li·a·bil·i·ty noun a person or thing whose presence or behavior is likely to cause embarrassment or put one at a disadvantage. Probably the number one intra-biblical evidence of it's liability is Jesus' own opinion about the predominant Jewish (or priest-class) genesis narrative of his day. During an argument with certain of the priests, lawyers, and/or scribes, they boasted of their long blood line. Jesus suggested that if they traced their blood line back far enough, they would discover they were the sons of the devil. He doubled down on this when he followed up, telling them that the devil was a liar "since the beginning". Jesus tripled down when he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM". Unpacking this, let me first interpret what he meant by "since the beginning". Up to that point, the priest class was tracing their bloodline further and further toward the beginning of their "scriptures" (official narratives used to control the largest number of people with the smallest police force). They were tracing their bloodline back to the formation (from the dust of nothingness) of "Adam", the first man. In this way, they were implying they were the sons of God, as the narrative implies Adam was the son of God. Jesus flat contradicts this, saying Adam was the son of the devil. He reinforces this idea by saying that the very first sentence of their official narrative, "IN THE BEGINNING...", was a lie. In his saying "since THE BEGINNING" (referencing the first sentence of the official narrative), Jesus was also saying that everything following the first sentence was also a lie. This would include their cherished bloodlines. Finally, Jesus skipped all the stupid bloodlines and placed his origins squarely in the domain of the eternal, before there was ever anything believed to be a "beginning". He insisted he existed before any of the bloodlines they were boasting of relations. Jesus was saying he was not begotten of any man, neither Abraham, nor Adam, for to be so begotten would make him the son of some kind of lie, and/or liar (the "devil"). Being "the truth", he was born "without beginning and without end", in the realm of the eternal. This is further corroborated in some mysterious passage where Jesus status is likened to that of Melchezedek, who was said to have had no beginning (or end), at least as far as the official narrative goes. While Melchezedek may have had a bloodline, at least none is mentioned, making him unique in a narrative that gives so much weight to bloodlines. In these revelations, Jesus puts the Bible squarely at odds with anyone emerging out of the realm of the eternal (the realm/domain of Good) . Further, any fledgling philosopher (lover of wisdom) should be able to grok, that time and the eternal are mutually exclusive concepts. As such, the eternal cannot beget time as if it could be the father of time. Time is contrary to what is eternal. This is because time is fundamentally the measurement and/or observation of change, while the eternal does not change, being "the same yesterday, today, and forever" so to speak. Change-less-ness (what does not changer) does not father change (what changes), just as one man cannot ride two horses, or just as blessing and cursing cannot come from the same mouth (according to James). This means there is a difference between the Good of eternity, and the "god" of time. The god of time is something quite contradictory to the Good of eternity. If the Good of eternity is "the truth", then the god of time must be some kind of lie, and/or liar. This is corroborated by yet another mysterious passage in the bible which states that the god of this world (a world of time, and world with a beginning) is "the devil". Only time has a "beginning". But if time is contrary to eternity, then any beginning must be some kind of lie. This is the best intra-biblical evidence of it's own illegitimacy. The fact that this is intra-biblical says that the Bible's biggest liability is it's own internal contradictions. There are two different gospels contained therein. One is dominant over the other. The gospel of Jesus is still buried under mounds of "context", which is the official narrative of the Jewish priest-class. The gospel is/was buried with those like Stephen, buried under a pile of stones, with the apostate Paul helping. Paul, himself trained under Gamaliel, chief priest (per his own boasting) continues to help bury the gospel with one of his own: a variation of Gamaliel's own Pharisaical traditions. To the degree they mostly follow Paul, today's Christian's have become neo-Pharisees, still lauding their official narratives, still going against anyone claiming the eternal as their beginning-less genesis. This is precisely because the sons of time are at enmity of the sons of the eternal, just as the flesh is at enmity with the spirit.
That's why he was crucified. Because he was fighting the old Jewish doctrine. The whole Crusades, before there was a crusade.
While he was always at odds with those who were the most well-versed in their "scriptures" (the priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and lawyers), that was not ultimately the reason he was crucified. Jesus was crucified on the sole initiative of the local Roman governor, Pilate, who wished to terrorize all Jews into submission, by hanging him up (crucifixion) outside the main gate of Jerusalem, as Jews were arriving from all over the world to celebrate their highest holy day of the year, the "Passover". It was Pilate's idea to take the most popular character amongst the Jews at that time, the miracle worker Jesus, and crucify him with a sign over his head saying, "King of the Jews". This sign was a mockery meant to intimidate many among the Jews who were making Jesus out to be their "Messiah", which he was not (nor did he claim to be). As Messiah, Jesus would have been a direct threat to Pilate's authority, hence the trashing of that legacy. The purpose was maximum intimidation (terror) for maximum submission amongst the maximum number of Jews. Therefore, the official narrative, which blames all this on the Jews, and/or their leadership, is a lie. This lie included the narrative that Jesus appeared, at night, during holiday preparations, in front of the entire Sanhedrin, and then later that night in front of Herod, the local Jewish governor, only to be hauled in front of Pilate sometime early in the wee hours of the morning on the same day. Knowledge of the Romans, the Jews, their Sanhedrin, and their traditions would be enough to disqualify this narrative as a lie. The idea that he would be arrested in the evening by Romans, and shuttled about all night with trials (in front of a 70 member Sanhedrin prepping for holiday) and remonstrations in front of Herod (the local Jewish governor), only to be brought back full circle in front of the Roman governor the following morning to be pestered with calls for blood...is absurd. Yes, it would take great "faith" to believe this. Otherwise, basic logistics is the most obvious evidence this is a lie. Nope. Pilate sent out a couple of officers to find anyone amongst Jesus' crew whom they recognized, and, finding Judas out drunk, looking for a prostitute, were able to bribe him to give up the whereabouts of his companions. Finding Jesus, they arrested him for the purposes stated above. The crusades were more about retrieving territory (Jerusalem) from Muslims than from Jews, who were largely scattered since 70 AD, when Titus came and crushed them.
And Martin Scorsese knew exactly how to approach this issue in the movie, through Nikos Kazantzakis's book. And here it is in a nutshell... Listen carefully...
This is an interesting narrative that illustrates the audacity of Paul, who seems not to give a damn about the actual facts because of an ideological interest in leveraging the ignorance and suffering of the peoples toward some new, special status (neo-priest-class) for himself. Of special interest is Paul's own admission that all he really saw was a light that blinded him, contrary to Jesus' normal mode of operandi: to open the eyes of the blind. This is of peculiar interest because of one of Paul's own statements, in writing, that urged readers to discount/disqualify any other gospel other than his, even if that gospel came from an angel of light, because, by his own admission, an angel of light could be deceptive. This can easily disqualify his own gospel, as it was initiated by an angel of light claiming to represent and/or actually be Jesus. In my opinion, Paul may well have been blinded by an angel of light, but that he also may have been deceived by same angel of light into rebranding Jesus' message with a neo-Pharisaical twist. By twisting the message, it accomplishes the same thing: the stoning of Jesus' actual message until it dies and is buried under the context of Jewish traditions inspired interpretation. Deceived or not, the effect is the same: Paul's gospel functions to stone to death Jesus' gospel, the same way Paul helped stone Stephen to death. The idea that Jesus dies, like a Passover lamb, for the people, kills his message rendering it so ineffective that it may as well be dead. The resurrection of the message is now just beginning, having been driven underground a couple thousand years now. I appreciate Martin's interpretation to some degree, in his effort to make Jesus appear to be just a man like any other. This is a truism, but not entirely the truth. Jesus message is that all mankind is not who or what they think they are. Originating from a realm before the beginning of time, people are not who they think they are at all, and so, must be deceived. Jesus simply tries to explain how and why people are completely deluded about their own genesis, and utterly lost about whom or what they think they are. In making Jesus different from anybody else, the neo-Pharisees of the world kill his message and bury it under their own motivations/agenda: to curate special status from the god of this world (the world of time and beginnings).
You missed it. The most important message starts here... It is a mic drop on all religion. (I created the truth out of what people needed and what they believed. If I have to crucify you to save the world then I'll crucify you. And if I have to resurrect you then I'll do that too whether you like it or not.) Brilliance.
I did take note of that part. That does illustrate the audacity of Paul, his interpretations, his motives, and those like him. His interpretations do crucify, and otherwise mangle beyond recognition, the messages of Jesus, his will be damned. And yes, it is as arrogant as it appears to be in the film. Paul's interpretations offer people one of two types of salvation, Christ be damned. The salvation of the people does require the damnation (death) of Jesus and his message. By contrast, the salvation of Christ requires the people to relinquish their own lives: to give them up for the sake of Christ. It all depends on what each mind is motivated to get: people are motivated by the achievement of special status, any kind of special status, with or without the concept of "god". This is what "saves" people: special status! Visa versa, if people would sacrifice their own special status, they could save Christ, and in saving Christ, they would be saving their own true Self. Till people are willing to lay down their own special status for the salvation (sake) of Christ, they will be tempted by versions of Paul's gospel, which offer them special status now, and even more special status in the future, after being resurrected according the Pharisee playbook/tradition. Notably, Paul did once compare himself to a neo-priesthood, and implied he was deserving of as much as ten percent of the peoples income, but only asked for a smaller amount. This is a great deal for the hoards and minions who are tempted to save their own lives, and not the life of Christ.
In my interpretation you have missed the message entirely. It is not about Jesus's messages. It is what Paul (Saul) has created, because of what he believed people wanted. He created a new truth, based on what the people of the times needed to feel salved. It did not have to be the exact words of what Jesus said...It simply had to be what people wanted to hear at that time. So they did not hear all of Jesus' truths. They heard only what the disciples wanted the followers to hear. They CREATED THEIR OWN TRUTHS, because that is what the people wanted. They did not spew the truth...They spewed what they thought people would be most akin to. It is RIGHT THERE in that second video I posted. How can you not see (hear) it? omg.
I thought i already agree with this. I've called it a twisting of Jesus' message into something that is, for now, more popular because it is mostly giving people what they want: special status. But actually, Jesus did not, and does not offer special status to anyone. Rather, he offers equality. This is true salvation, but it's not what motivates mankind. Mankind is motivated mostly by what Paul offers: special status. Paul's twisted interpretation is easier to sell to people because it appeals/panders to their core motivations: special status. A gospel of special status stones and kills a gospel of equality. They are mutually exclusive, cannot coexist and must be always at "enmity". Jesus' gospel is about raising an awareness of a fact: that all beings are unified at the highest level. It is only at that highest level that equality can be found. In teaching this, he claimed for himself the highest level of existence, and offered that level to anyone else who were willing to believe it. But people would rather sacrifice this for special status, even if the special status is rife with suffering at an animalistic (ignorant flesh existence) level. These states of being: special versus equal, are mutually exclusive. One cannot have both and must choose. In choosing special status, each of us chooses manhood (or womanhood, or childhood or animalhood), and in choosing manhood we choose suffering for ourselves and death to Christ. Yes, special status is Paul's, and his believers own "truth". But its a lie that brings suffering and death upon its subscribers. They die as substitutes of Christ, whose message dies under the feet of the special. The truth is all are equal in/as "Christ". Christ is not limited/imprisoned in/as flesh. Christ is spirit. That's the only way to be equal. Paul's gospel doesn't really give a damn about the gospel of Jesus. It is one version of many versions that accomplish the same thing: kill the gospel of equality.