Was Jesus a real person? (Russian, execution, how, different)

[NJGOAT]

I just want to reiterate, I don't share the views that I posted, just wanted to put them out there as the general concpet was introduced to the discussion and it was a work I was familiar with. I will however, attempt to answer what you are saying from my recollection of the book and what I know...

Originally Posted by Grandstander

If Jesus was invented to placate the rebellion minded Jews, doesn't it wreck the lesson when at the end they have the Romans executing the teacher?

The thesis would have the Roman motives as...Listen to what this man has to say, and become passive as he suggests.

And oh, by the way, we had to kill him as an enemy of the state.

The finale strongly suggests an unpleasant fate for anyone who emulates Jesus, so how does the death on the cross square with the idea of trying to get the Jewish folks to embrace the ideas? Shouldn't there have been a happy ending? As in....Jesus was passive and non rebellious and he wound up happy, just like you will be if you embrace his ideas?

I think it ties into the Jewish concept of the Messiah. In traditional Judaism (modern reform Judaism has changed this view) the Messiah will come from the line of David and come to rule over the entire Earth and all men. The Messiah would essentially create and rule a temporal kingdom. The Jewish rebellions always had an apocalyptic Messianic undertone. They were attempting to fulfill the prophecy by overthrowing Rome and establishing God's Kingdom on Earth.

What better way to end all that nonsense then to have the Messiah show up and tell them that God's Kingdom wasn't on Earth, but in Heaven? Your duty on Earth was to be meek and obedient (including obedience to the current temporal rulers) according to God's desires. By being as meek and obedient as possible, one day you would be brought into the Kingdom of Heaven and/or God would return one day and make things "right" by giving the meek the preferred seat at the table. All you had to do was believe and be a "good person" which included "giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (important also because the Jews apparently had issues using coinage with 'graven images' such as the coins minted by the Romans, Jesus said that was OK).

By all of that the Messiah had to come, tell his message, sacrifice himself for his people and then depart to establish God's Kingdom in Heaven. Prophecy fulfilled, no reason to rebel, just be good little subjects and one day you get to go to God's Kingdom.

[NJGOAT]

Wanted to add, I found a link to Atwill's complete book if anyone is interested:

christianity scam - Joseph Atwill - Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus - eSnips

Also, GS, how about this for an interesting theory. I don't think Atwill makes this connection, but what if the "Q" is Josephus? The "Q" is the reported source for many of the famous parables in the Bible. Some experts say the "Q" was written in a three layer approach: First, wisdom sayings on poverty and discipleship. Second, an expansion of those into more judgemental stories. Third, the Temptations of Jesus. What if "Q" was basically just Josephus' working draft of ideas to incorporate as he wove his story? Just total wild speculation on my part.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I just want to reiterate, I don't share the views that I posted, just wanted to put them out there as the general concpet was introduced to the discussion and it was a work I was familiar with. I will however, attempt to answer what you are saying from my recollection of the book and what I know...



I think it ties into the Jewish concept of the Messiah. In traditional Judaism (modern reform Judaism has changed this view) the Messiah will come from the line of David and come to rule over the entire Earth and all men. The Messiah would essentially create and rule a temporal kingdom. The Jewish rebellions always had an apocalyptic Messianic undertone. They were attempting to fulfill the prophecy by overthrowing Rome and establishing God's Kingdom on Earth.

What better way to end all that nonsense then to have the Messiah show up and tell them that God's Kingdom wasn't on Earth, but in Heaven? Your duty on Earth was to be meek and obedient (including obedience to the current temporal rulers) according to God's desires. By being as meek and obedient as possible, one day you would be brought into the Kingdom of Heaven and/or God would return one day and make things "right" by giving the meek the preferred seat at the table. All you had to do was believe and be a "good person" which included "giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (important also because the Jews apparently had issues using coinage with 'graven images' such as the coins minted by the Romans, Jesus said that was OK).

By all of that the Messiah had to come, tell his message, sacrifice himself for his people and then depart to establish God's Kingdom in Heaven. Prophecy fulfilled, no reason to rebel, just be good little subjects and one day you get to go to God's Kingdom.

Well, if so, it didn't work, did it? The Romans wound up subduing Palestine with their old stand by, relentless, merciless violence until everyone was dead or in submission.

They were so dang good at that latter method, I wonder why they would have even considered the complicated, subtle plotting required by the fake Messiah scheme.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Wanted to add, I found a link to Atwill's complete book if anyone is interested:

christianity scam - Joseph Atwill - Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus - eSnips

Also, GS, how about this for an interesting theory. I don't think Atwill makes this connection, but what if the "Q" is Josephus? The "Q" is the reported source for many of the famous parables in the Bible. Some experts say the "Q" was written in a three layer approach: First, wisdom sayings on poverty and discipleship. Second, an expansion of those into more judgemental stories. Third, the Temptations of Jesus. What if "Q" was basically just Josephus' working draft of ideas to incorporate as he wove his story? Just total wild speculation on my part.

In "Jewish Antiquities" Josephus describes the execution of John the Baptist as motivated by Herod's fears that John was raising a political rebellion. In the gospels it is described as retaliation for John's moral condemnation of Herod, John had denounced Herod's incestuous marriage.

Of course Josephus was an extremely duplicitious fellow and I would not put it past him to edit his histories to suit his particular audience.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Well, if so, it didn't work, did it? The Romans wound up subduing Palestine with their old stand by, relentless, merciless violence until everyone was dead or in submission.

They were so dang good at that latter method, I wonder why they would have even considered the complicated, subtle plotting required by the fake Messiah scheme.

I was reading through Atwill's book to refresh myself, it is a very easy read if you are at all interested, he obviously does a much better job explaining and supporting his ideas then I can, lol.

He offers the following as evidence on why they would want to do this. The Romans allowed all of their subjects to retain their personal God's. In this way they simply became added to the Roman pantheon, there were even ceremonies were sacrifices were made before a battle to make the enemies God's join Rome. However, beginning with the Claudio-Julian emperors the emperor himself became a deity and was ordained as such. The one requirement levied on Roman conquests was accepting Caesar as a deity and placing his likeness into the temples. This was fine for pretty much everyone who was used to a pantheon of God's.

However, this didn't work for the Jews who were pretty much the only people who believed in one God and not only that, but they wouldn't accept their God sharing temples with anyone else, least of all Caesar. As much as Titus hacked, slashed and tortured the Sacarii (rebellious messianic Jews) he couldn't force them to accept him as a God or call him Lord. So, he turned to something that the Flavian's were well versed in, creating a religion. Not a replacement for Judaism, but an evolution of Judaism that was more amicable to the Romans. Not only that, but the source of their worship is a God through Jesus, that is basically a parallel to Titus/Caesar. Vanity was not an issue for Roman emperors, lol.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

In "Jewish Antiquities" Josephus describes the execution of John the Baptist as motivated by Herod's fears that John was raising a political rebellion. In the gospels it is described as retaliation for John's moral condemnation of Herod, John had denounced Herod's incestuous marriage.

Of course Josephus was an extremely duplicitious fellow and I would not put it past him to edit his histories to suit his particular audience.

Atwill attributes these things to "typology" which is basically the way all Jewish texts are written. Essentially the use of prior events to provide form and context for subsequent ones. The details change, but the story basically stays the same. He provides many examples of this type of writing:

Esther using Joseph from Genesis:

JOSEPH
1.Rises to high position in the Egyptian government through his beauty and wisdom.
2.Josephs good deed (interpreting the butler's dream) is forgotten for a long time.
3.A character refuses to listen—"she spoke to Joseph every day but he refused to listen" (Gen 38:10).
4.Pharaoh's chief servant is hanged.
5.Joseph reveals his identity to Pharaoh after a feast.

ESTHER/MORDECAI
1.Esther rises to high position in the Persian government through her beauty and wisdom.
2.Mordecai's good deed (saving the king's life) is forgotten for a long time.
3.Character refuses to listen— "they told him every day but he refused to listen" (Est. 3:4).
4. The king's chief servant is hanged.
5. Esther reveals her identity to the king after a feast.

He also illustrates how this is used throughout the New Testament. How we were talking about the later authors establishing Jesus' Messiah cred. He shows how the New Testament authors created a typology that legitimized Jesus as the second savior of Israel the way Moses was the first. From Israel to Egypt, massacre of innocents, God tells them they are safe because all men who wanted them killed are now dead, they go from Egypt back to Israel, there is a baptism, the Israelites wander in the desert for 40 years and Jesus wanders for 40 days, the Israelites tempt God three times and are admonished and the devil tempts Jesus three times and is admonished:

OLD TESTAMENT
Gen. 45-50 Joseph takes old Israel down to Egypt
Ex. 1 Pharaoh massacres boys
Ex. 4 "All the men are dead ..."
Ex. 12 From Egypt to Israel
Ex. 14 Passing through water (baptism)
Ex. 16 Tempted by bread
Ex. 17 Do not tempt God
Ex. 32 Worship only God

MATTHEW
2:13 Joseph brings new Israel down to Egypt
2:16 Herod massacres boys
2:20 "They are dead ..."
2:21 From Egypt to Israel
3:13 Baptism
4:4 Tempted by bread
4:7 Do not tempt God
4:10 Worship only God

Atwill goes on to explain how this type of writing is used to parallel Jesus' ministry with the military campaign of Titus. They literally follow the same path with the Bible using allegorical stories to relate the tales of the campaign. The purpose being that Jesus, an apocalyptic predicting the pending arrival of the "Kingdom of God", not only ministers along the route of the campaign but accurately 'predicts' the actions of the Romans as related in Josephus...the destruction of the temple, the encircling of Jerusalem with a wall, the towns of Galilee being "brought low" and the destruction of what Jesus called the "wicked generation" (the Sacarii). Jesus 'predicted' the 'apocalypse' precisely and it came true because the people who wrote the Bible wrote the history supporting it at the same time. The whole point to place Rome as the Kingdom of God with Titus as its divine ruler.

One of the interesting examples he pulls is where the campaign of Titus starts is also where the mission of Jesus starts, at Gennesareth on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus talks of following him and becoming "fishers of men", Atwill paints this as a supreme joke that patrician Romans would get because the Romans destroyed the rebel fleet at the sea and went "fishing" for the drowning Jewish rebels. Jesus predicts woe will happen to the city on this sea...then Titus shows up and woe happens to the city.

Start of a campaign (War 3, 10, 2)
Titus: describes this battle as the "onset" of his sole command of the army
Jesus: this is the start of the ministry of Jesus

Sent by his father
Titus: "he sent away his son Titus to Caesarea" (War 3, 9, 7)
Jesus: sent by his father in heaven

His followers followed
Titus: "entered the city the first of them all, and the others soon after him" (War 3, 10,5)
Jesus: "brought their boat to shore and followed him" (Luke 5:10)

Reassures troops not to be afraid
Titus: "you know very well that I go into danger first, do not therefore desert me" (War 3, 10, 2)
Jesus: "Do not be afraid" (Luke 5:10)

Reference to Chorazain
Titus: "it produces the Coracin fish" (War 3, 10,8)
Jesus: "Woe to you Chorazain" (prophecy in Matt. 11:23)

Presence of a Jesus
Titus: Jesus is the leader of the rebels at the Sea of Galilee
Jesus: another Jesus is the leader of disciples at the Sea of Galilee

Fishing for men
Titus: the Jews fall out of their boats "such as were drowning in the sea...attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or theirhands" (War 3, 10, 8, clause 527)
Jesus:"I will make you fishers of men" (Matt. 4:19)

This is simply one of the many examples he pulls of how typology was used to craft the Bible in parallel with War of the Jews and why they must be read together to "get" what is happening.

[ThinkBeforeYouVote]

Originally Posted by callmemaybe

Or was he an anagram of several people or a myth? How strong is the evidence he was a real guy?

Dude was a real person. None of the stories about him are true though, they're legends.

Like the legends of Cool Papa Bell, they exaggerate what he did to the point where you question the whole thing. I personally do not believe in god or any of that bible nonsense, but there's enough evidence that a guy named Jesus existed and was killed by the ROMANS (not the Jews...), just none that he was a magic zombie bartender who could waterski without a boat.

"Cool Papa Bell being so fast he could turn out the light and get in bed before the room got dark"
"Cool Papa Bell once hit a line drive through the middle and getting hit up side the head by the line drive as he slid into second"

They are clearly BS, but some people actually think they are fact.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

I was reading through Atwill's book to refresh myself, it is a very easy read if you are at all interested, he obviously does a much better job explaining and supporting his ideas then I can, lol.

.

I've gotten the gist of the theory from what you have provided.

The thesis would hinge on:

As much as Titus hacked, slashed and tortured the Sacarii (rebellious messianic Jews) he couldn't force them to accept him as a God or call him Lord. So, he turned to something that the Flavian's were well versed in, creating a religion.

Is this presented as a conclusion of logic or is there any evidence of Titus actually taking steps one might associate with such a scheme?

If the latter then we would have to afford Atwill more weight in the realm of possibility. If the former, then no matter how well reasoned and researched, it still all comes down to that unprovable assumption.

I'd have to read the book to make a fair judgment, and well, I don't think I will be doing that since it at best establishes a "maybe" and I already know what the maybe is.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Is this presented as a conclusion of logic or is there any evidence of Titus actually taking steps one might associate with such a scheme?

If the latter then we would have to afford Atwill more weight in the realm of possibility. If the former, then no matter how well reasoned and researched, it still all comes down to that unprovable assumption.

He presents evidence that the practice of creating or modifying religions was something frequently done by the Flavian's. One of his first examples is the creation of the cult of Vespasian administered by the Flamine priesthood. The cult was not singularly in Rome, but spread across the entire empire. In Asia Minor the cults were overseen by the Commune Asiae. He also makes an interesting note that the seven churches of Asia listed in Revelations all just happen to be the cities where the Communes primary offices and the Vespasian cults were based. Titus also had his sister deified and a similar cult constructed for her worship.

He provides additional evidence that Titus was Pontifex Maximus which made him the head of Roman religion and the chief priest. Titles that were later assumed by the Popes. As Pontifex Maximus he oversaw the annual collection of prophecies and the recording and interpreting of signs associated with them to attribute acts he made to divine will. He also issued decrees on these prophecies setting celebration days, elevating gods, etc.

On top of that, he, his father and brother are also credited with performing miracles. Vespasian is recorded to have cured a blindman with his spittle as well as curing a withered limb, both miracles later performed by Jesus in the Gospels and in similar fashion.

Atwill also builds the case that Titus through his relationships with the Herod's and Alexander's as well as the knowledge of Josephus certainly had the ability to craft the religion and make it believable to his Jewish audience.

I'd have to read the book to make a fair judgment, and well, I don't think I will be doing that since it at best establishes a "maybe" and I already know what the maybe is.

Very true. It's interesting only if you happen to be interested in these kinds of things. His take is also only one of many offering the idea that the entire thing is a myth, each offering seemingly convincing evidence while ignoring things that don't prove their case.

Atwill does ask one intriguing question though. The Flavian's are widely known to have been the earliest Christians and members of the Flavian family and their supporters are among the earliest Saints of Christianity. The earliest Roman Christian texts were found in the Flavian catacombs. Indeed the first Pope of an actual recognized Roman Christian Church, Clement I was reportedly a Flavian. How exactly did an obscure cult from Judea happen to penetrate Caesar's household and be allowed to exist while proclaiming that Caesar was not a God...unless of course the Christ they worshipped was Caesar?

Remember, the persecution of Christianity began under Trajan (the claims that it began under Nero can be considered suspect when the histories that Nero blamed the fire on Christians were written by Tacitus AFTER the reign of the Flavians) when he declared that merely assuming the name "Chrisian" opened one to legal persecution and that Christians were not to be sought in service to the empire. Was this perhaps his attempt to persecute and destroy what was in his view a Flavian cult and help legitimize his own reign?

[russiaonline]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

That's not true. We have the works of several Roman historians and other scholars, not influenced by Christianity that speak of the existence of a man named Jesus who was "called Christ" or "king of the Jews". These writers also mark the crucifixion of a man named Jesus. These works and references primarily come from Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Sarapion and Suetonius.

The wiki article gives a list and discussion on all things related to the historicity of Jesus:
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't trust Wiki in such controversial cases.

Russian version of this article is very different - the general theme is that there is no proof of Jesus existance, and that scientists claiming that there is are absurd.

Russian Wiki follows the same guidelines as English - and it quotes lots of English sources. But the result is so different...

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by russiaonline

Don't trust Wiki in such controversial cases.

Russian version of this article is very different - the general theme is that there is no proof of Jesus existance, and that scientists claiming that there is are absurd.

Russian Wiki follows the same guidelines as English - and it quotes lots of English sources. But the result is so different...

Way to enter a 13 page thread covering a variety of angles on the topic and responding to one of the first posts which essentially just provided a link to something giving an overview of the topic. You also offered a "counter" that did not even "counter" anything I have actually said on the topic.

While I do not consider wikipedia a legitimate source it does provide a general framework of a topic and in most cases extensive citations to primary sources that the article was taken from. True scholarship requires a much deeper dive, but this is an internet forum and wikipedia is an easily tapped source to direct someone to where they could find more indepth arguments then what are generally laid out in the forum.

Also, don't you find it the least bit ironic that you are 'questioning' my link to the wiki article and claiming that we shouldn't trust it, while simultaneously referencing the Russian wiki version and seemingly offering it to be the "truer" one? You have also extensively quoted the Russian wiki article on topics that are just as controversial as the historicity of Jesus...well, at least they are to Russians. So, I need to ask, what makes Russian wiki's better then English wiki's?