These are the best scholars imvho at putting Jesus of Nazareth in his historical context: Jesus Seminar. Their books won’t try to convert you to anything except the historical truth about Jesus.

Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. Much of what is in the four canonical gospels was added later by Greek Xtians. Much of what we know about Jesus’ Jewishness only surfaced in the 20th Century from the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls. Prior to that all we had for the most part were canonical and non-canonical Greek sources on the Jewish Jesus. Most of Jesus’ followers and a good part of Judaism was obliterated by the Romans in 70 and 125. That’s why Paul and the gospels had to be written. After Jesus’ death his followers grew into increasing conflict with Jewish authorities. The historical Jesus had no problem with the Pharisees, but his followers did. The gospels are primary sources on the primitive Xtian communities, not the historical Jesus.

For reasons we can’t explain, Jesus had some gift of healing that really didn’t transfer to his disciples. I cannot explain that, but “healers” was the extent of medicine in 1st Century Judaism. What made Jesus unique, and pissed off his family royally, was that he took his healing on the road. That wasn’t the way it was done. You stayed at home and made people line up and pay for it. Jesus only charged what people could afford. Jesus was also funny. 5,000 people don’t follow you into the desert if you’re not entertaining. Scholars opine that “the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed,” left them rolling in the aisles.

The anti-semitism in the NT, especially Matthew, is because after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Rabbi’s threw the Nazarenes out of the Temple. Jesus never intended to start a new religion, but his followers had to. They also lost their jobs and friends when they were prevented from both being Jewish and following Jesus.

For Greek Xtians, the anti-semitism helped them avoid the wrath of the Roman empire. It’s just not something that goes back to Jesus.

While I am nominally a believer, my Church is Jane’s place, FDL. I have found no other place where I find so many people who share my conviction about the dignity of the human condition. I studied to be a Roman Catholic priest, so I am fluent in some religious sounding jargon. I appreciate your words, because in this environment, people can jump to the conclusion that I am some bible thumper. You got it, it’s the pluralism that is built so deeply into the Judaeo-Xtian scriptures, that the fundies miss.

Another example, Mark, Matthew and Luke all agree that Jesus’ blood washed away our sins. Scholars call it “expiatory sacrifice.” John’s gospel does not agree. According to John, we were saved by Jesus’ birth. His death was unnecessary and was solely a result of human sinfulness.

My point to progressives is to attack fundies on these massive distortions of the Xtian scriptures, that they the fundies claim to hold so dear. It might break their strangle hold on a few of their sheep-like followers.

My reference to radio and TV stations related to non-commercial stations. In fact, the FCC can regulate content here…and frequently does when it comes to some small educational station that runs an advertsement for an entity “other than the non-profit station itself”. Even asking for money for the licensee (for example asking for donations to the school) can get the station in trouble.

But many of these Focus on The Family broadcast stations are down on the non-commercial spectrum. Sadly there seems to be a double-standard with these religious stations in this regard.

I’m actually quite interested in Christianity and it’s history (as well as other faiths and their histories). I’m also a little odd as an atheist in that I do believe that there was a Jesus that existed and preached in the first century. Lots of people appear to have experienced him, and took away different meanings to his teachings that were passed on initially orally (none of the disciples seemed to have been able to write…or at least are recorded as writing something as simple as a letter, or Jesus’ words down). But I believe that one can see from the diversity of experiences and early “Christian” belief (not all followers accepted him as divine), and actually the reaction by the Jewish authorities, that there was a Jesus…one that expressed many philosophical concepts at odds with Mosaic strict adherence to the Talmud. Whether he believed that he was actually the “Son of God” or was using that phrase metaphorically (as it was used for David, and the prophets) isn’t going to make this “fallen” Southern Baptist a “believer” again. Even someone who is under a delusion can sometimes have very advanced insights.