Jesus: fiction or non

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

no...the penny hit sand within the first three feet of falling. Be carelful...

arrogance does not become you. (no joke).

v/r

Joshua

I think Thomas meant it is a compliment Josh, at least that's how I took it.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Actually there's Tacitus and Pliny, and two passages from Josephus, the first of which is not disputed. There's also the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 43a:

"On the Sabbath of the Passover festival Jesus (Jeshu) the Nazarene was hanged. For forty days before his execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "Here is Jesus the Nazarene, who is going forth to be stonedd because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy."

And this from Mara bar Sarapion, a Syrian Stoic who was imprised by the Romans and was facing execution. He wrote this to his son, in a letter commending him to be wise in the face of adversity:

"What good did it do the Athenians to kill Socrates ... the Samians to burn Pythagoras ... what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on?"

"Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera's statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law he has given."
(from The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide")

From the above, and from the findings of archaeology and sociology, that in all probability the Jesus of the Gospels is the most reasonable and reliable data with regard to the existence of the man. His being the Incarnate Son of God is, and can only ever be, a matter of faith and personal revelation.

But that is what was preached, and held to be true, from the very beginning.

Thomas

Hi Thomas, thanks for the nice response.

This isn't by way of argument, just my thoughts at the moment.

1. Josephus: I'm reasonably certain the passage from the Testimonium is an insertion. That's the mainstream point of view. I'm less certain about the other passage which mentions James. It's disputation is less well established.
2. Tacitus: Tacitus says,

   Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

   Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This was written in the early second century CE, long after the synoptic Gospels came into circulation. The myth is already established, and it seems more likely that Tacitus is reporting the etymology of the word Christian in his account of Nero's fire. Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus by name, but rather refers to "Christus".
3. Pliny: Pliny writes about the same time as Tacitus. He's asking the Emperor if it's alright to execute Christians even if their only crime is that they are Christians. Pliny says,

   They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.

   Again no mention of Jesus, just Christus.
4. Mara bar Sarapion: His letter was written in 73 CE. Plenty of time to have absorbed the legend, and he refers to a Jewish "wise king."

   "What good did it do to the Athenians to kill Socrates, for which deed they were punished with famine and pestilence? What did it avail the Samians to burn Pythagorus, since their country was entirely buried under sand in one moment? Or what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken from them from that time on?
   
   "God justly avenged these three wise men. The Athenians died of famine, the Samians were flooded by the sea, the Jews were slaughtered and driven from their kingdom, everywhere living in the dispersion.

   Innerface International

Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 43a: This refers to the Yeshu character that Andrew X is talking about. This Talmudic stuff was written at least 200 years after the turn of the millenia.

Again, I just want to reiterate that I'm not arguing the point, just trying to demonstrate my thought process when considering this issue. None of this is meant to prove anything.

Sunny

[Sunny C.]

Wow, did I ever botch the layout on that. Sorry, I'm clerically illiterate.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Then one has to be discerning. The DaVinci Code and its fore-runners have been thoroughly discredited. They are fictions and fantasy, they don't even aspire to myth. It was greed that did for the Templars.

Well, I'm not surprised that a Roman Catholic, in exercising his powers of discernment, might come to the consclusions you've come to, Thomas. But to say that "the DaVinci Code has been thoroughly discredited," doesn't show much discernment at all! I think it mostly shows that you find what is presented inconvenient, and rather difficult to account for. Just which parts do you feel have been discredited?

Brown certainly exaggerated certain facts, took creative license with others, yet he did not fabricate the greatest portion of his book. This is where good discernment, combined with serious investigation of what is presented, will show us that much of what Brown wrote is simply history (or even just scientific fact), a bit embellished, at best (or worst).

What you want to do, Thomas, is empty the baby out with the bathwater. And I for one, do not like to hear the drowning screams.

Please let us know which parts specifically you feel are pure fiction, and maybe we can take it up on another thread.

As for the Templars, now you're just being biased (though, again, I do realize that you understand the Knights Templar as a Roman Catholic ).

We know good and well that historically, the Templars were powerful, very powerful. They rivalled the Roman Catholic Church, answering only to the Pope, and they threatened the French Monarchy of Philip le Bel (who was anything but `bel,' or `fair'). Thus, history records that on Black Friday, Friday the 13th, FALSE charges having been drawn up against the Order, Jacques de Molay and scores of other French Templars were arrested, then tortured until they "confessed" to various heresies and blasphemies ... all this being done to eliminate the threat which the Order presented both to King Philip and to the Roman Catholic Church.

Were they, in their power, also greedy, even as corrupt as the Church and the French Monarchy? Probably so!

And in truth, the Templars were guilty of some of the charges of heresy, since in fact they had ALWAYS maintained a different Faith, or understanding, than that of Mother Church. And this had everything to do with their insistence on remaining an autonomous, independent Order, and not a Church militia.

In a critique of the modern-day Knights Templar, who claim descent from the original 8 or 9, and the 12th-14th Century Order, HPB writes in `Isis Unveiled,":

It is a mistake to state that the Order became only later anti-Catholic. It was so from the beginning, and the red cross on the white mantle, the vestment of the Order, had the same significance as with the initiates in every other country. It pointed to the four quarters of the compass, and was the emblem of the universe. When, later, the Brotherhood was transformed into a Lodge, the Templars had, in order to avoid persecution, to perform their own ceremonies in the greatest secresy, generally in the hall of the chapter, more frequently in isolated caves or country houses built amidst woods, while the ecclesiastical form of worship was carried on publicly in the chapels belonging to the Order.

Though of the accusations brought against them by order of Philip IV., many were infamously false, the main charges were certainly correct, from the stand-point of what is considered by the Church, heresy. The present-day Templars, adhering strictly as they do to the Bible, can hardly claim descent from those who did not believe in Christ, as God-man, or as the Saviour of the world; who rejected the miracle of his birth, and those performed by himself; who did not believe in transubstantiation, the saints, holy relics, purgatory, etc. The Christ Jesus was, in their opinion, a false prophet, but the man Jesus a Brother. They regarded John the Baptist as their patron, but never viewed him in the light in which he is presented in the Bible. They reverenced the doctrines of alchemy, astrology, magic, kabalistic talismans, and adhered to the secret teachings of their chiefs in the East.

Originally Posted by Thomas

From the above, and from the findings of archaeology and sociology, that in all probability the Jesus of the Gospels is the most reasonable and reliable data with regard to the existence of the man. His being the Incarnate Son of God is, and can only ever be, a matter of faith and personal revelation.

But that is what was preached, and held to be true, from the very beginning.

Perhaps, though not to the exclusion of every other such Incarnate Son of God - either before or since. And here is where we have a distinction between the early Christians, and those of today who have come to maintain Christ Jesus as the only Christ.

It is as if many are entirely unaware of where the terms `chrestos' and `christos' originated ...

... and I must add, that the ages have been unkind to the Mystery Traditions.

Affirming Christ is one thing, DENYING HIM as being Universally present within OTHER traditions, even from remotest antiquity ... is quite another!!!

The more light we can shed on the historical Jesus, perhaps will be the better. The job of Light, is indeed to Reveal!

Truth invites inquiry; Truth wants to be Known!

The Fox Mulders of religion will perhaps NEVER be a popular lot, even in this day and age, but at least they can no longer be physically tortured for contradicting "the experts" and "authorities." Thank God for that!

Laughed at, vilified, calumniated ... and challenged, at every turn, to PROVE for me - something that we can't even prove for ourselves, without due diligence and earnest dedication to a Spiritual Path!

What was that about a matter of faith, and personal revelation?

Oh Yeah. THAT

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

There's also the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 43a:

"On the Sabbath of the Passover festival Jesus (Jeshu) the Nazarene was hanged. For forty days before his execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "Here is Jesus the Nazarene, who is going forth to be stonedd because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy."

I'm I lost...how the heck does this hanging and 40 days reference support the gospels?? It is completely contrary is it not?

[Sunny C.]

"Chullin 2:24 tells how Rabbi Eliezer was once arrested and charged with minuth. When the chief judge (hegemon) interrogated him, the rabbi answered that he "trusted the judge." Although Rabbi Eliezer was referring to God, the judge interpreted him to be referring to the judge himself, and freed the Rabbi. The remainder of the account concerns why Rabbi Eliezer was arrested in the first place. Rabbi Akiva suggests that perhaps one of the minim had spoken a word of minuth to him and that it had pleased him. Rabbi Eliezer recalls that this was indeed the case, he had met Jacob of the town of Sechania in the streets of Sepphoris who spoke to him a word of minuth in the name of Yeshu ben Pandera, which had pleased him. (A variant reading used by Herford has Pantiri instead of Pandera.)

Avodah Zarah, 16b-17a repeats the account of Chullin 2:24 about Rabbi Eliezer and adds additional material. It tells that Jacob quoted Deuteronomy 23:19: "You shall not bring the fee of a whore or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow." Jacob says that he was taught this by Yeshu. Jacob then asked Eliezer whether it was permissible to use a whore's money to build a toilet for the high priest. When Rabbi Eliezer did not reply, Jacob quoted Micah 1:7, "For they were amassed from whores' fees and they shall become whores' fees again." This was the teaching that had pleased Rabbi Eliezer."

Yeshu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems likely that this Jeshu was more a literary device, a type of character rather than a specific person in these talmudic tales. He's a sneaky kind of character who lures good jews into breaking the law. He's a caricature, a cartoon version of a Jewish Christian convert.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

It seems likely that this Jeshu was more a literary device, a type of character rather than a specific person in these talmudic tales. He's a sneaky kind of character who lures good jews into breaking the law. He's a caricature, a cartoon version of a Jewish Christian convert.

Sunny C., I will trust to your, bananabrain, and dauer's scholarship and understanding when it comes to Yeshu ben Pandera and the Sepher Toldoth Yeshu (Jeshu). I know almost nothing about this tradition ...


What I think makes the most sense, is something that appears in an online article by David Pratt entitled, `Who Was the Real Jesus?' Quoting from H.P. Blavatsky's `Isis Unveiled,' we read:

[T]he Nazarene Reformer, after having received his education in their [the Essenes'] dwellings in the desert, and been duly initiated into the Mysteries, preferred the free and independent life of a wandering Nazaria, and so separated or inazarenized himself from them, thus becoming a travelling Therapeute, a Nazaria, a healer.

The motive of Jesus was evidently like that of Gautama-Buddha, to benefit humanity at large by producing a religious reform which should give it a religion of pure ethics . . .

In his immense and unselfish love for humanity, he considers it unjust to deprive the many of the results of the knowledge acquired by the few. This result he accordingly preaches -- the unity of a spiritual God, whose temple is within each of us, and in whom we live as He lives in us -- in spirit.

I am especially impressed by this article, of David Pratt's, and I think it's well worth reading. It attempts to address the Jesus of both fiction and history, in the Talmud, as a Nazar, and even as an avatara - the Universal Christ. Certainly I am sympathetic to the Theosophical view, as HPB summarizes it above, and thus:

all the civilized portion of the Pagans who knew of Jesus honored him as a philosopher, an adept whom they placed on the same level with Pythagoras and Apollonius. . . . As an incarnated God there is no single record of him on this earth capable of withstanding the critical examination of science; as one of the greatest reformers, an inveterate enemy of every theological dogmatism, a persecutor of bigotry, a teacher of one of the most sublime codes of ethics, Jesus is one of the grandest and most clearly-defined figures on the panorama of human history. His age may, with every day, be receding farther and farther back into the gloomy and hazy mists of the past; and his theology -- based on human fancy and supported by untenable dogmas may, nay, must with every day lose more of its unmerited prestige; alone the grand figure of the philosopher and moral reformer instead of growing paler will become with every century more pronounced and more clearly defined. It will reign supreme and universal only on that day when the whole of humanity recognizes but one father -- the UNKNOWN ONE above -- and one brother -- the whole of mankind below. (Isis Unveiled,' p. 150)

It's somewhat amusing to me, along different lines, that in various accounts of supposed ET (Extra-Terrestrial) contact, we are told that the ETs created Jesus, or something to that effect. I try to wrestle with that, and I can't help but wonder, if there is any truth in this, what might it be?

I love the mindset that allows us to just laugh and move on, yet behind even the most apparently absurd or embellished of myths, I think there's a kernel of truth. The challenge is just to figure out WHAT on Earth this stuff about ETs making Jesus could possibly refer to, but then, we know so little about DNA, even as we move into the 21st Century and with all our scientific advance.

Have we even BEGUN to settle the story on the Shroud of Turin? If so, would someone care to tell me for certain that it's not Christ's burial linen? I mean, okay, I know that the best expert opinions are that it's much more recent ... but does that mean we KNOW for certain???

Ahhh, and this is a shroud, which we actually DO HAVE, physically. The PROOF!!! Carbon dating, you see, is not a flawless, 100% accurate method ... and given how far off it is in various other areas, I have serious doubts regarding anything we hear about the infamous Shroud not being that of Jesus. I have no idea whose death shroud it was. This is just to suggest that things are not always as certain as they seem. The historical Jesus, did he live??? I tend to believe so, yet not as we have been taught to believe!

Those of us who have no doubt whatsoever in UFO technology, and that our planet has long been visited by ETs, do have to wonder about what, if any, connections there might be ... with figures such as Jesus, and other enlightened of Earth's own Humanity ...

Perhaps for now it's just puzzlement!

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

My own take is that Jesus was a miltant hippy who on gaining a following was crucified as an upstart. I believe also that he survived crucifixtion by pure luck, not by resurection, and that he married and had children. The Man himself is of small importance, its the message that was developed from his teachings that has become huge.
My favourite Christ 'story' is the novel by Nikos Kazantakis "The Last Temptation of Christ". This paints Jesus as a deeply troubled, flawed individual that may have been schizofrenic. None-the-less he had a good heart and simply wished like most of us that life was fairer and better.
I am the last person you will find being an appologist for the bible...

For reals?

I would have never thought that would be your view, very interesting. I can see and understand where you and your book are coming from.

[Thomas]

Hi Sunny –

That, in one sense, is the point. There is not one single proof, but there is an existing body of evidence which, read alongside the emergence of a community of faith calling themselves 'Christian', points to the Gospels being the most reliable source of data regarding the 'historical Jesus'.

The 'Chrestos' debate again asks the question, if not Jesus, who? Where and how did this cult arise, and from every evidence we know it arose within the Jewish community and spread from there, so 'Chrestos' would have to be understood from an Hebraic perspective, not a hellenic one.

If we look at Josephus in detail:
About this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

The first two elements in italics are widely held to be later interoplations, and even excluded, Josephus still refers to a teacher called Jesus.

The third element, in bold, is not so easily dismissed by scholars, for it links to and explains the prior authentic statement, that his believers did not cease to believe after his death. Assuming Josephus got his information from Christians (which is not questioned) then it is unlikely he would be ignorant of their most fantastic belief.

Every point can be discussed ... but sometimes, in looking at every 'tree', we lose sight of the 'wood' ...

So on the one hand we have a scant body of evidence that gives no fixed and inarguable conclusion, but suggests some kind of founder, and on the other we have a body of people faithful to a teaching that apparently sprang up from nowhere ... is it so unacceptable to at least allow that there might be something more than coincidence?

If we look at the doctrine, we know that the tripartite baptismal rite, "In the Name of God the Father Almighty, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit" was in place from the very outset, and this rite was radical.

So we're left with the interesting paradox. The absence of evidence is not evidence in itself, but somehow we have to explain the emergence of a cult within Judaism, and the origins of its beliefs ...

... and that's the point. The Jesus of History is not the Jesus of Faith ...

Thomas

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

My own take is that Jesus was a miltant hippy who on gaining a following was crucified as an upstart. I believe also that he survived crucifixtion by pure luck, not by resurection, and that he married and had children. The Man himself is of small importance, its the message that was developed from his teachings that has become huge.

*giggles like a schoolgirl*

Family Guy - Jesus Video

[seattlegal]

Hey, Hebrew University of Jerusalem just announced that they've located King Herod's tomb at Herodium, (which is where Josephus said it was.) Perhaps there might be some information to be found there?

[Sunny C.]

Actually, the Herod that beheaded John the B. was a tetrarch. This find is very interesting. I gather that the guy wo found the tomb has been poking around on the site since the seventies looking for it. It must be very gratifying for him to find it.

[Sunny C.]

Originally Posted by Thomas

So we're left with the interesting paradox. The absence of evidence is not evidence in itself, but somehow we have to explain the emergence of a cult within Judaism, and the origins of its beliefs ...

... and that's the point. The Jesus of History is not the Jesus of Faith ...

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", Donald Rumsfeld.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But I think we should wonder whether there are enough trees to make a forest. Shrubery is a different thing. In any case, if you can imagine yourself outside the box looking in, do you think you would find the veracity of the Jesus "myth", as presented in the Gospels, any more compellingly literal than any other god-man myth? I don't discount that the phenomenon of Christianity suggests some genuine artifact somewhere, but where? It might not really matter in terms of one's predisposition toward faith, but if one is neutral on the matter, lacking faith yet not polemically opposed to it, but rather intellectually curious, then I submit that there isn't enough evidence to satisfy the basic need for facts in order to come to an objective conclusion. That's the rub.

Sunny

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", Donald Rumsfeld.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. But I think we should wonder whether there are enough trees to make a forest. Shrubery is a different thing. In any case, if you can imagine yourself outside the box looking in, do you think you would find the veracity of the Jesus "myth", as presented in the Gospels, any more compellingly literal than any other god-man myth? I don't discount that the phenomenon of Christianity suggests some genuine artifact somewhere, but where? It might not really matter in terms of one's predisposition toward faith, but if one is neutral on the matter, lacking faith yet not polemically opposed to it, but rather intellectually curious, then I submit that there isn't enough evidence to satisfy the basic need for facts in order to come to an objective conclusion. That's the rub.

Sunny

(lol) five hundred cannisters of Sarin/Mustard gas discovered in a hidden stockpile buried in the Iraqi desert, right near where the fighter jets were originally buried, (enough to take out New York, Washington DC, Portsmouth, VA or 35 million people...not bad for a nation of 25 million people)...guess Rumsfield was right...
Question is (biblically), how much of something must there be, before the world considers it "something"? Especially when we were told there is nothing to begin with?

I don't know your background on CBR. But I can assure you, a nerve agent or chemical agent, even if simply blown up with a grenade, would cause thousands of deaths in a major city, within minutes. How do I know? It one of my specific jobs in my occupation to protect against.

One pin drop of Sarin on skin, is lethal to a human.

Iraq is a very BIG desert (about the size of Texas)...with lot's of burying space...a terrorist's cornucopia...

YouTube - WMD's Found In Iraq=

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

In any case, if you can imagine yourself outside the box looking in, do you think you would find the veracity of the Jesus "myth", as presented in the Gospels, any more compellingly literal than any other god-man myth?

Yes and No. No, because it's a matter of faith, not reason, yes, because many people have found the Scriptures 'compelling'. The appeal of Scripture is to faith, not reason ... it appeals to what man is, not what man knows.

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

I don't discount that the phenomenon of Christianity suggests some genuine artifact somewhere, but where?

Not sure what you mean by 'genuine artifact'?

Originally Posted by Sunny C.

It might not really matter in terms of one's predisposition toward faith, but if one is neutral on the matter, lacking faith yet not polemically opposed to it, but rather intellectually curious, then I submit that there isn't enough evidence to satisfy the basic need for facts in order to come to an objective conclusion. That's the rub.

Agreed. The problem is people want the proof before they commit. They want the benefit/return before they make any outlay. Sadly, it doesn't work that way, not in Christianity, not in any field, secular as well as sacred.

An athlete doesn't get to be an athlete because he's half-way inclined, he has to go for it.

No-one gets anywhere by being neutral.

Thomas