On religion vs. faith and the political Jesus

[BreezeWood]

.

well,

... within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time.

-- a zealous revolutionary swept up, as all Jews of the era were, in the religious and political turmoil of first-century Palestine -- bears little resemblance to the image of the gentle shepherd cultivated by the early Christian community.

as always, the merit of the discussion need not be dictated by any one individual ...

I find the above to be accountable for many of the discrepancies that do exist per the historical figure of Jesus Christ and an obviously biased depiction of that individual found in the religious publications associated with those event.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

well,

... within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time.

-- a zealous revolutionary swept up, as all Jews of the era were, in the religious and political turmoil of first-century Palestine -- bears little resemblance to the image of the gentle shepherd cultivated by the early Christian community.

as always, the merit of the discussion need not be dictated by any one individual ...

I find the above to be accountable for many of the discrepancies that do exist per the historical figure of Jesus Christ and an obviously biased depiction of that individual found in the religious publications associated with those event.

.

There is no merit to any claim that Jesus preached politics.

I would object just as vehemently if someone posted a deranged idiot ranting about Gandhi preaching the value of violence in obtaining social change. If you want a legitimate discussion about zealotry and politics, pick a different way to make your case than lying.

 

[Pogo]

.

well,

... within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time.

-- a zealous revolutionary swept up, as all Jews of the era were, in the religious and political turmoil of first-century Palestine -- bears little resemblance to the image of the gentle shepherd cultivated by the early Christian community.

as always, the merit of the discussion need not be dictated by any one individual ...

I find the above to be accountable for many of the discrepancies that do exist per the historical figure of Jesus Christ and an obviously biased depiction of that individual found in the religious publications associated with those event.

.

I agree. Always thought that. A person exists in his time, and is subject to the circumstances of that time, part of which is the state of the nation as a Roman territory, part of which is his being born into a cohesive Jewish community that had its own strict codes of behavior, for instance that he be married and procreate children.

It's been plausibly suggested that:
The wedding at Cana, where he allegedly turned water to wine, was in fact his own wedding;
Mary called Magdalene (and conflated in various descriptions with other Marys at Golgotha) was his wife;
Jesus Barabbas, the prisoner the Romans exchange for Jesus, is "Jesus bar Abbas", meaning "son of the master" or "junior", in other words Jesus' first born, and that he would have inherited the right to make a claim for the throne next...

Bottom line, Jesus was tried and convicted for political crimes, not spiritual ones (about which the Romans would not have cared), and given a torture that was specifically reserved for those who committed insurrection against the Roman state.

These are the questions that should be generated here. We need not concern ourselves with, or even acknowledge the existence of, those who would tear asunder this ponderance with their endless finger-wagging from the Church of Contrarianism...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

well,

as always, the merit of the discussion need not be dictated by any one individual ...

I find the above to be accountable for many of the discrepancies that do exist per the historical figure of Jesus Christ and an obviously biased depiction of that individual found in the religious publications associated with those event.

.

I agree. Always thought that. A person exists in his time, and is subject to the circumstances of that time, part of which is the state of the nation as a Roman territory, part of which is his being born into a cohesive Jewish community that had its own strict codes of behavior, for instance that he be married and procreate children.

It's been plausibly suggested that:
The wedding at Cana, where he allegedly turned water to wine, was in fact his own wedding;
Mary called Magdalene (and conflated in various descriptions with other Marys at Golgotha) was his wife;
Jesus Barabbas, the prisoner the Romans exchange for Jesus, is "Jesus bar Abbas", meaning "son of the master" or "junior", in other words Jesus' first born, and that he would have inherited the right to make a claim for the throne next...

Bottom line, Jesus was tried and convicted for political crimes, not spiritual ones (about which the Romans would not have cared), and given a torture that was specifically reserved for those who committed insurrection against the Roman state.

These are the questions that should be generated here. We need not concern ourselves with, or even acknowledge the existence of, those who would tear asunder this ponderance with their endless finger-wagging from the Church of Contrarianism...

It has been plausibly suggested by who?

Weddings were typically arranged by families at that time, and the actual wedding usually occurred when the couple was in their late teens. Jesus was was 30 at the time of the wedding in Cana, which makes it rather implausible that it was his wedding.

But, please, try pretending you are smart enough to talk about anything that doesn't involve sucking a pacifier.

 

[The Irish Ram]

.

well,


as always, the merit of the discussion need not be dictated by any one individual ...

I find the above to be accountable for many of the discrepancies that do exist per the historical figure of Jesus Christ and an obviously biased depiction of that individual found in the religious publications associated with those event.

.

I agree. Always thought that. A person exists in his time, and is subject to the circumstances of that time, part of which is the state of the nation as a Roman territory, part of which is his being born into a cohesive Jewish community that had its own strict codes of behavior, for instance that he be married and procreate children.

It's been plausibly suggested that:
The wedding at Cana, where he allegedly turned water to wine, was in fact his own wedding;
Mary called Magdalene (and conflated in various descriptions with other Marys at Golgotha) was his wife;
Jesus Barabbas, the prisoner the Romans exchange for Jesus, is "Jesus bar Abbas", meaning "son of the master" or "junior", in other words Jesus' first born, and that he would have inherited the right to make a claim for the throne next...

Bottom line, Jesus was tried and convicted for political crimes, not spiritual ones (about which the Romans would not have cared), and given a torture that was specifically reserved for those who committed insurrection against the Roman state.

These are the questions that should be generated here. We need not concern ourselves with, or even acknowledge the existence of, those who would tear asunder this ponderance with their endless finger-wagging from the Church of Contrarianism...

Let's, because they should be addressed. You are using Biblical knowledge as fact to a point and then diverting from it to a different plausible substitution. How do you know where the truth of the situation stops and where your intervention is necessary?
Depending on where you put up the stop sign, the story also tells us that the people at the wedding party congratulated the father of the bride, not Christ for saving the best wine till last. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had a married daughter. That makes the scenario less plausible, doesn't it?

There is nothing to support Jesus having a wife. Not historically or in the Bible. The Da Vinci Code is a book of fiction. Mary of Magdala, was a follower, nothing more, nothing less. So were Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary Salome, Martha, sister of Lazarus, Miriamne, sister of Phillip, Arsinoe, Susanna, Joanna.

Barabbas was to old to be Jesus' son. His career of theft and gang violence and murder were well established over time. His crimes were not a child's rap sheet.

Jesus was tried and convicted because the Pharisees insisted on it. The Romans found no fault in Him and washed their hands of the deed. The Jews said to let the responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion fall on them and their descendants.
Jesus could have made toast out of all of them, but was here specifically to hang on that cross as our Passover Lamb.

 

[Pogo]

.

well,



as always, the merit of the discussion need not be dictated by any one individual ...

I find the above to be accountable for many of the discrepancies that do exist per the historical figure of Jesus Christ and an obviously biased depiction of that individual found in the religious publications associated with those event.

.

I agree. Always thought that. A person exists in his time, and is subject to the circumstances of that time, part of which is the state of the nation as a Roman territory, part of which is his being born into a cohesive Jewish community that had its own strict codes of behavior, for instance that he be married and procreate children.

It's been plausibly suggested that:
The wedding at Cana, where he allegedly turned water to wine, was in fact his own wedding;
Mary called Magdalene (and conflated in various descriptions with other Marys at Golgotha) was his wife;
Jesus Barabbas, the prisoner the Romans exchange for Jesus, is "Jesus bar Abbas", meaning "son of the master" or "junior", in other words Jesus' first born, and that he would have inherited the right to make a claim for the throne next...

Bottom line, Jesus was tried and convicted for political crimes, not spiritual ones (about which the Romans would not have cared), and given a torture that was specifically reserved for those who committed insurrection against the Roman state.

These are the questions that should be generated here. We need not concern ourselves with, or even acknowledge the existence of, those who would tear asunder this ponderance with their endless finger-wagging from the Church of Contrarianism...

Let's, because they should be addressed. You are using Biblical knowledge as fact to a point and then diverting from it to a different plausible substitution. How do you know where the truth of the situation stops and where your intervention is necessary?
Depending on where you put up the stop sign, the story also tells us that the people at the wedding party congratulated the father of the bride, not Christ for saving the best wine till last. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had a married daughter. That makes the scenario less plausible, doesn't it?

There is nothing to support Jesus having a wife. Not historically or in the Bible. The Da Vinci Code is a book of fiction. Mary of Magdala, was a follower, nothing more, nothing less. So were Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary Salome, Martha, sister of Lazarus, Miriamne, sister of Phillip, Arsinoe, Susanna, Joanna.

Barabbas was to old to be Jesus' son. His career of theft and gang violence and murder were well established over time. His crimes were not a child's rap sheet.

Jesus was tried and convicted because the Pharisees insisted on it. The Romans found no fault in Him and washed their hands of the deed. The Jews said to let the responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion fall on them and their descendants.
Jesus could have made toast out of all of them, but was here specifically to hang on that cross as our Passover Lamb.

Thank you - this is much more what I had in mind for this thread as far as painting an authentic historical picture.

How do we know where NT accuracy stops and details must be deduced? Aye, that's the whole question. We know it's riddled with inaccuracies, contradictions and missing info which is inevitable in a treatise that's been heavily edited by committee (most notably at the Council of Nicea) and wasn't even written down until long after Jesus was gone, so such discrepancies are to be fully expected. Therein lieth the art of historical interpretation then.

For instance, just to take the last first...
>> he Romans found no fault in Him and washed their hands of the deed. The Jews said to let the responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion fall on them and their descendants.
Jesus could have made toast out of all of them, but was here specifically to hang on that cross as our Passover Lamb. <<

-- given a choice between (a) some guy who's called a god long after he's gone, hanging on a cross two thousand years ago to fulfill some vague ancient animal-sacrificial superstition and (b) an insurrectionist, working furtively under cloak of the spiritual (which is to say the entire sociocultural structure of his people), ferreted out by the Romans, like countless others, executed as an enemy of the State, specifically by the method they reserved for such insurrectionists, which is the more plausible?

Obviously the latter. The 'sacrificial lamb' bit makes no sense right on its face. If I go rob a bank and get caught, I do the time in prison mysef -- I don't get to say, "well, this guy two thousand years ago was hung on a cross so I'm outta here". God, if we take his description, has no need for that. The sacrifice/redeemer metaphor was a common image of primitive peoples who had barely developed an alphabet, so this can be seen basically as a marketing (our god: better than your god, now with new Crucifixion). Now it starts to make sense in real terms.

And of course the whole general allegorical overlay of death and rebirth was old hat by then when you were putting a god together; Osiris for one, in Egypt, with his son Horus, were liberally used as a model for the Jesus version, embodying concepts of seasonal death and rebirth as well as "virgin" birth. These were already themselves established for over two thousand years before Jesus was a twinkle in God's eye, so they were deeply ingrained mythologies. The whole concept of a death-and-rebirth deity had been used over and over (Adonis, Baal, Dionysus, Eshmun, Melqart, Tammuz et al). Dumuzi (husband of Ishtar) goes to an underworld for six months in order to bring life back ("rebirth") to the crops. Clearly these are myths based on, and symbolizing, the growing season, which was absolutely vital to human survival. It's understandable, and expected, that such peoples would place such a central focus here, including down to vegetation deities, because that's what religion does -- tries to make sense of the natural world.

Knowing that these were all extant and well-established concepts by the time Matthew, Mark, Luke and John started chronicling their memories, it's equally plausible, and expected, that they'd express their story in the idiom of the time. Certainly anthropomorphizing gods was too, a practice going back to at least zodiacal representations.

So here, briefly, we have all the circumstances in place to overlay the execution of a Jewish nationalist with a superstructure of ancient well-established and well-known mythological/spiritual aspects (and of course by then Jesus, being gone, has no say in it). We've got the colonizer (Rome) confirming the nature of his offence via the execution method. All of it fits together. What we don't have is any rationalization for a God that needs to send a God-son down to be executed, but we do have plenty of reasons it might be represented that way symbolically. Now add to that two thousand years of playing "telephone" with the texts, long after both their subjects and authors are gone, and it's easy to see why some of this just doesn't make sense on the surface ... until it's placed in its own time and place; now it sharpens to crystal clarity.

Little details like Jesus' wedding at the age of thirty, obviously since a Jewish male got married as soon as possible, typically in his teens, that's implausible, though the wedding itself isn't. In fact Jesus would have probably been singled out as a weirdo if unmarried by the age of thirty, so we can take these timings, knowing there were editors involved, with a grain of salt. Actually I don't think the NT says he was thirty at the time, but whatever, minor detail. The greater point is to see the man in his own time, in his own circumstances, in the real world he would have lived in with all its influences and implications.

The NT simply doesn't give this context. When we apply it, a different picture starts to emerge, and this time it comes to life. We might say the story is "reborn".