Religious Prejudice

[Ebionite]

Looking at religious prejudice in the context of the betrayal by Judas Iscariot leads to insight about the crucifixion and fulfilment.
Acts leads to Psalm 69 and 109, and John leads to Psalm 35, 69, and 109. Psalm 35 is the cincher.

Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his office let another take.
Acts 1:16-20

Let their habitation be desolate; [and] let none dwell in their tents.
Psalms 69:25

Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office.
Psalms 109:8

Prejudice relates to being hated without cause, which leads to the two chapters indicated by Acts plus one new one (the testimony).

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:25-26

Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: [neither] let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
Psalms 35:19

They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.
Psalms 69:4

They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.
Psalms 109:3

The net of entanglement relates to the Pharisees and Herodians (Edom).

For without cause have they hid for me their net [in] a pit, [which] without cause they have digged for my soul.
Psalms 35:7

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
When they had heard [these words], they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
Matthew 22:15-22


Psalm 35 describes false witnesses. Forbidding tribute to Caesar would have been seen as sedition, which was punishable by crucifixion.

False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge [things] that I knew not.
Psalms 35:11

And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [fellow] perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
Luke 23:2

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
Matthew 22:17

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Matthew 22:21

Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, [yet] found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
And said, This [fellow] said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
Matthew 26:59-61

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Looking at religious prejudice in the context of the betrayal by Judas Iscariot leads to insight about the crucifixion and fulfilment.

On the contrary, the post brings to mind nothing so much as the Tower of Babel. What, precisely, did you want to debate?

 

[Ebionite]

On the contrary, the post brings to mind nothing so much as the Tower of Babel. What, precisely, did you want to debate?

Denial is a natural expression of prejudice which is described in the gospel of John:

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
John 15:19

What I'm looking to debate is my claim that looking at religious prejudice in the context of the betrayal by Judas Iscariot leads to insight about the crucifixion and fulfilment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Denial is a natural expression of prejudice which is described in the gospel of John: ...

Why would you think that I might find a snippet from "John" at all informative, much less authoritative?

 

[Ebionite]

Why would you think that I might find a snippet from "John" at all informative, much less authoritative?

The gospel of John is significant because of the differences between it and the synoptic gospels, eg insider information about the plot against the Messiah, and narrative that favoured the Pharisees, and the absence of sayings which deprecated the family. The Pharisees were condemned by the Messiah, so this makes the position of the author of the gospel of John exceptional.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The gospel of John is significant because of the differences between it and the synoptic gospels, eg insider information about the plot against the Messiah, and narrative that favoured the Pharisees, and the absence of sayings which deprecated the family. The Pharisees were condemned by the Messiah, so this makes the position of the author of the gospel of John exceptional.

Technically he never condemns pharisees but condemns particular practices: specifically he criticizes their discipling methods. He promotes independent research. But that is my opinion and not your topic.

I partly agree that Judas has something to do with prejudice though it is prejudice that appears within congregations. We leave our fellows over disagreements, like Judas does. There are theories about what motivates Judas, because he never spends his reward money. He is supposed to be like the Christian who has enjoyed Christ but then objects to the freedom granted and wants to return to some other way. For example sometimes a person is like a sheep but turns into a wolf causing a group of Christians to slander another. Sometimes rather than a good shepherd who leaves the flock to seek the lost, they take that flock with them into harms way, protecting themselves with the bodies of the flock. They use other people to get their way. They divide the church.

I also view Judas as representative of exclusive church practices. Most churches have these: creeds, statements of faith, requirements to believe particular things. I am liberal this way, but I think I have the scripture interpretation. I think overall churches are too exclusive, and this makes them dysfunctional very often. For example they require a particular 'Shiboleth' from your lips.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The gospel of John is significant because of the differences between it and the synoptic gospels, eg insider information ...

Who, pray tell, do you presume to be the insider?

 

[Ebionite]

Technically he never condemns pharisees but condemns particular practices: specifically he criticizes their discipling methods. He promotes independent research. But that is my opinion and not your topic.

Making a fence around the Torah (making the law burdensome) is relevant to that. Independent research can lead to knowledge.

39 Jesus said: The Pharisees and the scribes have received the keys of knowledge; they have hidden them. They did not go in, and those who wanted to go in they did not allow. But you be ye wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Gospel of Thomas, Brill edition

But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
John 15:25

The "law" of John 15:25 is Torah, which means teaching or instruction. This is fulfilled when the student acquires knowledge.

I partly agree that Judas has something to do with prejudice though it is prejudice that appears within congregations.

The prejudice of Judas isn't just about the Messiah.

He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
John 15:23

And I took my staff, [even] Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it [was] the word of YHWH.
And I said unto them, If ye think good, give [me] my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver.
Zechariah 11:10-12

He is supposed to be like the Christian who has enjoyed Christ but then objects to the freedom granted and wants to return to some other way.

Christianity didn't develop until after Judas was dead. His nature is reflected in his name, as Iscariot is a garbled form of Sicarri. The Sicarri were the assassins of the Zealots, named after their curved daggers. He also appear in prophecy:

Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Matthew 26:31

Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the YHWH of armies: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
Zechariah 13:7

The Hebrew word that is translated as man in this verse is גבר (gibor), and is associated with warriors or soldiers.

 

[Ebionite]

Who, pray tell, do you presume to be the insider?

Nicodemus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who, pray tell, do you presume to be the insider?

Nicodemus.

What you think you know about Nicodemus you acquired solely courtesy of the Gospel of John, which was, according to Udo Schnelle,

not composed by an eyewitness of the life of Jesus. [The author] was a theologian of the later period who, on the basis of comprehensive traditions, rethought the meaning of Jesus's life, and interpreted and presented it in his own way. [source]​

Schnelle then adds:

... both the history of the reception and the MS tradition of the Gospel of John suggest it originated between 100 and 110 CE. [ibid]​

​

What you apparently have is an unknown apologist constructing a story about something purported to have taken place some seven decades in the past. One would think that a debate would rely on firmer ground.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Christianity didn't develop until after Judas was dead.

Assumptions like that are sometimes helpful, but we are not children and cannot make this assumption.

In the case where Judas is already dead before Christianity forms, he is the disciple Jesus loves most but who betrays Jesus. Is it pre-arranged between them? It appears so, because Jesus sends Judas from the table to do something they both know about. Jesus also tells Peter to arm himself with a sword knowing full well this will get Peter arrested. Peter's boasts of dedication are shown to be empty wishful thinking. His courage fails. He never defends Jesus in court, never fulfills the requirement to give Glory to God. He runs, breaks the law and faith with Jesus, whom he might have saved by testifying and likely would have.

But Judas, in this case, betrays no one. His action is a performance like Peter's with the sword or like John baptizing Jesus to imitate Elijah and Elishah or like Jesus riding a donkey. These performances bely any insistence that Judas must die first. We what matters is that Jesus is innocent but is killed. Can this happen to an innocent person? The point is that it can, and there at that point is the calculus of the atonement argument. It is that infinitesimally unlikely occurrence of the law failing.

The "law" of John 15:25 is Torah, which means teaching or instruction. This is fulfilled when the student acquires knowledge.

I have read a short treatise (in English) explaining that the law actually is thought of more like we would think of Physics or like we would think of protocol. It reflects the world and is therefore a microcosm of it, hence its usefulness. Like a map shows geography the law guides. The treatise is given because 'Teaching' and 'Instruction' actually do not express its meaning.

I am sorry for cutting this short. I'll try to finish when I am able.

 

[Ebionite]

What you think you know about Nicodemus you acquired solely courtesy of the Gospel of John

Wrong.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What you think you know about Nicodemus you acquired solely courtesy of the Gospel of John, ...

Wrong.

In that case, I stand corrected. What are some of the sources you have that are not dependent upon John?

 

[Ebionite]

Assumptions like that are sometimes helpful, but we are not children and cannot make this assumption.

Children are central to the doctrine of sacrifice that Christianity applied to the crucifixion. In the law of Moses, the teachings regarding animal sacrifice were only directed at the children of Israel.

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto YHWH, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, [even] of the herd, and of the flock.
If his offering [be] a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before YHWH.
Leviticus 1:2-3

This contrasts with the ten commandments ...

So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.
Exodus 19:25

... and with the inheritance of Israel:

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that YHWH said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
Joshua 11:23

In the case where Judas is already dead before Christianity forms, he is the disciple Jesus loves most but who betrays Jesus.

This idea is reflected in the testimony:

False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge [things] that I knew not.
They rewarded me evil for good [to] the spoiling of my soul.
But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing [was] sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.
I behaved myself as though [he had been] my friend [or] brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth [for his] mother.
But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: [yea], the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew [it] not; they did tear [me], and ceased not:
Psalms 35:11-15

Peter's boasts of dedication are shown to be empty wishful thinking. His courage fails.

Peter's denial of the name relates to Paul's role:

Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
Acts 9:13-16

We what matters is that Jesus is innocent but is killed.

The implication of the Psalms of the fulfilment is that he wasn't killed. Psalm 69 describes the crucified man, but Psalm 35 describes the Messiah.

Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let YHWH be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.
Psalms 35:27

Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries [are] all before thee.
Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked [for some] to take pity, but [there was] none; and for comforters, but I found none.
They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Psalms 69:19-21

I have read a short treatise (in English) explaining that the law actually is thought of more like we would think of Physics or like we would think of protocol.

There's a significant distinction between secular civil law and the theistic common law of England. English common law originated with a Saxon version of the ten commandments which Elohim gave to the people of Israel.

 

[Ebionite]

In that case, I stand corrected. What are some of the sources you have that are not dependent upon John?

John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:31:3

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:31:3

I asked ...

What you think you know about Nicodemus you acquired solely courtesy of the Gospel of John,

And then ...

... What are some of the sources you have that are not dependent upon John?

And you offer an observation by Eusebius (c. 260- 339) about an epistle by Polycrates (130-196) about the death of John. Seriously?

---> ignore-list

 

[Ebionite]

And you offer an observation by Eusebius (c. 260- 339) about an epistle by Polycrates (130-196) about the death of John. Seriously?

As serious as a heart attack. The key is a potent symbol in the prophetic texts.

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Luke 11:52

39 Jesus said: The Pharisees and the scribes have received the keys of knowledge; they have hidden them. They did not go in, and those who wanted to go in they did not allow. But you be ye wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Gospel of Thomas, Brill edition

 

[Brickjectivity]

Children are central to the doctrine of sacrifice that Christianity applied to the crucifixion. In the law of Moses, the teachings regarding animal sacrifice were only directed at the children of Israel.

'Children' not 'Children'. I'm not talking about offspring but about our responsibility to be credulous. My meaning is "Sometimes that assumption is helpful, however as we are mature we cannot make that assumption."

The implication of the Psalms of the fulfilment is that he wasn't killed. Psalm 69 describes the crucified man, but Psalm 35 describes the Messiah.

An innocent is condemned in this particular case whether we consider it to have actually happened or not, whether they succeeded in killing him or not. A rare circumstance is presented in which an innocent is condemned to death and not just any but the kind that repudiates everything about him -- which ought not to be possible. You may argue he does not actually die, but he is condemned to die with everyone following the rules. He is held up as an example of a bad person, not merely punished.

There's a significant distinction between secular civil law and the theistic common law of England...

We weren't talking about England but the laws in Israel. That's what the gospels were using, not the laws of England. The treatise I read was not about English law. It was about torah.

 

[Ebionite]

'Children' not 'Children'. I'm not talking about offspring but about our responsibility to be credulous. My meaning is "Sometimes that assumption is helpful, however as we are mature we cannot make that assumption."

Is that the same as the idea that the naive are vulnerable to manipulation?

An innocent is condemned in this particular case whether we consider it to have actually happened or not

Does this describe a condemned man?

Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let YHWH be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.
And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness [and] of thy praise all the day long.
Psalms 35:27-28

Does this describe an innocent man?

O Elohim, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.
Psalms 69:5

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is that the same as the idea that the naive are vulnerable to manipulation?

The idea I'm putting forward is we can't assume that Christianity appears before the temple is destroyed by Titus.

Does this describe a condemned man?

Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let YHWH be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.
And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness [and] of thy praise all the day long.
Psalms 35:27-28

Does this describe an innocent man?

O Elohim, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.
Psalms 69:5

These are songs for every Jew. These are things people have been chant singing for thousands of years, and its about them and their common experiences. In Psalm 35 David does not wish to be violent, but he struggles. He is a fighter. He has to put away his violent tendencies; but this is a common struggle for men. Psalm 69 is not only about David but is for all. He is ashamed for any of a number of reasons, but people are scorning him when he is trying to do right. Instead of raging he is crying. For example he is trying to be at peace with Absalom or is attempting to run from Saul instead of killing Saul. The words he sings are about the Jewish experience of enduring scorn, but I think it can also be generalized sometimes to anyone who is trying to do the right thing but is attacked for it. Doing the right thing is not always popular. People like righteous violence, not patience. They don't want to be told to wait for times to change, but these Psalms are about that.