Confusing documentary on Christ
#1
Hello I have just watched (twice) a documentary on Youtube which speaks of a conflict between Paul and James which shows how the Gospels (could have ) been very different if James ideas had won through. Im not sure if its allowed on this forum to post a link so I wont. But I would love if others could take a look at this and share there thoughts on this. It was in some ways a worrying documentary to watch as it puts into question much that was written in the Gospels. Im not trying to bait anyone in this just sharing to see what others may think. Fascinating documentary though.

On youtube search for "Who Was The Real Jesus Christ" the channel it is on is called 

"Timeline - World History Documentaries"

If I was allowed to post the link I would but not sure so shall refrain. Hope this post is okay but im genuinely interested to hear other peoples view points if they take the time to watch this one.

Thanks Dino :)
Reply
#2
There are no "Paul ideas" and "James ideas". They both follow the same Christ, the same doctrines, the same ressurrection, redemption and salvation. Both were members of teh same community of christians who knew each other and traveled around the world witnessing to Christ. They don't just say some made up ideas, or theories. They are not two branches, that is an absurd idea, probably spread by the same people who talk about "Bible contradictions", or the ones who say that Christianity was invented by Constantine.

What is written in the gospel is letters, account of witnesses and a couple more things, not the result of some branch of philosophy growing in popularity.They have already been studied to death, they are consistent and they do not depend on this kind of modernist insanity that tries to create the illusion that Christianity is some made up thing wheretheology is just added by random men, and Christ was just a normal man, a jew who started a revolt against romans, or a hippie or similar.
[-] The following 2 users Like Daniel-AH's post:
  • Dinouk68, Jerry
Reply
#3
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Dinouk68
Reply
#4
(02-01-2020, 06:07 PM)Daniel-AH Wrote: There are no "Paul ideas" and "James ideas". They both follow the same Christ, the same doctrines, the same ressurrection, redemption and salvation. Both were members of teh same community of christians who knew each other and traveled around the world witnessing to Christ. They don't just say some made up ideas, or theories. They are not two branches, that is an absurd idea, probably spread by the same people who talk about "Bible contradictions", or the ones who say that Christianity was invented by Constantine.

What is written in the gospel is letters, account of witnesses and a couple more things, not the result of some branch of philosophy growing in popularity.They have already been studied to death, they are consistent and they do not depend on this kind of modernist insanity that tries to create the illusion that Christianity is some made up thing wheretheology is just added by random men, and Christ was just a normal man, a jew who started a revolt against romans, or a hippie or similar.

Hi Thank you for your reply.

What do you feel on the idea that the Gospels were careful not to slam Rome at that time ?

And example of what I a mean by the above is the historical figure of Pilate. And how it shows in the Gospels he entered into a dioluge with Christ at his Trial and then seemingly washed his hands of the trial and looked to shift the blame for his execution to the Jews. When actually the truth could be Pontious Pilate would not have cared less and would have seen Jesus as just another extremist. And would have had no second thoughts about condemning him to death by crucifixion , which at the time was the Romans calling card as to what happens to insurgents against the state.

It can feel as if the Gospel writers wanted to ensure Rome's inclusion in the then new Christian movement as they were the main power house at that time so they mention little if anything of the barbarity of Rome at that time. Its just thoughts and Again I am not trying to bait anyone, and I am a believer but I feel its also important for me personally to question certain things.

Thanks Dino
Reply
#5
(02-02-2020, 10:17 AM)Dinouk68 Wrote: What do you feel on the idea that the Gospels were careful not to slam Rome at that time ?

It's very silly (and so incorrect).

Firstly, Scripture is not merely a human work, and while God's inspiration does not remove the human author's freedom to write, that author writes only what God wants written and that it be written exactly as God wanted it. So those who would hold that the writers were playing politics are ultimately saying that God was--that the Apostles and Evangelists were so consumed by human respect (a sin), that they either did not write what should have been written (and thus violated God's Will, sinned, and exposed all of Scripture to doubt).

Secondly, the point of the Gospels was not to "slam Rome". In the time of Christ, Rome was not a threat to Christianity, which for the Romans looked like one of many sects within Judaism. In fact, one of the reasons that there were no major persecutions or Roman threats to Christians Empire-wide was because the Romans did not make any note of this until perhaps around the time of Nero, and even then saw Christians as no universal threat. Nero's persecution was only in Italy, and particularly in Rome, and had little to do with Christianity, as much as it did with Nero's desire to have some scapegoats in order to execute his plans. The first Empire-wide persecution was not until nearly 200 years after Nero, under Decius (249-251). So the idea that Christians were trying to placate Rome makes little historical sense. One placates those who could be a threat, and from whom wants favors. The Romans did not view Christianity as a threat until it was already well-established. There was little distinction between Christians and Jews until the siege of Jersusalem, and Christians were not among those who were rebelling, so were seen as peaceable Jews because when the rebellion started, they up and left for Pella, wanting nothing to do with the Jewish rebellion, seeing Rome as the legitimate political authority.

Thirdly, just because there is not open condemnation does not mean that there was intentional effort not to condemn.

Fourthly, Rome does not play a serious role in the Gospel narrative anyway, since Judea was a backwater, and Rome had little care for it, except as a strategic area that needed to be held due to the Persian frontier and the land connection to North Africa and Egypt, as well as the Naval benefit.

Fifthly, the purpose of Christ's ministry was the preach to the Jews who were meant to have been faithful and the vehicle by which Christ would spread the Faith to the world. Thus, He is going to treat those who have had the benefit of Revelation and failed in their duties (e.g. the Saducees, Priests, and Pharisees) much more harshly than those who did not have this Revelation.

Sixthly, the Gospels are not a holistic narrative. They are four separate accounts of the same thing, written for four very distinct audiences, recounting certain distinct details that the others omit. If the "Gospels were careful not to slam Rome" then that suggest that there was a singular plan, and a directed effort, but were that the case in one realm, one would then likely see it in others. Yet, while not contradictory, that the Gospels have unique audiences, were written over a period of probably 50-70 years, include shared narrative but not always reported with the exact same accuracy (e.g. the eight beatitudes of Matthew are four for Luke, the Resurrection accounts include different parts of the whole story in each Gospel), others include unique parts of Jesus' life that others do not (St John recounts long dialogs from the Last Supper, while others have little if any dialog). Add to this that these four accounts in the early Church were treated as distinct and separate accounts, not one whole. So, there is really not only little evidence for coordination in this, but worse, good evidence to suggest that there was not coordination. If no coordination, then saying there was a coordinated effort to play nice with Rome makes zero sense.

(02-02-2020, 10:17 AM)Dinouk68 Wrote: And example of what I a mean by the above is the historical figure of Pilate. And how it shows in the Gospels he entered into a dioluge with Christ at his Trial and then seemingly washed his hands of the trial and looked to shift the blame for his execution to the Jews. When actually the truth could be Pontious Pilate would not have cared less and would have seen Jesus as just another extremist. And would have had no second thoughts about condemning him to death by crucifixion , which at the time was the Romans calling card as to what happens to insurgents against the state.

If one looks at history, one would know that Pilate was a gruff and bitter man who had little love for the Jews. He was rebuked several times by Rome for his lack of care for the Jews and their customs, and his hatred for the Priests and the Sanhedrin was palpable. He also did not normally live in Jerusalem, but in Cæsarea Maratima. He would come to Jerusalem with a group of soldiers for the Passover because of the number of people who would be visiting, to keep peace, and to assert Rome's dominance, as well as serve as in certain civil ceremonies.

If the priests, in this contexts, show up with a supposed "rebel" who there is no other information about, then Pilate is not going to be disposed to doing their will immediately. That would especially be the case if nothing had previously been said about Jesus by the informants in Jerusalem.

Put yourself in that situation. You are the manager in a small division of a Fortune 500 company, you got here after working hard but then got stuck and now, at age 55, still have not been recognized for your good work. You're bitter, and discontented, but it's the only job you could have. One of your regular customers who you have to visit from time to time, but is horrifically frustrating comes to you and starts complaining about a guy that was hired by one of your sub-managers in a small role. You've never heard of this guy, but the complaint is that he committed a horrific crime, yet no one said anything except this guy who always is a thorn in your side. Wouldn't you doubt this and start asking questions, interviewing the employee? Or would you just fire him without any second thought?

It is also noteworthy here that Rome could be stereotypically brutal, but it's justice system was suprisingly interested in some degree of real justice. A quick look at history shows that there were processes and procedures and trials. It was not just take one guys word and execute.

So, Pilate hears about Jesus, and he is accused of violating a Jewish law. So what? says Pilate. Perfectly reasonable reaction. "I don't care about your laws, I care about Roman law. You punish him." "Okay, but we can't put this gut to death, because you took away that power. Only you can do that." "Death, what did he do that deserves that!?" They explain, and Pilate is non-plussed. If this guy were truly a rebel, he would have heard of him, and he would have been arrested before. He has to play politics, because the Jews previously complained to Rome, so Pilate learns that Jesus is from Herod's territory and sends him off there to just get this guy out of his hair.

Nothing happens. So then the story changes. "But He claimed to be a King!" Natural reaction: Okay, clearly we need to figure out what's happening here. Pilate interviews Jesus, and declares him innocent. The Jews are not impressed and Pilate decides (illegally) to instead have Jesus punished by a beating to satisfy the Jews. It does not work, and now they threaten to go to Caesar and claim that Pilate did not take their warning about a man who committing treason. Pilate would surely, based on his history (and what we knew from what happened after the Crucifixion) be called back to Rome, deposed and probably sentenced to death himself. So he, puts Jesus to death at their bidding.

All in all, it actually makes him look terrible and weak. It makes Rome look like it does not care to do justice. It's not a glowing endorsement.

(02-02-2020, 10:17 AM)Dinouk68 Wrote: It can feel as if the Gospel writers wanted to ensure Rome's inclusion in the then new Christian movement as they were the main power house at that time so they mention little if anything of the barbarity of Rome at that time.

The whole Passion of Christ seems pretty barbaric, and that was the Roman soldiers.

And that whole notion flies in the face of the history. Rome never endorsed Christianity. Rome allowed religious freedom to any religion so long as the group was not treasonous. Christ and Christianity preached respect of civil duties, payment of taxes, and even following bad rulers except when they commanded sin. Also there was no reason for Christians to think that playing nice would help, since as Jews (since most were Jews to begin with), they knew that Rome stayed out of religious matters except when actions by religious figures were criminal. That was eventually the case when persecution ramped up later against Christians.

The whole matter really is just trying to fit the rationalist doctrines into the Gospel, by re-explaining what there is no need to re-explain or re-interpret. It is starting from the conclusion and trying to fit the evidence to it.
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Dinouk68, Fionnchu, HailGilbert, jovan66102
Reply
#6
(02-02-2020, 10:17 AM)Dinouk68 Wrote: Hi Thank you for your reply.

What do you feel on the idea that the Gospels were careful not to slam Rome at that time ?

And example of what I a mean by the above is the historical figure of Pilate. And how it shows in the Gospels he entered into a dioluge with Christ at his Trial and then seemingly washed his hands of the trial and looked to shift the blame for his execution to the Jews. When actually the truth could be Pontious Pilate would not have cared less and would have seen Jesus as just another extremist. And would have had no second thoughts about condemning him to death by crucifixion , which at the time was the Romans calling card as to what happens to insurgents against the state.

It can feel as if the Gospel writers wanted to ensure Rome's inclusion in the then new Christian movement as they were the main power house at that time so they mention little if anything of the barbarity of Rome at that time. Its just thoughts and Again I am not trying to bait anyone, and I am a believer but I feel its also important for me personally to question certain things.

Thanks Dino

The gospels do not blame Rome first because they are not some cheap hitpiece, but a report of the life of Christ. Second because, being written early, the persecution of christians hadn't really started. Several roman soldiers are described as virtuous or even help the apostles.

>looked to shift the blame for his execution to the Jews

Shift the blame? Who cried "crucify him" and who tried to save Christ? Who said "may his blood fall upon us and our children?" Who tried to stone him beforehand? Who talked about how dangerous he was? Who paid Judas? Who tore their clothes when He said He is the messiah? Pilate talked with Christ. Why should he see him as an extremist when he wasn't one? When he destroyed every attempt of the jews to place him against the roman empire? He avoided being made a king, he frustrated those who asked him "what about the taxes to the cesar"?. Pilate tried to save him three times, the people who had no second thoughts about killing him were the jews who, having nothing against him, threatened Pilate with setting the emperor against him.

But again, why do you make these insane, wild theories, as if the writers of the gospels were some unknown people, when they are well known figures that describe the historical events? Have you even questioned the madness you know present? Why do you insult the romans in a desperate attempt to exhonerate the murderers of Christ, the synagogue of Satan?


Several of the Church Fathers mention this: First, MAtthew wrote his gospel, probably to the still existing large jewish community in Judea prior to the wars with the romans. Then Mark, being interpreter of Peter in Rome. Then Luke, after interviews, being disciple of Paul. And finally, John when encouraged by his peers to write.
Reply
#7
(02-02-2020, 04:30 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(02-02-2020, 10:17 AM)Dinouk68 Wrote: What do you feel on the idea that the Gospels were careful not to slam Rome at that time ?

It's very silly (and so incorrect).

Firstly, Scripture is not merely a human work, and while God's inspiration does not remove the human author's freedom to write, that author writes only what God wants written and that it be written exactly as God wanted it. So those who would hold that the writers were playing politics are ultimately saying that God was--that the Apostles and Evangelists were so consumed by human respect (a sin), that they either did not write what should have been written (and thus violated God's Will, sinned, and exposed all of Scripture to doubt).....


--

Thanks for your very detailed response. You raise some very good points. I will re read this again what you wrote later this evening.
Reply
#8
>What do you feel on the idea that the Gospels were careful not to slam Rome at that time ?
+++++++++++++++
Gotta love those Romans. 50,000 miles of paved road on which to fulfill The Great Commision with.


I mean, afterall, Paul's conversion was on a road,  wasn't it? That alone should speak volumes to God's plan to carry out His Great Commission by Roman (Catholic) means.



So yeah the Jews had their Temple and they had their Sanhedrin, etcetera, etcetera, which had really, by the time of Christ, devolved into a tyranny and a stranglehold which the people feared, (and from which Rome (thankfully) extricated us).



So is it any wonder the Jews have had a long held hatred of the Latin tongue? (sorry, pet-peeve)


It is a funny old world, innt?
Oh, where are the snows of yesteryear!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)