Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[columbus]

No Tom....... The Romans wanted the Jewish religion and social system to continue.

Only as long as, and to the extent that, they supported Roman domination. When the Jews continued to rebel for decades, the Romans first destroyed the Temple. When that didn't quell violent Jewish rebellion, they destroyed the whole nation.

Pre-diaspora, the Romans ran the government and a puppet Sanhedrin ran everything else. None of those people had much interest in the welfare of most Jews. Jesus apparently opposed all of them. But to say the Romans wanted the Jewish religion and social system to continue is just wrong. The Romans had found that generally leaving such aspects of a province alone had made the provinces easier to manage.
In Judea this policy didn't work out.
Tom

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That's not for me to guess at. It's for them to come forward and put their own opinions. But John the Baptist clearly had no respect for them, and he got a fairly good press from Josephus, .....No?

I am simply gleaning what can be found in G-Mark.


Edit:- What do you think that Christians today think about the Borgia Family history?
2nd EDIT:- What do you think I think about England's record concerning Ireland? I'm English!

No, it's a point of bias, not saying that temple corruption didn't exist, people get corrupt, but the sweeping statements made in John, particularly considering that much of the arguments were against the Pharisees and not the Sadducees (who ran much of the temple services), I'm wondering if they were not just all lumped together by the gospel writers.

 

[oldbadger]

You have not proved that.

NO maps exsit from this time period, thus no maps can be used to determine Bethpages location.

So your scholar's claimed position is uncertain?
Quad erat demonstrandum.

Most place it on the road in question.

Weak....... Who places it on the road? Who!

wiki/Mount_of_Olives....

The Mount of Olives is to the North of the friggin' road!

wiki/Bethphage...........It was likely on the road from Jerusalem to............. Jericho

You appear to have rubbished G-Mark ...... and rushed to do so...... on the likely position of Bethpage. Even if Bethpage had been on the road and the Jerusalem side of Bethany your case was weak, but this...... this might be your idea of scholarship, but it's my idea of completely inept investigation.

here is the Franciscan ..........Church of Bethphage at a likely location.

So now all professors and scholars and encyclopedias are all in error. :sarcastic

Earlier you wrote, or copied 'Most'......... There is so little consistency in your ideas and arguments.
And there isn't anything written by the scholars or encyclopedias which positively fixes Bethpage.
You challenged me to refute this twaddle, and refiute it I did, by showiung that there is no fixed position...... and this was your attack to destroy the credibility of G-Mark.

 

[oldbadger]

No, it's a point of bias, not saying that temple corruption didn't exist, people get corrupt, but the sweeping statements made in John, particularly considering that much of the arguments were against the Pharisees and not the Sadducees (who ran much of the temple services), I'm wondering if they were not just all lumped together by the gospel writers.

Hi............ I don't trust G-John. The G writers could have done what you suggest..... true.............

............ but in G-Mark John the Baptist shows that he despised the whole ruling priesthood, who shared control with the Prefect (Judea, Idumea etc) and the remaining Herod Brothers (such as Antipas in Perea and Galilee). John the B's anger was clearly directed as these folks.

I have a belief that Yeshua did not initiate this movement, but JtB, which is why I keep going back to his reported words in G-Mark.

One angle here........ I don't understand why Jewish people would feel under attack from reports in G-Mark, because in G-Mark the working people were upright and true to their Lord, whereas they believed that the upper-class were corrupt cheats etc. Obviously the rest of the NT could well annoy them intensely. What do you think?

 

[oldbadger]

Only as long as, and to the extent that, they supported Roman domination. When the Jews continued to rebel for decades, the Romans first destroyed the Temple. When that didn't quell violent Jewish rebellion, they destroyed the whole nation.

Pre-diaspora, the Romans ran the government and a puppet Sanhedrin ran everything else. None of those people had much interest in the welfare of most Jews. Jesus apparently opposed all of them. But to say the Romans wanted the Jewish religion and social system to continue is just wrong. The Romans had found that generally leaving such aspects of a province alone had made the provinces easier to manage.
In Judea this policy didn't work out.
Tom

Yes.... OK....... BUT
But in Yeshua's time this state of affairs was different. The Prefect had a minimal force, I think based on the coast at Caesarea (?) and left the running of Judea, Idumea etc to the controlling priesthood. The priesthood clearly did not care for the working people.

I believe (not much else I can do) that Yeshua was attempting to continue JtB's mission to be heard..... for better conditions, more just decisions, less crippling taxation... upon the working classes.

The fact that it all crashed and burned 30-50 years later is irrelevant, surely?

 

[outhouse]

So your scholar's claimed position is uncertain?
Quad erat demonstrandum.



Weak....... Who places it on the road? Who!

The Mount of Olives is to the North of the friggin' road!


You appear to have rubbished G-Mark ...... and rushed to do so...... on the likely position of Bethpage. Even if Bethpage had been on the road and the Jerusalem side of Bethany your case was weak, but this...... this might be your idea of scholarship, but it's my idea of completely inept investigation.







Earlier you wrote, or copied 'Most'......... There is so little consistency in your ideas and arguments.
And there isn't anything written by the scholars or encyclopedias which positively fixes Bethpage.
You challenged me to refute this twaddle, and refiute it I did, by showiung that there is no fixed position...... and this was your attack to destroy the credibility of G-Mark.

Going off on a rant without any evidence will not change what the majority think.

Even if Gmarks geography is correct, it doesn't make him the author.

Nothing at all hinges if geography is correct, it only matters if it is incorrect, which many claim it is.

You certainly are not proving the location of Bethpage off the J road.

 

[oldbadger]

Going off on a rant without any evidence will not change what the majority think.

No rant...... just a firm and tenacious defence of G-Mark.

Even if Gmarks geography is correct, it doesn't make him the author.

I never said he was the author! I said he was the compiler and part author. There are a number of reports which are edited/compiled into G-Mark, methinks.

Nothing at all hinges if geography is correct, it only matters if it is incorrect, which many claim it is.

Nah........ You never gave a list..... couldn't give a list, maybe?

You certainly are not proving the location of Bethpage off the J road.

Gotcha! It was you and your chosen scholar that claimed a position for Bethpage, between Bethany and Jerusalem, on the road to disprove G-Mark's knowledge of all Palestine :biglaugh:
All I had to do was cast doubt in order to defend.
That was an easy defence..,.... honestly.

You should reconsider G-Mark as the most accurate report of Yeshua's continuation of JtB's mission. Of course there is evangelical vigour to be stripped away, but the guts of G-Mark is so clear.

 

[A grumpy old troll]

I think a man named Jesus existed. Roman historian Suetonius mentions him in surviving biography known as the "12 Ceasars". He mentions him as a thorn in Emperor Tiberious's side since he was causing disturbances in Judea while the Romans were trying to occupy it. Essentially he was inciting a riot for lack of a better term.

I do not think he was anything more than a man though. Not to be offensive, but I think what most likely happened was a Roman soldier ( the theory is his name was Pantera ) had relations or forced himself on Mary. She was probally already bethrothed to Joseph and in those days even a rape victim could be accountable and honor killed.

She concocted the lie of divine intervention to placate her family and culkolded Joseph. As with any lie it got out of hand and she had know choice but to keep running with it.

Jesus or any child for that matter, that is brainwashed from day one that he someone divine, probally believed it convinced others. There is no lie that is more belivable than one told by someone that actually believes it themself.


This is all conjecture of course. This theory also explains the visual depiction of Jesus being a blue eyed caucasion looking person. Jews in this time period looked more Arabic then they do now ( before they dispersed and interbred with Europeans). Since the father was Roman it would explain why he had whiter features then the indigenous jewish population.

See what most people don't realize is that until 100 years ago religion is all people had. In the ancient days only the clergy or goverment were literate. Mary went to her temple and knew all the OT stories by heart. When she had to explain the pregnancy she basically plugged in the holes from the OT to make it a self-fufilling prophecy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This is all conjecture of course. This theory also explains the visual depiction of Jesus being a blue eyed caucasion looking person. Jews in this time period looked more Arabic then they do now ( before they dispersed and interbred with Europeans). Since the father was Roman it would explain why he had whiter features then the indigenous jewish population.

Seriously? You think we have depictions of Jesus which are somehow related to the actual man?

Like people who knew him painted pictures of him?

 

[psychoslice]

Ha, the JW's have Jesus portrayed with short back and sides, lol.

 

[outhouse]

Of course there is evangelical vigour to be stripped away,

And only with education can one determine how much to erase.


Anyone can erase at will, it is the accuracy that matters.

 

[metis]

I don't think that this is correct.

It was the Priesthood who did not want the Temple money-making operations disrupted. They carried out the arrest and then appealed for an execution, which only the Prefect could grant.

If it was strictly a verbal and internal dispute with us Jews, the Romans wouldn't have gotten involved and would have referred it to the Great Sanhedrin, as was the practice. The Romans benefited from the money conversion at the Temple as they tool a chunk out for themselves, and Jesus turning the tables over would have sounded the alarm for the Romans, and they were highly intolerant of anything that threatened their control. Certainly there was animosity between the Jewish leadership and Jesus, but the Romans wouldn't have been interested in that.

The gospels were written much later after Jesus' death whereas the split and animosity that went with the split was in full swing, therefore demonizing "the Jews" is quite evident in the texts, especially in John's gospel. Even most Christian theologians that I have read recognize this approach found in them. We have to remember that religious texts tend to be far more subjective than objective.

 

[oldbadger]

And only with education can one determine how much to erase.

Anyone can erase at will, it is the accuracy that matters.

Education..... like the last scholar you wheeled on to stage?

..... bring 'em on...... bring 'em on......

It's not just academics you need........ it's investigators.

......... So bring 'em on.

But it would be much better if you made your own case, your own decisions, and then put them forward. Then you're moving forward.

 

[oldbadger]

If it was strictly a verbal and internal dispute with us Jews, the Romans wouldn't have gotten involved and would have referred it to the Great Sanhedrin, as was the practice.

Hello again......
No. The Sanhedrin was not allowed to carry out executions without the Prefect's permission. That is why the Prefect had to be involved.

The Romans benefited from the money conversion at the Temple as they tool a chunk out for themselves, and Jesus turning the tables over would have sounded the alarm for the Romans, and they were highly intolerant of anything that threatened their control.

No! Wrong! Yeshua turned over tables, threw down benches and then picketed the Courts for a considerable time. Time enough to debate with priests and appeal to the crowds. No Romans came. And then he did it the next day, and the next..... it's all written down for all to read. And no Romans came. This was a Sanhedrin Arrest and 'trial' and am appeal for exceution to the Prefect.

Certainly there was animosity between the Jewish leadership and Jesus, but the Romans wouldn't have been interested in that.

The Romans would uphold the Sanhedrin and the Head Priest, because the Jewish leaders controlled all.

The gospels were written much later after Jesus' death whereas the split and animosity that went with the split was in full swing, therefore demonizing "the Jews" is quite evident in the texts, especially in John's gospel.

I don't know about the various Creeds of Christianity, but I am not a Christian, and do not demonise any Jews. The Jews that I feel empathic towards were the working class Jews.... the righteous Jews. These Jews did not have much respect for the upper-class and ruling Jews. So my feelings about Yeshua are that he was a Jew, like John the Baptist, (with their followers) were supporting Jews.

Yeshua did commit serious crimes when he interrupted the Temple processes, and picketed the Courts to stop the sellers and traders from passing. The death sentence was no doubt just, and supported by the Prefect.

I am just looking at these reports from a historical pov, and would hate any of my beliefs to influence any judgmental Christians. It's 2000 years ago, and since then we English have been rather too ruthless for me to feel like being any kind of a judge. But I'll debate heatedly for G-Mark's compiled report!

Even most Christian theologians that I have read recognize this approach found in them. We have to remember that religious texts tend to be far more subjective than objective.

Oh.... please save me from Christian Theologians! My favourite Historian on this subject is a Jew. Geza Vermes. His books are so readable, and so clear.

 

[steeltoes]

We have to remember that religious texts tend to be far more subjective than objective.

Yes, and the question of Jesus' very existence is a subjective exercise.

Entertaining the idea that Jesus was historical is one thing, embracing the idea is quite another evidenced by the quarrels over what he said and what he did by true believers of an historical Jesus. The arguments that make Jesus mythical are no different, bad arguments abound on all sides. What else can we expect from interpreting religious texts?

 

[metis]

Hello again......
No. The Sanhedrin was not allowed to carry out executions without the Prefect's permission. That is why the Prefect had to be involved.


No! Wrong! Yeshua turned over tables, threw down benches and then picketed the Courts for a considerable time. Time enough to debate with priests and appeal to the crowds. No Romans came. And then he did it the next day, and the next..... it's all written down for all to read. And no Romans came. This was a Sanhedrin Arrest and 'trial' and am appeal for exceution to the Prefect.


The Romans would uphold the Sanhedrin and the Head Priest, because the Jewish leaders controlled all.


I don't know about the various Creeds of Christianity, but I am not a Christian, and do not demonise any Jews. The Jews that I feel empathic towards were the working class Jews.... the righteous Jews. These Jews did not have much respect for the upper-class and ruling Jews. So my feelings about Yeshua are that he was a Jew, like John the Baptist, (with their followers) were supporting Jews.

Yeshua did commit serious crimes when he interrupted the Temple processes, and picketed the Courts to stop the sellers and traders from passing. The death sentence was no doubt just, and supported by the Prefect.

I am just looking at these reports from a historical pov, and would hate any of my beliefs to influence any judgmental Christians. It's 2000 years ago, and since then we English have been rather too ruthless for me to feel like being any kind of a judge. But I'll debate heatedly for G-Mark's compiled report!



Oh.... please save me from Christian Theologians! My favourite Historian on this subject is a Jew. Geza Vermes. His books are so readable, and so clear.

Sorry, but the above just doesn't add up, imo, especially because you have the cart in front of the horse. The Romans were the ones who were calling the shots that led to Jesus' execution-- not the Jewish leaders. Nor was this incident with Jesus the only one like it, as there were many self-proclaimed "messiahs" running around, but unless they created trouble for the Romans, they were pretty much just ignored. We also know from records how the Sanhedrin operated in general vis-a-vis the Romans, so we simply don't have to rely just on the gospels to understand the general procedures used.

So, I guess we have no common ground to work on.

 

[outhouse]

My favourite Historian on this subject is a Jew. Geza Vermes. .

Had many great ideas, but is only one opinion of many credible scholars.

That is why the Prefect had to be involved.

What we see, is Pailte there to police the event, and to collect and take back the taxes required. .

It was Pilates job to keep the peace and keep the money flowing.

No! Wrong! Yeshua turned over tables, threw down benches and then picketed the Courts for a considerable time. Time enough to debate with priests and appeal to the crowds. No Romans came. And then he did it the next day, and the next..... it's all written down for all to read.

LOL

Yes, written 40 years later by people that were not even there, writing to a Roman audience. Jesus very enemy.


If Jesus had tipped over a bank tellers stand, he would have been wrestled to the ground by a guard and taken out and hanged with other thiefs caught.

You dont jus walk into the national treasury and have untold money not guarded and protected from large crowds.

The correct answer is we dont know what kind of disturbance happened, and we dont know how long jesus stayed in the temple afterwards.

because the Jewish leaders controlled all.

Yet we see Romans controlling all with military presense at the temple to keep peace.

Romans also placed their own Hellenist in power to run the temple and control the money.

You mean the rich Hellenist who worked hand in hand with the Romans using Roman muscle controlled everything.

But I'll debate heatedly for G-Mark's compiled report!

Oh you mean you will debate the unknown authors compilation?

 

[outhouse]

Sorry, but the above just doesn't add up, imo, especially because you have the cart in front of the horse.

I have to agree whole hearted.

The Romans were the ones who were calling the shots that led to Jesus' execution-- not the Jewish leaders

Absolutely correct.

Well known and documented that Romans policed the Temple and often butchered Jews, and Galileans were pretty much top of that list.

. Nor was this incident with Jesus the only one like it, as there were many self-proclaimed "messiahs" running around, but unless they created trouble for the Romans, they were pretty much just ignored.

At Passover there would have been thousands of characters like Jesus teaching and preaching.

Starting a riot on the other hand gets one noticed by the Romans.

We also know from records how the Sanhedrin operated in general vis-a-vis the Romans, so we simply don't have to rely just on the gospels to understand the general procedures used.

Exactly!

The gospel of Mark was produced for a Roman audience, making Jews look like the bad guys. The division of Jews form this movement needs to be addressed in proper context.

It would have never reflected the Jewish hatred for its Roman enemies nor focussed on Roman control and oppression.

So, I guess we have no common ground to work on.

You do with me.


I find your view right as rain.

 

[steeltoes]

Sorry, but the above just doesn't add up, imo, especially because you have the cart in front of the horse. The Romans were the ones who were calling the shots that led to Jesus' execution-- not the Jewish leaders. Nor was this incident with Jesus the only one like it, as there were many self-proclaimed "messiahs" running around, but unless they created trouble for the Romans, they were pretty much just ignored. We also know from records how the Sanhedrin operated in general vis-a-vis the Romans, so we simply don't have to rely just on the gospels to understand the general procedures used.

So, I guess we have no common ground to work on.

The gospels can't be relied on to understand the general procedures used so perhaps they were written to serve another purpose. Carry on pretending to know what really happened though, that much is entertaining.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Entertaining the idea that Jesus was historical is one thing, embracing the idea is quite another evidenced by the quarrels over what he said and what he did by true believers of an historical Jesus. The arguments that make Jesus mythical are no different, bad arguments abound on all sides. What else can we expect from interpreting religious texts?

If Jesus was not historical, then the Jesus Game is meaningless. It would be like arguing over Paul Bunyon's true ax-wielding prowess. Could he really split a 36" log with a single swipe, as is recorded in some accounts? Or did it take him three chops, as sworn to in other accounts?

No, we can't argue over the nature of a mythical being, not with a straight face.

So Jesus must have existed as an historical person.