[continued from previous message]   
      
   Whereas both Matthew and John are generally presumed to have been members of   
   the original twelve apostles, and whereas Mark is presumed to have been John   
   Mark, a Jew living in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and, hence, likely to   
   have been witness to at    
   least some of the events in Jesus' life, Luke was apparently a Greek-speaking   
   convert of pagan origin who undoubtedly witnessed nothing. However, this point   
   enhances his credibility in some respects; for, whereas the other three   
   Gospels are recorded as    
   personal testimony based, at least partially, on one person's own limited   
   memory or analysis and colored, perhaps, or even transformed by some kind of   
   ulterior motive (as surely one may suspect in John’s case), Luke's Gospel is   
   relatively free from these    
   drawbacks. Luke took great pains to get the story from all of the   
   eyewitnesses, and to sift out the “facts” gleaned from them. Thus his story of   
   Jesus' birth and events preceding it is unique, and also more trustworthy than   
   the alternative version of    
   Matthew. Luke obviously derived his information from Mary, Jesus' mother,   
   whereas the source of Matthew's testimony is uncertain, and is unlikely to   
   have been more reliable. It is more reasonable to assume that Jesus was born   
   in 6 A.D., and was possibly    
   much younger when he began his ministry than most people generally believe –   
   perhaps only 22 or 23. In that case the “lost 18 years” compress into a lost 8   
   years, a much more acceptable figure. Here, however, we do find one internal   
   contradiction in Luke,   
    in that Luke tells us that Jesus was “about thirty years of age” when he   
   began his ministry even though, if we accept Luke's historical data, that is   
   not possible. (See Luke 2:1-7, 3:1-4, 3:23.) One can perhaps discount this   
   particular comment about the    
   age of Jesus, as Luke was clearly expressing the popular opinion in this   
   instance rather than his own mathematical calculation.   
      
   Although Luke was certainly influenced by Paul – as was Mark – one may   
   suppose, or at least hope, that Luke's account of Jesus' life was not based   
   overly much on his discussions with Paul. Paul also witnessed nothing, and his   
   memories should not have    
   been relevant to Luke's investigation into the life of Jesus.   
      
   [92] 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24.   
      
   [93] Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1-4.   
      
   [94] In fact it is quite interesting to note how Pope John Paul II has clearly   
   instructed his priests in South America to steer clear of politics in their   
   home-land, while he himself takes a direct hand in the political events of   
   Poland, his homeland.    
   Chapter 10 “State Church and Church State” illuminates this apparent double   
   standard.   
      
   [95] Matthew 1:1; Luke 1:26-33.   
      
   [96] Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:30-37.   
      
   [97] Matthew 2:1-3.   
      
   [98] Herod's father was Antipater, an Edomite, and his mother was a Nabataean.   
   Thus, on both sides Herod was of Arab origin. If we accept Luke's more   
   probable date of birth, i.e. 6 A.D., then it was not Herod I in power at all   
   but rather Archelaus or    
   Antipas, which was all roughly the same as far as our discussion goes.   
   Naturally Luke mentions nothing about any flight by Joseph and Mary to Egypt –   
   that event apparently had relevance only if Jesus was born at the end of Herod   
   I's reign. (See Matthew 2:   
   13-18.) In order to resolve this discrepancy, one possibility is that a   
   paranoid Herod I did order a slaughter of Bethlehem infants, although we find   
   no independent historical record of this, but that all took place ten years   
   before Jesus was born.    
   Matthew, being intent on satisfying the maximum number of prophecies, just   
   wove this additional story for good measure into the life of Jesus. It is also   
   quite possible that Matthew simply made up the whole story.   
      
   Here the important point, which both Matthew and Luke must have realized, is   
   that none of the various Herods had as strong a claim to the Jewish throne as   
   did a bona fide descendant of David. Although the Herods may have been Jewish,   
   their foreign birth    
   classified them as strangers rather than brothers; and, according to Mosaic   
   law, they were debarred from the Jewish monarchy. (See Deuteronomy 15:12,   
   17:14-15, 23:19-20.)   
      
   [99] John 1:41.   
      
   [100] Leviticus 8:12; 1 Samuel 10:1, 16:12-13.   
      
   [101] Psalms 23:5.   
      
   [102] John 18:33-37.   
      
   [103] Matthew 19:27-28; Luke 22:29-30.   
      
   [104] Matthew 16:27-28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27, 21:32; John 21:21-22.   
      
   [105] John 19:19-22.   
      
   [106] Luke 22:35-36; John 18:10.   
      
   [107] Mark 15:6-11; Luke 23:13-19.   
      
   [108] Matthew 27:16-22, 27:38; Mark 15:27.   
      
   Note here that Josephus, a contemporary Jewish historian and a somewhat   
   in-dependent chronicler of the times, and Mark both use the same Greek term,   
   lestai, in reference to the Zealots. Actually lestai, loosely translated as   
   “bandits” or “thieves”, was    
   the official Greek designation for the Zealots, along with another term,   
   sicarii, meaning “cut-throats”, which term also Josephus favored, and which   
   term had been given special significance for the New Testament story as will   
   become apparent a bit later.    
   Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the two “thieves” between whom   
   Jesus was allegedly crucified were presumably Zealots and followers of   
   Barabbas, the rebel leader.   
      
   The fact that the populace apparently preferred to have released Barabbas   
   (whose first name was also Joshua, or Jesus in Greek) as opposed to Jesus of   
   Nazareth indicates a considerable amount of disenchantment with Jesus,   
   especially among the Zealots and    
   their partisans. This loss of faith and face is cleverly brought out by   
   Pontius Pilate in most of the early manuscripts of Matthew, which manuscripts   
   were later generally amended, when Pilate sarcastically asks the people, “Whom   
   will ye that I release    
   unto you – Jesus called 'Barabbas' (i.e. “son of the Father”) or Jesus which   
   is called Christ?” Beyond a doubt many of the Zealots were having second   
   thoughts about Jesus; and the general opinion was, to say the least, divided   
   as regards his alleged    
   divine supremacy. This is evidenced further by the fact that both Matthew and   
   Mark record Jesus as being rebuffed by the two Zealots who were crucified with   
   him, while Luke presents only one of the two as ready to support Jesus. (See   
   Matthew 27:39-44;    
   Mark 15:29-32; Luke 23:39-43.)   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)