Hypothesis: Could Lukuas have claimed to be the King of Parthia?

[Joseph D. L.]

PROVE IT!!!

Isn't that your job?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of ... hilosophy)

[Joseph D. L.]

DL, because the real Jesus didn't have a care for politics?
The shenanigans around the revolts were antithetical to his agenda and all motivated by a political paradigm that was defeated
So a memory of a Jewish teacher that rejected this in favour of some spiritual outcome would retain immense credibility
Credibility which could later be used to advance the causes of those who laid claim to him
But what his tenants were or what his teaching was... plays second fiddle to his being on the right side of history

There isn't such thing as a "real Jesus". Rather just a variety of people, real or other wise, for one reason or another, consolidated into a single personage after a century of back and forth of a myriad of different sects and groups.

[davidmartin]

There isn't such thing as a "real Jesus". Rather just a variety of people, real or other wise, for one reason or another, consolidated into a single personage after a century of back and forth of a myriad of different sects and groups.

DL
I feel for the purposes of hypothesis retaining a notion of a 'real Jesus' has value
Every hypothesis should be free to duke it out with all the others and see what happens
So when I read your comment I take that as perfectly valid criticism

A 'real Jesus' hypothesis should at least be in the room with all the others and be allowed to romp
The fact that this happens to coincide with the biblical literalist position is immaterial since the 'real Jesus' is flexible and can be presented however you want and thus he is on your side. He is you

The chief advantage the 'real Jesus' brings is if all the analysis done and facts gathered does in fact go back meaningfully to a single dude then none of these pieces can be reassembled without him - in other words there's never going to any proper resolution to the whole mystery

If on the other hand you are correct then any notion of a 'real Jesus' will never lead to a proper reassembling of all the pieces and it will be obvious

I'd just rather see all the proposed versions of the 'real Jesus' duking it out along with the 'made up Jesus' and see who wins and it be a level playing field that's all

[Joseph D. L.]

DL
I feel for the purposes of hypothesis retaining a notion of a 'real Jesus' has value
Every hypothesis should be free to duke it out with all the others and see what happens
So when I read your comment I take that as perfectly valid criticism

Saying "real Jesus" doesn't help to clarify at all what is being said. It's a tautology. What's more, by saying "real Jesus" gives the impression Jesus how he is presented in the Gospels is a real, historical figure, who occupied a certain place at a certain time. He didn't. Full stop. That Jesus is 100% not real

A 'real Jesus' hypothesis should at least be in the room with all the others and be allowed to romp
The fact that this happens to coincide with the biblical literalist position is immaterial since the 'real Jesus' is flexible and can be presented however you want and thus he is on your side. He is you

Who is the "real Jesus" then? Where is he? Can you point to him without relying on books that are obvious fiction and garbled traditions?

I can point to Lukuas. I can point to bar Kochba. I can point to Antinous. I can point to Phlegon, and r. Akiva, and Aquila. I can say that all of these men, and then some, were all real and were blended into a Jesus milkshake. That does not make Jesus real. That makes him a literary character.

Look at Casino. I fucking love that movie. It's my favourite movie of all time. It has everything. Drama, comedy, romance, tragedy, and to top it off, it is inspired by real events. Yes. Inspired. Not based. The characters are proxies of real historical people, and the history is condensed and re-visioned. For example, in the movie Nicky Santoro is shown putting Anthony Dogs's head in a vise. I'll be real, that scene even today is hard for me to watch. "You made me pop your fucking eye out to protect that piece of shit? Charlie M.? You dumb motherfucker!"

That actually happened, but not as the movie portrayed it.

The real mafioso was named Anthony Spilotro, not Nicky Santoro, and the murder took place before he went to Las Vegas, not after. And it wasn't Anthony Dogs who got his head popped like a grapefruit, but a man named Bill McCarthy.

Now, which one is real and which one isn't? Anthony Spilotro? Or Nicky Santoro?

The chief advantage the 'real Jesus' brings is if all the analysis done and facts gathered does in fact go back meaningfully to a single dude then none of these pieces can be reassembled without him - in other words there's never going to any proper resolution to the whole mystery

We can say who the real Julius Caesar is. We can even say who the real Alexander the Great is. The same is not so for Jesus.

This kind of apologetics has been debunked for since the mid-oughts.

If on the other hand you are correct then any notion of a 'real Jesus' will never lead to a proper reassembling of all the pieces and it will be obvious

I prefer to be honest and keep things in perspective. I'll fully admit that my theories and ideas are susceptible of being completely wrong. But that kind of doubt is a small price to pay than to think you have the complete picture when you don't. Just look at our mutual friend Joseppi. Everything he says is overstated, misunderstood, or twisted beyond recognition, yet he says it such unflinching certainty that to challenge one thing he says is enough for him to accuse you of being intellectually dishonest. No. I'd rather live in a very gray area than to live in that kind of self deluded blindness any day.

I'd just rather see all the proposed versions of the 'real Jesus' duking it out along with the 'made up Jesus' and see who wins and it be a level playing field that's all

That's why we are here.

[davidmartin]

We can say who the real Julius Caesar is. We can even say who the real Alexander the Great is. The same is not so for Jesus.

This kind of apologetics has been debunked for since the mid-oughts

No it hasn't been debunked! That's a scientific claim
We don't know what Julius Ceasar liked to eat for breakfast, only in modern times have we ever really known who anyone is, and then only if someone spills the beans like Samuel Pepys or Ozzy Osbourne in his TV show. Mostly it's just biased sources but damn even today it's hard to prove fact from fiction and we have the internet. It was easier 20 or 30 years ago to know what was real, i remember when it was easier to know what was real and what wasn't before deconstruction of everything became the end goal
So you can debunk flat earthers but it gets messy once outside the realm of pure science where you can prove things absolutely
The creation of a new orthodoxy just makes real research more difficult

That there was some dude about whom stories were told and things said and yeah maybe there was more than one dude but either way there's some historical basis and all that came later was based on this, why not?

[Joseph D. L.]

Whatever you say. The Jesus from the Gospels is not a real autonomous person in history. If the person called Jesus in the Gospels is but an amalgamation of various historic or legendary figures, then the process should not be to locate him in our history, but should be identifying who and what is contributing to him. Example, I think the crucifixion is based on Lukuas; the virgin birth is based on Paul (whoever he was); the sermon on the mound is based on Akiva's rabbinical school; the resurrection is based on Lukuas's and bar Kochba's successive messianic roles. All of this can easily be 100% wrong, and yet that would not make your conception of an ontological Jesus who exists in and of himself anymore real or historical. You're on a fool's errand.