Koyaanisqatsi

So, the logical question becomes, why blame "the Jews" (general; non-specific)?

Jesus was supposed to represent the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and yet, with Mark (clearly a non-Jewish author, or, at the very least, an author with almost no real understanding of Jewish prophecy) we have the creation of a myth that effectively separates all Jews from their own covenant.

This is radically different than trying to simply create a faction of Judaism or reform orthodoxy; this is a systematic negation of all things Jewish. The dietary laws; hygiene laws; laws of marriage and divorce; the sabbath; the very nature of their God and their Moshiach; all deliberately and systematically altered--in the very first book, no less--to be almost diametrically opposed to anything remotely Jewish!

Why, unless it was propaganda first and foremost, the intent to destroy Judaism?

You have a book--Mark--that is clearly not written by a Jewish scholar, which turns every element of Jewish law on its head, concluding that the Jews (general; non-specific) are murderers of their own god/savior/son of god/messiah and the Romans--your enemies--are not only without any blame, but are to be loved for their oppression, because it means you are blessed in god's eyes.

It only benefits the Romans from start to finish and it was clearly not written by a Jewish scholar, either othodox or radically reformed.

Forgive me, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and gives birth to ducklings...it's a duck!

Asha'man

Nice summary Tortie Cat, well written.

Howerver, I have a small nit to pick:
My understanding is that the Romans did not take the power of capitol punishment away from the Sanhedrin until after the year 40. The protest in John 18:31 is an anachronism from later years, and there are at least two places in the Gospels where the Jews attempted to stone Jesus, but he fled/escaped.

Amos

]

Thanks, Koy I like it myself. It's a different concept that I can defend but would never use to justify the past. The "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is really an induction story for which I can explain my premisses but if I have to explain them as I go I would always write backwards in trying to explain the reason for these explanations, ad so on.

Amos

The flip side of this is that without crucifixion there would be no Christianity and if I was a Jew I would be immensely proud with this achievement. The real question now is whether or not we believe in the physical crucifixion and that is where the danger lies.

If the crucifixion was a metaphor no Jew was ever be responsible because the law, which is responible for the heartbeat of the mythology, would do this on its own. So therefore Jews should take credit for it and I might remind you here that the law was given to Moses for the conviction of sin and so it worked well for them in this case.

The problem already begins with your suggestion that Christ was crucified when in fact Jesus was crucified in effort to set Christ free.

Wm G Smith

Jesus’ ideas (that Christianity follows, invented or not) did not support in anyway the ruling governments of the time. He went against the religious culture of the time.****
Stop listening to your preachers and read the Gospels and a book on Roman culture. Jesus' ideas very much support Rome.
********************************
While J. is usually very careful to avoid direct challenge to Roman rule, his opposition to the temple priesthood and its dominance of the Jewish religion of the time was a threat to the authority of Rome's quislings, else Rome would not have bothered crucifying him.

Whatever actually happened, the way the story is told in the Gospels, the Temple priesthood was afraid to execute him in the traditional Jewish way of stoning because that form of execution requires a significant number of people to go along with it and they were afraid that any crowd that gathered would have a great many Jesus supporters among it who would break up any attempt to execute him and implicitly turn their wrath on the quislings. It was for that reason that they went to Rome, which was reluctant to execute J. by the crucifixion, the method reserved for traitors and rebels, not believing him to be a serious threat but that when their quislings insisted, the Roman governor felt he had no choice.

Jesus' teachings did not directly attack Roman rule, and he was always careful to insist on submission, perhaps foreseeing the most likely result of any military rebellion (remember 70 CE) but everything about his life and teaching was a threat to the Temple apparatus and Roman rule was very much dependent here, as elsewhere in the empire, on the support of local auxiliaries and administrators.

Jesus always insisted that his was the authentic judaism of old but his insistence on the possibility that every believer could commune with God directly, that ritual purity was less important than substantive goodness, justice and mercy, that God had no love for the wealthy and powerful unless they used their wealth and power for the benefit of the poor and needy and that the Temple itself and its precincts were no more holy to God than the meanest shack or hovel if righteousness were found within. Its obvious how threatening such a movement would be to a wealthy, entrenched, elite. The elite, of course, like the elites of all places and times, was thoroughly quisling in both practical politics and even sincere sentiment and any threat to their privileges was an implicit threat to their patrons' rule.

Vorkosigan

Ah. I misread your comment and thought that you actually meant something about historicity when you noted that Mark relied on sources and then contrasted it with my remarks on fictionality in the gospels.

Very sorry.

Vorkosigan

Koyaanisqatsi

Further proving that he could therefore not have been either the Jewish mosiach or a messenger from god....

Preposterous. That's equivalent to saying that Bush would give a rat's ass if a Ba'ath nationalist proclaimed himself to be the Son of Allah in one of the temples in Baghdad. No one in Rome would care one tiny little baby's shit if a local nut job went around claiming to be "King of the Jews," nor would the Jews, since they have no title "King of the Jews."

The only way Jesus would have been crucified is if he either murdered a Roman citizen or committed serious acts of sedition against Roman strongholds. The most a bribe from the locals would get is torture and possibly imprisonment, but if the synoptic accounts can at all be trusted, Pilate publicly humiliated the Sanhedrin by thrice declaring that Jesus had committed no crime, so no bribe there and no allegiance to any Jewish authorities.

Why didn't they fear the same thing when they turned him over to the Romans and why didn't the crowd do precisely this when given the chance?

Why did the "Jews" (always plural and never specific) try to stone Jesus (twice, if memory serves) if what you say were true?

What actually happened, if Jesus were crucified, is that he either murdered a Roman citizen of some prominence or he committed serious acts of sedition against Roman outposts.

One thing is for sure, men who are publicly and officially declared innocent of all charges (thrice) and then set free by no less an authority as the procurator of the region were never then crucified.

Again, not according to the gospels. He not only had a choice, he publicly humiliated his alleged "quislings" by declaring that he found Jesus had committed no crime and then set him free.

The only mitigating factor--again, according to scripture--was Pilate's inexplicable and incongruous fear of the crowd; the same crowd, presumably, you mentioned earlier who the Sanhedrin feared would turn against them and not support their stoning, even though they already tried to stone him when he--equally inexplicably--turned yellow and ran away.

I guess Jesus' sacrifice was only valid if he died from crucifixion and not from stoning?

Thereby, again, further proving he could not have been either the Jewish mosiach or a messenger from God.

False. He did not "insist on submission," he told his followers that they were blessed because they were oppressed; that they should love their enemies, not because their love would conquer all, but because the fact that they had enemies meant that god blessed them and would reward them after they were dead and it no longer mattered.

You should read the Sermon on the Mount some time. It's terrifying.

A "rebellion" that would have never happened had he actually been the Jewish mosiach, since, at least according to Daniel, his presence would have meant the systematic murder of all non-annointed Jews by a flood and "wars and desolations."

The actual Jewish messiah would not have worried about what the Romans might or might not do at some point in the future, since his presence would mean that there was no future for any enemies of god's chosen.

Beside the fact that that is simply ludicrous, just exactly how was it a threat? There were many hundreds of radical Jewish reformers and prophets and false messiahs, apparently, all over the place, not to mention already existing Jewish factions that had already departed from the orthodoxy and no mass murders were taking place to erradicate those "threats." That's like saying one loan homosexual priest running amok in the Vatican and demanding reform poses a threat to Catholocism and by extension the Roman Government so significantly that he must be killed to stop him.

Nobody would have given a shit about Jesus or his teachings. He only had twelve disciples and wasn't even popular enough to be saved by a crowd when given the alleged chance to save him. Had he actually gone around claiming to be the "King of the Jews" both the Jewish people and the Romans would have laughed in his face. No such title exists.

Had he, however, claimed to be God, then maybe, just maybe the Sanhedrin would have cared enough to stone him to death, which they allegedly tried to do (again, twice, if memory serves).

Would you care, for example, if someone came up to you and claimed to be "King of the Mormons?" Would our government care if that same person went around claiming to be "President of the Mormons?"

No. It is preposterous and can only be the result of Roman thinking; hence the mockery allegedly employed at the crucifixion with the "King of the Jews" nailed on his crucifix.

No one individual--even if that individual were the most popular Rabbi around--would have posed any kind of significant threat to the Sanhedrin or the elders of the Temple. That just isn't the way Jewish scholars and theologians think. There would have been no challenge to their authority like an OK coral gunfight and no member of that group would care if someone among them went around proclaiming that he was God, let alone the Son of God. Many people were claiming to be the same thing and at worst, they were stoned to death; more likely they were casually ignored as insane.

Contrary to Hollywood, no one in history has ever walked around worrying about every single second of every single day about the most dire consequences for anything spoken or uttered. The scales of humanity are simply not that finely balanced.

The only way Jesus would have been sentenced to death would have been because he had committed serious crimes against Rome. Making a scene in the Temple may have gotten him beaten and imprisoned for a year or two, at most, but that would have been the extent of it and claiming to be the Son of the Jewish God or even "King of the Jews" would have gotten him a job as Pilate's court jester, at best.

Again, just think of it in terms of Mormonism and Jesus going around claiming he was the King of the Mormons. Who cares? Certainly not the Romans and I doubt even the Mormons.

Ahh, Thomas. The Essenes' best friend.

What "movement?" Twelve disciples does not a "movement" make. Hell, a thousand disciples does not a "movement" make when you're talking about being on the elite's radar.

Even if the ruling Jewish elite were as shallow as you broadly paint every single one of them, they still wouldn't ever be threatened by a poor Rabbi preaching non-materialist reform. Jesus wasn't the first to do such a thing.

Again, do you care what Greenpeace says about the way you live your life? Are you signficantly threatened by Lutherens in your community, who preach to their own followers and maybe even on the street corners about how sinful you are to own things? Do you wich to conspire with our government to murder the Amish or the Quakers?

Your arguments are not just horrifically two dimensional, they don't even attempt to be realistic. You're thinking is like everything in that time was the set of Ben Hur and every thing anybody ever said had the most dire consequences and had to be met with the most serious reaction or the whole fragile web would collapse.

That's just preposterous. Again, the only way Jesus would have even existed on any ruling elite's radar is if he had made many serious attacks, where lives were threatened and business were shut down for significant periods of time.

One instance where an unknown nut job ran amok in the Temple would have been summarily forgotten within about two or three days just as it would if the same thing happened today. Maybe, just maybe, it would have been talked about at parties and dinners for a week or two at most, but the idea that no such interruptions had ever occured before in Jerusalem or that this one episode was so terrifying to the ruling elite that they would either conspire with or bribe Pilate to have the guy murdered is just ridiculous.

It only makes sense to an indoctrinated member of the Jesus cult, who are led to think that Jesus was important and that anything he did had the most dire and serious impact on everyone's lives. All trembled before him and therefore all of the corrupt and evil ones were out to "get him."

Forgive me, but it's not even two dimensional thinking; it's one dimensional.

Again, I will ask, what threat? "I am the King of the Jews and the Son of God!"
"You're a whacko. There's no such thing as the 'King of the Jews' and we're all sons of God! Get a job and cut your hair, freak!"

End of story.

spin

Ground control to Major Koyaanisqatsi,

what are you talking about??


spin

lpetrich

Nomad:
The only "Saviour God" among the ancients that pre-dates Christianity is that of the Jewish God as found in the Hebrew Bible (especially in Isaiah and the Psalms).

Nomad has never heard of pagan "mystery religions", which often featured a dying and rising god, or a god or hero who visits the realm of the dead.

No divine beings were ever "resurrected" as this is merely anachronist presentations of common "dying and rising" god myths common to agricultural pagan deities.

Resurrection, rising, what's the difference?

Though some gods did mate with human females (Zeus among the more famous examples) they did so in a fashion that saw them taking on some kind of human/animal/physical object form.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Mary" -- the Christian God

Hairsplitting yet again.

Asha'man:
We can also see much of Jesus’ philosophy in the surrounding cultures as well. Much of his teaching appears to be greek and roman philosophy blended into the Jewish culture.

This too is simply false. As you have simply asserted it without supporting evidence, however, it is difficult to examine.

Actually, Earl Doherty explains very clearly in The Jesus Puzzle why "Q" strongly parallels the Cynic school's teaching. Nomad, be careful before you make such absolute statements.

Suffice to say, Josephus did not mention a single messiah figure coming from Palestine (excepting Jesus, of course, ...

There were lots of self-styled prophets at that place and time, at least some of whom could be called self-styled messiahs.

... very little time did elapse between the time that Jesus died, and the beginnings of the first legends about Him.

Nomad appears to be unfamiliar with the history of mythmaking -- myths can emerge much faster than he seems to think.

This is is espcially true of the Resurrection, the central miracle claim attached to Jesus, and one that arose within no more than a few years of His death.

That was Paul's idea, and it was carried over into the Gospels, which were written at least a couple decades after JC's death.

The geneologies were not intended to explain the virgin conception of Jesus. They were meant to establish that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah.

"Establishing" it by being manufactured for that purpose -- and stopping at someone who was his stepfather and not his biological father. Not quite a Davidic heir.

Rome did not become an "ally" of Christianity until the conversion of Constantine in the 4th Century.

However, they did not care very much for it when it originated.

But being pro-Roman is rather glaring by the way that the Gospels attempt to exculpate the Roman authorities as having been pressured to execute JC.

Answerer

Well, simply put, Thomas is the rightful founder of Gnostic christianity and very likely to be the main author of Nag Hammadi library as well.

The Essenes, on the other hand, were one of three main philosophical Jewish sects. And the early christians, the Nazarites, were associated closely with the Essene community of Qumran.

Although they were two different communities, many elements of their beliefs are quite similar to each other However, some Scholars (I think) are still debating on their exact relationship as the valuable information from the Dead Sea scrolls are still under examination.

Of course, this is what I think Koyaanisqatsi was trying to say, don't get fire up on me if I'm happen to be wrong...................