by Farkel 199 Replies latest watchtower bible
Christopher Hitchens had some interesting thoughts about the Jesus deity of the bible.
Part 2 .......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5v42jtet5c&feature=player_embedded#!
Part 3 ......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iooXQ1-P-0s
Pistoff
But the movement surrounding Jesus after his death likely had a real man as the source, as Leo so eloquently showed, and there are secular references to Jesus as the leader of a movement. Strong likelihood is the gold standard when it comes to antiquity, per Thomas Sheehan.
MP:
You might actually want to read what she said. Appealing to authority without any references or examples hardly counts. Wait for her proper response befre agreeing.
You also fail to appreciate that there were many Jesuses, it was a common name. One cannot ignore that simple underdeniable fact. In fact if you read the gnostic material you will see they actually refer too, two separate Messiah figures. Examine the Dead Sea Scrolls for more info.
Phizzy
Good post P.O , if the Historical Jesus is as you say, he was far more political than religious, reason enough for the Romans to want him dead.
mP:
Read the gospel stories they never blame the ROmans for killing the Jews, the message they lay all the blame on the Jews. Im not disputing who actually killed him that would be rediculous, but the facts are there in black and white in the gospels and they quite clearly state the jews are to blame. Why would god inspire men to write such a stupid conclusion ? This only contributes to what i have been saying, everything int he gospels are tehre for the advantage of the Romans. This is but another example.
Jesus was killed not because of his political or social reform views, simply because he had none. The was a good jew, and peaceful while all other messianic leaders were thugs and violent. He was killed because he dared to challenge the temple. The Romans hated the priests of the temple, because they together with the hly writings were at the center of the jewish identity and rebellion problem. I dont think i need to remind anyone of what the OT says about the Jews being special and promised great things by YHWH, and world denomination. I cant rexplain why they actually believed it, considering they kept getting smashed by larger military forces, like Assyria, Egypt, Babylon and then Rome.
Pistoff
Phizzy:
Yes, no matter what the WT or others may say about Jesus being non-political, his was a very political message.
Elaine Pagels says we can't begin to understand the gospels until we understand that they are war time literature, being written during Roman occupation and near the time of revolt against Rome.
Jesus was an outsider to the religious and political mainstream; he opted out. Does someone want your coat? Give him your underwear too.
Work? No.
Wash before meals? No.
Kowtow to authority? No.
Break the sabbath? Yes.
Eat with sinners? Yes.
How much of it was actually Jesus and how much was his followers seeing him as a heroic rebel, impossible to say. But what I get from the gospels treatment of Jesus is to cast him as a rebel against religious and civil authority when it conflicted with his vision of what was right.
mP:
Jesus did ignore the law on many occassions, however he never declared it was over. Obeying the law of Moses is a way of showing submission. Many of the kings in the OT break the law on numerous ocassions. Its a way of them showing that they are above it. Take David, he murders anyone in sight and yet never gets punished because he is above the law. King David obviously had no problems , he continued to be blessed according to the scriptures.
In Mat6 Jesus himself says the law will last forever, so there goes that lie that xians have been repeating without any scriptural fact.
How was Jesus a political revolutionary ? He helped nobody, his party trick miracles were only done to impress. He told the poor to be good slaves and pay taxes and yet never once said anything against this evil ? SOunds more like a stooge of the rich with his stoicism agenda.
From Leo, for MP:
But I think there is a good case to be made that there was a historical figure at the font of the Christian movement
That is what Leo said, but it is not why I think that. My impression is that there was a Jesus that spawned a specific movement that later mythologized him, based on my own readings of scholars.
From MP:
You might actually want to read what she said. Appealing to authority without any references or examples hardly counts. Wait for her proper response befre agreeing.
You also fail to appreciate that there were many Jesuses, it was a common name. One cannot ignore that simple underdeniable fact.
What are you on about? I read what she said. I am not appealing to her as an authority, though I respect her deep knowledge on the subject.
I am aware that there were many Jesus'; how is that relevant to this discussion? Is there mention of a number of Jesus' who were executed by Pilate?
I don't see why that is important to the question.
Pistoff:
You might actually want to read what she said. Appealing to authority without any references or examples hardly counts. Wait for her proper response befre agreeing.
You also fail to appreciate that there were many Jesuses, it was a common name. One cannot ignore that simple underdeniable fact.
What are you on about? I read what she said. I am not appealing to her as an authority, though I respect her deep knowledge on the subject.
mP:
Its fine if you respect her knowledge but in the above case she has provided no proof. She was replying to me and addressed none of the points i have been making. If you read her link you will see it has many problems.
P:
I am aware that there were many Jesus'; how is that relevant to this discussion? Is there mention of a number of Jesus' who were executed by Pilate?
I don't see why that is important to the question.
mP:
Really come on, you cant see that the 4 texts that mention Christ or Jesus and are used as proofs, could be anyof these Jesuses. In fact a simpe search shows that a few Jesus rebel leaders were killed by Pilate. The Talmud also mentions other Jesus. So which is it ?
Unless i got something wrong, this statement is simply flawed.
Confucius in the Analects describes his view of how to treat others, "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself", -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius.
Plato spends a great deal of time talking about what it means to be a ' just' man or good person and what 'piety' really means. His Euthyphro is a good place to start to see this discussed.
Buddha explained the need to develop our positive minds such as love, compassion and wisdom.
http://www.meditateinlondon.org.uk/about-buddhism.php?gclid=COWxjYSq37ICFcPHtAodkkkABQ
All of these lived four or five hundred years before Jesus (whoever he was) mentioned 'do unto others'. Luke 6:31
Check out the history of the Golden Rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
So 'he' was a bit late with the idea that we should be kind to our enemies and we should care for more than just our family, tribe. city state etc.
When this idea was developed among people with fairly primitive ideas of how to treat others it was an amazing thing. But did Jesus invent the Golden Rule? No he was born much later (whoever he was and whoever wrote it down).
xan:
All of these lived four or five hundred years before Jesus (whoever he was) mentioned 'do unto others'. Luke 6:31
mP:
This of course all depends on who the "others" are. Lets not forget the Jews back then wouldnt even eat dinner with gentiles. I guess if you dont count them as others or even equals then you dont have to be kind to them. This was repeated in America where we have the quandry where Jefferson writes all men are equal and free etc, but kept slaves. I guess he didnt seee blacks are men or equal enough to have these rights.
I was under the impression that most historians of that era believe he did exist, but that he was a regular man raised to mythical proportions. I don't think there a lot of historians who believe he was simply made up, although I'm sure there are a decent number who do.
