Freeing guilty criminals at Passover?

[Ranjr]

The Jews killed Jesus, not the Romans.  That's why.

Um no. It is certainly what right wing assholes today claim, but that is not what real history is.


The claims of Romans killing Jesus is after the fact mythology. Jesus never existed. He was a manufactured character after the fact. Nero is most likely responsible for the eventual popularity of Christianity. Back then Christians were an tiny religion and unknown, but when Rome burned down under Nero, Nero looked for a scapegoat. 

Jews didn't rat out a fictional character named Jesus. Humans simply marketed what they did, and certain mythologies won out over time through marketing.

My response was in answer to the question in the OP regarding why Christians believe something that never happened.  It's the correct answer.  I've read Doherty and Carrier and others on historicity.  I've read Josephus and the 2nd century apologists.  Don't presume to educate me.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Um no. It is certainly what right wing assholes today claim, but that is not what real history is.


The claims of Romans killing Jesus is after the fact mythology. Jesus never existed. He was a manufactured character after the fact. Nero is most likely responsible for the eventual popularity of Christianity. Back then Christians were an tiny religion and unknown, but when Rome burned down under Nero, Nero looked for a scapegoat. 

Jews didn't rat out a fictional character named Jesus. Humans simply marketed what they did, and certain mythologies won out over time through marketing.

My response was in answer to the question in the OP regarding why Christians believe something that never happened.  It's the correct answer.  I've read Doherty and Carrier and others on historicity.  I've read Josephus and the 2nd century apologists.  Don't presume to educate me.

Don’t take it personally, Ranjr - he does that to everyone. Can’t help himself. 

Boru

[Ranjr]

My response was in answer to the question in the OP regarding why Christians believe something that never happened.  It's the correct answer.  I've read Doherty and Carrier and others on historicity.  I've read Josephus and the 2nd century apologists.  Don't presume to educate me.

Don’t take it personally, Ranjr - he does that to everyone. Can’t help himself. 

Boru

I'm beginning to lose my patience with him and understand why others have already done so.

[GrandizerII]

The Jews killed Jesus, not the Romans.  That's why.

Um no. It is certainly what right wing assholes today claim, but that is not what real history is.


The claims of Romans killing Jesus is after the fact mythology. Jesus never existed. He was a manufactured character after the fact. Nero is most likely responsible for the eventual popularity of Christianity. Back then Christians were an tiny religion and unknown, but when Rome burned down under Nero, Nero looked for a scapegoat. 

Jews didn't rat out a fictional character named Jesus. Humans simply marketed what they did, and certain mythologies won out over time through marketing.

It's called facetiousness, Brian. I don't think Ranjr meant it is a historical fact that the Jews killed Jesus.

At least that's how I interpreted the statement. Perhaps not.

Anyhow, I don't like these confident claims like "Jesus never existed". We don't really know. And scholars who study the NT for a living mostly reckon there was some Jesus.

[brewer]

[Brian37]

This is my favorite Thin Lizzy song.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is my favorite Thin Lizzy song.

No one cares. No one.

Boru

[Brian37]

Um no. It is certainly what right wing assholes today claim, but that is not what real history is.


The claims of Romans killing Jesus is after the fact mythology. Jesus never existed. He was a manufactured character after the fact. Nero is most likely responsible for the eventual popularity of Christianity. Back then Christians were an tiny religion and unknown, but when Rome burned down under Nero, Nero looked for a scapegoat. 

Jews didn't rat out a fictional character named Jesus. Humans simply marketed what they did, and certain mythologies won out over time through marketing.

It's called facetiousness, Brian. I don't think Ranjr meant it is a historical fact that the Jews killed Jesus.

At least that's how I interpreted the statement. Perhaps not.

Anyhow, I don't like these confident claims like "Jesus never existed". We don't really know. And scholars who study the NT for a living mostly reckon there was some Jesus.

There certainly was a man, or more likely a group of people who splintered from the old Hebrew/Jewish traditions whom wanted a hero to come in their time.

BUT what did not happen is ever was a magic man who did all the alleged claims the NT claims the character Jesus did. It is far more likely that whatever inspired the the splinter Jewish sect to become the new Christianity, simply had writers after the fact retrofit stories to legends and myths, loosely, VERY LOOSELY, and certainly not first hand, passed down accounts of a person or group who stood up to the status quo.

Point is the entire NT hinges on two patently absurd stories. There is no such thing as a magic baby and humans do not survive rigor mortis. So at best, the NT writers were retrofitting after the fact legends mere mortals told to gain  support for their new splinter club.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's called facetiousness, Brian. I don't think Ranjr meant it is a historical fact that the Jews killed Jesus.

At least that's how I interpreted the statement. Perhaps not.

Anyhow, I don't like these confident claims like "Jesus never existed". We don't really know. And scholars who study the NT for a living mostly reckon there was some Jesus.

There certainly was a man, or more likely a group of people who splintered from the old Hebrew/Jewish traditions whom wanted a hero to come in their time.

BUT what did not happen is ever was a magic man who did all the alleged claims the NT claims the character Jesus did. It is far more likely that whatever inspired the the splinter Jewish sect to become the new Christianity, simply had writers after the fact retrofit stories to legends and myths, loosely, VERY LOOSELY, and certainly not first hand, passed down accounts of a person or group who stood up to the status quo.

Point is the entire NT hinges on two patently absurd stories. There is no such thing as a magic baby and humans do not survive rigor mortis. So at best, the NT writers were retrofitting after the fact legends mere mortals told to gain  support for their new splinter club.

Re-stating the same stupid thing you said earlier doesn’t make it less stupid. And before you snap like an opera singer’s truss, what you said wasn’t stupid because it was wrong (it wasn’t) - it was stupid because you didn’t understand the comment to which you were replying.

Boru

[Brian37]

There certainly was a man, or more likely a group of people who splintered from the old Hebrew/Jewish traditions whom wanted a hero to come in their time.

BUT what did not happen is ever was a magic man who did all the alleged claims the NT claims the character Jesus did. It is far more likely that whatever inspired the the splinter Jewish sect to become the new Christianity, simply had writers after the fact retrofit stories to legends and myths, loosely, VERY LOOSELY, and certainly not first hand, passed down accounts of a person or group who stood up to the status quo.

Point is the entire NT hinges on two patently absurd stories. There is no such thing as a magic baby and humans do not survive rigor mortis. So at best, the NT writers were retrofitting after the fact legends mere mortals told to gain  support for their new splinter club.

Re-stating the same stupid thing you said earlier doesn’t make it less stupid. And before you snap like an opera singer’s truss, what you said wasn’t stupid because it was wrong (it wasn’t) - it was stupid because you didn’t understand the comment to which you were replying.

Boru

Christianity WAS most certainly inspired by a prior religion. What did not happen was all the fantastic claims the NT MAKES, much less the fantastic claims of of the religion they spun off of.

There is no evidence that a man claimed WAY AFTER THE FACT that the bible claims that the NT claims existed. And it most certainly would never prove that there is a magic baby born without a second set of DNA who magically survived having all the blood drained out of his body in an act of execution. 

Again, the Jesus myth exists, solely because humans got tired of the old mythology and were looking to market a new super hero to save them in their time.