The Jesus Conspiracy

Greetings Flange Gasket,

Jason, we meet again...

My name is Iasion, I A S I O N
it's amazing how often people get it wrong.

Having so eloquently made your claim however, you fail to provide any evidence from the period of the Roman occupation of Canaan of a conspiracy to create a fictitious "Jesus" existed.

Well,
I never claimed there was "a conspiracy to create a fictitious" Jesus.
The Jesus Myth theory is NOT about a conspiracy.
(ah, perhaps JJ meant the Calpurnius Piso conspiracy theory?)

This is a common misunderstanding about the Jesus Myth theory,
and I pointed this out in my post :

However, the main argument is not about a conspiracy to unify the Roman state (although there may be such fringe theories.) The argument is that Jesus was originally a spiritual being, only later believed to be historical.

If you wish to actually understand what the Jesus Myth theory argues, I suggest you start with the 12 Easy Pieces of the Jesus Puzzle :
www.jesuspuzzle.org...


G.Mark religious LITERATURE

The original, anonymous, gospel was a piece of spiritual literature.
It is based largely on the Jewish scriptures - the episodes in the Gospels were created from passages in the Tanakh.

You can see a detailed explanation of this here:
users2.ev1.net...

G.Mark was such a success that was copied by many later authors.

Then, long after the alleged events, after TWO wars had devastated the region -
after the Temple had been razed to the ground,
after Jerusalem had been destroyed,
after most of the Jews had been killed or dispersed,
after Judea had been erased from the map,
after several generations had passed,

THEN people started saying Jesus was a historical figure.


It was not a "conspiracy" at all.
It was a great spiritual story, a great work of religious literature, set just before the wars - back in the "good ol' days" before the Romans came.

It was merely people with religious fervour convincing themselves, and others, that this great spiritual hero was a real person.

Is there one authentic text you can quote from this period that states that Jesus didn't exist and the gospells were a construct.

Did any refute the Heaven's Gate cult?
No.
Does that make their wacky views true?
No.

Did any refute the Jim Jones cult?
No.
Does that make their crazy views true?
No.

Did any refute the Golden Ass of Apuleis?
No.
Does that make it true?
No.


Of course not - fringe cults may be ignored or they may be ridiculed or they may be refuted in detail, or they may not - the lack of a detailed rebuttal does not in anyway make cult views true.

But when a cult grows and comes into prominance, THEN it may be criticised - which is EXACTLY what we see in the case of the Gospels.



Early refutations of Christianity

The words and phrases used by early writers to dismiss Christians and Christianity include :
"fables" "lie" "myths" "superstition" "empty rumour"
"alter the originals over and over" "invented"
"base and ignorant creed making fishermen"
"blasphemy" "spurious" "counterfeit" "contradicts"
"refuted because they disagree"

Just what would be expected of a new cult growing in prominance.



Jewish responses to Christianity

The Jewish response is just what we would expect of a wacky new cult - initially they ignore it. But late in the 1st century, as more Jews leave for Christianity, the Jews formally BAN the Christians from their synagogues and curse them as "minim". And lets not forget the Gospels arose sometime after the war, the Jews had a LOT more to worry about than refuting some a new cult.

Later, of course, when Christianity is rising to power, and the Jews have recovered from the Roman destructions, they DO try to discredit Jesus with all sorts of horrible stories being told -
* Jesus is a bastard (a mamzer) born from Mary's adultery with a Roman soldier,
* Jesus is a child conceived in the "time of separation" (during menstruation),
* Jesus was a evil magician who tried to lead people astray,

This is not the sign of the Jews unable to refute Christianity - on the contrary - it's the sign of a new cult which is at first ignored, then ridiculed and attacked when it starts to become a threat.



Variant Christian views

In the formative period of Christianity, the 2nd century, we see all sorts of disagreement about specific Christian claims :

The epistles of John mention other Christians who do not believe in a son of God, and attack Christians who do not believe Jesus came in the flesh.

The epistle of Polycarp also describes those who do not accept that Jesus came in the flesh.

Consider the astonishing case of Minucius Felix - he explicitly rejected the worship of a man on a cross as a Christian belief, he explicitly denied that God could become man. That's a 2nd century church father who explicitly rejected the incarnation and the crucifixion - 2 central beliefs of Christians.

Many other disagreements are expressed in the 2nd century :
* Timothy warning against the fables of genealogies,
* Marcion denied Jesus was born of Mary,
* gnostics such as Basilides and Bardesanes claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual being,
* the docetae argue Jesus was an illusion,
* Barnabas denies Christ was "son of David",
* forged letters warning about forgeries and "other christs"

In short - the 2nd century is full of refutations and rebuttals as the varying Christian sub-sects argued about what was "really true" about Jesus.

This is not the sign of a historical event which was not refuted - its a clear sign of the exact opposite - religious mythology being argued over.



Pagan responses to Christianity

Initially, the new cult is largely ignored, but ridiculed by a few writers -
* Tacitus - "a class hated for their abominations", "a most mischievous superstition"
* Pliny - "this mad sect"
* Lucian - "misguided creatures"

This is not the sign of a grand new truth being accepted - it is the sign of a wacky new cult which barely rated a dismissive mention at first.

Later on, when Christianity and the Gospels first rose to prominence, they DID receive detailed rebuttals.

Celsus specifically attacked the Gospels as "fiction" based on myths, and he claimed the Gospels were changed over and over to deflect criticism. Hoffman's reconstruction has quotes such as these :
"Clearly the Christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Celsus' attack was so damaging to the church, that they attempted to erase it from history, we only have quotes of it because of angry Christians who answered his critique.

This is not the sign of external agreement on Christian claims - it is demonstrably the exact opposite - a specific attack that the Gospels were FICTION, an attack so damaging the church tried to burn every copy of it.


A few generations later, as the church is consolidating its power, a pagan historian Porphyry wrote another critique of Christian beliefs "Against the Christians", including such criticism such as :

"The evangelists were fiction writers-- not observers or eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion"

"Anyone will recognize that the [gospels] are really fairy tales if he takes the time to read further into this nonsense of a story..."

"Another section in the gospel deserves comment, for it is likewise devoid Of sense and full of implausibility; I mean that absurd story about Jesus sending his apostles across the sea ahead of him after a banquet, then walking across to them 'at the fourth watch of the night'...Those who know the region well tell us that, in fact, there is no 'sea' in the locality but only a tiny lake which springs from a river that flows through the hills of Galilee near Tiberias... Mark seems to be stretching a point to extremities when he writes that Jesus-- after nine hours had passed-- decided in the tenth to walk across to his disciples who had been floating about on the pond for the duration... It is fables like this one that we judge the gospel to be a cleverly woven curtain, each thread of which requires careful scrutiny"


Then, just as Christianity had come to be the state religion, the Roman emperor Julian rejected the faith and wrote his own refutation of Christianity, "Against the Galileans", including comments such as :
".. why do you worship this spurious son of his whom has never been recognised as his own", and "You however, I know not why, foist on him a counterfeit son".

Note this telling criticism of Julian, the educated Roman emperor :
"But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time - the events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius - then you may consider that I speak falsely on all matters"

Here we see Julian explicitly state that Jesus is UNKNOWN TO HISTORY.


There is no doubt from this that early Christianity was dismissed as a cult based on lies and myths. Yet somehow apologists like Pastor pretend that these writers are supporting the veracity of the resurrection!



There we see several examples of the Gospels being specifically attacked as MYTHs.

We see Christaisn who specifically did NOT believe in a physical Jesus.

We see one Christian father explicitly deny the incarnation and crucifixion.

We see an educated Roman emporer explicitly claim Jesus is UNKNOWN to history.



Along with many other signs that the stories grew in the telling -

We see that NO 1st century Christian writings have a clear mention of a historical Jesus.

We see no contemporary evidence for Jesus and the Gospel events.

It is interesting that you mention Julius Africanus as he made his fame translating the works of the 1st century disciple Adbias, the Nazarene Bishop of Babylon. The Books of Abdias amounted to ten volumes of firsthand Apostolic History, which like so many other important accounts of this era were deemed unsuited to the Roman friendly accounts contained within the eventual gospels.

Pardon?
Who is this "Adbias"?
I can find no record of him in any reference work or web site.
He is not mentioned in any Christian work.
He is not mentioned in any reference on Julius Africanus.
There were no 1st century disciples who were "bishops" - bishops came much later.

His account of the Exodus of Jews during this period is illuminating as he describes at the outset of the revolt the Romans had all public records burned so as to prevent future details of Royal Judean geneaology. During the revolt itself all records, including those privately held documents were ordered to be seized and destoyed.

Which account? Where can we read this "account"?

Even if the Romans did destroy genealogies, that does not explain -
* the silence of Paul about a historical Jesus,
* the silence of the epistles of James, Peter, John about a historical Jesus,
* the silence of Philo of anything about Jesus or the Christians - and it was Philo who first used the concept of the "Logos" and the "holy spirit".
* the silence of Justus of Tiberias about Jesus or the Gospel events.
* the silence of many 1st century authors : Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, Theon of Smyrna, Lucius Apuleuis.
* the silence of early Christians about the Gospels themselves,
* why G.Mark shows signs of spiritual LITERATURE, not history,
* why the late and anonymous Gospels all copy from G.Mark, itself originally anonymous,
* why some CHRISTIANS call the genealogies of Jesus "fables" (in the Pastorals, 2nd forgeries in Paul's name)
* why so many Christian sects denied Jesus "came in the flesh"
* why several 2nd century apologist described Christianity WITHOUT Jesus,
* why Minucius Felix explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion,
* why all the early mentions of Christianity dismiss it as a "superstition"
* why Celsus criticised the Gospels as "fiction... based on MYTH" just when they came to prominance,
* why Porphyry called the Evangelists "inventors, not historians",
* why Julian said Jesus was UNKNOWN IN HISTORY.

So your proof of a lack of evidence is entirely consistant with what we should expect from this region in this period.

Yes, it is entirely consistent with a new hero of spiritual myth, later mis-understood as history, after 2 wars and several generations had destroyed the evidence and the people.

What is missing however is any evidence from this period of a Roman or Jewish conspiracy to fabricate a story of a mythical Jesus...

I never said there WAS a "conspiracy",
nor does Earl Doherty, nor any Jesus Myther.
Of course, JJ's post was originally about a conspiracy, so perhaps I am taking the post off topic, sorry :-)
(I have checked and found there IS a "conspiracy theory" about someone called Piso. It' a fringe theory of the wildest kind, no-one I know of gives it any support.)

But, the Jesus Myth theory is often confused with a "conspiracy theory", so I thought I'd answer on behalf of the JM theory - the Jesus Myth theory is hotly debated in many fora lately.


MY argument,
such as e.g. Earl's :www.jesuspuzzle.org...
is that Jesus was originally a MYTH, a spiritual hero of a magnificent piece of religious literature,
later mis understood as history...



Iasion

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
I think that LATER as time went on that people tried to take Advantage of his story. All sorts of "Christian" Religions & "Christian" Churches were Created! As his Story & Legend grew I believe that many
"Supernatural Powers" were grafted onto him - these were mostly
LIFTED from Pagan Mythologies! This was designed to get as many converts as possible - from all sorts of "Sources"! Eventually the MAN Jesus - the humble Jewish Reformer - became the supernatural
GOD -> "CHRIST"!

Serpente, why would people who believed in a wrathful God change his Word? Do you think Christians care so much about 'winning converts' on earth that they'd spend an eternity in Hell for it?

Originally posted by saint4God


Serpente, why would people who believed in a wrathful God change his Word? Do you think Christians care so much about 'winning converts' on earth that they'd spend an eternity in Hell for it?

Look at the books that were left out of the Christian bible...partly because the powers that be, thought that angels were getting too much recognition and feared that people may actually start praying to them, so those that told a lot about angels, were omitted....reincarnation was omitted....yes, the church powers and those that had control changed mush of the bible! It's history.

Serpente, why would people who believed in a wrathful God change his Word? Do you think Christians care so much about 'winning converts' on earth that they'd spend an eternity in Hell for it?

Those who made such changes only paid lip service to God...they truly worshipped the coin... Sociologically speaking, it was actually a pretty good plan...keep the populace busy working, in fear, and believing that salvation only comes from supporting the church... Pretty successful if you are one of the clergy...and this continues in different forms today.

As to the subject at hand...first, I am not a Christian. There is very scant historical evidence for Jesus' existence....that doesn't come from the Bible. While the claim of Jesus' association and acknowledgement by other religions is correct, we're still talking about it being way after the fact...

Still, I'm of the belief that there was such a person (or persons, who were then made into one entity) who taught such lessons. However, I do think that the miracles are simple misidentifications, as well as early magic tricks perpetrated by his mother Mary, to further the "savior" complex. Many are fairly easy to explain or do, and fuzziness throughout the years of telling the tales is probably largely to blame (i.e. translations, different narrator style, etc. before being written down) It's actually rather humorous to see James used to support Jesus, as the church scoffs at the idea of Jesus having siblings... Nonetheless, it's pretty niave to assume that Mary and Joseph never had any other children...especially in those days.

Originally posted by LadyV
Look at the books that were left out of the Christian bible...

When I read through the omitted books, I didn't see anything shocking or contradictory with the overall message (not to say I study them or haven't missed something).

Originally posted by LadyV
partly because the powers that be, thought that angels were getting too much recognition and feared that people may actually start praying to them, so those that told a lot about angels, were omitted....

Then you disagree with this decision? If so, why? I thought it was interesting reading, but hardly helpful in the 'here and now' daily living.

Originally posted by LadyV
reincarnation was omitted....

Hm? Musta missed this one, mind helping me out since I don't have a copy of that material on my desk?

Originally posted by LadyV
yes, the church powers and those that had control changed mush of the bible! It's history.

Candidly, I find it interesting that non-Christians are upset about these 'important' books are left out whereas Christians look through them and shrug saying "Yeah, I don't see why they needed to be in there either". Anyone is free to answer, I'd like to know why.

Finally, correct if I'm wrong please, but weren't these books left out because there was no way to verify the validity? Now don't jump on the validity of the books that ARE in there, we're discussing omitted books and would like to hear an answer focused on such.


[edit on 3-2-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Gazrok
Those who made such changes only paid lip service to God...they truly worshipped the coin...

But Jesus did not say give all your money to the church. Don't you think the church would have included some kind of clause/verse if this was their motivation?

This is also contradictory to the overturning of the market tables in the temple. That was the priests domain, don't you think they were getting a cut from the Sabbath-day sales? Should the 'editing' either exclude or change this part so that the practice could be re-introduced?

Originally posted by Gazrok
It's actually rather humorous to see James used to support Jesus, as the church scoffs at the idea of Jesus having siblings... Nonetheless, it's pretty niave to assume that Mary and Joseph never had any other children...especially in those days.

Whatever that church is you're talking about (because it isn't Christian), obviously did not read Matthew 12:46 " While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mothers and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak with you."

Jesus' answer is pretty intereting too.


[edit on 3-2-2005 by saint4God]

There were many reason why some things and books were left out...usually because it didn't fit with what they wanted portrayed....yes, reincarnation was originally in the bible. I will find it for you when I have the time, after work tonight. I have read the books left out, they are much more telling and important from a history point, IMO, than some chosen to be in....
EDIT


Also....we do know that there were many books of prophets
around up until 312 CE when the Council of Nicea decided
which books were scripture and which ones were burned. Thanks to
the notorious habit of early Christian leaders of destroying
books/scrolls, we may never know what doctrine existed before the Council of Nicea. It was the Council of Nicea that removed reincarnation.

[edit on 2/3/2005 by LadyV]

Originally posted by LadyV
There were many reason why some things and books were left out...usually because it didn't fit with what they wanted portrayed....yes, reincarnation was originally in the bible. I will find it for you when I have the time, after work tonight. I have read the books left out, they are much more telling and important from a history point, IMO, than some chosen to be in....

LadyV, Does this help? REINCARNATION IN THE BIBLE

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
LadyV, Does this help?

It's an interesting theory, but it lacks one thing - The Bible.

I could write a book on what the Bible 'doesn't say', but that does not make it true. LadyV has claim that something used to be part of the Bible and was omitted. It doesn't automatically make it valid necessarily, but at least it would be interesting to see.


[edit on 3-2-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by JJ McKool
OK, lately I have heard a little about a small, but growing belief in something called "The Jesus Conspiracy," an idea that Jesus was actually a person who never existed, created by a group of people to try to unify the Roman state. Although I do not believe this, I wondered what your take on this was. Your theories on it, proof of it, proof against it, or outright joy or anger at the notion. Christians, and non-christians alike.

I am a Chaplain and with no claim to faith by title but faith in God and Jesus directly and I will tell you had he been an imagined figment of immagination then the idiots who put him on trial and killed him when he didnt exist are now ever more idiotic for trying and killing something that didnt exist, no the refusal to believe he does exist or never existed only serves a self defeating purpose to the enemies of Jesus they only remove their creditability all together by saying he didnt exist yet they tryed and killed him by crusifiction, they arent looking at it from their own side, I dont mean to say however people in this day and age are who I am talking about they are just continuing on with the fabrication of non existance the original killers of Christ started so they could desuade people from following the man they hated so much they killed.

[edit on 3/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]

the bible was translated/ bull# it was a combination of pagan ideals/Gospel /God spells which are a combination of bended truths. they are qouted in verse/vs God.. the fact that some jew told some of these pegans a long time ago about god is true. And they did marter the jew for his actions and they were pagan hebrews. why else does a pastor/minister only preach for a short time? Because if you link the verses together incorrectly the power of the spell is broken. The preacher is supossed to guide you back to some of the truth as it is translated. The common fool can see that those that believe in the bible without realise its evil will do preach the same way as one that knows of its evil power.

Black and white are the text see if you can figure out that one. The individual ideals reperesented in verses sorrounding the jesus are as follows. The son of God is anyone who learns from him, the sun litterly and it is the power within all of us we are created simular to God. Inside the sun is 0 space 0 time and zero is also infinite itself. Look at the zero as it is a never ending circle. that power is connected to the cross. now remember the bull# you learn in high school about light trveling in waves. look at dna from the side and see the two waves of light flowing in opposite directions. dna in the chromosome X would be like a cross because waves flowing in opposite direction would form a stright line. But why is one side of the cross longer? becuase the oppening of the original basic rift would require a slightly longer side to compensate for power flux. Atomically interaction that we see occur on a molecular level as well. that is why the cross is used in describing the power to save us from are sin, as you can create and destroy like the sun, with this knowledge of how you are created.

the fact that jesus tried to stop them is used in the discrediting of jeses when he turns water into wine. wine is made with yeast which is pagan's holy water. They take a women make her get off into some wheat and make liquor/ lick her. Modernising this cult has led to papsmears which are supossed to be for testing of cancer which is non-exsisting. The teachings of jesus to turn away from sin is mocarised with the concepts

the beauty of this plan is that they have raised up the enemy to a point where he is greater than god when revelations claims he shall return to kill the devil. Nether shall return and that is the point of this culture we live in. We eat the bread of the damn, go to are pagan elders ,give them are hard earned not real money, and they laugh and have lots of sex putting on a act that hollywood would be impressed by. Ohh yeah did I mention that alot of people end up in hell to becuase of the good people that love god that figure this out cannot do # in most cases and freakout when so many people lie to them.

More so the parible teachings are used against freedom from sin in regards to what god wants us to do when we become Jesus H-bomb Christ
these paribles of christ are something you wouldn't as of God but rather you would refrase them yourself. This teaches you the basic sturcture of the religion when you go off trying to save the world from its own ignorance. That is something that you would naturally do if you follow after god and what he wants you to do.

Quote: "the Gospels are FICTION".

Yeah & the Old Testament/Torah/Pentatuch - that is Filled with all True Facts!

Let me Guess JUDAISM is Not a "Wacky Cult" filled with "Fables, Myths & Superstition" - You make me Laugh Iason!

Hmm... I wonder what Saying/Teaching/Practice that are Attributed to
Jesus Christ as its source that you find so THREATENING as to Insist that Jesus didn't Exist? Might I point out that you yourself Offer NO PROOF that Jesus didn't Exist - only other Peoples Opinions!! My Opinion is that he did Exist!

Please take your Anti-Christian Agenda somewhere else!


[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

*giggles uncontrollably*
I'm sorry, but...
*falls off chair from laughing so hard*
...you can't possibly...
*holds stomach as muscles get sore from laughing*
...believe what you just posted.
Or do you?

*pounds on floor, still laughing*
Tell us again...
*tears begin streaming down face*
...how wine is made.
That one was just priceless.

Would you mind posting scientific and/or historical evidence to substantiate your claims? I'd be absolutely delighted to read it.

All of the major passages in the Bible that espoused a belief in reincarnation were ordered by Roman Emperor Justinian to be omitted. This was followed by a period of censorship and persecution of those who didn't adhere to the laws of the church. There are still hints of reincarnation that have remained in the Bible but any open preaching of reincarnation was prosecuted by the government, starting in the Sixth Century.

I quote my first reference:

>

Taken from: How the Early Church Suppressed Paganism and Astrology

I quote my second reference:

Here's some points that we could possibly agree on (what I'm referring to as fringing the definition of reincarnation). It ain't the meat and potatoes of reincarnation but seems to be what all the links and above discussion are eluding to:
- When we die, something else carries on after that point.
- The nature of God is not completely separate entities to where there is a wholeness in God.

As far as having past lives and future lives here on earth and picking up karma points, I haven't seen anything yet. I wholly believe the people in Judea, Greece, Rome, etc. had heard of reincarnation before, just as I have, but doesn't mean that part of my system of belief included it other than the two statements mentioned in the first paragraph. In the Hindu tradition, I believe you have the ability to move up or down the scale, taking the form of animals or people before reaching Nirvana. I don't see any Christian text, even one's omitted (which could've been for good reason), that states any of this to be the case.


[edit on 4-2-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't see any Christian text, even one's omitted (which could've been for good reason), that states any of this to be the case.

So you are in agreement with Roman Emperor Justinian who had all references to the doctrine of rebirth omitted from the Bible in the Sixth Century.

The following is from the free online encyclopedia known as Wikipedia:



Here is more on the early church father known as Origen, again from the above site:

>



[edit on 4-2-2005 by Paul_Richard]

Originally posted by Canopene
the bible was translated/ bull# it was a combination of pagan ideals/Gospel /God spells which are a combination of bended truths.

First of all despite it the violation of terms of use , I not only find some of your thoughts disturbing enough but to violate terms of use in this mannor amongst the conversation of holy contexts just adds to the problem.

Please go back to the rules you signed yesterday and review the language portion and please dont use this in religious areas of discussion above all.

I will respect your beliefs I think you should respect others in the same respect , choose your words more wisely and be more tolerant to others, you will get further.

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Quote: "the Gospels are FICTION".

Yeah & the Old Testament/Torah/Pentatuch - that is Filled with all True Facts!

Let me Guess JUDAISM is Not a "Wacky Cult" filled with "Fables, Myths & Superstition" - You make me Laugh Iason!

Hmm... I wonder what Saying/Teaching/Practice that are Attributed to
Jesus Christ as its source that you find so THREATENING as to Insist that Jesus didn't Exist? Might I point out that you yourself Offer NO PROOF that Jesus didn't Exist - only other Peoples Opinions!! My Opinion is that he did Exist!

Please take your Anti-Christian Agenda somewhere else!

And tell me this , ooohhh by the way Serephim good one , I agree show the proof he didnt exist.

Even Jesus;s enemies acknowledged his existance in the own faith basically making Jesus out to be a heritic and that they tryed him for these beliefs contrary to their religious doctrine also they felt threatened also that the fact this heretic was growing in popularity and that his claims to be kings would threaten there existance and promote revolt, so they tried him exicuted him although the trial was no more than a prisioner swap , it was a trial non-the-less. Then they tortured and crucified him.


Now lets look at some events previous to the execution that have been claimed by the enemies of Jesus as fact from their point of view.

1 Jesus was a heretic
2 he was growing in popularity
3 rebellious and reckloos and claiming to be the one true kng of their/all lands
4 he was betrayed by a traitor the goverment had hired there by offering a stance that if this Jesus was so devine that non would leave his side yet they where able to convince one of his closest followers and friends to betray and facilitate the capture of Jesus for what they deemed a minor petty amount of money.
5 the man was so revialed by the people of the land they chose to free a murderer of men in exchange for the goverment to crucifiy Jesus who was more dangerous because he was causing descent in the populations of the
kingdom which could start revolt and civil war


now if the man never existed the why make anyacknowledge of him let alone boast that you where key to the destruction of a man so dangerous.

That sound a little off doesnt it, are you saying the opposing side are hypocritical paranoid skitso's in exchange, cause the only other choice is they did meet , try and kill the Son of God.

There are a lot of People like Iason on the Net - There is DEF a Strategy & Agenda here! It's either: A) making Jesus out to be a Heretic
OR B) Jesus never existed - He is a Fable!

Now I Under stand that Jesus was a Rebel in many ways - But I find "B" absolutely INSULTING! It is like going up to a Jewish person & saying "The Holocaust Never Happened - You Whiners made it all up"! Insulting no?

Why can't we all just Respect each other’s beliefs? Just because over time Jesus was given all sorts of Strange Super-Natural Powers - Doesn't mean that he didn't actually Exist as a Man/Human Being in History!