Solo

Jesus being able to leave the temple unmolested is a familiar theme in mythical or quasi-historical narration. A prophet, or God's favorite, is untouchable until an appointed time. Had Mohammed been unsuccessful in his escape from Mecca, and died a martyr, no doubt there would have been stories of supernatural escapes prior to his capture. In the assassination of Ali, the Shi'ite successor and son-in-law of Mohammed, the first assailant, Werdan, failed to strike Ali with his sword.

The legendary founder of the Baha'i faith, the Báb, miraculously survived a volley of an execution squad in Persia in 1850. It was reported by a numerous witnesses (among them western diplomats) that not only the first execution fusillade failed, but that the holy man disappeared from the courtyard altogether. He was found later in his cell dictating a letter to his secretary. He was taken out the second time and was shot dead.

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is a household name in Punjab, where he led a secessionist faction of the Sikhs. He was killed by the Indian Army during an assault on the Golden Temple in Amritsar on June 3, 1984. The two standard myths about him have instantly sprang up : 1) he is alive, well and in hiding, and 2) he was only wounded in the initial assault but killed later.

The latest in the mythologized survivors appears to be the slain leader of the Tamil Tigers, Velupillai Prabhakaran.



His post-mortem photo with a gaping hole in the forehead would seem to provide conclusive evidence that this parrot is not pining for the fjords...but would you not know it - he has been reported alive and well and ready to launch another offensive. My guess is that after a while the standard disclamer would be made available also: he was killed but only after miraculous hold-up of the inevitable.

Jiri

ApostateAbe

Elijah, I completed my explanation of the cult leader Jesus here: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=280907

yalla

I haven't read this thread so I don't know what point the above was referring to, I just like this comment by Tacitus which is taken to refer to the Pax Romana.

"...and where they make a desert, they call it peace."



http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tacitus

Iskander

What have the Romans ever done for anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh...eature=related

What have the Romans ever done for us? Life of Brian

Reg: They've bled us white, the bastards. They've taken everything we had, not just from us, from our fathers and from our fathers' fathers.
Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: Yes.
Stan: And from our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers.
Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
Masked Activist: And the sanitation!
Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...
Matthias: And the roads...
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...
Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...
Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...
Activist Near Front: And the wine...
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!
Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

(more general murmurs of agreement)
Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up!
:wave:

bacht

Independent as in Hasmonean times, when Janneus crucified hundreds of Pharisees? Or independent as under Herod the Great who dined with Roman artistocrats and hunted down Zealots?

storytime

Yes. Rome would have. The Jews could not due to their religious fanaticism. "We have a Law," remember? So, Jesus the Jew would have been provided more freedom and protection had he sought it in Rome as a Roman citizen. But, his purpose was to make himself a martyr according to the story. Declaring himself god in the flesh pretty much done him in. No freedom in blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.

storytime

Hundreds of Pharisees?

Well, what did you expect Herod to do? They're favorite sport was hunting down zealots then celebrating with heads on platters.

storytime

FYI Chaucer, take a look at my next title posting "In the Beginning".

storytime

To late.. it's Gone with the Wind. Maybe just google Sex and Idolatry, or Penis Worship, or something. Exposing the "God" of the Bible. Whatever.

:wave:

grog225

Um,no. Jesus did not definitively say this. Look at Paul's source: "For I received from the Lord" Paul never met Jesus. Paul doesn't say he learned this from eyewitnesses. So what is Paul's source? Did Paul receive this bit of tradition in a revelation? What does "from the Lord" mean?

This passage cannot link us back to a man, a failed messiah named Jesus. Unfortunately, this too is a dead end, crashing to a halt at Paul since there is no identifiable source for his claim.

What we can tell, though, is that this is some kind of received tradition. I don't believe Paul made it up. But what its source is I can't say. Maybe somebody has some insight, but we can't say that it came from the so called pillars that Paul met because Paul doesn't say that (in fact in Galatians Paul says he learned nothing from them). We also know that there was a similar but different tradition that may have preceded it and is recorded in the Didache:


That there was some such tradition, yes. That it was instituted by Jesus at an actual "Last Supper"? No. We don't have that. Note as well that he word translated in 1 Cor 11 as "betrayed" also means "to hand over", so while the passage is translated in such a way that it reflects the Gospel passion account, it may not necessarily have been intended to have the connotation of betrayal, but actually "handed over" or "delivered".

You have the flow of events backwards, in my opinion. You are presupposing an actual event that is later recorded somewhat accurately in the Gospels and then arguing that Paul confirms this actual event. When, in fact, there may have not been such an event and the Gospels are reiterating the received tradition that preachers such as Paul were passing along.

This is a huge leap in logic. Jesus says these because he had to say them. It is part of the Jesus story that he was a sacrificial lamb, this was determined from the beginning of time. He knew it because he is not Jesus the humble carpenter's son from Nazareth but because he is Jesus Christ, Son of God, Divinity himself. He was and always was that, not a man, not a failed messiah.

Because the movement presupposed his death. His death had already occurred before any of this tradition arose. "Jesus Christ", the Word (logos) of God, had always been a dying and rising god. The story itself is built around those elements.

What is this mystery? That Christ died for our sins and the Risen Christ dwells within us.

Think about how completely and outrageously provocative it would have been for Pilate to have crucified a Jew, self-claimed messiah or not, at the time of passover with thousands of pilgrims en route to Jerusalem just in time to see such an event. Yet not a word from secular sources about this. Nothing about any uprising (and don't just imagine it would have been a handful of 'disciples', Jewish pilgrims would only see a Jew crucified by Pilate on passover, the who, what, where and why wouldn't matter all that much).

Because it is a crafted story.

?


lol
ok
I see, but I don't believe Paul founded this cult. We can see that this is a well-founded cult by the time of Paul.

I'm leaving my response, because I spent some time writing it and it might provoke discussion.