Reza Aslan (author, "Zealot: the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth") interview on TYT

by adamah 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  adamah

  Hello,

  Reza Aslan (author of "Zealot: the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth") makes a few points during an interview on 'The Young Turks' that really deserve their own thread.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL6E4eMX-4k

  His main point often missed by modern-day believers is that the writers of the Gospels weren't even attempting to write an accurate historical account (which is a modern concept) but instead seeking to convey truths (truisms) via Jesus' use of parables and the story of his life and death. Only later did Hellenized Christians apply the Greek concept of searching for factual correctness to "iron out" discrepancies in the account and in Church doctrines.

  In that light, Jesus is best viewed as being analous to a cartoon Superhero, a highly-fictionalized character based on reality (eg Spiderman is premised on spiders and men, both which exist) who's special power is his ability to deliver paradoxical parables.

  (the parables weren't "universal truths", eg 'turn the other cheek' is obviously NOT smart advice when someone just shot at you but only caused a flesh wound; you'll likely end up dead when they only aim more carefully and repeatedly shoot until they hit you).

  Adam
• 

  mP

  I think while jesus the character never existed the way the gospels describe, there is a lesson behind the text. by way of fraud the text is trying to convince the jews to turn away from their rebel leaders and accept rome. this is why there are so many pay your tax, and be a good slave stories. all romans in the story are presented as fair and never to blame. we have the absurd situation where the jewish people are blamed for executing jesus. i there are many puns for example in the story that tell us this.

  the end of the world for the wicket rebellious jews was the warning that vespasian would come to seek roman vengance. titus was the son of god, the emperor was a god in the ancient world. he literally ruled the roman world. all the caesars were also officiall y declared devine by the senate.

  iscariot = sicarri.

  joseph of arimathea = jospehus ben matthais.
• 

  Phizzy

  I think that what you say is particularly evident in the Gospel of Matthew mP.

  When this gospel was composed, probably by more than one man, and probably in a room filled with the smoke of oil lamps in Jerusalem during the 80's or early 90's of the 1st century, there was an urgent need to replace the Temple centric religion of pre 70CE with something that would stop the complete disappearance of Jewish religion and culture.

  By manufacturing a Messiah who welded together those eras, by fulfilling the prophecies seemingly about him, ("Matthew" applies much from the O.T that is not messianic at all, and makes it seem as though it was, often by the WT method of changing a few words or their meaning), it was hoped that a new cult would keep all that these Jewish men held dear from being subsumed by the influence of Rome.

  They probably did not forsee at all the evolution of "Christianity" into a new religion, one that now has reached the point where all that those 1st Century Jewish guys held dear is an embarassment to Christians, who play down the connection to the O.T as much as possible.
• 

  mP

  Phizzy:

  I would suggest that you read about the bloody and violence and passion that many jewish people back then had against rome and the rest of the empire. If you thought muslims today particularly the suicide bombers and other fanatics were bad, they were nothing compared to the jews. Im not picking on them im just highlighting we today are generally quite soft compared to the ancients. they were passionate, cruel and often deadly.

  Rome realised that religion was the motivator and the jewish religion with its hatred of gentiles, and belief in the separate kingdom and a messiah was a deadly mix that caused the violence i mentioned above. rome had to change this. One form of punishment was to destroy the temple and ban jews from judea for centuries. They even renamed it palestine.
• 

  Rose Mary

  No wonder people come out with such things about Jesus! Many things Jesus supposedly did or said may have been true. Yet things like Mathew 24:45-51 and Luke 12:47-48 would not have been spoken by Jesus, because they openly validate slavery, the most inhuman practice we have ever known—something that is against the very cause Jesus stands for.—Mathew 5:44-48
• 

  mP

  Rose

  5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies , bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

  mP:

  Given the jews hated the Romans and were fighting against them, this sounds like a perfect thing for a Roman puppet master have jesus say.

  Rose

  something that is against the very cause Jesus stands for.

  mP:

  As i have shown, you have invented a loving jesus, he said lots of other disturbing things that are not quite as beautiful as you make out. If you examine everything jesus said theres one consistent theme. Everything he said was to help his roman masters. as y9ou have pointed out some other scriptures about slavery are contrary to loveable jesus but perfectly compatible with jesus the roman stooge.
• 

  adamah

  It really begs the question of what did the Gospels say, before someone with an agenda got a hold of it (that is, if it even DID have an original message)? And WHEN did it happen?

  I have no problem seeing the Gospel accounts of Jesus being penned by those who agreed with the Romans, and wanted to squelch the longstanding Roman-Jewish wars which took 1 millio lives, and had boiled up over 70 yrs (70CE/130CE) led by violent Jewish messiahs such as Bar Kochba. Judas Iscariot is depicted in a negative light as such a zealot, who was rebuked by Jesus. Who does that kind of message serve, if not the Romans, who wanted Jews to accept a newly-syncretized religion created by Hellenlized Jews that was based on the tradition of Judaism?

  Adam
• 

  slimboyfat

  I am not convinced this book would be so popular apart from one infamous interview the author gave on Fox. Does this book really have merit above the many other books on the historical Jesus that come out each year? I have a whole load of books by scholars like Maurice Casey, John Dominic Crossan and others I would read first.
• 

  adamah

  SBF said-

  I am not convinced this book would be so popular apart from one infamous interview the author gave on Fox. Does this book really have merit above the many other books on the historical Jesus that come out each year?

  I had heard about him and his book before the Faux interview (I read other interviews/reviews), but a publicity stunt couldn't have planned any better than the Faux interview, since it hit #1 shortly thereafter.

  I have a whole load of books by scholars like Maurice Casey, John Dominic Crossan and others I would read first.

  Why would read those, if you already read them?

  If you're already familiar with the basic information surrounding what is known about the life of Jesus, you're not likely going to find anything particularly new in his book, since it's a resynthetization of the same basic info. However, the guy has a great writing style and presentation, and I suppose whether anyone find his arguments compelling will be up to the individual reader.

  Adam
• 

  mP

  adamah

  It really begs the question of what did the Gospels say, before someone with an agenda got a hold of it (that is, if it even DID have an original message)? And WHEN did it happen?

  mP:

  What reason do you have that the gospels were altered other than the goodwill inside your heart ? This is repeated by many that try and claim that hte gospels werw written in Aramaic when all the oldest copies are in Greek. The only sensible conclusion is they were written in Greek which in itself is an embarrassment for any that claim somehow they were written by eye witnesses. The fact that the gospels have geographic mistakes further explains the texts are not from locals.

  We can only read the text for what it says. That is the simplest conclusion.

  It makes more sense to say the gospels were invented by non jews most likely romans. Gods have been invented by rulers for a long time. Serapis was extremely popular in Egypt even though it appears many knew he was invented.