Jesus Christ: Messiah or Rebel?

[Crimson King]

This argument of mine is just an opinion I have been forming for an essay in English Composition. I have done no research as to it's validity but I figure other people's opinions on it wouldn't hurt.

Here my hypothesis. There indeed was a man from Nazareth named Jesus who was born of a carpenter and eventually was crucified. This is all documented because Romans were meticulous about keeping records (similar two how meticulous the Nazis were). Now, some people will argue Jesus was the messiah promised by the old testament and he is the chosen one. But, when preached this he was killed for it, according to the bible. The town where he was condemned was ruled by the Sanhedrin, a Jewish OROTHODOX group. They believed in the Fire and Brimstone Lord who torched Sodom and Gamora for being wicked. If they felt Jesus was enough of a threat claiming he was the messiah to have him killed, they would also know, whether right or wrong, Jesus was innocent of any real crime. Also, they knew the Ten Commandments stated that "Thou Shall Not Kill." No exceptions, so they must have had some reason as to why Jesus was condemned other than saying he was the son of God. Also, according to the bible Pilate handed Jesus to the crowds because he found him innocent, but Jesus was still killed. Romans would not have allowed a mob to make a decision like that, especially one of such a popular man. ALSO, since he was murdered by Roman soldiers he had to be convicted of a stately crime and that was treason and sedition. My thing is this. Jesus had quite a little following of people who believed him about loving your fellow man, so this mob that demanded his death would have had to have been high class individuals who would be affected by a rebellion. So, maybe instead of JUST saying he was God's son, he also said rebel against those who don't believe. Which later happened, when Christianity became the religion for the Roman Empire.

I am still formulating this idea, but I want to hear some feedback on it. NO blantant religious bashing or you will be banned from the room indefinately. I want an open-minded debate.

 

[Cyris_P]

Well, you're on the verge of something, but as is, it doesn't leave much to ponder. Jesus, as he's displayed in the Bible, is not only the Messiah, but also a rebel at the same time. He went against the authorities to teach new ways to the people of his time. A more fitting title would be "Jesus: Messiah/Rebel or just Rebel?", but that's just questioning his authenticity, so you understand why it wouldn't work.

Also, the Ten Commandments were not the laws of the land, just as they aren't today. They are guidelines to live an untroubled life. By breaking none of the commandments you should achieve happiness, but that's just because ignorance is bliss.

On top of this, Jesus was condemned to death because the Roman officials were corrupt. They called it treason, but they killed Jesus because many people were following him as opposed to the emperor.

I think this essay would work better if you expanded on the ending. I liked the irony you pointed out in that the Romans killed Jesus, but later lived by his teachings. Also, perhaps if you went deeper into his rebellion and why he was able to influence so much of history as opposed to the many other rebellions that have happened in the past.

Good show on picking this topic though. Anything to do with Jesus that doesn't praise him is considered taboo amongst many a people, so it's necessary that the rest of us try to fight this stipulation before it gets any worse.

 

[Crimson King]

The Romans may have been corrupt, but they wouldn't murder a man for a religious crime UNLESS he said to overthrow the government. Also, going by the version of the passion that the movie went, Pilate and Herod found him guilty of nothing. Now, the fact that Pilate later turned him to a mob shows that the point of the new testament is to blame the Jews for his death.

Also, you are wrong, the Orothdox Jews DID live by the bible as is, just like most fundies do today. Also, they took the Torah as God's written word and wouldn't accept any other viewpoint. This is obvious as they cited the first commandmant as the reason for the blasphemous charges.

Next post: 3000!

 

[Tipo mastr]

This is the reason Jesus was killed: people fear change. Even if it is inevetible, people will fight it until it has passed. But people can change, if ever so slowly.

The reason why people followed christianity was because of the memory of Jesus. If jesus had grown to a ripe old age and died in his sleep, people would think he was just a preacher. The fact that he was killed unjustly sparked the revolution. The crosses mean something.

BTW, I really can't take sides because A) I'm not religous, and B) I was born 1/2 jewish and 1/2 christian.

 

[Cyris_P]

If everybody of that time believed that they were breaking God's laws if they did any work on Sunday, lied about anything, wanted what others had or if they did anything their parents' disapproved of (all of this at any point in their lives), then EVERYBODY would be on the fast track to hell.

 

[Crimson King]

The Jewish Sanhedrin were the closest to a lasting Theocracy we have seen in a while.

Basically, they did everything they could to follow the bible to the T.

 

[GR81]

The word bible has no T in it :/

As I recall, Jesus was indeed killed on a religious day(Or something), where one person was sacrificed, and one released. This is how he was killed, they released a bloody murderer to do so. Which, due to the rules of the law, got Jesus killed.

Anyway, Jesus did do a lot of things to piss people off, like: turning over market stalls, and breaking things for having people being avaricious in a place of worship, and irritating the priests by not allowing himself to be contradicted.

He also did magic tricks, and had someone catch a fish with enough money in it's mouth to pay taxes. (I wish I could do that) I also heard he caught the sky on fire, might be wrong there. :o

As for the ressurrection: Dead guard, unknown cause of death.(Maybe cyanide?) A massive stone was removed from a tomb, and the body was missing, and either an extremist-wannabe-lookalike put holes in his hands and feet, or Jesus was alive. :o

 

[Crimson King]

Gr81, don't post in this topic anymore.

You aren't mature enough obviously to handle this.

A. It's a figure of speech.
B. The Religious Holiday you are thinking of is Good Friday which was created by Christians, there were no laws as to trade one criminal for another, Pilate offered it to make the crime seem less.
C. It was a Jewish town they didn't accept trade in the temple either..
D. You are wrong about lighting the sky on fire.
E. The guards weren't dead as they were the ones who moved the stone for Mary and Mary to wash his body.
F. But notice only his followers could see him, hmm sounds like the Emperor's new clothes.

Seriously now, I will room ban you if you don't start taking debates seriously, or if you don't know about a topic, don't post.

 

[mcpon]

Wasn't that a little harsh towards Gr81? Anyways, the following is just what I learned from school, church, and the History channel so I don't really know much.

What I learned from school was that the reason why Pilate allowed a mob to make a decision like that was because the mob was getting really rowdy. Pilate feared a riot might take place. If it did he would get in trouble with those from the higher ups. So to appease the crowd from getting more rowdy he gave them what they want. The reason why they could not execute Jesus themselves was because it was against their law to kill people so they wanted the Romans to do it for them. Also, what I personally think contributed to Pilate allowing Jesus to become executed is that Jesus was silent when questioned by Pilate concerning the allegations against him. This might have irked Pilate because his answers were not being answered by such a commoner (non-Roman citizen) or whatever.
What I learned from church was that the mob was incited to become rowdy by the Pharisees, etc. whom were angry that Jesus was making them look bad with his criticisms, etc (I'm pretty sure you know all about that already). He talked about how the priests, members of the Sanhedrin, etc. just practiced the customs, rituals, etc. of Judaism not out of true love towards God, but for their own benefits such as to make themselves feel proud, but most importantly to keep their positions on the top-tier level of the Jewish community. If the Jews follow Jesus, then the Sanhedrin, etc. will be losing followers. If the Jews rally around and seriously take up what Jesus was saying about how those who make up the priesthood and the Sanhedrin did not truly practice Judaism out of love for God (but out of self-interest) then those in the priesthood might get ousted from power from the Jews.
His criticisms and also the fact that he said that he is the son of God got him killed. I don't remember him really saying that he wanted to overthrow the Roman government. According to the Bible, he was asked if people should pay taxes to the Roman government or to God and he answered that taxes should be paid to the Rome.
What I learned from the History channel was that Judas thought what Jesus meant when he talked about the "kingdom of heaven" was that Jesus was going to overthrow the Roman government and establish a Jewish state that would be free from Roman rule, as it was then. Judas was deeply disappointed when he learned that what Jesus meant was that the kingdom was actually a place where you go after you died. What I learned from school was that there were few other rebellion attempts by Jews who tried to overthrow their Roman rulers or leaders of the Jewish community that were put there by the Romans.
I hope that helped. Probably not. But, oh well. I tried.

 

[awesomestnerd]

Eric, you said that only his followers could see him, but thats not true because it is clearly states that Jesus appeared to hundreds after he was risen from the dead. Also, he appeared to the disciples many times, over a period of forty days, not just once in the dark.

And mcpon, you said that Judas thought when Jesus was talking about Heaven, he was talking about overthrowing the government. Where did you get that? Nobody can read minds, and he lived roughly 2000 years ago.

Jesus preached a message of peace and love, and because the rulers and leaders of the country were used to putting on a show in temples and not doing or feeling anything, this upset them and caused them to plot against him. Pilot killed Jesus in fear of a rebellion or riot against Rome. People were selling things in the temples, and a holy anger came upon Jesus and he flipped tables and chased everyone out until nobody was left sinning in the temple. Jesus didn't light the sky on fire, I think you might be talking about when Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal to see whose god would light an altar which they each built. Of course, Elijah won when God lit the sacrifice, wood, stones and soil, and the water from Heaven when he sent down fire. There were no dead guards, Jesus was raised without anybody coming to harm. There was no conspirancy, Jesus was simply raised from the dead. Jesus was killed during a holiday: Passover. Jesus was Jewish, and the last supper was actually the Passover feast. The Roman officals wanted him taken care of before the Sabbath.
Everybody wasn't on a fast track to Hell. They had the old testament, and God for that matter, so they had laws, guidelines, and a loving Creator and evidence of Him in Nature.

 

[JBlaze1394]

Taking it back to the title of the thread - it seems to me as though, regardless of your particular individual belief or faith, in the society that Jesus - a Jew - existed: one where those in power, as Eric stated, were the fundamentalist types of Jews that believed in following the Bible to the strictest of interpretations and the "fire and brimstone" God that punishes the wicked and favors the righteous, it stands to reason that anyone that came along professing (or blaspheming, as may be the case) that they were the son of God either personally or indirectly through his followers, would be persecuted, prosecuted and executed by the deeply religeous power structure. So, in this case, whether he was truly the prophesized Messiah is irrelevant; he was condemned for being a rebel because he not only purported that he had a stronger connection with God than those in power, but by getting many in the poor masses to believe him.

As someone already suggested, Christianity did not really take off until after he was crucified (which is only half true, really...the other half is Constantine attempting to consolidate his power base by converting to Christianity...but anyway...). Jesus is the most popular martyr in recorded history, his controversial lineage nonwithstanding.

 

[Crimson King]

Thank you, JBlaze. This is nothing set in stone and is just ideas.

Who's to say it's completely wrong?

The facts are Christianity went from being COMPLETELY PERSECUTED to becoming the religion of the government. The people were found in their homes and killed and then people were being killed for not being Christian. Doesn't sound anything to major but then take in to mind, even if Pilate did sentence Jesus to die officially, then the people who actually ended his life later worshipped him. That seems like some weird coincidences.

Now, if Jesus taught his disciples how to convert people to overthrowing the government for God or to do everything they do for God, then it would make alot more sense. If he had 11 disciples following his death, then they each had 2 followers that's 33 people right there, 2 of course being just a fair guess. 33 people each telling others how great life could be if they give everything they have to God (selling their wealth and giving it to the 'church'). From there, they bribe officials and start spreading more propaganda. Not everyong has to be in on the actual rebellion, if just a few leading members are, that would be enough to continue it.

This again, is all my observations put to light.

 

[JBlaze1394]

Now before people start flaming you for saying that Jesus and/or his followers could be so common as to use propaganda, I think Eric's point is this:

From the viewpoint of those in power (this being the Sanhedrin), they had to find Jesus' preaching of his self-belief and his followers' belief of him being the Son of God more than a little disturbing, definitely threatening, and at the very least, contrary to everything their government and faith was based on at the time. Compare that to, say, the American view of Nazi or Soviet values and beliefs and you can see Eric's point: that from those in power's view, he most definitely WAS spreading propaganda that could very easily lead to rebellion - and the way it was going, a very widespread one very quickly. Who cares if on the outside he was espousing "peace and love"? He easily could have been using it as a front (remember that this is from the point of view of those high in the government's eyes). Even the Soviet beliefs were based on communal sharing and family values.

Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder...and history is written by the winner.

 

[Crimson King]

Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder...and history is written by the winner.

Great point here. The Christians won over the Romans pretty quickly I'd say and then wrote a book proclaiming it was the word of God. They of course use the old testament and just wrote according to that, if it is indeed all made up. Prophesies have a tendency to work under any circumstance.

I'd love to hear some of the religious point of views on the future that Jesus fulfilled.

 

[mcpon]

Taking it back to the title of the thread - it seems to me as though, regardless of your particular individual belief or faith, in the society that Jesus - a Jew - existed: one where those in power, as Eric stated, were the fundamentalist types of Jews that believed in following the Bible to the strictest of interpretations and the "fire and brimstone" God that punishes the wicked and favors the righteous, it stands to reason that anyone that came along professing (or blaspheming, as may be the case) that they were the son of God either personally or indirectly through his followers, would be persecuted, prosecuted and executed by the deeply religeous power structure. So, in this case, whether he was truly the prophesized Messiah is irrelevant; he was condemned for being a rebel because he not only purported that he had a stronger connection with God than those in power, but by getting many in the poor masses to believe him.

As someone already suggested, Christianity did not really take off until after he was crucified (which is only half true, really...the other half is Constantine attempting to consolidate his power base by converting to Christianity...but anyway...). Jesus is the most popular martyr in recorded history, his controversial lineage nonwithstanding.

Awesomenerd - Oh. I was just sharing something I saw from the History Channel. That's all.

Anyways, Jesus preached ideas that were seen as hostile towards the established religious power of the area and actually got some people to follow him. As a Christian, I could see how that could garner him the label of being a rebel, thus condemned as such, in the eyes of the Sanhedrin. If that is what you are saying that made him a rebel eric then yeah I agree. I also agree that the Sanhedrin might have seen Jesus' preaching as propaganda against the Jewish state.

To Eric (post 14): After Constantine had made Christianity the official state religion he created the Council of Nicea, among others, that decided upon what were the official doctrines and what books to include in the Bible (New Testament part I think). (I think they might have done some editting also, but who knows.) Anyways, in that respect the Bible was created after the Romans were won over by Christianity. That's just what I learned.

Anyways, I don't believe that Jesus said to "rebel against those who don't believe," I mean like a physical rebellion, but I think that he wanted people to follow his "teachings." To use a Biblical reference, Peter sliced off the ear of one of the soldiers that belonged with the mob that arrested Jesus. Jesus told Peter to not do that because he was not leading a rebellion and did not need people to fight for him. Although, Simon the Zealot, one of his apostles was a member (zealot) of a group that terrorized higher-ups that were associated with Roman rule. I think that the zealots were trying to rebel against the Romans, if possible. I'm sorry if I don't understand what you mean by "rebel against those who don't believe."

 

[JBlaze1394]

The history channel pwns. Yes, pwns.

I agree with mcpon that, from what historical facts there are of the time period, Jesus did not, at least SEEM to, incite a rebellion, physical or otherwise, against "those who did not believe." But as mcpon conceded, and is pretty evident to anyone who studies history in any capacity, it would have been easy for the Sanhedrin to believe he was leading a rebellion, again physical or otherwise, against the established power structure. Discussing about his rebellious intentions, or hypotheses about them, is a moot debate as only the perception of rebellion is important. Besides, who is really going to claim that they know what Jesus was thinking back then? And do not even try to use the Bible as a reference for that reason for various reasons, not the least of which is my next point:

Mcpon - while it is obviously true, and a generally accepted scholarly position, that the Bible in its current form is an amalgam of numerous sources, including other existing Catholic Bibles that existed at the time as well as the other major religious texts in the area (e.g. - the Babylonian Enuma Elish creation myth features prominently in Genesis, etc), the claim that Constantine conducted this rewriting at the Council of Nicea is far less supported by historical data. Actually, this argument did not truly come about or was taken seriously by anyone that matters prior to the release, study, and concurrent dissection of Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code - which led to the dissection of his other book featuring the same main character, Angels and Demons, in which I believe is where he makes the fictitious claim that Constantine did the massive reconstruction of the Bible with the other religious powers at the time. Who did it really is irrelevant; most Christians/Catholics and quite a lot of Protestants do not really want to believe that the Bible has been edited for political, social or religious gain - and even those that do contend that it was all done in accordance with "God's Will" and so on. I understand that I am getting slightly off the thread topic here, but I felt it needed to be said.

Back to the point:

Eric - I personally do not feel that Jesus fulfilled anything in the future that the Old Testament predicted, spiritually or otherwise. Due to the Bible being edited as it was, it is highly possible that, in the current version, all references to Jesus were added POST-crucifiction. I was raised Catholic and feel very strongly about a lot of what the Bible has to say...but I take most of it as parable, not truth.

 

[mcpon]

JBlaze - I did not get my information about the Council of Nicea from the Da Vinci Code, rather, I got it from one of my history textbooks from a GE history class I took. The particular edition was published in 1998 (The World's History by Howard Spodek, p. 305). The Da Vinci Code was published in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Brown But textbooks could be wrong, of course.

I know it's off topic, but what does pwns mean?

 

[Crimson King]

It's not important what pwn means.

 

[mcpon]

I'd love to hear some of the religious point of views on the future that Jesus fulfilled.

Sorry for asking about pwns.
Well, I have no idea about whether the Bible was editted or not, but the prophesies I think that Jesus fulfilled are just the ones that my church tells me he fulfilled. Such ones as that he would suffer for our sins. People would cast lots for his clothes after he was killed. And so forth.

 

[awesomestnerd]

Jesus fulfilled many prophesies. In fact, he made 29 seperate prophecies on the day he was crucified, but it's a lot to type so I'm only gonna type the first ten. If you want the others then I will give them to you.

1. He will be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9, Matthew 26:49)
2. The price of his betrayal will be thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12, Matthew 26:15)
3. His betrayal money will be cast to the floor of my temple (Zechariah 11:13, Matthew 27:5)
4. His betrayal money will be used to buy the potter's field (Zechariah 11:13, Mtthew 27:7)
5. He will be forsaken and deserted by his disciples (Zechariah 13:7, Mark 14:50)
6. He will be accused by false witnesses (Psalm 35:11, Matthew 26:59-60)
7. He will be silent before his accusers (Isaiah 53:7, Matthew 27:12)
8. He will be wounded and bruised (Isaiah 53:5, Matthew 27:26)
9. He will be hated without a cause (Psalm 69:4, John 15:25)
10. He will be struck and spit on (Isaiah 50:6, Matthew 26:27)

 

[Crimson King]

That's all assuming that Jesus life was exaggerated and keep in mind the New Testament was written to prove to the Jews Jesus was all he said he was. It was written well after his death and not written by anyone he could have possibly have met.

Even Saul who became Paul NEVER met Jesus.


Pwn means owned, it's 1337 speek and just by asking you are not 1337 and using it is wrong.

 

[Yahweh]

It was written well after his death and not written by anyone he could have possibly have met.

Matthew, Mark, and John were apostles of Jesus and it is their account of his life. Luke, who was a medical doctor, if probably the most scholarly book written out of the four gospels. It was written as a sort of CSI sort of book in which Luke went around asking those who were around Jesus while he was alive. After he did extensive research, Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and, actually, addresses this in the first four verses of his gospel. Each gospel shows Jesus in a different way, such as, Matthew shows Jesus as the King of the Jews.

 

[Crimson King]

Those books weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, OR John. They were written by their followers. This is covered in all modern day Christian textbooks.

 

[awesomestnerd]

If Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John had followers, then the followers wouldn't follow Jesus and that wouldn't even make sense because those 4 men followed Jesus so the followers would be followers of followers. What Christian textbooks are you reading?

 

[Crimson King]

They taught Jesus as Lord.

Here is just a few examples

Gospel of Mark

About all of the writer's

Google links

This is just a few examples. Other than the fact that the testaments would have been written after they died. Common sense would say they can't write while dead so it was based off their teachings.

 

[awesomestnerd]

The testemants wouldn't have to be written after they died, because they all recorded history and researched it, and wrote it. After Jesus ascended to Heaven, they preached to others and then went on to record things about Jesus. Everything written in the Bible is inspired by God. Yes they did teach Jesus as Lord, which is a good thing because he is. Everything that is written has a purpose, and these particular writings keep a record of what Jesus did and tells of parables and other things. Jesus did come to the earth and he is the messiah.

 

[Crimson King]

That's why the old testament wasn't finally put together completely until 70 CE or the New Testament until the 4th century?

The bible was editted for nearly 500 years just to make the facts stick. The fact alone that the Old Testament which supposedly prophesizes all about Jesus was finished (in written form) 35 years after his death and the part that's about his life about 465 years after his death.

 

[Guildenstern]

One of the more curious Jesus factoids is that he quotes Old Testament books that don't exist (what I have heard, however, is that these books were a part of the Jewish collection at the time when Jesus presumably lived, but were later removed or lost for some reason). Essentially, about half the times Jesus says, "But it is written...", it isn't written, and you can't actually find what he "quotes" anywhere in the Old Testament.

One would think that a God interested in divinely inspiring men to compile a series of holy books would take care to prevent such inconsistencies.

 

[Crimson King]

Well, keep something in mind. Jesus was born of a 14 year old "virgin" and a carpenter. He would have been lower class. The only people whou could read or write were the scribes and rabbis. He wouldn't have actually known what the bible said word for word and this is why there are no written recollections of Jesus.

 

[Guildenstern]

Regarding your original topic:

Also, according to the bible Pilate handed Jesus to the crowds because he found him innocent, but Jesus was still killed. Romans would not have allowed a mob to make a decision like that, especially one of such a popular man.

This actually was a Roman practice, however. In order to appease their protectorate states, on one day of the year the Roman governors would allow the locals to set one prisoner free. Usually political prisoners would be chosen; i.e., the "rebels" who had committed no crime except to speak out against the Roman rule.

In this particular case, some crowd manipulators managed to get Barnabas released instead. Jesus was then put to death because he had already been sentenced, and the crowd had chosen to give amnesty to a different prisoner.

As for why he was sentenced: as the story goes, the Romans themselves did not consider him a threat at all. Pilate put Jesus up for amnesty because he thought him innocent; he "washed his hands" of the matter. Roman law was set up to allow protectorate states to keep their own religions and some of their own laws (part of the "bread and circuses" policy to keep them quiet), and it was the Jewish bigwigs who recommended Jesus' sentence. Of course, Pilate could have just said, "No, it doesn't make any sense to put a man to death because people like him more than you", but Pilate was a politician, and also Romans valued life and death differently, so he may not have had any motivation to say that anyway.

So, maybe instead of JUST saying he was God's son, he also said rebel against those who don't believe. Which later happened, when Christianity became the religion for the Roman Empire.

Jesus could have said such a thing; we don't actually have very good records of his exact words or anything, and I'm sure you've seen many a demagogue crop up in modern times who plays a similar "us vs. them" game. There is, in fact, something to suggest you may be right. One of Jesus' famous lines is the bit about "If someone slaps you on the cheek, then turn to him the other"; while many modern readers interpret this as a kind of passive forgiveness, in Roman times it would have been interpreted as an insult, a form of "uppityness".

So perhaps Jesus was advocating a rebellion of some kind. And we know he had supporters (even if events didn't happen exactly as described in the Gospels, there is still the fact that somebody wrote about him, and therefore safe to conclude he had a decent number of supporters); however, from Pilate's reaction it seems pretty clear that he did not have enough support within the Jewish community at that time to pose any threat. Martyring him did change that, though, and was really a stupid political move on the Romans' part.

The Jews in power were probably annoyed with him for several reasons. Not only did he encourage turning Mosaic law on its head, he actually got large groups of people to listen to him, which would have significantly reduced the Rabbis' power. Second, if he was actually pushing for rebellion against Rome, then the Jewish priests would have realized that Rome was actually responsible for keeping them in their cushy seats of power, and that removing the yoke of Rome would also upturn Jewish society, causing them, personally, to lose. Nobody wants to give up power once they've got it, and so they did what they could to keep it from happening.

My personal opinion is this: Observe what happens today among any people oppressed or down on their luck. "Messiah"-like figures always turn up. These range anywhere from cult leaders to communist revolutionists to Ghandi and to Osama bin Laden. These people become the hero of whoever they can draw to their cause, for good or ill, and it is always the downtrodden who are most easily drawn to causes (after all, if people are well off then what is their motivation to change things?). When an entire people is oppressed and impoverished, a whole slew of local Messiah figures will crop up, often with (quasi-) religious messages about how the people will be saved from their plight if they believe. This is exactly the situation I imagine Roman-era Hebrews were in; as a people in captivity, they likely had not just one, but several Messiahs wandering about preaching and drawing crowds.

In fact, given the delays before the Gospels were actually written, and the minor inconsistencies you will find between them, I would venture to guess that they are not the story of one man, but rather an amalgamation of several stories of different local hermit-heroes. And at least a few of them might well have been named "Yeshua ben Yosef"; it wasn't an altogether uncommon name, after all.

 

[awesomestnerd]

Jesus went to the synagogues, meaning he saw and heard scripture and could remember and interpret it. Also, he was a wise boy and for all I know, someone could have taught him to read at the synagogue.

How exactly do you know that scripture wasn't around till a certain time. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and he lived a long time before Jesus.

Everything is politics and money. The Roman officials needed support from the people, because the law was keeping everyone in perspective and they were making money from taxes. They were afraid of an uprising and needed control, so they arrested Jesus and killed him.

 

[Crimson King]

How exactly do you know that scripture wasn't around till a certain time. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and he lived a long time before Jesus.

No, the Old Testament was editted and chosen WHICH interpretationg of a story was to be used. There was no official bible until 70 A.D. after a council of church leaders chose it. Same went with the New Testament some 330 years later.

 

[pureone01]

True Constantine edited the bible, he could hav changed whatever he wanted to, I mean no one has ne proof that that is what it said before

 

[awesomestnerd]

Nobody actually has proof of editing that I have seen, besides opinions. Show me some evidence of this please or some links because I really want to research this but can't right now.

 

[Crimson King]

Show me evidence he didn't.

If he did edit it, it would be impossible to prove or disprove.

It's a well-known fact however in the science community that the bible wasn't finished until well into the 4th century. Now, if Constantine directly editted, we will never know because HE EDITTED IT!

 

[JBlaze1394]

Asking for proof that Constantine edited the Bible is the same thing as asking for proof that the version of the Bible that is, presumably, at your house is the same version as the one that was originally written. Prove one and you disprove the other. The only problem is that there is no discovered (and publically shared) proof that he did so...

Consider this, however: it is a well known fact that, as I have stated before, history is written by the winners. What I mean by that what we know as past events was recorded and kept only by those with the power and influence enough to see it through. Would an emperor want records of his misdeeds and mistakes? No, and those foolish enough to record them at the time would be killed. So those in the future would read of the events through a carefully manipulated point of view.

Whether you believe the Bible to be true letter for letter is irrelevant in this particular argument - it IS, on many levels, a historical document. As such, it has the unfortunate destiny to be written, rewritten, translated, retranslated, and most importantly, edited to fit the point of view of those in power. As not only a historical document, but also a religious text, it is subject to those rules even more so since religion carries much more social and political influence than any other societal construct in human history.

Whether it was Constantine or some other powerful historical figure, you have to believe, logically, that the Bible, as a historical and religious text of such import, would have been tampered with at some point along the way. To believe that it has not would be naive - much like it is to believe that it was and has always been compiled from one text and one source...

More on topic, the point is that while it is impossible to say with any surety that the Bible has been edited, it is just as illogical to say that it hasn't - meaning that even the events, words, and stories about Jesus are probably not true, historically accurate, or in their original untampered form. So Jesus probably said and did plenty of things that the Bible does not reflect.

Either way, again back on topic, I still stand by my earlier post - Jesus was certainly a rebel (assuming the definition of rebel to be one that acts against societal standards), maybe a messiah (assuming the all-important claim to be true, which of course, none of us can prove or disprove), and definitely a martyr.

 

[Yahweh]

Those books weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, OR John. They were written by their followers. This is covered in all modern day Christian textbooks.

None of my books and commentaries say that.

Show me evidence he didn't.

If he did edit it, it would be impossible to prove or disprove.

It's a well-known fact however in the science community that the bible wasn't finished until well into the 4th century. Now, if Constantine directly editted, we will never know because HE EDITTED IT!

Constantine was not a Christian. Also, Constantine did not edit the Bible we have today, the Dead Sea scrolls prove that.

 

[awesomestnerd]

Mr. Blaze, you state that the Bible was edited, and you also say that if you were a leader who won, you wouldn't want your mistakes in there. Well the Bible shows the mistakes of some, such as Peter. I'm pretty sure you might know the story, but I will tell it anyway. Jesus had just been arrested and Peter ran off and he was eating with some people in public and thinking what had just happened. Then 3 different people questioned him and asked him if he was a disciple of Jesus and such. Each time, Peter denied Christ, just as Jesus had predicted. So if the Bible shows downfalls of people, wouldn't that mean that it wouldn't be edited.

 

[mcpon]

Also, it was women (Mary (not the virgin) and friends) that supposedly saw the empty tomb, which sparked off the idea that Jesus had risen from the dead - a cornerstone part of Christianity because that's where we get the "resurrection" from. Women were thought to be of the lesser sex than men, so if the Bible was editted, wouldn't it have been editted to show that men were the first ones to have seen the resurrection, since it was such an important part of Christianity?

 

[Crimson King]

No, it was editted to appeal to the largest mass. It was actually meant as a metaphor, if Jesus will associate with women, he must be really loving. Women representing the sudjugated and what now.