steve_bnk

If you go by the gospels and ignore Paul, JC never rejected Judaism...he kept kosher so to speak.

Christianity as we have it was a fabrication.

And it was apocalyptic, the end was near. JC made no provisions for a new religion.

mountainman

Scholarship is stuck in the story as if it were some historical puzzle, and culturally and psychologically ill-equipped to face possibility that the story is just a fable, a "monstrous tale".



A publisher? OMG! Not the publisher?



The devil's advocate says bullshit - you are dreaming. The religion of Manichaeanism flourished in the Roman empire after the execution (by crucifixion) of the Persian religious leader Mani.



I disagree. The real basis for the belief in a historical Jesus is that the books of the canonical New Testament existed, and somebody authored them well before they were elevated to the purple.

Under the appellation of Galilaeans, two distinctions of men were confounded, the most opposite to each other in their manners and principles; the disciples who had embraced the faith of Jesus of Nazareth, 41 and the zealots who had followed the standard of Judas the Gaulonite. 42

The former were the friends, the latter were the enemies, of human kind; and the only resemblance between them consisted in the same inflexible constancy, which, in the defence of their cause, rendered them insensible of death and tortures.

The followers of Judas, who impelled their countrymen into rebellion, were soon buried under the ruins of Jerusalem; whilst those of Jesus, known by the more celebrated name of Christians, diffused themselves over the Roman empire.

Chapter XVI: Conduct Towards The Christians, From Nero To Constantine. Part II
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 2, by Edward Gibbon, [1781],
at sacred-texts.com

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

outhouse

Causing any disturbance at Passover would get one nailed to a cross.

demonstration? seditionist? teacher? healer? doesn't matter, nor do we know. He was guilty of all to some degree.


Not really true, debatable anyway. By cutting the snakes head off, you kill the snake.

We don't hear of JtB apostles being killed. But he surely had them.

What was at risk was a all out tax war 30 years before the temple fell due to a tax war. the Romans went in at nightfall for a reason, and one reason only, too not start a war and kill the snake. To much money was at stake.

Any other time and you would be 100% correct.



First of all, Christianity evolved away from Judaism. This didn't happen for quite some time. Not only that, it formed from Hellenistic Judaism, not Jesus real apostles from Galilee.

Oral tradition started the movement after Jesus martyred death.




This started like match in a sulfur pile. There was multiple reasons. Hellenistic Judaism had outgrown Judaism and was ready to branch off, it didn't need much of a excuse.

Next we have oral tradition that grew because of his martyred death. I think for what ever reason the mythical oral tradition of his resurrection had started that weekend before Passover was over. Missing body, a lie, a spiritual resurrection later perceived by others as physical, who knows?

But really. You had a unknown teacher who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the common hardworking man. A man who went up against the whole damn establishment that was crooked and corrupt. had he not sacrificed himself for the common man, the mythology would not have grown.

Unfortunately, the Hellenistic community found this mythology more appealing then Jews. This same Hellenistic community had already been worshipping the god of the Jews and wanted that one all powerful god. Add that with the free heath care and saving your soul if your hurry and let Jesus save you, you might not burn in hell.







Your correct here. I think he was a teacher and healer who crossed the line and played military for a day in the temple trying to rally people against the corruption.

I doubt he was ever considered a messiah while alive though, only in the mythology after his death.

mountainman

This claim is hypothetical and lacks any evidence.

The official hypothesis involves a written tradition.

The official position is that the Holy Spirit started the movement by using the authors of the canonical books of the new testament as instruments of True History.

Later the Devil entered into the authors of the non canonical books of the new testament, and they wrote pulp fiction.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

I find it most amusing that some are making all sorts of claims about how Christianity started when the very Church told us how their own religion began.

It is recorded in Acts and it was made public in the Roman Empire for hundreds of years and even up to today.

The start of Christianity, in the Canon of the Church, did NOT need an historical Jesus.

All that was needed was the claim that people were filled with the Holy Ghost.

There is absolutely no need to invent stories.

In the Bible itself, people were called Christians in Antioch after Paul and Barnabas were filled with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22 The Jesus cult of Christians started without an historical Jesus in the Bible.

It did NOT even matter if Jesus did exist because the Holy Ghost must FIRST come before there could ever be a Jesus cult based on the Bible.

The author of Acts made Jesus obsolete.

The author of Acts made the miraculous ACTS of Jesus irrelevant or of no value.

Effectively, Jesus of Nazareth is historically irrelevant to the origin of the Jesus cult.

wordy

I see much value in the quote that Mountainman did.
Constantine could have wanted these two attitudes to be contrasted
and thus Jesus and Judas was compared that way. Jesus as a good leader
and Judas as the bad leader. Turn the other cheek if you get discriminated against
and don't rebel against the Rome authorities. Blame it all on the Jews .

Seem still to be the case. A lot of rebels that blame it on the Jews.

andrewcriddle

It is an interesting article. Some comments:

a/ Some of the evidence for Jesus as a seditionist depends on what are probably the later rather than the earlier Gospel accounts.
b/ Even if the Gospels have minimized the potential for violence among Jesus' disciples, a group with apparently only two swords between them was unlikely to be a major security threat.
c/ There is evidence of Jesus' hostility to Herod and to the Temple authorities, but not really any evidence of his hostility to the Roman government as represented by Pilate.

Andrew Criddle

outhouse

And how could you tell that?


Money is all through the scripture, Jews were factually oppressed.

There were tax wars, 30 years before his death, and 30 years after his death.








Jews were not allowed to have a single sword, the punishment was death for having one. No trial, no debate, death and swiftly at that.

"Even if" writing to a Roman audience we know they minimized any conflict with Romans.


Its my personal opinion, that a small night time raid was preformed to take the leader out while not creating a big public disturbance. Had the apostles been lightly armed, there could have been a skirmish in which the apostles ran for fear after a vain attempt to save Jesus from arrest. We will never
know.






Since Romans were there for two things, and two things only. You would be wrong.

Romans were there to police the event and keep peace. Any disturbance was squarely in their realm to deal with.

Second they were their to escort Pilate back to the Empire with all the tax revenue.

Any evidence claiming Jewish participation should be suspect since we know the authors were playing to and for Roman's.

andrewcriddle

For example; it is only in John (probably the latest account) that serious military force is used to apprehend Jesus. In the synoptics we seem to have Jewish temple police supplemented by a civilian posse.


Could you give a source for this please ?

Andrew Criddle

maryhelena

Great article!

A Prince of Peace and a Man of War? A Jekyll and Hyde - a split personality. A man who is all things to all people? Turning the other cheek while striving to redeem Israel...

Or are we not dealing with a composite gospel JC? A composite, literary, figure that is able to reflect historical figures that fit these two roles...A Davidic type messiah figure and a Joseph type messiah figure fused into a gospel JC figure....