U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2017, 08:35 PM
 
35,021 posts, read 22,991,973 times
Reputation: 5637

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
But scrutinizing written accounts, or oral accounts, written down, preferably against some other written source, is what we do, from historians to detectives. And they must be doing something right. Despite those who moaned that nobody could work out from the conflicting stories of people who were there what actually happened at Waterloo (1), we have a very good idea of what did or did not happen. We have not abolished crime investigations or court cases because every testimony is equally trustworthy and nobody can work out from conflicting accounts what is true and what is not.

These attempt to say the truth canot be discovered are shown to be invalid, and one suspects that they are postulated by those who don't want to know what really happened in case it isn't what they would like to believe.

(1) I waited under the wrong clock

Because they wanted to make him a king "By Force" and There is a cover-up thread all through the gospels of taking what seems to be a Jewish messianic mission and repeatedly Editing the text to say 'Oh not - Jesus wasn't a zealot -type Messiah at all, he was a Christians one, teaching Paulinist doctrines about how Jewish dietary laws don't count anymore and how Gentiles are the only people he comes across who Really have faith in him.

John the Baptist, gathering hordes of Jews to Baptism in Antipas' Perea (on the border with Nabatea, with whom Antipas was at war) calling for a new partnership with God while roundly condemning Antipas..well, I'd have arrested him too. And Jesus carries on the mission. The gospels depict John as proclaiming Jesus the real messiah and he was only there to do the intro.

And the only thing that all the gospels agree on, after that, ..this may surprise you - it surprised me - is Jesus taking his followers to Bethsaida (1) where 500 men (note men, specifically) are sat down on the grass and fed. After which Jesus' messiahship comes out, though apparently only to his disciples and he tells them to keep quiet about it. Not that it stops the people deciding that they would like to make him a king 'by force'. And so Jesus runs off into the mountains, apparently to escape them.

What does he do there? Well, there is no transfiguration or it is inconceivable that John would ignore it. But the Synoptic version pretty much redoes the Messianic approval message of the baptism, we get the three trusted disciples witnessing Jesus approved as messiah.

So your pertinent point. Why, if Jesus was going to be a messianic king, did he run away when the people (5,000 men) wanted to do just that? Because it was 'by force' which John will wave away in horror. No, no, Jesus wasn't That kind of Messiah at all.

No, no, stopping off in Peraea to allow people to flock to him before he goes onto Jerusalem was only so he could preach and heal. No, no, the setup donkey ride which was the only prophecy that Jesus did set out to fulfill was merely so they would have faith in his Passover self -sacrifice to remit all their sins. But as John says they did not 'understand', not the palm-waving excited crowd following what looks exactly like a Hosanna procession of the promised liberator into the temple which effectively he and his followers take over - despite (it being a festival) Pilate and about 1,000 troops being on duty there.

If there is any basis to Luke's mention of Pilate mingling the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices (Luke 13.1), putting down an insurgency of Galilean rebels in the temple is what it had to be. And that was before any Jewish war because Pilate was recalled to Rome in 36 AD.

But no, despite Cleophas saying that they hoped Jesus would be the one to liberate Israel (but he wasn't) that was not the kind of Messiah Jesus was at all, and look rather at Matthew's little kiddies chorusing "Hosanna to the son of David" in tinkly voices (21.15) and don't think at all of 5,000 Bethsaidan zealots plus Peraean recruits bellowing 'Save, us, son of David". No, that wasn't the kind of Messiah Jesus was at all.

But whatever kind he was, there he is, under arrest, and bless me if there isn't also in Jail a 'robber' or 'bandit; "lestes" - an Herodian term used to refer to insurgents and rebels, and if you don't believe it, we hear that he had created an insurgency in the city and had done murder.

Well, wherever that had been it couldn't be in the Temple, as Jesus was there overturning tables and making a preach-fest out of it plus the inevitable debate with the Jews; and Pilate must have been killing Galileans amongst their sacrifices at some Other Temple, because that wasn't at all the kind of Messiah Jesus was. As the people could all see when they are offered a choice (in a 'custom' unknown to Jewish tradition) whom will you release, or rather, for whom will you take the blame for condemning to death, Jesus the Christian spiritual messiah or Jesus Barabbas, the bloody insurgent? Jesus Christ or Jesus Bar Abbas? Jesus son of God or Jesus son of the Father (Abba). There. I've Said It My Conspiracy Theory

Of course the Jews opt for the rebel and send Jesus the spiritual messiah to the cross, taking the curse of it on themselves, and damn me if Jesus isn't executed with the method specially reserved to Rebels against Rome and reportedly by all four gospels, for the crime of being "king of the Jews'. Or at least a claimant as he never actually sat on the throne. But that doesn't make him a 'failed messiah' mark you, because he wasn't that kind of Messiah at all, even being crucified along with a couple of "robbers" who despite being also given the punishment for rebels, were really only pickpockets or footpads as they were not part of any messianic revolt let alone Jesus followers, Oh dear no, because Jesus wasn't THAT kind of Messiah at all.

(1) I read somewhere that one of the first actions of the Jewish war was cleaning up a nest of zealots at Bethsaida, but I can't find out anything about it.
Very well done conspiracy theory using speculative hypotheses based on the "Gaps for Jewish Messiah" that were likely the dominant expectations among the Israelites at the time. It is an atheist accomplishment that rivals my own hypotheses from an opposing point of view based on the "Gaps for God."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2018, 05:38 AM
 
30,288 posts, read 6,231,097 times
Reputation: 4333
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Very well done conspiracy theory using speculative hypotheses based on the "Gaps for Jewish Messiah" that were likely the dominant expectations among the Israelites at the time. It is an atheist accomplishment that rivals my own hypotheses from an opposing point of view based on the "Gaps for God."
Thank you. But My Hypothesis fits the text and what it says, And the conclusion are, I suggest clear to be seen. I don't ask anyone to take my word for it, but look for themselves. A method which your Hypothesis seems to ignore, preferring unverified claims and sneering at science and even logic when it doesn't agree.

P.s well, I concede that the Bethsaida connection is a bit speculative. And the 'Blood of the Galileans' may be nothing to do with Jesus or Barrabbas (or both). The Jesus = Barrabbas is a conclusion I rather jumped to, and I also concede the reading of Barrabbas as 'Bar -Abba' is a bit of a stretch. I did say that was my Special theory and it is rather apart from the rest of the General Theory.

But it does suggest there was an event involving Pilate slaughtering Galileans in the temple (1), and Luke knew of it. Somehow it has gone missing from history.
But the cover -up of the significance of the donkey -ride and the Temple dust -up is unarguable. It can be shown by comparison how they all used different methods of concealing how it looked. It's the same with the trial; it was obviously a Roman eecution, yet no effort is spared in blaming the Jews (at large) for it.

It's not my theory: it's right there. All I do is point to it. It's up to others whether they want to look.

(1) some have linked this with the demonstrations against Pilate's appropriation of the temple funds to pay for the aqueduct. Josephus says that he slipped disguised infiltrators (armed with clubs) into the crowd and gave the protestors a beating. So I'm not convinced that is the same event.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-01-2018 at 06:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2018, 01:27 PM
 
Location: US
23,576 posts, read 12,143,589 times
Reputation: 1404
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
But scrutinizing written accounts, or oral accounts, written down, preferably against some other written source, is what we do, from historians to detectives. And they must be doing something right. Despite those who moaned that nobody could work out from the conflicting stories of people who were there what actually happened at Waterloo (1), we have a very good idea of what did or did not happen. We have not abolished crime investigations or court cases because every testimony is equally trustworthy and nobody can work out from conflicting accounts what is true and what is not.

These attempt to say the truth canot be discovered are shown to be invalid, and one suspects that they are postulated by those who don't want to know what really happened in case it isn't what they would like to believe.

(1) I waited under the wrong clock

Because they wanted to make him a king "By Force" and There is a cover -up thread all through the gospels of taking what seems to be a Jewish messianic mission and repeatedly Editing the text to say 'Oh not - Jesus wasn't a zealot -type Messiah at all, he was a Christians one, teaching Paulinist doctrines about how Jewish dietary laws don't count any more and how Gentiles are the only people he comes across who Really have faith in him.

John the baptist, gathering hordes of Jews to Baptism in Antipas' Perea (on the border with Nabatea, with whom Antipas was at war) calling for a new partnership with God while roundly condemning Antipas..well, I'd have arrested him too. And Jesus carries on the mission. The gospels depict John as proclaiming Jesus the real messiah and he was only there to do the intro.

And the only thing that all the gospels agree on, after that, ..this may surprise you - it surprised me - is Jesus taking his followers to Bethsaida (1) where 500 men (note men, specifically) are sat down on the grass and fed. After which Jesus' messiahship comes out, though apparently only to his disciples and he tells them to keep quiet about it. Not that it stops the people deciding that they would like to make him a king 'by force'. And so Jesus runs off into the mountains, apparently to escape them.

What does he do there? Well, there is no transfiguration or it is inconceivable that John would ignore it. But the Synoptic version pretty much re -does the Messianic approval message of the baptism, we get the three trusted disciples witnessing Jesus approved as messiah.

So your pertinent point. Why, if Jesus was going to me a messianic king, did he run away when the people (5,000 men) wanted to do just that? Because it was 'by force' which John will wave away in horror. No, no, Jesus wasn't That kind of Messiah at all.

No, no, stopping off in Peraea to allow people to flock to him before he goes onto Jerusalem was only so he could preach and heal. No, no, the set up donkey ride which was the only prophecy that Jesus did set out to fullfil was merely so they would have faith in his Passover self -sacrifice to remit all tgheir sins. But as John says they did not 'understand', not the palm waving excited crowd following what looks exactly like a Hosanna procession of the promised liberator into the temple which effectively he and his followers take over - despite (it being a festival) Pilate and about 1,000 troops being on duty there.

If there is any basis to Luke's mention of Pilate mingling the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices (Luke 13.1), putting down an insurgency of Galilean rebels in the temple is what it had to be. And that was before any Jewish war, because Pilate was recalled to Rome in 36 AD.

But no, despite Cleophas saying that they hoped Jesus would be the one to liberate Israel (but he wasn't) that was not the kind of messiah Jesus was at all, and look rather at Matthew's little kiddies chorusing "Hosanah to the son of David" in tinkly voices (21.15) and don't think at all of 5,000 Bethsaidan zealots plus Peraean recruits bellowing 'Save, us, son of David". No, that wasn't the kind of Messiah Jesus was at all.

But whatever kind he was, there he is, under arrest, and bless me if there isn't also in Jail a 'robber' or 'bandit; "lestes" - an Herodian term used to refer to insurgents and rebels, and if you don't believe it, we hear that he had created an insurgency in the city and had done murder.

Well, wherever that had been it couldn't be in the Temple, as Jesus was there oveturning tables and making a preachfest out of it plus the inevitable debate with the Jews; and Pilate must have been killing Galileans amongst their sacrifices at some Other Temple, because that wasn't at all the kind of messiah Jesus was. As the people could all see when they are offered a choice (in a 'custom' unknown to Jewish tradition) whom will you release, or rather, for whom will you take the blame for condemning to death, Jesus the Christian spiritual messiah or Jesus Barrabbas, the bloody insurgent? Jesus Christ or Jesus Bar Abbas? Jesus son of God or Jesus son of the Father (Abba). There. I've Said It My Conspiracy Theory

Of course the Jews opt for the rebel and send Jesus the spiritual messiah to the cross, taking the curse of it on themselves, and damn me if Jesus isn't executed with the method specially reserved to Rebels against Rome and reportedly by all four gospels, for the crime of being "king of the Jews'. Or at least a claimant as he never actually sat on the throne. But that doesn't make him a 'failed messiah' mark you , because he wasn't that kind of messiah at all, even being crucified along with a couple of "robbers" who despite being also given the punishment for rebels, were really only pickpockets or footpads as they were not part of any messianic revolt let alone Jesus followers, Oh dear no, because Jesus wasn't THAT kind of messiah at all.

(1) I read somewhere that one of the first actions of the Jewish war was cleaning up a nest of zealots at Bethsaida, but I can't find out anything about it.
My Arq, that was just DRIPPING with sardonism...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2018, 01:52 PM
 
30,288 posts, read 6,231,097 times
Reputation: 4333
Yes, it was. I had to lay out the argument that the point of the Gospels is that Jesus was not on a Jewish mission at all but a Christian one. As soon as I had done a reconciliation -job is was clear that that there had been a massive overpainting of a Jewish Jesus to make him a Christian Jesus. But, while I doubt that anything the Gospel reports about what Jesus said is reliable, a remarkable amount of his actions seem to be agreed by all four.

I suppose the events of Bethsaida (sorry - I mean Bethany of course) and the temple are the Touchstone here. They are - (as I suggest)

Day 1. arrival at Bethany from Peraea by way of Jericho. Supper, anointing (on the head, not the feet)
Day 2. Picking up the donkey (just one) tethered ready (a miracle!!) and the Hosannah procession to the temple.
Temple cleansing directly afterwards.

Compare that with the furious cover -up done to disguise how these work together, and ask whether I have a conspiracy theory, or have shown up what is a clear conspiracy.

And then consider this: given that Pilate with 500 of the regular garrison and 500 troops he brought from Caesarea, having been on hand when Jesus and his followers caused that upset in the market (which at least all four agree on) when Jesus is examined by the Sanhedrin, while they pin a trumped up charge of Blasphemy on him (a charge which would not even have occurred to the Sanherdrin Jews in the days before being messiah was a Christian doctrine of being God incarnate), the one charge they could make stick, and which Pilate of course knew about - the fracas in the temple - is not even considered as a possible charge.

It is not mentioned by Pilate or by the Sadduccees. I say it is Studiously Avoided, because THAT is the actual reason Jesus was arrested and that is the reason why he was executed as a rebel, and that is the reason why it is studiously ignored, watered down and turned in some kind of Blasphemy claim. Because the agenda is to show that Jesus was not That kind of Messiah at all. Then ask whether my sarcasm is justified.

P.s I ought to point up that Jesus was by no meant the only Failed messiah. Luke Mentions two -Judas the Galilean and Theudas in the time of procurator Felix (or do I mean Festus?) . Acts (Luke, for sure, wrote it) mentions "The Egyptian" which a smart poster here suggested might be the "Chrestus" mentioned by Seutoneus. I believe Joseph mentions others - Simon, Athronges and of course the Jewish War concludes with the only Messianic claimant taken as a Jewish National hero - Bar Kochbar, Son of the Star, Messiah, zealot rebel and eventual victim of Rome. And we shouldn't forget the "Samaritan Messiah" who called a crowd of followers to their "Temple" of Mount Gezirim, where he would reveal token of divine approval. Just read Josephus on how Pilate dealt with that.

I'll have a quick look at "messianic claimants", but the point is that the Sanhedrin and Pilate were familiar with this sort of thing. These people (and we can not only trace Zealots back to the Maccabean revolt but as rebels against Hasmonean, Herodian and the Roman rule. They all got the same treatment - crucifixion. The Hasmonean King Alexander Jannaeus was noted for it. And not one of them was put up before the Sanhedrin to see whether it merited a blasphemy charge. Such an idea would not have occurred to them. Indeed if the Roman Procurators needed any input or help from the Sanhedrin when dealing with Messianic claimants, it was just as translators.

http://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/


Search Results
Claimants

Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
Judas, the Galilean (6 CE)
John the Baptist (c.28 CE)
Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE)
The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)
King Herod Agrippa (44 CE)

There is detail and some additional comments about other messiahs or at least zealot rebels. It is also handly in explaining what Messiah actually meant to the Jews of the time. To denounce such a claim as claim as blasphemy would have made no sense to them.

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2...t-and-context/

There are all sorts of interesting sidelines, from Josephus believing that Vespasian was the messiah, to an intriguing power -struggle in the Sanhedrin, brought to my attention by our pal Pneuma. Because High Priests were also Anointed messiahs and anyone making a stab at High Priestship and failing, could also be regarded as a 'Failed messiah', and finally noting that Luke/Acts (5.35), referring to the revolt of Theudas, does not call him a messianic claimant, but says that he gave himself out to be "Somebody". The studied avoidance of linking the claim to be a messiah with rebellion is a nice bit of evidence and Luke - and you can bet the other gospel -writers as well - know exactly what a Messiah looked like and that al pains must be taken to ensure that Jesus did not look like That kind of messiah at all.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-01-2018 at 03:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:18 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
12,830 posts, read 8,758,343 times
Reputation: 2142
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie View Post
what specific passages do you believe contradict each other?
1 John 4:8 - "God is love."
1 Corinthians 13:4 - "Love is not jealous."
Exodus 20:5 - "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God."



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
Ask any cop about "eyewitness accounts" of any accident or event. Take four eyewitnesses you get four accounts that are basically similar, but may differ in details. Just how it is, sorry.
What if the four accounts were allegedly guided by an omnimax deity?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
13,637 posts, read 7,561,162 times
Reputation: 5852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
1 John 4:8 - "God is love."
1 Corinthians 13:4 - "Love is not jealous."
Exodus 20:5 - "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God."
Let the tap dancing begin!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top