BlogHer - Which One? THAT One! - Comments

Anathema/Radical Jesus

wenvas — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:31:21 -0500

Dear Roland,

Rather than continue this religious debate here I've written to you privately (as per the address given on your website)...

Best Wishes, Wendy

Anathema/Radical Jesus

Roland — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:38:23 -0500

Dear Weny,

Thanks again for your response.

Re. "I thought I had made it clear earlier on that the chief priests
(pharisees) wanted Jesus to be crucified out of their own fear/envy of
someone who's voice was becoming stronger each day with many turning
away from the dogma of the pharisees and turning instead to the
teaching of Jesus. They (the pharisees) tried unsuccessfully to trap
him into denouncing Caesar in order to charge him with treason, but
could not. Eventually they settled on a charge of herecy for making
himself out to be 'The Son of God'.

In the first instance, please know and understand that I already know and understand all that you said above from out of my own reading of the same Source Material (the Gospels and the 'impression' that is given). Nevertheless, even your own assessment posits a unspoken Question, not an Answer, -to wit: DID the Parisees priests settle upon a charge of heresy for making himself out to be 'The Son of God'? In which case, 'heresy', was not a "charge" punishable by death in Their own Laws, -not to mention the fact that he, himself, never claimed to be 'The Son of God', rather, 'the messiah'. For your edification, it was [Jesus] "Barabbas" who was called and referred to as 'The Son of God' (as explained earlier), -not "Christ" as you suppose and/or have been cunningly and very subtly (mis) lead into 'believing'.

Furthermore, contrary to your assertion, "Pontius Pilate practically begged him to speak in his own defence but he remained silent." Correction: It was [Jesus] Barabbas who, like a potted plant of poison, said nothing to anybody about anything (likewise, nobody said anything to Him).

You ask, "Why did Christ choose to die on the cross?" and add, "Yes, he did choose this!". Wendy, I respectfully give to you the Secret to know and understand the 'Gospels' and the reason for our 'disagreement'.

The 'Gospels' are not a 'history' of the Jews in the scientific sense of that word. They were written for the sole purpose of instilling Faith only. Moreover, they were written by the behest of Saul of Tarsus aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul and his cohorts, Mark and Luke (none of whom were 'disciples' or 'eye-witnesses' to the 'crucified descendant of David' nor of the issues they so colorfully described, no earlier than Ten (10) yrs After the crucifixion of the 'descendant of David and Jewish 'messiah'. Any attempts to apply concrete 'evidence' or 'documentation' within the 'Gospel narrative' rises and falls upon the Fact that such is pure 'speculation' at best. As an example, which 'disciple' was present during the Trial of the 'descendant of David' and 'messiah'? (None, to my knowledge). And so, I 'speculate' according to 'history', -not according to 'theology'. You, on the other hand, 'speculate' according to 'theology', -not 'history.

The word (appellation) "Christ", it should be noted, first appeared in writing... as a so-called 'translation' of the perfectly known and clearly understood Hebrew word: 'messiah' into the Greek word: "Kristos" ("Christ")... however, there is no etymological basis or foundation in the Greek language or custom for such a 'word'. I therefore respectfully ask: Why did Paul find it necessary to translate 'messiah' into a word that theretofore did not exist?

You ask me to: "Think about this, meditate on this, research this!", Well, isn't it obvious to you that I have... and, that I have found it wanting?

My life-long study into these matters is not borne out of idle musings, neither is it a desire to cause intellectual and/or spiritual harm to anyone, rather, for Me, to make sense out of nonsense, hyperbole and devious machinations of a clever few (Saul aka Paul et al).

Although it might seem 'helpful', to acquiencent 'Christians', to 'believe' (without really 'knowing') that, "Christ is the Lord and Savior to and for mankind" and, that, the 'Gospel' is "The Holy Word of God", to Me, it seems a practical matter that whatever is 'written' about "Christ" is merely 'written', -"Christ" Is Not the 'Gospels'; "The Holy Word of God" Is Not the 'Gospels', -rather, The Holy Word of God Is the Cause of All (living) Creation... including this day (and Not merely a collection of 'canonized' and/or 'inspired' words in a Book. God (His Holy Word) cannot conceivably be contained in a Book, -no matter how 'lofty' and/or 'noble'.

'Truth is above all, but true living is higher still', so says the ancient axiom. To put that into perspective... If I were in need of medical attention, I would not seek Hippocrates; if I were in need of legal advise, I would not seek Moses, our Law-giver, nor Solomon for his wisdom; if I were in need of spiritual guidance (and I am), it behooves me, therfore to seek a living Prophet or Master or Guru or Saint (call Him whatever you will... for All is the same) and sit at His Holy Feet to imbibe the bitter-sweet elixur of His Holy Word that you may hear it reverberate within you (while you can) and not seek a dead thing.

Think about this, meditate on this, research this!, why don't you.

Peace, Shalom and Naamaste'.

'Teach love, use words only when necessary'

Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast

www.jesusbarabbas.info

Anathema: The Secret Story of Jesus

wenvas — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:44:52 -0500

Dear Roland,

//With regards to the former i.e. "Anathema: The Secret Story of Jesus" (which I have not solicited anyone to read nor invited anyone to make comments herein) nevertheless, is simply made available as the Source from out of which I based my conclusions in my Post with regards to Your Post about "Radical Jesus?".//

As some content (from your work) was made available as the source from which you based certain conclusions re 'Radical Jesus' and, considering the fact that you included a link to this work, www.jesusbarabbas.info I thought it logical to assume a strong connection between the aforementioned work and the topic 'Radical Jesus'.

I thought I had made it clear earlier on that the chief priests (pharisees) wanted Jesus to be crucified out of their own fear/envy of someone who's voice was becoming stronger each day with many turning away from the dogma of the pharisees and turning instead to the teaching of Jesus. They (the pharisees) tried unsuccessfully to trap him into denouncing Caesar in order to charge him with treason, but could not. Eventually they settled on a charge of herecy for making himself out to be 'The Son of God'.

//So, thanks again for your unsolicited comments, I can only hope that you come up with a better explaination as to why "Jesus" was crucified than me.//

As explained above, it's no big mystery what led to his crucifixion. The great mystery, of course, and a cornerstone of Christianity, is the why! Why did Christ choose to die on the cross? Yes, he did choose this! Pontius Pilate practically begged him to speak in his own defence but he remained silent.

Think about this, meditate on this, research this!

Best Wishes, Wendy

Anathema: The Secret Story of Jesus

Roland — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:42:57 -0500

wenvas,

Thank you for your unsolicited comment regarding my work. I note with amusement your claim that it is "based loosely on some Jewish history/Biblical passages... similar in vein to the notorious DaVinci Code." as well as your not commenting upon my Post re "Radical Jesus?".

I am afraid that you misunderstand and thus mis-state my position re. the above matters as well as the Topic upon which I Posted (the latter being, "Radical Jesus?", -in which case, you have not made any comment on.

With regards to the former i.e. "Anathema: The Secret Story of Jesus" (which I have not solicited anyone to read nor invited anyone to make comments herein) nevertheless, is simply made available as the Source from out of which I based my conclusions in my Post with regards to Your Post about "Radical Jesus?".

I am not here to argue about 'Anathema: The Secret Story of Jesus', much less to explain that my work is in no way "...based loosely on some Jewish history/Biblical passages...similar in
vein to the notorious DaVinci Code (which, by the way, I have never read the 'DaVinci Code' simply because I already know what and where it is based upon. I do not know of any 'author' who or that makes the claim that "Jesus [Barabbas] was the 'Son of God'". It is, at this point in time, a matter of and for 'researchers'. I merely gave to you my researched conclusions as it relates to: 'Radical Jesus?' in the hopes that your "good conscience" be not troubled as well as you not mislead others with more misleadings of your own.

So, thanks again for your unsolicited comments, I can only hope that you come up with a better explaination as to why "Jesus" was crucified than me.

Neither of these fictitious works
are deserving of any comment...", so why Did you comment on something that, in your eyes, doesn't deserve comment???

'Teach love, use words only when necessary'

Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast

www.jesusbarabbas.info

Anathema: The Secret Story of Jesus

wenvas — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:29:40 -0500

I assume you're the author of this fictitious work, based loosely on some Jewish history/Biblical passages...similar in vein to the notorious DaVinci Code. Neither of these fictitious works are deserving of any comment...

Radical Jesus

Roland — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:04:18 -0500

"If Jesus was not a threat to the Romans, then why did they execute him?
As for what Jesus said about Caesar and God, tell me, what does not
belong to God?"

Although not exactly the above quote that caught my attention (but another that I am unable to find right now) nevertherless, a question that haunted me for very many years during my search for "Barabbas".

It started when i was only eleven or twelve yrs old... I was curious about "Barabbas", -especially since he was depicted in the Holy Gospels (only) as "a notorious robber, murderer and insurrectionist"... my childish question was simply: How come nobody else has ever heard of him, -why is it that there is nothing (else) written about him by anybody, 'notorious'? This was exaserbated after I read 'Antiquities of the Jews' and 'Wars of the Jews' by Josephus. This childhood question became a thorn in my side and it remained with me until I 'discovered' that "Barabbas" was not his name at all, -in fact, it was "Jesus" (written in the original Greek Gospel according to Matthew (27:17) but omitted from the Latin translation of the same text and, most of the sub-sequential translations thereafter. He was called or referred to as "Barabbas". Barabbas is an Aramaic appellation, the meaning of which is, "Bar" = Son + "Abba" = Father (or God). Whoa!

Now, I really became more than merely 'curious'... however, after all that has been said and done, I was back to where I started. There was no way that I could reconcile the 'fact' that there were Two "Jesus'" that Pontius Pilate had to deal with... something was surely amiss, but What?

This brings me to the above question... but first, I had to 'research' the "messiah"...

As applicable to the "crucified" 'descendant of David'... Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, was drawn by lot to become the first 'anointed' king of the Jews. Saul was rebuked by the Lord for failing to abide by His edict (or command), -thus, shamed and dishonored, fell upon his own sword... bringing everlasting shame and dishonor to his family and tribe. David, of the tribe of Judah, replaced king Saul. David was succeeded by his son Solomon. Solomon was succeeded by his son Rehoboam. Ten tribes revolted against Rehoboam and the heretofore Theocratic governance and established a parallel 'secular' government. This 'schism' among the Jews continued down through the centuries... into the days of Herod.

Enter a 'descendant of David' and Jewish 'messiah', riding into Jerusalem on an ass, ushering an armed insurrection to overthrow Herod's 'secular' governance and replace it with the ancient 'theocracy' of his forefather (David).

This man, named Judas the Galilean, was a living nemesis, -not only to Herod's authority, -but, more importantly, to Saul of Tarsus, of the tribe of Benjamine, name sake to the original king of the Jews. No man in all of Judea hated and resented the 'descendant(s) of David more than Saul aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul. It was not until ten (10) yrs After the 'descendant of David' (Judas the Galilean or his son) was crucified that the beginnings of the Holy Gospels were written... at the behest of Saul or Paul and his cohorts, Mark and Luke (neither of whom were 'disciples' or eye witnesses to the actual people and events they portrayed).

Think you that an innocent "Jesus" was "crucified" because 'he' threatened the Romans? Think again.

It was the Jews who sought to maintain a 'secular' government and chose to keep it that way.

Jesus Barabbas (the actual 'Son of God') was set free.

'Teach love, use words only when necessary'

Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast

www.jesusbarabbas.info

Radical Jesus?

wenvas — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:08:57 -0500

//If Jesus was not a threat to the Romans, then why did they execute him?//

The Romans had no wish to execute Jesus. It was the priests (pharisees) who arrested him and brought him before Pontius Pilate who BTW found no fault with Jesus. He even offered to release one prisoner to them thinking they would choose Jesus rather than the notorious criminal Barabbas but the priests demanded he release Barabbas.

Pontius Pilate then (symbolically) washed his hands saying; "I am innocent of the blood of this just man"

It was the priests that felt threatened by Jesus...not the Romans!

PS: I apologise to all for having strayed so off topic, but I could not, in good conscience, let such misconceptions go unchallenged.

McCain's letter in full

wenvas — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:36:07 -0500

(CBS) The following is Sen. John McCain's letter to to Sen. Barack Obama regarding ongoing Congressional efforts towards bipartisan lobbying reform:

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senate

Radical Jesus

Sara Gunderson — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:56:30 -0500

If Jesus was not a threat to the Romans, then why did they execute him? As for what Jesus said about Caesar and God, tell me, what does not belong to God?

The teachings of Jesus are a threat to any power that seeks to dominate others.

Sara

My Political Thoughts--Listening to the Wind

Absolutely. If that had

evilslutopia — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:26:58 -0500

Absolutely. If that had happened, Carly Fiorina and Nancy Pfotenhauer would have been all over TV immediately screaming about how horribly sexist and offensive and disrespectful it was.

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia

Not true

wenvas — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:54:58 -0500

//For the people of the day, Christ's sermon was radical. He was challenging the power structure of the day and suggesting that the poor, downtrodden, the least of us, would inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. He was lauding the peacemakers, those that would create peace where conflict existed.//

This is simply not true!

No way whatsoever was Christ challenging the power structure of the day! What he challenged was the religious doctrine of the scribes and the pharisees. At the time of Christ the Romans were the ruling power and he had no interest whatsoever in opposing them. If you recall, when asked by one of the pharisees (in an attempt to trap him into criticizing the ruling power) who should we give our allegiance to (or words to that affect) he asked for a coin. When handed one he asked; "Who's image is on this coin", When told it was Caesars he said; "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is God's". He had no interest whatsoever of challenging the ruling power...as you suggest.

As for your interpretation of the 8th beatitude; Blessed be the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God. This refers to the virtue of a peaceful heart filled with, not only the love of God, but love of all mankind...a heart devoid of hate, pride, envy or greed. These beatitudes are intended to guide our soul back to God by way of virtue.

Anyone who wishes to turn these into some kind of political statement to suit their own purpose is far removed from the spiritual wisdom they contain. This doesn't surprise me when it comes to Jeremiah Wright (Obama's spiritual mentor for the past 20 yrs...now in the closet) who is blind to the spiritual message of the beatitudes by a heart full of hatred.

They say, if you want to know the character of a man, take a look at his friends.

Brain Fart???

Sara Gunderson — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:25:14 -0500

I think McCain was either trying to be witty, as someone suggested earlier, or else his brain glitched on him.

What bothered me wasn't what he said, it was the way he said it. I felt his tone of voice to the audience was very condescending. Like the way some adults talk to children.

Sara

My Political Thoughts--Listening to the Wind

My Perspective

Sara Gunderson — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:20:32 -0500

Obama isn't mocking Scripture. He might be mocking those who try and turn our country into a theocracy, but the way it reads to me is that he's saying it is unwise to base our legislation on religious texts. After all, whose religious text would be used? Do you really want a political system that is dictated by the majority religion? What happens when your religion isn't or is no longer the majority? This is why religious groups like the Baptists pushed for the separation of Church and State. Christians might be the majority in the U.S., but there are any number of minority expressions of the Christian faith who don't want somebody else's version pushed on them.

Sara

My Political Thoughts--Listening to the Wind

Out of the Mouths of Christians

Sara Gunderson — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:08:55 -0500

Obama's (so-called) Christian faith is doubtful at best. No genuine Christian would ever publicly mock The Sermon on the Mount; saying (in his own words) that it is so radical that it's doubtful that our own defence dept. could survive its application. This does not come out of the mouth of a Christian!

He wasn't mocking the Sermon on the Mount. The statement reflects his deeply held beliefs about the teachings of Jesus. And does not stand alone. Similar words have come out of the mouth of thousands of Christians. I am one of those Christians.

I highly recommend that you check out http://www.sojo.net/

Sara

My Political Thoughts--Listening to the Wind

In Perspective

wenvas — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:26:37 -0500

To understand Obama's comments in the proper perspective I will quote his words (in italics) from the beginning of the video. First he stated;

Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation. Which passage of scripture should quide our public policy?

Excuse me? Is he suggesting that public policy should be guided by scripture? Does the 'Seperation of Church and State' no longer apply? And. if not, is he suggesting that some other doctrine is more suitable...Islamic law perhaps??

Should we go with Leviticus which suggests... Or Deuteronomy which suggests...Or what about the Sermon on the Mount...

Such mocking of biblical scripture is totally unacceptable to genuine Christians who revere the Bible.

Leviticus and Deuteronomy as we (should) know - and so should Obama - deal with the laws of Moses pertaining to sacrifices performed to absolve (certain) sins committed by the people. The laws laid out in these books were also there to guide the people of Moses in such matters as the type of foods fit for consumption and other important health matters applicable to that day/time. For Christians, of course, live sacrifices for the remission of sins, no longer had/have any relevance since the crucifixion of Christ who offered his own life, the supreme sacrifice, for the remission of sins.

Neither race or religion should be a consideration in this election, but Obama has made it so by playing the race card whenever there is any mention of his history, his character; and by speaking out (publicly) against certain passages of the Bible...

But, you know, anyone who dares question this is set upon by his followers (and) his campaign and accused themselves of being racists and/or radical Christians. There is something so terribly, terribly, terribly wrong with this!

Obama, to my mind, is no more a Christian than his pastor of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright, who preaches hatred against America (and middle class Americans) with such vehemence he almost goes into ecstacy.

As for his screaming God Damn America from the pulpit in regards to the bombing of Hiroshama (which forced the Japanese emporer to surrender) he should study the history of the time before he spews such hatred. If it were not for America's intervention Australia would undoubtedly have been overwhelmed by the advancing Japanese army...which BTW had already bombed Darwin several times. Many Australian lives were lost during that war...the atrocities of the Japanese prison camps were too horrible to contemplate. Australia (and other nations in the pacific region) have good reason to shout out; God Bless America without who's intervention they would not be enjoying the freedoms they do today.

Which One? THAT One!

Erin Kotecki Vest — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:41:10 -0500

There was talk of the economy, of bail outs, of Fannie and Freddie and Russia and Afghanistan...but nothing had the blogosphere buzzing like two little words uttered by Senator John McCain during tonight's debate:

"That One"

"That One" was hashtagged on twitter faster than you can say "lipstick."

Wendy says, "Ready to start tallying the 'That One' headlines tomorrow morning... " but it seems she won't have to wait that long.

Here on the BlogHer live blog of the debate media girl found the comment "odd", while Uniongal says nothing "angered or pushed me further" than the remark.

What did I think? Condescending, patronizing, unprofessional and the Senator McCain we all hear about but don't see too often in public.

What did YOU think about the "That One" moment in tonight's debate? Much ado about nothing? A variation on "those people?" Are you disgusted we're even having this conversation?

If it's going to be the next big buzz of this election season, we might as well start talking about it now so we can move back to issues tomorrow.

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.