Toto

Chili digression split off here

Minimalist

Isn't that merely an over-reverential way of saying that 'he is whatever the writers want him to be?" We see a similar dichotomy in modern politicians wherein a lifelong pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control person like Giuliani attempts to re-create himself for a different audience.

No Robots

Fair point. I don't want to belabour you with quotations and arguments, at least not right away:devil3: So let me just make an analogy. Take a great piece of music, a great symphony. You will see in it the whole range of human emotions all contained within an over-arching unity. This is the nature of genius: it unites opposites in ways that the common understanding cannot accept.

mountainman

was he a man of peace or a man of war?
was he a man of love or a man of hate?

Apollonius of Tyana

Author, sage, philosopher. The Spartans wished
to deify him but he refused. Born c.4BCE.

Did in fact Philostratus have knowledge of the
New Testament, or was it as yet "unknown"
to the Second Sophistic writers of the empire?

Maria Dzielska takes the mainstream hypothesis:

"Philostratus must have known the New Testament"

I disagree.

If I am to assume an HJ then I will look behind
the history that the victors have constructed
for a dominant paradigm and author and tradition
which the "Christian Regime" overcame via
persecution and intolerance.

I hope this makes sense to you.
Best wishes,


Pete Brown

No Robots

Pogue Colonel: Marine, what is that button on your body armor?
Private Joker: A peace symbol, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Where'd you get it?
Private Joker: I don't remember, sir.
Pogue Colonel: What is that you've got written on your helmet?
Private Joker: "Born to Kill", sir.
Pogue Colonel: You write "Born to Kill" on your helmet and you wear a peace button. What's that supposed to be, some kind of sick joke?
Private Joker: No, sir.
Pogue Colonel: You'd better get your head and your ass wired together, or I will take a giant shit on you.
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man.
Private Joker: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.
Pogue Colonel: The what?
Private Joker: The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Whose side are you on, son?
Private Joker: Our side, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
Private Joker: Aye-aye, sir.


--Full Metal Jacket

mountainman

If we are to assume an HJ then let's be realistic.
The empire of the first century (and the 2nd,3rd,4th,etc)
was a war zone. The Roman Empire was at
war with itself and its "Barbarian" borders.

War was good for the economy and the slave-trade.
What's really new in the world?

War is a Racket
US Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler
1935


If we are to assume an Historical Jesus we
have to ask ourselves whether he would have
had the prescience to know that Trajan would
crucify at least another 2,000 Jewish men within a
century of his own voluntary crucifixion, all from
the one town, as an example?

If we are to entertain the HJ we must at least
entertain the political environment of the times.
And that environment was the ravages of war.

Savage, cruel and unjust.

As an afterthought, the question asked in this
thread is expanded upon in this:


The concept of "The Galilaean" has been
confounded. Peace and Love, .... or ....
Vengeance and Retribution?

If we are to assume there was an HJ then
he was surely a Galilaean, or so we are
lead to believe.

Best wishes




Pete Brown

Doug Shaver

That, pretty obviously, depends on how accurately the gospels represent his opinions. From my reading of people who assume his historicity, that seems to be unknowable, since their guesses about which parts convey his real teachings are all over the place.

Minimalist

Was it?

The Roman Empire of the first century was the Pax Romana. Things were pretty good at the beginning. In fact, under Augustus and Tiberius the Jews were treated pretty well and given exemptions from worshipping Roman gods.
Granted, under Caligula things started to go sour but supposedly every Christian tradition has Jesus already dead by then.

Sequoia

There is no contradiction if there are different layers in the gospels written at different times. I think that it is easy to understand. We have the example of Josephus.

He was executed as a rebel to the Roman Empire, wanting to be King of Israel and refusing to pay taxes. He is involved with murder.

Sequoia

The problem is to understand the meaning of "Kingdom of God" for a Jew in 1st century.

The christian meaning is irrelevant.