What Was All The Skulking Around About?

[Solomon]

If Jesus is God and he knew he had to get up on that cross, why was he hiding? Why did he need a Judas to turn him in? Martin Luther King didn't need a Judas to expose him. Everybody always knew where he was. MalcomX didn't need a Judas,nor Bobby Kennedy. They always knew where they were.

But Jesus was skulking around. Hiding in the garden. Needed a Judas to tell the authorities where he was. What the hell was that all about? One day he's out among thousands of people. The next day he's hiding in a garden.

[uppityperson]

1. the story is also about Judas.

Needing to show that no matter what your intentions, you just never know what will happen. Judas I pity.

Hanging out in a garden, not hiding.

[Solomon]

3. If he wasn't hiding, why did they have to pay someone thirty pieces of

silver to point him out?

[uppityperson]

14. Judas was paid to betray Jesus, for the good of all.

Paying Judas had nothing to do with Jesus hiding or not. Judas' role was to betray someone he loved, then feel so guilty that he commited suicide. Why? As a lesson for all. Was the whole thing foretold? Was this just a story or reality? Lots of questions about it.

Question aside, UPJr showed me the newly done JesusChristSuperstar which was quite interesting. No more hippies in VW buses but punk and grafitti.

[Solomon]

15. What??!! Judas' role was to betray someone so he would commit

suicide? And he did this as a lesson for us?!! Why can't people just admit that there are some glitches in the bible? It's a lot easier. Why would he need to be paid to betray someone? He could have done that for free and been just as guilty. A big deal was made outof those thirty pieces of silver.

Okay. I'll bite. What was the lesson that Judas taught us?

[uppityperson]

16. that no matter how hard you try, no matter how you try to control things...

you can't. My version at least.

Why get paid? Goes to the bigger question of why betray Jesus?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. They had no photography in those days

The plotters could have heard of Jesus, known he went around with a bunch of disciples, and had no idea which of the dozen or so men he was without having someone pointing him out.

[Solomon]

25. What?! This is a guy who fed five thousand people with one basket of

fish. Preached the Sermon on the Mount and people didn't know what he looked like? He stood uppreaching everyday. What did they do? Put five or six preachers up at the same time so he couldn't be identified? I'm not buying it. Seems like from the stories he had people following him around everyday. hat about the Roman soldier who walked up to him and asked him to cure his servant?
How did he know who he was.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. He did all these things in different places and without TV coverage

The powers-that-were in Jerusalem may have rarely ventured outside their villas, and they sure wouldn't know what some guy in Galilee (different Roman province) was doing among the common folk. I don't have time to look it up, but I think the feeding of the 5,000 is described as taking place in Galilee. Jesus went to Jerusalem only for the last week of his life.

In a pre-photography, pre-mass media society, you might know of someone by reputation and have no idea what he looked like, except possibly secondhand information. If you were in Jerusalem, you might hear that there was a guy up in Galilee healing the sick and performing miracles, but his picture wouldn't be available. You might even hear that he came to town and paraded through the streets on a donkey or threw the moneychangers out of the temple. But there would have been no photographers, no TV cameras, and not even any quick sketch artists, so unless you were physically present, you would need to have someone point him out to you.

If Jesus were around in modern times, sure, he'd probably make the evening news and the celebrity gossip shows and magazines, and everyone would know what he looked like. But that was then; this is now.

[Solomon]

31. But when he came to Jerusalem, was he underground or did he go

around preaching? If somebody hanging around asked, "is that Jesus", are you saying they would have said, "I don't know"? No matter how you try to cut it, it doesn't make sense. If Jesus is the only door for the entire world, why would it be a case that nobody heard of the guy until after he was long gone?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. As I said, hearing of someone didn't mean that you'd recognize him by sight

Jerusalem was a big city for its time. Just because something happened in Jerusalem doesn't mean that the local authorities or their soldiers witnessed it.

And if you remember the story, they didn't arrest him in front of everybody--that would risk a riot. They came to the garden of Gethsemane in the dead of night, where he was praying with three of his disciples. So Judas said that he would kiss Jesus to indicate to the soldiers who they should arrest.

You've got to get modern notions of celebrity out of your head. The only way to recognize someone was to have direct visual knowledge.

[Solomon]

34. Sorry but I'm not talking about modern notions of celebrity. It seems

that people who believe the bible was written by something greater than men are doing the reaching, anything to make the "scriptures" fit, not me for asking the questions. You're trying to force this idea of "modern notions of celebrity" as a straw man to make your interpretation work.

I can go to the poorest part of a country where there is no radio, no tv, no "modern notions of celebrity" and I guarantee you, if there is some man going around preaching and healing the sick and raising the dead, feeding thousands of people from a loaf of bread, changing water into wine, walking on water, I would be able to find him and identify him. If he was not underground, open and above board, he would not need another to betray him. It's as simple as that. I'm sorry that you find the idea uncomfortable, but it has nothing to do with "modern notions of celebrity" unless of course you mean that such feats were so common among a lot of other miracle workers, that it would not have drawn any special attention to Jesus. That he was merely one among thousands who did these things.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. I don't know what part of "they were hanging out in a garden in the

middle of the night" you don't understand.

Maybe there were other bunches of people hanging out in the garden in the middle of the night. It was Passover, so lots of pilgrims in town.

There was no artificial light in those days, just torches if anything. You're the leader of the Roman soldiers who's been sent out to arrest this guy Jesus who is stirring up the colonized Jewish population. You're the equivalent of a G.I. sent to Iraq, and the colonized speak a furrin language and all look alike to you. You want to get the right guy, but to you, he looks like all those other guys with beards.

Jesus and company were not hiding. They were out in the open. But there was no reason to expect the Roman soldiers to recognize him without help.

If you don't get that, I don't know what to say. I suspect that this is another of the 'nya-nya-nya-nya" threads that R&T is rife with, and I'm sorry I got involved in it, because no explanation is going to satisfy you.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. I never had the impression they were hiding

They were there to spend the night. When the soldiers came for him, Christ told his followers to put away their swords.

[Southsideirish]

4. Why do you keep saying he was "hiding"? He had dinner and went out to

the garden to pray and await His fate - if He were "hiding" He would have run away. His courage in NOT fleeing was tremendous and an inspiration to all people who have to endure suffering.

[Solomon]

5. His prayer to "let this cup pass from me" seems an awful lot like

"please don't let them find me".

[rug]

6. What words would you use?

[Dunedain]

7. Your point is out of context.

His acts, they way he was betrayed, were scripture fulfilled; it could not have happened any other way.
Are you reading the story, or just ripping on Jesus because he was a man?

[Solomon]

10. Scripture fulfilled? What the heck are you talking about.? Why is it that

all these games have to be played? The manner in which he was apprehended clearly suggests that he was concealing himself. The need to pay a betrayer clearly suggests that he did notintend to be apprehended and thus he did not intend to be crucified. Are you saying that Judas was foretold by the scriptures? Where in the old testament do they talk about Judas? Is there a story in the old testament predicting that he would be betrayed by Judas in the garden after having supper?

Wouldn't it have made more sense for Jesus to have gotten down off that cross as the thief suggested? To show the world he was God? That would have proved it to the people but I guess that would not have satisfied the wrath of God, which, after all, was the reason for the sacrifice, in the first place, right? That God was so mad at people that to avoid wiping out the human race (again) he had to make a son so he could take it all out on him instead? Beat the crap out of his own son so he wouldn't destroy the world?

This whole idea of sacrifice smacks of all the old superstitious religions where people were thrown off cliffs etc.to save the village from the mean old gods.

[Dunedain]

18. You can't be serious, can you?

The very example you quote speaks of the fulfillment of scripture.
Matthew 26:36-56
Mark 14:32-49
Thats what I'm talking about.
I'm not playing games, I'm saying you're reaching, I don't agree with your reading of the story, or your expression of the implied meaning.


"Are you saying that Judas was foretold by the scriptures?"
Yes, I am saying that exactly, so does the story you are using as your example.

"Wouldn't it have made more sense for Jesus to have gotten down off that cross as the thief suggested?"
I don't know, apparently not to Jesus.
You do realize that the thief you are using as an example was mocking him, right?

"To show the world he was God? That would have proved it to the people but I guess that would not have satisfied the wrath of God, which, after all, was the reason for the sacrifice, in the first place, right? "
He did show the world his stuff, the mob picked Barabbas.
No, I don't agree with you that the narrative is to satisfy the wrath of god.

Are you honestly looking for an answer, or are you trying to cudgel an admission of incongruity.

[Solomon]

26. What difference does it make that the thief was mocking him?

What better way to prove the thief wrong then? I see nothing in Matthew or Mark that you put forward whic shows it was foretold that Judas would betray him. Besides, why was he concerned that the disciples keep "watch". What were they supposed to be on guard about?

How can you say that sacrifice is not to appease wrath? That's what sacrifice has always been about. Are you saying God has no wrath? Didn't he flood the world because of his wrath?

I'm not trying to cudgel anything. It is definitely incongruous as you don't want to admit. Of course I believe the bible was written by men, but you must believe that it was written by God.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

8. If we could explain religion, it would be called science. Not everything

can be understood through reason, if you believe in that sort of thing. But really that's the difference, I believe, in science and religion; science you figure out through reason and logic; religion is magic, mystical and not to be fully understood. (not a very protestant idea, I know.)

[okasha]

9. If he'd been hiding

Judas wouldn't have known where to find him.

And remember, this was pre-CNN. The palace guard night shift wouldn't necessarily know what the Most Wanted looked like and would need someone to point him out.

[Solomon]

12. Oh please.Judas was one of them. What do you mean Judas wouldn't

have known where he was if he was hiding? He was one of his boys. Why do you think they paid him thirty pieces of silver? Because he knew where to find him.

As to the pre-Cnn thing, all they had to do was wait until the day and watch him preach to know who he was. He was clearly underground at this point.

[H2O Man]

11. Malcolm didn't?

Are you sure about that?

[Solomon]

13. Hey H20 Man! How are you doing?

With respect to Malcom I know he was supposedly killed by other Muslims. The point I'm making though is that if the authorities wanted to get him, they would not have needed to pay someone to find out where he was. I don't think the people that killed him really had any trouble finding out where he was.

By the way.I was invited to a private Gurdjieff piano recital last month. It was fantastic.

[H2O Man]

19. Hello

I am well, and trust that you are, too. My piano recital opportunities are a result of my 12-year old daughter's playing. Though she is still learning to play, her proud father rates her as an outstanding talent. (grin)

There is an outstanding book by Karl Evanzz, titled -- of all things! -- "The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X." It is well worth reading.

And, of course, one of his body guards was an undercover NYC investigator. At the time of his murder, two of the other body guards had left their positions. So there were people with divided loyalties, to say the least.

It's worth reading The FBI Files, with an introduction by Spike Lee, as well. The amount of detail in the daily reports on Malcolm, including when he was overseas, is curious, to say the least. They tracked him to the minute.

[Solomon]

28. I read Karl Evanz' bookas soon as it was published. His father-in-law

is my favorite judge and a dear friend of mine. I read that book cover to cover almost in one sitting it was so good.

[struggle4progress]

17. Why didn't the arrest occur during usual business hours, in public, where

everyone could see it? The crucifying authorities so often seem to prefer to grab people under cover of Darkness, as if the arresting officers are afraid of public opinion and want their own anonymity protected, hence find it easier to kick down doors at midnight when ordinary people are asleep.

[Solomon]

29. The arrest didn't have to occur in broad daylight. But he would have been

easy to identify in broad daylight. And unless he was underground, it would not have been difficult to find him at night.

[struggle4progress]

37. Well, I've told you what I think about midnight arrests. You, of course,

gets to decide what side you're on in such matters.

[moobu2]

20. Category: Fairytale

If the christian "God" actually existed at all why would he need to go through all that crap to save anyone? LOL it’s all so absurd, I really cant believe how any moderately educated, emotionally mature, sane person would believe any of this silliness.

[Solomon]

32. Whether it was a fairytale or not, I'm asking these questions based on

the story. For sake of argument, assuming the stories are true, it seems to me entirely rational to see the story another way from what we've been taught. Jesus chastised his disciples for falling asleep and not keeping "watch". He prayed to let the cup pass from him, "oh my Father if it be possible, let this cup pass from me". It sounds like he was underground to me, not boldly claiming that he was God and defying the authorities to do as they will.

[hunter]

21. Oh for goodness sakes. I'll bet crap like that happens in Iraq every day.

A powerful occupying force (U.S.), a toady installed government, informants, religious conflicts, and a bitter stew of God Knows what else...

Sadly, the world 2000 years ago wasn't much different than our own. We just have better weapons now.

[Solomon]

30. You're right. There's a lot of skulking about and hiding going on in

Iraq. No doubt about it. No question.

[NAO]

23. Jesus Never Existed, so they had to explain why nobody had heard of him

There never was a real person "Jesus H. Christ", born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, etc. That fictional character was created by the anonymous author we call "Mark".

Mark wrote his story knowing that nobody had heard of this character, which if the story were true, would be unbelievable. So he used the device of the "Messianic Secret" (Jesus kept it a secret that he was the Son of God) to explain why nobody had heard of this miracle worker.

Further, Mark knew that nobody had even heard of this guy, much less heard that he had "risen from the dead". That is why his Gospel ends with the women running away from the tomb in fear, and telling no one about the resurrection, despite the direct order from the angel. Later editors of "The Gospel of Mark" saw this as a flawed account and added on one or two "better" endings where the disciples do find out and Jesus talks to them, etc. But these additions are products of a later period, when the story had already propagated. The original ending is much more telling of how things were when Mark wrote.

Web Resources

The Jesus Puzzle (Earl Doherty)
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com

Jesus Never Existed (Kenneth Humphreys)
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

Jesus as Myth (Wikepedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth

Books

The Jesus Mysteries (Freke and Gandy)
The Jesus Puzzle (Earl Doherty)
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (Robert M. Price)
Did Jesus Exist (G. A. Wells)
The Christ Myth (Arthur Drews)

[TRYPHO]

24. Its not WHAT you say its HOW

There never was a real person "Jesus H. Christ", born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, etc. That fictional character was created by the anonymous author we call "Mark".

--> True, technically anyway. There >might< have been a Yehodhua Ben Yoseph around though. Probably not from Bet Lechem (a colloquial name for Heliopolis at that time), but probably was a from the Nazarene sect, but certainly not raised in Nazareth (probably raised in the Nile Delta at the Jewish Temple, or somewhere nearby).


Mark wrote his story knowing that nobody had heard of this character, which if the story were true, would be unbelievable. So he used the device of the "Messianic Secret" (Jesus kept it a secret that he was the Son of God) to explain why nobody had heard of this miracle worker.

--> Again, there's something in what you are saying, but your making rash statements too boldy. The authors of ALL the gospels together never themselves met Jesus. They may have known the Aramaic Presbyters and wrote down in Greek their best efforts to translate what they heard though.

Further, Mark knew that nobody had even heard of this guy, much less heard that he had "risen from the dead". That is why his Gospel ends with the women running away from the tomb in fear, and telling no one about the resurrection, despite the direct order from the angel. Later editors of "The Gospel of Mark" saw this as a flawed account and added on one or two "better" endings where the disciples do find out and Jesus talks to them, etc. But these additions are products of a later period, when the story had already propagated. The original ending is much more telling of how things were when Mark wrote.

--> Well, I think most agree the Gospels are pretty much anything other than the Gospel Truth! But how early on they were embellished is hard to say. At that time Judaism was in a massive state of renewel post 2nd Temple destruction and (according to Prof Judith lie in "Neither Jew nor Greek") the concept of otherness/Christianity (cf with being Jewish) cannot be dated, but may well be, in some parts, well in to the 2nd century. So, whilst the method of practising Judaism was being re-written for a synagogue based religion in one part of town, perhaps the re-writing of a few "modern" lectures didn't seem so outragious in another part of town. Remembering that both Jews and thence christians were despised alike; the former for being so rebellious and messianic; the latter for their irreligious beliefs (the joke was completely over their heads for a few thousand years though)for eating the body and blood of their leader, and for going against their parental heritage (either pagan, Jewish, or whatever) and converting to the new religion on the block (for many reasons which were quite enticing at the time).


Anyway, to return to my original moan. You do have some points to make, but they are more interesting if made in a more readable, logical, understandable form - or so it would seem to me.

TRYPHO

[NAO]

35. I've been reading too much Tertullian lately...possibly it's rubbing off

on me. Maybe I should take in some Norman Vincent Peale or some Robert Schuller, just to soften up my rhetoric. Or maybe some Paul Tillich, to soften up my semantic and conceptual rigidity.

***

and speaking of Schuller,

Q: What do Robert Schuller and Ted Haggard have in common?

A: Crystal. In Schuller's case, a Crystal Cathedral; in Haggards case, a crystal meth habit.

[TRYPHO]

38. Have you visited...

http://www.tertullian.org/

It's run single handedly by a really lovely chap who answers emails and is devoted to the task of getting all things tertullian in one repository on the 'net.

After tertullian try http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm

Enjoy,

TRYPHO

[Solomon]

39. Thanks for the links.