For Gary and Allonehhob

Submitted by iasius (India), Nov 3, 2005 at 13:37

I feel we can only get somewhere if we begin to accept that "Jesus Christ" is largely a fictitious character, fabricated by certain vested interests that are as relentlessly in play now as they were two millennia ago. This is not to comment upon the originality, validity, universality or worth of what passes today for his teachings; that must become the subject of separate discussion once the veracity of gospels is first explored in light of source material other than the Bible.

1. Christianity's portrayal of Jesus Christ (IESAPL) as "THE messiah" is based squarely on Jewish messianic expectation. However, Jewish belief only envisaged a 'deliverer' to free them of political subjugation, which, at the time Christ (IESAPL) is supposed to have lived, was in the form of Roman occupation. It DID NOT contemplate anyone like "world savior" that Christianity claims. If Jewish basis is used to justify ‘messiah-hood', the role of political activist cannot be changed to spiritual savior. If, on the other hand, the altered role is accepted, you cannot use Jewish sources for its justification.
2. Although "Jesus Christ", per se, finds little or no mention anywhere in extra-synoptic sources, it is known that several claimants to the title ‘messiah' apparently existed at the time and, given the REAL import of the word, might all have been correctly called "Jesus" [later rendering of the original ‘Yehoshua' – ‘YHWH delivers'] by their respective followings.
3. It is quite clear from the gospels themselves that Christ (IESAPL) had a clearly military / political agenda: "But now if you have money or a bag, carry that with you. If you don't have a sword, sell your coat and buy one" [see Luke, 22:36. http://bible-studies.net/bible/erv/luk22-24.htm]. Unfortunately for him, the political uprising did not succeed; Christ (IESAPL) was tried for sedition and sentenced to death.
4. From what is now emerging as a result of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) exposé, it would seem that Christ (IESAPL), or someone like him, more than being just a "Jewish rabbi", was closely associated with the ultra-conservative Essene community that lived in Qumran, and perhaps even held a leadership position there along with his brother Jacob (or James) "the Just".
5. Saul (or Paul) of Tarsus, whom the DSS endearingly refer to as "the Windbag", "the Comedian", "the Spouter of Lies" or "the Man of Scoffing" [see http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm], literally hijacked the community's teachings, twisting them to suit a "crucifixion" ("cruci-FIXATION"?) cult he floated on pure make-believe, and ultimately probably also conspired in the assassination of James around 62 CE. Interpretation of the DSS leaves one in no doubt whatsoever that it was indeed Saul/Paul who is called ‘spouter of lies' [see "The Habakkuk Pesher", Robert Eisenman]. Even Simon Peter, who had apparently been named as successor by Christ (IESAPL), in apparently cautioning Jews against accepting any directive except one issued by James [see "Those Incredible Christians", Hugh Schonfield], was obviously referring to Paul.
6. The Essenes' two-pillar (Tsedeq and Mishpat) and arch (Shalom) symbolism was way beyond Paul's primitive comprehension and philosophy (philo- SOPHISTRY?), and he gave it the new skewed meaning of "holy trinity".
7. Paul began admitting ‘uncircumcized', non-Jewish elements into the cult, which must have scandalized Jews of the time, who even now are extremely race-conscious, no end. Resentment against him was so severe that a furious, indignant mob in Ephesus almost lynched him when he entered a temple to address an assembly, only to be saved from that fate by timely arrival of Roman troops from nearby Antonia.
8. Paul deviously transformed what could perhaps be best described as patriotic activism on the part of Christ (IESAPL), into false and untenable imagery of a "world saviour", so pathetically replete with logical anomalies. (The little time evangelical preachers can spare from their primary business of indiscriminate proselytization is usually spent on torturing their brains finding explainations for innumerable theological glitches! )

Jesus Christ (IESAPL), thus, appears to be more fiction than fact. He never saw himself as spiritual "world savior"; he was just one among several claimants for the role of messiah; he essentially had a purely political agenda which he wanted to pursue by military means; he was most probably part of the Essene community; Saul/Paul fabricated the whole story of "Jesus Christ", hijacked Essene symbolism and twisted it out of recognition, finally conjuring up a fantastic story that can't stand up to logic or reason. "Christ" (IESAPL), can only be a POLITICAL EMANCIPATOR OF THE JEWS. There's no way he can be the SPIRITUAL SAVIOR OF THE WORLD.

Allonehhob says: Jesus "revolutionized" contemporary thinking by his message, "Peace can be accomplished by peace, violence will only create violence". All I can say is the efficiency of Church propaganda is very impressive if it is able so blatantly to claim for Christ (IESAPL) something everyone knows was stated by Gautama Budhha as many as eight centuries earlier and make it sound so authentic that millions of trusting people like allonehhob swallow it hook, line and sinker!

Allonehhob also states: "none of Jesus' messages or words worked for his benefit, on the contrary his life was always in danger because of his peacfull teachings and his death was a proof to living an unconditional love". True enough, but you are blindly presuming his historicity, which is getting increasingly obscure with every passing day. It augurs well for those who derive pecuniary benefit from a made-up tearjerker to say how he suffered both in life and death. It gives a sacrificial, martyrish look to the whole charade and augments unfounded imagery of a spiritual savior suffering and dying to save humanity from its presumed sins. We have means today to see through the game; let's use them. Let us first convince our reason that JC was historical fact.

A comment (http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/20530) posted by "A (Keen) Student of Islam" a few months ago in connection with Gen.Musharaf's speech is worth reading. Maybe allonehhob will benefit by exposure to a viewpoint rather different from and perhaps more logical than one in which he has obviously been indoctrinated from a very tender and impressionable age.

I can only say one about Gary's comment (to allonehhob): Bravo, Gary!

In their propensity for willingly embarking on flights of irrationality and illogic, I am beginning to see a close resemblance between two of our colleagues on this board – allonehhob and Mu'een Ud Deen!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".