Published on 12, July, 2020
yo, im not religious or anything, and if you are deeply religious and unable to discuss ill warn you that maybe you might not like any different ideas i bring up here. and i am giving it historical legitimacy with what im about to analyse and trying to make it realistic.so here goes... for the sake of christmas this is a christmas topic really.i was looking at the story of jesus logically.he claimed to be son of god... but yet in those days a god was a emperor of rome. not a god how we see it now....so you see by claiming to be a son of god, its a claim that you are a son of a emperor of rome, and thus you are potentially a title claimant.this is then likely the real reason behind his execution no?now lets look at it another way, his birth. mary the virgin, ok there is a theory she got... censored.... by a roman soldier.... now lets take that and say perhaps it wasnt a soldier but a emperor and the soldier takes the blame... or maybe it was a soldier and mary thought or claimed it was a emperor and told her son jesus that it was a emperor when he grew up.. this questionable birth and questionable father does lend weight to the fact jesus may well have been a illegitimate child, and that the lies and secrecy around it lends weight that it was a important figure.
then you have the emperor at the time of jesus execution. he was tiberius, and he was a adopted son of augustus as augustus had no heir of his own so had to adopt tiberius. you see being a adopted child for the sake of a heir like that is a weak ground for holding power, and so anyone coming along claiming to be any former emperors illigitimate child would have more right to the throne than a adopted heir. so jesus saying he is son of god, and god being a former emperor, that is a direct credible threat to tiberius reign. hence why he had to act on it and execute him in such a way that news spread through the entire empire that the issue is dealt with and that there is no more claimants to threaten the rule of tiberius.so that all seems very logical and checks out, more so than a magic fantastical story. this seems more realistic and historically factual.... but then, we have to deduce who jesus father was..... was it perhaps augustus? augustus means the exalted and he considered himself to be a god which checks out with jesus claim to be son of god ... if so that would be the most direct threat to tiberius reign..... so yeah, what do you think? more believable and realistic than the bible? although it kinda gets rid of that spiritual aspect that people wanted in it, but is perhaps closer to historic truth and real life.
Not a bad analysis, there are other possible logical explanations though... The Jesus story is identical in its central elements - including Virgin birth and dying on a cross/tree and subsequent resurrection to other religions that had preceded. Afterall we do know that Christmas is mapped onto the pagan solstice festivals to make it palatable to converting folk.
Some scholars have looked at the earliest texts in Aramaic and found no evidence that the man ever claimed to be divine, except in as much as we are all metaphorical children of the creator. This "son of man" business in the modern translations meant "I am fully human".
Whatever the details here we have to remember that the Bible as we know it has been through many translations/ mistranslations and that the Early Church did a very human editing job deciding which of the many Christian Texts knocking about were to be permitted entry to the Bible and what they were to mean - was Jesus divine or not, was a central question considered. They then persecuted any one with any other interpretation; Gnostics, Cathars, as heretics. As these things always are, it all got very political.
Now, I must confess I do have a faith. I'm a Spiritualist and love to pick universal truths about human nature and spiritual wisdom from all faiths. I do personally believe there was a teacher wandering around Judea with a good deal of value to impart. Others will say he is just a fable.
But what we can be fairly certain of is that one way or another some very human intervention has mapped older legends on to the life of either a fictious man or a very real man, and moulded them to suit themselves politically. Telling folk your soul is in peril if you don't buy into the story as told by an institution wielding ever more earthly power - the Church, is pretty effective propaganda. Shame - some of the Gnostic texts are truly beautiful.
All that said, I have no argument whatever or desire to fall out with those who want to believe that there literally was a virgin birth of a guy who was the literal "son of God" and who corporeally (as opposed to just spiritually) came back to life. There is much wisdom to be found in old texts and if some souls find within it their path to a good life - good for them.
I just personally think the evidence is too strong above to believe that whatever truth is to be found in the Bible is literal truth. For me, not logical. Best taken as a collection of spiritually helpful parables I think.
Nice. Very nicely done. We have previously established our common roots of research in this type of subject matter. Always a delight to see your socks pop up.