• Announcements

    • Senior Lightworker Lucas

      Message from the office   07/13/2017

      There is an important message from the ULC Staff Office in the Admin Announcements & Maintenance forum. More info is on the way regarding new changes. The new area, Interpath Academia & Scholarship is open for creating new topics. We hope these areas will offer productive and insightful discussion. Please be sure to read the updated ULC Online Forum Statements, Rules & Policies, and the introductory post for each area. 
cuchulain

Historical Jesus

231 posts in this topic

The story of the woman and adultery was a later addition and does not appear in the earliest works. I like the story but we do not know if it happened,

On the other point, yes being thrown off the temple or stoned was a Jewish way of dealing with those they did not like. Hence, I really do not like it when people turn around and blame the Jews for Jesus' death. Crucifixion was strictly a Roman sentence and they used it frequently and Jews had little say in what Romans did. I think it became a big PR job by the gospel writers., It does not do to blame the Romans when you want to be accepted by them. Thus Pilate gains a conscience and gets his will forced by the Jews. Yet history denotes he was a killer and enjoyed it and I doubt the Jews had any sway on what he did.

PR :scenic:

You're well informed. There was an additional source of conflict. The majority of Jews did not join the Jesus movement -- then or later. Perhaps, they knew something. Perhaps, they still know something.

When faith is everything -- and others are not impressed by that faith -- bad things happen. Some things don't change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do not see Jesus as teaching anything more than Judaism. He may have tried to unit the fragmented Jews which was always a dangerous thing to do under Roman occupation. Like Jews anywhere it would be extremely rare for a Jews to declare themselves as God and if Jesus existed I doubt he did too except in the Gospels. It is just not done in Judaism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do not see Jesus as teaching anything more than Judaism. He may have tried to unit the fragmented Jews which was always a dangerous thing to do under Roman occupation. Like Jews anywhere it would be extremely rare for a Jews to declare themselves as God and if Jesus existed I doubt he did too except in the Gospels. It is just not done in Judaism.

That is my take as well. If there was a historic Jesus; he was a reformer of Judaism. In much the same way that Buddha was trying to reform the Vedic religion.

Well, it's too late, now. Paul went and took his message to the gentiles. What's done is done. I'm persuaded that without Paul; the Jesus movement would have been reabsorbed by the Judaism of the day. Much as Buddhism in India has been absorbed by the Hindus. Christianity as a separate religion would never have arisen. Of course, we wouldn't have Islam now, either. We will never know what might have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not like it when people turn around and blame the Jews for Jesus' death.

Just curious, who do you think initiated the arrest of Christ? Who paid to find him? Was Jesus first taken to Pilate or the high priest? Who demanded the death penalty? When Pilate offered to free Christ, who was screaming "Crucify him"? The Romans or the Jews? Who washed his hands of the whole charade and who mocked Christ as he died on the cross? I suspect there's a reason people blame the Jews for Jesus death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan we are talking from a secular perspective and your assertion of documents which contradict, written long after the event, and from a Romano perspective are not accepted as the literal truth from a secular perspective. Jonathan is correct that the Jews would have had no trouble sorting this out without the need for the Romans. The Temple Priests were not without power. Hence, Paul preferring to go to Rome to met Caesar rather than meet them. The crime of declaring to be God is a religious crime in which those in the temple could have sentenced him. If there were so many Jewish crowds hating Jesus it would have been no trouble to just have him killed.They could of easily thrown him off the temple or stoned him. As Jonathan pointed out from a literalist view point if we are to believe the story of the woman in adultery then we are to accept that stoning was used. Yet, none of this happened which leaves me suspicious from a secular point of view..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is my take as well. If there was a historic Jesus; he was a reformer of Judaism. In much the same way that Buddha was trying to reform the Vedic religion.

Well, it's too late, now. Paul went and took his message to the gentiles. What's done is done. I'm persuaded that without Paul; the Jesus movement would have been reabsorbed by the Judaism of the day. Much as Buddhism in India has been absorbed by the Hindus. Christianity as a separate religion would never have arisen. Of course, we wouldn't have Islam now, either. We will never know what might have been.

Islam was not informed by gentile Christianity, but by the original Jewish variety which survived on the Arabian peninsula for centuries. So, Paul and his church are unrelated to Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam was not informed by gentile Christianity, but by the original Jewish variety which survived on the Arabian peninsula for centuries. So, Paul and his church are unrelated to Islam.

This is true but i think we have Paul's version being the predominant force in Christianity today and not that of the view of those who got swallowed up by Islam. Mohammed's first wife was suggest may of been an Ebonite but we cannot say for sure. Islam's version of Jesus is very different from Paul's. To them he was a prophet preaching the old testament following of the law. He was not crucified but it was made to look like he did and God rescued him from such pain out of pity. There was no resurrection. etc.

What one can see is how varied Christianity was and Paul's version one of many but of course his version was adopted by Rome, the power of time, and not that of the Ebonites or another fraction of Christianity.

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, who do you think initiated the arrest of Christ? Who paid to find him? Was Jesus first taken to Pilate or the high priest? Who demanded the death penalty? When Pilate offered to free Christ, who was screaming "Crucify him"? The Romans or the Jews? Who washed his hands of the whole charade and who mocked Christ as he died on the cross? I suspect there's a reason people blame the Jews for Jesus death.

Since you asked, none of it adds up for me. Look at the "betrayal" by Judas. What did he do? By kissing Jesus on the cheek, he said -- this is the man you are looking for. Really? Jesus is being followed around by these huge crowds -- and the Romans can't figure out who to arrest? They need an informer just to point him out? It makes no sense at all.

As for the trial -- oh, please. You think the Temple authorities couldn't handle a simple murder? The Sicari were everywhere. Yes. Sicari. The people walking around with daggers under their cloaks. Paid killers/terrorists. As in Judas Iscariot. Did you think Iscariot was a family name?

Why did the sign over Jesus' head say -- "King of the Jews?" This is why the Romans killed him. The Jews were looking for a military leader that would help them throw the Romans out of their territory. This is what the Romans thought they were dealing with. The Romans didn't give a crap about Judaism.

What would you expect the followers of Paul to say to the Romans? "You killed him. Now accept him as your Lord and Saviour. " That would go over well.

The trial makes no sense at all. On any level. It's transparent nonsense.

You asked.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam was not informed by gentile Christianity, but by the original Jewish variety which survived on the Arabian peninsula for centuries. So, Paul and his church are unrelated to Islam.

Islam is clear that Jesus was a prophet. This shows that the foundation of Islam is both Judaism and Christianity. If Islam were based only on Judaism, there would be no mention of Jesus, or his mother. The Koran also makes frequent reference to both Jews and Christians.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, just out of curiosity, can you state your secular sources for all that information you just provided?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, just out of curiosity, can you state your secular sources for all that information you just provided?

There's no secular information regarding the arrest, trial, and killing of Jesus. There's no secular information regarding Moses, King David, or Abraham either. There's only two possible reasons why this is so, one is that none of these people existed, the other is that God only trusted and used His own prophets & apostles to get it right. No nonbeliever could be inspired by God, so none we're allowed to reveal or substantiate His word. God's word is too precious to be left in the hands of government records or agnostic historians, who would inevitably get the facts wrong and spin what happened. Remember the parable of the rich man, who was told that those who refused to believe Moses and the Prophets, would also not be convinced by someone who rose from the dead (Luke 16:31). It also seems reasonable that if any secular records existed which confirmed the gospel story, it would still fail to convince the public. Belief is a choice, and people generally believe what they love and reject what they hate. If a person hates the message, even if it were proven to be factually authentic, they would still hate the message. jmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So nothing more than you have a belief in the dogma and you have the bible. A book written by man, a book put together by man, edited by man, arranged by man, debated by man, fought over by man, has not existed for the greatest period by far of man's existence, is contradictory and often nonsense in men's eyes, said written by a God no one can see or prove and just which part has been written in this gods direct hand? None of it. It is the work of man. It is not a matter of like or not like the message. It is a matter of why would anyone take it seriously. The church knew that and then added threats of hell and tortured and killed people who disagreed with them. In short it is created by man.

Seasonal greetings everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no secular information regarding the arrest, trial, and killing of Jesus. There's no secular information regarding Moses, King David, or Abraham either. There's only two possible reasons why this is so, one is that none of these people existed, the other is that God only trusted and used His own prophets & apostles to get it right. No nonbeliever could be inspired by God, so none we're allowed to reveal or substantiate His word. God's word is too precious to be left in the hands of government records or agnostic historians, who would inevitably get the facts wrong and spin what happened. Remember the parable of the rich man, who was told that those who refused to believe Moses and the Prophets, would also not be convinced by someone who rose from the dead (Luke 16:31). It also seems reasonable that if any secular records existed which confirmed the gospel story, it would still fail to convince the public. Belief is a choice, and people generally believe what they love and reject what they hate. If a person hates the message, even if it were proven to be factually authentic, they would still hate the message. jmo

1. So much for God's omnipotence.

2. Thank you for confirming the lack of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only two possible reasons why this is so, one is that none of these people existed, the other is that God only trusted and used His own prophets & apostles to get it right.

ORLY?

I can think of at least one other... there were other documents, but they have not survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So nothing more than you have a belief in the dogma and you have the bible. A book written by man, a book put together by man, edited by man, arranged by man, debated by man, fought over by man, has not existed for the greatest period by far of man's existence, is contradictory and often nonsense in men's eyes, said written by a God no one can see or prove and just which part has been written in this gods direct hand? What else does any of us have but our belief and faith that what we believe is true? None of it. It is the work of man. It is not a matter of like or not like the message. It is a matter of why would anyone take it seriously. The church knew that and then added threats of hell and tortured and killed people who disagreed with them. In short it is created by man.

Seasonal greetings everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do not care about what a person chooses to believe but why does every debate by those who are prepared to see beyond it have to be weighed down by debates about fundies beliefs. This is about the historical Jesus from a secular standpoint and again it comes back to debating what the fundies think. I just get sick of it. What has someones fundamental beliefs about the meaning of the bible got to do with a secular review of the historical Jesus? Nothing but here we go again and here you go defending them. I know what they beleive because I was brought up one. My journey was away from it and I do not want to return, but when I talk about the journey and findings I get the old thing about you must be attacking the fundies. I just do not want to hear it, but it seems it is always unavoidable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus says in the Padgett Messages...

I was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, as it is taught by the preachers and teachers who are now leading humankind in the doctrines of the churches. I was born as you were born. My earthly father was Joseph. I was conceived by God's Spirit in the sense that I was born free from sin and error, while all other human beings were born in sin and error. I never was a human being so far as my Spiritual existence is concerned, as I was always free from sin and error. I had all the feelings and longings of a human being, which were not of sin. My Love was human as well as Spiritual. I was subject to all the feelings of sympathy and Love that any other human being was. Do not understand that I was with desires and longings for the pleasures of the World, which the human passions created. I was not, only I was capable of deep feeling, and could feel and know the suffering and distress of humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Birth and Life of Jesus.
Description of Birth and Life of Jesus Up to the Time of His Public Ministry

I am here, Jesus;

I want to write to you to-night about my birth and life up to the time of my public ministry. I was born in Bethlehem, as you know, in a manger, and when I was a few days old my parents took me to Egypt, in order to avoid the soldiers of Herod who were sent to destroy me, and who did kill a great number of male infants of less than two years of age.

The Bible story of my birth and the flight of my parents and the murder of the innocents, is substantially correct; and I only wish to add to it, that when my parents arrived in Bethlehem they were not compelled to seek the manger of a stable in order that I might be born on account of poverty, for they were supplied with funds and everything that was needed to make my birth comfortable for my mother; and as a matter of fact my father was not poor in the world's goods as poverty was considered in those days.

The Bible says the wise men came and brought offerings of gold and frankincense to my parents, ....

http://www.divinelovedivinetruth.org/life_of_jesus

Edited by Rev. Dr. Michael. DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do not care about what a person chooses to believe but why does every debate by those who are prepared to see beyond it have to be weighed down by debates about fundies beliefs. This is about the historical Jesus from a secular standpoint and again it comes back to debating what the fundies think. I just get sick of it. What has someones fundamental beliefs about the meaning of the bible got to do with a secular review of the historical Jesus? Nothing but here we go again and here you go defending them. I know what they beleive because I was brought up one. My journey was away from it and I do not want to return, but when I talk about the journey and findings I get the old thing about you must be attacking the fundies. I just do not want to hear it, but it seems it is always unavoidable.

Yes. I know. It is the fatal flaw of interfaith that drains the joy out of it. We must respect those who have no respect; and tolerate the intolerant. It's what happens. We stand up for ourselves in the face of fundamentalist doctrine -- then we're the bad guys.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally do not care about what a person chooses to believe but why does every debate by those who are prepared to see beyond it have to be weighed down by debates about fundies beliefs. This is about the historical Jesus from a secular standpoint and again it comes back to debating what the fundies think. I just get sick of it. What has someones fundamental beliefs about the meaning of the bible got to do with a secular review of the historical Jesus? Nothing but here we go again and here you go defending them. I know what they beleive because I was brought up one. My journey was away from it and I do not want to return, but when I talk about the journey and findings I get the old thing about you must be attacking the fundies. I just do not want to hear it, but it seems it is always unavoidable.

I know it may seem as though I am picking on you Pete but I am not. You should know Dan56 well enough by now to know the responses you will get from him when you post certain topics or reply to certain topics. I have learned long ago who I can discuss certain topics with (both here on the forum and outside the forum) and who I cannot. I don't respond to those I cannot discuss things with. It is a waste of time to me. Some folks on the forum adhere to beliefs that make me want to laugh and wonder what planet they are on and if they really take themselves seriously. Now I am not going to start arguing with them and telling them how wrong they are. Since I don't believe it, I don't care because I know what they believe will not harm me. Ignore is the key here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now