Kosh

How Vorlon of you Vork! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

fishfood

Discovering WHO Jesus was is the same as discovering WHAT he did, as we wouldn't know of him at all had he not actually DONE something (again...I PRESUME he was an historical person, not a myth). I think we must follow a parallel path here.

Not so sure I follow your reasoning, Offa - why would adultery make Jesus illegitimate (as in birth, or for office?), and how can a Samaritan be a Gentile? They were/are Semites...another fascinating topic!

lcb

i suppose that a supernatural explanation for Jesus Christ would be regarded as inappropriate argument by the moderators. I guess every possible permutation except that one passes muster here! i guess thats why i like game theory so much, you cant summarily dismiss a permutation in game theory...(so Vork, rush to move my latest post!)(having atheist moderators is a real tactical advantage)

Kosh

Want some cheese with that?

Amos

Hello offa and Sparty, I would argue that Jesus was the reborn Joseph who was a Jew. This rebirth happened at Beth-le-hem to where Joseph was drawn to give an account of himself because he was pregnant with dispair. Because Joseph was "beyond theology" Mary was in charge of this destiny which is later affirmed with "no room at the inn" (the conscious mind of Joseph is "the inn).

Joseph was about 38 at this time and the infancy of Jesus (as reborn Joseph) was never longer than 42 months and it was probably 3 years before Jesus began his public teachings.

John the Baptist was his bosom buddy who was born in the netherworld of his subconscious mind to prepare the way so the whole thing could be wrapped up in 42 months. That is why we must be born of water and the spirit for otherwise we will die in purgatory.

The 23 years is about 2/3 of 38 and 2/3 of the way through the purgation period (my 31/2 years) which is the time Jesus needed to gain knowledge and understanding before going public to present his case in effort to have the old identity crucified (he can't crucify himself).

Jesus as Christ wrote John and at least the Revelations but since the gospels are presented to give four different perspectives of the same event it would not surprise me that Jesus wrote all four. I am no scholar but I do recognize the Jewish (Matthew), the pagan (Mark), the omniscient (Luke) and the soon to be Catholic perspective of John. These different perspectives are needed to explain the contradictions, such as the women at the tomb and the description of the nativity scene (cf Mt.2:11 and Lk.2:16).

Vorkosigan

1. I am not a moderator on this forum. The moderators of this forum are some of the most evenhanded people you will ever meet.

2. Your game theory ideas were not "summarily dismissed," but moved to the appropriate forum (and not by me).

3. Supernatural arguments for Jesus are made all the time on this and other forums here. Good luck providing credible evidence.


Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Sparty, are you familiar with Kirby's <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html" target="_blank">Theories of the Historical Jesus</a> page?

What specific questions do you have?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Sparty,

I know what you mean. A lot of this Historical Jesus research is just recycling the same old stuff over and over again. The problem with these mainstream scholars is that they seem to be avoiding new evidence like the plague. This is called the canonical bias, but sometimes I also see the bias against Jewish-Christian gospels. For example, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Howard's edition). How come nobody is looking into this one?

The Samaritan connection of Jesus is a very important one, and very few scholars know anything about it. Jesus came from Northern Israel, where the Jerusalem Temple was mistrusted, because they worshipped on Mt. Gerizim. So this may be the origin of the Purging of the Temple story.

Someone cited the article by John P. MEIER,

<a href="http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl81/Comm05m.html" target="_blank">http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl81/Comm05m.html</a>

but it's actually not a very strong one. Meier is only looking at this whole issue very narrowly, and he's making quite a few mistakes there. Try this article by Grabbe instead,

The Samaritans in the Hasmonean Period
<a href="ftp://ftp.lehigh.edu/pub/listserv/ioudaios-l/Articles/lgsamar" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.lehigh.edu/pub/listserv/ioudaios-l/Articles/lgsamar</a>

Of course, myself, I've recently translated the new Magdalene Gospel, where Jesus is portrayed as a lot closer to the Samaritans than the canonical gospels would have it.

All the best,

Yuri.

Toto

I couldn't get this link to work - it told me I didn't have permission to see it.

fishfood

Isn't it amazing how many perspectives can come from such a small group of people!? Great!

As for the 'supernatural' side of Jesus...well, to tell the truth, I too thought that way for many years, as I am also a keen science fiction and metaphysics buff...but those thoughts have dwindled for me, in light of so much 'apparently' historical evidence. (I can hear those hacles rising...)

As for Jesus being Joseph...Tyson argues that Jospeh of Arimathea is actually Lazarus, Jesus' officially adopted "son" who acts as regent until Jesus' son is old enought to take the throne at Shiloh. She reveals a very interesting correlation between the Joseph legends of the OT, and the depiction of the "Joseph" in the FG.

Thanks for all the suggested links...am investigating.