Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

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. 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? 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.

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 EditionLuke 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and
Simon 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. 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. As I said, the motivation from saving face in front of the population, and having a fairly comfy living. 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. But, there is plenty there to show that they could have been Zealots as well. The name itself suggests this. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. No wonder they were confused, they had been taken in by someone who clearly wasn’t the messiah, it must have been devastating. 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. I have my own opinion of the Holy Spirit and of Pentecost, but I’m trying my best not to insult people 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. 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’. 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. 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. 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.

I know, I'll probably get a nosebleed! 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. 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.

So, was he referred to as a Zealot or not? What is your conclusion? 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. Thank you very much, do you think the book would sell? I prefer the word 'discuss' it's more friendly. Indeed they do, it is how and why we arrive at our conclusions that differ.Brian.