| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sam Sloan" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2004 04:15:17 PM |
| Object: |
Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul
I almost never watch TV. It was just by chance that my baby turned on
the TV and I saw a special coming up entitled "Peter Jennings
Reporting: Jesus and Paul". I decided to watch it. I am glad I did,
because it gave me a lot of new ideas and information about the
origins of Christianity. Here are some of the ideas. I am not
expressing an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with these
ideas. I do not know enough about the subject to express an opinion,
so I am just reporting them as ideas:
I do wonder what were the sources for much of what Peter Jennings
reports. For example, he says that there were two uprisings against
the Romans by the Jews when Jesus was a child. Jesus must have known
about these uprisings and therefore knew that his opposition to Roman
rule could lead to his death. One uprising took place when Jesus was
four years old and the other took place when Jesus was a teenager.
Both of these uprisings were brutally suppressed by the Romans and
everyone involved was killed.
How does Peter Jennings know this? As far as I know, there are almost
no historical sources from this era except for the Bible itself, and I
do not recall these uprisings being mentioned in the Bible.
One of Peter Jennings' experts states that there were many
messiah-type personalities in the first century AD. They usually ended
up with a violent death. When the messiah died, his followers who were
not killed had to find a new messiah. I wonder how this expert knows
this, since it is also stated that we know nothing about these other
messiahs today.
In most cases, Peter Jennings interviews experts or supposed experts
who make various statements. These must be viewed as topics for
discussion and inquiry, rather than as hard, proven facts. Here are a
few:
1. Judas was possibly a mythical person. The word "Judas" and "Jew"
are the same in the Hebrew alphabet. Thus, when the Bible says that
Jesus was given up by Judas, it merely means that Jesus was given up
by the Jews.
2. Paul was not an anti-Semite. He lived his life as a Jew and died as
a Jew. It probably never even crossed his mind to be against the Jews.
His statements in the Book of Galatians which are regarded as
anti-Semitic today were just responding to local situations which
existed at that time. When Paul talks about the Jews, he is talking
about a group of which he is a member.
3. Nobody knows what happened to Paul. He was probably executed on
orders of the Emperor Nero, but there is no way to know that. Paul
just dropped out of sight near the end of the Bible.
4. The Apostle Peter was held in the same prison in Rome with Paul.
Peter was crucified upside down at his own request because he did not
want to die the same way that Jesus did.
5. Jesus was probably never buried. Part of the punishment of being
crucified was that your body was left hanging on a cross, where it was
eaten by birds and other wild animals.
6. There were many other messiah-types in the first century AD. The
difference between them and Jesus is that they just died, usually
violently, whereas the followers of Jesus said that they had seen him
alive after he was dead. It was the belief that Jesus had come back to
life which led people to believe in him as opposed to the others.
7. At that time, Rome ruled the world from Spain and France to Israel.
Each little region across this wide expanse had their own local gods
and goddesses and local beliefs, except for the Jews, who had one god
for everybody. It was this unique feature which eventually led to the
adoption of Christianity as the state religion, so that all Romans
would have the same religion.
8. Nowadays, the areas where Paul traveled are divided up into
countries, such as Israel, Syria, Turkey, Greece and Italy. Each time
you cross from place to place, you must have a visa and a passport,
plus you must pass through customs check posts. However, in the time
of Paul, this was all one country: Rome. This enabled Paul to travel
more widely and to spread his beliefs further than would be possible
today. It was also the fact that Rome was one very large country which
accounted for the rapid expansion of Christianity once it was adopted
as the state religion.
9. Paul was never really accepted by James and Peter. At first, they
probably thought he was a spy. He had been a persecutor of the
followers of Jesus, and now he was coming to them, claiming to be one
of them. They were probably suspicious. Later, they disliked the new
people Paul was bringing to them.
10. Paul was like a Harvard-educated lawyer coming to join a group of
simple artisans and fishermen. He was way out of their league
intellectually. He was a genius. They often rejected him and never
really got along with him.
11. It was Paul who had the brilliant idea which brought about the
creation of a separate religion. Without Paul, those who believed in
Jesus would probably have formed a minor sect of Judaism, nearly
forgotten today. However, Paul wanted to bring in others who were not
Jews. To accomplish this, he had to break one of the basic tenants of
Judaism. Paul declared that men did not have to be circumcised in
order to be followers of Jesus and that believers in Jesus could eat
anything they wanted. Circumcision was a painful and dangerous process
which could even lead to infection, disfigurement and death. Jesus
never said anything about circumcision. It was Paul, on his own, who
decided that circumcision was not necessary. It was this decision by
Paul which brought about the creation of Christianity as a separate
religion and not merely as a branch of Judaism.
12. Paul never intended to start a new religion. He always thought of
himself as a Jew. He thought he was simply bringing more people into
Judaism.
13. By the time of the end of the life of Paul, there were probably
seven million Christians. It was not only Paul who was spreading the
word about Jesus. There were many others. Paul was just one of many,
and perhaps not even the most important one. However, we do not know
much about those others today, because they did not write any books or
letters. We do not even know their names or their teachings.
14. The four books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, provide a window
which enables us to catch a glimpse of what was going on at that time.
However, through these windows, we can only see part of the picture.
We cannot get the full view of what was going on at that time.
15. Nobody knows who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or when or why
they were written. There are other books about Jesus from that time
which have not been accepted by Christians. For example, there is the
Book of Thomas, which contains sayings of Jesus but does not mention
his death or resurrection.
16. Paul's opposition to sex and marriage was not because he was
against sex and marriage. Rather, it was because Paul believed that
the end of the world was really near and there was no time for sex .
If the world is about to end, the production of children is pointless.
Paul believed that the world would end at the most in a few years. He
could never have imagined that his words would still be read and
interpreted two thousand years later.
It goes without saying that Peter Jennings will get a lot of flack
because of this broadcast. Traditional Christians will probably try to
have him banned from the airwaves. Peter Jennings may become the
Salmon Rushdie of Christianity. It took a brave man to air such
controversial views.
Sam Sloan
http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=lv_jesus_paul
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/contender.html
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000280.html
.
|
|
| User: "Angelo DePalma" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
10 Apr 2004 10:58:22 PM |
|
|
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote
Several historians of the day wrote about these uprisings. Incidentally none
ever ever ever mentioned Jesus.
I do wonder what were the sources for much of what Peter Jennings
reports. For example, he says that there were two uprisings against
the Romans by the Jews when Jesus was a child. Jesus must have known
about these uprisings and therefore knew that his opposition to Roman
rule could lead to his death. One uprising took place when Jesus was
four years old and the other took place when Jesus was a teenager.
Both of these uprisings were brutally suppressed by the Romans and
everyone involved was killed.
Half true. There are no surviving historical references from this era that
mention Jesus or his disciples, but there were many Roman, Greek, and Hebrew
historians of this day who reported on just about everything else of
consequence that happened in dem daze.
How does Peter Jennings know this? As far as I know, there are almost
no historical sources from this era except for the Bible itself, and I
do not recall these uprisings being mentioned in the Bible.
These are mentioned by Jewish historians of the day. If I remember correctly
several of these messiahs were called Jesus (a very common name in those
days).
One of Peter Jennings' experts states that there were many
messiah-type personalities in the first century AD. They usually ended
up with a violent death. When the messiah died, his followers who were
not killed had to find a new messiah. I wonder how this expert knows
this, since it is also stated that we know nothing about these other
messiahs today.
Sam, I wouldn't put my er...faith in any TV journalist, especially an anchor
like Jennings. He is there to sell TV ads, not disseminate the truth.
In most cases, Peter Jennings interviews experts or supposed experts
who make various statements. These must be viewed as topics for
discussion and inquiry, rather than as hard, proven facts. Here are a
few:
Historians are unclear as to whether Paul actually wrote the epistles, or
even if he existed.
2. Paul was not an anti-Semite. He lived his life as a Jew and died as
a Jew. It probably never even crossed his mind to be against the Jews.
His statements in the Book of Galatians which are regarded as
anti-Semitic today were just responding to local situations which
existed at that time. When Paul talks about the Jews, he is talking
about a group of which he is a member.
This story about Peter is almost certainly myth.
4. The Apostle Peter was held in the same prison in Rome with Paul.
Peter was crucified upside down at his own request because he did not
want to die the same way that Jesus did.
No way to tell...no corroborating history.
5. Jesus was probably never buried. Part of the punishment of being
crucified was that your body was left hanging on a cross, where it was
eaten by birds and other wild animals.
Paul also never ever mentions one single gospel event in any of his
writings, which suggests that he was unaware of those writings. Reasonable,
since the earliest any gospel might have been written was around 70 AD.
9. Paul was never really accepted by James and Peter. At first, they
probably thought he was a spy. He had been a persecutor of the
followers of Jesus, and now he was coming to them, claiming to be one
of them. They were probably suspicious. Later, they disliked the new
people Paul was bringing to them.
Probably true. While the original disciples were arguing over whether to be
Jews or not, Paul argued for breaking away.
11. It was Paul who had the brilliant idea which brought about the
creation of a separate religion. Without Paul, those who believed in
Jesus would probably have formed a minor sect of Judaism, nearly
forgotten today. However, Paul wanted to bring in others who were not
Jews. To accomplish this, he had to break one of the basic tenants of
Judaism. Paul declared that men did not have to be circumcised in
order to be followers of Jesus and that believers in Jesus could eat
anything they wanted. Circumcision was a painful and dangerous process
which could even lead to infection, disfigurement and death. Jesus
never said anything about circumcision. It was Paul, on his own, who
decided that circumcision was not necessary. It was this decision by
Paul which brought about the creation of Christianity as a separate
religion and not merely as a branch of Judaism.
Not true (see last comment)
12. Paul never intended to start a new religion. He always thought of
himself as a Jew. He thought he was simply bringing more people into
Judaism.
There were probably barely seven million people in all of the entire middle
east by the time Paul (if he existed) died.
13. By the time of the end of the life of Paul, there were probably
seven million Christians. It was not only Paul who was spreading the
word about Jesus. There were many others. Paul was just one of many,
and perhaps not even the most important one. However, we do not know
much about those others today, because they did not write any books or
letters. We do not even know their names or their teachings.
My theory is that being against sex is what you're supposed to do when
you're starting a religeon. It's called puritanism. Show me a religeon that
says it's ok to have sex and I'll show you...hinduism.
16. Paul's opposition to sex and marriage was not because he was
against sex and marriage. Rather, it was because Paul believed that
the end of the world was really near and there was no time for sex .
If the world is about to end, the production of children is pointless.
Paul believed that the world would end at the most in a few years. He
could never have imagined that his words would still be read and
interpreted two thousand years later.
It's hard to argue with people about events which may or may not have
occurred 2,000 years ago, but I'm sure some will try.
It goes without saying that Peter Jennings will get a lot of flack
because of this broadcast. Traditional Christians will probably try to
have him banned from the airwaves. Peter Jennings may become the
Salmon Rushdie of Christianity. It took a brave man to air such
controversial views.
http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=lv_jesus_paul
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/contender.html
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000280.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
11 Apr 2004 07:12:45 AM |
|
|
"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:xOednTV9CLjsX-XdRVn-gg@garden.net...
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote
Several historians of the day wrote about these uprisings. Incidentally
none
ever ever ever mentioned Jesus.
I do wonder what were the sources for much of what Peter Jennings
reports. For example, he says that there were two uprisings against
the Romans by the Jews when Jesus was a child. Jesus must have known
about these uprisings and therefore knew that his opposition to Roman
rule could lead to his death. One uprising took place when Jesus was
four years old and the other took place when Jesus was a teenager.
Both of these uprisings were brutally suppressed by the Romans and
everyone involved was killed.
Half true. There are no surviving historical references from this era that
mention Jesus or his disciples, but there were many Roman, Greek, and
Hebrew
historians of this day who reported on just about everything else of
consequence that happened in dem daze.
How does Peter Jennings know this? As far as I know, there are almost
no historical sources from this era except for the Bible itself, and I
do not recall these uprisings being mentioned in the Bible.
These are mentioned by Jewish historians of the day. If I remember
correctly
several of these messiahs were called Jesus (a very common name in those
days).
One of Peter Jennings' experts states that there were many
messiah-type personalities in the first century AD. They usually ended
up with a violent death. When the messiah died, his followers who were
not killed had to find a new messiah. I wonder how this expert knows
this, since it is also stated that we know nothing about these other
messiahs today.
Sam, I wouldn't put my er...faith in any TV journalist, especially an
anchor
like Jennings. He is there to sell TV ads, not disseminate the truth.
In most cases, Peter Jennings interviews experts or supposed experts
who make various statements. These must be viewed as topics for
discussion and inquiry, rather than as hard, proven facts. Here are a
few:
Historians are unclear as to whether Paul actually wrote the epistles, or
even if he existed.
2. Paul was not an anti-Semite. He lived his life as a Jew and died as
a Jew. It probably never even crossed his mind to be against the Jews.
His statements in the Book of Galatians which are regarded as
anti-Semitic today were just responding to local situations which
existed at that time. When Paul talks about the Jews, he is talking
about a group of which he is a member.
This story about Peter is almost certainly myth.
4. The Apostle Peter was held in the same prison in Rome with Paul.
Peter was crucified upside down at his own request because he did not
want to die the same way that Jesus did.
No way to tell...no corroborating history.
5. Jesus was probably never buried. Part of the punishment of being
crucified was that your body was left hanging on a cross, where it was
eaten by birds and other wild animals.
Paul also never ever mentions one single gospel event in any of his
writings, which suggests that he was unaware of those writings.
Reasonable,
since the earliest any gospel might have been written was around 70 AD.
9. Paul was never really accepted by James and Peter. At first, they
probably thought he was a spy. He had been a persecutor of the
followers of Jesus, and now he was coming to them, claiming to be one
of them. They were probably suspicious. Later, they disliked the new
people Paul was bringing to them.
Probably true. While the original disciples were arguing over whether to
be
Jews or not, Paul argued for breaking away.
11. It was Paul who had the brilliant idea which brought about the
creation of a separate religion. Without Paul, those who believed in
Jesus would probably have formed a minor sect of Judaism, nearly
forgotten today. However, Paul wanted to bring in others who were not
Jews. To accomplish this, he had to break one of the basic tenants of
Judaism. Paul declared that men did not have to be circumcised in
order to be followers of Jesus and that believers in Jesus could eat
anything they wanted. Circumcision was a painful and dangerous process
which could even lead to infection, disfigurement and death. Jesus
never said anything about circumcision. It was Paul, on his own, who
decided that circumcision was not necessary. It was this decision by
Paul which brought about the creation of Christianity as a separate
religion and not merely as a branch of Judaism.
Not true (see last comment)
12. Paul never intended to start a new religion. He always thought of
himself as a Jew. He thought he was simply bringing more people into
Judaism.
There were probably barely seven million people in all of the entire
middle
east by the time Paul (if he existed) died.
13. By the time of the end of the life of Paul, there were probably
seven million Christians. It was not only Paul who was spreading the
word about Jesus. There were many others. Paul was just one of many,
and perhaps not even the most important one. However, we do not know
much about those others today, because they did not write any books or
letters. We do not even know their names or their teachings.
My theory is that being against sex is what you're supposed to do when
you're starting a religeon. It's called puritanism. Show me a religeon
that
says it's ok to have sex and I'll show you...hinduism.
16. Paul's opposition to sex and marriage was not because he was
against sex and marriage. Rather, it was because Paul believed that
the end of the world was really near and there was no time for sex .
If the world is about to end, the production of children is pointless.
Paul believed that the world would end at the most in a few years. He
could never have imagined that his words would still be read and
interpreted two thousand years later.
It's hard to argue with people about events which may or may not have
occurred 2,000 years ago, but I'm sure some will try.
It goes without saying that Peter Jennings will get a lot of flack
because of this broadcast. Traditional Christians will probably try to
have him banned from the airwaves. Peter Jennings may become the
Salmon Rushdie of Christianity. It took a brave man to air such
controversial views.
http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=lv_jesus_paul
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/contender.html
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000280.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "joe mccarron" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
14 Apr 2004 05:43:04 PM |
|
|
"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message news:<xOednTV9CLjsX-XdRVn-gg@garden.net>...
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote
Several historians of the day wrote about these uprisings. Incidentally none
ever ever ever mentioned Jesus.
I do wonder what were the sources for much of what Peter Jennings
reports. For example, he says that there were two uprisings against
the Romans by the Jews when Jesus was a child. Jesus must have known
about these uprisings and therefore knew that his opposition to Roman
rule could lead to his death. One uprising took place when Jesus was
four years old and the other took place when Jesus was a teenager.
Both of these uprisings were brutally suppressed by the Romans and
everyone involved was killed.
Half true. There are no surviving historical references from this era that
mention Jesus or his disciples, but there were many Roman, Greek, and Hebrew
historians of this day who reported on just about everything else of
consequence that happened in dem daze.
Well we really don't knwo what else wasn't reported because it wasn't
reported right? Maybe they hit everythign else maybe not. But you
are more or less right about how amazingly the historianbs of the day
missed the really important events surrounding Jesus.
How does Peter Jennings know this? As far as I know, there are almost
no historical sources from this era except for the Bible itself, and I
do not recall these uprisings being mentioned in the Bible.
These are mentioned by Jewish historians of the day. If I remember correctly
several of these messiahs were called Jesus (a very common name in those
days).
One of Peter Jennings' experts states that there were many
messiah-type personalities in the first century AD. They usually ended
up with a violent death. When the messiah died, his followers who were
not killed had to find a new messiah. I wonder how this expert knows
this, since it is also stated that we know nothing about these other
messiahs today.
Sam, I wouldn't put my er...faith in any TV journalist, especially an anchor
like Jennings. He is there to sell TV ads, not disseminate the truth.
In most cases, Peter Jennings interviews experts or supposed experts
who make various statements. These must be viewed as topics for
discussion and inquiry, rather than as hard, proven facts. Here are a
few:
Historians are unclear as to whether Paul actually wrote the epistles, or
even if he existed.
Some historians are unclear. Of course there is no absolute agreement
on Pauls existatnce. As to whether Christians are a seperate sect of
Judeasm or not seems a moot point. Jesus was Jewish he clearly
indicated "old testament" was a valid and inspired "text". No doubt
Christianity branched from Judaism. I'm assumign when you say the
time of the bible your referign to the "new testament"
2. Paul was not an anti-Semite. He lived his life as a Jew and died as
a Jew. It probably never even crossed his mind to be against the Jews.
His statements in the Book of Galatians which are regarded as
anti-Semitic today were just responding to local situations which
existed at that time. When Paul talks about the Jews, he is talking
about a group of which he is a member.
You shoudl just read one of the gospels - many are very short aned the
rest of the new testament. I will never know why people will listen
to the peter Jennings of the world instead of jsut picking up the the
new testament and reading what it actually says. We have documents
about what Jesus did from 4 different sources - the 4 gospels. Some
will say until we have a fifth corrobaoating source we will never
believe it. What can you do? It has been translated into english and
its really pretty easy to read.
This story about Peter is almost certainly myth.
4. The Apostle Peter was held in the same prison in Rome with Paul.
Peter was crucified upside down at his own request because he did not
want to die the same way that Jesus did.
No way to tell...no corroborating history.
5. Jesus was probably never buried. Part of the punishment of being
crucified was that your body was left hanging on a cross, where it was
eaten by birds and other wild animals.
Paul also never ever mentions one single gospel event in any of his
writings, which suggests that he was unaware of those writings. Reasonable,
since the earliest any gospel might have been written was around 70 AD.
Paul does not really quote the gospel much that is true but I'm sure
somewher he mentions the resurrection and Jesus dying on the cross.
These are gospel events.
9. Paul was never really accepted by James and Peter. At first, they
probably thought he was a spy. He had been a persecutor of the
followers of Jesus, and now he was coming to them, claiming to be one
of them. They were probably suspicious. Later, they disliked the new
people Paul was bringing to them.
Probably true. While the original disciples were arguing over whether to be
Jews or not, Paul argued for breaking away.
11. It was Paul who had the brilliant idea which brought about the
creation of a separate religion. Without Paul, those who believed in
Jesus would probably have formed a minor sect of Judaism, nearly
forgotten today. However, Paul wanted to bring in others who were not
Jews. To accomplish this, he had to break one of the basic tenants of
Judaism. Paul declared that men did not have to be circumcised in
order to be followers of Jesus and that believers in Jesus could eat
anything they wanted. Circumcision was a painful and dangerous process
which could even lead to infection, disfigurement and death. Jesus
never said anything about circumcision. It was Paul, on his own, who
decided that circumcision was not necessary. It was this decision by
Paul which brought about the creation of Christianity as a separate
religion and not merely as a branch of Judaism.
The Gospels relate that it was Jesus who would violate many Jewish
traditions. Certainly christianity has been fleshed out and continues
to be fleshed out over the years. I see no reason to believe pauls
beliefs about circumsision made christianity more of a seperate
religion than the hundreds of other distinctions between traditional
Jews at the time and followers Of Jesus.
Not true (see last comment)
12. Paul never intended to start a new religion. He always thought of
himself as a Jew. He thought he was simply bringing more people into
Judaism.
There were probably barely seven million people in all of the entire middle
east by the time Paul (if he existed) died.
13. By the time of the end of the life of Paul, there were probably
seven million Christians. It was not only Paul who was spreading the
word about Jesus. There were many others. Paul was just one of many,
and perhaps not even the most important one. However, we do not know
much about those others today, because they did not write any books or
letters. We do not even know their names or their teachings.
My theory is that being against sex is what you're supposed to do when
you're starting a religeon. It's called puritanism. Show me a religeon that
says it's ok to have sex and I'll show you...hinduism.
this is counterintuitive.
16. Paul's opposition to sex and marriage was not because he was
against sex and marriage. Rather, it was because Paul believed that
the end of the world was really near and there was no time for sex .
If the world is about to end, the production of children is pointless.
Paul believed that the world would end at the most in a few years. He
could never have imagined that his words would still be read and
interpreted two thousand years later.
The epistles ascribed to paul are direclty counter to this.
It's hard to argue with people about events which may or may not have
occurred 2,000 years ago, but I'm sure some will try.
It goes without saying that Peter Jennings will get a lot of flack
because of this broadcast. Traditional Christians will probably try to
have him banned from the airwaves. Peter Jennings may become the
Salmon Rushdie of Christianity. It took a brave man to air such
controversial views.
Oh please. It is completely in vogue to throw jabs at christians
Peter Jennings will not be labeled another Salmon Rushdie although he
may be lableled another Geraldo Rivera.
http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=lv_jesus_paul
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/contender.html
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000280.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "michael price" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
14 Apr 2004 09:53:11 PM |
|
|
(joe mccarron) wrote in message news:<5f195d2e.0404141443.2cdee5ec@posting.google.com>...
"Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message news:<xOednTV9CLjsX-XdRVn-gg@garden.net>...
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote
Several historians of the day wrote about these uprisings. Incidentally none
ever ever ever mentioned Jesus.
I do wonder what were the sources for much of what Peter Jennings
reports. For example, he says that there were two uprisings against
the Romans by the Jews when Jesus was a child. Jesus must have known
about these uprisings and therefore knew that his opposition to Roman
rule could lead to his death. One uprising took place when Jesus was
four years old and the other took place when Jesus was a teenager.
Both of these uprisings were brutally suppressed by the Romans and
everyone involved was killed.
Half true. There are no surviving historical references from this era that
mention Jesus or his disciples, but there were many Roman, Greek, and Hebrew
historians of this day who reported on just about everything else of
consequence that happened in dem daze.
Well we really don't knwo what else wasn't reported because it wasn't
reported right? Maybe they hit everything else maybe not. But you
are more or less right about how amazingly the historians of the day
missed the really important events surrounding Jesus.
But were they "really important events"? I mean for a start there's
no reference to Caiaphas having a nighttime trial at his house. You'd
thint that the scandal of such a blatantly illegal proceedure would
have been reported by some of his enermies if it was at all important.
Indeed you'd think his enermies would report it even if it were trivial.
How does Peter Jennings know this? As far as I know, there are almost
no historical sources from this era except for the Bible itself, and I
do not recall these uprisings being mentioned in the Bible.
These are mentioned by Jewish historians of the day. If I remember correctly
several of these messiahs were called Jesus (a very common name in those
days).
One of Peter Jennings' experts states that there were many
messiah-type personalities in the first century AD. They usually ended
up with a violent death. When the messiah died, his followers who were
not killed had to find a new messiah. I wonder how this expert knows
this, since it is also stated that we know nothing about these other
messiahs today.
Sam, I wouldn't put my er...faith in any TV journalist, especially an anchor
like Jennings. He is there to sell TV ads, not disseminate the truth.
In most cases, Peter Jennings interviews experts or supposed experts
who make various statements. These must be viewed as topics for
discussion and inquiry, rather than as hard, proven facts. Here are a
few:
Historians are unclear as to whether Paul actually wrote the epistles, or
even if he existed.
Some historians are unclear. Of course there is no absolute agreement
on Pauls existance. As to whether Christians are a seperate sect of
Judaism or not seems a moot point. Jesus was Jewish he clearly
indicated "old testament" was a valid and inspired "text". No doubt
Christianity branched from Judaism. I'm assuming when you say the
time of the bible your refering to the "new testament"
2. Paul was not an anti-Semite. He lived his life as a Jew and died as
a Jew. It probably never even crossed his mind to be against the Jews.
His statements in the Book of Galatians which are regarded as
anti-Semitic today were just responding to local situations which
existed at that time. When Paul talks about the Jews, he is talking
about a group of which he is a member.
You shoudl just read one of the gospels - many are very short aned the
rest of the new testament. I will never know why people will listen
to the peter Jennings of the world instead of jsut picking up the the
new testament and reading what it actually says. We have documents
about what Jesus did from 4 different sources - the 4 gospels. Some
will say until we have a fifth corrobaoating source we will never
believe it.
None of these 4 "different" sources are from outside the sect and none
of them are first hand. If I hear that rumour about the Richard Gere and
the gerbil from 5 different people it would not convince me. There is
no independent cooberation of the Jesus story. There are no
contemporaneous accounts. There are no documents that are not partisan
repetition of second hand accounts.
What can you do? It has been translated into english and
its really pretty easy to read.
This story about Peter is almost certainly myth.
4. The Apostle Peter was held in the same prison in Rome with Paul.
Peter was crucified upside down at his own request because he did not
want to die the same way that Jesus did.
No way to tell...no corroborating history.
5. Jesus was probably never buried. Part of the punishment of being
crucified was that your body was left hanging on a cross, where it was
eaten by birds and other wild animals.
Paul also never ever mentions one single gospel event in any of his
writings, which suggests that he was unaware of those writings. Reasonable,
since the earliest any gospel might have been written was around 70 AD.
Paul does not really quote the gospel much that is true but I'm sure
somewher he mentions the resurrection and Jesus dying on the cross.
These are gospel events.
9. Paul was never really accepted by James and Peter. At first, they
probably thought he was a spy. He had been a persecutor of the
followers of Jesus, and now he was coming to them, claiming to be one
of them. They were probably suspicious. Later, they disliked the new
people Paul was bringing to them.
Probably true. While the original disciples were arguing over whether to be
Jews or not, Paul argued for breaking away.
11. It was Paul who had the brilliant idea which brought about the
creation of a separate religion. Without Paul, those who believed in
Jesus would probably have formed a minor sect of Judaism, nearly
forgotten today. However, Paul wanted to bring in others who were not
Jews. To accomplish this, he had to break one of the basic tenants of
Judaism. Paul declared that men did not have to be circumcised in
order to be followers of Jesus and that believers in Jesus could eat
anything they wanted. Circumcision was a painful and dangerous process
which could even lead to infection, disfigurement and death. Jesus
never said anything about circumcision. It was Paul, on his own, who
decided that circumcision was not necessary. It was this decision by
Paul which brought about the creation of Christianity as a separate
religion and not merely as a branch of Judaism.
The Gospels relate that it was Jesus who would violate many Jewish
traditions. Certainly christianity has been fleshed out and continues
to be fleshed out over the years. I see no reason to believe pauls
beliefs about circumsision made christianity more of a seperate
religion than the hundreds of other distinctions between traditional
Jews at the time and followers Of Jesus.
Not true (see last comment)
12. Paul never intended to start a new religion. He always thought of
himself as a Jew. He thought he was simply bringing more people into
Judaism.
There were probably barely seven million people in all of the entire middle
east by the time Paul (if he existed) died.
13. By the time of the end of the life of Paul, there were probably
seven million Christians. It was not only Paul who was spreading the
word about Jesus. There were many others. Paul was just one of many,
and perhaps not even the most important one. However, we do not know
much about those others today, because they did not write any books or
letters. We do not even know their names or their teachings.
My theory is that being against sex is what you're supposed to do when
you're starting a religeon. It's called puritanism. Show me a religeon that
says it's ok to have sex and I'll show you...hinduism.
And Islam.
this is counterintuitive.
16. Paul's opposition to sex and marriage was not because he was
against sex and marriage. Rather, it was because Paul believed that
the end of the world was really near and there was no time for sex .
If the world is about to end, the production of children is pointless.
Paul believed that the world would end at the most in a few years. He
could never have imagined that his words would still be read and
interpreted two thousand years later.
The epistles ascribed to paul are direclty counter to this.
It's hard to argue with people about events which may or may not have
occurred 2,000 years ago, but I'm sure some will try.
It goes without saying that Peter Jennings will get a lot of flack
because of this broadcast. Traditional Christians will probably try to
have him banned from the airwaves. Peter Jennings may become the
Salmon Rushdie of Christianity. It took a brave man to air such
controversial views.
Oh please. It is completely in vogue to throw jabs at christians
Peter Jennings will not be labeled another Salmon Rushdie although he
may be lableled another Geraldo Rivera.
http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=lv_jesus_paul
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/contender.html
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000280.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "joe mccarron" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
15 Apr 2004 06:19:24 PM |
|
|
<snip>
You shoudl just read one of the gospels - many are very short aned the
rest of the new testament. I will never know why people will listen
to the peter Jennings of the world instead of jsut picking up the the
new testament and reading what it actually says. We have documents
about what Jesus did from 4 different sources - the 4 gospels. Some
will say until we have a fifth corrobaoating source we will never
believe it.
None of these 4 "different" sources are from outside the sect and none
of them are first hand. If I hear that rumour about the Richard Gere and
the gerbil from 5 different people it would not convince me. There is
no independent cooberation of the Jesus story. There are no
contemporaneous accounts. There are no documents that are not partisan
repetition of second hand accounts.
As to the gospels being second hand John claims to be the beloved
desciple and to report allot of his gospel first hand. there is
reason to question this but that is another can of worms.
Most of what we knwo of history is second hand isn't it? Where you
there to witness everything you know abbout WW2? Most of the authors
of world war 2 books are reportign second hand aren't they ? Did they
see themeselves every proposition they relate in theier books? But
in any case the important thing is *you* weren't present to witness
everythign you read abotu world war 2 so you have to go by second hand
material.
Now there are ways of judgign the credibility of second hand accounts.
One of the ways is to compare how consistent they are. Unless you
read the see below another poster says they question John because he
is different than the other three gospels. I think this is a valid
technique. I'm not convinced of his conclusion but it is a valid
technique he is using. But he has to read the gospels before you can
tell if they are consistent. There are other ways to tell whether
they are credible but there are four different sources that we now
have.
I'm not sure what you mean by partisian. Yes they believed what they
wrote and were convinced of it. so yes they were Christian. I don't
know many people wouldn't be christian if they believed every fact
reported in the gospel. If that makes them "partisian" then so be it.
you certainly don't have any proof that before they wrote what they
did they were predisposed to be duped in any fashion do you? Your
just saying they believed what they wrote so they are partisian.
Anyway your right, that gerbil thing never happened to Richard Gere.
It was Rod Stewart.
<<<<snip> > > >
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chinga de Mayo" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
10 Apr 2004 06:42:50 PM |
|
|
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:40786384.98395453@ca.news.verio.net...
Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul
Alot of speculation about Pagan based Christian Religion.
A load of crap.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sol" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
10 Apr 2004 07:28:26 PM |
|
|
I do wonder what were the sources for much of what Peter Jennings
reports.
There are original period sources reporting this. Off-hand, the best place
to start is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote a lot about what
was happening in Judea at that time. His books are easy to get - they are
published by Penguin along with a plethora of other Roman original source
authors such as Livy and Tacitus.
I haven't read any of this stuff since high-school, so I don't recall who
wrote what about Judea, but I am pretty sure that Josephus wrote a lot about
it, being a Jew himself. I specifically remember his mentioning the Jewish
uprising in 72AD. Can't recall if any other sources mention it. Judea has
always been was a bit of a backwater and brought the Romans nothing but
strife. Two thousand years on, it is amazing how little has changed.
As for this kind of stuff not being in the Bible: the New Testament was not
yet written, hence the Bible does not report it. Furthermore, when it
finally was written, it was written by men who were undoubtedly high on
religious piety, but low on any other kind of education.
.
|
|
|
| User: "joe mccarron" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
14 Apr 2004 01:45:00 PM |
|
|
"sol" <sol@inorbit.com> wrote in message news:<Ki0ec.3729$ED.478@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
I do wonder what were the sources for much of what Peter Jennings
reports.
There are original period sources reporting this. Off-hand, the best place
to start is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote a lot about what
was happening in Judea at that time. His books are easy to get - they are
published by Penguin along with a plethora of other Roman original source
authors such as Livy and Tacitus.
I haven't read any of this stuff since high-school, so I don't recall who
wrote what about Judea, but I am pretty sure that Josephus wrote a lot about
it, being a Jew himself. I specifically remember his mentioning the Jewish
uprising in 72AD. Can't recall if any other sources mention it. Judea has
always been was a bit of a backwater and brought the Romans nothing but
strife. Two thousand years on, it is amazing how little has changed.
72 AD was of course after Christ died but there was a roman attack on
or around 72 aD. It was arguably the attack predicted by Jesus when
he predicted the temple will fall. There were infact historians of
the period whether Joephus was in fact alive at the same time as
christ I'm not sure. He is nevertheless an excellent source of
information for what occured during christ's time generally. (there
can be good historians of world war 2 even though they didn't live in
that time.)
As for this kind of stuff not being in the Bible: the New Testament was not
yet written, hence the Bible does not report it. Furthermore, when it
finally was written, it was written by men who were undoubtedly high on
religious piety, but low on any other kind of education.
with respect to your first statement it doesn't make sense. The bible
can only "report" stuff that happened before it was written. Some of
the new testament was written before 72 AD some after. E.g., Mark was
written before accordign to most scholars John was written after.
John does seem to refer to the destruction of the temple so we know it
was written after.
I do not beleive you are correct in this last statement. I think your
generalized statement shows you may know a little bit but by and large
don't know what you are talking about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
10 Apr 2004 06:23:02 PM |
|
|
German scholars first began to look at all this several centuries ago.
You might want to look at Andrew White's " History of the Warfare
between Science and Theology in Christendom". It's easy to find, was in
print with Dover for many years.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Olin" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
10 Apr 2004 04:21:43 PM |
|
|
Most Christians don't even know that the guys' name wasn't "Jesus
Christ".... Why did they change it from Yeshua (his real handle) to Jesus?
I'm not knocking it.... I just find it strange.
Can anyone answer why?
"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:40786384.98395453@ca.news.verio.net...
Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul
I almost never watch TV. It was just by chance that my baby turned on
the TV and I saw a special coming up entitled "Peter Jennings
Reporting: Jesus and Paul". I decided to watch it. I am glad I did,
because it gave me a lot of new ideas and information about the
origins of Christianity. Here are some of the ideas. I am not
expressing an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with these
ideas. I do not know enough about the subject to express an opinion,
so I am just reporting them as ideas:
I do wonder what were the sources for much of what Peter Jennings
reports. For example, he says that there were two uprisings against
the Romans by the Jews when Jesus was a child. Jesus must have known
about these uprisings and therefore knew that his opposition to Roman
rule could lead to his death. One uprising took place when Jesus was
four years old and the other took place when Jesus was a teenager.
Both of these uprisings were brutally suppressed by the Romans and
everyone involved was killed.
How does Peter Jennings know this? As far as I know, there are almost
no historical sources from this era except for the Bible itself, and I
do not recall these uprisings being mentioned in the Bible.
One of Peter Jennings' experts states that there were many
messiah-type personalities in the first century AD. They usually ended
up with a violent death. When the messiah died, his followers who were
not killed had to find a new messiah. I wonder how this expert knows
this, since it is also stated that we know nothing about these other
messiahs today.
In most cases, Peter Jennings interviews experts or supposed experts
who make various statements. These must be viewed as topics for
discussion and inquiry, rather than as hard, proven facts. Here are a
few:
1. Judas was possibly a mythical person. The word "Judas" and "Jew"
are the same in the Hebrew alphabet. Thus, when the Bible says that
Jesus was given up by Judas, it merely means that Jesus was given up
by the Jews.
2. Paul was not an anti-Semite. He lived his life as a Jew and died as
a Jew. It probably never even crossed his mind to be against the Jews.
His statements in the Book of Galatians which are regarded as
anti-Semitic today were just responding to local situations which
existed at that time. When Paul talks about the Jews, he is talking
about a group of which he is a member.
3. Nobody knows what happened to Paul. He was probably executed on
orders of the Emperor Nero, but there is no way to know that. Paul
just dropped out of sight near the end of the Bible.
4. The Apostle Peter was held in the same prison in Rome with Paul.
Peter was crucified upside down at his own request because he did not
want to die the same way that Jesus did.
5. Jesus was probably never buried. Part of the punishment of being
crucified was that your body was left hanging on a cross, where it was
eaten by birds and other wild animals.
6. There were many other messiah-types in the first century AD. The
difference between them and Jesus is that they just died, usually
violently, whereas the followers of Jesus said that they had seen him
alive after he was dead. It was the belief that Jesus had come back to
life which led people to believe in him as opposed to the others.
7. At that time, Rome ruled the world from Spain and France to Israel.
Each little region across this wide expanse had their own local gods
and goddesses and local beliefs, except for the Jews, who had one god
for everybody. It was this unique feature which eventually led to the
adoption of Christianity as the state religion, so that all Romans
would have the same religion.
8. Nowadays, the areas where Paul traveled are divided up into
countries, such as Israel, Syria, Turkey, Greece and Italy. Each time
you cross from place to place, you must have a visa and a passport,
plus you must pass through customs check posts. However, in the time
of Paul, this was all one country: Rome. This enabled Paul to travel
more widely and to spread his beliefs further than would be possible
today. It was also the fact that Rome was one very large country which
accounted for the rapid expansion of Christianity once it was adopted
as the state religion.
9. Paul was never really accepted by James and Peter. At first, they
probably thought he was a spy. He had been a persecutor of the
followers of Jesus, and now he was coming to them, claiming to be one
of them. They were probably suspicious. Later, they disliked the new
people Paul was bringing to them.
10. Paul was like a Harvard-educated lawyer coming to join a group of
simple artisans and fishermen. He was way out of their league
intellectually. He was a genius. They often rejected him and never
really got along with him.
11. It was Paul who had the brilliant idea which brought about the
creation of a separate religion. Without Paul, those who believed in
Jesus would probably have formed a minor sect of Judaism, nearly
forgotten today. However, Paul wanted to bring in others who were not
Jews. To accomplish this, he had to break one of the basic tenants of
Judaism. Paul declared that men did not have to be circumcised in
order to be followers of Jesus and that believers in Jesus could eat
anything they wanted. Circumcision was a painful and dangerous process
which could even lead to infection, disfigurement and death. Jesus
never said anything about circumcision. It was Paul, on his own, who
decided that circumcision was not necessary. It was this decision by
Paul which brought about the creation of Christianity as a separate
religion and not merely as a branch of Judaism.
12. Paul never intended to start a new religion. He always thought of
himself as a Jew. He thought he was simply bringing more people into
Judaism.
13. By the time of the end of the life of Paul, there were probably
seven million Christians. It was not only Paul who was spreading the
word about Jesus. There were many others. Paul was just one of many,
and perhaps not even the most important one. However, we do not know
much about those others today, because they did not write any books or
letters. We do not even know their names or their teachings.
14. The four books, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, provide a window
which enables us to catch a glimpse of what was going on at that time.
However, through these windows, we can only see part of the picture.
We cannot get the full view of what was going on at that time.
15. Nobody knows who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or when or why
they were written. There are other books about Jesus from that time
which have not been accepted by Christians. For example, there is the
Book of Thomas, which contains sayings of Jesus but does not mention
his death or resurrection.
16. Paul's opposition to sex and marriage was not because he was
against sex and marriage. Rather, it was because Paul believed that
the end of the world was really near and there was no time for sex .
If the world is about to end, the production of children is pointless.
Paul believed that the world would end at the most in a few years. He
could never have imagined that his words would still be read and
interpreted two thousand years later.
It goes without saying that Peter Jennings will get a lot of flack
because of this broadcast. Traditional Christians will probably try to
have him banned from the airwaves. Peter Jennings may become the
Salmon Rushdie of Christianity. It took a brave man to air such
controversial views.
Sam Sloan
http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST&room=lv_jesus_paul
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/contender.html
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000280.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wyle Coyote" |
|
| Title: Re: Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul |
10 Apr 2004 05:25:01 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
Sam Sloan <sloan@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:40786384.98395453@ca.news.verio.net...
Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul
I almost never watch TV. It was just by chance that my baby turned on
the TV and I saw a special coming up entitled "Peter Jennings
Reporting: Jesus and Paul". I decided to watch it. I am glad I did,
because it gave me a lot of new ideas and information about the
origins of Christianity. Here are some of the ideas. I am not
expressing an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with these
ideas. I do not know enough about the subject to express an opinion,
so I am just reporting them as ideas:
This broadcast was riddled with several inaccuracies. The best way to know
the story
of Jesus or any story in the bible is to read the book yourself and question
what you
don't understand. Just because it's on TV doesn't make it truthful and
accurate.
TV and people twist the bible all the time to suite their own needs and
purposes.
Some on this board have gone as far as to say Jesus was gay and had a sexual
relation w/a disciple, just because the bible refered to the disciple
as "The disciple he loved". The confusion is understandable because often
here
in American culture love = sex.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
