Jesus was a political revolutionary, not a religious leader

[Slax]

Before burning witches at the stake was popular, there was crucifixition. Don't forget that paganism was still very strong then, its history couldn't be easily denied. Had to be dealt with abruptly, where it reared its head. It was more than a land and resourse grab , as common in the burning times holocaust.

I would suggest you study a bit about Egyptian carpenters around that time. a few things you know about JC should become familiar. There is no doubt, that whoever is responsible for his teachings, either used hallucinogenics as shamans/sorcerers/psychics did or survived the breakdown of a civilization like ours is at now.

Paganism is still around. In what way are you using the term?

That area was a hot bed of different relious beliefs and customs due to it's geographical position on the edge of the Roman empire. The region was also a Roman protectorate, rather than state which meant there was far more autonomy from Rome, which would suggest the opposite to your theory that Rome would want to have any other groups silenced. They didn't kill off the Jews, in fact around the time of JC the second Great Temple was still standing (was destroyed about 70AD). In the outlying parts of the empire the Romans were actually quite tolerant, provided you didn't try and defy Rome's authority they would allow local customs and rituals to continue. This was in their interests too, surpressing religions on the fringe of the empire was only going to lead to war. Whilst Rome was a mighty military machine by then, it was not hell bent on war, it was also about governing the area. If you could get people to agree to Rome's authority and the way that Rome wanted some things done, Rome in turn would turn a blind eye to some pagan rituals to enable local harmony.

Being a revolutionary in Roman society would always get you killed much faster than being some sort of religious nut job.

 

[The Coup]

Apart from the bible, what other mentions of him are there? I seem to remember an ossuary with "James, brother of Jesus" printed on it being found but that was the closest to any external reference I've heard of.

Two Romans documented some stuff, including the crucifixion. Its always Romans.

 

[The Coup]

Never heard of this one before in all my studies, would be interested in a link though.

I have come across numerous different papers on Jesus christ as a revolutionary figure, hence his punishment. Crucifixition was reserved for three types of people, enemies of the state - revolutionaries, spies, etc.; the most henious crimes and for slaves guilty of crimes. It was used to deter people from acting in a similar manner and as the OP says preachers were extremely common, especially in the more remote parts of the empire.

The fact he was singled out, flogged and forced to carry his cross (which would of actually only been the cross beam) to his execution was something done to make an example out of him. It is clear that they wanted to inflict servere pain on him before he died which would of been achieved.

Revolutionaries come in different ways, peaceful and non-peaceful, neither were tolerated. Take say a figure like Martin Luther-King, a revolutionary, but him into a Roman style society and it is easy to see how someone who speaks so well and quickly gather the support of the masses and why then the state would want to make sure they publicly executed and humiliated him.

Likewise, Malcolm X was decidedly non peaceful (non aggressive too, but still very much armed) but was still taken out.

I saw an interview on the daily show with an author who put out a book about MLK recently, it focused specifically on the last year of his life. The gist of it was MLK started talking about foreign policy s**t (including "Those bombs you're dropping on Vietnam are landing on the ghetto" i.e. capitalism is ******* the poor) and economic policy and that's why he was offed (he was actually at a low in popularity and relevance when he was killed).

It seems the leadership of most societies are ok with domestic squabbles between groups within society, A Kony for example is no big deal, but once they start becoming unified and crticising the war machine itself and the concept of competing with other humans as being a bad (or at least redundant) thing they are cactus. There is no group more harshly persecuted by the MIC than people that preach and act on togetherness, equality and fairness.

 

[The Coup]

Paganism is still around. In what way are you using the term?

That area was a hot bed of different relious beliefs and customs due to it's geographical position on the edge of the Roman empire. The region was also a Roman protectorate, rather than state which meant there was far more autonomy from Rome, which would suggest the opposite to your theory that Rome would want to have any other groups silenced. They didn't kill off the Jews, in fact around the time of JC the second Great Temple was still standing (was destroyed about 70AD). In the outlying parts of the empire the Romans were actually quite tolerant, provided you didn't try and defy Rome's authority they would allow local customs and rituals to continue. This was in their interests too, surpressing religions on the fringe of the empire was only going to lead to war. Whilst Rome was a mighty military machine by then, it was not hell bent on war, it was also about governing the area. If you could get people to agree to Rome's authority and the way that Rome wanted some things done, Rome in turn would turn a blind eye to some pagan rituals to enable local harmony.

Being a revolutionary in Roman society would always get you killed much faster than being some sort of religious nut job.

Exactly.

The Romans ran their empire through taxation and cultural tolerance (DING DING DING) and client states (DING DING DING).

What they didn't tolerate, the only thing they didn't tolerate in fact (hiring the "barbaric" Celts who sacked Rome, to then go and become Rome's biggest mercenary force and kill Germans for example, no big deal - all sins forgiven, hail Mars/Jupiter/Appollo/whatever, oh wait you Celts are into GROM or wickermen or eating peoples heads or some s**t, whatever - and that's without even mentioning all the institutionalised paedophilia going on) was, as you say, revolutionaries.

Culture didn't bother them. They weren't even that afraid of the Greeks, Celts or Germans by then. A unified army of slaves and serfs led by an Arab carpenter from Eastern Rome scared the ******* s**t out of them. Spartacus and the generals of his army of Germans, Thracians and Celts were crucified about 60 years before Jesus was born. They did't get flogged, or asked to wear a crown, or beaten, or spat on, or forced to carry a cross etc etc etc

So if Spartacus, who sacked major Roman cities and threatened to take Rome itself and burn it to the ground - was merely crucified.... WTF did Jesus do?

There MUST be a record of it. There's no way we know so much about Spartacus, and yet this other guy copped a FAR MORE BRUTAL death (but likely for the same reason) and all we know is his brother might be an Irishman?

I don't buy that for one second.

 

[Norwood1878]

Likewise, Malcolm X was decidedly non peaceful (non aggressive too, but still very much armed) but was still taken out.

I saw an interview on the daily show with an author who put out a book about MLK recently, it focused specifically on the last year of his life. The gist of it was MLK started talking about foreign policy s**t (including "Those bombs you're dropping on Vietnam are landing on the ghetto" i.e. capitalism is ******* the poor) and economic policy and that's why he was offed (he was actually at a low in popularity and relevance when he was killed).

It seems the leadership of most societies are ok with domestic squabbles between groups within society, A Kony for example is no big deal, but once they start becoming unified and crticising the war machine itself and the concept of competing with other humans as being a bad (or at least redundant) thing they are cactus. There is no group more harshly persecuted by the MIC than people that preach and act on togetherness, equality and fairness.

Can someone link me to verifiable contemporary sources or can anyone supply me with the exact proofs of the historicity of Jesus, or links to articles which hold those proofs?

 

[The Coup]

Can someone link me to verifiable contemporary sources or can anyone supply me with the exact proofs of the historicity of Jesus, or links to articles which hold those proofs?

There's heaps out there I had a look into it about 6 motnhs ago when there was an argument on here that Jesus was mythical (I disagreed, and was proven correct). Just google something like "Jesus christ James Historical consensus roman document" and you'll be able to read a fair bit.

Actually that just made me think a cool thought: James is actually mentioned more prominently than Jesus - but its incredibly brief, like one line, anyway. Jesus might be a decoy.

That's why I think there's got to be some seriously important history missing - theres no way we can know this much about spartacus, but dont know what jesus did from 12-30, don't know what he said, don't know what he was other than most likely a revolutionary, and that he copped a crucifixion (the brutality of it is NOT confirmed btw, it could have just been a run of the mill crucifixion)

 

[Norwood1878]

There's heaps out there I had a look into it about 6 motnhs ago when there was an argument on here that Jesus was mythical (I disagreed, and was proven correct). Just google something like "Jesus christ James Historical consensus roman document" and you'll be able to read a fair bit.

Actually that just made me think a cool thought: James is actually mentioned more prominently than Jesus - but its incredibly brief, like one line, anyway. Jesus might be a decoy.

That's why I think there's got to be some seriously important history missing - theres no way we can know this much about spartacus, but dont know what jesus did from 12-30, don't know what he said, don't know what he was other than most likely a revolutionary, and that he copped a crucifixion (the brutality of it is NOT confirmed btw, it could have just been a run of the mill crucifixion)

There are no Roman records of charges against Jesus. No order of execution. No Roman tax record, no Roman census, nothing at all which would provide us with unimpeachable evidence that the guy existed.

Now...it is certainly possible that he did actually exist, but there's no proof. I know that's a fine distinction, but it is an important one. It is also possible that Jesus is merely a fictional amalgam of several actual self-proclaimed messiahs in Judea around that time, added to the necessary exaggerations and wild fictions which typically accompany a story of a demigod, often drawn from other, then-extant stories about other gods (Horus, for example, or Mithras).

 

[The Coup]

Do you not believe in the authenticity of Tacitus? Pretty significant Roman and from my understanding its generally accepted by historians (the people who count) that the following passage from Annals IV (his biggest work) is legit:

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of
Rome also."

There is some disagreement about the reference to Tiberius and Pontius Pilate in that it may be soemwhat Christian influenced, but the rest of it is considered legit proof of Jesus and his crucifixion and rebellion. The fact they mention it went through the city of Rome (through as in, didn't just get there and fail, it went through Rome) might give some motivation for why he was treated even worse than Spartacus (again, if the beating/humiliation thing is true).

I just find it really, really strange that there's not more on him. There almost certainly was more written about him, though the Romans lost a lot of literature in a fire (pretty sure we only know about 30% of what they documented, which is crazy because our society is more than just somewhat based on theirs) and the Catholic church would have had a massive interest in editing what was considered the bible.

Then there's the J document theory which on the surface makes a bit of sense.

 

[The Coup]

Before burning witches at the stake was popular, there was crucifixition. Don't forget that paganism was still very strong then, its history couldn't be easily denied. Had to be dealt with abruptly, where it reared its head. It was more than a land and resourse grab , as common in the burning times holocaust.

I would suggest you study a bit about Egyptian carpenters around that time. a few things you know about JC should become familiar. There is no doubt, that whoever is responsible for his teachings, either used hallucinogenics as shamans/sorcerers/psychics did or survived the breakdown of a civilization like ours is at now.

Can you expand on this. I don't care if its weird or mystic or whatever, I would love to read about this stuff.

 

[Norwood1878]

Do you not believe in the authenticity of Tacitus? Pretty significant Roman and from my understanding its generally accepted by historians (the people who count) that the following passage from Annals IV (his biggest work) is legit

No. It is based on the premise Jesus existed. The evidence is then framed to fit the dogma. The passage used by Christians is simply not credible evidence.

Here's an article from a few days ago you may find of some interest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

 

[The Coup]

So you believe Tacitus lied about Jesus, or that the document was later forged and it has simply conned all the experts?

 

[little graham]

No. It is based on the premise Jesus existed. The evidence is then framed to fit the dogma. The passage used by Christians is simply not credible evidence.

Here's an article from a few days ago you may find of some interest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

What do you think of Tim Osman?

 

[Norwood1878]

So you believe Tacitus lied about Jesus, or that the document was later forged and it has simply conned all the experts?

I believe he lied about Christ, yes. Because one historian wrote ONE passage mentioning Christ does not in itself provide proof. Just as i may write about the tooth fairy, the mere fact of the writing alone does not represent evidence of it's existence.
Again, i ask you to provide me with contemporary proof. Surely a man such as Jesus, who performed the miracles he is credited with would have been recorded by the many historians of the time around Nazereth and beyond.
Do you believe the story of Noah? How about the Story of creation, genesis 1? Interestingly, the Catholic church states the story of creation is a metaphor but then doesn't see the contradiction that if it is so then the premise of original sin must be false. Also in the first book of genesis we have two conflicting accounts of original sin, one it which Eve commits the sin and one in which Adam commits the sin.
If there is no original sin then the reason Jehova sent his only son to die, Jesus of Nazereth, which is Jehova in flesh and blood does not make sense.

 

[Norwood1878]

What do you think of Tim Osman?

Could you outline the relevance of your question to this discussion.

 

[The Coup]

I believe he lied about Christ, yes. Because one historian wrote ONE passage mentioning Christ does not in itself provide proof. Just as i may write about the tooth fairy, the mere fact of the writing alone does not represent evidence of it's existence.
Again, i ask you to provide me with contemporary proof. Surely a man such as Jesus, who performed the miracle he is credited with would have been recorded by the many historians of the time around Nazereth and beyond.
Do you believe the story of Noah? How about the Story of creation, genesis 1? Interestingly, the Catholic church states the story of creation is a metaphor but then doesn't see the contradiction that if it is so then the premise of original sin must be false. Also in the first book of genesis we have to conflicting accounts of original sin, one it which Eve commits the sin and one in which Adam commits the sin.
If there is no original sin then the reason Jehova sent his only son to die, Jesus of Nazereth, which is Jehova in flesh and blood does not make sense.

You know that's kind of how history works though? Especially with the Romans?

I mean Tacitus is also responsible for the vast majority of what we know about the Celts. I'm pretty sure they're not mythical. He was an historian and documenter, not a religious figure (and not a Christian). The people whose job it is to make sure these documents are legitimate, are in agreement that the document and the passage was legitimate.

I don't see why you're skeptical of it. You act like you are a man of science, well a bunch of scientists (in that field) agree he was a legitimate person. They also agree that the entire bible is completely unverifiable (which I agree with obviously, to answer the second part of your post).

I'm not sure why you seem to think I believe in the bible, or what this thread has to do with the bible. I made it abundantly clear in the OP this is about Jesus the historical figure, not Jesus the religious figure.

I already gave my comical opinion (That he was a carpenter who got sick of seeing accidents at work and started the first trade union). I also stated that I too think its insane that there isn't more accounts of him. But my opinion is that those accounts were either destroyed (like most Roman documents: in fire) or deliberately suppressed by the Catholic church and again by the English church (plenty of evidence that the bible has been rewritten strictly for political purposes multiple times).

But what I do think, is that certain parts of the bible might help illuminate some of the historical questions. This doesn't make the bible evidence for anything, other than an initial hypothesis (if that). A good example from the book I mentioned in the OP is the use of the word "bandit" in ancient Greek and Ahramaic (i.e. from the actual original documents) to describe the two guys crucified with Jesus - that its meaning at the time was more akin to revolutionary than thief. The importance of taking a historical approach to this is that only someone who can read ancient greek (like the author of the book) would know this. Again, its not evidence of jesus to use the term 'bandit' or the story of the two guys crucified with him (there's no hard evidence that there were two guys crucified with him). But if you start from the historically proven position that he was crucified, and the historically consistent position that crucifixion was reserved for revolutionaries, then it is relevant to know that the original term used in the original documents that made up the "bible" also referred to the two guys crucified with jesus as revolutionaries.

You need to separate the religion from the person and the science from the religion - that's fine. I'm just saying the religion can also be relevant to the science, as long as you aren't stupid enough to use the religion as evidence of anything.

And see, I've quoted an historian in the OP. then I've referred to the near unanimous acceptance amongst historians that Jesus did live and was crucified.

Then you've quoted a historian who is arguing from a false premise: That the absence of Jesus being mentioned in 126 specific books is proof that he never existed. That isn't how science works and he knows it, but he has a book to sell.

What is relevant is that one book, Annals IV, written by one of the most prominent Roman historians, mentions Jesus living and being crucified and that the consensus among the experts in the field of checking authenticity, believe it to be authentic. That is how science works.

 

[little graham]

Paganism is still around. In what way are you using the term?

That area was a hot bed of different relious beliefs and customs due to it's geographical position on the edge of the Roman empire. The region was also a Roman protectorate, rather than state which meant there was far more autonomy from Rome, which would suggest the opposite to your theory that Rome would want to have any other groups silenced. .

What do you make of Emperor Augustus in 13bce making it a capital offense to own pagan books of spells and that? After of course he had a few thousand of them burnt?

 

[little graham]

Could you outline the relevance of your question to this discussion.

Be about 100 years after his death before you'll find many write about him. I'm not saying your wrong or right, I'm just pointing out people with agendas who right opinion pieces, rely on the gullible readers ignorance.

 

[The Coup]

What do you think of Tim Osman?

Dude I googled this egyptian carpenter sorcery stuff, nothing.

Was that just an epic troll designed to bait the gullible? If so bravo.

 

[Northalives]

Jesus was a political revolutionary who got shafted by his mates when it came to hand over all their worldly possessions to the have nots and fight for a socialist utopia.

 

[Norwood1878]

Be about 100 years after his death before you'll find many write about him. I'm not saying your wrong or right, I'm just pointing out people with agendas who right opinion pieces, rely on the gullible readers ignorance.

Incorrect. People are already writing about him which is how you've come to hear of him and you yourself have just mentioned him. The mere fact you sited him in this thread shows contemporary acknowledgement.
Was Osama a CIA asset? There's much evidence that he was, but that's not relevant here.

 

[Norwood1878]

You know that's kind of how history works though? Especially with the Romans?

I mean Tacitus is also responsible for the vast majority of what we know about the Celts. I'm pretty sure they're not mythical. He was an historian and documenter, not a religious figure (and not a Christian). The people whose job it is to make sure these documents are legitimate, are in agreement that the document and the passage was legitimate.

I don't see why you're skeptical of it. You act like you are a man of science, well a bunch of scientists (in that field) agree he was a legitimate person. They also agree that the entire bible is completely unverifiable (which I agree with obviously, to answer the second part of your post).

I'm not sure why you seem to think I believe in the bible, or what this thread has to do with the bible. I made it abundantly clear in the OP this is about Jesus the historical figure, not Jesus the religious figure.

I already gave my comical opinion (That he was a carpenter who got sick of seeing accidents at work and started the first trade union). I also stated that I too think its insane that there isn't more accounts of him. But my opinion is that those accounts were either destroyed (like most Roman documents: in fire) or deliberately suppressed by the Catholic church and again by the English church (plenty of evidence that the bible has been rewritten strictly for political purposes multiple times).

But what I do think, is that certain parts of the bible might help illuminate some of the historical questions. This doesn't make the bible evidence for anything, other than an initial hypothesis (if that). A good example from the book I mentioned in the OP is the use of the word "bandit" in ancient Greek and Ahramaic (i.e. from the actual original documents) to describe the two guys crucified with Jesus - that its meaning at the time was more akin to revolutionary than thief. The importance of taking a historical approach to this is that only someone who can read ancient greek (like the author of the book) would know this. Again, its not evidence of jesus to use the term 'bandit' or the story of the two guys crucified with him (there's no hard evidence that there were two guys crucified with him). But if you start from the historically proven position that he was crucified, and the historically consistent position that crucifixion was reserved for revolutionaries, then it is relevant to know that the original term used in the original documents that made up the "bible" also referred to the two guys crucified with jesus as revolutionaries.

You need to separate the religion from the person and the science from the religion - that's fine. I'm just saying the religion can also be relevant to the science, as long as you aren't stupid enough to use the religion as evidence of anything.

And see, I've quoted an historian in the OP. then I've referred to the near unanimous acceptance amongst historians that Jesus did live and was crucified.

Then you've quoted a historian who is arguing from a false premise: That the absence of Jesus being mentioned in 126 specific books is proof that he never existed. That isn't how science works and he knows it, but he has a book to sell.

What is relevant is that one book, Annals IV, written by one of the most prominent Roman historians, mentions Jesus living and being crucified and that the consensus among the experts in the field of checking authenticity, believe it to be authentic. That is how science works.

Just because many believe it does not make something so. History has taught us that already. The suns rotation around the earth, the flat earth all widely held to be true for centuries.
If you cannot provide me with contemporary proof of Jesus of Nazereths existence, that's fine, just say so. But to begin your thread with the premise that he did infact exist is fraught with folly. There are just as many scholars who doubt or plain flat out believe he never existed.

I neglected to respond to the other part of your post. As the bible is also widely held to be a historical account of Jesus, amongst others then others could make the same claim. It is written so.

 

[The Coup]

Just because many believe it does not make something so. History has taught us that already. The suns rotation around the earth, the flat earth all widely held to be true for centuries.
If you cannot provide me with contemporary proof of Jesus of Nazereths existence, that's fine, just say so. But to begin your thread with the premise that he did infact exist is fraught with folly. There are just as many scholars who doubt or plain flat out believe he never existed.

Its not a matter of many believing it. Its a matter of MANY OF THE EXPERTS AGREE THAT IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY LEGITIMATE.

If you are going to doubt scientific consensus, what's the point of debating anything? You could simply choose not to believe in the concept of right or wrong?

Contemporary proof? You want modern day proof of the existence of someone who I am claiming was crucified 2,000 years ago?

It is not a premise that he existed. It's a scientifically accepted verified document confirming his life and death. Its Tacitus ffs. He was a senator and historian. He wrote hundreds of books, if any single one part of it was faked - historians would KNOW it was faked.

And no there are not "just as many scholars" that doubt the veracity of Tacitus. That's kind of what a consensus means, it means that side has the majority. Meaning my side, the sciencey one. The one example you gave was the most unscientific approach to a question I've ever seen anyway.

 

[little graham]

Was that just an epic troll designed to bait the gullible? If so bravo.

I've been trying to research this s**t again for the last 80 minutes and keep getting sidetracked.

Have you heard of sibylline books? Nostradamus was a beginner compared to these. I'm not meaning the version Augustus had made up to delete references of him and things that would happen as result of him. I'm meaning the real deal he got his hands on.

This why they wanted powerful sorcerers dead.

 

[Norwood1878]

Its not a matter of many believing it. Its a matter of MANY OF THE EXPERTS AGREE THAT IT IS SCIENTIFICALLY LEGITIMATE.

If you are going to doubt scientific consensus, what's the point of debating anything? You could simply choose not to believe in the concept of right or wrong?

Contemporary proof? You want modern day proof of the existence of someone who I am claiming was crucified 2,000 years ago?

It is not a premise that he existed. It's a scientifically accepted verified document confirming his life and death. Its Tacitus ffs. He was a senator and historian. He wrote hundreds of books, if any single one part of it was faked - historians would KNOW it was faked.

And no there are not "just as many scholars" that doubt the veracity of Tacitus. That's kind of what a consensus means, it means that side has the majority. Meaning my side, the sciencey one. The one example you gave was the most unscientific approach to a question I've ever seen anyway.

Contemporary proof means at the time in and around the time said to be of Jesus' . You seem like a smart guy, i thought that it was a given. Again, i mean the contemporaries of Jesus.
How can it be scientifically legitimate? What field of science is used to verify this? What is the actual scientific evidence?

 

[little graham]

Incorrect. People are already writing about him which is how you've come to hear of him and you yourself have just mentioned him. The mere fact you sited him in this thread shows contemporary acknowledgement.
Was Osama a CIA asset? There's much evidence that he was, but that's not relevant here.

Ask Tony Abbott or news corp about him, take a thousand years before there kind acknowledge him.

Charles Darwin, what about him? do you think there is any history he may of completely left out of discussions because it contradicted what he said? Not only contradicted , but showed him up as a plagiarist, a racist, and nothing more than a fictional author for the British government.

He left out shitloads, on purpose. Because the English would of got in a lot of trouble if he didn't.