Was Jesus just following an existing myth?

With elbows together.

Hardly news as Jesus was supposed to be the one to fulfill the Jewish Messianic belief.

Only in the dream fantasies of revolutionary Jews then in Christ's day and today who refuse to accept Christ as the Messiah.   

 

Actually it was the traditional Jewish people who had a problem with it.

How then would you define "traditional" Jew?

Speaking from a religious or biblical sense, I always thought of the "traditional" Jews as the Israelites...Abraham, Moses, Isaias, etc.

When you think about it, didn't the coming of Christ change Jewish identity forever? From the time of Christ and particularly after 70 AD, the terms "Israelite" and "Jews" were no longer synonymous.

From then on there were no more Israelites only those Jews who either accept Christ as the Messiah or those who in effect create a new identify for themselves insofar as they want to remain "Jews" reject Christ....thus, when I use the term "revolutionary" Jew, I mean the one who shows systematic hostility or rejection of Christ as the Messiah.

And that pretty much makes you wrong. Those who accepted that Jesus was the Messiah would be considered Christians from our modern perspective, but those who did not were hardly revolutionaries in their day. Those who became what we now call Christians were the revolutionaries in the Jewish faith.

Your misuse of language is guided by your faith but that doesn't make it accurate. You need to learn how to communicate to those outside of your narrow field of vision.

Whoa, Sodiaho! Looks like you've forked some lightning with this one.   

The book I vaguely pointed to was entitled "The Passover Plot" and suggested that Jesus deliberatly acted out the prosphesies so that he would be thought of as the Messiah, including giving himself a drug to make him appear dead only to later be "resurrected".  Fanciful. Still, this tablet that my referenced article talks about, pretty much suggests that there was a ressurection myth going atround a century before Jesus was born. We must remember tht in the context of the times of Jesus the people were desperate to find a way to get out from under the despotism. The messiah wasn't a "personal" savior so much as a rebel leader who world save the people from despair.  See ya.

That is/was the generally accepted image of the Jewish Messiah.

As for the book, fanciful is a word for it. Those who despise Christianity have offered up such sorts of stories for centuries.

I don't know if its so much despising Christianity as it is trying to make sense out of the mythos, while at the same time deflating and deflecting those who hold Jesus up to be something he was not, God.

 

Be well.

MasonM posts:

First, keep in mind that a revolution is usually thought of as a threat of subversion from within and it's in this context that I use the words, “revolution” and “revolutionary”.

Second, in this sense, it's Jews, and not Christians, who were/are the revolutionaries. Rather than revolutionizing “the Jewish faith” (Hebraic Judaism), the New and Everlasting Covenant in Christ’s Blood, known as Christianity, fulfilled it.

The beginning of the New Covenant in the Blood of Christ meant the end of the Old Covenant religion (what you call the Jewish faith). At the moment of the Crucifixion, when the Temple veil was rent from top to bottom, Almighty God was making it known that the ceremonies of the ancient law were to be abolished by Christ and that Heaven was open to all. Worse they bring a curse upon those who obstinately cling to them. Galatians 3:10.

Third, your saying that the early Jewish Christians were the revolutionaries in the Jewish faith doesn't make sense because once Christ, God Incarnate, came to earth and died on the Cross, there was no Jewish (Hebraic) faith for the early Jewish Christians to be revolutionaries of. The religion of the Old Covenant, its rabbinical rituals and laws had been abolished, now count for nothing, confer no grace, and save no one.

Those who accepted Christ as the Messiah were considered Christians back in the first century. I think it was 107AD when St.Ignatius going through the town of Smynra first used the name, Christians.




I disagree.

The Jews were God’s chosen people. After being prophesized for hundreds of years, Christ arrived on earth as their long awaited Messiah, and the Jews had to make a monumental decision when Pilate asked them, “Shall I crucify your King”? The chief priests unanimously answered, “We have no king but Caesar.”

This was the revolutionary moment of decision for the Jewish leaders. By the loud and bold declaration, “We (the Jewish people) have no king but Caesar”, the decision was made. By this public proclamation, the heads of the Jewish nation and the official guardians and exponents of the Jewish religion officially merge and incorporate their nation into the pagan empire of Rome. At that moment, they surrendered all their messianic hopes and prophetic promises. Renouncing the honor of being the chosen people of God, they become the vassals of the Roman Emperors.

It’s the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jacob, the complete departure of the scepter from Juda Gen. 49:10. In order to have Christ put to death, these revlutionaries give themselves to Caesar and Caesar before long (within "that same generation") will besiege Jerusalem, destroy the Temple altogether and massacre them, on an anniversary of this paschal festivity.

The Jews had either to accept or reject Christ, who was, so Christians believe, the physical embodiment of God Himself. When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected God which includes His social order, they became revolutionaries. So the revolutionary Jew is one whose core belief is a rejection of Jesus Christ as King and Messiah.

As I said before, the coming of Christ changed the Jewish identity forever. If you read the Gospels, you’ll see the Jews, confronted by Christ proclaiming Himself the Messiah, define both themselves and their religion. What used to refer to the chosen people now refers to those who reject Christ…or what I call …the revolutionary Jew.

Sodiaho posts:


MasonM posts:

I agree.

This wasn't the first and won't be the last "fanciful" stories conjured up about Christ. In the 1st century, Jewish leaders spread lies about Christ that He was the son of a magician executed on the eve of the Passover for causing the people to apostacize…and then the one that Christ was the bastard son of a hairdresser named Miriam, who learned magic and then seduced people as the false prophet.

There were many hippie groups like Jesus' in Israel at the time. Watch "The Life of Brian", it's a surprisingly accurate portrayal of Israel around 30 CE.

There were lots of little extremist groups, lots of groups who thought they found a Messiah, lots of people who thought they were the Messiah, and several people who came closer to doing what the Messiah was thought to do than Jesus.

There were also many Jewish rebel groups at the time, fighting each other and the Romans. It was a big mess.

What made Jesus special, historically, was the fact that his followers, after his death, decided to evangelise non-Jews as well and the fact that Rome eventually took over the religion, making a Jewish sect into a new religion that specifically rejects Jewish traditions held in common by Jews and Samaritans and other followers of Jewish and related religions.

As opposed to the Christian story that Jesus was the son of Mary ("Miriam" in Hebrew), who was not the son of Mary's husband, was endowed with the ability to do miracles and then worked as a freelance prophet later in his life?

Yeah, I can see how the Jews had to lie to make up that story.

 

Sodaiho posts:

Yes, MasonM called it like it is…..despising Christianity. Christ is the dividing line...one either hates Him or loves Him, is either with Him or against Him.



As we have seen from Christ’s day forward until the end of time, there will be insults, persecution, hatred, including barbs like this of Leauki's, as well as other attempts to deflate and deflect those like me who believe and defend that Jesus Christ is who He said He is....namely, Almighty God.

Wasn't it Tennyson who said that Christ's personality was His greatest miracle or something like that? Who do you know besides Christ that men have died for not just then, or today, but forever more?

In claiming that "We have no king, but Caesar", the Jews committed themselves to a political arena where they would actively manifest their rejection of Christ. Messianic hope would be transferred from the spiritual to the political arena.

The decision was made...Our king is the bottom line: profit, prestige, financial gain, security in this world's terms, etc. People of all ages have to make the decision: Shall I follow Christ or someone or something else? About a year before His death, Christ spoke of Himself as the Bread of Life and some of the disciples found this saying too "hard". They left Him and Christ turned to the Twelve and said, Do you want to leave? This is a very personal decision.

I willingly and freely acknowledge that “We have no King, but Christ.” “As the Lord liveth, and as my Lord the King liveth: in what place soever Thou shalt be, my Lord, O King, either in death or in life, there will Thy servant be!” 2 Kings 15:21.

“I will extol Thee, God, my King! And I will bless Thy name forever, yea. Forever and ever! Every day I will bless Thee. And I will praise Thy name forever.” Psalm 144:1-2.

“I will give glory to Thee, O Lord, O King, and I will praise Thee, O God my Saviour.” Ecclesiasticus 51:1.

I do agree with you lulapilgrim that the play in question is anti-christian, however not all people who are not with Jesus are against him. Some of us find the amount of anti-christianity out there to be disturbing... hey if the left can take your churches down anyone else is fair game next.

SODAIHO POSTS:

The Old Testament is replete with prophecies of a coming Messiah. Only Christ fulfills every one of these prophecies to a “T”. Daniel’s “Son of man” was going to bring deliverance from oppression and a kingdom without end. All of these prophecies including Daniel’s reached culmination in Christ. Christ’s Birth, Death and Resurrection inaugurated the Messianic kingdom (the Church) which will last forever. Christ came to save the Jews, but many of the Jews refused to recognize Him preferring a powerful, military leader to a spiritual one.

Rabbi Trypho concedes that according to Scripture the Messiah must suffer, but the idea that Christ would suffer and die on the Cross as He did is disgusting to the Jews. All the rabbis, including Maimonides 1000 years later, wanted a great and glorious carnal Messiah.

There rejection of the true Messiah lead the Jews to be even more receptive of false Messiahs like Simon bar Kokhba, who led the Jews to their destruction in 135AD by evoking their messianic politics and exploiting this dream.

Based on passages in the Talmud, they revile Christ. I think Justin Martyr knew what he was talking about when he wrote in his Dialogue, “this obdurate blindness is going to last for a long time.” There is no end to Jewish animus against Christ and Christianity. Instead of armed resurrection as in the day of bar Kokhba, the Jews turn to promoting heresy like this one Sodaiho has cited in his article. Thankfully, we don’t need to re-invent the wheel for Origen has already provided an answer. He wrote that “the hatred of the Jews for Christ extended beyond the grave, for they bribed the soldiers to deny the resurrection of Christ.” According to Origen, the revolutionary Jew was born when the Jews chose Barabbas in place of Christ and “it is he who holds sway over them in their unbelief.”

Chadwbaker,

You raise an excellent point.   

Source: the Talmud, a book known for its blasphemies against Christ written by rabbis, all rejectors of Christ, practicing the Judaism after the coming of Christ whose rites are vain and useless.



Source: God as the Principal Author of Sacred Scripture who inspired the human writers.

LEAUKI POSTS:

Considering the sources for each, I don't have the slightest trouble knowing which one is truth and which one is lie.

That was your story about the Jews and Jesus, not mine.

You want to talk insults, persecution, and hatred? Look at what Christians have done to Jews in the past. There's your insults, persecution, and hatred.

Yes, that's not current Christians. But then current Christians shouldn't complain about being persecuted by Jews either.




Is that supposed to be one of those insults you were talking about?

Either way, here's the simple truth:

The story that Jesus' father was not Joseph, the husband of Miriam's is a Christian invention, as is the idea that Jesus was more than just a man.

What you have read as a story the Jews "made up", was simply that story in other words. That's what a "bastard" who claims to be a "prophet" is. If you don't like it, don't be a Christian.

The Jews who made up that story were the early Christians.

The Romans blamed the Jews for killing Jesus, even though it was the Romans who did it; and now Christians blame Jews for making up the story that Jesus was a "bastard" and a self-proclaimed "prophet", even though it was Christians who made up that legend.

I can tell you here and now that _I_ don't believe that Jesus was a bastard. As far as I know he was an off-spring of the family of David and I have no doubt that his mother's husband was his father.

I can also tell you that _I_ don't believe that he was a self-proclaimed prophet. As far as I know he was a rabbi and a bit of a hippie.

And I can tell you that I don't believe that Jesus had any kind of magic or godly powers.

That's pretty much the view Judaism has of Jesus. So please don't tell us that Jews made claims about Jesus being a "bastard" or learned "magic" or was a "false prophet", because that's simply not something (non-Christian) Jews ever say about him.

And while we are at it: Why don't you stop claiming that certain Jewish rabbis are gods?



Have you read the Talmud? The "source" for Jesus being a "bastard" is Christian faith. It was Christians who claimed that Mary's husbands was not Jesus' father. Traditional Jews would NEVER make a claim like that about another Jewish family.

Incidentally, your allegation about Jesus in the Talmud is an anti-semitic lie.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Why do you continue to make statements about writings you haven't read? First there was your (and KFC's) long explanation of how the Bible said something you wanted it to say, based on not the Bible's actual text but words in the English translation that don't exist in Hebrew (like "our"), and now there is your "knowledge" of the Talmud.

Perhaps you should really learn something about Judaism and Biblical Hebrew (and Mishnaic Hebrew, if you want to study Talmud).

To understand Christianity better a study of Judaism might be helpful, just as I try to understand Judaism better by studying all Semitic legends. Or is that too inconvenient?

I'll give you a head start: "Talmud" means "that which is to be learned". It is based on the root LMD which means "study" or "learn". Thence derive "lilmod" ("to learn") and "talmid" ("student"). Arabic for "student" is "talib". The Talmud are commentaries on the Bible based on the Oral Torah, the parts of the Bible that were not originally written down. The Oral Torah framework has existed for as long as the Torah.

If you want to understand Christianity better, I suggest you find out why Christianity rejects the Oral Torah (and why stories are made up about the Talmud as if to keep people away from studying it).

Now, I did find references to Jesus mentioned in the Talmud via Google. One top result was an essay of David Duke's. Another one was this excellent bit:

http://watch.pair.com/HRChrist.html

I love it. It contains the same linguistic leaps one finds so often in "Christian" anti-Jewish writings:



"Jesus" is indeed Greek, but it doesn't mean "savior". ("Christ" does, I think.) "Jesus" is simply the Greek version of the Hebrew name "Yehoshua" (YHVW3, "W" is a Shin, "3" is an Ayin), like "Moses" is the Greek version of Hebrew "Moshe" (MWH).

"Yehoshua" does not mean "may his name be blotted out" (Hebrew for name is "shem" and doesn't appear in "Yehoshua"). "Yehoshua" means "G-d is salvation" (or something along the lines), with the first part being God-s' name and the second being "Yishua" (YW3H, "salvation").

It's amazing the wealth of anti-Semitic lies I find whenever I google for some "fact" you or KFC come up with. It truly is.

Do you understand now why I so often put the word "Christian" in quotes when I refer to the faith as you describe it?

It's obvious, isn't it? Even when the stories told are the same...

Something to think about:

"Yehoshua" in Hebrew is spelt YHVW3.

Y is Yud, basically an English "y" (both consonant and vowel).

H is He, like English "h".

V is Vav, like English "v", "w", "u", and "o" (depends on context).

W is Shin, like English "sh". It is sometimes pronounced /s/.

3 is Ayin, like no English sound. It's difficult to pronounce (for English-speakers certainly). At the end of a word, it also means that it is surrounded by two vowels (here /u/ and /a/).

How exactly would you abbreviate "Jeshua" to "Jeshu" given the spelling?

Interesting discussion, as always. 

I want to ask a question.  Is it, from a Christian perspective, considered disparaging of Christianity to deny the divinity of Jesus? From my POV as a Jew it is not.

I consider much of what Lula has said about Judaism insulting and demeaning.  She constantly disparages the rabbinic sages, the Talmud, and other non-Christian sources. Of course she has not studied Talmud, that would take years and a great deal of patience.  Much of the "anti-Christian flavor of Jewish writing regards Christianity (of which there isn't a whole lot) is defensive against anti-semitic Christian attacks. Jews were attacked since Christianity was born for the crime of not accepting the divinity of Jesus. The thing is, in the United States, there is no state religion so all religious points of view should be respected and none enforced or funded by the government.  As I see it, it is Christians who are constantly trying to stuff their POV down other people's throats with blue laws, school prayer, publicly funded displays of Christian theology, etc. The minute someone objects they are branded as "anti-Christian". 

Be well.   

 

 

Yes. That is quite noticeable.

It seems to me that she is not interested in learning more about god if the information wasn't made up in America.

Hey, I proposed teaching Hindu mythology in state schools, but she was against it.

She is anti-Hindu, like the atheists!

Pretty sure Jesus was predicted before he came. Yep. Not really big news here.

Pretty sure he DID know exactly what he was supposed to do to be the Messiah.

Pretty sure, since He had to be divine to do it, He was the only one who COULD possibly do it. You couldn't, even if you really really wanted to. Neither could anyone else.

So if Jesus took a potion to make himself appear dead for three days, who rolled the stone away? How did he actually die? How did he fake ascending to heaven?