What happened to Jesus

[Rise]

Roman execution by crucifixion was used almost exclusively for those who participated in insurrection.

That's not true.
Roman citizens couldn't be crucified except under extreme circumstances like rebellion, but that is not true of non-citizens.

One man wasn't going to go in and disrupt the Temple merchants who were there under the protection of the priesthood.

In this case your underlying presumption is wrong.
One man led under the power and protection of the Holy Spirit can, and will, do a lot of things your average person wouldn't dream of doing, and with great success.

he merchants would have stopped one man on their own

They tried to seize him several times, but they were incapable of doing it because it "wasn't his time yet".

I am convinced that Jesus' faith led him to expect his actions would lead to God to re-inhabiting the Temple and ruling Israel/the World from there, with him as God's messiah/anointed one.

He said the temple would be destroyed.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Wow.

That question is so loaded it belongs under Reverend Rick's pillow.

-Nato

What does loaded mean?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

His knowledge of and adherence to, the Law--which he claimed he came not to change, but to fulfill.

Please preach less and answer the question.

 

[no-body]

There was probably a man named Jesus/Yeshua who was killed by the Romans at the same time the gospels say. I think more than that we will never know, it is all speculation.

I like to think he was a mystic who died for his radical message. A lot of the things attributed to him are probably just myths and gossip that never happened though.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That's not true.
Roman citizens couldn't be crucified except under extreme circumstances like rebellion, but that is not true of non-citizens.[/quoe]

Roman citizens weren't crucified. it was too demeaning.

In this case your underlying presumption is wrong.
One man led under the power and protection of the Holy Spirit can, and will, do a lot of things your average person wouldn't dream of doing, and with great success.

They tried to seize him several times, but they were incapable of doing it because it "wasn't his time yet".

He said the temple would be destroyed.

I'm not here to contend with those who are determined to believe in revelation, prophesy and the supernatural, except to show that they don't exist in this natural universe. If you choose to believe, with only the Word of God as validation of the Word of God, that's your right.

 

[Rise]

Roman citizens weren't crucified. it was too demeaning.

That's why I said " but that is not true of non-citizens".
A slave who stole from his master would be crucified in those times.

I'm not here to contend with those who are determined to believe in revelation, prophesy and the supernatural, except to show that they don't exist in this natural universe. If you choose to believe, with only the Word of God as validation of the Word of God, that's your right.

I see the supernatural evidenced in my life, and the life of my friends, on a weekly basis.
Seeing people healed with prayer, seeing people get words of knowledge by the Holy Spirit, etc.

The christian experience was never intended to be devoid of the supernatural, and any attempt to read the scriptures through a naturalistic mindset will always result in having an incomplete understanding of what is happening as you attempt to grapple with finding a natural explanation for something that is clearly supernatural.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There was probably a man named Jesus/Yeshua who was killed by the Romans at the same time the gospels say. I think more than that we will never know, it is all speculation.

I like to think he was a mystic who died for his radical message. A lot of the things attributed to him are probably just myths and gossip that never happened though.

Yes, but I do believe he existed based in large part on the existence (according to Josephus) of his brother James, and James' contention with Paul who also existed. And as i said, I think the cleansing of the Temple, along with his crucifixion, are the most historically accurate events we have that are associated with him.

We have many sources that help expand, validate or edit the gospels: the Didache, the "Q" source, Josephus, Paul, the gnostic material, the Dead Sea Scrolls, writings of the early Church "fathers", and recent archaeological discoveries. The picture they reveal is often very different from the canon that was decided on 400 years later.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That's why I said " but that is not true of non-citizens".
A slave who stole from his master would be crucified in those times.

Crucifixion was used with pirates, slaves and crimes against the state/emperor. But there was much more piracy/insurrection than crucifixion of slaves--except when they became rebels as with Spartacus. The Romans didn't really differentiate crimes by slaves with insurrection, but viewed them and one and the same because so often it did lead to insurrection.

In any case, the fact that the other two (or ever how many) were crucified with Jesus is a good indication they were there for the same crime. But it's a small point unless you want to claim that Jesus was crucified for being a slave who committed theft--which would even contradict the Bible.

I see the supernatural evidenced in my life, and the life of my friends, on a weekly basis.
Seeing people healed with prayer, seeing people get words of knowledge by the Holy Spirit, etc.

As I said, I'm not here to contend with that.

The christian experience was never intended to be devoid of the supernatural, and any attempt to read the scriptures through a naturalistic mindset will always result in having an incomplete understanding of what is happening as you attempt to grapple with finding a natural explanation for something that is clearly supernatural.

That's not my intention at all. My intent is not to come up with natural explanations for Christian miracles, my intent is to separate history from the miracles and thereby, hopefully, exposing the latter as fabricated, or at least enabling the use of reason to dismiss them by those who employ reason.

People of faith who attempt to employ reason to validate their faith, are denying it, because faith as used by revealed religions, operates outside of reason--which is why I can't contend with it.

 

[no-body]

Yes, but I do believe he existed based in large part on the existence (according to Josephus) of his brother James, and James' contention with Paul who also existed. And as i said, I think the cleansing of the Temple, along with his crucifixion, are the most historically accurate events we have that are associated with him.

We have many sources that help expand, validate or edit the gospels: the Didache, the "Q" source, Josephus, Paul, the gnostic material, the Dead Sea Scrolls, writings of the early Church "fathers", and recent archaeological discoveries. The picture they reveal is often very different from the canon that was decided on 400 years later.

But the gospels and none of those are eyewitness accounts. We will probably never know what actually happened, what was invented, and what was just someone attributing something from another teacher to Jesus. It lends credence to the fact that the Jesus we know is more of a myth and idea than a real person.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm not here to contend with those who are determined to believe in revelation, prophesy and the supernatural, except to show that they don't exist in this natural universe. If you choose to believe, with only the Word of God as validation of the Word of God, that's your right.

But you just now said: First of all, no one can die as a substitute for your repentance, not even God. [....] Human sacrifice is a profane sacrilege against God, and that's what we're talking about here......

So how do you know such a thing about God except through some kind of personal revelation?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But the gospels and none of those are eyewitness accounts. We will probably never know what actually happened, what was invented, and what was just someone attributing something from another teacher to Jesus. It lends credence to the fact that the Jesus we know is more of a myth and idea than a real person.

But we've come a long way in the last 20 years, in our knowledge of what Paul did to "Christianity", and archaeologically with the Dead Sea Scroll and findings in Jerusalem. How it will all shake out is the question, but the fact that it is in question is an advance.

But you just now said: First of all, no one can die as a substitute for your repentance, not even God. [....] Human sacrifice is a profane sacrilege against God, and that's what we're talking about here......

So how do you know such a thing about God except through some kind of personal revelation?

Only by reason, starting with one assumption, the value of all human life, and by extension, of human souls. Why would God go to all this trouble to create us instead of just making a bunch more Yes-Angels? What purpose do angels serve anyway? It's like talking to a hand puppet on your own hand.

A Divine Comedy--

***BIG BANG!***
<<><>><<><>>
<<><><><>><<><><><>>
<<><>The Universe Begins<><>>

God: Gabriel, isn't this a beautiful universe I created?
Gabriel: Yes Boss.
God: (Sigh). Adam, what about you, what do you think of the universe?
Adam (voice of Eddie Murphy): Oh, it’s absolutely delightful. I particularly like those sparkly little galaxies, and you just can't beat a brilliant sunset by the ocean or a thunderstorm over the Grand Canyon. I won't even go into women, you hit the jackpot with that one. But those black holes are a holy terror. And WHY is everything SO----FAR----APART. Man-o-man, the nearest star is 4 light years away. What were you thinking? And couldn't you at least do something about those damn mosquitoes. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but if I'd have arranged things......
God: (Sigh)………(Smile)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Only by reason, starting with one assumption, the value of all human life, and by extension, of human souls. Why would God go to all this trouble to create us instead of just making a bunch more Yes-Angels? What purpose do angels serve anyway? It's like talking to a hand puppet on your own hand.

I don't know a thing about angels. Nor about human souls, really.

And I don't mind you asserting that God hates human sacrifice, although there's a sense in which I disagree with you about that.

Mostly I'm wondering how you can deny revelation while assuming that you know True Things about God. It seems to me that only a prophet could know True Things about God, through revelation.

 

[Rise]

Crucifixion was used with pirates, slaves and crimes against the state/emperor. But there was much more piracy/insurrection than crucifixion of slaves--except when they became rebels as with Spartacus. The Romans didn't really differentiate crimes by slaves with insurrection, but viewed them and one and the same because so often it did lead to insurrection.

A pirate is a thief.
A slave can be crucified for stealing.

That's not my intention at all. My intent is not to come up with natural explanations for Christian miracles, my intent is to separate history from the miracles and thereby, hopefully, exposing the latter as fabricated, or at least enabling the use of reason to dismiss them by those who employ reason.

You make presumptions about what happened based on not having an understanding of spiritual authority and power.

People have tremendous boldness when they trust God fully and then are told to do something by Him through the Holy Spirit.
They do it knowing that God is greater than any wordly force that would come against them.

And it's not just a belief, but a reality. No one at that temple would have had the power to restrain or capture Jesus before His set aside time. The crowds tried a few times but couldn't do it. When they did finally come to take him, He said the words "I am" and all those who opposed Him fell down to the ground involuntarily at that simple word of revelation, demonstrating that He gave himself up willingly and was not taken by force.
I doubt the people at the temple even tied to stop him, they probably just stood there in a shock or had a sense of paralyzation and awe come over them.

People of faith who attempt to employ reason to validate their faith, are denying it, because faith as used by revealed religions, operates outside of reason--which is why I can't contend with it.

If you have a naturalistic world view, and see an eyeball grow in someone's socket as a miracle healing, is it faith to say that you recognize there is a supernatural realm or is it simple reason to acknowledge that the evidence clearly shows there is more to this world than a naturalistic understanding of it?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't know a thing about angels. Nor about human souls, really.

And I don't mind you asserting that God hates human sacrifice, although there's a sense in which I disagree with you about that.

In what way do you disagree? I guess I should qualify that by saying that I'm talking about ritual human sacrifice--formal or spur of the moment.

Mostly I'm wondering how you can deny revelation while assuming that you know True Things about God. It seems to me that only a prophet could know True Things about God, through revelation.

I don't even claim to know that God exists. i have it at 50-50. All else is mere speculation derived from assuming He exists and working with the evidence and knowledge from the world and universe around us.

For instance, why would a supernatural God create a universe limited by natural law? From that, why would He make it so that we would evolve in this natural universe when He could create all the angels He wanted? My little divine comedy is very serious question. I've presented it for several years but it has yet to draw a comment of any kind, good or bad.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In what way do you disagree? I guess I should qualify that by saying that I'm talking about ritual human sacrifice--formal or spur of the moment.

Depends on what God is. You say that God = Truth. What if I say that God = Survival. In that case, we might sacrifice a home invader. But it's not something I really care to argue.

I don't even claim to know that God exists. i have it at 50-50. All else is mere speculation derived from assuming He exists and working with the evidence and knowledge from the world and universe around us.

You're meaning the Abrahamic God?

For instance, why would a supernatural God create a universe limited by natural law? From that, why would He make it so that we would evolve in this natural universe when He could create all the angels He wanted?

Why would God pick special men to tell us what God thinks? Why would God leave us with a rigid text of words written by primitive men? I can't think of any good reason why He would do that.

My little divine comedy is very serious question. I've presented it for several years but it has yet to draw a comment of any kind, good or bad.

You're assuming that God thinks like you do. Which is OK, except everyone else assumes that God thinks like they do. People of the Book, for example, ask why God would NOT create prophets and leave us with a rigid text of His words.

They would anwser your question by saying, "Hey, God did what he did. It says so in the Bible. His ways are beyond my comprehension."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Depends on what God is. You say that God = Truth. What if I say that God = Survival. In that case, we might sacrifice a home invader. But it's not something I really care to argue.

There are many things people set up as their gods--money, power, sex, fame, love, charity, influence....survival. To whatever extent they are of ultimate value, Truth is still the ultimate value and the only path to any genuine purpose.

You're meaning the Abrahamic God?

No.

Why would God pick special men to tell us what God thinks? Why would God leave us with a rigid text of words written by primitive men? I can't think of any good reason why He would do that.

OK, I'm wondering now if you even read what I posted. He wouldn't.

You're assuming that God thinks like you do.

Genesis got that right, we're created/evolved in His image, with self-awareness. Our self-awareness makes us aware of others and how they are like us.

If God wanted to be alone, He wouldn't have created the universe to spawn us.

They would anwser your question by saying, "Hey, God did what he did. It says so in the Bible. His ways are beyond my comprehension."

Men wrote the Bible by themselves.

Here is a profound passage on the "Word of God":

“It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a Word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language.... It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.”--Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There are many things people set up as their gods--money, power, sex, fame, love, charity, influence....survival. To whatever extent they are of ultimate value, Truth is still the ultimate value and the only path to any genuine purpose.

I'd quibble with that. I'd say that the pursuit of Truth is my ultimate value. It may not be right for everyone, though. Troglodytes and peak-perching gurus might value solitude more than Truth.

Anyway, I believe that pursuing Truth is fine, but to find it is to sin against God.

If God wanted to be alone, He wouldn't have created the universe to spawn us.

That seems reasonable. Or it could've been an accident. Maybe He's even now trying to tamp us out like a grassfire. It would explain a lot.

Men wrote the Bible by themselves.

That's a fine opinion, with which I happen to agree. But I won't declare it impossible for God to have been whispering in their ears as they wrote. Anything is possible.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Anyway, I believe that pursuing Truth is fine, but to find it is to sin against God.

Then to pursue it would be a sin as well.

That seems reasonable. Or it could've been an accident. Maybe He's even now trying to tamp us out like a grassfire. It would explain a lot.

God...accidents....where does that leave us? And how could a God create this universe and be accident prone?

That's a fine opinion, with which I happen to agree. But I won't declare it impossible for God to have been whispering in their ears as they wrote. Anything is possible.

If He's whispering, we have no free will, and if we have no free will, we have no purpose, for ourselves or for God.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then to pursue it would be a sin as well.

Truth doesn't exist. So if we find Truth, we've found an imaginary thing and so have lost our way somehow. But to search for Truth is humankind's highest endeavor. We're a curious creature. We were created that way.

Why do you think that if we can't find Truth, then it's a sin to search for it?

God...accidents....where does that leave us? And how could a God create this universe and be accident prone?

So you think that God cannot have an accident? Why do you believe that? Who told you that?

If He's whispering, we have no free will, and if we have no free will, we have no purpose, for ourselves or for God.

You're talking about the Abrahamic God, but I've long since put that god concept aside.

Anyway, if God whispered into prophets' ears as they wrote, why would that deprive us of our free will? Aren't we still free to ignore those prophets, to mistranslate their words, to misinterpret their words... and continue in our free-willish ways?

I think we're straying way away from the OP, so I guess I'll let you have the last word here. You're welcome to start a new thread about it.

By the way, regarding the OP: I don't believe that Jesus existed in first-century Judea. I think the gospels were writen as a sort of fiction/theology... so your OP seems to me like arguing whether Sherlock Holmes parted his hair on the left or whether on the right.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Truth doesn't exist. So if we find Truth, we've found an imaginary thing and so have lost our way somehow.

Yet you say to find Truth would be a sin against God? But I can't get past your first sentence anyway.