Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[FatAndFaithless]

TheMessiah, is the proposed conclusion that there most likely existed some obscure preacher at that time that was known as "jesus", but the details of his life, even the minor ones, are unconfirmable and the more grandiose supernatural claims are to be disregarded entirely?

[Minimalist]

[TheMessiah]

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.

[TheMessiah]

[TheMessiah]

TheMessiah, is the proposed conclusion that there most likely existed some obscure preacher at that time that was known as "jesus", but the details of his life, even the minor ones, are unconfirmable and the more grandiose supernatural claims are to be disregarded entirely?

What we know of Jesus:

- Obscure preacher

- Made claims of being the messiah

- Died via cruxification

That's about all we know for sure. His death is VERY well attested, thus we can deduce he must have caused a stir to land such a penalty.

In context, it's actually insigifcant to the myth Jesus

[FatAndFaithless]

TheMessiah, is the proposed conclusion that there most likely existed some obscure preacher at that time that was known as "jesus", but the details of his life, even the minor ones, are unconfirmable and the more grandiose supernatural claims are to be disregarded entirely?

What we know of Jesus:

- Obscure preacher

- Made claims of being the messiah

- Died via cruxification

That's about all we know for sure

Gotcha. Thanks for the summary, I'm on my phone so scrolling through all that block text is hard, heh.

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence for that.

Read the fucking things and learn a little history.  There had been 3 Jewish revolts by 140 when xtianity seems to get going.  It isn't that hard to see where the Roman world would have been pretty pissed with them.

[TheMessiah]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='958940' dateline='1433530981']
[quote]

There is no evidence for that.
[quote]

Read the fucking things and learn a little history.  There had been 3 Jewish revolts by 140 when xtianity seems to get going.  It isn't that hard to see where the Roman world would have been pretty pissed with them.

Oh, I've read the history - however, the idea of a trouble maker getting crucified and his radical interpretation of Judaism getting put to a halt, with cruxification, a penalty which was routinely handed out is more likely than what you're proposing, which is rather illogical.

In fact, death via cruxiication was seen as so shameful that many Christians didn't even depict it because of how embarrassing it was - non-Christians laughed at the absurdity of a god who died via cruxification; the popular Christ image on the cross only gained popularity once the Romans banned cruxification.

It had absolutely nothing to do with getting people to hate the Jews.

[abaris]

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.

Yeah, and that's where history, real history comes in. The jewish priesthood couldn't control their own asses at the time in question, since they were entirely dependent and appointed by the Romans.

[TheMessiah]

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.

Yeah, and that's where history, real history comes in. The jewish priesthood couldn't control their own asses at the time in question, since they were entirely dependent and appointed by the Romans.

The Jewish priesthood had influence over Judea on a purely religious sense; hence if Jesus threatens them, then the Priests will get worried, and what happens when they get worried? They contact the Romans.

In fact, Jesus's ''revolution'' was actually quite small in scale - TLDR he pissed off Jewish priests. Jewish texts and prophecies at the time were very naracssistic; if a prophecy was made, it was solely about the socio-political structure of the time.