The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #67101 Message #1121439
Posted By: Peter K (Fionn)
22-Feb-04 - 07:40 PM
Thread Name: BS: Mel's Dad... no Holocaust...
Subject: RE: BS: Mel's Dad... no Holocaust...
Dead on, Dianavan and brucie. But I must say, after all the wrangling about who killed JC, it came as something of an anti-climax to see Jerry Rasmussen putting his hand up. Jerry, in what sense did you do this crime? Please try to make sense!
LH, there are other sources besides the bible to look at when trying to fathom what went on during Jesus' life and afterwards. For instance if you check on Roman history you will find no record of any custom whereby Barabas was released. But just by looking at the bible itself you should be able to recognise that some of it is fairytales. For instance, what was the source for the story of Jesus's heroic, utterly brilliant self-denial in the desert? Why, it could only have been Old Big 'ead himself! It's my bet that he sexed it up a bit.
Paul's epistles provide some of the earliest records of events in Jesus's life, including the last supper (which incorporated a cannibalistic tradition borrowed from earlier beliefs). Paul, who was not at that supper, says he heard of Jesus's exhortation to "do this in remembrance of me" from God, in a dream. Yet he'd been knocking around with the disciples for years after the crucifixion, especially Peter. Had none of them ever thought to mention the blood-and-flesh stuff?
Mark goes out of his way to play up Jesus's meek acceptance of Roman occupation. I would suggest that this is part of a rebranding that went on after the crucifixion, to present Jesus not as the King of the Jews, which is how he had achieved prominence, but as "Son of God," which is how he achieved immortaility. Such rebranding would have been prudent given the brutality of the Roman regime in Judaea.
Even according to the bible itself, Jews could, and did, kill people who offended against their religion. If that had been JC's offence, he would have been stoned. It wasn't, and he wasn't. But as Matthew's gospel spells out in wonderful detail, Jesus had been born into a royal line on his father's (Joseph's) side, and as such he would have been a focal point for dissent against the occupying forces. (Of course, under the re-invention, Joseph ceased to be his dad, and all Matthew's resarch went for nothing...) Quite enough excuse for the Romans, who crucified people by the hundreds, if not thousands, for lesser reasons.