On religion vs. faith and the political Jesus

[Pogo]

I'm listening to this writer interview right now. Good thought-provoking stuff.

Reza Azlan on CBC Tapestry (listen link on the page)


The book is
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/140006922X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371532628&sr=1-1"]Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

There's maybe a quick Cliff's Notes of the ideas in the book in this TV interview, although the interviewer herself is prolly the worst interviewer ever:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt1cOnNrY5s]Stupidest Interview Ever by Fox News - anchor to REZA ASLAN - But you're a Muslim, right? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Chuckt]

It may take me a half an hour to respond since I have to watch a ten minute video and read a link. I'm doing the work because you didn't post what this is about. I'm listening to a video and I don't know what it is about.

 

[Chuckt]

I think the link is this:

Reza Aslan on Jesus the Revolutionary | Tapestry with Mary Hynes | CBC Radio

I think the author is trying to sell a story. The information in the link doesn't line up with what I know about the Bible.

 

[Chuckt]

It is difficult to place Jesus of Nazareth squarely within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time. He was a man of profound contradictions, one day preaching a message of racial exclusion ("I was sent solely to the lost sheep of Israel"; Matthew 15:24), the next, of benevolent universalism ("Go and make disciples of all nations"; Matthew 28:19); sometimes calling for unconditional peace ("Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God"; Matthew 5:9), sometimes promoting violence and conflict ("If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one"; Luke 22:36).

Reza Aslan on Jesus the Revolutionary | Tapestry with Mary Hynes | CBC Radio

According to Christian pacifist John Yoder, Jesus rejected the existing political state of affairs and taught a form of radical nonviolence. Central to Christ's teaching, Yoder says, is His biblical mandate to "turn the other cheek" when encountering violence (Matthew 5:38-48).

Self-defense?

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

-ibid.

The talk about Jesus being a revolutionary is pure hogwash. Phd or no Phd, it is garbage and it is a waste of my time talking about this about someone who got a Phd and doesn't know Bible.. You don't start a revolution with turning the other cheek and short swords that are just for self-defense.

 

[Pogo]

It is difficult to place Jesus of Nazareth squarely within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time. He was a man of profound contradictions, one day preaching a message of racial exclusion ("I was sent solely to the lost sheep of Israel"; Matthew 15:24), the next, of benevolent universalism ("Go and make disciples of all nations"; Matthew 28:19); sometimes calling for unconditional peace ("Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God"; Matthew 5:9), sometimes promoting violence and conflict ("If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one"; Luke 22:36).

Reza Aslan on Jesus the Revolutionary | Tapestry with Mary Hynes | CBC Radio

According to Christian pacifist John Yoder, Jesus rejected the existing political state of affairs and taught a form of radical nonviolence. Central to Christ's teaching, Yoder says, is His biblical mandate to "turn the other cheek" when encountering violence (Matthew 5:38-48).

Self-defense?

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

-ibid.

The talk about Jesus being a revolutionary is pure hogwash. Phd or no Phd, it is garbage and it is a waste of my time talking about this about someone who got a Phd and doesn't know Bible.. You don't start a revolution with turning the other cheek and short swords that are just for self-defense.

Since you started whining about not knowing what the subject was and then reposted the same link I gave in the OP as if you had to go figure it out, I'm going to assume you're not the most perceptive.

Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years. What he tried to do as masiach, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists. And that means throwing off the Romans, and that is what he was convicted and executed for. The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.

All this BS about transforming him into a god came much much later. It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition. Nothing.

As Aslan also points out, this isn't a new perspective. I came upon it forty years ago in my own study. Viewing a person in their own time and in the real politics of their day makes a hell of a lot more sense than imagining a bunch of people in sandals who did nothing but walk around all day spouting platitudes.

Not sure how to address the various quotes above-- they don't really make a point or refute anything.

 

[Chuckt]

Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years. What he tried to do as masiach, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists. And that means throwing off the Romans, and that is what he was convicted and executed for. The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.

All this BS about transforming him into a god came much much later. It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition. Nothing.

As Aslan also points out, this isn't a new perspective. I came upon it forty years ago in my own study. Viewing a person in their own time and in the real politics of their day makes a hell of a lot more sense than imagining a bunch of people in sandals who did nothing but walk around all day spouting platitudes.

Not sure how to address the various quotes above-- they don't really make a point or refute anything.

It is funny that he appeals to the Bible and then you say that isn't what it is about. He appeals to the Bible but he is illiterate on the point that I pointed out. I don't have need for such nonsense. It is a waste of time and he is basically making it up based on theory (himself).

That is what the Jews wanted but that was not what Jesus wanted.

John 19:6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!" But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

John 18:11 Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

 

[BreezeWood]

Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years. What he tried to do as masiach, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists. And that means throwing off the Romans, and that is what he was convicted and executed for. The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.

All this BS about transforming him into a god came much much later. It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition. Nothing.

there is a lot there to make sense of JC, with many similarities throughout history ...



.

.

Mao and company as well all seem to have illusions of godliness.


* however not to diminish a role by those above, a guidance they may truly have accomplished from a Divine source - is possible.

.

 

[Pogo]

Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years. What he tried to do as masiach, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists. And that means throwing off the Romans, and that is what he was convicted and executed for. The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.

All this BS about transforming him into a god came much much later. It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition. Nothing.

As Aslan also points out, this isn't a new perspective. I came upon it forty years ago in my own study. Viewing a person in their own time and in the real politics of their day makes a hell of a lot more sense than imagining a bunch of people in sandals who did nothing but walk around all day spouting platitudes.

Not sure how to address the various quotes above-- they don't really make a point or refute anything.

It is funny that he appeals to the Bible and then you say that isn't what it is about. He appeals to the Bible but he is illiterate on the point that I pointed out. I don't have need for such nonsense. It is a waste of time and he is basically making it up based on theory (himself).

That is what the Jews wanted but that was not what Jesus wanted.

John 19:6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!" But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

John 18:11 Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

I don't know what you mean by "appeals to the bible".

But ask yourself this: how would you know "what Jesus wanted"? Especially when for everything he said or did we have to depend on writings put down long after he was gone and then later edited?

 

[Pogo]

Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years. What he tried to do as masiach, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists. And that means throwing off the Romans, and that is what he was convicted and executed for. The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.

All this BS about transforming him into a god came much much later. It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition. Nothing.

there is a lot there to make sense of JC, with many similarities throughout history ...



.

.

Mao and company as well all seem to have illusions of godliness.


* however not to diminish a role by those above, a guidance they may truly have accomplished from a Divine source - is possible.

.

I don't think Mao was driving out the Romans. Not sure what your analogy is here.

The point of the view of Jesus as a real person is that he didn't claim to be a god -- that was appended onto him later by others, and it would presumably shock him to the depth of his Jewish soul if he were to come back to see what he's been made into.

What in the world that has to do with Mao eludes me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm listening to this writer interview right now. Good thought-provoking stuff.

Reza Azlan on CBC Tapestry (listen link on the page)


The book is
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

Am I supposed to listen to a really dumb interview in order to find the one kernel of idiocy you think proves how smart you are, or will you tell us because we aren't nearly as smart as you think you are?

By the way, didn't you once give me a hard time about a typo in a link I posted? Does that make you especially stupid for having a typo in your link, or do you really think that ttp:// is a valid link?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is difficult to place Jesus of Nazareth squarely within any of the known religiopolitical movements of his time. He was a man of profound contradictions, one day preaching a message of racial exclusion ("I was sent solely to the lost sheep of Israel"; Matthew 15:24), the next, of benevolent universalism ("Go and make disciples of all nations"; Matthew 28:19); sometimes calling for unconditional peace ("Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God"; Matthew 5:9), sometimes promoting violence and conflict ("If you do not have a sword, go sell your cloak and buy one"; Luke 22:36).

Reza Aslan on Jesus the Revolutionary | Tapestry with Mary Hynes | CBC Radio



Self-defense?

Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the "sword" (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler's equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

-ibid.

The talk about Jesus being a revolutionary is pure hogwash. Phd or no Phd, it is garbage and it is a waste of my time talking about this about someone who got a Phd and doesn't know Bible.. You don't start a revolution with turning the other cheek and short swords that are just for self-defense.

Since you started whining about not knowing what the subject was and then reposted the same link I gave in the OP as if you had to go figure it out, I'm going to assume you're not the most perceptive.

Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years. What he tried to do as masiach, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists. And that means throwing off the Romans, and that is what he was convicted and executed for. The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.

All this BS about transforming him into a god came much much later. It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition. Nothing.

As Aslan also points out, this isn't a new perspective. I came upon it forty years ago in my own study. Viewing a person in their own time and in the real politics of their day makes a hell of a lot more sense than imagining a bunch of people in sandals who did nothing but walk around all day spouting platitudes.

Not sure how to address the various quotes above-- they don't really make a point or refute anything.

He was not trying to bring back anything, there had never been a kingdom of God before Jesus started teaching about it. Since it had never existed, it cannot be defined the way you are attempting to, and we must look to what Jesus said about it to understand it. The only time JEsus specifically spoke about the kingdom to a person who was not a disciple was in John 3, and it is perfectly clear if you read that chapter that he is not talking about a land free of foreigners.

Nice try. In the future, if you want to understand something, don't listen to yourself.

 

[Pogo]

I'm listening to this writer interview right now. Good thought-provoking stuff.

Reza Azlan on CBC Tapestry (listen link on the page)


The book is
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

Am I supposed to listen to a really dumb interview in order to find the ne kernel of idiocy you think proves how smart you are, or will you tell us because we aren't nearly as smart as you think you are?

By the way, didn't you once give me a hard time about a typo in a link I posted? Does that make you especially stupid for having a typ in your link, or do you really think that ttp:// is a valid link?

Wasn't aware of that. Thanks, fixed. In your case I was fairly sure you did it on purpose -- your point IIRC was that the URL didn't work, and leaving out part of the URL ensured it didn't.

The first part of your post is meaningless noise. I put the story up as an invitation. Nobody's got a gun to your head to go listen to it.

But just for rhetorical S&Gs... how do you know it's "dumb" if you didn't?

Just a note for the scorecard -- that's not me in there, neither interviewer or interviewee. So "how smart I am" isn't a part of this. You may choose to worship my obviously superior intellect without this audio aid. See? I just saved you an hour of dangerous knowledge.

 

[Chuckt]

I don't know what you mean by "appeals to the bible".

But ask yourself this: how would you know "what Jesus wanted"? Especially when for everything he said or did we have to depend on writings put down long after he was gone and then later edited?

He appealed to the Bible for what he wants to prove and ignores the rest that contradicts him.

How does someone from the 21st century know what Jesus wanted when he doesn't know and he is revising what Jesus said?

 

[Pogo]

Reza Aslan on Jesus the Revolutionary | Tapestry with Mary Hynes | CBC Radio



Self-defense?

-ibid.

The talk about Jesus being a revolutionary is pure hogwash. Phd or no Phd, it is garbage and it is a waste of my time talking about this about someone who got a Phd and doesn't know Bible.. You don't start a revolution with turning the other cheek and short swords that are just for self-defense.

Since you started whining about not knowing what the subject was and then reposted the same link I gave in the OP as if you had to go figure it out, I'm going to assume you're not the most perceptive.

Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years. What he tried to do as masiach, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists. And that means throwing off the Romans, and that is what he was convicted and executed for. The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.

All this BS about transforming him into a god came much much later. It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition. Nothing.

As Aslan also points out, this isn't a new perspective. I came upon it forty years ago in my own study. Viewing a person in their own time and in the real politics of their day makes a hell of a lot more sense than imagining a bunch of people in sandals who did nothing but walk around all day spouting platitudes.

Not sure how to address the various quotes above-- they don't really make a point or refute anything.

He was not trying to bring back anything, there had never been a kingdom of God before Jesus started teaching about it. Since it had never existed, it cannot be defined the way you are attempting to, and we must look to what Jesus said about it to understand it. The only time JEsus specifically spoke about the kingdom to a person who was not a disciple was in John 3, and it is perfectly clear if you read that chapter that he is not talking about a land free of foreigners.

Nice try. In the future, if you want to understand something, don't listen to yourself.

Of course there was. It was an expression for the Jewish nation. Not talking about what latter-day editors and power-hungry priests wanted to morph it into. When Jesus (or anyone) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to themselves as a free people. So if you're advocating that, then by definition you're advocating the overthrow of Rome -- even if you're not saying it directly, which would be suicide. And that's why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion as a deterrent to revolutionary forces (which is why Jesus had to be cagey about it), finally did crucify him: as an enemy of the state. No more, no less.

Again, I'm not concerned with what's left of the bible as a source, especially after centuries of editing. The Septuagint put that to rest. Rather, I'm interested in what the real story is. And that means looking at real history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm listening to this writer interview right now. Good thought-provoking stuff.

Reza Azlan on CBC Tapestry (listen link on the page)


The book is
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

Am I supposed to listen to a really dumb interview in order to find the ne kernel of idiocy you think proves how smart you are, or will you tell us because we aren't nearly as smart as you think you are?

By the way, didn't you once give me a hard time about a typo in a link I posted? Does that make you especially stupid for having a typ in your link, or do you really think that ttp:// is a valid link?

Wasn't aware of that. Thanks, fixed. In your case I was fairly sure you did it on purpose -- your point IIRC was that the URL didn't work, and leaving out part of the URL ensured it didn't.

The first part of your post is meaningless noise. I put the story up as an invitation. Nobody's got a gun to your head to go listen to it.

But just for rhetorical S&Gs... how do you know it's "dumb" if you didn't?

Just a note for the scorecard -- that's not me in there, neither interviewer or interviewee. So "how smart I am" isn't a part of this. You may choose to worship my obviously superior intellect without this audio aid. See? I just saved you an hour of dangerous knowledge.

How do I know it's dumb? The same way you know its dumb when Sarah Palin starts talking, the idiot who is talking is an idiot.

 

[Pogo]

Am I supposed to listen to a really dumb interview in order to find the ne kernel of idiocy you think proves how smart you are, or will you tell us because we aren't nearly as smart as you think you are?

By the way, didn't you once give me a hard time about a typo in a link I posted? Does that make you especially stupid for having a typ in your link, or do you really think that ttp:// is a valid link?

Wasn't aware of that. Thanks, fixed. In your case I was fairly sure you did it on purpose -- your point IIRC was that the URL didn't work, and leaving out part of the URL ensured it didn't.

The first part of your post is meaningless noise. I put the story up as an invitation. Nobody's got a gun to your head to go listen to it.

But just for rhetorical S&Gs... how do you know it's "dumb" if you didn't?

Just a note for the scorecard -- that's not me in there, neither interviewer or interviewee. So "how smart I am" isn't a part of this. You may choose to worship my obviously superior intellect without this audio aid. See? I just saved you an hour of dangerous knowledge.

How do I know it's dumb? The same way you know its dumb when Sarah Palin starts talking, the idiot who is talking is an idiot.

Ah, excellent, right to Poisoning the Well in lieu of analysis.
Windbag forfeits. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since you started whining about not knowing what the subject was and then reposted the same link I gave in the OP as if you had to go figure it out, I'm going to assume you're not the most perceptive.

Jesus lived in a Roman colony, a land that was under Caesar's thumb for three hundred years. What he tried to do as masiach, living in a time when religion, politics and social mores were indivisible, was to bring back the "Kingdom of God" -- which means a land free of foreign colonists. And that means throwing off the Romans, and that is what he was convicted and executed for. The author also points out, correctly, that crucifixion was reserved by Rome specifically for such revolutionaries.

All this BS about transforming him into a god came much much later. It has nothing to do with the meaning of masiach (messiah) in the Jewish tradition. Nothing.

As Aslan also points out, this isn't a new perspective. I came upon it forty years ago in my own study. Viewing a person in their own time and in the real politics of their day makes a hell of a lot more sense than imagining a bunch of people in sandals who did nothing but walk around all day spouting platitudes.

Not sure how to address the various quotes above-- they don't really make a point or refute anything.

He was not trying to bring back anything, there had never been a kingdom of God before Jesus started teaching about it. Since it had never existed, it cannot be defined the way you are attempting to, and we must look to what Jesus said about it to understand it. The only time JEsus specifically spoke about the kingdom to a person who was not a disciple was in John 3, and it is perfectly clear if you read that chapter that he is not talking about a land free of foreigners.

Nice try. In the future, if you want to understand something, don't listen to yourself.

Of course there was. It was an expression for the Jewish nation. Not talking about what latter-day editors and power-hungry priests wanted to morph it into. When Jesus (or anyone) called for a journey to the "Kingdom of God" they refer to themselves as a free people. So if you're advocating that, then by definition you're advocating the overthrow of Rome -- even if you're not saying it directly, which would be suicide. And that's why the Romans, who reserved crucifixion as a deterrent to revolutionary forces (which is why Jesus had to be cagey about it), finally did crucify him: as an enemy of the state. No more, no less.

Again, I'm not concerned with what's left of the bible as a source, especially after centuries of editing. The Septuagint put that to rest. Rather, I'm interested in what the real story is. And that means looking at real history.

Can you provide contemporary citations for that, or are we supposed to bow to your genius?

I suggest you explain to me how Christians managed to rewrite Jewish history to such an extent that they went from understanding the kingdom to be spiritual in nature to actually being something that had already happened, and needed to be restored.

Unlike you, I can provide sources.

Targum to Zech. xiv. 9 and Ob. 21; "Malkut Shaddai ": 'Alenu; and "Malkut Shamayim": Ber. ii. 2, and elsewhere in Mishnah and Haggadah): Reign or sovereignty of God as contrasted with the kingdom of the worldly powers. The hope that God will be King over all the earth, when all idolatry will be banished, is expressed in prophecy and song (Ex. xv. 18; Zech. xiv. 9; Isa. xxiv. 23, Iii. 7; Micah iv. 7; Ps. xxix. 10), and with special emphasis in the later Psalms (xciii.-xcix.). God's Kingdom is spoken of in Ps. xxii. 29 (A. V. 28), ciii. 19, cxlv. 11-13; Ob. 21; Dan. iii. 33 (A. V. iv. 3); Tobit, xiii. 1; Sibyllines, iii. 47-48, 767; Psalms of Solomon, xvii. 3; Wisdom, x. 10; Assumptio Mosis, x. 1; Song of the Three Holy Children, 33; Enoch, lxxxiv. 2. The words "The Lord shall be King" are translated in the Targum, "The Kingdom of God shall be revealed"; and the ancient liturgy culminates in the prayer that "God may establish His Kingdom speedily" (see 'Alenu; Ḳaddish). The Kingdom of God, however, in order to be established on earth, requires recognition by man; that is, to use the Hasidæan phrase borrowed from Babylonia or Persia, man must "take upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of God" ("'Ol Malkut Shamayim"; "Heaven" is a synonym of "God"; see Heaven). This the Israelites do daily when reciting the Shema' (Ber. ii. 2); so do the angels when singing their "Thrice Holy" (Hekalot); and in the future "all men shall take upon themselves the yoke of the Kingdom of God when casting away their idols" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, 'Amalek, 2). Accordingly, says the Midrash (Cant. R. ii. 12), "when the Kingdom of Rome has ripened enough to be destroyed, the Kingdom of God will appear."

 

[Pogo]

I don't know what you mean by "appeals to the bible".

But ask yourself this: how would you know "what Jesus wanted"? Especially when for everything he said or did we have to depend on writings put down long after he was gone and then later edited?

He appealed to the Bible for what he wants to prove and ignores the rest that contradicts him.

How does someone from the 21st century know what Jesus wanted when he doesn't know and he is revising what Jesus said?

By "he" I guess you mean the author. Of course he taps what's in the bible as one source, and lots of others as other sources. If one source contradicts the other, well that's gotta be resolved, doesn't it? Besides, you would't have to leave the bible to find contradictions; there's plenty right there.

Clearly if you're trying to paint a picture of who Jesus was and what he was about, you need more than the bible to go on. For instance... what the hell was he doing before the age of thirty? Was there nothing of interest in thirty years for a guy that was supposed to be God? Inquiring minds want to know.

There might be a reason for that...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wasn't aware of that. Thanks, fixed. In your case I was fairly sure you did it on purpose -- your point IIRC was that the URL didn't work, and leaving out part of the URL ensured it didn't.

The first part of your post is meaningless noise. I put the story up as an invitation. Nobody's got a gun to your head to go listen to it.

But just for rhetorical S&Gs... how do you know it's "dumb" if you didn't?

Just a note for the scorecard -- that's not me in there, neither interviewer or interviewee. So "how smart I am" isn't a part of this. You may choose to worship my obviously superior intellect without this audio aid. See? I just saved you an hour of dangerous knowledge.

How do I know it's dumb? The same way you know its dumb when Sarah Palin starts talking, the idiot who is talking is an idiot.

Ah, excellent, right to Poisoning the Well in lieu of analysis.
Windbag forfeits. Thanks for stopping by.

I forfeit because I know the guy is pretentious? Perhaps it would be better for you if you actually learn about your source before dismissing people who know him as cranks.

This is what the left leaning Nation says about him.

Aslan’s broader claim to working as a historian, however, is another matter. Frankly, he would probably have been cut a good deal more slack by specialists had he simply said that he was working as an outsider to the field, interested in translating work by scholars of early Christianity for a broader audience. But his claims are more grandiose than that and are based on his repeated public statements that he speaks with authority as a historian. He has therefore reasonably opened himself to criticism on the basis of that claim.
And here, there is much to criticize. Aslan argues that Jesus was a Palestinian peasant whose claims about the coming “kingdom of God” were both self-conscious and literal. Setting himself up in active and public opposition to Roman imperial authority, Aslan’s Jesus ran afoul of the Romans and the Jewish elites who aligned themselves with Roman power. From this reconstruction, Aslan derives the title of his book—Zealot—and his thesis that the crime for which Jesus was executed was treason.
Zealot reflects wide reading in the secondary literature that has emerged in the scholarly study of the historical Jesus. In that sense, as one colleague of mine puts it, Aslan is a reader rather than a researcher. Aslan’s reconstruction of the life of Jesus invests a surprisingly literalist faith in some parts of the gospel narratives. For example, he argues, against the scholarly consensus, that the so-called “messianic secret” in the Gospel of Mark (a text written four decades after the death of Jesus) reflects an actual political strategy of the historical Jesus rather than a literary device by which the author of that text made sense of conflicting bits of received tradition. His readings of the canonical gospels give little attention to the fact that the writers of these texts were engaged in a complex intertextual practice with the Hebrew scriptures in Greek, that these writers were interested in demonstrating that Jesus fulfilled prophecies written centuries earlier—in short, that the gospel writers were writers with (sometimes modest, sometimes expansive) literary aspirations and particular theological axes to grind. Biblical scholars have, over many decades, sought to develop methods of textual analysis to tease out these various interests and threads.
But Aslan does not claim to be engaged in literary analysis but in history-writing. One might then expect his reconstruction of the world of Jesus of Nazareth to display a deep understanding of second-temple Judaism. Yet, his historical reconstruction is partial in both senses of the term. For example, he depends significantly on the testimony of the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, taking it more or less at face value (which no scholar of the period would do). Meanwhile he amplifies Jewish resistance to Roman domination into a widespread biblically based zealotry, from which he concludes that Jesus was intent upon armed resistance and the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. Moreover, his reconstruction of the Judaism of the time is too flat and monolithic. At best, his argument is overstated; at worst, it depends upon scholarship that has been definitively challenged by more recent work in the field and upon a method that cherry-picks from the ancient sources.

Reza Aslan?Historian? | The Nation

Frankly, I would rather listen to Obama lie to me about how great my life is since he got elected than listen to Aslan pontificate on anything at all.