helen99 | The Jesus Papers...

I'm reading "The Jesus Papers" by Baigent. Several new twists on the Jesus story and such. Fun to speculate.

The thing that had me chuckling this morning, however, is this:

Execution by crucifixion was reserved for political seditionists, not religious dissidents. Heretics were generally stoned to death. So ok, that's not very funny, but bear with me.

According to reports, Jesus was crucified along with two thieves. However, the older translations do not use a word that means "thieves". The word is "Listai" which means "Terrorist" or "Political Dissident" (Insurgent, if you will).

Baigent goes on to make a case that Jesus, who was of the bloodlines of both David (King) and Aaron (Priest), was thus qualified to become king of Judea, and was being promoted as such by the Zealots. The Zealots were revolutionaries who wanted to install legitimate priests and kings of the Aaron/David bloodlines in positions of power in Jerusalem. They also wished to violently depose the usurpers that were installed by Rome. The Zealots were definitely considered to be Listai. So it is looking more and more like Jesus was an Insurgent, a political dissident, a terrorist, otherwise known as a Listai.

It's only missing one little R, folks. One measly little R, and we have Listari.

That's really the only part that was funny, but I'm still chuckling in light of the fact that one of

rialian's college friends once went temporarily delusional and thought Rialian was Jesus. She was under the influence of 3 weeks of sleep dep, caffiene, and nonstop studying for finals. They tried to hide the car keys, but she had a spare set. They found her some days later in a motel. By that time, she accused another guy of being Inuit Eskimo Satan (which I think is even cooler than accusing someone of being Jesus). She ended up marrying Eskimo Satan, and is much better now.

But seriously, kidding aside, this sounds a bit familiar - the part about the Zealots who were trying to kick Rome out of Jerusalem in order to purify their religious environment, and being considered, well, Listai. Ironically, the same person they were trying to promote as the one who would save them from the usurpers later became the religious weapon of choice that has been used by many of the power elite to subjugate the population.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's only missing one little R, folks. One measly little R, and we have Listari.

Oh, it's not missing *anything* as far as I'm concerned... stai is a perfectly acceptable suffix as well, after all. Look at it this way: Lis'tai. ;-)

I am *immensely* amused. (And the rest of this info is very interesting as well.)

Hee. According to the definition of the suffix "ai," "Lis'tai" would be Lis'tar'(i) in perpetuity... Frightening.

To begin following up on Baigent's claims, I did a Google search on Listai in combination with various words such as "Seditionists," "Dissidents," Revolutionaries," etc., and found only one hit that matched any of the criteria -- a Mormon website that contains a rather long essay which attempts to define terrorism and distinguish it from other forms of political violence.

FYI, I also tried looking for Listai on Wikipedia, but it hasn't been written.

If you search to find the word "Listai" in the article, you'll find a quote from the writings of Josephus, a man who was sympathetic to the Roman cause around the time of Christ and who wrote about the events surrounding the crucifixion.

The Josephus quote uses "Listai" according to the accepted definition, "Robbers," rather than as "seditionists." However, it's difficult to determine from the essay if this usage is correct - I doubt the author of the essay is a scholar of ancient languages, and is probably just going with what he's been taught. I thought maybe an Ancient Greek dictionary would be the next place to look, but none of the online translators recognize that word (that really doesn't mean anything since most of them are not very extensive). It could be Latin or Hebrew, though it doesn't sound like either one.

I looked up Flavius Josephus (the origin of the quoted passage about Listai), and it seems he was either a diplomat or a traitor, depending upon who you talk to. He may have had motivation for describing the Zealots in a bad light to please his Roman overlords, who had spared his life after capturing him during the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, the term Listai was probably some sort of derogatory term like "robbers" or "thugs", which may have also been used in some cases to mean "seditionists". Language nuances are often used for spin purposes. Or maybe the term for Zealot came to mean Robber later, after their cause was squashed. Hard to tell.

hehe, what a cool find! As soon as I saw Listai I began to chuckle, and actually this may not be far from the truth, if we go with theorys such as Z. Stichin has come up with.

Very interesting.

I've read a few more chapters now - it seems that his honeymoon with the Zealots was shortlived. When he didn't do what they wanted him to (and of course he wouldn't), they wanted to get rid of him and find another messiah. I see Messiah-ship as a dead end career move, myself.

I got as far as 'Listai' and snickered, as I had an idea it was going in a direction thusward.

Listai thiswise, Listari being one letter away from Istari. Both, triangulated from, make sense at least to non '-ari me.

What/who are Istari?

Tolkien's wizards.

Heh. "Only one hand at a time can wield the One, Sauruman, so do not bother to say 'We'. "

One of my favorite Istari comments ever.

Ah, that's right. I remembered them as the Mair and had forgotten the term Istari. Yes, it is very similar...

Funny how selective thinking works isn't it. I believe he was quite the radical and when you call the pharasees the then ruling juncta of the time white washed sepulchres well that does not always tend to sit well. Can cause some open rebellion among the rich and oh so pious. You know the one's with the holier than thou syndrome.

They were all ready to crucify him but when it came to getting people to do what they wanted it was you will burn in hell if you do this or that. Good way to control the masses, especially, when some are very paranoid of hell. Even today the Bush regime uses that to get elected. Heaven forbid that gays should get married. Silly stuff really. I don't care who marries whom. That's a personal matter. I think that many do use Jesus selectively and bravo to you for bringing it up.

Actually, when it came down to it, it was the Zealots themselves who wanted him crucified in the end - the same ones who had promoted him in the beginning. The reason was, he was marching to his own drum and didn't exactly go with the program they had laid out for him. In fact, he didn't go with anyone's program.

Indeed and I'm thinking thats a good thing. Too many things start out looking good and then when they are going for a while are just as bad as the system they are fighting.

I think it has to do with the number of people involved. As long as something is small and stays small, it seems benign. As soon as the first generation dies, though, the impulse to keep it "in the family" so to speak, probably dies with them. Then you hvae the game of "telephone" starting, with each subsequent generation putting its own stamp on it, and if it's popular enough, the powermongers taking it over and using it as their instrument of brainwashing and control.

I'm a firm believer in never advertising one's beliefs. It might become popular, and that will be the end of it.

Just for the record, I never thought Rialian was Jesus. :-)

This qualifies as a good thing.

Listai = dissident

it fits

:)

The Zealots had apparently wanted him to instruct people to revolt against Rome and to refuse to pay taxes (a good way to get themselves slaughtered, which they eventually did anyway after his death. Instead he told them that none of their agenda mattered. It would be as though we promoted someone to get rid of Bush and instead he just said "give him whatever he asks for, since it's not important anyway". I would suspect someone like that of collaborating with Bush (sort of). Only in his case, he wasn't collaborating with anyone. To him it really didn't matter.

This resulted in the eventual betrayal by the zealots by way of Judas so they could install someone more to their liking (who would do what they told him to do).

Dissident is one way of putting it. Possibly more accurate would be "visiting dignitary." He really wasn't a zealot at all.

It does fit.

The Jesus Papers...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Selective thinking

Re: Selective thinking

Re: Selective thinking

Re: Selective thinking

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject