Jesus was Myth

[nash8]

It does not indicate that.

Do you understand how many people 400,000 actually is?

How could these authorities as you call them know pre hand, about a Galilean peasant, in such large crowds, except for ones own actions that made said person visible.

They couldn't, which is part of the reason why I think they chose to arrest him at night, when he would be seperate from the crowd. Secondly, had Jesus not made himself at least somewhat well known prior to the Passover festival? Would the "authorities" not know about a man traveling around preaching to large amounts of people? Even if they didn't know exactly know what he looked like, (why they needed Judas), they would have known "who" he was prior to the festival.

You mean to meet these authors theological motives.

They wanted to stop a trouble maker who was trying or did incite a riot.

I might agree with you on the theological motives, but I disagree with that. I don't think Roman authorities ever viewed hims as a threat to the peace. I think Jewish leaders, Roman appointed or not, viewed him as a threat to their money train. What happens to the cost of something the more people you go through? It goes up, basically I think Jesus was saying to pay the taxes straight to Rome without going through the middleman.

I don't have a real problem with this.

Except the Romans were the cause, they required the temple to be corrupt. It was the Roman infection that fed the corruption. All Jews would have known this.

Romans were hated for being the oppressors and placing their man as the head Hellenistic Jew Caiaphas running the temple.

I don't think Jesus cared about the temple to be honest. I think he was more worried about Jews being decieved about the true path to happiness, ala Buddhism or some sort of spiritual path, the denial of Kabalah maybe?

Rome required the taxation that oppressed the people, their money left in Romans hands. The temple was just the means.

But did Jewish leaders take any out of the taxes that would oppress the people even more? Is it possible that Jesus knew that the fight against Rome was pointless, and instead he chose to fight against Jewish leaders as he viewed them as worse for oppressing and decieving their own people and then trying to blame it on Rome?

No Jew ever could, Pilate knew he would just wipe them out, if push comes to shove.

It wasn't about overthrowing Roman rule, it was about MONEY

Pilate was forced to keep it flowing, and a riot in the temple would stop the money flow he was factually responsible for. he was ONLY there to make sure the money stayed flowing.

How did the money flow exactly at the Passover festival? People bought goods and they were taxed? People donated to YHVH and it was taxed? How exactly did this work?

He was there to police the event, and he did. His only rick was to be fired by his Government if the money flow was impeded.

AS it was he was fired for being so brutal, which some think he may have committed suicide although there is no evidence for. His records are silent after being fired.

Interesting, was he fired for being to brutal to Jesus, or just brutal in general.

 

[outhouse]

Secondly, had Jesus not made himself at least somewhat well known prior to the Passover festival? Would the "authorities" not know about a man traveling around preaching to large amounts of people?


.

Unsubstantiated.

Who says he historically preached to large crowds?


We are talking about historical Jesus here, not biblical Jesus.

The unknown authors often paralleled Jesus divinity to that of the living emperor who spoke in front of large crowds. These members of the Christians movement who wrote these books were writing to attract Romans to the movement so they would not be viewed as hostile like the Jews were viewed.

just brutal in general.

 

[steeltoes]

They couldn't, which is part of the reason why I think they chose to arrest him at night, when he would be seperate from the crowd. Secondly, had Jesus not made himself at least somewhat well known prior to the Passover festival? Would the "authorities" not know about a man traveling around preaching to large amounts of people? Even if they didn't know exactly know what he looked like, (why they needed Judas), they would have known "who" he was prior to the festival.





I might agree with you on the theological motives, but I disagree with that. I don't think Roman authorities ever viewed hims as a threat to the peace. I think Jewish leaders, Roman appointed or not, viewed him as a threat to their money train. What happens to the cost of something the more people you go through? It goes up, basically I think Jesus was saying to pay the taxes straight to Rome without going through the middleman.





I don't think Jesus cared about the temple to be honest. I think he was more worried about Jews being decieved about the true path to happiness, ala Buddhism or some sort of spiritual path, the denial of Kabalah maybe?



But did Jewish leaders take any out of the taxes that would oppress the people even more? Is it possible that Jesus knew that the fight against Rome was pointless, and instead he chose to fight against Jewish leaders as he viewed them as worse for oppressing and decieving their own people and then trying to blame it on Rome?



How did the money flow exactly at the Passover festival? People bought goods and they were taxed? People donated to YHVH and it was taxed? How exactly did this work?



Interesting, was he fired for being to brutal to Jesus, or just brutal in general.

Brutal in general.

According to Mark 14:48 Jesus was teaching at the temple daily. The priests didn't like the attention Jesus was getting so they plotted to have him arrested. Jesus was not arrested by Roman authorities, but instead by a band of armed men that the priests put together, the next day he was handed over to Pilate. Pilate thought Jesus was innocent of any crime but wanting to please the crowd he handed him over to be crucified.

 

[steeltoes]

Unsubstantiated.

Who says he historically preached to large crowds?


We are talking about historical Jesus here, not biblical Jesus.

The unknown authors often paralleled Jesus divinity to that of the living emperor who spoke in front of large crowds. These members of the Christians movement who wrote these books were writing to attract Romans to the movement so they would not be viewed as hostile like the Jews were viewed.

What do you know about the historical Jesus as opposed to the biblical Jesus? All we have is the gospel account and accordingly Jesus taught at the temple daily, Mark 14:48. It was his daily preaching that annoyed the priests and it was the priests that put together a band of armed men to arrest Jesus. They handed him over to Pilate the next day. Pilate found Jesus innocent of any crime but handed Jesus over to be crucified to please the crowds. That's all we know and we can't confirm any of it. You can dream up scenarios all you like and call it the historical Jesus, but it doesn't mean a thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You can dream up scenarios all you like, it doesn't mean a thing.

Some scenarios are more reasonable than others. The problem with outhouse is that he's promoted a shaky caricature to the status of fact.

 

[outhouse]

Some scenarios are more reasonable than others. The problem with outhouse is that he's promoted a shaky caricature to the status of fact.

Yet I didn't claim fact.

Its true I don't follow old work, or work overly biased, and I don't follow apologetically inclined scholarships. And fringe positions.

 

[outhouse]

All we have is the gospel account and accordingly Jesus taught at the temple daily, Mark 14:48. It was his daily preaching that annoyed the priests and it was the priests that put together a band of armed men to arrest Jesus. .

So Mark was actually there before he wrote this gospel? His sole purpose was to record history accurately? No theological motives?

How did the priest find a man with no loudspeaker in a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people, with thousands of teacher and healers, none of which were happy with Roman oppression and corruption, and the corruption in the temple.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Its true I don't follow old work, or work overly biased, and I don't follow apologetically inclined scholarships. And fringe positions.

Which books have you read?

 

[nash8]

Unsubstantiated.

Who says he historically preached to large crowds?


We are talking about historical Jesus here, not biblical Jesus.

The unknown authors often paralleled Jesus divinity to that of the living emperor who spoke in front of large crowds. These members of the Christians movement who wrote these books were writing to attract Romans to the movement so they would not be viewed as hostile like the Jews were viewed.

Who says he didn't? The only difference I see between biblical Jesus, and Historical Jesus as that one worked miracles and one did not. Speaking to large crowds (15-20 people, or 50-100 people).

What scholarly evidence can you cite that says Jesus didn't speak to fairly large groups of people? Not saying that the authors, at some point, did not parallel Jesus to the living emperor, as I would agree they did, but how does that negate the idea that Jesus also spoke to large groups of people as well?

It seems to me you, are taking parts of the scripture that align with your ideas and using them to support your view, and disregarding other parts of scripture because they do not.

Can you cite some scholarly evidence that gives a solid reasoning behind why the scriptures that say Jesus spoke to large groups of people, were added in by authors, and not historical accounts of the man's life?

So Mark was actually there before he wrote this gospel? His sole purpose was to record history accurately? No theological motives?

How did the priest find a man with no loudspeaker in a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people, with thousands of teacher and healers, none of which were happy with Roman oppression and corruption, and the corruption in the temple.

Not saying it was, he/she/them most definitely had theological motives, but does the fact that they had theological motives discredit their historical accounts as false?

And he couldn't, but he probably would have been able to locate were Jesus was staying at night through word of mouth, then contacted one of Jesus disciples (Judas), and have him identify who Jesus actually was. Sounds like a common military tactic to me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hi, Jay. I need to apologize and beg your forebearance. I just haven't had time to write the opening message of our one-on-one debate regarding the historical Jesus. Just plain too busy.

Would you mind doing it -- writing the opening message? I'm sure many of the lurkers here are looking forward to our debate, so I hope we won't disappoint them.

Thanks, bud.

 

[steeltoes]

So Mark was actually there before he wrote this gospel? His sole purpose was to record history accurately? No theological motives?

I never said Mark was there, never said his gospel was fiction or non fiction, all I said was that this is where the account of Jesus comes from and that it can't be verified.

How did the priest find a man with no loudspeaker in a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people, with thousands of teacher and healers, none of which were happy with Roman oppression and corruption, and the corruption in the temple.

Judas lead an armed group to Jesus according to gMark.

 

[steeltoes]

Unsubstantiated.

Who says he historically preached to large crowds?

The gospels say he preached to large crowds numerous times. Historically, no one said a thing.

We are talking about historical Jesus here, not biblical Jesus.

We can only talk about a biblical Jesus and crop circles for what they're worth, we cannot know anything about an historical Jesus.

The unknown authors often paralleled Jesus divinity to that of the living emperor who spoke in front of large crowds. These members of the Christians movement who wrote these books were writing to attract Romans to the movement so they would not be viewed as hostile like the Jews were viewed.

Perhaps, or they wrote of itinerant preachers.

 

[outhouse]

What scholarly evidence can you cite that says Jesus didn't speak to fairly large groups of people? Not saying that the authors, at some point, did not parallel Jesus to the living emperor, as I would agree they did, but how does that negate the idea that Jesus also spoke to large groups of people as well?

.

Well that would depend on the group he is said to have spoken too and at which time.

EXAMPLE

If you are going to bring up the sermon on the mount, I would then ask are you sure it wasn't the sermon on the valley floor. I would then ask you how many people could hear a single person? I would then ask you how many people really could have attended a event in rural Galilee? I would then ask if his parables as recorded in scripture make sense if they were rambled off one after another? I would then ask why are their contradictions in what was said depending on which author you supply?

 

[outhouse]

I never said

That's is the problem here. Your failing to use any sort of scholarship to discuss, instead winging it from a point of conspiracy minded mentality.

Jesus has historicity, how much is debatable.

Paul has historicity that is not really up for debate.

 

[steeltoes]

Originally Posted by steeltoes
I never said

That's is the problem here. Your failing to use any sort of scholarship to discuss, instead winging it from a point of conspiracy minded mentality.

Jesus has historicity, how much is debatable.

Paul has historicity that is not really up for debate.

No, the problem is you saying things that I never said, that is the problem here.

Nice resort to ad homs on your part, when all else fails eh?

 

[nash8]

I hate to end this huge penis contest, but outhouse can you answer some of my questions, and/or cite some sources to answer my questions that I asked on page 53 of this thread. I was actually getting some good information from this thread til the two of ya'll decided to "whup em' out".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Absolutely. It did so in many ways and through many people. However, it stopped doing so about a century ago.

:clap

 

[outhouse]

and others, have questioned your general lack of knowledge.

ONLY Because of the ignorance mythicist have of any real scholarships, and their lack of ability to continue their education levels remaining in a stuck loop of ill founded conspiracy mentality and poor methodology.

Its not my fault they do not understand what most scholars actually report.

 

[outhouse]

What scholarly evidence can you cite that says Jesus didn't speak to fairly large groups of people? Not saying that the authors, at some point, did not parallel Jesus to the living emperor, as I would agree they did, but how does that negate the idea that Jesus also spoke to large groups of people as well?
.

Multiple reasons

Because on the sermon on the mount, that many people could not just drop work and run off to hear one of many teachers.

These were very very poor people living on bread dipped in vinegar or olive oil, lentels and almost no meat at all less Passover. No work equals no meal.


Another aspect would be large groups and a teacher would be viewed as possible military leader or rebellious individual.


Another aspect, you cant be heard outside and I highly doubt a teacher would be yelling at the top of his lungs.


Jesus while alive was a nobody, there were literally hundreds of teachers jusst like him doing the same thing just to survive. Jesus taught and healed so he could get at the dinner table for scraps to survive, in my opinion.

It seems to me you, are taking parts of the scripture that align with your ideas and using them to support your view, and disregarding other parts of scripture because they do not.

Using cultural anthropology we can rebuild many aspects of Galilean life. The bible doesn't jive with reality of Galileans, because the bible was written by Hellenist who knew nothing of the real life he lived. They wrote decades later and filled in what they needed for theological reasons, they were not trying to recreate history of Galilee.

They used allegory and metaphors and mythology, they importance lied, by the messages and morals they taught.

Not saying it was, he/she/them most definitely had theological motives, but does the fact that they had theological motives discredit their historical accounts as false?

We see in may places where they used fiction, and mythology by scholars reconstruction.

Again these people were not there, they were writing almost 40 years after the fact at the earliest for the gospels. They had no direct knowledge of the events and relied on different oral traditions that had grown in mythology for decades.

These authors were far removed from any actual event.

And he couldn't, but he probably would have been able to locate were Jesus was staying at night through word of mouth, then contacted one of Jesus disciples (Judas), and have him identify who Jesus actually was. Sounds like a common military tactic to me

These authors knew nothing of the events described in vivid detail. The gospels themselves are all but silent on the real disciples except for Jesus inner circle. A traveling teacher could not have large crowds following him or he would end up like John the Baptist.

Someone, who knows what name he really was may have helped temple authorities track him down, we don't know. the thirty pieces of silver is only symbolic because that was the price paid for a slave from the OT.

You have to remember these people were factually trying to distance themselves from Judaism, making the Jews look like the villains. instead of telling the truth about how severe Roman oppression was, because they didn't want to be persecuted like the Jews.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Comes straight from credible sources such as, Martin Meyers. Candida Moss. John Crossan. E.P.Sanders. Marcus Borg. Elaine Pagels. Johnathon Reed. Meyers. John Meier. Dale Martin.

None of whom you respect enough to take the time to actually read one of their books, and, as a result, you are legitimately deemed to be far less credible than the sources you quote-mine.