FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-22-2013, 07:47 AM   #351
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
I guess a lot depends on how you define Jesus. Mine is as a Zealot opposed to oppression and taxation, with a hatred for Hellenism. Based on how bad Antipas made life for the peasant Jews where he grew up.
But not based on the sayings attributed to him which would appear to make him a cynic.
Tristan Scott is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 07:50 AM   #352
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 9,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davka View Post

No, more of a splinter group. Judaism was splintered before 70 CE, but only a few of the groups survived.
Splintering seems to be a universal trait of religions. Judaism, Xtianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc. It's like fungi producing spores.
Jaybees is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 09:58 AM   #353
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Scott View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
I guess a lot depends on how you define Jesus. Mine is as a Zealot opposed to oppression and taxation, with a hatred for Hellenism. Based on how bad Antipas made life for the peasant Jews where he grew up.
But not based on the sayings attributed to him which would appear to make him a cynic.
We don't know how many sayings are his, or just mirror his teachings, or are attributed to him, or are fictional.


There are some that place him as a cynic, but what I posted was more culturally in line for the socioeconomics of Galilee. How much cynic influence the man may have had is unknown.
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 10:06 AM   #354
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davka View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post



I have my doubts about Jesus being anything but opposed to the Pharisees.


Crossan and Reed place the Pharisees as crooks who were using Roman muscle to rape tithes, combined with the "woes of the Pharisees" also as a party divided a long Hellenistic lines.


I guess a lot depends on how you define Jesus. Mine is as a Zealot opposed to oppression and taxation, with a hatred for Hellenism. Based on how bad Antipas made life for the peasant Jews where he grew up.
BibleJesus was opposed to the Pharisees, but his doctrinal positions were Pharisaical. He stood with them on all the major doctrinal issues, he simply saw them as corrupt crooks who preached the truth but lived a lie.

I wish we really knew what his doctrinal positions really were.

I think this aspect reflects the authors more then the man.


Zealots were supposed to have a zeal for the law, and held traditions tightly. This also mirrors some of the Pharisees aspects. Some Pharisees were not opposed to the Zealots. It is easier to place the Jesus character in the Zealot sect as some of his inner circle were claimed to be, added to the fact Galileans were known to be Zealots under a blanket term.


The Pharisees were a divided sect and multi cultural within the lines of Hellenism. Zealots were not.


I will say you have a point, but since I cant describe him as a Zealot with confidence. I don't think anyone can claim he was a Pharisee a long the lines of traditional Judaism sympathetic to the causes the Zealots fought for.
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 11:14 AM   #355
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davka View Post

BibleJesus was opposed to the Pharisees, but his doctrinal positions were Pharisaical. He stood with them on all the major doctrinal issues, he simply saw them as corrupt crooks who preached the truth but lived a lie.
So BibleJesus does not represent the real Jesus. How then are we supposed to infer that the real Jesus saw the Pharisees as crooks? Do you have an extraBiblical source that captures the ideas of the real Jesus?
James The Least is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 11:29 AM   #356
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davka View Post

BibleJesus was opposed to the Pharisees, but his doctrinal positions were Pharisaical. He stood with them on all the major doctrinal issues, he simply saw them as corrupt crooks who preached the truth but lived a lie.
So BibleJesus does not represent the real Jesus. How then are we supposed to infer that the real Jesus saw the Pharisees as crooks? Do you have an extraBiblical source that captures the ideas of the real Jesus?
Josephus gives us a glimpse.

And biblical refferences while may not reflect the real Jesus, they do reflect traditions of that period that directly relate to Galileans and other peasants.


Its known that the Pharisees used Roman muscle to rape tithes.


The socioeconomics of Galilee also can give us a glimpse of what the man may have been like combined with cultural anthropology. Often times by what he wasnt more so then what he was.


Just because we cannot paint a clear picture of th emans actual face , doesnt mean we cant see the background and a outline.
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 11:40 AM   #357
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Mr. o: Please avoid the term "rape" when referring to taxation.

"Legitimate" governments use the power of the state to collect tax money. If you don't think the government is legitimate, you regard that as theft. There's no need to add any sexual implications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse
The socioeconomics of Galilee also can give us a glimpse of what the man may have been like combined with cultural anthropology. Often times by what he wasnt more so then what he was.
It is more the case that scholars who need to write something and have no actual information about Jesus turn to the general social history of Galilee and speculate about who Jesus might have been.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 11:43 AM   #358
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,602
Default

I think JC said do as they say not as they do. Meaning they were hypocrites.

Pray in private instead of displaying your faith as the hypocrites do.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/prayer.htm

'...Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

Two of the largest Jewish religious movements in 1st century Judea were the Pharisees and Sadducees. Jesus is recorded as having repeatedly criticized both -- often with rather hateful and vicious language. Much of Jesus' anger may have been motivated by their prayer methods which were very public....'



"Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." (Matthew 23:26).

If a Christian mystic wandered out of the desert today he could conceptually play out the NT backdrop.

Go to a mega church with millionaire ministers, overturn a few tables, and proclaim a house of prayer not commerce.

Go to DC and give a Sermon On The Mount, updated.

When you think about it the time is ripe or a true blue Christian prophet/reformer.

What are the Pat Roberson's and Nret Gingrichs of the country but the religious political/economic/ power elite.

There are Christians, not very noisy, who oppose that kind of materialist Christianity.

In the NT times JC would not likely have been alone in his views.
steve_bnk is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 02:07 PM   #359
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_bnk View Post
In the NT times JC would not likely have been alone in his views.

Exactly.

Add to that while he was alive he was a nobody.


Only with his martydom and death did fame ever find him.


We factually have a different culture then he belonged to, writing about him from a different geographic location, writing for the mans very enemies.
outhouse is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 02:11 PM   #360
Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Babble Belt
Posts: 20,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davka View Post

BibleJesus was opposed to the Pharisees, but his doctrinal positions were Pharisaical. He stood with them on all the major doctrinal issues, he simply saw them as corrupt crooks who preached the truth but lived a lie.
So BibleJesus does not represent the real Jesus. How then are we supposed to infer that the real Jesus saw the Pharisees as crooks? Do you have an extraBiblical source that captures the ideas of the real Jesus?
I don't assume that there is or was any such individual as a "real Jesus." All we have to go by are the NT writings, and a handful of Gnostic gospels. When I talk about BibleJesus, I do so in the same way that I might discuss the thoughts and deeds of Harry Potter or Bilbo Baggins. I'm referencing the character in the books, with no judgement implied as to whether or not that character is based on a real person.
Davka is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:20 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.