My Model of a Historical Jesus and Why Christians Hate It

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm not sure if Jesus existed or not, but I think a plausible model for his existence is not difficult to come up with. Almost all historians agree that Rome occupied Judea in the first century and that the Romans crucified Jews many of them for suspected sedition. Rabbi Michael Skobac of Jews for Judaism says that the number of crucified Jews was probably as high as 100,000. I also understand that the name "Jesus" was common among Jewish men at that time and that many young Jewish men were apocalyptic preachers which for them was essentially taking on the role of rebel. If we assemble these historical facts, then many Jewish men at that time were crucified apocalyptic preachers, and a significant number were named Jesus! So not only was there a historical Jesus, but there were many of them.

There's more. Many Jesus historicists, including Christian historicists, like to cite Tacitus as evidence for a historical Jesus. According to Tacitus (from Wikipedia):

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Accepting this report from Tacitus, we have not only evidence for a historical Jesus but evidence that early Christianity was a sinister belief and a superstition and that Christians of that time were hated for their abominations.

Adding this important evidence, we come up with at least one Jesus who started a sinister belief and superstition that caused people to engage in abominations.

I can think of at least three reasons Christians hate this model. One, it doesn't rely on the New Testament as a source for Jesus, and Christians want a historical Jesus based on their belief in the Bible. Two, it posits a number of such Jesuses, and Christians only want one, unique Jesus. And three, it posits a Jesus who created an objectionable religious sect that was sinister and caused people to do terrible things.

So you Christians who dearly want to know that Jesus was historical, you've got it. Considering the facts in this case, you may wish to rely on faith alone if you want a Jesus who is a historical figure.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Accepting this report from Tacitus, we have not only evidence for a historical Jesus but evidence that early Christianity was a sinister belief and a superstition and that Christians of that time were hated for their abominations.

Correction: Tacitus did not describe Christianity as "a sinister belief" in the passage I cited. The sinister belief he referred to was the belief that the fire of Rome was the result of a Roman order.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

There were many Christian sects in those times.

Most were intelligent till supernatural thinking ruined Christianity.

The Gnostic Christians and other Mystery schools of the day were the intelligentsia.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.



I like the Gnostic Christian Jesus. He is good.

As to the reality of a supernatural Jesus, if he is real, and given he is to bring Armageddon, I would destroy him.

He is evil.

All moral people would go anti-Christ.

Fun fact.
Nowhere in scriptures is Jesus ever elected to Christ.

Regards
DL

 

[Unknown Soldier]

There were many Christian sects in those times.

Most were intelligent till supernatural thinking ruined Christianity.

The Gnostic Christians and other Mystery schools of the day were the intelligentsia.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.



I like the Gnostic Christian Jesus. He is good.

As to the reality of a supernatural Jesus, if he is real, and given he is to bring Armageddon, I would destroy him.

He is evil.

All moral people would go anti-Christ.

Fun fact.
Nowhere in scriptures is Jesus ever elected to Christ.

Regards
DL

Thanks for the information on the Jesus myth, but do you think that a generic-Jesus tradition based on a Jewish "average Jesus" could have inspired the early Christians to come up with a composite Jesus placed into the stories we read in the Gospels? In other words, did all those rebellious Jewish-preacher Jesuses getting crucified evolve into a single figure that Christians adopted as the figurehead of their religion?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

There were many Christian sects in those times.

Most were intelligent till supernatural thinking ruined Christianity.

The Gnostic Christians and other Mystery schools of the day were the intelligentsia.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.



I like the Gnostic Christian Jesus. He is good.

As to the reality of a supernatural Jesus, if he is real, and given he is to bring Armageddon, I would destroy him.

He is evil.

All moral people would go anti-Christ.

Fun fact.
Nowhere in scriptures is Jesus ever elected to Christ.

Regards
DL

Thanks for the information on the Jesus myth, but do you think that a generic-Jesus tradition based on a Jewish "average Jesus" could have inspired the early Christians to come up with a composite Jesus placed into the stories we read in the Gospels? In other words, did all those rebellious Jewish-preacher Jesuses getting crucified evolve into a single figure that Christians adopted as the figurehead of their religion?

It is quite a poor composite who does not follow the law he teaches.

I give the following to Christians.

========

On Jesus dying for Christians. Try to think in a moral way.

It takes quite an inflated ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that Christians would teach their children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are promoting doing just that.
Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fiber as Yahweh. Tsk tsk.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

Rome had two rules

1. Anything promoting order and welath was supported.
2. Anything interfering with 1 was harshly suppressed.

A Jew in Israel who claimed to be connected to a god or whom people believed as such, or any inference of Jesus as a Jewish king would be suppressed. The idea of a divine Jewish king woud be a direct threat to the emperor.

There was also a split betwen Roman, Jerualem, and I believe Assyrian Jews. There was dispute over who were the authentic descendants of the original tribes.

The Romans would crucify people along the main road into Rome and leave them there to make a point to those entering Rome. It was not just Jews.

I don't think race and ethnicity was an issue with Rome, as long as it was rule 1.

The Roman model was conquer but not necessarily dominate. In exchange for opening up to Roman colonization a region might be given some autonomy and would be taxed. A rebellious Jewish Israel would not be treated well. That they were specfcally Jewish woud not have mattered. In Rome proper Jews were generally well thought o in terms of Rule 1f. There was a period when Jews were given disoensation from the state religion, and Judaism became a kind of fad religion among Romans..

To quote Jesus, give to god what is god's, to Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus a Roman Jew?

As far as I know there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus and crucifixion. If he was he did not rise to the level of being in Roman records. Herod went out his way to court the Jews in Palestine with like today building projects. Not unlike today.

Jesus would have been one of many claiming to be the messiah. There were opportunists claiming the title.

Keep in mind the Jewish narrtive of the times is written by Jews, as Christian narratives are written by Christia to seve a myhologys.

 

[TomC]

If we assemble these historical facts, then many Jewish men at that time were crucified apocalyptic preachers, and a significant number were named Jesus! So not only was there a historical Jesus, but there were many of them.

I came to the same conclusion, some time back, over the course of years. A slow accumulation of stuff, no big epiphany or anything.

If you examine the various parts of the story, and such tiny nonscriptural evidence as there is, weighting things by plausibility, your conclusion seems inescapable.

The reason that modern Christian believers hate my model of historical Jesus is because He looks a whole lot more like Osama bin Laden than a Christian minister of any sort. By the standards of 1st century Judea, He was either a terrorist(if you supported the Roman occupation) or a freedom fighter(if you opposed it). Quite like ObL, in the modern world. If you're among the elite, like Americans, ObL is a terrorist. If you're amongst the little people in the Muslim world, he's a heroic freedom fighter. A martyr executed by the current "superpower", just like Jesus was martyred by the 1st century equivalent of modern USA, the Roman Empire.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Tom

 

[TomC]

quote Jesus, give to god what is god's, to Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus a Roman Jew?

Ya know, I thought about this one a good deal, for a long time. Your paraphrase is pretty accurate to modern interpretations, but it isn't really what Jesus is quoted as saying, much less what He really said(if He said any such thing), much less in context.

A big question is, "Why would anyone ask the question?" Thinking about that helps put the Scripture into context. Why did Jesus give the answer He supposedly gave? I found that putting the verses into a context made the quoted response much more understandable.

According to the Gospel, somebody asked an awkward question. Jesus gave a vague answer. Depending on how you look at it, it might be deeply profound. It might be vaguely hypocritical dog whistle.

Suppose Jesus gave the answer "render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" with a hand gesture like a sword through the guts.
Put that in the context of a 1st century Jewish "Messiah". Back then, everyone knew what a Jewish Messiah was. A warrior king who would rescue The Chosen People from foreign oppression and return Them to their rightful place as a world power.
Even the Romans knew that much.

Codes and dog whistle communication isn't a modern invention.

And it better explains why so many of Jesus's disciples died violent deaths. That tends to happen to anti-government revolutionaries.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Unless I'm mistaken the Tacitus verse says Crestus, not Cristus. It was always spelled with an "e" for centuries and then changed to an "i" so that it would all fit the "christian" narrative.

 

[steve_bank]

quote Jesus, give to god what is god's, to Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus a Roman Jew?

Ya know, I thought about this one a good deal, for a long time. Your paraphrase is pretty accurate to modern interpretations, but it isn't really what Jesus is quoted as saying, much less what He really said(if He said any such thing), much less in context.

A big question is, "Why would anyone ask the question?" Thinking about that helps put the Scripture into context. Why did Jesus give the answer He supposedly gave? I found that putting the verses into a context made the quoted response much more understandable.

According to the Gospel, somebody asked an awkward question. Jesus gave a vague answer. Depending on how you look at it, it might be deeply profound. It might be vaguely hypocritical dog whistle.

Suppose Jesus gave the answer "render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" with a hand gesture like a sword through the guts.
Put that in the context of a 1st century Jewish "Messiah". Back then, everyone knew what a Jewish Messiah was. A warrior king who would rescue The Chosen People from foreign oppression and return Them to their rightful place as a world power.
Even the Romans knew that much.

Codes and dog whistle communication isn't a modern invention.

And it better explains why so many of Jesus's disciples died violent deaths. That tends to happen to anti-government revolutionaries.
Tom

Today no one knows who Jesus may have been and what he meant, if all the sayings are even from one person.

Looking at the geopolitics I see Jesus as telling his fellow Jews to get it together or face destruction by Rome. That looming doom would have been obvious to anyone.

Rome could be tolerant as long as the leadership of Rome was acknowledged. We also have no real idea what early Christians were doing and who they were.

Today we have American Muslims who consider themselves citizens and serve in the mil tray. Then there are the radical anti American Muslims.

Same with Christians today. Historicaly in America the white Christian extremes have been the main source of terrorism. They are anti government and want to take it down. Bombings and assassinations. Their Jesus is wjite, blonde. and blue eyed.

The Christiannarrative is the Romans executed en mass Christians solely for being Christian. I don't buy it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If we assemble these historical facts, then many Jewish men at that time were crucified apocalyptic preachers, and a significant number were named Jesus! So not only was there a historical Jesus, but there were many of them.

I came to the same conclusion, some time back, over the course of years. A slow accumulation of stuff, no big epiphany or anything.

If you examine the various parts of the story, and such tiny nonscriptural evidence as there is, weighting things by plausibility, your conclusion seems inescapable.

If we can figure that out, then why are Bible scholars missing it? I think that all along the assumption has been that Jesus was unique which is an assumption based in Christian dogma. Old ideas die hard especially if they're based in what people want to believe or are used to believing.

The reason that modern Christian believers hate my model of historical Jesus is because He looks a whole lot more like Osama bin Laden than a Christian minister of any sort. By the standards of 1st century Judea, He was either a terrorist(if you supported the Roman occupation) or a freedom fighter(if you opposed it). Quite like ObL, in the modern world. If you're among the elite, like Americans, ObL is a terrorist. If you're amongst the little people in the Muslim world, he's a heroic freedom fighter. A martyr executed by the current "superpower", just like Jesus was martyred by the 1st century equivalent of modern USA, the Roman Empire.

That's exactly right. What Christian wants to know that Jesus existed if he doesn't live up to expectations? A Biblical Jesus is what is being sought in history rather than some Joe Schmoe or Jesus Schmeezus.

Anyway, thanks for a well written, well reasoned post. I was beginning to think that the members of this forum are incapable of logical, honest dialogue.

 

[TomC]

Today no one knows who Jesus may have been and what he meant, if all the sayings are even from one person.

I know.
That's why I came to think about Gospel verses starting, not with the question "What did Jesus mean by this?", but "Why did a Gospel author decide to include this?"
Tom

ETA ~It occurs to me to add something important. First question is "Why did a Gospel writer decide to include this?"
Second is "Why did the Catholic muckety mucks decide to canonize this?" ~

 

[steve_bank]

For all e know the gospel Jesus may have been mentally ill and delusional. Charismatic feeel good insanity is attractive.

Trump and pop culture icons in music and movies. I know this refernce will induce outrage by his devotees, Ozzie Bsborne.

 

[TomC]

For all e know the gospel Jesus may have been mentally ill and delusional. Charismatic feeel good insanity is attractive.

PreDiaspora Judea was much like Baghdad during the U.S. Occupation. Except it stretched out over a few generations, not years.

Lots of insanity, desperation, and people grasping at supernatural straws trying to get through another day.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

For all e know the gospel Jesus may have been mentally ill and delusional. Charismatic feeel good insanity is attractive.

PreDiaspora Judea was much like Baghdad during the U.S. Occupation. Except it stretched out over a few generations, not years.

Lots of insanity, desperation, and people grasping at supernatural straws trying to get through another day.
Tom

That is the way I look at it. The Lord's Prayer was not said over a full spread with ice creanm and cake for desert, it was giving thanks for enough food for another day.

 

[Politesse]

Out of curiosity, who has in fact expressed "hatred" of this hypothesis? The idea of Jesus as a insurrectionist of some kind was taken seriously enough when I was at seminary in the late 00's; it was controversial to be sure, but I noticed anyone expressing "hate" toward it, just disagreement, maybe a bit of moral offense.

 

[TomC]

Out of curiosity, who has in fact expressed "hatred" of this hypothesis? The idea of Jesus as a insurrectionist of some kind was taken seriously enough when I was at seminary in the late 00's; it was controversial to be sure, but I noticed anyone expressing "hate" toward it, just disagreement, maybe a bit of moral offense.

Likely the difference between your seminary <cough californian ivory tower> and where lots of us live.
Around here suggesting that Jesus and Osama bin Laden have more in common than Jesus and Billy Graham would be fightin' words. Seriously.
Hate.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

In Christian radio and TV media there is hate speech directed at anything that conflicts with a personal or sect image of Jesus.

Evil and Satan at work. The atheists that are out to get us.

 

[Politesse]

Out of curiosity, who has in fact expressed "hatred" of this hypothesis? The idea of Jesus as a insurrectionist of some kind was taken seriously enough when I was at seminary in the late 00's; it was controversial to be sure, but I noticed anyone expressing "hate" toward it, just disagreement, maybe a bit of moral offense.

Likely the difference between your seminary <cough californian ivory tower> and where lots of us live.
Around here suggesting that Jesus and Osama bin Laden have more in common than Jesus and Billy Graham would be fightin' words. Seriously.
Hate.
Tom

I am not disputing that the Graduate Tehological Union is leftist, just wondering what incidents of hate the poster is referring to?