Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2016, 09:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 09:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Do you really believe the gospels' accounts about how Pilate was reluctant to kill Jesus?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

There's plenty of reasons why he didn't want to kill Jesus.

1. Pilate was not fond of the Jews. That is well documented. He wouldn't do anything for them ... unless they forced his hand.

2. None of the charges against Jesus- up until the accusation of him claiming to be a king- had anything to do with breaking any Roman Law.

3. No actual evidence was brought against Jesus.

Quote:Do you really think the Roman soldiers thought that Jesus was the son of God?

No, of course not. This is a non consistent embellishment.

Quote:Do you really buy the story that the Jews were jealous of Jesus?

Yes I do. He was a popular and intelligent figure. They were also afraid that his popularity - which caused many to proclaim him as the Messiah- would attract the attention of the Roman military.

Quote:That Jesus asked God to forgive the Romans because they didn't know what they were doing?

Seems reasonable, yes. If his religion was as forgiving as the gospels, James, and Jude demonstrate, sure.

Quote:What really happened is obvious. Jesus was a wannabe insurrectionist knocked off by the Roman military before he played his hand by starting an insurrection in Jerusalem. He was crucified between two other zealots. That's what Rome did to you if you didn't pay tax and refused to acknowledge your imperial masters. You were made an example of.

Do you have any documented historical evidence that supports this theory?

Quote:The Gospels authors were pro Roman... they had to make out that "the Jews" were the bad guys and the Romans the good guys in the dealings with Jesus. They concocted the idea that the Jews had killed their own Messiah.

Hate to repeat myself but, do you have any documented historical evidence that supports this theory?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 09:31 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 09:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. You've already demonstrated your ignorance of Jewish Apocalypticism.

If you think so, who am I to argue against an eminent scholar such as yourself, right?

Big Grin



Quote:BTW, the POINT was Jesus' messiah-ship. Nice try to weasel around that and change the subject to the resurrection. You're really very very good at the slippery thing.

And again, your "point" had nothing to do with my statement. Here is the quote again:

Bucky Ball Wrote:
GoingUp Wrote:So, who started the rumor of this resurrection, which caused all the other miracle stories to be propagated?

Wrong.
Acts 1:6
"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

They were well aware he was no messiah.
Someone cooked that up later.

How is it even possible for you to produce this response as being relative to my statement? It's absolutely non sequitur. Hence, my response of:

"Since my entire position above clearly states that the resurrection was nothing but a rumor, how then can you possibly argue against it with a quote which addresses a resurrected Christ?"

You simply did not respond to my statement with anything relative whatsoever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 09:41 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2016 09:56 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 09:17 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 09:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Do you really believe the gospels' accounts about how Pilate was reluctant to kill Jesus?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

There's plenty of reasons why he didn't want to kill Jesus.

1. Pilate was not fond of the Jews. That is well documented. He wouldn't do anything for them ... unless they forced his hand.

2. None of the charges against Jesus- up until the accusation of him claiming to be a king- had anything to do with breaking any Roman Law.

3. No actual evidence was brought against Jesus.

Quote:Do you really think the Roman soldiers thought that Jesus was the son of God?

No, of course not. This is a non consistent embellishment.

Quote:Do you really buy the story that the Jews were jealous of Jesus?

Yes I do. He was a popular and intelligent figure. They were also afraid that his popularity - which caused many to proclaim him as the Messiah- would attract the attention of the Roman military.

Quote:That Jesus asked God to forgive the Romans because they didn't know what they were doing?

Seems reasonable, yes. If his religion was as forgiving as the gospels, James, and Jude demonstrate, sure.

Quote:What really happened is obvious. Jesus was a wannabe insurrectionist knocked off by the Roman military before he played his hand by starting an insurrection in Jerusalem. He was crucified between two other zealots. That's what Rome did to you if you didn't pay tax and refused to acknowledge your imperial masters. You were made an example of.

Do you have any documented historical evidence that supports this theory?

Quote:The Gospels authors were pro Roman... they had to make out that "the Jews" were the bad guys and the Romans the good guys in the dealings with Jesus. They concocted the idea that the Jews had killed their own Messiah.

Hate to repeat myself but, do you have any documented historical evidence that supports this theory?

2. None of the charges against Jesus- up until the accusation of him claiming to be a king- had anything to do with breaking any Roman Law.

3. No actual evidence was brought against Jesus.


Rather than ruminating over manufactured details, why not be a "big picture" man? Look at the whole story with an informed historical perspective...perhaps something like this...

Summary of Yeshua’s Life

Yeshua probably did exist, yet was someone quite different from the Jesus character in the Gospels.

Rather than passively accepting the conventional Christian account, I think we should pay the man more respect by acknowledging his humanity, family, society, and religion. It makes sense to circumvent Christian mythology by placing him in the religious context of first-century Judaism, the political context of Roman occupation and violent oppression, and the social context of poverty.

He was the first-born child of a young Jewish girl, and his biological father, identity unknown, may not have been in the picture to offer him direction. He was probably part of a large family of peasants.

He would have been proudly Jewish, and familiar with Jewish scripture. Like many Jews of his time, he must have had some grandiose delusions, such as that Jews were the world’s superior people, specially favored by God and destined to show pagans the proper way to live. I think he imagined he was the messiah, a person depicted in scripture whose mission was to establish the kingdom of God, an ideal Jewish state, in which everyone worshipped Yahweh. It’s likely he was convinced his God would intervene in the affairs of men to help initiate this. None of these fantasies ever came to fruition.

As he grew up, he would have seen his fellow Galileans oppressed and impoverished by the Romans. His cousin John created a grassroots anti-Roman movement, which he joined. Herod Antipas, Rome’s puppet ruler, thought John was a threat, so had him murdered. Yeshua was brave enough to take over the rebels’ leadership, and worked hard to rally common Jews to his cause, which was nothing less than to expel the Romans and their collaborators from Israel. He wasn’t the first, or the last Jew to harbor such dreams, and it was a very risky business. His less militant countrymen eschewed joining his ranks.

His goal to overthrow the Romans must have seemed possible because of the enthusiasm with which he was sometimes received, yet (as best we know) he had no military experience or intelligence. So it’s no surprise that he fell flat. He had talked the talk but failed to deliver. The Romans captured, scourged, and crucified him, a punishment reserved for any rebellious insurgent who threatened Roman rule.

Yeshua promised a lot but didn’t achieve much. As he was dying in agony on a cross, he would have wondered why his God hadn’t helped him, and he must have figured he was a failure. Memories of other Jews crucified by the Romans may have flashed through his mind. His goal had been to liberate Israel, yet he only added his name to a long list of dead messiahs. Before he took his last breath, he may have wondered whether the Romans would ever be defeated.

It’s ironic that the Romans, the very people Yeshua despised, adopted him as their hero some three centuries after they killed him, and then blamed his own people, the Jews, for his death. The accusation that it was the Jewish people (as a whole) who demanded Jesus’ death is one of the most disgraceful deceptions in the bible, and it’s been the primary source of anti-Semitism throughout history ever since. That’s been devastating for the Jewish people, because churches have harassed the Jews as Christ-killers, with terrible consequences. Adolf Hitler, who was a Catholic, wrote

“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”(Mein Kampf p. 65.)

I feel some respect for Jesus the Jew because he had a tough life, yet he stood up for what he believed in. He tried hard to make a difference for his compatriots. It’s ironic that in places the Gospels portray him as a pacifist, when he was, in fact, a freedom fighter. They claim he praised the meek, yet he was a proud man who refused to accept poverty and oppression.

It’s fascinating that there are such obvious clues about Jesus the political insurgent scattered throughout the Gospels. I don’t know why they weren’t edited out.

There have been thousands of books written about Jesus in the last hundred years, so this assessment of his life is one of many. It fits well, I believe, with what we do know about the place and time in which he’s said to have lived. I admit I have cherry picked what Jesus may have said, and that my assessment doesn’t lie well with everything the Gospels claim he said. For example John’s Gospel has Jesus saying

“… My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36 KJB.)

Is not the hand of a pro-Roman author trying to disguise a militaristic Jesus obvious here? Matthew has Jesus say

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Mattthew 5:9 KJB.) Can we realistically imagine this from a man crucified as a zealot?

As a consequence of passages like these, “Jesus” is inconsistent. The historian needs to examine the important details of ancient biographies such as the Gospels, put them in context, and consider the author’s credibility and intent. Only then can we have an educated guess as to what may be fact or fiction. I think I’ve done that.

Yeshua’s political ambitions, or lack thereof, is a topic strongly debated. Some think he was a Pharisee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFt7NqhoxE4). Some deny he was an Essene, others say he was a pacifist Essene. Some claim Yeshua was an apocalyptic messiah on a suicide mission. I haven’t discussed these possibilities, as I think they’re less likely. If we consider the bare facts of his life; that he was a poor Galilean peasant who led a band of Jewish men around Galilee, that he was hailed as a king, and then arrested and crucified in Jerusalem, the question must be asked why more historians in the past haven’t realized that he was a political insurgent.

I have no foolproof argument to contradict the growing number of scholars who claim that Jesus never existed, because there are no known contemporary sources to vouch for him outside the Gospels, so I grant they may be right.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc). In one sense it’s a mute point, because the miracle-working preacher depicted in parts of the Gospels is most definitely not a description of a real person.

No one knows the whole truth about what happened two thousand years ago. Yet surely my analysis draws on what we know of secular history and is more real than the confusing story people are told in church. One doesn’t need to have spent a lifetime studying the bible or Judaism to realize it rings true. One must either be a diehard Christian, or deliberately dishonest, to reject outright the account I’ve just given.


The Christian Jesus is a Concocted Myth!


“Christians at all levels of intelligence and capacity are being denied access to vital information concerning their religion, and this curtailment of information helps breed either an attitude of ill-founded complacency, or one of smug self-certainty. Living in a kind of metaphysical dream, the custodians of ‘old fashioned’ Christianity stumble from one futile explanation of New Testament events to another. Jesus was sinless; Jesus was sexless; Jesus was all-knowing; Jesus is the Savior of the whole World; Jesus is God. Such sentiments slip easily from the lips when the mind has been overtaken by spiritual vertigo due to intellectual undernourishment.”
(Douglas Lockhart)

The Jesus of theology has smothered the historical Yeshua, leaving only the skeleton of the real man behind. To discover the truth, one must winnow out the substance from the gloss.

I think Yeshua was a popular potential messiah, a charismatic young zealot supposedly from David’s bloodline who was crazy brave enough to stand up to the Romans. His primary agenda wasn’t to preach philosophy. A wandering teacher’s pithy observations on life wouldn’t have wooed crowds, nor attracted the attention of the Romans, Herod, Sadducees, or Pharisees. People were too poor and the times too hard for that.

Christianity only first emerged decades after his death – and became a religion primarily for Gentiles. It used a story about him to create something new that wasn’t Jewish and that he wouldn’t have understood or approved of. His real story has been buried beneath a mountain of creeds, jargon and mysteries concocted many years after he died. Churches have misrepresented his message to make it personal rather than social, spiritual rather than political, and for Gentiles rather than Jews.

He didn’t think he was God’s son, and nor did any of his original disciples. He didn’t suppose he was the savior of the world. He wasn’t the meek lamb of God. To sacrifice himself for Gentile sinners wouldn’t have crossed his mind. He never once thought he was the central figure of a new religious cult. He didn’t rise from the dead. The imaginative Paul of Tarsus, a man discussed shortly, put forward all these fictions. Yeshua never met Paul, yet if he had would have despised him for promoting pagan propaganda.

The Romans actually crucified Jesus twice; once in real life, and then again by lying about his legacy in the Gospels.

It seems odd and rather macabre that people have been told to worship a crucifix. As Yeshua was tortured, humiliated and killed on a cross, isn’t it in poor taste to advertise the fact? If Jesus were somehow alive today, wouldn’t his stomach turn at the sight of a crucifix?

It can be argued that to keep Yeshua trapped in the Christian paradigm is disrespectful to the real man, and, more importantly, confuses people with a web of complex falsehoods. People may ask whether it makes any sense to:
- Worship a Jewish peasant who would never have presumed he was a god?
- Believe that Yeshua loved Gentiles, the very people who humiliated, tortured, and executed him?
- Decide that a dead Jesus can somehow influence the state of today’s world or an individual’s post mortem destiny?

Many commentators over the last couple of centuries have reached some of the same conclusions. Two of the more recent are Reza Asian (http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-...ords=reza) and Peter Cresswell (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Terrorist-Pe...ll+jesus). Most of them haven’t had “anti-Christian” agendas; they were just honest historians who believed in the importance of the truth.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 09:58 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 09:41 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 09:17 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

There's plenty of reasons why he didn't want to kill Jesus.

1. Pilate was not fond of the Jews. That is well documented. He wouldn't do anything for them ... unless they forced his hand.

2. None of the charges against Jesus- up until the accusation of him claiming to be a king- had anything to do with breaking any Roman Law.

3. No actual evidence was brought against Jesus.


No, of course not. This is a non consistent embellishment.


Yes I do. He was a popular and intelligent figure. They were also afraid that his popularity - which caused many to proclaim him as the Messiah- would attract the attention of the Roman military.


Seems reasonable, yes. If his religion was as forgiving as the gospels, James, and Jude demonstrate, sure.


Do you have any documented historical evidence that supports this theory?


Hate to repeat myself but, do you have any documented historical evidence that supports this theory?

2. None of the charges against Jesus- up until the accusation of him claiming to be a king- had anything to do with breaking any Roman Law.

3. No actual evidence was brought against Jesus.


Rather than ruminating over manufactured details, why not be a "big picture" man? Look at the whole story with an informed historical perspective...perhaps something like this...

Summary of Yeshua’s Life

Yeshua probably did exist, yet was someone quite different from the Jesus character in the Gospels.

Rather than passively accepting the conventional Christian account, I think we should pay the man more respect by acknowledging his humanity, family, society, and religion. It makes sense to circumvent Christian mythology by placing him in the religious context of first-century Judaism, the political context of Roman occupation and violent oppression, and the social context of poverty.

He was the first-born child of a young Jewish girl, and his biological father, identity unknown, may not have been in the picture to offer him direction. He was probably part of a large family of peasants.

He would have been proudly Jewish, and familiar with Jewish scripture. Like many Jews of his time, he must have had some grandiose delusions, such as that Jews were the world’s superior people, specially favored by God and destined to show pagans the proper way to live. I think he imagined he was the messiah, a person depicted in scripture whose mission was to establish the kingdom of God, an ideal Jewish state, in which everyone worshipped Yahweh. It’s likely he was convinced his God would intervene in the affairs of men to help initiate this. None of these fantasies ever came to fruition.

As he grew up, he would have seen his fellow Galileans oppressed and impoverished by the Romans. His cousin John created a grassroots anti-Roman movement, which he joined. Herod Antipas, Rome’s puppet ruler, thought John was a threat, so had him murdered. Yeshua was brave enough to take over the rebels’ leadership, and worked hard to rally common Jews to his cause, which was nothing less than to expel the Romans and their collaborators from Israel. He wasn’t the first, or the last Jew to harbor such dreams, and it was a very risky business. His less militant countrymen eschewed joining his ranks.

His goal to overthrow the Romans must have seemed possible because of the enthusiasm with which he was sometimes received, yet (as best we know) he had no military experience or intelligence. So it’s no surprise that he fell flat. He had talked the talk but failed to deliver. The Romans captured, scourged, and crucified him, a punishment reserved for any rebellious insurgent who threatened Roman rule.

Yeshua promised a lot but didn’t achieve much. As he was dying in agony on a cross, he would have wondered why his God hadn’t helped him, and he must have figured he was a failure. Memories of other Jews crucified by the Romans may have flashed through his mind. His goal had been to liberate Israel, yet he only added his name to a long list of dead messiahs. Before he took his last breath, he may have wondered whether the Romans would ever be defeated.

It’s ironic that the Romans, the very people Yeshua despised, adopted him as their hero some three centuries after they killed him, and then blamed his own people, the Jews, for his death. The accusation that it was the Jewish people (as a whole) who demanded Jesus’ death is one of the most disgraceful deceptions in the bible, and it’s been the primary source of anti-Semitism throughout history ever since. That’s been devastating for the Jewish people, because churches have harassed the Jews as Christ-killers, with terrible consequences. Adolf Hitler, who was a Catholic, wrote

“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”(Mein Kampf p. 65.)

I feel some respect for Jesus the Jew because he had a tough life, yet he stood up for what he believed in. He tried hard to make a difference for his compatriots. It’s ironic that in places the Gospels portray him as a pacifist, when he was, in fact, a freedom fighter. They claim he praised the meek, yet he was a proud man who refused to accept poverty and oppression.

It’s fascinating that there are such obvious clues about Jesus the political insurgent scattered throughout the Gospels. I don’t know why they weren’t edited out.

There have been thousands of books written about Jesus in the last hundred years, so this assessment of his life is one of many. It fits well, I believe, with what we do know about the place and time in which he’s said to have lived. I admit I have cherry picked what Jesus may have said, and that my assessment doesn’t lie well with everything the Gospels claim he said. For example John’s Gospel has Jesus saying

“… My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36 KJB.)

Is not the hand of a pro-Roman author trying to disguise a militaristic Jesus obvious here? Matthew has Jesus say

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Mattthew 5:9 KJB.) Can we realistically imagine this from a man crucified as a zealot?

As a consequence of passages like these, “Jesus” is inconsistent. The historian needs to examine the important details of ancient biographies such as the Gospels, put them in context, and consider the author’s credibility and intent. Only then can we have an educated guess as to what may be fact or fiction. I think I’ve done that. I’ll have more to say about the Gospels throughout this book that helps justify this approach.

Yeshua’s political ambitions, or lack thereof, is a topic strongly debated. Some think he was a Pharisee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFt7NqhoxE4). Some deny he was an Essene, others say he was a pacifist Essene. Some claim Yeshua was an apocalyptic messiah on a suicide mission. I haven’t discussed these possibilities, as I think they’re less likely. If we consider the bare facts of his life; that he was a poor Galilean peasant who led a band of Jewish men around Galilee, that he was hailed as a king, and then arrested and crucified in Jerusalem, the question must be asked why more historians in the past haven’t realized that he was a political insurgent.

I have no foolproof argument to contradict the growing number of scholars who claim that Jesus never existed, because there are no known contemporary sources to vouch for him outside the Gospels, so I grant they may be right.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc). In one sense it’s a mute point, because the miracle-working preacher depicted in parts of the Gospels is most definitely not a description of a real person.

No one knows the whole truth about what happened two thousand years ago. Yet surely my analysis draws on what we know of secular history and is more real than the confusing story people are told in church. One doesn’t need to have spent a lifetime studying the bible or Judaism to realize it rings true. One must either be a diehard Christian, or deliberately dishonest, to reject outright the account I’ve just given.


The Christian Jesus is a Concocted Myth!


“Christians at all levels of intelligence and capacity are being denied access to vital information concerning their religion, and this curtailment of information helps breed either an attitude of ill-founded complacency, or one of smug self-certainty. Living in a kind of metaphysical dream, the custodians of ‘old fashioned’ Christianity stumble from one futile explanation of New Testament events to another. Jesus was sinless; Jesus was sexless; Jesus was all-knowing; Jesus is the Savior of the whole World; Jesus is God. Such sentiments slip easily from the lips when the mind has been overtaken by spiritual vertigo due to intellectual undernourishment.”
(Douglas Lockhart)

The Jesus of theology has smothered the historical Yeshua, leaving only the skeleton of the real man behind. To discover the truth, one must winnow out the substance from the gloss.

I think Yeshua was a popular potential messiah, a charismatic young zealot supposedly from David’s bloodline who was crazy brave enough to stand up to the Romans. His primary agenda wasn’t to preach philosophy. A wandering teacher’s pithy observations on life wouldn’t have wooed crowds, nor attracted the attention of the Romans, Herod, Sadducees, or Pharisees. People were too poor and the times too hard for that.

Christianity only first emerged decades after his death – and became a religion primarily for Gentiles. It used a story about him to create something new that wasn’t Jewish and that he wouldn’t have understood or approved of. His real story has been buried beneath a mountain of creeds, jargon and mysteries concocted many years after he died. Churches have misrepresented his message to make it personal rather than social, spiritual rather than political, and for Gentiles rather than Jews.

He didn’t think he was God’s son, and nor did any of his original disciples. He didn’t suppose he was the savior of the world. He wasn’t the meek lamb of God. To sacrifice himself for Gentile sinners wouldn’t have crossed his mind. He never once thought he was the central figure of a new religious cult. He didn’t rise from the dead. The imaginative Paul of Tarsus, a man discussed shortly, put forward all these fictions. Yeshua never met Paul, yet if he had would have despised him for promoting pagan propaganda.

The Romans actually crucified Jesus twice; once in real life, and then again by lying about his legacy in the Gospels. Why they repeated the act is discussed in later chapters.

It seems odd and rather macabre that people have been told to worship a crucifix. As Yeshua was tortured, humiliated and killed on a cross, isn’t it in poor taste to advertise the fact? If Jesus were somehow alive today, wouldn’t his stomach turn at the sight of a crucifix?

It can be argued that to keep Yeshua trapped in the Christian paradigm is disrespectful to the real man, and, more importantly, confuses people with a web of complex falsehoods. People may ask whether it makes any sense to:
- Worship a Jewish peasant who would never have presumed he was a god?
- Believe that Yeshua loved Gentiles, the very people who humiliated, tortured, and executed him?
- Decide that a dead Jesus can somehow influence the state of today’s world or an individual’s post mortem destiny?

Many commentators over the last couple of centuries have reached some of the same conclusions. Two of the more recent are Reza Asian (http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-...ords=reza) and Peter Cresswell (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Terrorist-Pe...ll+jesus). Most of them haven’t had “anti-Christian” agendas; they were just honest historians who believed in the importance of the truth.

Again, no actual good evidence is being provided to paint this image of Jesus. I'm not saying it can't be true, but only there's not enough good evidence to make it a plausible alternative to the conventional historical view.

Reza Asian might be a good read, despite his bad reviews. I actually watched the Fox interview in which Fox embarrassed themselves with this guy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 10:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 09:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And again, your "point" had nothing to do with my statement. Here is the quote again:

Bucky Ball Wrote:Wrong.
Acts 1:6
"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

They were well aware he was no messiah.
Someone cooked that up later.

How is it even possible for you to produce this response as being relative to my statement? It's absolutely non sequitur. Hence, my response of:
.......


You simply did not respond to my statement with anything relative whatsoever.

You're a fucking weasel liar.

You said :
"And even if this verse depicted any truth to it (which it certainly does not) how can you arrive at your conclusion when right in the text they are asking him if HE will restore Israel, a theme completely consistent with what was expected of a Messiah?"

THAT was what I was replying to, and you fucking know it. The messianic expectation, NOT the resurrection.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 10:05 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 10:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 09:31 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  And again, your "point" had nothing to do with my statement. Here is the quote again:


How is it even possible for you to produce this response as being relative to my statement? It's absolutely non sequitur. Hence, my response of:
.......


You simply did not respond to my statement with anything relative whatsoever.

You're a fucking weasel liar.

You said :
"And even if this verse depicted any truth to it (which it certainly does not) how can you arrive at your conclusion when right in the text they are asking him if HE will restore Israel, a theme completely consistent with what was expected of a Messiah?"

THAT was what I was replying to, and you fucking know it. The messianic expectation, NOT the resurrection.

Then what the fuck was the original response to my quote all about? It was STILL non sequitur. That is my contention here. Your response with the verse in Acts had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So here is the quote again, and now YOU tell me how your response related to my statement:

Bucky Ball Wrote:
GoingUp Wrote:So, who started the rumor of this resurrection, which caused all the other miracle stories to be propagated?

Wrong.
Acts 1:6
"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

They were well aware he was no messiah.
Someone cooked that up later.

Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 10:11 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 09:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 09:41 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
2. None of the charges against Jesus- up until the accusation of him claiming to be a king- had anything to do with breaking any Roman Law.

3. No actual evidence was brought against Jesus.


Rather than ruminating over manufactured details, why not be a "big picture" man? Look at the whole story with an informed historical perspective...perhaps something like this...

Summary of Yeshua’s Life

Yeshua probably did exist, yet was someone quite different from the Jesus character in the Gospels.

Rather than passively accepting the conventional Christian account, I think we should pay the man more respect by acknowledging his humanity, family, society, and religion. It makes sense to circumvent Christian mythology by placing him in the religious context of first-century Judaism, the political context of Roman occupation and violent oppression, and the social context of poverty.

He was the first-born child of a young Jewish girl, and his biological father, identity unknown, may not have been in the picture to offer him direction. He was probably part of a large family of peasants.

He would have been proudly Jewish, and familiar with Jewish scripture. Like many Jews of his time, he must have had some grandiose delusions, such as that Jews were the world’s superior people, specially favored by God and destined to show pagans the proper way to live. I think he imagined he was the messiah, a person depicted in scripture whose mission was to establish the kingdom of God, an ideal Jewish state, in which everyone worshipped Yahweh. It’s likely he was convinced his God would intervene in the affairs of men to help initiate this. None of these fantasies ever came to fruition.

As he grew up, he would have seen his fellow Galileans oppressed and impoverished by the Romans. His cousin John created a grassroots anti-Roman movement, which he joined. Herod Antipas, Rome’s puppet ruler, thought John was a threat, so had him murdered. Yeshua was brave enough to take over the rebels’ leadership, and worked hard to rally common Jews to his cause, which was nothing less than to expel the Romans and their collaborators from Israel. He wasn’t the first, or the last Jew to harbor such dreams, and it was a very risky business. His less militant countrymen eschewed joining his ranks.

His goal to overthrow the Romans must have seemed possible because of the enthusiasm with which he was sometimes received, yet (as best we know) he had no military experience or intelligence. So it’s no surprise that he fell flat. He had talked the talk but failed to deliver. The Romans captured, scourged, and crucified him, a punishment reserved for any rebellious insurgent who threatened Roman rule.

Yeshua promised a lot but didn’t achieve much. As he was dying in agony on a cross, he would have wondered why his God hadn’t helped him, and he must have figured he was a failure. Memories of other Jews crucified by the Romans may have flashed through his mind. His goal had been to liberate Israel, yet he only added his name to a long list of dead messiahs. Before he took his last breath, he may have wondered whether the Romans would ever be defeated.

It’s ironic that the Romans, the very people Yeshua despised, adopted him as their hero some three centuries after they killed him, and then blamed his own people, the Jews, for his death. The accusation that it was the Jewish people (as a whole) who demanded Jesus’ death is one of the most disgraceful deceptions in the bible, and it’s been the primary source of anti-Semitism throughout history ever since. That’s been devastating for the Jewish people, because churches have harassed the Jews as Christ-killers, with terrible consequences. Adolf Hitler, who was a Catholic, wrote

“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”(Mein Kampf p. 65.)

I feel some respect for Jesus the Jew because he had a tough life, yet he stood up for what he believed in. He tried hard to make a difference for his compatriots. It’s ironic that in places the Gospels portray him as a pacifist, when he was, in fact, a freedom fighter. They claim he praised the meek, yet he was a proud man who refused to accept poverty and oppression.

It’s fascinating that there are such obvious clues about Jesus the political insurgent scattered throughout the Gospels. I don’t know why they weren’t edited out.

There have been thousands of books written about Jesus in the last hundred years, so this assessment of his life is one of many. It fits well, I believe, with what we do know about the place and time in which he’s said to have lived. I admit I have cherry picked what Jesus may have said, and that my assessment doesn’t lie well with everything the Gospels claim he said. For example John’s Gospel has Jesus saying

“… My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36 KJB.)

Is not the hand of a pro-Roman author trying to disguise a militaristic Jesus obvious here? Matthew has Jesus say

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Mattthew 5:9 KJB.) Can we realistically imagine this from a man crucified as a zealot?

As a consequence of passages like these, “Jesus” is inconsistent. The historian needs to examine the important details of ancient biographies such as the Gospels, put them in context, and consider the author’s credibility and intent. Only then can we have an educated guess as to what may be fact or fiction. I think I’ve done that. I’ll have more to say about the Gospels throughout this book that helps justify this approach.

Yeshua’s political ambitions, or lack thereof, is a topic strongly debated. Some think he was a Pharisee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFt7NqhoxE4). Some deny he was an Essene, others say he was a pacifist Essene. Some claim Yeshua was an apocalyptic messiah on a suicide mission. I haven’t discussed these possibilities, as I think they’re less likely. If we consider the bare facts of his life; that he was a poor Galilean peasant who led a band of Jewish men around Galilee, that he was hailed as a king, and then arrested and crucified in Jerusalem, the question must be asked why more historians in the past haven’t realized that he was a political insurgent.

I have no foolproof argument to contradict the growing number of scholars who claim that Jesus never existed, because there are no known contemporary sources to vouch for him outside the Gospels, so I grant they may be right.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc). In one sense it’s a mute point, because the miracle-working preacher depicted in parts of the Gospels is most definitely not a description of a real person.

No one knows the whole truth about what happened two thousand years ago. Yet surely my analysis draws on what we know of secular history and is more real than the confusing story people are told in church. One doesn’t need to have spent a lifetime studying the bible or Judaism to realize it rings true. One must either be a diehard Christian, or deliberately dishonest, to reject outright the account I’ve just given.


The Christian Jesus is a Concocted Myth!


“Christians at all levels of intelligence and capacity are being denied access to vital information concerning their religion, and this curtailment of information helps breed either an attitude of ill-founded complacency, or one of smug self-certainty. Living in a kind of metaphysical dream, the custodians of ‘old fashioned’ Christianity stumble from one futile explanation of New Testament events to another. Jesus was sinless; Jesus was sexless; Jesus was all-knowing; Jesus is the Savior of the whole World; Jesus is God. Such sentiments slip easily from the lips when the mind has been overtaken by spiritual vertigo due to intellectual undernourishment.”
(Douglas Lockhart)

The Jesus of theology has smothered the historical Yeshua, leaving only the skeleton of the real man behind. To discover the truth, one must winnow out the substance from the gloss.

I think Yeshua was a popular potential messiah, a charismatic young zealot supposedly from David’s bloodline who was crazy brave enough to stand up to the Romans. His primary agenda wasn’t to preach philosophy. A wandering teacher’s pithy observations on life wouldn’t have wooed crowds, nor attracted the attention of the Romans, Herod, Sadducees, or Pharisees. People were too poor and the times too hard for that.

Christianity only first emerged decades after his death – and became a religion primarily for Gentiles. It used a story about him to create something new that wasn’t Jewish and that he wouldn’t have understood or approved of. His real story has been buried beneath a mountain of creeds, jargon and mysteries concocted many years after he died. Churches have misrepresented his message to make it personal rather than social, spiritual rather than political, and for Gentiles rather than Jews.

He didn’t think he was God’s son, and nor did any of his original disciples. He didn’t suppose he was the savior of the world. He wasn’t the meek lamb of God. To sacrifice himself for Gentile sinners wouldn’t have crossed his mind. He never once thought he was the central figure of a new religious cult. He didn’t rise from the dead. The imaginative Paul of Tarsus, a man discussed shortly, put forward all these fictions. Yeshua never met Paul, yet if he had would have despised him for promoting pagan propaganda.

The Romans actually crucified Jesus twice; once in real life, and then again by lying about his legacy in the Gospels. Why they repeated the act is discussed in later chapters.

It seems odd and rather macabre that people have been told to worship a crucifix. As Yeshua was tortured, humiliated and killed on a cross, isn’t it in poor taste to advertise the fact? If Jesus were somehow alive today, wouldn’t his stomach turn at the sight of a crucifix?

It can be argued that to keep Yeshua trapped in the Christian paradigm is disrespectful to the real man, and, more importantly, confuses people with a web of complex falsehoods. People may ask whether it makes any sense to:
- Worship a Jewish peasant who would never have presumed he was a god?
- Believe that Yeshua loved Gentiles, the very people who humiliated, tortured, and executed him?
- Decide that a dead Jesus can somehow influence the state of today’s world or an individual’s post mortem destiny?

Many commentators over the last couple of centuries have reached some of the same conclusions. Two of the more recent are Reza Asian (http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-...ords=reza) and Peter Cresswell (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Terrorist-Pe...ll+jesus). Most of them haven’t had “anti-Christian” agendas; they were just honest historians who believed in the importance of the truth.

Again, no actual good evidence is being provided to paint this image of Jesus. I'm not saying it can't be true, but only there's not enough good evidence to make it a plausible alternative to the conventional historical view.

Reza Asian might be a good read, despite his bad reviews. I actually watched the Fox interview in which Fox embarrassed themselves with this guy.

It is a good read, so is Peter Cresswell's book.

Don't concern yourself with the "bad reviews" thing...we all know why they exist.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 10:35 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 10:05 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 10:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're a fucking weasel liar.

You said :
"And even if this verse depicted any truth to it (which it certainly does not) how can you arrive at your conclusion when right in the text they are asking him if HE will restore Israel, a theme completely consistent with what was expected of a Messiah?"

THAT was what I was replying to, and you fucking know it. The messianic expectation, NOT the resurrection.

Then what the fuck was the original response to my quote all about? It was STILL non sequitur. That is my contention here. Your response with the verse in Acts had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So here is the quote again, and now YOU tell me how your response related to my statement:

Bucky Ball Wrote:Wrong.
Acts 1:6
"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

They were well aware he was no messiah.
Someone cooked that up later.

Facepalm

It is not, you idiot.
If the apostles expected a messiah (as PROVEN BY THEIR QUESTION), to cause the re-establishment of the kingdom, then the FACT he never got the job done, means something ELSE has to be invented.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2016, 11:57 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 09:58 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 09:41 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
2. None of the charges against Jesus- up until the accusation of him claiming to be a king- had anything to do with breaking any Roman Law.

3. No actual evidence was brought against Jesus.


Rather than ruminating over manufactured details, why not be a "big picture" man? Look at the whole story with an informed historical perspective...perhaps something like this...

Summary of Yeshua’s Life

Yeshua probably did exist, yet was someone quite different from the Jesus character in the Gospels.

Rather than passively accepting the conventional Christian account, I think we should pay the man more respect by acknowledging his humanity, family, society, and religion. It makes sense to circumvent Christian mythology by placing him in the religious context of first-century Judaism, the political context of Roman occupation and violent oppression, and the social context of poverty.

He was the first-born child of a young Jewish girl, and his biological father, identity unknown, may not have been in the picture to offer him direction. He was probably part of a large family of peasants.

He would have been proudly Jewish, and familiar with Jewish scripture. Like many Jews of his time, he must have had some grandiose delusions, such as that Jews were the world’s superior people, specially favored by God and destined to show pagans the proper way to live. I think he imagined he was the messiah, a person depicted in scripture whose mission was to establish the kingdom of God, an ideal Jewish state, in which everyone worshipped Yahweh. It’s likely he was convinced his God would intervene in the affairs of men to help initiate this. None of these fantasies ever came to fruition.

As he grew up, he would have seen his fellow Galileans oppressed and impoverished by the Romans. His cousin John created a grassroots anti-Roman movement, which he joined. Herod Antipas, Rome’s puppet ruler, thought John was a threat, so had him murdered. Yeshua was brave enough to take over the rebels’ leadership, and worked hard to rally common Jews to his cause, which was nothing less than to expel the Romans and their collaborators from Israel. He wasn’t the first, or the last Jew to harbor such dreams, and it was a very risky business. His less militant countrymen eschewed joining his ranks.

His goal to overthrow the Romans must have seemed possible because of the enthusiasm with which he was sometimes received, yet (as best we know) he had no military experience or intelligence. So it’s no surprise that he fell flat. He had talked the talk but failed to deliver. The Romans captured, scourged, and crucified him, a punishment reserved for any rebellious insurgent who threatened Roman rule.

Yeshua promised a lot but didn’t achieve much. As he was dying in agony on a cross, he would have wondered why his God hadn’t helped him, and he must have figured he was a failure. Memories of other Jews crucified by the Romans may have flashed through his mind. His goal had been to liberate Israel, yet he only added his name to a long list of dead messiahs. Before he took his last breath, he may have wondered whether the Romans would ever be defeated.

It’s ironic that the Romans, the very people Yeshua despised, adopted him as their hero some three centuries after they killed him, and then blamed his own people, the Jews, for his death. The accusation that it was the Jewish people (as a whole) who demanded Jesus’ death is one of the most disgraceful deceptions in the bible, and it’s been the primary source of anti-Semitism throughout history ever since. That’s been devastating for the Jewish people, because churches have harassed the Jews as Christ-killers, with terrible consequences. Adolf Hitler, who was a Catholic, wrote

“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”(Mein Kampf p. 65.)

I feel some respect for Jesus the Jew because he had a tough life, yet he stood up for what he believed in. He tried hard to make a difference for his compatriots. It’s ironic that in places the Gospels portray him as a pacifist, when he was, in fact, a freedom fighter. They claim he praised the meek, yet he was a proud man who refused to accept poverty and oppression.

It’s fascinating that there are such obvious clues about Jesus the political insurgent scattered throughout the Gospels. I don’t know why they weren’t edited out.

There have been thousands of books written about Jesus in the last hundred years, so this assessment of his life is one of many. It fits well, I believe, with what we do know about the place and time in which he’s said to have lived. I admit I have cherry picked what Jesus may have said, and that my assessment doesn’t lie well with everything the Gospels claim he said. For example John’s Gospel has Jesus saying

“… My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36 KJB.)

Is not the hand of a pro-Roman author trying to disguise a militaristic Jesus obvious here? Matthew has Jesus say

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Mattthew 5:9 KJB.) Can we realistically imagine this from a man crucified as a zealot?

As a consequence of passages like these, “Jesus” is inconsistent. The historian needs to examine the important details of ancient biographies such as the Gospels, put them in context, and consider the author’s credibility and intent. Only then can we have an educated guess as to what may be fact or fiction. I think I’ve done that. I’ll have more to say about the Gospels throughout this book that helps justify this approach.

Yeshua’s political ambitions, or lack thereof, is a topic strongly debated. Some think he was a Pharisee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFt7NqhoxE4). Some deny he was an Essene, others say he was a pacifist Essene. Some claim Yeshua was an apocalyptic messiah on a suicide mission. I haven’t discussed these possibilities, as I think they’re less likely. If we consider the bare facts of his life; that he was a poor Galilean peasant who led a band of Jewish men around Galilee, that he was hailed as a king, and then arrested and crucified in Jerusalem, the question must be asked why more historians in the past haven’t realized that he was a political insurgent.

I have no foolproof argument to contradict the growing number of scholars who claim that Jesus never existed, because there are no known contemporary sources to vouch for him outside the Gospels, so I grant they may be right.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc). In one sense it’s a mute point, because the miracle-working preacher depicted in parts of the Gospels is most definitely not a description of a real person.

No one knows the whole truth about what happened two thousand years ago. Yet surely my analysis draws on what we know of secular history and is more real than the confusing story people are told in church. One doesn’t need to have spent a lifetime studying the bible or Judaism to realize it rings true. One must either be a diehard Christian, or deliberately dishonest, to reject outright the account I’ve just given.


The Christian Jesus is a Concocted Myth!


“Christians at all levels of intelligence and capacity are being denied access to vital information concerning their religion, and this curtailment of information helps breed either an attitude of ill-founded complacency, or one of smug self-certainty. Living in a kind of metaphysical dream, the custodians of ‘old fashioned’ Christianity stumble from one futile explanation of New Testament events to another. Jesus was sinless; Jesus was sexless; Jesus was all-knowing; Jesus is the Savior of the whole World; Jesus is God. Such sentiments slip easily from the lips when the mind has been overtaken by spiritual vertigo due to intellectual undernourishment.”
(Douglas Lockhart)

The Jesus of theology has smothered the historical Yeshua, leaving only the skeleton of the real man behind. To discover the truth, one must winnow out the substance from the gloss.

I think Yeshua was a popular potential messiah, a charismatic young zealot supposedly from David’s bloodline who was crazy brave enough to stand up to the Romans. His primary agenda wasn’t to preach philosophy. A wandering teacher’s pithy observations on life wouldn’t have wooed crowds, nor attracted the attention of the Romans, Herod, Sadducees, or Pharisees. People were too poor and the times too hard for that.

Christianity only first emerged decades after his death – and became a religion primarily for Gentiles. It used a story about him to create something new that wasn’t Jewish and that he wouldn’t have understood or approved of. His real story has been buried beneath a mountain of creeds, jargon and mysteries concocted many years after he died. Churches have misrepresented his message to make it personal rather than social, spiritual rather than political, and for Gentiles rather than Jews.

He didn’t think he was God’s son, and nor did any of his original disciples. He didn’t suppose he was the savior of the world. He wasn’t the meek lamb of God. To sacrifice himself for Gentile sinners wouldn’t have crossed his mind. He never once thought he was the central figure of a new religious cult. He didn’t rise from the dead. The imaginative Paul of Tarsus, a man discussed shortly, put forward all these fictions. Yeshua never met Paul, yet if he had would have despised him for promoting pagan propaganda.

The Romans actually crucified Jesus twice; once in real life, and then again by lying about his legacy in the Gospels. Why they repeated the act is discussed in later chapters.

It seems odd and rather macabre that people have been told to worship a crucifix. As Yeshua was tortured, humiliated and killed on a cross, isn’t it in poor taste to advertise the fact? If Jesus were somehow alive today, wouldn’t his stomach turn at the sight of a crucifix?

It can be argued that to keep Yeshua trapped in the Christian paradigm is disrespectful to the real man, and, more importantly, confuses people with a web of complex falsehoods. People may ask whether it makes any sense to:
- Worship a Jewish peasant who would never have presumed he was a god?
- Believe that Yeshua loved Gentiles, the very people who humiliated, tortured, and executed him?
- Decide that a dead Jesus can somehow influence the state of today’s world or an individual’s post mortem destiny?

Many commentators over the last couple of centuries have reached some of the same conclusions. Two of the more recent are Reza Asian (http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-...ords=reza) and Peter Cresswell (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Terrorist-Pe...ll+jesus). Most of them haven’t had “anti-Christian” agendas; they were just honest historians who believed in the importance of the truth.

Again, no actual good evidence is being provided to paint this image of Jesus. I'm not saying it can't be true, but only there's not enough good evidence to make it a plausible alternative to the conventional historical view.

Reza Asian might be a good read, despite his bad reviews. I actually watched the Fox interview in which Fox embarrassed themselves with this guy.


Again, no actual good evidence is being provided to paint this image of Jesus.


Well...that's just your opinion. Perhaps you could read either Peter Cresswell's or Reza's book (it is available as an ebook) and you would be more qualified to comment.

What is this "conventional historical view" you refer to?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2016, 01:05 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(13-08-2016 10:05 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(13-08-2016 10:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're a fucking weasel liar.

You said :
"And even if this verse depicted any truth to it (which it certainly does not) how can you arrive at your conclusion when right in the text they are asking him if HE will restore Israel, a theme completely consistent with what was expected of a Messiah?"

THAT was what I was replying to, and you fucking know it. The messianic expectation, NOT the resurrection.

Then what the fuck was the original response to my quote all about? It was STILL non sequitur. That is my contention here. Your response with the verse in Acts had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So here is the quote again, and now YOU tell me how your response related to my statement:

Bucky Ball Wrote:Wrong.
Acts 1:6
"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

They were well aware he was no messiah.
Someone cooked that up later.

Facepalm

But Bucky is the master of the non-sequitur and avoidance.

He never answers questions or deals with issues on their merits. He changes the topic and spouts abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: