Who was Jesus? Part 2

Let's see, I am 39 years old and I think for 31 of those years I have struggled with this question. So, continued thoughts result in continued posts, especially as I do more research on the question.

I did change the question a bit, however. Instead of asked "Who IS Jesus", I am wondering who Jesus WAS. There is a difference.

As I read more and more on the subject, my vision of Jesus changes radically. Currently, I am reading a book called "The Jesus Papers" written by Michael Baigent (the author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the book that was one of the sources for the Da Vinci Code). In this book, Baigent offers research and factual information to give us new insights as to what roles, if any, Jesus played in the times he lived. He explains how the New Testament was created, how it was written, and by whom. It is eye-opening to say the least, and can change open-minded thought because it makes sense.

Was Jesus a rebel against Rome, crucified for his sedition? It seems Romans did not execute for religious crimes, and saved crucifixion for rebels and rioters (the Jewish punishment for blasphemy was stoning, which was not done in the case of Jesus). It also appears likely that the two men crucified by the Romans with Jesus were not "thieves", but were found guilty of sedition and executed as well. Barabbas was not just a murderer, but a convicted rebel who was to die in place of Jesus. Judas and Peter were both part of a band of murderous rebels who not only killed Romans, but Jews who did not believe as they did. The sign placed above Jesus on the cross "Here is Jesus, King of the Jews", was a list of his crimes, which would have been assigned to anyone who claimed to be the leader of the Jews rebelling against Caesar and Rome. Just to think, I am only on page 78.

It all makes perfect sense to me actually. In order to understand, you have to go back in time and put yourself in that era. Jesus was, most likely, married. He was, most likely, not only rebelling against Roman rule, but the corrupt Jewish leadership as well. The Jewish leadership was installed and approved by Roman rule, and the High Priest would have had to ensure that he kept his place of power and wealth. Jesus would have, I think quite naturally, rebelled against a corrupt Jewish leadership (as evidenced in the New Testament) allied with the Roman government. This would have made him enemies not only of the State, but also of the his own people.

At this point, this information doesn't change the possible mission Jesus was on from God. But it does beg to question the motivation behind the lies and bent truth of the New Testament, and why the Christian church has place false edicts on it's followers. Why, in the New Testament, was Mary of Magdalene depicted as a prostitute and adulterer when archaeological evidence suggests she was not only the wife of Jesus, but also a wealthy woman in her own right? Why do Christians always overlook the fact the Jesus was in fact, an Arab (Palestinian) Jew killed not by the Jews (or at least no killed alone by the Jews), but by the Romans? Again, Romans did not kill religious criminals for the Jews, Jesus would have been stoned, and could have been stoned, and most likely would have been stoned if the charge was religious in nature. Pilate would not have "washed my hands of this innocent's blood" and then had him crucified if he had committed no crime against Rome. That was a standing order from Caesar himself.

Ah the questions. Again, blind faith leads the masses to their deaths. It is in understanding, using the tools God has given us, that we find true faith build on rock. You just have to be willing to work a little bit.