Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(08-05-2014 07:11 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 10:14 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Come again? Only next time with less L. Ron Hubbard...

Why don't you offer an explanation for what atheists base their morality on and then I can understand what it is you do not understand about my explanation - shit head.

(08-05-2014 07:16 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 08:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The only morally bankrupt one here is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement at the core of Christianity, because the very concept destroys the personal responsibility upon which all morality and ethics must rest. I am not bound to be unable to say anything against the Nazis. They supported a fascist doctrine of discrimination, hatred, and genocide. I don't have to forgive them, but if any of those Nazis accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior; then according to Christian doctrine they all got passes into Heaven.

Tell me again who the morally bankrupt party is here?

Why are you even fucking bothering to sort and explain this shit - who cares? Move on, pretend that Christians and their doctrines do not exist, and pay attention to what matters - defining reality for the future. It is as if you are pretending that atheists have everything sorted out and that the only thing left to do is to straighten-out the Christians. Atheists cannot agree on the definition of atheism.

Why do you even bother? Shit-head... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 09:16 AM (This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 09:25 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(07-05-2014 08:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 08:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  And your language speaks volumes about you.

Yeah, funny how easy it is to get ideas across when one speaks plainly.

And you're still a credulous fucktard. Do you look at all beyond the first thing Google spits up when you're searching for something to support your presupposition, or do you actually put effort into ignoring inconvenient facts?

Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question...


Let me spell it out so even someone like you can understand:

1. Bad language shows an inability to express one's views using ordinary language. It shows emotional immaturity which goes hand in hand with someone who feels the needs to bully others to make his point, probably because he doesn't feel his arguments are sufficiently strong. It also shows a lack of sensitivity and concern for the feelings of others.

2. I have no idea what your views are because you don't set them out for others to comment on. I expect that on a forum like that, this is because you desire not to be abused the way you abuse others with whom you disagree.

3. I think I have read some comments from you about your not caring about some Jewish preacher in the middle east. That doesn't appear to denote someone who has studied this subject to any extent at all. You might not be aware of recent DNA studies which suggest that Europeans migrated from the Near East so that people in places like Jordan and Judea, Syria and Asia Minor are ancestors of Europans.

4. I have a degree in classical political philosophy and a doctorate. I have studied alongside and under some of the brightest minds in North America. None of them behave the way you do. I am retired and am only interested in people like Ralph Ellis because I find his theory interesting, not because I believe or accept everything he might say. I have, as I have clearly stated many times on this forum, not even read one of his books. For you to take my posts and twist them to suggest I have read his books, and adopt what he says and that , therefore, I am a crank, is silly and childish.

5. I am posting ideas I find on the internet and others which come to mind in order to stimulate debate and come to a better understanding myself about these issues, not because I think I, or Ellis, or Atwill are right.

6. There is a difference between espousing some belief and having a dialogue with people in a search for information about a subject. You seem not to be able to make that distinction in your own mind.

7. It is not necessary here to cite only peer reviewed academic papers. This is a chat forum, not an academic journal. One is free to say what one wants according to the rules of the forum, which are quite liberal in their operation, considering the inane, insulting abuse thrown around by people such as yourself. If you feel I am somehow violating the rules of this forum by posting ideas I find on the internet, then you should warn me that you will report me to a moderator and I will consider your position. It isn't for you to tell me or anyone to "fuck off" and go away as I assume you don't own this forum...or perhaps you do?

8. I do have a good grasp of bible studies, having studied Thomas Aquinas and other theologians under a Jesuit professor at university and I do have my own views of Christianity which are not necessarily the same as those of Ralph Ellis. I have no financial or other incentive for agreeing with or disagreeing with anything he says or writes and if and when I do get a chance to read one of his books, I will come to my own conclusions, and I won't need you to tell me where I think he is right or wrong.

9. There is a growing body of evidence outside religious writings which are now starting to illuminate the history of the Near East at the time of "Jesus" which include climate studies, DNA studies, linguistic studies which are scientific in their approach and I would be happy to share my understanding of them with anyone who cares to engage in this debate. I don't base what I say on "belief" nor do I pretend that I am always right in my interpretations nor do I react to intelligent and thoughtful posts with abuse and foul language and taunts.

I think that about covers it. It would be nice to hear what your actual views are as you seem to have a high opinion of yourself such that you feel justified in talking down and insulting people with whom you disagree with absolute confidence that whatever it is you "believe" is right and they are, as you say "fucktards". Plainly, you see yourself as vastly superior to other posters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deltabravo's post
09-05-2014, 09:22 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Very well said.

Civil, intelligible, and cordial.

Bravo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
09-05-2014, 09:36 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(07-05-2014 09:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 10:31 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I think they had an idea that there was some "logic" or "reason" behind all of life. I think we are moving, in the secular world, towards understanding life, the cosmos through reason and science. I also think that the philosophy of Christianity which is quite well set out in the Didache, which I have posted on another thread is a reflection of a scientific mindset which seeks a philosophy of life which, in basic terms, makes sense, or "works".

I agree. A quick review of the Didache seems to describe the organizational charter, beyond that I am going to be suspicious of interpretations of reason for teaching the different allegories.

The only description of who the "God" is that I can think of in the NT is that he is the "word". And that in the "beginning" was the word. This is from the Greed "logos" which I understand to mean reason or order of things. The Didache are the "dictates" of the Logos, ie., the "dictates of reason". I don't, myself, have a problem with that. I think there may have been Jewish thinkers who were moving away from an anthropomorphized concept of God towards a view that there was some sort of logic or code which explained things and which could be discovered through reasoning. The Didache appears to be an attempt to come to moral conclusions by applying logic and reason. Why I think this is important is that whoever wrote the NT (I believe it was a unified work) was not concerned that there were inconsistencies in the stories because he, they, did not see these stories as the central message and did not want followers of the religion to become obsessed with the narrative but to look deeper at the central meaning and message of the philosophy they were developing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 08:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, funny how easy it is to get ideas across when one speaks plainly.

And you're still a credulous fucktard. Do you look at all beyond the first thing Google spits up when you're searching for something to support your presupposition, or do you actually put effort into ignoring inconvenient facts?

Yeah, I know, it's a rhetorical question...


Let me spell it out so even someone like you can understand:

1. Bad language shows an inability to express one's views using ordinary language. It shows emotional immaturity which goes hand in hand with someone who feels the needs to bully others to make his point, probably because he doesn't feel his arguments are sufficiently strong. It also shows a lack of sensitivity and concern for the feelings of others.

What was that again? Condescending psychoanalysis from the peanut gallery? Color me impressed. Well, whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night I suppose...

Also, do you remember that part where you tried to insinuate ever-so-subtly that I was a Christian troll? Yeah, go fuck yourself you hypocrite.


(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  2. I have no idea what your views are because you don't set them out for others to comment on. I expect that on a forum like that, this is because you desire not to be abused the way you abuse others with whom you disagree.

Skeptics don't need to posit counter-arguments in order to debunk bullshit. Atwill and Ellis both have a terrible track record of failing miserably to meet the burden of proof their ideas demand, and the rest of us need not take them seriously until they can step up to the plate with something far more substantive than anything they've been able to produce thus far.


(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  3. I think I have read some comments from you about your not caring about some Jewish preacher in the middle east. That doesn't appear to denote someone who has studied this subject to any extent at all. You might not be aware of recent DNA studies which suggest that Europeans migrated from the Near East so that people in places like Jordan and Judea, Syria and Asia Minor are ancestors of Europans.[sic]

I have no idea what in the actual fuck you are talking about, but without better evidence, I find it very hard to imagine that people migrated out of Africa into the Middle East and kept going until they hit Europe and only then backtracked and settled the Middle East and Asia Minor. That seems nonsensical in the extreme.


(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  4. I have a degree in classical political philosophy and a doctorate. I have studied alongside and under some of the brightest minds in North America. None of them behave the way you do. I am retired and am only interested in people like Ralph Ellis because I find his theory interesting, not because I believe or accept everything he might say. I have, as I have clearly stated many times on this forum, not even read one of his books. For you to take my posts and twist them to suggest I have read his books, and adopt what he says and that , therefore, I am a crank, is silly and childish.

1 - Having a degree doesn't make you any less of a dumbass.

2 - Atwill and Ellis are cranks, and IF you subscribe to their views, that puts you squarely in Cranksville.


(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  5. I am posting ideas I find on the internet and others which come to mind in order to stimulate debate and come to a better understanding myself about these issues, not because I think I, or Ellis, or Atwill are right.

We've had Ellis her before, he has come to the forum to try and defend his bullshit in person. None of us were impressed then, and nothing much has changed since.


(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  6. There is a difference between espousing some belief and having a dialogue with people in a search for information about a subject. You seem not to be able to make that distinction in your own mind.

Oh quit your fucking high-road posturing. You're the one who cited a deliberate character assassination page to counter us pointing out Vereanna to you, for fuck's sake. You're firmly in JAQing off territory here.


(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  7. It is not necessary here to cite only peer reviewed academic papers. This is a chat forum, not an academic journal. One is free to say what one wants according to the rules of the forum, which are quite liberal in their operation, considering the inane, insulting abuse thrown around by people such as yourself. If you feel I am somehow violating the rules of this forum by posting ideas I find on the internet, then you should warn me that you will report me to a moderator and I will consider your position. It isn't for you to tell me or anyone to "fuck off" and go away as I assume you don't own this forum...or perhaps you do?

The door is over there, help yourself out anytime. You post stupid shit, we'll call you on it. If you get butthurt and double down on the stupid, don't start bitching when we turn up the heat.


(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  8. I do have a good grasp of bible studies, having studied Thomas Aquinas and other theologians under a Jesuit professor at university and I do have my own views of Christianity which are not necessarily the same as those of Ralph Ellis. I have no financial or other incentive for agreeing with or disagreeing with anything he says or writes and if and when I do get a chance to read one of his books, I will come to my own conclusions, and I won't need you to tell me where I think he is right or wrong.

Well for claiming to not have read any of their books yet, the first time you mentioned either of them you came swinging out of the gates with their particular brand of bullshit in post 17. We've seen this a half dozen times or so, and always by their deranged fanboys. You look like a fanboy and sound like a fanboy, so...


(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  9. There is a growing body of evidence outside religious writings which are now starting to illuminate the history of the Near East at the time of "Jesus" which include climate studies, DNA studies, linguistic studies which are scientific in their approach and I would be happy to share my understanding of them with anyone who cares to engage in this debate. I don't base what I say on "belief" nor do I pretend that I am always right in my interpretations nor do I react to intelligent and thoughtful posts with abuse and foul language and taunts.

What was that again?

(06-05-2014 10:39 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  He has been called the most intelligent man in the world...but to you, hey, he's ill-informed. If that fits your world view, then, hey, who are we to argue with you.FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

That's a nice Call to Authority you have there, too bad it's a logical fallacy and a dick move.

(06-05-2014 10:44 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  There are some people who go to atheist forums and they are actually Christians who are trying to make atheism look bad.

They tend to create dissension by using lots of swear words, they display a complete disregard for other poster, calling them names, they engage in racial epithets, calling "jesus" a dirty Jew who is of no importance.

They shoot down any "theory" calling it crank and crackpot and stifle free debate because no one wants to feel they aren't part of this "in" crowd who judiciously use the "f" word.

Yeah, save your passive-aggressive bullshit for people who will actually buy into it; as in not the regulars on this forum.

(07-05-2014 03:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Don't you mean this

Right, this was where you responded to a critique with a link to that character assassination page filled with nothing but near libel.

You do know your high road act isn't fooling anybody, right?



(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I think that about covers it. It would be nice to hear what your actual views are as you seem to have a high opinion of yourself such that you feel justified in talking down and insulting people with whom you disagree with absolute confidence that whatever it is you "believe" is right and they are, as you say "fucktards". Plainly, you see yourself as vastly superior to other posters.

Superior to everyone? Hardly. Well above Ellis' and Atwill's flaccid fanboys? Certainly. Better than your disingenuous duplicitous hypocrisy? Take a wild guess fucktard. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
10-05-2014, 03:28 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(09-05-2014 09:36 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 09:58 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I agree. A quick review of the Didache seems to describe the organizational charter, beyond that I am going to be suspicious of interpretations of reason for teaching the different allegories.

The only description of who the "God" is that I can think of in the NT is that he is the "word". And that in the "beginning" was the word. This is from the Greed "logos" which I understand to mean reason or order of things. The Didache are the "dictates" of the Logos, ie., the "dictates of reason". I don't, myself, have a problem with that. I think there may have been Jewish thinkers who were moving away from an anthropomorphized concept of God towards a view that there was some sort of logic or code which explained things and which could be discovered through reasoning. The Didache appears to be an attempt to come to moral conclusions by applying logic and reason. Why I think this is important is that whoever wrote the NT (I believe it was a unified work) was not concerned that there were inconsistencies in the stories because he, they, did not see these stories as the central message and did not want followers of the religion to become obsessed with the narrative but to look deeper at the central meaning and message of the philosophy they were developing.

"Why I think this is important is that whoever wrote the NT (I believe it was a unified work)"

Please elaborate
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Plainly, you see yourself as vastly superior to other posters.

I am recognizing some factional demarcations that we should try to organize and progress.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2014 11:52 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(10-05-2014 03:28 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 09:36 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The only description of who the "God" is that I can think of in the NT is that he is the "word". And that in the "beginning" was the word. This is from the Greed "logos" which I understand to mean reason or order of things. The Didache are the "dictates" of the Logos, ie., the "dictates of reason". I don't, myself, have a problem with that. I think there may have been Jewish thinkers who were moving away from an anthropomorphized concept of God towards a view that there was some sort of logic or code which explained things and which could be discovered through reasoning. The Didache appears to be an attempt to come to moral conclusions by applying logic and reason. Why I think this is important is that whoever wrote the NT (I believe it was a unified work) was not concerned that there were inconsistencies in the stories because he, they, did not see these stories as the central message and did not want followers of the religion to become obsessed with the narrative but to look deeper at the central meaning and message of the philosophy they were developing.

"Why I think this is important is that whoever wrote the NT (I believe it was a unified work)"

I posted this on another thread: http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/alevel...reason.pdf

I think the Gnosis is similar to "reason", the Golden Rule is the "categorical imperative". If one believe in this, then the NT stories are just fabulous, fictional tales and the authors know that to be the case. it can't be otherwise if you think about it. If I wanted to convince a lot of pagans I would adopt their stories, like the Harry Potter stories of their day, preferably stories based on some great hero who had also lived by this moral philosophy... and worked in the central thesis, the principles and various stories which illustrated how to apply the principle.

Please elaborate

I believe Josephus was "behind" the NT. He had converted to the Nazarite sect of Eleazar. Atwill says the Alexanders assisted in writing it. I have no idea but I think Josephus was key to this. Galileean Jews were pro-Roman and Josepnus had already met with Vespasian who clearly liked his ideas. If you read about the Flavians, they appear to have been very much liked by the people, as was Jeus of Gamala and Queen Helena. I think what has happened is that Josephus has taken the "ancient idea" referred to by Suetonius, ie., that the ruler of the world would come from Judea and convinced him that the reason for this is that to be popular as a Roman Emperor, it is best to adopt an Essene/Gnostic/Nazarite moral approach. The result, in my opinion, is that they decided to write up this whole idea as a basis for a new Emperor, ie., Vespasian and wove the underlying idea into a narrative of a hero figure of the day but with embellishments from popular myths and military campaigns., as Atwill says. I don't believe that the writers of the NT believed in god as an anthrophomorphised being like Serapis or Zeus. They saw life as having a "reason" or "logic" to it. I think they were trying to put forward an idea based on reason and the Jesus narrative is just a literary device or vehicle to deliver the idea to the masses in a form they would recognize. It really isn't therefore, necessary, to figure out who was Jesus, imho.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(10-05-2014 09:14 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 09:16 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Plainly, you see yourself as vastly superior to other posters.

I am recognizing some factional demarcations that we should try to organize and progress.


I don't know how to organize and progress factions where one faction simply repeats the word "fucktard" over and over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(12-05-2014 11:46 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(10-05-2014 03:28 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Why I think this is important is that whoever wrote the NT (I believe it was a unified work)"

I posted this on another thread: http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/alevel...reason.pdf

I think the Gnosis is similar to "reason", the Golden Rule is the "categorical imperative". If one believe in this, then the NT stories are just fabulous, fictional tales and the authors know that to be the case. it can't be otherwise if you think about it. If I wanted to convince a lot of pagans I would adopt their stories, like the Harry Potter stories of their day, preferably stories based on some great hero who had also lived by this moral philosophy... and worked in the central thesis, the principles and various stories which illustrated how to apply the principle.

Please elaborate

I believe Josephus was "behind" the NT. He had converted to the Nazarite sect of Eleazar. Atwill says the Alexanders assisted in writing it. I have no idea but I think Josephus was key to this. Galileean Jews were pro-Roman and Josepnus had already met with Vespasian who clearly liked his ideas. If you read about the Flavians, they appear to have been very much liked by the people, as was Jeus of Gamala and Queen Helena. I think what has happened is that Josephus has taken the "ancient idea" referred to by Suetonius, ie., that the ruler of the world would come from Judea and convinced him that the reason for this is that to be popular as a Roman Emperor, it is best to adopt an Essene/Gnostic/Nazarite moral approach. The result, in my opinion, is that they decided to write up this whole idea as a basis for a new Emperor, ie., Vespasian and wove the underlying idea into a narrative of a hero figure of the day but with embellishments from popular myths and military campaigns., as Atwill says. I don't believe that the writers of the NT believed in god as an anthrophomorphised being like Serapis or Zeus. They saw life as having a "reason" or "logic" to it. I think they were trying to put forward an idea based on reason and the Jesus narrative is just a literary device or vehicle to deliver the idea to the masses in a form they would recognize. It really isn't therefore, necessary, to figure out who was Jesus, imho.

"I believe Josephus was "behind" the NT."

I agree that it is possible that Josephus, either directly or indirectly, had a hand in writing parts of the Gospels. Remember that the finished products we read today evolved over at least a 200 year period, so they are quite different to the products that Josephus may have helped create.

"Atwill says the Alexanders assisted in writing it."

I'm sure you mean the Flavians.

"Galileean Jews were pro-Roman"

Ah, no. Quite the opposite. Galilean peasants started skirmishes in 4 BCE, possibly the year Yeshua was born. Josephus relates that Judas, son of Ezekias, gath- ered together a band of bandits who broke into the royal armory at Sepphoris, and stole weapons and money. Further south at Jericho, 30 kilometers from Jerusalem, another Jew named Simon led a pack who torched the royal palace. A shepherd named Athronges raised a rabble that roamed the countryside for a few months. Soon most of
Galilee was in revolt. The Roman army responded with brutal force by marching into Galilee, burning towns and villages, and crucify- ing anyone resisting Roman rule. Three thousand Jews were massa- cred. There must have been much terror and many innocent people murdered. (http://www.josephus.org/causesOfWar.htm). There’s no mention of this violence in the Gospels, yet Mary, Joseph and their families must have been involved, either as participants or observers.

Mary was a young girl vulnerable to rampaging troops. It’s possible Yeshua’s biological father was a Roman soldier. (http://jamestabor. com/2010/10/10/the-jesus-son-of-panthera-traditions/).

Ten years later, in 6 CE, the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius, undertook a census to work out who should be paying taxes to Rome. This sparked another revolt led by a Galilean, also named Judas, who many imagined was the messiah. Josephus tells the story:
“There was one Judas, a Galilean, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Zadok, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt. Both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their lib- erty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same. So men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.” (Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.4-6.)

The Romans gathered three legions and four regiments of cavalry, and the movement was quickly and brutally suppressed. (http:// http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...galilean). Judas’ army was routed and the Romans set fire to Sepphoris. This time two thousand Jews were slaughtered. A young Yeshua may have witnessed the battle from a distance. He might have seen the surviving members of Judas’s army crucified on crosses, and a long line of Jewish widows and their children marched off to slavery in Rome. Many Jews were convinced their God would come to their aid in battles, and he may have been dismayed and disappointed that this didn’t happen.

There’s no mention of this encounter in the Gospels either, as they were written in an era when Jewish nationalism was suppressed. Readers didn’t need to know about the violence and bad feeling of the times.

Despite this decisive defeat, the rebels didn’t discard their dreams, but went underground. Judas’ descendants and others continued to oppose Roman rule for generations afterwards. Josephus named them “Sicarii,” because their favorite weapon was the Roman dag- ger, or siva.

Most Palestinian Jews, and particularly the poor peasants of Galilee, must have felt degraded and oppressed by Romans, who had impov- erished them, and killed or sold into slavery many of their relatives and friends. They had it hard from many directions; suffering under the burdens of landlessness, poverty, taxation and sometimes violent oppression. Some Galileans resented their fellow Jews who had par- tially assimilated into the Greco-Roman culture. I think Yeshua was one of these disgruntled rustics.

From the Roman perspective, Palestine was an important province by virtue of its position. It was in “the middle of the crescent” of the Middle East, and shared its coastal water with Italy. It was the gateway to the East, a major stop on every trade route from as far away as China, India, Russia and the West. Galilee was considered a parochial backwater, a festering wound that had failed to become peaceful. Palestine wouldn’t have appealed as a port of call for the out posted Roman trooper. It was a hot, dusty desert filled with indignant natives.

"The result, in my opinion, is that they decided to write up this whole idea as a basis for a new Emperor, ie., Vespasian and wove the underlying idea into a narrative of a hero figure of the day but with embellishments from popular myths and military campaigns., as Atwill says."

Agreed.

"They saw life as having a "reason" or "logic" to it. I think they were trying to put forward an idea based on reason and the Jesus narrative is just a literary device or vehicle to deliver the idea to the masses in a form they would recognise."

Yes… maybe. Yet I think you're neglecting to mention the most important reason that Jesus stories were invented; to undermine militant Judaism by claiming their Messiah had already been and gone, and by diluting purity and exclusivity of Judaism by watering down its membership with law abiding tax paying Gentiles.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: