Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 04-04-2010, 05:46 AM

'Dr Bradford has analysed the Bible's original Greek and Hebrew scriptures to try to establish the truth about Christ's background.'

How closely do you have to look at the Popeye cartoons before you discover the truth about Popeye?

Solo · 04-04-2010, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Perhaps Adam Blackburn has a point re this statement: “If Jesus was the son of a poor itinerant carpenter with some radical ideas nobody would have been that concerned about what he said.”

Just imagine a ‘poor itinerant carpenter’ trying his luck today? Even with the internet and self-publishing the ‘poor carpenter’ is going to have a hard time getting people to become his followers. Especially with biblical scholars and their whole procedure of peer review. No wonder the gospel carpenter needed to have a backup of magic tricks up his sleeve…

"Messire, I am just a poor peasant girl; I cannot ride a horse or lead men to war."

Joan of Arc, in 1430 after her capture, answering the charge she was the notorious Maid of Orleans.

Jiri

steve_bnk · 04-04-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The problem is always the integrity of the NT as histry, and as selected in the determination of what the bible contains.

The Jews and tehe Roans existed, it is known there were numerous Jewish radicals, beyond that the accuracy of anything in gthge NT has no foundation. JC did not even get honorable mention in the Roman records.

As presented he was very much a radical in that he was in the face of the Jewish political,religious, and economic power of the day.

Jesus spoke incoherent riddles to the Jews, sometimes not even his supposed disciples understood him. And further Jesus told his disciples he used incoherent riddles so that the Jews would remain in sin.

Jesus of the Synoptics was no radical, he seemed more like an idiot to the Jews.

This is found in the Synoptics, Matthew 13:10-34

The Synoptic Jesus was not radical but the supposed revelations to the Pauline writer from Jesus were radical after he was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.

The resurrected and ascended Pauline Jesus was radical
1Co 15:17 -

Ga 5:2 -

The Synoptic Jesus was NOT radical.

Mark 1.4

Quote:

41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.

43 And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;

44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them..

And besides, cursing fig trees and talking to sea-storms is NOT radicalism, perhaps signs of madness or idiocy.

Accodring to the commentary from my Oxford bible, in the original Arameic his quips would have had the form of puns delivered with a rythem. Very direct and pointed, clear in meaning to his target audience whom he was ridiculing. The Jewish power elite of his day.

From the NT as we have it, he would have been poking a stick in the eye of the Jewish religious leadership. His choice of 12 apostles who followed him around would be seen unmistakedly as a statement that he was the leader of the '12 tribes'.

aa5874 · 04-04-2010, 10:48 AM

Jesus of the NT was no radical.

Based on sources of antiquity it was the Jewish people who were Radicals.

It is recorded that the Jewish people were the only ones who REFUSED to worship the Roman Emperors as Gods and were willing to die for their belief.

Jesus of the NT did not make one single NEGATIVE statement about the deification of Roman Emperors and enslavement and oppression of people by the Romans.

Jesus of the NT was no radical, perhaps a mad-man, an idiot or an agent of the Roman Empire.

In the NT, Jesus virtually told the Jews to submit to Roman oppression, brutality and Slavery in the sermon on the mount

In the NT, when Jesus was before Pilate, instead showing he was a radical by condemning the deification of the Roman Emperors and condemning Roman slavery and oppression, he made some crazy-like statement that he would come back in the clouds on the right hand of power.

Jesus of the NT was no radical, perhaps a false prophet, a mad-man, an idiot, or an agent of the Roman Empire.

storytime · 04-04-2010, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

He could only have been a trained rabai.

Arguably well trained by Roman employed literary architects.
For example ... "In the first instance render everything to Caesar, etc"

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (tax)and to God what is God's."(donations). The ancient teaching in separation of church and state seems to be in the works.

storytime · 04-04-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

New Book claims Jesus the son of a middle class architect.

Quote:

Dr Bradford has analysed the Bible's original Greek and Hebrew scriptures to try to establish the truth about Christ's background.

He says a mistranslation of the Greek word 'tekton' to describe the profession of Joseph, Jesus's father, is one of many mistakes that have led to a fundamental misunderstanding of Christ's character

In most English translations of the Bible furthermore, Joseph is a 'just man'. But Dr Bradford says the word 'man' is not in the original Greek text and the word translated as 'just' really means a senior religious scholar involved in the judiciary.

'If Jesus was the son of a poor itinerant carpenter with some radical ideas nobody would have been that concerned about what he said. 'But because Jesus was trained to become the most educated Jew of his time, it gave him the chance to exert extraordinary influence and let him get away with acts that normal Jews would have been imprisoned or chastised for.

Dr. Bradford is a London GP, not a professional Bible scholar, so his ideas are being subjected to ridicule on the blogosphere.

The book is published by TempleHouse Publishing

Quote:

The vision of Templehouse Publishing is to profile new and cutting edge Christian teaching, and to feed and challenge the worldwide Church into engaging more deeply with Christian truth.

Bradford's analysis sounds reasonable.

The word translated "just" could also indicate that Priests were considered "justified" in their manner of ruling in their interpretation of Jewish laws. But is Jesus portrayed as a Pharisee Priest, a Sadducee Priest, or another Priest from a different sect? As with the Pharisee's and Sadducees, Jesus thought he had authority to speak concerning laws and tradition of Jews.

It's difficult if not impossible to imagine a poor Jewish man in that ancient society being able to walk past fishermen with the greeting of "follow me" and they immediately just ship to join Jesus. Jesus most likely would have had a reputation long before he began his attempt to recruit students[disciples]. The poor fishermen would have heard about Jesus' wealth, his education(maybe while in Egypt), his father's business, etc. My idea is that Jesus was not middle class but a wealthy man with influence[power] and therein could argue with the Pharisees and Sadducees on their level. A poor Jewish man could not have gained any such audience with Priests and Rabbi's in those days.

storytime · 04-04-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The problem is always the integrity of the NT as histry, and as selected in the determination of what the bible contains.

The Jews and tehe Roans existed, it is known there were numerous Jewish radicals, beyond that the accuracy of anything in gthge NT has no foundation. JC did not even get honorable mention in the Roman records.

As presented he was very much a radical in that he was in the face of the Jewish political,religious, and economic power of the day.

Jesus spoke incoherent riddles to the Jews, sometimes not even his supposed disciples understood him. And further Jesus told his disciples he used incoherent riddles so that the Jews would remain in sin.

Jesus of the Synoptics was no radical, he seemed more like an idiot to the Jews.

This is found in the Synoptics, Matthew 13:10-34

The Synoptic Jesus was not radical but the supposed revelations to the Pauline writer from Jesus were radical after he was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.

The resurrected and ascended Pauline Jesus was radical
1Co 15:17 -

Ga 5:2 -

The Synoptic Jesus was NOT radical.

Mark 1.4

Quote:

41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.

42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.

43 And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;

44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them..

And besides, cursing fig trees and talking to sea-storms is NOT radicalism, perhaps signs of madness or idiocy.

The religion of Jesus was a "Mystery" and not intended for everyone. Only his disciples were meant to know the Mysteries as predistination is given to them as their right of inheritance. This right of inheritance did not include everyone and certainly not Gentiles, (it's a Jewish story) as Jesus excluded Gentiles from the Kingdom of Mysteries - "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel". He wasn't sent to the righteous Jews, but those those Jews whom he thought needed awakening(raised from the dead).

You can't believe what you read and must try to interpret from a parable structure. Even then you can't be sure of what the hell he was talking about. The blind were really not blind, the lepers were really not diseased, the dead were really not corpses.(Mt.11:5) So it's up for grabs, and speculation is welcome.

The stumbling block is set in place when the character Peter the Jew decides to incorporate lawless and uncircumcicsed Gentiles into the Jewish inheritance. Robbery is commencing and theft of property rights in the balance.

aa5874 · 04-04-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.... The Synoptic Jesus was NOT radical.

Mark 1.4

And besides, cursing fig trees and talking to sea-storms is NOT radicalism, perhaps signs of madness or idiocy.

The religion of Jesus was a "Mystery" and not intended for everyone. Only his disciples were meant to know the Mysteries as predistination is given to them as their right of inheritance. This right of inheritance did not include everyone and certainly not Gentiles, (it's a Jewish story) as Jesus excluded Gentiles from the Kingdom of Mysteries - "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel". He wasn't sent to the righteous Jews, but those those Jews whom he thought needed awakening(raised from the dead). ....

You seem to believe what you read in the NT.

Well, then there was really no "mystery" to the Jesus character. This Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, came to warn the Jews that WHEN they rejected him as Christ that prophecy will be fulfilled, the Jewish Temple would fall and the Jews will suffer mass destruction.

Jesus of the NT was no radical. He was either a false prophet, a mad-man, an idiot or an agent of the Roman Empire.

We have the writings of Philo and Josephus that give indications of the situation on the ground in the 1st century with respect to Jews in Alexandria and in Galilee.

A radical Jew was a person who would face down the Roman Gods called Emperors and publicly refused to worship them as Gods.

The Jesus character in the NT wanted the Jews to believe he had power to forgive their sins and was lord of the Sabbath. This is more like blasphemy, madness, or stupidity rather than radicalism.

Jesus of the NT appeared to be completely insensitive to the plight of the Jews and was not engaged in any protests against the Gods of the World, the Gods of the Roman Empire.

The Jesus character was no radical, perhaps an egotistic blasphemer, a false prophet, a mad-man, an idiot or an agent of the Roman Empire.

storytime · 04-04-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

The religion of Jesus was a "Mystery" and not intended for everyone. Only his disciples were meant to know the Mysteries as predistination is given to them as their right of inheritance. This right of inheritance did not include everyone and certainly not Gentiles, (it's a Jewish story) as Jesus excluded Gentiles from the Kingdom of Mysteries - "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel". He wasn't sent to the righteous Jews, but those those Jews whom he thought needed awakening(raised from the dead). ....

Quote:

You seem to believe what you read in the NT.

No, what I do is speculate on the story. I don't believe a man called Jesus actually lived in those days. I think a mythical story was created and expanded upon until finally Eusebius wrote down what he thought was the correct version of the story, and this record he handed to Constantine and Constantine said it's "orthodox", meaning, authentic. Every other version of the myth was then burned and people who disagreed with the orthodox story were labeled heretics and killed, or otherwise went into hiding.

Quote:

Well, then there was really no "mystery" to the Jesus character. This Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, came to warn the Jews that WHEN they rejected him as Christ that prophecy will be fulfilled, the Jewish Temple would fall and the Jews will suffer mass destruction.

Correct. There was no mystery in the character Jesus. The mysteries were taken in the same vein as other gods in being created in dying and rising saviors. "Offspring of the Holy Ghost" was simply the means by which the god-man Jesus was created. Sexual intercourse with the ancient gods was not an uncommon belief among the superstious in those days.

Quote:

Jesus of the NT was no radical. He was either a false prophet, a mad-man, an idiot or an agent of the Roman Empire.

If this story was meant to teach Jews, it seems to be saying that Jesus the god-man was a false prophet. No other god but Yahweh excludes Jesus.

We have the writings of Philo and Josephus that give indications of the situation on the ground in the 1st century with respect to Jews in Alexandria and in Galilee.

A radical Jew was a person who would face down the Roman Gods called Emperors and publicly refused to worship them as Gods.

Quote:

The Jesus character in the NT wanted the Jews to believe he had power to forgive their sins and was lord of the Sabbath. This is more like blasphemy, madness, or stupidity rather than radicalism.

But the story says that Jesus recognized all Jews as having the power to forgive sins and all Jews were Lords even of the Sabbath day.

Jesus declaring himself as god in the flesh seems to be the most irritating factor for the Jewish eletist.

Quote:

Jesus of the NT appeared to be completely insensitive to the plight of the Jews and was not engaged in any protests against the Gods of the World, the Gods of the Roman Empire.

But he emphasized his sensitivity for them in "how often I would have taken you under my wing as a chicken takes her flock".. but they would not listen to his pleadings.

Quote:

The Jesus character was no radical, perhaps an egotistic blasphemer, a false prophet, a mad-man, an idiot or an agent of the Roman Empire

.

As there was no need of a prophet (prophesy had ceased in OT), the only thing that could be argued was law. Jesus disagreed with the doctrine of the Pharisees[their interpretation of law and their tradition above the law]. He said of them, "ye teach for doctrine the commandments of men".

steve_bnk · 04-04-2010, 04:34 PM

I have seen the NT version of JC as not being anti-Roman which in itself could have made him enemies.

However carrying it to the idea he was actulay an upscale educated man makes sense. Possibly a Jewish Vidkun Quisling of some sort?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2010, 05:46 AM	#11
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	'Dr Bradford has analysed the Bible's original Greek and Hebrew scriptures to try to establish the truth about Christ's background.' How closely do you have to look at the Popeye cartoons before you discover the truth about Popeye?

04-04-2010, 10:48 AM	#14
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Jesus of the NT was no radical. Based on sources of antiquity it was the Jewish people who were Radicals. It is recorded that the Jewish people were the only ones who REFUSED to worship the Roman Emperors as Gods and were willing to die for their belief. Jesus of the NT did not make one single NEGATIVE statement about the deification of Roman Emperors and enslavement and oppression of people by the Romans. Jesus of the NT was no radical, perhaps a mad-man, an idiot or an agent of the Roman Empire. In the NT, Jesus virtually told the Jews to submit to Roman oppression, brutality and Slavery in the sermon on the mount In the NT, when Jesus was before Pilate, instead showing he was a radical by condemning the deification of the Roman Emperors and condemning Roman slavery and oppression, he made some crazy-like statement that he would come back in the clouds on the right hand of power. Jesus of the NT was no radical, perhaps a false prophet, a mad-man, an idiot, or an agent of the Roman Empire.

04-04-2010, 04:34 PM	#20
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	I have seen the NT version of JC as not being anti-Roman which in itself could have made him enemies. However carrying it to the idea he was actulay an upscale educated man makes sense. Possibly a Jewish Vidkun Quisling of some sort?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.