Who do you think Jesus was?

[Lori_7]

Not quite, most history books don't claim the impossible as truth and fact.

the truth is often times stranger than fiction.

the truth is that you don't entirely know what is possible and why.

and if we're simply addressing the existence of jesus, that certainly isn't impossible.

 

[Yazata]

my bro, the atheist, says that jesus' existence was documented in sanskrit and non-religious writings about the time.

I don't believe that there's any evidence of that.

There are some much more recent claims about Jesus having traveled to India. 19'th century Christian esoterists used to like to speculate that Jesus had traveled to India in his younger years where he supposedly learned all the 'secrets of the East'. And there are those who insist that Jesus survived the crucifixion and fled east to India where he lived under an assumed name. You can visit his tomb in Kashmir.

Here's a very informative BBC story about the Jesus-tomb myth:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm

And here's a more credulous Jesus-tomb website by a believer:

http://www.tombofjesus.com/

I don't think that historians give the story or this site much credence. The site seems to actually be the grave of some medieval Sufi saint or something, and only later the story started circulating that it was the much earlier resting place of Jesus.

But it's fascinating in a broader religious studies sense. Even if it isn't literally true, it's still very interesting that some people do believe it.

Those who believe seem to be a very odd and unlikely mix of 'new-age' Christians from the West and heterodox Muslims from Kashmir and Pakistan. The myth does seem to be consistent with the Islamic idea that Jesus was a prophet and certainly not God himself. Apparently the tomb is mentioned in 'The DaVinci Code' as well, which has made it more popular.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/jesus_predicted_in_the_vedic_literature.htm

http://www.salagram.net/Jesus-Went-To-India.htm#Vedic

*************
M*W: Just because a text (the one's you listed are biased in favor of christianity) doesn't mean that the mention of a fictional character makes it true and factual. An example is The Exodus. Many myths came out of that story (Hebrew "slaves," chariots at the bottom of the Red Sea, the burning bush, etc.). Modern Biblical and archeological scholars say The Exodus of the OT didn't happen, that there may have been several exoduses but not at the time or place told in the OT, and that the Red Sea was not involved at all). The people and places named in The Exodus story, for example, do not make them real, true and/or historic.

It's common knowledge that the paragraph in Josephus' work referring to Jesus was, in fact, a later forgery, which was common in the days of budding christianity.

I believe that as the Jews waited for their messiah to come, it made for an interesting topic to write about, but literature was all it was... an allegory.

Josh McDowell and Gary Habermas are christian apologists and biased toward that aim.

Josh McDowell: http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.4023555/k.BE5B/Home.htm

Gary Habermas: http://garyhabermas.com/

 

[Kennyc]

I think it's possible a man named Jesus existed but there really is no evidence of it and the myths and stories have been so confounded that it is not even possible to believe. Better consistent stories of Buddha than Jesus.

 

[Stoniphi]

*warning - Buddhist content*

"Who Wrote the New Testament" is a good place to start.

Jesus was a Pharisee, a Palestinian, married to Mary Madeline, was never in Jerusalem, and established the "Jesus Schools" of traditional Jewish Lore. Those wedded the remnants of Masada, and that was their downfall.

If he was a craftsman, he was a mason. Carpenters were very few in Jerusalem then.

Good allegory, good traditional Jewish moral lessons, not much historic fact.

Roman records from that time are pretty good. What is stated by Constantine (and his momma) in the New Testament isn't factual, sorry.

I must say this: life is like an old dot - matrix printer ribbon, once - than done. Do your best now, there is no "pie in the sky when you die", what you see is what you get, then done.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

If he was a craftsman, he was a mason. Carpenters were very few in Jerusalem then.

*************
M*W: You bring up an interesting point about the lack of "carpenters" in Jerusalem. From what I've read, there was no good wood to be had in the area, so carpenters as we know them, pretty much didn't exist. The story of Joseph being a "carpenter" is a mistranslation.

http://www.a4t.org/Sermons/Brown/carpenter-scholar.html

http://www.bible-history.com/links....name=Manners+&+Customs&subcat_name=Carpenters

"In Mark, Jesus is called a tekton, usually understood to mean carpenter. Matthew says he was the son of a tekton.[Mk 6:3][Mt 13:55][43]:170 However, the Greek word used in the Gospels means "builder", which could refer to a stonemason or some other type of artisan.[82]"

[82] "An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon." The Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. Clarendon Press: Oxford, p. 797.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

my bro, the atheist, says that jesus' existence was documented in sanskrit and non-religious writings about the time.

Wrong.
There are NO contemporary writings about Jesus.

All we have is LATER writings about Christians who BELIEVED in Christ.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

that same could be said of any and all history books you have in your possession.

But the Gospels are not "history books".
They are religious literature, myths and beliefs.

K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/jesus_predicted_in_the_vedic_literature.htm

http://www.salagram.net/Jesus-Went-To-India.htm#Vedic

None of them are contemporary, some of them are forgeries, others are NOT about Jesus :


JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews 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 devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
* 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 refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html



IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html



QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and are merely negative Jewish responses to Christian beliefs.
* the alleged Jewish references to Jesus are highly variant, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. that "Jesus" was born about 100BC, that he had 5 disciples, that he learned black magic in Egypt, was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, conceived during menstruation, now in hell in vat of boiling excrement.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.



K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

'Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

Lucian wrote OVER a CENTURY after the allegd events - he repeats Christian BELIEFS - that is NOT evidence for Jesus.

It's evidence for BELIEF in Jesus - a completely different thing.

and why aren't the others relevant?

None of them are contemporary, some are not even about Jesus at all.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

you could apply some deductive reasoning regarding the movement and the man.

So,
does the existence of Scientology mean Xenu was historical ?

What about the Heaven's Gate cult - does that mean there WAS a spaceship hiding behind a comet?

No.

So BELIEF in Jesus long long after the alleged events is NOT evidence for Jesus.

K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Roman records from that time are pretty good.

Then why are there no records of Jesus or the Gospel events ?

What is stated by Constantine (and his momma) in the New Testament isn't factual, sorry.

Constantine and his momma did NOT state anything in the NT. Constantine did NOT have anything to do with compiling the books of the NT.

Sounds like you read The Da Vinci Code and BELIEVED it !


K.

 

[NMSquirrel]

i choose to believe in jesus as a model as to how to act, the term christian just means to be christ-like..

when MW brought up the argument that there were many jesus like ppl running around in that time(another thread),and that the biblical jesus could just be a compilation of all these profits/teachers, i did not disbelieve her..

if you wanted to change the world, how would you go about it?
if you can see that the world only needed to learn some common sense,how would you teach it?

alot of the attempts to delete religion are an attempt to delete those involved in religion who are creating all the problems with religion..(using the bible to force their opinions/attitudes on others..) the prob is, even if religion were to be deleted, those same ppl will find other ways to force their opinion/attitudes on others, so the problem will still exist whether there is religion or not..they would just find some other excuse to force their opinions on others..

so to attempt to show that jesus did not exist is an effort in futility, as the only reason to do so would be to take that excuse away from those who would corrupt it..what about those who are using jesus as an excuse to help others?..so then this becomes about the numbers..how many ppl are actually believing in jesus to make themselves better ppl as compared to how many are just using jesus as an excuse to make themselves feel better about themselves..

these are the kinds of numbers i would like to see a study done on..but how would one accurately conduct such a survey without it being subjective??

For the record;
i believe religion needs to get their humanity out of the way, or god will step in..be it in the form of ppl trying to delete religion or NT prophecy (some say they are the same :shrug..

 

[Anti-Flag]

the truth is often times stranger than fiction.

the truth is that you don't entirely know what is possible and why.

and if we're simply addressing the existence of jesus, that certainly isn't impossible.

Basing a belief on that which is merely "not impossible" would lead to all sorts of crazy beliefs. It's almost time to bring up the invisible pink unicorns.

 

[gmilam]

you could apply some deductive reasoning regarding the movement and the man.

You could also make shit up.

NOTE: I am not saying Jesus did not exist. I don't know. I am saying that anyone who claims there is "historical evidence" hasn't taken a good look at the "evidence".

 

[Medicine*Woman]

You could also make shit up.

NOTE: I am not saying Jesus did not exist. I don't know. I am saying that anyone who claims there is "historical evidence" hasn't taken a good look at the "evidence".

*************
M*W: They don't look at the evidence, because they are afraid to learn the truth. It's a cozy little nutshell they put themselves in out of fear of their own mortality. With that said, I refer back to your first sentence in this post. They 'make up shit' to try to deal with that mortality.

 

[heart]

Jesus existed and was the son of God.

Done, as they say.

Proof? as they say.

 

[rjr6]

*************
M*W: They don't look at the evidence, because they are afraid to learn the truth. It's a cozy little nutshell they put themselves in out of fear of their own mortality. With that said, I refer back to your first sentence in this post. They 'make up shit' to try to deal with that mortality.

Why would someone want to believe in Jesus if they feared their mortality? Isn't the point to embrace your immortality now? What are the chances of someone 'making up' a story 2000 years ago that is still relevant and intriguing? Read the gospels and it speaks to you as if it were happening today

 

[rjr6]

There aint a thing cozy about Jesus. Lets see, hmmmm, responsible for your thoughts and actions in an existence where you can selflessly help others. Gets me warm and fuzzy. Godlike power in a way. Maybe being Human is in a way being Godlike. We are given the opportunity to be Gods, what will we do?

 

[joepistole]

Constantine and his momma did NOT state anything in the NT. Constantine did NOT have anything to do with compiling the books of the NT.

Constantine did however order some 50 copies of the Gospel texts and he did push the early church towards standarization of beliefs and the centralization of Church authority.

Even today there is no one single version of the New Testiment that is used by all Christian sects. Roman Catholics have a unique version of the New Testiment. Mormans (LDS) have a revised version of King James.

I don't think Constantine was to concerned about religious details regarding the new religion. Interestingly enough he did merge some of the practices of his cult, Sol Invictus, with Christianity (e.g. celebrating the sabath on Sunday and celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25).

Ultimately people are going to believe whatever they want to believe regarding Jesus and the early Church. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that as long as we are tollerant of each other.