Is It Even Possible To Uncover The “Real Jesus”?
I am a layman and I do not portray myself as anything other, but I have serious doubts about whether the entire “Quest for the Historical Jesus” isn’t anything other than a search for a purple squirrel, or a fool’s errand in the words of Dr. Richard C. Miller. It just may be so obfuscated in hundreds of years and thousands of written iterations by scribes sleepwalking their way through who knows how many rewrites, edits, interpolations, and intentional ‘alterations’ as to leave itself forever shrouded in unsolvable mystery. But, more importantly, I do not believe that any intellectually legitimate evaluation of the NT can be reasonably concluded without consideration given to the most erudite scholarship of it contributed by Hebrew scholars and rabbis. A complete and thorough examination of 1st century Christianity cannot be legitimately concluded without an equally thorough examination of the thoughts and interpretations of the most learned Hebrew scholars. Their insights into the ministry of Yeshua of Nazareth are as enlightening as any you will read anywhere. Many of these learned, studied, scholars not only believe he wasn’t an ‘enemy” of the Pharisees, but that he may have actually been one himself! And, almost equally incredible, that Paul may not have been a Pharisee at all! (There is very little of Paul’s story Hebrew scholars believe.) But do not take my word, simply read their own arguments as to why Jesus answers all of the queries put to him by the various Pharisees accurately and completely within the context of 1st century Pharisaic Judaism. The NT portrayal of Jesus as an enemy of the Pharisees is simply a later and intentional reconstruction of his very devout Jewish nature which by necessity was left in the dust bin of its’ own making. They simply could not leave him to be a Jew; Paul’s gentile audience of late 1st century-early 2nd century Romano-Hellenist former pagans wouldn’t buy in to such a notion.
In this respect Christianity is it possible that be nothing more than a “false’“ religion, for what else can be said about a religion that does not include or even acknowledge the basic fundamental principals of its’ own founder? Jesus was a Jew, as many secular and even many fundamentalist scholars will admit, and actually made many statements himself that further cement that notion. So how, then, did the religion that bears his name (or, more accurately, his title) turn out to be anything other than Jewish
Hmmmmm.
Ranting About Politics And Religion 
All religion is a manipulation for fear and control, and in many cases, arrogance. There is much violence, misogyny, and conflicting messages and stories because all of this was written by men, changed numerous times over the years to suit mostly the Catholic Church and in modern times, we see Christianity morphing into a white nationalist right wing interpretation
LikeLike
Hard to argue those points. The history of Christianity – especially as the Catholic Church – bears all that out and more. Even today, you’d think it’d be more difficult to utilize something like religion to assume power and rule a somewhat heterogeneous mass of cats like Americans, but I’m not so sure!
LikeLike