Is the opposition to idea of a mythical Jesus motivated purely by religious ideology?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

If there was an historical Jesus and the Romans crucified him it stands to reason that he was a zealot or some sort of Jewish rebel.

That would be the obvious conclusion. It requires a considerable amount of rewriting of the story (which will lead to a number of slips and errors) in order to make it look as though something else was going on.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

SeekerSA wrote:

Hi Seeker, no, I'm not following you around on the boards

But I was amused by what you wrote above. How do you know the Sanhedrin would not assemple just like that and at night?

The priests had been scouting Jesus for some time trying to catch Him in a slip-up. The Passover was approaching. Unbeknownst to them, Jesus was the Passover. They had to act quickly for all this to happen at just the right time (unbeknownst to them). They got Judas in on the act, got a group together to arrest Jesus and brought Him to trial.

I see no embellishment of the story. The people who wrote the four accounts were very righteous people, not given to lie, not given to embellish.

You do not see because you do not want to. Several example of their 'mistakes' - to be polite about it - and indeed a deliberate bit of fiddling by John - has been brought to your attention, but this is just water off a duck's back - waterproofed with the Holy Oil of faith.

I do agree that the Sanhedrin trial is better seen as an arrest and interrogation carried out by the High Priest with the assistance of roman soldiers. The whole tale of a formal Sanhedrin trial looks a shambles and cannot really be held up as credible, but that is another discussion I suppose.

[bluescityleon]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

Although I am inclined to believe in a historical Jesus, I've come across an increasing amount of evidence and arguments that raise doubts about it. This evidence seems to be countered mainly by Christian apologists, whose numbers are huge obviously. So, it's confusing what the true balance of arguments is on each side.

Another thing I've learned is that in some formerly Christian countries where belief is now less strong than it used to be and secularism is more widespread, the prevailing view is that Jesus was a myth.

What are your views on this?

If you have seen me you have seen the Father(God) this is just one of the hundreds of astounding things He said. He said I came to save the world, not condemn it. He said many things that had already been said and He pointed out in Old Testament scripture who and where and why He came..........Governments tried to kill Him from the time of His birth, What people need to know is what He said. There is enough to make a decision.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You do not see because you do not want to. Several example of their 'mistakes' - to be polite about it - and indeed a deliberate bit of fiddling by John - has been brought to your attention, but this is just water off a duck's back - waterproofed with the Holy Oil of faith.

I do agree that the Sanhedrin trial is better seen as an arrest and interrogation carried out by the High Priest with the assistance of roman soldiers. The whole tale of a formal Sanhedrin trial looks a shambles and cannot really be held up as credible, but that is another discussion I suppose.

Thanks for fielding that. It is pretty pointless discussing anything with E as he has a confirmation bias. I have lost all my notes but cite most of my stuff from memory as to my research. It is all out there is they dare to look beyond the veil of their indoctrination.

Originally Posted by bluescityleon

If you have seen me you have seen the Father(God) this is just one of the hundreds of astounding things He said. He said I came to save the world, not condemn it. He said many things that had already been said and He pointed out in Old Testament scripture who and where and why He came..........Governments tried to kill Him from the time of His birth, What people need to know is what He said. There is enough to make a decision.

Nothing you posted is true. All you are doing is regurgitating the texts and what you have been indoctrinated with. All the gospels are highly embellished folklore and legend.

As for governments trying to kill him, the time of Herod disputed is a known fact and does not fit the time line of his alleged birth. There are ZERO contemporary records of any infanticide, that event would surely have made the morning news.

Perhaps AREQUIPA can field this as he has a lot more historic detail at his fingertips.