There is a fourth option. He was an alien...
There is a third option. He was a politician, hoping to unite the twelve tribes of Israel and rule over them, and fulfill the prophecy of re-establishing an independent kingdom. It would explain why he traveled around talking to the various tribes, why he had 12 disciples, why he told the story of the good Samaritan, why he (at first) avoided non-Jews, why his lineage is recorded by his disciples (to prove he was eligible to fulfill the prophecy), why the Romans put “King of the Jews” on his cross, why he was betrayed by other Jews (because most would want the Messiah to be from their own tribe, it would be more advantageous...) etc.
No, Jesus specifically rejected the calls to make Him King.
He warned His disciples he would be killed. How can a dead man be a politician? His kingdom was/is not of this world.
Jesus' primary objective (and the Father's as well) was dealing with sin. His death accomplished this.
John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar has also pushed that line. Of course the Jesus Seminar folks also don't believe Jesus performed any miracles or that he rose from the dead.
Suggested as a 21st century, propaganda jaded cynic would suggest it!
The head Roman said he found no fault in Him and literally washed his hands of the whole business.
But instead he was killed according to dozens of specific prophecies of the old testament exactly as foretold by Jews (prophets) who preceded Him by hundreds of years. Amazing for a politician.
How sad!
It is amazing that out of those 12 disciples, 11 died horrible deaths and the one that lived was boiled alive in oil, all because they refused to save themselves by recanting their preaching that he was the Son of God. Most were told they could go free if they would just recant.
What politician are you willing to die for or be boiled alive in oil for claiming they are the Son of God, when they are just a politician?
Yeah, thought so.
You might study the word a bit more.
All Jews of that era were well aware that Messiach had to come from Judah. Specifically from the root of David (Netzerim, from which Nazereth is derived)
There were only three tribes represented in Judea at that time, Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. All of Benjamin and all of Levi knew from early childhood that Messiach would not come from their lineage.
Finally, Yeshua plainly declared that his kingdom was not of the Earthly relm.
The motivation to kill him came from those that knew in their hearts that he was who he claimed to be, and that his birth meant the end of their illegitimate clique’s reign of power. The Pharisees did know the scriptures by heart, there couldn’t have been any misunderstanding.
.
Wow.
Others have pointed out the biblical and historical flaws of your statement. My question is, did you read this somewhere or come up with all this yourself?
But what is the most plausible explanation for the empty tomb?
Well, all He had to do was to command that to be done and it would have been done. Of course, that takes our Salvation away from the equation, doesn't it?
There is a fourth option. He was an alien...
As the thread is dying, I’d like to make some parting comments. First, thank you for your questions. Wittingly or not you have engaged the Socratic method. However, during your questions, you entered two premises that are in error. I left them unchallenged because I was interested in the course of the arguments that resulted.
First, you began the controversy by introducing what you identified as a third option. Your third option is merely a subset of “Jesus was crazy”. As a politician, the methods chosen by Jesus were invariably the worse possible choices and the worst possible arguments if he were intending to amass political power.
Second, your construct that Christianity made no sense because Hebrews were expecting a Kingdom to be established. The statement is true but it is only a subset of the entire biblical record in the old testament.
The bible does not start with Moses and Mt Sinai. The current age biblical history begins with Noah followed by Abraham.The first covenant was made by God with Noah in that God promises extended to all life on earth. The covenant with Abraham was a promise for the whole world and describes God’s intentions:
Gen 12:3 and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Again in Exodus, God proclaims His mission to the Hebrews:
Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
The God of Abraham and Moses has shown that he cares for the whole world, not just the Hebrews.
I teach my kids that the hardest thing about good arguments is that you need to be aware of your biases and your own personal methods for making conclusions. We all have biases some that we are aware of and some that we are not. We all have a method for gathering information, processing that information and using it to make a conclusion. It is impossible for any of us to avoid having our biases affect our establishing our premises and very difficult to see the flaws in our processing toward a conclusion.
You make the same error in arriving at your premise twice in your thinking. You find a subset of something to be your premise without considering that your have narrowed your premise to exclude other possibilities. Or you think you have discovered a new population but it is merely a subset.
The second error in your thinking is a process one. You have stated your premise and your logic that by definition excludes any evidence that contradicts. You accept parts of the NT as true but exclude parts that you believe are false. If we are working with a premise that documents have been significantly altered we are done with them as a source. If we establish that someone is lying, their testimony has no value or worse it is misleading. Regarding the OT, you accept your interpretation of the OT but exclude from evidence anything that departs from it.