Jesus Myth
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
*************
M*W: I did not mean to imply that Josephus's works in their entirety were forgeries. What I meant to say was that one of Josephus's work is believed to contain a paragraph or so about Jesus that is considered to be a forgery.
*************
M*W: Hope you will find the information you are looking for in the following citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/James-box.html
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/The_James_Ossuary_Inscription.asp
http://jamesossuarytrial.blogspot.com
http://www.livescience.com/history/reason_ossuary_050112.html
Last edited:
Oh, puh-leeze. Not more Zeitgeist bullshit.
Or he was a loon and thought the apocalypse was coming soon, and that biographies were unnecessary. Even though the exact words attributed to him in the New Testament are probably fictitious, they likely retain the gist of what the historical figure was actually saying.
The man was probably literate and of the middle-class, but also probably a bit of an apocalyptic loon. But that was understandable in the context of the time, when the Jews saw their people being ruled, looted, and discriminated against by the Roman army.
Unlikely. A few lines in it are forgeries (and obvious ones, since Josephus was Jewish). However, much of both passages referencing the figure interpreted as Jesus of Nazareth (the main one and the other about James) are generally recognised as Josephus' work. Very few scholars claim that those paragraphs are outright forgeries.
Not quite. The "brother of Jesus" bit is a fake tacked on later. Most scholars agree on that. James (Yakub) and Joseph (Yusuf) were very common names.
And while we're on the subject of archaeology...the Talpiot Tomb is also nonsense. Saying the so-claimed "Tomb of Jesus" was actually the tomb of Jesus' family is like finding four random gravestones inscribed with the names John, Paul, George, and Richard...and saying it's the Beatles' graves. They were very common names at the time.
Does it even matter if Jesus was real? Obviously something happened way back then as we now have a major religion as a result. I think we can say that early Christianity was quite diverse and not as uniform and neat as the churches would have us belive.
There was considerable disagreement at the time about the divinity of Jesus...finally decided for the Catholics at the Council of Nicea almost 400 years after Christ. The Christian religion of today is far different from that which was practiced at inception of the religion as documented in the Biblical texts (e.g. Christianity's seperation from Jewish ritual).
There was considerable disagreement at the time about the divinity of Jesus...finally decided for the Catholics at the Council of Nicea almost 400 years after Christ. The Christian religion of today is far different from that which was practiced at inception of the religion as documented in the Biblical texts (e.g. Christianity's seperation from Jewish ritual).
No, no, no. No. That is a complete historical misconception. The Council of Nicaea wasn't some fucking all-deciding ecumenical council. It dealt with two things: the Arian schism and the date of Easter. That's all. By the time of the Council of Nicaea, Jesus was widely considered divine by Christians, and the Trinity was well-accepted. The Arian schism concerned the exact nature of Christ within the Trinity.
You mean besides the ones we pointed out to you: Tacitus and Josephus. Pretty much all scholars agree those are sufficient to confirm the existence of the man. Yet you repeatedly ignore that information out of...what?
You can't. It was an assumption some people made based on the names. Most scholars thing it's total bunk.
There is no direct evidence for a historical Jesus being an actual single individual.
There is no record from the time of any one who actually supposedly knew him.
Saul is generally held to be the oldest records and he personally admits never having met him and discusses him in a very vague manner which leaves out key elements of the "gosples."
If all the gosples are used it is clear the 4 in the bible are really just variations over time of the same one and as time progresses the tale grows with more and more fantastic miracles to beef up a thin narrative. Also the story becomes a lot more incoherent with the inclusion of the rest of the gosples, much more like a commonly shared myth.
There are troubling inconsistencies in the gosples over points one would expect to have been important enough that they would have been preserved, like the resurrection. The language is greek, not aramaic. The tales get things wrong about important jewish and roman customs for that time (as it would if it was made up after the fact by non historians) and uses greek instead of jewish idioms.
There is no third party record of any of what should have been an amazing spectacle. The oldest third party reference is now known to have been changed to make a one line nondescript reference to just some guy of little note named "jesus" into their "jesus."
In short there is no reason to believe their myth is valid and there is good reason not to believe it.
There is no record from the time of any one who actually supposedly knew him.
Saul is generally held to be the oldest records and he personally admits never having met him and discusses him in a very vague manner which leaves out key elements of the "gosples."
If all the gosples are used it is clear the 4 in the bible are really just variations over time of the same one and as time progresses the tale grows with more and more fantastic miracles to beef up a thin narrative. Also the story becomes a lot more incoherent with the inclusion of the rest of the gosples, much more like a commonly shared myth.
There are troubling inconsistencies in the gosples over points one would expect to have been important enough that they would have been preserved, like the resurrection. The language is greek, not aramaic. The tales get things wrong about important jewish and roman customs for that time (as it would if it was made up after the fact by non historians) and uses greek instead of jewish idioms.
There is no third party record of any of what should have been an amazing spectacle. The oldest third party reference is now known to have been changed to make a one line nondescript reference to just some guy of little note named "jesus" into their "jesus."
In short there is no reason to believe their myth is valid and there is good reason not to believe it.
Jethro Tull
Registered Member
The way I see it, who cares? What he supposedly said is with us today, and that is all that matters. His alleged words are here now for us to interpret. Jesus once said (supposedly); "Whoever finds the correct interpretation of what I am saying will find eternal life."
Gday,
Nonsense.
That is straight out of the 'Da Vinci Code' - but it's WRONG.
It's not just wrong, it's OPPOSITE to the truth.
Jesus was considered divine from the beginning - Paul certainly thought Jesus was a heavenly being, but NOT a historical one.
LATER, the stories of the historical Jesus were added to the tale.
Kapyong
Nonsense.
That is straight out of the 'Da Vinci Code' - but it's WRONG.
It's not just wrong, it's OPPOSITE to the truth.
Jesus was considered divine from the beginning - Paul certainly thought Jesus was a heavenly being, but NOT a historical one.
LATER, the stories of the historical Jesus were added to the tale.
Kapyong
Paul was a Greek living on Patmos who never met Jesus or his disciples. The idea of Jesus' divinity came only after he failed to be a real messiah and deliver Israel from the Romans.
Then what do you call the Cathars? Were they not Christian sects?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology
"The early centuries of Christian history also had groups at the other end of the spectrum, arguing that Jesus was an ordinary mortal. The Adoptionists taught that Jesus was born fully human, and was adopted as God's Son when John the Baptist baptised him (Mark 1:10) because of the life he lived. Another group, known as the Ebionites, taught that Jesus was not God, but the human Moshiach (messiah, anointed) prophet promised in the Old Testament.
Some of these views could be described as Unitarianism (although that is a modern term) in their insistence on the one-ness of God. These views, which directly affected how one understood the Godhead, were declared heresies by the Council of Nicaea. Throughout much of the rest of the ancient history of Christianity, Christologies that denied Christ's divinity ceased to have a major impact on the life of the church."
Last edited:
I think you can split hairs but the Trinity which was established at Nicea does fix the divinity of Christ. There were certianly belivers in Christ's divinity before Nicea. But there were those and those sects that did not belive in the divinity of Christ namely the Gnostics and Cathars. And there were alternative Christian texts. The formation of the Christiain text was not something that occured in an instant but rather evolved over time to what it has become today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Character_and_purpose
Gday,
Pardon?
They were over a MILLENIUM later!
I think you confused Cathar with Gnostic?
Yes, early Christians varied in beliefs.
But the claim that Jesus started as a mortal and was then decided divine by the CoN is completely wrong.
Paul's Jesus started as divine. The historical Jesus came after that.
K.
Pardon?
They were over a MILLENIUM later!
I think you confused Cathar with Gnostic?
Yes, early Christians varied in beliefs.
But the claim that Jesus started as a mortal and was then decided divine by the CoN is completely wrong.
Paul's Jesus started as divine. The historical Jesus came after that.
K.
Of course Jesus wasn't considered devine at first. There was a big controversy at the time about the followers of Jesus and wether they were required to follow Jewish laws. The devinity of Jesus would be antiethical to Judaism, where there was only one God, but Jesus could have been a messiah, which isn't much more than a great king. When Jesus became popular with the Romans, his messiah-like deeds which threatened Roman occupation of Judea, would have been treasonous, so they recreated Jesus as a peaceful preacher of love and compassion.
If the followers of Jesus believed he was divine, why did they accept his death on the cross? Why did they not belive in the resurection? It was only later with Paul did and hellenization that the notion of divinity became widespread. There were over over 80 different known sects at the time of the Council of Nicea. Nicea was the start of the codification of the religion.
I agree that many believed Christ to be divine before the Counsel of Nicea. But at the counsel, it was codified. At the time of the Council of Nicea there was not even a cannon, the Bible had not been compiled.
I agree that many believed Christ to be divine before the Counsel of Nicea. But at the counsel, it was codified. At the time of the Council of Nicea there was not even a cannon, the Bible had not been compiled.
Last edited:
*************
M*W: I have never read anywhere that Paul was a Greek living on Patmos. I thought that was allegedly John. Not sure if I commented on this previously.
Paul's initial letters are dated to around 49 CE, roughly 20 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Scholars long believe at least some of his letters, the later ones, were written by Paul's followers in Paul's name. Holy lies are okay, apparently. He's also mistakenly attributed as the author of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 where he's a misogynist who forbids women from speaking, clearly at odds with this high praise for Junia as "foremost among the apostles" in Romans.
But I don't think I've ever seen anyone refer to Paul as John.
But I don't think I've ever seen anyone refer to Paul as John.
Paul, aka Saul was a pharisee who persecuted xtians, according to his tale.
Luke is the greek physician.
Many modern scholars believe that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. Certain lines of evidence suggest that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation, neither the Gospel of John nor the Epistles of John.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle
Luke is the greek physician.
Many modern scholars believe that John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals. Certain lines of evidence suggest that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation, neither the Gospel of John nor the Epistles of John.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle
Not quite. The majority if Christians at the time believed in Christ's divinity anyway. Those that didn't were too few and too disunited to be a credible threat. Nicaea mainly saw the conflict between Arians and what became Nicaean Christians. Arians did not deny the Trinity or Christ's divinity, but merely took issue with certain details of it. Notably, whether Christ was of one substance and whether the Son existed with the Father from the beginning of time.
Furthermore, the Cathars did not exist until the mid to late 1200's. They based their teachings on the Gnostic movement, though. Ironically, Gnostic philosophy and theology was more influential in the Middle Ages than it was during Antiquity.