Best evidence for a historical Joshua ben Joseph

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Poli, turn away.

The far more logical, historically supportable explanation is that the original Jesus was the leader of a budding, underground insurrectionist movement (what a Roman would have called a "Terrorist" to use modern parlance). He was betrayed by one of his own--hence Judas kissing him to reveal to the Roman agents with Judas who the unknown leader was--publicly tried, tortured, mocked as a would-be "King of the Jews" (in a literal, insurrectionist sense) and ordered crucified by Pilate deliberately during Passover as a show of force and warning to ALL the Jews in the world, basically, gathered there in what they thought was a celebration.

The evidence is the passion narrative itself, created by whoever wrote GMark and the endlessly tortured steps the author takes to KEEP the historical event of Jesus being publicly tortured, mocked and crucified during Passover, yet flip it all so that it's actually all the Jews in the world who are to blame for Jesus' death, NOT the Romans.

Such a public event--trial, torture, mockery, crucifixion--during that festival would have been a very notable and egregious affront to the Jews that came from miles around to celebrate their most holy tradition in Jerusalem. So the author of GMark would be constrained by a central event that the Jews of his day would have either witnessed first hand or heard about from their parents.

So it had to be included in the mythology, while at the same time twisted around so that it blames the Jews for killing their own messiah, not the Romans. And that's exactly what we have in GMark. But of course, no such sequence of events as depicted in GMark could have ever happened, which is why it evidences a revision of what did actually happen.

Propaganda is rarely straight up fiction. It is almost always built on a grain of truth at the very least. And then it includes elements that are either plausible or otherwise unverifiable. Who in 70 CE could verify whether or not, thirty or so years ago, Pilate held a "tradition" of being a traitor to Rome by allowing Jews decide which convicted murderer/insurrectionist leader he would set free to go back to murder and sedition against Rome, for example? What resources could anyone check to see if that was an accurate claim? Ask Dad? And when he says, "I don't recall that being the case" or simply flat out denies it and says it's not true? Like that matters or somehow has the power of God almighty to whisk away such an assertion?

Hell, there are people itt that have and/or will try worn out apologetics to bolster the patently absurd and illogical sequence of events depicted in GMark. So the notion that someone alive at the time GMark is disseminated would have no power to change what was written. We already know from Paul's letters that even the small groups of gentiles he evidently was responsible for didn't believe the stories he was telling them about Jesus being resurrected, so we have direct evidence that just because a story was told does not mean everyone back then just automatically swallowed it whole. The question is, what would anyone be able to do about it? Leave a complaint in the tithe bowl?

And further proof that my theory is correct is the fact that, were it all fiction, then the author of GMark did not need to torture any such logic. Since the ultimate purpose of GMark's Passion Narrative is to blame the Jews for killing their own messiah, all the author had to do is have them arrest Jesus and stone him to death for (false) blasphemy. Done. Exact same result without having to make up any nonsense about Pilate killing Jesus but not being to blame for killing Jesus and no ridiculous "we, the entire San Hedrin (which consisted of some 70 people), must convince Pilate to kill Jesus for us, or else the festival crowd will kill us; oh, shit, Pilate just revealed our lie, so now we must horse whisper the entire festival crowd into demanding Pilate kill Jesus AND THEY DO" bullshit.

So, ironically, the way GMark is written reveals what the actual historical events were. Because it's Roman propaganda, not religious mythology.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Propaganda is rarely straight up fiction. It is almost always built on a grain of truth at the very least. And then it includes elements that are either plausible or otherwise unverifiable. Who in 70 CE could verify whether or not, thirty or so years ago, Pilate held a "tradition" of being a traitor to Rome by allowing Jews decide which convicted murderer/insurrectionist leader he would set free to go back to murder and sedition against Rome, for example? What resources could anyone check to see if that was an accurate claim? Ask Dad? And when he says, "I don't recall that being the case" or simply flat out denies it and says it's not true? Like that matters or somehow has the power of God almighty to whisk away such an assertion?

Hell, there are people itt that have and/or will try worn out apologetics to bolster the patently absurd and illogical sequence of events depicted in GMark. So the notion that someone alive at the time GMark is disseminated would have no power to change what was written. We already know from Paul's letters that even the small groups of gentiles he evidently was responsible for didn't believe the stories he was telling them about Jesus being resurrected, so we have direct evidence that just because a story was told does not mean everyone back then just automatically swallowed it whole. The question is, what would anyone be able to do about it? Leave a complaint in the tithe bowl?

And further proof that my theory is correct is the fact that, were it all fiction, then the author of GMark did not need to torture any such logic. Since the ultimate purpose of GMark's Passion Narrative is to blame the Jews for killing their own messiah, all the author had to do is have them arrest Jesus and stone him to death for (false) blasphemy. Done. Exact same result without having to make up any nonsense about Pilate killing Jesus but not being to blame for killing Jesus and no ridiculous "we, the entire San Hedrin (which consisted of some 70 people), must convince Pilate to kill Jesus for us, or else the festival crowd will kill us; oh, shit, Pilate just revealed our lie, so now we must horse whisper the entire festival crowd into demanding Pilate kill Jesus AND THEY DO" bullshit.

So, ironically, the way GMark is written reveals what the actual historical events were. Because it's Roman propaganda, not religious mythology.

Even if the Romans executed terrorists - which they did - this does not make GMark's Jesus historical. Events can be historical while characters are not.

It's difficult for me to reconcile the many facets of Jesus with the one character we find in the gospels and other writings. But if I made an amalgam of different personages, sayings and stories circulating at the time I could come up with a self-sacrificing, wonder-working terrorist preaching love, heaven, forgiveness, acceptance and tolerance. And this is what we have.

Any one of these different blokes can become our historical Jesus, which they have over the centuries depending on who one listens to. No doubt early readers of GMark felt similarly and eventually elevated this alleged singular person to deity.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Even if the Romans executed terrorists - which they did - this does not make GMark's Jesus historical.

I think you're missing my point. The evidence that there was an actual historical event is found in the fact that GMark tries desperately to revise the event through an overly elaborate--and ultimately self-defeating--series of tortured, illogical implausibilities in order to force a completely contradictory conclusion that isn't tenable; that all the Jews in Judea (literally) are ultimately to blame for killing their own messiah.

THAT is the message of GMark, no question about it. All the Jews in the world recognized that Jesus was their messiah and they all demanded he be killed. Which, of course, is patently absurd and only a Roman propagandist would create such a story and lo and behold it was created right at the culmination of decades of bubbling Jewish revolt.

But who in the world would want to disseminate such a story? Certainly not Jews, no matter the faction. GMark is not just about the San Hedrin or the "Orthodoxy" recognizing a threat to their power structure (as most idiotic apologetics have it); it's ALL JEWS IN THE WORLD recognize Jesus is Elijah and they demand he be murdered. And it is the Romans (through Pilate) who give them that choice: ALL THE JEWS IN THE WORLD, you may either free your innocent beloved messiah or I can kill him for you. What is your decision? KILL HIM!

Idiotic nonsense.

Again, that and that alone is the ultimate message of the passion narrative, regardless of any other ancillary "but he also said the golden rule" theology that got dripped all over it.

But since we know it's mythological/fictional and no person ever did any "miracles" and there are no such things as gods and demons in pigs, the question becomes why would anyone at that time need to write such a story?

Well, again, the answer is 100% when you boot up my theory. No other theory I've ever read can address 100% of all questions that spring from the theory.

And, again, it is the fact that propaganda is NOT entirely fictional; it's taking something true--something that happened--and twisting it so that the real context/meaning is flipped.

But there is no need to do that when writing pure mythological fiction. The author is literally free to make up any damn thing he wants and since, again, the story of GMark is "ALL JEWS IN THE WORLD recognize their own messiah and kill him because of it" that goal is easily and immediately obtained by simply having the San Hedrin conduct their trial publicly and stone the Jesus character to death.

There is no literary need to include Pilate at all, let alone include him only to then go a hundred and eighty degrees around logic and language to have him simultaneously be responsible for killing Jesus and then wash his hands and NOT be responsible for killing Jesus.

Just have the Jews kill Jesus. That's the goal no matter what, so why include Pilate at all, unless that part--that Pilate actually did order a man named Jesus to be publicly tried and killed as a warning to all Jews in Judea--were true? There must be a reason why the author is forced to come up with tortured logic and patently ludicrous elements (like Pilate committing open treason against Rome just to please the Jews he hates and is there to brutally subjugate in the first place, etc). We know from extra-biblical sources that Pilate used undercover operatives to brutally suppress and maintain control over the Jews. We know from the aquaduct riots that Pilate anticipated and accounted for "tens of thousands" of Jews rioting, so the very idea that Pilate would ever want to please the Jews, let alone would ask them which seditionist leader/murderer they wanted him to let go free as a "tradition" that somehow honors Passover..etc., etc., etc.

So the only logical reason why that tortured sequence of events is in GMark is because that's what actually happened; the martyr story is that Pilate captured Jesus, publicly tried him, ordered him tortured and mocked and then killed him. And since the purpose of the propaganda story was to flip that script, the author had to include all of that because it happened, but somehow flip it so that it's not ultimately Pilate's fault.

Only a Roman writing propaganda would need to do that. A cult member making up apochryphal origin stories would not need to include any of that tortured, circular nonsense.

And yes, I'm including the other well-worn apologetic in that mix; that the "early" cult members changed the story to be more favorable to Rome, because they were hiding among them and didn't want to anger the Romans. As I've pointed out many times before, if that were the case, then what is the actual story and why was it never restored after the threat of Roman reprisal abated?

 

[skepticalbip]

Propaganda is rarely straight up fiction. It is almost always built on a grain of truth at the very least. And then it includes elements that are either plausible or otherwise unverifiable. Who in 70 CE could verify whether or not, thirty or so years ago, Pilate held a "tradition" of being a traitor to Rome by allowing Jews decide which convicted murderer/insurrectionist leader he would set free to go back to murder and sedition against Rome, for example? What resources could anyone check to see if that was an accurate claim? Ask Dad? And when he says, "I don't recall that being the case" or simply flat out denies it and says it's not true? Like that matters or somehow has the power of God almighty to whisk away such an assertion?

Hell, there are people itt that have and/or will try worn out apologetics to bolster the patently absurd and illogical sequence of events depicted in GMark. So the notion that someone alive at the time GMark is disseminated would have no power to change what was written. We already know from Paul's letters that even the small groups of gentiles he evidently was responsible for didn't believe the stories he was telling them about Jesus being resurrected, so we have direct evidence that just because a story was told does not mean everyone back then just automatically swallowed it whole. The question is, what would anyone be able to do about it? Leave a complaint in the tithe bowl?

And further proof that my theory is correct is the fact that, were it all fiction, then the author of GMark did not need to torture any such logic. Since the ultimate purpose of GMark's Passion Narrative is to blame the Jews for killing their own messiah, all the author had to do is have them arrest Jesus and stone him to death for (false) blasphemy. Done. Exact same result without having to make up any nonsense about Pilate killing Jesus but not being to blame for killing Jesus and no ridiculous "we, the entire San Hedrin (which consisted of some 70 people), must convince Pilate to kill Jesus for us, or else the festival crowd will kill us; oh, shit, Pilate just revealed our lie, so now we must horse whisper the entire festival crowd into demanding Pilate kill Jesus AND THEY DO" bullshit.

So, ironically, the way GMark is written reveals what the actual historical events were. Because it's Roman propaganda, not religious mythology.

Even if the Romans executed terrorists - which they did - this does not make GMark's Jesus historical. Events can be historical while characters are not.

It's difficult for me to reconcile the many facets of Jesus with the one character we find in the gospels and other writings. But if I made an amalgam of different personages, sayings and stories circulating at the time I could come up with a self-sacrificing, wonder-working terrorist preaching love, heaven, forgiveness, acceptance and tolerance. And this is what we have.

Any one of these different blokes can become our historical Jesus, which they have over the centuries depending on who one listens to. No doubt early readers of GMark felt similarly and eventually elevated this alleged singular person to deity.

You would probably enjoy Caesar's Messiah, a book by Joseph Atwill. In the book he lays out a scenario where the Roman Flavians wrote the Gospels as wartime propaganda. The messiah that the Jews were waiting for was a military leader that would lead an army to drive the Romans from Judea. The Jews were a pain in the arse for Rome with their constant uprisings. The Flavians gave them a messiah in the Gospels that advocated peace and compliance to Roman rule. The Jewish leadership was even blamed for the death of the messiah instead of Rome.

ETA:
A Flavian Jesus is an interesting idea that resolves many of the questions a Jewish Jesus creates.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Propaganda is rarely straight up fiction. It is almost always built on a grain of truth at the very least. And then it includes elements that are either plausible or otherwise unverifiable. Who in 70 CE could verify whether or not, thirty or so years ago, Pilate held a "tradition" of being a traitor to Rome by allowing Jews decide which convicted murderer/insurrectionist leader he would set free to go back to murder and sedition against Rome, for example? What resources could anyone check to see if that was an accurate claim? Ask Dad? And when he says, "I don't recall that being the case" or simply flat out denies it and says it's not true? Like that matters or somehow has the power of God almighty to whisk away such an assertion?

Hell, there are people itt that have and/or will try worn out apologetics to bolster the patently absurd and illogical sequence of events depicted in GMark. So the notion that someone alive at the time GMark is disseminated would have no power to change what was written. We already know from Paul's letters that even the small groups of gentiles he evidently was responsible for didn't believe the stories he was telling them about Jesus being resurrected, so we have direct evidence that just because a story was told does not mean everyone back then just automatically swallowed it whole. The question is, what would anyone be able to do about it? Leave a complaint in the tithe bowl?

And further proof that my theory is correct is the fact that, were it all fiction, then the author of GMark did not need to torture any such logic. Since the ultimate purpose of GMark's Passion Narrative is to blame the Jews for killing their own messiah, all the author had to do is have them arrest Jesus and stone him to death for (false) blasphemy. Done. Exact same result without having to make up any nonsense about Pilate killing Jesus but not being to blame for killing Jesus and no ridiculous "we, the entire San Hedrin (which consisted of some 70 people), must convince Pilate to kill Jesus for us, or else the festival crowd will kill us; oh, shit, Pilate just revealed our lie, so now we must horse whisper the entire festival crowd into demanding Pilate kill Jesus AND THEY DO" bullshit.

So, ironically, the way GMark is written reveals what the actual historical events were. Because it's Roman propaganda, not religious mythology.

Even if the Romans executed terrorists - which they did - this does not make GMark's Jesus historical. Events can be historical while characters are not.

It's difficult for me to reconcile the many facets of Jesus with the one character we find in the gospels and other writings. But if I made an amalgam of different personages, sayings and stories circulating at the time I could come up with a self-sacrificing, wonder-working terrorist preaching love, heaven, forgiveness, acceptance and tolerance. And this is what we have.

Any one of these different blokes can become our historical Jesus, which they have over the centuries depending on who one listens to. No doubt early readers of GMark felt similarly and eventually elevated this alleged singular person to deity.

You would probably enjoy Caesar's Messiah, a book by Joseph Atwill. In the book he lays out a scenario where the Roman Flavians wrote the Gospels as wartime propaganda. The messiah that the Jews were waiting for was a military leader that would lead an army to drive the Romans from Judea. The Jews were a pain in the arse for Rome with their constant uprisings. The Flavians gave them a messiah in the Gospels that advocated peace and compliance to Roman rule. The Jewish leadership was even blamed for the death of the messiah instead of Rome.

ETA:
A Flavian Jesus is an interesting idea that resolves many of the questions a Jewish Jesus creates.

Cool, thanks! I've been singing this song since the IIDB days, so it will be nice to see someone else's take on it.

 

[Atheos]

Ok. I gotta be honest. I'm not yet hearing anything I consider as likely as some of the alternatives.

His disciples not knowing what happened to him and then a few years later believing a false story about crucifixion that a new member tells them. That'd just be my first doubt. It sounds more convoluted. Wouldn't they remember what was happening on the day he disappeared? Wouldn't they say to each other, geez, how come none of us even noticed him being arrested, and no one else ever told us about it?

I think you might have the likely relationship between Paul and the original leaders wrong. The epistles pretty clearly suggest a rift between Paul and the originals rather than they they switched loyalty to him. As such, I'm always a bit unsure about theories that have Paul inventing the beliefs.

Regarding the disembodied voice, bright lights etc, that's from quite a bit later in Acts and is probably over-egged. Paul doesn't describe it that way. Did he actually experience it? Possibly, possibly not. Personally, I'm generally pretty suspicious of 'Paul'.

It may well be that this is because I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. All I'm attempting to do here is say "I've been looking at this for a long time, reading what a lot of smarter folks than me have written and opined, and here's my personal favorite pet theory."

I could certainly make an attempt to support this summary with actual references and more focused argumentation but I really don't have any desire to do so. I'm simply enjoying the discussion of this subject matter as I always do. I've considered what you wrote here by way of rejoinder and do not find it particularly troublesome to the scenario I posed, but I think part of the reason for this is I tend to think the Jesus mythology is considerably more composed of fiction than you do. I find no fault in your interpretation, I just really believe that whatever nugget there is of a historical Jesus buried in all this lore is very minuscule.

 

[Learner]

"Caesar's Messiah" or the "Roman propaganda" etc.. Not a very good plan I would think, because for example: the Jews having various sects, still remained as they were, i.e. they did not become Christian sects and still practiced their Judaism... no messiah.

Not a good plan because the Romans "invented" a jewish messiah who would be King of Kings above Caesar and above all roman gods and everything else. Unless they had enough of the old Roman ways and wanted a change. Christianity intended for the Roman Empire advocating peace, worshipping a Jew? Or...Unless this was actually a Jewish plan.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Caesar's Messiah" or the "Roman propaganda" etc.. Not a very good plan I would think, because for example: the Jews having various sects, still remained as they were, i.e. they did not become Christian sects and still practiced their Judaism... no messiah.

You really cannot evaluate the liklihood of the plan by whether or not it was 100% successful, or 50%.

The Nazis invaded Rusdia. In Winter. The lack of success may reflect on the planning, but cannot be a reason to dismiss the plan as not existing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You would probably enjoy Caesar's Messiah, a book by Joseph Atwill. In the book he lays out a scenario where the Roman Flavians wrote the Gospels as wartime propaganda. The messiah that the Jews were waiting for was a military leader that would lead an army to drive the Romans from Judea. The Jews were a pain in the arse for Rome with their constant uprisings. The Flavians gave them a messiah in the Gospels that advocated peace and compliance to Roman rule. The Jewish leadership was even blamed for the death of the messiah instead of Rome.

ETA:
A Flavian Jesus is an interesting idea that resolves many of the questions a Jewish Jesus creates.

Cool, thanks! I've been singing this song since the IIDB days, so it will be nice to see someone else's take on it.

Here's the documentary on youtube:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0[/YOUTUBE]

Perhaps Learner can have a watch in the name of intellectual humility.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok. I gotta be honest. I'm not yet hearing anything I consider as likely as some of the alternatives.

His disciples not knowing what happened to him and then a few years later believing a false story about crucifixion that a new member tells them. That'd just be my first doubt. It sounds more convoluted. Wouldn't they remember what was happening on the day he disappeared? Wouldn't they say to each other, geez, how come none of us even noticed him being arrested, and no one else ever told us about it?

I think you might have the likely relationship between Paul and the original leaders wrong. The epistles pretty clearly suggest a rift between Paul and the originals rather than they they switched loyalty to him. As such, I'm always a bit unsure about theories that have Paul inventing the beliefs.

Regarding the disembodied voice, bright lights etc, that's from quite a bit later in Acts and is probably over-egged. Paul doesn't describe it that way. Did he actually experience it? Possibly, possibly not. Personally, I'm generally pretty suspicious of 'Paul'.

It may well be that this is because I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. All I'm attempting to do here is say "I've been looking at this for a long time, reading what a lot of smarter folks than me have written and opined, and here's my personal favorite pet theory."

I could certainly make an attempt to support this summary with actual references and more focused argumentation but I really don't have any desire to do so. I'm simply enjoying the discussion of this subject matter as I always do. I've considered what you wrote here by way of rejoinder and do not find it particularly troublesome to the scenario I posed, but I think part of the reason for this is I tend to think the Jesus mythology is considerably more composed of fiction than you do. I find no fault in your interpretation, I just really believe that whatever nugget there is of a historical Jesus buried in all this lore is very minuscule.

No problem.

Out of curiosity, what would be your minuscule historical guy? Feel free to be brief. No need to mention what’s not included and no need to elaborate on what is.

 

[lpetrich]

The Caesar's-Messiah theory places the origin of Xianity around 90 CE, around when Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews.

There's an even more farfetched theory, the theory that Roman Emperor Constantine invented Xianity.

Revisionist ideas in Ancient History: the Gnostic Gospels were authored as a reaction to Nicaea

1. The Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored 325-336 CE as a reaction to the Constantine Bible
2. Evidence of systematic Christian identify theft suggests Arius may not have been a Christian, but in fact a Platonic theologian, and may be identified with the Gnostic Leucius Charinus
3. Constantine commissioned the fabrication of the New Testament and its history 312-324 CE

So according to this theory, Constantine invented Xianity in the years around 320 CE.

I've seen the hypothesis's inventor in various places, as mountainman, as arius, and as Leucius Charinus. His site's domain name is mountainman.com.au

 

[ruby sparks]

Those interested in reading Atwill's book can then look forward to reading his 2014 follow-up, in which a (supposedly female) Shakespeare supposedly knew the supposed secrets about 'Caesar's Messiah' and secretly coded clues about them into her plays.



456 pages, so would be highly recommended if you are currently short of toilet paper.

 

[skepticalbip]

The Caesar's-Messiah theory places the origin of Xianity around 90 CE, around when Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews.

There's an even more farfetched theory, the theory that Roman Emperor Constantine invented Xianity.

Revisionist ideas in Ancient History: the Gnostic Gospels were authored as a reaction to Nicaea

1. The Gnostic Gospels and Acts were authored 325-336 CE as a reaction to the Constantine Bible
2. Evidence of systematic Christian identify theft suggests Arius may not have been a Christian, but in fact a Platonic theologian, and may be identified with the Gnostic Leucius Charinus
3. Constantine commissioned the fabrication of the New Testament and its history 312-324 CE

So according to this theory, Constantine invented Xianity in the years around 320 CE.

I've seen the hypothesis's inventor in various places, as mountainman, as arius, and as Leucius Charinus. His site's domain name is mountainman.com.au

Constantine, through the Council of Nicea, did "create" the form of Christianity that came out of that council. Before that council, there was no organized testament, only hundreds of different writings with many philosophical differences. Before that council, there was wide disagreement as to the nature of Jesus.

The council decided which of the hundreds of texts would be included in the New Testament and which would be rejected for inclusion. The council settled the schism between those Christian sects that saw Jesus as a god (so accepted polytheism) and those Christian sects that saw Jesus as a mortal prophet (retaining the Jewish monotheism)... even though the concept of the trinity they invented is rather confusing.

So it could be said (fairly accurately) that Constantine did "create" Christianity.

 

[Politesse]

That's a common miscoonception, popularized by Dan Brown. While Constantine did print a number of Bibles for distribution around the empire, the canon was not decided (or even meaningfully discussed) at Nicaea. The Canon was in fact provisionally set at the Council of Rome (382), and only made doctrine in 1546.

There is a tendency to try and condense all the events of the Conciliar years down to one dramatic council at Nicaea. Dramatic, but not historical. The development of Christian doctrine took centuries to occur, and is a fascinating and complex story to tell in full.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's a common miscoonception, popularized by Dan Brown. While Constantine did print a number of Bibles for distribution around the empire, the canon was not decided (or even meaningfully discussed) at Nicaea. The Canon was in fact provisionally set at the Council of Rome (382), and only made doctrine in 1546.

There is a tendency to try and condense all the events of the Conciliar years down to one dramatic council at Nicaea. Dramatic, but not historical. The development of Christian doctrine took centuries to occur, and is a fascinating and complex story to tell in full.

Atwill's second book sounds like wackadoodle-woo. Do you have any thoughts on his first book?

 

[Politesse]

I haven't read either, I'm afraid.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"Caesar's Messiah" or the "Roman propaganda" etc.. Not a very good plan I would think, because for example: the Jews having various sects, still remained as they were

Actually, they were pretty much wiped out by the Romans and driven from their home, beginning around the same time that GMark is considered to have been written.

Not a good plan because the Romans "invented" a jewish messiah who would be King of Kings above Caesar and above all roman gods and everything else.

No, the Romans--Paul and whoever wrote GMark in particular--changed a thirty-odd year old martyr mythology (that was likely being used to recruit new soldiers to the growing seditionist movement against Roman oppression/occupation) into a messiah mythology that changes an insurrectionist leader into a Roman-loving supernatural son of the Jewish god (and, thus, a god himself or a demigod/messiah) that the fathers and grandfathers of the current openly revolting generation of Jews (circa 70 CE) demanded Pilate kill.

Imagine if the Americans disseminated propaganda amongst ISIS soldiers that they had been lied to. That it was their fathers and grandfathers--iow, their current leaders--who all conspired with America to kill Bin Laden for them. That President Obama, in fact, tried to convince their current leaders that Bin Laden was actually a man of peace--a prophet no less--and did NOT orchestrate 9/11, but your leaders insisted that he did and that they needed the US to kill Bin Laden for them, so that they could regain control over their people and restore peace in the region and that is why Obama ordered Bin Laden killed.

But their ISIS leaders lied to President Obama and did NOT try to make peace after he had Bin Laden killed for them and so this is why we are currently droning them to death, etc.

Nations do this all the time up to today!

Indeed, it was arguably Imperial Rome that developed and perfected such means of propaganda long before Jesus comes onto the scene, but at about that time (emphasis mine):

Julius Caesar was a master propagandist, equaled only by Napoleon and Hitler in his understanding of meaningful symbols and in his ability to understand instinctively the psychological needs of his audience. He understood the need to use such symbols of power and sophistication as a means of converting subject populations to the Roman way of life. This was far less expensive than maintaining elaborate garrisons of legionnaires and induced obedience to the new regime through cooperation and identification, rather than subjugation. Significantly, subject peoples were often granted the right to become Roman citizens under certain circumstances, thus increasing personal identification with the conqueror.

Caesar created his own legends out of ordinary events, and by making himself seem supernatural, he was able to set in motion the psychological changes in the minds of the Roman people that would lead away from republicanism and toward the acceptance of monarchical rule and the imperial Propaganda Through the Ages.
...
It is not surprising that, throughout history, evocations of the Caesarist image have been repeated by those who aspire to leave their mark on the world. Thus, not only Charlemagne, Napoleon, Mussolini, and Hitler have invested themselves in Caesarist trappings, but so has almost every parvenu monarchy in Europe. Whether the image of the eagle, the armored breastplate, the man-god on the white horse, or the powerful orator, the propagandistic legacy of the Roman Empire is still much in evidence in our own world.

Obviously they couldn't put Jesus' face on a coin, but the lesson learned is unmistakable. Turn a natural man into a supernatural god (and natural events into supernatural ones) and you can "set in motion the psychological changes in the minds" of the people.

Christianity intended for the Roman Empire advocating peace, worshipping a Jew?

GMark depicts a Jew who repeatedly changes Jewish orthodoxy (while at the same time insisting he isn't); instructs the Jews to obey Roman authority ("Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s"); declares (incorrectly) that loving your neighbor as thyself is the second greatest commandment; and alludes repeatedly to Jesus being a supernatural entity, not merely an extraordinary man.

From there, GMatthew and the other "gospels" expand upon this version of Jesus as a "god" for ALL people--not just Jews--that doubles down on the Roman-loving rhetoric and includes an entire sermon (on the Mount) that has Jesus telling Jews that they should rejoice in their oppression and never seek to change their position in life and literally to remain "meek" and if they do they will inherit the earth. And later tells them to not just do whatever a Roman tells them to do, but to offer the other cheek when struck.

The Jesus character begun in GMark could not possibly be more pro-Roman by GMatthew and then by GLuke he's basically a Roman tour guide!

He could not be further from a Jewish insurrectionist--which would have been pretty much every single Jew at the time--and is very clearly instructing his followers to NOT be revolutionaries; to be meek (for ONLY the meek shall inherit the earth); to turn the other cheek to Roman authority; to obey; to pay taxes; to give your shirt; to shut the fuck up and do as you are told and if you do you will be rewarded after you're dead and it no longer matters.

It literally could not be more perfect pro-Roman/anti-Jewish propaganda, save for the facts that I've pointed out; that the authors had ONE central problem to deal with from the actual history, which is the fact that it was the Romans who tortured, mocked and killed Jesus, not the Jews. So that historical fact had to be flipped. And flip it they did right at the time of the first revolt and then all through the subsequent wars, reinforcing the fact that Jesus--as he would have been known to the Jewish insurrectionists--was not a popular seditionist leader martyred by Pilate, but was instead THE Jewish messiah they had all been waiting for, killed by their own fathers and grandfathers!

So lay down your weapons and do as Jesus told you to do; obey Roman authority. Cease and desist. Love the Romans. Obey and you will inherit the earth and your god will shower you with great rewards. Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Atheos]

Ok. I gotta be honest. I'm not yet hearing anything I consider as likely as some of the alternatives.

His disciples not knowing what happened to him and then a few years later believing a false story about crucifixion that a new member tells them. That'd just be my first doubt. It sounds more convoluted. Wouldn't they remember what was happening on the day he disappeared? Wouldn't they say to each other, geez, how come none of us even noticed him being arrested, and no one else ever told us about it?

I think you might have the likely relationship between Paul and the original leaders wrong. The epistles pretty clearly suggest a rift between Paul and the originals rather than they they switched loyalty to him. As such, I'm always a bit unsure about theories that have Paul inventing the beliefs.

Regarding the disembodied voice, bright lights etc, that's from quite a bit later in Acts and is probably over-egged. Paul doesn't describe it that way. Did he actually experience it? Possibly, possibly not. Personally, I'm generally pretty suspicious of 'Paul'.

It may well be that this is because I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. All I'm attempting to do here is say "I've been looking at this for a long time, reading what a lot of smarter folks than me have written and opined, and here's my personal favorite pet theory."

I could certainly make an attempt to support this summary with actual references and more focused argumentation but I really don't have any desire to do so. I'm simply enjoying the discussion of this subject matter as I always do. I've considered what you wrote here by way of rejoinder and do not find it particularly troublesome to the scenario I posed, but I think part of the reason for this is I tend to think the Jesus mythology is considerably more composed of fiction than you do. I find no fault in your interpretation, I just really believe that whatever nugget there is of a historical Jesus buried in all this lore is very minuscule.

No problem.

Out of curiosity, what would be your minuscule historical guy? Feel free to be brief. No need to mention what’s not included and no need to elaborate on what is.

If you're asking me what portions of the gospels I think contain authentic details about the life of Jesus I have to confess that for me every word of them is suspect. There's literally not a single detail contained therein that has to have happened or we wouldn't be talking about him today. The historical nugget could easily have been a very different person who did little else besides exude the sort of charisma that breeds cult followings.

That being said I think it makes sense that he did something that got his ass whacked. Whether or not it was literally a full-blown rampage where he publicly vandalized the trade tables near the temple, who knows? It makes sense that he could have been (rightly) convicted of being an insurrectionist if he'd actually done that, and what with the Pax Roma to protect, perhaps a Roman Crucifixion wasn't off the table.

Either way, I feel like Paul stumbled onto a Tabula Rasa of sorts, a group of devoted followers without their beloved leader. We know that at some point he began to claim to be in telepathic contact with Jesus. "Be followers of me even as I am a follower of Christ." I think a strong case can be made that Paul was the player in the development of early Christianity and everyone who opposed him through jealousy or artistic differences either left the movement or found compromise.

 

[Lion IRC]

You cant Crucify someone who never existed.
"historical nugget" ?

FFS

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You cant Crucify someone who never existed.

Nor can you kill a god, one would think. Even one that somehow incarnated part of himself (his own son, or some such tomfuckery) in flesh for no purpose, since that would obviously be a meaningless gesture for such a being. It would have no more importance than if you put on a bunny suit and then crucified the bunny suit.