"Jesus was a songwriter and a beautiful song it was too
But the band he chose to play it were off-key and out of tune."
There is strong historical evidence supporting there was a man Christians call Jesus even if it highly improbable he was named as such. At least one man fitting his profile, possibly two, maybe more, lived in that region during that time in history. We have historian Josephus, active during the occupation of Judea circa AD 26-36, recorded documentation of events. These journals have been disputed by some as having been interfered with and by Christian's eager to present the man as the Messiah. These forgeries, much like the Turin Shroud, only go as far as to underline the fact that somebody did give rise to the biblical tales. Most scholars agree that there was someone upon which the legends are built, a historical figure around whom the myths have grown. Not only Josephus confirmed the existence of Christus but also Tacitus who wrote this...
With this, there being a man upon which the legends are based, I am in total agreement. There was a Jesus. Forgeries to one side along with the unlikely and confused signals given credence by those seeking a goodly soul to follow, it is the bone hard facts that filter through all the detritus that makes me believe that a Hebrew prophet, unscholarly if not unlearned, led a group, possibly as many as one hundred strong with whom he shared his wisdom, his frustrations, his anger against the Roman occupation.
"Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness, do not do unto others that which you would not have done unto you." - Analects, Lun-yu XV, 23, from the Confucian tradition, circa 500 BC.
"Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness, do not do unto others that which you would not have done unto you." - Analects, Lun-yu XV, 23, from the Confucian tradition, circa 500 BC.
The Golden Rule is practised by all religions Monotheistic or otherwise but also those of no declared religion. I think it highly likely that Jesus would have heard this wisdom passed down through the ages and across the continents. It is unlikely he knew of the wisdom of the East. His influences would have been Hebrew, Greek and very much of the Middle-East. It is not at implausible for merchants and traders carrying their wares to sell in far-flung lands to have passed on the words of those they saw as wise. Nor indeed, for the son of a labourer to have elicited their wisdom before extolling its virtues to those that followed him. It remains the cornerstone of all faiths, all philosophies.
The thing to mull over is this - knowing events is one thing, understanding the psyche of those who recorded them and why they wrote in the manner they did, is another. The Hebrew scriptures were first transcribed into Greek, then Latin before being translated into regional languages. What one word written in Hebrew meant before being incorrectly rendered into another and then another language has had a massive impact on both religion and history. Evidence reveals that what was thought of as being written as 'virgin' was in fact 'with child.' There was no virgin birth.
The thing to mull over is this - knowing events is one thing, understanding the psyche of those who recorded them and why they wrote in the manner they did, is another. The Hebrew scriptures were first transcribed into Greek, then Latin before being translated into regional languages. What one word written in Hebrew meant before being incorrectly rendered into another and then another language has had a massive impact on both religion and history. Evidence reveals that what was thought of as being written as 'virgin' was in fact 'with child.' There was no virgin birth.
Quite when not why, Jesus became the son of a 'virgin birth' and then a 'divinity' is beyond me. Why would you want to elevate the every day to such lofty heights? You had a man, flawed like you or I yet carrying such wisdom alongside such rage, why would you want to furnish him with beatification? Was not the earth-born man not good enough?
Of course, Jesus was angry. Who wouldn't be? His homeland had been invaded and occupied by another nation, a dictatorial state whose punishments were severe even if their acceptance of other faiths was sanguine.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.” - Matthew 10:34-27.
I, and many like me, dislike the way the modern world has turned to Mammon. Banks and industry run our lives. We have little say in how State Capitalism is run. Those we elect offer no securities, no regulations preferring we adopt Hayek's principles of allowing free reign for the marketplace. I am unhappy at such inaction. I cannot see how we can create a functioning machine, set it to work for us and then walk away granting liberty for it to do as it sees fit. I see no common sense in that. Did we not rise out of serfdom by creating the Industrial Revolution? It strikes me all we have done is remove one set of shackles, those of the common serf, only to replace them with another, the Servile State. Jesus too disliked this arrogance.
"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.” Matthew 21:12–13
You cannot argue with that, can you?
I like this Jesus. I like his stance, his take on life. There is nothing saintly or divine about him. He is one of the people, a regular bloke. That is he was until Paul turns up and makes a man into a Messiah, a totem of false deism. Man becomes God by virtue of time elapsing as the fictions of religion become legends.
Jesus was a Jew, a Hebrew. He most likely had calloused hands, well I'd like to think so, drunk and ate too much, belched and broke wind when he shouldn't, had brothers and sisters, mother and father, aunts and uncles some of whom he would have loved and some he probably didn't.
The history of such a man is vague but thoughts shared have indicated that this Hebrew Rabbi, a rebel by all accounts - "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" - was possibly born Yehoshua Ben Yosef. It might equally have been Yeshu or Yeshua. It wouldn't, couldn't have been Jesus. It is a moot point but that name is the Anglicised version passed down from various interpretations, from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and so on. He was considered by many to have been a patriot, even a martyr to the cause of everything Judaic, and by others, depending on perspective, a revolutionary terrorist.
Yehoshua's mother might have been Miryam, again the name Mary is not of Hebrew origin, and he may very well have been Miryam's son but not Yosef's. Many historians think that Miryam's first husband died and, as was Hebrew custom, she then married her deceased husband's brother who raised Yehoshua as his own. It is also distinctly possible that one of his brothers, Yehuda, was in fact that Judas of popular myth.
Of course, what muddies everyone's waters, even Theologians, are the inadequacies and inconsistencies of history at the time. For one thing, and something we all know is that at least twenty years elapsed before any documentation regarding the Messiah appeared. More than enough time for legends and myths to grow. Miryam was not a virgin. The translation is wrong. There is, never was, any mention of that woman, Miryam, being a virgin. The error made was one of translation, of mistaking one word and inserting the wrong interpretation. Also, the King James version bears only a passing resemblance to the original scriptures. Where in that book it says 'the son of God, with the in italics, this denotes not emphasis but interpretation. In the original scriptures, it states 'a son of God.' Jesus was, just like me, A son of God not THE son of God.
There were more than twelve disciples. There were perhaps as many as one hundred. The Bible does not: cannot agree on how many there were. Different stories within the text vary from twelve to fifteen. The reason twelve is mentioned so often, and by Jesus, is a messianic symbol referencing the twelve tribes of Israel. You have to remember that all the texts that debate this, and yes these can be read, are something like seventy years after the event. These Messianic analogies are part and parcel of the fabric of Judaic faith. They were, are vital to that persuasion. Jesus was to be the new King, head of the twelve tribes. He indicates to a select few those who might be seated on thrones that would form this new Israel. This is not indicative of how many disciples there were. Hebrew writing dripped with symbolism.
Another thing we often forget what with the veil of deceit that has been drawn from these sacred texts is that many of the disciples of Jesus were female. Evangelist's fog over this. It is clear from all the scriptures that women were among his chosen and it was only when men flee persecution as Roman's exact punishment that those females come forward.
And what of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene? This is extant, can still be read but is largely ignored. Why? Sexism. Women were not held in the same esteem as men. Funny that as I tend to think God would be female.
'Do not weep and be distressed nor let your hearts be irresolute. For his grace be with you and will shelter you. Rather we should praise his greatness, for he has prepared us and made us human beings.'
And what of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene? This is extant, can still be read but is largely ignored. Why? Sexism. Women were not held in the same esteem as men. Funny that as I tend to think God would be female.
'Do not weep and be distressed nor let your hearts be irresolute. For his grace be with you and will shelter you. Rather we should praise his greatness, for he has prepared us and made us human beings.'
There can be no doubt that a man, Yehoshua or Yeshu or Yeshua, was crucified. It was the standard punishment of the day and thousands were similarly executed. He was horribly tortured before being crucified. It isn't until the third century that we get the hokum of resurrection. Why is this? Why does this incredible man need elevating to such disproportionate levels? The only answer I can think of is once again that of power. When dealing with primitives, you need to wield something apocalyptic to astound them, certainly men in this time, in this region, were highly superstitious. Dead men walking is one way of ensuring you at least get their attention.
When the scriptures started out it was from a Hebrew perspective. This changed when translated by Greeks who divided Gods from mortals, earth from heaven. They thought and wrote of two distinctly different realms and believed that flesh and the soul existed on entirely different planes.
When Mark, the first disciple to write of Jesus some seventy years after the so-called Messiah's death, he described the baptism as being when the 'spirit of God' entered the man of Jesus. This to me describes an epiphany, a moment of realisation that there is something bigger than Jesus, something beautiful and loving and that this spirit, not having a better understanding or vocabulary, must be Yahweh, must be God. It isn't until we get that angry rogue Matthew, whose prose was forever purple w that Jesus received God into him at birth.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” - Martin Luther King Junior
For me, Jesus is an everyday man, someone who disliked the Roman rule who sought change and home rule. There is nothing to be gained, apart from power, to have him as anything but a man. He was not a god, not a deity. His mother was not a virgin, the virtual translation got it wrong.
None of these facts defeats the idea of Jesus. Whatever the history, whatever the truth, Jesus is now the symbolic paragon of all we extol as both virtuous and good. He is, in reality, a concoction of a multitude of characters, these include Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu and the others. The myth of Jesus is now the epitome of what any sane person would want to be - as near perfect a human being as is conceivable. Being brought up as a Christian, if only for a few short years, gave me, through conditioning, a set of values that later in life I examined. I explored other ways and found none that really suited or made any sense to me at least not any one faith on its own. Jesus is the embodiment of all I see as holy even if he was never such a thing. The only pity is that such a man has yet again been hijacked by organised religion like a bone caught between two dogs and then tugged at for sovereignty. I like the fellow as he really was warts and all.
