outhouse

All of our earliest sources, are of a living man who dies on a cross, martyred at passover.


One who paid the unltimate price for people.



No matter how you try and spin it, Pauls Jesus was human as they get.

outhouse

Only when one jumps through mental hoops using imagination.

Its just not there.




Let me share what is there, with Zero hoops to jump through.

A Galilean traveling teacher who was baptized in the Jordan, who went from small poor village to other small poor villages avoiding Hellenistic large cities.

He healed and taught for dinner scraps from the dinner tables of the poor who would bring him in for a night when possible.

Small town boy goys to the big city where he loses his temper and was put to death by Romans and ended being martyred due to the hundreds of thousands of people in attendance at Passover.


ZERO mental hoops, its all in the books.


When we look at cultural anthropology, we see that Galileans were known as zealots and trouble makers and even Pilate was known to have a hatred for Galileans.

As far as a militant, one verse goes a long way. "live by the sword, die by the sword" Yehoshua in my opinion was smarter then most, and knew that violence against the Romans was suicide, he developed a way to sort of cop op the peasant villagers to take god out of the temple and bring god back to the poor and take the required money out of god worship. No other messaih or militant had ever tried to give god back to all the poor people before.

Toto

What sources? Paul says nothing about Passover.


Except for Paul not knowing or caring about his life on earth. :huh:

Paul's Jesus could have been much more humanized, as the gospel versions of Jesus were.

Toto

This is not directly in the sources. It requires some of your mental hoops.

No it's not. You continue to post this fantasy derived from some reconstruction that tries to fit the gospel stories into what is know from other sources. But this requires ignoring most of what the gospels say and inventing a historical Jesus who cannot be disproven.


This is not cultural anthropology. Please start citing your sources for these sweeping statements.

I think your source for this is some romantic Marxist reconstruction of history. But we'll never know until you start citing your sources.

Please stop posting this until you do.

maryhelena

Yep, it's a great story.....:huh:

Onias

aa,
IMO, the proto-Jesus and Jesus Christ are not the same person.

The fictional JC is the shadow of the historical proto-Jesus and is largely his antithesis.

The shadow is not real except for its correlation with the proto-Jesus.

However, the militant statements of JC have a positive correlation with the proto-Jesus.

The pacifist and also the Paulinist statements of JC are inversely correlated with the proto-Jesus.

But I do agree that the OT is bolted to the NT, but that is incidental or secondary to my point in the OP.
Onias

outhouse

I do really agree with you here.


We do see the eariest versions in Mark of these elements covered up by Luke and Matthew. And Mark reads like a fictional account, no doubt from someone who wasnt there writing decades after the fact.


I think what turned me from a mythicist, was why Hellenist would write in a peasant as their deity, then try and hide the negative aspects in the more popular gospels like Matthew. We see the later gospels trying to cover up the poor peasant from Galilee.

maryhelena

It's a story........:wave:

maryhelena

It's a story........:wave:

It's a 'salvation' story.........etc.....

outhouse

Paul does state he died on a cross and was a living man.


Pauls theology was about his commitment to the God of the OT in which he placed Jesus as his son.

His strongest emphasis was the death, and resurrection and lordship, of Jesus [per EP Sanders]