Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Aris Jesus as temple/church: Preparing the temple for the apocalypse

Expand Messages
  • aris hobeth
    The body of Christ dogma indeed says that Jesus is now alive and available to those who call on Him. Likewise, those who do not call on Him, may have
    Message 1 of 40 , Feb 1, 2012
      The "body of Christ" dogma indeed says that Jesus is now alive and available to those who call on Him. Likewise, those who do not call on Him, may have dealings with Him disguised as the "least of the bretheran." In other words, we may be entertaining Jesus (or angels) unawares. When the Temple veil was torn in two, the members became divided into believers and non-believers. Likewise when Luther ripped the church in two, believers became divided.
       
      After Jesus died and resurrected, He overcame death and never needs to reincarnate to die again. Sincerely, Aris M. Hobeth

      --- On Tue, 1/31/12, Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...> wrote:


      From: Dora Smith <tiggernut24@...>
      Subject: Re: ABH Aris: Preparing the temple for the apocalypse
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 11:10 AM



       



      1st paragraph is an interesting idea.  It's actually the first one I've seen that makes sense.  It would be interesting if the priests understood it however.  Their quotes of that statement suggest they understood the statement more literally.   If they understood it correctly it would speak to the popularity of the dead and rising god story and also that it was even more widely understood in that time and place than I think it was. 

      They would have to think Jesus meant to say, not that he was the Messiah, but that he would die and return to life in 3 days.   This honor was saved for Greece's and Rome's greatest heroes, LOL!  Also, not that he was God, but that he was A god, and son of the head of the pagan pantheon.  Roman soldiers and the temple priests hardly gave Jesus that kind of credit.  I seriously doubt many people thought of the notion before Jesus' death.

      "body of Christ" refers to something very different, and it's post resurrection theology, not pre-resurrection theology.  In Luther's time the mythological merger of Jesus and Mithras, Apollo, and Hercules, among others, is basic theology rather than a far fetched idea that noone had becuase the people doing the thinking had their minds in very different places and Jesus wasn't dead yet.

      Dora

      --- On Tue, 1/31/12, aris hobeth <ahobeth@...> wrote:

      From: aris hobeth <ahobeth@...>
      Subject: ABH Aris: Preparing the temple for the apocalypse
      To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 7:29 AM

       

      Jesus said "destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it." He clearly referred to His body, and His approaching execution. And the high priests knew it. They then conspired to make Him "prove it." He did.

       

      When Jesus chased the money-changers out of the Temple, He said "MY house is a house of prayer, and you have made it a den of thieves."

       

      Recall that Christians consider the Church to be the "Body of Christ". And the outrage which occured at the church "selling" indulgences. Luther got the idea. And so did the Catholic priests who, despite their many sins, knew they had to repent and reform.

       

      Sincerely, Aris M. Hobeth

      --- On Mon, 1/30/12, LM Barre <l_barre@...> wrote:

      From: LM Barre <l_barre@...>

      Subject: Re: ABH Re: Preparing the temple for the apocalypse

      To: "AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com" <AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com>

      Date: Monday, January 30, 2012, 5:20 PM

       

      Perhaps Jesus thought that the temple business was overcome with greed.

       

      LM Barre', PhD

      http://www.freewebs.com/lmbarre

       

      >________________________________

      > From: saintxmas <saintxmas@...>

      >To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com

      >Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:56 AM

      >Subject: ABH Re: Preparing the temple for the apocalypse

      >

      >



      >The money changers of the temple were conducting

      >legitimate temple business as mandated in Exodus

      >30:15; worshippers had to obtain the "correct change"

      >

      >

      >Exodus 30:15 :

      >

      >" The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel when they give an offering unto the LORD to make an atonement for your souls"

      >

      >Rod N

      >

      >

      >

      >

      >

      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dora Smith
      I agree. Paul sometimes (though not all that often) gets way too much credit. He himself refers to extensive competition from alternative views. In order
      Message 40 of 40 , Feb 18, 2012
        I agree. Paul sometimes (though not all that often) gets way too much
        credit. He himself refers to extensive competition from alternative
        views. In order for Christianity to have spread far enough to reach
        him, it must have spread atleast through northern Palestine and parts of
        Anatolia.

        I think that it was massive human need in a Hellenic context that
        converted Jesus the Messianic prophet acting in the social justice/
        Nazirite tradition, into a pagan dead and rising god, and merged the
        mystical cults with Judaism. On both sides, the old gods were dying,
        neither faith system could work by itself, the world was in spiritual
        crisis, and something new had to be born. Judaism probably provided
        the catalyst because it was there, and rather good at mobilizing and
        appealing to pagans.

        Dora

        On 2/8/2012 9:34 PM, ahmad shafaat wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Holly,
        >
        > In the time of Paul there were many other Christian leaders, preachers
        > who were riding on and modifying the ripples created by Jesus. He
        > cannot therefore be called the creator of the "ripples" (all
        > traditions, ideas and activities that were created from the Jesus
        > story). He for example did not have much to do with the creation of
        > the vast gospel tradition, although a part of this gospel tradition
        > were later modified in the light of his interpretation of Jesus.
        >
        > As for Constantine, Christianity had survived and thrived for about
        > three centuries before him. So how could he be the creator of the
        > "ripples"? He shaped to a great extent its future history but cannot
        > be called its creator. Nor is it very plausible that someone could
        > destroy all traditions and documents where Jesus, according to
        > you, was presented as the Samaritan prophet who revolted against the
        > Romans. All kinds of ideas rejected by mainstream Christianity have
        > survived. Suppression of the most important action of Jesus' career --
        > his revolt as the Samaritan prophet -- would be impossible, if it is
        > indeed historical. In this connection it is not sufficient to claim,
        > as you do, that "certain references to Jesus as a Zealot leader ...
        > survived in a few Gospel references." We should expect much clearer
        > references to him as the Samaritan prophet-rebel.
        >
        > Here there arise other related questions: many of Jesus' closest and
        > most faithful followers are expected to be with him during his
        > Samaritan revolt, especially those who are considered zealots. How
        > is it that so many of them survived and public lives for years? Why
        > did they not remain true their cause like their Zealot leader?
        >
        > You wrote: "As I explained earlier, Judas did not abandon Jesus. He
        > was part of a plot to make sure his leader escaped safely to Galilee."
        >
        > We have to read in-between the line, but can we read so much
        > in-between them?
        >
        > You wrote: "Jesus would never have given a disciple of his a Roman name."
        >
        > Why not? He could go such lengths for his cause that he could turn one
        > of his followers to prend to be a betrayor and allow his twin to be
        > subjected to cruel death on the cross. Giving a Roman name to someone
        > is something relatively minor matter, if it helped his cause.
        >
        > You wrote: "I don't think Jesus would have given up his Messianic
        > mission so easily. I think he would have 'gone down with the ship' ...
        > It seems to me that he would have remained to the end true to his cause."
        >
        > For the sake of argument, let us assume that Jesus' cause was to end
        > the Roman occupation of Palestine by military means. Being true to
        > one's cause did not exclude facing realities. Jesus may well have seen
        > that militarily he could not achieve anything at that time. So he may
        > have gone into exile, to return at a future more opportune time. This
        > is similar to your view that Jesus faced the fact that he could not do
        > much in Judea and so he decided to take on the Romans in Samaria.
        >
        > Have a nice day!
        > Shafaat
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Ahmad:
        >
        > It is all about explaining history in some scientific way, which
        > assumes that
        > certain types of events create certain types of "ripples" in history. The
        > ripples that Jesus created are simply not of the type that zealot-type
        > militants
        > create.
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > The ripple in history was not created by Jesus, but by Paul of Tarsus
        > and Constantine. Paul was responsible for turning Jesus the Zealot
        > into a demiurgus who was proof of the resurrection. Constantine
        > finished the job by destroying all literature that portrayed Jesus as
        > anything but a self-sacrificing pacifist who died for the forgiveness
        > of sins, which was contrary to Deut 24:16. This portrayal aided in
        > pacifying the Christians movement (mostly Gentiles converted from
        > various Asian and European cults) whose allegiance was switched from
        > worship of the emporer to worship of the "king of the Jews." (The NT
        > literature promised resurrection, something that was absent from the
        > imperial cult). Paul was a Roman who had an interest in the continuing
        > occpation of Palestine. He was a Pharisee son of a Pharisee (Acts
        > 23:6) which explains his committment to the triumph of Roman
        > authority. The Pharisees were ardent Roman collaborators.
        >
        > Ahmad wrote:
        >
        > You mentioned Judas of Galilee, one of the founders of Zealot party. His
        > movement vanished from history within a century. We do not know of
        > any other
        > Zealot-type rebel leader whose movement survived as an enduring religious
        > movement. In ancient times movements rarely lost their basic character. A
        > militant movement remained militant until it vanished.
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > The Zealot movement just didn't appear with the Roman occupation. The
        > true origin of the Zealot movement was the Maccabean revolt against
        > the Seleucids. The Zealots took up where the Maccabees left off. The
        > Maccabean victory over the Seleucids is commemorated to this day as
        > the feast of Hanukkah which has been celebrated since the rededication
        > of the 2nd temple in the 2nd Century BCE. Jesus was a part of this
        > tradition of revolt against an occupying authority which did not allow
        > the implementation of the Torah as the law of the land. The tradition
        > of revolt ended with the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt. It was at
        > this time that the Talmud was redacted to downplay the Maccabean
        > heritage so as not to antagonize the victorious Roman authority.
        >
        > Ahmad wrote:
        > Â
        > Judas may well be a sicarii but he abandoned Jesus. Simon may well be
        > zealot
        > but in the decades he lived after Jesus we do not see him behaving in
        > any zealot
        > way.  Â
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > As I explained earlier, Judas did not abandon Jesus. He was part of a
        > plot to make sure his leader escaped safely to Galilee. As for Simon
        > the Zealot, there is good evidence that he was the one a gospel
        > interpolator had renamed Peter. Jesus would never have given a
        > disciple of his a Roman name. Such an act would have amounted to
        > treason, which brings one to reflect on Saul's name change and his
        > motives for advertising himself as a Roman citizen.
        >
        > Ahmad wrote:
        > Â
        > If I recall correctly, in an earlier email you mentioned that after
        > his escape
        > from Jersalem, Jesus went back to Galilee and then he fought with the
        > Romans and
        > that he is the unnamed Samaritan prophet as recorded by Josephus.
        > This raises
        > the question: if the tradition did not forget that Simon was a zealot
        > and Judas
        > a sicarii, how could it forget such an event in the life of Jesus as the
        > Samaritan revolt which even found a way in Josephus?
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > The revolt on Mount Gerizim was not forgotten as it was recorded by
        > Josephus who was descended from a line of Jewish royalty who were also
        > priests. He was a rebel who led a failed offensive against the Romans
        > in the first Jewish Roman war. His companions all committed suicide.
        > He lived, surrendered to the Romans, became a Roman citizen and was
        > granted accomadation in Roman ruled Judea. He was regarded as a
        > traitor by subsequent Jewish historians and his works were banned.
        > Josephus' specific reference to the gospel events describing Jesus in
        > his Antiquities are highly debatable as accurate history. I suggest
        > that the only authentic reference to Jesus is his brief reference to
        > the Samaritan Prophet. Josephus' description of the Samaritan prophet
        > as a liar and a rabel rouser is just what one would expect from a turn
        > coat whose whole effort was to portray himself as a truly converted
        > Roman citizen. At the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, the Romans had
        > twenty years previously put down the revolt in which Josephus
        > partcipated as a rebel. The Romans were now facing an increasingly
        > agitated Judean poplace and Paul's mission to the Gentiles had bred
        > disatisfaction with adherence to the imperial cult; a consequence
        > unforseen by Paul who, like Josephus, was a loyal Roman citizen drawn
        > from the Jerusalem temple cult. Paul's interpretation of Jesus the
        > demiurgus played well into the hands of Constantine who burned all
        > literature that did not agree with this interpretation. However,
        > certain references to Jesus as a Zealot leader (as was Josephus before
        > his patriotism turned Roman) survived in a few Gospel references. I
        > think references to these passages are not "proof texting." I think
        > they are remanents of the true role of Jesus as a rebel Messiah.
        >
        > Ahamd wrote:
        > Â
        > There is part of your reconstruction with which I agree: Jesus was not
        > crucified
        > but managed to escapre. He went back to Galilee and met with some of his
        > followers. These meetings later became "resurrection appearances" when
        > crucifiction was added in Jesus story. But it was clear to Jesus that
        > there is
        > no way he can continue his mission in person. So he disappears or goes
        > into
        > exile. His decision was a wise one. His disappearance enhanced
        > people's interest
        > in him and he became the subject of "people talk" which has not ceased
        > to this
        > day. Maybe this was part of Jesus' deliberate plan.
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > I don't think Jesus would have given up his Messianic mission so
        > easily. I think he would have "gone down with the ship" as did Simon
        > Bar Kochba. I certainly do not think that he would have become another
        > Saul/Paul or Falvius/Josephus either or gone into hiding. It seems to
        > me that he would have remained to the end true to his cause.
        >
        > Take Care
        > Holly
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Holly <gmrf@... <mailto:gmrf%40yahoo.com>>
        > To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2012 12:32:30 PM
        > Subject: ABH Re: Preparing the temple for the apocalypse
        >
        >
        > Hey Ahmad:
        >
        > Ahmad wrote:
        >
        > It is all about explaining history in some scientific way, which
        > assumes that
        > certain types of events create certain types of "ripples" in history. The
        > ripples that Jesus created are simply not of the type that zealot-type
        > militants
        > create.
        > end quote
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > The ripple in history was not created by Jesus, but by Paul of Tarsus
        > and Constantine. Paul was responsible for turning Jesus the Zealot
        > into a demiurgus who was proof of the resurrection. Constantine
        > finished the job by destroying all literature that portrayed Jesus as
        > anything but a self-sacrificing pacifist who died for the forgiveness
        > of sins, which was contrary to Deut 24:16. This portrayal aided in
        > pacifying the Christians movement (mostly Gentiles converted from
        > various Asian and European cults) whose allegiance was switched from
        > worship of the emporer to worship of the "king of the Jews." (The NT
        > literature promised resurrection, something that was absent from the
        > imperial cult). Paul was a Roman who had an interest in the continuing
        > occpation of Palestine. He was a Pharisee son of a Pharisee (Acts
        > 23:6) which explains his committment to the triumph of Roman
        > authority. The Pharisees were ardent Roman collaborators.
        >
        > Ahmad wrote:
        >
        > You mentioned Judas of Galilee, one of the founders of Zealot party. His
        > movement vanished from history within a century. We do not know of
        > any other
        > Zealot-type rebel leader whose movement survived as an enduring religious
        > movement. In ancient times movements rarely lost their basic character. A
        > militant movement remained militant until it vanished.
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > The Zealot movement just didn't appear with the Roman occupation. The
        > true origin of the Zealot movement was the Maccabean revolt against
        > the Seleucids. The Zealots took up where the Maccabees left off. The
        > Maccabean victory over the Seleucids is commemorated to this day as
        > the feast of Hanukkah which has been celebrated since the rededication
        > of the 2nd temple in the 2nd Century BCE. Jesus was a part of this
        > tradition of revolt against an occupying authority which did not allow
        > the implementation of the Torah as the law of the land. The tradition
        > of revolt ended with the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt. It was at
        > this time that the Talmud was redacted to downplay the Maccabean
        > heritage so as not to antagonize the victorious Roman authority.
        >
        > Ahmad wrote:
        > Â
        > Judas may well be a sicarii but he abandoned Jesus. Simon may well be
        > zealot
        > but in the decades he lived after Jesus we do not see him behaving in
        > any zealot
        > way.  Â
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > As I explained earlier, Judas did not abandon Jesus. He was part of a
        > plot to make sure his leader escaped safely to Galilee. As for Simon
        > the Zealot, there is good evidence that he was the one a gospel
        > interpolator had renamed Peter. Jesus would never have given a
        > disciple of his a Roman name. Such an act would have amounted to
        > treason, which brings one to reflect on Saul's name change and his
        > motives for advertising himself as a Roman citizen.
        >
        > Ahmad wrote:
        > Â
        > If I recall correctly, in an earlier email you mentioned that after
        > his escape
        > from Jersalem, Jesus went back to Galilee and then he fought with the
        > Romans and
        > that he is the unnamed Samaritan prophet as recorded by Josephus.
        > This raises
        > the question: if the tradition did not forget that Simon was a zealot
        > and Judas
        > a sicarii, how could it forget such an event in the life of Jesus as the
        > Samaritan revolt which even found a way in Josephus?
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > The revolt on Mount Gerizim was not forgotten as it was recorded by
        > Josephus who was descended from a line of Jewish royalty who were also
        > priests. He was a rebel who led a failed offensive against the Romans
        > in the first Jewish Roman war. His companions all committed suicide.
        > He lived, surrendered to the Romans, became a Roman citizen and was
        > granted accomadation in Roman ruled Judea. He was regarded as a
        > traitor by subsequent Jewish historians and his works were banned.
        > Josephus' specific reference to the gospel events describing Jesus in
        > his Antiquities are highly debatable as accurate history. I suggest
        > that the only authentic reference to Jesus is his brief reference to
        > the Samaritan Prophet. Josephus' description of the Samaritan prophet
        > as a liar and a rabel rouser is just what one would expect from a turn
        > coat whose whole effort was to portray himself as a truly converted
        > Roman citizen. At the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, the Romans had
        > twenty years previously put down the revolt in which Josephus
        > partcipated as a rebel. The Romans were now facing an increasingly
        > agitated Judean poplace and Paul's mission to the Gentiles had bred
        > disatisfaction with adherence to the imperial cult; a consequence
        > unforseen by Paul who, like Josephus, was a loyal Roman citizen drawn
        > from the Jerusalem temple cult. Paul's interpretation of Jesus the
        > demiurgus played well into the hands of Constantine who burned all
        > literature that did not agree with this interpretation. However,
        > certain references to Jesus as a Zealot leader (as was Josephus before
        > his patriotism turned Roman) survived in a few Gospel references. I
        > think references to these passages are not "proof texting." I think
        > they are remanents of the true role of Jesus as a rebel Messiah.
        >
        > Ahamd wrote:
        > Â
        > There is part of your reconstruction with which I agree: Jesus was not
        > crucified
        > but managed to escapre. He went back to Galilee and met with some of his
        > followers. These meetings later became "resurrection appearances" when
        > crucifiction was added in Jesus story. But it was clear to Jesus that
        > there is
        > no way he can continue his mission in person. So he disappears or goes
        > into
        > exile. His decision was a wise one. His disappearance enhanced
        > people's interest
        > in him and he became the subject of "people talk" which has not ceased
        > to this
        > day. Maybe this was part of Jesus' deliberate plan.
        >
        > Holly replies:
        >
        > I don't think Jesus would have given up his Messianic mission so
        > easily. I think he would have "gone down with the ship" as did Simon
        > Bar Kochba. I certainly do not think that he would have become another
        > Saul/Paul or Falvius/Josephus either or gone into hiding. It seems to
        > me that he would have remained to the end true to his cause.
        >
        > Take Care
        > Holly
        > Â
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.