Jesus Was A Failure!

[Toni Sherente]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I don't quite follow. If the gospels were written in parable form they would have to be inaccurate as far as a correct representation of what Jesus said and did is concerned.

No, they are only inaccurate as far as a literal representation of what Jesus said and did is concerned. For instance, when Jesus said 'be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees', the fact that Pharisees were not literally yeast suppliers does not mean that Jesus was inaccurate in his declaration about their reliability. It simply means that Jesus was using the word 'yeast' as a code word for 'teaching', as Matthew 16:12 clarifies.
Similarly, Mark identifies a man called Simon as 'leprous' or 'skin-disease afflicted' (14:3). This man was not literally a skin-disease sufferer at all, but this does not mean that Mark was inaccurate in his description of him as such. 'Skin-disease afflicted' is a code word for something else, and I believe that Mark was historically accurate in identifying this man as the adjective that the word 'skin-disease afflicted' was a code for.
Do you follow now, or would you rather not?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

If the parables are parables Jesus spoke (they can't be) then they are not parables written later to disguise Jesus' activities.

What makes you think that Jesus wouldn't have used parables to disguise his own activities? We know he disguised the disciple Simon's identity as 'Peter', 'Cephas' or 'a rock'. We know that he disguised a prediction of his own death as a story about a man who was thrown out of his father's vineyard. Virtually everything he said was in disguise, and the person he spoke about most often was himself.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It is a question of wanting to hide a true story under a false one.

No, it looks like you still don't get it, or rather don't want to. When Luke says that Judas 'fell to his death' (Acts 1:18), he neither went down under the force of gravity, nor did his heart stop beating. However, this doesn't mean that Luke's story is false. The verse is a reference to a different kind of 'fall' and to a different kind of 'death'. I believe that Judas did indeed 'fall' in this metaphorical way. If Luke was telling a lie about what had happened here, why would he have hidden this lie so that nobody would even have known that he had told it?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

However, Chronologically (and the overall time - scale seems to stack up if not the nature of the events) then it has to be Mission (pilate, death of the baptist), death, James the leader (Felix, Herod Agrippa), Paul (Aretas attacks Damascus), mission to gentiles (Judean famine), Jewish war (retrospective gospel 'prediction' of destruction), Paulinism.

Why does this 'have to be'? If you look closely, you will discover that action in Acts 9 is contemporary with action in Mark 5. I'll leave you to work out whether both occurred before or after the crucifxion.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The only difference your scenario makes is that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion, which would take a bit of proving. I'm all ears!

The story about this is just words on a page. Clearly it is impossible to 'prove' anything about it, either one way or the other.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Paul (going by what he wrote) only knew the Jesus in his head. His mission to the gentiles was his own idea and he had to sell it to the apostles. Grudgingly, persuaded by the famine relief he had collected, they allowed it.

Parable.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Though I must say that the reference to Simon the leper is an ongoing puzzle.

You need to go to Mark 1 and Leviticus 14 if you want to solve this puzzle. (Or read chapter 5 of 'The Judas Secret'.) It is crucial to understanding what the gospel is all about.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It is this ongoing covering up of embarrassing facts that makes me feel that there is a real story there.

Exactly. Why invent a myth and then try to cover it up?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I don't quite follow. If the gospels were written in parable form they would have to be inaccurate as far as a correct representation of what Jesus said and did is concerned.

Toni

No, they are only inaccurate as far as a literal representation of what Jesus said and did is concerned. For instance, when Jesus said 'be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees', the fact that Pharisees were not literally yeast suppliers does not mean that Jesus was inaccurate in his declaration about their reliability. It simply means that Jesus was using the word 'yeast' as a code word for 'teaching', as Matthew 16:12 clarifies.
Similarly, Mark identifies a man called Simon as 'leprous' or 'skin-disease afflicted' (14:3). This man was not literally a skin-disease sufferer at all, but this does not mean that Mark was inaccurate in his description of him as such. 'Skin-disease afflicted' is a code word for something else, and I believe that Mark was historically accurate in identifying this man as the adjective that the word 'skin-disease afflicted' was a code for.
Do you follow now, or would you rather not?

We have been over this before. I have said that I will undertake to say whether something is a perfectly comprehensible metaphor and what is an evident account of an action or explanation. I recall you floored me with Simon the leper. However, most of the stuff I don't find difficult.
Yes, I recall that the jews tended to regard any skin disease as leperous. Even if not life - threatening or contagious. That might well do. Thanks for the suggestion.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
If the parables are parables Jesus spoke (they can't be) then they are not parables written later to disguise Jesus' activities.

Toni

What makes you think that Jesus wouldn't have used parables to disguise his own activities? We know he disguised the disciple Simon's identity as 'Peter', 'Cephas' or 'a rock'. We know that he disguised a
prediction of his own death as a story about a man who was thrown out of his father's vineyard. Virtually everything he said was in disguise, and the person he spoke about most often was himself.

Such things are evident parables. Probably his remark about satan falling from heaven is metaphorical and it's Luke's remark anyway and no-one else reports it. Yet when Jesus is taken to the top of a hill by an angry crowd that is just what Luke expects us to believe really happened. I see no reason to suppose anything else,

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
It is a question of wanting to hide a true story under a false one.

Toni

No, it looks like you still don't get it, or rather don't want to. When Luke says that Judas 'fell to his death' (Acts 1:18), he neither went down under the force of gravity, nor did his heart stop beating. However,
this doesn't mean that Luke's story is false. The verse is a reference to a different kind of 'fall' and to a different kind of 'death'. I believe that Judas did indeed 'fall' in this metaphorical way. If Luke was telling a
lie about what had happened here, why would he have hidden this lie so that nobody would even have known that he had told it?

Beacuse he wanted to fool his readers! That is what the gospels are all about. There's evidence of it all the way through. Your suggestion is clever but I distrust this sort of reaching to a symbolic reading of evidently intended accounts of real events.
My view is that Matthew and Luke intended the readers to see the betrayer of Jesus getting his just deserts in a very literal way and what is more they added some bits of fudged OT text in order to show that prophecy was literally fulfilled.

Sure I want to get your point and I do where it is explained but it does not fit the material. I think that my explanations covers more of the relevant material than yours does. Why can't you see that it makes sense?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
However, Chronologically (and the overall time - scale seems to stack up if not the nature of the events) then it has to be Mission (pilate, death of the baptist), death, James the leader (Felix, Herod Agrippa), Paul (Aretas attacks Damascus), mission to gentiles (Judean famine), Jewish war (retrospective gospel 'prediction' of destruction), Paulinism.

Toni

Why does this 'have to be'? If you look closely, you will discover that action in Acts 9 is contemporary with action in Mark 5. I'll leave you to work out whether both occurred before or after the crucifxion.

Since I take the view that Luke is putting together a history of the early church with a lot of doubtful stuff but which he undoubtedly intends to be taken as literal, I don't doubt that he intends the death of Judas, the blasting of Ananias, the healing of this and that person and the trial of paul under Gallio to be taken as fact.
And if he took his cue from the existing gospel or the other way around that is no more than Matthew using OT text to provide his screenplay of throwing money into the temple and the purchase of the 'potter's field'.

The action of Acts has to fit is with the known history of the time (I recall that Gallio was proconsul of Greece, as Luke would have known, and Paul probably was tried before him) whether some or all of the events are invented or based on old or new testament events for screenplay or padding, It surely does not work to claim that they occurred while Jesus was supposedly still doing his mission.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The only difference your scenario makes is that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion, which would take a bit of proving. I'm all ears!

Toni

The story about this is just words on a page. Clearly it is impossible to 'prove' anything about it, either one way or the other.

Funny, I'm having the same discussion with Thom. R about degrees of proof. It's which way the burden of the evidence goes.
To use the 'total proof is not possible' excuse is not valid. To suggest that nothing can be surmised from words on a page (especially with different accounts) is a subterfuge. Trust me, I have researched the battle of Waterloo as avidly as I researched the gospels and despite what Wellington said, some sound conclusions have come out about the battle, including what was fictitious claims. You can't tell me that nothing reliable can be learned from words on a page.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Paul (going by what he wrote) only knew the Jesus in his head. His mission to the gentiles was his own idea and he had to sell it to the apostles. Grudgingly, persuaded by the famine relief he had collected,
they allowed it.

Toni

Parable.

About what?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Though I must say that the reference to Simon the leper is an ongoing puzzle.

Toni

You need to go to Mark 1 and Leviticus 14 if you want to solve this puzzle. (Or read chapter 5 of 'The Judas Secret'.) It is crucial to understanding what the gospel is all about.

I fail to see the connection between the Lepers' ritual and Mark 1. Jesus healed a leper, but I suppose it is not claimed without any support that he is simon the ex- leper, because it is parable anyway.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
It is this ongoing covering up of embarrassing facts that makes me feel that there is a real story there.

Toni

Exactly. Why invent a myth and then try to cover it up?

You are still missing the point. They invented the 'myth' - the amended stories showing jesus as magical if not divine - because the original jesus story did not look divine enough. It is one that does not make Jesus look the way the gospel -writers wanted him to look.
That is why they rewrote it and in the rewriting, they got into contradictions. Those can be seen without any need to posulate an overall parable of the early church or whatever, Which nobody apparently
understood - even the church fathers and everyone since then, since none of them saw the Gospels as anything but facts.

[Toni Sherente]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I have said that I will undertake to say whether something is a perfectly comprehensible metaphor and what is an evident account of an action or explanation.

So something can only be a metaphor if you comprehend it to be?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

However, most of the stuff I don't find difficult.

The crowd didn't find Jesus' parables difficult either. That's because they didn't have clue what he was getting at.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I see no reason to suppose anything else,

Jesus said he only spoke in parables. The gospel writers followed him. If you can't accept Jesus' admission about his own methodology, or don't
believe that the gospel writers would have followed Jesus, then I don't see why you bother reading the gospels at all.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Beacuse he wanted to fool his readers!

How do you fool people with a lie that they don't even know about, because it is hidden?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

My view is that Matthew and Luke intended the readers to see the betrayer of Jesus getting his just deserts in a very literal way

Of course, because the readers are largely 'those on the outside' who are not supposed to see what the story is really about.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Matthew using OT text to provide his screenplay of throwing money into the temple and the purchase of the 'potter's field'.

The OT text is nothing more than a clue. Read it carefully, and you will see that it tells you something rather different from what the gospel seems to be implying.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It surely does not work to claim that they occurred while Jesus was supposedly still doing his mission.

But Jesus is a major protagonist in Acts 9, and not just as a voice at the beginning. Compare it to Mark 5.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

To suggest that nothing can be surmised from words on a page (especially with different accounts) is a subterfuge.

I suggested nothing of the sort. Of course things can be surmised from words on a page, as I myself have been doing. You demanded proof.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

About what?

You work it out. Just as 5,000 did not literally dine out on 5 loaves and 2 fishes, and the disciples didn't literally eat Jesus' body at the Last Supper, there was no literal famine.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I fail to see the connection between the Lepers' ritual and Mark 1. Jesus healed a leper, but I suppose it is not claimed without any support that he is simon the ex- leper, because it is parable anyway.

Oh dear. How many times do I have to explain that the parable is based on fact, and is not just made up stories?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

They invented the 'myth' - the amended stories showing jesus as magical if not divine - because the original jesus story did not look divine enough. It is one that does not make Jesus look the way the gospel -writers wanted him to look.
That is why they rewrote it and in the rewriting, they got into contradictions.

My question was - why would a gospel writer try to hide his own myth?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

These can be seen without any need to posulate an overall parable of the early church or whatever, Which nobody apparently
understood - even the church fathers and everyone since then, since none of them saw the Gospels as anything but facts.

Of course some insiders understood them. And of course they were not going to publicly admit what they are about, if they were meant to be a secret.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Toni Sherente

So something can only be a metaphor if you comprehend it to be?

We are able to make judgements on this. It's what people do.

The crowd didn't find Jesus' parables difficult either. That's because they didn't have clue what he was getting at.

Because they didn't have the advantage of the explanations in the gospels.

Jesus said he only spoke in parables. The gospel writers followed him. If you can't accept Jesus' admission about his own methodology, or don't believe that the gospel writers would have followed Jesus, then I don't see why you bother reading the gospels at all.

Oh dear. Do you really not understand that getting at the truth through evaluation of the text is what I'm doing? And Jesus was shown as reciting his parables. To assert that this also applied to what the gospel -writers said he did or other remarks (such as get up and walk) is like stopping still every time you see a green light and refuse to move until it turns red. You must excercise some intelligent discrimination.

How do you fool people with a lie that they don't even know about, because it is hidden?

How else do you fool people? If they know about it, you can't fool them.

Of course, because the readers are largely 'those on the outside' who are not supposed to see what the story is really about.

Which is true whether the NT is a propaganda document or a parable of a hidden story. The solution is in evaluation of the text, not in speculations about who might be fooled and who might not.

The OT text is nothing more than a clue. Read it carefully, and you will see that it tells you something rather different from what the gospel seems to be implying.

I like your suggestion that I haven't read it carefully so I haven't your more informed knowledge. It is rather different because it was changed to fit the prophecy (1). If it was just a clue, then there would have been no need to change it. Look at the explanation below and show whether it better fits your idea of a clue to a hidden story or mine of a fiddled bit of OT text to make it look like a fulfilled prophecy.

But Jesus is a major protagonist in Acts 9, and not just as a voice at the beginning. Compare it to Mark 5.

What is the comparison? I'm really looking to see some convincing support for this theory of yours/your book. Paul is supposed to see (a supposedly ascended) Jesus. Since Paul never met him this must be divine sort of appearance otherwise why would Paul be convinced
that it was Jesus? Further I don't recall that Paul mentions this event, except later in Acts. Look at Paul's own account in Galatians. He says at 1. 11 that he got his gospel direct from Jesus, not man. He mentions to going to Arabia and Damascus and only then to the apostles in Jerusalem. To fill in the missing bits look at II Cor. 11. 32 where he says he escapes Aretas at Damascus (Aretas was grabbing Syria at the death of a Roman emeror (I think Tiberius, I'll look it up (2) and Paul's claim that Aretus was after Paul is ridiculous) and then 12 2-5 where it is clear that he believes he got his guidance in heaven.

This blinding on the road to Damascus is not mentioned ,so the supposition is that Luke's account in Acts is a bit of fiction.

I suggested nothing of the sort. Of course things can be surmised from words on a page, as I myself have been doing. You demanded proof.

I asked for support for your contention that Jesus was alive and appearing (in Acts). You wrote:
"The story about this is just words on a page. Clearly it is impossible to 'prove' anything about it, either one way or the other."
I don't demand 'proof' but some persuasive surmise will do.
Well, in fact you are doing so and we are discussing that.

You work it out. Just as 5,000 did not literally dine out on 5 loaves and 2 fishes, and the disciples didn't literally eat Jesus' body at the Last Supper, there was no literal famine.

Historically there was.
Although Judaea was ruled by the Romans, the governors there had practiced the same kind of religious tolerance as was shown to Jews in Rome [expert]. However, Roman tactlessness and inefficiency, along with famine and internal squabbles, led to a rise in Jewish discontent. In 66 AD, this discontent exploded into open rebellion
The Roman Empire: in the First Century. The Roman Empire. Jews In Roman Times | PBS

That famine is identified in Acts.

"Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar." (Acts 11:27-28)."

And attested by Josephus at the correct date for Paul:

"Josephus tells of queen Helena's relief effort for Jerusalem. "Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem; for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to produce food withal, queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs" (Antiquities, 20:2:5)."
http://www.biblelandhistory.com/isra...rusalem-a.html

The Famine and Paul's opportunistic collection of famine relief for 'The poor' (Ebionites) Ga 2.10, to buy his way into apostolic credibility is not a parable.

Now I have to admit that, while I am inclined to take the trip to Bethsaida and the assembly of 5,000 (or so) men as factual, I cannot believe the miraculous multiplication of grub. I have to suggest that a token feed of these bods was turned by the writer of the Ur -text Synoptic gospel into a miracle and I have plenty of other examples of this, not least the Transfiguration which John does not record at all but which the Synoptic text turns into an appearance of God, Moses and Abraham. Similarly, a straightforward baptism of Jesus by John along with dozens of others is turned into a very similar divine manifestation.

So there is no need for me to say that the loaves and fishes is a parable, much less the trip to Bethsaida.

Oh dear. How many times do I have to explain that the parable is based on fact, and is not just made up stories?

Supposed fact. So it seems that you don't suppose all the Gospels (and the whole NT) is just parable, but some is (supposed) fact. Then why do you say that the famine and Paul passing the hat round is parable? Why can't it be fact? I'm really looking for some convincing reason to take this 'parable' theory seriously. Obviously to suggest that, because Jesus told parables, it must all be parable does not follow and you apparently don't even suggest that yourself, now.

My question was - why would a gospel writer try to hide his own myth?

I've already told you - If you let the people you are trying to bamboozle see that you are bamboozling them they won't be bamboozled.

Of course some insiders understood them. And of course they were not going to publicly admit what they are about, if they were meant to be a secret.

I see. You suppose that some at least of the Church fathers understood that the NT was parable but wrote as though it was fact in order to make sure that the secret was kept.

You know, my dear Toni, this sounds more and more like a conspiracy theory which - like other conspirary theories - has to involve more and more people all conspiring to keep the conspiracy going.

Let's try to get back on topic and justify this Hi- jack of the thread.

I see internal evidence to suppose that Jesus was a Galilean who was baptised by John and was crucified. The principle of embarrassment suggests that is the basic story fact.

The gospel claim that Jesus rejected Judaism, preferred Gentiles and was able to do miracles is discredited by internal contradiction and by the comments of Paul.

The conclusion is that John's and then Jesus' mission was politically messianic otherwise Antipas and Pilate couldn't have cared less about Theological wrangles and claims.

Since Jesus was killed and the Jews remained under Roman rule, Jesus failed as the baptist had failed.

Since Jesus never intended a break away from Judaism, the success of Christianity is in no way a 'success' for Jesus.


(1) Let's look at the Luke/Acts prophecy: "that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his place/office let another take."

That is from Psalm 69:1-36
22Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. 23 Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake. 24
Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. 25 Let their habitation F211 be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents. 26 For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and
they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded. 27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. 28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the
righteous. 29 But I am poor and sorrowful: let thy salvation, O God, set me up on high.

(2) Claudius. "The Christian Apostle, Paul, mentions that he had to sneak out of Damascus in a basket through a window in the wall to escape the Governor (ethnarch) of King Aretas. (2 Corinthians 11:32, 33, cf Acts 9:23, 24), The question remains open as to when King Aretas received Damascus from Caligula in the imperial settlement of the affairs of Syria. The Aretas’ administration in Damascus may have begun as early as CE 37 based upon archeological evidence in the form of a Damascus coin, with the image of King Aretas..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris

[Toni Sherente]

You said: 'I have said that I will undertake to say whether something is a perfectly comprehensible metaphor and what is an evident account of an action or explanation.' But why should something not be a metaphor just because it is not 'perfectly comprehensible' to you? The earth being round was not perfectly comprehensible to first millennium man. This did not mean that it was 'evidently' flat.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Jesus was shown as reciting his parables. To assert that this also applied to what the gospel -writers said he did or other remarks (such as get up and walk) is like stopping still every time you see a green light and refuse to move until it turns red. You must excercise some intelligent discrimination.

So according to you - although Jesus 'would not preach (the gospel) without using parables', the gospel writers who claimed to follow him did not preach this same gospel using any parables at all. And you call that intelligent discrimination?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I like your suggestion that I haven't read it carefully so I haven't your more informed knowledge. It is rather different because it was changed to fit the prophecy (1). If it was just a clue, then there would have been no need to change it. Look at the explanation below and show whether it better fits your idea of a clue to a hidden story or mine of a fiddled bit of OT text to make it look like a fulfilled prophecy.

Luke added the clause about 'someone else taking his place of service' for a very good reason. It was a clue to the main story, and nothing to do with the minor issue of justifying the choice of a replacement twelfth disciple. Why would Luke have corrupted OT Scripture for such a trivial reason?
The bit you haven't read carefully is Zechariah. Ask yourself who is who.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

What is the comparison? I'm really looking to see some convincing support for this theory of yours

Compare Acts 9:36-41 with Mark 5:35-42.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I asked for support for your contention that Jesus was alive and appearing (in Acts). You wrote: "The story about this is just words on a page. Clearly it is impossible to 'prove' anything about it, either one way or the other." I don't demand 'proof' but some persuasive surmise will do.

But you did demand proof. Your exact words were - 'that would take a bit of proving'.

The 'famine' - According to Acts 1:27-28 'there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world'. So do you have any historical reference
to this worldwide famine? And if there was a worldwide famine, how come Josephus implied that Alexandria had a great quantity of corn, and Cyprus was able to export all its excess figs?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Now I have to admit that, while I am inclined to take the assembly of 5,000 (or so) men as factual, I cannot believe the miraculous multiplication of grub. I have to suggest that a token feed of these bods was turned by the writer of the Ur -text Synoptic gospel into a miracle

So you have Jesus failing to feed 5,000 people with a dismal token five loaves of bread, and the gospel writers dressing this up as a great miracle. There doesn't seem to be much intelligent discrimination in this explanation for the gospel text.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

So it seems that you don't suppose all the Gospels (and the whole NT) is just parable, but some is (supposed) fact.

When you try to ridicule what I'm saying by misrepresenting it, I feel I have to reply. You wrote 'but I suppose it is not claimed without any support that he is simon the ex- leper, because it is parable anyway'. Many times I have stated that the parables are coded true stories about real people. It is fact, or what the gospel writers believed to be fact, told secretly using code words.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I've already told you - If you let the people you are trying to bamboozle see that you are bamboozling them they won't be bamboozled.

You still don't get it. If I claim that Bob stole some money, but hide this claim behind code words by calling Bob 'the rabbit' and money 'lettuce' (in other words, writing 'the rabbit stole the lettuce'), why would my claim that Bob stole money be a lie, if no one reading it would even have known that my references to the rabbit were about Bob in the first place?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

this sounds more and more like a conspiracy theory which - like other conspirary theories - has to involve more and more people all conspiring to keep the conspiracy going.

Are you suggesting that no one ever conspires? The fact that there is a word 'conspiracy' indicates that conspiracies do exist. And this particular conspiracy hasn't needed 'more and more people'. In fact, I believe that less people are aware of it now than were aware of it 1900 years ago.

I accept most of your conclusions, but -

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

The gospel claim that Jesus rejected Judaism and preferred Gentiles is discredited by internal contradiction and by the comments of Paul.

Not accepted. The coded gospel shows that Jesus ditched his Jewish disciples. This information was hidden, for reasons of what you call 'the principle of embarassment', and therefore in your words 'suggests that it is fact'.

and-

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Since Jesus was killed and the Jews remained under Roman rule, Jesus failed as the baptist had failed.

Partly accepted, but partly not, because his movement had switched from the Jews to the winning side.

[TRANSPONDER]

Toni writ:

You said: 'I have said that I will undertake to say whether something is a perfectly comprehensible metaphor and what is an evident account of an action or explanation.' But why should something not be a metaphor just because it is not 'perfectly comprehensible' to you? The earth being round was not perfectly comprehensible to first millennium man. This did not mean that it was 'evidently' flat.

Because no -one could see what shape the earth actually was. We can look at the gospels and see what shape it is. The analogy is a poor one. I'd say that a Gospel remark is to be taken as intended to be seen as fact unless it is clearly metaphorical - like comparing Pharisees to yeast.

If Jesus heals Peter's mother then that is supposedly what he did. There is no sensible reason to suppose that it was a metaphor for someone (you said Jesus wasn't the real name) doing something (not actually healing) to someone (not Peter's mother since Peter evidently wasn't his real name). It really is very hard to swallow. I suppose I ought to get hold of this book and understand the case, but I am reluctant to spend good money on what seem to be a far- fetched theory.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Jesus was shown as reciting his parables. To assert that this also applied to what the gospel -writers said he did or other remarks (such as get up and walk) is like stopping still every time you see a green light and refuse to move until it turns red. You must excercise some intelligent discrimination.

Toni

So according to you - although Jesus 'would not preach (the gospel) without using parables', the gospel writers who claimed to follow him did not preach this same gospel using any parables at all. And you call that intelligent discrimination?

" 'would not preach (the gospel) without using parables'," Where did I say that? My view is that the gospel Jesus did use parables but they are identifiable. He also used metaphor, analogy, and a number of rhetorical devices in the preaching. I also think that that some pronouncements are face value such as 'Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you'. Face value. Not parable
'He sent to him (Jesus) elders of the Jews asking him to come and heal his slave' Supposed event. Not parable.
'Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God'. Theophanic but not parable.
'Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men'. Of course metaphorical but relating to a course of action. It is not a hidden coded meaning for something that no -one can guess unless they have read your book.
'And he taught them many things in parables...Listen, a sower went out to sow..he who has ears to hear, let him hear' Then he talks about the secret and explains the parable.
Clearly a parable and in no way to be taken that everything in the Gospels, Acts and Paul is parable. Let us drop this pretense that no - one can make a sensible discrimination here.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I like your suggestion that I haven't read it carefully so I haven't your more informed knowledge. It is rather different because it was changed to fit the prophecy (1). If it was just a clue, then there would have been no need to change it. Look at the explanation below and show whether it better fits your idea of a clue to a hidden story or mine of a fiddled bit of OT text to make it look like a fulfilled prophecy.

Toni

Luke added the clause about 'someone else taking his place of service' for a very good reason. It was a clue to the main story, and nothing to do with the minor issue of justifying the choice of a replacement twelfth disciple. Why would Luke have corrupted OT Scripture for such a trivial reason?
The bit you haven't read carefully is Zechariah. Ask yourself who is who.

Luke(Acts) quotes from Psalms, but I suppose you have Matthew's 'Jeremy' in mind here Zechariah 11. 12-14. The person speaking is the shepherd of the people (Israel and Judah) -a king, not God. He becomes impatient and refuses to 'be their shepherd' any more and asks for his wages - thirty silver which he sneeringly describes as 'Lordly'. God directs him to 'throw' them into the temple treasury. The 'shepherd' then breaks his symbols of unity between Israel and Judah. I would guess (it is a guess) that it is Zechariah speaking as a disgruntled prophet who the people don't give credit to.

The next ode refers to the Assyrian seiges, so this all relates to the disunion of Israel and Judah and the conquest first by Assyria and then by Babylon. It is nothing to do with Jesus or Judas, but you suggest that the story is used (in Matthew) to describe something about Jesus' doings with the protagonists disguised by the symbolic characters.

If the 'shepherd' is Jesus, then one could suppose it relates to his giving up on the Jews (after being crucified by them one might expect that - except that it was the Romans did it, not the Jews, so he would have no reason to love them). And it is nothing to do with Judas and his thirty silver at all.

As in Luke, a totally irrelevant bit of OT text has been used to try to fulfil prophecy. You ask why corrupt scripture for such a trivial reason?
Because it was part of the gospel agenda which we hear time and again - to show that Jesus was the messiah prophecied in scripture. Thus anything that could be made to look like a fulfilled prophecy was worth doing, even if it meant distorting scripture. Luke and Matthew do the same with regard to the nativity - also important as evidence that Jesus was the messiah.

Paul does the same. in Romans:9.33 "See I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall".
He fudges the meaning of Isa 28:16
"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste."
Paul alters the meaning, turning the 'rock' of the Law - a sure foundation -into a stumbling block and a cause of men falling. It is polemic, not some coded story.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
What is the comparison? I'm really looking to see some convincing support for this theory of yours

Toni

Compare Acts 9:36-41 with Mark 5:35-42.

Yes, I see the similarity between the healing of Jairus' daughter and the healing by Peter of Tabitha. Given the propensity of the Evangelists to ransack the OT for events in Jesus' life or to ransack the work of Paul for ideas to put into Jesus' mouth, it is not surprising that Luke, trying to compile a history of the doings of the apostles, would use a healing from the synoptics, perhaps even getting the name Tabitha from 'Talitha koumi'.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I asked for support for your contention that Jesus was alive and appearing (in Acts). You wrote: "The story about this is just words on a page. Clearly it is impossible to 'prove' anything about it, either one way or the other." I don't demand 'proof' but some persuasive surmise will do.

Toni

But you did demand proof. Your exact words were - 'that would take a bit of proving'.

You are being obtuse and legalistically tricky. I am not demanding total proof but some kind of support. It is true that it would take quite a lot to 'prove' this contention to the point where it becomes more than an interesting possibility.

Toni

The 'famine' - According to Acts 1:27-28 'there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world'. So do you have any historical reference to this worldwide famine? And if there was a worldwide famine, how come Josephus implied that Alexandria had a great quantity of corn, and Cyprus was able to export all its excess figs?

Acts 1 only goes up to 26. Anyway, so Acts is wrong is saying a wordwide famine, so what? Luke's Augustine taxing of 'all the world' was wrong too, yet historically there was a tax census of Judea. Historically there was also famine in Judea in Paul's day and he could feasibly have collected to send relief to the 'Poor'. You are trying to disprove history with irelevant niggles.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Now I have to admit that, while I am inclined to take the assembly of 5,000 (or so) men as factual, I cannot believe the miraculous multiplication of grub. I have to suggest that a token feed of these bods was turned by the writer of the Ur -text Synoptic gospel into a miracle

Toni

So you have Jesus failing to feed 5,000 people with a dismal token five loaves of bread, and the gospel writers dressing this up as a great miracle. There doesn't seem to be much intelligent discrimination in this explanation for the gospel text.

On my part or that of the Evangelists? In any case, dressing up a natural event (assembling a bunch of men and providing a token feast) as a miracle is as par for the course as the dressing up an uneventful baptism as a miracle and a non - transfiguration (according to John) as a transfiguration.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
So it seems that you don't suppose all the Gospels (and the whole NT) is just parable, but some is (supposed) fact.

Toni

When you try to ridicule what I'm saying by misrepresenting it, I feel I have to reply. You wrote 'but I suppose it is not claimed without any support that he is simon the ex- leper, because it is parable anyway'.
Many times I have stated that the parables are coded true stories about real people. It is fact, or what the gospel writers believed to be fact, told secretly using code words.

Very well, you take umbridge but you explain which is what I wanted. However it is still unclear. The events of Judas' repentance and death are apparently based on real events but the described events are not the real ones - they are a 'parable' or symbolic coded story giving clues to the real story. Is that a fair assessment?

So again, I have to ask which bits of the gospel are real and which cover story. Is the baptism fact or parable? Is the temple procession and take -over event or parable? Is the crucifixion event or parable? I'm asking, not ridiculing.

:Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I've already told you - If you let the people you are trying to bamboozle see that you are bamboozling them they won't be bamboozled.

Toni

You still don't get it. If I claim that Bob stole some money, but hide this claim behind code words by calling Bob 'the rabbit' and money 'lettuce' (in other words, writing 'the rabbit stole the lettuce'), why would my claim that Bob stole money be a lie, if no one reading it would even have known that my references to the rabbit were about Bob in the first place?

No YOU don't get it. If you wanted to claim that Bob stole some money, why would you change the terms to 'rabbit' and 'lettuce' so that no -one who didn't know the code would know what you were talking about?
What I'm asking is, what is the point of this utterly confusing oncealment?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
This sounds more and more like a conspiracy theory which - like other conspirary theories - has to involve more and more people all conspiring to keep the conspiracy going.

Toni

Are you suggesting that no one ever conspires? The fact that there is a word 'conspiracy' indicates that conspiracies do exist. And this particular conspiracy hasn't needed 'more and more people'. In fact, I believe that less people are aware of it now than were aware of it 1900 years ago.

Of course there are conspiracies. That doesn't mean that all the conspiracy theories must be correct! Haven't I been talking about using discrimination and degrees of proof all the time? The fact is that conspiracies that look likely are likely. Those that look doubtful can only be propped up by proposing more and more wide - reaching involvement until it becomes absurd. That is what seems to be happening with your theory. Even the Church fathers were in it, covering up the secret, for what purpose I cannot imagine. That is the 'spreading conspiracy', not the supposed fact that the supposed secret was forgotten relatively soon afterward. That is a completely irrelevant objection.

Toni

I accept most of your conclusions, but -

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The gospel claim that Jesus rejected Judaism and preferred Gentiles is discredited by internal contradiction and by the comments of Paul.

Toni

Not accepted. The coded gospel shows that Jesus ditched his Jewish disciples. This information was hidden, for reasons of what you call 'the principle of embarassment', and therefore in your words 'suggests that it is fact'.

Yes, I see your point. But the fact is that they did such a good job of hiding the information that one has to seriously ask whether the information is actually anywhere but in the mind of the bod who wrote that book. To make the theory stand up you have to explain away so much as a coded or a hidden story. I am trying to find some reason to give this interesting idea any credence and so far it is Bacon in shakespeare and Bible - code stuff, more easily explained as a Paulinist campaign to show a jewish failed Messiah (ON TOPIC ) as rather pro -gentile and anti - jewish, and that is not needing to say that what the text says means something else in code.


Toni

and-

originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Since Jesus was killed and the Jews remained under Roman rule, Jesus failed as the baptist had failed.

Toni

Partly accepted, but partly not, because his movement had switched from the Jews to the winning side.

The question is whether that was Jesus' intention. I actually find it hard to believe that Jesus (even if he survived crucifixion) really switched sides. Convince me.

[Toni Sherente]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

We can look at the gospels and see what shape it is.

We can't see the shape of the gospels any more than untrained people can see the shape of a message written in morse code. To them, this would just be a pattern of dots and dashes, and they (like you) would ask - why should it be anything more?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I'd say that a Gospel remark is to be taken as intended to be seen as fact unless it is clearly metaphorical - like comparing Pharisees to yeast.

But the gospel writer Mark mentions in his narrative that the disciples 'had only one loaf', and then shows Jesus asking why the disciples didn't understand that he was not talking about literal bread and subsequently talking about the feeding of bread to the 5,000. If the bread Jesus was talking about was not literal, then presumably Mark's own references to bread in this passage and in the story of the feeding of the 5,000 were not literal either, but metaphorical - not 'clearly metaphorical', but obtusely metaphorical. And if it is obtusely metaphorical here, then why should there not also be obtuse metaphor in other parts of the gospel too?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I suppose I ought to get hold of this book and understand the case, but I am reluctant to spend good money on what seem to be a far- fetched theory.

If the £7 price tag is really an issue for you (I doubt it), borrow it from a library.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

" 'would not preach (the gospel) without using parables'," Where did I say that?

You didn't. It's a quote from Mark's gospel. (And highly likely to be true according to your 'principle of embarassment', as Christians generally feel rather uncomfortable at the notion that Jesus never meant anything that he said literally.)

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

" Of course metaphorical but relating to a course of action. It is not a hidden coded meaning

Why does relating to a course of action preclude it from having a hidden coded meaning? This is another irrational objection - a prime example of black and white thinking.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I suppose you have Matthew's 'Jeremy' in mind here Zechariah 11. 12-14. The person speaking is the shepherd of the people (Israel and Judah) -a king, not God. He becomes impatient and refuses to 'be their shepherd' any more and asks for his wages - thirty silver which he sneeringly describes as 'Lordly'. God directs him to 'throw' them into the temple treasury. The 'shepherd' then breaks his symbols of unity between Israel and Judah ... you suggest that the story is used (in Matthew) to describe something about Jesus' doings with the protagonists disguised by the symbolic characters.
If the 'shepherd' is Jesus, then one could suppose it relates to his giving up on the Jews. And it is nothing to do with Judas and his thirty silver at all.

You're getting warmer.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

As in Luke, a totally irrelevant bit of OT text has been used to try to fulfil prophecy.

You're getting colder again.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Yes, I see the similarity between the healing of Jairus' daughter and the healing by Peter of Tabitha. Given the propensity of the Evangelists to ransack the OT for events in Jesus' life or to ransack the work of Paul for ideas to put into Jesus' mouth, it is not surprising that Luke, trying to compile a history of the doings of the apostles, would use a healing from the synoptics, perhaps even getting the name Tabitha from 'Talitha koumi'.

So Luke plants this idiosyncratic story twice in the same series of writings, each time with the protagonist being identified as a different person? Why would he do such an inane thing, unless he were trying to make a point? If you don't want to shell out £7 for a book, think for yourself about what the point is.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I am not demanding total proof but some kind of support.

If you're asking for support, not proof, then say 'support' and not 'proof'.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Acts 1 only goes up to 26. Anyway, so Acts is wrong is saying a wordwide famine, so what? ... You are trying to disprove history with irelevant niggles.

No, I am showing that when the NT talks about 'famine', it is not a reference to a literal famine, because the 'worldwide famine' mentioned in Acts 11:28 never happened.
You niggle about my typo (my writing of Acts 1 when you knew I meant Acts 11), then complain about my own 'irrelevant niggles'. Hypocrisy is not an attractive trait.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

However it is still unclear. The events of Judas' repentance and death are apparently based on real events but the described events are not the real ones - they are a 'parable' or symbolic coded story giving clues to the real story. Is that a fair assessment?.

Yes.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

So again, I have to ask which bits of the gospel are real and which cover story. Is the baptism fact or parable? Is the temple procession and take -over event or parable? Is the crucifixion event or parable?

I'm not an expert on every verse. All I've done is read a book about the betrayal story. But what I would say is that this betrayal story is almost entirely parabolic, so I would assume that the rest of the gospel is the same.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

If you wanted to claim that Bob stole some money, why would you change the terms to 'rabbit' and 'lettuce' so that no -one who didn't know the code would know what you were talking about? What I'm asking is, what is the point of this utterly confusing concealment?

All coded messages have the same purpose - to record the true story for the benefit of insiders, whilst making it unintelligible to outsiders.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Even the Church fathers were in it, covering up the secret, for what purpose I cannot imagine.

Why does anyone want to cover up any secret? Because it could be damaging or embarassing if it were revealed! The purpose is so obvious, the fact that you cannot imagine it suggests you simply don't want to imagine it.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I actually find it hard to believe that Jesus really switched sides. Convince me.

I have learned that you cannot convince anyone of anything they really don't want to believe.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
We can look at the gospels and see what shape it is.

Toni

We can't see the shape of the gospels any more than untrained people can see the shape of a message written in morse code. To them, this would just be a pattern of dots and dashes, and they (like you) would ask - why should it be anything more?

My point was that they couldn't see the (round) earth from outside as it were. We can see all the NT, but I see your point - we generally can't see the hidden meaning of the gospel.
But then, is it there? I have been trying to see what the support is and it doesn't seem to have any. I know that it may explain a lot of puzzles that I can't, but that is an argument from ignorance - if I can't explain everything, Froming's theory must be right.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I'd say that a Gospel remark is to be taken as intended to be seen as fact unless it is clearly metaphorical - like comparing Pharisees to yeast.

Toni

But the gospel writer Mark mentions in his narrative that the disciples 'had only one loaf', and then shows Jesus asking why the disciples didn't understand that he was not talking about literal bread and
subsequently talking about the feeding of bread to the 5,000. If the bread Jesus was talking about was not literal, then presumably Mark's own references to bread in this passage and in the story of the feeding
of the 5,000 were not literal either, but metaphorical - not 'clearly metaphorical', but obtusely metaphorical. And if it is obtusely metaphorical here, then why should there not also be obtuse metaphor in other
parts of the gospel too?

There could, But the bread handed out at Bethsaida or the bread eaten at the last supper or Emmaeus could be intended as real bread. The Christian symbolism is there, but does that mean that it is all symbolism or it is just Christianity overlaid on a Jewish story? That's what I'm looking at - to see whether that is a preferrable theory.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I suppose I ought to get hold of this book and understand the case, but I am reluctant to spend good money on what seem to be a far- fetched theory.

If the £7 price tag is really an issue for you (I doubt it), borrow it from a library.

I think I shall have to get hold of it.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
" 'would not preach (the gospel) without using parables'," Where did I say that?

Toni

You didn't. It's a quote from Mark's gospel. (And highly likely to be true according to your 'principle of embarassment', as Christians generally feel rather uncomfortable at the notion that Jesus never meant
anything that he said literally.)

Do they? In any case that has nothing to do with the synoptics. From their point of view, it was desirable that Jesus spoke in riddles because - as the bible makes clear - it was all part of God's plan that the Jews would fail to understand and so would not be saved.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
" Of course metaphorical but relating to a course of action. It is not a hidden coded meaning

Toni

Why does relating to a course of action preclude it from having a hidden coded meaning? This is another irrational objection - a prime example of black and white thinking.

Why is a clear course of action - which the disciples are later on shown as actually doing - be untrue (because a coded meaning) because some other remarks look metaphorical? A prime example of arguing from the particular to the general.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I suppose you have Matthew's 'Jeremy' in mind here Zechariah 11. 12-14. The person speaking is the shepherd of the people (Israel and Judah) -a king, not God. He becomes impatient and refuses to 'be their shepherd' any more and asks for his wages - thirty silver which he sneeringly describes as 'Lordly'. God directs him to 'throw' them into the temple treasury. The 'shepherd' then breaks his symbols of unity between Israel and Judah ... you suggest that the story is used (in Matthew) to describe something about Jesus' doings with the protagonists disguised by the symbolic characters.
If the 'shepherd' is Jesus, then one could suppose it relates to his giving up on the Jews. And it is nothing to do with Judas and his thirty silver at all.

Toni

You're getting warmer.

Oh, Good.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
As in Luke, a totally irrelevant bit of OT text has been used to try to fulfil prophecy.

Toni

You're getting colder again.

Because I don't go from the pretty evident historical reference to some postulated coded meaning?

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Yes, I see the similarity between the healing of Jairus' daughter and the healing by Peter of Tabitha. Given the propensity of the Evangelists to ransack the OT for events in Jesus' life or to ransack the work of Paul for ideas to put into Jesus' mouth, it is not surprising that Luke, trying to compile a history of the doings of the apostles, would use a healing from the synoptics, perhaps even getting the name Tabitha from 'Talitha koumi'.

Toni

So Luke plants this idiosyncratic story twice in the same series of writings, each time with the protagonist being identified as a different person? Why would he do such an inane thing, unless he were trying to make a point? If you don't want to shell out £7 for a book, think for yourself about what the point is.

Why assume that it is the 'same' story? You are putting unjustified conclusions into my mouth. There are similarities but so there are between the trial of Paul under Gallio and Jesus under Pilate. Why would Luke need to rack his brains to make up action (since he wouldn't know the details) when he can just take his cue from gospel examples? It is assuming too much to assume they are the same story - if not the same event.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I am not demanding total proof but some kind of support.

Toni

If you're asking for support, not proof, then say 'support' and not 'proof'.

Very well. I am intending to make this my last posting in this thread, in any case.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Acts 1 only goes up to 26. Anyway, so Acts is wrong is saying a wordwide famine, so what? ... You are trying to disprove history with irelevant niggles.

Toni

No, I am showing that when the NT talks about 'famine', it is not a reference to a literal famine, because the 'worldwide famine' mentioned in Acts 11:28 never happened.
You niggle about my typo (my writing of Acts 1 when you knew I meant Acts 11), then complain about my own 'irrelevant niggles'. Hypocrisy is not an attractive trait.

Neither did the 'worldwide tax' of Luke (2.1) happen, yet the Judean tax did and that is clearly what Luke is talking about. Or do you say that is a 'coded' story, too?
You are really reading far too much hidden meaning into Luke's frequent examles of 'asininity'.
And pointing up your incorrect reference (implying that I'd like the correct one) is hardly on a par with your dismissing attested history on the basis of Luke's hyperbole.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
However it is still unclear. The events of Judas' repentance and death are apparently based on real events but the described events are not the real ones - they are a 'parable' or symbolic coded story giving clues to the real story. Is that a fair assessment?.

Toni

Yes.

So far you are as cagey as the church fathers in explaining.
Well, I'm evidently going to have to obtain the book - look, I don't care whether you accuse me of being purblind or hypocritical - all I'm after is seeing whether this theory of Froming's has merits.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
So again, I have to ask which bits of the gospel are real and which cover story. Is the baptism fact or parable? Is the temple procession and take -over event or parable? Is the crucifixion event or parable?

Toni

I'm not an expert on every verse. All I've done is read a book about the betrayal story. But what I would say is that this betrayal story is almost entirely parabolic, so I would assume that the rest of the gospel is the same.

Assuming is not good enough. You have a theory, you have to see whether it stacks up. If you don't I'll have to see whether it does.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
If you wanted to claim that Bob stole some money, why would you change the terms to 'rabbit' and 'lettuce' so that no -one who didn't know the code would know what you were talking about? What I'm asking is, what is the point of this utterly confusing concealment?

Toni

All coded messages have the same purpose - to record the true story for the benefit of insiders, whilst making it unintelligible to outsiders.

Well, here, you see that there is a problem. A coded message is coded because it is neccesary to keep dangerous information from 'the enemy'. Hidden codes for no good reason other than as proof of some whacky theory such as 'Bacon is Shakespeare' or The Bible has prophecy of the present age are of a different kind and exist only in the biased imagination of the finders, who construct supposed rules of the code which can be ignored where they don't give the desired result.
Froming's 'code' looks like that rather than a hidden message. I ask who is it hidden from? If it revealed that Jesus had turned against the Jews, how is that different from the present gospel?
You see, the reason for it being coded seems pointless.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Even the Church fathers were in it, covering up the secret, for what purpose I cannot imagine.

Toni

Why does anyone want to cover up any secret? Because it could be damaging or embarassing if it were revealed! The purpose is so obvious, the fact that you cannot imagine it suggests you simply don't want to imagine it.

Well, as I say, I'm trying to imagine why. So far it looks like the four evangelists plus Acts and Paul, all writing a gospel with a hidden story about Jesus which would presumably embarrass Christianity if the believers knew it, since I can't see that the Romans could care less. So why just not include it in the gospel? Why not just forget it? I am trying to imagine it rather more than you are - to you it is a hidden story and thus it must be dangerous. Why it would be and, if so, why encode it anyway, is something you should ask yourself.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I actually find it hard to believe that Jesus really switched sides. Convince me.

Toni

I have learned that you cannot convince anyone of anything they really don't want to believe.

And I have learned that when a person can't produce any good support for their pet theory, they accuse the other of being purblind. Look lass, I don't care what you think about me. I don't even care what you say about me. And I certainly don't care about scoring irrelevant techical points. I only care about seeing whether there is any sound reason to take this theory seriously.
Well, I suggest we end it here as we've hogged the thread long enough and it's clear that I'm going to have to get hold of the book.

[Toni Sherente]

I much prefer it when you adopt a less confrontational tone. It means that I can be less confrontational back. A forum isn't really a suitable place to present all the detailed, interconnecting evidence for this interpretation. I'm not demanding that you see parable in everything, just advising that there could be something parabolic in any verse that you find in the gospels.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

From their point of view, it was desirable that Jesus spoke in riddles because - as the bible makes clear - it was all part of God's plan that the Jews would fail to understand and so would not be saved.

I think it was all 'those on the outside', and not just Jews.

You were just getting to the important point with Zechariah, but then slipped back to the 'prophecy' explanation that Luke was trying to foist off on you.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Why assume that it is the 'same' story?

Examine the features that the two stories have in common. This combination of features has never arisen before in any other story in history, but now arises twice in what is effectively the same book. Either Luke is one of the poorest, least competent, least imaginative storytellers ever, or he was telling the same story twice deliberately in order to make a point. Ask yourself what this point might have been.

I do not claim that my knowledge is anywhere near complete or perfect. I'm just recommending that people consider the gospel from different angles. I can assure you, it is the only way of understanding the betrayal story.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

A coded message is coded because it is neccesary to keep dangerous information from 'the enemy'. Hidden codes for no good reason other than as proof of some whacky theory such as 'Bacon is Shakespeare' or The Bible has prophecy of the present age are of a different kind and exist only in the biased imagination of the finders, who construct supposed rules of the code which can be ignored where they don't give the desired result.
Froming's 'code' looks like that rather than a hidden message. I ask who is it hidden from? If it revealed that Jesus had turned against the Jews, how is that different from the present gospel?
You see, the reason for it being coded seems pointless.
Well, as I say, I'm trying to imagine why. So far it looks like the four evangelists plus Acts and Paul, all writing a gospel with a hidden story about Jesus which would presumably embarrass Christianity if the believers knew it, since I can't see that the Romans could care less. So why just not include it in the gospel? Why not just forget it? I am trying to imagine it rather more than you are - to you it is a hidden story and thus it must be dangerous. Why it would be and, if so, why encode it anyway, is something you should ask yourself.

All outsiders were the enemy to early Christianity. As you say, it was political, and therefore would have annoyed the authorities in all countries in which it operated. Even more importantly, it rejected Jews (so angered them) and it spun itself deviously to Gentiles (and so its true story had to be kept from them too). The hidden story is down-to-earth and political, and has nothing to do with the spirit world or with prophecy. It is very different from the surface gospel. It would have put off early converts to Christianity, and thereby severely limited its growth and popularity. It had to be hidden, but then again it was felt that history had to be preserved (in some sort of coded form) for posterity. As I read the book, I could imagine this quite easily.