TedM

Why don't you explain to me that what you think I meant? Then I can clarify if for you because it does not seem to me that you understand what I wrote.

aa5874

I think you meant, if he [Jesus] was really made up, you would expect Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as not having lived on earth....

Isn't this what you meant? I am reading you "loud and clear".

But, based on Acts, "Paul" was made up and fabricated events about "Paul" were canonised, so I don't think "Paul" could have clarified anything.

TedM

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that if Jesus didn't really live here and was therefore a made-up historical figure later on based on scriptures and expectations for the messiah, I would have expected Paul to have been more clear about his form of Jesus as having not lived on earth, using those same scriptures or other ones for support just as the gospels did. It is easier to say that Paul too made up Jesus from the scriptures and was referring to a historical Jesus, but not one he really knew lived recently, and that this crude version was added to as time went on, than to say Paul created a non-human/non-earthly Jesus from the scriptures and others later changed him to being human and on earth..

Two creations of a non-existent mythical Jesus--one not historical and the later one historical, with followings. And, Jews all over that were familiar with both, and yet no indication in the literature or apologetic literature of Jews claiming to not agree with 1. Paul's non-earthly messiah or 2. a historical Jesus who they knew hadn't been crucified by Jews.

hope that helps.

ted

aa5874

I think Marcion's Jesus is easier. Jesus came but he wasn't real. So you eliminate all the problems of historicity. Maybe "Paul" letters were re-written.

Kelly

There is another possibility here to consider and that is that there was a real historical Jesus, but the official church wished to cover up his true identity.

For instance, the Bible clearly states that Jesus was raised in Galilee and Galilee was occupied by the Tribe of Benjamen from the time that the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity. The main part of the city of Jerusalem had been the Benjaminite's allotted territory granted the Tribe of Benjamin when lots were drawn for territory in the Book of Joshua. However the Tribe of Judah took over their Jerusalem territory upon returning from captivity, and the Benjaminites were forced to settle in Galilee. It was the wealthy, elitist class from the Tribe of Judah that the priesthoods pandered too from the days of Solomon onward, and they did so even knowing that kingship had been removed from the Tribe of Judah as is clearly stated in Kings 11:11. Had Jesus actually been a Benjaminite of Galilee riding into Jerusalem and followed by a crowd, one might easily see how that would have certainly been seen as a threat to both the priesthoods and the elitist families from the Tribe of Judah, particularly if Jesus was calling for a "New Jerusalem" which would have certainly threatened the existing status quo.

There is much to support the theory that the historical Jesus, rather than the historically manipulated Biblical Jesus, could have only been a Benjaminite. There are numerous New Testament verses referring to Jesus as the "Son of Man sitting on the Right hand of God." This is a huge clue because the tribal name of Benjamin literally means "son of the right hand," as any bible concordance giving the meaning of Jewish words clearly points out.

The Jewish priesthood would have never called for the crucifixion of a man who could prove his inheritance came from the royal family of the Tribe of Judah. There is virtually no historical precedence for it. Had the historical Jesus been able to actually prove he was a member of the royal family of Judah, the priesthood would have declared him their messiah and king because that was the law of the priesthood.

Would the priesthood have had any qualms about calling for the death of a Benjaminite man? Absolutely not and there is plenty to back this up. For instance, Ezekiel 16 discusses the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and states "Thy younger sister that dwelleth at thy right hand is Sodom and her daughters." (Ez 16:48) Again, "thy right hand" is a priestly euphemism for the Tribe of Benjamin. Chapter 8 of the Book of Ezekiel tells us that these words were spoken before "the elders of Judah." (Ez 8:1) Ezekiel clearly implies that it was the Tribe of Judah that was responsible for attacking Sodom and Gomorrah.

This is further born out in other Mesopotamian texts, where the so-called "angels" that attacked the five Salt Sea cities (Erra and Ishum, also known as Ninurta and Nergal) (http://www.piney.com/Baberraishum.html) were identified with carrying the "Lion standard" in several Mesopotamian texts, and the Lion standard was the symbol of the Tribe of Judah. All this is patently avoided today in Christian churches, because the evidence inevitably implies that at least two tribes; the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, were in existence long before Jacob ever gave birth to the twelve sons who were supposedly the first patriarchs of the nation of Israel.

In another tale told in the book of Judges, chapter 20, the slaughter of the Benjaminites at Gibeah is also led by the Tribe of Judah and this event is clearly an all out attempt at genocide. Today's churches attempt to justify the attack on the grounds that the Benjaminites "were unfriendly and refused to open their homes to travelers." What they fail to note is that Gibeah was north of Jerusalem and on the main road that led from Jerusalem to the territory of the Ephramites. The ten tribes under the leadership of Ephraim were devoted to the worship of Baal. If it was the time of the full moon when the Ephramites held their monthly festivals where they held sexual orgies and sacrificed to Baal and Ashtoreth, (an event that often called for the sacrifice of children) every person in Jerusalem devoted to Baal would have traipsed through Gibeah on their way to the Baal parties. If the Benjaminites locked their town up tight and refused to open their houses to Baal worshipers, they were either afraid of them or openly maintaining a stance against the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth. Solomon was among those who sacrificed to Ashtoreth, (1 Ki 11:5 & 11:33) and we may assume that Baal worship was rife among the elitist classes from the Tribe of Judah.

Whoever the real Jesus was, he very decidedly was against Baal, for he named Beelzebub (the NT name for Baal) "the chief of devils," (Luke 11:15) and the worship of Baal appears to have been the national religion of the Tribe of Judah. Psalm 29 and several other verses clearly identify the Biblical Yahweh with "the cedars of Lebanon" where "the Great House of the Lord" was. This is a clear reference to Baalbek, also known as "Sion of Mt Hermon" (Baal-Hermon) in the Bible (Dt 4:48) and "the Crest of Zaphon" in the Canaanite texts found in Ugarit.

While I am the first to admit that the New Testament has been thoroughly manipulated by the priesthoods and scribes, the scribes were apparently attempting to rewrite real textual accounts of the life of Jesus and they were not necessarily very adept at it.

I believe Jesus was a real person but he could not have been a man from the tribe of Judah. If he had been, the priesthood would have declared him the new messiah rather than had him nailed to a cross. The real historical Jesus could have only been a Benjaminite, and that is what the priesthoods and scribes were attempting to cover up.

jules?

If, and it is an if, the writer of Mark, knowledgable of Latin, Greek and Greek classical narrative, may have been writing a satire of Vespasian's adoption of the Jewish title of messiah, reverting to a percieved poor Jewish messiah as a counter point. Mark is is written with style and a degree of genius and the original ending simply had the empty tomb complete with the classical Deus ex Machina.

Joshua bar Nun, translated as either Jesus the fish, or Jesus the Serpent that can then be related to Nazoraean/ Nazarene, that contains elements of the term for fish/descended of David/and being particularly holy [so I am led to understand] but they are not exclusive as a holy descendant of David could be of the fish. Joshua is as holy as Moses going up the mountain to get the laws with Moses as well as being in the tent when god came for a chin wag and taking over from Moses, leading the people across the Jordan to the promised land of milk and honey, destroying the enemies of Israel and establishing a new kingdom of god. Sounds all very messianc and in his day Joshua was Jesus the Messiah.

jules?

Hi Ted, thanks for the response I will try and clarify my argument and even concede some points.

Expectation of an arrival does not negate a historical Jesus. What would happen sometime post 70c.e. and the failure of god to come to the aid of the revolution is the thought that may be he had which either required hunting for an historical person or making one up.

The bigger issue is whether the saviour was going to be heaven sent and cosmic or a man. Enoch and other prophesies point to a cosmic angel complete with an army of angels to join in the fight, [read the War Scroll] Other Jewish sects had different ideas including a warrior king, priestly leader, in fact as many versions existed as there were sects. But despite this no messiah actually appeared to fulfil any of the numerous prophesies and none survived the revolution. [except Vespasian]

The half dead lamb appears in Revelation and is based on half a dozen visions of the messiah that range from ‘like the son of man’, zombie sheep, a shining warrior with an angelic army etc etc. [Revelation may date to mid 1st century as the earliest version has the beast as 616 aka Caligula 37-41].

As for the nature of the post apocalyptic kingdom it was to be relevant when Christianity established itself either as a Jewish cult or independently in that the lack of material kingdom of god it adopted the heavenly version through lack of choice.

As for Paul’s ‘vision’ of Jesus is anybodies guess. Cosmic spiritual friend or real person, the debate rages. A more spiritual kingdom of god must have been in circulation a good while before the revolution of 70c.e. simply for it to be acceptable to the radical zealots who were quite up to fight to the death.

The number of wannabe historical messiahs indicates that plenty of people were expecting a man, but I go back to the original point that none succeeded. Unless of course you could make out that a/ they followed the suffering servant prophesy and were thus unknown in life and b/ the promised kingdom was entirely spiritual.


I do think that if James is connected to the Essene then he would have taken a role as symbolic earthly messiah and therefore would have been brother to the Christ who would reside in heaven. The symbolic earthly messiah would hold the Passover feast [eating the flesh] awaiting the cosmic messiah who would only come when the end was nigh. No end = no Christ. If each city had a Essene [or similar group/sect] ‘church’ then there would be as many symbolic earthly messiahs waiting. Paul may have been connected to these groups and would therefore be part of Essene type Jewish apocalyptic sect. If this is the case Paul would believe in a Jesus who was more akin to that described by Enoch. The problem then as now was interpretation. Would he be man or angel? Warrior or saviour? Who ever was studying the Dead Sea Scrolls was trying to discover time and nature of the End Time.

In response to other points you raise it comes down to interpretation and in the contexts of a Jewish belief system breaking out into the Roman-Greek world amongst Hellenised Jews and Gentiles. Without scribes and the Jewish religious establishment all sorts of ideas will become popular. You only have to look at ‘eastern’ religions that have been adopted in the west to see how they change. And I suppose that is my main point; there was so many ideas revolving around the ‘Saviour’ in the Jewish world that it should be no surprise that a bastard version should crop up in the Empire and one that descended to the simple ‘god-man who came to earth story’. Therefore it would be expected that a historical suffering servant would be created who would die in an up dated way.

The components of the Jesus story were all in circulation before Jesus the man supposedly lived and I would agree that a particularly zealous wannabe could get themselves arrested / nailed up and have their followers bribe officials to make the prophecy come true but would this really be the man who is spoken about in the gospels?

Your points make me think. I think the Jesus story is unique in that expectation of a messiah drove a revolution, generated many wannabes, interpretations but the messiah never came for the end time. That was the main event, Jesus was the warm up act.

Thanks Ted.

spamandham

Imagine for a moment that you had never heard of the Bible or of Christianity, and someone handed you the Gospel of Mark.

Upon reading it, would you assume it was:

1. The biography of a historical god/man
2. ...valid to extricate all the magical aspects and assign the rest to a regular human being
3. The result of a conspiracy theory
4. A work of period hero fiction

If you were like most outsiders, you would assume it was fictional/mythical. Why then, is that not the default position? Is it really so unreasonable to assume that a story involving extensive use of magic and common folklore is a work of fiction?

aa5874

You have not provided any external evidence to come to such a conclusion. If you do not accept the NT'S version of Jesus, then without evidence he could have been anything you imagine.


The NT and the early christian writers claimed Jesus was a God, these christian writers have witnesses. They have Mary, her husband Joseph, the 12 disciples, Pilate, at least three thousand people whom he fed.

Based on the NT, Jesus could only be the offspring of the Holy Ghost and there is no evidence external of apologetic sources to contradict his Holy Ghost genealogy.

Amaleq13

Does this opinion have any basis in actual data?