Jesus was a communist

[Young Master Smeet]

Dave,the point is at the time of Jesus, everyone was just an oral rumour: information sources were thin on the ground.  People would just have believed a story that there was a bloke far away who was killed.  What we can say with certainty is that there was a group of people at the time, telling the stories to each other that now enter into the sundry Gospels (and I don't actually think the evangelists count as four  independent sources, but that is by-the-by).This is the point of interest, how the particular christian group fitted in with similar religious formations and their stories: the proselytic Jews, the Hellenic mystery cults, etc.Likewise, we have very little evidence for the life of Calligula, as a matter of historical perspective, we don't care if he was having an incestuous relationship with his sister, what matters is that the historians that came after felt they should include such stories, and there is no evidence of any attempt at rebuttal at that time.I'd add it is possible for Jesus to be both a man and a myth: we only have the myth (and I would include crucifixion in the myth column).

[alanjjohnstone]

Jesus the Preacher and Jesus the Christ, are indeed two different people.The first we have but hearsay evidence of, as someone on the thread pointed out but on the balance of probability, someone who existed and had a core message (the Q) which he delivered to the Jewish people and was punished by the State and the Temple for it.And the second, we have as you say, the myth that developed around this preacher which absorbed and assimilated influences and rituals and practices from other religionsIt began very early with the jettison of Judaic laws and the merging of Mithraism beliefs to facilitate the establishment of a unified state religion for the diverse Roman EmpireWhy it succeeded in becoming dominant was its ability to adapt to new situations and circumstances…to evolve with the society around it. We see today's religions reflecting the ideas of its congregations such as in gay clergy and gay marriages. Can we say that today's C of E is as socially reactionary as in past times in it campaigns for social justice and equality?It is as James Connolly said of the Catholic Church. 

Quote:

Just as in Ireland the Church denounced every Irish revolutionary movement in its day of activity, as in 1798, 1848 and 1867, and yet allowed its priests to deliver speeches in eulogy of the active spirits of those movements a generation afterwards, so in the future the Church, which has its hand close upon the pulse of human society, when it realises that the cause of capitalism is a lost cause it will find excuse enough to allow freedom of speech and expression to those lowly priests whose socialist declarations it will then use to cover and hide the absolute anti-socialism of the Roman Propaganda. When that day comes the Papal Encyclical against socialism will be conveniently forgotten by the Papal historians, and the socialist utterances, of the von Kettelers, the McGlynns, and McGradys will be heralded forth and the communistic utterances of the early fathers as proofs of Catholic sympathy with progressive ideas. Thus it has been in the past. Thus it will be, at least attempted, in the future.

[Dave B]

i  We should be dealing here with early Christianity rather than just JC; the Man, Myth and ideology; and the history thereof. Personally I would rather concentrate on the historical facts of early Christianityand take the gospel material as read as at least authentically provenanced [written] poltical documents from the early part of the 2ndcentury. In theological context which nearly all things were. The accuracy of the ‘historical’ contents etc should be of little concern to materialist historians interested in the ‘spontaneous’ political ideology/theology of the working classes from say 100-300AD. Even, at this point what matters, at first, is not even the content of these documents. What should matter is that this was working class literature or literature of interest to the oppressed classes only and opposed by the ruling class. Thus it was popular because it spoke to and reflected their political concerns. And thus the Feuerbachian position of a working class ‘ projection’ of their own independent value systems and analysis. [We are supposed to be against popular materialism and the great pied piper men of history thing. But it never goes away as we even have it now with Corbyn; it is all about Corbyn and his magnetic and hypnotic powers. The 400,000 economically distressed people who have joined the labour party are all thicko’s and never had corbynite ideas in their heads until he came along and started to confuse them with his original nonsense that had never occurred to them.] And people, as has been confessed, just want to pop the modern Christianity balloon and let the air out of it by just focusing on the historical or mythical figure around which early Christianity constructed its political narrative. People who have read a lot of this stuff in depth and lean as an overwhelming majority towards the historical figure idea do have a problem. As you can’t just say you stupid arseholes and you don’t know what you are talking about; go off and read all the volumes of contemporary 2ndand 3rdcentury stuff. And there are no killer ones; although I think Contra Celsum is one. I think people should read that even if it is a bit long a 500 pages or whatever just as probably a really important, comprehensive and wide ranging document of the late 2ndearly 3rdcentury ‘ideologies’ and methods of thought etc. On the historicity of JC when you read all this stuff it just an unrelenting drip drip affect. That is not to say there isn’t loads of crap mixed in with it as well. There is some irony that all the convincing evidence of the historicity is in material that Christians don’t want to touch with a barge pole. Eg Contra Celsum dated at AD 180 where the anti Christian describes what JC looked like; a physically deformed, ugly ‘dwarf’. Which Origen in 240AD didn’t deny. Celsum also has JC as an economic migrant and wage worker in Egypt where he learned Darren Brown type magic. Including mass hypnotism. They both knew what that was and if you paid these illusionists enough they would tell you how they did it. And Celsum said JC came back and used those skills to impress the Judean Hillbillies and rednecks and convince them of his false divinity. What is the materialists balloon popping problem with that as a thesis? Should try that on Roman he doesn’t like that one little bit! It is often said that if JC was doing that kind of stuff it would be all over the place and we would have records of it. It is testimony to the level headed materialism of Origen and Celsum that neither of them thought it  a good use of expensive paper and ink to spend time writing about that kind of crap then. Anymore than people would have done in the 1stcentury; or  would have written about some minor con artist, there probably being hundreds of them over the empire. Any more than Chomsky would write about Uri Geller.  Different somewhat when Christianity took off a hundred later. Surprisingly perhaps Origen in 240AD didn’t attach much importance to the miracles; apart from perhaps the resurrection. He justified Christianity on its spread and transformative affect on his Platonic notions of people’s  personal behaviour. We would attack modern Christianity now based its transformative affect people’s  personal behaviour but Origen didn’t have people like Bush and Blair in mind. Another interesting forbidden fruit black book would be the stuff written by Tertullian around 210AD against a Christian heresy whose figure head had been Marcion of circa 140AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Marcion This stuff is very well covered with plenty of cross referenced stuff. And in fact Celsum in 170AD talks about the Marcionite heresy which Origen recognises as Marcionism. “….He makes mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion….” Although it looks like Celsum almost conspicuously fails to mention Marcion himself.Marcionism for us should be really interesting  from a historical perspective only.Almost certainly we have a Marcion around 140AD saying that there are several gospels around and people have been tampering around with them.And Marcion, to remedy this, reproduces a or the corrected version of Luke, the others being so corrupted they are beyond salvage.The contents of this 140AD ‘gospel’ , are thus as an accurately dateable document, are extensively available from hostile witnsses who didn’t like it or the ideas of Marcion or his gospel which they were happy to quote from in order critique it.Actually it isn’t very exciting and would just look like the current version to most people.But we do have at least evidence that versions of Luke was circulating widely before 140AD which might be a surprise to some people.Marcion obviously didn’t think he himself was a heretic or that he had invented Marcionism but thought he represented the original theology of Christianity. Marcionism can be considered an umbrella term for a range of theologies. Basically the idea that the God in the old testament was shit which he is and therefore  couldn’t be the proper one.And that Satan ruled the world with his agents amongst the ruling class.An aspect of dualist theology.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualistic_cosmologyAnd Theodicy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy %5BThat places it in a more modern context but you can take it back to Plato.]And theological class analysis, albeit coming from a wealthy dude.And an analysis that is in the gospel stuff.It persisted for a long time in various forms right up to the first crusade and slaughter of  the non co-religious ‘christian’ cathars.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_CrusadeAnti old testament theology stuff became increasingly politically hazardous as where would the ruling class and modern Christians be without it?Stuck with all that anti rich stuff in the gospels?The other piece of evidence is the famous failed prophecy; you don’t write down divine prophecies after they failed to happen or in other words after 80-100AD.I was thinking pulling out Caligula actually a few posts ago. And will provide this link just co’s it is an easy short well resourced read rather than unique or seminal. I intend to talk around it later but  you don’t have to read it if you don’t want. http://historum.com/blogs/valens/30865-early-principate-reign-caligula.htmlThere is argument to be had that he was a populist who hacked off the ruling class and required a character assassination after his actual one.As with Richard III in a slightly different context but the likely myth of him being deformed turned out to be true.    

[Bijou Drains]

The difficulty with the JC myth is that it is so hard to pin down. Why anyone would logically chose to declare themselves a true follower, is beyond me.The constant debate about the supposed meaning of the bearded ones "utterances", interpreted one way by one group of followers, interpreted another way by another group of followers, so that they can be used to justify anything, or at times nothing at all.For me, I think this is the crux of the whole argument, the entire body of the supposed JC philosphy is nothing but a hotch potch of borrowed contradictary and at times over sentimental guff. Nice bloke, probably, heart in the right place, probably, useful to the 21st century problems we face, no."His message" is clearly a mixed messge, one which pulls together a crude understanding of some aspects of preceding philosophies and religious messages, without any real understanding of the ideas that formed them, placed out of context and used willy nilly. On top of this were now supposed to believe, despite the evidence before us, that the message is a socialist/communist one!Anyway, that's enough about Jeremy Corbyn, let's get back to the debate about Jesus!

[Dave B]

i I didn’t create title of the thread exactly. But I suppose you could ask the question did early Christians adopt communism. And perhaps turn it on its head a bit and ask instead. Did communists adopt Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphanes_(gnostic) http://www.gnosis.org/library/ephip.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinus_(Gnostic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinianism  Philo of Alexandria20 BCE – c. 50 CE on Essenes And a proof of this is to be found in their life of perfect freedom; no one among them ventures at all to acquire any property whatever of his own, neither house, nor slave, nor farm, nor flocks and herds, nor any thing of any sort which can be looked upon as the fountain or provision of riches; but they bring them together into the middle as a common stock, and enjoy one common general benefit from it all. (11.5) And they all dwell in the same place, making clubs, and societies, and combinations, and unions with one another, and doing every thing throughout their whole lives with reference to the general advantage; (11.6) but the different members of this body have different employments in which they occupy themselves, and labour without hesitation and without cessation, making no mention of either cold, or heat, or any changes of weather or temperature as an excuse for desisting from their tasks. But before the sun rises they betake themselves to their daily work, and they do not quit it till some time after it has set, when they return home rejoicing no less than those who have been exercising themselves in gymnastic contests; (11.7) for they imagine that whatever they devote themselves to as a practice is a sort of gymnastic exercise of more advantage to life, and more pleasant both to soul and body, and of more enduring benefit and equability, than mere athletic labours, inasmuch as such toil does not cease to be practised with delight when the age of vigour of body is passed; (11. for there are some of them who are devoted to the practice of agriculture, being skilful in such things as pertain to the sowing and cultivation of lands; others again are shepherds, or cowherds, and experienced in the management of every kind of animal; some are cunning in what relates to swarms of bees; (11.9) others again are artisans and handicraftsmen, in order to guard against suffering from the want of anything of which there is at times an actual need; and these men omit and delay nothing, which is requisite for the innocent supply of the necessaries of life. (11.10) Accordingly, each of these men, who differ so widely in their respective employments, when they have received their wages give them up to one person who is appointed as the universal steward and general manager; and he, when he has received the money, immediately goes and purchases what is necessary and furnishes them with food in abundance, and all other things of which the life of mankind stands in need. (11.11) And those who live together and eat at the same table are day after day contented with the same things, being lovers of frugality and moderation, and averse to all sumptuousness and extravagance as a disease of both mind and body. (11.12) And not only are their tables in common but also their dress; for in the winter there are thick cloaks found, and in the summer light cheap mantles, so that whoever wants one is at liberty without restraint to go and take whichever kind he chooses; since what belongs to one belongs to all, and on the other hand whatever belongs to the whole body belongs to each individual. (11.13) And again, if any one of them is sick he is cured from the common resources, being attended to by the general care and anxiety of the whole body. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book37.html

[Dave B]

i  Incidentally we are dualists as well; “……The term ‘dualism’ has a variety of uses in the history of thought. In general, the idea is that, for some particular domain, there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles. In theology, for example a ‘dualist’ is someone who believes that Good and Evil—or God and the Devil—are independent and more or less equal forces in the world…..” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#PreDua   We have, in our class analysis, the economic ‘domain’ as comprised of the working class as well as the capitalist class in conflict. That strand of early Christian dualism merely incorporated a socio-economic class analysis into the standard and the only,  ie ‘theological’ framework available. But that doesn’t stop it being a class analysis. Whether or not a class analysis leads to a communist ideology or communism ideology leads to a class analysis is another question. Albeit on the face of it not a very dialectical one?  

---

 Dualism had not been a integral part of othodox Judiaism. Thus;  “…..Judaismhas two conflicting attitudes toward the existence of evil. In one interpretation, evil is not real, it is per senot part of God's creation, but comes into existence through man's bad actions. In the other interpretation, evil was created by God since God created everything and to suggest otherwise would be to engage in dualism, and is therefore antithetical to the core Jewish belief in monotheism…..” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil “…..With the schisims in Jewish society that followed the successful war of rebellion against their Syrian overlords, the party of the Maccabees showed a tendency to "satanize" their Jewish enemies, identifying them as opposed not just to the Maccabees but to God as such. The Essenes, a radical Jewish sect sometimes thought to have associations with Jesus, carried this tendency even further, identifying themselves with "the Sons of the Light" as opposed to "the Sons of the Darkness" — i.e. the Jewish majority…..” http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/tomradcliffe/dualism.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt  The Satanization of Jewish enemies and thus anti imperialist/oppression dualism crept even more into the Judaic debate around the time of JC. Just as the Trot left has anti imperialist ‘dualism’ albeit mixed up with their ‘dualist’ capitalist class analysis. [The theological ‘dualism’ of the communist essenes is a little bit controversial in theological studies.] However if you take an anti oppression ‘dualism’ that has evolved in a parochial anti imperialist framework and transfer and develop it into a more international  framework. It is likely to develop more into a logos  international world economic class analysis and away from a national class framework.

[ALB]

roman wrote:

Spartacus, for one, has MUCH less evidence for his historicity than Jesus. All second hand accounts, no one from his actual community, and, all accounts after his death. I'm not sure what source criticism has been done on the Sparticus account, but I'm quite sure there are probably only one or two sources which the ancient historians used.The High Priest Ciaphas, Ponteus Pilate, and so on.We would expect MUCH MORE evidence for those guys than we would for Jesus (given that during his lifetime Jesus was just another rabble rousing prophet, most of whome we don't know anything about, and a few who get a passing mention in Josephus).For Jesus we have many indepentant sources (Q, Mark, Paul, John, Matthew and Lukes individual sources) with varying degrees of historicity all of which agree on the basics, and the basics fit with everything else we know about second temple Judaism.

Maybe Spartacus did not exist but then no-one is creating a song and dance about it like christians do about their supposed founder. For the record, here's the evidence for the historical existence of a Roman official called Pontius Pilatus:

Quote:

The only physical, archaeological evidence that confirms the existence of Pilate is the Latin inscription found on a limestone block relating Pilate's tribute to Tiberius.[11] The artifact, sometimes known as the Pilate Stone, was discovered in 1961 by an archaeological team led by Antonio Frova.[12] It was found as a reused block within a staircase located in a semicircular structure behind the stage house of the Roman theatre at Caesarea, the city that served as Rome's administrative centre in the province of Judaea. Roman governors were based in Caesarea and only visited Jerusalem on special occasions, or in times of unrest. The artifact is a fragment of the dedicatory inscriptions of a building, probably a temple, which was constructed, possibly in honour of the emperor Tiberius,[13][14] dating to 26–36 AD.[11] The dedication states that Pilate was prefect of Judaea, read praefectus Iudaeae. The early governors of Judaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44 AD. The artifact is currently housed in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem,[15][16] while a replica stands at Caesarea.[17]The remaining text reads (conjectural letters in brackets):[11][DIS AUGUSTI]S TIBERIÉUM[…PO]NTIUS PILATUS[…PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E[…FECIT D]E[DICAVIT]The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads:To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum…Pontius Pilate…prefect of Judea…has dedicated [this]

He also figures in a list of Roman governors of Judea drawn up by Josephus, presumably on the basis of consulting original Roman archives. Of course the christians also refer to his existence as a key part of their crucifiction story. No better way of lending some credibility to a myth than by throwing in a historical fact or two..Got to laugh at the authors of the "New Testament" being described as "independent sources" (not that for Paul Jesus was a historical person, just an idea). All the historical record establishes is the existence of a religious sect called "christians"and their beliefs but not that of their supposed founder any more than it does of the supposed founders of other saviour cults that existed in the same historical period.

[alanjjohnstone]

As i said and it is reinforced each week on Time Team – absence of evidence does not equate with proof of absence.  Your citation showed that for a quite a senior provincial Roman official, there was no hard proof except hearsay and Josephus until 1961 so a very much younger ALB could easily have been on this forum asserting he did not exist. Do you dispute the existence of John the Baptist, another only mentioned by Josephus and the Gospels yet lacking artifact proof?If so…a theological question ….Why is such a person's appearance in the stories necessary?But as i have said….the intriguing thing about Jesus is its development as a ever-changing movement and the presence within it, not of the Holy Spirit but challenges to the prevailing private property system. Not having yet read Roman's book, it is this that he concentrates upon and which DaveB is also focused upon understanding, (bringing up the Roman tax laws becoming a cash burden for many in the region)My point is that we have members who are happy to endorse the slogans of Thomas Muntzer and espouse the ideas of Winstanley but seem to be shying away from fear of guilt by association with a religious current that still runs through Christianity. Maybe we should delegate the task to ex-comrade Cox If Roman is correct in his analysis, it provides the ammunition to take the battle into a section of the population that expressed its still potent poitical force in 2005 in Make Poverty History, turning their places of worship into de facto Occupy spaces. 

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As i said and it is reinforced each week on Time Team – absence of evidence does not equate with proof of absence. 

True, but "absence of evidence" is at least evidence of absence though not proof of it. Otherwise your mind would be so open that anything or everything could pass through it.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Your citation showed that for a quite a senior provincial Roman official, there was no hard proof except hearsay and Josephus until 1961 so a very much younger ALB could easily have been on this forum asserting he did not exist.

You have missed the point. Roman claimed that there was as little evidence for the existence "Ponteous (sic) Pilate" as for his "Jesus". I merely countered by saying that there was more evidence in the form of this artefact. Even before it was discovered, however, there sufficient evidence of his existence, in the writing of Philo of Alexandria as well in Josephus. In 1961 the younger ALB had already read Grant Allen's The Evolution of the Idea of God, published in 1897. I still remember that one of his arguments that what was in the Ark of the Covenant was a huge phallic symbol. Just checked and see he was also sceptical about the historical existence of Jesus. His argument on christianity is that it was just one saviour religion among others that flourished in the Eastern Mediterranean coast at the time (and that proved to win out in the Darwinian struggle for existence among them). Here's what he wrote in one passage:

Quote:

I am not such a "gross and crude Euhemerist" as to insist dogmatically on the historical existemce of a personal Jesus. Of the Christ himself, if Christ there were, we know little or nothing. The account of his life which has come down to us in the Gospels is so devoid of authority, and so entirely built up of miraculous fragments, derived from elsewhere, that we may well be excused for gravely doubting whether he is not rather to be numbered with St. George and St. Catherine, with Perseus and Arthur, among the wholly mythical and imaginary figures of legend and religion.

Don't ask me what a "Euhemerist" is. I have just looked it up and see that in this discussion you are one. It's not an insult, by the way.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Do you dispute the existence of John the Baptist, another only mentioned by Josephus and the Gospels yet lacking artifact proof?

Actually, there's more evidence for his existence than there is of Jesus, which would be why the gospel-writers would have been keen to include a reference to him so as to lend credibility to their myth, just as they did with Pontius Pilate. I'm not saying that you have to have artefact evidence to prove someone existed but it is a clincher.What clinches the argument that "Jesus" was a mythical figure is:1. That he is claimed to be the son of a god. That's a common feature of all myths, especially ones in that part of the world.2. The name "Jesus" means saviour and christianity originated as a saviour religion in which a god-figure sacrifices themself to save his or her followers (and to some extent still is with its talk of Redemption, Salvation, Blood, etc)3.  Paul, the earliest christian to write about Jesus, portrays him as such a saviour-god and not at all as a historical person.As to the early christians, there would have beem more like today's Jehovah's Witnesses, expecting that the "end of the world is nigh" and not interested in changing the world down here, than communistic revolutionaries.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

there's more evidence for his existence than there is of Jesus,

 I looked at wiki and there seems an equal dearth of material to show of John the Baptist existence. 

Quote:

That he is claimed to be the son of a god.

The claim that Jesus made these claims are disputed by a number of theologians. Son of God..son of man..son of adam…as i said in previous posts all were literary expressions of the day. That his followers choe to accept them as literal is an entire different issue. Many of the early Jewish Jesus movement didn't …ie the EbionitesSee Geza Vermes trilogy Jesus the Jew

Quote:

The name "Jesus" means saviour and christianity originated as a saviour religion

not so sure about that. There were on record many Jesuses from that period so not quite a satisfactory defence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)"The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua ) otherwise known as Yehoshua (Yeshua) bin Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Iesous in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others."[so saviour or freedom fighter?] "Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel"http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htmWere they all fictitious because of their name?Should i endow your own name with some religious significance Adam = hebrew "man" or my own =  either "little rock" or "handsome"

Quote:

Paul, the earliest christian to write about Jesus, portrays him as such a saviour-god and not at all as a historical person.

What Paul wished to convey was what Paul wanted to convey. He was even according to his own account, challenged on his beliefs by the Jerusalem church and James the Just, Jesus brother …(the word brother is admittedly debated but more by those who wish Mary was Virgin adherents) and with Peter, too and Paul also fell out with other congregations.A.D. 55 and 59 for Acts but Q is dated earlier …if such a book existed…and evidence is in favour that it was.I suppose , now as a euhemerist, i have to defend the existence of Robin Hood, William Tell, Captain Swing and King Ludd 

Quote:

As to the early christians, there would have beem more like today's Jehovah's Witnesses, expecting that the "end of the world is nigh" and not interested in changing the world down here, than communistic revolutionaries.

I'll have to read Roman's book to help come to a decision on that Maybe they might have been more like the Mormons…or the Amish…But i grant you this…Jesus – if he existed – was one in a long run of Jewish eschatology prophets and with the 70 AD fall of Jerusalem and Masada,  i think many believed the world was indeed coming to an end….bit like me, in a way…doom and gloom

[Anonymous]

God exists. I have an invisible pink  monkey sitting on my shoulder and he delivers words of wisdom. Prove me wrong. If you have lots of spare time to waste 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 absence of evidence does not equate with proof of absence.  

 

[alanjjohnstone]

This is a history debate with a touch of theology thrown in, not a debate on the existence of God, Vin. No-one on this thread has suggested that Jesus is God. His followers may believe that…he himself might have believed that…but if he existed he was executed as a political figure…someone who claimed to be King of the Jews…a subversive who railed against the Temple bureaucrats as collaborators with an occupying foreign army. The myths came later often from other religions adding on to it and they got bigger as time passed….Archaeology and history is always full of debate and often stemming from a personal bias of the participants. Socialists try to use historical materialism to look beneath the surface

[Anonymous]

How patronising Alan. so you have no proof, or intelligent reply to me?   You can go back to your discussion on mythology dressed up as science. Just don't pretend its scientific, cos it aint. It's bull.

[alanjjohnstone]

And, of course, your own post was not patronising or an attempt at facetiousness to tderail some upfront discussion and debate that doesn't meet your interest.I can happily engage in banter while trying to exchange opinions with comrades…and that is all they are…opinions to be defended or attacked…as been pointed out,  definitive proof is not available….either way.I have taken some time in posting several contributions to this thread and linking to a number of sources. Some content were trying to focus on our present attitude towards religion and how to confront it. So i stand corrected — it was not all about history.You own post is simply an assertion that my case is bull…your opinion has been noted… and duly discarded for the value it possesses. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And, of course, your own post was not patronising or an attempt at facetiousness to tderail some upfront discussion and debate that doesn't meet your interest.You own post is simply an assertion that my case is bull…your opinion has been noted… and duly discarded for the value it possesses. 

If you disagree with me and my opinions then present a counter argument but don't accuse me of attempting to break the rules. I know your opinion of me try keeping it to yourself.

[Author]

Posts