Player, + 2 for this reply: "I sense you are reading it because you want to check that box off, so you can say you did it, and then afterwards you can say that it failed. It's going to remain unapproachable to you because you don't really want to hear what it has to say."

"Jesus personally recruited these people to implement his agenda. Why would he trust violent criminals with spreading his alleged message of pacifism and love?"

right, he personally recruited them to be violent, but at every turn told them not to be. Every verse that you try to insinuate as a message of violent takeover, is simply not so. Your interpretations depend on taking one or two verses as a statement while reading the next few verses easily tell that your interpretations are nonsensical.

So, you've failed in finding any real evidence to incriminate Jesus. It's nothing new. He was nonviolent. His teachings were at the root of most major non-violent social change of the 20th Century. We was not trying to establish "a programme of World domination".


"His 'peaceful' apostles openly asked Jesus if they should ask for fire from heaven to annihilate anybody who got in their way. "

And what was the response? Sure go ahead and wipe 'em out! I think not.

Peter is very well thought of, and he listened to Christ when he said to put up the sword and stop being violent.

@ Putin
I'm curious also as to why you try to attach the term "Sicarii" to Simon the Zealot (who was not Simon Peter) and to Judas. Neither of them are referred to as sicarii, and that was a particular group within the Zealots that was very violent especially against Jews that agreed to pay Roman taxes ("Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's "). Aside from Judas turning Jesus in, I haven’t found any evidence that they did anything violent. So, I’m not really dealing with the idea that they were Sicarii because you haven’t given me any evidence that they were. Simon was a Zealot, but not all Zealots were Sicarii. My dog Coda is a canine, but he isn’t a poodle.

@ Putin

Last point you mentioned Iscariot before and said "dagger man" afterward. If you were trying to state that Judas was known as "dagger man" given that Iscariot sounds a bit similar to "sicarii". That idea is far from proven. Bishop Song (Yes, I hate quoting him) gives a few other translations that make sense as well.
"“It could mean Ish-Qiryat, translated from the Hebrew meaning "Man of the City" or "Man of Kerioth".
Or it could mean Ish-Karat, meaning "man of the cutting",
Or Ish-Qarahat "Bald Man".
or Ish-Korah, "Man of Ice", which could be a reference to Korah from Number 16, of the provocation in wilderness, also mentioned in the Book of Jude, "The Gainsaying of Core".
And it could also mean Yiskah-Re'it, meaning "Watch-Sight", "Observe and Behold", which could refer to someone who is like a spy, agent, or double agent.
And my personal favourite Yiska-Re'ut meaning 'Watch-Feeding Upon Desires', which sounds like someone who would be a traitor to for gain."

So wait, we're supposed to claim that the 2000 years of violent Christianity (including the actions of the Apostles themselves) have no basis in the scripture but the one or two Christian movements which were non-violent (which you're hijacking, since they were both socialist - the Catholic Worker and SCLC), are proof positive that Jesus's teachings were 'non-violent'? Talk about cherry picking.

"Last point you mentioned Iscariot before and said "dagger man" afterward. If you were trying to state that Judas was known as "dagger man" given that Iscariot sounds a bit similar to "sicarii". That idea is far from proven."

His name is Judas (named after a Zealot military leader) Sikarios (Sicarii/assassin). Also the fact that Jesus was put to death via crucifixion is befitting since this was the punishment for insurrection against Rome. The idea that his name means "from Kerioth" makes no sense since that city is Judean, and why would the Galileeans make a Judean their treasurer?

Which should be a point of emphasis, not only did Jesus keep two known Zealots in his employ, he made one of them one of his most trusted lieutenants.

"Simon was a Zealot, but not all Zealots were Sicarii. My dog Coda is a canine, but he isn’t a poodle. "

What a bogus comparison. A more apt one would be Irgun & Lehi. They carried out the same tactics and had the same goals and it is not at all clear that they were different factions really at all. They engaged in public assassinations. Josephus doesn't make much of the difference between the two.

"Um, which sources would those be, Putin?"

http://archive.org/details/contendingsofapo02budguoft

Judas was also called Judas Zelotes, so the likelihood of Iscariot being a changed form of Sikarios is quite high.

I would also suggest that Jesus Barrabas never existed. Barrabas was arrested for leading an insurrection. Barrabas was none other than Jesus himself. There was no custom of releasing a prisoner around Passover. That is just legend. Jesus Barabbas anyway means Jesus, son of the Father.

This week I've been more meek than ever, I feel my time is just around the corner .......

Right and Zelotes is a synonym for kanai, not sicarii. Simon is called the Cannanite for that reason. Once again, you're resorting to guilt by association. Where is the evidence that either of these guys were out up to no good? The entire argument rests on what they did before they met Jesus. The idea that he carefully selected these two as some violent arm of his disciples seems pure fantasy since you can't seem to put a weapon in either ones hand doing anything violent at Jesus's urging. Remember Christ was convicted, but not of insurrection. Pilate found him not guilty on that point. He was found guilty of blasphemy and it was the crowd who called to crucify him over Pilate's attempts to let him off.

With all the insinuation, we're still missing the point that once Judas and Simon joined with Jesus there is no evidence of them doing anything violent with jesus urging them on. So, it's still a

"I would also suggest that Jesus Barrabas never existed. Barrabas was arrested for leading an insurrection. Barrabas was none other than Jesus himself. There was no custom of releasing a prisoner around Passover. That is just legend. Jesus Barabbas anyway means Jesus, son of the Father."

Fascinating, but conjecture.

** non issue** sorry truncated that last one a bit.

"And Tolstoy only hated Shakespeare because Shakespeare was better than him, and didn't fit his holy worldview. Shakespeare exalted the human, and there was no real requirement for God in his works. For Tolstoy, this was unbearable. When it came to Shakespeare, Tolstoy was a crank."

dipplayer did my commenting for me there...and a lot shorter and quicker than me at that. :)

"Obiwan is right about how to approach the text. No prior respect is due to any text. If everyone else thinks it's the best thing ever, it will naturally make him curious and probably make him try reading it several times, but that's all. On the other hand, not getting it and then asking irrelevant questions like those above will just make you look childish, Obiwan."

How am I "not getting it?"

In the sense I stated above--ie, "I don't get why this is so important, these endless lists of people we will never meet or hear of again" and that sort, or the "You haven't read the Bible all the way, ergo, you don't get it and can't pass judgement" sense?

If the former--how do I look foolish by asking a legitimate critical reading question after I've read the full text of the book, that is, Genesis? Surely once I've read the full 50 chapters I am entitled to SOME post-reading opinion, even if the argument were to be made I couldn't judge it in full until I'd read the whole Bible to give it full context, surely after reading the full Book of Genesis I'm entitled to make a textual inquiry or criticism of the text itself? After all, I'd agree, to an extent, that if someone hasn't read the whole of "A Tale of Two Cities" (to use a non-Bard example, for a change of pace) then yes, I'd agree, you can't critique the entire book...

But if you've read the famous opening chapter, complete with the "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" paragraph, don't you think that at the very least someone might make some textual criticism there, and say "I think Dickens was stylistically redundant in that opening, and here's why," or else "I think that was a brilliant and beautiful opening, and here's why."

So how do I look foolish for making a textual inquiry of the Book of Genesis upon completing it, even sans the full support of the other 65 books, surely I can make SOME statement (and indeed, the one I made, asking why it was relevant from a pacing, stylistic, plot, and character standpoint--to again treat this just as I would any other book--to give a full genealogy of everyone ever when, indeed, many of those lists are just that--lists of names and ages and then they die and we move onto the next list...we're not invested in these random people that are born and have no actions or words to speak for themselves, so why waste our time with irrelevancies, why is that so important plot-wise and, indeed, as a holy book, why is that information "holy" and necessary...to make the whole "traced from Adam/Abraham" lineage point could be made without listing absolutely everyone, just by saying that this was the case, that everyone stems from Adam and that all the sons of Abraham and all that entails stems from him...why the unnecessary list? From an oral history standpoint I get it, repetition helps remember the story, but again, when WRITING this, why not leave that out or condense this part, as this WAS written by man...?)

If the latter--see the above, really, on why I think at least some textual commentary is permissible even partway through, especially as the Bible is a compilation--there, we've settled on that word and not "edited," I still think it carries a certain connotation in even being a compilation, but whatever--of stories that are in some cases stand-alone (or at least able to function as stand-alone works if necessary and taken in isolation) and in others, again, can at least function stand-alone even if they're compiled so that they tie together...

Do I really have to read all the way to the last period in Revelations before I can comment at all on the text of Genesis?

Given the fact they were written hundreds of years apart...that hardly seems fair or true to the nature of the text Genesis...

Also, I WOULD say that, in much the same way really most people can give at least some basic, basic commentary on "Romeo and Juliet" just because everyone knows the story, it's so embedded into the culture and has influenced at least half the romantic movies out there we see in some fashion and whatnot...everyone knows the basics, so everyone can at least say something, even if it's not as deep as it could be if they would read the actual text...

By that same stroke, everyone knows Genesis, and the basic stories of Creation, Adam, Eve, and the Fall, and Noah, to be very conservative...

So surely they can comment on it a bit, if it's so mainstream as it is?

"In answer to your question, surely you can understand that for most people, until our recent individualistic age, one's forebears were of utmost importance. One's genealogy was a defining part of who you are. Many tribes and peoples could list their ancestors back for many generations. This is still an important and interesting endeavor. I've researched my own family history for the past 200 years, as best I've been able, and it gives me a satisfying sense of who I am, and an appreciation for those who came to the US and who worked to put me where I am today. And it's simply fascinating.

Why should such a thing be in a "holy book"? Is it just a relic of tribalism? Perhaps it is there to remind us that no man is an island, that we all come from somewhere, and to not be too impressed with ourselves. I didn't get here on my own, sui generis. My ancestors shaped the world I inherit. Also, the Old Testament, and especially Genesis, has a huge focus on the maintenance of tradition and of the covenant. Those things are/were passed down in families. How else could they be? Genesis is obsessed with the importance of the transmission of the covenant and of the tradition of the Fathers. Whether you want to define that as a religious tradition, or as some other tradition, this is an important principle. Maintaining a culture, a civilization, requires the continual renewal of that culture or civilization in each new generation."

OK, at least historically, I think that's plausible, I already agreed and noted the first, oral history/cultural aspect before...

But I can buy into the idea that "no man is an island," that's a decent point.

However, again, in WRITING this--so past the oral history phase, when they're just writing this all down, and revising it over the many centuries and versions and translations--I must again ask...no one thought to perhaps either:

A. Streamline that "no man's an island" message and make it more to-the-point (and actually, the amount of times Abraham and his descendants are told their "seed" will get this or that...really, I think the text already establishes how linked it wants all the characters to be--do we really have to spend long sections listing them off, again, symbolically/contextually, it seems redundant, we get the "no man's an island" from plenty of other statements, and stylistically, no escaping it, it IS boring and tedious...which may seem like a petty quibble but, again, treating it like any other book, and generally books have been and are still slammed for that stylistic error, so...)

OR

B. At LEAST give some more background or details or stories pertaining to these new characters, if you're going to list them off...I mean, what's the point of introducing the character in a tedious list if the most he does is procreate and die, you can just pick up with the "relevant" offspring down the line and call them descendants of the line of Adam/Abraham/etc. If you're not going to give us any reason to be invested in the characters, why painstakingly list them literarily, just, again, mention "Adam's line" or "Abraham's line" or whatever, and make it clear where the relevant characters were descended from.

"I honestly don't understand how anyone can get bored reading Genesis, although yes, the genealogies of people we don't know can get tedious. But this book has the creation story, the temptation and fall, the promise of a future savior (Adam and Eve's seed), the flood and Noah's ark, and so much more."

On that, quickly:

--The opening lines and Creation itself are some nice bits of prose (if utterly implausible in every possible sense scientifically, but hey, Shakespeare had ghosts and Homer had sea monsters, so we can let some fantastic things go in literature like this), though I will admit I don't like the creation of Adam and Eve themselves; I don't care for their characters, and I definitely don't care for the illogic and bit of misogyny that comes from making Eve out of Adam's rib and, with that and accompanying prose, giving a nice chauvinistic message about why men should be allowed to dominate over women (yes, most Western literature beat up on women in some form or another in the ancient world, I'm just saying, this is another case of it happening and, as with the others, I don't care for it is all...what's worse, AT LEAST the Greeks gave some strong female characters to go with the weak ones, for every Ismene there was an Antigone and for as blamed a character as Pandora there was the virtuous and faithful Penelope, to say nothing of the powerful female goddesses, so I'm still scoring the Greeks as more progressive here, but I digress.)

--The Fall...I've gone on and on about how much I LOATHE that story as it's told in the Bible and read and how I find that whole situation illogical and I don't find God just or good here, at all...maybe it's more of a miracle, then, that after "Hamlet" that "Paradise Lost," retelling this story, but better and from the point of view of Satan and his villain/anti-hero arc, is my favorite work of all-time. In the Bible, though? Hate it, to put it mildly.

--I think the promise of a future savior is, at least in part, a bit ex post facto in interpretation, especially if it's applied to Jesus, NO WAY the authors of Genesis hundreds of years before the man ever lived knew of him and a pending New Testament and left a way to tie the OT and NT together...that's something you might take on faith, and if you do...well, I can't dissuade you, I suppose, as erroneous as I think that is, but in any case, that's not valid literary criticism anyway, so leaving that option aside...yes, I think a lot of the "future savior" bit is interpretation after the fact, particularly if it's applied to Jesus...redemption? Maybe, though I'm still unsure. A Christ-like savior? I think that's reaching to the breaking point there.

--If I even have to say what's wrong with Noah's flood, both rationally and scientifically as well as as a moralistic tale itself...so again, a famous story, NOT one I enjoy, and actually, rather almost as irrational and malicious as the story of the Fall, in my view.

So yeah--maybe it has a lot of famous stories and characters, but Genesis doesn't do much for me, except set the stage for "Paradise Lost."

Don't think I don't appreciate the link to a 760 page book, Putin, but could you please be more specific? Maybe some page numbers, e.g.? Thanks!

Alright brother, if the Society of Friends makes Al Zawahiri their treasurer I'll expect you to condemn everybody who uses guilt by association.

Paul of Tarsus rewrote the stories to be more palatable to the Romans, so they became more anti-Semitic, shifting blame for the crucifixion on the Jews instead of the Romans since Jesus was an anti-Roman insurrectionist. He needed Roman converts, and there was no way that was going to happen if the Roman state was responsible for deicide.


The two other people who were crucified along with Jesus were lestai - insurrectionists/rebels. The punishment was reserved for crimes against the state. What did the Romans care about blasphemy? Jews did not utilize crucifixion for anything. It was not in their penal code.

I know Genesis, I've read their book.
I'm also a big fan of the stuff Phil Collins did after he left the band and went solo.
They don't write stuff like that nowadays.......sigh !!

Actually, they were thieves. Where do you get that they were insurrectionists? What is your evidence that Saul of Tarsus rewrote the gospels? I'm still waiting for page numbers, but I'd point out off the bat that the book you linked can't be placed any earlier than the sixth century, based on legends that had evolved from the second. Please explain to me how that is more reliable than accounts four to five centuries older which you constantly reject?

I didn't reject those accounts, I've used them. However I think you'd even admit that the accounts of the apostles in the New Testament are sparse in the extreme. The fact is this information is the earliest information we have that gives any detail about what the Apostles did, according to the early Christians and their contemporaries.

I think you'll find if you do your etymology that in ancient Hebrew 'Barrabas' or 'Barrowboy' refers to a person 'selling their wares on a street corner' as Jesus did when he was selling the Bible ....... he was a shameless self-promoter

They were called Iestai, which means insurrectionist opposed to Roman rule.

http://haqol.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/the-updated-niv-translates-translates-lestai-rebel/

Putin, you reject whatever you want from them, though, without any methodology. For example, if one Gospel doens't mention a detail and another one does, you accept or reject the detail based solely on whether it furthers your argument, not based on any other rationale whatsoever. (E.g., Jesus rebuking Peter after the ear incident). So you consider them fundamentally unreliable.

Yet these, which are considered both by the church and by historians to be legend and myth, you cite as "historical sources." (Though I'm still waiting for the page numbers. I haven't yet seen the exceptional violence you speak of).

Mark is the earliest and considered to be the most reliable gospel, but even so, I was just pointing out that CA's version of that story isn't universally held to be the story by the gospels.

"(Though I'm still waiting for the page numbers. I haven't yet seen the exceptional violence you speak of)."

Probably because you haven't bothered to read any of it.

"you accept or reject the detail based solely on whether it furthers your argument"

Rich coming from people who handwave around the passages where Jesus calls for the Apostles to arm themselves and centralized authority of the planet under his rule.

"Yet these, which are considered both by the church and by historians to be legend and myth, you cite as "historical sources." "

Why would Christian myths make the Apostles out to be evil people? This book is hailed by devout Christians.

"(Though I'm still waiting for the page numbers. I haven't yet seen the exceptional violence you speak of)."

I have to do a book report for you? How about you stop being lazy. You asked for sources, I gave you the most in depth/earliest source on the life of the Apostles. Can you provide anything about what they did? Or don't you care?

Anyway look at what happens to Scythia and other cities in the chapter on Andrew - p. 183- onward.

Evidently James was executed for impregnating a governor's wife. How nice. (p. 70 and thereabouts).

Read the story of Paul & Philip going to Iconium too.

"and centralized authority of the planet under his rule. "

You ignore the verb tense in that passage. He doesn't say "will be given" or "must be given" or "is to be fought for." He says, "has been given." If somebody told you that the Communist party had taken over Mexico, would you take that as a command to go fight for a Communist takeover in Mexico?

"Why would Christian myths make the Apostles out to be evil people? "

I have no idea. How does that turn myth into history?

"I have to do a book report for you?"

Well, yes, you can't just link to a huge book and say "it's in there somewhere." (Although you get bonus points if you point out that the author to the Hebrews did do this sometimes).

"I gave you the most in depth/earliest source on the life of the Apostles"

No, you gave me a book of legends from the sixth century. No doubt there may be some truth mixed in with it.

"[page sources]"

Thank you. That's all I wanted. I'll go read now.

" If somebody told you that the Communist party had taken over Mexico, would you take that as a command to go fight for a Communist takeover in Mexico?"

He explicitly gave the command to convert every nation into devotees of Christ, in conjunction with the statement that thy kingdom come, thy will be done, and the fact that Zealots - who wanted to establish the kingdom of god by force, were the main lieutenants of his among the Apostles, points to the programme of world conquest by force.

OK, so, let's examine these claims one by one.

"He explicitly gave the command to convert every nation into devotees of Christ,"

Yes. The specific words He used were "make disciples." That would be most unusual phrasing for violence, but anyway....

"in conjunction with the statement that thy kingdom come, thy will be done,"

Actually, that was elsewhere, but yes, the prayer for God's Kingdom to come is part of the Lord's prayer.

"and the fact that Zealots - who wanted to establish the kingdom of god by force, were the main lieutenants of his among the Apostles"

Actually, even accepting your interpretation of "Iscariot," we know of only two zealots: Judas, who betrayed Him (and who He knew would betray Him), who was no longer around by the time of the Great Commission; and Simon the Zealot, who was not one of the twelve, but rather a very obscure disciple of whom we know almost nothing.

So... epic fail I'm afraid.

I'll also respond to your question on the other thread here, so I don't extend my hijacking thereof.

"And I'm still waiting for any early account of the Apostles lives at all, coming from you, if we're believe the narrative that this cult was all peaceful."

Um, sure. How about the book of Acts? There are several accounts of the Apostles' preaching, including how they acted when a city rejected them. They were not violent, and they did not call down fire. Actually, in Matthew 10:14-15, Jesus tells them how to act when a city rejects them: leave and shake the dust off their feet, and the city will be punished on the day of judgement. In particular, He doesn't say to call down fire. So, irrespective of whether this sixth-century document you sent is history (as you say) or myth (as everybody else says), we can say that they were not acting according to Christ's commands if they did, in fact, cause any cities to be devoured by fire.

Incidentally, are you contending that, as a matter of history, the apostles did cause fire to descend from heaven and consume Greek cities? (I still haven't actually gotten to the right place yet. They're still with the captain of the ship).

OK, so I read the exceptionally entertaining stories of Bartos and Scythia (man, I can't help wondering whether the story of the Incredible Hulk comes from here). Anyway, before we go further, I have to wonder. Since you are contending that this is a "historical source" that establishes the apostles as uncommon violent men, are you ready to take it as a matter of historical record that they did call down fire on Scythia, and that they went around with a large dog-faced cannibal with light-bright eyes who was able to turn into a raging monster who could kill 700 people in a matter of instants?

I just ask because

(a) that's the only violence actually recorded in this story, but

(b) if you do accept that, then you must be more of a supernaturalist than I had supposed. I mean, you did promise me "historical sources" showing that the apostles were "extraordinarily violent," and this is what you produced.

Incidentally, here is another and much older account of the life of Andrew. It's also considered probably manufactured, but it was known by the 300s (Eusebius mentioned it as absurd and false). It differs markedly from yours, however.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsandrew.html

Anybody who doubts Judas Iscariot was one awesome fucker needs to reed, "The Way of Cross and Dragon" by George R.R. Martin.

Putin, if you believe in scientific principles, you will no doubt look at the evidence and make your conclusions from what you see. But the way you are twisting the evidence around to fit your preconceptions makes me think that you have an underlying emotional bias against Christianity, or against God maybe. Why is that?