The REAL Jesus of Nazareth.

Azwaldo55

Most Christians overlook the fact Jesus of Nazareth was a JEW.
To understand who Jesus really was you have to understand 1st century Israel and how it was ruled.

The Jewish kings who ruled Israel since the successful rebellion by the Macabees against Greek influence were in turn conquered by the Romans under an army led by Pompey Magnus. Herod the Great was an Arab who converted to Judaism and attempted to appease the Jews by building a new Temple.

The Jewish priests and the Temple system which demanded taxes from the common people allied with Herod and Rome was hated by the bandits of Galilee who regularly rose up under a series of messianic leaders driven by zeal who sought to tear it down and create a pure Judaism cleansed of Roman and other foreign influence - a Kingdom of God - the very same ideal that the Macabees believed in when they launched their holy war two centuries before.

Jesus was crucified like all the other leaders and his successor was his brother James The Just who led the Jerusalem Church who made the bizarre claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. However they were exclusively a Jewish sect and they maintained their adherence to Mosaic law.

The Jewish Roman citizen Saul of Tarsus who was a Pharisee had taken part in the execution of Stephen a Diaspora Jewish Christian convert. At some point Paul who never knew Jesus when he was alive became a convert himself and preached that Christians no longer had to be circumcised or follow the law of Moses which brought him into open conflict with James the Just. Paul's message was popular among Greco-Roman cities in the Asia Minor where he encountered Diaspora Jews and Jewish pagan converts outside of James the Just's reach.

Paul visited Jerusalem to explain himself and was humiliated by James who forced him to take part in orthodox Jewish ceremonies. This humiliation created the ultimate breach between Paul and James The Just and as a result the supernatural Risen Christ became separated from the Jesus of Nazareth of history.

Ultimately the rebellious ideology of the illiterate rebellious Galilean peasants won over the educated elite of Israel and eventually the powerful Zealot Party were at the forefront of rebellion against Rome. Followers of Jerusalem Church probably fought side by side with the Scarii - Jewish assassins - and the Zealots. The Temple authorities, the Sadducees and the Pharisees and other religious and political groups would have known they also faced the same fate as the rebels if the Romans defeated the uprising so would have had no option but to throw in their lot with them too.

The Romans responded by invading Israel, laying waste to the land, burning the Temple and Jerusalem to the ground and slaughtering and enslaving the inhabitants.
The Temple system was no more and Judaism was scattered.
The Jews who survived replaced the sacrifices in the Temple with the system of the synagogue which was their meeting place of prayer wherever there was a Jewish community. The Jerusalem Church which was led by the family and relatives of Jesus of Nazareth was annihilated. If any of Jesus' descendants survived they have disappeared from history.

This left the field to Paul and his followers and it is no accident that the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul to the various branches of the churches of the early Christian world dominate the New Testament. In those letters Paul rails against the false prophets of the Jerusalem Church. In the letters of Peter and James there is clearly a remnant of the original Jerusalem Church which attacks the rich and champions the poor.

The Old Testament God of the Jews - angry jealous, preaching the special position of the Jews, slavish observation of Temple sacrifices and the annihilation of the gentile occupiers of the Holy Land is gone in the Christian Old Testament.

To appeal to the Romans the story of the Romans persecution of Jesus and his followers is changed and instead the Jews are the villains of the passion of Jesus who force Pontius Pilate to crucify him. The historical Pilate would not have hesitated to crucify Jesus who would have been indistinguishable from any of the other pretenders to the title of messiah. The entire story is clearly a fabrication including the chant of the Jewish mob who cry "Let his blood be upon us and our children."

Jesus was nailed to a cross between two bandits or rebels and was probably just one of thousands left to die and be picked clean by the birds and eaten by dogs.
The story of the sky darkening, the earthquake, the veil of the Temple being torn and his burial in a rich man's tomb are obviously Christian propaganda.

The early Christian church reinvented the zealous Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus Christ, the meek and mild and pacificist preacher who loved both Jew and Gentile alike.
The passage in which Jesus meets a Samaritan woman and raises the servant of a Roman centurion are obviously created for Roman and pagan consumption.
Jesus's virgin birth and feats of magic and his journeys and adventures are an obvious rip off of the virgin birth of Roman demi-god heroes and the journeys of Ulysses who had weird and wonderful adventures.

The Greek philosopher Plato spoke of the theory of forms - ideals above and beyond the material world. Jesus therefore became interpreted by the Greek and Romans as a Platonic ideal - the perfect man who had existed outside of the material world but had existed since the beginning of time to be born.

Thus a ragged peasant, a laborer, preacher, magic maker and rebel from the hills of Galilee became the pivotal figure in all of human history.

At the Council of Nicea overseen by the first Christian Roman emperor Constantine, it was decided that the divisions between Christian sects would be sorted out for once and for all and therefore the sects who believed Jesus was just a man and the sects who believed Jesus was divine were forced to make a compromise - Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

After Islam conquered the Middle East and most Middle Eastern Christians were forced to convert to the new faith, the Christians of Western Europe were further divorced from the historical Jesus. Jesus was no longer a Middle Eastern with dark hair and skin but became the blond blue eyed Jesus. Wherever Jesus has been adopted as the God of colonized people he was recreated in their image. In China Jesus is Chinese. Among Native Americans he looks like an Indian brave. In South America he looks Hispanic. In Africa he is black. Today in the 21st century modern Christians are once again turning Jesus into a hippy like figure tolerant of gays and lesbians, the epitome of goodness and kindness and whatever they want him to be.

The original Jesus and his zealous followers would have been rather like a member of Al-Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah today, a jihadi fighting holy war against Godless infidels and longing for the creation of pure austere religious utopia on earth.

Cabaal

hows that wall of text working out for you?

ABC101

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The original Jesus and his zealous followers would have been rather like a member of Al-Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah today, a jihadi fighting holy war against Godless infidels and longing for the creation of pure austere religious utopia on earth.

I think you are taking a lot of poetic license there. Comparing Jesus to a member of Al Qaeda etc, Jesus spoke a lot about love and forgiveness, turning the other cheek and also spoke about the 10 commandments, do not kill, do not steal, not taking your neighbour's wife and so on.

Comparing Jesus to modern day organisations who use violent force is not only a bit rich, but unfair to the man.

It's akin to me proclaiming that all Irish citizens are member's of the IRA etc, when clearly that is not the case.

bumper234

Most Christians overlook the fact Jesus of Nazareth was a JEW.

I knew by the end of that line it was not going to be good

Azwaldo55

ABC101 wrote: »

I think you are taking a lot of poetic license there. Comparing Jesus to a member of Al Qaeda etc, Jesus spoke a lot about love and forgiveness, turning the other cheek and also spoke about the 10 commandments, do not kill, do not steal, not taking your neighbour's wife and so on.

Comparing Jesus to modern day organisations who use violent force is not only a bit rich, but unfair to the man.

It's akin to me proclaiming that all Irish citizens are member's of the IRA etc, when clearly that is not the case.

Jesus would have preached to his fellow Jews to not kill, steal from or take the wives of FELLOW Jews.

The 10 commandants are commands exclusively to Jews.

In their original context they do not apply to non-Jews.

The Jesus of Christianity is clearly an invention by Paul and his followers and the Council of Nicea which laid the ground for Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

smcgiff

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Jesus would have preached to his fellow Jews to not kill, steal from or take the wives of FELLOW Jews.

The 10 commandants are commands exclusively to Jews.

In their original context they do not apply to non-Jews.

The Jesus of Christianity is clearly an invention by Paul and his followers and the Council of Nicea which laid the ground for Christianity to become the official religion of the Rome Empire.

May I ask if you are yourself religious?

Azwaldo55

smcgiff wrote: »

May I ask if you are yourself religious?

Of course I am not religious. Surely that should be obvious? The point of this article to show how the supernatural Jesus was created and bears little or no relation to Jesus of history.

In centuries to come it may be possible that figures like David Koresh or Jim Jones or Bin Laden will transformed in deities.

In 1979 a group of Islamic extremists stormed the Grand Mosque and seized the Ka'aba in Mecca - an event very similar to Jesus and his followers cleansing the Temple of Jerusalem in the 1st century. The Muslim fanatics were led by a man named Juhayman ibn Muhammad ibn Sayf al-Otaybi who believed his brother in law Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani was the Mahdi or the prophecised Islamic redeemer. Needless to say they were defeated and executed. They are still revered by many Islamic militants today. The perfect ingredients for a new Islamic sect and a new religion to form.

It is highly likely a similar process happened in the aftermath of the crucifixion of Jesus.
The promised Kingdom of God never materialized so the message of Jesus reinvented.
Judaism was beyond the pale in the Roman world following the triumph of Titus who brought back the vessels of the Temple and the Torah to Rome to demonstrate that not only the Jews but Judaism itself was crushed.
To appeal to the pagan Romans the Christian faith had to remarket itself as anti-Jewish.

ABC101

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Jesus would have preached to his fellow Jews to not kill, steal from or take the wives of FELLOW Jews.

The 10 commandants are commands exclusively to Jews.

In their original context they do not apply to non-Jews.

The Jesus of Christianity is clearly an invention by Paul and his followers and the Council of Nicea which laid the ground for Christianity to become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Jesus spoke to many people, not just Jews. Women who where whores, social outcasts like Tax collectors, he spoke to Gentiles, people who where deemed socially unclean like Lepers, people who where possessed by demons, he spoke to all sorts of people and casts, Jesus broke a lot of social taboos by doing that etc.

The Jews chose to ignore / reject the teachings of Jesus, but other people where welcome to follow those teachings, that is why we have Christianity today.

On your other point... if you yourself are not religious, then why are you bothering writing about Jesus, or anything religious for that matter?

Azwaldo55

ABC101 wrote: »

Jesus spoke to many people, not just Jews. Women who where whores, social outcasts like Tax collectors, he spoke to Gentiles, people who where deemed socially unclean like Lepers, people who where possessed by demons, he spoke to all sorts of people and casts, Jesus broke a lot of social taboos by doing that etc.

All those stories were obviously invented after Jesus death.
The stories are not literal but political propaganda written decades after his death by pagan coverts to Christianity who were ignorant of Judaism and Jewish thought.
The magical stories of Jesus casting out demons and healing are typical of a time when people did not understand illness or psychosis.

The Jews chose to ignore / reject the teachings of Jesus, but other people where welcome to follow those teachings, that is why we have Christianity today.

All the scriptures the Christian claim supposedly support their absurd claims that Jesus is the Christ and the only Son of God are taken completely out of context. There was and is no concept in Judaism about a coming Redeemer who is the Son of God. Of course Jews rejected Christianity. It is obvious mishmash of pagan and cut and pasted legends.

On your other point... if you yourself are not religious, then why are you bothering writing about Jesus, or anything religious for that matter?

Can only Christians write about or criticize or discuss Christianity and its origins?

When you actually read about the real history of 1st century Palestine and peel away the myths that have been pasted over the REAL historical Jesus you find the real man and the real Jew.

We know two facts for sure about Jesus - he led a religious movement and he was executed by the Romans for doing so. The period was heavily documented by the Romans and from what we know about the Jews and their society and politics at that time Jesus becomes indistinguishable from the many other zealous religious fanatics and their followers who inhabited that turbulent time before the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.

It is obvious that the Jesus of Christianity is reinvention by Greco-Roman propagandists who cleansed the historical Jesus of Jewishness and his religious zealotry.

smcgiff

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Can only Christians write about or criticize or discuss Christianity and its origins?

Not sure that makes sense.

But, you're going into a lot of detail preaching to the converted.

mulbot

i find it hard to believe that people were called paul and james in those places

ABC101

"Can only Christians write about or criticize or discuss Christianity and its origins?"

That is not the point I was attempting to make...for example..

I'm not an artist... and I don't write about art... because I have no interest in the subject.
I'm not a mechanic .... and I don't write about mechanical things, again I have no interest in the subject.

However it is clear that you have put some considerable thought into your arguments, religion is something which is clearly interests you, despite the fact that you don't practice any religion.

Perhaps your interest could be understood as being "anti religious"? Would that be a fair description?

" by pagan coverts to Christianity who were ignorant of Judaism and Jewish thought"

I cannot agree there at all. That sentence does not make sense. The people who followed Jesus around lived among the Jews, they would have known the Jewish customs very very well.

St Paul was a Jew... and he was a strong member of his community, he would have a very high understanding of the Jewish faith and most certainly was not ignorant of Judaism or Jewish thought.

However if everything is as you wrote above in your OP to be perfectly accurate and true... then how come Christianity is where it is today? How come it has lasted 2000 years and has X billion people who proclaim themselves to have a Christian faith?

The point I am making is that if Christianity "was man made" then I don't believe it would have lasted 2000 years etc

Cabaal

mulbot wrote: »

i find it hard to believe that people were called paul and james in those places

or that jesus was white

smcgiff

mulbot wrote: »

i find it hard to believe that people were called paul and james in those places

Think they were translations rather than called Jim and Paulie.

smcgiff

Cabaal wrote: »

or that jesus was white

Don't forget blue eyed with long blond straight hair.

mulbot

ABC101 wrote: »

"Can only Christians write about or criticize or discuss Christianity and its origins?"

That is not the point I was attempting to make...for example..

I'm not an artist... and I don't write about art... because I have no interest in the subject.
I'm not a mechanic .... and I don't write about mechanical things, again I have no interest in the subject.

However it is clear that you have put some considerable thought into your arguments, religion is something which is clearly interests you, despite the fact that you don't practice any religion.

Perhaps your interest could be understood as being "anti religious"? Would that be a fair description?

" by pagan coverts to Christianity who were ignorant of Judaism and Jewish thought"

I cannot agree there at all. That sentence does not make sense. The people who followed Jesus around lived among the Jews, they would have known the Jewish customs very very well.

St Paul was a Jew... and he was a strong member of his community, he would have a very high understanding of the Jewish faith and most certainly was not ignorant of Judaism or Jewish thought.

However if everything is as you wrote above in your OP to be perfectly accurate and true... then how come Christianity is where it is today? How come it has lasted 2000 years and has X billion people who proclaim themselves to have a Christian faith?

The point I am making is that if Christianity "was man made" then I don't believe it would have lasted 2000 years etc

does it not have something to do with families just being traditional,without really knowing wha the religion stands for-everyone i knoe don'd have a clue as to why they are catholic or christian yet will argue with me over things like baptisms, confirmations etc,i tend to see it's only because they are believing what their parents taught them to believe

oscarBravo

ABC101 wrote: »

The point I am making is that if Christianity "was man made" then I don't believe it would have lasted 2000 years etc

Because nothing man made ever lasts that long?

ABC101

mulbot wrote: »

does it not have something to do with families just being traditional,without really knowing wha the religion stands for-everyone i knoe don'd have a clue as to why they are catholic or christian yet will argue with me over things like baptisms, confirmations etc,i tend to see it's only because they are believing what their parents taught them to believe

Interesting point....

There are many families out there who don't have a clue about the following.

Electronics, electricity, automobiles, how houses are built, computers etc etc etc..

And despite the fact that many families are ignorant of such devices they still use them everyday.

Many people practice their faith... despite the fact that "their knowledge of their faith" is quite weak.

Why do people become Gardai, or teachers or mechanics or bankers and so on and on and on.

In a lot of cases they are just following what their parents did, I became a accountant because my dad was one etc, or I went into business and eventually took over from my parents etc etc.

Obviously not true in all cases.... but there is a pattern.

But people have a "spiritual side", and they instinctively know that following their religion is something which is comfortable to them, for example I know people who were raised Roman Catholic, but no longer practice... yet they would have no problems with their children being raised as Catholics... their reason... it did not do themselves any harm.

Obviously not true in all cases... but you get the picture etc.

Azwaldo55

smcgiff wrote: »

Don't forget blue eyed with long blond straight hair.

The traditional image of Jesus as a tall handsome man with long hair parted in the middle and a forked beard is obviously influenced by the image on the Turin Shroud.
We have no real way of knowing what Jesus really looked like.
He probably would have had the dark features of Middle Eastern people today.

Azwaldo55

ABC101 wrote: »

"Can only Christians write about or criticize or discuss Christianity and its origins?"

That is not the point I was attempting to make...for example..

I'm not an artist... and I don't write about art... because I have no interest in the subject.
I'm not a mechanic .... and I don't write about mechanical things, again I have no interest in the subject.

However it is clear that you have put some considerable thought into your arguments, religion is something which is clearly interests you, despite the fact that you don't practice any religion.

Perhaps your interest could be understood as being "anti religious"? Would that be a fair description?

I didn't write the OP to have a general discussion on religion.
I am writing about the historical Jesus v the Christ of Christian mythology.

" by pagan coverts to Christianity who were ignorant of Judaism and Jewish thought"

I cannot agree there at all. That sentence does not make sense. The people who followed Jesus around lived among the Jews, they would have known the Jewish customs very very well.

The Jewish concept of a messiah is a political leader who will restore an earthly Kingdom of Israel. There have been numerous messiahs in Jewish history including Cyrus the Great, the King of Persia who freed the Hebrews from bondage in Babylon and restored the King of Israel and allowed the Jewish Kings and their priests to rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem.

The Christian idea of God made flesh and dying and coming back to life was completely anathema to everything Judaism stands for which is why Jews reject it to this day.

Many Jews seek the restoration to the Temple in modern Israel.

St Paul was a Jew... and he was a strong member of his community, he would have a very high understanding of the Jewish faith and most certainly was not ignorant of Judaism or Jewish thought.

Paul was a marginal Jew from Tarsus far away from the center of Jewish learning and thought in Jerusalem. He would probably have been able to speak some Greek and Latin.
Most Jews who lived in Israel would also have been illiterate Aramaic tongued peasants unable to speak Hebrew never mind read the Torah or the scriptures.

However if everything is as you wrote above in your OP to be perfectly accurate and true... then how come Christianity is where it is today? How come it has lasted 2000 years and has X billion people who proclaim themselves to have a Christian faith?

Ignorance and superstition of course. Much of the world remains mired in ignorance and superstition to this very day.

The point I am making is that if Christianity "was man made" then I don't believe it would have lasted 2000 years etc

Greek and Roman philosophy predates Christianity and is still studied to this day.
Hinduism is the oldest living religion and is thousands of years older than Christianity.
What is so special about Christianity?

Sulla Felix

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The traditional image of Jesus as a tall handsome man with long hair parted in the middle and a forked beard is obviously influenced by the image on the Turin Shroud.
We have no real way of knowing what Jesus really looked like.
He probably would have had the dark features of Middle Eastern people today.

Nope, not quite that either. You have to remember the Turkic and Arab invasions hadn't happened yet. They wouldn't have beenwestern european caucasian, but some mix of semitic and graeco-roman.

ABC101

@ Alzawaldo55,

It's clear you have a interest in this subject "Historical Jesus vrs Christ of Christian mythology".

However your use of certain words such as "absurd, propaganda" and dismiss the concept of spirituality as "ignorance and superstition" leads me to believe that you have not approached the subject unbiased.

You speak of Paul as taking the concept of Jesus and creating his own ideology, but you ignore the 4 Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John etc. Was there a big conspiracy between these 5 persons?

In relation to your point about the "Messiah" and the expectations of the Jews at the time... yes they were interested about an Earthly Kingdom.

However Jesus was not interested in "Earthly Kingdoms" but "Spiritual Kingdoms", i.e. the next world after we have died etc.

If I was given a choice... what is more important... a Earthly Kingdom of which I could experience an average lifespan... or a Spiritual Kingdom of which I could experience for eternity.... I know which one I would be most interested in.

Azwaldo55

ABC101 wrote: »

@ Alzawaldo55,

It's clear you have a interest in this subject "Historical Jesus vrs Christ of Christian mythology".

However your use of certain words such as "absurd, propaganda" and dismiss the concept of spirituality as "ignorance and superstition" leads me to believe that you have not approached the subject unbiased.

What else could Christianity be but ignorance and spirituality.The virgin birth, the temptation in the desert, the multiplication of loaves and fish, the transfiguration, the resurrection and so on is clearly mythology and weak minded superstition and propaganda.

You speak of Paul as taking the concept of Jesus and creating his own ideology, but you ignore the 4 Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John etc. Was there a big conspiracy between these 5 persons?

It is obvious to any serious student of history that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels is a fictional creation. What we know about the REAL Jesus is that he was part of the messianic movements of his day, emerged as a leader and was crucified.

In relation to your point about the "Messiah" and the expectations of the Jews at the time... yes they were interested about an Earthly Kingdom.

However Jesus was not interested in "Earthly Kingdoms" but "Spiritual Kingdoms", i.e. the next world after we have died etc.

We know anything more about Jesus except that he was an illiterate Aramaic speaking tektōn (τέκτων) who became a charismatic preacher, magician, political agitator and rebel against Rome who was arrested and crucified and a whole plethora of mythology sprang up about him.

Azwaldo55

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Nope, not quite that either. You have to remember the Turkic and Arab invasions hadn't happened yet. They wouldn't have beenwestern european caucasian, but some mix of semitic and graeco-roman.

Dark skinned and Middle Eastern looking nonetheless.

Not G.R

ABC101 wrote: »

The point I am making is that if Christianity "was man made" then I don't believe it would have lasted 2000 years etc

I'm assuming you're a Christian, yes? In which case you should belive that other religions are man made... like, say, Hinduism. Belived to be 4000 years old.

ABC101

@ Alzawaldo55,

When you use the term "virgin birth" what do you mean?

The teachings of Jesus was also backed up by his actions, he worked many miracles, loaves and fishes being one, raising people from the dead, etc etc.

Whilst it may be possible to dismiss a person for casting out demonic spirits as a lucky break or psychosis etc. Raising a dead person to life is something else entirely.

You strike me as a person... who by virtue of the fact that they were not physically there 2000 odd years ago and hence unable to confirm these events to yourself as dismissed them as ignorance and spirituality.

Do you implement this logic with other events like WW1, WW2, and or other historical events which have shaped national / international history?

Cabaal

ABC101 wrote: »

Whilst it may be possible to dismiss a person for casting out demonic spirits as a lucky break or psychosis etc. Raising a dead person to life is something else entirely.

Yeah, I mean its almost like its magic,
Isn't it great that the HSE uses magic to bring people back from the dead on a daily basis.

Isn't it great how monks can go into a meditative state to lower their heartbeat so you can't feel it if you checked and as such you'd think they are dead, its almost like magic...maybe a different god is helping those monks?

Funny how people who don't understand what they see will call it magic or the work of a god, when (if it even happened) it was more likely to be a meditative state.

Frank Lee Midere

The OP's position is half correct. Paul and other post Jewish Christians did create most of Christian theology. Largely by adopting Greek philosophy to Jewish religious ideas. It's not the case that they reinvented Jesus the revolutionary fromJesus the (non violent) messiah.

When Paul is writing to Christian sites which pre- exist his conversion he is clearly writing to romanised Christians who weren't obeying Jewish laws ( in fact he gives out to some that the abandonment or lack of of Jewish laws in Christianity is not full licence for all activities indicating these places were fairly free living). It's clear that Paul and the people he is writing to are familiar with the stories of the New Testament ( including the resurrection) and in no case is Paul quoting any revolutionary texts against the empire, far from it. He urges obedience to it until the end of days, which of course he thinks is close.

So it's fair enough to say paul invented modern Christianity. It's not fair to call Jesus a zealot, or to argue that he was violently opposed to the empire. If he was that he would have been another zealot, lost to history.

kylith

ABC101 wrote: »

@ Alzawaldo55,

When you use the term "virgin birth" what do you mean?

The teachings of Jesus was also backed up by his actions, he worked many miracles, loaves and fishes being one, raising people from the dead, etc etc.

Whilst it may be possible to dismiss a person for casting out demonic spirits as a lucky break or psychosis etc. Raising a dead person to life is something else entirely.

If it ever actually happened at all and wasn't, for example, exaggerated or made up entirely.

You strike me as a person... who by virtue of the fact that they were not physically there 2000 odd years ago and hence unable to confirm these events to yourself as dismissed them as ignorance and spirituality.

And you strike me as the type of person who will believe something just because it's written down. The only verifiable difference between the Bible and Harry Potter is that the bible is a lot older.

Do you implement this logic with other events like WW1, WW2, and or other historical events which have shaped national / international history?

There's a damn sight more evidence for those events than there is for magic.

Nodin

ABC101 wrote: »

The point I am making is that if Christianity "was man made" then I don't believe it would have lasted 2000 years etc

Buddhism has been around longer. They are atheistic.

Hinduism has been round longer again, and they're polytheistic.

Then theres the zoastrians.

Are these of equal standing with Christianity?

Frank Lee Midere

These threads always, from my point of view, end up with two versions of stupid arguing with each other. The ops rather dubious, but debatable, claims about Jesus being a zealot are now lost because a believer pops in and A&A lands back to futile arguments about cheese eating surrender monkeys or spaghetti eating monsters, and whether Jesus was white or not ( he probably was Mediterranean white).

Any discussion on how much interpolation there was in bible must therefore be lost.

So, unfollow.

Azwaldo55

ABC101 wrote: »

When you use the term "virgin birth" what do you mean?

The story of the angel visiting Mary and telling her is with child even though she had never had sex with a man. It's obviously mythology.

The teachings of Jesus was also backed up by his actions, he worked many miracles, loaves and fishes being one, raising people from the dead, etc etc.

Again. Mythology.

Whilst it may be possible to dismiss a person for casting out demonic spirits as a lucky break or psychosis etc. Raising a dead person to life is something else entirely.

Quite clearly it is just make believe.

You strike me as a person... who by virtue of the fact that they were not physically there 2000 odd years ago and hence unable to confirm these events to yourself as dismissed them as ignorance and spirituality.

Of course. Why wouldn't I?

Do you implement this logic with other events like WW1, WW2, and or other historical events which have shaped national / international history?

WW1 and WW2 are obviously not mythological events.
There is documentary evidence, photographic evidence, physical evidence, oral history, artifacts etc etc etc. I've visited the Imperial War Museum in London where I saw weapons, uniforms, vehicles, documents, diaries, movies, interviews and much more.

There is no evidence whatsoever to back up the fantastical claims that Jesus ever performed a single miracle.

I am reasonably confident that person called Jesus of Narareth existed because there were many other individuals like him at that time who were also messianic figures who were also arrested and crucified by the Romans. Jesus railed against the hypocrisy and corruption of Jewish authorities and preached a Kingdom of God was coming. This is why the Jews and Romans ears pricked up and why he was executed.

From what I know about cults such as the David Koresh's cult in Waco or Jim Jones cult in Jonestown and activities of groups such as the Church of Scientology and many more than mass delusion can make otherwise sensible people believe in mythological nonsense and which such fanaticism they will either kill or will willingly die for those beliefs however absurd.

The behavior of the first Christians following the death of Jesus is the classic behavior of cults.

Azwaldo55

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

These threads always, from my point of view, end up with two versions of stupid arguing with each other. The ops rather dubious, but debatable, claims about Jesus being a zealot are now lost because a believer pops in and A&A lands back to futile arguments about cheese eating surrender monkeys or spaghetti eating monsters, and whether Jesus was white or not ( he probably was Mediterranean white).

Any discussion on how much interpolation there was in bible must therefore be lost.

So, unfollow.

As I said in my OP what we know about Jesus is that he was a preacher in 1st century Palestine and his activities led to his crucifixion at the hands of the Romans.
We know that at the time of the Romans only those guilty of sedition were crucified.

Jesus' activities closely fit and closely match the careers of contemporary messianic leaders who preached almost identical messages and were also arrested and executed such as Judas of Galilee, Menahem ben Judah, the Egyptian (mentioned in both the Acts of the Apostles and the writings of Josephus the historian) and many others who were executed. The leader of the 132 AD rebellion Simon bar Kokhba or Simon "Son of a Star" was another messiah.
Jesus' crime was to attack the Temple and cleanse of the money changers.

The gospels are clear fabrications which paint Jesus as an entirely innocent gentle preacher who was the Son of God destined to die for the sins of humanity since the dawn of time.
This myth was created to make Jesus more palatable to the Romans since Judaism was anathema.
Hence Jesus ceased to be a Jew and became a demi-god.

The Domonator

smcgiff wrote: »

Don't forget blue eyed with long blond straight hair.

buddy-christ-e1389658306394.jpg

ABC101

@ Azwaldo55,

Many thanks for your reply.

About the issue of the Virgin Birth etc, from my perspective your understanding is mistaken.

"The story of the angel visiting Mary and telling her is with child even though she had never had sex with a man. "

The angel Gabriel did visit Mary, but it was to announce that she had been chosen by God to give birth to Jesus. She was not yet pregnant at this time.

You are correct in saying she never had sex with a man... that's because the conception of Jesus was not a normal sexual act as us humans would understand it.

All we know is that it was the power of the Holy Spirit which came over Mary. Mary was still able to retain her virginity, due to the fact that the Holy Spirit is not human... but a spirit.... therefore does not have a penis as a bodily organ. By virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not have a penis... Mary retained her virginity.

In relation to your other points re: evidence of WW2 for example. Unfortunately 2000 years ago evidence collecting tools such as cameras, printing presses, magnetic tape recording devices did not exist as you well know.

However I would say just because the tools for recording evidence did not exist, does not mean events did not occur i.e. Jesus raising a dead person etc.

Even if Jesus did have a camera 2000 years ago, some people today would consider the photographic evidence to be fake, forgeries or manipulated etc, in other words regardless of the evidence, written, oral, photographic, digital media files... it could all be dismissed as fake.

@ Cabaal,

Just an observation... a suggestion, I notice that the forum on Atheism & Agnosticism is a sub forum of Religion and Spirituality.

Would it be better if A&A be moved so as to be a sub forum under Society section? Just a thought.

kylith

ABC101 wrote: »

@ Azwaldo55,

Many thanks for your reply.

About the issue of the Virgin Birth etc, from my perspective your understanding is mistaken.

"The story of the angel visiting Mary and telling her is with child even though she had never had sex with a man. "

The angel Gabriel did visit Mary, but it was to announce that she had been chosen by God to give birth to Jesus. She was not yet pregnant at this time.

You are correct in saying she never had sex with a man... that's because the conception of Jesus was not a normal sexual act as us humans would understand it.

All we know is that it was the power of the Holy Spirit which came over Mary. Mary was still able to retain her virginity, due to the fact that the Holy Spirit is not human... but a spirit.... therefore does not have a penis as a bodily organ. By virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not have a penis... Mary retained her virginity.

Just a question. If your daughter came to you and said "Mum/Dad, I'm pregnant. I've never had sex, the angel of the lord appeared to me and told me that I was going to have a baby" would you believe her? If not, why not? After all, you believe it's already happened at least once.

Obliq

Didn't we have a thread on Jesus only recently? Oh yes, here it is: Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=85926528

vibe666

Hands up who thinks this should be transferred to the Christianity forum. For the craic. :pac:

oldrnwisr

ABC101 wrote: »

I think you are taking a lot of poetic license there. Comparing Jesus to a member of Al Qaeda etc, Jesus spoke a lot about love and forgiveness, turning the other cheek and also spoke about the 10 commandments, do not kill, do not steal, not taking your neighbour's wife and so on.

Comparing Jesus to modern day organisations who use violent force is not only a bit rich, but unfair to the man.

It's akin to me proclaiming that all Irish citizens are member's of the IRA etc, when clearly that is not the case.

Well, firstly it should be pointed out that we have no actual idea what Jesus said, did, would have supported/liked condemned etc. The only writings about Jesus we have are four stories written anonymously beginning about 40 years after his death and littered with copied stories, inconsistencies, inaccuracies and misinterpretations. In addition to that we have a series of letters (some of which are forgeries) from a man who never met Jesus and did not (entirely) share his agenda.

Having said that, the idea that Jesus was a man only interested in pacifism, peace and brotherly love is incorrect and only arrived at by reading the NT selectively. For example, for every passage like "love one another as I have loved you" there is another passage like Matthew 10:34-36:

"“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

ABC101 wrote: »

I cannot agree there at all. That sentence does not make sense. The people who followed Jesus around lived among the Jews, they would have known the Jewish customs very very well.

St Paul was a Jew... and he was a strong member of his community, he would have a very high understanding of the Jewish faith and most certainly was not ignorant of Judaism or Jewish thought.

Actually, you'll find that quite a few early Christians would not have lived in among the Jews and been familiar with Jewish customs.

Take the author of Mark's gospel for example. Not only is he ignorant of Jewish customs (e.g. Jesus being wrapped in a single piece of material or shroud after death) and Jewish laws (e.g. the trial of Jesus being held at night on Passover in the home of a member of the Sanhedrin) but he is also ignorant of Palestine and the region he purports to report from (e.g. the exorcism at the start of Mark Chapter 5).

Then of course you have Pauline writings. Like the 1st Letter to the Corinthians for example where Paul claims that Jesus appeared to 500 people after his death. Corinth is 800 miles from Jerusalem. The people Paul is speaking to have no way of knowing the veracity of Paul's claims. Nor do we for that matter.

ABC101 wrote: »

However if everything is as you wrote above in your OP to be perfectly accurate and true... then how come Christianity is where it is today? How come it has lasted 2000 years and has X billion people who proclaim themselves to have a Christian faith?

Other posters have pointed out the age of some other religions and how they have lasted but I'd just like to ask: what has the fact that there are X billion christians have to do with anything. There are approximately 2 billion christians out there. Which means there are about 5 billion people out there who think christianity is, well, wrong.
Christianity has survived because it offers people a comforting lie. It offers people a tremendous degree of emotional comfort and the ability, for some, to cope with life. But a lie nonetheless.

ABC101 wrote: »

You speak of Paul as taking the concept of Jesus and creating his own ideology, but you ignore the 4 Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John etc. Was there a big conspiracy between these 5 persons?

Well, not so much of a conspiracy but rather a series of influences. The earliest documents in the NT are the Pauline epistles, specifically 1 Thessalonians. All the gospel writings come much later. So Paul through his actions and his writings wielded a great degree of influence and should be as the OP points out considered the true architect of Christianity. Paul heavily influences the author of Mark's gospel who takes the same aggressive Pauline stance to Jewish laws and customs (e.g. Mark 10:7). Mark's gospel then influences Matthew's who copies ~98% of his text from Mark. He adds some embellishments, corrects some of Mark's more glaring mistakes, adds in a nativity and quite a few badly misinterpreted prophecies and changes the attitude to Jewish laws (Matthew 5:19). Along comes Luke who like Matthew copies heavily from Mark, makes the story even longer than Matthew and adds an extra dimension of characterisation. Finally, you have John. John only borrows about 8% of his story from the synoptics. He very much talks up the spiritual and divine character of Jesus while changing the mistakes Mark makes about Jewish laws and customs.

So not a conspiracy, more like a couple of decades of chinese whispers.

ABC101 wrote: »

When you use the term "virgin birth" what do you mean?

The OP is probably referring to the fact that the virgin birth "prophecy" is complete bullsh1t. It is a mistranslated, quote-mined passage from the Old Testament which is used by Matthew to give the impression that Jesus' arrival had been heralded for hundreds of years. It hadn't.

ABC101 wrote: »

The teachings of Jesus was also backed up by his actions, he worked many miracles, loaves and fishes being one, raising people from the dead, etc etc.

Well, like I said above, the idea that we know anything that Jesus did is ludicrous. He left no writings of his own and there are no contempraneous manuscripts. However, in the case of the two miracles you picked out above, we can be reasonably confident that Jesus if he existed didn't perform those acts.
The first miracle, the loaves and the fishes is a retelling of a story in 2 Kings 4, where Elisha multiplies barley loaves in the same manner as Jesus. The story is retold with Jesus paralleled with Elisha but this time feeding even more people with even less food, thus demonstrating Jesus' superiority.
The second miracle, raising Lazarus from the dead, is borrowed from the story of Horus raising Osiris from the dead in Egyptian mythology. The author even makes use of the same dialogue recorded on pyramid texts to make a literary tip of the hat to the source of the story.


To the OP:

I'm really at a loss as to why you started this thread and why here, more to the point. There doesn't seem to be any particularly controversial talking point in it, nor does it ask any burning question. For as much as there might be broadly true about the OP, much of the detail is in itself wrong or at least inaccurate. Why did you start this thread exactly? After all, a quick search would show that this topic has been discussed at some length in the past.

Azwaldo55

ABC101 wrote: »

You are correct in saying she never had sex with a man... that's because the conception of Jesus was not a normal sexual act as us humans would understand it.

All we know is that it was the power of the Holy Spirit which came over Mary. Mary was still able to retain her virginity, due to the fact that the Holy Spirit is not human... but a spirit.... therefore does not have a penis as a bodily organ. By virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit does not have a penis... Mary retained her virginity.

And you know this how?

In relation to your other points re: evidence of WW2 for example. Unfortunately 2000 years ago evidence collecting tools such as cameras, printing presses, magnetic tape recording devices did not exist as you well know.

However I would say just because the tools for recording evidence did not exist, does not mean events did not occur i.e. Jesus raising a dead person etc.

The burden of proof is on you not me.

It's obviously a made up story.

Even if Jesus did have a camera 2000 years ago, some people today would consider the photographic evidence to be fake, forgeries or manipulated etc, in other words regardless of the evidence, written, oral, photographic, digital media files... it could all be dismissed as fake.

If Jesus was God why didn't he make a camera so? Why didn't he come to earth in the media age of the 21st century? Ever considered that?

Nodin

ABC101 wrote: »

@ Azwaldo55,

Many thanks for your reply.

About the issue of the Virgin Birth (................)a thought.

If you'd be good enough to get back to me.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90244138&postcount=30

ABC101

@ Oldrnwisr,

Many thanks for your post...

I'll attempt to answer your question about the X billion Christians.

I used X as I do not know the precise number of Christians on the planet, I do realise that it was in the Billions... probably around 1.5, however you suggest 2. Fair enough I'll go with your number. We are probably both wrong... but it is in that ballpark anyway.

However my point I was trying to make is that.... if Jesus and the teaching of Christianity is a load of "old Cobblers" then I don't believe it would have lasted 2000 years.

For example.... very few organisations have lasted 2000 years, the only ones which have been around a long time seem to be organisations based around some form of Spirtuality, like Hinduism as some of the other posters have mentioned.

Yes certain inanimate objects have lasted thousands of years, i.e. The Pyramids, Stonehenge, NewGrange etc etc.. but I was not referring to inanimate objects. I was specifically referring to human organisations.

We live in a world of change.... all the empires which we know about have risen and fallen, various ideologies such as communism, Nazism, various Dynastys in China, British Empire, Japanese Empire and so on and on. It's possible that if Global warming really takes off... Capitalism could come to an end too!

The USA is probably the most technology advanced country today, and is often referred to as the world's policeman. But does anybody think that will still be the case in 500 or 1000 years time? Will the USA be top dog in 2000 years time?

I don't think anybody can answer that question with certainty... however I think due to the changing world we live in... it is highly probable that the USA will not be in the top spot of nations in 1000 years.

When I think of growing up in the 60's, 70's and even 90's.... that was a world with no internet or mobile phones. I ask myself just how did we get things done back then... I mean it is not as if the Dept of Post & Telegraphs were delivering phones to everybody in 3 days. Some phone applications took several months to process. In fact some housing estates in the 70's did not even have 1 phonebox.

The world pre year 2000 seems very different to what it only a few short years later.

Yet despite all the change in the world... Spirituality has still carried through, not just Roman Catholism but other religions as well, some predating Christianity.

Even before organised religion... you could go to the deepest jungle, highest mountain, most isolated Continent, wettest land or most barren desert and you will find people who profess some form of Spirituality.

It doesn’t matter what time, place, race on the earth you choose.... Spirituality seems to be there.


Go back to ancient times…. It is known by carvings on stones that ancient man worshipped the ground. Then at some point in time… mankind stopped worshipping the ground and starting worshipping the sun. This was a global event, written in stone not just in Ireland, but all over the world.



Some historians, archeologists, think there was a global event perhaps a massive volcanic eruption or meteorite which hit the Earth and the sun was blotted out for a long time, causing massive loss of food from the ground etc.
I do believe in spirituality, I am not alone, there are many billions like me… and because of this….I take it as evidence as there is something out there after death. I do believe there is a spiritual world.

Now in relation to your point about Jesus and pacifism…

“Having said that, the idea that Jesus was a man only interested in pacifism, peace and brotherly love is incorrect and only arrived at by reading the NT selectively. For example, for every passage like "love one another as I have loved you" there is another passage like Matthew 10:34-36:

"“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."

You are misunderstanding the quotation. Jesus did not literally mean families at physical war with each other, i.e. father against son etc etc.

What he meant by this was the world was a place of confusion, ½ truths, people living ½ way between greed and fear of risking. The peace of the world, whether in a family or in society, veils unjust conditions imposed by the strongest, or a shared mediocrity. The Gospel is supposed to awaken everywhere a critical spirit, so that the presence of only one Christian living by “the truth” is enough to worry many persons.


In other words the Gospel is supposed to move us to make decisions with greater freedom, disregarding the criticism of those close to us whenever we are convinced that they cannot understand the Gospel values which motivate a person. Example being… a pregnant girl who is resisting her parents advice to obtain an abortion.


By teaching that Divine Law is above parental authority…. Trouble is going to break out between mother and daughter, son against father etc. This is what Jesus meant when he spoke “I did not come to bring peace”


I mean think about it… look at this forum… A&A… loads of different bloggers arguing among each other etc etc and not just on this forum… but thousands of forums around the world.


Anyway guys & gals… I’m beat… I cannot answer all questions, so this will probably be my last post for this evening. If I can get the time I will attempt to get back to other posters,, out of courtesy.

smokingman

Ah just for the craic...
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/06/03/218349.html

So Islam is right eh?

Gordon

ABC101 wrote: »

However my point I was trying to make is that.... if Jesus and the teaching of Christianity is a load of "old Cobblers" then I don't believe it would have lasted 2000 years.

Not really an argument for validity, surely.

However, considering the christian religious leaders change the goalposts to fit current climates and social weather, it's entirely feasible that a chinese whisper can evolve cleverly to suit the current climates of the times. Churchy type people are always changing what they think is right and wrong, if they didn't, they'd be out of favour with the moving times.

Mark my words, the ten commandments will have a first amendment in our lifetime, it's my prophecy.

oldrnwisr

ABC101 wrote: »

I'll attempt to answer your question about the X billion Christians.

I used X as I do not know the precise number of Christians on the planet, I do realise that it was in the Billions... probably around 1.5, however you suggest 2. Fair enough I'll go with your number. We are probably both wrong... but it is in that ballpark anyway.

However my point I was trying to make is that.... if Jesus and the teaching of Christianity is a load of "old Cobblers" then I don't believe it would have lasted 2000 years.

You see, here's the thing about Christianity. The way you have phrased your argument makes out as if Christianity is an organisation which has survived for 2000 years as it was founded. It hasn't. At the moment there are over 33,000 different denominations of Christianity and they are constantly sharding into ever more divergent directions. The idea that Christianity is a coherent organisation or that Christianity now bears any resemblance to the early Church is ridiculous. The word christian in the sense that we understand it today only really started to be used in the 1860s in the reconstructionist period that followed the American Civil War. It only gained traction in the public consciousness with the abortion debate in the 1960s. Before that each denomination was afraid of another denomination gaining power. In fact, one of the earliest uses of the term "separation of church and state" appears in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a baptist minister assuaging his fears of a state religion.

The other point I was trying to make here is that the number of Christians, or spiritual people (since you bring it up) is irrelevant. It is what is known as the argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. The number of people who believe a particular claim has no bearing on the truth of that claim.

Finally, I should point out that getting to the facts behind authorship, dating and critical analysis of the bible is not easy. A lot of seriously unsexy scholarship has to be done. I've got a stack of virtual books on my Kindle that I've had to go through in detail to get to grips with the actual scholarship on the Bible. Most people simply aren't invested in finding out whether the Bible is true or not. As Tommy Lee Jones says:

"Humans, for the most part, don't have a clue. Don't want or need one. They're happy. They think they have a good bead on things."

Most people are more comfortable in their delusions than in finding out whether any of it is true or not.

ABC101 wrote: »

You are misunderstanding the quotation. Jesus did not literally mean families at physical war with each other, i.e. father against son etc etc.

What he meant by this was the world was a place of confusion, ½ truths, people living ½ way between greed and fear of risking. The peace of the world, whether in a family or in society, veils unjust conditions imposed by the strongest, or a shared mediocrity. The Gospel is supposed to awaken everywhere a critical spirit, so that the presence of only one Christian living by “the truth” is enough to worry many persons.

In other words the Gospel is supposed to move us to make decisions with greater freedom, disregarding the criticism of those close to us whenever we are convinced that they cannot understand the Gospel values which motivate a person. Example being… a pregnant girl who is resisting her parents advice to obtain an abortion.

By teaching that Divine Law is above parental authority…. Trouble is going to break out between mother and daughter, son against father etc. This is what Jesus meant when he spoke “I did not come to bring peace"

You really ought not to read things into the text that aren't there to begin with. The story told in Matthew 10 is Jesus instructions to his disciples about going out to preach his ideals to the wider population. Jesus is not dumb and realises that this kind of message is bound to cause friction. However, his message to the disciples is that either they are ready for conflict or they should go home. If you look at the wider quote you'll see what I mean.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me."

What Jesus talks about here is proselytism, getting the disciples to persuade people to change or abandon their beliefs, something which is bound to create tension particularly within families. In several places in the gospels Jesus makes a point of going against the dietary, sabbath and moral laws which causes friction among the Sanhedrin and ultimately leads to his death.

However, my original point is that portraying Jesus as a pacifist concerned with peace and brotherly love is to ignore or avoid the passages which contradict this. Like the passages where Jesus draws people into a vulnerable state so that they will follow him or the passage where Jesus advocates the murder of his enemies.

Reiver

Not going to lie. This image of a Warrior Christ causing havoc amongst Roman occupiers could be a great movie idea.

Weren't one of the 12 disciples meant to be a member of the Zealots though? Naturally before he became an apostle!

pauldla

Reiver wrote: »

Not going to lie. This image of a Warrior Christ causing havoc amongst Roman occupiers could be a great movie idea.

Weren't one of the 12 disciples meant to be a member of the Zealots though? Naturally before he became an apostle!

A trilogy! They Call Me Jesus, Jesus Is Still My Name, and Jesus Reloaded. Directed by Michael Bay, with Mark Wahlberg as Jesus.

Nodin

pauldla wrote: »

A trilogy! They Call Me Jesus, Jesus Is Still My Name, and Jesus Reloaded. Directed by Michael Bay, with Mark Wahlberg as Jesus.

No, he'd have loads of chariot chases and wine barrels exploding, but feck all movie. Walter Hill, Sam Peckinpah or John Milius FTW.

pauldla

Nodin wrote: »

No, he'd have loads of chariot chases and wine barrels exploding, but feck all movie. Walter Hill, Sam Peckinpah or John Milius FTW.

One thing the NT lacks is explosions. Drive the possessed swine off a cliff? No! DETONATE THEM! Drive the moneylenders from the temple? No! DETONATE THEM! Curse the fig tree? No! DETONATE IT!

I'd pay to see that.

Cabaal

Gordon wrote: »

Churchy type people are always changing what they think is right and wrong, if they didn't, they'd be out of favour with the moving times.

Slaves is one perfect example of this,
Another is a very slight relaxing of what women can or cannot do, women are now allowed to do that little bit more when it comes to church stuff....that wasn't always the case.

Lets not forget that the new testament states women should not speak in church's.

Women can now also come into church's after they've had a baby, they coudn't do this until the 60's/70's...as they were unclean!

Azwaldo55

Cabaal wrote: »

Slaves is one perfect example of this,
Another is a very slight relaxing of what women can or cannot do, women are now allowed to do that little bit more when it comes to church stuff....that wasn't always the case.

Lets not forget that the new testament states women should not speak in church's.

Women can now also come into church's after they've had a baby, they coudn't do this until the 60's/70's...as they were unclean!

The REAL Jesus was a Jew and therefore would have followed the Mosaic Law as did his brother and successors James The Just and Simeon and the patriarchs of the Jerusalem Church until the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Jesus' attitude to women would have been the same as other Jews.

The insertion of Jesus saving the woman from being stoned to death, the story of a women washing his feet, the story of the women at the foot of the cross, the women at the tomb are all obvious fabrications and insertions which were designed to appeal to the Greco-Roman converts to Christianity in the years that followed the fall of Jerusalem and the decline of Jewish Christianity.

Today some daft liberal Christians claim Jesus was pro-gay and pro-lesbian and pro-gay marriage.

Jesus like other Jews of the 1st century would have stoned those who broke the Mosaic Law to death and would have sought to drive the gentile Romans who were defiling Israel from their country.

The meek and mild Jesus of Christianity is a total invention.