I have never realised this but apparently there is no other written record in Jesus' time to say that he has existed other than the Bible. This to me is unneccesary as i believe in Christ anyway. While some historians consider Jesus to largely be a mythological and legendary entity, others—generally, though not always, Christians—consider accounts of Jesus' life to be largely, or even entirely, historical and factual in nature. Some of these historians have also suggested that one treat the existence of Jesus and the accuracy of the New Testament as distinct questions. A apocphral text The Second Epistle of John warns that "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh," so what do you think?
Historicity of Jesus
- Thread starter Azure24
- Start date
Q, I'm reading that this is considered a forgery...thoughts? Also issues with Romans records on trials and executions...no listings of Jesus or his adjacent criminals... all very confusing as folks either seem to be taking one side or the other and their results are based on their biased needs to prove one thing or the other right.Quahom1 said:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Yep. One needn't look far or long to find a "scholar" to support or deny just about any portion of the Bible. It can get so confusing. After a while I told myself "forget it." Go where the spirit leads. If the Bible and its stories are of G-d, it will make itself known. If the Bible and its stories are inventions of men, that too, will make itself evident. So far, I am finding a lot more personal evidences in my life that lead me to believe G-d is behind the whole shebang. And considering Pascal's wager, I think that's where I will continue to cast my lot.wil said:
What proof is there that the works Jospheus are faked? As for execution and trial records just because Jesus isn't mentioned in them doesn't mean to say that he wasn't executed or didn't exist. Perhaps they got lost or destroyed or simply not recorded, or perhaps somebody would not want to take responsiblity and have the finger pointed at them years and years later that they (or there people before) crucified the son of god? When the romans turned Christian someobdy could have got rid of them to hide the embarrassment of the crucifixtion and getting it wrong, who knows! just my thoughts. I have been reading on Jesus etc for only 3 or 4 months now but there is more evidence to say he did exist than not. Just as hard as somebody works to put faith in Jesus there are people working just as hard to debunk it all. Didn't the dead sea scrolls make reference to a "pierced messiah"?
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
has anyone read any geza vermes? i am presently on my second book of his and so far he seems to confirm my position on jesus pretty accurately!
b'shalom
bananabrain
b'shalom
bananabrain
wil said:
You know, based on what I discovered this week about relatively current history as noted throughout the world, there is a very good chance that not much we know is true, or better put, accurate.
Take Presisdent Woodrow Wilson for example. He was a White supremecist. And the history books paint him as one who was hesistant to get America into WWI...right. He had the Marines go into South American and Carribean countries 20 times. He also had us allied with Japan while we fought the Russians (that's right, we fought the Russians on two fronts), from 1918-1920. Then there is Helen Keller, you know the role model every school child should strive to emmulate as overcoming obstacles? She spent her whole adult life pushing for Socialism. She was more left than left allows. And of course there is the "discoverer of America" Christopher Columbus...who never set foot on North America. The Vikings however established a colony in 1003 AD and kept it for two years before abandonning it due to unrfriendly relations with the Native Americans. Columbus also set the spark for the American slave trade, only he started it with Native Americans becoming the slaves. Columbus himself transported more slaves back to Spain than any other single person (5000). Yes, he was a grand navigator and discoverer. But he was also an huge exploiter, of materials and people. He didn't die a pauper either. He died rich, left a huge estate and a title "Admiral of the Ocean Sea" which his 18th generation family still carries legitimately today.
You know who tried to stop the slave trade of native Americans before it got started? Queen Isadora of Spain. She was the only one who hated it.
I also found out that way before America got established, Europeans were enslaving Europeans, Africans, Africans, Indians, Indians. Columbus simple pushed it into a world wide commodity.
The Moors were more tolerant of Christians and Jews worshipping as they wished in Spain than Christians ever were of Muslims and Jews, anywhere.
But that all gets buried under the gloss of heroism, and painting the perfect picture.
In that light Wil, maybe Josephus is true, and attempts have been made to simply bury the truth. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in the annals of man...
If we want the truth, we have got to dig through alot of dung, just to get near it.
my thoughts
v/r
Q
Unfortuneatley accurate....I heard once that every 500 years all the facts are new...500 years from now everything we know will be wrong...Quahom1 said:
I think I related before, despite the fact that George Washington wrote that his men were 'starving and naked', not one soldier starved at Valley Forge, not one died of exposure...not even one case of amputation due to frost bite, and they all had shoes, and uniforms... very interesting lies they told us in elementary school remember those pictures with the rags tied on their feet walking through the snow? Didn't happen.
Think of all the history which was changed, remember the victors write the history and more importantly most writings are hyperbole designed to incite.
Then of course there's historicity and historicity -
I know less about the deaths of Marilyn Monroe, JFK, Elvis ... Lady Di ... than I do about Jesus ... or put another way ... what I do know about Jesus I don't know about the others MM, JFK, etc.
From the earliest sources 'I know' that Jesus was crucified in Judea, having been accused of blasphemy by the Jews and tried, found innocent, but neverthess executed by the Romans, in a typical act of pragmatic government (ie whatever keeps the masses quiet).
(Contradictory 'eye witness' accounts do not emerge until some 400 years later, by which time the oral tradition has been current and 'orthodox', and so can only be viewed with suspicion.)
From contemporary sources I 'know' that MM died from an overdose, or perhaps an accidental overdose, a cry for help that was ignored, or was killed and made to look like suicide, by an assailant or assailants, acting alone, or on behalf of some descreet agency, legal or otherwise...
JFK ... pick your theory...
Elvis might well be still alive, apparently...
And Lady Di can be a tragic accident, professional incompetence, or a monumental conspiracy... and I will never know which...
... I can have more certainty therefore, from the information available, regarding the death of Jesus than any of the others.
... Then, of course, nothing about the Buddha was put in writing for 400 years, so he's obviously a fantasy ...
... and when, within a 100 years, the Christians do put stuff in writing, they're mistaken, conspiring, 'creatively editing', lying, ill-informed ...
... then of course, I don't think there's one shred of evidence to affirm my grandfather ever lived ...
There's a utility bill on the doormat ... or is it?
Sweet dreams tonight...
Thomas
I know less about the deaths of Marilyn Monroe, JFK, Elvis ... Lady Di ... than I do about Jesus ... or put another way ... what I do know about Jesus I don't know about the others MM, JFK, etc.
From the earliest sources 'I know' that Jesus was crucified in Judea, having been accused of blasphemy by the Jews and tried, found innocent, but neverthess executed by the Romans, in a typical act of pragmatic government (ie whatever keeps the masses quiet).
(Contradictory 'eye witness' accounts do not emerge until some 400 years later, by which time the oral tradition has been current and 'orthodox', and so can only be viewed with suspicion.)
From contemporary sources I 'know' that MM died from an overdose, or perhaps an accidental overdose, a cry for help that was ignored, or was killed and made to look like suicide, by an assailant or assailants, acting alone, or on behalf of some descreet agency, legal or otherwise...
JFK ... pick your theory...
Elvis might well be still alive, apparently...
And Lady Di can be a tragic accident, professional incompetence, or a monumental conspiracy... and I will never know which...
... I can have more certainty therefore, from the information available, regarding the death of Jesus than any of the others.
... Then, of course, nothing about the Buddha was put in writing for 400 years, so he's obviously a fantasy ...
... and when, within a 100 years, the Christians do put stuff in writing, they're mistaken, conspiring, 'creatively editing', lying, ill-informed ...
... then of course, I don't think there's one shred of evidence to affirm my grandfather ever lived ...
There's a utility bill on the doormat ... or is it?
Sweet dreams tonight...
Thomas
Actually Thomas the only reason there are so many theories is because we have so many witnesses, and so much information on the latest deaths. Fims, police reports, pages and pages of data detailing every aspect. And then hundreds of people reviewing data not only within hours, days, weeks of the incident but years and decades later.
As with Jesus, we have less than 10 pages of data which was written 30 years after the incident. And probably not by those that are purported to have authored it, and maybe not by an eye witness to any of it. When it was decided that this data was 'gospel' occurred 300 years later when there was no witness.
So we truly have what we wish to believe about Jesus death, no more. I'm not discounting that. Anything one chooses to believe is ok with me, but as far as stating that anything is fact...I don't see any data to support that.
As with Jesus, we have less than 10 pages of data which was written 30 years after the incident. And probably not by those that are purported to have authored it, and maybe not by an eye witness to any of it. When it was decided that this data was 'gospel' occurred 300 years later when there was no witness.
So we truly have what we wish to believe about Jesus death, no more. I'm not discounting that. Anything one chooses to believe is ok with me, but as far as stating that anything is fact...I don't see any data to support that.
flowperson
Oannes
A very interesting discussion. My take on all of this is that history is written by whichever white guy wins the argument. I'm not trying to be facetious here, just realistic. Good comments from all of you here !
flow....
flow....
wil said:
The lines in Josephus are certainly contentious - with little warning whatsoever, he suddenly mentions Jesus from a very Christian point of view.
Seems very surprising as he otherwise doesn't mention Jesus elsewhere, and seems otherwise thoroughly Jewish.
As Josephus has apparently come down to us via Christian monks, popular theory has it that it's an insertion into the original text.
There is a lot of continuing debate on it though.
However, Josephus wasn't writing until after 70AD, so even then he's not contemporary with a living Jesus.
The old way was that the victors wrote the history books, today that is changing and those with the most money and control get to write the books or at least determine which ones we read and get them into schools and psyche of our youth. In some cases/areas it is the Christian right that controls, in others the liberal left, and in some supporters of Al Queda...and there are thousands more providing impressions on the impressionable...all as fact.flowperson said:A very interesting discussion. My take on all of this is that history is written by whichever white guy wins the argument. I'm not trying to be facetious here, just realistic. Good comments from all of you here !
flow....
wil said:
The Internet is still open (at least in most of the world). Maybe that is why BLogs are more popular than the power controlled mass media now adays...If you want the truth, it is available, but you have to search for it, not wait for it to come to you.
v/r
Q
Huge point Q, the amount of information is towering...but as sites like wikipedia develop we will have some that are pro this, bent that, or whatever bias but some sites will be created and accumulated on the basis of obtaining and printing truth...will be amazing.Quahom1 said:
And as the networking and socializing continues we will have more, and peoples around the world will be able to see through the political and religious dogma...
flowperson
Oannes
wil said:
It may just also be that the periods of political turbulence that are occurring with increasing regularity, especially since the Balkan wars, are in anticipation of this future which the establishment certainly doesn't want to take place. But it may not make all that much difference in the long haul since people's lives are so frenetic and pressure filled; and, their information gathering, in the main, is such a passive exercise, it will be easier to propagandize the people thru the corporate owned media to help fulfill the corporate wish lists more often than not.
I don't like being cynical, but that's the way I see the progression. Also if you think this last and recent attempt by congress, at the behest of the telecommunications companies, to turn the internet into a toll charge entity is the end of that question, I believe that you'd be wrong. Like everything else, if one doesn't wish to accept passive propaganda absorption and seek their own version(s) of the truth, then they had best be prepared to pay more for the ability to do that
flow...
.flowperson said:It may just also be that the periods of political turbulence that are occurring with increasing regularity, especially since the Balkan wars, are in anticipation of this future which the establishment certainly doesn't want to take place. But it may not make all that much difference in the long haul since people's lives are so frenetic and pressure filled; and, their information gathering, in the main, is such a passive exercise, it will be easier to propagandize the people thru the corporate owned media to help fulfill the corporate wish lists more often than not.
I don't like being cynical, but that's the way I see the progression. Also if you think this last and recent attempt by congress, at the behest of the telecommunications companies, to turn the internet into a toll charge entity is the end of that question, I believe that you'd be wrong. Like everything else, if one doesn't wish to accept passive propaganda absorption and seek their own version(s) of the truth, then they had best be prepared to pay more for the ability to do that
flow...
Just say NO. and do it by "recalling" your state representitive HOME...pretty easy to do, just takes lots of signatures...and a vote.
But what does that have to do with the Historicity of Jesus?
v/r
Q
Curios Mike
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I find it strange that the records of six different authors who were eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry, and two others who spoke to those who were eyewitnesses, are so often discounted as historical documents. The life of Jesus is one of the best attested biographies of ancient times.