The Historicity Of Jesus

[Corky]

Just imagine Jesus making a whip and chasing the money changers from the temple. First he would have to overpower the garrison of Roman Centurions stationed there because of the tribute being collected and the temple guards. He didn't do this job alone and he wasn't non-violent.

 

Or the gospel writers could have made up the entire incident.

 

Also, he was supposed to travel all over Galilee and Judea and never once had any problems with the assassins and robbers (Jewish zealots) who frequented the main roads to rob and kill the Jews who were loyal to the Herods and the Roman occupation. Maybe, just maybe because he was the chieftain of the Zealot movement himself, Judas of Galilee.

 

No doubt, Judas was a very religious man but just like the Maccabees, he was also a very violent man. And, just like Jesus, he imagined that he was the Messiah who would restore the kingdom to Israel. Judas and Jesus both are said to be of the household of David, so, at the very least, they were kinfolk.

 

Saul (Paul) of Tarsus was some kind of bounty hunter of Jesus' followers and he hunted them even in Damascus of Syria, which is gentile territory. The only place he could have obtained that authority would be Rome - through the Roman appointed Sadducee high priest in Jerusalem, of course. Rome didn't care about their religious beliefs whatsoever - but Rome did care about hunting down the Zealots that attacked the Roman garrison in Jerusalem in 6AD, which was led by Judas of Galilee.

 

In the NT, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee but would a Pharisee work for a Sadducee appointed by Rome? As it turns out, according to the NT, Paul was a Roman citizen, so, maybe that's no problem. But, how did a Jew of the Pharisee sect become a Roman citizen? Born a citizen? A Jew born a citizen of Rome . . . no way in the world that could happen unless his father was a king or governor of some Roman province somewhere. Foreigners just didn't get to be Roman citizens for no good reason.

 

I think the main problem here is that this line of reasoning requires that you take certain parts of the NT story as fact, yet others as being fiction. How do you seperate the two out? Do you just pick the aspects which agree with your pet theory? The simple fact of the matter is, that the historical validity of everything in the NT is shaky at best. We might as well assume everything is fiction.

 

Well, that's true, except that there were people familiar with the story of Judas of Galilee who could have exposed the whole thing. What I think they did was just take the original story and whitewash it for the purpose of proselytizing the faith to the gentiles. Much the same way as the Mormons put the whitewash on Joseph Smith.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Right! And, I think most scholars agree that the small paragraph in Josephus where Jesus is mentioned is an interpolation by Christians.

 

Even many Christian scholars and apologists admit that the Testimonium Flavium could not have been written by Josephus. Some try to argue that only parts of it were interpolated, but that's just a weak attempt to retain a reference to Jesus in a first century historian's account. There's no way a nonchristian would have written such a glowing religious review of Jesus, and therefore the Testimonium could not have come from Josephus, and once the text is known to have been tampered with, there's no logical reason to accept any of that portion of the text without some sort of evidence. And they have no evidence.

 

Then there's the other mention of Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities, which christians assert as evidence of Jesus' existence. It doesn't get talked about as much and I haven't seen it properly challenged (though maybe it has been), but I would argue that this was also interpolated by a christian. The reason I think this is because of the way it was used in conjunction with the name James. Josephus' subject of that line is James, so if he wanted to identify him as Jesus' brother, the standard way to write it would have been something like, "James, the brother of Jesus." Throughout the bible and Antiquities, that is the way identifying people by their relatives is done, stating the subject first and then the identifier. Yet with this one Antiquities reference, what we get is this:

 

Antiquities 20.9.1

...Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,

 

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant20.html

 

I see no reason why Josephus would have deviated from the norm here and placed the identifier ("the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ") before the subject ("James"). On the other hand, a christian who wanted to honor christ by placing his name first would have impetus to word it this way. Thus, I have to think that this text has been tampered with as well.

 

So, the lone first century historian who supposedly wrote about Jesus definitely didn't write the Testimonium and almost certainly didn't write the other mention of Jesus. With this crumbling before our eyes, we now have not one single nonchristian first century mention of Jesus of Nazareth. Not a very promising scenario for christianity, huh?

[Corky]

Right! And, I think most scholars agree that the small paragraph in Josephus where Jesus is mentioned is an interpolation by Christians.

 

Even many Christian scholars and apologists admit that the Testimonium Flavium could not have been written by Josephus. Some try to argue that only parts of it were interpolated, but that's just a weak attempt to retain a reference to Jesus in a first century historian's account. There's no way a nonchristian would have written such a glowing religious review of Jesus, and therefore the Testimonium could not have come from Josephus, and once the text is known to have been tampered with, there's no logical reason to accept any of that portion of the text without some sort of evidence. And they have no evidence.

 

Then there's the other mention of Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities, which christians assert as evidence of Jesus' existence. It doesn't get talked about as much and I haven't seen it properly challenged (though maybe it has been), but I would argue that this was also interpolated by a christian. The reason I think this is because of the way it was used in conjunction with the name James. Josephus' subject of that line is James, so if he wanted to identify him as Jesus' brother, the standard way to write it would have been something like, "James, the brother of Jesus." Throughout the bible and Antiquities, that is the way identifying people by their relatives is done, stating the subject first and then the identifier. Yet with this one Antiquities reference, what we get is this:

 

Antiquities 20.9.1

...Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others,

 

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant20.html

 

I see no reason why Josephus would have deviated from the norm here and placed the identifier ("the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ") before the subject ("James"). On the other hand, a christian who wanted to honor christ by placing his name first would have impetus to word it this way. Thus, I have to think that this text has been tampered with as well.

 

So, the lone first century historian who supposedly wrote about Jesus definitely didn't write the Testimonium and almost certainly didn't write the other mention of Jesus. With this crumbling before our eyes, we now have not one single nonchristian first century mention of Jesus of Nazareth. Not a very promising scenario for christianity, huh?

Not a very promising scenario at all! Let's look as some more words of Josephus:

 

"6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."

[The things underlined above: Christians agreed with the Pharisees about the resurrection (Acts 23:6), "liberty" (Rom. 8:21; John 8:36), "God is their only ruler" (Matt. 4:10), "do not value dying" (Matt. 10:28), "do not heed death of relations" (Matt. 8:22).

Flavius Josephus - Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 1 part 6.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm

[Neon Genesis]

 

That's possible. I used to think they just made up a personification of what they thought was "the perfect man", and, at least in part, I think that's true. Later, then, they made him into a literal man who actually did walk the earth. I think those that denied the literal, flesh and blood Jesus is who the writer of the epistles of John called the antichrists.

But what reason would some later peaceful Christians have to adopt a terrorist leader as their messiah to whitewash his message? It'd be like if the Unitarian Universalists decided to use Osama bin Laden as their leader only to change his name and whitewash his teachings. Who would do something like that and for what purpose?

 

Judas the Galilean founded a new philosophy, termed the Fourth Philosophy by Josephus. (The other three philosophies were the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Essenes.) Jesus was credited with the founding of Christianity. However, the Christianity of today was a product of Paul's teachings and not the Jewish preacher, Jesus.

The problem with this claim of this author is that Jesus did not found a new religion. Jesus was a Jew who was trying to reform Judaism and early Christianity itself was simply another sect of Judaism and Jesus didn't seem to have any indications of starting a new religion. This reminds me of the Zeitgeist claim that Jesus and Mithra were both born on Dec 25th, so therefore it's an eerie coincident even though the bible never says when Jesus was born.

[Corky]

 

That's possible. I used to think they just made up a personification of what they thought was "the perfect man", and, at least in part, I think that's true. Later, then, they made him into a literal man who actually did walk the earth. I think those that denied the literal, flesh and blood Jesus is who the writer of the epistles of John called the antichrists.

But what reason would some later peaceful Christians have to adopt a terrorist leader as their messiah to whitewash his message? It'd be like if the Unitarian Universalists decided to use Osama bin Laden as their leader only to change his name and whitewash his teachings. Who would do something like that and for what purpose?

When were there any later peaceful Christians? Christians have been warring amongst themselves ever since the beginning of Christianity. The NT Bible says one thing but Christians demonstrated another. Of course, later Christians didn't know about a terrorist leader, they only knew what the bishops and the gospels said. When Christians first show up in history, there are already about a dozen sects, all claiming to be the right one, the true Christians. It doesn't take much reading to see how violent the early Christians were and later developed into an empire called the Roman Catholic Church that tortured and murdered people of different beliefs for centuries. There is nothing peaceful about Christianity. They want people to think so but just look at what all they have done in recent years in Africa, India and Burma etc. They have lost power in the free world but in other parts of the world they are a holy terror.

 

If Osama had been the leader of the Unitarians at the beginning, wouldn't the Unitarians try to whitewash Osama and change his name in order to appear to not be connected to him? Not saying it is really true, but would the original followers of Judas of Galilee admit that they were his followers or would they claim to be followers of someone else? Like Jesus of Galilee, for example? "no sir, our leader was not Judas, our leader was Jesus, he was a good man and besides, he didn't even live at the same time as Judas - see, it says so right here in this gospel".

 

Judas the Galilean founded a new philosophy, termed the Fourth Philosophy by Josephus. (The other three philosophies were the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Essenes.) Jesus was credited with the founding of Christianity. However, the Christianity of today was a product of Paul's teachings and not the Jewish preacher, Jesus.

The problem with this claim of this author is that Jesus did not found a new religion. Jesus was a Jew who was trying to reform Judaism and early Christianity itself was simply another sect of Judaism and Jesus didn't seem to have any indications of starting a new religion. This reminds me of the Zeitgeist claim that Jesus and Mithra were both born on Dec 25th, so therefore it's an eerie coincident even though the bible never says when Jesus was born.

 

Yes, and the similarities between Jesus of Galilee and Judas of Galilee may only be weird coincidences but the fact remains that Judas' followers and Jesus' followers were being hunted by the Jewish and Roman authorities in the early first century. Now, I can understand why they were hunting the followers of Judas but why were they hunting the followers of a peaceful preacher like Jesus? After all, they were only another new sect of Judaism and the Romans didn't care anything about that. Yet, the NT itself says they were hunted, even into gentile country, by Saul of Tarsus. Saul wasn't acting alone either, he had men with him and he had authority to carry out his hunt for "the way" people. Where would he get that authority? He got his papers from the high priest (so says the Acts) but where did the high priest get the authority to issue those papers? From Rome is the answer. But, why would Rome be interested in hunting down a bunch of innocent, peaceful, law-abiding people? That's how Rome wanted all the Jews to be, so...???

 

Anyway, it's too bad we'll never know the whole story.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

 

If Osama had been the leader of the Unitarians at the beginning, wouldn't the Unitarians try to whitewash Osama and change his name in order to appear to not be connected to him? Not saying it is really true, but would the original followers of Judas of Galilee admit that they were his followers or would they claim to be followers of someone else? Like Jesus of Galilee, for example? "no sir, our leader was not Judas, our leader was Jesus, he was a good man and besides, he didn't even live at the same time as Judas - see, it says so right here in this gospel".

But why would they whitewash a terrorist leader's teachings and change their leader's name? If they were just stealing teachings from whoever they felt like and it didn't matter who, even a terrorist would do, why wouldn't Unitarians abandoned bin Laden, create their own religion use someone who reflected their values more, like Ghandi or Buddha or something? It makes no sense to me for Christians to latch onto a terrorist to whitewash them when they could have just easily latched onto somebody less violent to whitewash for their own purposes. Perhaps a more accurate analogy than the Unitarian one would be it would be like claiming Harvey Milk was really Dan White, and the LGBT community just took the few nice things about Dan White they liked and turned him into Harvey Milk and made a movie about him to cover up the "truth". But again, why would someone do something like that? If they were so embarrassed about it, why not just steal some other non-terrorist figure's teachings to whitewash if they were only interested in whitewash and disown the terrorist? The bible doesn't "whitewash" God's violent actions in the OT nor does the book of Revelation whitewash its more violent portrayal of Jesus, so if Jesus was a terrorist, why would they suddenly change it in the gospels?

[Corky]

 

 

 

 

If Osama had been the leader of the Unitarians at the beginning, wouldn't the Unitarians try to whitewash Osama and change his name in order to appear to not be connected to him? Not saying it is really true, but would the original followers of Judas of Galilee admit that they were his followers or would they claim to be followers of someone else? Like Jesus of Galilee, for example? "no sir, our leader was not Judas, our leader was Jesus, he was a good man and besides, he didn't even live at the same time as Judas - see, it says so right here in this gospel".

But why would they whitewash a terrorist leader's teachings and change their leader's name? If they were just stealing teachings from whoever they felt like and it didn't matter who, even a terrorist would do, why wouldn't Unitarians abandoned bin Laden, create their own religion use someone who reflected their values more, like Ghandi or Buddha or something? It makes no sense to me for Christians to latch onto a terrorist to whitewash them when they could have just easily latched onto somebody less violent to whitewash for their own purposes. Perhaps a more accurate analogy than the Unitarian one would be it would be like claiming Harvey Milk was really Dan White, and the LGBT community just took the few nice things about Dan White they liked and turned him into Harvey Milk and made a movie about him to cover up the "truth". But again, why would someone do something like that? If they were so embarrassed about it, why not just steal some other non-terrorist figure's teachings to whitewash if they were only interested in whitewash and disown the terrorist? The bible doesn't "whitewash" God's violent actions in the OT nor does the book of Revelation whitewash its more violent portrayal of Jesus, so if Jesus was a terrorist, why would they suddenly change it in the gospels?

They didn't whitewash his teachings, immediately that is, the gospels weren't written until after the 70 AD fiasco of the first Jewish war and it became necessary because of a renewed search for the Zealots.

 

Jesus taught the same exact thing as Judas except for the refusal to pay the Roman tribute part - except he really did teach not to pay the tribute:

 

Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

Mat 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

 

Jesus is here saying that to pay the tribute makes them servants but not paying the tribute makes them "free". And then comes the whitewash of this:

 

Mat 17:27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

 

Reading further you can see that no one went fishing, instead they departed for other places.

 

Why did Jesus' followers stay loyal to Jesus after the authorities killed him? Because they believed that he was the Messiah that would restore the kingdom to Israel. Why did Judas' followers stay loyal to Judas after the authorities killed him? Because they believed that he was the Messiah that would restore the kingdom to Israel.

 

How? Since they/he was dead? In Jesus' case, by inventing the story of a resurrection in which Jesus would soon return and then restore the kingdom. In Judas' case, through his sons and grandsons carrying on the fight for freedom in his stead. Somewhere, right in here, a split occurred in the aftermath, and here is where Christianity was born and the Zealot movement came to life. The ones who believed the resurrection story took a different road than those who did not.

[Corky]

 

 

 

 

If Osama had been the leader of the Unitarians at the beginning, wouldn't the Unitarians try to whitewash Osama and change his name in order to appear to not be connected to him? Not saying it is really true, but would the original followers of Judas of Galilee admit that they were his followers or would they claim to be followers of someone else? Like Jesus of Galilee, for example? "no sir, our leader was not Judas, our leader was Jesus, he was a good man and besides, he didn't even live at the same time as Judas - see, it says so right here in this gospel".

But why would they whitewash a terrorist leader's teachings and change their leader's name? If they were just stealing teachings from whoever they felt like and it didn't matter who, even a terrorist would do, why wouldn't Unitarians abandoned bin Laden, create their own religion use someone who reflected their values more, like Ghandi or Buddha or something? It makes no sense to me for Christians to latch onto a terrorist to whitewash them when they could have just easily latched onto somebody less violent to whitewash for their own purposes. Perhaps a more accurate analogy than the Unitarian one would be it would be like claiming Harvey Milk was really Dan White, and the LGBT community just took the few nice things about Dan White they liked and turned him into Harvey Milk and made a movie about him to cover up the "truth". But again, why would someone do something like that? If they were so embarrassed about it, why not just steal some other non-terrorist figure's teachings to whitewash if they were only interested in whitewash and disown the terrorist? The bible doesn't "whitewash" God's violent actions in the OT nor does the book of Revelation whitewash its more violent portrayal of Jesus, so if Jesus was a terrorist, why would they suddenly change it in the gospels?

I reckon what makes Jesus and Judas the one and the same man to me is the messed up dates. According to Josephus, John the Baptist was beheaded in 36 AD but Jesus was crucified in 29 or 30 AD. However, according to the Bible, John the Baptist was killed before Jesus was crucified. There had to have been some date switching going on sometime in the past. The passage in Josephus that scholars believe is a bogus interpolation is also placed where his crucifixion can be dated as 30 AD. So, there is some deliberate deception going on, big time deception.

[dagnarus]

Well, that's true, except that there were people familiar with the story of Judas of Galilee who could have exposed the whole thing. What I think they did was just take the original story and whitewash it for the purpose of proselytizing the faith to the gentiles. Much the same way as the Mormons put the whitewash on Joseph Smith.

 

My point was there really isn't enough historical evidence to even prove that the gospels are based upon a historical person, let alone who that actual person might be.

[dagnarus]

Jesus taught the same exact thing as Judas except for the refusal to pay the Roman tribute part - except he really did teach not to pay the tribute:

 

Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

Mat 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

 

Jesus is here saying that to pay the tribute makes them servants but not paying the tribute makes them "free". And then comes the whitewash of this:

 

I believe the standard interpretation of these verses is that the two drachma tax here is refering to the temple tax, so he's saying that he is the son of God and as such shouldn't have to pay tax to him.

[dagnarus]

But why would they whitewash a terrorist leader's teachings and change their leader's name? If they were just stealing teachings from whoever they felt like and it didn't matter who, even a terrorist would do, why wouldn't Unitarians abandoned bin Laden, create their own religion use someone who reflected their values more, like Ghandi or Buddha or something? It makes no sense to me for Christians to latch onto a terrorist to whitewash them when they could have just easily latched onto somebody less violent to whitewash for their own purposes. Perhaps a more accurate analogy than the Unitarian one would be it would be like claiming Harvey Milk was really Dan White, and the LGBT community just took the few nice things about Dan White they liked and turned him into Harvey Milk and made a movie about him to cover up the "truth". But again, why would someone do something like that? If they were so embarrassed about it, why not just steal some other non-terrorist figure's teachings to whitewash if they were only interested in whitewash and disown the terrorist? The bible doesn't "whitewash" God's violent actions in the OT nor does the book of Revelation whitewash its more violent portrayal of Jesus, so if Jesus was a terrorist, why would they suddenly change it in the gospels?

 

Actually if you think about it this isn't that unlikely. You've got to remember that first century Christianity wasn't exactly homogeneous. Perhaps somebody heard the zealots preaching, believed what they were preaching, then decided that the original zealots were misguided about the parts he didn't like. He then could have gone on to start up his own group, which would later become dominant and developed Jesus as opposed to Judas. Not saying that this is how it went down just that it isn't impossible that that a theology might develop and grow from its original roots and then later try and distance itself from that root. Take for example protestantism and catholicism.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Actually if you think about it this isn't that unlikely. You've got to remember that first century Christianity wasn't exactly homogeneous. Perhaps somebody heard the zealots preaching, believed what they were preaching, then decided that the original zealots were misguided about the parts he didn't like. He then could have gone on to start up his own group, which would later become dominant and developed Jesus as opposed to Judas.

But what I'm wondering is why would the gospels suddenly "whitewash" Jesus when they didn't "whitewash" Jesus in Revelation and why didn't they jettison the violent god of the OT like Marcion tried to if they wanted to distance themselves from a violent religion?

[Shyone]

 

 

Actually if you think about it this isn't that unlikely. You've got to remember that first century Christianity wasn't exactly homogeneous. Perhaps somebody heard the zealots preaching, believed what they were preaching, then decided that the original zealots were misguided about the parts he didn't like. He then could have gone on to start up his own group, which would later become dominant and developed Jesus as opposed to Judas.

But what I'm wondering is why would the gospels suddenly "whitewash" Jesus when they didn't "whitewash" Jesus in Revelation and why didn't they jettison the violent god of the OT like Marcion tried to if they wanted to distance themselves from a violent religion?

The keyword, perhaps is inhomogeneous. Different strokes for different audiences.

[dagnarus]

 

 

Actually if you think about it this isn't that unlikely. You've got to remember that first century Christianity wasn't exactly homogeneous. Perhaps somebody heard the zealots preaching, believed what they were preaching, then decided that the original zealots were misguided about the parts he didn't like. He then could have gone on to start up his own group, which would later become dominant and developed Jesus as opposed to Judas.

But what I'm wondering is why would the gospels suddenly "whitewash" Jesus when they didn't "whitewash" Jesus in Revelation and why didn't they jettison the violent god of the OT like Marcion tried to if they wanted to distance themselves from a violent religion?

The keyword, perhaps is inhomogeneous. Different strokes for different audiences.

Yup.

 

That and the fact is, revelation Jesus isn't really that different from gospel Jesus. Revelation says that God's going to come down and fuck up everyone on the Earth, excepting of course the faithful. That's what Gospel Jesus preaches too. He even actively cursed entire towns and intimates that all those who don't take him as king will be slaughtered. The important difference between this and the terrorist Jesus which Corky is talking about is that he preaches that the followers should sit tight and wait for God to rain fire and brimstone on the heathen, (again something not contradicted by revelation), whereas terrorist Jesus would be telling people themselves to take up arms and deal to the unrighteous.

[Corky]

 

 

Actually if you think about it this isn't that unlikely. You've got to remember that first century Christianity wasn't exactly homogeneous. Perhaps somebody heard the zealots preaching, believed what they were preaching, then decided that the original zealots were misguided about the parts he didn't like. He then could have gone on to start up his own group, which would later become dominant and developed Jesus as opposed to Judas.

But what I'm wondering is why would the gospels suddenly "whitewash" Jesus when they didn't "whitewash" Jesus in Revelation and why didn't they jettison the violent god of the OT like Marcion tried to if they wanted to distance themselves from a violent religion?

The keyword, perhaps is inhomogeneous. Different strokes for different audiences.

Yup.

 

That and the fact is, revelation Jesus isn't really that different from gospel Jesus. Revelation says that God's going to come down and fuck up everyone on the Earth, excepting of course the faithful. That's what Gospel Jesus preaches too. He even actively cursed entire towns and intimates that all those who don't take him as king will be slaughtered. The important difference between this and the terrorist Jesus which Corky is talking about is that he preaches that the followers should sit tight and wait for God to rain fire and brimstone on the heathen, (again something not contradicted by revelation), whereas terrorist Jesus would be telling people themselves to take up arms and deal to the unrighteous.

Which is what "Judas" did by preaching the restoration of the kingdom to Israel but after he gets crucified the disciples change tactics and claim that their leader has been resurrected and then have "Jesus" preaching his return from heaven to take vengence on the ungodly. Some believed the resurrection story of Jesus and went on to become the Christians. Some didn't believe the resurrection story and went on to become the Zealots. Later on, the dates of all that got moved forward to fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel and still later, the gospel stories were finally written down and Jesus/Judas was given a good whitewash. Even later, the Acts were written to whitewash the whole movement and make a good guy out of Paul the traitor.

 

By the time the book of Revelation was written, Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed. The woman, "Mystery Babylon", was Jerusalem and the beast she rode was Rome but the beast (Rome) hated the woman (Jerusalem) and destroyed her. Then immediately after she is destroyed the kingdom comes. In other words, the Christian Church is the kingdom of God finally realized. It didn't really turn out that way though, until Constantine. Later, it wasn't just the Roman Empire anymore, it was the "Holy Roman Empire" and the Roman Catholic (universal) Church was the kingdom of God on earth.

 

The Revelation wasn't a prophecy at all but a declaration in 70 - 96 AD that the kingdom had come to them, Christians were now the new restored Israel called "the kingdom of God".

[dagnarus]

Which is what "Judas" did by preaching the restoration of the kingdom to Israel but after he gets crucified the disciples change tactics and claim that their leader has been resurrected and then have "Jesus" preaching his return from heaven to take vengence on the ungodly. Some believed the resurrection story of Jesus and went on to become the Christians. Some didn't believe the resurrection story and went on to become the Zealots. Later on, the dates of all that got moved forward to fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel and still later, the gospel stories were finally written down and Jesus/Judas was given a good whitewash. Even later, the Acts were written to whitewash the whole movement and make a good guy out of Paul the traitor.

 

By the time the book of Revelation was written, Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed. The woman, "Mystery Babylon", was Jerusalem and the beast she rode was Rome but the beast (Rome) hated the woman (Jerusalem) and destroyed her. Then immediately after she is destroyed the kingdom comes. In other words, the Christian Church is the kingdom of God finally realized. It didn't really turn out that way though, until Constantine. Later, it wasn't just the Roman Empire anymore, it was the "Holy Roman Empire" and the Roman Catholic (universal) Church was the kingdom of God on earth.

 

The Revelation wasn't a prophecy at all but a declaration in 70 - 96 AD that the kingdom had come to them, Christians were now the new restored Israel called "the kingdom of God".

You see the thing is that while I have no reason believe things couldn't have gone down that way (someone more clued up about that period of history might), your not giving me any real reason to believe that is how things went down. It's one thing to show that Jesus might have been a reinterpretation of Judas, it's another entirely to actually show that he probably was. Your still firmly in the former.

[Corky]

Which is what "Judas" did by preaching the restoration of the kingdom to Israel but after he gets crucified the disciples change tactics and claim that their leader has been resurrected and then have "Jesus" preaching his return from heaven to take vengence on the ungodly. Some believed the resurrection story of Jesus and went on to become the Christians. Some didn't believe the resurrection story and went on to become the Zealots. Later on, the dates of all that got moved forward to fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel and still later, the gospel stories were finally written down and Jesus/Judas was given a good whitewash. Even later, the Acts were written to whitewash the whole movement and make a good guy out of Paul the traitor.

 

By the time the book of Revelation was written, Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed. The woman, "Mystery Babylon", was Jerusalem and the beast she rode was Rome but the beast (Rome) hated the woman (Jerusalem) and destroyed her. Then immediately after she is destroyed the kingdom comes. In other words, the Christian Church is the kingdom of God finally realized. It didn't really turn out that way though, until Constantine. Later, it wasn't just the Roman Empire anymore, it was the "Holy Roman Empire" and the Roman Catholic (universal) Church was the kingdom of God on earth.

 

The Revelation wasn't a prophecy at all but a declaration in 70 - 96 AD that the kingdom had come to them, Christians were now the new restored Israel called "the kingdom of God".

You see the thing is that while I have no reason believe things couldn't have gone down that way (someone more clued up about that period of history might), your not giving me any real reason to believe that is how things went down. It's one thing to show that Jesus might have been a reinterpretation of Judas, it's another entirely to actually show that he probably was. Your still firmly in the former.

I know, and that's the problem with that theory, plus, if it's true - every single bit of real evidence for it has been destroyed. That's where it begins to sound like a conspiracy theory (which I hate). However, the emporer Julian (Julian the apostate) said that Christianity was a complete fabrication and was wholly invented by Constantine and Eusebius.

 

The thing that gets me is that the history outside the Bible only shows one man in Israel in the first 30 years of the first century who had 3,000 - 5,000 followers (like Jesus supposedly had) was Judas of Galilee. It's not important to me if anyone believes that or not, it just seems logical to me that they are one and the same man by simple deduction.