|
From Magic City Morning Star R.P. BenDedek
So who did kill Jesus? The Jews or the Romans? The Answer to this question, at least up until now, has depended on your theological or even secular position. Were the Jews Responsible, and the Romans mere pawns? Or were the Romans responsible, and the Jews mere sideliners? Well, it may soon transpire that an Italian Court will Decide the issue, for depending on the outcome of that court, it may soon be decided that Jesus, called the Christ, never actually existed. As ironic as it may be, in the end, it may indeed be proven that the Romans killed Jesus of Nazareth. Court to decide Jesus' existence : From correspondents in Rome: 25jan06
If you have the stomach for it, and the ability to sift through badly translated Italian, you can go HERE and read the arguments for yourself. You see, according to Mr.Cascioli, the best evidence of Jesus' existence comes from Josephus, and that particular reference is an 'insert'. This is not only, 'not a new argument', but quite a valid argument as well. Unfortunately, as is often the case with arguments and words, every argument and word can have a converse application. In a section entitled FLAVIUS JOSEPH(US), he writes:
Now note here, that he points out that since Josephus was a true Jew, he could not have, would not have, given any recognition of Jesus. The point is valid; as is too that this section of Josephus is a forgery. Nevertheless, the argument he provides is of itself sufficient justification for the absence of [secular] records about the Historical Jesus. Why on earth would any Jew want to give credence to a belief that the Jews killed their own Messiah? [Note also that according to many academic sources there is no evidence of Abraham, Moses, the Exodus or the conquest of Canaan, except for the Biblical Record] At the time of Josephus, the whole population of the world was around only half that of the United States today; Edison, Marconi, Bill Gates, Gutenberg and others, stood a very real chance of never even being born; and the world was full of gods, none of whom claimed to have witnesses to their personal death and resurrection. In an age when one needed Patrons in order to write and disseminate their material, one was not prone to writing anything that might displease the patron, especially one who was a publically declared god. Of course, this is a lame duck justification for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. One cannot use a 'lack of evidence' as 'evidence' of anything. (Except in America where a Jury in a Law court can find a person 'not guilty' of a crime, only to see that person found 'guilty' in a civil case. Totally beyond me!?) What I find interesting about the exceptionally well documented arguments for the non historicity of Jesus, is that if you totally accept his non historicity, then it leaves you wondering just how on earth he manage to get such a following? Democracy, that prized possession of so many, for which the American Government fights so hard, and from which Americans derive so much pride, has a longer and a demonstrably more legitimate history, than does Christianity, and yet, even today, it exists in so few places on the earth. Having completed one of my degrees within a Roman Catholic College, I can honestly relate that what I learned there, was that the New Testament is a forgery, forged in the fires of sectarian desire to control a burgeoning religious movement. Jesus was not pre-existent, not born of a virgin, and certainly not physically resurrected from the dead; but by 'Faith' we believe in him. I shake my head just thinking about the psychological ramifications of such convoluted thinking. How is it that this religion arose out of a non existent person? It surely must prove that mankind is self delusional, in which case, we can disregard absolutely everything that academia teaches us, for they are tarred with the same brush, n'est ce pas? If we just assume that he was a historical person with even some measure of the 'charisma' attributed to him in the New Testament, it still leaves one wondering how it is that the religion took off so quickly, and why did it achieve such devotion and fervour? But putting that theological question aside, let's focus on the 'historical' aspect. If Jesus existed in any measure like the New Testament describes him, then surely there would be more secular records yes? Well, actually, No! Firstly, as mentioned above, it would not have sat well with the authorities. If you read the Books of Kings and Chronicles in the Old Testament, you will see more than a dozen references to books from which information provided in Kings and Chronicles was taken. Those books no longer exist. Does that mean that they did not? If there were other secular records of Jesus, then it is not beyond possibility that they ceased to exist long ago. Bearing in mind however, that according to the New Testament, the Christian movement did not commence within an elitist educated class of citizens, but amongst common folk, it is hardly surprising that there are no 'public' records of him. But what about his crucifixion? What of it? He was just one of many crucified, and there was after all, only one true and living god - Caesar. Finally, according to the New Testament, the Kingdom of God is not of this earth. Why then should we expect to find it written up in the secular records of the day? The real problem regarding the historicity of Jesus, lies in the apparently conflicting information given in the Gospels, and the apparent change of direction that Saul of Tarsus brought to this Jewish Movement. That too is a theological matter. There are many ways to explain how the religion took hold, but unlike Judaism and Islam, it did not start with a few believers reigning war and destruction on the non believers. It took a couple of hundred years for Christianity to reach that stage. Islam is a religion that calls for the world to submit. Judaism is a religion that exists to be a light unto the world and testify to the reality of HaShem. Christianity, is a religion that calls everyone to be transformed into the character, nature and Spirit of Jesus, and one in which one man is alleged to have had more effect on each and every single human being, than was the effect on every single human being because of what the 'first man' did. Like Communist philosophy, the philosophical principles of Christianity makes all people equal and one. Unfortunately for both, they don't work so well when people strive to fulfill personal interests. Unlike any other religion or philosophy, the unique claim of Christianity is that one man laid down his life to undo the effect of the creator's judgement on the first man, and by so doing restore all men to the creators personal universe. Whatever may be decided by the courts, and irrespective of who killed Jesus, (if we will now be permitted the luxury of such a belief), in the end, those who seek to kill 'religion', by which I mean the Eternal Creator and Heavenly Father, do so because they have no desire to live in a world, where they are required to treat everyone else as they themselves would like to be treated. [Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.] Personally, irrespective of any demonstrable 'fact', I would rather believe in a Creator who 'requires' us to be 'human' and 'humane', than follow the hollow modern alternatives, which in the end, (especially when combined with the theory of evolution), are nothing more than convenient instructions from an elitist group on high, who constantly seek to use and abuse us for their own purposes and pleasure. From HERE: A priest and a rabbi are discussing the pros and cons of their various religions, and inevitably the discussion turns to repentance. The rabbi explains Yom Kippur, the solemn Day of Atonement, a day of fasting and penitence, while the priest tells him all about Lent, and its 40 days of self-denial and absolution from sins. After the discussion ends, the rabbi goes home to tell his wife about the conversation, and they discuss the merits of Lent versus Yom Kippur. She turns her head and laughs. The rabbi says, "What's so funny, dear?" Her response, "40 days of Lent - one day of Yom Kippur...so, even when it comes to sin, the goyyim pay retail....." [Harry Leichter's Jewish Humor http://www.haruth.com]
R.P.Bendedek
King's Calendar Social Commentaries © Copyright 2002-2008 by Magic City Morning Star |
