Jayhawker Soule

Please forgive the aside, but how do you come to know this with such well-worn certainty?

Doctor X

Vinnie:

Eeeeeeehhhh . . . not really. I think you imply something like this--"we know someone was there but the details may not be true or testable." The problem is we really do not know what you then state are "historical facts." You see, I see historical fact as JFK was assassinated. Speculation starts involving the CIA, Mafia, and Star Fleet Command. . . .

Since I am re-reading Who Wrote the Bible?, I will note that Friedman shows a signature seal of Baruch . . . good evidence he existed. We do not have anything like this for Junior. Thus:

Well, NT scholars such as Burton Mack speculate that Mk may have "made it up." As others such as Toto here demonstrate, the depiction of the passion is all wrong. So . . . yes . . . there is "less agreement on the crucifixion.

Well, personally, I agree with you, but that is only if you assume the texts are historical. You cannot establish these as "historical facts" though I agree they are highly probable. However, some posters have given scholarly suggestions that James is not his brother so. . . .

Given the above, methink not.

To quote one scholar--highly respected and hardly "fringe":

That is the "basics . . . no one disputes."

Do not get me wrong--I think some of the speculations and assumptions are quite likely and probable--why would so many disagreeing writers make up a Peter, for example? If Galatians is legitimate, would the readers of the letter been just a bit confused about whom the people Paul talked about if they were all "made up?" Of course, as before, none of that "proves" or "establishes" what Junior said or did.

Again, I merely caution the strength and implications of "known."

Again, no real argument . . . heck on another thread I am speculating to the high heavens about whether or not Mk's depiction of the hapless disciples indicates the "immediate followers" did not believe Junior was divine . . . and, no, so far you have not tried to prove you discovered his Judean address!

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

It's possible I suppose... but for me it comes down to the likeliest explanation, which is a historical Jesus with mythical add-ons. There are problems with both a HJ or a MJ, but the HJ seems to present the fewer problems.

Vorkosigan

Sure. That's why I am not a mythicist. But saying The Gospels are fictions is not the same as saying There was no HJ any more than saying Gone with the Wind is fiction means saying There was no Battle of Atlanta. The problem with figuring out who the HJ was is that all the evidence is derived from fictions. And nobody has any sound methodology for deriving truth from those fictions.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Who said pre-existing means historically true?

Who is misrepresenting who, Vork?

Vinnie

Amos

Yes but the founder dies and the myth remains alive (if it ever was alive) and out of this life new live is created to become the continuity of the myth. It may seem like a stretch to ascribe life itself to the myth but it really isn't if we considder that "the word was God" etc. I hold here that life is an illusion but that eternal life is real and therefore belongs to the myth. In the Gospels we read about this where all Jews are descendants of Abraham which is juxtaposed with the genealogy of Jesus-the-son that goes back to the "word of God" (Gen.1 is "God said."). This makes Catholics sons-of-God but not until after realization. Granted, Jews are also son-of-God but they have not yet realized this in their myth . . . and therefore is the NT the fulfillment of the OT.

Messiahs are born out of the controversy between our immanent will to find liberation and the various external forces that keep us down. Collectively these external forces are called slavery wherefore travelling nomads can be enslaved while Paul was totally free when he was "singing in prison."

Slavery is good if liberation is sought as it must serve as the negative stand against which liberation is found. Those elite you speak of knew this (if indeed they were elite) and so it can now be argued that their religious oppression was the primary cause for the liberation of many that led to the artistic surpremacy of the entire civilization (indulgences are prepaid).

I'd rather see it as the wisdom of our forefathers that has been squashed by human perversion. We are the mythoplogy and our art is the expression of life and therefore a reflection of the well being of our mythology.

That would make sense because to create something that is beneficial we must hit the centre of the target and if we miss by only a fraction we will create perversions that will lead us astray and away from truth. I suppose this would include being lost in our own assurance of salvation. You're right, the game continues and every believer will be given the opportunity to rewrite his own genesis when he arrives at the point the first started.

Koyaanisqatsi

I'm a writer. Like recognizes like .

Amos, my friend. The world definitely needs more of your kind of crazy!

:notworthy

Tortie Cat

In my opinion (for what it’s worth) the only way to understand the rise of Christianity is to have some knowledge of what was going on in the Eastern Roman Empire in the late first century.

The Jews had been under the domination of various non Jewish Imperial conquerors on and off for a couple of hundred years. They had died in their thousands to defend their religion and their land of Israel.

In the Near East and Mediterranean at this time every religion had statues of its Gods, and had God King/Emperors, or Kings that acted as intermediaries between the God and the people. Judaism had none of these things. So to contemporary people the Jewish religion must have been very strange.

By the early first century CE the Romans had colonised the area and were exceedingly harsh in their dealings with their newly acquired Province. Taxation was high and the Roman officials could use whatever means they liked to get their money. At this period of the Roman Empire edicts and law prohibiting the extortion of colonised people had not yet quelled the rapacity of the officials. There were rich pickings to be had in Palestine and plenty of Roman officials lined their pockets at the expense of the Jewish people.

Meanwhile Galilee (a separate Client Kingdom) remained a hotbed of zealot and revolutionary unrest and it is from Galilee that Jesus came with his apostles, some of whom, the Gospels tell us, had zealot connections. Jesus of Nazareth believed he was the Messiah and it is that highly political conviction that resulted in his death. He was basically telling the Romans that he was the King of the Jews and that his reign would drive them from Judaea. That would have been akin to Bahadur Shah Zafar proclaiming himself Emperor of India in 1857 and we all know how the British Empire responded to that!

Jesus was therefore executed by the Romans, as simply another rebellious and seditious Jew. He was not unique in suffering such a horrible death. The Romans had crucified thousands of Jews over the years for rebellion, and outside of the Jewish community in Judaea Jesus was of no importance. Justus of Tiberias (a near contemporary makes no mention of him)!

The account in Mark of a Passover Amnesty is a manifest fiction since no there is precedent for it nor is there any evidence of such a thing from any extraneous Roman legal or historical source. The native organs of government had no power to execute capital sentences. The Romans removed all such rights and invested their Provincial Magistrates, with this jurisdiction.

We also know from Mark’s Gospel that prior to Jesus’ execution there had been a rebellion and that another man was languishing in a Roman jail (i.e. Jesus Barabbas). It can therefore be deduced that following this event Pilate would have initiated a harsh crackdown and would have had his security forces out patrolling the streets breaking up any gatherings and arresting or suppressing anyone suspected of fomenting trouble. To suggest that any mob would have been allowed to gather to demand the release of a known criminal tests credulity to its limits! Of course the intriguing question remains “Who was Jesus Barabbas”?

The Jewish followers of Jesus however, believed that he was the Messiah. They believed that God had miraculously brought him back to life and that he would shortly return to Judaea to continue his mission and inaugurate the Kingdom of God. However, the disciples did not see Jesus as a divine being. They wanted to persuade their fellow Jews that this man really was the Messiah and set about to try and do so. They set up their own Messianic sect but continued to be practising Jews and observe all Jewish ritual and law.

Enter Paul of Tarsus. Depending on your view-point this man was either a renegade Jew or someone who was later converted to Judaism. There is a strong argument for the latter presented by Dr Hyam Maccoby in his books on Paul.

It is Paul (“part mystic part charlatan”) via his own highly personal interpretation of the significance of Jesus’ life but more importantly his death who views Jesus as the dying and re-born Saviour God. This idea was present in many of the Hellenistic Mystery Religions that existed in this part of the world at this period. It was certainly a central theme of Mithraism but was also to be found in other religions. Dionysus is torn to pieces by the Titans and brought back to life again by Rhea. Adonis is killed by a boar and raised on the third day. Baal is killed by Mot then comes back to life. Attis is dismembered and dies from his wounds then comes back to life and dances. Whilst Osiris is dismembered by Set then put together again and becomes a god.

We know from Paul’s epistles that there was a lot of conflict between his interpretation and the beliefs of Jesus followers (James et al). Paul placed greater importance on his own mystical revelations of “the semi-divine Christ” than the views of those who had known the flesh and blood man Jesus of Nazareth!

Then came the monumental events of 66-70 CE and the First Jewish War. Following this event Jerusalem was destroyed and with it went all trace of the Jesus Movement. Paul’s ideas and those who adhered to them are the ones that survive!

The Pauline Christians are now in a bit of a spot. They have already been unjustly accused of causing the fire that devastated Rome in 64 CE. As with any secretive organisation gossip and rumour are rife and they are regarded with distrust! Following Titus’ Triumph through Rome with hundreds of Jewish prisoners, and the artefacts of the Temple, they are viewed even more suspiciously. After all isn’t their deity, Jesus the Christ, another one of those rebellious and seditious Jews? And hasn’t he suffered the lowest form of capital punishment meted out only to slaves and rebels?

It is around this period that Mark’s Gospel is written and in a brilliant literary sleight of hand – he invents a Passover Amnesty whereby it is not the Romans who bring about Jesus’ death, but the Jews!

Throughout this earliest Gospel the Romans are barely mentioned and when their Governor does finally appear he is portrayed as a rather inept character. Historically, Roman law differed between its treatment of citizens and members of subjugated regions. If Jesus made no reply when the charge was put to him, then, as a peasant from an occupied area, he was guilty as charged! End of story – stake him up!

However, in Mark’ account Pilate asks the Jews what he should do with their King and when they reply “Crucify him” he says “”Why what evil has he done”? Obviously this literary invention who bears the name Pontius Pilate is totally oblivious to the political implications of Jesus’ claim!

We know that the historical Pilate was a ruthless and cruel man. However, the writer of Mark has achieved his intention. Guilt for the death of the Christian God is shifted from the Romans to the wicked Jews!

All the subsequent texts within the NT continue this accusation and for nearly two thousand years the Jews have been held responsible for being the Christ killers. They have been persecuted, murdered, and reviled throughout Christian history. Even after the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council’s declaration on the Jews in 1964, a protest was reported at the Council sessions. This protest was made by the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Patriarch Ignatius Yacoub III. He took issue with the Council’s statement that the crucifixion “cannot be blamed on all Jews living at the time indiscriminately or on the Jews of today”. This was totally unacceptable to him and he said – “The creed of the Church … is that responsibility … lies with the Jewish people until the world ends. The Bible, which recorded this creed, was not written for one generation, but for all generations”.

Despite the horrors of the holocaust a supposed “Christian” could still hold this view!

TC

Reverend_Lucas

IMHO, Jesus wasn't invented. For Jesus not to exist, there would have to be an outright conspiricy by the peoples of Isreal.

Cult leaders were common in that day, and there were many cults based on Judiasm with charismatic leaders. Many of them even said they were also the Messiah.

The fact may be, Jesus wasn't invented by other people, but rather, Jesus was invented by....... Jesus.

Jet Black

well it is clear that if an idea gets stuck in a small group of vocal people and a larger group of people around it have at least heard of the idea, then it is pretty much impossible for the idea to go away, regardless of the truth of the idea.