The Rationale Of Jesus's Mates

[SacredBishop]

For the sake of this post, let's assume the New Testament is unreliable. Let's abandon dogmas, doctrines, apologetics, and Christianity altogether. Why would Jesus's mates say "he was the Son of God who rose from the dead on the third day"? What possible train of events could account for them mistakenly believing " the Son of God " wasn't dead anymore on the third day? If they fabricated the whole thing, then what possible motive could they have for this? I look forward to reading your theories.

[SacredBishop]

This post is totally about speculation. I don't know what actually happened. Obviously

[SacredBishop]

The dead sea scrolls mention " a teacher of righteousness who was killed by Saduceen priests", 1st to 2nd century BCE. I've heard people suggest that Jesus was a literary construction created to fill in the blanks of who this " teacher" was. Various gnostic scholars do this. I truly am open to all possibilities.

[2ndpillar2]

The dead sea scrolls mention " a teacher of righteousness who was killed by Saduceen priests", 1st to 2nd century BCE. I've heard people suggest that Jesus was a literary construction created to fill in the blanks of who this " teacher" was. Various gnostic scholars do this. I truly am open to all possibilities.

The "Dead Sea Scroll Uncovered" book I read, referred to a liar that the zealots had vowed to not rest until they killed him. Apparently, they never rested, for he was probably whisked away by Caesar's soldiers. I am pretty sure that this "liar" was not a "Saduceen" priest, put a purveyor of leaven/hypocrisy, and a Pharisee of Pharisees. The book I read was printed in 1992, so the part about Saduceen priest could have been found after the early transcriptions.

[SacredBishop]

The dead sea scrolls mention " a teacher of righteousness who was killed by Saduceen priests", 1st to 2nd century BCE. I've heard people suggest that Jesus was a literary construction created to fill in the blanks of who this " teacher" was. Various gnostic scholars do this. I truly am open to all possibilities.

The "Dead Sea Scroll Uncovered" book I read, referred to a liar that the zealots had vowed to not rest until they killed him. Apparently, they never rested, for he was probably whisked away by Caesar's soldiers. I am pretty sure that this "liar" was not a "Saduceen" priest, put a purveyor of leaven/hypocrisy, and a Pharisee of Pharisees. The book I read was printed in 1992, so the part about Saduceen priest could have been found after the early transcriptions.

Just Google Wikipedia teacher of righteousness, as a start, then find more thorough sites. The teacher of righteousness was a Torah scholar killed by " wicked priests". He taught about the sons of Light, and the way of light. He was killed in roughly 150 BCE. Its been speculated that Jesus was influenced by this, or at least his followers were. Its curious, but merely speculative.

[SacredBishop]

Also a commentary from the dead sea scrolls apply Isaiah 11 and 53 to this teacher of righteousness. Some people can't resist the similarity and say Christians named this mystery savior from 150 BCE Jesus, and build a religion around him. However, Paul considered James to be Jesus's brother in Galatians, this disproves the theory for me. They'll say James was brother by descent, rather than an actual sibling, but it doesn't fly with me. To each their own. I believe Jesus was an actual person, but theories to the contrary are getting better and more persuasive all the time.

[Thomas123]

I have been away reading, SB, trying to get my head around the events of that time. I have to admit( don't want to) that there is a mystic element to this mans beliefs. He appears more Pharisee than Saducee, that's for sure. An afterlife belief is probable throughout his teachings. I have been reading Daniel, and I have gone back to the Jewish Diaspora in Babylon,etc.

Jesus is that little ball in a tumble dryer with the rippled surface.(What is that for?)

This is where the flush is coming from ,when you think Pharisee, Jesus, Christianity, etc.
Pull the cord and read this ,SB
Thanks!

Zoroastrianism (Overview)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

[TRANSPONDER]

Also a commentary from the dead sea scrolls apply Isaiah 11 and 53 to this teacher of righteousness. Some people can't resist the similarity and say Christians named this mystery savior from 150 BCE Jesus, and build a religion around him. However, Paul considered James to be Jesus's brother in Galatians, this disproves the theory for me. They'll say James was brother by descent, rather than an actual sibling, but it doesn't fly with me. To each their own. I believe Jesus was an actual person, but theories to the contrary are getting better and more persuasive all the time.

I find it's less stressful to not opt for a Belief but be Agnostic about that. However, Paul knowing James, Jesus' brother (where Peter/Cephas is not referred to as a brother) suggests a reason why James became leader of the Jesus party at all - he was the eldest son after Jesus. There are also the points I find persuasive that, if Jesus had been invented, he would have been Judean, not Galilean, and stoned for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin, not crucified by the Romans requiting that the gospels have to fiddle narratives to explain how he got born in Judea and to shift the actual blame for the crucifixion to the Jews.

It's possible that, given the amount of crucifixion of "bandits" (rebels) that was going on under the Hasmoneans and Herod, it could have provided the basis for the Jesus - story,especially as the 'Galilean' idea points straight at zealot rebels. Also the silence (1) in history (yes, really, in fact) notably in Philo who writes about Pilate, but not Jesus, is a bother., but he doesn't write about the Baptist, either, though Josephus apparently does. So it's a bit odd that historians don't (unarguably) validate Jesus. So, on balance, though it is debatable, I go with Jesus (as also Paul, Peter and James) as a real person.

P.s I do NOT consider 'the disciples would not die for a Lie', the Empty Tomb or the success of Christianity as good evidence for a Real Jesus.

(1) or arguably so if the Flavian Testament is wholly fraudulent and not just partially, as is pretty much accepted by all comments I have read.

[SacredBishop]

What the OP can leverage is the human weakness that humans can't research into history. In general, human lack the ability to actually prove a history. For an example, Nanjing Masscre occurred as recent as in WWII with a death toll of 300,000 civilians (not to mention the death of a particular single person) as claimed by the Chinese, but denied by the Japanese. Can you research into it to prove which side is wrong? You can't, actually if history is provable that the Japanese cannot deny it, or if you wish to be sided with the Japanese then, if history is provable then the Chinese can't make it up the story about such a non-existed Masscre.

So the real question is, if Jesus is true what can be done by humans to get to such a truth. The only way is for a historian to write down the story (history = his story) or testimony from eyewitnesses for others to believe with faith. This the way how history works. Either you have faith the Chinese are historical correct about the Masscre or you have faith that the Japanese is correct. History can carry both truth (say the Chinese can be true about the Masscre) and falsehood (i.e., the Japanese may lie about it). You need faith to believe in either. This is the nature of what history itself is!

That said. Atheists are those failed to realize how a history is writtne down. They are either ignorant or fooled or brainwashed about it. Just as prophesied,

2 Corinthians 4:4 (NIV):
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

The solid proof here is, the verse is absolutely right!

I'm not an atheist. I believe in God. You're argument seems to be: " if you don't believe in Jesus the God of this age has blinded you, or you're ignorant, fooled, or brainwashed." Christian apologetics can do better than that! If I were a Christian I'd say, Jesus's mates said he rose on the third day because they believed he actually did. Surely, they know the difference between dead and not being dead etc.

[SacredBishop]

[Replying to Thomas123 in post #46]

Yes, Thomas, Zoro ( I'll abbreviate it ) is believed to have influenced Judaism, especially when the Jews were in Persia. Its believed to have shifted Judaism towards monotheism. The king of Persia sent Ezra with " the Torah of the Lord" to teach the Jews proper Judaism in Jerusalem, Ezra 7:11-28. Notice how Artaxerxes calls Ezra a competent scribe in the Torah, and sanctions him specifically to go to Jerusalem and teach the Torah. This has long been debated as the final redaction of the Torah. Ezra by command of a Persian king straightens out their holy book, and then straightens out religious divisions in Jerusalem. Very, curious. Of course Jewish scholars say, Judaism inspired Zoro. Anyway thanks Thomas. You're a clever dude.

[Thomas123]

Eureka!

I have the jigsaw complete.

I know why Jesus had to be deified in Christianity.
I know why Judaism rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
I know why there is the 3 day narrative of NT Resurrection.
I understand the platform of 'Jesusism"

I understand your disciples,SB.(Thanks!)

It is all there, and much more, in the 'Zoro' link.

Listen all you who have ears!