Ladies & Gentlemen of This Court:
My own view is that the Israelites (there was no Rabbinic Judiasm until: 69 AD, or 110 AD, or 250 AD) did create a "Saviour" for themselves, but in fact, it didn't really work. Big hints to this can be found in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (I forget its number and don't have the will to look it up) and that the person we call Jesus was a Nazarene or a Nabataean, and the person called "Joseph" was a Roman Soldier. Jesus was born about 3 BC not 0 BC.
The concept of the Xristos in the Gnostic World, especially in the Gnostic Group called "The Recognitions" is well known and mentioned in one sentence in the Gospel of John or MArk, I really confuse this for some reason - but it is there - Jesus says "In the future, greater ones than I shall come, that is my legacy"...Now that can be interpreted in a number of ways. Also, they have found the gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas, and the Gospel of Thomas. All of these are so radical, it is mind-blowing....The Thomas Gospel talks about what we would call Gay Marriage in a positive and mystical manner. The Mary Gospel shows that Mary was an equal partner of Jesus; and the Judas Gospel, I have yet to see any translation of it. It is known to be radical also, All of these come from Gnostic or Greek sources.
Also, I have a piece of a lead Dead Sea Scroll about half the length of a little finger that spells out the following phonetic word (in Aramaic, of course) and it is: EASHOA' which is the name that was later changed by Israelite rebels (fighting the Romans) something akin to Yahoshway and then to Jesus.
Now the Dead Sea scrolls come from that area indicating a number of different groups were there. The Israelites were the last group and if you read a translation of the Pereshat Pincus (sp?) coupled onto the Zohar, to make it more and move away from the high mysticism of the original Zohar. and to embody more stringent and warlike attitudes.
Also, it is obvious that Jesus spoke Naza, Nabatean, Israelite, Greek, & Latin..
So matter how you look at it is Jesus is a being of mystery, his teachings (not any of the interpretations of anyone from Luke to Paul and back again) tend to be strongly Gnostic coupled with his own...
When I look at the "proofs" of Jesus being an Hebraic-Roman fiction used for manipulation, I see a fascinating story, but absolutely no proof. They have cobbled together certain documented attitudes, mentioned no names, and basically used interpretations of a few recorded attitudes - not facts like Caesar would write - and not clear like Cicero would write - and certainly while Nero killed Christians, he never denounced Jesus as a fraud. And remember, as weird a Nero was, he was brilliant in terms of promoting himself.
They have not proven their case, but simply asked for doubt, based upon, interpretation, of recorded partial stories of rumours.
If we are only going to mainline various personal sayings (both old and new) that say that Jesus was a marketing promotion without a body, then we can cite the huge number of visions of Jesus, and the pays to Jesus & Mary at Lourdes, and the miraculous healings of the bleeding St Padre Pio.
I rest my case,
Leautremontmars Virtual Mall
Children of the Night Lugoss