Jesus logically explained

[Willum]

The premise of this OP is to explore taking the idea that Jesus was sent to save the Jews, literally.

One of the things you should know is that the bit of Jerusalem under discussion was a theocracy, ruled by those educated in Judaic law of the time (not what we know today). They ruled over people who were not allowed to see this law, so that the theocrats could rule more easily.

Judea was also this way, somewhat, under Rome. Though Rome employed its ultimate veto.

So, Rome fought in the region, those "evil" creatures known as the Canaan, who were really the Ba-el worshiping folks, the Seleucids. Rome replaced the Seleucid with the Sadducee, who also worshiped Ba-El.

When the Sadducee got rebellious, Rome took advantage of the ignorance perpetrated by the theocracy to replace them with the Pharisee, whose religion was like Christianity in beliefs, EXCEPT CHRIST HAD NOT COME... yet.

When, about 100 years later, the Pharisee got feisty, and started to rebel against Rome, Rome either physically or philosophically sent Jesus to save Jerusalem. In other words, they made the religion come true.

Here is how:
Jesus said to "Render to Caesar..."
He said to obey Rome.
He said to not molest tax collectors.
He said not to disturb public peace.

To follow Jesus would save Jerusalem.
But save it from what?

I propose it would have saved Jerusalem from the Diaspora and death that accompanied it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_di ... n_of_Judea

and so, had Jesus been a successful Saviour of Jews, they would have accepted him, and the Diaspora not occurred.

For discussion, I am proposing Jesus being a Saviour of the Jews, meant exactly this... Rome sent Jesus to save Jerusalem from Roman re-occupation.

[William]

[Replying to post 59 by marco]

The people Jesus converted to his cause weren't the sort to have risen in revolt.

Oh - some indeed were and he had to placate them. That might have been ruse as well. It was never about violent revolt. In relation to Judaism, it was about getting Jews to support the new ideas because their religion was so stuck on old traditions which were hurting them under Roman Rule.

He antagonised the very people who were dangerous to Rome.

A good way to flush them out, yes?

If Rome were concerned about placating and getting folk onside then they would not have insisted on placing the images of the Emperor god anywhere near the Temple. Rome's clumsiness was the cause of later insurrections; she did not show the subtlety of political intrigue that would be needed were Jesus a plant.

You are only focused upon the short term there marco. As is seen, Rome had a vision which was even longer than Her immediate reach. The vision stretched into the millenniums. We are not sure as yet if Willum wants to take things that far in relation to the "false flags and political intrigue" he mentions in post #56, but the evidence is hidden in plain sight. Roman rule still exists to this day. Rome never fell. She simply transformed.

[marco]

Can you enlarge on point (c) for me please, I'm having problems following the logic.

• Are you suggesting that because Jesus had a personal life and there may well have been acivities that he engaged in that were not known by all of his acquaintances, this of itself lays credence to the argument he was a spy?
  
  Or are you suggesting there is something in the reported events (such as his procuring a donkey) that suggest collaboration with the Romans?

Jesus advised his followers to leave their homes and family and follow him. Almost nothing is written of Christ's family life; it seems as if he left that behind him as well. His brothers, he maintained, were his followers. It is therefore strange, perhaps, that he made private arrangements about which his close comrades were unaware. It may well have been that he had a non-Jesus, non-preaching life but we are led to believe his final three years were devoted totally to his ministry. And yes, this proves nothing. I am not arguing proof.


The fact he made arrangements with some other party, independenly of his ties with his apostles, does suggest that he had intriguing links with a group we know nothing about. It lends at least a modicum of justification to the theory that he was acting for or with others while befriending his apostles. Those others may have involved Rome - or maybe not. At the very least it informs us that there is a life of Christ - apart from the hidden 30 years -that we know nothing about, a life it would be interesting to have information on.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]

So are you suggesting they furthered this goal by sending them a peasant that was intelligent, eloquent and literate?

Nothing in Jesus' words reflect any amazing literacy. However assuming you are correct, who better to pull the wool over the illiterates' eyes, than an educated person with a purpose?

esus may not have advocated revolt but he didn't attempt to suppress information or deny knowledge.

Considering he was supposed to be plugged into omniscience, his knowledge of real healing, vaccination, medicines - so it seems to me, according to your view, he certainly did.

Further, while he did not encourage disrespect, he did tell them to defy any teachings and traditions that were unscriptural and in doing so laid the basis for these ones to defy Caesar himself, not in violent opposition but in quiet non-conformity.

How incorrect is this? Completely, Jesus advocated paying his brother demi-god's blasphemous tax, obey its blasphemous government... something no true Jew could do.

[Replying to post 49 by JehovahsWitness]

Creating a fake Roman "Messiah" to counteract the influence of the of the Pharisees would have been deemed inplausible.

Except the Pharisee were essentially Christians whose "Christ" had not come. It is almost as if when the Romans installed the Pharisee in the place of the pagan Sadducee, they had a saviour in mind.
Then the Pharisee got too big for their britches... and history happened.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 53 by JehovahsWitness]

RESPONSE: And which "Roman tactic" would that be?

Usurping foreign religions with their own by saying for example Sulis was just what the Celts called Minerva, they were really the same god, and the gods say we Roman's rule.
This was done both domestically and in foreign lands... but you expect me to believe this practice stopped when Rome conquered Jerusalem?
Please.
It s is an excellent explanation of why Jesus is a homophone of Yay Zeus, and Jove i pronounced, Yahwey, don't you think?
Even you must agree.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 55 by JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 54 by JehovahsWitness]

Does not contribute to the discussion, either way. Things are the way they are, and Rome preferred passive means to war.

RESPONSE And thus you prove my point. The Jews rejected and killed Jesus because they believed he made a false claim of Messiahship;

Yeah, because the Romans got their story wrong... because it didn't understand the culture mores of Judaic religion, like stoning adulterers is the right thing to do, and that you can't touch graven images of pagan gods to pay your tax.

Boom.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 61 by William]

Oooh, you are right of course, but that truly is a deep and sinister conspiracy... it certainly would work.
Great observation, one would hope people would not be so devious...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 59 by marco]

My own reservations come from considering the time and events . Rome's concern with Judea was to appoint obedient rulers after crushing revolt; both Pompey and Caesar did this. But Rome then had the Civil War, and the main aim of Augustus was to establish firm laws in his land. Tiberius, his successor, wasn't concerned about much else other than his immoral games in Capri, where he chose to live. Rome had enough to worry about without this grand intrigue with Jesus. The people Jesus converted to his cause weren't the sort to have risen in revolt. He antagonized the very people who were dangerous to Rome. If Rome were concerned about placating and getting folk onside then they would not have insisted on placing the images of the Emperor god anywhere near the Temple. Rome's clumsiness was the cause of later insurrections; she did not show the subtlety of political intrigue that would be needed were Jesus a plant.

This actually simply goes to imperfect planning, it was clear, it is clear today, that Hellenic or gentile philosophy still does not understand Judaic.

How many times has tam, or another member not understood that according to Judaic law, the adulteress should have been stoned?
Just as people today defend Jesus under a Hellenic philosophy, these are the same kinds of errors Rome appears to have made.
Turning your objection, into support.

[William]

[Replying to post 67 by Willum]

How many times has tam, or another member not understood that according to Judaic law, the adulteress should have been stoned?

Which would you prefer? Living under the present systems rules or those of the ancient Judaic laws?

Obviously Christians are following after Rome. Understanding Judaic law might well help them appreciate the theory that you espouse here, but one would first have to see what member bluethread would argue in relation to that, since he appears to be the forum expert on such things as the interconnection between the biblical Jesus and the Jews.

I don't doubt the Roman conspiracy but think rather than creating an agent from the go-get, they would more likely have taken a real situation whereby a new type of theology was being preached, and causing people to work together and this may well have been seen by Rome to be more dangerous that sedition, especially if it took hold and got out of control.

Indeed, there is evidence to support these early 'Christians' as they were contemptuously referred to, were not liked and thought of as a spreading disease which had to be cut away.
It appears too, that persecuting these ones only seemed to strengthen their commitment.

Paul is more likely to have been the main Roman agent responsible for infiltrating and leading the early Christians into the bosom of Roman rule. Once that became popular and the followers of Yeshua died away, the remodeling of Yeshua into Jesus would have been achieved without any major opposition, and the NT created based upon stories which gave the distinct impression that GOD and Rome were partners - Rome became the new Israel - and the Romans, the new Jews chosen by GOD.

[Willum]

Reprinted without permission.

Well,
here are some thoughts along that line ...

The bulk of the Jesus of Nazareth story comes from the gospels. Paul gives few hard details about his Jesus Christ, nor do the other later epistles. The Gospel of Mark was the first to be written, both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark. John is much later, and the least historical.

The Gospel of Mark is essentially the single source for the Jesus story.

'Mark' was apparently a Roman - supposedly the secretary of Peter in Rome - who wrote down what Peter said, in Rome.

The G. of Mark shows clear signs of being written for a Roman audience - by explaining Jewish traditions, and converting Aramaic terms into Roman words.

Rome was the centre of the earliest recorded Christian history.

Rome was the centre of the Western manuscript tradition.

The earliest layers of Christianity are lost to history - we have no idea who really wrote any of the NT books. (Early Christianity is rife with forged documents.)

Notably - we have no idea who wrote the critical seminal Gospel of Mark, which was obviously written by a very well educated person who knew both the Greek and Jewish religious writings.

So there is indeed a variety of evidence to suggest the Gospel of Mark was manufactured by unknown Romans for some religious project. Religious history is full of such shenagigans.

What Miles Mathis would call a spook project.

Jubal

[Willum]

[Replying to post 68 by William]

Which would you prefer? Living under the present systems rules or those of the ancient Judaic laws?

Oh it is so not about me!

It is about Jesus coming to support the law (talking from one side of his mount), and then abrogating Judaic law, even the Commandments themselves, out of the other, something no true Judist would.

Indeed, there is evidence to support these early 'Christians' as they were contemptuously referred to, were not liked and thought of as a spreading disease which had to be cut away.

This view is problematic, given that Jesus commenced under one school of thought in Rome, Augustan/Tiberian, and was underminded by Caligula.

So one must consider these two different policy makers, but otherwise I agree with you.

V/R