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
14-05-2014, 08:36 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(14-05-2014 08:32 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 03:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Here is a NSA captured picture of Trainwreck at his keyboard.

Wow, you are ugly as shit.

I'd have stayed with the kitten.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2014, 11:15 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(12-05-2014 10:35 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 06:30 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ThumbsupBig GrinTongueLaugh out load

They have very little chance to succeed, except by imitating the ploy that they recognize as having oppressed their predecessors' ideas. All they want to do is whine with the expectation that their adversaries will capitulate - they don't want to do any work.

WOLF-PAC.com

What are you doing to make the world a better place? Oh, and jacking off in your parent's basement doesn't count. Consider

1. I worked for over 30 years with addicts. I founded a charity.

2. My parents died many years ago.

3. I don't have a basement.

4. Jacking off...? There is a thread here on the "War against Masturbation". I suggest you post there if you have issues.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2014, 11:20 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I doubt the Christians Jesus really existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2014, 11:26 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(14-05-2014 11:20 AM)Leo Wrote:  I doubt the Christians Jesus really existed.

Ding Ding Ding ! ...... we have a winner ! Thumbsup

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes War Horse's post
14-05-2014, 11:29 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(14-05-2014 11:15 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 10:35 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  WOLF-PAC.com

What are you doing to make the world a better place? Oh, and jacking off in your parent's basement doesn't count. Consider

1. I worked for over 30 years with addicts. I founded a charity.

2. My parents died many years ago.

3. I don't have a basement.

4. Jacking off...? There is a thread here on the "War against Masturbation". I suggest you post there if you have issues.

Defensive much, asshole?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
14-05-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(12-05-2014 03:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 11:46 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.


I have difficulty responding to this for a number of reasons.

I don't have access to histories of the period and haven't made it a subject of studies. Most/all of what I post is from something I have found on the internet in the Jewish Encyclopedia or other sites, and articles.

I read somewhere that Galillee, or was it Gamala which is in Galilee, I think, was pro-Roman. I will have to look that up. I think there is some support from that in that Josephus had been to Rome, met Vespasian and was commander of Gamala. What it (?) said was that Gamala filled up with people from elsewhere so it became anti Roman. Jospehus has some sort of affinity with Vespasian. Maybe they just saw eye to eye?? Who knows but Vespasian adopts him and presumably agrees with his Essene, Nazarite views.

Atwill says, somewhere, maybe on a Youtube video that it is Josephus and others, the Alexanders, who write up the New Testament for the Flavians.

I would draw this analogy. There is a "view" represented in the film "Anonymous", that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere. Those who agree with this say that Hamlet is de Vere. This is a similar argument.

One could say, using the analogy, that Hamlet was based on a Danish prince, we don't know who but there were a lot of Danish princes. However, none of them did what Hamlet did or were called Hamlet. Ditto the bigged up Judean preacher who some people think turns into a water walking miracle maker. There are lots of preachers in Judea, but none like Jesus, in 33 AD. So where does it get anyone to say the NT is based on such a figure? If he is, he is so dissimilar to that guy that it is irrelevant that the guy is the basis of the story.

Then, one could say, of the Hamlet story, that it is just made up and is based on the Horus/Nordic myth of revenge, copying Amleth. Just a story...end of discussion. That is easy enough to accept. Yes, for the most part the Jesus story is just a fiction in which most of it is just invented because whoever wrote it probably based it on hearsay and had to make most of it up out of his head.

Then, there is the view that Hamlet is de Vere, renamed and set in an earlier time, different country, all the names changed. But underlying it are many similarities so that when one considers it in the round, Hamlet's ideas and relationships are very similar to those of de Vere. Is this what Jesus is? This idea that there would be a Ruler of the World emerging in Judea, as Suetonius says in The Twelve Caesars, actually gives rise to the Jewish Revolt because along comes someone who is a charismatic leader? But, he loses and the Romans decide to take his character and recast him in the role of a preacher who predicts a Roman victory in Jerusalem and tells people to obey Rome? And, maybe Vespasian actually liked Jesus or admired him, or belonged to the same sect, or was talked into accepting that this sect that this charismatic Jesus character belonged to had a powerful idea, ie., that if a ruler follows the ideas of Gnosticism, they are less likely to end up with a knife in them like Julius Caesar and more likely to be liked and respected like Queen Helena and Izates who had both converted to this religion???

Read Suetonius. Clearly the Flavians had a different philosophy to their predecessors and they had Josephus lurking in the background...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2014, 01:27 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(14-05-2014 11:15 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 10:35 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  WOLF-PAC.com

What are you doing to make the world a better place? Oh, and jacking off in your parent's basement doesn't count. Consider

1. I worked for over 30 years with addicts. I founded a charity.

2. My parents died many years ago.

3. I don't have a basement.

4. Jacking off...? There is a thread here on the "War against Masturbation". I suggest you post there if you have issues.

Note for the slow: I was responding to Trainwreck. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
14-05-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
ZOMG! I found Jesus this morning! No really, it is all true, I have wasted so much of my life being a non-believer than this morning, I look down and VOILA! there he was...in my bowl of oatmeal...sadly I ate it so I don't have any proof....sort of like the bible...meh DroolingDrinking Beverage

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2014, 02:50 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(14-05-2014 01:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Note for the slow: I was responding to Trainwreck. Facepalm

Sounds like you left the challenge, open.

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
14-05-2014, 11:47 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(14-05-2014 02:50 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 01:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Note for the slow: I was responding to Trainwreck. Facepalm

Sounds like you left the challenge, open.

Ha! You assume you are worthy of a challenge, how cute.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: