Minimalist

Hmmm....these illiterate field workers and fisherman, allegedly, got to see these miracles first hand. Whereas "university-educated philosophers and theologians" have to explain the impossible without the benefit of seeing it with their own eyes.

Like those damned fools who see 'Jesus' in mold stains and ice crystals, I would expect the illiterate and uneducated to believe just about damn near anything. Yet...they continued to be surprised.

I guess their faith wasn't strong enough?

Minimalist

Just to be clear, storytime, I think the whole story is a load of shit from the word "go." A literary concoction from a century or two later that was used for political purposes by Constantine the Great and the rest, as they say, is history.

I don't want to mislead you here.

Joan of Bark

Then why was He wasting His time preaching to the multitudes?

Malachi151

Because this is a nonsensical made up fictional story in the first place...

storytime

Correct, and as I understand it, the Pharisees were not a tribe of Israel but priests of Jews. As priests they were a separated body from the congregation as their positioning as priests set them as interpreters of the law, and so judges of righteousness and unrighteousness. People atoned for their transgressions[sins] by bringing offerings of doves, pigeons, or other offerings to the Pharisee High Priest. But where and when did this name "Pharisee" originate and take hold of the positioned covenant God made with Levi? The Old Testament specifically excludes all other tribal names in Israel and the elect and chosen people positioned as spokesmen for God is forever covenanted in the body of men called Levites. These were the inheritance of God and God their inheritance, and the Levites being separated unto the priesthood received no other inheritance. The priesthood became a luxury and a rich man's domain, much like we see the televangelists today in their wealth from donations. In Israel, it was the tribes who were commanded to take care of the Levites welfare, and this "welfare system" for the presthood, in Catholicism and Protestant traditions is what we see today.

So, I will speculate that the priesthood being a highly valued office and as it was "anointed" in one name only, that being Levi, and both John the Baptist and Jesus were both anointed through their lineaged ties with Levites, and cousins, kinsmen, kinfolk; then led them to act accordingly as "sacrifices" in their time and effort as priests serving the people of Israel, the Jews in particular. And both Jesus and John were firstborn sons. I'll further speculate that Jesus knew he was anointed from the beginning of Israel and this why he called the Pharisees "liars" and "sons of Satan", (Satan meaning liar).

Now, if Jesus wanted to take back what did not belong to the Pharisees, then how did the story proceed? Did Jesus consider his mother anyone special? Did he consider his mother as having been impregnated by God? What is the story in Matthew talking about when it relates how Jesus was "conceived"?

"What was "conceived" in Mary was of the Holy Ghost. This meaning the ideology established at the beginning of Israel in name of Levi - "Gods chosen people" out of all the tribes of Israel to act as priests and speak the law for God in matters of concern brought by the people to be settled accordingly.

"The thing" that was conceived in Mary was the thing which had always been in Israel, namely the priesthood conceived which was Levites. Never to be changed throughout the generations of Israel and upon warning of death. Until the days of Jesus called Christ[the anointed]. What did Jesus do? He began the process of teaching his doctrine that was different from what the Pharisees taught their disciples. Keep in mind that Pharisees, Sadducees, John the Baptist and Jesus, all had their own following of disciples[students]. Jesus made the distinction in himself that his disciples were to follow his teaching only and not call the Pharisees [father, or rabbi] nor follow their teaching. Here's why. Jesus told the Pharisees, "how well did Isaiah speak of you, for you teach for doctrine the commandments of men". What did Jesus mean?

Jesus also acknowledged that the Pharisees were sons of Abraham, but he also told them that when they went out of their way to proseletize, "ye make the converts more children of hell than yourselves".

So, Jesus saw the kingdom of God (Jerusalem) as his inheritance, and the Pharisees recognized Jesus as "the heir", and they killed him. For the Pharisees talked among themselves and decided that if Jesus were left to continue his ministry to the Jews, those who believed Jesus might spread it to Rome and Caesar and the Romans might believe Jesus side of the story and come and take away the place and position of the Pharisees in their priesthood at Jerusalem. So the Pharisees plotted to kill Jesus and thought after his death that would be the end of their problem.

Isn't this interpretation of the story enlightening?

storytime

I kinda like my version of the story better than what the Christians have learned and taught for 2000 years. Because, my version makes more sense, not to mention it eliminates the supernatural and presents men of greed and lust for power. Just like we see in Christianity today. Or have you not noticed the similarities?

If you think it's stupid, that's ok. As an atheist, it doesn't bother me in the least. So just have fun with the story, for it is a story after all. And one, I might add, that was never intentioned for Gentiles. Unless, it was to prove beyond doubt that the Jewish story completely freed all non Jews from that Jewish religion[tradition].

:wave:

Toto

It's rather unpleasant in its implications and not very original. It validates the idea that Jesus was just a good-guy reformer, and the Pharisees were legalistic bad guys.

Are you familiar with the late Hyam Maccoby? He felt that Jesus' stated philosophy was close to that of the actual Pharisees, as opposed to the picture of the Parisees in the gospels. See this note on ECW. There are excepts from his book The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity on the positiveatheism site.

storytime

I think the story[scriptures] says that Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes and often in secret to his disciples. In secret Jesus would speak openly to the disciples; iow, he explained the "real" meaning behind his deceit [parables], which was to fool the listeners who may have thought they had right to the kingdom of God as heirs.

While those who were deceived believed that "heaven" was a skyward journey, Jesus explained the reality of "heaven is within you", on earth. Good behavior in their own nation of laws instituted for Jews alone would prolong their life upon the earth, whereas wars amongst themselves and others would cause death to them and their place where they lived in and around Judean territory.

Also, Jesus deceiving those who were not inheritors protected the Jews in their tradition of Judaism. Whereas if Jesus had told the multitudes the truth, the multitudes would have inherited name and identity as sons of Jacob called Israel, and this without conforming to covenant of circumcision and obedience to laws of Moses. So not only did Jesus deceive the Gentiles, he also excluded them and even made testimony against them. He also told the disciples that they would also make testimony against the Gentiles.

Why then did Gentiles adopt Jesus as their Lord when by law of God they cannot truthfully claim Jesus as their "savior"?

Did Gentiles ever have anything to be saved from? Without laws or covenants, the Gentiles had no connection to that Jewish tradition. So someone taught them "faith" but didn't mention that "works" of conversion was required. And Paul preached "among" the Gentiles to the Jews. Paul also called the Gentiles "demons" and "idol worshippers".

Do you think Christians should start investigating this story more thouroughly for their elimination in it? I mean, God did not even accept Esau [Edomites]. Not to mention all the other hundreds of peoples in their tribes who were not called sons of Jacob-Israel. Clearly the story is focused on a tribal god and a tribal people of twelve named sons, and no more.

"Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated, forever".

However, converts were acceptable upon their circumcision and agreement to obey the laws of Moses.

storytime

How could it possibly be more unpleasant that what's already being told? What you're looking at is one Jewish sect fighting and clawing with another.

What I'm pointing out is merely a man[Jesus] in his enviroment of Judaism who thought he had right to the throne of his God. My version of the story is not original but you will not see any scholars discussing the merits of it as it excludes them in their "belief". And I feel that IF people actually read this story and discover that it is a Jewish story, then killing people for their belief in it just might end some of the death cult as it stands.

Can Christians live without the Jewish story? Should we force them to re-read and examine their exclusion in it? Or would you like them to continue believing all the bullshit they have been taught?

Throbert McGee

No -- "Pharisee" is basically a denominational label, sort of like "Lutheran," "Methodist," or "Roman Catholic."

In Jesus's time, there were three significant sects of Judaism in existence: Sadduceism, Pharisaism, and Essenism. As Toto points out, there is actually a plausible case to be made that Jesus was raised and schooled as a Pharisaic Jew, although other scholars say that he was more likely an Essene. (We can pretty much rule out that he had a Sadducean background -- for one thing, the Sadducee sect of Judaism didn't believe in the ultimate resurrection of the dead, which was obviously a major theme for Jesus.)