I thought it was current era, which makes more sense to me because it has something to do w/ time. What does common refer to?
B.C. or B.C.E.?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
I thought it was current era, which makes more sense to me because it has something to do w/ time. What does common refer to?
So again, just to clarify: You are talking about the jesus born from a virgin impregnated by god, who did miracles, eventually died, came back to life and will one day return on a flying cloud in true comic book fashion to rule mankind until he ultimately destroys the universe? That jesus?
We really need a 'sticky' thread or something concerning this and various other people used as a claim to evidence of jesus.
"The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm" (thanks to geeser)
This is why we need to clarify the situation. Are you talking about jesus the demi-god or just some guy called jesus? If you're talking the former then we have an issue.
You can certainly point out examples of other characters inspired by real people. For now let's day dracula. But there is a vast difference between a guy named dracula existing and any indication that this person turned into a bat, could be killed by sunlight, was scared of garlic, was invisible in a mirror and had eternal youth.
So, please clarify the situation.
Apologies, I'm not sure I follow. Are you advocating that because this character got killed on a cross and the Romans had a habit of killing people in such fashion that the story is true?
This is a common but fundamental blunder made by theists. The mistake comes in not recognising the difference between "is true" and "believes it's true".
Belief is what drives people regardless to what is actually true. The men that fly planes into buildings don't do so because allah and 72 virgins is true but simply because they believe it is. And, as James Randi says: "No amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary". If they truly believe then death is not a big deal whatsoever. It has happened throughout history and continues to be observed. True believer syndrome.. It's quite fatal.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
"Historical" means the Jesus who actually lived at one time taking aside all the extraordinary events claimed regarding him. I think this is the same as what you refer to as "just some guy called jesus". However, I don't want to confuse him with the thousands of other guys called Jesus, who also lived during the First Century. As for the T.F., forget about that. There is a second (not T.F.) reference to the historical Jesus in Josephus' writings in Book 20, Chapter 9. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus. This later reference has not been discredited.
I think if one is discredited, all are suspect. I happen to think (unlike Medicine Woman), that there was a real Jesus, but I have no proof.
Some people are still offended by the fact that there was a man named Jesus in the first century, as for why, I don´t really know. But if you truly believe that Jesus wasn´t real, then why all the fuss about it? Trying to convince everyone else doesn´t make it an actual fact.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
Why would a reference to James the brother of Jesus be inserted in Josephus at a later date? The position of the Roman Catholic Church has long been that Jesus didn't have a brother. Why would the Church insert a piece of heresy into Josephus? The second reference at Book 20, chapter 9 is not discredited just because the T.F. is discredited. They are entirely separate.
How about Socrates, do you have proof he really existed? After all everything he wrote or said can be claimed to be fraudulent or scribbled in by someone else.
Trying to rewrite history is childish and in some ways vindictive. I suppose for some if you cant make history then why not rewrite it..LOL
Is that not proof enough. I know it makes people feel better to believe our ancestors were simpletons who would believe anything, in some ways this is comforting. We have such ego's and at the same time so fragile.
What else would you change?
Maybe this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
Maybe the days of the week. What names would make you happy?
Ok then. While I fail to see why anyone would particularly care if some nobody happened to live several thousand years ago that happened to have the name jesus, do tell me what 'evidence' you have to suggest that a normal average guy named jesus existed and that the comic book style stories were created because of him?
Now, the reason I get into this is because in your last post you said; "the jesus we all know and love". Unless you are talking about the exact and actual character featured in the bible how can you claim "the jesus we know"? And from there, considering that the only jesus you could possibly claim to know is the biblical character, who exactly do you then go on to claim to 'love' if not the actual comic book hero version?
There is a distinct problem with you saying "the jesus we know and love" and then saying "a jesus without all the supernatural/godly stuff". Can you see that?
So.. how exactly would you tell them apart? You don't "know" any of them. What you "know" is a scriptural character that performs fantastical acts, dies, comes back to life etc etc and that's it.
My first issue here, (especially considering we're talking about some normal guy and not a godly superhero, is that this text was written in 93 - which is some 60+ years after this supposed jesus went the way of the dodo. If a myth has spread, and this time scale is good enough for it to do so, what stops others, (josephus etc), from propagating that myth even more?
This is not to say there wasn't many people called jesus, (or iesous or whatever), that lived in those days, it's just a question I feel should be asked.
The problem right at this moment is that I don't particularly care if some ordinary guy called jesus existed or not, just like I don't particularly care if some guy called harry existed or not because J K wrote about a wizard, (unless it's claimed this guy actually was a wizard).
The text states that this jesus is the son of damneus. In saying, this clearly isn't the same jesus that is the son of joseph and god and thus irrelevant, (imo).
*************
M*W: Something tells me you are referring to me as being offended by the possible existence of a man named Jesus two millenia ago. No, I am not offended by the possible existence of a man named Jesus, just as I am not offended by the possible existence of a man named Billy Budd or a boy named Huck Finn. Neither am I offended by unknown gospel writers, Herman Melville nor Mark Twain. Although I am not offended, I must still profoundly proclaim that a man named Jesus who was from Nazareth, born of a virgin in Bethlehem, son of Mary and Joseph the carpenter, conceived by god, who died on a cross and rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures never lived as a human being on the face of this Earth. But offended, no.
*************
M*W: This would seem so, but the fact that the fuss goes on is because some two billion people still believe this fictional character existed. Therefore, it is important to bring this to the attention of those two billion people who believe in a lie. Fortunately, only one-third of the world's population still believe this fallacious lie, and the numbers are dropping rapidly worldwide. The truth still needs to be told.
A little bit about Josephus and the Flavians. The Flavians was the family name for the dynasty of emperors founded by Vespasian.
Josephus bar Mattathias (37-100 CE), took the name Flavius Josephus after being adopted into the Imperial Flavian family. He claimed to have been a general in Galilee who recognized the traditional Hebrew prophecy about the new world ruler to be Vespasian. Josephus abandoned the Jews and took sides with the Romans. He was well-funded by the Roman emperors when he was commissioned by the Romans to write the authorized history of the War of the Jews. Although his Jewish contemporaries were very critical of Josephus for fictionalizing history, he did seem to please the Romans who honored him with a statue in Rome. So, when reading Josephus's works with the understanding that he was, in fact, always a Jew, it is important to know who buttered his bread, and that would be the Romans.
The most recent research I have done has brought to the surface that the Flavians created the religion of christianity. Therefore, it is no big surprise that "Jesus" may have appeared in Josephus's works, included at a later date than when they were written. Even today, with all the massive research that's been done on who might have written the gospels, the jury is still out on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. More recent research indicates that the entirety of the new testament may have been penned by the Flavian dynasty, or even Josephus himself. The main intent of creating christianity and writing the nt was to replace xenophobic Jewish messianism that was directly opposed (and disobedient) to the Roman Empire.
It has been touched upon that Josephus may have written the gospels. There is also an interesting parallel between Josephus and the mythical Jesus!
Josephus's historical works are significant to the parallels of christianity. Josephus's histories provide the nt with specific dates found nowhere else. In fact, Josephus's works provide the only documented references to an historical Jesus. Remember... Josephus was paid by the Romans to write historical documents... History was written by those who commissioned the historical works. It's simple.
The early church fathers proclaimed that Josephus had written of the historical Jesus which was proof that all of Jesus's prophecies had come to pass.
A brief history of the area:
The Jewish Rebellion broke out in 66 CE.
Josephus had no military background, but nevertheless was given command of the revolutionary army in Galilee.
Josephus was taken captive before Vespasian, when his loyalty suddenly went from the Jews to the Romans.
At this point Josephus claimed that there was no Jewish messiah at all.
The Romans found what Josephus proclaimed to be utile to the HRE.
So, the Jewish rebel Josephus became the adopted son of Caesar and an ardent supporter of Rome's conquest of Judea.
Josephus was the newly adopted brother of Titus who conspired with him to rewrite Roman history. Together they wrote (although only Josephus was credited with) the War of the Jews (66-73 CE) and Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jewish people.
The Gospel of Mark was written circa 70 AD by a still unknown author. However, Jerusalem was destroyed circa 66-70 AD.
The early church fathers followed suit.
The question begs: "Where was the Gospel of Mark written? Was it penned on the plain of a fallen Jerusalem? I think not. The area wasn't conducive to any writers of the day, but in Rome, they were.
Coincidentally, Josephus wrote how Titus did more than burned down Jerusalem. Titus ordered that every stone be broken into pebbles.
When comparing the War of the Jews to the nt, the parallels are definitely circumstantial, but how can this be when each of these texts were written at different times by different authors? Or were they?
Rome's occupation of Judea occured during the entire first century. Where then would all the authors of the nt be writing?
The epistles were written prior to the writing of the gospels (when were begun circa 70 CE). The Gospel of Matthew came next, then Luke circa (75-85 CE), then John which was written circa 95-120 CE). Where were these gospels written if Judea was crushed?
The nt states Paul wrote the epistles, the last one in Rome. However, there is scholarly doubt that Paul existed much less lived and died in Rome. Oh, let's be fair, the RCC avers that Paul and Peter were murdered in Rome, Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down. Funny thing is, as a tourist attraction, I've been to the very dungeon they were executed, but if they didn't even exist, this would be a lie!
There's more than speculation that the Romans were involved in the writings of nt epistles and gospels. The main comparison would be between the nt and the War of the Jews which will prove that the later inclusion of a line about Jesus was put there to prove Rome's manufacture of a Jewish messiah.
Are you honestly trying to convince us that Jesus was invented because Rome needed to control disobedient Jewish people?
Or was it so this guy could get a statue?
I found this link, tell me where it is wrong:
http://www.darkcoding.net/misc/a-short-history-of-christianity/
Here is a map of the Roman Empire.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/maps/fullmap2.jpg
How did the Roman Empire benefit from Christianity? It was built by non-Christians. It just sounds like you are confusing Jesus with Harry potter.
Aside from your assumptions, you write this stuff as though you were there, what are the things that bother you about Christianity? Give tangible examples of modern issues.
You claim to have done research, give sources to support your far fetched claims so we can read them too. No one is here to read about things you imagine we want sources.
And don't cite free Angelfire websites or some cult web pages.
http://www.google.com/search?client...christianity&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
If you dont back your claims up we will change your name from Medicine*Woman to Mad*Woman...nah just kidding/
Wow that link at the bottom of the google search page goes right back to you.
And i have no loyalty to any Roman fantasies, i lied about being born in Rome, just to show show you will believe anything.
Last edited:
Oh M*W, you will never be able to convince people that Jesus never existed because of your assumptions. I don’t see what is wrong in believing in Christ.
Christ is in each and every human being, and you do know that what Jesus was here to teach, was about the same Zoroaster, Gautama, Mahavira, Lao-Tzu, etc... were here to teach. And that is the fact that you are more than your physical body, that you have a "self" existing beyond the boundaries of time. That these 3 dimensional world you know falls apart with the 4th dimension that is time, and we exist in every dimension. And that the darkness of the world is what doesn´t let you to pay attention to your true purpose in life, which your "true self" knows perfectly.
The moment you unify your "true self" with your physical body, and do its will; you become a Christ, what Orientals call a Buddha. Same concepts, same purpose, same reason.
I know this confuses you, it can confuse many, but you can choose to believe whatever you want to, your path is only yours to follow.
Christ is in each and every human being, and you do know that what Jesus was here to teach, was about the same Zoroaster, Gautama, Mahavira, Lao-Tzu, etc... were here to teach. And that is the fact that you are more than your physical body, that you have a "self" existing beyond the boundaries of time. That these 3 dimensional world you know falls apart with the 4th dimension that is time, and we exist in every dimension. And that the darkness of the world is what doesn´t let you to pay attention to your true purpose in life, which your "true self" knows perfectly.
The moment you unify your "true self" with your physical body, and do its will; you become a Christ, what Orientals call a Buddha. Same concepts, same purpose, same reason.
I know this confuses you, it can confuse many, but you can choose to believe whatever you want to, your path is only yours to follow.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
M*W History is usually written by the victors, because the losers are dead. If I accepted your argument that the Romans buttered Josephus' bread and therefore I should not trust what Josephus said, I should ignore all histories written by the victors in any war as unreliable. Your idea that the Romans created the N.T. defies logic. Why would the Romans create a heretical sect that refuses to obey the Emporer, worships underground, and makes Jesus a King over the Emporer himself? If the Romans wanted Christians, why would they put them to death? Your speculation that the Gospels were written in Rome because Jerusalem was burned to the ground also makes little sense. How much room do you need to write a Gospel. A table? A chair? A lamp? Some ink and papyrus? Come on. Those Gospels could have been written anywhere.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
I would think that Jesus' birth date - give or take a few years - is better well defined than "Common Era". What exactly is the "Common Era"? When did it begin? Sounds like an amorphous term to me. Who taught you to use BCE or CE? Ah, now we are getting some names of those conspirators. . .
BC Before Christ and AD meaning "In the year of our lord" I guess are less defined. Any system of dating based on Jesus birth will be inherently inaccurate as we do not know the exact time of his birth to the month and day.
As a result I've always surmized that BCE is an attempt to to be more accurate with the description of the time. Revealing that our dating system is indeed a bit vague.
As a result I've always surmized that BCE is an attempt to to be more accurate with the description of the time. Revealing that our dating system is indeed a bit vague.
John J. Bannan
Registered Senior Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but B.C. and B.C.E. end at exactly the same time. How can one be less defined than the other? You also haven't revealed who taught you this. You must also be one of the conspirators.
*************
M*W: I'm not trying to convince anybody about anything. Biblical scholars are writing textbooks about this, so it is not my own idea. After reading their works, it makes total sense to me.
My references include:
Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report, by Francesco Carotta, 2005, and:
Caesar's Messian: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill, 2005.
The Works of Josephus, by Flavius Josephus, 1987.
*************
M*W: I don't think the statue is significant, except for the fact that FJ was a prominent Jew who was honored by the Romans for his Roman inspired works of literature. Seems a bit odd, I think.
*************
M*W: This is the usual myth. It's long been proven by scholars/archeologists to be a myth. Just because it's the common belief does not make it the accurate belief.
*************
M*W: Maps are not always accurate. It depends on who is cartographing them. For example, a former member of sciforums and a christian described in detail the map of the Sinai desert which was in the back of his KJV. We were discussing the specific area of the Exodus. We now know that the Exodus has long been established to have never taken place, yet in his KJV the actual foot paths were charted! So the maps in the KJV were drawn to reinforce the bible stories contained therein.
*************
M*W: The Romans would have benefitted from creating christianity to control the masses. That is common knowledge. I didn't stay up all night thinking that one up. The Roman people were used to the various and sundry gods of the day. What was one more? Or better yet, a three-in-one god was more powerful. Ultimately, the ancient Romans believed that the sun was god and the emperors were human examples of the sun god. Jesus became the sun, as the son of the sun. All ancient myths go back to the sun as the creator god of the universe. The planets were also part of this great and vast universe. Peter was actually represented by Ju-piter. Paul was represented by Apollo. Mars was Mark, Luke was Lucian (or Lucifer). Venus was the morningstar (both Jesus and Lucifer!). Stars were referred to as angels, and so on... These ancient Roman gods and creatures became the christian god, saints and angels.
*************
M*W: I haven't read Harry Potter, but I have read about the fictional Jesus.
*************
M*W: That's my writing style, but for the most part, I have actually been to a lot of places in my day. Rome is one of them.
*************
M*W: References are listed above. There's also tons of web sites to confirm the above references, but you can find them on your own. I don't need to list them for you. That's the beauty of the Internet. If you really want to find something, it's there. In fact, I would much rather you find the information on your own instead of me typing it out for you. That way, you can read it in a more unbiased way.
*************
M*W: I'm not familiar with Angelfire websites nor cult websites. In fact, the reason I don't like to reference websites is because I don't have the time to read every word, and I have made the mistake of referencing websites that turned out to be something other than what I was talking about. It's just not a good idea unless one is totally familiar with a particular website. One website I am familiar with and have referred it to sciforums is http://www.taroscopes.com/astro-theology/astrotheology.html
However, I have not become familiar with the entirety of the site, just the astrotheology part.
*************
M*W: John, I make a point of backing up my 'claims.' Generally, they are not my 'claims' as I've read them somewhere and will reference them if I mention them.
*************
M*W: I knew you were lying, but I wasn't. I am mostly Italian. And, no, I don't believe everything I read or hear. I always check it out if I'm interested in a subject. The one thing that I am interested in, as far as Jesus and the nt go, is in the astro-theology of the myth. That's where the lies about Jesus and christianity end.
If Jesus is modeled after Caesar wouldn't Constantine know this? There was 323 years between them. Seems tome that other people besides the author you mention would see this connection?
What do you find particularly compelling about this theory and can you expand on it?
I did find this interesting:
That sounds too far fetched, you can assume people believed the sun as the creator god of the universe but it seems to be more of a metaphorical expression.
*************
M*W: That's something I'll have to look-up. We can't really believe what history states in all cases. Constantine was emperor of the HRE. He was one of the Romans. Sure, he might have known more about the manufacture of Jesus and Christianity that what is told in history books. The whole story about Constantine seems fishy. The enemies of the Romans must have feared their "secret weapon" Jesus.
*************
M*W: I am intrigued with the whole idea that christianity was not created by Jesus and/or Paul. That's what the bible tells us, but I don't believe it's true. Also, the fact that all things christian seem to have sprung out of Rome is odd. Like I've said, I've been there, and I toured the dungeon where Peter and Paul were executed. Blood on the floor for effects, I'm sure. I just don't get the connection between Peter and Paul in Rome, and the idea that they were at one time friends, then Paul turned on Peter. There's the question that Jesus allegedly said, "Get thee behind me, Satan." Then why was Peter the first pope in Rome? Just fishy. However, if Jesus were a metaphor for the Sun, and Peter was a metaphor for Jupiter, it makes total sense to ome that the sun might have said (if it could speak) to Jupiter and say, "Get behind me," said the Sun, the God of the Universe, because if you get in front of me, God Jupiter, you will cover my light with darkness which we call 'Satan.'"
Now that makes sense to me. That is astro-theology.
*************
M*W: Yes, it is a 'metaphorical expression.' It was meant to be. If Jesus is the Sun and Peter is Jupiter, that would be a metaphorical expression. The first myth, the astro-theological metaphor, was about the sky gods. The myth and metaphor changed over the centuries just as all myth changes metaphors. As the human race evolves, its myth evolves. Today Jesus is the son/sun of god/good, and Jupiter/Peter is the leader of the church in Rome (even though no man named Jesus or Peter ever existed as anything more than post-modern metaphors).
I´m afraid not M*W, as far as I know Thomas the apostle went to the “East” to preach the word of Christ. Therefore, the most ancient Christianity ramification is curiously from India.
It’s called the Indian Orthodox Church, and it was founded by St. Thomas, the Disciple of Christ in A.D. 52.
Eastern Christianity