Asha'man

Exactly. Which is one of the reasons I lean towards Heathen Dawn's view that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy, or some other form of rebelion against the Jewish religious authority.

Secular Pinoy

But Fredriksen's solution to the problem she identified is not that Jesus was a blasphemer, but rather that he was taken to be formenting apocalyptic beliefs among the great crowds of pilgrims that were in the Temple for Passover. In order to curtail the growing unrest caused by Jesus' firebrand sermons, the Roman authorities were compelled to act quickly and execute Jesus, and in a public manner such as a crucifixion, in oder to scare away the crowd from escalating their unrest into outright chaos.

Amos

True, and the Buddha is just one man who achieved Nirvana and so attained "Buddhahood" (if that is word). His teachings are that "this is Buddha" just as Jesus was a Jew who went to heaven and showed how to get there as well.

The virgin birth must be placed opposite a non-virgin birth and makes reference to a rebirth because a physical virgin birth is not possible.

Amos

Right and the historical Jesus was the reborn Joseph who could have been any Jew that was convicted by his own religion and therefore gave birth to the child within-- which was his firstborn that long since had been neglected. The new creation now called Jesus worked out his own salvation in the Gospels and went to heaven in the end.

What makes the story confusing is that mythmakers used the story to start a new religion that went by example and not just a prophetic message.

Amos

The Laws were given to Moses to convict man of sin and to be convicted of sin we must sin or there can be no conviction of sin. Joseph, the upright whily entrepreneur, was guilty of sin (because all is made in sin) and therefore gave an account of himself and that account (which was not just a verbal confession) was the real cause of his rebirth (Romans 10:10).

So now, it was Jewish Law that convicted him and that is exactly why the Laws were given to Moses.

Bill

These are points, but not convincing points. (In fact, at this juncture, there doesn't seem to even be the possibility of the existence of any convincing points.)

Have you ever studied the stories (generally in Josephus) of the other rebels against Rome and the movements that they led? It seems to me that it isn't entirely implausible that the Romans would simply execute a leader, or perhaps a leader and a couple of his immediate subordinates, and then be done with the punishments. (Thus, the "two thieves" might well have been henchmen of Jesus. Either theory is within the realm of possibility.)

And actually, the best argument against this whole business is the fact that Josephus doesn't mention the execution of Jesus, while he does seem to go on at length about other minor characters who ought to rate less of a mention than Jesus would, even in the eyes of Josephus. But of course, once you allege that we don't have a "pure copy" of the works of Josephus, the redaction of any mention of the execution of Jesus also remains a possibility.

Frankly, we need more evidence in order to be sure of any of this, but we aren't likely to get any such evidence without a great deal of luck. Still, on balance, I remain convinced that when Saul/Paul spoke with James, there was a real Jesus that was being discussed, and that is all that is necessary for me to decide the question of the existence of an historical Jesus.

== Bill

Rick Sumner

I'm not saying that Jesus was a blasphemer--that doesn't hold up at the best of times. I'm saying he wasn't an insurrectionist.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

You'd need to cite individual examples for comparison.

This is only an argument at all if one accepts that Josephus mentions Jesus. I'm not persuaded that he does, except in the context of being James' brother.

Regards,
Rick

Bill

But Rick, the "except" is the entire crux of the argument! If you admit that Josephus does mention Jesus in the context of being the brother of James (i.e., that this notice of Jesus is real, and not an interpolation), then it only makes sense if Josephus has previously mentioned Jesus someplace else, and the most likely place for such a mention is when he discussed the death of Jesus. Where would such a mention have been? The best theory seems to be at exactly the spot where Testimonium now appears. Accordingly, admitting that the notice of Jesus in the context of being the brother of James virtually demands that there be some similar notice of Jesus at an earlier point, and the only other earlier point that has been reasonably suggested is the point at which the Testimonium now appears.

So, Rick, logically speaking, you really do have to deny that the mention of Jesus in conjunction with James is authentic (from the pen of Josephus) or else you must virtually necessarily admit that there was an historical Jesus, and that there was also some mention of that historical Jesus earlier in Josephus, most likely where the Testimonium now appears.

At least, that is how I view the whole argument over the authenticity of the notices of Jesus by Josephus.

(As for the examples from Josephus of notices of other "messiah-like" figures who were killed as insurrectionists, my copy of Josephus is packed away in storage, and I can't really comply any time soon. But I might be able to pull references from Eisenman's book, which I do have here with me. I'll have to get back to you on that point, though.)

== Bill

Rick Sumner

I am not persuaded that it only makes sense if Jesus has been mentioned previously. The passage isn't about Jesus, Jesus is named only as an identifier to James. In fact, it's not even about James--as Peter, quoting Ed Tyler, notes in his essay, it's about Annus.

I beg to differ. Jesus "called the Christ" serves to distinguish that Jesus from Jesus, son of Damneus named later. It's not an allusion to an earlier mention of Jesus, it's an identification of *this* Jesus, not *that* Jesus. Which, in turn, was used to identify the James executed by Ananus. This doesn't depend on an earlier reference.

I look forward to it.

Regards,
Rick