ApostateAbe

Possibly, but the ruling Jews likely had their position only be submitting to Pilate, which means that a threat to the Sadducees is a threat to Pilate himself. In the writings of Philo and Josephus, Pontius Pilate was of a strong authoritarian personality who wouldn't hesitate to put down violently any potential threat to his power.

Zenaphobe

Just a side question here, but how would one explain that Jesus got enough attention to get the cross, but none of the disciples got rounded up and crucified with him?

ApostateAbe

There could be several answers to that. I speculate that Jesus was a cult leader, and, to destroy a cult, you normally need only to strongly humiliate and eliminate the leader. Another potential solution is that the disciples scattered like a crowd of frightened sheep. And another solution is that Pilate didn't care enough to put a lot of thought into it.

aa5874

What! You know directions?

The Christian Gospels got everything about Jesus wrong.

His conception was wrong.

The temptation was wrong.

The miracles were wrong.

The trial and crucifixion were wrong.

The resurrection was wrong.

The ascension was wrong.

The deification was wrong.

What is the most probable theory?

That Jesus was fiction since everything is historically wrong about Jesus.


No city of NAZARETH has been found.

The Jesus story appears to be a pack of LIES from conception to ascension and deification.

James and Peter were fictitious 1st century characters who were witnesses and participants in events that never happened. Peter and James cannot be neutral witnesses when they are all in the NT as disciples of the Holy Ghost of God Jesus Christ.

Who saw Jesus walking on water? Peter,the 1st bishop of Rome.

Who saw Jesus transfigure? Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome.

Who denied ever knowing Jesus? Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome.

The entire NT is just fiction with respect to Jesus and the disciples.

How can it be explained that supposedly HONEST and Holy disciples made erroneous and false statements about Jesus if he was just a man and then dying for the very lies hoping to be with Jesus, the truth and the life, in heaven?

The supposed HONEST and Holy disciple Peter flagrantly broke one of the Commandments. Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome was a bare-faced liar or was presented as a monstrous liar.

Mr 10:19 - If Jesus was just a man and the disciples knew he was a man, they were all false witnesses.

The most probable theory is that Jesus was just a story and no-one really lied except the inventor, others just simply believed the story was true.

And there is Joseph Smith who is a perfect example of how a religion can be started by making claims about a God that are non-historical but are believed by many to be true.

SLD

OK. Fine. Mark didn't know squat about Geography. That definitely proves that the bible isn't some infallible word of god. But it doesn't mean there was never an historical figure on which the religion of Christianity was originally based. It means that Mark made up a lot of crap.

Hyamm Maccoby suggests that the Barabbas and Jesus are one and the same and that the crowd was calling for Jesus's release. Only later did Gospel writers, in an attempt to distance themselves from those revolting Jews (quite literally), did they invent another Character and shift the blame away from PP to those Jews. (please don't persecute us poor little christians, we're not like jews who revolt against you mighter romans, those little bastards killed our god - we're all for you.)

But again, it just means that Mark was writing a lot of bullshit to add to the myth of Christ. An historical figure that started the cult is still not precluded.

Absolutely wrong. Jesus most certainly did pose a threat to the Romans and that is precisely why he was crucified. He preached the coming of the kingdom of god - i.e. the overthrow of the Romans and the re-establishment of the Davidian line of Kings (i.e. him). His preachings were most assuredly anti-roman to any 1st Century Jew. Again, read Hyamm Maccoby's excellent book, Revolution in Judea. It's not perfect, but it really does make the case for how and why Jesus's statements would be seen as a serious threat to Roman rule demanding that immediate and terrible action take place.

Which events exactly? I would agree that much of the Gospel stories couldn't have happened, but I don't think that necessarily precludes a grain of truth in them - a charismatic revolutionary leader arrested and crucified by the Romans. We do know of several such characters from outside of the gospels. Why would another one be necessary precluded?

I would agree that a gospel like Jesus is not historical. The tendency to deify people of that time and make up stories about them is too commonplace to give much of the gospels stories much credibility. But I'm inclined to think that there was an historical Jesus who started a movement - one that had nothing to do with him being any kind of savior god, but merely another in a long line of anti-Roman revolutionaries. What was left of his movement probably was cut down a few decades later in the general suppression of the Jewish revolt in the 60's.

Granted, the evidence is scant. I wouldn't claim any proof of an historical figure. But there are a few things which point to such a conclusion.

First, It seems to me more probable that a myth would grow up around an historical person than a completely fabricated character is used to make up an entirely new religion. It's actually a lot easier to do. And that the gospels got some of the history right at least supports that conclusion. A complete fabrication would likely not try to hide it. Ancient audiences - especially illiterate ones - would likely not care so much about historical accuracy as they would simply a good story. If it were completely made up, I would think that the authors would have done so much more.

Second, we do have a lot of first century writings about him. They all made the canon, but so what? That doesn't make them automatically total BS. We've got numerous letters from Paul about some kind of guy named Jesus. We've got four gospels although two seem to be at least partially derived from the first and another is so off its rocker as to be likely a complete fabrication.

We've also got at least some reference by Josephus to Jesus - although unfortunately it seems to have been altered significantly by later Christian writers (Eusebius?). I consider finding a 2nd Century copy of Josephus's work along the most likely candidates for settling the debate on a HJ once and for all. If he really is in it; it would be hard to dispute that he was in fact an historical person. That such a manuscript would survive is plausible - but we may just have to wait for that.

Third, is the obvious tension between Paul and the Jerusalem "Church". The original followers of Jesus aren't happy about Paul and his mission. That this is mentioned in the bible to me smacks odd if it is all just made up. Why would they air such dirty laundry in public? If the religion were made up from scratch, I'd expect all the followers to be on the same page, praising Jesus together instead of fighting about something or other. I suspect that the real tension was that Paul was really founding a new religion, something that Jesus nor his original followers, had any intention of doing. The Jerusalem church didn't care for that. They were interested in fostering the revolution against Rome and turning Jesus into a martyr Patriot - not another dying and rising mystery cult god.

Bart Ehrman also notes that there are several other passages in the Bible that seem to cut against the grain of having this great dying and rising god like figure and that those portions are thus more likely authentic. If it were pure literature, the authors wouldn't have Jesus make certain mistakes. I don't have the book in front of me but will try to dig it out and bring more specific examples that he makes up for discussion.

Finally, I think that by contrasting the Gospel of John with the Gospel of Mark we can see an evolution of sorts going on. Mark's Jesus seems rather human and ordinary. Not born of a virgin. He actually never rises from the dead (well, there's an empty tomb and maybe we are supposed to interpret it that way). He's clearly not claiming to be a deity. But by the time we get to John, through Matthew and Luke, we've got this full blown Christ God who has come down from heaven, born of a virgin, and is the word incarnate from the beginning, who has this glorious resurrection, and, blah, blah, blah. There such two completely different stories and two completely different Jesus's. It seems to me that extrapolating backwards we would come to a rather simple historical figure who was executed by the Romans for sedition against their rule and whose followers started spreading stories about him that eventually grew up to some legendary god like figure to ultimately the one and only god incarnate with the head god himself.

Well that's my view. No proof but I'm inclined to a HJ of some sort.

Cheers! :wave:

SLD

Notsri

For what it's worth the name Barabbas does have extra-biblical attestation to its use among Jews within the land of Israel as well as within at least the Babylonian diaspora. Somewhat rare though it may have been, it was evidently not altogether uncommon, being preserved both within the epigraphic and the literary (Rabbinic) records.

aa5874

So, you are admitting that Jesus of Mark was crap.

We are not dealing with imagination at this time. There is no historical source that show Barabbas and Jesus were the same person.

Maccoby seems to be also engaged in writing CRAP about Jesus who was invented by CRAP.

The Jesus character can only be properly identified if the specific CRAP about him is left as is.

Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost that CRAP cannot be altered at all.

You cannot ignore the CRAP about Achilles and still maintain the Achilles character. It is exactly the same for Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Exactly. gMark's Jesus was BS, now provide a credible external source where Jesus was considered human and was actually deified in Jerusalem.


There is no historical sources that show that Jesus did pose a threat to the Romans.

In the Jesus stories Jesus paid his taxes and never once made a single offending remark about the Roman Empire or the Emperor. Jesus even taught his disciples to pay dues to the Romans.

On the other hand, Jesus cursed the Pharisees and called them vipers and of the Devil.

And even at the trial in the Gospels, it would appear that Pilate was not looking for Jesus and was hearing about him for the first time and not even realising that Jesus was around Galilee for most of his life and had just come to Jerusalem.


There are no historical records to show that Pilate was looking to arrest Jesus or that the Romans considered Jesus as a threat.

We are not dealing with imagination right now, we are looking for credible historical sources for Jesus. None can be found.


There are no known historical records of antiquity where a Jew was deified in Jerusalem. It was not common place to deify Jews in Jerusalem but it appear that a person claiming to be a God may be executed by stoning.

Stoning to death for blasphemy may have been common place or getting beaten to pulp like Jesus son of Ananus.

People who ignore evidence are inclined to make errors about Jesus. You admit the Gospel Jesus was BS, yet you still think BS lived.

If the evidence is scant and much is BS, then why are you leaning towards the BS and the scant? Your imagination must be credible than the BS.

But, you will see that virtually everything about Jesus was completely fabricated.

Was not the Holy Ghost conception completely made up?..Yes

Was not the temptation by the Devil completely made up?...Yes

Was the miracles where Jesus cured incurable ailments made up?....Yes

Was not the walking on water made up?...Yes

Was not the transfiguration made up?.....Yes

Was not the trial and crucifixion in the NT made up?....Yes

Was not the resurrection made up?....Yes

Was not the ascension made up?....Yes

Was not the second coming of Jesus made up?.....Yes.

Jesus was completely fabricated.

The Jesus of the NT, the Holy Ghost of God, applies to all the writings found in the NT. All the BS found in gMark is equally applicable to the Jesus of the Pauline writers.

The canonised NT is the HANDBOOK or Manual of Jesus Christ, offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, Son of God and the LORD and SAVIOUR.

So, this clearly shows that you are unwilling to give a position based on extant information.

As of now there is no good evidence for an historical Jesus but you are prepared to wait, perhaps forever or until death, and not admit that based on the evidence Jesus appears to be myth until credible evidence in favor of historicity is found.

Your position of leaning towards an HJ is now not at all dependent upon evidence but what you believe is out there somewhere.

Now, why do you imagine there is evidence out there and why do you imagine that it is in your favor?

Because that is all you have is your imagination.

Well, again there is no historical source that can show that Paul started a new religion, even the Pauline writer claimed or implied that he now preached the faith he once destroyed.

You are imagining things. Please read exactly what you see in the NT do not make stuff up because you think it is BS.

The BS about Jesus is what makes him special or different to the other myths. You will notice that Achilles was not the offspring of the Holy Ghost. Ahilles is identified by some other BS.

In essence, MYTHS are identified by their peculiar BS.


Well, after admitting that the Jesus story was essentially BS and that you have no proof of what you claim, then you are a perfect example of an HJer.

robto

There is a story in Philo of a "madman" who was mocked by the people, given a diadem and some spear-bearers and basically the whole royal paraphernalia. His name was Carabbas.

avi

Tammuz
Thanks Tammuz, interesting thread.


But, why would the Governor of the colony waste time with such matters? Isn't this rather, a police or military obligation, which certainly need not concern the man in charge of the whole province...

Even if "Jesus" had been some kind of terrorist leader, why would senior military/police officials waste the time and energy of the Governor, (Pilate) imposing upon him to participate in apprehension, interrogation, and dispensation of "justice", involving a small band or malcontents, or its leaders? It makes no sense to me.

Does Julius Caesar report in his Gallic Wars about such matters? Did he participate, for example, in the discipline of enemy combatants, captured by his lieutenants? I just imagine Caesar being far too involved in more important matters, to waste his time reviewing a decision by his subordinate officers. Isn't it traditional, in nearly all cultures, civilian and military, to delegate responsibility? If the official at the top, is engaged in deliberation of every facet of every problem, how will he be able to function, when a genuine emergency arises? I simply do not imagine that the Romans were so incompetent, as to involve a Roman governor in some provincial police problem....

Abe, Christmas, Easter, or Summer solstice, there is simply no basis for belief in a historical Jesus... Would you attend a symposium devoted to explaining recent experiments which prove the validity of geocentrism? Definition of Delusion: Fixed, False Belief. How do we verify that the gospels are false? People don't walk on water, Abe. They don't wave a hand, and thereby restore vision, long since lost due to disease or trauma. Humans lack the ability to bring the dead back to life....


Jesus' merry band was about as revolutionary as cheerleaders at a local, junior high school, cricket match. None of Jesus' band were rounded up, because they were all irrelevant, as was Jesus, himself, son of David, son of the Holy Ghost, son of God, and son of Mary the virgin.

Do you know of some theory in which the author(s) asserts as factual, events or data, which have subsequently been discredited, yet, retains its essential character as a legitimate explanation for the underlying phenomenon? I don't.

And you know that Jesus was a "charismatic" "revolutionary" leader, how? His portrayal in the new testament strikes me as being neither charismatic, nor revolutionary. What? Turn the other cheek? Isn't that what every conquered people has been obliged to do by their captors?

A serious threat to Roman rule would have involved disruption of the supply of food to Rome. Was Jesus' merry band then, in a frenzy over cutting that pipeline? I just don't buy the argument that the Roman civilian leadership was grossly ineffective in administering the colonies. I don't see those administrators becoming nervous by the perception of a couple dozen renegades shouting softly, and carrying no stick whatsoever.

avi

aa5874

The name "Barabbas" used in the Gospels is another indication that the trial of the supposed Jesus was non-historical.

"Barabbas" means "son of the father" therefore the actual name of the criminal, if he did exist, is not really known.

In effect, based on the Gospels, the offspring of the Holy Ghost JESUS [the unbegotten son] was crucified while Barabbas, JOHN DOE, [a begotten son] was released.