Jesus was not a Christian

[paarsurrey1]

Jesus was a Jew and he did not start a new religion called Christianity. Christianity was started by Paul and the Church. Right, please?
Regards

[William]

[Replying to post 140 by Willum]

Temporarily, at least, let's make the assumption: Jesus was or was not real, but there is no divinity associated with him.

So now you want to say that Jesus was not Roman fiction?

He cannot be both can he?

So why not go back to the original goalposts of your statement "but this is simply definitive proof Jesus was Roman fiction" and agree that if that is the case, Jesus was not anything?

It doesn't change the 'why did Romans create the fiction' related to your wee list, as a possible answer:

"Do unto others..." Good order and discipline - the function of Government. (Luke 6)
"All of you must obey those who rule over you." Obey Government (Romans 13)
"Render to Caesar..." Pay your taxes, necessary for a Government to function (Matt 22)

For what reason, is it obvious - elitist invention for elitist agenda.

Now what too look for? How about any connection with Roman belief systems and the idea of a Fatherly GOD?

How about beliefs to do with afterlife involving some type of place resembling the notion of hell?

Virgin births?

etc...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 141 by William]

How about any connection with Roman belief systems and the idea of a Fatherly GOD?

Zeus, the original fatherly God.

How about beliefs to do with afterlife involving some type of place resembling the notion of hell?

Elysium, Tartarus.

Virgin birth

Dionysus, Helen, etc.. There are lot's of immaculate conceptions in myth. Including Jezeus.

So now you want to say that Jesus was not Roman fiction?

No, I wanted to demonstrate, given either option, the result is the same.

It is rather fatuous to focus on the simplifying assumption. I guess you don't have a better rebuttal?

Now that the trivium is out of the way.

You missed the concept that Jesus could be complete fiction or be a shill, equally. and it doesn't affect the outcome.

I know, difficult for someone to follow - especially if they wish to change the subject, but the question was, what is Jesus' terrestrial message.

Obey government.
Pay government taxes.
Don't disrupt the peace.

Is there any other, that can be proven?

[William]

[Replying to post 142 by Willum]

You missed the concept that Jesus could be complete fiction or be a shill, equally. and it doesn't affect the outcome.

I did no such thing.

What I also did not miss was the OP question "Jesus was not a Christian' or you own position on this as being 'Jesus was a Christian' and you subsequent recent claim that 'Jesus was Roman fiction'.

I simply pointed out that if Jesus is indeed Roman fiction, he cannot be said to be 'Christian' or 'Jew' or 'whatever'.

It is a pointless claim, as far as I can tell.

Moving the goal-posts in order to say that either way, this = 'Jesus was a Christian' (in relation to outcome) seems rather superficial.

I don't know if you have been asked already, but ;

Q: Why is it so important to you that Jesus is identified as a 'Christian'?

.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 143 by William]

No, you answer my two assertions first.

[Assertion pack 1]

[Assertion pack 2]

I've been polite enough, and as a result had to answer your segues.
It is your turn.

[William]

[Replying to post 144 by Willum]

No, you answer my two assertions first.

[Assertion pack 1]

What is there to 'answer'? Do you want me to agree or disagree?
I am still working on the details but if you want my understanding of Christianity you can read up on that in the following link.

Christianity - a political device created for a specific purpose.

[Assertion pack 2]

My understanding here is that Romans did not do anything unless they saw necessity therein.
There seems to be evidence that this new thing coming from the Jewish sector was seen as a serious enough threat to the Roman way of doing things and those doing them were called 'Christians' in a derogatory way which would suggest that those participating in this perceived threat did not refer to themselves as 'Christians'.

It is possible that they were practicing living in a manner which cut out the middle man whereas they did not use Roman money and thus did not need to pay tax and Rome took umbrage at that and thus 'persecution'.

The persecution only made the new movement that much more popular by those who saw Roman reaction as a sign that what they were doing could effectively undermine Roman rule and free people from the 'middle man' of Roman rule altogether.

Rome began to see that the cost involved in trying to force this movement to comply was counter productive so the Romans came up with a plan in which they would infiltrate under the guise of 'adopting' the new movement, and in doing so they could steer the movement back under the command of their regime, acting as the middle man and getting people to understand the principle of GOD requiring them to pay taxes and do things the way Rome ordered.

In this they also de-stigmatized the derogatory name used for members of that new movement and 'Christian' became a respectable label endorsed by Roman authority, even to the point of making it THE very thing which identified Rome as representative of the idea of The Christ.

In relation to whoever it was who begat the original movement, 'Jesus' is the Romanized version and I would say with confidence that not all of that individuals words would have been removed by Rome, but rather just added to and tweaked in such a way that confusion would prevail whereby new 'interpreters' could avail themselves to explain said confusion by bringing things in line with the way Rome wanted people to think.

Q: Why is it so important to you that Jesus is identified as a 'Christian'?

[dio9]

[Replying to paarsurrey1]

one thing is clear, Jewish sensibility can not accept Jesus as God in the flesh. So if Jesus was and remained a Jew he could not have thought of himself as God incarnate. Its just not Jewish.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 146 by dio9]

I must agree with you there, indeed that is another way of looking at divine genes dominating mortal ones, isn't it?
If Jesus thought he was the son of God, he couldn't believe he was Jewish.
Of course if he were mortal. and the son of Panderia, he was accursed (Deuteronomy) and not Jewish either.

Quelle dilemma for those who would believe it one way.

[Replying to post 145 by William]

Thank you. Well said. The only note is that the coins, according to the Bible, had (the divine) Caesar's image on them.

I am afraid I am so very used to people who debate by segues, I lumped you in with them... apologies.

To answer your question - I don't even believe Jesus was anything other than a literary fiction created hundreds of years after he was supposedly walking around...
It just fits the data.

[William]

[Replying to post 147 by Willum]

Q: Why is it so important to you that Jesus is identified as a 'Christian'?

To answer your question - I don't even believe Jesus was anything other than a literary fiction created hundreds of years after he was supposedly walking around...
It just fits the data.

Q: What data? Please expand on your answer.

The only note is that the coins, according to the Bible, had (the divine) Caesar's image on them.

I have not read that in the bible. What I have read per the verses recently posted was that the coin had Caesar's image on them - not that the image was considered by those involved in the interaction, to being 'divine'.
As I said, it was a matter of ownership, as far as how the story comes across.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 148 by William]

Mark 12:16

They brought the coin, and he asked them, "Whose image is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied.

What data? the almost complete lack of data - except for the Bible.
No biography of Lazarus, for example, who had something worth reading, if only he existed. Nothing except fiction.

Here's a tribute penny, even rudimentary Latin should allow anyone to read the Latin proclaiming the divinity of Caesar. That is the goddess Pax on the obverse.

[William]

[Replying to post 149 by Willum]

The denarius has been commonly identified as the tribute penny held by Jesus in the Render unto Caesar passage Matthew 22:15-22 and Mark 12:13-17.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius#Use_in_the_Bible

Googled "Who was the Roman Emperor in Jesus' time"
Answer:

Tiberius (Latin: Tiberius Caesar Dv August Flius Augustus; 16 November 42 BC " 16 March AD 37) was a Roman emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD. Born Tiberius Claudius Nero, a Claudian, Tiberius was the son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and Livia Drusilla.

Googled:'What language in inscribed on the Denarius?'

The Greek text uses the word d"narion,[1] and it is usually thought that the coin was a Roman denarius with the head of Tiberius. It is this coin that is sold and collected as the "tribute penny," and the Gospel story is an important factor in making this coin attractive to collectors.[2] The inscription reads Ti[berivs] Caesar Divi Avg[vsti] F[ilivs] Avgvstvs (Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus), claiming that Augustus was a god. The reverse shows a seated female, usually identified as Livia depicted as Pax.[3]
However, it has been suggested that denarii were not in common circulation in Judaea during Jesus' lifetime and that the coin may have instead been an Antiochan tetradrachm bearing the head of Tiberius, with Augustus on the reverse.[4] Another suggestion often made is the denarius of Augustus with Gaius and Lucius on the reverse, while coins of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Germanicus are all considered possibilities.[5]

Googled: 'Livia'

Livia (58 B.C.-29 A.D.) was an influential consort of Augustus, architect of the Roman Empire, who was depicted in imperial propaganda as the embodiment of womanliness and dedication, while her enemies believed her to be a ruthless seeker of power.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/hist ... tory-rome-

biographies/empress-rome-livia

In relation to the story, it is about 'the chief priests and scribes, together with the elders,' coming to him with a coin and asking if they should pay taxes.

Paying Taxes to Caesar
(Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17)

19 When the scribes and chief priests realized that Jesus had spoken this parable against them, they sought to arrest Him that very hour. But they were afraid of the people.

20 So they watched Him closely and sent spies who pretended to be sincere. They were hoping to catch Him in His words in order to hand Him over to the rule and authority of the governor. 21 Teacher, they inquired, we know that You speak and teach correctly. You show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?

It seems to me that the priests used Roman coin. They were asking whether is was lawful in relation to " we know that You speak and teach correctly. You show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. " thus they were asking the question in relation to the Jewish idea of GODs laws, because Roman law would say that it was unlawful NOT to pay taxes.

That is why the teacher answered as he did. Which I paraphrase as "You use the money so pay the taxes according to Roman law. In relation to GODs law, obey that."

There is no mention of breaking the Jewish GODs laws in relation to using the money in the first place. Rome ruled, - Palestine was occupied - and there is no mention as to how Jews were able to live under that rule without using Roman money.

Indeed, as far as the story goes:

Googled: 'Who paid Judas' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_pieces_of_silver

Thirty pieces of silver...the deal was made between Judas and the chief priests. Apparently Roman currency (no surprises there) and thus most likely when Rome occupied other peoples lands, Rome forced those people to use Roman money and to pay tax through the use of.

I think it safe to assume that even Romans proclaiming to be gods and goddesses would be seen by Jews to be a lie - even blasphemy - but apparently this did not prevent them from using Roman coinage, assuming they even had a choice.

Explaining this - if it was actually against the law of the Jewish GOD, is not my department.