Regarding Jesus

[Confused Ape]

I suppose I just don't see much of a difference between a book written by Hubbard, about a Xenu - and a book written by "unknown" about a Jesus. They both serve the same purpose, in the same way, and we can examine either in exactly the same manner. The Xenu story definitely doesn't explain to us "how" scientology got started - and even after 2k years and plenty of rewrites it still won't have that ability. Neither, in my opinion, does the christ narrative.

According to Wikipedia, the Xenu story is, or at least was, part of Scientology doctrine. The facts about how Scientology was founded are well documented. All we know about Jesus are the stories that Christianity ended up with but nobody knows how they got started.

Consider, for example, that christianity is paul's invention, not christ's, and paul never met jesus - doesn't even seem to have known much about him in the way of stories.

Maybe Paul was the L. Ron Hubbard of his day.

That being the case, it's easy to argue that even the character of jesus is irrelevant to the history of christianity.

If Jesus really was based on somebody who is now unknown the man's character might have been very relevant to the origins of Christianity. This isn't the same thing at all as being relevant to Christian doctrine, of course.

After all, he's all things to all men - and simultaneously nothing. These are just a few of the reasons that I feel an insistence on a historical jesus evaporates in the face of inquiry. It isn't in evidence, and it isn't required (and I doubt that it would really be that informative if it were either).

It's interesting seeing what Judaism has to say about Jesus. He's seen as a failed or false messiah but I've yet to find arguments about a real man who ended up as the mythological Jesus never existing. There were a lot of messiah wannabes under the Roman occupation so it seems that Jews have no problems in regarding Jesus as just one of them.

Who Was Jesus? The Jewish View of Jesus

Stated simply, the Jewish view of Jesus of Nazareth is that he was an ordinary Jewish man and preacher living during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land in the first century C.E. The Romans executed him - and also executed many other nationalistic and religious Jews - for speaking out against Roman authority and abuses.

After the death of Jesus, his followers - at the time a small sect of former Jews known as the Nazarenes - claimed he was the Messiah prophesied in Jewish texts and that he would soon return to fulfill the acts required of the Messiah. The majority of contemporary Jews rejected this belief and Judaism as a whole continues to do so today. Eventually, Jesus became the focal point of a small Jewish religious movement that would evolve into the Christian faith.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah," meaning someone who claimed (or whose followers claimed for him) the mantle of the Messiah but who ultimately did not meet the requirements laid out in Jewish beliefs.

Jesus of Nazareth was one of many Jews throughout history who attempted to directly or indirectly lay claim to being the Messiah. Given the difficult social climate under Roman occupation and persecution during the era in which Jesus lived, it is not hard to understand why so many Jews longed for a time of peace and freedom. The most famous of Jewish false messiahs in ancient times was Simon bar Kochba, who led the initially successful but ultimately disastrous revolt against the Romans in 132 C.E., which led to the near annihilation of Judaism in the Holy Land at the hands of the Romans. Bar Kochba claimed to be the Messiah and was even anointed by the prominent Rabbi Akiva, but after bar Kochba died in the revolt the Jews of his time rejected him as another false messiah since he did not fulfill the requirements of the true Messiah.

This is so mundane it's quite plausible although there's still no proof that it's true.