Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

[rhinefire]

A fresh pragmatic look at a a poor, illiterate Jew. There were many Jews walking about claiming to be the Mesiah and most were captured and killed by Rome. Before starting this book I felt jesus is not resposnible for the growth of Christianity and he is not. Second the so called Gospels are dated stories that never even arose until 60 years after his death. Now, does it not strike you odd that if this was the messiah then his life stories would have been written down as the events ocurred? Reza Aslan does not argue who jesus was but offers only a bio of him nd there have been many. I have always looked upon the bible as a joke book with the earth being created in six days, etc. This book is for all people to readfrom atheists to popes.

 

[reinoe]

A fresh pragmatic look at a a poor, illiterate Jew. There were many Jews walking about claiming to be the Mesiah and most were captured and killed by Rome. Before starting this book I felt jesus is not resposnible for the growth of Christianity and he is not. Second the so called Gospels are dated stories that never even arose until 60 years after his death. Now, does it not strike you odd that if this was the messiah then his life stories would have been written down as the events ocurred? Reza Aslan does not argue who jesus was but offers only a bio of him nd there have been many. I have always looked upon the bible as a joke book with the earth being created in six days, etc. This book is for all people to readfrom atheists to popes.

I've never heard of this book. Where can I find more information about the author?

 

[TiredOfLife]

I've never heard of this book. Where can I find more information about the author?

Amazon. It looks good. I read the first chapter and it's on my list.

 

[Thrilla]

A fresh pragmatic look at a a poor, illiterate Jew. There were many Jews walking about claiming to be the Mesiah and most were captured and killed by Rome. Before starting this book I felt jesus is not resposnible for the growth of Christianity and he is not. Second the so called Gospels are dated stories that never even arose until 60 years after his death. Now, does it not strike you odd that if this was the messiah then his life stories would have been written down as the events ocurred? Reza Aslan does not argue who jesus was but offers only a bio of him nd there have been many. I have always looked upon the bible as a joke book with the earth being created in six days, etc. This book is for all people to readfrom atheists to popes.

there's a bit of a logical flaw here.

we aren't supposed to buy into the stories of Jesus because they were written down 60+ years after his death.... but we're supposed to buy into the stories of him by a guy who writes a book 2000+ years after his death.

there's an important word to know when critiquing the bible.... "allegorical"... it'll come in handy.

 

[rhinefire]

there's a bit of a logical flaw here.

we aren't supposed to buy into the stories of Jesus because they were written down 60+ years after his death.... but we're supposed to buy into the stories of him by a guy who writes a book 2000+ years after his death.

there's an important word to know when critiquing the bible.... "allegorical"... it'll come in handy.

Well, I would remind you all history boks are written AFTER the fact, that is why they are called "history" books. You see the Bible does not tell historic events it, instead tells tales born of word-of-mouth spewed by the most ignorant of ignorants.

The point of the fact that the tales of Christ took so long to create is simply to point to "why" it took so long. If anyone witessed an actual miracle it would not take decades to start the story of this miracle now would it?

Lets not turn this book section in to a religious section. If you choose not to read it then don't.

 

[Penderyn]

Paul was contemporary with Jesus, and I don't think anyone doubts that his letters are a lot earlier than the gospels. People's memories were better back then, and some cultures preferred memory to writing. The idea that any Jewish rabbi was illiterate is ludicrous in the extreme though.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

A fresh pragmatic look at a a poor, illiterate Jew. There were many Jews walking about claiming to be the Mesiah and most were captured and killed by Rome. Before starting this book I felt jesus is not resposnible for the growth of Christianity and he is not. Second the so called Gospels are dated stories that never even arose until 60 years after his death. Now, does it not strike you odd that if this was the messiah then his life stories would have been written down as the events ocurred? Reza Aslan does not argue who jesus was but offers only a bio of him nd there have been many. I have always looked upon the bible as a joke book with the earth being created in six days, etc. This book is for all people to readfrom atheists to popes.

That is a ridiculous premise for a book.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Well, I would remind you all history boks are written AFTER the fact, that is why they are called "history" books. You see the Bible does not tell historic events it, instead tells tales born of word-of-mouth spewed by the most ignorant of ignorants.

The point of the fact that the tales of Christ took so long to create is simply to point to "why" it took so long. If anyone witessed an actual miracle it would not take decades to start the story of this miracle now would it?

Lets not turn this book section in to a religious section. If you choose not to read it then don't.

Simply not true, and your timeline as to when the books were written are a bit off. Just saying....

 

[lizzie]

Now, does it not strike you odd that if this was the messiah then his life stories would have been written down as the events ocurred? Reza Aslan does not argue who jesus was but offers only a bio of him nd there have been many. I have always looked upon the bible as a joke book with the earth being created in six days, etc. This book is for all people to readfrom atheists to popes.

For the bolded to be the case, that would assume that people recognized him as a messiah. I really doubt that would be the case in any circumstances, and with any person during their lifetime. As a life unfolds, and in retrospect, when his/her life can be evalutated overall, a judgement can be made as to what kind of life was lived, and what kind of example was put forth for others.

 

[Gardener]

. Before starting this book I felt jesus is not resposnible for the growth of Christianity and he is not. .

That would be Paul.

The mainstream Christian interpretation is that Saul experienced a magical transformation on the road to Damascus, and the sudden epiphany changed him from the persecter of Jesus' followers to His most ardent messenger. Saul, now Paul creates the new religion Christianity.

Considering the many ways in which Paul has stamped his intolerance upon Christianity and undermines Jesus' message, however, I think it more likely that he was an opportunist that co-opted a movement in order to render it according to his Pharisee ways.

What, with the way so many Christians follow Paul rather than Jesus, I think he succeeded.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

That would be Paul.

The mainstream Christian interpretation is that Saul experienced a magical transformation on the road to Damascus, and the sudden epiphany changed him from the persecter of Jesus' followers to His most ardent messenger. Saul, now Paul creates the new religion Christianity.

Considering the many ways in which Paul has stamped his intolerance upon Christianity and undermines Jesus' message, however, I think it more likely that he was an opportunist that co-opted a movement in order to render it according to his Pharisee ways.

What, with the way so many Christians follow Paul rather than Jesus, I think he succeeded.

Nobody follows Paul rather than Jesus, their message was the same.. Not sure what you don't understand about that.....

 

[Thrilla]

Well, I would remind you all history boks are written AFTER the fact, that is why they are called "history" books. You see the Bible does not tell historic events it, instead tells tales born of word-of-mouth spewed by the most ignorant of ignorants.

The point of the fact that the tales of Christ took so long to create is simply to point to "why" it took so long. If anyone witessed an actual miracle it would not take decades to start the story of this miracle now would it?

Lets not turn this book section in to a religious section. If you choose not to read it then don't.

no need to get butthurt when your logical flaw is pointed out... just accept it and roll on.

 

[rhinefire]

From the book, "The problem with pinning down the historical Jesus is that outside the New Testiment there is almost no trace of the man who would so permanently alter the course of human history.The earliest and most reliable nonbiblical refernce to Jesus comes from the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (d.100 ce.)" (one hundred years after his death).

This book also does an eye opening job of hitting on all the contradictions in Jesus and tells of the massacre of all inhabitants of The Holy Land by the Jews as ordered by God.

This book is truley an eye opener to a nonreligious person like me.

 

[mrdariush]

I recently finished the book and still have a burning question that didn't seem to get answered. Unless I missed this somewhere (which is quite possible, seeing that I finished the book in just a few hours), I don't recall reading about what made Jesus of Nazareth so unique as to inspire the development of a religion based on (claims of) him. I get Paul's contribution to what has become Christianity. What I don't get is that if zealots claiming to be messiahs came before and after him, why was Jesus of Nazareth the one messianic figure that was so special? What exactly was it about his deeds (which were, according to Aslan, commonplace during his time) or message that set him apart from previous and future zealots? Please help! Page references are a plus!

 

[Penderyn]

From the book, "The problem with pinning down the historical Jesus is that outside the New Testiment there is almost no trace of the man who would so permanently alter the course of human history.The earliest and most reliable nonbiblical refernce to Jesus comes from the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (d.100 ce.)" (one hundred years after his death).

This book also does an eye opening job of hitting on all the contradictions in Jesus and tells of the massacre of all inhabitants of The Holy Land by the Jews as ordered by God.

This book is truley an eye opener to a nonreligious person like me.

How much contemporary evidence is there for anyone back then except politicians and generals?

 

[rhinefire]

I recently finished the book and still have a burning question that didn't seem to get answered. Unless I missed this somewhere (which is quite possible, seeing that I finished the book in just a few hours), I don't recall reading about what made Jesus of Nazareth so unique as to inspire the development of a religion based on (claims of) him. I get Paul's contribution to what has become Christianity. What I don't get is that if zealots claiming to be messiahs came before and after him, why was Jesus of Nazareth the one messianic figure that was so special? What exactly was it about his deeds (which were, according to Aslan, commonplace during his time) or message that set him apart from previous and future zealots? Please help! Page references are a plus!

Listening to scholars discuss this book what made this Jesus different is his ressurection. That appears to be the general consensus. His gravesite or the three suspected gravesites are all empty. This book it really stirring up alot of response, much more than the author anticipated.