Jesus was a terrorist!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-06-2011, 11:36 PM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
Hey, Mark.

Aside from the fact I think that this is pure fabrication that a 101 level theologian could demolish in seconds and aside from the fact that it's about as likely as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. being a terrorist, I have one question.

Making the assumption (which I don't) that Jesus was in fact a terrorist, are you also claiming that there is something inherently wrong with terrorism and that Jesus' supposed link to terrorism somehow diminishes him and/or Christianity, or are you just trying to point out something for the historical record?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 11:59 PM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
I believe the basic suggestion is to state that he was not a peaceful usurper, but led a revolt. The term terrorist is pretty much just coining a recent catch phrase. There are plenty of biblical passages that discuss Jesus leading a revolt, not all of them sound nice. It would be a way of suggesting the humanistic view accredited to Jesus was something created for him by Paul.

The love of Jesus is a strong pillar of christian faith. I can see distorting the message seen as a strong way of suggesting christianity is invalid.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not recorded to have said riot inciting phrases. His discussions always focused around a peaceful stand for rights. Jesus though has been cited as saying many rather aggressive phrases. So, if we decide to accept the christian view that the bible is the most historically accurate history of the time, then what the bible says about one of it's principle figures determines whether his followers were righteous or a cult.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
19-06-2011, 12:12 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2011 12:32 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(18-06-2011 11:31 PM)pilgrim Wrote:  Mark Fulton,
You conclusions still mystify me. He is my understanding of the logic.
There were lots of angry gallieans fighting the Romans in the early 1st century.
One particular galliean is recorded as having talked about swords a couple times.
Therefore he was fighting against Rome.
Doesn't work. Smile

Hi Pilgrim. I'll restate my argument ( apologies that I am being repetitive ). The following is only the very briefest outline of some of the facts which support my hypothesis...if you stay "with" me I will give you more.

Jesus was born in Palestine, probably about 4BC. He was Jewish and he was poor. Jewish peasants were farmers who lived in simple houses made out of mud, stone and straw. They lived a subsistence existence and were usually malnourished. Life was a struggle in ancient Israel.

The Roman Empire ruled Palestine and peasant Jews deeply resented the fact because they were heavily burdened by tax. At the time Jesus lived there was a widespread hope amongst most poor Jews that a Messiah would lead the people in a revolt, thereby establishing a more equitable kingdom of God. The messiah was to bring an end to the rule of the Romans and an end to exploitation, injustice, famine and disease.

In 4 BCE, possibly the year Jesus was born, many Jews in Galilee revolted. The Roman army responded with brutal force. Three thousand Jews were massacred. Mary, Jesus’ mother, was a vulnerable teenage girl and Jesus’ biological father may have been a Roman soldier.

In 6 CE, maybe when Jesus was about 10 years old, there was another Jewish revolt in Galilee, and 2000 Jews were killed. A young Jesus probably watched the battle from a distance and saw the survivors crucified on wooden crosses. He may have seen a long line of Jewish widows and their children marched off to slavery in Rome.

The Jews who fought in these wars were known as zealots. Galilee, where Jesus grew up, was the heartland of zealotry.

Jesus was a Jew, never a Christian. He would have been circumcised, proud of the fact he was a descendent of Abraham and David, eaten only kosher food, and kept holy the Sabbath. He would have felt an affinity with the land of Israel that had been given to God’s chosen people, his people, the Jews. The fact that Romans were in charge would have made the young Jesus very angry. He would have hated them with a passion because he was poor, suppressed, and fanatically religious.

If something lives in the sea, looks like a fish, swims like a fish and gets caught on a hook, that something is a fish. Jesus lived in a time and place that was a hotbed of zealotry, he talked, lived and died like a zealot, so he was a zealot. How do I know? It is in the Bible.

Herod, the Roman’s puppet king, executed Jesus’ cousin, John the Baptist, because he thought he was a zealot. Herod pursued Jesus around the Galilean countryside with the intention of killing him too.

One of Jesus' very own disciples, Simon (probably his brother), was named twice as a zealot (Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13). Three other disciples, namely James, another of Jesus’ brothers, Simon Peter and John had nicknames commonly given to zealots.

Consider what Matthew has as Jesus’ attitude to violence…
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34 NJB).

The Gospels have it that Jesus wandered the countryside teaching social ethics. I don’t believe it. I think he was campaigning to start a war. Anyone who stood in his way became the enemy. He said
“But as for my enemies who did not want me for their king, bring them here and execute them in my presence.” (Luke 19:27 NJB). These were not the words of a man pushing peace and good will amongst men.

He did not perform miracles. If an author has seen a miracle or heard a convincing story of one, he writes about it. There is not a single miracle in the books of James, Jude, Peter, John or the 13 Pauline letters in the Bible. The gospels are the only places Jesus’ miracles are mentioned, and they copied each other.

Towards the end of his campaign Jesus triumphantly rode into Jerusalem on a donkey on Palm Sunday. He went public, and the crowds hailed him as a king. They cried out "Hosanna", the ancient cry of Jewish independence.

Luke had Jesus say to his disciples;
“…if you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22: 36 NJB). Jesus was getting his fellow Jews ready for the big fight.

Pilate soon worked out what was going on. He sent a cohort of soldiers to arrest him. A cohort was 500 Roman soldiers, roughly equivalent to 40 football teams of men. Jesus was a big fish with an entourage of supporters that needed to be decisively crushed. His supporters were terrified and ran away.

Luke had the chief priests and scribes take Jesus to Pilate, saying
“We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a King.” (Luke 23;2). Pilate asked Jesus if he was king of the Jews and Jesus answered
“it is as you say it.” (Luke 23;3). He effectively signed his own death warrant.

The gospel authors created history by blaming the Jews for his murder. Anti-Semitism had its birthplace here. It is ironic that the Romans, the very people Jesus despised, adopted him as their hero some three centuries after they killed him. They then blamed his own people, the Jews, for his death.

Before Jesus took his last breath it may have dawned on him the Romans would never be defeated.

Jesus had been humiliated, tortured and killed on a crucifix. Today’s Christians often worship a crucifix, yet I think Jesus would consider that rather macabre and in poor taste. If he were somehow still alive today his stomach would turn at the sight of a crucifix.

The resurrection of Jesus is mythical. Mark’s gospel was the first to be written and the one the others copied. Yet it can be proven it originally had no resurrection story.

How did the story of a brave Jewish zealot get replaced by the Jesus of theology. That's another story!

Please remain open minded about this. Modern gentile Christians have had their heads filled with much mumbo jumbo about the divinity of Jesus. I'm going back to the real grass roots story. Please keep talking with me.


(18-06-2011 11:59 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I believe the basic suggestion is to state that he was not a peaceful usurper, but led a revolt. The term terrorist is pretty much just coining a recent catch phrase. There are plenty of biblical passages that discuss Jesus leading a revolt, not all of them sound nice. It would be a way of suggesting the humanistic view accredited to Jesus was something created for him by Paul.

The love of Jesus is a strong pillar of christian faith. I can see distorting the message seen as a strong way of suggesting christianity is invalid.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not recorded to have said riot inciting phrases. His discussions always focused around a peaceful stand for rights. Jesus though has been cited as saying many rather aggressive phrases. So, if we decide to accept the christian view that the bible is the most historically accurate history of the time, then what the bible says about one of it's principle figures determines whether his followers were righteous or a cult.

I agree entirely with you. I could perhaps change "terrorist" to "freedom fighter" because of the more modern parallels with terrorism.


(18-06-2011 11:36 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mark.

Aside from the fact I think that this is pure fabrication that a 101 level theologian could demolish in seconds and aside from the fact that it's about as likely as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. being a terrorist, I have one question.

Making the assumption (which I don't) that Jesus was in fact a terrorist, are you also claiming that there is something inherently wrong with terrorism and that Jesus' supposed link to terrorism somehow diminishes him and/or Christianity, or are you just trying to point out something for the historical record?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Hi Matt.

Re" I think that this is pure fabrication that a 101 level theologian could demolish in seconds" , please tell me why! Let's discuss it!

Re "are you also claiming that there is something inherently wrong with terrorism"
Well....I think we all agree we should, in modern times, do everything we can to avoid using violence to achieve political aims. However I would not presume to pass judgement on a first century Jewish man's desperate attempt to improve the life of his fellow Jews.

re "and/or Christianity,". My premise is that Christian theology was invented by Paul, who taught many years after Jesus died. So the REAL Jesus, not the manufactured mascot of today's Christianity, was a fundamentalist Jew, not a Christian. I have boot loads of evidence to support this if you are interested. I don't think my story paints the brave young Jewish Jesus in a negative light, but it certainly diminishes the whole Christian story. If a religion is based on a foundation of untruths, it can hardly have any genuine value.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2011, 06:56 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2011 07:00 AM by Shannow.)
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
Mark - you're at it again...Paul was a Roman secret agent and now, (drumroll) Jesus was a terrorist! Can't wait for next week...(please do something with either aliens or sharks)

The Paul as a Roman agent stuff I could, at a strech understand.

Jesus as a TERRORIST just isn't true...I think Christianity is a stupid, dangerous and wrong religeon. But what you're asserting here is unprovable and contradicts sources at the time (you know, proper historical sources...not just the bible)

Jesus was born in Palestine. - Yes.

Jesus was fathered by a Roman - NO: I'm assuming this is Celsus's "Jesus, son of Pantera" theory? Celsus is a seriously compromised tertiary source....he dismissivly calls the disciples "10 fishermen and a couple of tax collectors." We don't even have any of his original writings, all we've got is the writing of Origen...come on...

Jesus was poor - NO: Certainly of limited means, but his "father" had a trade as a craftsman, and there was enough money for Jesus to receive some kind of education...opinion is varied on his literacy, but all agree on his ability to argue his case and he had a solid understanding of the Torah.

Simon (one of Jesus's disciples was a zealot) Yup, they called him a zealot...BUT Josephus, who writes a lot about the zealots, their leaders and structure doesn't mention him.

Let's stay with Josephus for a second. He is something of a authority on Jewish sects, he's a Jew, he had military experience...BUT...he doesn't mention Simon or Jesus. Considering Jesus was the 'messiah' and according to your theory a zealot who challenged the rich and powerful on behalf of the zealots...surely Joesphus would have menitoned Jesus?

John the Baptist was killed becuase he was a zealot - Really?
Josephus actually mentions John the Baptist and does not call him a zealot...the prevailing theory is that John preached out against the fact that Herod was practiscing incest which was frowned on in (parts) of the Old Testament. Herod didn't like this and killed him.

Hosanna means "I pray" or "save me" or bizarrely, ""we praise you who are the Son of David" or "...a descendant of David." The people were waiving palm fronds and shouting becuase THEY thought the same as you...they WANTED a zealot messiah who would shake off Roman rule. History shows us that simply did not happen, Jesus the man made no recorded attempt to cause any kind of revolt...we know all about the later Jewish revolts.

Jesus was politically subversive and challenges the establishment, ultimately resulting in his death. That doesn't make him a terrorist.
I challenge you to find a single source that explicitly states that Jesus was a zealot.

He might have sympathised with them, he very likely would have liked Jews to run Judea. But he absolutly, was a Terrorist.

Come on...Aliens or sharks...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shannow's post
19-06-2011, 08:22 AM
 
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
It would be silly to believe this theory based solely on what's stated in the thread because much of it requires outside information that can't be verified based on what is here. But this is no reason to assume it's false, something like this is certainly plausible considering how old the Bible is and its lack of accuracy. It really depends on what other sources are given, how firmly it's established when each book was written, and if all this still supports Mark's conclusion.

With my limited knowledge, I think that Pat Condell's ideas make a lot of sense if the historical Jesus actually existed, but I don't know enough about the history to make any claims. My knowledge of reality, however, is more than enough to say magic was probably not involved and that the "miracles" recorded were either fabricated by the author(s) or cheap tricks.
Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2011, 09:14 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2011 09:21 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(19-06-2011 06:56 AM)Shannow Wrote:  Mark - you're at it again...Paul was a Roman secret agent and now, (drumroll) Jesus was a terrorist! Can't wait for next week...(please do something with either aliens or sharks)

The Paul as a Roman agent stuff I could, at a strech understand.

Jesus as a TERRORIST just isn't true...I think Christianity is a stupid, dangerous and wrong religeon. But what you're asserting here is unprovable and contradicts sources at the time (you know, proper historical sources...not just the bible)

Jesus was born in Palestine. - Yes.

Jesus was fathered by a Roman - NO: I'm assuming this is Celsus's "Jesus, son of Pantera" theory? Celsus is a seriously compromised tertiary source....he dismissivly calls the disciples "10 fishermen and a couple of tax collectors." We don't even have any of his original writings, all we've got is the writing of Origen...come on...

Jesus was poor - NO: Certainly of limited means, but his "father" had a trade as a craftsman, and there was enough money for Jesus to receive some kind of education...opinion is varied on his literacy, but all agree on his ability to argue his case and he had a solid understanding of the Torah.

Simon (one of Jesus's disciples was a zealot) Yup, they called him a zealot...BUT Josephus, who writes a lot about the zealots, their leaders and structure doesn't mention him.

Let's stay with Josephus for a second. He is something of a authority on Jewish sects, he's a Jew, he had military experience...BUT...he doesn't mention Simon or Jesus. Considering Jesus was the 'messiah' and according to your theory a zealot who challenged the rich and powerful on behalf of the zealots...surely Joesphus would have menitoned Jesus?

John the Baptist was killed becuase he was a zealot - Really?
Josephus actually mentions John the Baptist and does not call him a zealot...the prevailing theory is that John preached out against the fact that Herod was practiscing incest which was frowned on in (parts) of the Old Testament. Herod didn't like this and killed him.

Hosanna means "I pray" or "save me" or bizarrely, ""we praise you who are the Son of David" or "...a descendant of David." The people were waiving palm fronds and shouting becuase THEY thought the same as you...they WANTED a zealot messiah who would shake off Roman rule. History shows us that simply did not happen, Jesus the man made no recorded attempt to cause any kind of revolt...we know all about the later Jewish revolts.

Jesus was politically subversive and challenges the establishment, ultimately resulting in his death. That doesn't make him a terrorist.
I challenge you to find a single source that explicitly states that Jesus was a zealot.

He might have sympathised with them, he very likely would have liked Jews to run Judea. But he absolutly, was a Terrorist.

Come on...Aliens or sharks...

Hi Shannow...I wish I could see your face because I'm not sure whether you are genuinely upset or are just enjoying the discussion! I'm smiling, are you?

Firstly, perhaps you don't like the word terrorist? Does it bring up images of suicide bombers and hijacking planes and zealous Islamists? Let's change it to "freedom fighter" then. It still amounts to the same thing but sounds better.

Re "Jesus was fathered by a Roman - NO: I'm assuming this is Celsus's "Jesus, son of Pantera" theory? Celsus is a seriously compromised tertiary source....he dismissivly calls the disciples "10 fishermen and a couple of tax collectors." We don't even have any of his original writings, all we've got is the writing of Origen...come on..." .

..... I said MAY have been a Roman soldier. The Roman military devastated Galilee in 4 BC. Mary was 14-17 years old, and she got pregnant right at this time( we think) None of the gospel authors claimed Joseph was the father. The Celsus/ Pantera story is considered a legitimate possibility by James Tabor, a well known world authority on early Christianity. There is a gravestone of a Roman centurion named Pantera in Germany and the details of his life fit with him being in Galilee in 4 BCE. Why are you so upset by this? Please don't tell me you believe Mary was impregnated by the holy ghost! LOL.

PS the reason we don't have Celus' original writings is they were destroyed by over zealous Christians that burnt any literature that didn't agree with the Christian story. Celsus was a highly intelligent rational thinker, in marked contrast to the early fathers of the church like Origin, who was intelligent, but hardly rational.

Re..."Jesus was poor - NO: Certainly of limited means, but his "father" had a trade as a craftsman, and there was enough money for Jesus to receive some kind of education...opinion is varied on his literacy, but all agree on his ability to argue his case and he had a solid understanding of the Torah."

...Neither you nor I know for sure how well off Jesus was. We do know the richer Jews lived in the cities...the peasants lived a subsistence existence in villages. Farming and fishing were the only two industries of note, although some worked as manual labourers constructing cities such as Sephoris. Jesus had 4 brothers and 2 sisters, and a probably elderly step father who probably died early. Hence I have made a reasonable assumption that the family was struggling.

As you say we don't know whether he could read or write, but my opinion is it was unlikely but possible. Estimates of literacy throughout the empire are at about 10-20%, much less than that in poor rural areas. Books were few and far between. The only Jewish book Jesus would have had any contact with was scripture, and I agree he would have had a solid understanding of it. It would have been read to him.

Re..."Simon (one of Jesus's disciples was a zealot) Yup, they called him a zealot...BUT Josephus, who writes a lot about the zealots, their leaders and structure doesn't mention him."

Josephus doesn't mention Jesus at all! There are 2 possible reasons for this
1. Jesus never existed
2. The early Christians destroyed his genuine record because it didn't fit with their manufactured story.
If you are about to tell me Josephus did mention Jesus please refer to impartial historical commentary on this.

Re... "John the Baptist was killed becuase he was a zealot - Really?
Josephus actually mentions John the Baptist and does not call him a zealot...the prevailing theory is that John preached out against the fact that Herod was practiscing incest which was frowned on in (parts) of the Old Testament. Herod didn't like this and killed him.

It is true Herod married his brother's wife ( I'm not sure this is incest), and John, like a true Jew, may have spoken out publicly against this. This was not, however, the real reason for John's murder. Herod Antipas, the Roman’s puppet king, was watching John very closely. Any Galilean prophet preaching to crowds was suspected of being a zealot. He had John arrested and killed. This is how Josephus described John’s murder...
“… what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness toward one another, and piety toward God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when many others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.”

It is very clear Herod was afraid of a popular revolt lead by John, which was why he had him killed. The Gospel authors quite deliberately didn’t discuss the true reason for John’s execution because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image of John and Jesus as preachers of theology.

Re ...."History shows us that simply did not happen, Jesus the man made no recorded attempt to cause any kind of revolt..."

Ok....Shannon.....please read the following slowly and get your head around it (I'm not being patronising....I'm just trying to help you understand something). The gospels were heavily edited in the second century. The story of Jesus was twisted to make it attractive for a gentile ( non Jewish) audience. The gospel authors and editors were trying to get people to join a cult that became almost exclusively populated by GENTILES. They couldn't have Jesus as a man who was fundamentally opposed to the Roman world. They had to twist the story around to make him in places pro gentile and anti Jewish. They had to blame "the Jews" for his death, whereas it is as plain as the nose on your face he was crucified because he was a "freedom fighter".

Get this... “JESUS" IS A GENTILE CREATION. The real Jesus was not the preacher of ethics he is portrayed as in the Bible. He was a man whose primary agenda was the establishment of a Jewish Kingdom of God in Palestine. The stories in the Gospels of him eating with tax collectors, who were working for the Roman government, were designed to make him pro-gentile. On occasions in the Gospels he denigrated aspects of Jewish law, which no true Jew would ever do, so this was fictional too. The benign preacher who claimed he wasn’t a zealot and was murdered at the insistence of a Jewish crowd is a fabrication by Gentile authors and interpolators so that the story undermined Jesus as king of the Jews and appealed to a Gentile audience.

Consider what Luke has a follower of Jesus saying shortly after the crucifixion;
“Our own hope had been that he would be the one to set Israel free….” (Luke 24:21 NJB). To set Israel free could only mean one thing in first century Judea – to remove Roman rule!

Re "Jesus was politically subversive and challenges the establishment, ultimately resulting in his death. That doesn't make him a terrorist.
I challenge you to find a single source that explicitly states that Jesus was a zealot."

Shannow ....the guy rode into Jerusalem as a king. That was treason and he knew it. He hid from the Romans at night (in Bethany, in a "safe house") because the Jewish people, who would have been in bed, couldn't protect him. He upset the tables in the Temple where the Roman collaborators were collecting money. He said he came to start a war. He told hid his disciples to buy swords. The Romans sent SIX HUNDRED SOLDIERS to arrest him in the middle of the night. They got to him before he made his definitive move. After he was captured he admitted he thought he was a king. He was accused of refusing to pay taxes to Caesar. He was crucified by the Romans, a punishment reserved for zealots and serious criminals. Has the penny dropped for you yet?

I've only told you way less than half the reasons why he was a zealot.

Re... "I challenge you to find a single source that explicitly states that Jesus was a zealot." Try Robert Eisemann "James, the brother of Jesus", James Tabor "The Jesus Dynasty" or "The Messianic Legacy" by I can't remember who. There are many others too.

Understand this....it is political dynamite to call Jesus a freedom fighter. It upsets churches and fundamentalist Christians. If you are an academic at a university, particularly in the USA, you would run the risk of compromising your career. If you are an author trying to sell a book you alienate a very large part of your market.

Does the word the "Nazarenes" mean anything to you? Read up about them. John the baptist, Jesus, James his brother were all Nazarenes. They were fundamentalist nationalistic Jews opposed to the Roman world. They fought tooth and nail with Paul, the pro gentile founder of Christianity

Shannow, please don't imply I am a fool if my views don't match yours. This should not be about point scoring off other people to make yourself feel good. I have things to learn from you and you can learn from me too, so let's be civil. Regards, Mark


(19-06-2011 08:22 AM)Zach Wrote:  It would be silly to believe this theory based solely on what's stated in the thread because much of it requires outside information that can't be verified based on what is here. But this is no reason to assume it's false, something like this is certainly plausible considering how old the Bible is and its lack of accuracy. It really depends on what other sources are given, how firmly it's established when each book was written, and if all this still supports Mark's conclusion.

With my limited knowledge, I think that Pat Condell's ideas make a lot of sense if the historical Jesus actually existed, but I don't know enough about the history to make any claims. My knowledge of reality, however, is more than enough to say magic was probably not involved and that the "miracles" recorded were either fabricated by the author(s) or cheap tricks.

A quick one Zach....please forgive cut and paste...its a lot easier for me.....

Was Jesus a Miracle Worker?
Cults that had existed for hundreds or thousands of years before Jesus were littered with miracle stories. Isis, an Ancient Egyptian goddess, healed the sick. Poseidon, the god of the sea in Greek mythology, walked on water, as did Horus, an ancient Egyptian deity. Dionysus, the Greek god of the grape harvest, turned water into wine. Aesclepius, the Greek god of medicine and healing raised the dead, as did Apollonius, a Greek philosopher who also cast out demons. Buddha fed five hundred men with one loaf of bread, cured lepers, and helped the blind to see. Jesus’ miracles were all rather ‘old hat’ by the time the gospel authors wrote about them.

It could be argued it was just coincidence Jesus’ life story had these features in common with other gods and legendary individuals, or that Jesus mimicked them to raise his own status. Both are weak arguments. The average person would have been unaware of most of these legends so the gospel writers thought they had free reign to borrow attractive stories from other cults. They were not writing for educated and informed modern man.

The Old Testament contained hundreds of stories of miracles too. Some of the authors of the gospels were trying to impress Jews, so Jesus needed to be cast in a role similar to Moses and Elijah from the Old Testament to be the next miracle-working prophet of Israel.

I think that if Jesus was really God he should have performed some highly original miracles. For example if he had conducted a string quartet, turned on a television with a remote control or water-skied on the Sea of Galilee I would be impressed. As it was, his miracles were nothing out of the ordinary.

The Gospels told of cures, exorcisms and risings from the dead. Those with paraplegia, cerebral palsy, leprosy, blindness and insanity were healed. You must have been impressed if you were one of the crowd or one of the lucky people who were cured. Jesus must have saved the Jewish social security system a lot of money! Imagine the status of a man who had genuinely done all this. News of him would have spread like wild fire and he would have been seriously popular. Surely there would have been no doubt he was divine, someone truly special, more than just another rabbi with some good ideas. Such a man would be exalted above sectarian squabbles with Romans, Sadducees and Pharisees, not someone who was mocked by crowds, tortured and crucified. He quite obviously was no superstar in his own time and therefore he did not perform these miracles.

What about evidence for Jesus’ miracles from sources other than the gospels? Paul, who was a contemporary of Jesus and who personally knew the original disciples of Jesus, wrote at least six genuine letters in the New Testament. He did not mention a single miracle. The reason is obvious. His writings pre-dated the gospels by 40+ years. He didn’t know Jesus was going to become a miracle worker with a little help from imaginative gospel authors.

A close scrutiny of all the first century epistles in the Bible; James, Jude, 1,2 Peter, and 1, 2, 3 John reveals no record of any miracles performed by Jesus. These epistles were also written before or without knowledge of the gospels.

The only place in the Bible the miracles of Jesus were documented was in the gospels, and they copied similar stories from other cults and then copied each other. Evangelical gospel writers invented Jesus’ miracle stories, a fact easily deduced from an objective examination of the Bible!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2011, 09:44 AM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
Hey, Mark.

Mark Wrote:Well....I think we all agree we should, in modern times, do everything we can to avoid using violence to achieve political aims.

I don't live in Disneyland, so no, I do not agree.

As for the definition of terrorism, it's garbage. Terrorism is the deliberate coercion of the civilian population (through the use of force or the threat of the use of force) intended to impel them to pressure their own government to change their policies, ie, you will pay for your government's actions until you force them to change. It is a pretty standard form of asymmetrical warfare.

It is NOT merely the use of force for political gain.

I think that one of the most dangerous trends of the last 10 years is the interchangeable use of the terms terrorist, militant and insurgent. It is an Orwellian Newspeak attempt to make us believe exactly what you believe, that the use of force by anyone but the government is absolutely wrong. That notion is terrifying to me.

Just because the Americans are trying to make us swallow this War on Terra bullshit doesn't mean that I'm going to play along.

Even if Jesus was a terrorist, which is absolute crap, he'd be pretty much the same man as Nelson Mandela. I have zero issue with Nelson Mandela.

If you're looking for ways to "educate" Christians and make them see the error of their ways, making up nonsense about Jesus is not the route to take.

As for discussing it with you, I'd have better luck and more fun discussing the nature of the Man in the Moon or the political impact of the Dish running away with the Spoon. You invite me to discourse like a rational person, but you offer nothing rational to discuss.

The reason I rewrote your pronouncements by doing absolutely nothing but change Jesus to MLK, Jews to blacks and Romans to white Americans, was to illustrate that someone's upbringing in a tumultuous time says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the person. You can SAY that Jesus was a terrorist because he lived in a rough patch in history, but that is a kind of revisionist social determinism that no one in their right mind would support.
"Your grandfather was from Germany? Obviously he was a Nazi."
"Your dad was 18 in 1969? Obviously he was a drug addled baby-killer in Vietnam."

It's garbage.

If you could provided a SHRED of evidence saying that on day X or thereabouts Jesus committed or incited others to commit an act of violence against ANYONE (civilian or state) you might have something to offer (and it better be more significant than him trashing the market). But for now, it's just as reasonable as assuming that Gandhi was a terrorist because things were tense in India under English rule.

And for those of you eager to jump on this bandwagon and for those of you who say that, gee whillickers, there’s no reason to not believe he was a terrorist, how quickly you abandon your scepticism and how lovingly you embrace the false negative.

I am a 7-foot-tall Martian sex-machine. There’s no reason not to believe that either. I mean, I did type the words after all.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
19-06-2011, 10:46 AM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(19-06-2011 09:44 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Mark.

Mark Wrote:Well....I think we all agree we should, in modern times, do everything we can to avoid using violence to achieve political aims.

I don't live in Disneyland, so no, I do not agree.

As for the definition of terrorism, it's garbage. Terrorism is the deliberate coercion of the civilian population (through the use of force or the threat of the use of force) intended to impel them to pressure their own government to change their policies, ie, you will pay for your government's actions until you force them to change. It is a pretty standard form of asymmetrical warfare.

It is NOT merely the use of force for political gain.

I think that one of the most dangerous trends of the last 10 years is the interchangeable use of the terms terrorist, militant and insurgent. It is an Orwellian Newspeak attempt to make us believe exactly what you believe, that the use of force by anyone but the government is absolutely wrong. That notion is terrifying to me.

Just because the Americans are trying to make us swallow this War on Terra bullshit doesn't mean that I'm going to play along.

Even if Jesus was a terrorist, which is absolute crap, he'd be pretty much the same man as Nelson Mandela. I have zero issue with Nelson Mandela.

If you're looking for ways to "educate" Christians and make them see the error of their ways, making up nonsense about Jesus is not the route to take.

As for discussing it with you, I'd have better luck and more fun discussing the nature of the Man in the Moon or the political impact of the Dish running away with the Spoon. You invite me to discourse like a rational person, but you offer nothing rational to discuss.

The reason I rewrote your pronouncements by doing absolutely nothing but change Jesus to MLK, Jews to blacks and Romans to white Americans, was to illustrate that someone's upbringing in a tumultuous time says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the person. You can SAY that Jesus was a terrorist because he lived in a rough patch in history, but that is a kind of revisionist social determinism that no one in their right mind would support.
"Your grandfather was from Germany? Obviously he was a Nazi."
"Your dad was 18 in 1969? Obviously he was a drug addled baby-killer in Vietnam."

It's garbage.

If you could provided a SHRED of evidence saying that on day X or thereabouts Jesus committed or incited others to commit an act of violence against ANYONE (civilian or state) you might have something to offer (and it better be more significant than him trashing the market). But for now, it's just as reasonable as assuming that Gandhi was a terrorist because things were tense in India under English rule.

And for those of you eager to jump on this bandwagon and for those of you who say that, gee whillickers, there’s no reason to not believe he was a terrorist, how quickly you abandon your scepticism and how lovingly you embrace the false negative.

I am a 7-foot-tall Martian sex-machine. There’s no reason not to believe that either. I mean, I did type the words after all.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Hey Matt, I don't sense much peace, love or empathy in your post.

I didn't join this forum to get abused by a yob.

Why don't you either cool your jets or sober up?

Mark
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2011, 11:10 AM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
Mark - I wish this forum had live chat. Would love to discus this in a style that's more conducisve to long debate than writing massive posts!

Some points of order:

1. You're clearly not foolish. I don't think anyone on the forum is implying that you have any kind of limited mental capacity. The stuff you wrote on your other theories was really compelling and thought provoking and several people, including me really loved reading about it. I didn't agree with the Paul/Roman Agent thing, but it was fascinating and the "Paul as a cult leader" is excellent.

This theory isn't thought provoking or compelling, it's poorly sourced, poorly thought out and just isn't working for me. You've been working on this stuff for over half a decade, so I seriously doubt that this is the first time you've come up against negative feedback.

2. I think you need to understand what I mean by sources.

I've assumed that Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources are the same internationally. I could be really wrong about that, if so, I've been banging on about the quality of sources and nobody outside of the UK knows what I'm talking about! Is it the same in Oz, or do you have different words for this stuff?

When the stuff you write about is sourced with primary sources, (like Joesphus and later on, Polycarp), the historian inside me gets really excited at what you have to say.

However, this recent theory is sourced largely from the Bible...so the document you are trying to undermine and highlight as a work of fiction, is also the document you are using to provide your case with historic facts.

Given that I completely agree with your points about the bibles evolution over time, I dissmiss anything that uses the bible as a source.

Not sure if you knew, but Christians call this bastardisation of the bible "progressive revalation" I call it "tampering with evidence!"

3. Going back to my original point...you need to find a primary source that explicity states Jesus was a Zealot. You can't. This doesn't make you foolish, it makes you a great researcher and a great communicator who's hit a wall with a particular idea.

You've already cited a handful of authors who have positited the same theory. These esteemed chaps are just well-read guys who have a point of view that supports your own. These are (at best) secondary sources....they support your case but they don't prove it...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2011, 11:48 AM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
Don't worry Shannow you're definition of sources is accurate. As I said though if he were making a book discussing how the bible is read secularly it would make sense. Have him send you the chapter ideas. It seems that where this part of Jesus is placed he is more discussing a secular opinion of the bible itself and dissecting what facts can be gleaned from it. In this thread he isn't really bringing that up.

I do agree with ghost that terrorist is an odd word to use since you can simply call him a radical or freedom fighter. The main point gleaned from scripture would be that Jesus is not presented as a man of peace until the gospels. You can go calmer on that subject. The book is a fascinating study that I'm sure we can't wait to read either way, and everyone has hangups on certain ideas it's part of writing to realize not all of your ideas will work correctly.

From the excerpts of his book I see things that will fit perfectly with the other thread. I agree that it's slightly confusing that his excerpts are a mix of conspiratorial thinking and evidential fact. I am in support of his idea and seek to work through it. I'm still trying to see if he has any more formulation to this idea for the validity placed on it. So far most of the vehement complaints have been more about verbiage than his overall goal with the idea.

I agree that he has no strong basis for making a serious claim, as he's hypothesizing even so far as to the man Jesus existing. But sometimes depending on the format of the book it's ok to have parts which are mostly postulation. Since the book isn't printed yet it will probably go through some edits and I think we're a great chopping block to ground out ideas if he's still doing that.

I would suggest that you determine how much of your book is fact and how much is postulation Mark. As I discussed earlier it is important for a real credible work that we get more fact. I'm sure you understand the difference between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims, and as far as we see it referencing the bible is calling upon unsubstantiated claims.

And Ghost, don't be accusatory of the members discussing this thread. I know for myself that I am giving him my advice as far as the subject. I'm not jumping on a bandwagon I'm discussing his ideas and attempting to make a better book. You know not to attack the forum, we're a very diverse group and it's pretty uncommon for us to blindly follow. If you have a problem with him you can be a bit accusatory but don't drag everyone down. And I don't think Mark is ignoring your concerns, he's just having trouble seeing your point since all of your posts on this thread have been pretty aggressive.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: