Iskander

I see that you have chosen Barabbas.


And yet Barabbas is a failure, or so Bernard Shaw thinks.


Not-this- man, the talented atheist Bernard Shaw prefers, but it seems that only the vagabond talkers are heard by the herd.

Toto

If you think it is nonsense, that means that we are using "historical" in two different senses, which the brevity of these posts tends to obscure. Historiography is a complex subject. May I refer you to this post and others on the Vridar blog. A good source for the history of views on the historiography of Jesus is Charlotte Allen's Human Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk).

If you let me know what books you have read on these issues, it would help.

I think we have just been talking past each other. If you are not willing to admit that this has been a problem and are only trying to convince yourself that I am some sort of loon, I don't see much hope for this.

aa5874

Not at all. The Romans STOLE, ROBBED and KILLED. The Jesus story was STOLEN by the Roman Church.

J-D

Well, read what I have posted again and again and again until you understand it!!!I have read the book and I did not get a basic understanding of how ancient mythology is relevant to ancient history.

J-D

I am tired of your diversions. Every post is some off-topic matter.

Sheshbazzar

This would necessitate that the story had actually -belonged- to someone.
Who would it be that had ownership of this story, for the Roman Church to be able to steal it from them?

FWIW, I believe the Romans simply co-opted a set of popular old Jewish hearsay legends that were public property, reworked them, organized them, and used them as a convenient political tool to eliminate all rival religions and philosophies, consolidate all wealth and power into the hands of an elite government/priesthood, and establish an iron fisted control over the populace. Even to the extent of having 'thought' police with power to summarily execute anyone expressing any thought or view the Church/Government regarded as heretical.






.

aa5874

Well, first of ALL I would have thought that you would have also told me what is your position.

Now, according to the Church there were Heretics but there can ONLY be Heretics if there was ORTHODOXY.

It is not necessary to know who actually initiated the Jesus story to theorise that the when the Romans made the Jesus story UNIVERSAL (Catholic) and Orthodox it did not originate with the Romans.

The writings attributed to ancient writers clearly show that the Jesus story was NOT Catholic or orthodox until the 4th century.

This is Origen in "De Principiis" So, based on Origen, up to the MIDDLE of the 3rd century, there was NO real orthodoxy among BELIEVERS which indicates that the Jesus story was completely diversified and NOT under one controlling group.

The very gospels in the Canon show that not even the time of the birth of Jesus was orthodox a good indication that the Jesus story was NOT controlled by a single group or sect.

It is in the 4th century under the Roman control that the time of the birth of Jesus was attempted to be harmonised. See "Church History" 1.5.2

This attempt at harmonisation of the time of the birth of Jesus would have been unnecessary if the birth narrative of Jesus was ALWAYS under the control of the Romans.

The mere fact that gMatthew and gLuke are so different in their birth narratives virtually eliminate the idea that one group or sect controlled the Jesus story.

Sheshbazzar

Very good aa, in this we are on the same page.

aa5874

I don't really post to get compliments. I want to deal with the PAGES found in sources of antiquity.

I cannot find a single PAGE about HJ of Nazareth.

I cannot find a single word on a PAGE of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth.

NO PAGE for HJ explains NOTHING.

Incredibly, HJers want to PIGGYBACK on the Church and USE the same PAGES of their NT Canon that claim Jesus was a Ghost Child born in Bethlehem to say the Ghost Child was really a man born in Nazareth.

J-D

No pages, perhaps, but at least half a dozen separate individual lines.