Identity of Christ?

[Ouroboros]

OOPS..just reread my post.  That is what I meant, that it was never written that Jesus was to be god in the flesh.  I agree with you on everything you wrote.  Exactly what I was trying to get across, regardless if he existed, he did not fulfill prophecy as set out in the Old Testament.

 

Sorry, my reading is a bit sloppy sometimes.

 

(We keep on doing this, aren't we, throwing curveballs without thinking about it)

 

[phoenix]

What about these?

 

Tacitus (AD 55-120) - Annals

Suetonius (AD 120) - Life of Claudius

Josephus (AD 37 - 97) - Antiquities

Pliny the Younger (AD 112) - Epistles X

Thallus (AD 52) - Histories

Mara Bar-Serapion (AD 73)

Phlegon (AD 80)

and more

 

All nonchristian, all talk about Jesus.

Here are some things mentioned in these writings:

1. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

2. He was a wise and provocative teacher.

3. He reportedly performed miracles and made prophetic claims.

4. His followers believed that he had risen from the dead.

plus more of course

 

Again, that was not my question.  I want to know how Jesus became legendary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

all of which were written long after jesus's death. i wouldn't take that as proof...

[chefranden]

Where did Jesus get his reputation from?

 

The fact that there was a man named Jesus in the first century who stirred up some controversy is not debated too much anymore among historians.  That's not what I'm worried about.  The question I have is that who made him into what he is in the Bible?  Was he a very good deciever and tricked people into believing his lies?  Did his followers make up all the stories?  Or was it the later church that deified him?

 

I just want to know the nonchristian/exchristian argument for where the break between the historical Jesus and the real Jesus happened.  Also, who was Jesus if he wasn't God?

 

Read The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?

[chefranden]

In order to save everyone's fingers I took the liberty of saving this from our most beloved doctoral canidate.

 

Actually Josephus does mention Jesus and the forgery is the a very small interpolation which I don't exactly remember but it's only like the words "who was the Christ" or something like that.

 

I doubt you have read much beyond the accepted appologists tell you.

 

-Rameus on the Testimonium Flavianum-

 

The brief account of Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is at best a highly interpolated account, and at worst an absolute forgery. Many scholars today, Christian and otherwise formally support the veracity of this assertion. Indeed for many centuries, this was the prevailing view among the academic community. It was not until the discovery of a 10th century Arabic Christian version of the Josephus account that the fires of debate were rekindled, so to speak.

 

To many of us in the academic community, the Arabic manuscript does little to further the thesis that there was an original, authentic reference to the crucifixion of Christ made by Josephus. Should it be any surprise that the European Christian manuscripts use more distinctively Christian language than the Arabic version that is now extant? Christian apologists believe this difference in tone implies that the Arabic copy is much closer to the original work penned by Josephus in the 1st century. By theorizing that the Arabic version is the more original, they are able to shed many of the problems in the Josephus account like so many layers of snake skin. Not least of which is the tone of the Arabic account, which doesn’t contain the extreme Christian language of the Greek and Latin copies. Why would a pious Jew, a Pharisee even, refer to Jesus as the Christ and his movement as the truth? He wouldn’t, which is one of the main reasons why the academic majority has long considered the Josephus account to be a forgery. But with the discovery of the Arabic manuscript, the fundamentalists have decided to jam their toe back in the door, and reopen the discussion. They now propose that the Arabic account is the least mangled of all the copies, and that they all draw from a common, authentic source. This cute little thesis of theirs does little more than appeal to their favorite line of final defense: “It’s possible, and you can’t prove otherwise!” However as I intend to show, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Arabic, Greek, and Latin copies of this text didn’t all come from the same forged manuscript(s) that Bishop Eusebius used (or produced) in the 4th century.

 

Josephus wrote Antiquities circa 90 C.E., approximately 50-60 years after the (alleged) death of Jesus Christ.

 

His (alleged) account reads:

 

 

QUOTE

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.  He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.  He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”

[Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter III:63-64]

 

As I have already stated, the original manuscripts of Josephus do not exist. More importantly, we do not have a single extant copy that was not written by Christian scribes many centuries later. The importance of this point should not be underestimated. If the history of Christian Europe shows us anything it is that the Christian church was willing to do just about anything to promote the prosperity and growth of their religion. People were murdered, books were burned, temples were sacked, and manuscripts were forged. These are the historical facts, and they are indisputable. What does this mean? First, it means that the Christians had ample opportunity to commit the forgery; all of the existing copies of Josephus were written by Christian scribes. Second, it means that the Christian church had a very clear motive to commit such forgery; the movement lacked a solid foundation in the historical record that could be used to rebut arguments presented against it by the many detractors of the day. Forging an account and attributing it to Josephus, the major Jewish historian for that time period, would lend enough credibility to the historicity of Jesus Christ to transform Christianity from a movement into a full blown religious phenomenon. Last and perhaps most important, the historical record shows us that the Christians were engaged in forgery and the suppression of rival literature during this time period. So it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that they might very well have utilized these same tactics to create the now famous Testimonium Flavianum. Motive, opportunity, and a prior record; now all we need is to find Christian fingerprints on the Testimonium Flavianum.

 

A cursory analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum is now in order. Josephus was an orthodox Jewish Pharisee; he never converted to Christianity. This fact is even acknowledged in the 2nd century writings of the early Christian apologist Origin. But after reading the Testimonium Flavianum, one can hardly imagine Josephus to have been a Jew. He quite unequivocally refers to Jesus as the Messiah, and that he taught the truth. It seems absurd to think that a Jewish Pharisee could be responsible for such remarks. But let us pretend for a moment that he did write them. If Jesus was the Messiah, if he was a doer of wonderful works, if he had truly risen from the grave on the third day, and if his religion was the truth as Josephus describes, why in the Hell did he remain an orthodox Jew? It simply doesn’t make sense. The language is entirely Christian; the most fitting explanation is that the account was written or interpolated by a Christian.

 

Another issue is that the Testimonium Flavianum does not fit in context with the passages preceding or following it. Josephus was dealing with problems regarding the Roman occupation of Jerusalem and the catastrophes that had befallen the Jews because of it. From a Jewish perspective the death of Christ was not a catastrophe, indeed if you believe the gospel accounts they saw him as a blasphemer of the lord and as such justly put to death according to the laws set forth by God in the Torah. However, if you are a Christian trying to insert this forged passage into Josephus' work many centuries later you would probably consider the death of Christ a Jewish catastrophe. In this context the passage again appears to be written not by a Jew but by a Christian.

 

The next problem with the Testimonium Flavianum is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote from it. They quote from Josephus' other works regarding Jewish history, but not from the Testimonium Flavianum. Origin in particular should have quoted from this account were it available during his lifetime. He wrote the book Contra Celsum circa 225 C.E. and multiple apologies, quoting very heavily from the works of Josephus, including a very short passage in Book XX of the Antiquities:

 

 

QUOTE

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James…”

[Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter IX:200]

 

Why would Origin, who was desperate to prove the historicity of Jesus Christ to potential converts and to the detractors of the Christian religion, quote this extremely minor account that makes only a passing reference to Jesus and not quote the Testimonium Flavianum? What’s even more compelling is that Origin expressly stated that Josephus never accepted Jesus as the Christ. But very clearly in the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus (allegedly) proclaims Jesus to be the Christ. It doesn’t take a PhD in astrophysics to deduce that Origin (and all of the other Christian apologists) had never seen this Testimonium Flavianum that was allegedly written by Josephus. But Origin was extremely familiar with the works of Josephus, quoting from several books of the Antiquities. How could Origin and the other early Christian apologists be entirely ignorant of the most important historical reference to Jesus Christ ever recorded, especially when they were quite familiar with the author and the very work that it was supposedly recorded in?

 

The first person to quote the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius is considered by some academics, Catholic and otherwise, as the father of "pious fraud". The first Catholic authority to condemn the Eusebius reference to the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He said:

 

 

QUOTE

"This [the Josephus] account of Eusebius is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."

 

 

It is extremely important to recall that the original manuscripts of the Josephus account do not exist. This is a critical point to consider because there was rampant forgery perpetrated by some of the original church fathers and later by the Catholic Church during the period. The Catholic Encyclopedia readily admits this today; they refer to it as "pious fraud".

 

To demonstrate this I will provide an example with a quote from the early Church father, Bishop of Corinth Dionysius (as recorded by Eusebius in the 4th century):

 

 

QUOTE

"When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others...Small wonder that some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts."

 

 

Let us conclude with a brief summary of my analysis:

 

1. Opportunity: We have determined that the Christians had ample opportunity to forge the Testimonium Flavianum. All of the surviving copies were written by Christian scribes, and more importantly the first person to produce the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop Eusebius 300 years after it was [allegedly] written by Josephus.

 

2. Motive: We have demonstrated that the early Christians had a very clear motive for perpetrating this forgery. Historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ was one of the critical elements they needed to expand their small cult into a widespread religion; and historical evidence was the one element they lacked. The writings of the early Christian apologists and even those of the New Testament clearly demonstrate this dilemma that confronted the early Christian church. These texts borderline on an obsession that worshippers should believe that Jesus Christ existed, that he was the Messiah, and that he died for their sins on the cross under Pontius Pilate. The Testimonium Flavianum addresses all three of these concerns.

 

3. Prior Record: There is a serious paradigm of forgery and suppression of rival literature perpetrated by the Christian church. In a more thorough study I would exhaustively demonstrate this paradigm; but in this limited discussion I have chosen to do little more than touch upon it. Readers should feel free to engage in further research for themselves.

 

4. Fingerprints: As has been demonstrated, the language, context, and style of the Testimonium Flavianum are entirely Christian. It is highly unlikely that a Jewish Pharisee like Josephus, would use such language when describing Jesus.

 

5. Circumstantial Evidence: The Testimonium Flavianum apparently fell out of the sky and into Bishop Eusebius’ lap in the 4th century, as no previous author, Christian or otherwise made any reference to it. Strangely enough, the Testimonium Flavianum was widely quoted after Eusebius made reference to it. Interesting how the Christians chose to ignore it before we have proof that it existed, but then quoted it frequently immediately after the evidence suggests that it might have been forged.

 

Taken individually, none of these points prove that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery. However, when taken together they do paint a compelling case for such a forgery to have taken place. Ask yourself this question:

 

If the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, why is there so much evidence suggesting that the passage was forged entirely, or at least heavily interpolated

[quicksand]

Its physically impossible to walk on water for a human, unless you are a human slash water strider, or that water is frozen body of water. Neither of which the bible mentions.

 

So, if Jesus could walk on water, then he could have at least helped poor-"no-choice"-in the-matter-Judas to still end up in heaven - much less spilling his guts, or did he hang himself. Damn bible cant get that straight either.

 

Ugh....

 

Seriosely, you want to find the historical Jesus? You wont find him in Tactitus, Piliny, Joshpepus, or the synoptics. You won't find him anywhere. Hell, you have a whole middle age tradition of sectarianism trying to walk the path of this so callled historical Jesus which only lead to coreligionstist persecuation in the end.

 

As that person, Jesus, or any person, can not walk on water, wilt fig trees, cure mental deseases by making them go into pigs and subsequently drowning them etc, by the magic wave of a hand. Takes science and chemistry baby. No other way. Your Jesus did not even have the necessary science as such, being "I am" before Abe creating light before the stars... dear your fucking lord.

 

You want enlightenment? and from a first hand source? Look at your local college. Who has published? Take their class. I did. And that person is real and published their own work. Sloppy thinking on Jesus/Gods part on letting poor imperfect humans to tell the story of a supposedly "god that became human" on this earth, and then what? learn from it. Oh I know, the tradtion of oralist and scribes have been inspired by the Holy Casper. Yeah, crap. If that easy, then God/Jesus/sharing one identity can do the same to me, the whole world from the time that homo homo sapien took a dookie on the earth and make the mission of the church or the respective members of the body of christ shut the fuck up, get off my door stoop, and let god do his own heavy lifting for once.

 

So your "Jesus," of the moniker the word "savior" in Aramiac, couldnt even magically publish his works, even though he was busy stolling on water.

 

Double Ugh.

[Karl-777]

Triv:

 

With regard to your original question: "Identity of Christ?", I concur with Massey:

......The personal existence of Jesus as Jehoshua Ben-Pandira can be established beyond a doubt. One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition "that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia." It also says, "He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod." That would be more than a century earlier than the date of birth assigned to the Jesus of the Gospels! But it can be further shown that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born considerably earlier even than the year 102 B.C., although the point is not of much consequence here.

 

Jehoshua, son of Perachia, was a president of the Sanhedrin -- the fifth, reckoning from Ezra as the first: one of those who in the line of descent received and transmitted the oral law, as it was said, direct from Sinai. There could not be two of that name. This Ben-Perachia had begun to teach as a Rabbi in the year 154 B.C. We may therefore reckon that he was not born later than 180-170 B.C., and that it could hardly be later than 100 B.C. when he went down into Egypt with his pupil. For it is related that he fled there in consequence of a persecution of the Rabbis, feasibly conjectured to refer to the civil war in which the Pharisees revolted against King Alexander Jannæus, and consequently about 105 B.C.

 

If we put the age of his pupil, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, at fifteen years, that will give us an approximate date, extracted without pressure, which shows that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born about the year 120 B.C. But twenty years are a matter of little moment here. According to the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna of Tract "Shabbath," this Jehoshua, the son of Pandira and Stada, was stoned to death as a wizard, in the city of Lud, or Lydda, and afterwards crucified by being hanged on a tree, on the eve of the Passover. This is the manner of death assigned to Jesus in the Book of Acts. The Gemara says there exists a tradition that on the rest-day before the Sabbath they crucified Jehoshua, on the rest-day of the Passah (the day before the Passover).

 

The year of his death, however, is not given in that account; but there are reasons for thinking it could not have been much earlier nor later than B.C. 70, because this Jewish King Jannæus reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C. He was succeeded in the government by his widow Salomè, whom the Greeks called Alexandra, and who reigned for some nine years. Now the traditions, especially of the first "Toledoth Jehoshua," relate that the Queen of Jannæus, and the mother of Hyrcanus, who must therefore be Salomè, in spite of her being called by another name, showed favour to Jehoshua and his teaching; that she was a witness of his wonderful works and powers of healing, and tried to save him from the hands of his sacerdotal enemies, because he was related to her; but that during her reign, which ended in the year 71 B.C., he was put to death.

 

The Jewish writers and Rabbis with whom I have talked always deny the identity of the Talmudic Jehoshua and the Jesus of the Gospels. "This," observes Rabbi Jechiels, "which has been related to Jehoshua Ben-Perachia and his pupil, contains no reference whatever to him whom the Christians honour as God!" Another Rabbi, Salman Zevi, produced ten reasons for concluding that the Jehoshua of the Talmud was not he who was afterwards called Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth (and of the Canonical Gospels) was unknown to Justus, to the Jew of Celsus, and to Josephus, the supposed reference to him by the latter being an undoubted forgery.

 

The "blasphemous writings of the Jews about Jesus," as Justin Martyr calls them, always refer to Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, and not to the Jesus of the Gospels. It is Ben-Pandira they mean when they say they have another and a truer account of the birth and life, the wonder-working and death of Jehoshua or Jesus. This repudiation is perfectly honest and soundly based. The only Jesus known to the Jews was Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, who had learnt the arts of magic in Egypt, and who was put to death by them as a sorcerer.

 

This was likewise the only Jesus known to Celsus, the writer of the "True Logos," a work which the Christians managed to get rid of bodily, with so many other of the anti-Christian evidences. Celsus observes that he was not a pure Word, not a true Logos, but a man who had learned the arts of sorcery in Egypt. So, in the Clementines, it is in the character of Ben-Pandira that Jesus is said to rise again as the magician. But here is the conclusive fact: The Jews know nothing of Jesus, the Christ of the Gospels, as an historical character; and when the Christians of the fourth century trace his pedigree, by the hand of Epiphanius, they are forced to derive their Jesus from Pandira! Epiphanius gives the genealogy of the Canonical Jesus in this wise:--

 

Jacob, called Pandira, Mary - Joseph -- Cleopas, Jesus.

 

This proves that in the fourth century the pedigree of Jesus was traced to Pandira, the father of that Jehoshua who was the pupil of Ben-Perachia, and who becomes one of the magicians in Egypt, and who was crucified as a magician on the eve of the Passover by the Jews, in the time of Queen Alexandra, who had ceased to reign in the year 70 B.C.--the Jesus, therefore, who lived and died more than a century too soon.

 

Thus, the Jews do not identify Jehoshua Ben-Pandira with the Gospel Jesus, of whom they, his supposed contemporaries, know nothing, but protest against the assumption as an impossibility; whereas the Christians do identify their Jesus as the descendant of Pandira. It was he or nobody; yet he was neither the son of Joseph nor the Virgin Mary, nor was he crucified at Jerusalem. It is not the Jews, then, but the Christians, who fuse two supposed historic characters into one! There being but one history acknowledged or known on either side, it follows that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Jehoshua of the Talmud, or is not at all, as a Person......

 

As has been pointed out, the alleged "evidence" in Josephus, Tacitus, etc. is nothing but interpolational drivel.

 

See also Kenneth Humphreys' excellent site: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com where he discusses the Pagan origins of the embellishments of the "Jesus"/god-man construct. The term "Logos" was in use in Pagan Greece c.500BCE (see the fragments of Heraclitus). Many sayings similar to, but much more ancient than those of "Jesus", can be found in Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

"Jesus'" prophecy in John 14:12 states that believers are supposed to be doing the "works" of "Jesus" and "greater works" than his alleged "works". Provide documented evidence that believers are indeed doing these things (raising the 4-day dead, food multiplication, stopping storms, etc.) or admit that "Jesus" was a false prophet to be ignored, as per the previously cited passages from Deuteronomy.

 

We discussed the errancy and incongruity of the "word" of "perfect" biblegod on the old board here:

http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1998

 

We discussed the impossibility of the Xtian trinity here on the old board:

http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1579

 

Personal Dedication to the Divine Within is one thing. Promulgating indefensible exclusionist dogma, legalism, lies and doctrines as "the only way to be saved" is quite another. Of course, that is bad enough, but when radical, control-mongering fundamentalist lunatics decide they want to take over the government and foist their bullshit on the whole of society, we have, as the sordid, societally stultifying and barbarous history of Xtianity and fundamentalism in general illustrate, a very major problem. Religion and Spirituality are two totally different things. The fundie is of course, clueless.

 

For what are IMO interesting perspectives on biblical Esotericism, see the on-line books of the late Dr. Alvid Boyd Kuhn at:

http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/kuhn.htm

especially 'Who Is This King of Glory?'

 

Cross-referencing OT literalized Myth to NT pseudepigraphical constructs is a favorite past-time of fundie Xtians. It's time you Xtians start concentrating on Universal Ethics and Esoterics instead of clinging to dogma based on texts which have little or no empirical foundation in history or archaeology and (e.g. John 14:12, Mark 16:18, etc.) that have not been proved by (as they are supposed to be) actual demonstration by Xtian believers...

 

Regards,

 

K

[- AUB -]

As these "secular" sources are either irrelevant or bunk, all these xtians have for the claim of a historical Jesus is the gospels, as the epistles are too vague for anything approaching proof. If the gospels are bunk, then there is no question of the fictional nature of Jesus, and debunking the Gospels are so easy that no xtian can read the following material and keep their faith, let alone the absurd claim that Jesus wasn’t as unhistorical as Krishna or Zeus.

 

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm#CONTENTS

 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/FlavianT.htm

 

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

[triv]

I'll get to Rook when I have time, for the smaller posts:

 

The fact is that The Messiah was supposed to usher in the end times when he came....not years, decades, or thousands of years later. He was supposed to directly teach everyone.

Theres no problem here Jesus did user in the end times, we live in it. The time after Jesus' death and ressurection and before the second coming = end times. Does not equal the "end of time". End times, plural. = no test failed

 

about the rastafarians, I don't know what you are talking about.

 

ok I started this reply before I noticed the second page, wow. more later its 2 in the morning.

[Celsus]

Triv, perhaps you do not understand what the word contemporaneous means. There were plenty of writers alive in the area where Jesus supposedly lived (Philo of Alexandrea, for instance) and none even mentioned him, his ministry or the miracles. All of the references which you give that are not questioned as to their valdiity are 150 - 300 years after the supposed life of Jesus. As to the "Testimonium Flavium"; the entire paragraph is suspected of being a much later redaction by Esubius in the 4th century. Origen and other Christian apologists in the 2nd century specifically state that Josephus did not mention Jesus at all. Suddenly in the 4th century, Esubius "finds" a copy with the remarkable statements about Jesus. Esubius is regarded by even Christian historians as a person who engaged in what is now called "Pious Fraud", in that he created and redacted documents to substantiate theological positions and a letter from him admitting to this methodology still exists. The remainder of the sources you quote do not address the validity of Jesus' existence, but only validate that Christians existed and briefly describe their belief system and some are stretches to tie them with Christianity, such as the letter of Tacitus.

 

Bruce

[SmallStone]

about the rastafarians, I don't know what you are talking about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try again after you've had some rest.

[Kryten]

Triv,

Please put on your thinking cap for a few minutes and go back and read a few replies on this thread. Especially Karl and Bruce (-no offense to the others).

And you really ought to follow the link to Rook-- it should be an eye-opener for you.

The main point you are MISSING is that NONE of the people YOU REFERRENCED lived during the time of Gospel Jesus!! How can they possibly be eye-witnesses to anything??? Can you write about FDR or Santa and convey what impact they had on society or your life?? FDR maybe, because there is evidence about his life and works via books, public records, film, and older folks who actually were alive at the time. But it's still second-hand information if it comes from YOU.

What about Santa? We have lots of information documented in songs, books, oral tradition, and some movies and cartoons, but you still are not a contemporary of his. You may know some of the details of his life, but you were not there when he was alive, so anything you have to say about him is second-hand.

 

Do you see the problem here??

[triv]

First thing is that I am not arguing that any corroborating material is meant to prove that Jesus was Lord. These writers were not Christian, that is why they did not spend a lot of time talking about Jesus except for the fact that he had stirred things up. If they actually had thought Jesus was Lord, then they would be Christians and would have written more. It doesn't matter if they were eyewitnesses of any events of Jesus, they are not attesting to his divinity. They are writing more on stuff they heard. Of course this is presupposing that they are not completely forged but I will look more into that.

 

I think its the Scriptures themselves that are more proof for Jesus thatn the corroborating material.

[SmallStone]

Ok Triv, I'm glad we got that out of the way. Now that we agree that the contemporary non-xtian accounts of Jesus do not provide any reason whatsoever to actually believe that Jesus was the son of god, I put my answer to your original question to you again.

 

Assuming an historical Jesus of course, I'd say the fiction begins at the moment when the claims about Jesus' life go from being tales of an average first century guy to being tales of the son of god and miracles. Isn't the claim of the extraordinary usually the difference that separates myth and reality?

 

And my companion question:

 

If David Koresh wasn't god, who was he?

 

Your thoughts Triv?

[Kryten]

First thing is that I am not arguing that any corroborating material is meant to prove that Jesus was Lord.  These writers were not Christian, that is why they did not spend a lot of time talking about Jesus except for the fact that he had stirred things up.  If they actually had thought Jesus was Lord, then they would be Christians and would have written more.  It doesn't matter if they were eyewitnesses of any events of Jesus, they are not attesting to his divinity.  They are writing more on stuff they heard.  Of course this is presupposing that they are not completely forged but I will look more into that. 

 

I think its the Scriptures themselves that are more proof for Jesus thatn the corroborating material.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But consider: if Jesus was the most important person to ever live, and he was God or the one-and-only-son-of-God, and performed many miracles, and HAD AN EFFECT on the people OF HIS TIME, why is there NOTHING written by those people who should have known him?? All you have are church writings that were combined into a "new testament canon" hundreds of years after the fact! There should be a mountain of secular (non-Christian) evidence that he actually lived, but there is none. Not Josephus, not Tacitus, not anyone. Take the time and read the thread by Rook Hawkins (I assume it's the "secular evidence" thread), and see for yourself.

 

Read this essay by Richard Carrier on how Christianity started.

30 years ago I was where you are now, but I didn't have the chance to read up on any of the claims made by the church-- such as "there is more evidence that Jesus lived than George Washington". I would have had to go to a library to find out about the history of the NT books or church history. You have an opportunity to find out for yourself and not listen just to the people who roped you.

(BTW, If you read anything from JP Holding, notice he never allows anyone to challenge him on his site? Click here for the debunking of his crap.)

 

The bible is FULL of obvious errors and contradictions, and there IS NO evidence that Gospel Jesus ever lived, so just what are you basing your faith on? Traditions of men? Tales your parents taught you? Miracles? Benny Hinn?? This isn't about "being hurt" by the church, it's about discovering the truth and refusing to follow along like good sheep.

 

Save yourself a few years of tithing and mental anguish-- do some reading and think for yourself. You can come here for support along the way.

[Ouroboros]

But consider: if Jesus was the most important person to ever live, and he was God or the one-and-only-son-of-God, and performed many miracles, and HAD AN EFFECT on the people OF HIS TIME,  why is there NOTHING written by those people who should have known him??

 

Yes, preach it brother! Well said.

 

The bible is FULL of obvious errors and contradictions, and there IS NO evidence that Gospel Jesus ever lived, so just what are you basing your faith on?  Traditions of men?  Tales your parents taught you?  Miracles? Benny Hinn??

 

 

I personally think Benny Hill is funnier.

 

 

[Kryten]

Yes, preach it brother! Well said.

I personally think Benny Hill is funnier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I saw that Benny Hinn had a DVD set out, so I bought it for my fundamentalist girlfriend. It was entitled "The Early Naughty Years". You know, I may not have read the cover correctly...

[IAm_Lucifer]

What about these?

 

Tacitus (AD 55-120) - Annals

Suetonius (AD 120) - Life of Claudius

Josephus (AD 37 - 97) - Antiquities

Pliny the Younger (AD 112) - Epistles X

Thallus (AD 52) - Histories

Mara Bar-Serapion (AD 73)

Phlegon (AD 80)

and more

 

What about them? Look at the dates you placed next to each "historian". Josephus is the only one who could have possibly come into contact with Jesus. However Josephus is the worst source you could ever use. For the first one hundred years following his death not one Christian mentioned this passage to prove their religion, even though they used other things he wrote. It wasn't until Eusabius (one hundred years later) that this passage somehow appeared in Josephus' work. Eusabius is a confessed liar for the faith. He made it very clear that it was okay to lie to get others to believe the bible.

 

I just want to add that Pliny was a poet. His work did not mention Jesus. He was actually making fun of Christians.

 

Again, that was not my question.  I want to know how Jesus became legendary.

 

I think this one is obvious.

[Ouroboros]

Jesus died in 33 a.d, right? If I'm wrong please correct me.

 

Allegedly he died around 33 years old, so depending on when he was born, the date will be unknown. Besides there are some theories that Jesus was another guy that maybe lived even earlier and could have died as late as 70 CE.

 

Only Bob Almighty knows.

[spamandham]

The fact that there was a man named Jesus in the first century who stirred up some controversy is not debated too much anymore among historians.  That's not what I'm worried about. 

 

There could not have been a Jesus of Nazareth in the first century, because there was no city of Nazareth in the first century.

 

'Nazorean' was a transliteration of 'Nazarite', with the fictional city of Nazareth assumed to exist by the ignorant writers.

 

This proves several things. First, any writer who refers to "Jesus of Nazareth" is writing a book of fiction. Second, anyone who used the term 'Nazorean' was not a Jew properly trained in Aramaic or in the Old Testament. Third, they obvioulsy never met Jesus or they would have known he was not from the fictional city of Nazareth, even if they thought such a city existed.

 

None of the links you provided are relevant, as none of these ancient sources knew Jesus personally. They were simply recording what they had heard, the same as all of the New Testament. Evidence such as that is called hearsay, and is taken with a grain of salt.

[scepticjoe]

Where did Jesus get his reputation from?

 

The fact that there was a man named Jesus in the first century who stirred up some controversy is not debated too much anymore among historians.  That's not what I'm worried about.  The question I have is that who made him into what he is in the Bible?  Was he a very good deciever and tricked people into believing his lies?  Did his followers make up all the stories?  Or was it the later church that deified him?

 

I just want to know the nonchristian/exchristian argument for where the break between the historical Jesus and the real Jesus happened.  Also, who was Jesus if he wasn't God?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When I read the New Testament, there are some things I don't believe happened, like the miracles. There are some things I think did happen, like Caesar Augustus was emperor. For many things, it is hard to tell if they happened or not.

 

My best guess is that Jesus did exist and was executed. After he died, people made up stories that he had died for our sins, that he was the son of God, and that he was a god himself. These are probably not things he had ever claimed. Most of the stories about him in the Bible are probably made up later, although some of them may be true.

 

We don't know who wrote the gospels or where they wrote them. (The authors' names appear to have beeen added later.) I suspect they were written far from Judea by Greek speakers who had never meet an eyewitness. Other folks wrote other contradictory Gospels. The Proto-orthodox accused the Marcionites of altering the scriptures. The Marcionites accused the Proto-orthodox of altering the scriptures. The Ebionites accused Paul of being a heretic.

 

(Some atheists claim that Jesus didn't exist at all. They may be right. I speculate he did exist. The simplest explanation of the Jesus myth is that Christians deified a dead leader. People were always deifying dead leaders in those days.)

[chefranden]

What about them? Look at the dates you placed next to each "historian". Josephus is the only one who could have possibly come into contact with Jesus. However Josephus is the worst source you could ever use. For the first one hundred years following his death not one Christian mentioned this passage to prove their religion, even though they used other things he wrote. It wasn't until Eusabius (one hundred years later) that this passage somehow appeared in Josephus' work. Eusabius is a confessed liar for the faith. He made it very clear that it was okay to lie to get others to believe the bible.

 

I just want to add that Pliny was a poet. His work did not mention Jesus. He was actually making fun of Christians. 

I think this one is obvious.

 

Just a small correction: Eusebius did most of his work from about 300CE to 339CE -- three hundred years later.

[-Demona-]

Re: "Jesus of Nazareth" name.

 

"Nazareth" could also be an alteration of the word "Nasarene". The Nasarenes were an order of the Essene Jews, and the Essene Jews have their own stories about a crucified teacher.... 100 years or more before the alleged time of the Jesus that Christians worship.

 

In other words, if he existed at all, he probably was a very human rabbi of the Essene tradition of Judiasm who was killed for his radical teachings, and the miracles and supernatural aspects of the story were attributed to him centuries after the fact.

[- AUB -]

scepticjoe

 

(Some atheists claim that Jesus didn't exist at all. They may be right. I speculate he did exist. The simplest explanation of the Jesus myth is that Christians deified a dead leader. People were always deifying dead leaders in those days.)

 

This was my opinion for a long time, as it does seem simple, however you have to base your position on evidence, not what "makes sense" as that may be a fault of your thinking. The issue of jesus's historicity is my main project right now, and the primary reason that he could not have been a deified martyred leader (even though this was very common practice) is because this was a "post-modern" religion. Not one based on a real leader, deified by fanatical followers in denial, but based on other cults founded by a real leader, deified by fanatical followers etc. Paul (or whoever) just skipped the whole martyred leader bit (maybe because he'd probably have to do it himself) and just combined previous ones, as there was so many, and created that weird amalgamated theology, that even today puzzles Jews and rationalists as to how such a mixture could have arisen. But one thing is clear, the theology came first, then the "history" as this is what both the empirical and theological data tells us.

 

The historical illusion is generated by the gospels, and is a hard habit to drop, as it's ingrained in everyone in the West. As they are just as much a derivative amalgamation as Paul’s gibberish they clearly were also made up to serve the political ambitions and doctrinal aims of certain groups, they disagree on peripheral and even basic doctrines, and each serve a particular church's agenda. Also the "historical" Jesus was only believed by certain denominations, and was as much a contested idea as the trinity or physical resurrection. Its an offshoot of vague (and very open to multiple interpretation) Pauline dogma, a cousin to the purely spiritual Jesus branch (which died early), which in turn split into various views on the exact nature of his divinity and resurrection, (and just how much blame the Jews should get) and even how virgin was the virgin Mary.

 

You read Paul now and conclude that the Jesus, death and resurrection he ambiguously refers to is the one in the gospels, but he could not have had them in mind, as they were yet to be invented, we just get it in the wrong order. The later epistles confirm the gospels as they were written later, but backdated to Paul’s time, like the gospels were backdated to before Paul. (The O.T. writers also did this, alot)) Don’t take anything for granted with the N.T., you need to look past the facade, and see what they don’t want you to, with no bias, assumption or superficial observation. So many ex-xtains still buy part of the lie, even when they lose the rest, making the truth harder to find.

 

The xtians would have you believe there was a universal consensus on his existence, (as well as his divinity) from the start and use the rapid rise in membership as proof, however not only was there no agreement even on his historicity, but the membership was very low for the 1st couple of centuries, and even Constantine's bribes didn't cause too much of a rise. (The pagans though it was irrational and morally inferior, funny that.) If there was no actual Jesus, that would explain the late appearance of the "testimonies" to that effect as they had to wait for his alleged "contemporaries" to die off, and there was certainly those who disagreed with the claims either way, hence the low numbers, no apostles, witnesses, or evidence, just a bunch of contradictory claims, from different camps. There was a lot of opposition by the rationalists and Jews who questioned the whole thing, and Celsus pointed out the same flaws in the cult that we notice today, (they burnt all his books) so with the silence of the critics, the re-writing of its past, any claim that there had to have been a historical Jesus fails. A study of the true circumstances of xtianity’s beginnings, although difficult, given how much they erased of their “heroic” past, reveals precisely the pattern we’d expect if there was simply a offshoot claiming a historical interpretation of Paul who out fought all other views. For xtains to turn around now and say it was always believed thus is just a lie built on ignorance.

 

Included are two graphs, the 1st show the difference between the rise in xtianity dictated by mythology and dogma, the other the more accurate approximation, showing the historical claim needed time to be excepted. With no actual witnesses, contemporary followers or miraculous apostles it took political change to improve things.

 

 

The second is a very rough diagram showing the development of the Jesus myth, it’s simplified, leaving out the various different groups that held each view, and the many other differences of opinion. The gospels were written between 74-170ce and where designed to take out the other denominations, such as the Gnostics. As you can see each branch eventually died, leaving our current orthodoxy, (survival of the "fittest") it embraced the most “historical” and material view of Jesus, and continued to elevate his status far beyond the others.

 

 

Any questions?

[scepticjoe]

scepticjoe

 

Any questions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What you write is very interesting. Do you have any references I could read?

 

I tend to think of the Ebionites as forerunners of Paul, and they believed in a adoptionist Christ. That would suggest that Christ predates Paul. Where do you place the Ebionites in your scheme? Are they identical to the Nazarenes and/or Judaizers? Could the name Jesus/Joshua be based on a dead Nazarene?

[triv]

Well I got some resources for corroborative materials for Jesus. I'll be reading those and comparing them to Rook so I can give a thought out response.