RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 10, 2015 at 2:59 am
(June 5, 2015 at 2:53 pm)TheMessiah Wrote:(June 5, 2015 at 2:47 pm)abaris Wrote: The gospels are a collection of campfire tales floating around at the time. Someone simply compiled them.
So the better question is why were they compiled? What was the agenda? Did sommeone commission them?
Even apart from the supernatural elements in the Jesus account, there are fallacies concerning Roman legal procedures, especially in the province of Judea at the time. We're not even talking about a trial against a Roman citizen but about a jewish trouble maker, who was nothing but scum in the eyes of the Roman authorities. Dangerous scum if he really claimed to be the king of jews and it's next to impossible that one of his disciples or family members would have breathed even one second longer than wonder boy himself. The Romans weren't chicken hearted when someone questioned their authority. The best thing they could hope for was being shipped as slave material to some provincial market, but even that is unlikely.
Pilate finding no fault in a man claiming to be the king of jews is ludicrous. Also offering him up for amnesty. The jewish priests, who were string puppets of the Romans at the time in question, don't stand the realtiy check either. And the list goes on and on, down to the disposal of bodies when someone was crucified.
The problem with this is that you're assuming Jesus was truly a threat to Roman authority.
In all likelihood, he wasn't as big a threat as he is made out; there were many false messiah's at the time, who all claimed the same thing. He wasn't the only person who claimed to be king of the Jews. The difference with Jesus is his death --- he died, for a messiah, an utterly embarrassing death. The Jewish messiah was described to be a warrior, and yet Jesus was just a dude who got crucified, which put his followers in an askward position.
Had Jesus truly been fictional, then I doubt Christianity would exist, ecause the Jews would not have altered the story to have their messiah die a criminal's death - it makes no sense; in comparison to a radical Jew getting killed and then his followers being forced to reconcile that death with their own faith.
Jesus was mostly a threat to the Jewish priests, who were concerned with this radical preachings and the consequences that would have on their system of control - Jesus was a trouble-maker - thus, the Jewish priests most likely convinced the Romans to kill him.
Jesus was a reformer in the sense that he tried to reform the Jewish faith, his threat was to Jewish authority moreso than Roman.
In the Babylonian Talmud the Jews brag about killing Jesus using five different methods. So based on that they didn't give a damn about Jesus as their messiah.
