Examining Proof Of Jesus

[KT45]

Hi everyone. I recently posted a video on youtube that questions the validity of people like Josephus. My main point is that they can't be proof for a historical Jesus since they didn't see him. You can see it here

 

Now I want to examine more of the evidence for Jesus existing. Not to refute it, but to just to see what is out there. I'm trying to compile a list so I looked a wikipedia for sources. Here is what I have so far

 

(all evidence is examined based off the claim that Jesus died 33 C.E.)

 

1. Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), wrote about Jesus in the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 CE

 

60 years after Jesus' Death

 

2. Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Christ.

 

83 years after Jesus' Death

 

3. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (c. 69–140) wrote about Jesus in 112

 

79 years after Jesus' Death

 

4. Gospel of Mark dated early 60s and 70s

 

27 years after Jesus' Death

 

5. Paul of Tarsus, who wrote letters to various churches and individuals from c. 48-68. Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus' life

 

15 years after Jesus' death. Never saw Jesus except in visions

 

6. Gospel of Thomas contains a list of sayings attributed to Jesus. Written 50 CE

 

17 years after Jesus' Death, not accepted as offical chruch doctrine

 

Okay from here the evidence seems kinda weak. It's not like it would be hard to get hold of a scribe at least within a year or two after Jesus' death. But 15 years difference!! Is this really the best evidence out there? Please list more if you can because all this evidence shows me is that the early christians were around during that time and these people wrote what they believed.

[garrisonjj]

Hi everyone. I recently posted a video on youtube that questions the validity of people like Josephus. My main point is that they can't be proof for a historical Jesus since they didn't see him. You can see it here

 

Now I want to examine more of the

 

Is it possible this was all made up? Was there any eyewitness of Jesus recorded? An interview with Barbara Walters maybe?

[KT45]

Okay here is a better list

 

Now I want to examine more of the evidence for Jesus existing. Not to refute it, but to just to see what is out there. I'm trying to compile a list so I looked a wikipedia for sources. Here is what I have so far

 

(all evidence is examined based off the claim that Jesus died 33 C.E.)

 

Evidence for Jesus Christ

 

1. Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), wrote about Jesus in the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 CE

 

60 years after Jesus' Death

 

2. Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and Christ.

 

83 years after Jesus' Death

 

3. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (c. 69–140) wrote about Jesus in 112

 

79 years after Jesus' Death

 

4. Gospel of Mark dated early 60s and 70s

 

27 years after Jesus' Death

 

5. Paul of Tarsus, who wrote letters to various churches and individuals from c. 48-68. (1 Cor)

 

15 years after Jesus' death. Never saw Jesus except in visions

 

6. Didache, anonymous instructional text; written c. AD 50–120.

 

17 years after Jesus' Death, not accepted as offical chruch doctrine

 

7. Saint Ignatius of Antioch (born around AD 35 and martyred between AD 98 - AD 117) wrote about Christ

 

born 2 years after christ death

 

8. 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 states that there were 500 witness' to Jesus' ascension

 

9. Historical characters (Pontius Pilate, Tiberius Caesar Augustus, and Herod)

 

Things to note

 

•The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

 

•historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy.

 

•When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.

 

 

So is there any other proofs christians try to bring up?

[nick5]

It is extremely likely that the part where Josephus speaks of jesus wasn't actually written by him, but was added at a later time to his writing by someone else, one of the people who was copying them.

[mwc]

•The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

This same line of reasoning holds true with the Quran. Are the followers of Islam superior in all things memory related? Just because you're trained to remember your holy text does not mean you will remember all things better. The disciples, in the stories, don't seem to be aware that they were to memorize anything. They didn't even understand jesus was going to die even when he plainly stated it. This line of reasoning is more of a red herring.

 

Now, the scribes of the day (and now), were quite good at making copies. So once it was down on paper they would do a good job of preserving it. Did the non-Jewish scribes do as good of jobs? It doesn't appear so based on some of the fragments but we really can't say.

 

•historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy.

This is true. There is also some contemporary evidence to back up their claims though. Others have better knowledge of Alexander than I do so hopefully they'll respond.

 

•When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.

I've not read his work but if I understand what is being said then it would assume the legend started at some point, say in the thirties, and then snowballed and by later that century it grew into the phenomenon we know of. Is this close?

 

I've proposed my own theory and that is that the gospel (the stories or legends but not the final forms per se) started after the fall of the temple in the seventies but were designed to look as if they came from the thirties. That god had sent a prophet to the (grand)fathers of those in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and they killed him and this was their punishment. A new story designed to look old. A "prophecy" ignored. Now these people use fear to sell their religion in the rubble. As people leave Judea this version of xianity is carried with them (which is the rapid expansion at the end of the century but the silence at the middle). The story is revised over time until it is written down by various sects and comes to us today.

 

So is there any other proofs christians try to bring up?

This all depends what you consider proof. www.earlychristianwritings.com is a good source. All the early church fathers, such as Papias, would be a proof since he claims to have known folks involved in the early movement. Documents like the Gospel of Peter could be a proof depending on how you date it. Some date it earlier than G.Mark but it reads like it's quite a bit later.

 

mwc

 

P.S. Way off topic but I tried and couldn't find that Lilith stuff. Sorry.

[Amanda]

Now I want to examine more of the evidence for Jesus existing. Not to refute it, but to just to see what is out there.

 

Taylork45, it seems absolutely evident, our popular belief in the West concerning a person attributed to being "Jesus" did not exist. However, did a man "Jesus," whom we can research via the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, have existed? I think very much so! Yet, in the perpetual recounting of his life, it probably evolved much the same way as St. Nicholas to Santa Claus. Yes, there was a man named St. Nicholas, that was a very meaningful and endearing person, IMO, that has been turned into something that didn't/doesn't exist, Santa Claus.

 

"Jesus" was probably just a normal man, teaching a message, as many did. He was likely a social revolutionist in revising the way they perceived and evaluated value amongst mankind. I think the status quo were outraged, of these new ideas causing the erosion of their foundations to priviledge and power. He became referenced, by them, as just another blasphemist anarchist and eventually eliminated to suppress any change in their current balance of power. There were probably loads of people with efforts in this direction, but this person was different... in that he asserted peaceful means. I'm sure, a joke to most in those days especially. Just another person... however, as time went on, these teachings became more meaningful, to inspirational, to self empowering for the struggling society. The status quo still attempting to protect their positions, inacted laws for anyone following these heretical ideas were to be killed and all literature distroyed. There were no printing presses, nor packs of paper to buy at the convenience store, nor typewriters, nor newspapers, nor websites, so the literature was probably easily distroyed, with time being on their side for distruction of primary resources. It seems to me, once the status quo realized they couldn't suppress these teachings any longer, they cunningly twisted them to con support for their own agendas, now using them to keep the status quo just as they wanted.

 

My great grandmother was a full blooded Cherokee Indian, born in her home. We have no records of her existence... none. She did leave offspring to offer proof of her being a real person, yet no one even wrote about her. We have no letters, no documents, nothing... and it has always been legal and non life threatening to do so. Just because there are no primary resources dating back 2000 years ago does not necessarilly discount entirely the existence of a person that was said to have no offspring... or if he did, dangerous for those children to admit it. Today we are considered even more civilized and open minded, and consider the ushering in of ideas by Madeline O'Hare, the fear of the intial movement supporting her, and what eventually happened to her and her children... Fortunately with modern means of recording and communication, more acceptable tolerance levels, she can still be found... barely.

[Dhampir]

smile.gif Taylork45, it seems absolutely evident, our popular belief in the West concerning a person attributed to being "Jesus" did not exist. However, did a man "Jesus," whom we can research via the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, have existed?

Possibly, but not very likely. One thing I never considered until recently, is the fact that the accounts of the new testament were entirely fictional, but were created to house a story based on actual events.

 

What I mean is, a lot of the mundane events of the christ story could have happened, but not necessarily at the same time (year, decade, or even century), and there could have been a man who fit the mundane description of Jesus (intinerant preacher with a radical message, followers, and what not), or there could have, and most likely were, multiple people from no more recently than a few decades before the events of the new testament are said to have happened.

 

That these events did not occur consequently or even in the chronological order of the gospels, and that this Jesus might have been ten people, and that the events that the fiction of the gospels depict were based *loosely* on events that probably happened a century or more earlier, easily explains how there were martyrs in the first century C.E. It also explains how Paul didn't seem to know of Jesus' earthly life, or his ministry.

 

Then of course, there are the similarities of tone that the gospels bear with pagan myths, such as the obvious (virgin born son of god, savior of the world, etc.), and the not so obvious (correlations between celestial events and the occurrences in the narrative). If there was a factual Jesus, he's buried under so much tripe that it's really just pointless to bother looking.

[KT45]

Taylork45, it seems absolutely evident, our popular belief in the West concerning a person attributed to being "Jesus" did not exist. However, did a man "Jesus," whom we can research via the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, have existed? I think very much so!

Yeah its possible. But still I want to examine all the evidence since I've been accused of not doing so since I don't believe he existed. So I want evidence, even the minute details that could possible lead to proof of Jesus.

 

Oh yeah and if there really was a man name Jesus that was crucified, I can just hear the christians now. "If he didn't ascend, where's the body?!! All you need to do is find the body!! BODY BODY BODY!!!!"

[KT45]

Since I'm not getting very many comments I'll also post evidence against Jesus. What on the list should be thrown out? What can be added?

 

Evidence against Jesus

 

1. Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

 

2. Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers

 

3. Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

 

4. Mystery Religions

 

5. How did gospel writers know about Jesus’ birth if they weren’t born?

 

6. herod has a conversation in his palace. How did gospel writers know what herod was talking about if they weren’t there

 

7. Who was eyewitness to Jesus’ temptation

 

8. Who wrote about Judas’ conversation with Pharaisees’ if no eyewitness

 

9. How did gospel writers know what Jesus was saying during Jesus’ prayer on garden if gospel writers were sleeping?

 

10. How does writers know what the pontious pilate and pharaisees’ were talking about if no disciples to witness it?

11. How did writers know what happened with the conversation between the king and queen who wanted the head of John the baptist

 

12. Disciples never witnessed Judas death so how did they know it?

 

13. Written like a story, not like history

 

14. Mark mentions destruction of jewish temple which happened in 70 CE

 

15. King Herod died 4 BCE so how can he try to put him to death as a child?

 

Things to note

 

• Many Christian apologists attempt to extricate themselves from their lack of evidence by claiming that if we cannot rely on the post chronicle exegesis of Jesus, then we cannot establish a historical foundation for other figures such as Alexander the Great…Alexander, for example, left a wake of destroyed and created cities behind. We have buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E.

 

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

• consider that the average life span of humans in the first century came to around 30, and very few people lived to 70. This shows that most people weren't alive long enough after jesus' supposed death to comment on it.

 

• Homer's Odyssey, for example, describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately

[Amanda]

It also explains how Paul didn't seem to know of Jesus' earthly life, or his ministry.

 

Then of course, there are the similarities of tone that the gospels bear with pagan myths, such as the obvious (virgin born son of god, savior of the world, etc.), and the not so obvious (correlations between celestial events and the occurrences in the narrative). If there was a factual Jesus, he's buried under so much tripe that it's really just pointless to bother looking.

 

Dhampir, Paul seems to have known Peter and debated specifics of his Jesus teachings.

 

I think there is enormous myths compiled onto the story of Jesus. It is plausable that many people got compiled into one character. I understand it was common in that time to be considered the son of a God. Ceasar considered himself to be the son of Apollo. There is an Egyptian God called Amen... and in Jesus name we pray, Amen.

 

Yep, there's a lot of 'tripe' to dig through... but I have found some incredible messages directly from the manuscript from which the KJV was taken. No magic tricks though. It seems evident to me that these teachings have been run away with such incredible twists and turns, IMO, no one of the initial movement would even begin to recognize it.

 

Yeah its possible. But still I want to examine all the evidence since I've been accused of not doing so since I don't believe he existed. So I want evidence, even the minute details that could possible lead to proof of Jesus.

 

Oh yeah and if there really was a man name Jesus that was crucified, I can just hear the christians now. "If he didn't ascend, where's the body?!! All you need to do is find the body!! BODY BODY BODY!!!!"

 

Taylork, there is some controversial evidence that Jesus was in India. There is a book called The Lost Years of Jesus and some info on it here that seems to offer 'evidence' that Jesus was in India for a period of time. This evidence has become very controversial, but I think it was mainly because of the Christians trying to negate Buddhism associated to Jesus. I, amongst many, think that Jesus would be considered more Buddhist than any other religion of today. Anyway, IMO, the Christians trying to contradict the evidence of Jesus being in India may have ruined siting the one resource validating Jesus even existed.

 

Another new site I found here may also provide some insights of his visit to India.

 

On the other hand, it seems that it was also common to say that someone had come to their location when it was just their message that had come. So it could be that only his teachings had arrived there, and they said it was him. I personally am inclined to believe he was there.

 

More info, including other sources that you did not list, here, however, the earliest resource was born 37ACE... after the death of Jesus.

 

Taylork, didn't you know that every body we can't find ascended directly to heaven?

[mwc]

1. Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

This behavior is within the realm of possibility for what we know of Herod the Great.

 

The town of Bethlehem is estimated to have been small enough for that period that less than 20, perhaps even 10, children would have been killed making the tragedy much less so (when compared to the large numbers this even normally evokes).

 

Three events come to mind in relation to Herod that were probably used to create this fourth one, however. 1) Herod killed all the male heirs that could challenge his throne. 2) He killed his own children that could challenge his throne. 3) He ordered the deaths (by strangulation...seemingly his preferred method) of about 300(?) rebellious/traitorous towns people. These things were all written about by Josephus.

 

2. Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers

The ninth hour was when the passover sacrifice was to be prepared. This is purely for analogy. There are some ecliptic events but they occur in the wrong areas or dates. No non-supernatural event can occur this long. It was for effect only (and to "fulfill" OT prophecy).

 

3. Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

I'm not surprised that some of these would have never written of jesus even if he were real. But the silence of folks like Philo does raise an eyebrow. Silence is a tough place to argue from though.

 

4. Mystery Religions

What about them? Xianity was one of many.

 

5. How did gospel writers know about Jesus’ birth if they weren’t born?

This depends on your beliefs. They could have asked Mary/Joseph or any of jesus' other relatives who could have heard the story. They could have been told by the "spirit" (if we allow the supernatural). This also answers how they knew of all the things that went on behind closed doors. It's a huge cheat in many places, like conversations between only Pilate/jesus, or the Sanhedrin.

 

6. herod has a conversation in his palace. How did gospel writers know what herod was talking about if they weren’t there

 

7. Who was eyewitness to Jesus’ temptation

 

8. Who wrote about Judas’ conversation with Pharaisees’ if no eyewitness

 

9. How did gospel writers know what Jesus was saying during Jesus’ prayer on garden if gospel writers were sleeping?

 

10. How does writers know what the pontious pilate and pharaisees’ were talking about if no disciples to witness it?

11. How did writers know what happened with the conversation between the king and queen who wanted the head of John the baptist

 

12. Disciples never witnessed Judas death so how did they know it?

See my above answer.

 

In addition, Josephus knew people from Herod's (not just the Great, but many other of the Herod's) courts and that's supposedly how he got his information. They could have had similar sources or maybe they knew Jospephus (or more likely read his books).

 

13. Written like a story, not like history

They're referred to as historical narratives.

 

14. Mark mentions destruction of jewish temple which happened in 70 CE

That's not allowed? It's either prophecy or written after the fact. Believers think it's prophecy of course.

 

15. King Herod died 4 BCE so how can he try to put him to death as a child?

The great time line debate. Herod could have died as late as 1 BCE but 4 BCE is the best date based on all the evidence. Then it's just a matter of squaring up that pesky census. Was it the 8 BCE lustrum census or the 6 CE census? All signs point to the 6 CE census but now jesus can't be born since the 8 BCE census only applied to Roman citizens (to count them for voting status/rights). In 6 CE the census applied only to Judea and not Galilee and in Judea no Herod ruled. It was the fact that no Herod ruled that allowed the census. So when the wise men went to Jerusalem there would be no ruling Herod, Great or otherwise, to speak with. No Herod to order any deaths of any babies because, even if a Herod was there, the Romans had already taken his kingdom away. Baby jesus was no threat.

 

It basically comes down to any 6 CE birth has a jesus born into a situation where there is no Herod ruling Judea and so he is no threat to anyone. The earlier census was for Roman citizens only BUT it's the ONLY one that makes the story in Matthew even begin to work so it's the one that HAS to be make to work at all costs despite the fact it ruins the Lukan nativity time line AND it makes jesus too old in relation to John the Baptist later on in the story (messing up that end of the time line).

 

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

While true I'd like to see this dropped. I think this story doesn't even stand up to ordinary evidence. Just keep lowering the bar on this wild tale. They claim some amazing thing happened, well, rather than expect amazing evidence in return expect something mundane. To date they haven't even produced that. Extraordinary just seems to bolster their claims that something extraordinary did happen.

 

mwc

[KT45]

LOL you killed most of the arguments from atheistic websites that I brought up. So you think that Herod dying in 4BCE is the only good argument against possiblity Jesus figure?

[Amanda]

5. How did gospel writers know about Jesus’ birth if they weren’t born?

This depends on your beliefs. They could have asked Mary/Joseph or any of jesus' other relatives who could have heard the story. They could have been told by the "spirit" (if we allow the supernatural). This also answers how they knew of all the things that went on behind closed doors. It's a huge cheat in many places, like conversations between only Pilate/jesus, or the Sanhedrin.

MWC, great post! You seem well informed. Do you know of any proof of Mary and Joseph's existence? How about the twelve disciples? Just curious, if you know.

[Zetetic]

I often hear Christians claim that some of the people who wrote about Jesus wrote at a time when there were people who were alive when Jesus supposedly lived. They claim that these people would have objected to the things they wrote.

 

But of course they ignore the fact that it's very unlikely that any of those people's objections would have made it into print and, if they did, it's very unlikely that it would have been widely circulated and, if it was, it's very unlikely that it would have survived the periods during the early church when the "church fathers" were destroying all heretical documents.

 

Of course it all depends on what level of "proof" you're willing to accept. If somebody tells me that they have a letter from some guy named Joe Bloe who existed in 1786 and performed a miracle, I'll say "Ok, that's nice". But if they then tell me that I should believe in him and worship him or I'm going to hell, I would tell them to go to hell unless they have a heck of a lot better evidence than that!

 

I actually have friends who believe that Tibetan monks who are still alive TODAY, levitate when they're meditating. And this is despite videos that show that these monks hopping around in the lotus position, not levitating!

[mwc]

LOL you killed most of the arguments from atheistic websites that I brought up. So you think that Herod dying in 4BCE is the only good argument against possiblity Jesus figure?

I just find that many of the arguments are weak...and this coming from a person who is a thinks jesus is a myth. I think the time line is about the strongest line of reasoning there is when taken along with the errors in the gospels (the nativity contradictions and the like) and various issues like Nazareth in the early 1st century being a pasture/cemetery (down the road it was a Gentile town) later Jews moved into the region to repopulate it.

 

Then you have Josephus mentioning, something like six Jesus' in his works. Some of which have traits of the one we know. Also, Judas the Galilean, who stirred up trouble in 6AD in the tax riots has a story that is familiar as well. Lots of trouble coming from the Galilean region during that time so is it any wonder our band of heroes are based up there?

 

Taking all of these types of things severely impact the validity of the story. It doesn't kill it entirely. There could have been just another group of people running around causing problems and then the survivors built the story up after he got killed. The thing is there are so many bits and pieces taken from here and there that even if there was a real person behind all of this that he is lost forever. These stories now speak of someone else entirely. Their desire to make him bigger and better has actually erased him from history. A new creation has been raised up in his place.

 

However, as I said, I tend to believe that whoever was behind all of this simply borrowed familiar traits from powerful leaders of their day and formed together a person of their own. It's like what I said above but without the central figure to start with. I think after the fall of the temple that many were left searching and this was their solution (which is why the different theologies exist so early on...they were in close contact with one another but not in complete agreement).

 

Of course, Judas, the betrayer is because of Judas the Galilean, who betrayed Judea in the tax revolts and brought down this judgment on everyone. His family was involved up until the end of the temple according to Josephus.

 

Anyhow, the time line that we know also needs jesus to die at a certain date but (and I'll have this verified before long...I need to learn to better use some astronomy software so I can pinpoint the Passovers during the 10 years of Pilate) if Jospehus is correct then the best date I can find for jesus to die is 36 CE despite what people try to argue. This makes it too late according to the other parts of the story. John the Baptist would be too old. Jesus would be too old. It really messes up the whole thing if he's born prior to 4 BCE and dies in 36 CE.

 

mwc

[mwc]

MWC, great post! You seem well informed. Do you know of any proof of Mary and Joseph's existence? How about the twelve disciples? Just curious, if you know.

Thanks.

 

There is no evidence for the existence of any of the characters you mention outside of the bible (or related non-canonical works).

 

There are things in Nazareth relating to Mary and things in Rome relating to Peter and Paul but these items came centuries later when Constantine's mother went on a search for relics. Prior to this these items were unknown. All the relics relating to all these people came long after the fact (and many of them had the ability to magically duplicate themselves).

 

Even the early church fathers had no ideas about some of these people. I've mentioned it in other threads that Judas was thought to have grown as large as a chariot and then ran over by a chariot. That was his death. Jesus was thought to have lived to be quite old by others. Paul dies in Rome but he also goes to the "west" (probably Spain) and dies at the hands of the governor there. And on and on.

 

The thing is that these same people claimed to know the presbyters, the disciples of the apostles so their information is about as good as you could get for the most part. That's as good as a "Mark" or a "Luke" in some cases but they tell quite different tales (and so are dismissed).

 

So while outside evidence of other principle characters (the Herod's, various Romans, ranking Jews, etc.) has been found that dates to the correct period, and time frame, there is nothing in any location, to date (that I am aware of), that can be said for the others in the story.

 

mwc

[Zetetic]

So while outside evidence of other principle characters (the Herod's, various Romans, ranking Jews, etc.) has been found that dates to the correct period, and time frame, there is nothing in any location, to date (that I am aware of), that can be said for the others in the story.

 

mwc

That's the thing that gets me is when Christians think that just because it mentions real people and places, it must be true. I always tell them to go read Paul Bunyan some time. I guess their criteria means that Paul Bunyan must have been real too.

[Ouroboros]

I guess their criteria means that Paul Bunyan must have been real too.

And Harry Potter... it does mention England and London.

[mwc]

What I mean is, a lot of the mundane events of the christ story could have happened, but not necessarily at the same time (year, decade, or even century), and there could have been a man who fit the mundane description of Jesus (intinerant preacher with a radical message, followers, and what not), or there could have, and most likely were, multiple people from no more recently than a few decades before the events of the new testament are said to have happened.

I didn't really notice this line until just now. This isn't to point a finger at you personally but to call attention to this idea.

 

There seems to be this general idea that jesus was a radical. That he taught ideas that were just so different from what everyone was used to hearing. This is simply not true. Not only do things like the Jesus Seminar tell us that roughly 80% of his ideas are "borrowed" but much of what he said was similar to modern Rabbinic Judaism (note the word "similar" and not "identical" so as not to confuse anyone). He also seems to include some of what little we know of the Essene sect, as well as some of an unnamed "fourth" school of thought that was based in the area of Galilee (although it was a bit on the violent side and his teachings did not include their violent aspects). But by and large he was a variation of what we believe to be a Pharisee. Unlike xians, you could disagree with other Pharisees and still be a Pharisee. Debate was a healthy part of their religion.

 

That these events did not occur consequently or even in the chronological order of the gospels, and that this Jesus might have been ten people, and that the events that the fiction of the gospels depict were based *loosely* on events that probably happened a century or more earlier, easily explains how there were martyrs in the first century C.E. It also explains how Paul didn't seem to know of Jesus' earthly life, or his ministry.

As for this bit here, what I wanted to say is that it is believed that the early stories were written in little sections (I want to call them "pericopes" but I could be mistaken). So these little stories were later "glued" together with a narrative and this narrative grew more elaborate over time. Look at G.Mark and look how the story works. There's a segment of "story" then a little "glue" then another "story" then more "glue" and so on.

 

The other gospels are a little more elaborate. I've even pointed out that G.Luke says right at the start of his book that others have tried organizing these stories before his attempt and now he's going to give it a try. I know people call him a historian/doctor but I still think he's simply an organizer/editor. There's no evidence that he's done anything more.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

What I mean is, a lot of the mundane events of the christ story could have happened, but not necessarily at the same time (year, decade, or even century), and there could have been a man who fit the mundane description of Jesus (intinerant preacher with a radical message, followers, and what not), or there could have, and most likely were, multiple people from no more recently than a few decades before the events of the new testament are said to have happened.

I didn't really notice this line until just now. This isn't to point a finger at you personally but to call attention to this idea.

 

There seems to be this general idea that jesus was a radical. That he taught ideas that were just so different from what everyone was used to hearing. This is simply not true. Not only do things like the Jesus Seminar tell us that roughly 80% of his ideas are "borrowed" but much of what he said was similar to modern Rabbinic Judaism (note the word "similar" and not "identical" so as not to confuse anyone). He also seems to include some of what little we know of the Essene sect, as well as some of an unnamed "fourth" school of thought that was based in the area of Galilee (although it was a bit on the violent side and his teachings did not include their violent aspects). But by and large he was a variation of what we believe to be a Pharisee. Unlike xians, you could disagree with other Pharisees and still be a Pharisee. Debate was a healthy part of their religion.

I'm really not as informed on this as you are, so I will ask why is it that Jesus was despised by the rulers, or priests, of Judaism? (If he actually was) He may not have been killed at all, but yet there seems to be a theme that he didn't care for the Pharisees and their strict interpretation of certain parts of the Torah. He was more about the intent it seems to me. More inward than outwardly looking.

 

The Essenes where the ones that seem to be radically opposed to the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

 

Maybe it was that he was more convincing to those that weren't used to hearing such things. What type of belief did the people hold that he was speaking to? Was it radical to them? Maybe it was too convincing to a lot of people that the dominate branch felt threatened by this movement?

 

I think what got him in trouble was trying to show them where in the Torah that others had claimed to be God. This was outright blasphemy to them. Claiming that God is in you and others is hard for the mind of a literalist believer to take. God is in a temple only, even though your "body is the temple of God". Go figure...

 

I know you can help me out here mwc.

[mwc]

I'm really not as informed on this as you are, so I will ask why is it that Jesus was despised by the rulers, or priests, of Judaism? (If he actually was) He may not have been killed at all, but yet there seems to be a theme that he didn't care for the Pharisees and their strict interpretation of certain parts of the Torah. He was more about the intent it seems to me. More inward than outwardly looking.

Well, I'm certainly no expert, but I'll give it a shot...

 

One problem when looking at the gospels is how jesus is represented. On one hand we have this loving, peaceful person and then, almost in the same sentence it seems, we have a very angry, warlike, person. This makes it difficult to nail down a specific "brand" of teaching in my opinion. So either we have a single teacher that is very mentally "unstable" or we have a number of people contributing to who this person really is (each author and/or sect is adding in their bias).

 

Having said that we can see where a single, unstable, person could get themselves into a lot of hot water. But, at the same time, this same sort of person is also unlikely to gather a large following before people realize that they are a bit "off." So, keeping on this path, that there was a central figure, that he did teach some of the teachings we know and that he had a following, there is a chance that he was killed. Josephus writes of a number of false Messiahs that head out into the "wilderness" to do some "miracle" (I'm really over-generalizing my case) and they were wiped out by the Roman leaders.

 

The Galileans were a real bother back then but reading the bible you'd never know that. They had a problem with, let's call them "terrorists" since that's a popular word nowadays, coming from that area, causing problems and going back. Since Rome didn't directly control that area (Herod did) they had the problem of the border getting in the way. This is why the story of Pilate sending jesus to Herod for punishment makes sense and was a good addition. Herod sends him back and Pilate and Herod are friends after that. We are supposed to know that prior to that it they have a strained relationship because of these "terror" groups (among other things). However, if Rome felt "threatened" at all they did not hesitate to kill off a messiah or anyone else (which is why all the waiting around and plotting in the gospels just doesn't ring entirely true when compared to the others that were done in for the same reasons).

 

It's 2000 years of vilifying the Jews that has caused us to overlook some of the history of the area but if we look at the history we can see what the author of each of the story has in mind for their readers by the assumptions they make.

 

Okay, so back to what you said. The Pharisees are often portrayed as very strict in their interpretation. We don't really know too much about them but what we do know actually shows them to be fairly liberal overall. The Sadducee interpretation was, on the other hand, quite strict. It had to do, depending on which source you read, whether or not you could have a written and oral interpretation/tradition or not. The Pharisees also believed in a "spirit" world (angels, resurrection, etc.) while the Sadducees apparently did not. The Sadducees seemed to be in power about the time jesus would have been alive but the popular view, by far, was closer to the Pharisee. Most people (meaning Jews) believed in a bodily resurrection at the end of time.

 

Therefore when jesus spoke of these things I just can't see how he really angered anyone. The Sanhedrin had a mix of all type of Jews and they argued over this all the time. As for calling them out, for example, when he said to them that they acted a certain way (that they put on rich lifestyle and so forth), well, the OT commands just that. I don't have the references handy but a high priest and those in the court have to live a certain lifestyle and can be killed if they don't. He should have known that.

 

The Essenes where the ones that seem to be radically opposed to the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

The Essenes, from what we know, were ran out of the temple at one point. The fragments I've read of their texts show that the believed their messiah would be a high priest and restore them to that place of power. So, assuming I'm not confusing things in my mind, they didn't like anything to do with the people in the temple since they felt them to be a corrupt system.

 

Maybe it was that he was more convincing to those that weren't used to hearing such things. What type of belief did the people hold that he was speaking to? Was it radical to them? Maybe it was too convincing to a lot of people that the dominate branch felt threatened by this movement?

The gospels like to say he spoke with authority. Compared to a scribe, that would have simply stood up and blandly "parroted" out the proper sets of versus from the writings, someone that spoke with a powerful voice and gestures would have been exciting to say the least. Someone that could have, and would have, been able to answer questions about what was being discussed would have been an interesting person to have around. The scribes, from what I've seen, were like drab recordings. They did the job but little more. An orator with a presence would certainly be a welcome change. I hate to make the comparison to Hitler, but he is very exciting to watch. I don't understand German but even though just watching him is quite interesting. His translated words are almost childish but ignoring that just imagine someone speaking with that level of intensity in these little towns. It would be a sight to see. I seriously doubt a jesus would be the quiet, passive, person the modern world portrays him to be.

 

If this type of person truly was on the move in the area. Teaching, nothing new or revolutionary, but simply what the people already knew and agreed with but in a powerful new way...he would be a threat. So let me say that again. The teachings themselves wasn't what was new...the method of teaching was. If this is the case, then he could gain a following because his message was already familiar and he was a cult of personality. He was the threat and not his teachings.

 

The teachings would exist without him. That's exactly why we can remove jesus from history and the teachings remain. Nothing really changes. If he originated these things then removing him would remove the teachings as well and it can be shown this wouldn't happen (by and large...some things would disappear but the things we take to heart like the "golden rule" for example would remain).

 

I think what got him in trouble was trying to show them where in the Torah that others had claimed to be God. This was outright blasphemy to them. Claiming that God is in you and others is hard for the mind of a literalist believer to take. God is in a temple only, even though your "body is the temple of God". Go figure...

This is a tricky one. Claiming to be the messiah was okay. Claiming to be the son of god was okay. Claiming god was your father was okay. He never actually says "I am god" that I am aware of. They weren't aware he had a meal where they ate his body and blood otherwise that wasn't okay. The turning over the tables of the money changers was about the only thing that was a problem but still probably not a death sentence (only the Romans could kill him at this time since the Jews lost that ability just prior to 30 CE I think...I believe the Talmud has this info but don't quote me on that).

 

The funny thing about saying that god is in the temple only or whatever is that this is like saying god is in the bible only. People put their god where it fits most comfortably.

 

I know you can help me out here mwc.

Well, that's a bit of pressure, but after a bit of wondering around on a few topics I hope I managed to actually answer your questions (and accurately since I didn't check my answers so hopefully others will correct any mistakes).

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

Thank you so much mwc!

 

My brain still needs a little more info if you don't mind.

 

This part here:

 

If this type of person truly was on the move in the area. Teaching, nothing new or revolutionary, but simply what the people already knew and agreed with but in a powerful new way...he would be a threat. So let me say that again. The teachings themselves wasn't what was new...the method of teaching was. If this is the case, then he could gain a following because his message was already familiar and he was a cult of personality. He was the threat and not his teachings.

Who would view this as a threat? I mean, if he was already teaching what was believed, who would be threatened by it? It would seem that he would be adored such as today's powerful preachers are.

 

One more:

 

This is a tricky one. Claiming to be the messiah was okay. Claiming to be the son of god was okay. Claiming god was your father was okay. He never actually says "I am god" that I am aware of. They weren't aware he had a meal where they ate his body and blood otherwise that wasn't okay. The turning over the tables of the money changers was about the only thing that was a problem but still probably not a death sentence (only the Romans could kill him at this time since the Jews lost that ability just prior to 30 CE I think...I believe the Talmud has this info but don't quote me on that).

 

No, I don't think he did either. But it appears that they thought that was what he was saying when he stated, before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58) And again in John 10:30 he states I and my Father are one. In John 10:33 states their understanding by saying "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

 

Of course this really doesn't matter what person was saying these things, because like you said, the message remains. He was no more special than you or I and I think that was what he was trying to say.

 

Thank you so much. I need more history behind my understandings and I respect your insights mwc.

[mwc]

If this type of person truly was on the move in the area. Teaching, nothing new or revolutionary, but simply what the people already knew and agreed with but in a powerful new way...he would be a threat. So let me say that again. The teachings themselves wasn't what was new...the method of teaching was. If this is the case, then he could gain a following because his message was already familiar and he was a cult of personality. He was the threat and not his teachings.

Who would view this as a threat? I mean, if he was already teaching what was believed, who would be threatened by it? It would seem that he would be adored such as today's powerful preachers are.

Charismatic leaders were, and still are, a threat to those in power. They have the ability to rally support and lead rebellions.

 

So to teach what is, for the most part, popular but in a powerful way is to touch a nerve and to rally the populace behind you. Again, to use the ever popular Hitler (since most people are familiar with him) he (again I'll generalize) basically said things that the people already were thinking about the general conditions of Germany and the way they were being treated on the world stage. Not the things about the racism or any of that...the things we now immediately associate with Hitler, but the political and other social agenda. He tapped into that social unrest and basically echoed back to the people what they were already thinking. He was, in many respects, an "everyman" but he spoke with conviction which is something that the "everyman" could not do for himself. He was their voice. Now, he relied on many underhanded tactics and other things that don't apply to this topic...so this isn't an one to one comparison...just something to visualize since we know the images. Some might compare jesus to Hitler a little more directly but that's not where I'm headed.

 

No, I don't think he did either. But it appears that they thought that was what he was saying when he stated, before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58) And again in John 10:30 he states I and my Father are one. In John 10:33 states their understanding by saying "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

The quote in John 8:58 is interesting in that I remember reading, way back, that this has something to do with a Jewish tradition of teaching and age. This is why at about 30 he was to start his ministry, at 40 he was to do something else and at 50 there was yet another milestone which is the verse prior "57 Then the Jews said to him, You are not fifty years old; have you seen Abraham?" (This is why some speculate that reports that whoever the story is based on was never crucified but did live on as some of the early church fathers report. No self-respecting Jew would ask a 30 year old this question so he must have been, or appeared, much older.) His stating that he accomplished this task at such an early age is the offense and not pre-existence (as the claim of [seeing] Abraham was something the older teachers would do). I really wish I knew where I read this since I'd love to cite it for you.

 

The problem with the later verses (I gave them a quick scan so maybe they're clarified elsewhere) is that they simply say "the Jews." Which Jews? The Pharisees probably wouldn't have a huge problem with what he was saying so were these Sadducee Jews?

 

This is almost like saying "the Muslims." To most of us it's no big deal but to a Shia or a Sunni it is most definitely an issue depending on the context of the passage. The author of G.John shows his ignorance in this regard more than once and I'm a self-proclaimed novice in these things but I do know enough now to know that I was duped in my xian education. I was led to believe it was "Jesus vs. the Jews" and it seems it is a little more complicated than that.

 

Of course this really doesn't matter what person was saying these things, because like you said, the message remains. He was no more special than you or I and I think that was what he was trying to say.

Actually, it's more like he's no more important than the words being put into his mouth. Since nothing can be directly attributed to him, and pretty much all ancient writers simply made up the words they attributed to others, even if jesus existed it's a pretty sure bet that none of these words are his. The historians, even for the most famous people and speeches, basically just made them up (unless they happened to write them down then and there...which was almost never).

 

Thank you so much. I need more history behind my understandings and I respect your insights mwc.

You're welcome. I'm glad that I can share what little I know.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

<snip> There seems to be this general idea that jesus was a radical. That he taught ideas that were just so different from what everyone was used to hearing. This is simply not true. Not only do things like the Jesus Seminar tell us that roughly 80% of his ideas are "borrowed" but much of what he said was similar to modern Rabbinic Judaism (note the word "similar" and not "identical" so as not to confuse anyone). He also seems to include some of what little we know of the Essene sect, as well as some of an unnamed "fourth" school of thought that was based in the area of Galilee (although it was a bit on the violent side and his teachings did not include their violent aspects). But by and large he was a variation of what we believe to be a Pharisee. Unlike xians, you could disagree with other Pharisees and still be a Pharisee. Debate was a healthy part of their religion.

MWC, I appreciate how informed you are! I too thought that Jesus was a radical. He called the pharisees vipers, a bowl they only washed on the outside, filthy rags on the inside, the harlots and the sinners would see the kingdom of God before they would, and tossed things over in the temple while yelling at everyone... which I thought ultimately called for his disposal.

 

Also, I and many others find a lot of Buddhism in his teachings, among other belief systems. I was curious if these were in the original teachings or if these teachings were added as encroaching on cultures adopted these beliefs. .

 

<snip> If this type of person truly was on the move in the area. Teaching, nothing new or revolutionary, but simply what the people already knew and agreed with but in a powerful new way...he would be a threat. So let me say that again. The teachings themselves wasn't what was new...the method of teaching was. If this is the case, then he could gain a following because his message was already familiar and he was a cult of personality. He was the threat and not his teachings.

 

The teachings would exist without him. That's exactly why we can remove jesus from history and the teachings remain. Nothing really changes. If he originated these things then removing him would remove the teachings as well and it can be shown this wouldn't happen (by and large...some things would disappear but the things we take to heart like the "golden rule" for example would remain).

 

Thanks for all your posts MWC. Much of what you say does make sense to me in regards to how I understand what the story is saying. However, I thought it common for those times to put God on such a pedestal that one wasn't even able to write the word with a used pen quil! A new pen was needed to even write the word God! I also thought God was found only in the temple and people had to meet requirements to enter there. Then "Jesus" comes and says he thought it not robbery to be equal to God... that he and God are one... that God is inside everyone and for everyone, ye too are gods, and all that would have caused havoc... no?

 

I agree that these teachings were not new, except for maybe understanding that everyone is doing the best they know, and how can we condemn someone for not doing better than their best. Further these teachings would remain if "Jesus" is remembered or not. I also see his teachings as ecclectic, including many belief systems. Such as the golden rule you reference is not directly biblical teachings, but biblically it is to treat your neighbor as your self... another way of presenting the Buddhist teaching, the golden rule.

 

MWC... I love your posts! Thanks again.

[mwc]

MWC, I appreciate how informed you are! I too thought that Jesus was a radical. He called the pharisees vipers, a bowl they only washed on the outside, filthy rags on the inside, the harlots and the sinners would see the kingdom of God before they would, and tossed things over in the temple while yelling at everyone... which I thought ultimately called for his disposal.

Before he left here Skeptic of Bible started to spend a lot time over at some Jewish sites. I basically followed in his footsteps and looked at those things. The forums and all the other websites. There is a lot about the whole Jewish "thing" that, as a xian, I should have known since it is supposed to me the original religion and the one that "shunned" jesus. It's the one that had all these fights over theology with "god" after all. But it turns out that what I knew, that was accurate, was precious little, and what I know today is still not very much.

 

Now, what I do know, is that arguing over things is almost part and parcel of the religion. The Rabbis do this. They tend to do it in a bit more civil fashion but then compared to 2000 years ago most everything is a bit more civil. So to fight over these theological points, it turns out, isn't really an issue after all. It seems "built in" to their system of doing things. How can you kill someone for playing the game?

 

As you mention, the turning over the tables is just about the ONLY thing that would get him arrested...but it's very unlikely that would get him killed. So unlikely, in fact, I think that's why the stories have the made-up "tradition" where Pilate will release a prisoner of the people's choosing. Otherwise jesus would have been punished and released.

 

Also, I and many others find a lot of Buddhism in his teachings, among other belief systems. I was curious if these were in the original teachings or if these teachings were added as encroaching on cultures adopted these beliefs. .

Buddhism is older than xianity. I imagine it made it's way over on the trade routes. I've also read that many sought the wisdom from those in the East and would study their ways. Those two things combined, over several hundred years, would allow the influence to make its way into the society. That's just my guess however.

 

Thanks for all your posts MWC. Much of what you say does make sense to me in regards to how I understand what the story is saying. However, I thought it common for those times to put God on such a pedestal that one wasn't even able to write the word with a used pen quil! A new pen was needed to even write the word God! I also thought God was found only in the temple and people had to meet requirements to enter there. Then "Jesus" comes and says he thought it not robbery to be equal to God... that he and God are one... that God is inside everyone and for everyone, ye too are gods, and all that would have caused havoc... no?

The way one wrote about god and the way one spoke about god were two different things. The scribes had their practices when making their copies and they still do. I saw a show with a modern scribe and they supposedly still follow all the ancient traditions (that they are aware of). They also do not speak the proper name(s) of god. They cannot say YHWH (Jehovah) but rather Lord even though they write the name (because they want an accurate copy...but if you buy a copy of the bible it says LORD so that you do not accidentally speak the holy name...or so he said).

 

As for many of the things jesus said they were taken from the OT (nearly word for word) as I'm sure you're aware. In many cases it was King David speaking in the Psalms about Israel. Could these simply be a midrash on those texts? If jesus, or the author of those words (if we don't allow a human jesus), was speaking in midrash then there's no problem. He's simply doing what he said he was doing and was explaining things (fulfilling the Law...although this isn't Law he could still do midrash on it).

 

If you've never looked at the works of Philo of Alexandria you should do so. He does midrash over much of the OT and he introduces a number of "strange" ideas into what would be considered orthodox Judaism...and he does it BEFORE any of the ministries in the gospels (John the Baptist or jesus) would begin. He wasn't rejected by anyone. He had friends in the Temple. The xians embraced his works later on. I've only read about 25% of his works so far and I can see how he might have "influenced" some thinking.

 

I agree that these teachings were not new, except for maybe understanding that everyone is doing the best they know, and how can we condemn someone for not doing better than their best. Further these teachings would remain if "Jesus" is remembered or not. I also see his teachings as ecclectic, including many belief systems. Such as the golden rule you reference is not directly biblical teachings, but biblically it is to treat your neighbor as your self... another way of presenting the Buddhist teaching, the golden rule.

 

MWC... I love your posts! Thanks again.

Eclectic might be a good word to use.

 

I think that when the Romans got serious, and war came around 70 CE, all these little religious factions could no longer remain isolated and bicker among themselves. When these people came together to fight, their ideas naturally came along with them, and the end result was "eclectic." Those who survived the Romans wrote the rest as we know it.

 

Anyhow, I appreciate your kind words. If you and NBBTL keep this up I'll get a swelled head (my cat already follows me around the house which I've convinced myself means something more than "I know he's getting me food" or some other cat thing ).

 

mwc