Was There A Historical Jesus?

[JamesG]

 

I like to put it in terms of the battle of troy. was there a city named troy that had Trojans? short answer is no long answer is there were about 3-7 cities that are now dig sites that when combined matched the description in homer's stories. Interestingly enough of the cities discovered the one that had the walls showed no signs of a battle but destruction from natural causes. the other cities show destruction by war with artifacts of spear points and arrow points and swords scattered throughout the sites. when you put it all together you get troy. It is in this sense that the Iliad becomes a historical fiction. While no one can disprove the characters involved were real people they are more likely a combination of various historical figures throughout time during a war between the greeks and the luwians or Hittites

Actually, there was a Troy. The greeks also liked to call it Illios, and the Hittites called it Wilusa. I've read ancient documents mentioning it. That doesn't make the Illiad true, it just means there was in fact a Troy, and it did in fact fall somehow.

 

Yeah I didn't want to get into to much detail because that is getting into a different subject but as I mentioned above this particular site you mentioned  showed no real signs that a battle was the cause of its destruction yet other sites in the area did. Again we are just applying the label of troy to the city because of its similarities this does not mean that this was the PHYSICAL troy where the battle took place as there is no signs that a battle took place there like the other sites exhibited. The Troy of homers Iliad was likely a combination of the battles that took place at these other sites with the structures and economies and culture of Wilusa. While many believe that Troy was modeled after this city no one can say for sure that there was an actual battle that took place there. Also the Alexandros connection is a poor one at best as most historians would dismiss this as pure conjecture at best. The reason I bring it up is to show how multiple locations (people) can be combined to form one place (jesus) to create a historical fiction (bible). I really prefer to shy away from calling Wilusa troy though because we are just applying a label from a story we know to a town that is in the right place at the right time. We really don't know what homer's reference to this was. the best we can do is a best guess. Interestingly enough there is MORE evidence for troy than there is for Jesus. Yet we are all expected not to question it? that is what really gets my goat about Christians is that they are not even willing to look for the evidence to support their beliefs they just accept whatever is spoon fed to them.

[Ouroboros]

JamesG, on 14 May 2013 - 7:54 PM, said:

I have to agree here while the jesus myth does not require an actual person per say. a simple un complicated explanation is that early Christians were just cult followers of various apocalyptic rabbi's and they just kept trying to one up other cults of the time to compete for followers. Rome around 0-300 AD had a LOT of different cults and beliefs more so than we do now. So it goes without saying that they borrowed from each other in fact to further support Joshpantera most early Christians cults had nearly completely different beliefs and this is what prompted a lot of paul's writings to try and unify the many different versions. In fact by the time we get to the Council of Nicaea they had to just chuck huge chunks of what people were believing to get what we have today which lets be honest is still in conflict with itself. A singular jesus cant exist based on this alone.

There's only one problem in the myth theory that I don't have a good explanation for. Why did these multiple groups of different believes agree on the same name? There are different sources, with different stories, but the same common name. Why can't we find multiple "Jesus" stories with the main character called Mathias or something else? Someone, or some group, must've established the name conformity at some point, even before the oldest parchments were written, which places that person/group very early in the process.

 

Put it this way, these different groups borrowed ideas from Horus and whatnot, but they didn't borrow the names. And they all managed to pick the same name, even largely the same names on the disciples. So the story must've started earlier than the different variations of the gospel story. One root at some point. It doesn't mean the group was Jesus and C:0, but one anonymous group that established the new framing.

[JamesG]

 

JamesG, on 14 May 2013 - 7:54 PM, said:

I have to agree here while the jesus myth does not require an actual person per say. a simple un complicated explanation is that early Christians were just cult followers of various apocalyptic rabbi's and they just kept trying to one up other cults of the time to compete for followers. Rome around 0-300 AD had a LOT of different cults and beliefs more so than we do now. So it goes without saying that they borrowed from each other in fact to further support Joshpantera most early Christians cults had nearly completely different beliefs and this is what prompted a lot of paul's writings to try and unify the many different versions. In fact by the time we get to the Council of Nicaea they had to just chuck huge chunks of what people were believing to get what we have today which lets be honest is still in conflict with itself. A singular jesus cant exist based on this alone.

There's only one problem in the myth theory that I don't have a good explanation for. Why did these multiple groups of different believes agree on the same name? There are different sources, with different stories, but the same common name. Why can't we find multiple "Jesus" stories with the main character called Mathias or something else? Someone, or some group, must've established the name conformity at some point, even before the oldest parchments were written, which places that person/group very early in the process.

 

Put it this way, these different groups borrowed ideas from Horus and whatnot, but they didn't borrow the names. And they all managed to pick the same name, even largely the same names on the disciples. So the story must've started earlier than the different variations of the gospel story. One root at some point. It doesn't mean the group was Jesus and C:0, but one anonymous group that established the new framing.

 

there is an easy reason for that as I mentioned in an earlier post people were trading off of a name to gain fame. People do this all the time its called identity theft. Back then its not like there was photo i.d.'s so if you wanted some warm food and a place to stay at night it was probably known that "jesus" was a traveling rabbi so people just started claiming to be him. its not really that complicated. There is an interesting story about Stanley Kubrick where some guy did just that for a few years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Conway really interesting story whose to say it didn't happen during the time of

[mymistake]

And if you wanted some money and influence you tell people that you saw Jesus in a vision, that you get messages in dreams and that Jesus has appointed you as an apostle.  Maybe it wasn't the most lucrative gig but it beats making tents.

[Geezer]

 

Ouroboros said, There's only one problem in the myth theory that I don't have a good explanation for. Why did these multiple groups of different believes agree on the same name?

 

 

When the history of Jesus and the story's timeline are examined and placed in context the anomalies become less confusing. The first thing to note is that his name wasn't originally Jesus. It was Joshua. The predicted Messiah was originally thought to be a reincarnation of Joshua. This new Joshua was believed to be Israel's new warrior King that would defeat their enemies and return them to power and independence.

 

When Joshua was translated from Aramaic into Greek the name became Jesus and the warrior king became a pacifist itinerate preacher miracle worker dying rising god/man son of god with strong pagan god/man characteristics. When the entire Jesus story is put in context it begins to make sense and its pagan influence, IMO, becomes more apparent.

 

The idea that the Jesus character was a myth has so intrigued me I’ve put considerable effort into studying and researching the evidence that would support this alternative belief. There is no way to know for certain but I believe, when the entire Jesus story is examined from beginning to end, a mythical Jesus becomes, at least in my mind, the more probable option. The complete lack of physical evidence for a human Jesus, IMO, is a major factor in this scenario that heavily influences my ultimate choice of options.  

 

I acknowledge that ultimately whether a real human being known as Jesus of Nazareth existed in the flesh or not does nothing to validate the belief that he was god incarnate. And another piece of the puzzle to consider. At the time Jesus supposedly walked the earth there was no such place as Nazareth. The building of the town/village of Nazareth didn’t begin until after Jesus supposed crucifixion and a decade or two before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and coincidentally(?) about the time the gospels began to appear in written form.

 

When the Jesus story, as written in the gospels, is examined it quickly begins to unravel when it is fact checked against historical documentation.

[Ouroboros]

there is an easy reason for that as I mentioned in an earlier post people were trading off of a name to gain fame. People do this all the time its called identity theft. Back then its not like there was photo i.d.'s so if you wanted some warm food and a place to stay at night it was probably known that "jesus" was a traveling rabbi so people just started claiming to be him. its not really that complicated. There is an interesting story about Stanley Kubrick where some guy did just that for a few years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Conway really interesting story whose to say it didn't happen during the time of

Travelling rabbi? Was there a travelling rabbi named Jesus? And he was popular and therefore people made up stories about him? Did I understand that right?

 

My point isn't that the stories are true, but that there was something/someone/some-group that caused the idea be collected under the same name. I guess it's possible that people wanted a "savior" and made up stories about this "savior" and it just happened that the word became the same as "Jesus" (Joshua or something).

 

Conway and Kubrick existed though. It wasn't that a number of independent people at different locations made up the stories about Kubrick and Conway simultaneous. The unifying factor is that Conway and Kubrick existed. The focal point of the making-up is that there was someone to make something up about. If Conway had made up the stories about Ughblah and it became popular because everyone knows about Ughblah anyway and they like stories about Ughblah, then it would be more closely related in process.

[Ouroboros]

And if you wanted some money and influence you tell people that you saw Jesus in a vision, that you get messages in dreams and that Jesus has appointed you as an apostle.  Maybe it wasn't the most lucrative gig but it beats making tents.

Even if I was religious, let's say a pagan believing in Zeus, and someone came and told me they had a vision of Ughblah, it wouldn't impress me since I don't know anything about Ughblah. Only reason why someone would be successful in a lucrative business of having visions of Colgate toothpaste would be if there actually was a market of Colgate toothpaste to begin with, or it would be like selling ice to eskimos.

 

At some point, Jesus as an interest must've started. Why else would people even pretend to have visions of him? A guy no one have heard about? At some point, the market for a "Jesus" (with that name) was brought about.

[Ouroboros]

 

Ouroboros said, There's only one problem in the myth theory that I don't have a good explanation for. Why did these multiple groups of different believes agree on the same name?

 

When the history of Jesus and the story's timeline are examined and placed in context the anomalies become less confusing. The first thing to note is that his name wasn't originally Jesus. It was Joshua. The predicted Messiah was originally thought to be a reincarnation of Joshua. This new Joshua was believed to be Israel's new warrior King that would defeat their enemies and return them to power and independence.

 

When Joshua was translated from Aramaic into Greek the name became Jesus and the warrior king became a pacifist itinerate preacher miracle worker dying rising god/man son of god with strong pagan god/man characteristics. When the entire Jesus story is put in context it begins to make sense and its pagan influence, IMO, becomes more apparent.

 

The idea that the Jesus character was a myth has so intrigued me I’ve put considerable effort into studying and researching the evidence that would support this alternative belief. There is no way to know for certain but I believe, when the entire Jesus story is examined from beginning to end, a mythical Jesus becomes, at least in my mind, the more probable option. The complete lack of physical evidence for a human Jesus, IMO, is a major factor in this scenario that heavily influences my ultimate choice of options.  

 

Which all suggests and points to one or couple of more groups of a "Savior/Messiah" movement where the leaders were glorified to some extent. Which is exactly what happened. There were one or more terrorist groups (or rebels) at the time with leaders who called themselves "Messiah". It's likely then that this is where the core idea came from. This doesn't mean there's a Biblical-historical Jesus, but that there are one or two historical cult-leaders that instilled the process, catalysts if you will. And the myth built from there. Myths are never built on a void of nothing. It needs some core element that people have heard about, a person, an event, a group, or the interest isn't there to tie the story to. People had heard about some "Messiah" (cult leader/leaders in the past), so it was easy to reference to the rumors and build stories.

 

I acknowledge that ultimately whether a real human being known as Jesus of Nazareth existed in the flesh or not does nothing to validate the belief that he was god incarnate. And another piece of the puzzle to consider. At the time Jesus supposedly walked the earth there was no such place as Nazareth. The building of the town/village of Nazareth didn’t begin until after Jesus supposed crucifixion and a decade or two before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and coincidentally(?) about the time the gospels began to appear in written form.

Sure. No problem with that.

 

When the Jesus story, as written in the gospels, is examined it quickly begins to unravel when it is fact checked against historical documentation.

Also agree with that.

 

I'm glad they didn't come up with Ughblah as the name of God's son because it sounds terrible.

[mymistake]

 

And if you wanted some money and influence you tell people that you saw Jesus in a vision, that you get messages in dreams and that Jesus has appointed you as an apostle.  Maybe it wasn't the most lucrative gig but it beats making tents.

Even if I was religious, let's say a pagan believing in Zeus, and someone came and told me they had a vision of Ughblah, it wouldn't impress me since I don't know anything about Ughblah. Only reason why someone would be successful in a lucrative business of having visions of Colgate toothpaste would be if there actually was a market of Colgate toothpaste to begin with, or it would be like selling ice to eskimos.

 

At some point, Jesus as an interest must've started. Why else would people even pretend to have visions of him? A guy no one have heard about? At some point, the market for a "Jesus" (with that name) was brought about.

 

 

That is why I draw attention to Sirach.

 

Sure it's not a historical document but at least he wrote a book.  Here are the teachings of my father the rabbi Jesus.  Who, by the way, use to live in Egypt and got called to minister in Jerusalem.  The rest of it doesn't fit the myth but in my opinion Paul was stealing prestige and reputation from this rabbi Jesus.  And of course the writer of Mark stole from the work of Paul.  Then the writers of Luke and Matthew stole from the others and it just builds and builds until Rome decides to take over the whole thing and exterminate any "heretics" who don't agree.

[Ouroboros]

That is why I draw attention to Sirach.

Thanks. That's more like it.

 

Personally, I've considered Menahem Ben Judah to be a part of the puzzle, and perhaps Judas of Galilee.

 

 

 

Sure it's not a historical document but at least he wrote a book.  Here are the teachings of my farther the rabbi Jesus.  Who, by the way, use to live in Egypt and got called to minister in Jerusalem.  The rest of it doesn't fit the myth but in my opinion Paul was stealing prestige and reputation from this rabbi Jesus.  And of course the writer of Mark stole from the work of Paul.  Then the writers of Luke and Matthew stole from the others and it just builds and builds until Rome decides to take over the whole thing and exterminate any "heretics" who don't agree.

And Sirach could have been influential to some groups/cults in Israel pre-70s.

 

From what I understand (I can't say if it's true or not or what evidence there is for it) is that the early Christians were responsible for saving Philo's work before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. That suggests that some pre-Paul Christian group(s) did exist, if the claim is true. (Funny thing though if it's true, literalist Christians and young-earthers wouldn't like Philo too much.)

[JamesG]

 

there is an easy reason for that as I mentioned in an earlier post people were trading off of a name to gain fame. People do this all the time its called identity theft. Back then its not like there was photo i.d.'s so if you wanted some warm food and a place to stay at night it was probably known that "jesus" was a traveling rabbi so people just started claiming to be him. its not really that complicated. There is an interesting story about Stanley Kubrick where some guy did just that for a few years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Conway really interesting story whose to say it didn't happen during the time of

Travelling rabbi? Was there a travelling rabbi named Jesus? And he was popular and therefore people made up stories about him? Did I understand that right?

 

My point isn't that the stories are true, but that there was something/someone/some-group that caused the idea be collected under the same name. I guess it's possible that people wanted a "savior" and made up stories about this "savior" and it just happened that the word became the same as "Jesus" (Joshua or something).

 

Conway and Kubrick existed though. It wasn't that a number of independent people at different locations made up the stories about Kubrick and Conway simultaneous. The unifying factor is that Conway and Kubrick existed. The focal point of the making-up is that there was someone to make something up about. If Conway had made up the stories about Ughblah and it became popular because everyone knows about Ughblah anyway and they like stories about Ughblah, then it would be more closely related in process.

 

I used the term "Jesus" very loosely as a place holder. As others have mentioned the historical jesus is more a less a mistranslation of a phrophecy I would have to agree that there was someone out there that probably popularized the messiah idea enough to create a market for it. It just happened that it coalesced around the name of jesus. This is not to suggest that it was anyone singular person. Now at this point we really are just at conjecture and hypothesis which really all my opinion is I am not a historian nor am I an archeologists. So take my words with a grain of salt the Conway reference was just to illustrate how you can have sooo many different sects and groups with differing opinions and beliefs but following the same guy. My opinion is that there was a popular rabbi not named jesus and other people traded off of his name to create their own followings as the oral tradition spread people had a harder time discerning what his name was and so they started borrowing from old testament prophecy and the idea of naming him jesus started to form. Obviously one thing we can agree on is something occored from 30 BC to 30 ad  to prompt the origins of this cult but did any one man in particular do this we have no idea. was there someone doing prophesies sure but I don't think he was the only one is my opinion.

[stryper]

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/56181-jesus/

[Ouroboros]

I used the term "Jesus" very loosely as a place holder. As others have mentioned the historical jesus is more a less a mistranslation of a phrophecy I would have to agree that there was someone out there that probably popularized the messiah idea enough to create a market for it. It just happened that it coalesced around the name of jesus. This is not to suggest that it was anyone singular person. Now at this point we really are just at conjecture and hypothesis which really all my opinion is I am not a historian nor am I an archeologists. So take my words with a grain of salt the Conway reference was just to illustrate how you can have sooo many different sects and groups with differing opinions and beliefs but following the same guy. My opinion is that there was a popular rabbi not named jesus and other people traded off of his name to create their own followings as the oral tradition spread people had a harder time discerning what his name was and so they started borrowing from old testament prophecy and the idea of naming him jesus started to form. Obviously one thing we can agree on is something occored from 30 BC to 30 ad  to prompt the origins of this cult but did any one man in particular do this we have no idea. was there someone doing prophesies sure but I don't think he was the only one is my opinion.

I agree.

 

Considering that Maccabeans revolted, but never called themselves Jesus. Neither did Simon Peraea, and many others. Several of them called themselves "Messiah" though (if I understand it right). So "Messiah" as a collective name was common, Christians for the Romans. But "Jesus" wasn't a common Messiah name, or used at all. There were Judas, Simon, and others, but somehow "Jesus" started to be used and won favor as a placeholder for the stories. Perhaps it was Paul? Perhaps Paul was fake too? Perhaps it was someone else? But somewhere someone started to prefer that name over the others. Maybe because it meant savior? But on the other hand, many of the other names had religious or political meanings too. Barabbas would've been a great name too, but he was made a vilain and zealot in the story. So I'm not sure still exactly why that name won favor.

 

Anyway. It doesn't matter. The gospel story isn't historical true. If it has value or relevance as a story for people is another question.

[Joshpantera]

There was mention of Doherty's cosmic analysis earlier which I'm loosely familiar with as well. This requires quite a different perspective though. He's basically stripped the Pauline epistles down to what is considered authentic and then weeded out most of the suspected after the fact interpolation like anti-Semitic add on's and various things that sound out of place and probably belong to a later period. When Doherty looks closely he finds a heavenly drama about a being up in the upper heavens. This Jesus or Joshua is a type of mediator between God and Man, actually thought to exist between the upper heavens and earth in some middle realm. No historical person at all, no earthly ministry, none of that. This is a mythological type of "savior" and as touched on previously (in not so many words) both the names Jesus and Joshua mean "God Saves / YHWH Saves" or "God is Salvation / YHWH is Salvation."  

 

Doherty looks at the diversity of early Christianity and concludes that it's quite improbable that the myth started from an historical core and then so quickly became Gnostic and cosmic. He asserts the other way around which is quite contrary to the direction of this thread with the question of an historical core beginning. People were looking through OT scripture (or just plain scripture at the time) looking for hints and clues about a savior lingering around since before the dawn of creation. And this early activity would then grain into the large scale quote mining found later in the Gospels. What I get from Doherty's angle is that for some reason diverse cults - some mystical and some more orthodox - were playing around with savior myth ideas before the common era and into the common era which picked up speed into the common era. The orthodox groups focused on exoteric presentation and with that came more and more emphasis on historicity and the historical fiction we find in the gospels. The historical fiction had more of an appeal to the common public and eventually won out as dominant after heated debate and so on through the first several centuries. 

 

But the question of why is something I've had to consider too. Why the hell would people be so concerned with something like a Savior leading into the common era? 

 

I know some people don't like to hear it, but the most bloody obvious answer I've come across is that we're talking about an extremely significant time concerning the astrological cults. The long cycle of the Great Year was ending before the common era and the clock re-set as of the beginning of the common era. The Great Year was broken into two halves - the first half ascending and the second half descending. When the age of Aries ended, the last great cycle had ended. There's was a lot of "end times" preaching and other bull shit going on because of it. But of course the world didn't end. The age of Pisces, the Pisces-Virgo axial age to be precise, began the new cycle of ascension. The world stops descending, by this astrological standard, and begins ascending once again. The world is "saved" in that sense. Everything is supposed to be on the up and up coming out of the Iron age and moving forward towards the Bronze, Silver, and Golden ages of Greek thought. I think Philo, the Therapeuts of Alexandria, and many pre-christian trade guild type sects were into this sort of thing, Platonic type things which include great cycles, a multi-layered "heavens" like we find in Paul, and so on and so forth. 

 

Of all the possible reasons for mythologizing about a new "savior" by mystical people during a very significant astrological time period in the history of man, I'd say that the race to personify a new world age is the most glaring IMO. 

 

And with that effort of personifying a world age comes the need to attach certain characteristics to the myth, such as layering it with bits of biographic type information for authenticity and flavor. Those can be plucked from here and there in the available writings of the day and account for the wide diversity of biographic information tossed into the myth making.

 

The common theme is to have a savior, or a "Jesus" if you will. Although the "Jesus" will differ quite a bit depending on which group of mythologizers we're considering. For some he was in the flesh, for some he was not in the flesh at all, etc. etc.

 

And I think that everyone's speculation so far is essentially correct in certain senses. I can see how many different prophet types or wandering rabbi types could have been used for the underlying purpose of trying to personify a new world age when the spring time religious festivals (such as passover) were observed with a new set of constellations. The sun no longer rose into Aries with the moon in Libra, instead the sun was observed rising into Pisces with the moon in Virgo. Hence the eventual need for the symbolism of the Ram and Law (Moses) to give way to the Fish and Virgin (Jesus). By the time of the Gospels this was a pretty straight forward motive. Their savior was decorated with Moses and Elijah (Law and Prophets) of the descending cycle time period handing over the reigns to Jesus of the ascending cycle time period. The law was fulfilled because the Aries-Libra axis had ended. These myths are a colorful way of pointing that out when looking at them from that angle. 

[Geezer]

I've come to similar conclusions Joshpantera, but you expressed it much better than I ever could have. Good thoughts, good post.

 

 

[Fernweh]

Josh, once again you explain this so well. One only needs to look at the night sky and study a little astrology to see this. Add in a few buzzwords like "Lamb of God" (Aries) and "Fishers of Men" (Pisces) and the astrological connections are pretty glaring. Go back another 2000 years in the biblical timeline and you find the nation of Israel obsessed with creating golden calves (Taurus) in yet another corresponding astrological age.

[Joshpantera]

 

 

Ouroboros said, There's only one problem in the myth theory that I don't have a good explanation for. Why did these multiple groups of different believes agree on the same name?

 

 

When the history of Jesus and the story's timeline are examined and placed in context the anomalies become less confusing. The first thing to note is that his name wasn't originally Jesus. It was Joshua. The predicted Messiah was originally thought to be a reincarnation of Joshua. This new Joshua was believed to be Israel's new warrior King that would defeat their enemies and return them to power and independence.

 

When Joshua was translated from Aramaic into Greek the name became Jesus and the warrior king became a pacifist itinerate preacher miracle worker dying rising god/man son of god with strong pagan god/man characteristics. When the entire Jesus story is put in context it begins to make sense and its pagan influence, IMO, becomes more apparent.

 

The idea that the Jesus character was a myth has so intrigued me I’ve put considerable effort into studying and researching the evidence that would support this alternative belief. There is no way to know for certain but I believe, when the entire Jesus story is examined from beginning to end, a mythical Jesus becomes, at least in my mind, the more probable option. The complete lack of physical evidence for a human Jesus, IMO, is a major factor in this scenario that heavily influences my ultimate choice of options.  

 

I acknowledge that ultimately whether a real human being known as Jesus of Nazareth existed in the flesh or not does nothing to validate the belief that he was god incarnate. And another piece of the puzzle to consider. At the time Jesus supposedly walked the earth there was no such place as Nazareth. The building of the town/village of Nazareth didn’t begin until after Jesus supposed crucifixion and a decade or two before the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and coincidentally(?) about the time the gospels began to appear in written form.

 

When the Jesus story, as written in the gospels, is examined it quickly begins to unravel when it is fact checked against historical documentation.

 

I'd like to revisit this post if you don't mind. 

 

Very good point. Nazareth wasn't much of anything at all in the early to mid 1st century. And technically the gospels don't appear into the literary and historical record until well into the 2nd century, generally after Marcion's gospel. So certainly the myths of Nazareth belong to a later period at least in literary form with clear reference to their existence as written documents.  Although they were probably started earlier around the end of the 1st century with no clear evidence of their existence until much later. 

 

Long story short, the myths do quite a bit of "back dating." 

 

They want the time period of Pilate even though there's major problems with trying to set the myth to that time period. They made all sorts of geographical errors and basically gentile or diaspora Jew mistakes in their efforts to lay out the myth, such as Nazareth. But if there were any motivation to back date the story to the general time period in which the sun entered into the house of Pisces @ the spring religious festivals. The proper historical setting for a myth about the equinoxes would necessarily place it in the time when Pilate was in Judea. A friend of mine pulled this up on starrynight pro and came up with 11 CE for the beginning of the age of Pisces. That has given me more insight into possible motive for trying to force fit the story into the early first century time frame. 

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

 

 

Actually, there was a Troy. The greeks also liked to call it Illios, and the Hittites called it Wilusa. I've read ancient documents mentioning it. That doesn't make the Illiad true, it just means there was in fact a Troy, and it did in fact fall somehow.

 

Yeah I didn't want to get into to much detail because that is getting into a different subject but as I mentioned above this particular site you mentioned  showed no real signs that a battle was the cause of its destruction yet other sites in the area did. Again we are just applying the label of troy to the city because of its similarities this does not mean that this was the PHYSICAL troy where the battle took place as there is no signs that a battle took place there like the other sites exhibited. The Troy of homers Iliad was likely a combination of the battles that took place at these other sites with the structures and economies and culture of Wilusa. While many believe that Troy was modeled after this city no one can say for sure that there was an actual battle that took place there. Also the Alexandros connection is a poor one at best as most historians would dismiss this as pure conjecture at best. The reason I bring it up is to show how multiple locations (people) can be combined to form one place (jesus) to create a historical fiction (bible). I really prefer to shy away from calling Wilusa troy though because we are just applying a label from a story we know to a town that is in the right place at the right time. We really don't know what homer's reference to this was. the best we can do is a best guess. Interestingly enough there is MORE evidence for troy than there is for Jesus. Yet we are all expected not to question it? that is what really gets my goat about Christians is that they are not even willing to look for the evidence to support their beliefs they just accept whatever is spoon fed to them.

 

Actually, its well established that its the same Troy being referred to by the greeks. They even had found the names Alexander of Troy, also known as Paris, and Agamemnon (not of Troy but still) as historical figures. Even if the Illiad is just a story. We do know for a fact that it is the actual physical Troy indisputably.

 

Wilusa is basically Illios written in Luwian.

 

It's not just labelled that due to similarities. There were coins found on the site, stating what the city was from the hellenistic period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy#Archaeological_Troy

 

http://www.livius.org/to-ts/troy/troy_I-V.html

 

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsMiddEast/AnatoliaTroy.htm

 

There were wars though against Troy that the greeks may have claimed that they helped fight, though it seems like Troy was actually the aggressor, and it was against the other local states in Anatolia. I can't find the exact texts, though here is a reference to them:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/troyqa.shtml

 

 

 

I'd argue though that the Illiad's war never occurred. It was the city referenced about the war. It may or may not be based on another war, but its still a lovely story.

 

I'd agree that there's little evidence for Jesus, though the fact that his legends seem to surround and be based off ideas of which seem to hint at him being historical, I'm going to say there's probably a man behind the myth. Though I hold about as much conviction in that idea as I do the universe being a computer simulation. Its possible, but I'm not really holding a strong position on the ideaa, and am leaning towards disbelief though on that.

 

Ouroboros spoke of some of the reasons. Also, I'd like to point out that the original idea of a messiah was to be a rebel against Rome, much like Simon son of the Star. And being crucified was a punishment for being a rebel. So maybe he was a cultleader messiah that failed, yet his legend lived beyond him?

[Burt_Lemur]

All of this makes me wonder, if it's true that history repeats itself, how soon will there be people that believe Yoda is real?

[Joshpantera]

^That's funny. 

[JamesG]

Look BD  I just cant give it the designation of troy. When you look at the site its is a compilation of different cities that's why they are numbered troy I Troy II troy III etc. They are literally built ON TOP of each other. You have to combine the features of these different cities to get a troy. Alexandros fits the mold but that does not mean he was paris referenced in the story it really doesn't it just means he bears some similarities. I bet you could find the same of countless princes across Europe Alexandros just happened to be in the right area. We don't even know the time when the Battle of troy took place. so your looking over a huge stretch of history and picking different pieces from different time periods to fit it together to fit the story.  Agamemnon was greek btw not a Trojan it means king of kings.... anyways I am skeptical of the designation of troy on that site call the different cities by what they are called and stop trying to fit troy into the equation. You don't need troy paris  Agamemnon and the whole list of characters to support the cities existence its just tacked on. At best the Homer's work is a historical fiction that's all its like Abraham Lincoln vampire hunter nothing more. Troy could very well have been there your right but to say with  100% authority is a stretch imho.  Here is a good article http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4352105?uid=3739616&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102019846793

 Most historians call the sites Troy because it acts more or less like a place holder i.e. they are looking for troy they find something that looks like troy IT MUST BE TROY!!! Schliemann even admits as much that his original discovery was to small to be troy. These early archeologists falsified after the fact. So these sites get labled TROY and just get stuck that way. Point is there is more than one "troy"  there are other dig sites that also claim to be "troy" yours is not the only one.  We are getting way off topic though. So you should probably start another thread for this discussion I don't want to get to carried away from the discussion.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

All of this makes me wonder, if it's true that history repeats itself, how soon will there be people that believe Yoda is real?

 

I'm willing to guess 500 years probably, but then again, by that time, most of the already developed world will be so advanced that they will still know that Yoda was a fictional character.

[Fernweh]

All of this makes me wonder, if it's true that history repeats itself, how soon will there be people that believe Yoda is real?

 

This is probably not a far fetched idea at all.

[JamesG]

Yoda is probably a stretch but what about scientology and Mormonism? if we look at how Christianity formed these two are following a similar path. Are there any characters in those religions that could be mistaken in a 500 year period as real and on earth?

[stryper]

All of this makes me wonder, if it's true that history repeats itself, how soon will there be people that believe Yoda is real?

 

I was actually thinking about this the other day. 

 

I could see a future where people SERIOUSLY worship the flying spaghetti monster as real.  

 

 

As to Yoda, 

 

http://www.jedichurch.org/