Lords, slaves, the divine rights of kings, and the real reason why Jesus was crucified

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Jesus was crucified because he was stirring up the locals when the Jewish leadership was trying to get along with the Romans.

Jesus thought he was a rightful heir to the Jewish throne, following the lineage of Solomon. With the help of his cousin Salome, he got his other cousin, John the Baptist, beheaded and took over his following (and cribbed a lot of his teachings). Then he settled into a pattern of using sorcery and necromancy to support his growing number of followers, which resulted in him raising Lazarus from the dead, which -- after the man had been dead for three days -- even his followers didn't think was a good idea. That brought him to the attention of the Jewish leadership.

The final straw was when Jesus chased the moneylenders out of Solomon's Temple (which Jesus considered his own, being the successor to Solomon and all).

What you basically had was a guy who may or may not have had a legitimate claim to the Jewish throne, and who was skilled in the same "dark arts" as King Solomon. And he failed. He got contaminated by the very demons he was using to do his "miracles," and it ended up costing him in the end. Then the Apostle Peter took the failure and turned it into a victory (sort of).

This is just something you made up.

The Jews were not trying to get along with the Romans and rebelled many times without Jesus being involved.

Jesus was no threat.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
This is just something you made up.

It's alluded to in a number of the older texts, including the New Testament, but also many of the Gnostic texts.

The Jews were not trying to get along with the Romans and rebelled many times without Jesus being involved.

They were not actively or officially in conflict with the Romans at the time. Even the Gospels are clear that the Romans were willing to release Jesus as a good will gesture during Passover, but the local Jewish authorities rigged it.

Jesus was no threat.

Then I guess John 7 is just wrong.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
This is just something you made up.

It's alluded to in a number of the older texts, including the New Testament, but also many of the Gnostic texts.

The Jews were not trying to get along with the Romans and rebelled many times without Jesus being involved.

They were not actively or officially in conflict with the Romans at the time. Even the Gospels are clear that the Romans were willing to release Jesus as a good will gesture during Passover, but the local Jewish authorities rigged it.

Jesus was no threat.

Then I guess John 7 is just wrong.

No, you made that up. Jesus wasn't leading a rebellion.

He was a pacifist, wasn't causing any trouble and was no threat to the Romans, it was the Roman collaborators the Sadducees who wanted him dead, and they were hated by the rest of Judaism.

You made all that up, it's not in any of the ''Gnostic" texts, I have actually read them so I actually know.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
This is just something you made up.

It's alluded to in a number of the older texts, including the New Testament, but also many of the Gnostic texts.

The Jews were not trying to get along with the Romans and rebelled many times without Jesus being involved.

They were not actively or officially in conflict with the Romans at the time. Even the Gospels are clear that the Romans were willing to release Jesus as a good will gesture during Passover, but the local Jewish authorities rigged it.

Jesus was no threat.

Then I guess John 7 is just wrong.

There is much wrong with the Gospel of John.

But not what you are saying. I am sorry you said a bunch of unsupported nonsense, but you did, so I am calling you on it, and nothing in John is going to make what you said even look like it could be true.


John the Baptist's following was not absorbed by Jesus either and survives today as the Mandaeans.

a reply to: Blue Shift

You say Jesus wanted the Throne as heir to Solomon?

"My Kingdom is not of this world."

Kind of destroys that claim.

a reply to: Blue Shift

He didn't fail, rumors persist Jesus had a family and that his descendant will live on and in time establish a Christian kingdom on Earth.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
I am sorry you said a bunch of unsupported nonsense, but you did, so I am calling you on it, and nothing in John is going to make what you said even look like it could be true.

I'm sorry you couldn't parse out the real story from all the scattered pieces. These two passages from the Gospel of Thomas are the key:

46. Jesus said, "From Adam to John the Baptist, among those born of women, no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that his eyes should not be averted.

61. Jesus said, "Two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live."

John the Baptist's following was not absorbed by Jesus either and survives today as the Mandaeans.

Now, sure. But who did they seek out when John was imprisoned? See, that's why Jesus had John baptize him.

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
a reply to: Blue Shift
You say Jesus wanted the Throne as heir to Solomon?
"My Kingdom is not of this world."
Kind of destroys that claim.

"Now someone greater than Solomon is here--but you refuse to listen." Matthew 12:42

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
He didn't fail, rumors persist Jesus had a family and that his descendant will live on and in time establish a Christian kingdom on Earth.

Donald Trump?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Your hilarious, you think you actually are passing as knowledgeable but you aren't, you may have seen some bad documentatries but you can't provide a sentence to back up that what you said is in the Nag Hammadi texts.

So like every creature of your species you resort to the ''burn" tactic and think that makes up for the fact that you are never going to be able to back up any of your claims using the ''Gnostic" texts that you claimed support your views. Ever.

Let's see the textual evidence.

Or any other text, because it doesn't exist, and you said a lot of total b.s. Just be more careful from now on.

a reply to: Blue Shift



Jesus... did not want any throne or seat of authority or whatnot from the ancestor Solomon... who completed the 1st Temple
Jesus lived his ministry around 32-35 AD when the 2nd Temple was the one in use at the time... it was also called Herods' Temple because of the restoration Herod made to the Shrine-Temple some 50-60 years earlier

Jesus was also a renegade or maverick Rabbi, or learned one... he had not graduated nor was 'commissioned' as a Rabbi by either of the two predominate Clergy-Priesthood Schools of all Jewish history Pharisee & Saducee ....btw....

does the cee or see endings in the names of the 2 priesthoods stir a memory?? ...

remember in prophecy where the 'Beast' in Revelation comes ~out-of-the-SEA~ is there a hidden clue in this line of thought ?... will the man-beast/AC/ man of perdition/ actually be in the Jewish Priesthood or will
IT come from the Roman Catholics & the Pontiff or Holy SEE...


Jesus was first & foremost a pacifist, magician, ritualist, conjuror... the ideology he promoted was magical not pragmatic in a world conquest sense...Jesus was just the 1st mortal to enter the place of the Divine through a gateway he sacrificed his life to attain, hence the title first-born son-of-man ~~ he did not consider himself a God or Divinity at all... the later Romans & Apostles & Paul created the implied son-of-God teaching


watch the movie Life of Brian for a refreshing possible parallel


600BC -0- 600AD were interesting times for gods, demigods, etc.

a single daytime to the creator, followed by a night (when another desert 'god' came to being)

a reply to: Blue Shift

I don't know I mean if your gonna establish a royal bloodline wouldn't it makes sense to have heirs?

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Jesus was crucified because he was stirring up the locals when the Jewish leadership was trying to get along with the Romans.

Jesus was no trouble to Rome, Pilate even pronounced him innocent but acquiesced to the Sadducee Herodian controlled Priests.

The Jewish leadership were traitors, Roman collaborators no better than any other in history and probably as bad as any, take France in WW2 and those who collaborated with the Germans, for instance.

The Pharisees and Nazarenes were peaceful, other Jewish groups were constantly at war with Rome, Jesus isn't involved.

Jesus thought he was a rightful heir to the Jewish throne, following the lineage of Solomon. With the help of his cousin Salome, he got his other cousin, John the Baptist,

A claim like this requires evidence and not some pseudo scholar but 4th century or earlier extant manuscripts.

The Babylonian Talmud would be all over that if it were true, you can count on that. He is just called a magician and a bastard and not a murderer.

The Salome of Josephus history was not mentioned in the Bible or anywhere else as being Jesus' cousin or the Salome that was his disciple.

Being a Herodian it's highly unlikely as they were not Israelites but Idumean converts.

beheaded and took over his following (and cribbed a lot of his teachings). Then he settled into a pattern of using sorcery and necromancy to support his growing number of followers, which resulted in him raising Lazarus from the dead, which -- after the man had been dead for three days -- even his followers didn't think was a good idea. That brought him to the attention of the Jewish leadership.

The final straw was when Jesus chased the moneylenders out of Solomon's Temple (which Jesus considered his own, being the successor to Solomon and all).

What you basically had was a guy who may or may not have had a legitimate claim to the Jewish throne, and who was skilled in the same "dark arts" as King Solomon. And he failed. He got contaminated by the very demons he was using to do his "miracles," and it ended up costing him in the end. Then the Apostle Peter took the failure and turned it into a victory (sort of).

Again, Jesus didn't take over John's Baptist following.

There is a metaphorical nature to the raising of Lazarus, it didn't actually happen. Ressurection was a common philosophical theme then and several kinds are discussed in the New Testament, all metaphorical but highly spiritual.

And none of this is in the Nag Hammadi or Gnostic texts like you said, the whacky claims you made about Jesus. I don't know what kind of person cites illegitimate incorrect sources but you need to be more careful.