In a sense it is astonishing that there are no writings from Jesus, or any Hebrew NT scriptures. This is one pivotal reason for suspicion and doubt of the Gospels. In the period upto 70 CE, Hebrew was not banned, and we have a vast archive of Hebrew writings [Dead Sea Scrolls]; this was a time when writings was commonplace [Josephus, Philo and numerous Roman and Greek writings]; there is no Jewish prophet who did not write scrolls in all of Judaism's then 2000 year past history - almost all are contained in the scrolls package.
What this does, is cast a view the Gospels was a fully European scripture, made far from its space-time, and is closer to European antisemitism than inspired scripture: we have such examples as the Protocols, a highly deceiteful work with fictional contracts, names, dates and events, and one which people believed as true and history till recently: so why not the Gospels, which is in the same vein?
Further, the charges made in the Gospels does not reflect history or the culture of Jews: where has there been an example of Jews revelling over the death of one - outside of the Gospels? In fact, this was not seen even with the nazi mass muderer Eichmann - because it is a violation to abuse one sentenced to death - the Gospel story becomes all the more compounded by its depiction Jews conspired with the depraved Romans who were massacreing and crucifying Jews in the 1000's. The Gospels defies logic and history. The factor of Rome NOT crucifying jesus on their own, with the charge of heresy, and having nothing to do with Jews, is also a blatant contradiction of this historical period. Paul and many other early christians were crucified or murdered by Rome - along with the Jews, and with no proddings from the Jews.
The most telling ubsurdity is the depiction of Jesus as flaunting the Jewish laws; the alledged prophesy of Jesus saying the temple will be destroyed - factors which are seemingly hailed by the Gospel writers! This does not sound like a Jew but of Europe - as is illustrated by history. The point is, it is very plausable to have been a lie, with a belief in God being very easy to exploit - specially in the space-time when Christianity emerged. The lack of any outside writings of affirmation, and the lack of any proof the Gospels was penned by Judeans in that contemporary time - poses a huge question mark.
But the most astonishing factors are that the Gospels was taken at face value without questioning of it, and that of the conclusion it made concerning Jesus. This is a mystery.
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE - OR CALL YOU TO ACCOUNT TOO.
I think that Wright might respond this way. It does appear to have been a hard sell but then Jesus was not what they had anticipated a messiah to be.
The Jews were right, they had no reason to anticipate a Messiah outside of their belief, but Europe did. The criteria for a Messiah, as stated in the NT, is different from that in the OT. Why would the ancesters of today's Europe not accept such a tailor made messiah - after they three times wanted to, but could not accept the OT requirements - centuries before christianity emerged? A close examination of the gospels fits more with what Europe would accept, rather than what was revealed.
quote: He didn't defeat the Romans and he didn't rebuild the temple. He went even further in that he said that trying to defeat the Romans militarily was wrong. He preached that they were to love their enemy, turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. He claimed that if they carried on the way they were it would have terrible consequences which it did in 70AD.
This only applies if he could defeat the romans and then decided not to. He could NOT defeat the romans, and any differing perspectives is a wish list seen from rose colored lens. He did not preach to go the extra mile: there was no extra mile than the defense put up by the Jews against Rome, as opposed pointing to hapless, rowdy money changers. There is no equivalence in all recorded history of a belief than the challenge to Rome by the jews in 70 CE: 1.1 million Jews sacrificed their lives for it - and unpardonably omitted from the gospels, constituting a lie-by-omission.
He did NOT claim there would be terrible consequences against Rome - this appears a retrospective statement [no contemporary hebrew writings exist of the NT], and saying so would be superfluous - this was a given - that is the point here. The entire then world knew this was a foregone conclusion how it would end; the Jews already experienced this with Babylon and the Hellinists. Clearly, the Gospels turned the greatest show of belief into its antithesis, because of its own motivated agenda. Even the empreror Vespasian refused the crown of victory - which all but seemed a crown of mockery in the celebrations of Rome: the Jews claimed, freedom of belief - or death. Today, the world has its freedom of belief because of those Jews - not because of the Gospels, but despite it. Depraved Rome and its divine emperors were put to shame by any honest reading of this event and its subsequent history.
quote: He also preached that their whole temple centered religion was being changed. They didn't have to go to the temple anymore to receive forgiveness. He preached a forgiveness that could be received directly without going to the temple.
The temple destruction was foreseen by Solomon, who hid the arc in anticipation of it; the laws were not changed - all OT laws exist today and are active. The temple destruction was a signal that sacrifice was ended, and to be replaced with deeds and prayer, as per the Psalms ['Except the sacrifice of my lips']. What is not considered here is, the OT was the first document which forbade human sacrifice; and animal sacrifice, entrenched in humanity, was eliminated gradually, first by making all sacrifice subject only to accidental sins and thanksgiving, and only at the temple - this eliminated 99% of animal sacrifices in a single stroke, while giving the people a means to wean off it: the only correct way. Thus the notion of sacrifice as a Jewish premise is a moot one, and clearly vested elsewhere: it has NOTHING to do with why the temple was destroyed - in fact, Rome insisted on sacrifice, but that this be in honor of its divine emperors! Other factors apply, which are clearly outside of the gospels, which ironically re-invented human sacrifice, in abject contradiction of the OT, which declares:
'THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER, NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER - ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY'.
The notion of turning the cheek is a failed one, and its best proof is the history of the medevial church, which never turned its cheek from being the world's greatest murderers of inncoent people in all recorded history - even when discarding its worst two last centuries. The turning of the cheek, when one has to assist, is also a crime:
'YOU SHALL NOT WITNESS THY FELLOW'S INNOCENT BLOOD AND REMAIN IDLE'.
That law is accepted in all bona fide judiciary institutions. In fact, the world turns by OT laws exclusively, and not a single NT law is accepted in any christian judiciary institutions. in fact there are no laws in the NT.
quote: This whole idea would be very threatening to the Jewish nation. I don't find it surprising that it wasn't accepted all that well. Mind you we know much more about Paul's ministry to the Gentiles than we do James' ministry to the Jews so we aren't all that sure about just how successful he was.
This is an honest insight. Paul failed with the early followers of Jesus, and was expelled by the Nasserites and the Ebonites; thus he percieved his vision after this fact - significantly amd ridiculously. The term christian and christ did not occur till two centuries later; the divine factor was accrued gradually, and culminated by voting Jesus as such in Constantinople, along with the negation of circumsizion, the speaking of Hebrew, etc, and antisemitism was born, targeting a small nation already in exile, refusing to allow them to return, and refusing them any life in Europe. Absolutely, the church should have restored the jews back to their homeland - it did the reverse. It failed in this quest.
Back in the middle-east, islam emerged, and also rejected Pauline christianity: at least affirming the jews were right in the fulcrum factors, and that the Gospels was clearly a western, european construct, having nothing to do with a Jew in Judea anymore.
quote: Among many Jewish communities outside Jerusalem, and Galilee in particular, there was distaste for the temple culture and the hypocrisy of the dominant temple sects like the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
This disregards the roman attrocities, which is not understood by many. Greeks and Romans were hastilly converted and appointed as Jewish rulers in Judea, decrees which were antithetical and divisive were implemented. The Temple was thus used as a means to terrorise the inhabitants, and formulated to negate any belief which contradicts Rome's decrees. The charge of heresy was decreed by Caligula, which was later continued by the church. Here we see, Jesus did NOT sacrifice himself, because the law of Heresy would have earned him the death penalty with no input from Jews. The only sacrifice which occured was here:
WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR.
The Jews lost their land following a holocaust [1.1 million ] in 70 CE - and they were returned following a holocaust in 1948. Both holocausts were perpertrated by the same forces - in contradiction and defense of Monotheism and freedom of belief. This same battle continues today, and remains in denial - because admitting it would cause great negative consequences for the Gospels, which alligned belief in God with villification and negation of another. This has also quagmired 2 billion otherwise sincere and genuine people otherwise Godly inclined. What a mess - do we need a Messiah or what!
quote:Outside of the Gospels, Jesus was invisible in history.
What was not invisable were all those ridiculous, false charges of deicide, and millions slaughtered by it - all in the name of love. If there was a person named Jesus, no one's name and image has been more wrongly exploited in history.
Yes, I agree with much you said. Writings was not commonplace for most of Europe and Arabia [in fact, Europeans were forbidden from owning a NT till 800 years later, and got their beliefs via fiery priests only]; Jews being an anomoly where they wrote copiously since many centuries before Rome emerged. Also, I agree Hebrew was forbidden generally by Rome, as was any teachings of the OT. One must consider that only 2000 years ago, today's most modern Briton was a barbaric, pagan people, entrenched in worshipping the entrails of humans - as recorded in Roman archives, when it razed Londoninium by fire and massacred 80,000 Pic-celts in 55 CE - then went on to genocide 1.1 million Jews in Judea. The charge of heresy was fastidious by Rome.
Yet I find it suspicious that there are no contemporary writings of the Gospels from any other source [The passage in Josephus of Jesus being an accepted forgery today, even by christian scholars]. I find it suspicious any Jewish revered one would not have secretly made a Hebrew document: Jewish writings are, IMHO, the most honest writ in existance, never candy-coated and freely admitting its failings - a unique feature seen in the OT & Prophetic writings, among all scriptures.
The only thing about the gospels which appears credible is that there are 4 seperate gospel writers, which is very difficult to question as not having some authenticity - a feature not generally acknowledged. Here, any variances in these writings do not question its veracity, but in fact makes them more credible and naturally occuring: it would be more suspicious if they were all in perfect allignment. I find it difficult to accept that even if the gospels was claimed as fixed later on - why not fix the discrepencies!?
Then again, I am suspicious of European writings: the Protocols was so engeniously produced, it was believed for many centuries and is still regarded as sacred history in the Islamic world; the blood libels was held as sacred writ for many centuries too - these falsehoods took 100s of 1000s of innocent lives, and continued many centuries as holy writs. My conclusion: there is still a dire and desperate need for an actual proof of the Gospels, and the current status quo is deficient to an extent of ubsurdity.
Paul was a relative of the Jewish-Roman Queen Bernice, grand daughter of Herod, daughter of his son Agriipa: a powerful figure, richer than nero, and one notorious for her sexual exploits and incestous relations with her brother Agriipa, Vespasian and his son Titus. Bernice had Paul freed when Rome held him 2 years in Ceasera on the charge of heresy, claiming him a Roman citizen and thus he must be tried in Rome. Later on, he was killed in Rome as a Nasserite Jew, along with 2,500 other Jews.
Paul was also a prominent member of the Parlaiment in Athens, married to a greek non-jew, and his family a 3 generation secularised, non-observing Jewish Greek. Paul was expelled by the Nasserite jewish group on claims of blasphemy - he later succeeded in impressing the Greeks and then the Europeans in general, by giving them what they wanted to hear. Had Paul not flaunted the OT laws - he would have failed, and christianity would not have succeeded.
Paul was a mish mash, an epileptical figure, who did a slash, cut and snip of the OT laws - negating whatever did not fit the Gospels, keeping what did not interfear with it. Paul could not take away from Europe the rites of image worship, gay, diet and a host of other OT laws. This makes christianity a zionist plot, and made of deviant Jews!