Agnostic.com

7 3

When i finally opened my eyes after 30 years and was able to look unbiased at the bible and the marriage of Old testament/ New testament there are many contradictions.

For instance, In Jesus time, the Romans were hated and despised. They occupied Jerusalem and the Jews were looking for a savior to free them.

It's ironic to me that Romans were the one to canonize the bile and to determine that Jesus is the jewish savior. The very people that Jews wanted to be saved from are the one who decided who their savior is.

The New testament is decidedly pro-Roman. Jesus says give to Caesar what is caesar's. Don't fight and turn the other cheek. Even at crucifixion, Roman Pontius Pilate is said to not want to harm Jesus and washes his hands of the crucifixion and the blame is put on the religious jews. This is hardly the way a true savior would act and it amazes me how many people can't see the Roman hand in the new testament and Jesus as a way to make the people more passive

abyers1970 7 May 14
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Don't forget the time in between both OT and NT. It was the 400 years when nobody did absolutely anything.

As for Jesus saying to the people "give onto god that which is god's and give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's" we have a major problem. No self respecting Jew of that era thought that Caesar had a claim to anything.

The savior savior was supposed to be a warrior king to liberate the Jews from their oppressors. Exactly the opposite of Jesus

1

The new testament was spun for a Roman audience. The Easter story is a prime example. It takes place at Passover. This is a highly politically charged time for the Jews. Many years ago I celebrated this festival and as you may know, it tells the Exodus story. For jews, it is rather like the 4th of July. Culminating in a prayer that says "Next year in Jerusalem". Even Jews who live there say this prayer. So imagine if you will, an occupied land at a time of great nationalist fervor. Add to that a legend of a messiah. One who will free Jews and give them back their homeland. Great steps were also taken to make sure that JC ticked all the right boxes. An ass was provided for his entrance etc. Small wonder that Romans wanted him gone and so they crucified him, as was their way. If the Jews had wanted this? they could have easily charged him with blasphemy and stoned him to death. No, it was a political act but this is glossed over to such an extent that that Christians have been antisemitic for millennia now

Yes it’s like giving the Jews the middle finger. The Romans get to tell them who their messiah is at the Nivea council and change him into a passive one that says turn the other cheek and give to Caesar what is caesars. No way in hell(if it existed) would Jewish messiah say give to Caesar what is Caesar’s especially since they occupied their land

all of that presumes jesus (not his real name) actually existed, something that is highly doubtful. i will add as a side note that this year my guy and i used the social justice haggadah and it ends "next year in a just world." we liked that. (and yeah, i'm an atheist. he's not, but i am.)

g

@genessa, @abyers1970 Yes all that presupposes..? The only thing we can say for sure is that something happened at that time. Otherwise, we would not have the historic ripples of the event. One also can say that the story also existed pre-Romanization. The echos of its political significance are still there if you look for them.

@273kelvin even that is up in the air. what happened at that time could be as simple as someone 60 years later being nostalgic and wanting something to have happened.

g

0

the romans were the early-middle middleman in the deal. popes and then the british kings tweaked it even more. but before the romans, there was paul, and paul invented the beginnings of christianity as we know it, and if he had gone anywhere but to greece things might have worked out somewhat differently. first of all there is an old jewish expression -- yes, THAT old -- "he's a real son of god!" that just refers to a pious person. the greeks, on the other hand, had in their religion real sons of gods, gods who raped human women who then produced demigods. so that is how the greeks understood paul's statements about how good jesus was. second of all, tourism wasn't going to be greece's economic mainstay for a couple millennia, so they were supporting themselves raising pigs and fishing, and half of what they fished for wasn't kosher either. they were NOT going to convert to judaism! (cut my WHAT off? are you KIDDING?) so paul had to decide which was more important: converting the greeks to judaism, which is against jewish law anyway (jews are not permitted to proselytize!) or make the greeks goofy for jesus. he chose the latter. christianity is born! and by the way, the greeks went and called this new god a "christ," which does mean savior but savioris not an accurate translation of messiah. the messiah was never meant to be a savior. that's not a jewish concept at all. in judaism one is responsible for one's own sins. the messiah was prophesied as a human king who would bring peace (not an apocalypse, for example) in his own time (not after being killed on purpose so he could be resurrected and then vanish and then everyone could try to guess when he was coming back and make bumper stickers guessing what he would want them to do in the interim). now, you may say, jesus may never have existed, and surely did not exist as portrayed at any rate. of course! but that makes no difference to disciples, apostles, emperors, popes, kings or american evangelicals.

g

It’s interesting the marriage of New Testament to Old Testament thru Jesus. If you read Old Testament there is no way that Jesus is messiah. Jewish messiah is warrior king and Jesus is passive. Jewish messiah is supposed to rescue Jews from persecution whereas Jesus says turn the other cheek. Jewish messiah would never say at Eucharist drink this wine it’s my blood because Jews thought drinking blood was abominable. Also Paul states that Christ came to do away with law but Christ himself said do not change one tittle of the law. Why would god give the law in Old Testament only to say it needed to be done away with in NT. All of this doesn’t make sense unless you are trying to mesh two different cultures together by picking and choosing from two religions and make them one.

@abyers1970 or unless you're a fanatic trying to recruit followers no matter what, and you're willing to bend every rule just to get folks on board! obviously i'm talking about paul; emperors, popes and kings had their own agendas lol. but i don't worry much about who had it right; nobody had it right. the books themselves, even viewed separately, cannot be taken at face value. then there's the whole god thing lol.

g

1

In all fairness to the readers of the bible; that book is so poorly written, confused, and rife with iron age ignorance it's by random chance alone that it gets anything right at all.

"...rife with iron age ignorance..." Not only that, but they had not invented toilet paper yet.

@dahermit Sure they had. They just called it the bible.

@Sgt_Spanky yall are making me laugh like fool. Thanks!

0

To understand the Christianisation of Rome it is necessary to understand Paul’s mission to convert Gentiles to the faith. Rome was the centre of the world. What better way to get your movement going. It took quite a lot of years but is pretty prolific by C2nd.

0

History is rewritten by the victors. Hence the old testament, the new testament, and then, in parts of the Southern Roman Empire, the Koran.

Yes. I’m 50 and I can remember how much misinformation there was before the internet and even after the internet when people can check their facts by googling. In 1970, We had Tv and radio and mass communications and still ther was massive misinformation and myths that were believed. Just imagine how much worse it was 2000 years ago with no type of mass communications

1

Some interesting points. Very mixed messages there.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:346529
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.