tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post124956708822146819..comments2024-03-28T20:47:47.445-04:00Comments on Serene Musings: Judas IscariotScotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-78152529884873405162009-09-18T03:35:35.091-04:002009-09-18T03:35:35.091-04:00I'll have to see if I can watch the HBO docume...I'll have to see if I can watch the HBO documentary. It should be interesting.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-34218378194931693892009-09-18T03:01:16.530-04:002009-09-18T03:01:16.530-04:00No, Scot... Saul of Tarsus and King Saul Are of th...No, Scot... Saul of Tarsus and King Saul Are of the same 'tribe' or family... see Romans 11:1. But, in the last analysis there is no 'smoking gun' that remains written (obviously)... 'Paul' (and his cohorts: Mark and Luke) saw to that... <br /><br />The only way to 'know' and understand that which i have written, is to 'remove' the over-barren 'image' of "Jesus Christ", -which, by the way, came into literary form only AFTER 'Paul's' epiphany (nearly ten years After 'the descendant of David and Jewish messiah' was crucified (IF chronology is to be true and believed)... I suspect that All has been altered... to fit an invented time-line...<br /><br />With all due respect to you, Scot, We are 'arguing' over clearly muddied Text... <br /><br />The Real question is Why... and Who 'muddied' the Text and, What was the 'intention'... so that we can argue 'ad in for item'... and never come to a (satisfactory) conclusion...<br /><br />'Paul' actually succeeded in his goal... lol<br /><br />Men will 'argue' 'til the end of time... All the while... never look to the 'truth'... which is within each of us... Not in a 'Book'.<br /><br />Roland, -reluctant iconoclast.<br /><br />p. s. I stand by what I have written... I Know your obstinacy well, -I can gauge it by by own...<br /><br />Peace.<br /><br />Oh, BTW... FYI... There Is a made-for-TV Documentary re. "Jesus Barabbas" that Will be televised on HBO this fall... That... will really create some interesting 'excitement' and comment...Roland E Bouchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173914557606082388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-91827493419029195032009-09-18T01:25:15.915-04:002009-09-18T01:25:15.915-04:00Those are interesting ideas, Roland.
I have never...Those are interesting ideas, Roland.<br /><br />I have never given much thought to the fact that King Saul and Saul of Tarsus shared a name. I would be inclined, however, to think that was just coincidence, just as it is coincidence - for instance - that George Bush and George Washington share a name. You seem to argue, however, that Saul of Tarsus actually was a direct descendant of King Saul. Other than the name, do you have evidence for this?<br /><br />Regarding Jesus Barabbas - there is definitely something going on in those stories from the Gospels other than literal history. My argument would be that Mark developed the story as a literary technique - Pilate offers the Jews a choice between Jesus the son of God the Father and Jesus the son of God the Father. The first Jesus was a metaphor for the Jews themselves - a criminal who had "committed murder." The other Jesus was the "real" son of God the Father. The Jews, naturally, chose the first Jesus. For Mark, the Jews had "committed murder" too in the very act of rejecting Jesus. <br /><br />So Barabbas seems to me to be a total literary creation of Mark, used as a metaphor for the Jewish people themselves - those people who rejected Christianity and were therefore accused of "murdering Jesus." <br /><br />Judas the Galilean, on the other hand, simply seems to be Luke using his knowledge of Josephus. Josephus tells us that Judas led an uprising during the census of 6 C.E. Luke had referred to this census as happening when Jesus was born (which, of course, is a mistake). Perhaps, for Luke, he wanted to assert that Jesus was born during this time to imply that Jesus was following in Judas' footsteps - fellow Galileans as they were, Jesus was born as Judas died. That sort of thing. <br /><br />Of course, Luke has is facts all wrong. First, Jesus can't have been born during the time of King Herod and the census under Quirinius. Herod had been dead for a long time by the time that census was taken, and the census was actually taken, no doubt, as a result of the changing political boundaries in the years after Herod died.<br /><br />Second, Luke says that the uprising of Theudas happened before the uprising of Judas - when in fact Judas' uprising had occurred some 40 years earlier.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-38381229960545984572009-09-17T12:30:08.655-04:002009-09-17T12:30:08.655-04:00Part 3
King David was succeeded by his son, Solom...Part 3<br /><br />King David was succeeded by his son, Solomon.<br /><br />King Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam... BUT, ten tribes revolted away from Rehoboam's heretofore 'theocratic' governance and established a parallel 'secular' government instead, -headed by Jeroboam (leaving the tribe of both Judah and Benjamin marginalized).<br /><br />This schism among the Jews continued down through the centuries... into the days of the Roman installed and supported Herodian 'secular' government.<br /><br />(Herod was an Idumean and convert "Jew", -not of the original Twelve Tribes... this infuriated many of 'blood-line' Jews, not to mention the 'descendants of David'.)<br /><br />Judas the Galilean, author of a fourth sect of Jews (heretofore there were the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Essenes) and prime instigator of an insurrection, -begun in the days of Herod... and continued until all the wealthy and educated Jews scattered themselves abroad, the temple at Jerusalem was razed to the ground (-save the western or 'wailing wall) and the nation ceased to exist (around 70 c. e.)<br /><br />I respectfully ask you, What 'better' way for young Saul to exercise his hatred for all things 'the descendant(s) of David and the Jewish 'messiah' than to obliterate his name from the face of the earth and, remove all consciousness of the Jewish 'messiah' by 'converting' (read 'translating') the Jewish 'messiah' into the Greek philosophical notion of "Kristos" ("Christ")? <br /><br />Yes, Scott, I am indeed a 'reluctant iconoclast'...<br /><br />Roland.<br /> <br /><br />P.S. Although I have more to 'comment', I await your reading, digesting and response to of which I have already given.<br /><br />'Teach love, use words only when necessary.'Roland E Bouchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173914557606082388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-29779752281805315382009-09-17T12:24:04.400-04:002009-09-17T12:24:04.400-04:00Part 2
Kant once wrote, "...it's not the...Part 2<br /><br />Kant once wrote, "...it's not the falsehood, but the intention behind it."<br /><br />Although I was not willing to actually admit that there were any 'falsehoods' in the Holy Gospels, I certainly could see puzzling 'contradictions' or contrary views: Was Jesus Christ born "...in the days of Herod the king" (prior to 4 B.C.) as is according to Matthew or, "...in the days of the taxation or census when Quirinius or Cyrenius was governor of Syria" (6 or 7 A. D.) as according to Luke? Obviously, both author cannot be 'correct' -however, it is possible that both authors might be 'incorrect'. (And why did Luke write a 'Gospel' anyway? The same question may be applied to Mark as well... oh, I forgot... John Smith wrote one too, called 'The Book of Mormon'.)<br />but, I digress...<br /><br />After all is said and done, standing head and shoulders above all the rest (although generally unnoticed and behind the scenes) is Saul of Tarsus -aka the Apostle and eventual Saint 'Paul' -the actual creator, founder and primary force behind 'Christianity' (along with his cohorts Mark and Luke).<br /><br />The more I contemplated 'the human nature' of Saul of Tarsus, the uglier and clearer 'Christianity' came into view... (this was neither my intention nor the results my desire...when all I really wanted to know was 'Who is Barabbas'?) 'Paul' nearly succeeded in his 'mission'. Nevertheless, he couldn't alter the reality of his being (he could and did alter the history i.e. the names, dates and events of the period).<br /><br />Briefly, the actual reality of his being, Saul of Tarsus is the namesake and fellow tribesman (family member and descendant) of the first 'anointed' king of the Jews. King Saul eventually fell out of grace of (the unseen) Lord... for failing to follow His commandment. Ashamed and dishonored, he "fell upon his own sworn", -ostensibly to avoid being captured in battle by his (the Jews) enemies. This abominable act, not only of cowardice but an affront to God's gift of life, brought everlasting shame and dishonor onto his family and tribe, -not to mention removing all possibility of leaving his heirs and descendants from ever ascending the throne again.<br /><br />Now, think for a moment about young Saul's mind-set, his personal and private make-up, his 'education' as it were... the resentment, the jealousy, the hatred of all things 'the descendant(s) of David and the Jewish messiah'...<br /><br />King Saul was replaced by the 'anointment' of David.<br /><br /><br /><br />...to be continued.Roland E Bouchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173914557606082388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-31219833753704624392009-09-17T12:14:32.078-04:002009-09-17T12:14:32.078-04:00Not wishing 'to throw the baby out with the ba...Not wishing 'to throw the baby out with the bath-water', so to speak, I appreciate the 'fact'(?) that there is at least a 'germ' of 'truth' contained in the 'Holy Gospels'... however, it is honestly very difficult for me to conceive that 'God', through the agency of the Holy Ghost or divine inspiration, is its Author, -indeed, if that is the case, lo, He has failed miserably in proving me with very much understanding as it relates to, in particular, Jesus Barabbas, Judas the Galilean and Saul of Tarsus et al.<br /><br />From my 'beginnings' of consciousness (around 11 or 12 years old), I was struck by the "notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist" known as "Barabbas". A 'thorn in my side' for the better part of 30 yrs... and the object of my search for understanding. Because of Him, I have read more than 2,000 books and thus became 'educated', -such that I might be. (I really feared 'being' ignorant and/or stupid.)<br /><br />For a long time, I was stumped and at and impasse...<br /><br />Eventually, I 'learned' that "Jesus Barabbas" was originally written in the Greek Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17) -but that His name (Jesus) was removed or omitted from the Latin translation of the same text (around 3 90 c. e.) and most of the subsequent translations thereafter. Moreover, "Barabbas" is not a proper or surname per se', it is what He (Jesus) was called, -it is, rather, an Aramaic appellation, the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in 'the Father or creator of us all' or 'God').<br /><br />I'm fairly confident that it isn't even necessary to explain to you that this stunning 'bit' of information caused great trials and tribulations within my Roman Catholic indoctrination and 'educated' self.<br /><br />At first, I was angry... mostly towards the 'Church' and its priests (teachers) -in whom I so naively trusted to provide me with honesty and truth. 'The Prophet' (by Kahlil Gibran), 'The Essene Gospel of Peace', 'Jap Ji' (translated by Kirpal Singh and other literary works authored by Him) did much to allay my anger... but not completely. (I'll elaborate later re. the above.)<br /><br /><br /><br />(Due to the limitations of HTML, I am compelled to divide this Post into three Parts)Roland E Bouchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173914557606082388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-41867594804971633532009-09-17T00:35:23.699-04:002009-09-17T00:35:23.699-04:00Thanks for reading and commenting, Roland. I like...Thanks for reading and commenting, Roland. I like that title you gave yourself: "Reluctant Iconoclast." <br /><br />I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Judas the Galilean and Jesus Barabbas if you care to share any insights.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10535260741343975445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29179803.post-8008754006695372082009-09-15T23:05:24.112-04:002009-09-15T23:05:24.112-04:00I, as a questioning 'Christian', asked a R...I, as a questioning 'Christian', asked a Rabbi: "What does the phonetic word 'Iscariot' mean in Hebrew? He answered, "Afterthought".<br /><br />For me, I wasn't particularly interested in 'Judas Iscariot' per se'... only in 'Judas', -as it turned out later, Judas the Galilean, of whom I have much to say... but not right at this time.<br /><br />The actual object of my greater interest is 'Jesus Barabbas'.<br /><br />In the meantime, I am struck by your more personal 'musings' ("I had intended to develop some intriguing account of how Judas had come to be known as the one who handed Jesus over to the authorities, but as I said, the story was never finished.<br /><br />If my readers will forgive a moment of stark personal reflection that has no legitimate place in an otherwise historically researched essay, I suppose I have long identified strongly with Judas...".<br /><br />In my own 'musings' and 'biases' relative to Jesus Barabbas, I relate to you and yours... And, I too am engaged in a work-in-process re. Jesus Barabbas, Judas the Galilean and Saul of Tarsus.<br /><br />Roland, a reluctant iconoclast.Roland E Bouchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173914557606082388noreply@blogger.com