Atheists, what say you about Jesus? (Buddhist, morals, Pilate, beliefs)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by Tom9It seems a logical thing to do, especially if you believe that the Messiah would free them from the Roman heathen occupiers. I also believe that Judas hated Jesus for not kicking the Romans out of Israel.
But hate is not the opposite of love, indifference is the opposite of love.

That's odd. I came to the same outcome of the Gospel story when all the facts were put together. Judas had to have gone to the Roman administration (in the form of the High priest and his Sadducees), but at the instigation of Jesus, not out of hatred. That's if the story is true, which maybe it isn't. But if it is, the Christian overpainting of whatever the original picture was a bit patchy and allows the original story to show through here and there.

[cozmos]

"Who it" - is not the main thing. The main thing: whose words , of idea and event have pasted to Jesus . I want such question. It will be clear: " Who it " ?.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by cozmos

"Who it" - is not the main thing. The main thing: whose words , of idea and event have pasted to Jesus . I want such question. It will be clear: " Who it " ?.

If I follow you correctly, this is asking how the present view of Jesus was built up, from the gospel creation to the committe - designed Jesus of the Church Nobbs?

It's an interesting question and takes quite a bit of answering. i'd just paraphrase a quote supposedly applied to evolution theory - "Everything we thought we knew about Jesus is wrong."

The virgin birth
The nativity
The schoolboy Jesus in the temple
The God - endorsement at the Jordan
The declaration in the Nazareth synagogue
The calling of the disciples
The healing of the Centurion/Herodian Official's son/servant
The sermon on the Mount (or 'level place')
All the debates on Jewish ritual, kosher food and sabbath observance.
The Gadarene (or gerasene) swine
The Gentile woman
The daughter of Jairus
The penitent woman
The transfiguration,
the walking on the water
The proto-eucharist in Capernaum synagogue
The squabble with the jewish crowd in the Temple
The healing of Bar - Timaeus
the raising of lazarus
The betrayal
the last supper
the praying in the garden of Gethsemane
The healing of the ear
Simon's denial
The Sanhedrin trial
Pilate's trial
Appearance before Antipas
The speech to the following crowd
The last words, the death - miracles and conversion of Longinus
The tomb - guard
The earthquake angel and appearance to the women.
The appearance to Cleophas and not to the women
every other appearance from then on
the appearance to simon, the twelve, 500 al together, james, all the 'apostles' and finally to Paul.

all wrong.

[Boxcar Overkill]

I want to take this moment to dispel a common myth: Even if Jesus existed, he never said anything that was very impressive.

There was nothing revolutionary about him. Nothing edgy and clearly morally superior. From the stories, he was pretty much a guy of his times.

In a time of slavery, Jesus didn't come out strong against it. That should have been an obvious one for a morally perfect person. Yet it was never on his radar. And In a time where women were treated as second class citizens, Jesus didn't set the people straight. Basically, he just ignored it.

There were serious problems that Jesus didn't seem all that interested in fixing. He was fairly conventional in his beliefs, contrary to what his followers want people to believe. Sure, he was for poor people, but his argument is hurt somewhat by the fact that he was poor himself. Everything else is pretty contradictory - you can find one verse for and one verse against.

In his place and time, there was nothing radical or morally superior about what Jesus was preaching.... if he ever even existed. Contrary to what his followers say, there wasn't much revolutionary about what he was preaching.

[cozmos]

Well.
I have found it:

So, in the initial Gospel anywhere is not said : " that have crucified the Christ on a cross" . Instead of a word "cross" (kryst) there is used a word (stavros) - means a column, and there is told not about the crucifixion, (besides in "Acts of apostles" 10:39 it is told that "have hung up the Christ on a tree").

Words "cross" and "crucifixion" appear only in translations from Greek. А.И. Experts it is assured, hundred on distortion of initial texts while translating, and then and the iconography - was affected by Slavs-Scythian tradition.


The sense of the primary Greek text was well-known (Byzantium) in the Greece, but after corresponding reforms in modern Greek language, unlike former usage, the word "stavros" has accepted except value "column" as well "cross"

[cozmos]

..... Apparently, the symbol of a cross has entered into Christian tradition after the crucifixion.... The canon of the Gospel has been established after IV century and was based the oral legends going then on the Christian communities and Skifs . In those legends images of the Christ and ... Have been already mixed.






Question: When there was a transfer from the Greek language?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by cozmos

Well.
I have found it:

So, in the initial Gospel anywhere is not said : " that have crucified the Christ on a cross" . Instead of a word "cross" (kryst) there is used a word (stavros) - means a column, and there is told not about the crucifixion, (besides in "Acts of apostles" 10:39 it is told that "have hung up the Christ on a tree").

Words "cross" and "crucifixion" appear only in translations from Greek. А.И. Experts it is assured, hundred on distortion of initial texts while translating, and then and the iconography - was affected by Slavs-Scythian tradition.


The sense of the primary Greek text was well-known (Byzantium) in the Greece, but after corresponding reforms in modern Greek language, unlike former usage, the word "stavros" has accepted except value "column" as well "cross"

That's a very interesting point. I had heard some rumbles about Jesus being hung on a tree, and I was a bit puzzled as a youngster dragooned into chanting religious dirges at school, at the apparent symbolic references to 'tree'.

If the original was about someone being hung on a tree rather than a cross (or a Olivet tree modified with a crosspiece to serve as one) then it raises the whole question of a Roman involvement, a Roman crucifixion and the whole blasted scenario.

[cozmos]

dates to between AD 382 and 420. Latin translations predating Jerome are collectively known as Vetus Latina texts...Jerome began by revising the earlier Latin translations, but ended by going back to the original Greek, bypassing all translations, and going back to the original Hebrew wherever he could instead of the Septuagint...........
We have 382 years (?)

[cozmos]

Christians - to us it is clear. We have Scythians and Slavs.
Approximate card:

It is very interesting to me. In transfers to 0- 382 years a mention about:
Sacred Trinity.
About a grief.
About a star.
Transformation.

+ "Santa" - very interesting person. Exists in all Euro.
------------------------------------------------------
Why?
We know. Jesus went on mountain.
We have mountains in Scythians: Elbrus.
368 year - a comet of Galelei. Monuments. is a lot of places where there were no archeologists....

[dacx]

I believe Jesus existed as a charasmatic moral leader who started recognizing that he was able to gain many followers so he became arrogant. That's how the "son of God" Moderator cut: inappropriate language came to be