Doctor X

Radcliff:

Sorry for the "Ralph" . . . scribal error. [Gross incompetence.--Ed.]

Indeed, the problem with the whole historical Junior issue is there really is no definitive evidence. Any scholar can speculate, but the speculation is only as good as the assumptions.

I have mentioned previously that I have little regard for the Jesus Seminar. Another poster printed a great quote from one member at how they pounded their foreheads debating whether or not the resurrection was true! Anyways, one scholar admonished me that the "genius" of Funk was he forced everyone to specify "the teachings of Jesus." The problem, he explained, is that people bandy this about--often declaring them "earthshattering"--without ever specifying what they were.

Schweitzer's great book on searching for the historical Jesus leaves him a rather empty figure--I like to think it was the response to the book that drove him into the depths of Africa. . . . However, even he has to assume Junior was "an immeasurably great man." Evidence? None, of course, but people who want to believe need that assumption.

In a book I mentioned above . . . I think . . . or was it the flood thread . . . Martin Gardner's The Flight of Peter Fromme, the issue of resurrection becomes critical for a boy preacher losing his faith. If the "tomb is not empty" then, he argues, everything is worthless. Junior become just another man . . . just another charlatan as you note.

Another tidbit . . . if one believes Josephus, the Romans were more than happy to squish trouble makers . . . why did they not hunt down Junior's followers? Believe Paul, and you could just travel to Jerusalem and find them. It makes one wonder how "earthshattering" his message or teaching were.

--J.D.

Amos

In the "Precautions of the Chief Priests" (Matt.27:62-66), Jesus was called an imposter twice and it was explained that if he did not die the next imposter would be much worse than the first. To prevent this Pilate ordered the tomb be kept under surveillance for at least three days.

Isn't it obvious from this that if Jesus was an imposter that only an imposter died, and if the imposter is equal to the persona of man that not man but his persona was crucified wherefore resurrection was possible because had this persona not died the raised person would still be the old imposter now elevated and therefore much worse (born again, spirit filled but sinner nonetheless).

Radcliffe Emerson

My personal opinion is Paul invented Jesus so Paul could mooch off of people and not have to work for a living. That's harsh I know, but nonetheless that's what I believe.

Radcliffe Emerson

The problem with the tomb story is the Romans would not have allowed his body to be removed and placed in a tomb, especially for the Jews and their religious reasons. Bodies were left up until they rotted, then thrown to the dogs to be eaten.

Biff the unclean

Hmmmm, we've gone from the "swooning" theory to the "Alpo" theory

Amos

But if only the imposter was crucified there was no body to rot. The body had been set free under the name of Bar-abbas (who was the "son of man" in the dual identity of Jesus) and just the human identity was crucified but not until after it had been stripped of all its belongings. The human identity was the imposter that needed to die to make this a [divine] comedy (happy story) in the end. Had the ego not died it would have returned to the true man identity and here it was feared that the disciples would have taken it back (the disciples were eidetic images or ousia's of Jesus). Without the death of the human identity re-surrection could not have followed the crucifixion and without resurrection the life of Jesus would have become just another tragedy (later called Senecan Tragedy to show the details between these two).

The "final imposter" here makes reference to eternal damnation as opposed to eternal life and, as you may have guessed, eternal damnation is contained in the saved sinner complex that remains with us until we die.

Radcliffe Emerson

Mighty good eatin!

Doctor X

Ralph:

Watch it! "One line posts without content" cause bowel distemper in the Powers that Be . . . particularly if it disagrees with their personal beliefs.

Nevertheless, the little historical "factoid" regarding how Romans crucified people cannot be overlooked with wild delusions of "imposters" and the like. We are left with a problem: the Synoptic authors did not know how the Romans crucified . . . or . . . they could not make the story work . . . resurrecting bones and bits of flesh.

Or, even, you can believe Burton Mack's suggestion that Mark just "made it up" with regards to the whole thing.

--J.D.

Amos

The "imposter" precaution is part of the story and should not be dismissed as rubbish. It is a flashback to the children of Israel who were such final imposters (rebel repent rebel repent until they died nonetheless) and their example is brought into the NT so we can identify the undesired end of committing the sin against the holy spirit.

Doctor X

Er. . . sorry . . . that is Radcliff. . . .

Again, Amos, should you start discussing the same text and stories everyone else is discussing you may find them less confused and more willing to engage you.

--J.D.