ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Moviefan2k4 wrote:
Sufficient evidence exists to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Gospels were written by those whose names they bear, very few years after the events took place. Matthew (also called Levi), Mark, Luke, and John were all eyewitnesses to Jesus' earthly ministry; consider this detailed opening to Luke's third chapter...
"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness."
Does that sound like a fairy tale to you?
Actually, it is strange that Luke would know all that detail. Sounds more like what a Roman official would know...
Not strange at all. Luke's gospel is biographical and consistent with a biographical style of writing. We can't know, of course, but it could very well be Luke spoke to a few Roman officials who were witness to relevant facts surrounding Jesus' earthly ministry. To be completely accurate, Luke was NOT one of the 12 and likely NOT an eyewitness to Jesus. Luke was likely a disciple of Paul and as such would have had a strong interest in the events surrounding Jesus' life. He'd still have had access to eyewitnesses and/or official sources in the 1st century, though, and the book of Luke is no less authentic.
Unless Mark was John Mark (there's some evidence of that), Mark was likely a disciple of Peter. Mark's gospel would likely be a collection of Peter's sermons and recollections of his experiences. Peter was "second in command," so to speak, and not always represented in the most positive light in any of the gospels. Religions frequently ignore or avoid the humanity of their founders. Loudmouth village idiots and homicidal maniacs either don't make it into scriptures or the facts are distorted to show a better picture of them than their reality. Biblical writers tend accept and embrace their humanity as well as that of those they write about rather than avoiding the painful embarrassments they faced along the way. Half the point is how dramatically Jesus and His teachings affected those who knew Him and the complete turnaround their lives took. Peter goes from falling beneath the waves to walking right out of jail thinking the whole thing was just a dream. He goes from denying he even knew Jesus to being one of the earliest and strongest defenders of the faith.
…
Jesus really wasn't "Liberal" or "Conservative." He's the Son of God. He knows what God knows because He IS God. He authored morality. He wrote the book on it (figuratively, not literally).
Christians, on the other hand, occupy a
relatively left position from Pharisees and Sadducees. It has been argued that Jesus Himself was a Pharisee (I don't buy that…see above paragraph…but people who argue the "historical Jesus" sometimes point that out).
There are strong differences between the Pharisee and Sadducee sects. The Pharisees went on to develop what we know as modern-day Rabbinical Judaism. While not ignoring what Jesus had to say about Pharisees, the Pharisees can't be entirely discounted. They have to be admired for the good that they DID do. They were then dominant sect in Jesus' time, and even Jesus pointed out that the religious leaders were in the place of Moses and the people were to listen to them and do what they said to do (just don't behave like they do). There are a few instances in which Pharisees came out as supporters of Jesus and Christians. They were the religious and intellectual heavy-weights of their day, and those who recognized Jesus' skill at reciting and interpreting scripture were some of His biggest admirers. When Jesus asked what the greatest commandment was, He quotes Moses: Love God with all your being (paraphrasing here). He adds to that "love people," and claims those commandments as the summary of all legal and prophetic writings. BAM. That's common sense stuff to Pharisees, but not exactly something a novice could easily rattle off. They had a hard time with Jesus because He knew their stuff better than they did. Their issue with Jesus was not about theology, but about their hold on power.
I look at the Pharisees as a bunch of genuinely good guys who just lost their way. Jesus won a few of them over. 1st Century Christians fared better with them in the long run than Jesus did, but "winning Pharisees" was not Jesus' purpose during His earthly ministry. Pharisees weren't conservatives in the strictest sense. I'd say they were conservative-leaning moderates. The Law of Moses established lex talionis for the ancient Israelites. Over time, religious leaders developed "hedge laws" intended to protect and preserve holiness by making the observant walk AROUND the original ancient laws rather than having to deal directly with them. The Talmud is full of this stuff. Eventually, the hedge laws came to be accepted as unbreakable as the original written laws themselves, so they came up with hedge laws for their hedge laws. The end result is a ridiculously recondite religion that obscures what it was all supposed to be about in the first place: Love God, love people. Just as an example: A woman on her period is considered ceremonially unclean. Ok, fine. After her so many days after her period, she bathes and is considered ceremonially clean again. Not a big deal. This got blown up to such a level that priests avoided common women altogether (because one of them might be on her period). So if a priest is walking down the street and a woman accidentally bumps into him, he's going to freak out because now he can't go to the temple.
And that's ALL it is…an unclean person (made unclean by touching something else unclean) can't go to the temple on that day. Wait until sunset, take a bath, and you're good. That's all you have to do. Pharisee priests would go to extraordinary lengths to avoid even that, because heaven-forbid we can't go to the temple today, and EVERYTHING was a big deal. All Jesus was trying to tell them was that the PEOPLE they served mattered more than some perfect observance of silly hedge laws. The Pharisees largely forgot that they were there to take care of their people, and THAT was the hypocrisy Jesus was referring to.
Another example: Sick people. If you're sick, you're unclean. Anything that touches the unclean makes unclean. No big deal…you're unclean for a legally specified period of time, you take a bath, and you're clean again at sunset. That's the general rule. Rather than ministering to the infirm, the Pharisees would go out of their way to avoid them. How does that help those in need? All it means is that a Pharisee would be unable to serve in the Temple during that time. What, you can't miss two or three days in the Temple for a quick humanitarian mission? Jesus was calling them out to do their freakin' jobs rather than uphold some ridiculous personal holiness standard that does no one any good. They'd become selfish. Jesus was trying to point them towards the people they were supposed to be helping. It's all in the Old Testament.
If the Old Testament is a measure of conservatism, Jesus was more conservative than the Pharisees. Everything He preached to the Pharisees was about what Moses wrote down. If Jesus was a liberal, so was Moses.
Anyway…
The Sadducees were sort of ultra-conservative. Jesus told them they didn't know what they were talking about. The Pharisaic interpretation of "eye-for-an-eye" justice meant that wrongdoing, even accidental, incurred a debt which the wrongdoer had to pay. Think like in modern-day times with civil lawsuits. It's the same thing. Insurance salesmen would have made a killing back in those days. If you cause someone to lose sight in an eye, the accuser has to get at least two witnesses to appear before the judges (assuming you plead innocent). If he can establish that you caused him to lose his eye, the judges will fine you for whatever the current monetary value of the eye is. You either pay the damages, OR you show that paying damages incurs a hardship. You would then be pressed into service for a period of time to work off the debt (as opposed to incarceration). Periodically debts were to be forgiven, and that was taken into account when establishing fines.
On the other hand, the Sadducees would say that if you cause someone to lose an eye, even if it was an accident, you'd have to lose your eye, too. Ouch. Jesus said they didn't know what they were talking about because scripture CLEARLY outlines what to do in those situations. The ONLY crime you'd lose anything for would be murder, and scripture clearly states that ONLY life--and nothing else--can be repaid for life. And that's MURDER, not to be confused with, say, accidental death. Accidental death would require the accused to stay under the protection of a city of refuge until the death of the high priest. The accuser would have every right to kill the accused if he ventures beyond the city walls. However, nothing in scripture prevents a survivor from forgiving the death of a loved-one and making peace with the one who caused the death… Where the Pharisees observed some semblance of mercy OVER the law, the Sadducees wouldn't afford wrongdoers even that much.
Otherwise, the differences between Pharisees and Sadducees are pretty nitpicky. The Sadducees believed that the Torah was sufficient for establishing law, whereas Pharisees took the oral law on par with the written--[Torah + hedge laws]+hedge laws. So the Sadducees weren't entirely off base. However, Pharisaic interpretation favored Pharisaic hold on political and ideological power, whereas Sadducee interpretation favored their own position. It seems oriented towards keeping the dominant party in power rather than serving any legit discourse. I think modern-day atheists would have liked the Sadducees (no bodily resurrection at the end of time, no immortal soul, no afterlife, etc.). They seem to me a tougher bunch than the Pharisees, so it isn't surprising that both Pharisees and Christians came into conflict with them.
23 Dec 2013, 11:18 pm
