Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 07-31-2013, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

What you said and what I said are almost the same thing.

There is a difference directly fighting Romans which would be a military operation, and a peasant teaching and healing in Galilee not directly under Roman control, who is more disturbed about the Hellenistic corruption in Judaism due to Romans.

As a Zealot I think Jesus learned from JtB mistake of being to popular. Spoke in more parables and traveled more not to gaim to much attention, trying to keep his head attached to his neck. he wold have known teaching would work better then military as going up against Romans was suicide.

I see. I misunderstood when you said "fighting" that you meant peacefully and secretly opposing the Romans. I will try harder next time.

outhouse · 07-31-2013, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

There is a difference directly fighting Romans which would be a military operation, and a peasant teaching and healing in Galilee not directly under Roman control, who is more disturbed about the Hellenistic corruption in Judaism due to Romans.

As a Zealot I think Jesus learned from JtB mistake of being to popular. Spoke in more parables and traveled more not to gaim to much attention, trying to keep his head attached to his neck. he wold have known teaching would work better then military as going up against Romans was suicide.

I see. I misunderstood when you said "fighting" that you meant peacefully and secretly opposing the Romans. I will try harder next time.

You bring up decent questions here, at least looking at possibilities is better then going NUH UH.

With Herod being Jesus overlord so to say, im not sure how much he peacefully or secretly opposed Romans more so then Herod's.

I think all traditional Jews hated Roman oppression even under overlords like Herod's. After the butchering of Jews in Sepphoris, I don't see why any Galileans would not conspire against Romans. But to what amount is now the key detail we can only guess at. Its just my opinion but, not enough to call him a anti Roman conspirator.

Ill ask your opinion of your own question, if Jesus existed "semi as written", how much did he peacefully and secretly oppose the Romans in your opinion?

aa5874 · 07-31-2013, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...As a Zealot I think Jesus learned from JtB mistake of being to popular. Spoke in more parables and traveled more not to gaim to much attention, trying to keep his head attached to his neck. he wold have known teaching would work better then military as going up against Romans was suicide.

What?? Where do you get your stories from?? Please, what source of antiquity claimed Jesus was not popular?

You make stuff up.

In the NT, Jesus had THOUSANDS of people following him.

Now, what Zealot would tell people to TURN the OTHER Cheek to the ENEMY and to LOVE them?

If Jesus of Nazareth was a Zealot then he is the dumbest zealot in the history of mankind.

Matthew 5:39 NIV

Quote:

But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:44 KJV

Quote:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...

The Romans would have liked "Zealots" like Jesus--they would beat them to a pulp.

The Jesus character was NOT a Zealot in the Canon but a Mythological character called the Son of God, the Logos and God the Creator.

It is documented by many, many Jesus cult writers.

Please, read the Nicene Creed . Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are ONE.

Grog · 08-01-2013, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I see. I misunderstood when you said "fighting" that you meant peacefully and secretly opposing the Romans. I will try harder next time.

You bring up decent questions here, at least looking at possibilities is better then going NUH UH.

With Herod being Jesus overlord so to say, im not sure how much he peacefully or secretly opposed Romans more so then Herod's.

I think all traditional Jews hated Roman oppression even under overlords like Herod's. After the butchering of Jews in Sepphoris, I don't see why any Galileans would not conspire against Romans. But to what amount is now the key detail we can only guess at. Its just my opinion but, not enough to call him a anti Roman conspirator.

Ill ask your opinion of your own question, if Jesus existed "semi as written", how much did he peacefully and secretly oppose the Romans in your opinion?

I have no idea what you are asking me. I don't know what existing "semi as written" means. I don't think he opposed the Romans at all. That is what I wanted to believe. I remember that pin "Jesus was a Revolutionary" that liberals used to wear. I WANTED to find a Jesus, the revolutionary, in the historical record, but did not.

Grog · 08-01-2013, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Reza Aslan, an Iranian-American who has a PhD in religious studies and now teaches creative writing, has written a biography of the "real" Jesus.

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Aslan starts from the idea that the only sure fact about Jesus is that he was crucified, and that therefore he must have been a revolutionary zealot.

There is a good review on salon: The Real Jesus

NPR interview with Reza Aslan

It's interesting that in the Fox interview, Aslan states that he starts with the "one fundamental truth that everybody agrees upon" that Jesus was crucified.

That is Aslan's starting, foundational assumption. I don't think he questions that assumption. It sounds, methodologically like Crossan. As a grad student studying peasant rebellion, I was very interested in the idea that Jesus was an anti-Roman rebel. I abandoned that a long time ago, but not before, spending some time as a fan of Crossan.

I have Aslan's book now on my tablet, but when he has stated that the one "fact" that can be agreed upon is that Jesus was crucified, it is hard to get motivated to read this closely. I am hoping it is not just another "This is how Jesus must have been given the context of the times."

To me, the crucifixion is not well-attested. The accounts themselves are derived entirely from other sources.

aa5874 · 08-01-2013, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I have Aslan's book now on my tablet, but when he has stated that the one "fact" that can be agreed upon is that Jesus was crucified, it is hard to get motivated to read this closely. I am hoping it is not just another "This is how Jesus must have been given the context of the times."

To me, the crucifixion is not well-attested. The accounts themselves are derived entirely from other sources.

You have identified a fundamental logical fallacy of Aslan's argument.

Once there are Scholars who argue that Jesus of Nazareth had no real existence then it is a fallacy that the crucifixion of Jesus is considered a fact.

Although Christians claimed Jesus was crucified they also admit the character was a real God.

Gods are Myths and are not related to history.

It is total absurdity to suggest that Jesus could have been actually crucified when the character was a Myth as was so described in and out the Canon.

It is most disturbing that Aslan does not know the difference between presumptions and facts.

It is a fact that virtually all Jesus cult sources of antiquity, in or out the Canon, that mentioned the birth of Jesus claimed he was a product of some kind of Ghost or Spirit.

In any event, it is documented that Jesus was God of God and born of a Ghost.

After hundreds of years of research and arguments, in the 4th century the Jesus cult of antiquity PUBLICLY declared and documented in the NICENE Creed that Jesus was indeed God of God and born of a Ghost.

It is impossible to crucify a Ghost--Holy or Not. IMPOSSIBLE. The Jesus character is well-documented pure unadulterated Mythology.

See http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/...nicene381.html

Quote:

.......... We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man........

Toto · 08-01-2013, 10:03 AM

Antony Le Donne review- Le Donne sniffs that Aslan is just not up to date with the latest historical Jesus/2nd temple research. He seems to be relying on the outdated info from his recent education.

aa5874 · 08-01-2013, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Antony Le Donne review- Le Donne sniffs that Aslan is just not up to date with the latest historical Jesus/2nd temple research. He seems to be relying on the outdated info from his recent education.

Le Donne himself repeats the fallacy that it is a fact Jesus was crucified when he knows that it cannot be a fact for those Scholars who argue that Jesus had no real existence.

We already know the outcome of any Historical Jesus--an historical Jesus has too many problems. It has fallen to pieces.

See Albert Schweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus.

Quote:

This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another, and in spite of all the artifice, art, artificiality, and violence which was applied to them, refused to be planed down to fit the design on which the Jesus of the theology of the last hundred and thirty years had been constructed, and were no sooner covered over than they appeared again in a new form.

outhouse · 08-01-2013, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

To me, the crucifixion is not well-attested. The accounts themselves are derived entirely from other sources.

From Totos link

http://historicaljesusresearch.blogs...ws-aslans.html

The strongest element of his case is thefact of the crucifixion. The fact that Jesus was executed as “King of the Jews” suggests that at least some Roman authorities recognized him as a political insurgent.

Toto · 08-01-2013, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

To me, the crucifixion is not well-attested. The accounts themselves are derived entirely from other sources.

From Totos link

http://historicaljesusresearch.blogs...ws-aslans.html

The strongest element of his case is thefact of the crucifixion. The fact that Jesus was executed as “King of the Jews” suggests that at least some Roman authorities recognized him as a political insurgent.

A "fact" (factoid?) derived from ambiguous and contradictory theological documents written well after the claimed events. The writer claiming this is a fact is an admitted Christian believer and theologian.

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

08-01-2013, 10:03 AM	#47
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Antony Le Donne review- Le Donne sniffs that Aslan is just not up to date with the latest historical Jesus/2nd temple research. He seems to be relying on the outdated info from his recent education.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.