Did Jesus want to create a poli-theism religion?

[Angrboda]

Jesus was executed very soon.
After the third day when he came back to life, he did not stay among his prophets for many days and went to heaven.
It is said that in India they taught to be buried for three days and come back to life.
Perhaps Jesus learned this method.
Because they nailed his bones and shoulder blades, he must have got an infection and died! Otherwise, he would have lived for 30-40 years and led his religion.

Maybe he never came back after the execution and his prophets lied.

I’ve always wondered why Jesus felt it necessary to go through all the rigamarole of getting himself crucified. Since he was meant to die for our sins anyway, throwing himself under any passing oxcart would have worked just as well.

Boru

It's all tied up in rituals about blood sacrifice. As the scapegoat that the Jews let loose in the desert to suffer and die was supposed to expiate their sins, so the passion of Christ is a form of ritual purging, with all this going back to the long tradition of blood magic. I saw an interesting documentary where they cut open an animal and splattered its blood around the tires and corners of a military truck, to bring good luck in battle. Blood magic is way old.

[Foxaèr]

It's interesting how magic of a pagan and witchcraft nature is evil while it's perfectly fine if attached to the christian god.

[Jehanne]

I’ve always wondered why Jesus felt it necessary to go through all the rigamarole of getting himself crucified. Since he was meant to die for our sins anyway, throwing himself under any passing oxcart would have worked just as well.

Boru

It's all tied up in rituals about blood sacrifice. As the scapegoat that the Jews let loose in the desert to suffer and die was supposed to expiate their sins, so the passion of Christ is a form of ritual purging, with all this going back to the long tradition of blood magic. I saw an interesting documentary where they cut open an animal and splattered its blood around the tires and corners of a military truck, to bring good luck in battle. Blood magic is way old.

The evidence from Mark is that Jesus did not see his death as being sacrificial:

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “E′lo-i, E′lo-i, la′ma sabach-tha′ni?” which means, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34, RSV)

What happened is that Jesus was an apocalyptist who, like his illiterate followers, believed in a flat Earth. Believing that Yahweh would deliver the Jewish people through an angelic being who would descend from Heaven, the Son of Man, Jesus went to Jerusalem from his birthplace in northern Galilee, the former widely believed to be the center of the World, and as a messenger of this deliverance, Jesus believed that Yahweh would guide and protect him. The Romans, immediately recognizing Jesus as "yet another religious loon", arrested him, and after a quick trial, he was summarily found guilty of sedition against the Empire and condemned to crucifixion. It was, finally, during his execution that Jesus publicly decries God's "betrayal", which Mark recorded.

It was years after his execution that Jesus' followers began to rewrite the story of his life, characterizing his life and death as being "sacrificial".

[LinuxGal]

The evidence from Mark is that Jesus did not see his death as being sacrificial:

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “E′lo-i, E′lo-i, la′ma sabach-tha′ni?” which means, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34, RSV)

Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?...

Of course, Jesus didn't actually say anything on the cross other than "Owie!  Owie!  Goddamn that smarts!"

[Jehanne]

The evidence from Mark is that Jesus did not see his death as being sacrificial:


Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?...

Of course, Jesus didn't actually say anything on the cross other than "Owie!  Owie!  Goddamn that smarts!"

I think that the passage from Mark is authentic, in that Mark, who wrote in (and, likely spoke) Greek, quotes the words of Jesus in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke.

Jesus' passion was no laughing matter, even for the Romans who executed him; Jesus suffered physical trauma & mutilation throughout the whole affair. I think it likely that a few women witnessed his execution from a distance (also recorded in Mark), as they would have blended in; Jesus' male followers, on the other hand, fled the area.

[LinuxGal]

I think that the passage from Mark is authentic, in that Mark, who wrote in (and, likely spoke) Greek, quotes the words of Jesus in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke.

Jesus' passion was no laughing matter, even for the Romans who executed him; Jesus suffered physical trauma & mutilation throughout the whole affair.  I think it likely that a few women witnessed his execution from a distance (also recorded in Mark), as they would have blended in; Jesus' male followers, on the other hand, fled the area.

Excellent.  Then who was there near the cross to hear what Jesus said?  Certainly not some rando Roman writing four decades later, later assumed to be Mark because another forgery (1 Peter) mentioned the name.

[arewethereyet]

I think that the passage from Mark is authentic, in that Mark, who wrote in (and, likely spoke) Greek, quotes the words of Jesus in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke.

Jesus' passion was no laughing matter, even for the Romans who executed him; Jesus suffered physical trauma & mutilation throughout the whole affair.  I think it likely that a few women witnessed his execution from a distance (also recorded in Mark), as they would have blended in; Jesus' male followers, on the other hand, fled the area.

This makes the assumption that one believes the Jesus of the Bible really existed.

I think Jesus is fictional, or at best, a composite.

Once someone can convince me that a virgin birth was possible, I might rethink the whole thing.

[LinuxGal]

I think Jesus is fictional, or at best, a composite.

Once someone can convince me that a virgin birth was possible, I might rethink the whole thing.

This is a position called mythicism. I reject it because in the wake of this fellow's execution there were suddenly a number of diverse Jesus movements (Ebionites, gnostics, Marcionites, Yohanan's school, proto-Orthodox).   It's hard to imagine all those groups suddenly forming without the existence of a traveling magician/teacher who stepped on his dick and got on the bad side of the Romans.

[Foxaèr]

Divine Jesus, son of god: mysticism.

Human Jesus: apocrypha.

[Jehanne]

I think that the passage from Mark is authentic, in that Mark, who wrote in (and, likely spoke) Greek, quotes the words of Jesus in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke.

Jesus' passion was no laughing matter, even for the Romans who executed him; Jesus suffered physical trauma & mutilation throughout the whole affair.  I think it likely that a few women witnessed his execution from a distance (also recorded in Mark), as they would have blended in; Jesus' male followers, on the other hand, fled the area.

Excellent.  Then who was there near the cross to hear what Jesus said?  Certainly not some rando Roman writing four decades later, later assumed to be Mark because another forgery (1 Peter) mentioned the name.

He probably screamed it multiple times over the course of an hour or more, which is why the women nearby heard and remembered it. The author of Mark, decades later, condensed things down to a single statement.