It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I completely buy into the theory that Jesus was an insurrectionist who thought he was the messiah destined to start a revolution among the Jewish masses and free Jerusalem from Roman rule. He came into Jerusalem during Passover with the intention of starting the revolt that would overthrow the current government, only things went horribly wrong, and he was executed.
Originally posted by jmdewey60
I think he wanted to overthrow the Jews who ran the Temple.
Look at how Jesus was treated by Pilot, the first time he saw him.
Pilot did not think Jesus was a threat to him.
Why did Pilot ultimately give him up for execution?
Because the Jews saw Jesus as a threat to their power, and turned it around to make it look like Pilot would be disloyal if he let Jesus go.
My theory was there were three people who were in line to be High priest, according to the legitimate system of priestly succession: John, the cousin of Jesus. Jesus. And James the brother of Jesus.
The reader must always keep in mind that when the Gospels were being written - much of which was during and after the Jewish revolt of 68-74 CE - the Hebrews had effectively ceased to exist as an organised social, political and military entity. The four canonical Gospels [as opposed to the other Jewish and Essene texts that were hidden or suppressed] were written and edited with the intention of shifting attention and blame from the colonising Romans to the Hebrews. All references to Roman atrocities had to be played down, glossed over and their weekly crucifixions of hundreds of revolutionaries had to be presented as sympathetically as possible.
According to the gospels, Jesus is initially condemned by the Sanhedrin who then bring him before Pilate and request that he pronounce against Jesus. Historically this makes no sense at all. In the three Synoptic Gospels [Mark, Matthew and Luke] Jesus is arrested and condemned on the night of the Passover, but by Judaic law the Sanhedrin was forbidden to meet over the Passover. Neither were they permitted to convene at night, in private houses or anywhere outside the precincts of the Temple. The Gospels give the impression that by hauling Jesus before Pilate, they were not authorised to pass death sentences. In fact, they were so empowered - by stoning, not crucifixion, in the case of blasphemy - with no need to go before Pilate at all. The very accounts of Jesus' arrest and execution gives some indications about the revolutionary - rather than the benign, spiritual character blissfully aloof from the events around him - person to whom the Jewish people pegged their hopes for deliverance from Roman domination.
This simple fact speaks volumes. Jesus, for example, came not to change the Jewish Law, but to fulfill it. And as a Jew, Jesus believed in one God -- the idea of a divine Messiah would have been utterly unthinkable. To him and the Jews of his age, a "Messiah" meant nothing more nor less than "the anointed one", i.e. the duly consecrated and divinely endorsed king. Every king of Israel was regarded as a Messiah! But at the time of Jesus, there was no duly consecrated and divinely endorsed king, and thus no Messiah. The Jews were in fact looking for a Messiah in order to lead them to overthrow the Romans. But there was nothing intrinsically divine about such a figure. Rommel and a Panzer Division would have been quite adequate from the point of view of the Jews (although they would have preferred some spiritual, Jewish background of their commanders as well).
Paul, on the other hand, intent as he was on creating a cult, had to compete with a wide variety of established religions. In Paul's cult, Jesus had to assume the status of godhead comparable to other deities. Tammuz, for example, the god of ancient Sumerian and Phoenician mystery teachings, had been born of a virgin, died with a wound in his side and, after three days, rose from his tomb, leaving it vacant with the rock at the entrance rolled aside. Much of the Gospels also include specific elements of traditions surrounding Tammuz, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and Zoroaster. Mithraism, in particular, postulated an apocalypse, a day of judgment, a resurrection of the flesh and a second coming of Mithras himself. Mithras was also said to have been born in a cave where shepherds attended him and regaled him with gifts. Finally, there is a passage in the Mithraic communion which states: "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
Hmmmmm....you sound a bit anti-jewish there. Jesus was a Jew, and like many at that time he wanted to overthrow Roman rule. The jews would NOT have needed Roman permission to execute Jesus as a blasphemer, and if they wanted to get rid of him they would have done it via stoning, not crucifixion. Crucifixion was a Roman form of punishment, and it was used for the most horrific criminals and those that plotted against the Roman government.
Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
Not quite. He clearly stated that all who came before him were thieves and robbers. If you can't take him at his word for even that one simple line, how can you ever see the deeper things, he meant for you to see?
But hey it does make sense as far as spin goes. At the time it was very common for humans to be made into Gods. It was in fact, quite common; Augustus, Tiberious, even Caligula...all made Gods. One could almost say it was a fad.
Originally posted by Sonya610
...he would most likely say “What are you talking about? I am a Rabbi.”
I completely buy into the theory that Jesus was an insurrectionist who thought he was the messiah destined to start a revolution among the Jewish masses and free Jerusalem from Roman rule.
Originally posted by ScienceDadaIn your theory, then why are early Christians persecuted by the Jews if they were a revolutionary movement?
Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
You know what Sonya? I honestly have never studied Islam. I don't even give it the time of day. I have no idea what makes them tick. I have no idea what they could quote to me - that proves how the living spirit works through Islam - or if it even does.
So that's where the line is drawn in the sand. The living Spirit of God is proof. And the proof is in the pudding.
Originally posted by Sonya610
I said JESUS was a revolutionary. That has NOTHING to do with Christians. Jesus was Jewish, very Jewish, a Rabbi...
Originally posted by ScienceDada
Wow, what a way to dodge the bulk of my argument. It sounds like you have convinced yourself of this, so great *have fun*. It quickly becomes obvious that you concocted a mediocre conspiracy theory suffering from confirmation bias, lacking falsifiability, and with a pathological need to single out and combat Christians.