My view on Jesus.

KerimF said:

Truth be told, it doesn't matter for me how crucifixion was done. I didn't know Jesus based on any of his miracles; including how he was crucified and resurrected. I knew Him because it happens that He, unlike any other person in human history till our days, knows my deep nature and gave me the logical answers of all questions I was looking for about my existence and the real world into which I was brought temporarily. In other words, It happens I found myself a rational realistic man besides being spiritual. I am a man of reason not faith. This is why if the entire world may deny someday 'the Jesus' I know, I can't do the same unless I have to also deny my own set of knowledge, if not my own existence as well.

Naturally, I fully understand every time someone likes to talk about Jesus in a way that makes him feel better.
The following analogy may help explaining this.
Let me imagine I joined many forums in which all members of each of them insist that Pythagoras didn't exist or he wasn't a real scholar. Do you think I would follow the majority and cease using in my life the Pythagoras theorem of the right angle?
Similarly, I would keep taking advantage of all what I learnt from my perfect teacher (perfect, relative to my needs) even if no one in the world sees in him (Jesus) a teacher as I do.

Click to expand...

ChristineM said:

Yes i know all this. Probably long before it hit Wikipedia. I have visited Bad Kreuznach and seen the gravestone

And celsus work was destroyed. So why did you bring him up?

Click to expand...

ChristineM said:

I have given outlines of my view on Jesus several times in the last three or four weeks. Some people thought interesting, others obviously disagreed and a couple were outright hostile to the idea.

So i thought (yes it has been known) that a discussion thread would be a good idea to post my belief.

I am a full blown atheist with an interest in religion, particularly (for personal reasons) Christianity. I have also studied as a hobby minus/plus 100 years of the fall of the Roman Republic/rise of Empire. Just so you know this won't be a theological discussion but will have historical contexts based on my understanding of Roman life. I have come to this concussion, not only because of history but the accounts in the bible simply do not make sense given that history.

Where to begin, the beginning i guess is as good a place as any.

Jesus was born as the Talmud and other hebrew texts have it as Yeshu ben Pantera (Jesus son of Pantera). I take this as an illegitimate conception/birth, possibly by rape. Pantera was non other than a Roman soldier, Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera.

From birth to about 30 years nothing is heard of him. There are lots of stories but no facts. Of this period i suggest he was growing up with a deep resentment of his absentee father who was posted to Germany, where his gravestone can be seen.

View attachment 50597

Which fermented to a deep resentment of the Roman occupation.

It is my view that Jesus joined the Zionist movement the "Fourth Philosophy" and became an agitator, anarchist and terrorist against the Roman occupation. (A view echoed and expanded in books like Jesus the Terrorist by Peter Cresswell). Also possible that he was also a member of the Sicarri.

Remember, Rome was accepting of any religion and gods, to attempt to impose one god was not only traitorous to Roman belief it was also an insult to the emperor who was himself deemed a god.

Jesus was caught, (possibly with the help of Saulus) tried and executed for his crimes against Rome and the Emperor and given a traitors death of crucifixion.

A note here on methods of execution in Rome. There were several methods used depending on the crime, from being thrown off a high cliff or garoting for run of the mill crimes. Two of the most serious crimes were patricide (Rome ranked a father highly) which involved flogging then being sewn into a sack with a dog, a dunghill cock, a viper and a monkey. The sack is thrown into the depths of the sea or a river. And importantly for this OP, treason which require execution by crucifixion.

He was crucified and supposed given to family/followers for interment. This simply did not happen under Rome. The criminal was left on the cross to rot as an example of roman justice. However it seems that in this case it wouldn't make a good story so.

Assume that he was released from the cross before he died. Was nursed to a semblance of health and was later seen walking around town. Unfortunately the iron nails used to pin him to the cross were not sterile, probably rusty and teaming with bacteria. He succumbed to blood poisoning never to be seen again.

Now fast forward 350 years(ish). A growing religion in need of guidance, the bible was compiled using the OT and various selected stories to create a saviour.

Maybe Jesus was remembered in folk memory as one who incited a oneness in the Jewish people. Add to that the works of John the Baptist who really was a good/religious man. And a few tales of magic and miracles and you have a New Testement on which to base a religion.

Click to expand...

KerimF said:

I am a man of reason not faith. This is why if the entire world may deny someday 'the Jesus' I know, I can't do the same unless I have to also deny my own set of knowledge, if not my own existence as well.

Click to expand...

PruePhillip said:

The problem is that there's no evidence for any of this, let alone proof.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

No one is going to call you out for saying "I believe".

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

But when you say "I know" you put a burden of proof upon yourself.

Click to expand...

Thief said:

yeah .....right

Click to expand...

stvdv said:

No problem for me there is no evidence of this. If I would need proof and had no personal experiences then lack of proof might be problematic

Personal experience is all that I need. Lack of experience of Jesus naturally could lead to lack of belief in Jesus. When I experienced Jesus then I knew He is real.

Experience is my evidence, I need no more than that (though I welcome new experiences)

Click to expand...

KerimF said:

I don't know if it is wise talking about them in an international forum as here RF.
You know, telling a truth may also hurt some ordinary people as well and I try my best not to hurt the feelings of anyone.
After all, one of these natural facts (hence it applies in all times) is (given by an analogy):
"Don't cast your pearls before swine, because they will trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you".
Do you think this fact is not real?

Click to expand...

nPeace said:

If you like that view, that's fine too.

Click to expand...

MikeF said:

I see. I suppose I am the swine in this analogy.

Click to expand...

PruePhillip said:

Science seeks what I call 'corporate proof' which is to say you need to demonstrate
to everyone the verity of something. Religion is the 'private proof' which means proving something for
yourself

Click to expand...

PruePhillip said:

But if others cannot prove this for themselves then their religion is vain

Click to expand...

stvdv said:

Seeing this thread, I'm not too sure about that. The OP is about a belief, but it seems to be challenged


If I want to be taken serious or if I want to convince others or if I want others to believe me, yes then 'burden of proof' is on the one claiming to know

But as I know, that it's impossible to convince others of Spiritual truth there is no urge for me to convince others.

Click to expand...

MikeF said:

I see. I suppose I am the swine in this analogy.

Click to expand...

stvdv said:

Were you going to trample? Otherwise, I don't think you are the swine in this analogy

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

And you are quite wrong.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Nothing is more convincing than reliable evidence.

Click to expand...

stvdv said:

You seem quite convinced


You must have reliable evidence

I agree that reliable evidence is convincing

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Like so many theists you appear to be misusing the word "know". If you know you can support your claims. If you can only convince yourself it is a sure bet that you only believe.

No one is going to call you out for saying "I believe". But when you say "I know" you put a burden of proof upon yourself.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Does "spiritual truth" even exist?
And you are quite wrong. Nothing is more convincing than reliable evidence. If you cannot convince anyone then perhaps you have no evidence.

Click to expand...

KerimF said:

Sorry, who said that 'spiritual truths' should interest every human?!

Even certain earthly truths may not interest most people in the world, like the ones related to advanced Math, for example. Should all other humans deny their existence and follow the majority of the world's population?!

Click to expand...