More questions for Reza Aslan:
What made the followers of Y'shua of Nazareth so different from the followers of Judas the Galilean, Menahem, Simon son of Giora, Simon son of Kochba and the rest of the revolutionary messiahs, that they would remain loyal to Y'shua's "cause" after his death, for decades and centuries?
If the gospels contain so much fiction, why did people believe it? (I know, I asked this before, but it seems so relevant.)
How could the gospel writers, and a presumed author of a supposed Q document, have adopted the imagery of the Son of Man from 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra (apocryphal works) when they were written decades after the gospels? Isn't more likely 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra adopted the imagery from the gospels? After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the Jewish faith practices were being revised in order to adapt to the inability of Temple sacrifices and making the synagogues more central to the practice of the faith. Couldn't it be that their understanding of the messiah, Son of God and Son of Man also was modified in response to the Temple destruction? Also, most of Paul's writings were done before the Temple destruction. There are many scholars who think even the Revelation of John was written before the Temple destruction, because it refers to measuring the Temple (Revelation 11.1ff) and Jerusalem's destruction.
Why would the early followers of Y'shua of Nazareth continue preaching to the Jews primarily (Acts 11.19) if they couldn't back up their messianic claims scripturally, as Aslan claims, and the Jews would laughed them out of the synagogues? They wouldn't have been very successful. Having sold all of their possessions (Acts 4.32ff). Even the most inept CEO's and missionaries wouldn't continue with the same strategy for decades if their revenue stream dried up.
Are you sure the scriptures don't talk about a resurrected Messiah? Even the Talmud (rabbinical teachings) equate some figurative passages with the Messiah, perhaps not unlike Y'shua walking with two disciples to Emmaus: 'Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Isaac, "Have you heard when Bar Naphle (son of the fallen) will come?" He said to him, "Who is Bar Naphle?" He answered, "The Messiah." The other asked, "Do you call the Messiah Bar Naphle?" He replied, "I do because it is written, 'In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen' (Amos 9.11)." (Sanh. 96b) Similar Talmudic interpretations of the name of the Messiah occur regarding Genesis 49.10 (Shiloh), Psalm 72.17 (Jinnon), Jeremiah 41.13 (Chaninah), Lamentations 1.16 (Menachem), Isaiah 53.4 (leprous - stricken), Numbers 24.17 (Star - kochab thus messianic attributions were placed on Simon bar Kochba).
What droctinal difference separated the Jerusalem Jews and the Hellenistic Jews? It couldn't have been the resurrection. Look at Peter's and John's preaching in the Temple and before the Sanhedrin. Also it is acknowledged that Peter and John were uneducated (Acts 4.13) yet the Sanhedrin listened and Gamaliel cautioned the Sanhedrin not to oppose the movement because of its popularity (Acts 5.34-39).
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Sunday, September 15, 2013
They'll Know Us By Our T-Shirts
You've seen the signs and heard the rhetoric: "God hates..." Fill it in with your favorite enemy: homosexuals, Muslims, liberals, Republicans, gun-control freaks, environmentalists, polluters,... But does He?
You know the story of Jonah and his three-days in the belly of a fish. I bet you don't know the end of the story. Jonah makes a remarkable New Testament kind of statement for a Hebrew prophet. Paraphrasing him, he says, "I knew God that You would not destroy my enemy, the people that I hate, if they repented. I knew You were a God who cared for all people, not just us, your favorite ones. That's why I ran away and tried to die in the storm. I wish You would change Your mind again, and destroy these...(faggots, ragheads, child-spoilers, Wall Street scammers...). I will sit here until I die in the hope that You will wipe them out."
The end of the story has God comparing Jonah's love for a leafy plant, which he didn't plant/water/tend, with the city's 120,000 people made in God's image. "Shouldn't I feel sorry for such a great city?" And that's the end. We are left to answer the question. It's like the implied question at the end of the Prodigal Son parable: "We had to celebrate this happy day. For your brother was dead and has come back to life! He was lost, but now he is found. Won't you join me in the celebration?"
Jonah in a pout would say, "No!" to both questions. Jonah in his head says, "Yes, I said You were merciful, compassionate, slow to anger...Of course, You would feel sorry for a great city. Of course, I should join in the celebration of my lost brother." But there is very little precedence for this compassion on an enemy of Israel. The Hebrews were the favored nation. God made a covenant with them, that if they honored Him and obeyed all would be well, that if they repented God would once again turn His face to them. Did this apply to the hated Assyrians (homosexuals, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, etc.)?
Christ teaches that it does. Paul teaches that it does. Jonah teaches that it does. The question--"shouldn't I feel sorry for such a great city?"--is probably not really meant to teach Jonah, or the Ninevites. It's meant for Israel to answer the question. It's meant for Christ's followers to answer the question. We are to be the royal priesthood, a holy nation. We are to be a light to the world, because He is compassionate, merciful and slow to anger. God says the others are in spiritual darkness (they don't know right from wrong, think wrong is right, don't know what they're doing). When they come into the light, God welcomes them like a prodigal son. Christ pleaded for them, "Father, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing."
"Because we understand our fearful responsibility to the Lord, we work hard to persuade others...If it seems we are crazy, it is to bring glory to God. If we are in our right minds, it is for your benefit...since we believe that Christ died for all...He died for everyone so that those who receive His new life will no longer live for themselves. Instead they will live for Christ, who died and was raised for them. So we have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view."
Another question God could ask us, at the end of the book of Jonah is: "Who should I hate and not give a second chance?"
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (I John 4.8)
You know the story of Jonah and his three-days in the belly of a fish. I bet you don't know the end of the story. Jonah makes a remarkable New Testament kind of statement for a Hebrew prophet. Paraphrasing him, he says, "I knew God that You would not destroy my enemy, the people that I hate, if they repented. I knew You were a God who cared for all people, not just us, your favorite ones. That's why I ran away and tried to die in the storm. I wish You would change Your mind again, and destroy these...(faggots, ragheads, child-spoilers, Wall Street scammers...). I will sit here until I die in the hope that You will wipe them out."
The end of the story has God comparing Jonah's love for a leafy plant, which he didn't plant/water/tend, with the city's 120,000 people made in God's image. "Shouldn't I feel sorry for such a great city?" And that's the end. We are left to answer the question. It's like the implied question at the end of the Prodigal Son parable: "We had to celebrate this happy day. For your brother was dead and has come back to life! He was lost, but now he is found. Won't you join me in the celebration?"
Jonah in a pout would say, "No!" to both questions. Jonah in his head says, "Yes, I said You were merciful, compassionate, slow to anger...Of course, You would feel sorry for a great city. Of course, I should join in the celebration of my lost brother." But there is very little precedence for this compassion on an enemy of Israel. The Hebrews were the favored nation. God made a covenant with them, that if they honored Him and obeyed all would be well, that if they repented God would once again turn His face to them. Did this apply to the hated Assyrians (homosexuals, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, etc.)?
Christ teaches that it does. Paul teaches that it does. Jonah teaches that it does. The question--"shouldn't I feel sorry for such a great city?"--is probably not really meant to teach Jonah, or the Ninevites. It's meant for Israel to answer the question. It's meant for Christ's followers to answer the question. We are to be the royal priesthood, a holy nation. We are to be a light to the world, because He is compassionate, merciful and slow to anger. God says the others are in spiritual darkness (they don't know right from wrong, think wrong is right, don't know what they're doing). When they come into the light, God welcomes them like a prodigal son. Christ pleaded for them, "Father, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing."
"Because we understand our fearful responsibility to the Lord, we work hard to persuade others...If it seems we are crazy, it is to bring glory to God. If we are in our right minds, it is for your benefit...since we believe that Christ died for all...He died for everyone so that those who receive His new life will no longer live for themselves. Instead they will live for Christ, who died and was raised for them. So we have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view."
Another question God could ask us, at the end of the book of Jonah is: "Who should I hate and not give a second chance?"
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (I John 4.8)
Friday, September 6, 2013
Zealot?
Paul has been described as a person zealous about the Jewish religion, persecuting the sacrilegious and blaspheming sect of The Way (the early church) and turning that zeal instead towards sharing the gospel of Y'shua Meschach, when he would have, should have known. Reza Aslan has put forth a different picture of Y'shua in his latest book. It's an intriguing account of the first century life and political realities. However, it raises lots of questions:
How does Aslan's depiction of Jesus as a radical revolutionary in the ilk of the Maccabees get reconciled with the parables that Jesus teaches about the kingdom of God, like the Good Samaritan and the Return of the Prodigal Son?
Based on his lack of trust in the early church writings (epistles and gospels), how much evidence does he have for the other aspects of 1st century politics, including the career of Pontius Pilate? How many sources for each of his 'facts' are known and found reliable?
Especially if there are historic inaccuracies in the gospels (including Luke's), why did 1st century, 2nd century and 3rd century people, who'd know better, believe in and die for the faith and teachings found in those writings? What is it about this faith, easily disproved if Aslan and others are right, that thrived throughout persecution and charges of falsities, particularly in the 1st century when most people would have known someone who knew a person named in these writings or was in the same place as the events that occurred?
If Paul was a psychotic maniac personally creating the myth of Jesus' deity and resurrection, how would he have convinced so many throughout the Roman world, and particularly in Jerusalem among those who could refute his theological position?
Jesus hung out with sinners and tax collectors. One was his disciple (Levi called Matthew) and another became so (Zacchaeus), prominently named in the gospel accounts, and would have quickly been executed perhaps for their treason if it was found out they hung out with a known lestai (bandit, radical revolutionary intent on overthrowing Roman rule). He also dined with several Pharisees who may have had everything to lose if they provoked any suspicions among the Roman rulers. In an interview Aslan says that Pilate wouldn't have hesitated a bit to crucify anyone or 'slaughter them in their beds' when they 'disagreed in even the slightest of any of his decisions.' Then there's the centurion or Roman officer or, as some think, an officer within Herod Antipas' army trained by the Imperial forces. How does Aslan's depiction square with the mention of these followers?
Why does a radical revolutionary send out his followers in pairs, without money or extra sandals (i.e. defenseless), seeking to stay in a household of peace (i.e. looking for a man of peace), and moving on if one is not found putting God's judgment on the village?
In an interview, Aslan said three things would be characteristic of the accounts of Jesus' life to make it more palatable to a Roman audience, which he claims is the target audience for the writings: downplay his Jewishness and make his teachings more universal; make him a little less revolutionary; and most importantly, remove all blame from Rome for Jesus' death. If Aslan found so much that doesn't square with what is supposedly known of those times, how did these accounts become so popular if they were so fictional? And not just fictional and worthy of discussion, but popular to instill dedication to the point of death? Any J.K. Rowling fans, Hunger Games Trilogy fans, da Vinci Code fans or conspiracists about JFK's assassination or 9/11 or the Illuminati or Federal Reserve brouhahas willing to die for some depictions found in their writings?
How does Aslan's depiction of Jesus as a radical revolutionary in the ilk of the Maccabees get reconciled with the parables that Jesus teaches about the kingdom of God, like the Good Samaritan and the Return of the Prodigal Son?
Based on his lack of trust in the early church writings (epistles and gospels), how much evidence does he have for the other aspects of 1st century politics, including the career of Pontius Pilate? How many sources for each of his 'facts' are known and found reliable?
Especially if there are historic inaccuracies in the gospels (including Luke's), why did 1st century, 2nd century and 3rd century people, who'd know better, believe in and die for the faith and teachings found in those writings? What is it about this faith, easily disproved if Aslan and others are right, that thrived throughout persecution and charges of falsities, particularly in the 1st century when most people would have known someone who knew a person named in these writings or was in the same place as the events that occurred?
If Paul was a psychotic maniac personally creating the myth of Jesus' deity and resurrection, how would he have convinced so many throughout the Roman world, and particularly in Jerusalem among those who could refute his theological position?
Jesus hung out with sinners and tax collectors. One was his disciple (Levi called Matthew) and another became so (Zacchaeus), prominently named in the gospel accounts, and would have quickly been executed perhaps for their treason if it was found out they hung out with a known lestai (bandit, radical revolutionary intent on overthrowing Roman rule). He also dined with several Pharisees who may have had everything to lose if they provoked any suspicions among the Roman rulers. In an interview Aslan says that Pilate wouldn't have hesitated a bit to crucify anyone or 'slaughter them in their beds' when they 'disagreed in even the slightest of any of his decisions.' Then there's the centurion or Roman officer or, as some think, an officer within Herod Antipas' army trained by the Imperial forces. How does Aslan's depiction square with the mention of these followers?
Why does a radical revolutionary send out his followers in pairs, without money or extra sandals (i.e. defenseless), seeking to stay in a household of peace (i.e. looking for a man of peace), and moving on if one is not found putting God's judgment on the village?
In an interview, Aslan said three things would be characteristic of the accounts of Jesus' life to make it more palatable to a Roman audience, which he claims is the target audience for the writings: downplay his Jewishness and make his teachings more universal; make him a little less revolutionary; and most importantly, remove all blame from Rome for Jesus' death. If Aslan found so much that doesn't square with what is supposedly known of those times, how did these accounts become so popular if they were so fictional? And not just fictional and worthy of discussion, but popular to instill dedication to the point of death? Any J.K. Rowling fans, Hunger Games Trilogy fans, da Vinci Code fans or conspiracists about JFK's assassination or 9/11 or the Illuminati or Federal Reserve brouhahas willing to die for some depictions found in their writings?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)