Who really killed Jesus

[kalian]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4212741/

Mel Gibson's powerful but troubling new movie, 'The Passion of the Christ,' is reviving one of the most explosive questions ever. What history tells us about Jesus' last hours, the world in which he lived, anti-Semitism, Scripture and the nature of faith itself.

...more...

OK folks...here we go. Can of worms has been pried opened by
Newsweek...

[cryofan]

1. jesus never existed

www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

[A HERETIC I AM]

3. Glad to see i am not the only one who knows about Acharaya S.

The story of Jesus is an allegorical tale of the movements of the sun through the heavens and most of the stories related to him are tales that relate to movements of other objects (Stars, planets, constellations) through the seasons and the sky. The story of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ is CLEARLY a play if one doesn't suspend ones critical thinking skills.

For those that don't buy this, ask yourselves this question:
What day is Easter on? You know that Xmas is always on Dec. 25th but Easter differs year to year. Why?

Easter Sunday is always the 1st Sunday after the 1st full moon after the Spring Equinox.

Sounds kind of Pagan, doesnt it?
Thats cause it is and it has no basis or relation to ANY historical person that supposedly lived in the Levant 2000 years ago. The expression "He is risen" has been used, in one vernacular or another, to describe the "Saviour" (the sun) climbing back into the sky for millenia.

[shrike]

12. The reason why pagan holidays are christian holidays

is because after Rome converted, Saturnalia became Xmas, etc. Has nothing to do with allegories of the sun and the moon, or whatever. I've read Arachaya S. and think she's a crank. I have no doubt there was a Jesus of some sort -- hell, the so-called mythical dynasty of China turned out to be real, and they've even found evidence that some of the Greek myths were based in fact. They've even found traces of an Amazon-like race of women warriors, in Russia. Why wouldn't there be some sort of Jesus?

What or who he actually was is anybody's guess.

[Merlin]

23. Good grief! Read a little factual info first, heretic!

It's been common knowledge for 2,000 years that the Catholic Church has chosen deliberately to celebrate Christian feast days on days that coincide with "pagan" celebrations, so as to ease assimilation.

By the way, most of those "pagans" were not base idol worshippers as Christianity has unfairly portrayed them. They used symbols to represent forces in the universe, not unlike Catholics use the crucifix. But they were in awe of the forces behind the wonders and the power and the beauty of nature. Most "pagan" cultures had religious outlooks not unlike those of Native Americans. The term "pagan' was adopted as a term of derogation long ago by the church in an effort to demean their customs.

[pacifictiger]

26. most people are unaware

that the word "pagan" derives from the latin and means "country dweller." On a similar note the word "heretic" comes from the greek meaning "free thinker."

[question everything]

63. Or that the word sinister comes from left handedness n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

29. Good Grief, Merlin! Don't assume you know my education!!!!!

I trust it isn't typical of you to read a post for what you want to see rather than carefully for what is actually said.

I am fully aware of what the Catholic church has done over the last 2 thousand years in order to "Ease assimilation" and i am also aware, as the poster above notes, that "Pagan" means simply "Country Dweller" not "Evil Satanist goat head worshiping stargazer" or anything else you might assume i am ignorant enough to buy into.
I am also quite aware of the definition and root of my own user name. Heretic - from the Greek Hairetikos - "To Choose". "one who speaks contrary to established doctrine".


you said;
But they were in awe of the forces behind the wonders and the power and the beauty of nature.

Really? They were? In Awe? You sure about that? Got any links to shore up that point? Or have you spent a lot of time interviewing long dead country dwellers in order to know exactly what forces they were "In Awe" of? I would bet they were a lot more aware of their surroundings and the forces therein than you apparently give them credit for.

The point i was trying to make in my first post is that the story of Christ relates the seasonal changes and phases of the sun through the sky, NOT a real persons life. The reason Saturnalia and Bacchanalia and all the other Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox celebrations were appropriated by the church is that they fit the bill. They were all related because they spoke of the SAME ALLEGORY that the church was now trying to historicize. If you have a myth and a new belief system you want to promote, why not take a ready made one and just modify it a little to fit your newer purposes instead of making it up altogether?

[starroute]

38. Not just seasonal -- also precession of the equinoxes

Everyone knows that there is a connection between Jesus and the movement of the spring equinox into the sign of Pisces around 1 AD. That's why even today Christians use a fish symbol. It's also obvious that Jesus has to be some kind of sun-god, since his sacred day is Sunday. What's not so well known is what all this signifies.

Back in the old shamanistic days, the Milky Way was considered to be the bridge of souls, leading to the afterlife. But in the Neolithic, as people developed a more mathematical approach to the heavens, the focus shifted away from the Milky Way and towards the pure geometry of the four cardinal directions. The cross was originally the symbol of this geometry -- the north-south and east-west axes, meeting at the center.

The sun marks out the north-south axis every day, since its highest point in the sky is always due south or north. But the sun only marks the east-west axis twice a year -- on the first day of spring and the first day of fall, when it rises due east and sets due west. So in the new Neolithic cosmology, the most important constellations were those in which the sun was located on those two days of the year.

Around 6500 BC, when the skies were first being mapped out, the spring constellation was Gemini and the fall constellation was Sagittarius. By happy coincidence, these two constellations also lie within the Milky Way, thus aligning the new system with the old one. The constellations of the summer and winter solstices at this time were Virgo and Pisces.

A whole range of myths of the solar hero involve the symbolic elements implied by one or more of these four constellations. Virgo -- his birth to a virgin/priestess/unmarried mother. Gemini -- his being one of a pair of twins, one divine and one human. Pisces -- his being cast away in an ark or chest (the Great Square of Pegasus), protected by fishes. Sagittarius -- his death at the hands of an archer or spearman.

However, due to the precession of the equinoxes, the spring solstice moved out of Gemini, thereby breaking the alignment between the celestial axes and the Milky Way. All the time the sun was moving through Taurus and Aries, the cosmic machinery was perceived as being somehow broken or fallen. And when it became apparent that the sun was moving into Pisces, which would bring the solstice/equinox cross back to the Milky Way, this was heralded as portending a new Golden Age.

The Jesus-myth was set up to portray him as the solar hero or sun-god who would rule that new age. The traditional symbols had to be tweaked a bit. Instead of twin heroes, there would be a single hero with a twin nature. (Although there are questions about the original place in the story of Thomas the Twin.) And when Pisces became a spring constellation, it moved north of the celestial equator, so that it was on "land" instead of "water" -- and this meant that the ark had to be transformed into a manger and the fishes into farm animals.

All of this is well-known to anyone with an interest in ancient cosmology. The only question is whether the myth was superimposed over the life-history of an actual Jesus, or whether the story of an actual Jesus was invented to make the myth seem more convincing to skeptical citizens of the Roman Empire. I used to believe there was an actual Jesus down there under all the myth-making -- these days I'm not so sure. But at most, that Jesus would have been an ethical teacher. The god-stuff is all add-ons.

[A HERETIC I AM]

39. Absolutelyspotonwellsaidthankyouverymuch!!

Thank you for that incredibly well written, spot on post. Your succinct wording of the basis for the mythos has me envious.

Well said!

Paul

[minkyboodle]

42. this is really interesting stuff

thanks for the post starroute can you recommend any books that would be good for a starter in this field of study? Thanks.
Scott

[starroute]

49. There is no single good starting point

A lot of books have come out in the last few decades on the subject of archeo-astronomy, beginning with de Santillana and von Dechend's "Hamlet's Mill" over thirty years ago. One I found particularly interesting is The Secret of the Incas: Myth, Astronomy and the War Against Time by William Sullivan.

However, there's frustratingly little that ties this in directly to Christianity. It's clear that the start of the Age of Pisces was a matter of general interest -- Virgil wrote in one of his Eclogues, "The great cycle of the ages is renewed. Now Justice returns, returns the Golden Age; a new generation now descends from on high."

I've also got some notes about the contention between the Pharisees with their lunar calendar and the Sadducees with their solar calendar, but I've never seen any explanation of what that really meant in the context of the time or what implications it has for the birth of Christianity.

The one topic that has been explored to some extent is the idea that the "Star of Bethlehem" was a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces in 7 BC. (In fact, I just Googled and found a site at http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/when_was_jesus_born.htm which lays out some of this, plus other possible astronomical references in the Bible.)

But the real story that ties it all together has yet to be told. There is a lot of ancient, forgotten science in the myths that we take for granted, and we will understand our own world better if we can recover what was going on 2000 years ago.


(For that matter, I have related questions about Islam that I've never seen answered -- why did Mohammed insist on a change from a luni-solar calendar to a purely lunar calendar, and why is the symbol of Islam the Star and the Crescent?)

[pacifictiger]

50. I have enjoyed

the work of Joseph Campbell.

[MAlibdem]

40. Question

Do Jewish sources have records on Jesus' existence?

Independent Roman sources?

The Romans killed Jesus, the Jews were not unhappy about it, but did not do it, is my opinion.

[asthmaticeog]

56. Nope.

Thus far no extra-Biblical sources confirm the existence of Jesus. One could see that as odd, considering that at the time of his supposed birth, Joseph and Mary are said (in only one of the gospels) to be traveling in order to answer a census. However, there are also no extra-Biblical sources that confirm that that census ever took place.

[Merlin]

45. I'm in awe of such tortured logic. No offense

First, yes the ancients were in awe of the power and beauty of nature. How would you expect people utterly ignorant of the physics of such forces to react to things like thunder, lightening, floods, famine, tornadoes, and on and on? Or do you suppose they merely took them in stride, without questioning? Do you suppose they had sun gods and storm gods which they sought to placate simply for kicks?

Now on to what comes across to me as an incredible assertion.

As I understand it, you are arguing that there is proof that Jesus didn't actually exist, and that this proof comprises the fact that holidays commemorating aspects of his life--which you acknowledge were deliberately chosen to coincide with "pagan" celebrations--happened to coincide with "pagan" celebrations? That's not even circular logic. It's no logic at all. It's pure speculation anchored to utter nothingness.

It is relatively certain that Jesus existed, because we know a good bit about the bitter struggles between Paul, on the one hand, and Peter and James--both of whom actually knew Jesus--on the other. These disputes took place beginning less than a generation after Jesus' death.

Did any of the ancient historians mention any of these people? No. Jesus was a footnote at that time. He probably would have remained such had not Paul mythologized his life, turned him into a divinity, and promoted the hell out of his (Paul's) ideas by wandering throughout the then known civilized western world to preach them. Paul began this process even before the Jewish revolt against the Romans in 66AD, a mere generation after Jesus' death. There were a great many followers of Jesus then living, who considered themselves to be practicing Jews, not Christians.

What I question here is that it's one thing to de-mythologize Jesus -- a very worthy undertaking, imo. It's quite another to postulate that he didn't exist, especially by invoking such feeble "evidence."

[A HERETIC I AM]

47. I take no offense. I am just in awe of your apparent lack of reading....

comprehension skills.

you said:
Now on to what comes across to me as an incredible assertion.

As I understand it, you are arguing that there is proof that Jesus didn't actually exist, and that this proof comprises the fact that holidays commemorating aspects of his life--which you acknowledge were deliberately chosen to coincide with "pagan" celebrations--happened to coincide with "pagan" celebrations? That's not even circular logic. It's no logic at all. It's pure speculation anchored to utter nothingness

If it is your understanding that i have argued there is "Proof that Jesus didn't actually exist" then your understanding is skewed by something other than anything i have written.

I'll try and give you my point of view again. The church appropriated commonly celebrated holidays and festivals of the ancient world and rehashed them to fit the mythos they were trying to promote. Clear?

Suggesting that there is proof that ANYTHING didn't actually exist is, as i am sure you would agree, a fallacy of logic. Pink polka-dotted fluffy flying unicorns could have been the dominant species on this planet at some time in the past. There is NO PROOF THEY HAVE NOT But it is pretty bloody unlikely.

BTW, it is most certainly NOT "relatively certain that Jesus existed". The idea has been arugued for quite a long time and only now has been getting the true scrutiny it deserves because...WHY? now it is illegal to kill heretics!!! A mere 250 years ago folks like me were being burned at the stake for disagreeing with or speaking out against the bullshit promoted by the church. And LO! The church has been the MAIN source of the so-called "Evidence" for Christs existence. Of course. Why not? Gotta protect the market share.

My position regarding the historicity of Jesus is exactly the same as my position on the historicity of Hercules, Apollo, Mithra, Horus, Krishna, Zeus, Athena, Thor and all the thousands of other god-men and women created by mankind. It is unreasonable in the EXTREME for Christianity to suggest "all those other gods and their fantastic stories and their fantastic miracles, THEY are all false. But OUR god and all HIS fantastic stories and fantastic miracles, HE IS REAL! And by the way, if you don't agree, our god will burn you for eternity for it."

[Merlin]

51. Your evidence does not support your assertions.

OK. I'll concede that you didn't use the term "proof." So instead of "proof" substitute the word "evidence." With this substitution, my assertion remains:

As I understand it, you are arguing that there is evidence that Jesus didn't actually exist, and that this evidence comprises the fact that holidays commemorating aspects of his life--which you acknowledge were deliberately chosen to coincide with "pagan" celebrations--happened to coincide with "pagan" celebrations. That's not even circular logic. It's no logic at all.

In your last post, you apparently are saying that it is "NOT 'relatively certain that Jesus existed'." And you support this negative with a rant about the fact that they killed heretics 250 years ago (true enough), and the fact that the church has "been the main source of evidence" for his existence (albeit, but it has been so consistently for nearly two millenia), and the fact that the church has a vested interest in his having existed (duh!). I can concede each of those facts completely, yet they don't add up to anything like evidence that it is "NOT 'relatively certain that Jesus existed'." They constitute nothing like evidence at all.

One might also say that the fact that Woodward & Bernstein claimed they met Deep Throat in a parking garage, and the fact that Woodward & Bernstein are the main source of knowledge of the existence of Deep Throat, and the fact that Woodward & Bernstein continue to enjoy fame and fortune talking about this character named Deep Throat is evidence that Deep Throat never really existed. This is as much a non-sequitur as your statement.

Then you attempt to equate the historicity of Jesus with that of "Hercules, Apollo, Mithra, Horus, Krishna, Zeus, Athena, Thor" etc. Good grief! Jesus was claimed to have been a human, whose life's teaching were supported by men we have reasonable proof actually did exist (e.g. inter-alia, Peter and Jesus' brother James). Name me another in that pantheon about whom you could say the same.

You assert that the tales of Jesus' miracles are false. You are probably 100% correct. The gospels were written much later, and by those who--unlike Peter and James--believed they had a messianic mission, and thus much of what they wrote is suspect. But to suggest this fact is evidence that Jesus never existed is not just faulty logic, it is silly. A person's exaggeration of the size of the fish they caught is not evidence that they caught no fish at all.

Finally you express the view that the church is dogmatic, ideological, unreasonable, insensitive, fanatical and specializes in mystical demagoguery. (I've taken liberties to expand upon your comment.) Well you'll get no argument from me on that score.

The point I'm trying to make overall is that the church is not Jesus. If you remove the fatuous claims of divinity and miracles--made by others long after his death--those aspects of what Jesus taught that are agreed upon by all sides (and remember there was a bitter dispute between Paul's "Christians" and Peter's Jewish sect of Jesus followers), you have a pretty damn decent human being who introduced some valuable new concepts about humanity to humanity, and who preached stuff that most Democrats today would claim to be entirely consistent with our own fundamental principles.

[Third Eye]

53. Paul and Peter

There was a dispute between Peter and Paul (documented in Galatians), but Peter ultimately relented and by the writing of Peter's epistles; Peter was joined by Mark who was sent by Paul. Mark, at one time also had a falling out with Paul(in the book of Acts), and caused a "sharp burst of anger" between Barnabas (Mark's cousin) and Paul. Both of those were patched up and Mark is later documented as visiting Paul in Rome while he was in prison.

Since both Paul and Peter believed that they were apostles ordained by Jesus, they both considered themselves "Christians". Paul coined the term, citing divine providence (in the book of Acts) and Peter used the term in his first epistle. The "bitter dispute" was a short-lived, one-time argument. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul made sure to clarify that he, Peter (also called "Cephas") and Apollos were merely men assigned to the same work of a higher nature, not men to be elevated above one another. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, this is what they believed.

[Merlin]

64. Peter's "epistles" were not written by Peter and not written until c125 AD

First, let me note for the record that it is unarguably true that Paul was NOT an Apostle, never knew Jesus, and in fact worked for the Roman government as a bounty hunter before his "conversion" on the road to Damascus (to arrest some Christians) about 12 years after the crucifixion.

You apparently base much of your argument (e.g. that there was no serious, lasting split between Paul and Peter) on what is referred to as "The Gospel of Peter."

But this "gospel" was viewed--even at the time--as apocryphal, and definitely not the work of the Apostle, Peter, the man who carried on Jesus' Jewish tradition after the crucifixion.

Serapion, Bishop of Antioch in 190-203, wrote of the Peter tracts:

"We, brethren, receive Peter and the other Apostles even as Christ; but the writings that go falsely by their names we, in our experience, reject, knowing that such things as these we never received. When I was with you I supposed you all to be attached to the right faith; and so without going through the gospel put forward under Peter's name, I said, `If this is all that makes your petty quarrel,1 why then let it be read.' But now ... I have learned from information given me that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy ..."

The "Gospel of Peter" was later excluded from the Canon because of its doubtful origins and its exagerations.

The view of most biblical scholars is that it was actually written between 100 AD and 125 AD. It survives only in incomplete form.

It is decidedly and exceptionally anti-Jewish. See, for example, this comment:

"... the Petrine Gospel seems to present a later and more exaggerated form of the tendency perceptible in the Johannine, and fully worked out in the Acts of Pilate, to blame the Jews and exculpate Pilate.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-02.htm

[question everything]

62. The reason for Christmas being always on Dec 25

is because the Winter solstice is always on Dec. 21 (or 22).

If Easter were not going to be on a Sunday, but on a specific day related to the Spring Equinox, it, too, would always fall on the same day.

[LSatyl]

15. Oh yes he did, just under another name:

His name was, ...... wait for it, ....... Gaius Julius Caesar.

Really. Read the book by Francesco Carotta

[librechik]

2. Jesus was a mushroom. There was no actual crucifixion, just

the regular harvesting of the ritual mushrooms, which the "Essenes" spoke of metaphorically as their "king" or their God, Christos, "the crusted one," describing the crusty excretion the mushrooms wear when ready to be scourged and sliced with a sicle-shaped knife.Anyone who has experienced psychoactive mushrooms might agree with this poetic description.

Look up a book called "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, by John Allegro, the guy who translated the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's the most under-reported story in history.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0340128755/qid=1076260293/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_12/104-3251273-9673563?v=glance&s=books

But the centuries of misinterpretation put on the old texts by various scholars and hysterical cultists have made the original source disappear. It is a colossal tragedy that so many lives have been lost (and women made into slaves) in the confusion and deliberate political abuse aurrounding the books.

[Charlls]

5. are you trying to be admired?

..or rather violenty detested?

[librechik]

6. just telling the truth. It seems to enrage certain people.

I apologize for enraging you. My post was meant for those with open minds.

[Charlls]

7. i think you are speculating too much about my mood

My comment was just about applying your signature to your comment and observing the result ;)


The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth. -- H.L. Mencken

[Flagg]

4. the French ?

[ithacan]

8. ummm, I think it was his dad's decision...

whoever "killed" him was only doing God's will, according to Christian theology.

So "blaming" any individual or group for this is absolutely ridiculous, again from a theological view.

Everyone involved was just doing the will of God. That the messiah be crucified so that he could rise again, etc. etc.

[Torgo4]

11. Sooooo....God Killed...Himself!

Or rather...He got himself killed! Which wasn't really hard in 1st Century Judea! "Caesar Sux....D'oh!!!...Put Me Down!!!"

Since Jesus IS God according to Trinity doctrine, he is in the odd scenario of pleading w/himself in the Garden to get a pass over what was SUPPOSED to happen!

NOW...Why did our kind, just, loving, God demand a human sacrifice of himself...or...any other innocent?

Was Jesus death really a sacrifice? If he knew he was God, he knew that his 'death' would be temporary. How is dying, as all humans must do, a sacrifice?

Now......If he were spending eternity in hell, suffering for "our sins"....that would be a sacrifice!!!!

The Theological backwash can really choke a goat!!!



:think:

[smirkymonkey]

13. LOL...Love your sig line,

by the way! :)

[RainDog]

9. The Roman Empire killed Jesus

And for Mel's edification, the Pope, after the Holocaust, called for Christians to respect the Jewish religion because it is the foundation of Christianity via the covenant with Abraham.

And, for that matter, since Islam also claims Abraham as a prophet, I guess the Pope's exclamation would apply to any who honor the founder of Judaism.

And the Muslims, in turn, should respect Judaism, with the mutual figures of Abraham, Joseph and his coat of many colors, and many more stories in common.

And anyone of any of these faiths, if they wish to claim citizenship in America, should "render unto Ceasar" or the govt. their ideas of governance.

In America, that means they respect the separation of church and state, and the constitutional guarantees that no religion is or will be established as the "state religion."

I believe Jesus would have been high-fiving the maker of the Constitution on that important issue, as well, since the merger of govt and religion has been a history of oligarchy, not good faith.

And this is true whether you believe Jesus existed or was a myth, it seems to me...

in other words, the post about the myth of Jesus has nothing to do with whether or not Christianty was wrong for blaming Jews over the centuries for something which the govt in power did.

[rugger]

34. Incorrect

The Romans were carrying out the wishes of the Jewish people. Pontius Pilate said "I find no guilt in this man". It was the mob that demanded Jesus' death. Even after that, it being the Passover, they had the cahnce to let a condemned go free, they demanded Barrabas.

There's been alot of revisionist thinking on this one, yet if you beleive in the Bible (I don't), you have to go on what is written.

Blaming the Romans is like blaming the executioner.

[jburton]

10. Newsweek killed him

This is like the 1,000th time they've done a Something About Jesus cover story.

[ThoughtCriminal]

14. Humanity

While I'm a skeptic, I thought the point of Christianity was that Jesus died for everyones's sins. Accordingly, we're all responsible for his suffering.

[Bridget Burke]

16. Yes, exactly.

Or maybe it was Eve's fault? She & Adam ate the apple (or whatever the fruit was*) & left all their descendants in a state of Original Sin. The death of Jesus was the sacrifice that showed us the way to salvation. Therefore, he HAD to die.

I learned all this stuff quite a while ago. Details may escape me--I didn't believe it totally at the time.

---------------------

* Eve & Adam had to be thrown out of the Garden after eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil--before they got to the Tree of Eternal Life. (Compare this story to other versions of the middle-eastern creation story--it comes off as pretty cruel.)

[Guinness]

17. He killed himself.

He sacrificed himself to himself.

[JPZenger]

18. Where is the Hope?

The reviews I have read say that Gibson's movie is obsessed with violence and pain, and misses the hope and inspiration in Jesus's life. It is a simple matter of the movie emphasizing the crucifixon vs. the resurection.

Gibson is aligned with the extreme right wing of the Catholic Church. Those are people who are still angry that Sunday mass isn't being said in Latin.

[On the Road]

19. Why is This Such an Issue?

The Romans killed him. He was handed over to the Romans by upper-class Jewish collaborators who were not representative of the whole population.

For some reason, the whole political situation escapes people. Nobody wants to say that the Jewish religious leaders were quislings and enabled the Romans in oppressing the population. I guess this might lead to revolutionary thoughts. Confusion is preferable.

There are some violently anti-Semitic parts of the Epistles ("but God's wrath has come upon them at last", apparently referring to the destruction of Jerusalem). But it can't be traced to Jesus himself.

[Torgo4]

20. Why Didn't Jews Just Stone Him?

According to NT, Jewish leaders turned him over to Pilate because they didn't have a death penalty.
Even a casual reader of Judaic Bible activites can't fail to note that the Jewish Elders stoned basphemers and heretics fairly regularly. As well as the occasion audulterer, homosexual, etc.
Since Jesus was violating the 1st Commandment, and OT G-D told them to kill anyone pretending to be G-d, I guess the fix was in!

Apparently, the NT authors had to reconcile blaming the Jews with the fact that Jesus was crucified, a Roman method of execution! After all, at the time the Gospels were written, Vespasian had just whupped the Jews real good!

Once again, the Jews take it in the shorts!!!

:shrug:

[On the Road]

22. I Think That the Romans Wanted the Jews to Control Their Own

revolutionaries, but did not allow them to carry out the death penalty. Or so it seems.

[Third Eye]

54. Knowledge really is good

Two words as to why Jesus was not stoned: His popularity. Nowhere in the Greek Scriptures (NT) do the writers even mention a death penalty or a lack thereof. Since Jesus was a Jew and a "perfecter" of Jewish Law, stoning was to be expected. The false Jewish claim that Jesus was a blasphemer was obviously rejected by his followers. In fact, when the Pharisees had Him arrested, his apostles drew swords and Peter attacked. There's little doubt that if the Pharisees had wanted to stone him, they would have to explain to the people why he was being stoned giving Jesus an opportunity to defend himself. How many times had they failed to outwit him? Further, a provision in Jewish writings condemned individuals for "bloodguilt"-- that is being held accountable for not preventing an unjust or preventable death.

However, by accusing Jesus of blasphemy to the Jews, and of attempting to usurp Caesar's power to the Romans, the Pharisees believed that they could convince those higher up of the worthiness of putting Jesus to death. Oddly enough, both the Jewish governor Herod and the Roman governor Pilate found Jesus guilty of nothing. But... Pilate was a puppet governor. His job was to keep his little section of the Empire quiet. Like today, a bad job drew a LOT of attention. So, in an attempt to keep himself from looking inept, he left it in the hands of the people.

Jesus' own disciples deserted him (fulfilling the "strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter" prophecy), and many of his followers adopted the mob mentality. The time was during the Passover feast also, and executions were put on hold for the week. The Bible states that the bloodthirsty crowd decided that Jesus, rather than the murderer Barrabbas, should die. The above is the biblical account with the exception to the green font which outlines the why's of why Pilate allowed a mob to decide Jesus' fate. But the reality is, why would Pilate care that the crowds wanted Jesus to die? Of what consequence was it to him if Jesus lived or died? None.

The whole idea of the fulfillment of the prophecy highlights that the religion of the day as well as the government of the day rejected God's chief cornerstone. They, in tandem, killed him. In doing so, they gave birth to a new religion that, according to the bible, began with the Jews and will end with God. Paul later goes on to explain that, although no longer enjoying elevated status, the Jews as a nation weren't supposed to be condemned either. Paul, like the original twelve apostles and ALL the Bible writers, was JEWISH! They were reporting facts, not bias.

*shrug* is right.

[boobooday]

21. Nobody cared what the Dixie Chicks thought

But we're all supposed to believe Mel Gibson's version of the crucifiction? hahaha

He stinks. I always thought so.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

Jeanette

[ikojo]

24. Jews exercised little power during Roman times

Crucifixion was a ROMAN way of killing people

[papau]

30. True

:-)

[rugger]

35. yes however,

Jews (and most conquered people) were allowed to keep much of their indigenous language, religion and customs. Although the method of execution was Roman (crucifiction can be pretty nasty!), the laws that condemned them were Jewish.

[northzax]

37. woulth tese laws, by any chance

be related to the Christian tradition of killing heretics as well? anyone ewant to count the number of saints kiiled by angry 'christian' mobs? how about the Inquisition? every religion kills it's heretics.

[Merlin]

25. By the time the gospels were written, christians and jews were enemies.

The gospels weren't written until 50-75 years after Jesus died. None of the writers knew him (contrary to common belief).

By then, a serious rift had developed between the Jewish followers of Jesus--headed initially by the actual Apostle Peter and Jesus actual brother, James--and the new Christian followers of "Christ"--a sect headed by Paul who had never met Jesus either, but claimed to know everything about him. Paul was actually the founder of Christianity.

The Christians excoriated the Jews, and built anti-Jewish polemics into the gospels, starting with Mark--the first writer. Mark puts highly uncharacteristic castigations of Jews into the mouth of Jesus--sentiments Jesus almost certainly never shared.

The idea that any of the writers actually knew more than half a century later what transpired in the trial of Jesus--if there ever even was one--is absurd. The idea that the Pharisaic Jews, who were decent, humanistic, intelligent, liberal Jews, would have called for the gratuitious murder of a man who preached nonviolence is equally absurd.

This crap should have been purged from the NT long ago.

[pacifictiger]

27. Jesus was a

liberal humanist who was amassing a significant following and ticked off jewish merchants and politicians who operated under the auspices of the temple as well as the roman administrators. They sought a way to elimate this thorn in their collective sides and discredit him to the masses at the same time - it was convenient for the romans to have a trial because they got rid of a rabble rouser, it was convenient for the temple hypocrites because he was telling their flock that they were making a mockery out of spirituality.

[Merlin]

31. Jewish responsibility for Jesus murder doesn't square with history.

We know for a fact that the Jews were chafing under hundreds of years of occupation. We know from historians writing in that period (Josephus, Tacitus) that the years 26-66 were a time of extreme hostility by the Jews toward the Romans.

We also know--by writing that occurred very soon after Jesus death--that Pilate enjoyed antagonizing Jews, was a stubborn and brutal man, and delighted in mock trials and swift executions of Jews.

We also know that a great many Jews saw Jesus as a Messiah. That did not mean anything religious or godly. It meant they believed he would become their king and lead them to liberate themselves from the yoke of foreign domination.

It is therefore exceptionally unlikely that the Matthew story is even the slightest bit true. Matthew (writing 60 years later) bends over backward to claim Pilate was a just procurator, did not want to execute "an innocent man" and was begged to do so by Jewish holy men (Pharisaic Jews who, by the way, were essentially non-violent).

But, listen to this contemporary description of Pilate, written less than a decade after Jesus' death by Agrippa--Roman emperor to be, surrounding what became known as The Shields Incident circa 26 AD:

With the intention of annoying the Jews rather than honoring Tiberius, (Pilate) set up gilded shields in (the Temple) in the Holy City... But when the Jews at large learnt of his action, ... they chose as their spokesmen the king's four sons ... and besought Pilate ... not to violate their native customs... When Pilate, who was a man of inflexible, stubborn, and cruel disposition, obstinately refused, they shouted, 'Do not cause a revolt! Do not cause a war! Do not break the peace! Disrespect done to our ancient Laws brings no honour to the Emperor. (Tiberius) does not want any of our traditions done away with. If you say that he does, show us some decree or letter or something of the sort, so that we may cease troubling you and appeal (directly to Tiberius by sending a delegation to Rome). This last remark exasperated Pilate most of all, for he was afraid ... (they would) detail his venality, his violence, his thefts, his assaults, his abusive behavior, his frequent executions of untried prisoners, and his endless savage ferocity. So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, he was in a serious dilemma; for he had neither the courage to remove what he had once setup, nor the desire to do anything which would please his subjects,...

http://www.beki.org/resistance.html

This does not sound like the kind of guy who would hesitate to put to death a man whose people felt he would lead them to freedom. Nor would such a ruler be likely to collaborate with his subjects. Nor would his subjects be likely to collaborate with him against one of their own.

Matthew and the other gospel writers, decades later, display a clear, unambiguous anti-Jewish bias, even to the point putting in Jesus' mouth outrageous, uncharacteristic epithets. It is therefore far more likely that Matthew's "blood curse" story (i.e. that Jewish holy men begged Pilate to kill Jesus, saying "Let his blood be upon us and our children") is a tragically misleading falsehood.

[Third Eye]

48. Blurred timeline....

Well, first off, Matthew was the first bible writer, completing his work before 45AD. Mark was actually third behind Luke but before John. Mark's writing is believed by most theologians to have been influenced by the apostle Peter as evidenced by Peter's mentioning that Mark was by his side in the book of 1 Peter.

Secondly, the idea that Christians hated Jews is postively absurd-- Mark (like all 12 original apostles) was Jewish. Paul, also a Jew, wrote in his letter to the Roman that although Jews no longer had a birthright to a relationship with God, they weren't "hated" by God, either. And he went out of his way to do it, and openly declare his Jewish ancestry. I'm not trying to get preachy here, but these are facts.

Thirdly, the idea that the writers would have known what transpired in Jesus' trial would have been known by someone that was their contemporary and that person would clearly have debunked any falsehoods contained therein. Also, both John and Matthew (two of the twelve apostles) were there for parts of the trial, and Peter was in the courtyard where the trial was being held. (That's where the "denial" occurred, according to all the accounts). Since Mark likely got the story of his account from Peter, we see that the events were, likely, accurately laid out. If not, why wouldn't someone who was there correct it?

Finally, I'm not sure where your history of the Pharisees comes from, but the most prominent historian of the day, Flavius Josephus (a non-Christian), paints Jesus and his followers as the liberal "rabble-rousers", and the Pharisees as the conservative, in-your-business-with-no-reason, cowards petrified by ANYONE who threatened their position (today we would call these "Cheneys"). If the history were false, then certainly Josephus, who had no stake either way, would have exposed the "lies". Jesus never bad-mouthed "JEWS" as a whole, his problem was with a purveying attitude of the day among the nation largely influenced by the Pharisees, that made serving God a burden. The Pharisees viewed them as a threat and wanted the threat eliminated.

[Merlin]

55. Where do you get your "facts?"

I know of absolutely no biblical scholar of any stripe who believes that ANY of the gospels was even BEGUN before 70 AD. That's just for starters. Maybe you can provide some proof for your claims that Mark wrote a quarter century earlier than is generally agreed to be the case.

Second, NONE of the gospel writers was an Apostle -- nor was Paul. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DISPUTE about this among nearly all biblical scholars.

Third, NONE of the gospel writers had ever met Jesus, nor were they alive during Jesus lifetime. Paul was a gentile, who claimed--falsely to be a Pharisaic Jew--who served as an enforcer for the Roman occupation. He was heading to arrest Christians in behalf of the Romans when he had his apparition "on the road to Damascus." He had no prior relationship whatsoever with Jesus.

Fourth, if you believe there was NOT a bitter split between those seeking to form a new religion--led by Paul--and those seeking to retain their Jewish allegiance--led by Peter--you're one of a very small minority.

Fifth, evidence of acute anti-Jewish hostility is rampant in the NT gospels. Matthew's "Blood Curse" fable is a perfect example. So are the bitter, uncharacteristic anti-Jewish remarks often put in Jesus' mouth by these writers.

[Dirk39]

28. Jesus wasn't white, so who cares?

sarcasm off.

If he would have been white, this Bush-kind of king wouldn't have killed all the children, trying to kill Jesus. Jesus would have been the only white and all the others would have survived.


And as if not being white wasn't enough -
to me it seems, he was a kind of left-wing extremist, too. Just imagine a democrat, who would state, that rather a camel would go to heaven than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld? Not electable!

Later his party became more moderate. Just compare, what those people, who did know him, were telling, compared to those, who just heard about him. The later are overrepresented in the bible by far. Although the bible claims to be fair and balanced: I have doubts. When the bible was written, the christians were dominated by the DLC. So, in order to reveal the truth, you have to look for the truth behind the lies.

Martin Luther King has made it into the mainstream within a few decades. Now just compare this to Jesus.

When the christians wanted to win the election, many of them were convinced, that Jesus wouldn't be electable. So they had to change some stories and hired a PR-agency. Maria had a child without being married and - even worse - Joseph married her, although she already had a child. The PR-agency then created this story about Jesus being born, simply born, no sex involved: a miracle. They thought that the moderate voters couldn't accept the truth. Premarital sex wasn't en vogue back then:-)

So let's forget about the past, Jesus is dead. But learn from the past and don't become moderate.

The BBC has produced some fantastic documentaries about Jesus, comparing the official bible story to the known historical facts. They were shown here in Germany around Christmas 2002. Although I'm not religious, these documentaries shocked me somehow. We're all religious anyway.
In Germany, everybody, who's speaking longer than 15 seconds, is using at least one rhetoric figure from the bible on average.
No escape.

The moderates killed Jesus, while Judas tried to save him.
(The Judas story really is debunked).

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[Hand]

32. You're all wrong...

It was Clinton's penis... I mean, what's wrong with you people????? Can't you get the simplest facts straight?????
:evilgrin: :silly: :crazy:

[minkyboodle]

43. that and janet's you know what

woooo looord I'm putting the bucket on my head now.
Scott :silly:

[DinahMoeHum]

33. The Romans. . .with the connivance of the Jewish Pharisees.

The Pharisees were collaborators with the ruling Roman government. They sold out their own people in return for status and special favors.


:bounce:

[opihimoimoi]

36. It really don't matter, the same shit goes on today. Expedient answers

still rule. If someone is in the way, zappo.

If a country is in the way, zappo too.

Peace is now a dirty word, only its 5 letters.

[mac2]

58. see below

post #61 by mac2

[Raenelle]

41. Talk about a frikking cold case file.

[Martin Eden]

44. I know the answer to this question!!!

Jesus was killed by ...

... people who have been dead approximately two thousand years.

Even if we could be certain who the killers were, blaming their descendants now would be downright ... un-Christian!

[GoBlue]

46. Just a continuation of pagan tradition of sacrifice; to appease God

1.Sacrifice crops
2. Sacrifice animals.
3 Sacrifice people.
4 Sacifice God.
5. Sacrifice soul.

[PATRICK]

52. the issue resembles current murky "history"

The Christians, banned and excluded form the Synagogue and Temple were in a precarious condition. Rome's benevolent syncretism, tolerance, allowed old religions their ways without deference to Emperor Worship if they were real conscientious objectors. New religions, much less cults of rival man-gods were illegal. The passion accounts of a generation after Nero's persecutions do bend over backward to make Pilate less responsible and Jesus an innocent man. The gymnastics do not obscure the truth so much as put a spin on it. Luke especially has the centurion at the cross praise Jesus as a just, innocent man- quite a change from Mark's first ironic human declaration of Christ's divinity- by a Roman viewing His death.

Given the precedent of persecutions, the continued enmity between Jews and Christians, and the appeal to a wider group of gentiles, Rome's obvious control of the stage and Jesus' "guilt" is mitigated.
Of course, that may have forced them to bring in details of the Sanhedrin trial(an Iraqi style rubber stamp council) and possibly Herod- another puppet like Chalabi.

Josephus talking about Pilate is a better picture or brutal law and order and arrogance in a place miserable for any Roman to command, beset with "terrorists" and a seething popular need to be free, especially in Jerusalem.

The only other detail besides the backdrop of the Jerusalem Temple cleansing was that Jesus had been trailed eventually by Temple agents
worried about the John the Baptist thing. Attempted stonings, confrontations with honest or otherwise Pharisees(neo-conservatives)were making it likely Jesus was under danger enough in the hinterlands. The last thing they wanted was for the subdued populace to take direction from someone other than religious reformers(Pharisees) or the Temple collaborators. If this is beginning to sound familiar it probably is.

Americans, with education, telecommunication, liberty, democracy and endless other advantages have all in all made a poorer show lately in moral discernment or action. The undercurrent in the framing this issue in Newsweek of whether to blame the Jews(then, now, or future) for being human is patently disgusting and another fostered evasion of an unpleasant, still universal condition.

Jesus' own role was not to duck, stoop to fight violence with violence, and turn it all around by death itself, a neat feat, which if you believe it, is the cornerstone of the faith. So blame the victim and call it "suicide"?

Same old crap. The Church trying to protect its own(and lives were at stake, not money or land) did some things, but Mark's early blunt edition shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and Nero's persecution luckily went the other way and set an unequivocating rendition of the Passion(the first of all Gospel narratives to be composed) although he certainly had his own anti-authoritarian(anti-apostle) axe to grind- similar very much to some DU complaints against the DLC and DNC.

Evil killed Jesus. As bad as it gets. The miserable actors might as well be flu viruses for all the comparable humanity they had as mere executioners and guardians of corrupt power. The fact that humanity is fatally like this is still a sound basis for what exactly the salvation event of the crucifixion was about.

[RedCloud]

57. Hercules was imitated

The name Hercules pronounced with a "G" sound in other languages leaves us after metathesis and collapse with Ge_us, not too far away indeed!
Now Hercules' father was Zeus (Deus-Latin;Dios in Spanish!).
He impregnated an Earth virgin, (not some guy's wife!)Alcmene, using light. Baby Herc later emerged from a grotto (cave-symbolic womb of the Earth, not a manger as has been feebly translated by many!)
Herc received four major titles of adoration:
The Good Shepherd, (classic Greek profession).
The Prince of Peace (used powers to help humanity)
The Son of Man (part god/ part Earthling)
and because Herc voluntarily self immolated and his body was not discovered until THREE days later when Zeus took his body to Mount Olympus where it formed a spiritual bridge between the Earth and the Gods he was called The Saviour.
Does any of this ring a familiar bell?
At least the Greeks weren't shy about divulging the plurality of the Gods. YAHWEH ELOHIM is ancient for "Jehovah, from the war council (12 gods there, a clandestine calendar influence to be sure).

Free up your religious days and just hope that the people of the future will time travel back and do nice stuff once it's all said and done.

[PATRICK]

59. That fills out something I was taught

That the "theos aner" superman demi-god traditions in Greek culture(others besides Hercules) were as rampant as Jewish apocalypticism at that time. The first Gospel, Mark, is a withering slapdown of the popular rebranding of Jesus with such titles and myths even at the expense of humiliating the disciples. Ted Weeden, a Methodist scholar, taught us personally from his now seminal book on Mark's editorial slant against the "power hero" cult replacing the quizzical odd "Messianic Secret" posture Jesus seems to take whenever the demons start spouting who He really is. (Humans, with the exception of the Roman guard at the cross, never get it right in mark). The Passion story and blunt teachings are unprettified and disrobed of Gnostic style superhumanness even to the point of NOT including a resurrection story but only the empty tomb. Even an idiot can tell the last addition to Mark's Gospel is totally a different language and idea than the rest of the Gospel, "fixing" the boldness of Mark's slant.

Some cults, post-Christian also imitated the success of Christian myth, but there were stories aplenty to fit any any myth comparison, after thousands of years of cultural cross insemination and borrowing. Yet the "three days" is an ancient Jewish time symbol of long standing as well. If that was borrowed from other Mediterranean stories, blame the Jews(no offense intended!), but who can tell? Famous Jewish stories of great antiquity that might be so compared: Noah's Ark from the Babylonian Ushpatnitim in the Gilgamesh epic, and Samson from Hercules. Just as no one in the Gospels particularly mentions Hercules, they don't mention Samson(a figure of violence) either. But they do mention Jonah three days in the belly of the whale. The "strong man" in the Gospels is a code word for the devil I believe.

Great stuff for term papers but don't get too cocky trying to impress people into taking a simple comparison into a broadly overstated value judgment.

[question everything]

60. Would there be Christianity if Jesus lived to a ripe old age? n/t

[mac2]

61. Clergy says, we all did.

Who killed Christ? According to a sermon I heard on radio by a minister, we all did.

In the movie, it was symbolic that Jesus puts the stake into his own hand.

You can't escape religion now on the radio since Powell gave them educational status. I listened to his explanation.

It was the Roman leader, the local government officials (Jewish I guess), the cheering crowd...and us. Jesus was sent to the earth to die for our sins. It was predestined by God.

So let's not get into this divisive subject at all. Let's keep our nose to getting rid of Bush. If he takes over, we won't be able to worship anyone we please or how we please.