IN DEFENSE OF "JESUS"

[◊ Weezer ◊]

IN DEFENSE OF JESUS.docx  

 

NOT NECESSARY TO DOWNLOAD>  SEE POSTS BELOW. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Sorry about the link.  I thought the script would upload.

 

In summary, I don't know if Jesus was a real person or not, but think he might have existed, but was made into something he was not by the early church.  The reasons for my beliefs are listed, and how I believe some of the teachings attributed to him are valid and profound. They are a different "mindset" that is not understood by many, especially in the western world.  I believe the "salvation" he was preaching was more about enhancing the life of humans on earth, than in an afterlife.  He says nothing about being baptized for the remission of sins.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Bump

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Bump

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

This is the text of the document Weezer would like to present.  It has not been intentionally edited or altered in any way.  TRP

 

 

 

IN DEFENSE OF JESUS

 

Although I don't believe the New Testament is an inerrant rendering of Jesus, I belief he may have existed and was, in a sense, a victim of his time and circumstances. I also believe the story was embellished and he was made into something he wasn't. My conclusions are based on looking at the overall picture of him. For a while I entertained the thought that he might have been a fabrication, but after Looking at the Gnostic Gospels, and understanding child and human development, began to see some possibilities.

 

VIRGIN BIRTH

Under Jewish law Mary could have been put to death for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Therefore the claim that God impregnated her. Her claim would not have been the only one of that time period. And in a sense she may have been a virgin. It is possible to get pregnant without penetration by a penis during heavy petting of unclothed people.

 

PROPHECY

They latched onto the prophecy of a “savior" of the Jewish nation, and stuck with the story. Jesus probably grew up believing he was the prophesied savior. That is consistent with a report that he went through a period as a child as being a “brat” (my quote). But he later took it seriously, and believed it was his lot in life. He appeared to be a bright child, and although there is a gap in the history of his growing up, it is possible he was groomed for the role. One theory is that he joined a caravan to the east at about 13 years of age, and went to study under eastern gurus. Another is that he studied under the Essenes sect which was much closer to his hometown. Looking at his later teaching with an Eastern flavor, and emphasis on self sacrifice and communal living, I think the second theory was more probable.

 

CHARISMA AND GENUINE CARE

The story of his impressing the elders with his knowledge as a child, and later being able to get the attention of crowds as with the Sermon On The Mount, the content of the sermon, and getting disciples to follow him, shows his charisma and care for humanity. The fact that he did not blame Judas for his betrayal, and prayed to God that the ones crucifying him be forgiven, led me to believe that he truly believed in what he was doing. Therefore the belief that he was a victim of the circumstances of his time.

 

MESSAGE LOST

Again, looking at his overall message, I think his answer to the question about the “greatest commandment” summed up the wisdom of the ages when it comes to the well-being of mankind. (actually it was the second part of the greatest commandment) It wasn’t new. The golden rule had been around for ages. But the way he worded it showed his ability to focus on what really matters. Loving (caring for) neighbor as self implies that you care about yourself, and then regard others as important as self----that all humans are equally important. If you truly believe that, then you will search for what is in our collective interest. It DOES NOT

 

indicate letting others take advantage of you. But that you seek justice for all. Not revenge, control, or “one upmanship”. Most of the human problems in the world come from lack of empathy and one person, or group, believing they are superior, and trying to control others.

 

VALIDITY

For me, whether he is a fabrication, or was an actual person doesn’t really matter. As a behavioral and social scientist this “WE" vs. “ME" thinking is a valid, invaluable theory. A uniting message that has been lost in the “Holy” religions with their rigid dogma and dividing tribalism. And lost in the ego driven thirst for power and materialism that seems to have been with us throughout history. In a sense, I guess you might call me a Jesus-ite

 

Jim Laney, 08-27-2020

[◊ Weezer ◊]

THANK YOU PROFESSOR for doing what I couldn't figure out how to do!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

THANK YOU PROFESSOR for doing what I couldn't figure out how to do!

No problem, dude.

[pantheory]

Of course we are not talking about defending the person of Jesus, because he may never have existed, at least not the Bible version of him IMHO. We are talking about defending the New Testament, stories of Christianity -- apologetics in general. Many or most of us here know both the good and bad of Christianity, but these pros and cons extend to almost all other big religions IMHO. I've stayed in other countries for months and have seen much good done in the name of religion. The most obvious negative aspects of religion often involve extremists and mixing religion with politics.  But if not, such negatives are more subtle concerning family indoctrinations, religious pressures and restrictions public and personal, unrelenting dogma, worthless memorization requirements, IMO etc.

 

In my humble opinion, Christianity is not bad. It's just an anachronism of belief and joke like all religions, two millennia old, and far older in some cases. The bad aspect of religion is seen in some of the people who practice it. Also IMO, for most people it would be better for them to know the truth of reality than to believe Christianity or another religion. Jesus and Christianity, like all religions belong in a category exemplified by Greek mythology, all being geared toward the less educated of us and founded on family respect and tradition rather than on logic and knowledge IMO.

[RichDellaValle]

The fundamental problem for the entire Jesus story is this:

 

1. If Jesus was the Son of God and the biblical accounts are accurate, why is Jesus so glaringly absent from the other historical accounts of the time, given his notoriety and many miracles?

 

2. If Jesus wasn’t the Son of God but rather a person, how did nothing more than a “marginal Jew” become elevated to the status of God several hundred years after his death and burial?

 

That Jesus began as the mythical son of God in the first place solves both of these problems and is more in line with the facts and the traditional Christian story.

 

Imagine, if you can, that you had never heard of Jesus or Christianity. All you know about God is in the Hebrew Bible. Now just suppose that a team of archaeologists had just discovered an ancient 2000-year-old text in a cave in Palestine, and they call it the New Testament. Would it be received today as a historical record of events? Would you believe what it has to say? Wouldn’t it be treated as another ancient myth, like Adam and Eve or Jason and the Argonauts? The Jesus story has all the hallmarks of a myth. And the reason for this is simple. It is a myth. Indeed, not only is it a myth, it is a Jewish version of Pagan mythology! Although there could have been an actual Jesus, there was another more famous person at the time called Apollonius of Tyana, but no one believed in him as a god. Acharya S writes about him at https://stellarhousepublishing.com/apollonius/

 

Peace

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Good points, @RichDellaValle.  I suppose I'm more fascinated by the argument about whether or not jesus existed than I am about whether or not he did.  Once I realized christianity was a lie, I just never really cared much about whatever might still be "true" about it.  

[TABA]

2 hours ago, RichDellaValle said:

Imagine, if you can, that you had never heard of Jesus or Christianity. All you know about God is in the Hebrew Bible. Now just suppose that a team of archaeologists had just discovered an ancient 2000-year-old text in a cave in Palestine, and they call it the New Testament. Would it be received today as a historical record of events? Would you believe what it has to say?

I think my main reaction would be “This is not the same god as the one in the Old Testament”!  

Marcion and his followers were convinced that Jesus was the incarnation of a good and loving deity who had come to save humanity from the evil, jealous, violent god of the OT.  But what would become the Roman church prevailed and suppressed these “heresies”.  They succeeded in reconciling the two versions of god and got people to swallow it.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I'm not saying that jesus actually existed.  I was simply saying I can see how he could have existed and believed he was destined to be a "savior".  And by luck of the draw "won out" over Apollonius. (and pehaps others) who also were performing miracles.  A lot of people were reported to perform miracles in those days.  Not only is he in the new testament, he is in the other writings left out of the NT such as the Gnostic gospels.  After I finally found those writings I decided he might have existed.  No, he wasn't known in the general world.  If he existed, was just a pesty peon that the Jews wanted to get rid of, and later the Catholic church picked him to make into a god/man.  If they had not for centuries killed off all the competition they could, and force fed "Jesus" to the masses of ignorant people, he would likely be unknown today.  If they had picked Apollonius, or anyone else, that would be who people would be worshiping today.  The way I see it, is that if he existed, he was in a way, a victim of circumstances and played out his role the best he could.  That is why I have respect for the mortal man in the story, whether he was real or not.  And as a behavioral and social scientist believe "his" wording of the golden rule, to love neighbor as self, is a valid way to improve the world.  It is a pity the Catholic church ignored the advice.  They are the ones I am really angry at.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

A "far out" theory about Jesus is that he was a hybrid.  Advanced space aliens impregnated Mary via artificial insemination so she could have a brilliant son who could enlighten the world.    Maybe she was a virgin!

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@Weezer

 

I'm glad this popped back up in the feed and RNP posted your text. 

 

I've pondered on this subject a lot since my deconversion. I remember when I first came here, @Geezer was a big proponent of the Jesus myth. He mentioned several times that it was all fiction, a made up version of Jewish Midrash. He gave some links back then I think, tho I probably didn't look into them at the time. I was still reeling from the realization that the bible was mostly false. I didn't want to add on that Jesus didn't exist at all at the time. 

 

But since then I've given it some thought. And I've come to the conclusion that for one it doesn't really matter. But I do think its more probable that he did exist and had an influence on a small group of people. Possibly the writers known as Paul and Peter were a part of that group. I watched a documentary one time that mentioned that there was no shortage of self proclaimed prophets at the time. I can just imagine if one of those prophets started to garner a following how those in power would have reacted. Really, according to the old law, Jesus would have been a false prophet and worthy of death. 

 

I think a lot of the names we see in the bible were probably real people at one point in time. But their stories ofcourse got embellished over time and ancient leaders of small nomadic tribes eventually became greater leaders of a seemingly nonexistent people from our perspective. They certainly weren't super powerful leaders like the ancient Pharoahs. But the bible makes them out to be just as great. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@Weezer

 

Also there are two instances out of the Bible that appear in all the gospels that make me believe that he was a real man and didn't consider himself a God but just the workman of God. Those two instances are the prayer in the garden of Gethsemane and the final saying on the cross. In the prayer he asks God to let this cup pass from him. If he was in fact a real person he probably new that someone was about to betray him and that the priests were offering money for his capture. At that point it was only a matter of time. So he prayed for God's intervention. Then while dying on the cross he asks God "why have you forsaken me?" These two events are something that a man would probably do if he 1. He thought that he was a prophet of God. And 2. Felt like God had abandoned him to die. 

 

Contrary to Christian teachings now. If Jesus existed, I believe he died thinking God had abandoned him. Not that he would be raised again in 3 days. I think that came later, well after the events transpired. 

 

DB

[◊ Weezer ◊]

10 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

 

I think that came later, well after the events transpired. 

 

Several stories may have a thread of truth in them, but got really embellished.  The Catholic church was a master at doing that.

[RichDellaValle]

I realize this has nothing to do with if Jesus existed, but please be patient. I’ve never been able to get a straight answer on this that made sense, and the Bible is quiet about the mechanics of the Resurrection – Christianity’s MOST important belief. Supposedly the tomb Jesus was placed in was sealed with Roman guards posted, yet when the women found the open tomb, there were no guards. If God resurrected Jesus, why would the tomb have to be open in the first place? He could have just snatched him up through the rock! The fact that it was open suggests to me a far more logical scenario: the body was removed, which means the guards were either killed or bribed, and Jesus was either dead or never died in the first place. Also, if Jesus was in a burial tomb, why would women come along three days later to supposedly rub oil on him? Surely that would have been done when he was put in the chamber because the Jewish leaders suspected someone would try to steal the body and claim he was resurrected.  None of this makes sense!  Any thoughts on this?

[mwc]

     I have no specific answer to your questions but perhaps this little bit of 1st century CE fiction from Satyricon will do something for you:

 

Quote

... But in a little while, Eumolpus, mouthpiece of the distressed and author of the present good understanding, fearing that the general good humor might flag for lack of amusement, began to indulge in sneers at the fickleness of women: how easily they fell in love; how readily they forgot even their own sons! No woman could be so chaste but that she could be roused to madness by a chance passion! Nor had he need to quote from old tragedies, or to have recourse to names, notorious for centuries; on the contrary, if we cared to hear it, he would relate an incident which had occurred within his own memory, whereupon, as we all turned our faces towards him and gave him our attention, he began as follows:

 

“There was a certain married lady at Ephesus, once upon a time, so noted for her chastity that she even drew women from the neighboring states to come to gaze upon her! When she carried out her husband she was by no means content to comply with the conventional custom and follow the funeral cortege with her hair down, beating her naked breast in sight of the onlookers! She followed the corpse, even into the tomb; and when the body had been placed in the vault, in accordance with the Greek custom, she began to stand vigil over it, weeping day and night! Neither parents nor relations could divert her from punishing herself in this manner and from bringing on death by starvation. The magistrates, the last resort, were rebuffed and went away, and the lady, mourned by all as an unusual example, dragged through the fifth day without nourishment. A most faithful maid was in attendance upon the poor woman; she either wept in company with the afflicted one or replenished the lamp which was placed in the vault, as the occasion required. Throughout the whole city there was but one opinion, men of every calling agreed that here shone the one solitary example of chastity and of love! In the meantime the governor of the province had ordered some robbers crucified near the little vault in which the lady was bewailing her recent loss. On the following night, a soldier who was standing guard over the crosses for fear someone might drag down one of the bodies for burial, saw a light shining brightly among the tombs, and heard the sobs of someone grieving. A weakness common to mankind made him curious to know who was there and what was going on, so he descended into the tomb and, catching sight of a most beautiful woman, he stood still, afraid at first that it was some apparition or spirit from the infernal regions; but he finally comprehended the true state of affairs as his eye took in the corpse lying there, and as he noted the tears and the face lacerated by the finger-nails, he understood that the lady was unable to endure the loss of the dear departed. He then brought his own scanty ration into the vault and exhorted the sobbing mourner not to persevere in useless grief, or rend her bosom with unavailing sobs; the same end awaited us all, the same last resting place: and other platitudes by which anguished minds are recalled to sanity. But oblivious to sympathy, she beat and lacerated her bosom more vehemently than before and, tearing out her hair, she strewed it upon the breast of the corpse. Notwithstanding this, the soldier would not leave off, but persisted in exhorting the unfortunate lady to eat, until the maid, seduced by the smell of the wine, I suppose, was herself overcome and stretched out her hand to receive the bounty of their host. Refreshed by food and drink, she then began to attack the obstinacy of her mistress. ‘What good will it do you to die of hunger?’ she asked, ‘or to bury yourself alive’? Or to surrender an uncondemned spirit before the fates demand it? ‘Think you the ashes or sepultured dead can feel aught of thy woe! Would you recall the dead from the reluctant fates? Why not shake off this womanish weakness and enjoy the blessings of light while you can? The very corpse lying there ought to convince you that your duty is to live!’ When pressed to eat or to live, no one listens unwillingly, and the lady, thirsty after an abstinence of several days, finally permitted her obstinacy to be overcome; nor did she take her fill of nourishment with less avidity than had the maid who had surrendered first.”

 

“But to make a long story short, you know the temptations that beset a full stomach: the soldier laid siege to her virtue with the selfsame blandishments by which he had persuaded her that she ought to live. Nor, to her modest eye, did the young man seem uncouth or wanting in address. The maid pled in his behalf and kept repeating:

Why will you fight with a passion that to you is pleasure,
Remembering not in whose lands you are taking your leisure?

“But why should I keep you longer in suspense? The lady observed the same abstinence when it came to this part of her body, and the victorious soldier won both of his objectives; so they lay together, not only that night, in which they pledged their vows, but also the next, and even the third, shutting the doors of the vault, of course, so that anyone, acquaintance or stranger, coming to the tomb, would be convinced that this most virtuous of wives had expired upon the body of her husband. As for the soldier, so delighted was he with the beauty of his mistress and the secrecy of the intrigue, that he purchased all the delicacies his pay permitted and smuggled them into the vault as soon as darkness fell. Meanwhile, the parents of one of the crucified criminals, observing the laxness of the watch, dragged the hanging corpse down at night and performed the last rite. The soldier was hoodwinked while absent from his post of duty, and when on the following day he caught sight of one of the crosses without its corpse, he was in terror of punishment and explained to the lady what had taken place: He would await no sentence of court-martial, but would punish his neglect of duty with his own sword! Let her prepare a place for one about to die, let that fatal vault serve both the lover and the husband! ‘Not that,’ cried out the lady, no less merciful than chaste, ‘the gods forbid that I should look at the same time upon the corpses of the two men dearest to me; I would rather hang the dead than slay the living!’ So saying, she gave orders for the body of her husband to be lifted out of the coffin and fastened upon the vacant cross! The soldier availed himself of the expedient suggested by this very ingenious lady and next day everyone wondered how a dead man had found his way to the cross!”

 

The sailors received this tale with roars of laughter, and Tryphaena blushed not a little and laid her face amorously upon Giton’s neck. But Lycas did not laugh; “If that governor had been a just man,” said he, shaking his head angrily, “he would have ordered the husband’s body taken down and carried back into the vault, and crucified the woman.” ...

     

          mwc

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

19 hours ago, mwc said:

 

perhaps this little bit of 1st century CE fiction from Satyricon will do something for you:

 

 

Perhaps it will do somehing for Rich.  It is probably best I not tell you what it did for me.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 5/30/2023 at 8:59 PM, RichDellaValle said:

I realize this has nothing to do with if Jesus existed, but please be patient. I’ve never been able to get a straight answer on this that made sense, and the Bible is quiet about the mechanics of the Resurrection – Christianity’s MOST important belief. Supposedly the tomb Jesus was placed in was sealed with Roman guards posted, yet when the women found the open tomb, there were no guards. If God resurrected Jesus, why would the tomb have to be open in the first place? He could have just snatched him up through the rock! The fact that it was open suggests to me a far more logical scenario: the body was removed, which means the guards were either killed or bribed, and Jesus was either dead or never died in the first place. Also, if Jesus was in a burial tomb, why would women come along three days later to supposedly rub oil on him? Surely that would have been done when he was put in the chamber because the Jewish leaders suspected someone would try to steal the body and claim he was resurrected.  None of this makes sense!  Any thoughts on this?

 

You have a good point.  There is more than one resurrection version and I question if this was one of those sections about him that was mostly fabricated later.  There are stories of him going to another country, and even having a family later in life.  Maybe he wasn't even crucified.  And perhaps he never existed.  There are several possibilities.  Does Bart Ehrman or other scholars address this?  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 6/1/2023 at 1:00 AM, Weezer said:

There are several possibilities.  Does Bart Ehrman or other scholars address this?  

It looks like Bart Ehrman did debate another scholar on the subject. But it is one of his pay per view debates unfortunately. 

 

 

 

Here is one that might be of help for the subject at hand. From the misquoting Jesus podcasts. 

 

https://youtu.be/4CD5DwrgWJ4

 

It is titled, did Jesus even exist. And Bart does believe he existed but basically like we are talking about here. His story wasn't what we read about in the bible. I think he may touch on the resurrection in it but I'm not sure. 

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I like to think that Andy Taylor and Barney Fife really did exist; but I know the shows they made about them were just stories that didn't really happen.  Probably the same with jesus.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 5/30/2023 at 9:59 PM, RichDellaValle said:

I realize this has nothing to do with if Jesus existed, but please be patient. I’ve never been able to get a straight answer on this that made sense, and the Bible is quiet about the mechanics of the Resurrection – Christianity’s MOST important belief. Supposedly the tomb Jesus was placed in was sealed with Roman guards posted, yet when the women found the open tomb, there were no guards. If God resurrected Jesus, why would the tomb have to be open in the first place? He could have just snatched him up through the rock! The fact that it was open suggests to me a far more logical scenario: the body was removed, which means the guards were either killed or bribed, and Jesus was either dead or never died in the first place. Also, if Jesus was in a burial tomb, why would women come along three days later to supposedly rub oil on him? Surely that would have been done when he was put in the chamber because the Jewish leaders suspected someone would try to steal the body and claim he was resurrected.  None of this makes sense!  Any thoughts on this?

The resurrection story is one that I now believe never happened. And I think the inconsistencies with the narrative between gospels is evidence of that. I have no proof to support my thoughts but it would make sense to me if it started out as a general belief that he went back to heaven to be with the father. As in his spirit. Or soul. But that eventually over time transformed into a bodily resurrection before the gospels were written years later. 

 

Also I agree, it wouldn't make sense for the women to be anointing a rotting body with oil. I'm pretty sure that is something which is done before the body is placed in the tomb. I watched a documentary a long time ago when I was still a believer about the practice of burial back then and why it was a borrowed tomb. At the time the tradition was to let the body rot and when all the flesh was gone, the bones would be gathered together and placed in clay pots which were then buried in a catacomb type area. It was very interesting. They were trying to find evidence of Jesus or his family being buried there and were allowed to put cameras down into the catacombs. They didn't really find Jesus or any hard evidence as usual. But they did find evidence of some early Christians.

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

At the time the tradition was to let the body rot and when all the flesh was gone, the bones would be gathered together and placed in clay pots which were then buried in a catacomb type area. It was very interesting.

 

I just thought of something concerning this. Since this was the tradition at the time. If Jesus did exist and the priests were so furious with him as to have him put to death. They may have stolen the body away so he couldn't recieve a proper burial. Apparently it is Jewish belief that the soul cannot rest until the body receives a proper burial. The Jewish priests may have taken the body, cut it up, and buried it in pieces so Jesus would never have rest. It would have been a suitable punishment for someone perceived to be a heretic. 

 

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/367836/jewish/Basic-Laws-of-a-Jewish-Funeral.htm

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

48 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I just thought of something concerning this. Since this was the tradition at the time. If Jesus did exist and the priests were so furious with him as to have him put to death. They may have stolen the body away so he couldn't recieve a proper burial. Apparently it is Jewish belief that the soul cannot rest until the body receives a proper burial. The Jewish priests may have taken the body, cut it up, and buried it in pieces so Jesus would never have rest. It would have been a suitable punishment for someone perceived to be a heretic. 

 

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/367836/jewish/Basic-Laws-of-a-Jewish-Funeral.htm

 

DB

Doesn't Jewish law prohibit the touching of a corpse, though?  Not that it would have stopped them from doing it; but they would more likely have paid someone else to do it,  rather than doing it themselves.