# Zealot



## centerpin fan (Jul 29, 2013)

Anybody read this?  It's currently #1 on Amazon and #4 at the NYT.  I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet.

http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-T..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1GTR5MFF8978V3B51B5H


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2013)

Never heard of it. It sort of sounds like that group of people(their group name is slipping my mind) that came up with a slew of quotes that Jesus said, that no one else has ever heard of. I think their group/books gained a lot of traction for a while. 

Have you read it?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Have you read it?



Have not, but Glenn Beck led off his show with it this morning.  That was the first I heard of it.  I checked it out on Amazon.  It doesn't look like anything I haven't seen before.  _The Da Vinci Code_ was the same way.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 29, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It sort of sounds like that group of people(their group name is slipping my mind) that came up with a slew of quotes that Jesus said, that no one else has ever heard of. I think their group/books gained a lot of traction for a while.



Sounds like the Jesus Project.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 29, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Sounds like the Jesus Project.


That's it! Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 29, 2013)

Came across this on Drudge.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/29/scholarly-misrepresentation/


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 29, 2013)

Sounds interesting, well the reviews anyway. Some books are not suited for everyone. Others can read anything. For example, I found a particular book most interesting because I disagreed with everything it said. It caused me to think. Point is that most books about Jesus are interesting to me. I might put this one on my list


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 30, 2013)

gemcgrew said:


> Came across this on Drudge.
> 
> http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/29/scholarly-misrepresentation/





> None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false.  Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope.


----------



## bigreddwon (Jul 30, 2013)

He's been hitting all the talking heads shows. I might read it as well.


----------



## JFS (Jul 31, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> It's currently #1 on Amazon



Because of this interview on Fox:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/is-this-the-most-embarrassing-interview-fox-news-has-ever-do

and 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._knew_what_he_was_doing_on_fox_news_that.html


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 31, 2013)

I suspect that I would like the book because based on reviews and brief explanation of the book, I can tell that he will make the case that supports my view. That Jesus was handed over as one starting an uprising rather than being killed for claiming to be God


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2013)

gr8,

Do you believe the miracles in the Bible are literal?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 1, 2013)

Not all of them. Such as putting back on the ear that had just been cut off. There is no way that anyone saw that and still beat him and mocked him.  Another is being in the desert without food or water for 40 days. Don't get me wrong, I believe Jesus could do miracles as a sign that he was the Messiah, just like Moses was able in order that they know that God had sent him, but I think that many stories got embellished over time before being penned down. Things like taking the coin from the fishes mouth and turning water into wine..... I just don't know where I stand.... Picking and choosing is a slippery slope


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Not all of them. Such as putting back on the ear that had just been cut off. There is no way that anyone saw that and still beat him and mocked him.  Another is being in the desert without food or water for 40 days. Don't get me wrong, I believe Jesus could do miracles as a sign that he was the Messiah, just like Moses was able in order that they know that God had sent him, but I think that many stories got embellished over time before being penned down. Things like taking the coin from the fishes mouth and turning water into wine..... I just don't know where I stand.... Picking and choosing is a slippery slope




All I know is what makes sense.


----------



## JFS (Aug 2, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> That Jesus was handed over as one starting an uprising rather than being killed for claiming to be God



From a review:



> Aslan points out that crucifixion was a punishment the Romans reserved for political criminals, and that the men hung on crosses next to Jesus’ are described with a word often mistranslated as “thieves” but that in fact indicates “rebel-bandit.” The placard “King of the Jews” hung on Jesus’ cross was meant not to mock his ambitions but to name his offense; using that title or claiming to be the messiah amounted to a treasonous declaration against the authority of Rome and the Temple.



And an interesting thought:



> How was Jesus, this “zealous Galilean peasant and Jewish nationalist who donned the mantle of the messiah and launched a foolhardy rebellion against the corrupt Temple priesthood and the vicious Roman occupation,” transformed into the incarnation of God, a being who sacrificed his life to mystically redeem the souls of all mankind? This new Jesus, Aslan asserts, was largely the invention of Paul, who never met the man he would celebrate as his savior (though he claimed to speak often with the “risen Christ”), and Paul’s theological heirs.
> 
> Paul clashed with James, John and Peter, who led the core of Jesus’ following after his death. Theirs was a deeply Jewish community centered in Jerusalem, where it awaited its founder’s return and the restoration of God’s kingdom on earth. Paul instead opted to convert and minister to gentiles as well as Jews in Rome and beyond. In the year 70, the ferment in Palestine finally erupted in a full-fledged revolt and then Roman reprisals. Ultimately, the Temple, Jerusalem and the holy city’s occupants were destroyed, and with these the Jewish core of Jesus’ followers. By default, it was Paul’s version of Jesus’ teachings — Christianity — that survived, splintering off from Judaism and incorporating many ideas from Hellenistic philosophy.



http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/zealot_the_real_jesus/


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 2, 2013)

JFS said:


> From a review:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for pointing his view out. The term messiah was a threat to the Romans because the Jews were expecting someone to come crush their Roman supressors. When he stated "coming on the clouds" they jumped on the only thing they could use against him, that he was claiming to be the ruler spoken of in Daniel 7. He had blasphemed Ceasar. They said "we have no king but Caesar" and "if you let this man go then you are no friend of Ceasar", or something like that, I can't recall exactly


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 2, 2013)

JFS said:


> From a review:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for pointing his view out. Good to know where he stands rather than me falsely assuming. The term messiah was a threat to the Romans because the Jews were expecting someone to come crush their Roman supressors. When he stated "coming on the clouds" they jumped on the only thing they could use against him, that he was claiming to be the ruler spoken of in Daniel 7. He had blasphemed Ceasar. They said "we have no king but Caesar" and "if you let this man go then you are no friend of Ceasar", or something like that, I can't recall exactly


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 2, 2013)

I never looked at it from the revolt against the Romans prospective.

The Romans were worried that he would incite a revolt, which is why they had him crucified.
Jews had nothing to do with the death of Jesus-

it was purely a Roman thing since they feared him leading a rebellion against them. The so called trial given in the NT story is the completely opposite of the Jewish law
1) It takes place at night- all trials were held during the day
2) It takes place in a private home- all trials in Jerusalem for capital offenses were held in the court of the Sanhedrin in the Temple courtyard
3) There were very few people present - there have to be a minimum of 21 judges in a capital case- in Jerusalem the full Sanhedrin of 70 judges heard capital cases.
4) If a court cannot find a person guilty, they are forbidden to hand them over to secular authorities - the "court" in the NT does not find Jesus guilty and then hands him over.

So four serious violations of the halacha (Jewish law)- which since they were in a capital case means the death sentence for those committing the violations- yet the NT keeps slandering the Pharisees and their strict adherence to the law!

On top of that- you have a big problem; a Roman governor who is later removed for excessive cruelty! (You gotta wonder- and this from a people that watched people fighting to death, getting eaten alive etc for fun!) And yet a conquered, powerless group of people is somehow meant to have the ability to get him to obey them?

What does make sense is if this whole ridiculous scenario is inserted in to remove the blame from the Romans when the early Christians were trying to convert them and needed a scapegoat! Who better than the people that had rejected their new God - it removes the blame from the people they are trying to convert while giving an excuse why the vast majority of them have rejected him!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081015213739AA6QAJ4


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 2, 2013)

You could actually say we all killed him. But only physically as he arose and is living in Heaven. 
He was predestined to die before even being born. It can get confusing from that standpoint.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I never looked at it from the revolt against the Romans prospective.
> 
> The Romans were worried that he would incite a revolt, which is why they had him crucified.
> Jews had nothing to do with the death of Jesus-
> ...


They broke these laws because they were afraid the people would be on Jesus side. If they had come arrest him in the day, they might have been responsible for a riot. The Jews hated being under the rule of the Roman gov. They longed for the day that their prophesed messiah would come and wipe out the romans. Strange that they hated it so much. Rome rulership was not that bad. Unlike their own people, Rome did not require the Jews to be in the military or work on the sabbath. Only to pay tax. They made them live in certain locations similiar to an Indian reservation. These places were heavly guarded because of the constant fear that another uprising might arise. Several before Jesus had spurred the people and gained a following who led them to rebel against Rome, bringing quick punishment from Rome. Eventually, after Jesus, Rome saw them as too much of a threat and Came and tore down their temple. Caiapas was the Jewish go to man for Pilot who was given charge by Rome to keep the peace. Pilot had the authority to kill anyone without trial who was suspect of causing an uprising. They were particulary on edge around the time of the feast, when all the people were gathered. Their military pressence at this time was not so overwhelming considering the size of the potential mob.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 3, 2013)

> How was Jesus, this “zealous Galilean peasant and Jewish nationalist who donned the mantle of the messiah and launched a foolhardy rebellion against the corrupt Temple priesthood and the vicious Roman occupation,” transformed into the incarnation of God, a being who sacrificed his life to mystically redeem the souls of all mankind? This new Jesus, Aslan asserts, was largely the invention of Paul, who never met the man he would celebrate as his savior (though he claimed to speak often with the “risen Christ”), and Paul’s theological heirs.
> 
> Paul clashed with James, John and Peter, who led the core of Jesus’ following after his death. Theirs was a deeply Jewish community centered in Jerusalem, where it awaited its founder’s return and the restoration of God’s kingdom on earth. Paul instead opted to convert and minister to gentiles as well as Jews in Rome and beyond. In the year 70, the ferment in Palestine finally erupted in a full-fledged revolt and then Roman reprisals. Ultimately, the Temple, Jerusalem and the holy city’s occupants were destroyed, and with these the Jewish core of Jesus’ followers. By default, it was Paul’s version of Jesus’ teachings — Christianity — that survived, splintering off from Judaism and incorporating many ideas from Hellenistic philosophy.



There's not a single original thought in this.  Making Paul out to be the bad guy is SOP.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 3, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> There's not a single original thought in this.  Making Paul out to be the bad guy is SOP.



If the Snidley Whiplash mustache fits.........


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If the Snidley Whiplash mustache fits.........



OTOH ...


----------

