Re: Restored (and a final story for Luke and Daniel)

>Tina writes:
><< Turn the other cheek refers to an act of defiance, If you turn the
>other
>cheek, then the Romans cannot backhand you, as they were want to do.
>Therefore, there is a fountain of analogies in Greek literature of passive
>aggression. >>
>
>I'll agree with you that turning the cheek is a sort of defiance, but not
>that "the Romans [then] cannot backhand you." I don't think that this was
>the point, and I'm sure it isn't true.
>
>If anyone should strike you on the cheek, Jesus says in Matthew 5.38,
>"Strepson autôi kai tén allén," literally, "turn to him even the other."
>This doesn't sound like an evasion of any sort, but an offering.

Whether it's your point or mine, it is STILL an act of passive aggression.

>And such offerings are often accepted, as was recognized by the Muslim
>writer Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who relates in al-Zuhd:
>
> Jesus was walking by the Pass of Afiq with one
> of his disciples. A man crossed their path and
> prevented them from proceeding, saying, "I will
> not let you pass until I have struck each of you a
> blow." They tried to dissuade him, but he refused.
> Jesus said, "Here is my cheek. Slap it." The man
> slapped it and let him pass. He said to the disciple,
> "I will not let you pass until I have slapped you too."
> The disciple refused.
> When Jesus saw this, he offered him his other cheek.
> He slapped it and allowed both of them to go.
>
>And I do not see how it follows that there is in Greek literature a
>"fountain" of analogies of passive aggression.
>

Sorry, a passage written centuries later based on already accepted
interpretations? Come on!

>Tina also writes:
><< First of all, trying to discern anything about Jesus or his politics
>from
>John is pure crap. John was the last written, the most insane, and the
>least familiar with Jewish politics and traditions. >>
>
>Trying to discern from any ancient text anything about Jesus or any other
>historical or maybe-historical figure presents great, often insurmountable,
>difficulties. But it is not -- and certainly not in the case of Jesus and
>the Gospel of John -- "pure crap."

I'm afraid that the lack of knowledge of Jewish and Roman occupation
politics as well as his belief in the face of the facts thast Jesus was God,
and not a revolutionary.

>I would bet that you're correct about John's being the last written of the
>gospels (or at least that it is the last substantial addition of new
>material to the gospels), though nobody really knows this and I'm curious
>about how you came to seem so sure (you sound like you've been reading Hyam
>Maccoby). In any case, the oldest fragment we have of any of the gospels,
>only about the size of a credit card, is referred to as P52 and is
>recognizably a fragment from the Gospel of John, dating to approximately
>125
>CE. To people who pay attention to the dates on these things, that is Very
>Early. It was very probably not written by anyone who ever saw Jesus, true
>enough (there's at least a decent chance that none of the New Testament
>was), but that doesn't render it pure crap in any sense, even in a
>historical one.

Here's a pic of P52, BTW

>I don't think it qualifies as "insane" either, though on a sliding scale
>which includes everything, I suppose it is more insane than the other
>three.
>It is certainly the most complex. The suggestion that it is in any way
>unfamiliar with Jewish politics and traditions is utterly false. Of the
>gospels it is probably the most critical of the Jerusalem Jews, but it
>remains a fundamentally Jewish book, and while its Greek is the most
>beautiful and fluid of the gospels (even of the New Testament) it is not
>wholly free from pointed Hebraisms. I expect that it was written for Jews,
>at least primarily, and probably for Hellenized Jews some distance away
>from
>Jerusalem.

What book are you reading? The most Jewish? It's the most ignorant of
Jewish ways and by far the most blasphemous in light of Jewish law.

>(And in case it changes how you think of my saying these things, you might
>care to know that I am not a Christian, and that my interest stems
>primarily
>from Judaica and Hellenism.)

Doesn't change a thing, but thanks for the info.

>
>Tina then writes:
><< Jesus was a rebel. Virtually all of his followers were zealots or less
>respectable "freedom fighters" against Roman occupation. >>
>
>Of course we cannot know, but I remain very skeptical about Jesus' being
>much of a political rebel. From all accounts it seems to me much more
>likely that he was a religious reformer who was taken to be a political
>rebel, and whose religious reform involved politics insofar as this
>resulted
>from the political nature of the religious institution.

Oh, yes we can know. Why else would he surround himself with
self-proclaimed anti-Roman zealots? His disciples are refered to as zealots
in no less than 9 different ways, which attests to A) the various political
factions (See Life of Brian, People's Popular Front scene) and B) that the
Bible was written for a Roman audience, disguising the anti-Roman
sentiments. Remember, in Judaism, religion and politics ARE THE SAME THING.
  He was a religious therefore political usurper.

>However little we know about the historical Jesus, we know far less about
>his followers during his life. Probably some of his followers were rebels,
>as you say, since they were probably quite common and there was something
>very rebellious about what Jesus was doing. But it seems to me unlikely
>that many of his closest followers were really political rebels, and it
>seems to me that your claim (that it was "virtually all") certainly cannot
>be validated.
>

Come on! Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot, he was even crucified with 2
other zealots, which, incidentally was the ONLY reason that you could be
crucified, to be an enemy of the Roman state. If you fall for this twaddle
about them crucifying him because the Jews wanted it, you haven't been
paying attention.
1) If the Jews wanted him dead, they could, and would, have stoned him.
2) The Romans never did anything that their occupied peoples told them to.
3) The story about Pilot asking whicxh one to set free is a myth. The
Romans never did any such thing
4) We know this because the Romans were such good record keepers, that's why
after the fall it's called the Dark Ages, because no one was keeping good
records.
5) Therefore, we also know that the 4 gospels were written with ignorance of
Jewish law and with a pro-Roiman slant, leaving them blameless.

>Also:
><< Judas Iscariot was so called because he was a "Sicarius", a carrier of
>an
>assassin's knife. >>
>
>This is probably so often claimed because it is so interesting and
>provocative, but unfortunately, it is probably untrue. It would be an
>unusual Greek corruption of the Latin, which itself would not eliminate it
>as a possibility but for the naturalness of the Greek corruption into
>Iskariôth (or, as it often is, Iskariôtés) from the Hebrew Ish Qrayoth,
>which means, much less provocatively, Man of Cities. (Or, since this is a
>rare word for city, it is certainly possible that it was a proper
>village-name, Man from Karioth -- "Qriyoth" is in fact identified as a
>village in southern Judah in Joshua 15.25)
>
>This all remains, as etymologies most always do, uncertain; though the
>latter seems to me more plausible than the former.

Your resaerch isn't up to date. Because of the spelling, and compared to
other documents that have been found that refer to the Sicarius, it is
almost certain that Judas was an at least would-be assassin.

>
>And:
><< Jesus, despite the watering down that the Holy Roman Empire gave him,
>was
>a rebel and a defier of Rome. He was killed because he, as a Benjamite,
>and
>also from the house of David had a legitimate claim to the throne, and was
>killed for it. A pacifist, he was not. >>
>
>Again, I am skeptical of claims that Jesus defied Rome. If his execution
>was the result of defiance, it seems to me more likely that it was defiance
>of local religious authorities. John suggests that the chief priests
>wanted
>him dead because they perceived a risk that the people would make him king
>in spite of himself, whether he wanted to be or not, and that Rome would
>then destroy them all. But it isn't clear.
>
>Of course, Rome DID destroy them all only a few decades later. And there
>were other rebels, before and after Jesus. It also is not clear that he
>really did have a legitimate (or Davidic) claim to the throne. There might
>even be the subtle suggestion that he was, or was suspected of being, a
>bastard.
>
>-robbie

1) Jesus surrounded himself with zealots.
2) where his bloodline came ferom is unimportant, what matters is the CLAIM
to royalty
3) He claimed royalty, which was an automatic threat to Rome, therefore,
ipso facto, he himself was a rebel, and by definition, a zealot.
4) The Pharases were villified in the Bible, because, as any good Jew could
tell you, Jesus taught Pharasitic thought. The Sadducees were
collaborators, like the Vichy regime under the Nazis. As were the
Sanhedran, who were the religious power. The Sanhedran and Sadducees were
right, of course, in that any rebellion would be crushed like bugs under the
Roman boot.
"all for now" tina

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH