How Is This Three Days?

[NotBlinded]

Now how is it that the Pharisees were so unpopular and legalistic that jesus would have been considered a radical? The Pharisees preceded any jesus by a great many years. If anything, he was just like them, minus the believing he was a god/prophet/king line of thought. The Pharisees even believed in the Logos. They were xians minus jesus. Can you see why this religion simply didn't sell in Judea? Can you see why the Pharisees wouldn't really care about any jesus and his merry band running around the country? They weren't a threat because they were the same.

What I'm thinking here, and I'm not even closely comparable to you in this study, is that Josephus was openly hostile towards the Pharisees and seemed to embrace the Essenes thought system.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong because I have just been reading a little bit here and there. This site explains it like this:

 

After they have been introduced neutrally as one of the three Judean philosophical schools (13.171-73), the Pharisees enter the narrative at the head of the popular opposition to the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus (ruled 135-104 BCE) and his sons, allegedly out of envy at their success (13.288). Notice Josephus’s language:

 

And particularly hostile to him were the Pharisees, who constitute one school among the Judeans, just as we have explained above. They have such influence with the mob that even if they say something against a king or a high priest they are immediately trusted.

 

Since Hyrcanus was one of Josephus’s favorite figures in Judean history (e.g., 13.300-301), the Pharisees are plainly on the wrong side of history here. This is an important story because it marks the historic break between the Hasmoneans and the most popular school, with whom they had been in cooperation, a rupture that would have serious consequences for the reigns of Aristobulus (104 BCE) and especially Alexander Janneus (104-76 BCE). Alexandra Salome’s vigorous attempt to repair the breach resulted, in Josephus’s particular view of the world, in catastrophe for the Hasmonean house (13.431-32).

 

Space does not permit a detailed analysis of these passages, but it seems obvious that throughout the entire Hasmonean narrative, in which Josephus has a considerable stake because of his claims to Hasmonean ancestry (Life 1-6), the Pharisees appear as demagogues: mainly non-aristocratic rabble-rousers who are quite capable of manipulating rulers because of their great influence. That is more or less what Josephus says of them, repeatedly (Ant. 13.288, 297-98, 400-402). He explains that the Pharisees recognized as authoritative a body of living tradition in addition to the laws of Moses, from “the fathers,” which the Sadducees did not accept. This tradition, perhaps to some extent because it alleviated the harsher prescriptions of the Bible in civil and criminal law (13.294), was extremely popular (13.297; 18.15, 17). It was, he says, John Hyrcanus’s abrogation of the Pharisees’ tradition as the basis of the legal system that led to massive popular opposition, which dogged Alexander Janneus’s occasionally violent reign. When Janneus died, his widow and successor Alexandra was compelled to reinstate those ordinances (13.408) and also to give a leading role to the Pharisees in her administration (13.400-406). Josephus describes their activities in the most censorious and disparaging language. Notice the difference from the parallel account in the War: it is no longer the case that Queen Alexandra was duped by the seemingly pious Pharisees. Rather, as a cunning politician she takes to heart her dying husband’s plan for salvaging the dynasty by cynically promoting the Pharisees.

Flavius Josephus and the Pharisees

 

If this is true, then Jesus would have been seen as a threat to their "order".

 

And in this quote here you posted:

 

Josephus, Antiquities 12.297-298

For now I wish only to explain that the Pharisees transmit to the people some rules in line with the fathers, which were not written in the laws of Moses. And because of this, the line of the Sadducees reject these things. They say that it is necessary to hold those rules that have been written but it is not (necessary) to observe what is (only) from the fathers' tradition. And, as a consequence, controversies and great disagreements have occurred between them.

 

This is dealing with life after death isn't it? It seems to me that Jesus was speaking more about the life they were living now, but with the Hellenistic influence of life after death on the Pharisees and then increasing with the Maccabees and then the Roman Empire, is it any wonder the New Testament is slanted that way?

 

If he was indeed telling them that God was in them now and they were also sons of God, I can indeed see why he would be seen as a radical.

[Amanda]

Here's just a quick bit from Wikipedia:

MWC, I'm not challenging your assertion of Merriamne being a common name. Your points are well taken. Just for the record though, I've recently learned from CNN that the Wikipedia isn't as reliable as I use to think. CNN reported students of a university being penalized for using Wikipedia as a resource for their papers. It is not a typical encyclopedia, however, I use it too.

 

I'm still inclined to think this is the tomb of "Jesus," if it isn't a hoax.

 

So, why doesn't the persecution of Jesus himself, these occurring in Rome, and that led by Saul count?

...

I agree. There can't be a persecution against something before it was created.

You answer your question/objection. Xians and persecutions seem to just happen when/where they wanted/needed them to happen. Later on this did change but I am talking about this earliest period.

I'm not so sure it was where they wanted it or needed it to happen, as where they were willing to make a peaceful stand against what they felt was unduly oppressive. The scene in the temple was the straw these Jews were hoping to happen, physical disruption interfering with temple business negotiations at what was probably the best time of year for monetary gains. A good story includes elements of truth to enhance its believeability. IDK if this story is actually true or just one that is to pass along a deeper meaning.

 

You wouldn't last long if you suddenly found yourself transported back into an ancient Jewish community in Judea. He would have had to had been anointed by a true prophet using the oil designated back in Exodus. Thus the John the Baptist connection in the story. JtB was made to be the son of a priest so that he could, by a technicality, "anoint" our boy via this new system known as "baptism" instead of the old system that required a priest/prophet/temple/sacred oil. It's yet another replacement metaphor. Then "god" speaks about "his son" just as he did about King David so long ago. The new system is officially "blessed." The problem is...no Jews were buying in. This was just another redo of the old temple bound Law system.

I think the whole point is that we don't have to follow the designated system. Jews weren't buying it because they were the status quo. These that were accepting it were in need of ideas to liberate them from oppressive mindsets typical of those days. IF these teachings work for us in a positive way, then why wouldn't these teachings be considered a "messiah"? I'm not saying "Jesus" is the messiah of the OT (not important to me), because we don't know what has been added to make him appear that way... so any debate would be futile anyway. Clearly things were added to affirm the case of "Jesus" being a deity.

IMO it was more revolutionary than that. It seems to encourage interpreting the intent of the law instead of obedience to the rigid literal presentation of the law. This transformed obedience to the law to a desire to fill the law, going from obedience to avoid punishment to deire to fulfill it because it is the best thing to do. Additionally these teachings take the journey to know/please a God from out in the sky somewhere, to the exploration to find the "true God" within us all. This encouraged a self empowerment in that God has to move through us from out of us and inside us is where this God/Christ nature is found in ALL of us. IMO, it is very similar to Madeline O'Hare's thrust of how to live one's life. Ye too are gods.

And you are basing all this on?

 

Should I go ahead and guess? The bible and various sources stating that jesus was a radical? Compared to?

The OT took the idea of being "sacred" to crazy levels in their laws... like how to wash your hands and such. People looked at these laws literally, without thinking of their meaning. So, when the story says that Jesus healed a man on the sabbath, they wanted to stone him. Jesus questioned them to get them to THINK, if your oxen is in the ditch on the sabbath, your not going to get him out? He was encouraging people to realize the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath... the intent of these laws.

 

Putting God within us, "Jesus" said God was in heaven, in his kingdom, and the kingdom of God is within us. We can know and identify 'God' that is within us by that sense of sacredness within us all. "Jesus" questions people if they went to see people in the hospital, in jail, which was how this sacred part within us was to help others, by acting through us. I'm in no way suggesting these ideas attributed to Jesus were original, and don't think even "Jesus" himself claimed that.

 

It seems to me if we deconstruct this whole thing and see it for what it is, we'd find basically the same group of people we find on this site right here. People in search for reality and a better way to live their life through reason.

Perhaps. I'm not going to say whether or not that's good or bad at this point but developing our own myths/legends relating to our current circumstances instead of trying to find (or apply) meaning in a myth that was trying to do a rework of a myth that was a rework of a myth (and so on) seems a much better use of our resources if we're committed to doing such things.

I see nothing wrong with that, and now there are already other ones out that are probably more appropriate to our times, and probably taking us to more sophisticated levels.

[Grandpa Harley]

CNN is accurate?

[mwc]

MWC, I'm not challenging your assertion of Merriamne being a common name.

Then I'm not sure what the problem is? The names in the tomb are all common 1st century names. Nothing unusual about that.

 

CNN reported students of a university being penalized for using Wikipedia as a resource for their papers. It is not a typical encyclopedia, however, I use it too.

The articles are only reliable as the contributers just as any other source. It's quick and easy to access though.

 

I'm still inclined to think this is the tomb of "Jesus," if it isn't a hoax.

The tomb exists. It's most certainly not a hoax. It just probably isn't the tomb of the biblical jesus is all.

 

I'm not so sure it was where they wanted it or needed it to happen, as where they were willing to make a peaceful stand against what they felt was unduly oppressive. The scene in the temple was the straw these Jews were hoping to happen, physical disruption interfering with temple business negotiations at what was probably the best time of year for monetary gains. A good story includes elements of truth to enhance its believeability. IDK if this story is actually true or just one that is to pass along a deeper meaning.

Stand peacefully? Then why buy swords? The "scene" in the temple was just that...s scene. If the Sanhedrin was so powerful (as being able to have future "hit squads") they had the ability to get at jesus at any point for any reason. They "lied" to kill him in the end so they could have done that from day one. No need to wait. And if their influence was so great they could have gotten the Romans involved, just as they did, at any point as well. It's a story because the whole situation is concocted for the reader/listener and not real life.

 

I think the whole point is that we don't have to follow the designated system. Jews weren't buying it because they were the status quo. These that were accepting it were in need of ideas to liberate them from oppressive mindsets typical of those days. IF these teachings work for us in a positive way, then why wouldn't these teachings be considered a "messiah"? I'm not saying "Jesus" is the messiah of the OT (not important to me), because we don't know what has been added to make him appear that way... so any debate would be futile anyway. Clearly things were added to affirm the case of "Jesus" being a deity.

Now you've gone and switched contexts on me. You've moved from the literal story above (the cleansing of the temple) to a metaphorical "messiah" and not only that but you've now done what I've said people are now doing (from a previous message) and rolled the whole of the teaching/story into this new metaphorical messiah. Not that I haven't made this assertion myself but it's quite difficult to say that the whole is a metaphor made up of literal parts contained within which are mixed with other metaphor and simply switch when the mood hits and without real explanation. We have an understanding why people of today might think this way but it's difficult to project this back 2000 years without some basis (beyond people are people).

 

How would the illiterate people of the day who haven't been exposed to all the stuff that you've been exposed to understand any of what you're telling me here? They wouldn't. It's too complex. The temple system made sense to them. Take a thing of yours and exchange it for something else. The barter system. Your ideas are far beyond anything they would have encountered. The philosophers would have a chance at what you're saying but that's not supposed to be the target audience of this religion. The concept of "There was once a man and he lived and he did and so on ..." was the perfect device to reach out to these people. What you said above would have them confused. Even the "deeper" versions of the religion that we're aware were actually fairly simplistic.

 

The OT took the idea of being "sacred" to crazy levels in their laws... like how to wash your hands and such. People looked at these laws literally, without thinking of their meaning. So, when the story says that Jesus healed a man on the sabbath, they wanted to stone him. Jesus questioned them to get them to THINK, if your oxen is in the ditch on the sabbath, your not going to get him out? He was encouraging people to realize the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath... the intent of these laws.

Why should they "think" about the meaning of these Laws? They were from their god. You seem to act as if this is the most ridiculous thing ever. They didn't question their king either. Would that be silly? Nope. It kept you alive. It was smart. To question authority was generally a bad idea unless you could convince that authority that what you were saying was really in the best interest of everyone. People made appeals the Caesar all the time and weren't killed...they just didn't get their request.

 

As for the intent of the Law, they were made clear in the OT. Don't work on the Sabbath. Examples were given and so were the punishments. To work meant death. God himself said so. Why question your god? It wasn't the priests that made the rules but they made the rules known and enforced them because this god would punish them if they didn't do their job. That's how it was structured. Why blame the system for working as designed? But even then the Pharisees were more liberal on issues than others. If they truly thought they should stone him they would have. Again, that's why it's a story and not real life. Or maybe you can see that the Pharisees were more liberal than they get credit for.

 

Putting God within us, "Jesus" said God was in heaven, in his kingdom, and the kingdom of God is within us. We can know and identify 'God' that is within us by that sense of sacredness within us all. "Jesus" questions people if they went to see people in the hospital, in jail, which was how this sacred part within us was to help others, by acting through us. I'm in no way suggesting these ideas attributed to Jesus were original, and don't think even "Jesus" himself claimed that.

So what you appear to be saying is that the harmonized view of "jesus" is, at least in part, what I've quoted here? It seems we're simply working towards two very different ends. This jesus never existed because it takes, at minimum, four different textual renderings, to create him. He is a phantom.

 

mwc

[mwc]

What I'm thinking here, and I'm not even closely comparable to you in this study, is that Josephus was openly hostile towards the Pharisees and seemed to embrace the Essenes thought system.

Josephus is often times a very unfortunate source to rely upon but seeing how he is usually the only source for information in situations like this we have no other choice. What I mean is he could be tough to pin down on some things. In addition, the Talmud (I want to say the Babylonian Talmud) defines something like 7 types of Pharisees. Not really though. It's sort of their version of "No Real Christian." So was he a Pharisee or an Essene or some variation of thereof? Perhaps he was something else altogether? Since he is the one doing the defining we're then defining him by trying to see which group he appears to be most "kind" to. But maybe he's angry with the group he's most closely affiliated with since he'd like them to reform? People react both ways.

 

[snip]

If this is true, then Jesus would have been seen as a threat to their "order".

I read this through and I do think it has some merit but it was fairly early to directly relate to jesus (about 100 years too early). A number of "reforms" came along during this time and when jesus would have shown up. Most notably would have probably been Hillel. He is the most likely "prototype" for jesus as well. Also, the Pharisees went from running the temple to the Sadducees doing so. Their influence shifted. The Essenes believed (from memory) that they rightly should be running the temple and that their deposed high priest should be running the show. It was all about who got to control the temple. That was the power base. But the Pharisees still had the general populace on their side.

 

So along comes jesus. What makes him different? I mean really different? So different that throngs of people would flock to him by the thousands (I'm using the gospels for this)? So different that despite not making the powerful allies needed to ascend to power (he disliked the Gentile "dogs") he was still seen as a "threat" to anyone? The Romans had a history of putting down rebellions quickly and efficiently (leaders and followers alike). The Pharisees would likely welcome the deposing of the Saducees in the Temple so "using" jesus to that end, seeing how they're portrayed as a plotting bunch, seems more plausible instead of doing away with him outright. It seems, and I could be wrong, that it wasn't that he questioned the Pharisees beliefs in general that really upset them but his attitude and when he personally embarrassed them before a crowd that really ticked them off. It was his bad "form." The back and forth aspect of the encounters seemed to be almost welcomed. Either jesus scored on them 100% of the time or we never read where they bested him (or it's a literary device...which I'm voting for actually).

 

This is dealing with life after death isn't it? It seems to me that Jesus was speaking more about the life they were living now, but with the Hellenistic influence of life after death on the Pharisees and then increasing with the Maccabees and then the Roman Empire, is it any wonder the New Testament is slanted that way?

 

If he was indeed telling them that God was in them now and they were also sons of God, I can indeed see why he would be seen as a radical.

As far as I'm aware it's speaking of the oral vs. the written tradition of the Law. The Sadducee's did not accept that either (in addition to the supernatural differences). This means that jesus and the Pharisees accepted an oral version of the Law and not simply what was written but at the same time jesus said he didn't wish to change one iota of the written Law either. This meant he wanted both (to me at least). The written Law would be THE Law but the oral law is more the "spirit" of the Law. We have this argument in the USA with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Should it be simply as written or is that the starting point for our interpretation of things? And, yes, I understand that we kill people over these issues even today so it's not unreasonable to imagine it happening then but the people that die today don't simply parrot (by and large) what's already being said by the parties in charge.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

CNN reported students of a university being penalized for using Wikipedia as a resource for their papers. It is not a typical encyclopedia, however, I use it too.

The articles are only reliable as the contributers just as any other source. It's quick and easy to access though.

 

In defence of Wiki, the British Consumer's Association, and independent charitable body, found that Wiki was accurate as Brittanica on a random selection topics, and faster updated than that august organ of academia.

 

Any encyclopaedia is only as good as it's contributors.

 

As you were...

[Amanda]

Then I'm not sure what the problem is? The names in the tomb are all common 1st century names. Nothing unusual about that.

MWC, I thought Merriamne was a rare name, but maybe not. However, it seems to me the cluster of names are significant, as well as their relationship between each other.

 

The tomb exists. It's most certainly not a hoax. It just probably isn't the tomb of the biblical jesus is all.

What may be a hoax are the specific names, but I doubt it. A professional archeological recovery of such a find usually places emphasis on maintaining the itegrity of the find. Again, the cluster of names are quite significant. The article seems to suggest that it would be very common, however it does not refer to even one single other tomb in the grave site, or any other site, with similar significant cluster of names.

Stand peacefully? Then why buy swords?

Jesus had no sword. Most times a sword is mentioned, it is rererencing the "word of God." It's a two edged sword that cuts both ways. It helps define what is the carnal nature of selfishness to that of the elitist mentaity.

The "scene" in the temple was just that...s scene. If the Sanhedrin was so powerful (as being able to have future "hit squads") they had the ability to get at jesus at any point for any reason. They "lied" to kill him in the end so they could have done that from day one. No need to wait. And if their influence was so great they could have gotten the Romans involved, just as they did, at any point as well. It's a story because the whole situation is concocted for the reader/listener and not real life.

The Jews did not have a hit squad. They were an established society that the Romans were trying to placate, and vice versa. The perceived 'taunting' by these Christians was probably tolerated till it escalated to physical impositions, such as over turning the tables in the temple. I think the Christians were a pain in the neck in how they were suggesting the religious right were prostituting an institution that was to be held sacred, and to challenge their elite "God chosen" status these Jews attributed themselves. The Roman government had all these established Jews persistently complaining, and just came to appease them to end the mounting conflict. Sure, it may all very well be a concocted story, or maybe part of it, or maybe none of it. We'll probably never know.

Now you've gone and switched contexts on me. You've moved from the literal story above (the cleansing of the temple) to a metaphorical "messiah" and not only that but you've now done what I've said people are now doing (from a previous message) and rolled the whole of the teaching/story into this new metaphorical messiah.

MWC, I don't understand this. I don't think I've switched on you, as Jesus being the messiah from the OT has never been of interest to me. IDK enough in those regards to correlate the two. I was just saying that if his teachings were increasing the vitality to live instead of it persistently draining, they may have considered him "God sent" and his teachings saved their life... that's all.

How would the illiterate people of the day who haven't been exposed to all the stuff that you've been exposed to understand any of what you're telling me here? They wouldn't. It's too complex.

I think mystery religions were a big thing then, and these means were a way of communicating with each other to ward off as much traditional nay sayers or antagonists (trolls) as possible. Hence, for those who have an ear...

Why should they "think" about the meaning of these Laws? They were from their god. You seem to act as if this is the most ridiculous thing ever. They didn't question their king either. Would that be silly? Nope. It kept you alive.

Perhaps this is the very thing "Jesus" was challenging, because this was killing people emotionally. Maybe this contributed to inciting the status quo.

As for the intent of the Law, they were made clear in the OT. Don't work on the Sabbath. Examples were given and so were the punishments. To work meant death. God himself said so. Why question your god?

This became a silly notion, and what intent would a God have for that? The intent is to realize the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Considering the intent of the law was more important than the narrow rigid literal words that seem to be evolving in a way that was losing its meaning, its purpose.

Putting God within us, "Jesus" said God was in heaven, in his kingdom, and the kingdom of God is within us. We can know and identify 'God' that is within us by that sense of sacredness within us all. "Jesus" questions people if they went to see people in the hospital, in jail, which was how this sacred part within us was to help others, by acting through us. I'm in no way suggesting these ideas attributed to Jesus were original, and don't think even "Jesus" himself claimed that.

So what you appear to be saying is that the harmonized view of "jesus" is, at least in part, what I've quoted here? It seems we're simply working towards two very different ends. This jesus never existed because it takes, at minimum, four different textual renderings, to create him. He is a phantom.

No, this is not referring to "Jesus," it is referring to "God." I don't know if Jesus was a real person or not, but am inclined to believe there is a real person at the core of this story. Clearly things have been added that are mthological. He may be the hidden man in the heart, in a mythological sort of way... but no real human could be possibly hiding there.

[mwc]

MWC, I thought Merriamne was a rare name, but maybe not. However, it seems to me the cluster of names are significant, as well as their relationship between each other.

These two things are exactly what you're supposed to have thought after watching the show. The first item I have shown to be false. The name was not rare. The second, the cluster of names in various tombs, I currently have no information to give you. But considering how common the various names were at the time I wouldn't be surprised to see them appear time and again in tombs from the same period.

 

The real question is why wouldn't jesus get reburied in a family tomb back in Nazareth (assuming there was one)? This was Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb after all. I suppose he could have donated it and made a totally new one for himself and his family but then why didn't Mary honor her husband or Joseph's own son's and/or daughter's honor him by returning home? He was forgotten which seems a bit strange (not to me since he was simply there so jesus could have a father named "Joseph" and it was important he be a carpenter too as, from what I've read, some folks were expecting these two items in their "messiahs" so they combined them).

 

What may be a hoax are the specific names, but I doubt it. A professional archeological recovery of such a find usually places emphasis on maintaining the itegrity of the find. Again, the cluster of names are quite significant. The article seems to suggest that it would be very common, however it does not refer to even one single other tomb in the grave site, or any other site, with similar significant cluster of names.

From what I know none of the site was, or is, questioned. The original work, while necessarily rushed, was adequate. The article is stating that the people who have worked on the television show are altering their positions in light of how their work was used (ie. a tad misleading perhaps). This doesn't affect the integrity of the original investigation. The only people making claims against the original site work are the shows producers and even they aren't saying the archaeologists did anything wrong but the construction workers or the IAA did. This really has little to do with clusters of names though.

 

The DNA tests should have been expanded to as many of the people in the tomb as they could have tested instead of just two. This was never really explained in the show and in other interviews they simply stated that they had plans of doing such tests. They shouldn't have aired without these tests. This information is far more important than any cluster of names. Showing what the (possible) relationships of the bodies in those boxes were surpasses the names. Just saying "Jesus and this one Mary weren't related in this one way proves our hypothesis" meant nothing. And then to follow it up to say that they then had a kid named Judas was just ridiculous. What if the other Mary had been shown to not be related to jesus either? Then what? Show's over. Because now it's just two wives (or some other similar relation) of two of the men in that tomb. Or if the two Mary's had been related? Uh oh. You see? The cluster of names is really a minor issue because we have no idea what the real relationships of these people were. But we want them to have certain relationships, just like in the story we know, and so we assign them those relationships...right or wrong. The thing is this methodology has come back to bite biblical archaeologists on the ass more times than not.

 

Jesus had no sword. Most times a sword is mentioned, it is rererencing the "word of God." It's a two edged sword that cuts both ways. It helps define what is the carnal nature of selfishness to that of the elitist mentaity.

Really? I'm pretty sure this is what I was thinking of when I said that: "47 But a certain one of those who were near took out his sword, and gave the servant of the high priest a blow, cutting off his ear." They had weapons...and they ended up using them at least this once.

 

But I see you assigned a different meaning to the concept to make it more palatable. Just as the story I referenced was a rework of an older set of items to make them more palatable (probably not the specific item I mentioned though).

 

The Jews did not have a hit squad. They were an established society that the Romans were trying to placate, and vice versa. The perceived 'taunting' by these Christians was probably tolerated till it escalated to physical impositions, such as over turning the tables in the temple. I think the Christians were a pain in the neck in how they were suggesting the religious right were prostituting an institution that was to be held sacred, and to challenge their elite "God chosen" status these Jews attributed themselves. The Roman government had all these established Jews persistently complaining, and just came to appease them to end the mounting conflict. Sure, it may all very well be a concocted story, or maybe part of it, or maybe none of it. We'll probably never know.

Shoot. I thought we'd made a little headway on this. What xians? When jesus was supposedly running around there should have been zero. He would have been the first (technically) and the first martyr too (and technically) and the first xian resurrection (even though others were raised by him). However, still zero xians in reality.

 

Now I thought jesus and those stories were allegories of <whatever>? Now you're saying the thing in the temple with the overturning of the tables actually happened. That was real? But the parts with the swords...those are allegories? So did he hang on a cross? That was real? But when he was pierced in the heart? Allegory? Real? Both? Neither?

 

MWC, I don't understand this. I don't think I've switched on you, as Jesus being the messiah from the OT has never been of interest to me. IDK enough in those regards to correlate the two. I was just saying that if his teachings were increasing the vitality to live instead of it persistently draining, they may have considered him "God sent" and his teachings saved their life... that's all.

In addition to what I stated above you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Jesus is real and doing real things when you want him to but then is allegory when that seems to suit you better. This is what I meant by switching contexts.

 

As for whether or not you had an interest in the OT and what they said about a messiah...this is somewhat beside the point. What did the people 2000 years ago think? This is what affects what they wrote and in turn affects what they wrote for you to read today. But if during this transfer of information someone inserts or removes something vital then you'll get a corrupted message. So since you have the ability to access some of the older information that these "middle men" based their beliefs on it seems prudent to see if they altered things or not.

 

I think mystery religions were a big thing then, and these means were a way of communicating with each other to ward off as much traditional nay sayers or antagonists (trolls) as possible. Hence, for those who have an ear...

So what makes you think you've got the correct interpretation?

 

How much do you personally know of the secret societies of today? I'm talking about the ones that you know about. Can you tell me anything about them? I know a high ranking Free Mason and I can tell you that I know nothing more than he's in their group and he claims to hold high rank (it sounds high to me at least but I know nothing of the inner workings). He has sworn to uphold the secrets of the society.

 

If these religions were about back then and the inner secrets were given after initiation, and that initiation could take some time, how do we know that what we have today is the correct interpretation of these things or if they simply didn't die off or are still preserved by a secret society? How do we know that some pledge didn't overhear bits and pieces of the story, drop out, and start his own version of the cult (I'm looking your way Paul)? We don't.

 

Perhaps this is the very thing "Jesus" was challenging, because this was killing people emotionally. Maybe this contributed to inciting the status quo.

According to?

 

This became a silly notion, and what intent would a God have for that? The intent is to realize the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Considering the intent of the law was more important than the narrow rigid literal words that seem to be evolving in a way that was losing its meaning, its purpose.

According to?

 

No, this is not referring to "Jesus," it is referring to "God." I don't know if Jesus was a real person or not, but am inclined to believe there is a real person at the core of this story. Clearly things have been added that are mthological. He may be the hidden man in the heart, in a mythological sort of way... but no real human could be possibly hiding there.

There could have been a real person but I'm not convinced. Let me share something with you:

About forty years will elapse from the death of the teacher of the community until all the men who take up arms and relapse in the company of the Man of Falsehood are brought to an end. At that time, the wrath of God will be kindled against Israel, and that will ensue which is described by the prophet when he says: 'No king shall there be nor priest nor judge nor any that reproves aright' [cf. Hos. 3.4].

 

But they of Jacob that have repented, that have kept the Covenant of God, shall then speak each to his neighbor to bring him to righteousness, to direct his steps upon the way. And God will pay heed to their words and hearken, and He will draw up a record of those that fear Him and esteem His name, to the end that salvation shall be revealed for all God-fearing men. Then ye shall again distinguish the righteous from the wicked, him that serves God from him that serves Him not. And God will 'show mercy unto thousands, unto them that love Him and keep His commandments'-yea, even unto a thousand generations.

That's just a small piece of the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Notice the part I put in bold. Now try to see the connection between the timing of the supposed death of jesus (~30-35CE) and the fall of the Temple (70CE). Look at that. Just about 40 years. Just like this document states. These guys were extremely prophetic (not likely) or a story was written after the fall of the temple which reflected the death of a teacher from 40 years earlier setting into motion a chain of events that they predicted.

 

Many scholars date these texts to the 1st century BCE and some portions to maybe even 3rd century BCE. It doesn't matter if they're that old though. They predate all the NT stories which is the important part and are the basic plot line for the jesus story.

 

mwc