Originally posted by NygdanInteresting. What else supports this jesus as a high preist idea? Would this require that he be a pharisee?
I do recall that its often mentioned that he talked with the preists as a boy and was considered a religious prodigy, which doesn't jive, in my
understanding, with the rest of the sotry.
Only if you believe that only Pharisees were high priests, and if you do, well, I am just not
interested in providing your education from the ground up, nor am I here for that. I expect after all those on here, especially those challenging me,
come to the table with a modicum of knowledge.
If you take your information about Jesus solely from the NT, then you have not even scratched the surface, and just accept that should you be ever
willing to undertake the journey of learning you will find him called a high priest by the church fathers well into the mid second century. Were you a
willing student of the history behind that 3BCE-2ACE era you would be reading about Jewish laws, customs, the various sects, the make-up of the
Sanhedrin, the sedition between the sects, the civil war, the thieves, killers, plunderers... all Jews. But you are not interested, you are just here
to be contrary armed with only your quote button and question mark. So you will have to suffice by looking through my previous posts for that which
you lack, for I did not spend 15 years on my research to provide you with all of it in bits in pieces. My signature speaks to that.
If you wish to argue with me, then counter my posts logically with your best prepared argument, and I would be more than pleased to set you straight,
agree or compromise, but your tactic thus far which I have so far indulged is wanting, trite, and annoying, this is not kindergarten. Stay away from
that basal propensity to misununderstand what you read, and rise to the occassion and engage. Or look elsewhere.
And just to drive my point home to you as to how much more than the NT you would need to read to enage me intelligently Nygdan. Jesus was an
high-priest, a man leading an armed sedition against other Jews and Rome. A man whose stories you read, speak to exactly that when taken with other
historical perspective of the times, where all the characters are mentioned, yet the NT masks the atrocities and couch them in words written to tell
you nothing yet tell you that nothing in a positive way, while suggesting he was the saviour all Jews at that time were expecting to materialize to
save them from the Romans, and further romanticized by missing context and words of praise for their master. The most simple mind were they to know
anything at all about the era, would have to ask how it is possible these men were walking in and out of Galilee spreading their love, when Galilee
was a lock-down, drag out fight for survival.
He was sentenced to die and killed him because he was killing other Jews, not because anyone was afraid of him being the saviour, that is a Christian
fable invented for simple minds. The OT is rife with tails of extraordinary bravery and overcoming of enemies, but the pliable mind falls for all of
them being afraid of some man for some unexplained reason. Had he been any type of saviour, rest assured, after 3,790 years of waiting and desperately
wanting one to materialize while under Roman rule, they would have chosen Fred Flinstone as long as he was willing to lead them all, not divide them
and kill them.
You follow me from thread to thread, my point of view is therefore not news, so I suggest you review them over and over until you have mastered
retention. Then get back to me.