spin

All you need to do is go a few steps further and say "maybe Jesus didn't exist". This doesn't mean that he didn't, but that you can contemplate the possibility, for, once you're there, you'll see that there is no tangible reason for assuming he did exist. This will mean all this supposition on whether he was executed is wasted breath because the big question hasn't been answered: did Jesus exist? All else is vain speculation. The best one can do then is text and tradition analysis, just as one does with ancient Greek religious texts and traditions.


spin

aa5874

Julian has already written a book about the Galileans around 1600 years ago, it is nothing new that Jesus was regarded as a monstrous lie.

See Against the Galileans by Julian.

Based on the written statements of the canonised NT, the supposed Jesus was executed after interrogation and was accused of blasphemy.

Now, I do not know how blasphemy can be characterised as charismatic, or how asking the Jews to believe that he was a god and could forgive sins was charismatic.

The Jews killed the supposed Jesus because they thought he was perhaps idiotic not charismatic.

Based on the written statements of the canonised NT, the Jews at trial thought Jesus was worse than the murderer Barabbas, he used to tell monstrous lies, make false claims about his abilty to come back to life after three days, and was a fraud.

If it is supposed Jesus was just human, then the canonised version of Jesus walking on water during a storm and his transfiguration are monstrous lies, and in addition Peter, James and John were probably part of the scheme to deceive the Jews, or those who claimed Peter, James and John did see Jesus bring dead prophets to life.

If Jesus was just a man, who would benefit the most by making the body of Jesus disappear to fabricate a resurrection? The disciples of course. So, they continue to tell monstrous lies about his resurrection and to compound the lies about Jesus's resurrection, they falsely claimed he ascended through the clouds and will come back a second time for dead people when God blows a trumpet or make some kind of sound.

The historical Jesus is just a pack of lies. It is untenable.

Analyst

[QUOTE=spin;5726334]No question, but something or someone caused the schism between the Jesus Jews and the other Jews. So let's say there was a Jesus person - more like Mark's angry version than Luke's however.

spin

Paul. He was the one with the direct revelation from god regarding Jesus. Nothing else is necessary.


spin

aa5874

Direct revelation from a dead man? Another monstrous lie.

Paul knew the Lord's brother, according to a letter called Galations, and the letter claimed Jesus did die. It a monstous lie for the letter writer to claim the dead man was resurrected, ascended to heaven and that the dead man revealed some good news about circumcision, that it is not necessary if people believe the dead man was resurrected and was the son of a God.

Even the letter writer admitted that his story was stupidity to the Greeks.

The historical Jesus is not tenable.

Ken Carman

Isn't it also possible that there was a historical Jesus but he was quite different? Maybe he never even said he would return, or something he said was interpreted that way by some who followed? We have the Gnostics, the Ebionites and those who followed Marcion; all who had a different take. There were many "Gospels" other than what we know of; accepted and... not, and I would assume some we will never see or know of intentionally destroyed. The battle to proclaim what he said, and what he meant, started when he was still alive. The apostles bickered, I would assume more than the Bible tells us they did.

I always get a chuckle out of literalists who assume the Bible is the word of God and perfect; inerrant. Beside the fact; inerrant: not, they also go on and on about the problems with human nature... yet they expect this book: only the version they accept, to be pure and untouched?:huh: That's pretty much the definition of irrational thought, IMO.

Ken Carman

I'd be curious you're opinion of Bart Erhman. I have been enjoying his writings for quite a while now. Depending on mods here, and policy, that's a bit off topic, so if you need to respond more personally I would assume there's a private messaging system here. Otherwise I'll give you a different way to send me your assessment. I'm always interested in opinions no matter how they may be opposite from my own impressions.

(Otherwise, why would I even venture into debate rooms? Well, if I were like one of Tom Lehrer's Tango-ites:banghead::devil1:...I might. But; I'm not.)

Ken Carman

Here are a few links to my column Inspection that cover this topic.


Early last year.

Xmas edition. This was the second edition that used Lost Christianities. Obviously there was a previous one, but I felt the first wasn't quite as much "on topic."


The weekly column can be found above and other places on the net... and HERE.

mountainman

Dear aa5874 and Analyst,

What Julian means in the title to his three books "Against the Galilaeans" was "Against the Christians" since he always referred to christians as "Galilaeans". In fact, despite the assertions of the translator Wright, Epictetus does not refer to christians when he meantions "Galilaeans" (he instead refers to the Galilaeans referred to by Josephus - lawless brigands). If this is the case, Julian's use of the term appears to be novel. (Does anyone else mention the term "galilaeans" as a collective term to be synonymous with "christians" between Josephus and Julian?). If Julian's use of the term is novel, then perhaps he is following Josephus' perjoritive useage?


Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

If there is a historical core to Jesus, we really don't know what it is. There's no good reason he needed to have been a first century character at all. It seems to me, he was retrojected to 30 CE for symbolic reasons, since it's exactly 40 years prior to the fall of the temple, rather than for historical reasons.