The Secret Message

by Nazarene 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Nazarene

  of Jesus, the title of a book written by one Brian McLaren, inspired me to tread into a possibly divisive issue with all you all geniuses. In it the author espouses his opinions that Jesus' walk had been a mainly poltical example of how to contned with Roman domination. Isreal had been occupied for centuries but at least they could still worship Yahweh. Yeshua offers to the Jews and Gentiles alike a fifth strategy, that all of us who are occupied by materialistic forces this day can relate to, in light of the Essene, Pharisee, Saducee, and Zealot societies to which Jews all gravitated around.

  The Essenes response to Roman domination had been one of flight -- leave the populated areas for their own communes. The Pharisees said Jehovah, err Yahweh was displeased with the ignorant evildoers of their society becuase their way were not Godly, and though they'd best be excluded from their purest circle of law-abiding faithful. Saducees mostly went along with the existing regime -- an appeasement strategy; the Zealots opposed this for violent rebellion. The theme is He correctly prophesized the Romans would crush the Zealot rebellion and had always taught peaceful loving means of resistance would prevail best for them. The great to the poor should've been unified fom the message, instead they remained divided in their opposition, for the most part.

  There is another important difference to be considered about Jesus that I will not consider for now. I am not a Witness but study with them. Its true that nothing has been mentioned about this to me from the congregation, but I understand the faith is inherently non-political. Would it not be true then, the Watchtower would scorn an appraisal of Jesus such as this?

  Well, maybe I will also put it out that a minor opinion of Mr. McLaren has it that Revelation was typical Jewish apocalyptic writing created in a reponse to the Roman's potential oppression of Christian criticism of the regime's leaders Deifying themselves and that the times of tribulation so symbolically written about had in fact already taken place by 70 A.D. Am I guilty of an anchronism by following this interpretation? I have to agree with the author that it was also a counsel of warning that goes on to apply today, but should not be considered a scripted outcome that we are expecting to befall us. Heed the warning and do all in your power to prevent apocalypse.
• 

  yaddayadda

  I hate seeing newbies get totally ignored so just saying hello Nazarene. Sorry that I have nothing to say about the subject at hand.
• 

  ozziepost

  such sentences long so Blue much!

  um....dunno
• 

  Terry

  Judaism was a splintered faith and so is Christianity mainly because nobody can agree much on anything even when they share the same source premise.

  Look at Islam today and it has a rift right down the middle as well which parallels the other great monotheistic religions. Human nature asserts itself constantly.

  Tribal, family and religious disagreements are one source of conflict. The other is pressure from outside forces. The crucible that kept Judiasm (and later, Christianity) together was persecution. At least, long enough to become something inescapably defining as a people.

  Jesus was just one more in a series of men who popped up from time to time with a genius for attracting attention. Personal charisma and a penchant for dealing with tired issues in a fresh way often propel men into leadership and martyrdom.

  Our problem today is trying to wash off the accretions of legend and mythmaking which have overlaid the core trace of the actual person of Jesus.

  People create what they need in their own mind and then attribute unstintingly.

  Jews needed religious breathing room from not only the Roman occupation, but; from sell-out Jewish leadership. "Purity" issues were foremost on the list of "pissed-off" controversies. Radical elements went off in two different: FLIGHT and FIGHT.

  It was the__middle way__that Jesus seemed to offer to those who wanted to preserve a workable solution: TRANSCENDANCE.

  Instead of fighting the Romans to set up a Messianic government; Jesus could be God's government on earth by merely "thinking" (i.e. "believing") your way there and co-existing with your enemies in a superlative lifestyle. Exemplary peacemaking was the key. (Embarassingly, Jesus utterly failed at this.)

  Paul retro-fitted Hebrew religious and historical writings onto this Jesus as Transcendant Messiah to create a workable transcendant figure for Gentiles as well that gave a cachet of authenticity and ancient gravitas of universality to his messege.

  At the death of Jesus the bifurcation continued. The fanatics continued provoking military reprisals, the ascetics insulated themselves in the desert, and; the followers of Jesus built a be-all/end-all Messiah for themselves to believe in.

  Judaism is still filled with hangers-on. Christianity is a kaleidoscope of crazy opinions pretending to be a unity. Each of us here is a victim of the overwhelming power of these ideas.
• 

  El Kabong

  Not really sure of what you are trying to say. Actually, I personally know the author as I used to attend his community church where he was/is the pastor after I left the witnesses. I found Brian to be a highly intelligent individual, although I didn't agree with some of his interpretations of the bible. But, Brian was very sensitive of the issues that I faced after leaving the witnesses, and helped me a great deal.
• 

  Narkissos

  To those who still believe in the possibility of (re-)constructing a "historical Jesus" distinct but not too far from the NT pictures this sounds like a reasonably valid possibility -- which reminds of J.P. Meier's among others. But it still implies a lot of "picking and choosing" within the NT material which is massively pro-Roman (with the notable exception of Revelation) and anti-Jewish (with almost no exception).

  You'll get an idea of the wide spectrum of opinions on this topic at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
• 

  yaddayadda

  On the contrary. NT scholars are beginning to realise that the hope of excavating some kind of genuinely historical Jesus underneath the so-called layers of redactions and myth is a forlorn hope. This whole paradigm has been hopelessly flawed. The gospels are not an archaeological dig.
  
  It's been tried for about 150 years and all thats emerged are piles of theories and postulations about who Jesus supposedly really was, most of them all contradicting each other and largely the product of scholastic imagination than anything else. Many useful insights have been made but ultimately it's got us nowhere.
  
  The scholarly consensus is towards the painful realisation that the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith can't be separated. There is growing body of compelling evidence that the synoptic gospels are collections of real, eyewitness testimony and that they are a form of ancient biography. They utilised certain literary methods and conventions of the times, but that hardly makes them 'pro-Roman' or simply fictional literature, like a novel. These theories have been discarded.
  
  You either choose to believe what is in the NT or you don't. If you are completely faithless than you must choose the latter and give up the vain hope that the 'real' Jesus will one day be discovered.
• 

  Nazarene

  By contrast we lucky ones in the time space continuum live in a participatory democracy and even if it is not perfect is there any real reason for the JW to be so apolitical? I mean it is one thing to not try to influence political events but to actually attribute it all to the Devils and demons is not unlike being part of the problem, thus perpetuating the vices Jesus sought to undermine. The unwashed victims of the world look up to us to save them. Since Jehovah can and does make judgments upon groups of people effective on earth, I would not hesitate to become as politically active as possible in the realm of world peace and justice.
• 

  Narkissos

  Good point Nazarene. Not only the Bible texts are not nearly as "apolitical" (or politically "neutral") as the WT suggests; none of them was written from the perspective of nominal, actual or potential democracy which implies completely different ethical issues and responsibility. As a result, it is quite delusional to expect anything more specific than general inspiration or principles for commitment (or the lack thereof) in our modern context. The responsibility is ours and we can't shift it on the Bible.

  This reminds me of the following illustration once given by some (Evangelical!) preacher about "Bible authority": suppose you have the first three acts of an unfinished play and you have to write the last one. How would what is already written be an authority for further writing? You could look for inspiration, check it regularly for narrative consistency, but you'd still have to invent the rest -- which will necessarily, in turn, cast a new light on the extant part. And you'd better be creative than purely submissive if you don't want to spoil it.