Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sequoia · 11-09-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by motorhead

I think the canonical gospels try to paint Jesus as the man who fufilled all the various expectations of the Jews at that time. He's the expected end times prophet, he's the Messiah, he's the Son of Man from the book of Daniel, etc.

If he is the Messiah, he is a freedom fighter, the "libertador" of Israel.

If he is the Christ, that is a quite different story and it is necessary to look into all the christian heresies... But we are far away from an HJ.

Sequoia · 11-09-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

He would have been, based on the NT, a sorcerer, a magician and a trickster who betrayed the ideals of Judas the Galilean.

Some are thinking that Jesus was the son of Judas the Gaulonite (Gaulanitide - Gamala is not in Galilea). And Simon and Jacob were his brothers who took over after his death. They were executed later as mentioned by Josephus. Menahem also wanted to be King but was killed by the Zealots. He was a parent of Judas, too.

Biff the unclean · 11-09-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

For example HJ told people to "turn the other cheek". Sounds like a message of peace. Yet he also stated that he and his message would turn father against son, mother against daughter etc: Which sounds like a message of man of war.

I'm not so sure. If he said "I will turn the other cheek" then that would be peaceful (if whimpy) enough. But he was saying "YOU will turn the other cheek." That isn't something that someone with your best interests in mind would demand. 'Hit me again, Sir. Please,' no, not a good idea for the one being hit, but great for the one doing the hitting.

Sequoia · 11-09-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

As an afterthought, the question asked in this
thread is expanded upon in this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward Gibbon

"Under the appellation of Galilaeans,
two distinctions of men were confounded,
the most opposite to each other in their manners and principles;

the disciples who had embraced the faith of Jesus of Nazareth,
and the zealots who followed the standard of Judas the Gaulonite.

The former were the friends, the latter were the enemies, of human kind,
and the only resemblance between them consisted in the same inflexible constancy,
which, in the defence of their cause, rendered them insensible of death and tortures."

-- The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
By Edward Gibbon, Chapter XVI: Conduct Towards The Christians,
From Nero To Constantine. Part II.

The concept of "The Galilaean" has been
confounded. Peace and Love, .... or ....
Vengeance and Retribution?

If we are to assume there was an HJ then
he was surely a Galilaean, or so we are
lead to believe.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Gibbon is mistaken. Judas was not a "Zealot" like describe by Josephus. The Zealots killed Menahem. Judas followers were the Sicarii and that fits with Jesus. And Nazareth is also a mistake. If Jesus was the son of Judas, Gamala fits the description given in the gospel as his home town.

There were several parties who wanted the Romans away. Exactly like today many groups in Iraq want the Americans to go away.

Sequoia · 11-09-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biff the unclean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

For example HJ told people to "turn the other cheek". Sounds like a message of peace. Yet he also stated that he and his message would turn father against son, mother against daughter etc: Which sounds like a message of man of war.

I'm not so sure. If he said "I will turn the other cheek" then that would be peaceful (if whimpy) enough. But he was saying "YOU will turn the other cheek." That isn't something that someone with your best interests in mind would demand. 'Hit me again, Sir. Please,' no, not a good idea for the one being hit, but great for the one doing the hitting.

The Sermount of the Mountain is a later addition.

Dogfish · 11-09-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Isn't that merely an over-reverential way of saying that 'he is whatever the writers want him to be?" We see a similar dichotomy in modern politicians wherein a lifelong pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control person like Giuliani attempts to re-create himself for a different audience.

Fair point. I don't want to belabour you with quotations and arguments, at least not right away:devil3: So let me just make an analogy. Take a great piece of music, a great symphony. You will see in it the whole range of human emotions all contained within an over-arching unity. This is the nature of genius: it unites opposites in ways that the common understanding cannot accept.

Or maybe a more apt analogy would be: There is a collection of single lines of music, written by different people, each separate, but all in a box marked, say, "Theme A". A bunch of people get together who are big "A" fans and fit them together, filling in where they have to in order for it to be playable. Although it doesn't sound very good to everyone else (changing keys, tempos, etc.) the "A" folks marvel at the finished product. It's pure genius, say the A's, the whole much larger than the sum of its parts. A lot of people listen and don't like it, or don't even listen to it, but the A's say it defines what great music is, and work to make it the legal standard for music. They deride and try to suppress other music if it doesn't conform to their standards. They say that all the genius that is contained in this piece is available to you if you just listen to it "right". If you don't think it is the ultimate in musical truth, you're just not listening to it right. A lot of other people point out the flaws in it, but they are told that the piece redefines what good music is, and, since others don't have the "taste" to hear it correctly, they can't critize it. This idea of becoming geniuses makes people feel good, that they can have a piece of something trancendant with little or no sacrifice, just by listening to the piece. Many don't seem to "get" it, and many don't even listen to it, but they want to be part of a group of geniuses, so they tell everyone how they DO "get" it, how it has changed their lives, how they are better and wiser that the a-getters. Someone will play a line for them, and they will say how good the whole must be, but they only know a selection of lines that they feel fit together for them. But, of course, pretending to "get" this music doesn't affect their normal musical tastes. They go on listening to whatever they did before, their tastes unaffected by this "genius", but feeling superior and having a sense of belonging.

I got a little carried away...

No Robots · 11-09-2007, 10:48 AM

Maybe there is a magnificent piece of music, a true work of genius, that has been played so badly for so long, misinterpreted so completely, that no one recognizes it anymore as anything but a cheap minstrel piece.

No Robots · 11-09-2007, 10:55 AM

Kirk: This was not written for chiefs. Hear me. Hear this. Among my people we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected. But wherever we have gone no words have said this... thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than all the rest with a special pride never written before or since. Tall words, proudly saying «We the people...» That which you call «E Plebnista» was not written for the chiefs or kings or the warriors or the rich or the powerful, but for all the people. Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, «We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution...». These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well...
Cloud William: For the Kohms?
Kirk: They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?

--"The Omega Glory", Star Trek

Dogfish · 11-09-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Maybe there is a magnificent piece of music, a true work of genius, that has been played so badly for so long, misinterpreted so completely, that no one recognizes it anymore as anything but a cheap minstrel piece.

And maybe there is not. It surely wouldn't be logical to take someone's word for it, because if they claim the knowledge of such a piece, they would have to know the piece itself. And the "genius" would be evident to all who study music.

No Robots · 11-09-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

And the "genius" would be evident to all who study music.

And the genius of Christ is evident to all who study genius.

11-09-2007, 10:55 AM	#28
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Kirk: This was not written for chiefs. Hear me. Hear this. Among my people we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected. But wherever we have gone no words have said this... thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than all the rest with a special pride never written before or since. Tall words, proudly saying «We the people...» That which you call «E Plebnista» was not written for the chiefs or kings or the warriors or the rich or the powerful, but for all the people. Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, «We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution...». These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well... Cloud William: For the Kohms? Kirk: They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand? --"The Omega Glory", Star Trek

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

11-09-2007, 10:48 AM	#27
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Maybe there is a magnificent piece of music, a true work of genius, that has been played so badly for so long, misinterpreted so completely, that no one recognizes it anymore as anything but a cheap minstrel piece.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.