Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
I'm not sure how many documentary sources you'd want of someone called Jesus preaching in Judea, but there are surely enough even if you discount the Bible.
More than there are, and more than those written at such a point in time later, and more than those who refer to someone who might have been Jesus but was called something else. Given what there is I'm not denying there was someone called Jesus preaching, indeed it'd seem probable there was, but I wouldn't take it as proof.
Given that him living or not isn't really the point I'll take balance of probabilities rather than search for beyond reasonable doubt.
Seems an important point for those who accept he is the way. Seeing as I have no faith, and no issues around having no faith (though I'm led to understand this could end badly) then it really makes little different to me if he either didn't exist or was the David Icke of his time.
Given what there is I'm not denying there was someone called Jesus preaching, indeed it'd seem probable there was, but I wouldn't take it as proof.
Even though the Jews themselves deny it (and they'd be the ones to know) and none of the foremost Greek and Roman historians of the first few centuries AD make any mention of him? & even though the story in the New Testament bears striking resemblance to numerous others dating back thousands of years BC, such as Attis of Phyrigia, Krishna of India, Dionysus of Greece, Mithra of Persia, Horus of Egypt and even Joseph of Canaan in the Old Testament.
The story is in fact astrological, the star in the east is Sirus, in ancient times the three bright stars which align with Sirius on December 24 were known as the 'Three Kings,' which is followed by the winter solstice - the date of birth given not only for Jesus but all the other solar deities. The Virgin Mary is quite clearly the constellation Virgo, and is invariably depicted holding a sheaf of wheat. 'Bethlehem' translates as 'the House of Bread.' Jesus travelled about with 12 disciples, which undoubtedtly represents the 12 constellations. The resurrection takes place at the spring equinox, and so on and so on ...
Last edited by rowan on Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:Given what there is I'm not denying there was someone called Jesus preaching, indeed it'd seem probable there was, but I wouldn't take it as proof.
Even though the Jews themselves deny it (and they'd be the ones to know) and none of the foremost Greek and Roman historians of the first few centuries AD make any mention of him? & even though the story in the New Testament bears striking resemblance to numerous others dating back thousands of years BC, such as Attis of Phyrigia, Krishna of India, Dionysus of Greece, Mithra of Persia, Horus of Egypt and even Joseph of Canaan in the Old Testament.
The story is in fact astrological, the star in the east is Sirus, in ancient times the three bright stars which align with Sirius on December 24 were known as the 'Three Kings,' which is followed by the winter solstice - the date of birth given not only for Jesus but all the other solar deities. The Virgin Mary is quite clearly the constellation Virgo, and is invariably depicted holding a sheaf of wheat. 'Bethlehem' translates as 'the House of Bread.' Jesus travelled about with 12 disciples, which undoubtedtly represents the 12 constellations. The resurrection takes place at the spring equinox, and so on and so on ...
Why would you expect Jewish authors to give credit to the existence of Jesus? To them (Messianic Jews notwithstanding) he was not the messiah and not even a prophet. If he were even a prophet then killing him was a spectacularly stupid thing to do. Surely far better to completely ignore his existence.
Yet there are a number of historical manuscripts which point to a historical Jesus; sufficient that the overwhelming majority of scholars accept that someone called Jesus did exist and had a key role in the founding of Christianity, even if they don't regard him as the Son of God. I assume by early Roman historians you are excluding Tacitus who referred to the crucifixion of Christ? What about Josephus who's writings were altered but who most historians accept did refer to a Jesus in his writings, particularly when discussing the fate of Jesus' brother.
Of course, its impossible to write Jesus out of history when you have the explosion of Christianity across the Middle East, so quickly after his alleged death and resurrection. Paul was a contemporaneous witness to events and went from being an arch critic to one of the most vocal supporters. The disciples survives Jesus (excepting Judas obviously) and went on to preach. Would they have been able to gather supporters if Jesus didn't even exist in the first place? Many of these disciples faced a life of hardship if not death as a result of their beliefs. Are you suggesting that they did so knowing that the who thing was a nonsense?
Logically, and with more than a few historical accounts of Jesus outside of the Bible (more than many other historical figures whose existence is not questioned) a person called Jesus who was known as the Christ had to exist. Whether or not He is regarded as the Son of God is another matter completely, but there is reason why the Christ myth is a fringe theory.
No, to the Jews he was simply non-existent, as Muhammad is to the Christians. That's the effect these simply add-on religions have; they're rejected by the religions they're added onto.
Yet there are a number of historical manuscripts which point to a historical Jesus; sufficient that the overwhelming majority of scholars accept that someone called Jesus did exist and had a key role in the founding of Christianity
Name them, and name the scholars. I don't think this is even remotely true and is actually a reversal of the truth. Historical manuscripts of repute generally do not refer to Jesus, and neither do scholars of repute. Quite the opposite, as has been demonstrated - particularly with regards to the Greek and Roman historians of the few centuries AD, and also the Jews, who you'd think would know if some guy had been performing miracles in their midst.
It actually requires a degree of either religious or cultural bias to accept Jesus, unless you are also willing to accept the gods and deities of other religions as well. The story of Jesus is based entirely on astrology and there are countless others of a similar nature from throughout antiquity.
As mentioned, the word Christ is just Greek for the anointed one. That's not a reference to Jesus. Tacitus, Pliny & Suetonius do not mention Jesus but only make a few references to Christ, while the testimony of Josephus has been proved to be a forgery, likely introduced to the New Testament by the Romans at the time it was actually written at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Very few scholars of repute have continued to cite this passage since the turn of the 19th century.
"the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars." http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger & Suetonius do mention Christ (and Christians).
But the word Christ is just Greek for the anointed one. That's not a reference to Jesus. Tacitus, Pliny & Suetonius do not mention Jesus but only make a few references to Christ, while the testimony of Josephus has been proved to be a forgery, likely introduced to the New Testament by the Romans at the time it was actually written at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. Very few scholars of repute have continued to cite this passage since the turn of the 19th century.
"the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars." http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
In expanding their empire eastward the Romans required a new religion with which to control the masses. They achieved this simply by plagiarising the Torah then adding a solar deity whose life is a carbon copy of multitudes of solar deities which existed in pagan religions throughout antiquity. There is a 3500-year-old inscription on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt, for example, describing the immaculate conception and birth of Horus, born of ISIS, a virgin impregnated by the holy ghost.
In fact, you only need to read the Old & New Testaments themselves to see the amazing similarities between Joseph and Jesus. Born of a miracle birth, Joseph had 12 brothers, Jesus had 12 disciples, Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver, Jesus for 30, Brother Judah betrayed Joseph, disciple Judas betrayed Jesus, both began work at age 30, and so on.
The Romans weren't even particularly imaginative on the issue! & why do you think the Pope lives smack in the middle of Rome? And, once again, the Jews themselves do not accept Jesus any more than the Christians accept Muhammad. Only Islam accepts them all, and that is because the Arabs did precisely what the Romans did and created their own religion merely by extension.
The Antiquities refers to Jesus as the brother of James "who is called the messiah". Another reference is believed to have been edited by Christian scribes. They inserted "He was the Messiah", "For he appeared to them on the third day", but aside from that it is accepted that Josephus refers to the Jesus that was crucified by Pilate.
Tacitus refers to "Christus who was crucified by Pilate in the reign of Tiberius...".
It's still generally accepted that Jesus existed and was crucified. Some 19th century scholars did believe that he was an entirely fictional character, but that has been been rejected. Most scholars now believe that JC was an apocalyptic prophet.
Jesus's could, and probably did choose 12 disciples. It's very unlikely that was made up since it is attested to in the Gospels, Acts and by Paul. He' and his followers would have understood it as the 12 tribes of Israel being re-born in the coming Kingdom of God. Probably apocalyptic symbolism.
Vengeful Glutton wrote: Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was crucified. Historical scholars accept that.
Do they en masse not publish any proof of this for similar reasons to no major outlets naming The Stig?
Not only no proof, but no actual mention. Quite amazing really. Read that list again:
Strabo, Livy. Marcus Velleius Paterculus, Memnon of Heraclea, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Pamphile of Epidaurus, Thallus, Plutarch,
Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Appian, Arrian, Lucius Ampelius, Dio Cassius, Herodian, Sextus Julius Africanus & Diogenes Laërtiusree were the foremost Greek and Roman historians, politicians, philosophers and writers of the first few centuries AD, and none of them mention Jesus.
& the Jews, who were actually on the scene at the time, reject him outright.
Now weigh that against Josephus, whose testimony has been regarded as a forgery for centuries and not even cited by the church any more, and Tacitus, Pliny the Younger & Suetonius who only make a few brief references to an 'anointed one.'
You're right, JC is barely discussed. That does seem odd. But it doesn't refute the high probability (and history is really about probabilities rather than proofs) that a man called Jesus, who was from a one horse town called Nazareth existed and was crucified. His existence passes practically all the historical tests that we have available to us. This is basic stuff my friend.
rowan wrote:Given what there is I'm not denying there was someone called Jesus preaching, indeed it'd seem probable there was, but I wouldn't take it as proof.
Even though the Jews themselves deny it (and they'd be the ones to know) and none of the foremost Greek and Roman historians of the first few centuries AD make any mention of him? & even though the story in the New Testament bears striking resemblance to numerous others dating back thousands of years BC, such as Attis of Phyrigia, Krishna of India, Dionysus of Greece, Mithra of Persia, Horus of Egypt and even Joseph of Canaan in the Old Testament.
The story is in fact astrological, the star in the east is Sirus, in ancient times the three bright stars which align with Sirius on December 24 were known as the 'Three Kings,' which is followed by the winter solstice - the date of birth given not only for Jesus but all the other solar deities. The Virgin Mary is quite clearly the constellation Virgo, and is invariably depicted holding a sheaf of wheat. 'Bethlehem' translates as 'the House of Bread.' Jesus travelled about with 12 disciples, which undoubtedtly represents the 12 constellations. The resurrection takes place at the spring equinox, and so on and so on ...
The jews don't deny that he existed. They deny that he is the messiah.
Parts of the synoptic gospels bear a striking resemblance to Mithraism. The NT itself isn't limited to the Gospels. There are the epistles and Revelation.
You're correct in that it is quite likely that the narrators drew upon other religions for inspiration (in the same way that the narrators of Genesis drew upon Chaldean flood myths, but put their own spin on it).
But you're still reliant on religous sources, and your assertion that most modern historians believe Jesus existed is a complete reversal of the truth. Most modern historians believe completely the opposite. You're talking about theology, not hisotry. In fact, all historians of repute believe in the theory of evolution, which reduces all religions to myths and legends, just as they themselves reduced the religions of others to that status during the bloody conquests of the colonial age.
So we can be sure that the Biblical account of Jesus performing miracles is entirely fictitious, and no historian at the time made any reference to a dude named Jesus who did. Again, the word christ is ancient Greek for the anointed one, and of course there was royalty, as we know. The church's claim that Josephus referred directly to 'Jesus' has been proved false and dismissed by scholars as a forgery more than a century ago.
Was Jesus based (however loosely) on a real person? That's possible. Maybe Muhammad (I've already referred to this), Moses, Noah, Vishnu, Shiva, Odin, Thor, Tangaroa and Maui were too. The Buddha almost certainly existed, though he was believed to have regarded himself as a philosopher only and ironically rejected religion.
Judaism only accepts that some dude named Jesus may have existed, but it certainly does not state in any manner or form that he did, and completely rejects the Biblical account of said dude. I used to think this way myself, that perhaps there was some bohemian flower child named Jesus wandering around in Israel a couple of millenia ago toking weed and spouting weird shit that attracted a following.
But 3 things changed changed my mind about this: Firstly, it went completely unrecorded by countless historians at the time and indeed the Jews themselves - who would know. References only began following the Council of Nicea in 325AD where the Romans chose to instate 'Christianity' as the religion of the brand spanking new Eastern Empire based at Greek-speaking Byzantium, renamed Constantinople - after its first emperor, who just happened to also be the first Christian emperor.
Secondly: The story of Jesus is almost an exact carbon copy of previous figures from the Judaist and pagan religions, such as Joseph of Canaan, Attis of Phyrigia, Krishna of India, Dionysus of Greece, Mithra of Persia, Horus of Egypt and many more. Indeed, there is a 3500-year-old inscription on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt, for example, describing the immaculate conception and birth of Horus, born of ISIS, a virgin impregnated by the holy ghost.
& thirdly, the story is so clearly astrological, Jesus is no more than a run-of-the-mill solar deity; born at the winter solstice - the date of birth given for all self-respecting solar deities. The Virgin Mary is quite clearly the constellation Virgo, and is invariably depicted holding a sheaf of wheat. 'Bethlehem' translates as 'the House of Bread.' Jesus travelled about with 12 disciples, just as Joseph of Canaan had 12 brothers, which undoubtedtly represents the 12 constellations. The resurrection takes place at the spring equinox, Jesus dies in the prime of life - or at his zenith- and so on and so on ...
Therefore I think it is plain to see that the entire story of Jesus is nothing more than a very unoriginal plagiary; just as the Old Testament is a plagiary of the Torah. Constantine and his Council really didn't put a lot of effort into this one. Jesus was added on to the Judaist religion to create Christianity, just as Muhammad (a carbon copy Moses, Musa, Mises, etc) was added on to the narrative to create Islam.
& once again, it really does require a certain degree of either religious or cultural bias to accept this version without accepting all the others - Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Norse, Polynesian, Native American, African, etc, etc - as well.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
rowan wrote:But you're still reliant on religous sources, and your assertion that most modern historians believe Jesus existed is a complete reversal of the truth. Most modern historians believe completely the opposite. You're talking about theology, not hisotry. In fact, all historians of repute believe in the theory of evolution, which reduces all religions to myths and legends, just as they themselves reduced the religions of others to that status during the bloody conquests of the colonial age.
So we can be sure that the Biblical account of Jesus performing miracles is entirely fictitious, and no historian at the time made any reference to a dude named Jesus who did. Again, the word christ is ancient Greek for the anointed one, and of course there was royalty, as we know. The church's claim that Josephus referred directly to 'Jesus' has been proved false and dismissed by scholars as a forgery more than a century ago.
Was Jesus based (however loosely) on a real person? That's possible. Maybe Muhammad (I've already referred to this), Moses, Noah, Vishnu, Shiva, Odin, Thor, Tangaroa and Maui were too. The Buddha almost certainly existed, though he was believed to have regarded himself as a philosopher only and ironically rejected religion.
Judaism only accepts that some dude named Jesus may have existed, but it certainly does not state in any manner or form that he did, and completely rejects the Biblical account of said dude. I used to think this way myself, that perhaps there was some bohemian flower child named Jesus wandering around in Israel a couple of millenia ago toking weed and spouting weird shit that attracted a following.
But 3 things changed changed my mind about this: Firstly, it went completely unrecorded by countless historians at the time and indeed the Jews themselves - who would know. References only began following the Council of Nicea in 325AD where the Romans chose to instate 'Christianity' as the religion of the brand spanking new Eastern Empire based at Greek-speaking Byzantium, renamed Constantinople - after its first emperor, who just happened to also be the first Christian emperor.
Secondly: The story of Jesus is almost an exact carbon copy of previous figures from the Judaist and pagan religions, such as Joseph of Canaan, Attis of Phyrigia, Krishna of India, Dionysus of Greece, Mithra of Persia, Horus of Egypt and many more. Indeed, there is a 3500-year-old inscription on the walls of the Temple of Luxor in Egypt, for example, describing the immaculate conception and birth of Horus, born of ISIS, a virgin impregnated by the holy ghost.
& thirdly, the story is so clearly astrological, Jesus is no more than a run-of-the-mill solar deity; born at the winter solstice - the date of birth given for all self-respecting solar deities. The Virgin Mary is quite clearly the constellation Virgo, and is invariably depicted holding a sheaf of wheat. 'Bethlehem' translates as 'the House of Bread.' Jesus travelled about with 12 disciples, just as Joseph of Canaan had 12 brothers, which undoubtedtly represents the 12 constellations. The resurrection takes place at the spring equinox, Jesus dies in the prime of life - or at his zenith- and so on and so on ...
Therefore I think it is plain to see that the entire story of Jesus is nothing more than a very unoriginal plagiary; just as the Old Testament is a plagiary of the Torah. Constantine and his Council really didn't put a lot of effort into this one. Jesus was added on to the Judaist religion to create Christianity, just as Muhammad (a carbon copy Moses, Musa, Mises, etc) was added on to the narrative to create Islam.
& once again, it really does require a certain degree of either religious or cultural bias to accept this version without accepting all the others - Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Norse, Polynesian, Native American, African, etc, etc - as well.
The Gospels themselves pass certain tests that give us reason enough to believe that JC existed.
For example, the synoptics state that Jesus was raised in Nazareth, but they disagree on how he ended up there. It is generally agreed that John used a different source to the others, but he tells us that Jesus was raised in Nazareth too. Therefore we can assume that the writers used different sources, and therefore are independently attested, which passes one of the criteria of historical credibility. Of course assumptions are made, and it is possible that all the sources were made up, but it's unlikely.
Another example would be some of the more embarrassing parts of the Gospels. For example, who on earth would write about women discovering the empty tomb? In 1AD? If you told that to a 2nd century jew/pagan, he'd roar with laughter. Reliable female witnesses were the contemporary equivalent of comedy gold. If it's embarrassing it's probably true.
Also, what about traditions that would have embarrassed later Christians? Early Christians believed that a spiritually superior person baptised and inferior. So why have JTB baptise JC? It's not exactly cringeworthy, but it doesn't agree with early Christian thinking on baptism.
rowan wrote:But you're still reliant on religous sources,....
All scholarship and historical record was religion based. They had a total monopoly on it......and sadly it came back to bite them on the arse when they fell foul of other authorities because libraries burn really nicely.
And it's hardly a surprise that an 'altruistic terrorist' such as Jesus wasn't heralded in 1st/2nd C accounts. It'd be like Faber+Faber publishing a biography of Jihadi John.
