"The Religion thread" Part II

[Vaelahr]

...here's a more complete analysis than I'm willing to do:

The Problem with Jesus’ Arrest and Trial
by James Still
There is a problem when dealing with the various contradictory biblical accounts of Jesus' arrest and trial as they relate to each other and Jewish practice of the day. We are told in Mark's gospel that after Jesus enters Jerusalem he is soon arrested praying at the Mount of Olives with his disciples who flee upon his arrest. (Mk. 15)

The High Priest Caiaphas, a Sadducee priest and a Roman-appointee, actively sought to prevent open rebellion against Rome lest it escalate and endanger what little autonomy the Temple priests were given by Caesar Augustus. It was Caiaphas who sent out the Temple police to arrest Jesus, most certainly on grounds that Jesus was seditious (rebellious) against Roman authority.

Our evidence is good that Jesus did act politically seditious against Roman authority:

1. Several of Jesus' disciples were known Zealots,

No they weren't. Only one, a man named Simon, was referred to as a Zealot.

Simon Peter who was known as "Bar-jona" (Mt. 16:17) a derivation of of "baryona" Aramaic for "outlaw" which was a common name applied to Zealots.

Many Zealots were considered outlaws, but Bar-jona is not derived from baryona. Bar-jona is an Aramaic surname meaning "son of Jona" or "son of John".

James and John shared the nickname "Boanerges" or in Hebrew "benei ra'ash" which is to say "sons of thunder" another common Zealot reference.

No it wasn't a Zealot reference. The derivation and meaning of "Boanerges" is uncertain and "sons of thunder" most likely referred to their tempestuous dispositions.

...and the most famous Zealot was Judas Iscariot, "Iscariot" a corruption of the Latin "sicarius" or "knife-man" which was a common Roman reference to Zealots.

There's no evidence of him being a Zealot and the origin of the name Iscariot is debatable; "man of Karioth (in Judea)", "the assassin", "man from Issachar", certainty is impossible.

Jesus himself is attributed with many sayings that are Pharasaic in origin, e.g., Mt. 7:12, Mk 2:27, Jn 7:22, B. Yoma 85b (Talmud), Mt. 7:15 Judas, refers to Jesus as "Rabbi" a Pharasaic-title.

Remember shared vocabulary within a culture?

Many scholars subscribe to the "walks like a duck, must be a duck" philosophy and go as far as to say that Jesus himself was a Pharisee rabbi. The evidence does seem to support this conclusion

The evidence of the gospel record is overwhelmingly to the contrary.

So far James Still is off to a start with dreadfully sloppy scholarship. Why continue reading when credibility is so weak, so early? The same old sensationalist spin. Perhaps he studied at "Dan Brown's School Of Research", in hopes of his own tabloid Tom Hanks flick.

[Mulu]

certainty is impossible.

I think we can pretty much say that about everything in the bible.

But I'm just not buying the argument that stating the same ideas as other prior religions is nothing more than using common language, especially given the number of languages and cultures present in Roman occupied Judea. I think it's reusing prior ideas.

D&D was the first RPG. All others are derivative of it. When I look at the rulebooks for Warhammer or the old I.C.E. system, I don't see a "new" game that's just using the common language of the genre, I see a heavily "homerules" version of D&D. They may occasionally come up with some interesting twists or better gameworlds, but it's still rolling dice to determine outcomes in a fictional world with measured probabilities. They are all basically the same game, and all later games most definitely owe their primary ideas and even existence to D&D.

Christianity, at its inception, was not new. It had some interesting twists, but it was mostly a combination of existing ideas. It's absurd to think that an omniscient god couldn't communicate new ideas without using the old vernacular, which leaves two possibilities: Prior religions were also the word of god, he was just practicing his pitch; or Christianity is just a small step in the evolution of human made religious thought. The first explanation has a lot of problems, namely how would an omnipotent being not get it right the first time? The second explanation makes logical sense. There are too many borrowed ideas, not just expression but basic ideas, for Christianity to be anything truly new.

And your analysis of Still totally missed his point and is therefore inaccurate. He is not engaging in sloppy scholarship. He knows "Bar-Jona" means son of John. He's making a dual argument, these guys were zealots and the gospels lied about it, better stated as, "We have seen how the Zealots were changed into pacifist disciples by transforming their names (the revolutionary Barjona, into son of Jonah, the murderer Iscariot into a native of Kerioth, the zealot Qananite into a resident of Cana etc.)."

In other words, the gospels falsified the names of the disciples. They were zealots whose names were changed just a bit to make them look like pacifists. The entire argument is here.

It does seem strangely coincidental that the disciples had names that were so similar to terms used to describe zealots and assassins. Imagine using modern terms that way. Ted Bundy the cerealkiller, Adolf Hitler the jeniecider, Saddam Hussien the dictionary. The absurdity becomes obvious.

It's also very odd that four divinely inspired gospels would contradict each other so much, but that's a whole new argument.

I also liked Still's virgin birth explanation.

[Mulu]

[Vaelahr]

And your analysis of Still totally missed his point and is therefore inaccurate. He is not engaging in sloppy scholarship. He knows "Bar-Jona" means son of John. He's making a dual argument, these guys were zealots and the gospels lied about it, better stated as, "We have seen how the Zealots were changed into pacifist disciples by transforming their names (the revolutionary Barjona, into son of Jonah, the murderer Iscariot into a native of Kerioth, the zealot Qananite into a resident of Cana etc.)."

It's James Still and others like him who change the names to imply something sensational.

In other words, the gospels falsified the names of the disciples. They were zealots whose names were changed just a bit to make them look like pacifists.

The disciples were Galileans. They were not the elite. Galileans were the low class, rural, uneducated, as far away as you can get from the literate and the educated in Jerusalem. They were the commoners, the nobodies. They had gathered around Jesus as disciples, the word is mathetes, learners. Their politics were different. There was Matthew (called also Levi), one of the most despicable people in Israel; a tax collector, who had taken a job with Rome to extort taxes from his own people to pay the Roman Empire. Here was Matthew (Levi), one of the Apostles, a betrayer of his own people for money. And another of the Apostles was Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were those who hated Rome, a terrorist group in Israel who wanted to throw off the Roman yoke. They didn't have an army that declared war on Rome, they did terrorist acts. Some of them were called Zacharii because they carried around a zacharia, a sword used for backstabbing assassination. And here was one of the most hated Jews, one who had betrayed his nation and become a tax collector for Rome in the same little group with Simon, a terrorist. Apart from the presence of Christ, Simon may have well stuck a blade in Matthew's back.

They weren't made to look like pacifists, or even people of leadership quality, for they weren't of leadership quality, they weren't pacifists, they weren't qualified. The gospel record reveals Christ's ability to work through anyone. Nobody qualifies. Nobody qualifies to be in God's service. Scripture is very clear that nobody on his own can meet the least of God's standards. God doesn't really have a choice, He either uses the unworthy and the unqualified or He does it Himself. God has chosen to bring to sinners saving grace, seperating grace, and then serving grace, transforming the unworthy and the unqualified into useful servants. So God picks the humble, the lowly, the meek and the weak so that there's never any question about the source of power when their lives change the world. It's not the man or the woman, it's the truth of God and the power of God in the man or the woman.

It's also very odd that four divinely inspired gospels would contradict each other so much, but that's a whole new argument.

What are some of these "contradictions"? Copy-pasting entire webpages favoring sensationalism over sound scholarship isn't very conversational, so let's look at just a few at a time if possible.

[Mulu]

It's James Still and others like him who change the names to imply something sensational.

They didn't change any names at all, they are just pointing out similarities. It's not like you can deny that these names are indeed similar to the terms noted by Still and others. Maybe it's just a big coincidence, or maybe he's right.

They were the commoners, the nobodies.

Well of course they were, they were cultists.

It's not the man or the woman, it's the truth of God and the power of God in the man or the woman.

Then why bother with all the son of god and virgin birth nonsense? Doesn't the idea of a divine messenger destroy your thesis?

It's also very odd that four divinely inspired gospels would contradict each other so much, but that's a whole new argument.

What are some of these "contradictions"?

The lack of virgin birth in the oldest gospel is one quick example, as previously noted. *Any* deviation of facts would be irreconcialable with a divine source. If you want more, I'm going to have to copy and paste, because I'm certainly not going to buy and scour through a bible myself.

I think you've left a ton of critiques untouched here, especially the argument against virgin birth. It isn't sufficient to just paste Still as a hack, especially since so far your only actual criticism of his statements are that the gospel writers didn't rewrite the names, despite their similarity to terms of zealotry and killing. And remember the underlying point, I stated that Jesus was crucified for sedition, you said he didn't commit sedition, I quoted Still, you then claimed that in fact the disciples *were* seditious and allied with the insurgents of the time, which brings me back to Jesus was crucified for sedition. And I think you proved me right.

[Vaelahr]

It's James Still and others like him who change the names to imply something sensational.

They didn't change any names at all, they are just pointing out similarities. It's not like you can deny that these names are indeed similar to the terms noted by Still and others.

He creates similarities by exploiting textual ambiguity. Again, Bar-jona is an Aramaic surname and is not derived from baryona. Boanerges, if it indeed means "sons of thunder", was not a known Zealot reference. And not only is "Iscariot" not etymologically equivalent to sicarius, the Sicarii were a different group than the Zealots, though they shared similar goals.

It's not the man or the woman, it's the truth of God and the power of God in the man or the woman.

Doesn't the idea of a divine messenger destroy your thesis?

How does it?

It's also very odd that four divinely inspired gospels would contradict each other so much, but that's a whole new argument.

What are some of these "contradictions"?

The lack of virgin birth in the oldest gospel is one quick example, as previously noted.

That's not a contradiction.

I think you've left a ton of critiques untouched here, especially the argument against virgin birth.

I touched on that in an earlier post. The copy-pasting of James Stills' banal essay won't get further response, despite it's many words.

[Mulu]

Doesn't the idea of a divine messenger destroy your thesis?

How does it?

Apparently I need to use a larger quote.

Nobody qualifies to be in God's service. Scripture is very clear that nobody on his own can meet the least of God's standards. God doesn't really have a choice, He either uses the unworthy and the unqualified or He does it Himself. God has chosen to bring to sinners saving grace, seperating grace, and then serving grace, transforming the unworthy and the unqualified into useful servants. So God picks the humble, the lowly, the meek and the weak so that there's never any question about the source of power when their lives change the world.

So, why have a divine birth if the meek should be the ones changing the world? What's meek about being the product of a divine birth? Being a Grecan half-god is not meek.

[Mulu]

The copy-pasting of James Stills' banal essay won't get further response, despite it's many words.

*shrugs* Then I believe he has the better argument.

[Charlie]

Most of us here understand the concept of multiple realities. Based on the principle that they might exist, they do in fact exist.

God exists because he does, not merely because someone is watching. It is his will and involvement in our world that is called into question. I only trust biblical passages where he is quoted directly, from modern translation of ancient text, and reflect on intent and tone, rather than the actions of his servants, or those who proclame to serve.

From this, I think God would not be pleased with the whole idea of killing in his name, nor gross exploitation of his works or his peoples. I've also learned that God's will is unpredictable, and can change if I presume to know it, simply because I don't really know God's will, simply because I don't know what he knows.

[Vaelahr]

Nobody qualifies to be in God's service. Scripture is very clear that nobody on his own can meet the least of God's standards. God doesn't really have a choice, He either uses the unworthy and the unqualified or He does it Himself. God has chosen to bring to sinners saving grace, seperating grace, and then serving grace, transforming the unworthy and the unqualified into useful servants. So God picks the humble, the lowly, the meek and the weak so that there's never any question about the source of power when their lives change the world.

So, why have a divine birth if the meek should be the ones changing the world? What's meek about being the product of a divine birth?

God needed a pure sacrifice to pay the price for mankind's sin. The divinity of Christ facilitated his behavioural perfection in that he wasn't born with a cursed sinful nature as we are. And so Jesus lived a perfect life of selflessness and obedience to God, sacrificing himself for our sins.

[DarkHin]

I mean, the world *is* going to end eventually, in 5 billion years or so if not before.

Actually, I think it's going to end in 1 billion years, when the sun gets hot enough to cause a runaway greenhouse effect.

I r so smrt!

[Mulu]

The lack of virgin birth in the oldest gospel is one quick example, as previously noted.

That's not a contradiction.

Oh, and omission of something *that* important is definitely a contradiction.

[Stormseeker]

Well the "all knowing" would further his cause a lot if he would strike down all the child molesters who are preaching in his name and house. That would convince me he is real and "all powerful".

[Swift]

Well the "all knowing" would further his cause a lot if he would strike down all the child molesters who are preaching in his name and house. That would convince me he is real and "all powerful".

Its been awhile since i was a practicing JW (Left when i was about 13 and have no interest in returning to any form of organised religion) but IIRC the reason he doesn't is because he already wiped us out to prove a point (Noah and the big flood) and yet we as a people still turned away from God and his teachings, so we are left to our own devices, to make our own choices, for good or evil, until judgement day comes and the evil get killed while the righteous live forever.

Or something like that. Like i said, its been awhile, and this subject holds little interest for me

[Nekulor]

I think everyone should agree to disagree with everyone else on religion, because this is going nowhere faster than a space shuttle in a black hole.