Was Jesus a Collaborator?
- This topic has 81 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
We should wonder why John the Baptist never actually became a disciple of Jesus.
John the Baptist never existed, he is part of the whole mythology of Jesus and his twelve disciples. There was not any resurrection and there was not any crucifixion either. Paul did not have any encounter with a so-called Jesus, he is just a liar, and his whole narrative is false, and he was not a Jew by birth, his mother was Syrian and he was born in a region of Syria, he was a Roman citizen because his father was Roman related to the Herodian family. He grew up in Tarsus which was part of Turkey
We can agree about Paul.
Paul is especially popular with Luther and the protestants, because of his emphasis on faith over deeds.
I have read the mention of Jesus the Christ and his brother James in Josephus and why they do not stand up to close scrutiny.
This is his reference to John the Baptist.
Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure against him.The authenticity of Josephus on John has never been doubted or so i thought. The strongest argument for their authenticity is that they are not connected to Christian interpretations. If a Christian scribe would have inserted a story on John, he would have retold the stories found in the gospels of Mark and Luke. Perhaps you can refer me to a reliable authority that challenges the veracity of the story.
The idea whether there was a historical figure of Jesus the Christ or whether he is mere myth is a topic of debate among the scholars. I have already said which i find myself sympathetic to.
Either way, it points to the Zealot movement as the pot from which Christianity sprang.
In speaking of the slaves at the time Christianity made its appearance, you are only concentrating on those who were the most ill-used. One is forgetting that the whole of society was run by slaves, with many better off than the free but poor “mob.” I know offhand of no great slave uprisings in the era of early Christianity, unless you exculpate Nero of the burning of Rome and agree with him that the Christians did it. Then your case is stronger. Even so, most slaves were not Christians at that time. Engels himself says that the Christians, whilst incurring a similar contempt to us today, were not concerned with social revolution but with life beyond the grave. That they were prone to rioting and disruption is a given, and if anything I think they were more equatable with today’s disgruntled prophecy-junkies, car-torchers and shop window-smashers than with us socialists.
When Julian was compelled to lead the legions of the west in 361 to overthrow Christian rule in Constantinople, the tribespeople of the west – Gauls, Germans, Belgians – as well as Roman settlers and poor farmers, all rushed to join him. The bishop of Rome at that time was a nobody, and the emperor was not a Catholic but an Arian. So we can’t call that a revolt against Catholicism.
Josephus has been interpolated There is any serious historian who has proven the existence of Jesus
James is also another interpolation made to Josephus, the real brother of James was Jesus Bar Domneus who was a priest in 63, he was not a brother of Jesus because JesusChrist never existed, and the whole narrative about James conversion is part of the mythology
Before these exchanges become as Matt has cautioned too acrimonious, let me re-avow the position.
With the passage of time it has become near impossible to either affirm or deny the physical existence of a preacher called Jesus the Christ. Nor is it particularly relevant to our understanding the rise and dominance of Christianity.
Josephus is credited with being a dependable source of events for the region. Knowing this, Christian apologists have tampered with its religious references to make it appear that he confirms Jesus the Christ’s historicity. There is an on-going debate on the extent of this. The details of which can be read here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Josephus acknowledgement of John the Baptist is not believed to be one of those forged interpolations according to the consensus of reliable scholars.
I’m unable to comment on Jesus Bar Domneus, other than the Wiki entry here
I repeat there is not any serious historian who has been able to prove the existence of Jesus, only the charlatans, all historians are based on the narratives of the New Testament which is not a historical book, it is a book based on mythologies. There are more than 7,500 biblical interpolations. Wikipedia is controlled and dominated by many peoples who support religion and the narratives of Jesus. Lamentably I do not have in the English language the best investigation made about Jesus which was written in Spain, titled: Jesus 3000 years before Christ, he did exist 3000 years before christ in the Egyptian mythology. I have not found any historical pieces of evidence that have been proven the existence of Jesus, on the contrary, most of them deny it
Well I must say- you are committed to your interpolation.
There are other views that counter the ‘jesus-myth’.
I have seen a lot of narratives on secular ‘myth busting’ websites, and some texts on it- and they seem to froth with a atheistic zeal, so mush so, that it is their primary focus…
It is with respect, that my research permits me to see the New Testament texts as a source document in the historical personage of Jesus.
There are so many texts out there: many in their time have a hagiography to them.
This historiographic investigation, somewhat Chrestus, depends on the very nature of interpolative practice, then and now- including our own subject positions informed by any findings on the subject. We just need to respect our and one another’s view.
Interpolation, seeding ideas into others is a common practice in any epoch, and somewhat after all the narratives are are accessible to observation. So much time and a near immensity of time has passed… that the data/texts can be used to argue any viewpoint on the historical person of Jesus.
One view that often gets lost… is the oral tradition of communication in Christian formations. Oral history at some point in Christianity needed to be documented. Scribes had been few and far between. Oral culture is harder to capture in archives, so much of everyday folk is unrecorded.. and sadly lost. The Gospels captured it through the use of interviewing witness accounts (or the living archiver of a witness), popular in Antiquity historiography. But this is the same for any movement. In the very early days of the movement, and with oral traditions of communicating (a mental-memory archive) there will be less manuscripts. And in the initial persecutions, perhaps less so at first.
This is always a debate that has so much energy and near raw views, and really broad in scope.Q-Document (Q for quelle, source)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
Some investigators can study writings and discover certain shared attributes of them and determine that they may well be derived from another. Mark is commonly decided as the earliest and that Matthew and Luke uses it for basic information. But there is speculation of another so far undiscovered work that also forms the basis of the gospel story arising more directly from the oral tradition.
It is a speculative but interesting proposition.
And perhaps older than Mark is the Gospel of Thomas, which is merely a collection of sayings of Jesus the Christ.
Q from original non Christian texts, that discuss Christian encounters are never a great point to reference the personage of Jesus… they capture according to their own perspective…
Christian documents such as James, appear to be even earlier than the Gospels.
You see, oral culture is so widespread in articulation culture and religion back then (and even very much now).
Sometimes primary interviews of the historian or archivist seem to be a go to point- and once textualized, it is clear from semantic scrutiny, that many voices are contained in the statements, remarks of witness accounts.
Oral tradition should not be seen as speculative and cutting edge: they are the dominant communicative event (Speech Acts far outweigh Text acts) in ancient accounts.Dear Comrades,friends and fellow workers,
But this is the same for any movement. In the very early days of the movement, and with oral traditions of communicating (a mental-memory archive) there will be less manuscripts. And in the initial persecutions, perhaps less so at first.
This is probably the only thing, nuts and bolts chap myself, I think is worth considering, in the light of, the actual and eventual ideological, forces at the work, in the choices (still does) of teaching history in schools, where working class history is obliterated, even though much archival material existed and still does remain so, and despite some diligent rescue by E.P. Thomson, Howard Zinn and others,.
After all, I as a child lived up the road from a graveyard in which were there were remains of the Calton Weavers bayonetted and felled by musket fire. I only had a rudimentary oral historical knowledge of this event, learnt at my granny’s knee literally, she had been a weaver too, as the tombstones were overgrown and memories too receded, wiped out in the community. (Fyi ?. A physician friend of Abe Lincoln is buried there too actually).
None of this knowledge was imparted at the local shool a few hundred yards from it, but much about virgin births,resurrection from the dead and glorious empire was along with appeals for pennies for the less fortunate than us, shivering, smog spluttering infants, black babies.
The same with the actual history of WW1s slaughter of her three brothers Frank, Edward, Thomas, the clever educationally promising sons of a Curragh immigrant, this obliterated in the commemoration of Empiral triumph. My lesson was never to don the Kings uniform.
(Mere anecdote)I got a big historical ID buzz when I briefly worked in those modernisd but still noisy and dusty mills, down in Bridgeton as a labourer, when I was in between jobs, blacklisted seemingly, for union activity by the Engineering Employers Federation. I mere child, wasn’t even a militant one either, merely for what I thought was possible, ‘fair do’s’ and I didn’t belong to any political party at the time.
It was the actual lived experiences of the unconscious and beginning of conscious, class struggle, as well as the oral history and the accidental encounter with the knowledgeable outdoor speakers of the Glasgow socialists and visiting Edinburgh members,
SPGB members, who attended and spoke at the outdoor flea market of ‘Glasgow Barras’ and the bustling inner city ‘Royal Exchange Square,around 49 years ago, whose accounts chimed with much of what I had learned in inarticulate, formed and unformed understanding, which set me upon the path of discovering, which history I needed to know about the real,lived, history of the working class and the urgent necessity of focussing our endeavours and scrutiny upon bringing this, to the attention of workers worldwide, so that they may by their own conscious efforts end history as a series of class struggles, to self emancipate in the last great emancipatory wave thus ending class rule, war, poverty.Any newcomers to this Forum’s thread must be puzzled indeed at the longevity of what was, by Alan sincerely, a mere festive trivial distraction, fetid ass droppings of Pop between advertising TV, turned into a perusal of any significance.
Our archives continue to be updated here for world wide perusal.
Comradely regards,
Matt
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.