My view on Jesus.

[Shadow Wolf]

I was clear in the OP, what is your problem with differing opinions to yours?

No bible believer calls biblical stories allegorical myths, why should i when there is actually historical evidence for how rome treated its criminals? No such evidence exists for the life and death of Jesus

Better preserved, there are NO complete original copies, all there are is hundreds of different re-writes so don't make me laugh

Because you are that vile, temptress woman who was decieved by the serpent amd aren't properly learning things from your husband, so you forgot to include what is always supposed to be included. Even when the discussion is history and science. You burst religious bubbles, neglect to include the Bible, and are trying to decieved good Christian men as the woman was decieved.

 

[ChristineM]

Because you are that vile, temptress woman who was decieved by the serpent amd aren't properly learning things from your husband, so you forgot to include what is always supposed to be included. Even when the discussion is history and science. You burst religious bubbles, neglect to include the Bible, and are trying to decieved good Christian men as the woman was decieved.

Oh, i must apologize to my beleaguered husband...

What else was it???

 

[Kooky]

If you are going to make up your own story about Jesus Christ and disregard the biblical scriptures as historical accounts, call them merely allegorical myths, you may as well be consistent and do the same for other ancient writings by and about Plato, Aristotle, and Homer, because the New Testament documents are much more numerous and better preserved than any other ancient writings.

The difference between, for example, Socrates and Jesus is that we have several independent accounts of Socrates from people who not only met the guy in his lifetime, but are verifiable historical figures in their own right; both Aristophanes and Xenophon were fairly influential and prominent Athenian authors, and both give differing but not wholly contradictory accounts of his life in Athens - alongside his most ardent follower, Plato.

The problem with the Biblical accounts are that

• none of them were written in Jesus of Nazareth's lifetime
• none were written by people who actually knew him
• they all have the same, very explicit agenda - to bring the Good News of His resurrection and divinity - that runs contrary to facts finding
• some of the historical events they assert are either not verifiable, wrongly dated, or outright fabrications
  
• they can't even agree on very basic facts about his life, such as where he was born

Now, a more apt comparison would be between Jesus and Pythagoras - both were extremely influential, revered by their followers as religious or quasi-religious figures, and seem to have come from obscurity in terms of the historical record. And indeed, many ancient scholars question the historicity of the many, many legends that his followers had been spreading about him after his 'alleged' death (His followers alleged him to be the son of Apollo, and therefore argued he was reunited with his divine father after his passing, rather than dying like a mere mortal).

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I have given outlines of my view on Jesus several times in the last three or four weeks. Some people thought interesting, others obviously disagreed and a couple were outright hostile to the idea.

So i thought (yes it has been known) that a discussion thread would be a good idea to post my belief.

I am a full blown atheist with an interest in religion, particularly (for personal reasons) Christianity. I have also studied as a hobby minus/plus 100 years of the fall of the Roman Republic/rise of Empire. Just so you know this won't be a theological discussion but will have historical contexts based on my understanding of Roman life. I have come to this concussion, not only because of history but the accounts in the bible simply do not make sense given that history.

Where to begin, the beginning i guess is as good a place as any.

Jesus was born as the Talmud and other hebrew texts have it as Yeshu ben Pantera (Jesus son of Pantera). I take this as an illegitimate conception/birth, possibly by rape. Pantera was non other than a Roman soldier, Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera.

From birth to about 30 years nothing is heard of him. There are lots of stories but no facts. Of this period i suggest he was growing up with a deep resentment of his absentee father who was posted to Germany, where his gravestone can be seen.

View attachment 50597

Which fermented to a deep resentment of the Roman occupation.

It is my view that Jesus joined the Zionist movement the "Fourth Philosophy" and became an agitator, anarchist and terrorist against the Roman occupation. (A view echoed and expanded in books like Jesus the Terrorist by Peter Cresswell). Also possible that he was also a member of the Sicarri.

Remember, Rome was accepting of any religion and gods, to attempt to impose one god was not only traitorous to Roman belief it was also an insult to the emperor who was himself deemed a god.

Jesus was caught, (possibly with the help of Saulus) tried and executed for his crimes against Rome and the Emperor and given a traitors death of crucifixion.

A note here on methods of execution in Rome. There were several methods used depending on the crime, from being thrown off a high cliff or garoting for run of the mill crimes. Two of the most serious crimes were patricide (Rome ranked a father highly) which involved flogging then being sewn into a sack with a dog, a dunghill cock, a viper and a monkey. The sack is thrown into the depths of the sea or a river. And importantly for this OP, treason which require execution by crucifixion.

He was crucified and supposed given to family/followers for interment. This simply did not happen under Rome. The criminal was left on the cross to rot as an example of roman justice. However it seems that in this case it wouldn't make a good story so.

Assume that he was released from the cross before he died. Was nursed to a semblance of health and was later seen walking around town. Unfortunately the iron nails used to pin him to the cross were not sterile, probably rusty and teaming with bacteria. He succumbed to blood poisoning never to be seen again.

Now fast forward 350 years(ish). A growing religion in need of guidance, the bible was compiled using the OT and various selected stories to create a saviour.

Maybe Jesus was remembered in folk memory as one who incited a oneness in the Jewish people. Add to that the works of John the Baptist who really was a good/religious man. And a few tales of magic and miracles and you have a New Testement on which to base a religion.

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Son of God - that is my bias.

I would not be surprised if Jewish record keepers recorded that Jesus was the son of a Roman - because they hated both Jesus and the Romans - so it would be an easy way to discredit both.

I do not believe that the Romans would have considered the Lord Jesus Christ a traitor for claiming that there was only the one God - because all the Jews at the time believed in only one God. Their entire Law was predicated on it.

However - if I'm wrong and the Romans did consider Him a traitor - then they would have left Him on the cross - as you said - and would not have allowed Him to be "released from the cross" by His family and followers.

So - which is it? Was He a Roman traitor or not?

Because if He was - there would have been no way they would have allowed Him to leave the cross - and if He wasn't - then the Romans had no reason to execute Him.

The New Testament claims that it was the Jews - not the Romans - who considered the Lord Jesus Christ a traitor and demanded His crucifixion - which to them would have been considered a very ignominious death - because I believe their preferred method would have been stoning - according to their Law.

They not only wanted Him dead - but they wanted to humiliate Him - to carry out His unlawful death outside the Law - and they also probably wanted to draw blame away from themselves and more toward the Romans - since that was their preferred method of execution - not the Jews way.

The New Testament also claims that Pilate saw no reason - at least according to Roman law - to execute the Lord Jesus Christ.

And since the reason for His execution was not treason - according to Roman law - it would make sense that they would have allowed His family and followers to take His body from the cross upon His death - rather than staying to rot.

So - just to summarize - it is impossible to prove the paternal lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ - but the Talmud and other Hebrew texts are far from unbiased sources - and I would actually consider them to be antagonistic ones.

You can't claim that the Lord Jesus Christ was executed for being a traitor to Rome - yet also claim that the Romans allowed the body of the Lord to be removed by His family and followers.

That just doesn't make any sense.

So - those are the two big issues I have with your view - but I do think that it was well thought out nonetheless - good job.

God bless. Dieu bénisse

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, i must apologize to my beleaguered husband...

What else was it???

Paul was the entirety of that.
You didn't miss much.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Son of God - that is my bias.

To which you are welcome

I would not be surprised if Jewish record keepers recorded that Jesus was the son of a Roman - because they hated both Jesus and the Romans - so it would be an easy way to discredit both.

Possible but with just as much evidence as the alternative

I do not believe that the Romans would have considered the Lord Jesus Christ a traitor for claiming that there was only the one God - because all the Jews at the time believed in only one God. Their entire Law was predicated on it.

The difference between believing while accepting other religions can also have their place in non Jewish society and actively fermenting anti roman feeling, openly denying the gods of rome including the emperor as a god was treason.

However - if I'm wrong and the Romans did consider Him a traitor - then they would have left Him on the cross - as you said - and would not have allowed Him to be "released from the cross" by His family and followers.

Yes,which is why i said "assume" at the start of that paragraph, and explained as much later in the thread
It is one scenario,however unlikely that explains why he was seen after his supposed death.

So - which is it? Was He a Roman traitor or not?

I was specific,it is my belief he was a traitor, crucifixion says as much

The New Testament claims

I put as much faith in NT claims as i do in Michael Mouse

The New Testament also claims

See previous comment

And since the reason for His execution was not treason -

Eh? Can you explain crucifixion any other way?

So - just to summarize - it is impossible to prove the paternal lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ - but the Talmud and other Hebrew texts are far from unbiased sources -

In the same way the NT is far from unbiased. However as @cOLTER has indicated, there are other sources, celsus/origen

You can't claim that the Lord Jesus Christ was executed for being a traitor to Rome - yet also claim that the Romans allowed the body of the Lord to be removed by His family and followers.

I am sure you read my op

So - those are the two big issues I have with your view - but I do think that it was well thought out nonetheless - good job.

Thank you for your magnanimous gesture, appreciated

 

[InChrist]

The difference between, for example, Socrates and Jesus is that we have several independent accounts of Socrates from people who not only met the guy in his lifetime, but are verifiable historical figures in their own right; both Aristophanes and Xenophon were fairly influential and prominent Athenian authors, and both give differing but not wholly contradictory accounts of his life in Athens - alongside his most ardent follower, Plato.

The problem with the Biblical accounts are that

• none of them were written in Jesus of Nazareth's lifetime
• none were written by people who actually knew him
• they all have the same, very explicit agenda - to bring the Good News of His resurrection and divinity - that runs contrary to facts finding
• some of the historical events they assert are either not verifiable, wrongly dated, or outright fabrications
  
• they can't even agree on very basic facts about his life, such as where he was born

Now, a more apt comparison would be between Jesus and Pythagoras - both were extremely influential, revered by their followers as religious or quasi-religious figures, and seem to have come from obscurity in terms of the historical record. And indeed, many ancient scholars question the historicity of the many, many legends that his followers had been spreading about him after his 'alleged' death (His followers alleged him to be the son of Apollo, and therefore argued he was reunited with his divine father after his passing, rather than dying like a mere mortal).

Jesus Christ did not arise from historical obscurity. The scriptures contain His detailed genealogy, as well as details concerning His birth, life, death and resurrection in fulfillment of numerous prophecies.


365 Messianic Prophecies

The Top 40 Messianic Prophecies

 

[ChristineM]

Jesus Christ did not arise from historical obscurity. The scriptures contain His detailed genealogy, as well as details concerning His birth, life, death and resurrection in fulfillment of numerous prophecies.


365 Messianic Prophecies

The Top 40 Messianic Prophecies

Actually the bible is completely missing 90% of the life.

Genioligy can easily be fabricated to make a compelling story when there are nothing so basic a record of births, deaths and marriages.

And he met very few of the messianic prophecies, which is why those who penned those prophecies do nor in any way consider the bible jesus as a messiah

As to the birth, death and resurrection, now my belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus Christ did not arise from historical obscurity. The scriptures contain His detailed genealogy, as well as details concerning His birth, life, death and resurrection in fulfillment of numerous prophecies.


365 Messianic Prophecies

The Top 40 Messianic Prophecies

The 365 "Messianic Prophecies" are not. In fact they are not even prophecies.

If it is permissible to quote mine the Bible then I can quote mine the Bible to "prove" that is says "there is no God" at least 12 times. Does that prove that God does not exist? If it does not then those quote mines do not support Jesus at all. You can't have it both ways.

 

[InChrist]

The 365 "Messianic Prophecies" are not. In fact they are not even prophecies.

If it is permissible to quote mine the Bible then I can quote mine the Bible to "prove" that is says "there is no God" at least 12 times. Does that prove that God does not exist? If it does not then those quote mines do not support Jesus at all. You can't have it both ways.

I am sure you can attempt to “prove” there is no God by pulling 12 verses or words out of their context. Anyone can pretty much say the Bible says anything by disregarding context and many do. That doesn’t make their claims true or prove anything. There is no way reading verses or passages in context or the entirety of the Bible one could prove it says there is no God. Contrary to this, the messianic prophecies are embedded within the theme of the whole of scripture concerning God’s revelation of the Savior of the world and redemption plan for al who have faith in Him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am sure you can attempt to “prove” there is no God by pulling 12 verses or words out of their context. Anyone can pretty much say the Bible says anything by disregarding context and many do. That doesn’t make their claims true or prove anything. There is no way reading verses or passages in context or the entirety of the Bible one could prove it says there is no God. Contrary to this, the messianic prophecies are embedded within the theme of the whole of scripture concerning God’s revelation of the Savior of the world and redemption plan for al who have faith in Him.

LOL!! No, no no. You have it all backwards.

Your so called "prophecies" are mostly just verses quoted out of context. They are not prophecies. They are not evidence for Jesus. In the same way what I would be doing is merely abusing the Bible. I used that example to show the fallacy of your reasoning. I would not make that mistake. You did.

 

[InChrist]

Actually the bible is completely missing 90% of the life.

Genioligy can easily be fabricated to make a compelling story when there are nothing so basic a record of births, deaths and marriages.

And he met very few of the messianic prophecies, which is why those who penned those prophecies do nor in any way consider the bible jesus as a messiah

As to the birth, death and resurrection, now my belief.

What does it matter if 90% of the life of Jesus is not discussed in the scriptures if the parts which are necessary and important are accounted for and recorded? There’s nothing missing that needs to be there to make the gospel message of salvation or His position as Savior of the world any more clear.

With the stringent records kept in the Roman Empire where everyone was registered I doubt genealogy records could be easily fabricated. That’s your own assumption.
The writers of the messianic prophecies were long dead, but it’s more reasonable to think the religious leaders denied them because they considered Jesus a threat to their power over the people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does it matter if 90% of the life of Jesus is not discussed in the scriptures if the parts which are necessary and important are accounted for and recorded? There’s nothing missing that needs to be there to make the gospel message of salvation or His position as Savior of the world any more clear.

With the stringent records kept in the Roman Empire where everyone was registered I doubt genealogy records could be easily fabricated. That’s your own assumption.
The writers of the messianic prophecies were long dead, but it’s more reasonable to think the religious leaders denied them because they considered Jesus a threat to their power over the people.

What? Where did you get the idea that everyone was registered back then? If you are talking about for tax purposes you would need to show that genealogy was part of that registration. And you do realize that the Nativity in Luke was a made up story, at least I hope that you do. He made some huge errors in it.

 

[ChristineM]

What does it matter if 90% of the life of Jesus is not discussed in the scriptures if the parts which are necessary and important are accounted for and recorded? There’s nothing missing that needs to be there to make the gospel message of salvation or His position as Savior of the world any more clear.

With the stringent records kept in the Roman Empire where everyone was registered I doubt genealogy records could be easily fabricated. That’s your own assumption.
The writers of the messianic prophecies were long dead, but it’s more reasonable to think the religious leaders denied them because they considered Jesus a threat to their power over the people.

They are not recorded, they are written into a book selectively compiled some 350 years after his death from disparate and unverified sources.

And of course if he was running around fermenting discontent, causing anarchy and killing Romans it matters a great deal.

There was do much debauchery, partner swapping, illigitimate children in the Roman empire, genealogy would have been a laugh, yes a male birth was usually registered at age 14 for tax purposes, the assumed fathers name was usually given if known but not required, not the mother's at all who was of no consiquence. Jerusalem and surrounding area became a roman satellite in around 63 bce, will you blame roman roman record keeping for the couple id thousand claimed years of geneology before they invaded? Don't forget also the bible gives 2 genealogies for jesus

Nope, its more reasonable to deny them because Jesus didn't meet the prophecies, which is actually plain to see

Edit. Infant mortality was so high, up to 80% it was a waste of time creating a tax record before the onset of adulthood at age 14

 

[Muffled]

I have given outlines of my view on Jesus several times in the last three or four weeks. Some people thought interesting, others obviously disagreed and a couple were outright hostile to the idea.

So i thought (yes it has been known) that a discussion thread would be a good idea to post my belief.

I am a full blown atheist with an interest in religion, particularly (for personal reasons) Christianity. I have also studied as a hobby minus/plus 100 years of the fall of the Roman Republic/rise of Empire. Just so you know this won't be a theological discussion but will have historical contexts based on my understanding of Roman life. I have come to this concussion, not only because of history but the accounts in the bible simply do not make sense given that history.

Where to begin, the beginning i guess is as good a place as any.

Jesus was born as the Talmud and other hebrew texts have it as Yeshu ben Pantera (Jesus son of Pantera). I take this as an illegitimate conception/birth, possibly by rape. Pantera was non other than a Roman soldier, Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera.

From birth to about 30 years nothing is heard of him. There are lots of stories but no facts. Of this period i suggest he was growing up with a deep resentment of his absentee father who was posted to Germany, where his gravestone can be seen.

View attachment 50597

Which fermented to a deep resentment of the Roman occupation.

It is my view that Jesus joined the Zionist movement the "Fourth Philosophy" and became an agitator, anarchist and terrorist against the Roman occupation. (A view echoed and expanded in books like Jesus the Terrorist by Peter Cresswell). Also possible that he was also a member of the Sicarri.

Remember, Rome was accepting of any religion and gods, to attempt to impose one god was not only traitorous to Roman belief it was also an insult to the emperor who was himself deemed a god.

Jesus was caught, (possibly with the help of Saulus) tried and executed for his crimes against Rome and the Emperor and given a traitors death of crucifixion.

A note here on methods of execution in Rome. There were several methods used depending on the crime, from being thrown off a high cliff or garoting for run of the mill crimes. Two of the most serious crimes were patricide (Rome ranked a father highly) which involved flogging then being sewn into a sack with a dog, a dunghill cock, a viper and a monkey. The sack is thrown into the depths of the sea or a river. And importantly for this OP, treason which require execution by crucifixion.

He was crucified and supposed given to family/followers for interment. This simply did not happen under Rome. The criminal was left on the cross to rot as an example of roman justice. However it seems that in this case it wouldn't make a good story so.

Assume that he was released from the cross before he died. Was nursed to a semblance of health and was later seen walking around town. Unfortunately the iron nails used to pin him to the cross were not sterile, probably rusty and teaming with bacteria. He succumbed to blood poisoning never to be seen again.

Now fast forward 350 years(ish). A growing religion in need of guidance, the bible was compiled using the OT and various selected stories to create a saviour.

Maybe Jesus was remembered in folk memory as one who incited a oneness in the Jewish people. Add to that the works of John the Baptist who really was a good/religious man. And a few tales of magic and miracles and you have a New Testement on which to base a religion.

I believe when one says what God says doesn't make sense and what you said does, then someone thinks more highly of himself than he ought.

 

[Muffled]

No, unless you consider my view to be a terrorist act

I believe it isn't any more terrifying than Snow White and fits in the same category.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you for posting your views!

I have also made a study of the historicity (apparently, that is a word) of Jesus, having read a number of books arguing various points of view, including that Jesus was totally a myth, a later construction, to various interpretations on what message the very real person of Jesus was trying to communicate (that is, was he a social reformer, an anti-Roman revolutionary, an ascetic mystic, etc.?).

If such a man ever lived, there is no way we can historically be certain of what he did and taught; and there is a significant chance that he never was, that it's all a pious fiction.

I myself am agnostic about the answer; I find arguments from all of the competing viewpoints to be compelling to some degree, but none conclusively.

I believe when you start seeing fantasy as history you have a problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe when one says what God says doesn't make sense and what you said does, then someone thinks more highly of himself than he ought.

And you would probably be in error with such a poor assumption.

For your belief to have any validity at all you would first need to prove that the Bible is "what God says".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe when you start seeing fantasy as history you have a problem.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe when one says what God says doesn't make sense and what you said does, then someone thinks more highly of himself than he ought.

You are welcome to your beliefs, personally not making sense of a bronze age fairy tale doesnt require ego, just logic