The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

[Eloi]

Many times when the teachings of Jesus and his person are discussed, reference is made to a particular interpretation of what his words may be indicating. For example, I have read a discussion about a Jesus who denies or contradicts the Law of Moses. But that is an incorrect way of understanding Jesus, just like a political Jesus is or one who does not admit rich people among his followers, as if honest possessions were sin.

Can those who debate the teachings of Jesus at least begin to ascertain that the Jesus they suppose is the one that Scripture shows us and not an imaginary Jesus?

This topic is to analyze the need to be serious in the use of terms and premises, so that the debates adjust to the truth, and the conclusions are more accurate.

What is the Jesus you have in mind? Does it correspond to the Jesus of the Bible? Can you really know what Jesus was like?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #59]

Good points. Of course I totally reject Pilate's wife and her silly and convenient dream clumsily invented by Matthew to explain why Pilate was so intent on releasing Jesus anyway. I find it interesting that they fiddle around with this silly blasphemy charge which only is blasphemy if 'messiah' has the Christian meaning (1). To Jews, he might be a looney, or politically dangerous, but not a blasphemer. It's just more Gospel efforts to make what is the execution of a rebel into a Pauline sacrifice.

I'd say that the Proof is the invisible elephant in the room - the Temple cleansing. Why is this never even looked at by the Sanhedrin as a possible charge, especially as Pilate would know all about it? I say it is the real and actual reason why Jesus was arrested and executed and the blasphemy charge (which gets tossed out right away) is simply Christian whitewashing of the original story. And yes, like all this 'principle of embarrassment' evidence, there must be an original story they had to whitewash.

I could be quite wrong. I could be talking myself into a crazy conspiracy theory, but every blessed time a puzzle resolves it just firms up this idea that a zealot Jesus has be overpainted as a Christian Jesus - even to the (false) release custom to give the Jews a choice - the zealot insurrectionist Barrabbas or Christian Jesus. They choose the zealot and got the Temple destroyed as a punishment. I'm just saying...they say of science, make predictions and see if they pan out. I can pretty much predict how any gospel puzzle will resolve. The last one (on a former board) was 'Mark is not the original gospel'. The debate about Matthew 'Fatiguing' Mark on the death of the baptist resolved that Mark had added to the story to make it longer.

(1) Matthew gives this away with the Wise men asking about the King of the Jews. Instead of Herod worrying about a political rival, he immediately goes to OT prophecy of the messiah. It betrays that Matthew (while concocting his silly story) ascribed a Christian meaning to terms that would have had no religious connotation to Jews of the time.

[oldbadger]

Everybody seems to forget what the enemies wrote about Jesus.

Who are these enemies you are referring to and what did they write?

Tcg

Ah, I apologise,,,,, assumed that many here would have read Celcus (by Origen).
Would you like me to put up some of his writings which clearly show that he absolutely believed in Jesus, the boatmen and a couple of taxmen who followed him?

[oldbadger]

Good points. Of course I totally reject Pilate's wife and her silly and convenient dream clumsily invented by Matthew to explain why Pilate was so intent on releasing Jesus anyway. I find it interesting that they fiddle around with this silly blasphemy charge which only is blasphemy if 'messiah' has the Christian meaning (1). To Jews, he might be a looney, or politically dangerous, but not a blasphemer. It's just more Gospel efforts to make what is the execution of a rebel into a Pauline sacrifice.

OK, but I like the reference to Pilate's wife, I do.
1. It doesn't help the story or Christianity in any way. It's a neutral reference and but could show that Pilate (like so many powerful folks) was influenced....by his missus.
2 It's just another reference in a list of reasons why Pilate liked Jesus and could have arranged for either his escape of his survival.

I'd say that the Proof is the invisible elephant in the room - the Temple cleansing. Why is this never even looked at by the Sanhedrin as a possible charge, especially as Pilate would know all about it? I say it is the real and actual reason why Jesus was arrested and executed and the blasphemy charge (which gets tossed out right away) is simply Christian whitewashing of the original story. And yes, like all this 'principle of embarrassment' evidence, there must be an original story they had to whitewash.

Of course... exactly.....
1.They go in on the Sunday and recce the place (which shows that they were infrequent visitors). You could almost say that they went sightseeing (in today's terms).
2. They go in on the Monday and rip up Anna's bazaar, a massive income for the priesthood, and sacrifice sellers, another total scam. These businesses were HUGE, supplying hundreds of thousands of customers in a single (great) feast.
3. Then they form a picket line right across the Temple Courts, restricting all movement.
Who would think this is a small affray? It was a blooming riot.
4. And then on Tuesday they roll up and start doing it all again (Why are you doing these things?) ending in a huge argument for masses to witness.

What's to guess at? No wonder G-John popped all this in to a mere by-story at the beginning of his campaign....after all, he needed a holy reason for the Temple to go after him.

I could be quite wrong. I could be talking myself into a crazy conspiracy theory, but every blessed time a puzzle resolves it just firms up this idea that a zealot Jesus has be overpainted as a Christian Jesus - even to the (false) release custom to give the Jews a choice - the zealot insurrectionist Barrabbas or Christian Jesus. They choose the zealot and got the Temple destroyed as a punishment. I'm just saying...they say of science, make predictions and see if they pan out. I can pretty much predict how any gospel puzzle will resolve. The last one (on a former board) was 'Mark is not the original gospel'. The debate about Matthew 'Fatiguing' Mark on the death of the baptist resolved that Mark had added to the story to make it longer.

Oh come on.......... you are surely dead right. Christians are not much interested in the account of the riots, think I'm bonkers when I mention Jesus going to sight-see in the Temple the day before....... all showing me that they have been so focused upon their G-John that they've missed the other account. I think it's called 'hidden in plain sight'.

(1) Matthew gives this away with the Wise men asking about the King of the Jews. Instead of Herod worrying about a political rival, he immediately goes to OT prophecy of the messiah. It betrays that Matthew (while concocting his silly story) ascribed a Christian meaning to terms that would have had no religious connotation to Jews of the time.

I wouldn't worry myself with those stories...... if all the junk is swiped off the table (lots of it) then at least the remaining pieces can be perused for a real account, shadowy but real.

When I debate with Christians they sometimes ask how I can be so sure that Jesus did not die on a cross. I explain that all his friends saw him afterwards, and that thousands are claimed to have seen him afterwards, in Kashmir, or Cornwall where so many ships sailed to from Tyre and Sidon for thousands of years in the tin trade. Yep..... he lived because folks saw him, and since I don't believe in resurrections from death that one is easy.

[brunumb]

Ah, I apologise,,,,, assumed that many here would have read Celcus (by Origen).

Is that the same as Celsus?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #63]


Well, I love the Shekel eating fish, butb I don't believe it.

In the Gospel account, in Capernaum the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax ask Peter whether Jesus pays the tax, and he replies "Yes". When Peter returns to where they are staying, Jesus speaks of the matter, asking his opinion: "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?" Peter answers, "from others," and Jesus replies: "Then the children are exempt. But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Analysis
The story ends at this point, without stating that Peter caught the fish as Jesus predicted.[4]
This may be the only time Jesus performed a miracle in order to avoid offending people (in this case, those who collected the two-drachma temple tax[citation needed]).
The four-drachma (or shekel) coin would be exactly enough to pay the temple tax (two-drachma coin) for two people.[5] It is usually thought to be a Tyrian shekel.[6][7]
The coin in the fish's mouth is generally seen as a symbolic act or sign, but there is little agreement concerning what it signifies.[4]
The Bible does not specify the species of the fish caught by Peter, but tilapia is sometimes referred to as "St. Peter's fish".[Wiki]

Apparently the 'John Dory' of Lake Galilee has a mark on supposed to be Peter's thumb=print. Which could be an evolved protection device, like the Samurai crabs in Japan. Fishermen piously throw them back so the critters evolved the camouflage to escape being eaten.

However, I'll mention an old polemical book I have that hopefully suggests that the Galilee Tilapia had a mouth just the right size to take a shekel. Like that proved the story true.

But I reckon I know what the point of the story (Matthew 17.24) is. It is to excuse the obligation on Christians to pay the temple tax, which I gather was still imposed on Jews even after the Temple was destroyed. It is likened to any kind of tax. Who pays it? The King's children or others? Thus the son of God does not need to pay the temple tax and neither do those who follow Jesus. However (Matthew writes) Jesus in order to avoid trouble, does pay the tax for himself and Peter, but I suppose to make it more removed from caving in and paying up despite saying he didn't have to, it is turned into a miracle. it doesn't entirely make sense and is all a bit silly, but Matthew is not in fact the sharpest knife in the Biblical Box.

[oldbadger]

Ah, I apologise,,,,, assumed that many here would have read Celcus (by Origen).

Is that the same as Celsus?

Hooray! A bite! ........... although I had to write it twice........
Indeed........ your actual Celsus.
And so, do you acknowledge that Celsus wrote about a real Jesus........ and boatmen and tax men?

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #63]


Well, I love the Shekel eating fish, butb I don't believe it.

In the Gospel account, in Capernaum the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax ask Peter whether Jesus pays the tax, and he replies "Yes". When Peter returns to where they are staying, Jesus speaks of the matter, asking his opinion: "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?" Peter answers, "from others," and Jesus replies: "Then the children are exempt. But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Analysis
The story ends at this point, without stating that Peter caught the fish as Jesus predicted.[4]
This may be the only time Jesus performed a miracle in order to avoid offending people (in this case, those who collected the two-drachma temple tax[citation needed]).
The four-drachma (or shekel) coin would be exactly enough to pay the temple tax (two-drachma coin) for two people.[5] It is usually thought to be a Tyrian shekel.[6][7]
The coin in the fish's mouth is generally seen as a symbolic act or sign, but there is little agreement concerning what it signifies.[4]
The Bible does not specify the species of the fish caught by Peter, but tilapia is sometimes referred to as "St. Peter's fish".[Wiki]

Apparently the 'John Dory' of Lake Galilee has a mark on supposed to be Peter's thumb=print. Which could be an evolved protection device, like the Samurai crabs in Japan. Fishermen piously throw them back so the critters evolved the camouflage to escape being eaten.

However, I'll mention an old polemical book I have that hopefully suggests that the Galilee Tilapia had a mouth just the right size to take a shekel. Like that proved the story true.

But I reckon I know what the point of the story (Matthew 17.24) is. It is to excuse the obligation on Christians to pay the temple tax, which I gather was still imposed on Jews even after the Temple was destroyed. It is likened to any kind of tax. Who pays it? The King's children or others? Thus the son of God does not need to pay the temple tax and neither do those who follow Jesus. However (Matthew writes) Jesus in order to avoid trouble, does pay the tax for himself and Peter, but I suppose to make it more removed from caving in and paying up despite saying he didn't have to, it is turned into a miracle. it doesn't entirely make sense and is all a bit silly, but Matthew is not in fact the sharpest knife in the Biblical Box.

Two Drachma Temple tax...... that's very interesting. I've not read that before.
A drachma was a Greek coin, wasn't it? The Northern provinces may have seen them, for sure. A list of coinage used by Jews throughout Palestine and Syria in early 1st century Galilee would be very interesting to peruse, I think. Hence Anna's Bazaar.
A Denarius was almost the same diameter as a Temple shekel and about half the thickness, are you figuring that a drachma was a similar weight to the denarius?
I can perceive that story as being genuine, in as much as Jesus could have told Cephas, 'Hey, so go catch a fish and pay the tax! a kind of 'big deal' response which Christianity just had to build in to another miracle.

By the way, I've never figured out whether the Temple shekel weighed half a shekel, the Temple Head tax........ it must have done and numismatists have simply called it the 'Temple Shekel' in recent times.

Anyway....... I don't think that Matthew 17:24 is referring to the Temple Tax, but the local taxation and licensing fees for boatmen and boats upon the lake, handled by publicans under a Taxation Official...... under Herod Antipas's authority..... can you help with this? But maybe Christians did spin the 'We don't have to pay the shekel' line from that story.

On the side: I don't think that coin shown to Jesus on the Tuesday in the Temple was a denarius, I think it was a shekel:-
1. Who got near enough to see the coin being held?
2. Both denarius and shekel were similar diameter and would have looked similar at any distance.
3. It was the shekel that Jesus (and the people) would have hated....
4. Graven image on the reverse........ not good.
5. Caesar's abbreviation in Greek letters on the reverse......... not good.
6. The image of Mengarth Heracles on the obverse...... (Baal to the Jews?) ....what an outrage! And looking very like a Caesar's image.

Whose inscription and image? Ha ha! That priest must have just about defecated himself; and Christianity just missed the real story.

Anyway...... back to the lake, I rather think that the coin in fish's mouth might have been a genuine conversation twisted in to a miracle which happened a few times in the gospels....somewhat.......

[Goat]

I'm still willing to credit that there is a basic story there. Indeed a discussion (on my former board) of the 'James' reference in Josephus 'Antiquities' suggested that priestly power struggles might make the framing of Jesus by the Sanhedrin more credible. Though it might also be an event the Christian borrowed to construct his tall tale. Just as Philo's madman mocked as a king in public sounds uncannily like the mockery of Jesus. Still. If it is true at base, I'm quite sure that Jesus and Barabbas being the same person, the insurrection of Barrabbas being the 'Pilate shedding the blood of the Galileans' event, and that being connected with the temple cleansing and of course Jesus being executed on the charge of insurrection, really, not that absurd blasphemy charge, convinces me that, IF any of it is true, it has to be Jesus (like the Baptist) being on a zealot mission, not the Christian overpainting done after Paul had reinvented the messianic Judaism of the disciples.

Just to point several things out. THe James reference in Josephus is quite often disputed as being genuine. There are a number of people who think it's a copiers gloss.


The 'Barabbas' being the same as Jesus is not unreasonable, since barabbas literally means 'son of the father'. It does show it's a story, not history in that case.

[Difflugia]

Ah, I apologise,,,,, assumed that many here would have read Celcus (by Origen).
Would you like me to put up some of his writings which clearly show that he absolutely believed in Jesus, the boatmen and a couple of taxmen who followed him?

And so, do you acknowledge that Celsus wrote about a real Jesus........ and boatmen and tax men?

Do you acknowledge that you're overinterpreting Contra Celsum?

Here's what Origen said about what Celsus said, which would have been polite of you to quote yourself if you wanted it to be part of your argument:

But how can this Jew of Celsus escape the charge of falsehood, when he says that Jesus, "when on earth, gained over to himself only ten sailors and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not even the whole of these?"

If Origen is accurately representing what Celsus wrote, it looks like Celsus believed what his sources told him. We already knew that at least some Christians of the late second century treated the Gospels and Acts as literal history of a literal Jesus, so Celsus trusting a second-hand account of what contemporary Christians believed it is neither new information nor some sort of independent confirmation that those beliefs are true.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm still willing to credit that there is a basic story there. Indeed a discussion (on my former board) of the 'James' reference in Josephus 'Antiquities' suggested that priestly power struggles might make the framing of Jesus by the Sanhedrin more credible. Though it might also be an event the Christian borrowed to construct his tall tale. Just as Philo's madman mocked as a king in public sounds uncannily like the mockery of Jesus. Still. If it is true at base, I'm quite sure that Jesus and Barabbas being the same person, the insurrection of Barrabbas being the 'Pilate shedding the blood of the Galileans' event, and that being connected with the temple cleansing and of course Jesus being executed on the charge of insurrection, really, not that absurd blasphemy charge, convinces me that, IF any of it is true, it has to be Jesus (like the Baptist) being on a zealot mission, not the Christian overpainting done after Paul had reinvented the messianic Judaism of the disciples.

Just to point several things out. THe James reference in Josephus is quite often disputed as being genuine. There are a number of people who think it's a copiers gloss.


The 'Barabbas' being the same as Jesus is not unreasonable, since barabbas literally means 'son of the father'. It does show it's a story, not history in that case.

I think the James story is true. But I think it has been glossed by a Christian edit to make this James the brother of Jesus of the gospels. I reckon It is James brother of Jesus but both are sons of Damnaeus and neither are actually to do with gospel Jesus and James. That said, the story shows that there was (as is known) an ongoing struggle between the Sadducee Boethus clan (to which Annas and Caiaphas belonged) and rivals, which are reckoned to be Pharisees. I noted in a previous debate about then early years of Archelaus as ruler that while he was in Rome getting his kingship confirmed, there seemed to be a lot of infighting between various priests, Joazar being ejected and then reinstated, which is what the James story shows. As I recall one son of Damnaeus was eliminated by the Sadducees while the governor was absent and when the new governor arrived he overturned this and appointed the brother (either James or Jesus bar Damnaeus). So IF there is a basis to the Jesus bar Joseph story, power struggles might shed some light on the involvement of the Sanhedrin.

Barabbas is not that far from Bar Abba or son of God. Given that no Passover release custom is known, and the many hints of an element of rebellion pasted over to disguise it, the idea I have of making the Jews choose the zealot Jesus and take the blame (getting Rome of the hook) for killing the Christian Jesus (and the gospel has many hints of the sack of Jerusalem and the temple because they would not accept Jesus) it all adds up, from my view anyway.