|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
They weren't zealots, they were ordinary Jews, many of them fishermen. Matthew 10:4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot There's two for a start. The son of Zebedee, James and his brother John, were called 'Boanerges' for a reason, and it wasn't because they were flower arrangers.
I really don't get this idea that somehow the writers of the NT had an agenda of their own. They teach what was revealed to them and otherwise they have nothing else. Once they realised that Jesus wasn't the messiah they had to concoct some sort of story, otherwise they would have some serious egg on their faces. They preached about a guy who turned out not to be the messiah, they couldn't take the public humiliation so they made a lot of stories up. Anway, what would you rather do? Live a fairly comfortable life preaching or back to the fishing boats?
I don't think the Buddha wrote down his own teachings either for that matter. Buddha didn't insist on people following his teachings. He also never condemned anyone to eternal damnation if they chose not to follow his teachings. What a nice guy, relatively speaking of course. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Most translations have "Simon the Canaanite" not "Zealot." I think almost all Bibles call him ‘Simon the Zealot’ somewhere in their pages. Certainly every one that I have read does, I haven’t read them all obviously, but can you tell me which ones don’t call him a zealot? Just to support my claim, here are some references: King James Version 21st century Edition Luke 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, andSimon called the Zealot New International Version Luke 6:15 Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot New American Standard Version Luke 6:15 and Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot New Revised Standard Version Luke 6:15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot New Living Translation Luke 6:15 Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon (the Zealot), There are other versions that support my statement, and I think you will have difficulty supporting the claim that most translations. . But, who knows, maybe you will.
In any case a member of the Zealot party would have been FAR from happy with this Messiah who turned out not to be leading Israel to victory over the Romans. So, what makes you think that he wasn’t far from happy? He could be raging, but still couldn’t face the fact that everything he had told people turned out to be hogwash.
Where would he get the motivation from his personal political position to preach this crucified failure of a Messiah? As I said, the motivation from saving face in front of the population, and having a fairly comfy living.
Judas? What makes him somebody who would promote the Messiah Jesus? He sold him out. Out of the whole band of them, Jesus included, Judas makes the biggest sacrifice! Jesus would have been nothing without Judas. The poor guy drew the short straw and sacrificed himself for the movement. Jesus didn’t expect to get killed, that’s why he was sweating blood when it became obvious that his movement wasn’t strong enough. Of course, Judas was a Zealot as well, the name makes it obvious.
Fishermen with personality. So? Nothing there to show they'd make anything up. But, there is plenty there to show that they could have been Zealots as well. The name itself suggests this.
They'd go back to fishing and ponder their deep disappointment for the rest of their lives if Jesus had not risen from the dead and sent power from heaven. How do you know that they could just go back to fishing after everything they had said was shown to be untrue? Did the population really take that kindly to being misled? That Jesus achieved nothing wouldn’t make any difference to their lives, they would just keep preaching and hope that the true messiah didn’t turn up. They weren’t all fishermen either.
They were simple honest men, not at all the kind who would make things up. That's just ridiculous. How can you psychoanalyse men who lived 2000 years ago? How do you know what they are capable of and what they aren’t? One thing I think that we can say that remains consistent over the centuries is human nature. The disciples were human, and thus capable of anything.
Non sequitur. Doesn't matter what you think of his character, this is about the authenticity of teachings that are written down by others. There is no lack of authenticity implied in either case. The authenticity is secondary to my point. My point was that Buddha was a far nicer person than Jesus and this is reflected in his teachings. Oh, BTW, Simon Peter (depending on the actual meaning implied by bar Jonah) may also have been a Zealot. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I don't think that you have to be a member of the Zealot 'Party' to be a Zealot. A zealot was essentially any home rule extremist, and I think the authors of the texts would be well aware of the connotations of the word. The Zealots were not exactly an organised party as such.
The Lutterworth says this: The Zealots were hotheaded superpatriots and in the vanguard of revolution against Rome. Butit would be misleading to refer to them as a sect or party throughout the late biblical period. Rather, they were home rule fanatics, a largely unorganised movement unified only in opposition to a foreign political control. Their excessive zeal for God and the Law led to a tendency towerads violence. Their roots go back to the time of the Maccabees in the second century BCE and the emphasis on maintaining the exclusive worship of God...... Apparently the founding of the Zealots may be traced to Judas the Galilean and his leading a revolt during the census of Quirinius in 6 CE. As far as violence goes, we do have Simon Peter cutting off Malchus' ear at Jesus arrest. Doesn't really sound like Faith's band of flower arrangers to me. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
No, but the point was that a Zealot would have expected the Messiah to deliver Israel from Rome, and THIS Messiah died, not exactly your inspiring moment for a Zealot, not calculated to fire him up to his political purposes, far more likely to send him into hiding, which is what all the disciples did when Jesus was crucified. So, it sent them into hiding during which time they concocted a story that enabled them to save face, perfectly plausible.It isn’t difficult to imagine Simon the Zealot being disappointed in Jesus and then realising that he would have to face everyone that he had told that Jesus was the main man. It’s human nature to grasp at any get out clause that would enable you to explain what you ‘really’ meant to ridiculers. Peter was reduced to cowardice shortly afterward if you will recall, and again, the whole lot of them retreated in confusion after Jesus' crucifixion. No wonder they were confused, they had been taken in by someone who clearly wasn’t the messiah, it must have been devastating.
Even His resurrection and appearance to them didn't inspire any preaching of the gospel. Well, see this is part of the excuse that they dreamt up. There was no resurrection or appearance, they were just part of this fictitious tale that was made up to save them from further embarrassment.
It took the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to accomplish that. I have my own opinion of the Holy Spirit and of Pentecost, but I’m trying my best not to insult people
NO WAY could these twelve have invented the facts of the resurrection and the ascension. They didn’t need to invent anything. Resurrection stories were ten a penny in first century Palestine, Mithras for example. As for ascension stories, the Old Testament would have provided a good example or two for them. They didn’t need to invent anything, just tweak extant tales a little. You are also assuming that Jesus’ followers were pretty dense and couldn’t think up some excuses.
They had a completely other Messiah in mind, a very earthly kingly military leader after the model of David, and if anyone had told them the full mission of the Messiah they wouldn't have believed it and they certainly wouldn't have expected anyone else to believe it. Anyone who actually knows anything about the messiah does indeed know that Jesus couldn’t have been the Messiah that the Jews were waiting on, so they had to present something other than what was expected when Jesus died. They could quite easily have borrowed some tales from the available ‘stock’.
They had to experience it to believe it, and then they KNEW, and it was only when they knew beyond a doubt that they could preach it with boldness. Yes, people can convince themselves that anything is true, if they try hard enough. It says a great deal about the power of the human mind. Some people are convinced that the world was under 20 feet of water and that all life died out 4400 years ago, a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.
I thought you asked me which other translations have Simon the Canaanite so I looked them up but now I don't see that in your post. Oh well, here they are: No probs, I have misread things myself before. However, the issue was that you had stated: They weren't zealots, they were ordinary Jews, many of them fishermen To which I replied: Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot. There's two for a start. You then implied that Simon wasn’t a Zealot as MOST Bibles have ‘Simon the Canaanite’ rather than Simon the Zealot. I then said that every Bible that I have ever read identifies Simon somewhere as a Zealot. Your link actually support what I said, using the same search as you did it shows that ALL the Bibles that you quote from declare that Simon was a Zealot.
Matthew, Thomas, James (son of Alphaeus), Simon (the Zealot),New Living Translation 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust NKJV Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; New King James Version 1982 Thomas Nelson NASB and Matthew and Thomas; James {the son} of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; New American Standard Bible 1995 Lockman Foundation RSV and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,Revised Standard Version 1947, 1952. Webster Matthew and Thomas, James the [son] of Alpheus, and Simon called Zelotes,Noah Webster Version 1833 Info Young Matthew and Thomas, James of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info Darby [and] Matthew and Thomas, James the [son] of Alphaeus and Simon who was called Zealot,J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info ASV and Matthew and Thomas, and James [the son] of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,American Standard Version 1901 Info HNV Mattityahu; T'oma; Ya`akov, the son of Halfai; Shim`on, who was called the Zealot;Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info Vulgate Mattheum et Thomam Iacobum Alphei et Simonem qui vocatur ZelotesJerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info Also, as CA pointed out, the term in Matthew should not be confused with a geographical location. Is there some sort of problem with Simon being a Zealot, does it make any difference at all? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Imagine finding you in a NT thread! I know, I'll probably get a nosebleed!
It's sounding like you accept or at least find most likely an historical Jesus that failed and his disciples not accepting his death? I accept an historical Jesus, probably through my heart rather than my head. But, I think that the disciples made up the story about the resurrection and the empty tomb. They accepted his death, but they had to cover it up to save their embarrassment. But, we have Jesus bone box so their scam has been exposed.
Jesus' Ossuary! Oh well, he had a good innings, as they say.
What do you think of the mythicist position that Paul was preaching a Christ from a higher realm and only later did Mark by midrash create a story of an historical person based on passages from the OT? I'm thinking particularly of Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle, but there are other mythicists. I think it is perfectly plausible, it certainly is not beyond the realms of possiblity. When you consider the claims made about Jesus in the NT and then we have no contemporary references to this guy in any external texts then it does support the myth. Added to this the fact that the Gospels contradict each other greatly, contain obvious corruptions of OT texts, and contain historically impossible stories (e.g. Jesus' arrest and trial, then it isnt that far fetched. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
It doesn't matter. It's an academic point. So, was he referred to as a Zealot or not? What is your conclusion?
But I remain astonished at your ability to imagine that those men could concoct Christianity as a lie. It's not that much of a stretch Faith, you shouldn't underestimate the human imagination. I also think that you would need to consider the long drawn out process that took place before Christian beliefs crystallised. The concocting of Christianity didn't take place overnight.
Amazing. Thank you very much, do you think the book would sell?
But I'm not going to argue it any more, I see no point. I prefer the word 'discuss' it's more friendly.
People believe whatever they believe. Indeed they do, it is how and why we arrive at our conclusions that differ. Brian.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024