Zealot Part 2

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).