Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
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.
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.
Last edited: