Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 23,428
Paul, somewhat amusingly, goes to great pains to explain to his readers why they should believe him rather than those who knew Jeshua ben Joseph in life, saying, basically, "sure, they hung out with him before the whole crucifixion thing, but I met him in a divine vision, and that's way cooler". He even talks about meeting Jesus's companions and agreeing to divide Jesus's message between themselves, with them sharing it with other Jews, and him sharing it with the gentiles. Reading between the lines it's pretty obvious they thought that was an acceptable way of getting rid of him.Also, it's very clear that Luke and Matthew copied Mark or another source. That other source is usually referred to as Q. And then embellished them.
Even If we agree that there was a Jesus. And that just maybe this person was the son of God. What makes anyone believe that the words these people wrote were Jesus's words and teachings? Few people can remember accurately what happened yesterday. Let alone decades later. And why would Paul know a damn thing? He wasn't there.
Based on what most secular academics say, I'm pretty sure there was an apocalyptic rabbi in the early 1st Century who gathered a decent following (though nothing to set him apart from other similar figures at the time) and managed to get himself executed for sedition by the Roman authorities for trying to start the Big Revolution® that would restore the rule of the House of David to Israel. But I don't think that historical figure bares any more resemblance to the figure(s) in the gospels any more than Nicholas of Myra resembles modern day Santa Clause. In fact, I think it's safe to say that Jeshua ben Joseph would have been positively apoplectic over the idea that a major religion would grow in his name that not only uttered the unforgivable blasphemy that he was one and the same as Jehovah, but would also eventually become the central religion of the Roman Empire he despised so deeply.