stephan huller

But you know nothing so your opinion is worthless. There is nothing inherently problematic with claiming to be redeemer of Israel. WTF is the matter with you people? Why wouldn't the repressed nation want every able body man to take up arms against its occupier? As if the Jews would 'punish' someone for standing up for them? It's so fucking stupid. Don't you think before you say this nonsense?

stephan huller

Unlike you I can entertain many different ideas about different topics. It is not 'all about' an idiotic Herodian hypothesis. The Coptic tradition leads me to conclude that Marcus Julius Agrippa was their St Mark. WTF does any of this have to do with the question of whether or not Jesus was meant to be taken as the messiah or the Son of God? Please stay on topic.

stephan huller

The reason most 'MJers' aren't taken seriously is because they all appear like mountainman-lite.

Diogenes the Cynic

What would? Not claiming to be the Messiah.

steve_bnk

Claiming to be god or son of god. I'd have too look up chapter and berse. He was questioned as to being god and replied something like he was not god but son of god in heaven.

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark's Sanhedrin trial, but it's "son of man." He's asked if he's the Messiah and says yes, then quotes Daniel's "son of man" passage. Mark then has the priests accuse Jesus of blasphemy, but it actually didn't violate any Jewish law. Mark's whole trial shows an almost total lack of knowledge of Jewish law and legal proceedings.

Even "Son of God" was just another way to say "Messiah," though.

maryhelena

The topic relates to stopping 'stupid debates about the historical Jesus'. So it's everybody but Stephan Huller that has a 'stupid' debate about "the historical Jesus' - and Stephan Huller now has the "the only viable explanation of why Jesus should not be understood to be human".

So my idea re a "Herodian hypothesis" is "idiotic" - and your hypothesis that Marcus Julius Agrippa was at the crucifixion of a historical Jesus - is what? Since your now claiming to have the "the only viable explanation of why Jesus should not be understood to be human." - what pray tell happened to your earlier claim re Marcus Julius Agrippa at the crucifixion of a historical Jesus - is that now an "idiotic hypothesis" - do tell??

stephan huller

Diogenes where are u getting son of man = messiah. Its every day sense in Aramaic would be 'person under discussion`

steve_bnk

That just makes the case the gospel writers were not Jewish. No argument. A Jewish story enlrged over time being copted by converts with no Jewish lnowledge.

At some point a group(s) with a distinct identity as Christians vs Jews coopting the Jewish scripture as their own emerged. That is an obseved fact. We wopuld not be having thios debate otherwise.



The inconcisetency to me is the fact that JC was not dragged off and stoned to death, per his actions in the story. He was in the face of power elite. Which points to myth built on an orginal HJ or a movement.

stephan huller

Son of God does not mean Messiah principally. It means the God under god