Discussion is now "poison".  I'm gonna save that one.  That's pure gold.

Next...


----------



## BreezeWood (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Of course there was.  It was an expression for the Jewish nation.  Not talking about what latter-day editors and power-hungry priests wanted to morph it into. * When Jesus (or anyone) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to themselves as a free people*.  So if you're advocating that, then *by definition* you're advocating the overthrow of Rome -- even if you're not saying it directly, which would be suicide.  And that's why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion *as a deterrent to revolutionary forces* (which is why Jesus had to be cagey about it), finally *did *crucify him: *as an enemy of the state.*  No more, no less.
> 
> Again, I'm not concerned with what's left of the bible as a source, especially after centuries of editing.  The Septuagint put that to rest.  Rather, I'm interested in what the real story is.  And that means looking at real history.






> > When Jesus (*or anyone*) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to themselves as a free people ... why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion as a deterrent to revolutionary forces - as an enemy of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not sure why the analogy of "or anyone" would not fit all the people through history who rebelled as JC against tyrannical governance would be so hard to decipher ? 

or that through History their followers likewise is one regard or another deified their leaders, particularly those who gave their lives for their cause. - the "Red Book" if Bibliciesed would be a good example.

George Washington is another ...

.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there was.  It was an expression for the Jewish nation.  Not talking about what latter-day editors and power-hungry priests wanted to morph it into. * When Jesus (or anyone) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to themselves as a free people*.  So if you're advocating that, then *by definition* you're advocating the overthrow of Rome -- even if you're not saying it directly, which would be suicide.  And that's why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion *as a deterrent to revolutionary forces* (which is why Jesus had to be cagey about it), finally *did *crucify him: *as an enemy of the state.*  No more, no less.
> ...



But Mao and Washington weren't held up as gods.

You've mixed excerpts from two unrelated posts here...


----------



## BreezeWood (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...






> *Pogo:* ... although the interviewer herself is prolly the worst interviewer ever




ok, i listened to the interview - Fox and QW have a remarkable commonality ...




> Pogo: But Mao and Washington weren't held up as gods.



oh, maybe if you remove 1800 + years of advancement in civilization and put those two back to year 0 wait 150 years and write a book of their accomplishment you could quite easily have the same outcome as given to JC ...

which is to say I agree with Reza Azlan in as much as what was decipherable from the interview.

and does make a great deal of sense - as what happened was "mixed excerpts from two unrelated" (events) rebellion and religion was the ensuing outcome known as the Biblical interpritation.


* as previously stated however i am not excluding the possibility Divine intervention did not in some way play a role in all the events above.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

Pogo said:


> And I'm sure this "warning" carries the full weight of your reputation if you get my drift...
> 
> Discussion is now "poison".  I'm gonna save that one.  That's pure gold.
> 
> Next...



You are an atheist that thinks he knows what the Bible says because you watched a video by a guy that wants you to think he is smart because he read a book.

I have an actual degree in theology.

Figure it out for yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 27, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



In other words, you prefer fantasy to actual scholarly research. Did you look at the link I provided that describes some of the problems with Aslan's scholarship, or do you prefer to be ignorant?


----------



## Pogo (Oct 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > And I'm sure this "warning" carries the full weight of your reputation if you get my drift...
> ...



"Theology"?  Is that what you call making up stuff and attributing it to other people?

I never said I was an atheist either.  Whoops.

"Degree in theology" -- sure you do.  I myself have degrees in microbiology, time travel and quantum psychics. You have a degree in trollology.  Go exercise it somewhere else.  Your endless Poison the Well fallacies are as irrelevant as you are.

You do know what Poisoning the Well _means_, do you not?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 28, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Never said you are an atheist?



Pogo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > What are we teaching our kids  with the Santa Claus tradition? Does it promote 'belief', or warn us  against being gullible?
> ...


----------



## Pogo (Oct 28, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Uh- you just refuted your own point. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Seriously dood, you went over nine thousand of my posts, all the way back to last year -- and ended up shooting your own point in the mouth.  Do you not read English?

I'll just watch.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 28, 2013)

> According to Christian pacifist John Yoder, Jesus rejected the existing political state of affairs and taught a form of radical nonviolence. Central to Christ's teaching, Yoder says, is His biblical mandate to "turn the other cheek" when encountering violence (Matthew 5:38-48).



Since turning the other cheek has nothing to do with passivism *or* submission, I'll skip the rest of Mr. Yoder's expertise.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 28, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



My ability to use Google does not prove that I am obsessing over your posts, sorry.

I refuted your idiotic claim that you don't support the idiot in the video that is such a poor scholar that even anti Christian bigots from the left dismiss him as a crank. You even got emotional, and refused to actually address the criticism of his methods from a fellow atheist that thinks Fox screwed up the interview. 

Funny how they  never think MSNBC screwed up interviews if one person on that network is an idiot, but we can pretend that makes sense just so you don't get confused. Excuse me, I mean more confused.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 28, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Uh nooo, you tried to document me saying I'm an atheist and ended up doing the opposite.  What is English, some kind of secret code to you?  Does it go right in one empty ear and out the other that you continue to just make shit up, get called on it, and then proceed to do it _again_?

Nor did I say I "support" or "don't support" the subject (I can't say "in the video" since it's an _audio_ feed, duh).  Wait, let me guess -- you got no further than the interview and never went to the link, which is the whole purpose of the thread ... 

And still obliviously hung up on the same Poisoning the Well fallacy... 
Go troll somewhere else.  You're obviously incompetent.  This is a Religion forum, not Politics.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 28, 2013)

What turning the other cheek means if we don't lean on our own understanding:

It is a court honored action not to maim  but to humiliate.  Since most are right handed, the slap occurred to the right cheek of the victim or inferior, with the* back *of the *right *hand of the perpetrator or superior.  Back hand being the humiliating part.  
Even if the victim was innocent he had no recourse, because hitting back was punishable.  Two wrongs don't make a right. Jesus' method of dealing with the issue did 2 things. 

Because you can't slap the left cheek with the back of your right hand:
It restored the victims dignity by showing that the victim can stand up to any hostility or accusation of the perpetrators. That this isn't over.
It created a new situation. It robs the perp of the *power* to  humiliate the victim. It is an invitation to accuse, that the accuser is powerless to accomplish.  He can't  lower the victim's status by humiliating him any longer.  The victim wins the day.  No humiliation makes the victim equal to the one who wants to humiliate. 

*It is justice for the little guy*, not submission.  It is standing firm and standing up. < You are the Child of the Most High.  Accept nothing less for yourself.

Another odd law was an accuser being allowed to remove the undergarments of the accused until the accuser is compensated for the wrong.
  Jesus said if your innocent of the charge, and they take your undergarments, take off your tunic and hand that to them too, and show you have nothing to hide and will not be shamed.


----------



## BreezeWood (Oct 28, 2013)

.
... is anyone capable of being on topic in this thread ?

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 28, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> ... is anyone capable of being on topic in this thread ?
> 
> .



The thread topic is based on a lying idiot, so the answer is no.


----------



## BreezeWood (Oct 28, 2013)

.

well,



> > ... within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



as always, the merit of the discussion need not be dictated by any one individual ...

I find the above to be accountable for many of the discrepancies that do exist per the historical figure of Jesus Christ and an obviously biased depiction of that individual found in the religious publications associated with those event.

.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 28, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> well,
> 
> ...



There is no merit to any claim that Jesus preached politics.

I would object just as vehemently if someone posted a deranged idiot ranting about Gandhi preaching the value of violence in obtaining social change. If you want a legitimate discussion about zealotry and politics, pick a different way to make your case than lying.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 28, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> well,
> 
> ...



I agree.  Always thought that.  A person exists in his time, and is subject to the circumstances of that time, part of which is the state of the nation as a Roman territory, part of which is his being born into a cohesive Jewish community that had its own strict codes of behavior, for instance that he be married and procreate children.

It's been plausibly suggested that:
The wedding at Cana, where he allegedly turned water to wine, was in fact his own wedding;
Mary called Magdalene (and conflated in various descriptions with other Marys at Golgotha) was his wife;
Jesus Barabbas, the prisoner the Romans exchange for Jesus, is "Jesus bar Abbas", meaning "son of the master" or "junior", in other words Jesus' first born, and that he would have inherited the right to make a claim for the throne next...

Bottom line, Jesus was tried and convicted for political crimes, not spiritual ones (about which the Romans would not have cared), and given a torture that was specifically reserved for those who committed insurrection against the Roman state.

These are the questions that should be generated here.  We need not concern ourselves with, or even acknowledge the existence of, those who would tear asunder this ponderance with their endless finger-wagging from the Church of Contrarianism...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 28, 2013)

Pogo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



It has been plausibly suggested by who?

Weddings were typically arranged by families at that time, and the actual wedding usually occurred when the couple was in their late teens. Jesus was was 30 at the time of the wedding in Cana, which makes it rather implausible that it was his wedding.

But, please, try pretending you are smart enough to talk about anything that doesn't involve sucking a pacifier.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 29, 2013)

Pogo said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Let's,  because they should be addressed.  You are using Biblical knowledge as fact to a point and then diverting from it to a different plausible substitution.  How do you know where the truth of the situation stops and where your intervention is necessary?
Depending on where you put up the stop sign, the story also tells us that the people at the wedding party congratulated the father of the bride, not Christ for saving the best wine till last.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had a married daughter.  That makes the scenario less plausible, doesn't it?  

 There is nothing to support Jesus having a wife.  Not historically or in the Bible.  The Da Vinci Code is a book of fiction.  Mary of Magdala, was a follower, nothing more, nothing less.  So were Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary Salome, Martha, sister of Lazarus, Miriamne, sister of Phillip, Arsinoe, Susanna, Joanna.  

Barabbas was to old to be Jesus' son.  His career of theft and gang violence and murder were well established over time. His crimes were not a child's rap sheet.

Jesus was tried and convicted because the Pharisees insisted on it.  The Romans found no fault in Him and washed their hands of the deed.  The Jews said to let the responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion fall on them and their descendants. 
Jesus could have made toast out of all of them, but was here specifically* to* hang on that cross as our Passover Lamb.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 29, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Thank you - this is much more what I had in mind for this thread as far as painting an authentic historical picture.

How do we know where NT accuracy stops and details must be deduced?  Aye, that's the whole question.  We know it's riddled with inaccuracies, contradictions and missing info which is inevitable in a treatise that's been heavily edited by committee (most notably at the Council of Nicea) and wasn't even written down until long after Jesus was gone, so such  discrepancies are to be fully expected.  Therein lieth the art of historical interpretation then.

For instance, just to take the last first...
>> he Romans found no fault in Him and washed their hands of the deed.  The Jews said to let the responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion fall on them and their descendants. 
Jesus could have made toast out of all of them, but was here specifically* to* hang on that cross as our Passover Lamb. <<

-- given a choice between (a) some guy who's called a god long after he's gone, hanging on a cross two thousand years ago to fulfill some vague ancient animal-sacrificial superstition and (b) an insurrectionist, working furtively under cloak of the spiritual (which is to say the entire sociocultural structure of his people), ferreted out by the Romans, like countless others, executed as an enemy of the State, _specifically by the method they reserved for such insurrectionists_, which is the more plausible?

Obviously the latter.  The 'sacrificial lamb' bit makes no sense right on its face.  If I go rob a bank and get caught, I do the time in prison mysef -- I don't get to say, "well, this guy two thousand years ago was hung on a cross so I'm outta here".  God, if we take his description, has no need for that.  The sacrifice/redeemer metaphor was a common image of primitive peoples who had barely developed an alphabet, so this can be seen basically as a marketing (our god: better than your god, now with new Crucifixion).  Now it starts to make sense in _real _terms.

And of course the whole general allegorical overlay of death and rebirth was old hat by then when you were putting a god together; Osiris for one, in Egypt, with his son Horus, were liberally used as a model for the Jesus version, embodying concepts of seasonal death and rebirth as well as "virgin" birth.  These were already themselves established for over two thousand years before Jesus was a twinkle in God's eye, so they were deeply ingrained mythologies.  The whole concept of a death-and-rebirth deity had been used over and over (Adonis, Baal, Dionysus, Eshmun, Melqart, Tammuz et al).  Dumuzi (husband of Ishtar) goes to an underworld for six months in order to bring life back ("rebirth") to the crops.  Clearly these are myths based on, and symbolizing, the growing season, which was absolutely vital to human survival.  It's understandable, and expected, that such peoples would place such a central focus here, including down to vegetation deities, because that's what religion does -- tries to make sense of the natural world.

Knowing that these were all extant and well-established concepts by the time Matthew, Mark, Luke and John started chronicling their memories, it's equally plausible, and expected, that they'd express their story in the idiom of the time. Certainly anthropomorphizing gods was too, a practice going back to at least zodiacal representations.

So here, briefly, we have all the circumstances in place to overlay the execution of a Jewish nationalist with a superstructure of ancient well-established and well-known mythological/spiritual aspects (and of course by then Jesus, being gone, has no say in it).  We've got the colonizer (Rome) confirming the nature of his offence via the execution method.  All of it fits together.  What we don't have is any rationalization for a God that needs to send a God-son down to be executed, but we _*do *_have plenty of reasons it might be _represented _that way *symbolically*.  Now add to that two thousand years of playing "telephone" with the texts, long after both their subjects and authors are gone, and it's easy to see why some of this just doesn't make sense on the surface ... until it's placed in its own time and place; now it sharpens to crystal clarity.

Little details like Jesus' wedding at the age of thirty, obviously since a Jewish male got married as soon as possible, typically in his teens, that's implausible, though the wedding itself isn't.  In fact Jesus would have probably been singled out as a weirdo if unmarried by the age of thirty, so we can take these timings, knowing there were editors involved, with a grain of salt.  Actually I don't think the NT says he was thirty at the time, but whatever, minor detail.  The greater point is to see the man i_n his own time, in his own circumstances_, in the real world he would have lived in with all its influences and implications.

The NT simply doesn't give this context.  When we apply it, a different picture starts to emerge, and this time it comes to life.  We might say the story is "reborn".


----------

