Do we really know how Jesus could have died, if he existed at all?

[Aibao]

It was long believed that the famous Mozart was buried in a mass grave or in the tomb of a pauper, which is said not to be true (similarities are: the collective tomb of Jesus and the tomb of a rich man - well, we won't say that Mozart is a myth and on its basis the death of Jesus was described, and yet when it comes to the fact that Jesus' death was started from Greek or Egyptian myths, we will say so - since it cannot be compared to Mozart, why can it be compared to Greek myths?)

 

Likewise, when it comes to the cause of Mozart's death - there is a lot of speculation.

 

 

Similarly with Jesus - contemporary historians claim that he was buried in a grave for criminals, but since with Mozart such a statement (a similar - lightning grave) turned out to be wrong, maybe Jesus was not buried in a mass grave either, and this may also be wrong, since people make mistakes in history?

 

 

We also know that after Elvis Presley died, people had a vision that they saw him alive. For some, this claim is sufficient to refute Christianity. Because if Elvis died and it is confirmed, we understand that someone must have had serious predictions.

 

 

However, the evidence of Christianity, the death and resurrection of Jesus is not influenced by the misunderstanding about Mozart's death. He died and it turned out that it was not what everyone initially thought, and that he had his own tomb (like Jesus in the Gospels). So maybe it is possible that people were wrong in saying that Jesus was buried in a mass grave? If the death of Mozart was mistaken, maybe the death of Jesus too? If people and historians are fallible, who can you trust?

 

The overthrow of Christianity is an extremely difficult and almost impossible thing when you have such comparisons.

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, Aibao said:

 

If people and historians are fallible, who can you trust?

 

 

If we have to be infallable to be trusted, no one can be trusted because we are fallable, imperfect humans.

 

When will you accept the fact that you, me, and all humans are imperfect?  And that is okay.

[pantheory]

"Do we really know how Jesus could have died, if he existed at all?"

There is no historical evidence for the person of Jesus in his own supposed lifetime. But the Jesus movement was known by the Romans at the time of Nero, 60 AD, as another sect of Judaism. Many Christians know of the persecution and execution of Christians during the time of Nero, but only Jews know that countless more Jews were executed and hated by the Romans at that time than Christians.  Anyone who openly worshiped any God(s) other than the Roman Gods, were subject to arrest by a new edict of Nero. This was usually done by arrest and trial in Rome, but Nero's edict required only two Roman citizen witnesses (usually soldiers) to seize the religious "offender" and their properties. Some Jews in Rome owned property so that seizing their properties became profitable for Nero who became the new property owner. At the time of Nero, there was an anti-Roman revolt in Israel so that Jews were particularly hated in Rome. Nero had to send in extra armies to quell the revolt in Israel where many Roman soldiers died along with revolting Jews. 

 

Is it possible that a preacher existed that was the basis for the Bible stories of Jesus, without the miracles?  Of course it's  possible since there were many such preachers in Israel and Judea during the supposed time of Jesus.

 

What do we really know? We know that crucifixion was a form of execution imposed by the Romans in Israel and elsewhere for particularly heinous crimes, as an example to the populous that such crimes such as sedition would not be tolerated.  We do know that the Jesus movement was described as a seditious sect of Judaism in Rome by 60 AD, since it was recorded in the annals of Nero,

 

During the early first century AD there were many competing Jewish sects in Israel and Judea. Philosophical schools included Pharisees, Sadducees, and rebellious zealots of various sects, but also other less influential sects including the Essenes, the Vruads, Fezals, and others including end-time preachers and  proclaimed prophets asserting that the kingdom of God was imminent, which included the little known Jesus sect.

 

In the first centuries B.C. and A.D. in Israel and Judea,  there were a growing number of charismatic religious leaders contributing to what would become the Mishnah of Rabbinic Judaism; and later the ministry of Jesus, which led to the first "recorded" Jewish-Christian small religious council gathering in Israel 49 AD. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_1st_century

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

18 hours ago, Aibao said:

Similarly with Jesus - contemporary historians claim that he was buried in a grave for criminals

What do you mean by the term "contemporary" in this claim?  The term could refer to historians living in the same time frame as jesus; or it could refer to historians living in the present day.  We need to know whose claims we're refuting before we go to the trouble of refuting them.  Thanks.

[Aibao]

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

 

Is it possible that a preacher existed that was the basis for the Bible stories of Jesus, without the miracles?  Of course it's  possible since there were many such preachers in Israel and Judea during the supposed time of Jesus.

 

 

 

So Jesus was not the only one to proclaim himself the Son of God? I admit that it shocked me a bit. Apologists might say that although he was not the only one, Jesus was the true Messiah, and the rest were impostors. But how do they know it? oh yeah ... the Bible ... it's a pity that there are no records of those traveling preacher's Bibles, there would be evidence for a comparison.

 

Everything you wrote is interesting. I think I have to stop - now Christianity starts to seem like nonsense ... but probably until I listen to some apologetic explanation ...

[Aibao]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What do you mean by the term "contemporary" in this claim?  The term could refer to historians living in the same time frame as jesus; or it could refer to historians living in the present day.  We need to know whose claims we're refuting before we go to the trouble of refuting them.  Thanks.

Yes, sorry, I did not specify it - I mean historians of today, of our times, such as Bart Ehrman.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, Aibao said:

So Jesus was not the only one to proclaim himself the Son of God? I admit that it shocked me a bit. Apologists might say that although he was not the only one, Jesus was the true Messiah, and the rest were impostors. But how do they know it? oh yeah ... the Bible ... it's a pity that there are no records of those traveling preacher's Bibles, there would be evidence for a comparison.

 

Everything you wrote is interesting. I think I have to stop - now Christianity starts to seem like nonsense ... but probably until I listen to some apologetic explanation ...

 

Howdy again Albao. Many Kings and rulers have proclaimed themselves divine, but none that I have ever heard of regarding Judaism, like Jesus. The only "modern-day" proclaimed profit, where there's much recorded history and evidence of his life, is Mohammad. As you know IMO there is no such thing as God, gods, profits, ghosts, the spiritual world etc. We are simply animals, granted, generally more intelligent than the rest of the critters.

 

IMO the most obvious nonsense of the Bible is seen in Genesis, as well as the story of Noah's Arc.  And in the New testament, the most obvious nonsense is the Book of Revelation.

 

cheers and best wishes again

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 hours ago, Aibao said:

Yes, sorry, I did not specify it - I mean historians of today, of our times, such as Bart Ehrman.

Okay.  To begin with, for me, the "history" of jesus is irrelevant since I know that the man presented in the Gospel is obviously a fictional character.  It would be like knowing that Harry Potter is a work of fiction, yet still obsessing over the life and history of one Harold Potherd who is believed to have lived in #54 Essex Street in Burton-On-Trent.  There are a lot of moral and ethical truths taught in the Harry Potter series.  Some of the events have historical accuracy; and many of the geographical locations really do exist.  So even though it is a work of fiction, it is not entirely fictional.  The same could be said for the Gospel story.  Yet nobody mistakes Harry Potter as being anything other than fiction, despite it being neither more nor less fantastical than the Gospel, which many take as truth.

 

History teaches us a lot about William Shakspere of Stratford-On-Avon.  He was the son of a glove-maker--a tradesman, much like a plumber or electrician today.  He is presumed to have had an elementary education; but there is no record of it.  It is certain that he did not attend University; but, instead, married at the age of 18.  Thus, it is unlikely that this person could have had the knowledge, experience, and linguistic skills to write sonnets in the high language of the courts and nobles. 

 

History also teaches us that Gabriel Harvey once said of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, "thy countenance shakes spears."  de Vere was known as a patron of the arts, a writer who always used a pseudonym, and was once captured by pirates and left naked on the English shore, much like young Hamlet. 

 

Thus, it becomes necessary, even when studying history, to be able to separate fact from fiction.

 

This brings me to the point of contemporary historians versus contemporary historians.  In fact, there were no contemporary historians who recorded the life of jesus during the time it supposedly occurred; which leaves contemporary historians of today little more than the Gospel upon which to base their assessments.  The first major problem with this is that there were plenty of historians, both Jewish and Roman, alive and engaged in the documentation of history during the time period in which jesus supposedly lived.  Yet, not a single one thought his life was worth even mentioning, let alone committing to the annals of record.  If the character presented in the Gospel were a real, literal, historical figure, why would there not be some contemporary account of him?  If he were going around causing the blind to see, raising the dead, and curing leprosy (which would be like curing cancer or AIDs today), why would there not be a single, independently verifiable record of it outside of the Gospel?  Were there such a man performing such miracles today, his face would be on every newspaper, magazine, and television screen in the world.  There would be websites, Twitter accounts, YouTube videos, and Facebook groups all dedicated to him.  jesus doesn't even have a birth certificate; and, as we will see later, even the details of his birth record present problems. 

 

Why?

 

Secondly, a very close look needs to be had at the historians who supposedly did mention "jesus".  Among the Roman historians, both Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were writing more than 100 years after the fact; and neither of them say anything of any merit concerning the actual, historical life of "jesus" himself.  Both men were more concerned with how to deal with the growing movement of christianity.  Granted, Tacitus does reference "christus" and the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate; but this no more validates the Gospel than the existence of Harold Potherd validates the Harry Potter series.  Suetonius, writing around 50 years after the supposed life of jesus, mentioned the expulsion of Jews from Rome because they were causing disturbances instigated by "chrestus".  Most scholars agree that this is a reference to christ; and that the expulsion described may have been that found in the book of Acts.  But, if we look again at the historical and geographical accuracy of the Harry Potter series, it becomes clear that neither Tacitus nor Suetonius provide any actual evidence of the life or historicity of jesus as portrayed in the Gospel.  

 

The one Jewish historian who directly references jesus, Flavius Josephus, also wrote nearly 100 years after the fact.  Josephus references jesus twice.  His first reference describes jesus as the messiah, a wise teacher, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate.  However, most scholars reject the authenticity of this reference and have determined it to be a forgery.  The second reference is indirect, as Josephus refers to James, the brother of jesus, who was called christ.  So, even with Jewish history, we are left with only a sketchy reference to a man who was crucified under Pilate.  This is a long way off from the jesus character found in the Gospel.

 

Lastly, the Gospel itself has its own historical problems.  The earliest gospel account of jesus was written around 70CE, several decades after the events described.  This account is what is today known as the Gospel of Mark.  But the current version of Mark contains in excess of 10,000 words which are not contained in the original document.  These words were added at a later date, which already calls into question the authenticity, not only of Mark's gospel, but also that of Matthew and Luke, both of which were based on Mark.  The original account of Mark ends after the death and burial of jesus.  Only later was the resurrection and the women at the tomb added.  

 

The gospel account of Luke presents another historical problem.  It places the birth of jesus during the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria; and then depicts Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt with the infant jesus as Herod had decreed all male babies should be killed.  The distinct problem here is that Herod's reign ended around 4BCE and Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until around 3 BCE.  The census which supposedly brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem is thought to have occurred in 6CE.  Now, if we take the Gospel "as gospel", this means Herod was trying to kill jesus more than a decade before he was even born!  It also means Joseph and Mary could not have been fleeing to Egypt as a result of Herod's infanticide, since they hadn't even arrived at the stable yet.

 

Granted, the problems with both Mark and Luke could just be chalked up to human error and editing; but aren't these supposed to be divinely inspired revelations of an omnipotent and omniscient god?  Did he inspire them to screw up the dates of his own birth?  Did he inspire them to leave the resurrection out of the earliest accounts, even though that was the most important miracle involved in defeating death, hell, and the grave?  Or, to bring this back around to your original question, would an omniscient and omnipotent god screw up the location of his own grave site whilst writing his autobiography?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, was there an actual, historical, literal man named jesus?  Smarter people than me have concluded that there was; and there is good reason to believe that they are right about it.  But, in separating fact from fiction, even in the historical context, it is reasonable to conclude that what scant evidence there is for the man himself, offers nothing by way of validating the character found in the Gospel.  And that is the crux of the matter.  Even if the Harry Potter character was based off of a real little boy, the character himself is still fictional; and the same is certainly true of the jesus character.

[Aibao]

On 8/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

Secondly, a very close look needs to be had at the historians who supposedly did mention "jesus".  Among the Roman historians, both Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were writing more than 100 years after the fact; and neither of them say anything of any merit concerning the actual, historical life of "jesus" himself.  Both men were more concerned with how to deal with the growing movement of christianity.  Granted, Tacitus does reference "christus" and the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate; but this no more validates the Gospel than the existence of Harold Potherd validates the Harry Potter series.  Suetonius, writing around 50 years after the supposed life of jesus, mentioned the expulsion of Jews from Rome because they were causing disturbances instigated by "chrestus".  Most scholars agree that this is a reference to christ; and that the expulsion described may have been that found in the book of Acts.  But, if we look again at the historical and geographical accuracy of the Harry Potter series, it becomes clear that neither Tacitus nor Suetonius provide any actual evidence of the life or historicity of jesus as portrayed in the Gospel.  

 

 

Right, I was wondering how do we know that Jesus existed or was God?

I'm not sure if it's Tacitus or someone else, but one historian of the time mentioned an earthquake and a solar eclipse - the same can be found at the death of Jesus.

 

On 8/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

 

Lastly, the Gospel itself has its own historical problems.  The earliest gospel account of jesus was written around 70CE, several decades after the events described.  This account is what is today known as the Gospel of Mark.  But the current version of Mark contains in excess of 10,000 words which are not contained in the original document.  These words were added at a later date, which already calls into question the authenticity, not only of Mark's gospel, but also that of Matthew and Luke, both of which were based on Mark.  The original account of Mark ends after the death and burial of jesus.  Only later was the resurrection and the women at the tomb added.  

 

 

So, Mark's Gospel did not originally contain the words it now contains? If 1000 words were omitted, where did these added words come from? from other manuscripts? So maybe the earlier manuscripts were, but have been lost, and these added words cease to be added then?

 

For example, from what I know, the first Gospel found (actually a fragment) is the Gospel of John. it follows that marek must have been after Jan, unless I got lost and confused everything. Please correct me if I am wrong.

On 8/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Granted, the problems with both Mark and Luke could just be chalked up to human error and editing; but aren't these supposed to be divinely inspired revelations of an omnipotent and omniscient god?  Did he inspire them to screw up the dates of his own birth?  Did he inspire them to leave the resurrection out of the earliest accounts, even though that was the most important miracle involved in defeating death, hell, and the grave?  Or, to bring this back around to your original question, would an omniscient and omnipotent god screw up the location of his own grave site whilst writing his autobiography?

Yes, it puzzles me too, then the probability of such a God, at least for me, drops. Well, unless Calvinism is true - then God might not care if a lot of people were misled because it was intentional or some other option - there is a bad God.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

56 minutes ago, Aibao said:

I'm not sure if it's Tacitus or someone else, but one historian of the time mentioned an earthquake and a solar eclipse - the same can be found at the death of Jesus.

I'd have to research that.  I'm not aware of any such event recorded.  But, at first blush, I'd go back to King's Cross Station and ask myself if the accurate description rendered in Harry Potter validates the authenticity of wizards and magic.

 

1 hour ago, Aibao said:

So, Mark's Gospel did not originally contain the words it now contains? If 1000 words were omitted, where did these added words come from? from other manuscripts? So maybe the earlier manuscripts were, but have been lost, and these added words cease to be added then?

 

For example, from what I know, the first Gospel found (actually a fragment) is the Gospel of John. it follows that marek must have been after Jan, unless I got lost and confused everything. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Most scholars agree that Mark was the first gospel written and Matthew and Luke drew heavily in it for inspiration.  It is believed that the 10,000 words describing the resurrection were added to lend credibility to it as a gospel record and for it, in turn, to lend credibility to the christian religion. 

 

I do seem to recall a very old edition of John being found a few years back.  But it was most definitely written later than the earliest transcripts of Mark.

1 hour ago, Aibao said:

Yes, it puzzles me too, then the probability of such a God, at least for me, drops. Well, unless Calvinism is true - then God might not care if a lot of people were misled because it was intentional or some other option - there is a bad God.

If the christian god does not exist, and I am certain he does not, then none of this matters.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Aibao said:

Right, I was wondering how do we know that Jesus existed or was God?

I'm not sure if it's Tacitus or someone else, but one historian of the time mentioned an earthquake and a solar eclipse - the same can be found at the death of Jesus.

 

 

There's no need for the Professor to research the so-called solar eclipse.

 

 

Matthew 27 : 45

From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land.  (The gospels of Mark and Luke agree on this.)

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

Duration

The following factors determine the duration of a total solar eclipse (in order of decreasing importance):

1. The Moon being almost exactly at perigee (making its angular diameter as large as possible).
2. The Earth being very near aphelion (furthest away from the Sun in its elliptical orbit, making its angular diameter nearly as small as possible).
3. The midpoint of the eclipse being very close to the Earth's equator, where the rotational velocity is greatest.
4. The vector of the eclipse path at the midpoint of the eclipse aligning with the vector of the Earth's rotation (i.e. not diagonal but due east).
5. The midpoint of the eclipse being near the subsolar point (the part of the Earth closest to the Sun).

The longest eclipse that has been calculated thus far is the eclipse of July 16, 2186 (with a maximum duration of 7 minutes 29 seconds over northern Guyana).

 

 

A three hour eclipse of the Sun by the Moon is therefore an impossibility.

 

Which means that there is no corroboration of the three hour darkness covering the land of Israel by Tacitus or any other historian.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Quote

According to the early Christian scholar Africanus [c. 160 – c. 240], Thallus in the third book of his histories, apparently refers to the purported darkness at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and explained it away as a solar eclipse; there is a range of interpretations on the matter.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(historian)

[Wertbag]

On 8/2/2022 at 11:40 AM, Aibao said:

maybe Jesus was not buried in a mass grave either, and this may also be wrong, since people make mistakes in history?

We don't have enough information to know one way or the other.  The "Jesus was a myth" argument has a lot of supporting data and can make a good debate, but not enough to convince everyone.  The idea that "Jesus was just a man" is probably the majority position, and while we can say a preacher who got executed is mundane, that doesn't tell us what became of the body (survived, taken to a tomb or thrown in a mass grave).

The mass grave idea is due to that being the standard end for crucifixion victims, but we don't actually know that was the case.  The story says a rich Christian got the body and took it away, which is believable, and quite mundane.  

So we end up with no definite answer, but many real world physical answers to the resurrection story without the need for magic:

- Jesus didn't exist and was a myth created later.

- Jesus was a man, executed and buried in a mass grave.

- Jesus was a man, survived execution and fled to another country.

- Jesus was a man, executed and his body taken away by followers and buried elsewhere.

- Jesus was a man, no one knows what became of him, but his followers had visions that they claim were special.

Any of these answers are more likely than magic.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

17 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 

So we end up with no definite answer, but many real world physical answers to the resurrection story without the need for magic:

- Jesus didn't exist and was a myth created later.

- Jesus was a man, executed and buried in a mass grave.

- Jesus was a man, survived execution and fled to another country.

- Jesus was a man, executed and his body taken away by followers and buried elsewhere.

- Jesus was a man, no one knows what became of him, but his followers had visions that they claim were special.

Any of these answers are more likely than magic.

 

And I read another story a few days ago.  He was a hybird alien placed on earth via Mary to enlighten humans, and was picked up by a spaceship after the crucifiction scene.  Thus the story of ascending into the sky.  Earthlings saw these aliens as gods.  And as you said, any of these answers are more likely than magic.