Did Jesus Exist as A Historical Character?

 

These days we celebrate the Christian Easter which means that we commemorate and honor the sacrifice of the Jewish carpenter who was believed to be the only son - in the flesh - of the Biblical god, Yahweh. Everything leading up to that sacrifice is shrouded in not very likely legends and myths bordering on fairy tales, but is that all they are, or are these old stories remnants of historical facts? I, for one, don't believe in either the Immaculate Birth or the godly paternity of the main character of this world-famous story, i.e. Jesus, but I find some passages of The Bible describing it very beautiful, thought-provoking and utterly wise. However, not believing in e.g. the Immaculate Birth and the godly paternity of Jesus is not the same as not being interested in knowing about him as a historical person, or put another way: Did he ever walk this planet like the rest of us or is everything about him myths related by his 12 disciples and, many years later, turned into a book called The Bible? 

He has a grave, but is not to be found in it, either because he did arise or because his dead body was removed by his faithful disciples, eager to protect the myth about him and his status as Messiah. Some believe that he didn't die, but fled with Mary Magdalen whom he honored as a genuine disciple and who may actually have been his wife. However, once again we are being led away from the main point in the story of the messianic carpenter: Did he exist as a person whom his contemporaries might see walking the streets as they did or was he a figment of the imagination, only living in the minds of the faithful disciples?

We know that according to his biography he was considered one of several Jewish prophets at the time. In his teachings he was a political rebel who may even be called a "socialist" by the standards of today, fighting for the poor as he was. He was executed as a rebel against The State, so why aren't there regular documents telling the story of his rebellion? Well, in a way there are as he and his followers were mentioned twice by e.g. the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his "Jewish Antiquities" which is a 20-volume history book, written around 93 AD. Jesus was presumably born 6-4 BC and he died AD c. 30-33 so he was not a contemporary of him and his disciples.

Jesus is also mentioned by Tacitus. He is not the main character for him, but mentioned he is as his followers were blamed for the fire that the emperor Nero used to get room for the new buildings he wanted to build. That means that the Christians were the scapegoats of Nero and Tacitus is explicit in his short description of their messiah. I admit that that's a sort of backward biography of Jesus, but no matter what it can't be explained away as a fantasy by Christian believers: Jesus did exist as did his followers because otherwise Nero had not been able to use them the way he did.

 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Easter-holiday

 

https://www.bartehrman.com/historicity-of-jesus/ 

 

https://www.bibleref.com/John/10/John-10-39.html 

 

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/ 

 

Wikipedia

The Female Serial-Killer Chisako Kakehi

 

As is well-known most murderers are men, and most murder victims are women. Much, much too many women loose their life over male sexuality and the "need" to gain sexual satisfaction. Many of these female victims are sex-workers and the male murderers - who came to them for sex - somehow seem to confuse this fact with a sick belief in their moral obligation or just "right" to kill them in an attempt to "clean up" society. It's as sick as it can be, to, so-to-speak, "drain the swamp", etc., etc. by removing these women whose job it is to give the sexual satisfaction sought by their killers. Women, on the other hand, murder for money or feelings of love turned hatred, but not to gain sexual satisfaction. They don't rape their victims which very, very often happen in male-murdering-women-murders.  

I, for one believe that many more female murderers get away with their crimes than is known. Very often they don't use weapons that leaves a tell-tale mess which is what men do. No, many murderous women resort to poison which may not be detected at a glance like e.g. knife wounds. It has been the custom not to see women who murder several people as serial-killers. Somehow this appellation has been reserved for men, but there are female serial-killers - and maybe even more than we think. One of them is the Japanese Chisako Kakehi (born 1946), who was convicted for murdering four men, but who presumably killed at least seven others. She was arrested in 2014 when a routine autopsy revealed cyanide in the body of her dead husband.

At first she denied any responsibility, but in 2017 she confessed the murder which she said happened out of a deep-rooted hatred of her husband. Two days later she retracted her confession, even denying any remembrance of it. Her lawyers tried to make a case for her being demented and not responsible for her actions, but that didn't work well with the judge: She received a death warrant, but there hasn't been set a date of her execution yet. Actually she will only be informed that her sentence is being carried out on the morning of her execution which to me looks very cruel. I don't know if that's because she is a woman who in some ways has behaved like a male man, but there hasn't been that many executions in Japan so maybe she isn't going to have "a date with the executioner?

 

 https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/Booklet_5.pdf

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230209/Understanding-the-minds-of-female-serial-killers.aspx

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2840383/Woman-arrested-Japans-latest-black-widow-case.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/chisako-kakehi-japan-black-widow-confesses-to-killing-fourth-husband

https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offender-relationship-2021

 

Wikipedia

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, you're killed anyway  

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I saw this posting on Reddit and it presents an angle to the subject of women being murdered which I must confess that I've never thought of before. Having thought it over agree 100%, so

Why is femicide not considered a hate crime?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/1bg855u/why_is_femicide_not_considered_a_hate_crime/  

"If you attack or kill someone strictly because of their identity, religion, sexuality, "race, etc. it’s considered a hate crime. You are charged extra and more harshly. Men kill THREE women a day for the same reason, and they are not charged with hate crime. I’ve actually never even seen a man in America be charged with a hate crime, just oversees (mexico, you’re awesome) So why are women excluded from protection? Men would not be killing /beating/ raping us if we weren’t women. Men will specifically target us because we are easy prey, and have a vagina that they can take advantage of. I often hear the argument that it’s because it’s a domestic situation. You could say that the husband killed the wife because they got into a dispute that was not about gender, but ultimately the wife was killed because she is mostly likely weaker and smaller. It would have to be case by case, obviously if a husband kills his wife over a “non gender topic” then he would not be charged with a hate crime. I’m talking more about women that are attacked randomly. (Please keep this a friendly conversation! I’m not trying to fight or be mean with anyone ❤️)"

These murders are going on all over the world, but we have heard more about the worst atrocities in Muslim countries than of those in Western non-Muslim areas. However, that doesn't mean that The West, i.e. Christian societies, go free of rightful accusations. Murdering women has been a special "male sport" for ages, and in America right now there is a tightening of the shackles of the victims, so to speak, and women are losing out on many other issues like e.g. abortion. Actually, certain states are trying to turn their female citizens into some kind of "cattle" by claiming that they are not the true owners of their inborn uterus: Girls (children!!!!) and women are being criminalized for abortions even when their health is at stake if they don't have them. All of this is part of a pattern that gets more and more clear to those who know how to see, and it's not acceptable ....

 

https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/GSH2018/GSH18_Gender-related_killing_of_women_and_girls.pdf 

 

Wikipedia

 

I Saw A White Bird Today ....

 

My fable or short story, "I Saw A White Bird Today", is from my antology, "Animals, Humans and So On" (SAXO)

I Saw a White Bird Today

I saw a big, white bird today
No wait, I saw a picture of a big white bird today
and actually there were not one, but two birds

One very big and ferocious one
the other smaller and a victim for a murderer in feathers
Yeah, and both were in the air, flapping their wings

The small one being eaten alive by the other one
a beak deep inside its back, but none the less alive
what struck me was their twin quality, Cain and Abel
the killer was a seagull and so was its victim
forever the big Cain killing his smaller brother Abel

By the way, do seagulls eat seagulls?
Well, do humans obliterate humans?

And didn’t I avert my eyes from this unbearable cruelty
because it wasn’t real, only a picture of something real?
Maybe we should stick with the pictures and throw out
what’s only all too real in the world of realities?

 

Was Saint Peter An Usurpator That Should Have Been Replaced By Mary Magdalen???

At the time of Jesu the name of Mary was extremely common as one in four, or maybe even more, women was named "Mary". That fact has given rise to a lot of confusion, especially about one of the most important Biblical women, namely Mary Magdalen. She was the one whom Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century conflated with the anonymous "sinful" woman mentioned in the chapter before she's introduced in the Gospel of Luke. Was this pope right or was this just a clever action to curb the influence of women? After all, Mary Magdalen from The Bible was a female apostle who made the males jealous because they felt that Jesus loved her the most. Could she really be the same woman as the one who washed the feet of Jesus and afterwards dried them with her hair, the so-called "sinful" woman whom he forgave for her presumed sins???? 

No, she was not, but that special myth has always been exceedingly popular with male Christian theologians of all kinds and the scenery of the penitent beauty has been painted over and over by various (male) painters. Obviously most of them were so beset by the very idea of her "sinfulness" that they ended up sexualizing her in the extreme, seeing her "sinful" sex-appeal as the main part of the legend.

 

Anthony van Dyck

Half-naked, what can be more appropriate in a great artist's depiction of a "sinful", but penitent woman? (Whatever that is).

In protestant theology there are six Marys, the most important of them, as with the Catholics, being 1) the mother of Jesus. The others are 2) Mary of Bethany, 3) James' mother, 4) John Mark's mother, 5) Mary of Rome, and 6) Mary Magdalen who have gained a new importance as a saint when pope Francis declared her an acknowledged apostle in 2016. He wasn't even the first one who considered her to be a very important figure in the Jesu legends as Thomas Aquinas declared her "The apostle of the apostles" in the 13th century which is the official nomination she has regained now. 

As it is she was one of the very first followers of Jesus, and, what's more important, she was the first one to witness his resurrection. Something which makes her very special theologically.

Even before the crucifixion she and Jesus were close and it's interesting that Peter, the apostle who became "the Cesar of the Catholic Church", i.e. the pope, had several fights with her. That happened because he resented the fact that she, being a woman, had her say with Jesus and the other apostles. Actually there were many power fights in the group of Jesu followers that stemmed from males resenting the devout females being close to Jesus, gaining influence over him, especially Mary Magdalen. 

 

That happened more than 2000 years ago, but all of these fights took a new turn when the lost and forgotten "The Gospel of Mary" was discovered in a fifth-century papyrus codex in 1896. This gospel is a fragment in sahidic which is considered non-canonical as it has not become part of the official Bible. Maybe it was sort of "muted" by the males who fought the idea of the holiness of Mary Magdalen.

 

 

 Gospel of Mary, P. Oxyrhynchus L 3525

 

However, since then two other fragments of "The Gospel of Mary" have been discovered, both written in Greek. However, it has been difficult to date these fragments so an important question remains: WHEN were they written, and by WHOM? Many scholars discuss this, but as far as I know there are no definite PROOFS of either date nor authorship. Some even suggest that the "Mary" of the gospel may be Jesu sister or someone else with the same name. However, Mary Magdalen is mentioned in several other Biblical scriptures like e.g. Luke 8:2, John 20:14-16, Matthew 27:56 and Mark 16:9. Levi defends Mary Magdalen and her teachings against the jealous and misogynist Peter: "Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us." According to some Jesus was - or became - married to Mary Magdalen, but where are the proofs? I haven't found any reliable evidence that that was the case, but according to one legend he survived the crucifixion and went to France with her as his wife. Their daughter became an ancestor of the royal house of France. 

Well, that's an interesting "turn of the screw", but there is no doubt that we need more proofs, also about the so-called "skull of Mary Magdalen" that may - or may not - be genuine ....

 

 

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html 

https://www.historyhit.com/the-mystery-of-mary-magdalenes-skull-and-relics/    https://www.history.com/news/mary-magdalene-jesus-wife-prostitute-saint    https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/199647.pdf    http://www.magdalenepublishing.org/skull-mary-magdalene/   https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/kronik/maria-magdalene-og-mariaevangeliet    https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html    https://www.vaticannews.va/en/liturgical-holidays/saint-mary-magdalene.html     https://www.parsontom.com/books/The%20Gospel%20of%20Mary.pdf     Wikipedia

The Obligation To Look "Feminine"

 

I stumbled upon this on a website I sometimes visit. My reason for doing that is that I often find notes, questions or statements that are of interest and which make me browse a subject. In the above statement I see a woman who is tired of all the bullshit that all too often is heaped upon women by men. They try to pass it off as some kind of scientific or historical facts which it is not. Another reason why I like what "Farida D." writes is that it reminds me of the old concept of a "sisterly solidarity" that once was an ideal for feminists. Actually, it's something I think we should revive in this time of manifold kinds of backlashes ....

I suspect that many women nowadays feel obliged to signal femininity in the old-fashioned manner: Full make-up, tight dresses, high heels, etc. which turns them into over-sexualized Patriarchy-victims. Ideals of femininity that rob women of bodily strength, the right to exhibit a strong personality, etc. without being ostracized by society is a trap. To me it's obvious from what I read on various websites that many women are battling their feelings of being kept in a role that has been outdated for several decades. They don't want to appear "manly", but on the other hand, neither do they want to lose the freedom to be what - and who - they are.

Making One's Name As A Writer

 

I keep seeing postings by hopeful, new writers, e.g on Quora, who are ask questions about the presumed future earnings of a nondescript book they are working on. Many of them seem to be deluded by their own dreams of success: To write a book is a piece of cake to them and to have it published by a renowned publisher doesn't look difficult to them, although they may have some vague misgivings about the well-known bad experiences of other authors. As it is, right now the publishing market seems to be swarming with fake agents, fake editors, fake publishers, etc., etc.. 

Some years ago I made the decision to accept the offer from a publisher whom I had been told was very shady: I accepted "A dance with the Devil" so to speak because I wasn't very hooked on the idea that i should make a lot of money on my work. To me it was a question of publishing books I myself felt for, and I chose to close my eye to the fact that this publisher more or less kept his business running not on sales of the books he published, but on what he could get in through grants from firms, etc. which wanted to boost their names by "doing something for culture". As they saying goes: "One hand washes the other one ...." However, i took for granted that this particular publisher would do what he could to market the books he published. After all, he had to get to his pockets to get books on the market, as they don't edit and print themselves. I was surprised to find out that that wasn't the case, or that it was much less than it takes to market books. As marketing and publicity (PR-campaigns) are two completely different things my experience with this particular publisher taught me that one shouldn't chose the one over the other, no, one should always go for both with every book one publishes. 

Marketing may include something like e.g. digital campaigns, paid ads in newspapers and magazines, but also influencer efforts (if that's possible). As to publicity then we are entering the realm of events, articles and reviews: The more the better. As every published author knows by now it's very hard to get any of this coverage, but part of it is considered the obligation of the publisher who should be able to draw on his/her market contacts. However, what if one is working with someone who doesn't have a publicity budget and who thinks that the author him-/herself should take the load of that part of the publishing, preferably without any "fuss"? It's not fair to the author, but I think that's what many experience these years. 

Some authors resort to the strategy of hireing their own publicist, but how does one know the good ones from the bad - and even destructive - ones? That's part of the problem: One doesn't because the publishing market is also swarming with people who either are fake or just not good enough. Bad advice about this part of the publishing process may have grave implications for the hopeful author and one again i'm thinking of those writers who take for granted that they may make a living by writing ....

 

https://www.editage.com/book-editing-services-articles/11-powerful-book-promotion-ideas-for-self-published-authors 

 

https://blog.reedsy.com/book-promotion-services/ 

 

https://savory-pr.com/why-you-should-hire-a-book-publicist-for-your-book-launch/