Religous debates and questions

Sometime around 30AD Jesus and his followers went to Jerusalem for Passover- he would be arrested, tried, sentenced and executed within a week. Why?

Passover is actually two festivals. Passover itself which lasts 1 day and Unleavened Bread which lasts for the following 7 days. For simplicity I will refer to the entire thing as Passover, as it often was referred to that way at the time anyway.
Passover is a 'pilgrimage festival'- in which Jewish men from all over were supposed to come to the Temple and make a sacrifice. In practice they also brought their families and whole villages would empty for Passover. It was as much an annual holiday as it was a religous festival.
In Jesus' day it was impossible for all the Jews living in other lands to make the journey but all those who could would.
The Jewish historian Josephus puts the attendance figures for one festival at more than two and a half million. Modern historians generally consider this an over estimate however and based on the space available in the city and Temple area put the figure at about half a million. (I personally think the modern figure underestimates how crammed in people might have been prepared to get and feel the figure is probably somewhere closer to being in the middle of the ancient and modern estimates). Suffice to say the city was full to bursting and you should think of as not only jam packed with people but surrounded by temporary shelters and people camped outside its walls. It would have been noisy, smelly, chaotic, exciting and of course rife with the potential for trouble to break out.

People also turned up early- a week early usually to camp outside of the city where whole temporary towns would spring up. This was mainly because of corspe impurity- it was a duty to attend to the dead but this made you impure and you needed a priest to sort that out, and it took a week. As most villagers got this impurity at some time during the course of a year they turned up the week before for purification.

All these people flooding to Jerusalem, not just to celebrate but to debate, argue and generally be Jewish about things meant it needed, much like a lively forum, moderators. The Mods in this case were the Roman prefect, who you will recall was normally stationed on the coast at Ceasara out of the way, and extra troops. The Romans also came to Jerusalem for the passover and it was the only time Roman soldiers were openly on patrol and stationed on the roofs to watch for trouble. And as always there were the Temple Guard.

In the final year of Jesus' life Passover fell on the 14th of Nissan. But has has been mentioned preprations began sooner. Plilgrims were sprinkled with holy water by the priests on the 10th and 14th, they bathed and on the 14th took a lamb to the Temple for slaughter.
The Passover meal was then held on the 15th, which was a Friday (note in the calendar of the time the Jewish new day starts at sunset- so the passover meal was in the evening of the day the lambs were slaughtered (14th), but the evening is considered Friday and a new day (15th).

Jesus and his followers entered the city on the 8th of Nissan.
It is worth noting that the Bible does not tell us that they were purified on the 10th and 14th. Or that one of the disciples or even Jesus himself took a lamb to be slaughtered. But I don't think there is anything to be read into this. Its absence is most likely because people contemporary to the time knew what went on.
Jospehus for example who describes Passover does not actually say exactly what went on at it.
We also have some supporting evidence Jesus would have partaken of all the usual ceremonies. In the story of healing the lepor he sends the cured man to the Temple to be purified by a Priest- so he does not seem to have disapproved or called into question the practice.
Also if Jesus had gone to Passover and then made a show of not performing the rites it would have made some good material to accuse him of at his trial, yet no such claims appear. From this I think we have to conclude that Jesus did what everyone else was doing at Passover. He was purified, bathed, and offered a lamb in sacrifice. Even though the NT does not in fact tell us specifically he did these things.
But unlike most others he was also arrested and executed.

We cannot know what was in Jesus' mind as he prepeared to enter Jerusalem. But he seems to have been expecting trouble. Indeed to have been planning on making it and one could even accuse him of being of a suicidal mind. It is difficult to see what he thought the outcome of his actions over Passover would be other than his own arrest.

His first act was a delibretly provocative one, although we have to be careful about its interpretation.
Jewish prohpets often used symbolic gestures to ge their message across, and often the message was not entirely clear just from the symbolism. For example Isiah walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign against Egypt and Ethopia. Jeremiah wore a yoke to represent that Judah would not submit to Babylon. And Ezekiels lay for long periods first on one side and then on another.
Some would have been obvious to the peoples of the time than others- but to be sure you would probably still have to ask the prophet why he was lying on one side for a long period then the other. It would not be at all clear just from the actions alone.

Jesus also used symbolism. His first symbolic act at this Passover was to recreate a prohesy from Zechariah- he rode into the city on a donkey whilst his followers hailed him with cries of 'son of David' and 'King'.
The first thing about this is that the modern equivelent would be a bit like someone in present day Britain claiming to be the heir of King Arthur. Its that sort of time gap we are dealing with between David and Jesus.
It is unlikely therefore that Jesus was just going for a straightforward claim to the throne with this gesture. It is more likely he was invoking the idea that he was specially choosen by God to bring about a new Kingdom, much as David had done. (Although Jesus was not putting himself forward as a military leader - his Kingdom would not be won with swords but by intervention from God, and Jesus was the hearld of it). But by invoking David he invoked the romantic idea of a choosen one who brought about a new better Kingdom.
The second thing is that the gospels describe multiudes calling out to him as he entered. This is I believe simple exaggeration. We have seen that Jesus did not have the popularity or the followers of someone like John.
Indeed had John made a similar claim and performed a similar action there would most likely have been a sizable civil uprising right there and then.
Also we have to explain something else- had Jesus done things as descirbed in the Bible, and been heradled into the city with thousands procaliming him under the title King he would not have lasted the day, let alone a week.
His actions therefore were probably on a more modest scale, they would have got him noticed still but if there had been evidence of a large vocal support for him Rome would not have stood for it, part of their remit after all was to support the rulers approved of by Rome- and that in Jerusalem was the Prefect and the High Preist. And they did not stand for desent on this, especially at such a violatile time as Passover.
What is more likely to have occured is that Jesus peformed a small symbolic act for his own followers, got on a donkey for a short distance and was hailed by his small group. It would have been preorganised and more a message for 'those with eyes to see' than a mass show for the general populace, which would have been suicidal.

Even so, that a man named Jesus claiming to be a prophet and the son of David had road into Jerusalem with a small group of followers who hailed him as King, in a show of apparent defiance against the officially sanctioned rulers- would have quickly got to the ears of both the ruling priesthood (mainly Sadduccees) and the Roman Prefect. From the moment he arrived Jesus got himself marked down as a potential trouble maker and one to keep a close eye on.

Jesus himself seems to have predicted this would be the case as the Bible gives a rather odd and slightly bizarre account of their arrangements for accomodation; The disciples have to look for a man carrying a jar of water. They were told to follow the man and see what house he entered. They were then to tell the householder that 'the teacher' would use the upper room for his Passover meal.
From this cloak and dagger approach to something as simple as getting a room it seems Jesus knew the authorities would want to keep an eye on him from the word go if he entered the city in such a fashion, and he had arranged for secret accomodations, presumably with sympathisers who lived in Jerusalem.
Another reason I personaly think this passage is telling is that it seems possible to me, despite the other titles banded about for Jesus, that 'the teacher' may be the only example we have of Jesus choosing a title for himself, as presumably it was Jesus who gave the disciples their instructions and told them what to say. If so it is an interesting insight into how Jesus saw what he was doing. Especially as at various times Jesus either rejects or is very cool on the other two main titles usually given to him, Messiah and Son of God.

Jesus seems to have lain low for a period. Possibly because he had caused enough of a stir that it was not safe for him to go out. But when he did remerge he did so with a bang.
He went to the Temple and to the stalls of the money-changers and he overtutrned their tables. And he prohisied the destruction of the Temple.

This incident is a tricky one. There are several possibiilities usually sited for why Jesus did this.
The main one most people think of is he was a reformer. He was speaking out against the corrupt temple tax system, against the rich who ran everything, against the priesthood.
The problem with this is we have no other supporting arguments for it at all, in fact the opposite. We have already noted how he sent the lepar to the Temple for annointment. He also in Mathew says the Temple Tax should be paid, even that taxes to Rome should be paid. He decries and casts woes upon the rich and against entire cities yet never against the Temple or its priesthood.
The Temple tax system of which the money-changers were a part were an essential and central part of how the Temple operated and there is no evidence people thought the money was being used corruptly. For Jesus to attack the system of money changing would be the same to most Jews as attacking the idea of the Temple itself.
It is possible this was simply a flash of anger, a one off losing of his temper and he had not planed to overturn the tables. But I think this unlikely.
I think the answer lies in looking at what he also said. Before he performs the actions he tells either a disciple, all his disciples or all his discplies and bystanders, depending on which gospel you are reading; "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.' (Mark)

This prediction comes up again at his trial where he is accused of threatening the Temple, and again when he is on the cross. The gospels try to seperate out these two things- the action at the tables and the prediction against the Temple and to treat them as seperate issues and to down play the threat. The early church was very keen to show that Christians were not a threat to ruling authorities, they were not trouble makers. They protest to much. Also Jesus' words have the ring of truth about them. The Temple was destroyed in 78AD. However it was not as Jesus predicted knocked down so that not one stone was left atop another, in fact quite a lot of it was left standing and still is today. If this prediction were a interjection from after the event it would almost certainly not be wrong. Add to that it comes up again at his trial and that the gospels try to diminish its importance by claiming it is false witness, suggests Jesus did say it.
It seems those who witnessed the event got the message Jesus was predicting the Temples distruction, not making a statement on social reform.

Jesus of course did not think that he and his folowers would tear down the Temple. Given Jesus outlook it is almost certain he thought that God would cast down the Temple with the coming of the Kingdom and presumably it would either not be needed as God would be among them, or more likely it would be replaced with something even better. This is attested to in Mark where Jesus says 'in three days I will build another not made with hands'.

Jesus actions at the Temple were the tipping point for the decision to arrest him. We can only imagine the immediate chaos it would have caused. The Temple area where the money-changers stalls were is very large, several football stadiums large and crammed to bursting with people and animals. Only those immediately within Jesus vicinity would have seen his actions, and only those very close would have been able to hear his words. Nevertheless there would no doubt have been an area around the stalls that Jesus upset which went into turmoil. Money would have spilled everywhere. The act itself would have been cheered by Jesus followers and quite possibly denounced by many others.
Its easy to imagine that scuffles may have broken out and that Jesus may have had to make a hasty exit.
However it was, he seems to have know he was a marked man.
He gathered his closest disciples to him and held a last supper. The gospels all give slightly different versions of that last meal but they all have the same direction- Jesus knew the authorities were coming for him and he proclaimed that the next time they met it would be in the new Kingdom he had promised them would come in their lifetimes. He used the symbolism of a meal, of wine and of bread to represent himself and the next meal they would take together which woul dbein the Kingdom which was to come. It was to be his last symbolic gesture. He went to pray at the Mount of Olives, the gospels tell us he prayed to be spared.
It seems he believed he had performed the acts God had wished from him and now the noose was closing he prayed that God would save him from it and intervene.
Concevably he could have fled the city and lived. But he did not. He trusted in God and he remained and was soon arrested.


Sorry but this is taking longer to cover the arrest/trial bit than I anticipated, and I need a break. But I did not want to skimp on this section. Part two- his trial, sentencing and punishment to follow.

great stuff Petty, I was wondering whether Jesus could have meant the overturning of the tables as a symbol of spiritual change? rather than a merely worldly attack on money changing.
Today some large cathedrals have shops in them selling tourist tat and the money is not always going to the upkeep of the church but purely for gain, maybe he wanted the Temple to be pure of commercial enterprises.

The Temple could not function without the money system is the problem. The Law said you had to sacrifice- but it was impractical for everyone to bring sacrifies with them so a large part of the Temple activity was in livestock. Without the money changing system there was no way to fund this massive enterprise. And Jews had been giving a tithe to the Temple as part of their religous duty since its creation.
And Jesus doesn't seem to have worried much about how things were going to work in the coming Kingdom- presumably he thought that as it was going to be run by God with himself and his disciples representing the people such things would be taken care of on a divine level.
There is almost nothing in the NT to support the view that Jesus thought the Temple system wrong or corrupt. Its quite likely he saw room for improvement but its never the thrust of his teachings.
Basically Jesus did not really do politics. As noted he never went to the cities where the real corrupt rich were and he never attacked the Sadduccee ruling class of Priests. Most of his disagreements on the Law are minor and mainly with Pharissees- which makes sense as they were the old aristocracy long since thrown out of political power and who mainly functioned as interpretors of the Law to the rural villages where Jesus was preaching. The ruling Priests, the politicians and the Romans were all to be found in cities- which Jesus tended to avoid or ignore.
He seems to have been more interested in individuals, in how people could foster their own releationship with God. And saw himself as the ultimate example of this.
The Kingdom would take care of itself as it was Gods not mans.

You're making a pretty good case so far. I'm curious to see where you're going with the judgment and crucifixion, though I think I may be able to guess.

Hopefully have the trial part up later tonight, some time after the footy has finished.

Thanks Dave. Might be a suprise or two left yet, you never know.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

Thanks Dave. Might be a suprise or two left yet, you never know.

No Easter bunnies, I hope! (Sorry, PJ is making me a little gun-shy of surprises )

How did you see my notes?!

Jesus was arrested, given a trial before the High Priest, sent to the Romans for sentencing and crucified all within approx twelve hours.

The High Priest in question was named Caiphas. He served longer than any other High Priest during the period of direct Roman rule and this would indicate that he was capable.
One of his main duties was to preserve order because if order broke down the Romans got called in, and if that happened the potential for things to get really out of hand presented itself.
But no High Priest could just do as Rome asked, he also had to represent the Jewish people and from the lack of dissent against him during his term we have to assume he performed this aspect well too.
So long as his Temple Guard kept the order without the need for Roman involvement, so long as the Jewish people felt they were represented to Rome and so long as he was involved in the trial and sentencing of Jewish prisoners order was maintained.
This was the remit of the High Priest.
In accordance with this, as a Jewish prisoner Jesus was brought before the High Priest for trial.

It is worth at this point to take a look at a comparitive case to demonstrate what sort of sentencing was normal. 30 years after Jesus there was another Jesus, Jesus son of Ananias. At the Feast of Booths he went to the Temple and made a very vocal prediction of destruction.
He was arrested by the Jewish authorities, flogged and interograted before being handed to the Romans who flogged him again. But as the man would only repeat his prophecy in ever more hysterical cries the Romans released him as a madman.

Obviously this is not exactly the same but it shows that just publicly speaking of the destruction of the Temple was enough to get you arrested and tried and flogged. And the Jesus we are concerned with was no madman and he had followers.

I took the time to lay out the events leading to Jesus' arrest because it should be clear by now that his actions alone were enough in themselves to warrant his arrest.
He was arrested for threatening the Temple, but as he not in fact done this but predicted its destruction, which was different, and because of the crowds, the noise at the tables, the witnesses could not agree. Some said he threatened the Temple others he had not.
The High Priest could not convict Jesus on this testimony. So fell back on titles. All he needed was to get Jesus to respond in such a fashion he could take offence and use that for grounds to convict him.
According to the New Testamanet when Jesus admitted to being the Son of God the High Priest cried 'blashemy!' and rent his garments.
It was forbideen for priests to rent their garments (or even ruffle their hair) and for the High Priest to do this would have been an over the top gesture in the circumstances. It probably did not happen.
However it is quite possible that having failed to get Jesus on the charge of threatening the Temple the High Priest kept at it and choose to use his claim to be closer to God than any other as blasphemy, even though technicaly it was not.
It seem the High Priest had decided before the trial the verdict was going to be guilty.

There are two other views of the trial often put forward.
One is that Jesus was simply misunderstood- the High Priest thought the Kingdom was a military endevaour, that Jesus was claiming to be a military leader like David and that his followers were going rise up against the authorities.
However had this been the case Jesus followers would also have been rounded up, if the High Priest thought they presented any real threat they would have been persuaded. This did not happen which shows the High Priest knew fine well Jesus was not rousing the rabble into an army.

The other view is that he was arrested because of theoligical differences with other Jews, in particular the Pharisees. And that the Pharissess arranged his arrest.
There are several problems here, the Pharisees had no real power at all, they were the favoured priests of the old royal family. Since the time of the Herods they had been stripped of any real power and found their place as advisors to the general populace on technical aspects of the Law.
Another problem is that they are not mentioned at all in the arrest or trial.
Thirdly as we previously covered already the disputes Jesus had with the Pharisees over the Law well well within the normal bounds of disagreement between different groups of Jews, and that those sort of dipsutes would rarely even lead to blows let alone complicated vendettas and plots to have people arrested.

Jerusalem was goverened by a Prefect and the High Priest- and they are exactly the people who appear in the trial story. There is no evidence of any Pharisee involvment in his arrest or trail whatsoever.


To recap- Jesus refuted titles given to him during his ministry. He proclaimed the coming Kingdom. He threatened the Temple. He was arrested. The High Priest accused him of threatening the temple. The witnesses could not agree. The High Priest tried again, showing he had decided to execute him already, he asked Jesus a leading question. Jesus repsonded in the affirmitive. The High Priest declared that was balsphemy and sent him to Pilate with a recommendation of execution.

According to the Bible Pilate was a poor weak sort of a man. He could not bring himself to execute Jesus and then was to weak to resist when the nasty Jewish mob insisted he execute Jesus.

This is what is known as complete rubbish. It is a laughalble interjection by the early Church to move any blame whatsoever for Jesus' execution from the Romans and put it squarely on the Jews.

If we turn to see what Philo, a contemporary of Pilate, has to say about Pilate we find this in a message he sent to Emperor Gaius (Caligula) in which Philo wrote of, 'the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremly grievous cruelty' that was the mark of Pilates rule.
Josepheus tells us that Pilate was eventually dismissed from office because of large scale, ill-judged executions.

This view of Pilate accords perfectly with what appears to have happened once you remove the Christian propaganda.
Pilate was sent Jesus with a recommendation for his execution and a telling charge that he had claimed he was the rightful King. Pilate did not bother with another trial, or hearing any evidence but had Jesus sent immediately for execution.

Early morning on Friday 15th of Nissan Jesus and two others were led outside the city walls and crucified.
A few brave followers, mainly women witnessed it.
His disciples had fled and abandoned him.
It should be noted that it is clear at this point the disciplies did not risk their own lives. They were not prepared to lay their lives down for what Jesus had promised, or even for Jesus himself.
He stood alone and out of his group he was crucified alone.

He was offered a vinger soaked sponge at the end of a stick to drink, but refused it.
Less than 20 hours since he had had the last supper with his disciples, in unspeakable agony he cried out, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.'
The intervention he had expected, believed in had not come and the realisation he was going to die up here must have struck home amidst the agony of crucifixtion.
He was offered the sponge a second time and this time he accepted it and shortly afterwards he 'gave up the ghost' and died on the cross.
It was not yet evening on the 15th and so not yet the Sabbath. There was just enough time for his followers to be allowed to take down his body and place it in a tomb which had been donated by a wealthy sympathiser named Joseph.

There should have ended the short life of anotherwise not unusual for the time holy man. Another footnote in history. Less notable in his day than the now almost unremmebered Honi the Circle Drawer or the Egyptian. And not in the same league as John the Baptist who the Jewish people would still remember in the future and see vindictation for his death in Romes defeat. Jesus was small scalein comparison, with relatively few followers and a message the majority was not receptant to.

Jesus' followers, who must have thought the coming Kingdom and all it promised had seemed so marvelous were left disappointed and no doubt fisillusioned. Jesus' promises had come to nothing.
There was no kingdom and Jesus was dead.


Next- the game-changer!

A couple questions and comments.

However had this been the case Jesus followers would also have been rounded up, if the High Priest thought they presented any real threat they would have been persuaded. This did not happen which shows the High Priest knew fine well Jesus was not rousing the rabble into an army.

I have always assumed that Peter's 3 denials implied that there was an effort to round up followers, who all chose conveniently to disappear into the passover crowd. Your thoughts? (I'm not proposing that this means that there was a perceived threat of uprising, but I think the state of mind of the followers at this time is important.)

It appears to me that all 4 gospels ultimately rely heavily on Simon Peter's telling of the story at this point, would you agree? In which case, what he actually witnessed versus what he heard from rumor and scuttlebutt could be significant.

What do you make of Luke bringing Herod into the judgment with Pilot?

Peters denials I do not think give grounds for assuming the authoities went after Jesus' followers.
We have quite a lot of examples of groups that were organised along military grounds and they were hunted down to a man.
The High Priest would have been reasonably well informed for the trial. He may never have heard of Jesus before then, his remit being Jerusalem, but he would have been briefed with all that they did know beforehand.
And the trial accounts back this up as he seems to have prior knowledge both that Jesus was preaching of the Kingdom and also that he had entered the city procalimng himself a King.
I think he had Jesus marked down for what he assumed he was, a religous zealot with a small group of followers going about proclaiming the end of the world was nigh.
Nothing new in other words. And he was a busy man, it was Passover, and in the past High Priests who had failed to maintain order had been summoned to Rome, removed form office and even executed. So the High Priest had good motivation both for getting this over with quickly and with erring on the side of caution and just having Jesus killed.
It is most likely the disciples fled Jerusalem. None of them dared come in to witness the crucifiction. No one tried to rescue him. Or mount even a protest.
Given some of these people would eventually give their lives rather than deny Jesus it is important that at the time of his death they were not willing to do this. It was over. It all been wrong, the promised thing had not happened. There was nothing left to lay down their lives for.

Then as now the Jews were rather good at gathering information. If the High Priest had wanted Jesus folowers arrested you can be sure most of them would have been. That not a single other member of his group was even taken in for questioning by the authorities would seem to imply that there was no serious attempt made to get them.
Jesus and his small group just were not big enough fish.
From the point of view of the High Priest they wre a small fringe group, rabble-rousers who were a threat to order, and at a time, Passover, when order was difficult to maintain - he probably reasoned that without their leader and the highly probably outcome there would be no Kingdom by days end they would disband.

The state of mind of his followers I imagine would be disillushionment, disbelief, self questioning- had they been fools all along? And they also probably feared for their lives, thinking themselves more important than they actually were, as small insular groups often do.
Remember Jesus had promised them the KIngdom in their lifetimes, with Jesus alive in it as Gods viceroy and themselves as the Judges.
These were mainly simple fishermen remember, of modest means and little chance of promotion in life.
And now their leader who had promised them everyting was dead. God had not intervened. The kingdom had not come.

Your question on Luke is an interesting one- my best guess is that its a mistake on the authors part, a lack of accurate historical information- Herod the great of course was decades dead.
If you recall when he died his kingdom was divided up between his sons. But the son that got Jerusalem was not up to the job and Rome removed him. They replaced him with a prefect, Pilate bythe time of Jesus trial. There was no Herod ruling at the time of Jesus' death.

I think I've enjoyed these last two segments the best because there's so much more of the traditional account called into question. The conclusions may be less airtight than before, but I think the questioning is the most important aspect.

I've been trying to avoid Forumshire for the last few days (and it will get worse), but I couldn't resist a peek at this.

Im gratified and humbeld you made the special effort Halfwise.
The next part should be up soonish, maybe late tonight or tomorrow.

Its a tricky bit as its where histroical analysis runs smack bang into the supernatural.

ps what apsect of the conclusion to you see problems with? As this is basically my analysis of the evidence based on much reading over a long time it is far from a perfect account I'm sure- any other views and insights are welcome.

I'm not sure I recollect ever humbling people. I'm more used to grumbling people.

Jesus was taken from the cross late on Friday afternoon and buried in a tomb provided for by someone called Joseph of Arimathea.
Accordng to the gospels when the women returned a day and a half later after the Sabbath had ended they found only an empty tomb.
The resurrected Jesus then appeared to the women. And then to the disciples who it seems had returned to Galillee. Then others (see below)
As a result of this the disciples returned to Jerusalem to await the coming of the Kingdom. (which did not in fact come).

And if we take a look at what the gospels tell us about who saw him and where it gets even odder:

Matthew: Jerusalem-the two Marys. And then in Galillee to 11 disciples.
Luke: Jerusalem and near Jerusalem- two discipes. The 11 disciples and 'others' on the same day.
John: Jerusalem- Mary Magdalene. The disciples (one week later). Galillee -7 disciples.
Acts: Jerusalem - all the apostles for 40 days.
I Corinthians: (No location) Peter. The Disciples. A crowd of 500. James the brother of Jesus. All the apostles again and Paul.

Now we must add to this what the resurrected Jesus was like.

Luke says he was not immediately recognisable. That he could appear and disappear but he was not a ghost (a point Luke is quite insitent upon). The risen Lord could eat and could be touched.
According to Paul in Corinthians a resurrected body is not a body of flesh but of the spirit.
So we have accounts of person who is resurrected, but not a corpse come back to life (they were actually quite common in the past when people were mistakenly declared dead who were not- ancient people knew of such things and Jesus was clearly not in this category). He can appear and disappear yet he is not a spirit, he has a body, one that can still eat and be touched.

So what is going on here? Not one version accords with the other. In Matthew he appears to as few as 13 people and in I Corinthians over 500!
Normally a good sign that something has been made up and interjeted post the event is that things supsicously accord with one another in a way that real life testimony never does.
Here we have the opoosite problem. Wild divergence. Its almost like eveyone is trying to claim, 'I saw him first!' and trying to outcompete each other.
If there had been no Christianity following this would all be easy to explain as made up-it simply never happened.
But we cannot do that here. The disciples, completly unwilling to even protest Jesus' sentence and who were in hiding, would after this event preach in Jesus's name and many of them would lay down their lives for that belief.
They saw something. Something convincing enough for them to believe that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead. And in the case of the disciples and the women these were men who had known Jeus for at least a year or more, and I strongly supsect some of them went all the way back with Jesus to John's original movement.

There are lots of questions that arise from this. Who was the man who donated the tomb so handily close by, how was it available and ready in such a short space of time?- there were only about 12 hours between the arrest and his execution. Why did Jesus die within 10 hours of being on the cross when it normally took more than a day, often two or three? And how fortutous it was that he died with just enough time left before the sabbath to bury him in the tomb. How could the disciples return to Jerusalem within 4 days of having to flee it to meet a resurrected Jesus, would the authorities not thought it at least odd when they got wind of it?
Why for such a momentus event is there seemingly no agreement over who actually saw him, when, or where? Why can people not recognise him at first?

To even begin to untangle all this we cannot help but enter the realms of speculation. And I do not want to overly speculate. I have therefore put together, as best as I can the most plausible secular version of events (I do not include the religous version simply because everyone knows it).

The whole thing was planned from before Jesus set foot in Jerusalem that Passover. The dramatic, provocative entrance, the secret house, the display at the stalls and threat against the Temple were all designed to get Jesus arrested and sentenced to death. The tomb he would require was already bought and ready to go.
When Jesus was put on the cross the women brought with them, soaked into a sponge on a stick, a medicine that would give Jesus the appearence of death. They offered him it but he refused it at first, maybe to make the whole thing seem more plausible. His cry on the cross he never made, it is an interjection, he never lost faith because the whole thing was a con. But the pain was now unbearable and he accepted the sponge. Moments later he appeared to die.
He was then taken down from the cross and to the tomb where the antidote and healing medicnes had been stored. At least one of the women remained with him in the tomb (Mary Magdalene almost certainly) and tended to him for the following day and a half. The others returned and opened the tomb and Jesus was taken from it.
He was snuck out of the area back to Galille where he appeared to the remaining disciples.
Being on a cross is brutal. It contorts the spine and compresses the rib cage. Jesus would be in a poor state, and so he was not at first recognised.
He made several more appearences but does not seem to have recovered. Some time after the cross episode he died in secret. By that time his disciples were convinced however.

Whilst some parts of this version, the sponge soaked in 'vinegar' I find suspious, especally as the very next line after he acepts it is; "he gave up the ghost". And the handiness of his timing, quickly and with enough time left to bury him a very handily donated tomb right close by.
However other aspects of it do not work. The disciples would not have been taken in by a half crippled wheezing Jesus claiming he was actually a spiritual body returned from the dead- and they were convinced, enough to die for the belief he had come back.
The basic problem is for me the secular narrative does not account for what actually happened next- these people going out and giving everything for Jesus.

But we must seperate out here what the Church, once it had formed and consolidated tells us Jesus mission was, and what it actually was.

Actual message:

The Kingdom would come in the lifetime of Jesus and his disciples.
God would rule it with Jesus as vice-roy and the Disciples as the 12 judges.
It was best to repent but not necessary as God was like a father who loved ever child, you could turn from Him but He never turned from you.
The Law of Moses stood.
He never once spoke out against the ruling priesthood or the Temple practises save the money-lenders (and that was a visual display of a spiritual message-God would replace the Temple with something better in the Kingdom).

Early Church version:

Jesus was the son of God and God incarnate. Born to a virgin.
He was a new convenant with God replacing the Law of Moses.
The Kingdom was a spiritual state, it could be entered in life by worshipping God according to the Church. It was omni-present, you also entered it upon death after Judgement day when you got your 'spirit body' like Jesus.
The Temple was obselete, replaced by the new Covenant.
Jesus appointed Peter as the First Pope of the Church and gave him total authority.
Jesus died for the sins of everyone and was resurrected as a sign of the Covenant and the promised Kingdom.

Only in the church version could one claim that dying on a cross and resurrection were foreseeable.
If we look at Jesus actual carrer- he never once said that the plan was to die and come back. He never once mentioned dying for peples sins, he didn't even ask them to repent. The plan was to usher in the Kingdom and take their places in it by the side of God. The plan was basically for divine intervention. The teachings were modified by Jesus persnality and his own motivations, but the plan was really quite simple.
It had begun with Jesus involvement in John popualist movement preaching the Kingdom was Coming, and all were to repent in preperation for it. And Jesus had refined it (and ostrasiced himself) to the Kingdom is Coming in our Lifetimes, God will forgive even sinners in it and to put himself and his follower at the heart of it.
Nowhere does he indicate any part of the plan was what actually happened.

And what of the Kingdom? Jesus had promised it within the lifetimes of the disciples, but that never happened.
It is clear that the resurrected Jesus never withdrew the claim. We know this because in Pauls letter to the Thessalonians its the subject matter.
The first trouble is some of the congregation have died, and this meant they did not live to see the promised Kingdom- Paul assures that the few who have died will be resureected in the Kingdom which is due any tme soon when the Lord returns.
Later when some of the actual disciples are dead it changes to one disciple will still be alive, and a suitable addition was made to John to imply so. (John 21.21-3)
Once the entire first generation was dead and we get to later books (such as II Peter 3.3) where people scoff and say "Where is the promise of his coming?" we get the reply, "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
Which delays it indiffenetly.

There is a strange problem arising here at the end of Jesus life. The Church which was in his name was founded by his own followers- yet it did not actually prove successful in its original aims at all- there was no kingdom, they did not rule in it. Those who weren't killed for their beliefs got old and died.

By that time of course the 'church' was already altering in the name of politics, social and the normal kind. The bulk of its ever increasing converts were gentiles with a very different outlook and world view from the rather parochial Jesus who never really looked past Israel and his own people. From this moment on most of the changes and alterations in thinking, emphasis, that eventually leads to the Church view of Jesus we have today can be traced and examined. But that first generation. They are the anomaly.
And that brings it all back to the resurrection.
Whatever it was, fraud or divine event, his followers believed it. Really, really believed it. Because if they had not there would be no Christianity today. (And we'd all be in Burkhas!)


Questions?

I think I am right in saying that Jesus was pierced in the side by a Roman spear, the Roman was Longinus, and the spear later made its way into legend, I think it was regularly done to see if the people were really dead, and a kind of liquid issued from the body. I dont think you would survive being speared.

In the secular account thats genraly dismissed as added after the event just to make sure nobody could say the sponge was poisoned. And they didnt stick the other two poor buggers.

What do you think about the alternative endings to Mark?

Also, how do you feel about putting resurrection in the context of other contemporary mystery cults?

Its not just Mark. Luke and Acts are generaly considered to have been written by the same author, yet they have two completely different versions of events. A cycnical person might say they are delibretly muddying the waters. But if youre less cynical you could say they were trying to record something they could not really explain themselves. So they just recorded every tradition about that they could.

Resurrection was unknown in Judiasm. Divenly born people were common enough in the Greek World but even there resurection was not a common motif by any means.
There is as you imply a closer parallel or two to be found in the mystery cults, particularly Egyptian. And we get mingled into the Chrisitian stroy such touches as the cross being made from acacea wood (associated with rebirth rituals). So there is osme connection going on there, but I suspect the connection is made long post the event and not before it.

The mystery for me is the that the people who lived and preached with the living Jesus- then went on to preach and create a Church that was in his name but about something completely different. Thats what I cant work out. Whatever his followers experienced itnot only convionced the teh Kingdom was true, it was coming in their lifetimes and they would have a resurected body like Jesu sin it, bu it also transformed the outlook of their mission. No longer were they Jewishcentric. No longer was it just a refininment and continuation of John. It now aimd to be universal.

The most cynical explanation I have is that someone, probably Peter, with others, saw that Jesus could easily appeal (and was) to the Gentiles. But his focus when alive meant he never really bothered with recruiting them. When he died they saw a way to get gentiles into the movement in numbers and the whole thing was a cynical PR excercise.
But that does not satisfy to me the zeal with which so many of them went to their deaths procaliming Jesus.

the early christians had everything to lose by proclaiming their faith, it wasnt much of a good move really, persecuction death and a thankless populace, it makes you wonder the appeal really. But something drove them on, what was it? An obscure carpenter from the back end of beyond? some tall tales of miracles? It was more than just good stories, what made people give up a comfortable Jewish faith for Jesus? its a mystery.

I agree Mrs Figg, its damn odd. My own hunch is if the resurection bit had not happened his followers would have done precisely what the High Priest thoughtthey would- disband, give up disillusioned. None of them seemed that keen. Even throughout Jesus time alive some of them dont come across as all that keen, or certain, or even convinced. None of them would even back him up at the end let alone risk their lives for him.
Something completely changed all that for them.

Also I meant to mention it and forgot. Jesus is not of course the only resurrection in the NT. We have the mysterous matter of Lazerus. Whom Jesus resurrects. Now in my view this one falls in the mystery school category- in that I believe what is beng referred to here is not a literal dead person brought back to life. Rather Lazerus was cast from the movement and was therefore no longer 'alive'. Jesus simply reinstated him, thus restoring him to 'life'.
This sort of terminology was commonly used at that time and since (similar terms are still used in Masonry today).
This raises the possibility Jesus own death was not literal either but comparable to somethin glike the Masonic 3rd degree. A metaphorical death of the old person and a rebirth into a new outlook.

Mysticism has a history of wandering in and out of Judaism though. I've heard a case made that Jesus and his followers my have been incorporating elements of Egyptian mysticism into their Judaism, another reason to execute him. Lazarus is the keystone of this argument. The claim is then that the deaths and resurrections of both was not a cheap trick, but a ritual passage to death and back as you find in many mystery cults.

If the mystery structure was already in place in Jesus' time, it would help explain how easily the early church was able to go underground and thrive.

The many versions of the story in the gospels would then be accounted for by the assumption that these stories were mysteries passed orally to initiates by masters, evolving in parallel in different congregations. When they were finally written down independently, they would not have had the opportunity to bring the narratives together as you mention is common, causing headaches for theologians to this day.

In my opinion both the strength and weakness of this argument is that it depends on the lack of evidence as evidence of mystery.

Well if you want my own version, which is quite different from the one laid out already which is based purely on an anaylsis of what is in the NT, here it is, I will try to keep it brief as possible.

Joseph, father of Jesus was a village Essene. That is he was an essene by religion who worked in a village. He sent however is tithe as instructed by the OT to the 'rightful' rulers the ousted old Royal Family and its court-who were later the Essenses at Quamran.
Joseph and the Essenes were close to Herod the Great. They worked together. Between them they had come up with a rather neat scheme. With so many Jews living outside of the Holy Land most could not attend the Temple when they should, so the Essenes sent priests to them. They could sacrifice on the distant Jews behalf and they could do something new as a concept, they could baptise as a means of purification in lieu of going to the Temple, and all in return for a small payment.
Money soon began flooding back and Herod used it to fund his massive building projects. Chief among them was the rebuilding of the Temple.
The Essenes provided the plans and the rules for how it would work. The Essenes followed the old system. This meant there was not one, but two leaders- a King and a Priest. And the Priest was more powerful. Naturally the Essene plan included this-and they already had there Priest from the line of Aaron-John the Baptist. Whom they called the Teacher of Righteousness.
The Essenes were amongst the most ritulistic and strictist of the Jewish groups. John we are told wore animal skins, ate locusts and lived in the desert- the perfect Essene in fact. He taught repetance and the Kingdom as coming- two of the Essenes favourite things.
Joseph was to be the David and eventually replace Herod- although Herod did know that part, but he probably suspected it, he was a suspicous man by all accounts.
When the essenes presented their plans Herod of course threw them out. He was not having a Priest ruling over him and Rome would never have worn it anyway. The Essenes publicly denounced Herod. John publicly denounced Herod. They turned on him and attacked him personnaly, critiscing his marriage in an attempt to inflame public opnion against him.
The Essenes were expelled and chased out the city, taking refuge at Quamran and establishing a Community there. John was arrested and eventually executed. Herod kept the money however.

Jesus was a problem from the word go. The Essenes were very much in the mystery school end of things- they were big on predictions, astronomy and the end of the world. They had influences from Egyptian thought, Persion and Zorastrian. This meant among other things that a King had to born at the right astronomical time to do with the movements of Venus.
Jospeh had been partnered with a suitable mate. The sister of Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, and a daughter of the line of Aaron (the Priestly line), Mary.
However it seems Jesus was born at the wrong time. Perhaps passion overcame ritual. Whatever the reason from the very begining Jesus was considered the rightful heir of David only by the moderate side of the Essene party who did not think it mattered when he was born only that he was next in line. But the hardliners in the party considered him a bastard and not the rightful heir. When his brother James was born at the apppropriate time of year he was the favoured choice of the hardliners.

When Jesus was growing up there was a militaristic side to the Essens forming, especially in the wake of their explusion by Herod- who they now considered their chief enemy. This was the very early days of what would much later become the Zealots, who openly attacked Roman interests with violence and severe force wherever they could.
Joseph was a part of this fledgling movement and when Herod the Great died they took their chance and overthrew the city of Sephorris.
It did not last however and Rome soon retook the city, rounded up the ringleaders and all the folowers they could find and crucified them. Joseph among them.
Despite the violent nature of this fledgling movement they were in fact on the moderate side of the party, this was part of the new thinking. The complete defeat at Sephorris however was a huge set back to the moderates and the old guard, the hard liners took control of the party back in its wake. This meant Jesus was back out as the heir and James was in.

Up until this point Jesus had been eductaed largely in Essene teachings- this was extensive and not only included all the scripture but astronomy and the like. One of their favoured books was the Book of Enoch- a largely astronomical work concerned with a journey taken by Enoch to meet angels who tell him of impending doom by showing hm things in the heavens.
Jesus seems to have showed and aptitude for healing and in particular exorcisms. He naturally learnt towards the interactive, people side of things and not the ritualistic formal side.
But now as a young man he was no longer the heir, his brother James was favoured by the party. So he went out and joined his cousin John's movement where he would be guaranteed a positon of some repsect at least.

Certain ideas, which had been around for some time, were begining to form at this time in Jewish history.
One side of it was a sort of religous socialism, its main proponent had been the prophet Hillel- most of what Jesus says in the famous Sermon on the Mount can be traced back to sayings by Hillel. Jesus was part of a wave of thought- That the meek could inherit the earth. The last could be first. That love could overcome an enemy. That God loved everyone as a father his child. It applied from an individal and there releationships with onether another to Israel and its releationship with the world.
It was a potent idea and popular among the common people.

Secondly, the idea of the Son of Man- it had gone on a long journey from being a mans title, a mortal, to being a spirtual representive of the nation to now the being who would usher in the kingdom.

Thirdle the essenes were big on calendars and numbers. Obsessed wth them in fact and they believed that God had a plan and that plan had a time frame. And according to their calculations the culmination of that plan was due. Hence the King was in John day coming soon-and in Jesus coming in their lietimes. Jesus was basically holdng the prize when the muic stopped.

All these things seem to have affected Jesus. He developed a Hillel socialist outlook. He knew the Kingdom was going to be in his lifetime. And he began to associate himself with the Son of Man who would usher it in.
Jesus at this point was a young man, full of fresh ideas. Raised to believe he was rightful King of the Jewish people and that his day would come.
But he was in world full of intresting new ideas and the ones he was most open to where what set him on a collision course with his own party and even his own family.

It was at about this point John was arrested and Jesus made his first big mistake.
For everything to work out there had to a King and a Priest. If John died, there would be no Priest. And the Priest was the more important of the two.
The obvious choice was to make either Jesus or his brother James the Priest, as they too were from Aarons line on their mothers side. James, who was mor eleaning towards the hard liners who had suported him all his life was the favoured choice for the more powerful Priest role. But at this time the moderates were back in control by a slender majority, led by Judas who was also head of the faction of what was left of the fledglng zealot movement Joseph had led. It was Jesus nonviolent stance which drove the wedge between them.

Jesus however seems to have come to a different choice. He declared that as a son of David and of Aaron he could take on both roles.
This split the party assunder. It split Jesus own moderate followrs and it outraged the hardliners adn his own family.
Jesus closest allies stuck with him however and formed his Disciples, the majority turned to John who wa sin prison, and who replied that he doubted Jesus had the right to fulfill such a rule. Jesus replied by quotig scripture indictaing he believed he was destined to be the King and Priest at the time of the Kingdom.
John was then executed before he could reply to this with what he thought.
Jesus had factionalised the party and offended his family by rejecting his own brother.

Sorry, this is way to long to cut it shorter- Jesus was a reformer, way more than he is genrally thought, and much more radical. He took Hillels theories and put them in practice.
The miracle stories are often accounts of this. For example the Essenes had a sacred meal. The common folk were placed in an open space before a cliff face- in the cliff face there was a room above the height of the heads of those in the open sapce. Those on the ground were given water at the sacred meal to sanctify the meal. The Priests, who conducted the meal sat in the room above them- and they got wine.
When Jesus turned the water into wine it meant he let people who were not ordained and purified as priests conduct ceremonies as if they were.
This was socialism in action. And a complete attack on the entire order of things.
Not only that if it could be done with the essene rituals it could be done to Judiasm as a whole.
Jesus was challenging the whole basis on which the Priests got to be in charge and got their preferential treatment. His message was not only God loves you but you dont have to be a priest to be alowed to show it-anyone can. They are only men perfomring acts, its not the ritual that counts its the love of God.
This was radical stuff. And hugely controversial. And it attracted like minded young radicals.
Jesus was kicked out the party effectively and the Essenes called him the Teacher of Wickedness his followrs Seekers after Smooth Things- in other worlds they wanted to take the easy way, not having to do the rituals and follow the rules.
Jesus took his band of like minded friends out on the road where they garnered a reputation for both their radical thnking and their lifesyle. They drew the crowds. They hung out with sinners. Jesus almost certainly married one of them, Mary Magdalene. And had children by her.
He got involved with other radcal thinkers like Simon Magus, and fell out with them too.
He stared to look beyond his own people and to reach out to the Gentiles and found he was having success. But the Jewsih practises that remained were a problem and he came up with the idea that his disciples could baptise Gentiles instead in his name.
By now Jesus actions were so radical his ideas were a threat to almost every other Jewish power group and Rome. And his movement was growing fast enough to get noticed.


Wow this ended up much longer than I thought or meant and I need a drink! Will need to finish it later. Sorry!

Hehe! I knew there was a radical theory lurking not too far below the surface of all your carefully measured biblical analysis!

The Biblical analysis is I think fair and not to biased. But it dosn't produce a satisfying expanation that accounts for what happened historically.

And compared to some my own theories are not that radical really. There's almost no alien involvment in my vesion at all!

Agreed. You've been doing an excellent job of being unbiased considering how charged and divisive the material is. But very few people would put the energy that you clearly have put into this subject without having a strong point of view.

No aliens or Easter Bunnies still doesn't make you centrist though. Several of your assertions deserve more explanation at some point, but please carry on. It's good reading!