Boy, some people have David Hicks on the brain. My point was this satire illustrates how public opinion can be whipped up by the establishment against someone they don't like so easily. The establishment today being the government, talkback radio and news media. Jesus Christ had the misfortune of getting on the wrong side of the establishment in His day.

I'm also reminded of the old say "Jesus, please spare me from Your followers."

An interesting post but it follows a well established interpretation of a myth initiated by Paul and finally established by Constantine. Joshua of Nazareth was a revolutionary and by our definition, a terrorist; certainly by the definition of the super power of the time, Rome. His sole aim was to rid the holy land of the infidel, by all means possible (asymmetric warfare). He believed that the prophecies of the old testament held the key to unleash a destructive power on the Roman occupier. If you want a comparison with Joshua, don't look past Osama bin Ladin.

That was funny, particularly keeping in mind that this is a talk show transcript from 33ad, and being read by a crowd now, most of whom do not takes jesus name in vain, and their possible responses...

Like him or hate him, use his words to understand god or make use of it for selfish power and benefit, argue over the exact facts of his time and on...his name has lasted two thousand years and looks like it will outlast us...

Sam
Ps~by the way his primary destiny was to save souls from their sins and by his last words seems he succeeded bar the condition that there must be 'repentence' which is bloody hard in real day to day terms, particulary when you read what is needed to repent like when bathsheeba did david in...you got to brush up that vague quiet sense of destiny in us and then find your way to the right place and put ourselves in the required circumstances then the hand of god will guide you...I am told..

Netab,
Although Paul was a great missionary, he wasn't the first to come up with the Deity of Christ. The disciples, who paid for promoting such a belief with their blood (all of them but 1), and those who wrote the Gospels, were. Remember, the NT was completed by 90 A.D., so the fact that a guy named Constantine recognised this a few centuries later doesn't imply that the beliefs did not exist until then.

No the the establishment of christianity as a religion was not settled until Constantine and the NT finalised by 350 AD with the Muratorium Canon (even then they are not the NT as we know them now but close enough). When you refer to the disciples, do you mean those of the establishment or the those of the gnostic gospels. Finally, the first known written testament regarding Joshua, did not occur until Paul's writings of 50 AD. As you would be aware the earliest writings regarding this remarkable man were the gnostic gospels and thus the question; which disciples?
I hold in the greatest respect those that follow christianity but I don't believe that its secular historical orgins is beyond pale for contemporary scholarship.

Netab, the early Christian gospels were not originally referred to as "gnostic". The early message was spread form community to town via these gospels of which many were written and as many carried by word of mouth. The usual avarice that crops up with the institutionalization of anything spelt doom for the majority of the written gospels available at the time of the selection of only the works attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Consistency?
The 1st century gnosis movement was not Christian and many of the gnostic text convey no Christian attributes. That some Gnostics considered themselves Christian doesn't make gnosticism part of Christian doctrine. Gnostics were seen as heretics.
I have read where some assert the idea of gnosis was a concept from Zarathustra.(?)