Pirate Jesus?

[Mithrae]

Listening to arguably the best musical act to enter the mainstream in the past decade (pirate metal band Alestorm, for the benefit of the plebs*) I can't help but think of our general human tendency to romanticize the past: Pirates of the Caribbean, Pirate Parties in numerous countries (some with electoral success), pirates as divine beings in the unquestionable Sacred Scripture of His Noodliness and so on. Piracy remains an ongoing threat in some regions, and the reality is nothing to be glorified either now or in its heyday, so why on earth do people find the idea so fascintating?

Might we draw a parallel here with the more romanticized, metaphorical concept of "sacrifice" in the common Christian conception of Jesus which found its footing just as the actual Jewish temple was destroyed?

How could anyone imagine that "God is incapable of tolerating someone who stole a car unless he (God) has his son brutally murdered first" is a sound doctrine? It's more ridiculous than any modern pirate fetishization, by far! But in the context of romanticizing and hence loosely integrating some otherwise prominent and dissonant aspects of recent centuries' history and culture, perhaps it makes a lot more sense.

Was Jesus a 'pirate,' a romanticized integration of prior centuries' customs into more recent contexts?



* I say arguably because rapper Lil Dicky may give them a run for their money, and it's debatable when Two Steps From Hell entered the mainstream.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]

It's true that the idea of Jesus as a sacrifice existed before the destruction of the Jewish temple, in Paul's letters and perhaps in the gospel of Mark.

Correct! And I would add that we have pretty strong evidence to support the two letters addressed to Theophilus would have been composed well before the destruction of the Temple as well. Moreover, we do not know when the other two gospels would have been written, which means they could have very well been written before the destruction of the Temple.

Luke and Acts are not "letters" no matter how often you say it, any more than The Great Gatsby was a letter to Zelda Fitzgerald.

Even on the dubious assumption that Theophilus, "friend of God," were actually a specific person rather than an honorific for the worthy reader, it would still function as simply a dedication of the books to a patron or associate: There is no personal greeting "From Billy, to Theophilus" (cf. Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1 etc. etc.), no personal comments, queries or advice, no parting salutation... but instead a high level of literary planning and narrative structure which the author himself describes not as an epistle (cf. Col. 4:16), but simply as "an orderly account" (Luke 1:1,3) and "the former account" (Acts 1:1).

We have excellent evidence that Matthew was written after the temple's destruction, and even better evidence that Luke was written later still: Whereas Mark 9:1 is ambiguous, 'Matthew' changes the wording into an unambiguous prediction that Jesus would return within the lifetime of those standing there with him (16:28) and, not only that, adds a brand new prediction found nowhere else in the gospels (Matt. 10:23). One could always suppose that Jesus actually made those false predictions of course, but it's far more likely that the author was convinced that the temple's destruction heralded the final 'seven' of Daniel's prophecy (Dan. 9:27, a reference made explicit in Matt. 24:15 which Mark had only hinted at). The gospel's thematic features likewise strongly indicate a post-temple era of Rabbinic/Christian rivalry, so much so that many scholars date it into the 80s CE (whereas I would say that the eschatological content implies a 70-74 CE date). But whereas 'Matthew' hypes up the expectations of Jesus' return, Luke carefully downplays them: He removes the prophetic 'abomination of desolation' from the discussion of Jerusalem's destruction (Luke 21:20) and inserts an indefinite "times of the gentiles" to allow for a delayed return (v24); alone among canonical gospels Luke has Jesus explicitly refuting the notion of a visibly arriving kingdom of God (17:20-21), instead saying that it was already present; and his fantastic scene of the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost may be an interpretation of "the kingdom of God come with power" from in Mark 9:1 (though consistent with 17:21, Luke 9:27 removes "with power" from its version of that passage). The dependency of Luke/Acts on the works of Josephus further indicates a later date of authorship, no sooner than 76CE at the earliest.

Therefore, my point has been demonstrated in that the idea of the crucifixion of Jesus being the final, and complete sacrifice would have been in place well before the destruction of the Temple, which seemed to be your point.

Paul's letters obviously promote that idea decades before the temple's destruction, but that wasn't precisely my point. A certain amount of congnitive dissonance regarding the Jerusalem sacrificial system would not be very strange for Greek-speaking diaspora Jews such as Paul and perhaps Mark, as I noted, especially if they did expect for the temple and that sacrificial system to be destroyed soon. But in any case there always have and always will be a few people saying strange and wonderful things at any time; the issue is not whether a handful of people held that view beforehand, but the historical fact that most of the growth of that religion/theology occurred afterwards. If there had been no Jewish revolt and no destruction of the temple, Christianity may have forever remained little more than a strange offshoot of Judaism, fading into oblivion as its failed predictions of the temple's destruction, the end of Jewish sacrifices and the return of Jesus proved its falsehood beyond any possible doubt. Only the fact that it was partially correct, theologically if nothing else (perhaps predictively/historically, depending whether Mark was written before 70 CE), made it viable.

As far as the rest of what you say here, we could talk about, discuss, and debate the animal sacrifices commanded in the OT, but I highly doubt we would make much headway concerning the topic, but I will assure you that it would entail far more than simply coming to the conclusion, "Killing animals obviously is not actually important to God;"

Well perhaps we can consider just two of those sacrifices in what you call the 'old' testament, two of the many ordinances which were specifically commanded for all eternity:

• Leviticus 16:15 He shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the curtain, and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. 16 Thus he shall make atonement for the sanctuary, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel, and because of their transgressions, all their sins; and so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which remains with them in the midst of their uncleannesses..
  . . . 27 The bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be taken outside the camp; their skin and their flesh and their dung shall be consumed in fire. 28 The one who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward may come into the camp. 29 This shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall deny yourselves, and shall do no work, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you. 30 For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord. 31 It is a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall deny yourselves; it is a statute forever. 32 The priest who is anointed and consecrated as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement, wearing the linen vestments, the holy vestments. 33 He shall make atonement for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the people of Israel once in the year for all their sins. And Moses did as the Lord had commanded him.
  
  
  Numbers 19:2 This is a statute of the law that the Lord has commanded: Tell the Israelites to bring you a red heifer without defect, in which there is no blemish and on which no yoke has been laid. 3 You shall give it to the priest Eleazar, and it shall be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. 4 The priest Eleazar shall take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle it seven times towards the front of the tent of meeting. 5 Then the heifer shall be burned in his sight; its skin, its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall be burned. 6 The priest shall take cedarwood, hyssop, and crimson material, and throw them into the fire in which the heifer is burning..
  . . . 9 Then someone who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the Israelites for the water for cleansing. It is a purification offering. 10 The one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.
  This shall be a perpetual statute for the Israelites* and for the alien residing among them. 11 Those who touch the dead body of any human being shall be unclean seven days. 12 They shall purify themselves with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if they do not purify themselves on the third day and on the seventh day, they will not become clean. 13 All who touch a corpse, the body of a human being who has died, and do not purify themselves, defile the tabernacle of the Lord; such persons shall be cut off from Israel..
  . . . 20 Any who are unclean but do not purify themselves, those persons shall be cut off from the assembly, for they have defiled the sanctuary of the Lord. Since the water for cleansing has not been dashed on them, they are unclean. 21 It shall be a perpetual statute for them. The one who sprinkles the water for cleansing shall wash his clothes, and whoever touches the water for cleansing shall be unclean until evening.

* Note that the 'new' covenant or testament is specifically directed toward the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which Christians claim they belong to (Hebrews 8:8, Jeremiah 31:31, Romans 11:17-24).

Do Christians as members of the house of Israel accept and observe these everlasting commands from the Lord for their atonement from sin and purification from corpses?

Or have these sacrificial rites been romanticized in Christians' minds, turned into something quite different, idealized as some kind of symbol or placeholder for the 'real thing' which supposedly occurred more than a thousand years later? Obviously the latter is the case, so the question is not whether that animal sacrifice system was romanticized by Christians into the graciousness of a self-sacrificing deity, but why:
> Was it because Yahweh really did intend to switch over to a different system later on down the line, and was simply lying to the Israelites with all that "everlasting statute" nonsense?
> Or was it because some 1st century folk dealt with their cognitive dissonance over the self-serving Jerusalem priesthood, obvious similarity to pagan customs, and the eventual destruction of the temple by 'reinterpreting' the historical facts in a fanciful but much more palatable manner?

[Realworldjack]

.

You continue to use the word, "propaganda" concerning the "gospel writers" as if it would be a known fact, that they did in fact intend what they wrote to be, "propaganda". The problem is, you have failed to demonstrate this to be a fact, and the evidence would not suggest this to be the case.

If someone writes an account (or article or letter) that is later used as propaganda for "persuading of the masses" by others, does the intent of the originator somehow make it not propaganda later?

As I have said in the past, and you have ignored, is the fact that "propaganda" is for the purpose of "persuading the masses", and it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that, the overwhelming majority of the letters contained in the NT were addressed to those who already believed, with no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would ever be read by anyone other than the original intended audience, and the authors certainly could not have known about any sort of NT, which their personal letters would be contained in, hundreds of years later.

Twenty-three percent (23%) of the NT consists of ‘epistles’ (letters) written by Paul/Saul or by others pretending to be him. https://apologika.blogspot.com/2014/05/ ... ament.html

Twenty-seven percent (27%) is ‘Luke’ and ‘Acts’ – not letters

The balance (fifty percent – 50%) includes ‘gospels’ given the names ‘Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’ and Revelation (7%) that are NOT letters

So then, while it is certainly fine to share your opinion, it would be nice to see you actually defend what seems to be a fantasy of yours, with some actual facts, and evidence in support, and then go on to explain how these letters could possibly be considered to be for the purpose of "persuading of the masses" when the overwhelming majority can be demonstrated to have been addressed to particular audiences at the time, who would have already believed, with no concern, nor any idea, that anyone else would ever read these letters?

Even if your argument held for a quarter of the NT (23%), what about the remaining three-quarters?

Okay, so it seems we are getting hung up of the term, "letters". So then, allow us to drop this term completely. With this being the case, you do seem to admit that the writings of Paul would indeed be letters, and they were all addressed to those who would have already believed.

As we then turn our attention to the material which was clearly intended for Theophilus, we can also see that this audience as well, would have already been a believer. In fact, it can be determined that the overwhelming majority of the NT would have been intended for those who already believed, and this would include, Revelations, and Hebrews.

Ergo, the only material remaining in question would be Matthew, Mark, and John, all of which do not identify a particular audience. So then, whether "letters" or not, the overwhelming majority of the NT, was intended for audiences who would have already believed, and it very well could be the case, that what would be remaining could have been intended for a believing audience as well.

Of course, since Matthew, Mark, and John do not identify an audience, we cannot simply assume they would have been intended for a believing audience, but we also cannot assume they were intended for a wider audience. The most we can say is, we do not know who the intended audience may have been.

However, excluding these 3, we can say with confidence that it can be determined that the overwhelming majority of the NT would have been intended for those who were already believers, which would mean they were not intended to be "publicized" in order to persuade a wider audience.

If someone writes an account (or article or letter) that is later used as propaganda for "persuading of the masses" by others, does the intent of the originator somehow make it not propaganda later?

For whatever reason, you seem to want to insist that the NT would be "propaganda", no matter what must be done in order for this to occur. My only concern here is, as to whether we can aggree that the original intent would have been to address those who would have already believed, and therefore cannot be seen as attempting to persaude a wider audience, since the overwhelming majority of the content can be demonstrated to be addressed to believing audiences?

If we can agree on this, then I will be satisfied, and will not even attempt to refute what may have been done later on with these writings.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 11 by Mithrae]

Luke and Acts are not "letters" no matter how often you say it, any more than The Great Gatsby was a letter to Zelda Fitzgerald.

No matter, I will simply drop the word "letters". However, this material can be demonstrated to have been addressed to a particular audience, who would have already believed.

We have excellent evidence that Matthew was written after the temple's destruction, and even better evidence that Luke was written later still

Oh really? Well, if you will notice this article you cite continues to say things like,

This thesis, if correct

You see, it is admitting to giving an opinion, and I can assure you there would be those who would not agree, which is exactly why you will never see me refer to the "scholars", because it is pointless.

However, if we stick to the facts, we have "excellent evidence" that the author of the material addressed to Theophilus, (no matter whom Theophilus may have been) would have traveled with Paul on his missionary journeys, because it is a fact, that this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the travels of Paul, as if he is there to witness what he records, and the only way to avoid this fact, would be to do the same thing you are attempting to do with the name, "Theophilus".

So then, if this author did indeed travel with Paul, would you like to do the math, in order to determine how old this author would have had to have been, to have written after 70 AD?

Moreover, we have even more "excellent evidence" that this author would have indeed been Luke, and we have "excellent evidence" that Luke did indeed travel with Paul, and was with Paul while in prison, since this author ends his second account to Theophilus, with Paul being under arrest, along with having letters written by Paul, which clearly refer to Luke as being with him on his journeys, on top of another letter which would have clearly been written while under arrest, and Paul just so happens to mention in passing, "only Luke is with me". And of course the only way to avoid this evidence, would be to appeal to the "scholars" who claim, "Paul would not have been the author of this letter".

So then, in order to avoid the evidence, that this author addressed one individual, we must assume he used the meaning of the name Theophius, to address a wider audience. To avoid the evidence that this author would have traveled with Paul, we must assume that the author used some sort of literary device, when using the words, "we", and "us". To avoid the evidence that this author would have been with Paul in prison, we must assume that Paul would not have been the author of the letter, which simply says in passing, "only Luke is with me".

However, I would also like to point out even more evidence that the author of the accounts to Theophilus would have traveled with Paul, and I would like to know what literary device he may have used, in order to create this evidence?

Because you see, this author begins his second account describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem. However, when Paul comes on the scene, and begins his journeys, this author begins to focus almost solely on the travels of Paul, and does not mention the Apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless, Paul comes back in contact with them again.

Now, can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can, because if this author was indeed traveling with Paul, then he could only report on what Paul may have been doing, and could not possibly report on what the other Apostles were doing, until, or unless, Paul were to come back in contact with them again.

So then, as we can see, if we stick to the facts we have, then we have "excellent evidence" in order to support the fact that this author did indeed travel with Paul, which would clearly indicate that the material would have been written before the destruction of the Temple, and the only way to avoid this evidence, is to assume the "scholars" have it right.

Paul's letters obviously promote that idea decades before the temple's destruction, but that wasn't precisely my point.

Well, it was my point, and I think we now agree.

A certain amount of congnitive dissonance regarding the Jerusalem sacrificial system would not be very strange for Greek-speaking diaspora Jews such as Paul and perhaps Mark, as I noted, especially if they did expect for the temple and that sacrificial system to be destroyed soon.

Most of what you say here would be speculation, and that is fine, but why would Paul, Mark, or anyone else, "expect for the temple and that sacrificial system to be destroyed soon"? Could it be that "Jesus had predicted this to occur"? That would be "speculation" as well, but it is a fact, that this prediction by Jesus was indeed recorded.

My point is, one can certainly speculate anything they wish, but this would not negate the fact that there are facts, and evidence which may cause others to speculate differently.

As an example, in "Acts" it tells us that some of the believing Jews from Jerusalem, sold their land, in support of the Jews who decided to stay in Jerusalem, instead of returning home. Could one of the reasons these Jews freely gave up their land, would be the fact they were expecting the destruction of Jerusalem, predicted by Jesus, and the land would be no good to them, anyway? You see, anyone can speculate.

But in any case there always have and always will be a few people saying strange and wonderful things at any time; the issue is not whether a handful of people held that view beforehand, but the historical fact that most of the growth of that religion/theology occurred afterwards.

What would be the evidence for such a thing? Because we have already seemed to have agreed on the letters of Paul, and we know that Paul addressed a number of Churches with letters, and we also know that Paul wrote letters to other Churches, that we do not have? The point is, Christianity seemed to be well established, with Paul proclaiming Jesus as a "sacrifice" taking the place of the Temple sacrifices, well before the destruction of the Temple?

If there had been no Jewish revolt and no destruction of the temple, Christianity may have forever remained little more than a strange offshoot of Judaism, fading into oblivion as its failed predictions of the temple's destruction, the end of Jewish sacrifices and the return of Jesus proved its falsehood beyond any possible doubt.

Again, this is all speculation, and we will never know. What we do know is, it is recorded that Jesus did in fact predict this destruction, and it is also a fact that none of the Biblical writers mention the events of 70 AD.

Only the fact that it was partially correct, theologically if nothing else (perhaps predictively/historically, depending whether Mark was written before 70 CE), made it viable.

Or, we could "speculate" that all of what Jesus predicted, occurred in 70 AD?

At this point I would like to refer to something that was said in the article you cite, and it is a point I have made myself in the past here on this site.

since the rate of publication in antiquity was exceedingly limited and slow, requiring hand copies made by personal slaves

Again, this was from the article you supply, and I agree with this 100%. So then, we are to imagine, that 2 of the gospel writers, not only copied from one of the others, but also had a copy of another shared source?

The question of course is, where did they get these copies? As this article points out, copies would be hard to come by, as there would not be very many. As an example, if we assume that Mark would have been written first, it would have been a painstaking process to actually write the original out. At that point, who would have the this original writing? Well, that would be the intended audience.

If the original intended audience did in fact make a copies, it certainly would not have been in order to pass these copies around in order for everyone to have their own personal copy, and some of the copying would have been in order to preserve the writing for the original audience.

However, the "scholars" would have us believe that, not one, but two different authors not only copied from the same source, they also had the same, and exact other source, which they can only identify as "Q" since they have no idea what this source would be?

So then, as I have said, it seems pointless to refer to the opinion of the "scholars" since it would simply be an opinion, to which not all of them would agree, on top of the fact that their opinion seems to conflict with the facts, such as the copying, which this article seems to clearly suggest there could not have possibly been many copies of anything at the time, much less enough for one to have their very own.

As far as then rest of what you say, this would take a whole other OP, and I doubt we would ever be able to address it all, because there would be a lot involved. With that being said, it is a fact that Jesus was said to have predicted the destruction of the Temple. It is also a fact that Jesus is said to be the final sacrifice. It is also a fact that before the destruction of Jerusalem, Peter is said to have preached to the Gentiles. It is also a fact, that Peter was under the impression that it would have been unlawful for him the enter a Gentile's house. It is also a fact, that Peter is said to have had to give a defense for his actions to the other Apostles in Jerusalem. It is also a fact that the others gave their blessing after hearing the defense. It is a fact that Paul began to preach that, "we have been freed from the law".

The point is, it is certainly fine to speculate that all these things MAY have been "romanticized", but one can also speculate that they MAY in fact have everything to do with being true.

[SallyF]

The romanticisation continues to this day.

The original propagandists said NOTHING of this.

We only have it from the Archangel Gabriel that the Jesus character was to reclaim the throne of his ancestor King David …

After some unspecified fumblings between the Holy Ghost and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[Avoice]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

It doesn't matter what paul says. Or what i say. Or what you say. What matters is Gods opinion. Yes?

God said he' only accepts sacrifices in the place he chooses. Furthermore he made surevto tell us we do nt get to choose. He even repeated that a second time. He picks the spot. Not us. And he picked on the alter on the temple mount. You expect a sacrifice in a place called golgotha - the skull outside of Jerusalem is okay? God said no! Such a despicable place. But thats my opinion. Bottom line is it us unacceptable. God said so. So now what? Will you try to skirt that some way.? How are you going to get around this? Biggercqurstion iscwhy woukd you? Doesnt Gods words mean anything.

And keep in mind- jesus didnt want anything to do with the dying scene. Not my will but yours he told God. An unwilling sacrifice.

Jesus died once for all sins? Oh really? Then why will the sacrificial system be reibstated in end times. And why will the Messiah offer sacrifice for HIMSELF abd also sacrifice for the nation? Once for all sins huh? And if he is a sinless demigod then why would he need to iffer a sacrifice?

Mary impregnated by god.... Thats so pagan. No one sees it because ww think we are high tech and paganisn was centuries ago. Its alive and well. God crawling out of a vagina do he can die for the sins committed by things he created? God needed someone to pay the price? So...he killed himself to pay himself. The creator of heaven and Earth is psychotic? Christians saybl thats God nearly naked hanging bloody on that cross. For the love if God...if they think thats God cover him up. Stop shaming him. Is that God, really? Come on! Like nan has the power to kill God rolling my eyes

[SamanthaClarkson]

This is a fascinating parallel, but it is hardly possible. I think that pirates and Jesus are not related, especially since it is stupid to call Jesus a pirate.
Interestingly, a person is in constant search and doubt. This is absolutely normal.
We all know that pirates rob and steal other people's property. This directly contradicts Jesus and the whole concept of deity.
That is why such parallels are impossible.
All these assumptions are dangerous because our children will get even more confused about everything, will not understand what they believe. They will consider all sorts of meaningless and stupid versions. Our task is to explain everything to them and show them the right direction. Then, when they grow up, they will search for the truth themselves.

________________________
matohash.com

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #1]

Was Jesus a 'pirate,' a romanticized integration of prior centuries' customs into more recent contexts?

Humans seem to do this with many, many things in their past. Sometimes, it may be for political gain; other times for social gain; other times, maybe just for fun.
I don't believe there's much "100% factual" of any part of the bible and thus, the Christian god. While the intent may, indeed, been to provide accurate and real representation of 'God', I think, a good half of it is political biased, simply due to how humanity works as time passes, not to mention the romanticized aspect as you described.
I've seen claims that the Christian Jesus is made-up of parts of other, past leaders into one, grand, person. Without a time machine, there's no way to tell for sure (much to the dismay of many a Christian). That's why Christians need faith to survive spiritually, instead of facts.

[Purple Knight]

Piracy remains an ongoing threat in some regions, and the reality is nothing to be glorified either now or in its heyday, so why on earth do people find the idea so fascinating?

I think it's about freedom, actually. When you're a parasite, stealing to live, taking what you want instead of asking for it, you're beholden to no one. Being a farmer in ancient times makes you relatively as free; it's just not as glamourous. Even then, if you're spending all of your effort on generating resources, people who are spending all their ability points into stealing are going to parasitise you, and that's not anybody's fantasy.

How could anyone imagine that "God is incapable of tolerating someone who stole a car unless he (God) has his son brutally murdered first" is a sound doctrine?

Laws of the universe. If sin (or at least, punishment) is transferable but it absolutely does not dissipate unless a debt is paid, this follows. It's just not exactly nice. Now God being God... it either can't change the laws of the universe or it simply doesn't want to. There may be a perfectly good reason it doesn't want to.