aa5874

Your position is contradictory. You deny the historicity of Jesus and still simultaneously claim "JC marks the spot, the historical spot".

JC marks no historical spot.

It is the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE that marks the historical spot.

Early Christians of the Jesus cult believed that the stories of JC explained the Fall of the Temple and so-called prophecies in the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint.

tanya

I am confident that I could list quotes from each gospel to refute that notion, but, I do agree with you, that he is portrayed as a real person, ALSO. The four texts are contradictory.
John is absolutely clear, in this regard: I am my Father are one. But, Only the Father knows who will gain entrance to heaven. (well, and the cardinal or bishop with his hand open).

So, which is it: Jesus is a divinity, present from the beginning of time, identical in every way with the father, but not equal to his father, hence, not identical.....

When the Catholics celebrate mass, they are drinking blood. When the Protestants drink wine, it is wine. (or maybe I am confused, and have mixed them up, but, one of them imagines that they are really drinking blood. How does drinking blood purify the sinner? Or, is it supposed to represent homage to Jesus, to drink his blood, and eat his flesh? That's cannibalism in my book. I am confident that some of the Jews were compelled to eat one another, following each of the three rebellions against the Romans from 70-135 CE. Maybe the tradition springs from that experience? Is there anything comparable in the ancient Hebrew scriptures?

aa5874

The angel Gabriel is depicted as a real person sent by God to Mary in Nazareth.

Satan is depicted as a real person when he was with Jesus on the Pinnacle of the Temple during the temptation.

Romulus and Remus are depicted as real persons, human brothers, born of the same woman in Plutarch's Romulus.

Achilles was depicted as a real person in Roman/Greek mythology.

Adam and Even are depicted as real human beings in Jewish Mythology.

The notion that characters are figures of history simply because they are depicted as real shows a complete lack of understanding of ancient Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.

maryhelena

No contradiction, aa - no contradiction.

Try this. Get some of those little pins that are used to mark places on a map. Get little red ones. Now, get out the historical time map. In the time of Alexander Jannaeus, insert one little red pin at around 90 b.c. (Toledot Yeshu) Next, since the identity of Queen Helene is up for question - and could be Cleopatra Selene II who was born in 40 b.c. - stick another little red pin next to that time slot.

Next up is around the 15th year of Herod the Great, either 25 b.c. or 22 b.c. (Slavonic Josephus) - place two little red pin in that time slot. Another red pin can be put in the time slot of the 7th year of Tiberius for a crucifixion story - that's either 19 or 21 c.e. (maybe to cover all options stick two little red pins in that time slot.)

Next; a red pin is inserted around the time of the death of Herod the Great. 4 b.c. - where JC is making another appearance. Insert another little red pin around 6 c.e. Moving on, red pins can be inserted around the 15th year of Tiberius - and, again, to cover all options, insert a red pin in 33 c.e. Oh, nearly forgot - you need another red pin for around 36 c.e. - covering all the crucifixion/death options.

There you go....lots of little JC markers - little red pins tracing out a timeline in which to trace the developing gospel story. Maybe keep a few red pins in hand - you never know - JC might just turn up somewhere, sometime - so it's wise to be prepared. That's the story anyway.....keep a watch.....



(Red pins = JC - aka - a messiah figure)

andrewcriddle

Thank you for your votes and interesting posts.

As expected the majority did not vote for option 1 (the conventional view of early Christian claims.) The actual vote for option 1 has probably been exaggerated by the wide definition I gave to this option.

What was interesting and a little unexpected is how nearly evenly votes are divided among the other options. There seems to be on this forum much more doubt of the conventional view of early Christian claims than there is agreement about an alternative.


Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

The Talmud identifies the queen as Shlomzion, the wife of Alexander Jannaeus and sister of Shimon ben Shetach. She was an unspecified relative of Yeshu himself.

mountainman

Aside from option 1, the option that There were no early (pre 70 CE) Christians seems better represented than the other options.

Those who selected option 1 This was a recent event in our world are probably using (often by conventional "wisdom") the New Testament as 1st century evidence.


When one's investigation of the evidence leads one to suppose there were no early (pre 70,) chrestians/Christians the historicity of Christ is being questioned. As far as I am concerned it's a bit like saying when the early hobbits claimed that Gandalf the Grey fought the Balrog and fell into the Pit of Moriah, what did they mean? Somewhere along the line (after 70 CE) we must be dealing with a Public Relations operation in which the majesty of Bilbo Jesus Baggins leaped out of the books of the canonical new testament and overcame the populace.

sotto voce

How can such wisdom possibly be doubted, when it has support like this:

'The fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.'

~ Julian c. 361 CE

outhouse

Was there? or was there not, political turmoil in Galilee over Roman oppression?

Not being directly under the Roman thumb like the temple, would in fact promote a geographic location of political resistance. And it is what we see in certain scriptures.

Was there turmoil over the corruption in the temple due to the Roman infection?


Due to the sheer number of messiahs and healers, Jesus figures contemporary's were plentiful.





Then why is it so hard to believe, one was martyred in front of the large crowds reported at passover???????????????????????????

Toto

Off and on there was.

Off and on, yes.

What's this "believe"? Your question should be, what kind of evidence is there? Do you think the Romans would inflame the crowds with a public execution? Does any detail in the gospels make sense?