aa5874

See
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Kokhba.html

rlogan

Well, IMHO the cart is before the horse here and that is why you cannot get things to work out sensibly.

Forget about Jesus existing for a moment. Assume for just sake of argument there was never any Jesus and start with a completely different Christian origin. Forget about all of the so-called "new testament" writings and begin the discussion before any of these are written. Before "Christianity" begins.

The religiously inclined are searching existing scriptures for the nature of God and how to perfect man's relationship with him.

Amongst these, we have the key Isaiah Chapter 53 passages appearing to say that the messiah suffered for our sins - was our sacrifice. The "Christ crucified" business is an extremely important theoretical and mystical religious concept in the beginning. Observe that the Greeks and Romans have their "gods" doing all kinds of things - none of which is the slightest bit real. Just religious mumbo-jumbo. Is there a historical hercules or Zeuss? No, and why does there even need to be one? This is religious gibberish, not history.

Isaiah 53 is past tense. It is not something that is going to happen in the future. It is something that has already happened

So there is a "Christ" crucified. Past tense. A concept, not reality. But as this religious movement develops, more is added from the ancient scriptures. Some of the books speak about a things to come whereas the most important one of all is in past tense. No matter. All of them were written centuries before the original Christian innovaters - so the whole lot of it can be past tense for the Christians but future tense to the original writer.

He is spit upon and despised by his own people. Executed with criminals but burried in a rich man's tomb, rises in three days, etc. From a variety of Hebrew Bible sources a whole matrix of things is pulled together eventually: Born in Bethlehem, come out of Egypt, be a Galilean, and every other damned thing we've come to know about "Jesus".

It isn't strictly Hebrew Bible sources and belief making up this new religion, no. It sure borrows a great deal - but interprets it in its own way instead of being a strict Jewish law movement.

The first people preaching this are appealing to scripture and to their own "revelations" from God - like the mythical Paul. They are not inheriting something from a pre-existing church heirarchy. And there is no central authority.

It does not become important to make a stand on absolute historicity until centralizing control over the disparate branches of "Christ" movements. The claim of historicity to Jesus is the claim to historicity of direct apostles, and is thus the claim to inheritance for leadership by virtue of that linear descent to the first "Pope".

The gospels have this schizophrenic presentation of Jesus as the messiah doing miracles before thousands, but on the other hand is spat upon, executed, and urges disciples not to tell anyone he is God.

That schizophrenia is required by him being the messiah on the one hand and the human need to "prove" this with all the superman bullshit - but still fulfill the scriptural passages above.


In short, "Christ" came before "Jesus" the historical human, and not vice versa.

aa5874

That is exactly what I am trying to demonstrate, if you accept the existence of Jesus, then you cannot get things to work out sensibly.

I am of the view that 'Christ' may have come before the 'mythical Jesus, that is, those who devised the 'Christ' may have come up with the concept before he was put in a body.

Based on existing writings the 'Christ' appears to have been conceptualised some time, possibly, in the 2nd century, but those who developed the concept, put him in a body that they claimed lived about 100 years earlier.

jgibson000

That may be. But at the moment the particular issue at hand is something else altogether -- namely, whether the claim you made in post # 4044520 about how my logic is "warped" is true and, more importantly, whether you have the balls to admit that in your use of Lk. 23:8 as evidence to prove an historical point about how Herod Antipas treated Jesus, you have (a) abandoned/contradicted your claim that the writings of the NT are fictitious and provide us with no reliable historical data and (b) that you operate under a double standard.

Thanks for proving my point that you don't.

yasaptz

JG

aa5874

Again, your reasoning is warped, please read the OP.

Amaleq13

Making an observation and asking a question about something you wrote in the course of discussing the OP but that does not directly related to the OP does not render Jeffrey's reasoning "warped".

Absent any clarification on your part, he appears correct in identifying an inconsistency in your approach.

jgibson000

Please do me the kindness of showing me how it is so.

JG

rlogan

I see. Indeed so.