Automatic V Manual - How Easy Is It For...
Motoring7 mins ago
Christianity Explored Course Update
97 Answers
I went to the first session of St Marks gospel which as I'm sure you know starts with the prophecy of Isiaah, on which the Christain myth depends.
I told them the whole prophecy is a lie and a fabrication, which made me very popular, at least with the other students.
I told them the whole prophecy is a lie and a fabrication, which made me very popular, at least with the other students.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//The last mention of Jesus before his ministry is age 12. (Luke I believe). What he did in between is a matter of much speculation.//
Mark 6 v 3 tells us that he was the "carpenter" so it is logical to conclude that after the account of his being in the temple - he would have learned from his adopted father, Joseph who, as you know, was a carpenter.
Also, as the eldest son he would probably have helped to care for the family as it appears that Joseph died while Jesus was still young because Mark 6 v 3 makes no mention of Joseph.
It is quite probable, then, that the period of eighteen years of his life, from the time of the temple incident to the time of his baptism, was spent in the performance of the ordinary duties of life.
Mark 6 v 3 tells us that he was the "carpenter" so it is logical to conclude that after the account of his being in the temple - he would have learned from his adopted father, Joseph who, as you know, was a carpenter.
Also, as the eldest son he would probably have helped to care for the family as it appears that Joseph died while Jesus was still young because Mark 6 v 3 makes no mention of Joseph.
It is quite probable, then, that the period of eighteen years of his life, from the time of the temple incident to the time of his baptism, was spent in the performance of the ordinary duties of life.
The story of a 12 year old illiterate boy going into the temple and debating
Jewish law with learned lawyers, is not repeated anywhere else.
However we do know it was about another 20 years before we hear of him again. To me they were 20 wasted years. How much he could have passed on as a priest let alone as a son of God. If you look at the OT prophets they all , it is claimed, had long lives and played major parts in the history
of the country but not Jesus , a quick 2/3 yr bit of activity and pop, gone !
Jewish law with learned lawyers, is not repeated anywhere else.
However we do know it was about another 20 years before we hear of him again. To me they were 20 wasted years. How much he could have passed on as a priest let alone as a son of God. If you look at the OT prophets they all , it is claimed, had long lives and played major parts in the history
of the country but not Jesus , a quick 2/3 yr bit of activity and pop, gone !
Jom, perhaps – Jesus (if he existed at all) wasn’t the only wandering preacher in the area at the time.
I’d like to clarify my last post. The reason I don’t think he worked with his father (Joseph) is because those who questioned his identity appear to have recognised his siblings well enough – but not him. Had he worked for all those years as a carpenter, he surely would have been as well known to the locals as his brothers – whom they named without hesitation.
I’d like to clarify my last post. The reason I don’t think he worked with his father (Joseph) is because those who questioned his identity appear to have recognised his siblings well enough – but not him. Had he worked for all those years as a carpenter, he surely would have been as well known to the locals as his brothers – whom they named without hesitation.
Naomi We do know over 95 % of the population were illiterate and as a landless tradesman ( ' carpenter ') he was on the bottom rung below the peasants who had a bit of land. There is no evidence that he was literate no matter how bright he may have been. I think had he had any literary ability at all it would have been trumpeted around the world . We would all be reading the Jesus Gospels .
jomifl That's a possibility as prophets were popping up everywhere. His ministry was so short I rather doubt it. However many of those 'miracles .
could have come from various sources .
jomifl That's a possibility as prophets were popping up everywhere. His ministry was so short I rather doubt it. However many of those 'miracles .
could have come from various sources .
Modeller, that assumes he was the Son of God, but I think he was someone quite different. There’s no evidence that he was illiterate – nor that he was who people claim him to be – so why would you expect him to write lengthy volumes for the benefit of posterity? I don’t think he ever intended his message to go beyond the Jewish population of his homeland - and neither do I think he intended to found a new religion.
Naomi //neither do I think he intended to found a new religion //
I agree with that .
He was a rebel and defied Jewish laws. If he had a purpose it was to reform Judeism . Although he repeatedly backed the OT prophets.
However he did claim to be the son of God and never denied it under questioning. He could have avoided the death penalty but it seems he chose martydom.
//but I think he was someone quite different. // Do tell !
I agree with that .
He was a rebel and defied Jewish laws. If he had a purpose it was to reform Judeism . Although he repeatedly backed the OT prophets.
However he did claim to be the son of God and never denied it under questioning. He could have avoided the death penalty but it seems he chose martydom.
//but I think he was someone quite different. // Do tell !
Modeller, //He was a rebel…//
…against Roman occupation.
//If he had a purpose it was to reform Judeism .//
I disagree. He was a Jew who allegedly told his followers to ‘keep the law’.
//he did claim to be the son of God and never denied it under questioning. He could have avoided the death penalty but it seems he chose martydom.//
Are you sure? Who recorded the trial? The Romans didn’t – and his followers weren’t there. They ran away.
////-//but I think he was someone quite different. // Do tell !////
Possibly the rightful ‘king of the Jews’ – hence the visit of the wise men at his birth, hence the biblical accounts of Joseph’s genealogy, hence the charge of insurrection, and hence the sign allegedly nailed to the cross.
You and I are approaching this puzzle from different angles. Your intention appears to be solely to discredit Christianity – mine to seek the truth and discover the historical Jesus.
…against Roman occupation.
//If he had a purpose it was to reform Judeism .//
I disagree. He was a Jew who allegedly told his followers to ‘keep the law’.
//he did claim to be the son of God and never denied it under questioning. He could have avoided the death penalty but it seems he chose martydom.//
Are you sure? Who recorded the trial? The Romans didn’t – and his followers weren’t there. They ran away.
////-//but I think he was someone quite different. // Do tell !////
Possibly the rightful ‘king of the Jews’ – hence the visit of the wise men at his birth, hence the biblical accounts of Joseph’s genealogy, hence the charge of insurrection, and hence the sign allegedly nailed to the cross.
You and I are approaching this puzzle from different angles. Your intention appears to be solely to discredit Christianity – mine to seek the truth and discover the historical Jesus.
Naomi He was not a rebel agains the Romans . He repeatedly broke the nonsensible Jewish laws and traditions especiably on the Sabbath.
It was the Jews who made all the accusations against him and trumped up a few supposedly against Rome but Pontius Pilate found there was no case against him.
Here are a few of his so called crimes against God and Judeism .
Old Testament laws that Jesus Broke. He touched a leper. Worked on the Sabbath. Let the adulterous woman walk away without being stoned. Forgave a Samaritan woman who had 5 husbands and was living in sin with the man she was with. Got angry. Proclaimed to be equal with God. Didn't honor his mother, "who is my mother and brother, but them that do the will of my Father". Didn't sacrifice a lamb on the day of Atonement. Didn't insist Peter be punished for lying or pay the price when he cut off someones ear. Let Paul get away with killing Stephen. Ate with Gentiles and didn't wash his hands.
Nothing there about Rome !
It was the Jews who made all the accusations against him and trumped up a few supposedly against Rome but Pontius Pilate found there was no case against him.
Here are a few of his so called crimes against God and Judeism .
Old Testament laws that Jesus Broke. He touched a leper. Worked on the Sabbath. Let the adulterous woman walk away without being stoned. Forgave a Samaritan woman who had 5 husbands and was living in sin with the man she was with. Got angry. Proclaimed to be equal with God. Didn't honor his mother, "who is my mother and brother, but them that do the will of my Father". Didn't sacrifice a lamb on the day of Atonement. Didn't insist Peter be punished for lying or pay the price when he cut off someones ear. Let Paul get away with killing Stephen. Ate with Gentiles and didn't wash his hands.
Nothing there about Rome !
Modeller, the Jews have been demonised in this – and purposefully so. Less than a week before the crucifixion the people, en masse, welcomed Jesus enthusiastically into Jerusalem, and yet we are expected to believe that within days those same crowds demanded his death. The priests accused him of blasphemy, the penalty for which in Jewish law was stoning, but in Roman law, blasphemy was unrecognised and therefore the Romans would not have brought that charge against him. Crucifixion, the penalty for sedition, was a Roman punishment – and that is what he was charged with. Zealots numbered among Jesus disciples, and after the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, this was a group that for the Romans spelt trouble. Had Pilate found him innocent of any crime the Romans wouldn’t have executed him. You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the New Testament. It was written with a purpose – and has been edited many, many times in order to attempt to validate that purpose. The story is fundamentally one of politics – not of religion – and it’s a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes.
Incidentally, Jesus didn’t ‘let Paul get away with killing Stephen’. Not that I think Jesus died on the cross – I don’t – but the crucifixion had already taken place when Stephen was killed – and Jesus never met Paul.
Incidentally, Jesus didn’t ‘let Paul get away with killing Stephen’. Not that I think Jesus died on the cross – I don’t – but the crucifixion had already taken place when Stephen was killed – and Jesus never met Paul.
Naomi I have read many versions of the trials of Jesus and in all cases it is
the Jewish 'trials' starting off with the Sanhedren and being taken to various priests who all wanted him dead as they saw him as a direct threat to them. They however didn't have the power so they sent him to the govenor Pilate . He could find nothing against him in Roman Law but avoided the issue by sending him to the governor Herod in Galilee . He also found nothing wrong so sent him back to Pilate who decided to let the Jews make the decision, which resulted in the crucifixion .
It doesn't make sense why one week the crowds are applauding him in triumph and a week later demanding his death. Who were those people on those different occasions ?
The only thing that IMO is pretty consistant. It was the Jewish authorities who were primarily responsible for his death not the Romans.
I am not, as you say , solely trying to discredit Christianity .
I see Jesus as a brave man willing to break their ( Jewish ) laws in pursuit of common sense and humanity. It was not the Romans who feared him,. as shown by Herod and Pilate , it was clearly the Jewish priesthood and politics.
the Jewish 'trials' starting off with the Sanhedren and being taken to various priests who all wanted him dead as they saw him as a direct threat to them. They however didn't have the power so they sent him to the govenor Pilate . He could find nothing against him in Roman Law but avoided the issue by sending him to the governor Herod in Galilee . He also found nothing wrong so sent him back to Pilate who decided to let the Jews make the decision, which resulted in the crucifixion .
It doesn't make sense why one week the crowds are applauding him in triumph and a week later demanding his death. Who were those people on those different occasions ?
The only thing that IMO is pretty consistant. It was the Jewish authorities who were primarily responsible for his death not the Romans.
I am not, as you say , solely trying to discredit Christianity .
I see Jesus as a brave man willing to break their ( Jewish ) laws in pursuit of common sense and humanity. It was not the Romans who feared him,. as shown by Herod and Pilate , it was clearly the Jewish priesthood and politics.
I described Jesus as a rebel . I see him as similar to Martin Luther , he was was a zealot and prepared to face death in pursuit of his aim to reform the Roman Church . He like Jesus wanted reform , not another religion ,but as you know he split the church and brought about the reformation.
I said Jesus chose martydom by remaining silent at his trials and not offering any real defence. We know he was a great orator and could have put up a good arguement but he didn't. Why ? IMO he was a zealot and trying to fulfil the prophecies, so he had to die.
I said Jesus chose martydom by remaining silent at his trials and not offering any real defence. We know he was a great orator and could have put up a good arguement but he didn't. Why ? IMO he was a zealot and trying to fulfil the prophecies, so he had to die.
Modeller, I know how the story is portrayed both by the Gospel writers and others, but the fact remains that the Romans, who did not recognise the crime of blasphemy, crucified Jesus – and they crucified him for their own reasons - otherwise they wouldn't have condemned him to death. Quite simply, had Jesus been deemed guilty of blasphemy he would have been stoned to death by the Jews – not crucified by the Romans. The Jewish authorities certainly supported the Romans because, just as people in power today feather their own nests, it suited their political and personal agendas to do so. Nothing changes. Herod (who feared that John the Baptist was capable of inciting rebellion and hence had him bumped off) was nothing but a puppet who was doing very nicely for himself, thanks to the Romans. Furthermore, the account of the tradition which allowed the people (who had just days before lauded Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem) to choose to free one prisoner at Passover (in this case, Barabbas) is bunkum. Nowhere outside of the Gospels is any such tradition recorded. It didn’t exist – just as no official record of Jesus’ trial exists. This was a deliberate attempt by the authors to demonise the Jews – and it worked! Spin doctors are nothing new; the New Testament bears witness to that – and the 'spinning' continued for centuries after the event. There really is more to this story than meets the eye – and it doesn’t all revolve around religion. I find the whole thing fascinating, but you can't take the Gospels as 'gospel'. There is plenty of chaff that needs separating from the wheat.
By the way, Zealots (with a capital 'Z') were members of a political movement which sought to eject the Romans from the land - and who, like Jesus, had different ideas and didn’t hold the priests in great esteem (the Talmud calls them ‘non-religious’ for that reason).
By the way, Zealots (with a capital 'Z') were members of a political movement which sought to eject the Romans from the land - and who, like Jesus, had different ideas and didn’t hold the priests in great esteem (the Talmud calls them ‘non-religious’ for that reason).
//By the way, Zealots (with a capital 'Z') were members of a political //
That's why I used a small 'z'.
// Quite simply, had Jesus been deemed guilty of blasphemy he would have been stoned to death by the Jews –//
I don't think they had the power to do so , that's why they had to get the Romans to do their evil for them. Had it been otherwise they could have stoned him to death themselves but we know they handed him to Pilate.
That's why I used a small 'z'.
// Quite simply, had Jesus been deemed guilty of blasphemy he would have been stoned to death by the Jews –//
I don't think they had the power to do so , that's why they had to get the Romans to do their evil for them. Had it been otherwise they could have stoned him to death themselves but we know they handed him to Pilate.
Modeller, //I don't think they had the power to do so//
They certainly did. Think of the woman accused of adultery, and Stephen, who you mentioned earlier, accused of blasphemy and stoned to death. I think the real reason the Jewish authorities didn’t stone Jesus was because they knew the general populace wanted rid of Roman occupation and they feared revolt – Herod had only recently put John to death because he feared that John was inciting rebellion. Politically, this was a highly volatile area; the corrupt Jewish authorities wanted to maintain Roman rule – it suited them – and so to take responsibility for removing this clearly popular insurgent would have risked mutiny.
Remember that the Jews awaited a ‘Messiah’ who would emerge bearing arms against their oppressors – not someone endowed with supernatural powers whose sole purpose was to save souls. That idea came much later from elsewhere, and is a different story altogether. For the Jews a supernatural saviour wasn’t a consideration. They were waiting for a leader, a descendant of the House of David, an anointed one, a king – as had been prophesied - and I suspect they imagined that Jesus fulfilled that role – hence the anointing which took place shortly before his triumphal entry into Jerusalem – and the sign the Romans nailed to the cross ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews’. His reputation was clearly commonly evident.
The Jews didn’t kill Jesus – but from the point of view of the crooked Jewish authorities, and of the Romans for whom he was also making unwelcome waves, he had to be disposed of – and for the corrupt and sycophantic Jews, the simplest way to do that without taking direct responsibility for his murder was to hand him over to the Romans, who very willingly despatched this dangerous thorn in their side. (Incidentally, I think he survived the crucifixion and lived the rest of his life in obscurity).
By the way, the Zealots weren’t the only group of active dissidents. Another was the Sicarii, based around Galilee (ring a bell?) - reputed to have been exceptionally brutal towards Jews who supported Roman rule.
If we dispose of the supernatural elements in this story, which were purposefully constructed years after the event by people who weren’t there, I think there is some very real and important history here.
They certainly did. Think of the woman accused of adultery, and Stephen, who you mentioned earlier, accused of blasphemy and stoned to death. I think the real reason the Jewish authorities didn’t stone Jesus was because they knew the general populace wanted rid of Roman occupation and they feared revolt – Herod had only recently put John to death because he feared that John was inciting rebellion. Politically, this was a highly volatile area; the corrupt Jewish authorities wanted to maintain Roman rule – it suited them – and so to take responsibility for removing this clearly popular insurgent would have risked mutiny.
Remember that the Jews awaited a ‘Messiah’ who would emerge bearing arms against their oppressors – not someone endowed with supernatural powers whose sole purpose was to save souls. That idea came much later from elsewhere, and is a different story altogether. For the Jews a supernatural saviour wasn’t a consideration. They were waiting for a leader, a descendant of the House of David, an anointed one, a king – as had been prophesied - and I suspect they imagined that Jesus fulfilled that role – hence the anointing which took place shortly before his triumphal entry into Jerusalem – and the sign the Romans nailed to the cross ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews’. His reputation was clearly commonly evident.
The Jews didn’t kill Jesus – but from the point of view of the crooked Jewish authorities, and of the Romans for whom he was also making unwelcome waves, he had to be disposed of – and for the corrupt and sycophantic Jews, the simplest way to do that without taking direct responsibility for his murder was to hand him over to the Romans, who very willingly despatched this dangerous thorn in their side. (Incidentally, I think he survived the crucifixion and lived the rest of his life in obscurity).
By the way, the Zealots weren’t the only group of active dissidents. Another was the Sicarii, based around Galilee (ring a bell?) - reputed to have been exceptionally brutal towards Jews who supported Roman rule.
If we dispose of the supernatural elements in this story, which were purposefully constructed years after the event by people who weren’t there, I think there is some very real and important history here.
Hi Naomi I have tried to ascertain this morning what power and authority the high priest Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin had over imposing the death penalty. I thought the BBC might be impartial and here is one I found.
http://
I found a few others but I couldn't find one that allowed them to carry out a death penalty but they could condemn someone to die.
You say you don't think JC was crucified. OK but if true it means he could have been ''resurrected so to speak ''but if he was , why wasn't he recognised by anyone. The real JC would have been accepted immediately.
As it was, the imposter , if there was one, spent ages trying to persuade them.
The whole birth, death and resurrection stories are bunkum . The only miracle is that they have survived.
http://
I found a few others but I couldn't find one that allowed them to carry out a death penalty but they could condemn someone to die.
You say you don't think JC was crucified. OK but if true it means he could have been ''resurrected so to speak ''but if he was , why wasn't he recognised by anyone. The real JC would have been accepted immediately.
As it was, the imposter , if there was one, spent ages trying to persuade them.
The whole birth, death and resurrection stories are bunkum . The only miracle is that they have survived.
Modeller, whilst your link in some respects bears out what I said, it is in error in several places. Firstly, there would have been little point in a Jewish court imposing a death penalty if it was not allowed to carry it through. Stephen’s demise confirms that a Jewish court could indeed execute the accused. Secondly, your link mentions the Barabbas incident – and that, as I have already explained, could not have happened. Thirdly, the link contains sentences like this:
//At that moment, St. Luke - himself a doctor - records that Jesus sweated drops of blood onto the path before him.//
The author of the Gospel of Luke, like the other Gospel writers, is unknown. That and other sections confirm that the piece was written by someone who wholly believes the story as the bible tells it – and as the church teaches it. He clearly isn’t an unbiased investigative journalist and he has not approached the issue from a position of impartiality.
//You say you don't think JC was crucified.//
I didn’t say that. I said I do believe he was crucified, but I believe he survived the crucifixion.
//why wasn't he recognised by anyone. The real JC would have been accepted immediately.//
Sick, beaten, and exhausted - his face and body would have been disfigured by the brutality he’d suffered at the hands of the Romans - in the circumstances in which, with the help of his influential friends, he found himself, he would have been very foolish indeed not to take advantage of the anonymity that the clothing of the day would have afforded him. In other words, I think he kept himself under wraps – literally.
//The whole birth, death and resurrection stories are bunkum .//
Personally, I don’t believe that. I really think that among the many lies subsequently perpetrated, there is a real history. The story as told – and as taught - is ‘bunkum’, but rather than dismiss it as such without good cause, it’s far more effective to demonstrate as precisely as possible exactly why it is ‘bunkum’.
By the way, good discussion. Thank you. :o)
//At that moment, St. Luke - himself a doctor - records that Jesus sweated drops of blood onto the path before him.//
The author of the Gospel of Luke, like the other Gospel writers, is unknown. That and other sections confirm that the piece was written by someone who wholly believes the story as the bible tells it – and as the church teaches it. He clearly isn’t an unbiased investigative journalist and he has not approached the issue from a position of impartiality.
//You say you don't think JC was crucified.//
I didn’t say that. I said I do believe he was crucified, but I believe he survived the crucifixion.
//why wasn't he recognised by anyone. The real JC would have been accepted immediately.//
Sick, beaten, and exhausted - his face and body would have been disfigured by the brutality he’d suffered at the hands of the Romans - in the circumstances in which, with the help of his influential friends, he found himself, he would have been very foolish indeed not to take advantage of the anonymity that the clothing of the day would have afforded him. In other words, I think he kept himself under wraps – literally.
//The whole birth, death and resurrection stories are bunkum .//
Personally, I don’t believe that. I really think that among the many lies subsequently perpetrated, there is a real history. The story as told – and as taught - is ‘bunkum’, but rather than dismiss it as such without good cause, it’s far more effective to demonstrate as precisely as possible exactly why it is ‘bunkum’.
By the way, good discussion. Thank you. :o)
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
There's Just No Pleasing Some!
News11 mins ago
Body & Soul14 mins ago
Film, Media & TV16 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.