Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to I know about Jesus - the poor bugger
FineYoungSinger - I gave up Lent . . . for Lent
posted by
gomedome
on February 7, 2008 at 8:40 PM
| link to this | reply
I disagree with this post.
I also agree that you have every right to post it. Happy Lent, my friend.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 7, 2008 at 3:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: I have never read the book, THE PASSOVER PLOT
One thing that is re-affirmed from suggestions such as this is that we don't really know what happened. Our modern day educations should tell us that men do not return from the dead but even if the ressurection is referring to a spiritual rebirth, virtually all accounts of the tale insist on the body not being present in the tomb two days later. The only common denominator found in all the accounts really has little to do with what may be factual or not but more to do with what people of the time were capable of believing. It is no small coincidence that a supposedly all powerful and all knowing God, could only think of utilizing a framework of redemption for mankind that utilized a traditional (at the time) pagan blood sacrifice. . . . and to himself no less. What kind of deal is that?
Then we must consider the history of Christianity in the aftermath. When all Christian sects are combined and totalled up, it still only represents one third of mankind. Either the timing was incredibly bad for an all knowing God to make this sacrifice on behalf of mankind, or as I believe, the entire story should be treated as allegorical.
posted by
gomedome
on February 7, 2008 at 12:52 PM
| link to this | reply
the sacrifice thing is interesting
first they sacrificed people.
probably first-born sons -- they probably feasted on cut up pieces and drank the blood.
then animals
then back to firstborn son.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 7, 2008 at 12:24 PM
| link to this | reply
I have never read the book, THE PASSOVER PLOT
but there are elements in the Gospels that tend to persuade me that Jesus did not really die via crucifixion.
Let's do this flashback thing, shall we? There are hints in the Gospels that Jesus was a rabbi (they called him "rabbi", and where the word "master" is used in relation to him, you will find the root word to be "rabbi" (seems the translators didn't want it plain that maybe he was a Jewish rabbi). Also, it appears he had his own synagogue.
But he preached a freedom from the Judaic practices of the day, which threatened the power of the priestly faction of Judaism, for sacifrices for sin and such gave them power. And he preached a liberty from the restrictions such as Sabbath, which could have made the Pharisees angry also, although it would seem that he was of Pharisaic tradition.
You can read in Matthew 23 how, after he overturned the moneychangers' tables, which probably gave the priests some considerable revenue, he railed in no uncertain terms against the scribes and Pharisees. It would seem that he deliberately irked the powers that be in order to bring about the trial and subsequent crucifixion (although the Greek words make no real connection with a cross shape -- stakes, yes, but cross, no).
primary player -- Joseph of Arimethea. He made arrangements with Pilate to have Jesus brought down from the stake (maybe "Y" shaped) at sundown due to Sabbath coming (more likely the annual Sabbath (first holy day of Passover) -- this some time before the anhering to the stake probably.
Pilate had a good relationship with the high priests because they in turn helped keep the people peaceable for him. However, he detected that they were jealous of Jesus -- and possibly he had motives for thwarting their purposes.
He conceded to the crowd that the priests had gathered who shouted for Jesus' death.
The staking, though, bore little resemblance to the usual practice. In the usual practice, as described in the Gospels, legs were broken so that the victim would die sooner of suffocation. In the usual practice, the body was left on the stakes and carrion creatures would eat the flesh.
Several occurences raise questions. Some have conjectured that the sponge with vinegar given him to drink contained a substance that would cause him to go into a coma that resembled death. Possibly the spear in the side and the nails were deliberate acts that would cause him to go into shock.
He made two statements that could be construed as signals -- "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." and "It is finished."
And he was taken down quite prematurely.
So, when the women came to the tomb as the sun was SETTING (original Greek meaning in Matthew), after the Sabbath, in Mark, there is no mention of resurrection -- only that the body was gone and a young man sat there, telling them that Jesus had gone ahead of them to Galilee. No angel -- no supernatural event.
It is highly likely that Jesus did not die; and that he was taken away to recuperate in Galilee. Also, it is possible that he was taken to the local jail ("preaching to the souls in prison") until he was able to leave.
On the whole, there are blanks, room to read between the lines, and a multitude of questions.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 7, 2008 at 11:25 AM
| link to this | reply