did jesus exist?

[ellenjanuary]

Herod the II wasn't trying to be the messiah. The messiah and the King of the Jews are different. Herod the Great was a King of the Jews, but definitely not the Jewish messiah.

Also, Josephus really downplayed messianic movements. We catch hints of them, but he believed the messianic prophecies were fulfilled in his Emperor. That is a very key point.


I also don't see how that was the fourth most documented century of human existence. Especially when we have very little of anything on Judaism during that time. We have very little details about many different want to be messiahs and religious leaders. We have little on Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, or the High Priest Caiaphas. It is no surprise we have little about Jesus.

That's why there's a question mark. I educated myself about the end of the Roman republic; and read that it was "the third most documented century in history" (I now assume 100bce-0bce, they were talking about)... books I've read about Sulla and Julius Caesar, a stack of books higher than I - and in them there was a line about some rabble-rouser being crucified, a single line - and that is why I question the historical Jesus ..

 

[outhouse]

LOL you had to know this was coming

Have you read all of Philo's works?

 

[fallingblood]

You can read Philo's writings for yourself.

Yes I can, again. And I can still come to the conclusion that Philo was not the founder of Christianity. I can see that he may and probably influenced some members in the Jesus movement and later Christianity, but that is far from founding either.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's why there's a question mark. I educated myself about the end of the Roman republic; and read that it was "the third most documented century in history" (I now assume 100bce-0bce, they were talking about)... books I've read about Sulla and Julius Caesar, a stack of books higher than I - and in them there was a line about some rabble-rouser being crucified, a single line - and that is why I question the historical Jesus ..

Are you looking in the right place?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes I can, again. And I can still come to the conclusion that Philo was not the founder of Christianity. I can see that he may and probably influenced some members in the Jesus movement and later Christianity, but that is far from founding either.

Jeez, does that really need to be said?

 

[dogsgod]

Again, why, on this occasion, with this particular person, does everything about him that is written in the main sources have to be all 100% accurate, or 100% false? We don't do this with any other figure in history. Why the special treatment of Jesus?

He's simply not the Jesus character we read about, he's unheard of.

And again, you have never stated a reason why some Jews would create a failed messiah that was so flawed. You've never given a logical reason for the invention of Jesus. As far as we can see then, there is no reason that anyone would invent him, and that, combined with the evidence supporting a historical Jesus, logically, one has to assume he existed.

The author of Mark is writing of a failed Pauline tradition, Jerusalem lay in ruins, it's about destruction and despair, and a loss of faith. It ends with the tomb empty, and the women are afraid and tell no one.

 

[fallingblood]

Jeez, does that really need to be said?

I would think not. But then again I find myself saying a lot of things that I never thought needed to be said.

 

[fallingblood]

He's simply not the Jesus character we read about, he's unheard of.

Maybe you want to prove that for once. Some evidence maybe? That or maybe you would like to address what I stated instead of sidestepping it.

The author of Mark is writing of a failed Pauline tradition, Jerusalem lay in ruins, it's about destruction and despair, and a loss of faith. It ends with the tomb empty, and the women are afraid and tell no one.

A failed Pauline tradition? Honestly, I didn't think the Pauline tradition failed at all seeing that it still is in existence today.

I also see little reason to assume that Mark is basing his information off of Paul. Unless you would want to admit that Paul then did know quite a bit about a historical Jesus and simply never mentioned it in his writings. Because if Mark is using the Pauline tradition, we have to assume it included more information on Jesus than seen in the Epistles. Which I believe refutes one of your own stances.

Also, Jerusalem isn't necessarily in ruins. Looking at what Jesus says about the temple in that Gospel, that not one stone will remained unturned, we see that he was wrong (as even to this day, there is a wall standing). Now, if they were writing after the fact, there would be no reason for the prediction to be wrong. So there is a good argument that Mark was written before the final fall, when the Temple was still standing.

As for it being about despair, maybe that is what you see. But the fact that Jesus raised at the end, can signify the opposite, whether or not the women told anyone.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Are you looking in the right place?

For Jesus, friend angellous? I got 1John 4:4 - and I paraphrase, there is more Jesus in you than in the world.

I got no problem with "Jesus is;" Jesus was... the way I heard it told, the Greeks couldn't deal with the name Joshua, thus Jesus was born... here in the desert, that sounds like "hey Zeus;" them Greeks, what a bunch of comedians.

 

[dogsgod]

Jeez, does that really need to be said?

Fallingbood said it for reasons only he knows.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For Jesus, friend angellous? I got 1John 4:4 - and I paraphrase, there is more Jesus in you than in the world.

I got no problem with "Jesus is;" Jesus was... the way I heard it told, the Greeks couldn't deal with the name Joshua, thus Jesus was born... here in the desert, that sounds like "hey Zeus;" them Greeks, what a bunch of comedians.

Well, you said that you didn't find much about Jesus in the pile of books that you read about Sulla and Julius Cesar. I can't believe that you found one line of Jesus in material about men who died before he was born.

 

[dogsgod]

Maybe you want to prove that for once. Some evidence maybe? That or maybe you would like to address what I stated instead of sidestepping it.

You describe an unheard of Jesus and ask me for evidence?

A failed Pauline tradition? Honestly, I didn't think the Pauline tradition failed at all seeing that it still is in existence today.

I also see little reason to assume that Mark is basing his information off of Paul. Unless you would want to admit that Paul then did know quite a bit about a historical Jesus and simply never mentioned it in his writings. Because if Mark is using the Pauline tradition, we have to assume it included more information on Jesus than seen in the Epistles. Which I believe refutes one of your own stances.

Also, Jerusalem isn't necessarily in ruins. Looking at what Jesus says about the temple in that Gospel, that not one stone will remained unturned, we see that he was wrong (as even to this day, there is a wall standing). Now, if they were writing after the fact, there would be no reason for the prediction to be wrong. So there is a good argument that Mark was written before the final fall, when the Temple was still standing.

As for it being about despair, maybe that is what you see. But the fact that Jesus raised at the end, can signify the opposite, whether or not the women told anyone.

Maybe you might want to read up a little on Jerusalem, about what happened to it and its inhabitants in 70CE, and as it existed through the ages including its present day location.

 

[fallingblood]

Fallingbood said it for reasons only he knows.

You really don't read what you or others post do you? You're the one who posted a website and claimed that Philo help lay the foundation. I was saying, no, he didn't. He was in no way a founder or help found Christianity.

 

[fallingblood]

You describe an unheard of Jesus and ask me for evidence?

Yes, evidence that he is unheard of. You claim the Jesus I describe is unheard of, but apparently Paul, and the Gospel writers heard of him. So now you have to prove that no, they in fact didn't hear of Jesus.

Or, we can make this very simple, provide evidence that Jesus did not exist. Or better yet, as I've requested numerous times now, and you seemingly can't do, provide a logical reason as to why some Jews would invent Jesus, a failed messiah who was simply flawed.

Maybe you might want to read up a little on Jerusalem, about what happened to it and its inhabitants in 70CE, and as it existed through the ages including its present day location.

So, to understand Mark, I need to understand Jerusalem up to its present day? Even though Mark doesn't care about Mark today. Even though Mark portrays the idea that this world would soon be gone. Maybe you want to reword that.

Or maybe you would like to address anything that has been said in a logical manner instead of doing all of this dancing around that you've been doing. Or, even better yet, maybe you want to support even the smallest idea that you are presenting here.

 

[dogsgod]

You really don't read what you or others post do you? You're the one who posted a website and claimed that Philo help lay the foundation. I was saying, no, he didn't. He was in no way a founder or help found Christianity.

"The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo’s The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely. Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 C.E.) even lists him as a church Father."

Hilarious, Philo, a church Father. However, his essays on the first born Son of God, and the Logos appears to have been influential.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Well, you said that you didn't find much about Jesus in the pile of books that you read about Sulla and Julius Cesar. I can't believe that you found one line of Jesus in material about men who died before he was born.

You're right, my bad. I got as far as Claudius... my statistical analysis sux... still say Jesus in you, now; no problem. I'm a church-ging fool now: Jesus in them, no problem. Josephus, the pet Flavian of Vespasian, problem. 3 othe sources mention the title "Christ" without a name, problem. Joshua ben Joseph, maybe; but I also heard "immaculate" was a substitute for "illegitimate," problem. But I really ain't got no problem.

 

[Oberon]

Jeez, does that really need to be said?

Apparently.

 

[fallingblood]

Hilarious, Philo, a church Father. However, his essays on the first born Son of God, and the Logos appears to have been influential.

Appearing to be influential, and laying the theological foundation of Christianity are very different.

I don't think anyone would doubt that Christianity was influenced by many different aspects.

 

[fallingblood]

You're right, my bad. I got as far as Claudius... my statistical analysis sux... still say Jesus in you, now; no problem. I'm a church-ging fool now: Jesus in them, no problem. Josephus, the pet Flavian of Vespasian, problem. 3 othe sources mention the title "Christ" without a name, problem. Joshua ben Joseph, maybe; but I also heard "immaculate" was a substitute for "illegitimate," problem. But I really ain't got no problem.

I will start backwards on this. The illegitimate problem really isn't a problem. There is virtually no support for that idea. It mainly arises out of the idea that the Talmud may contain authentic information about Jesus. However, it is separated so vastly from the actual events that we can't take it very seriously. Especially when we are not completely sure who the passage is talking about. According to Celsus, it was in fact talking about Jesus, but that would still only give us a single attestation.

As for the title Christ without a name being used, that also isn't much of a problem. The reason being that it was basically a nickname for Jesus. We have no evidence that anyone else was called Christ besides Jesus. Even Josephus uses the name Christ to qualify what Jesus he is speaking about. What has to be understood is that when the term Christ was being used, it wasn't suggesting anything special about Jesus. Instead, it became basically his nickname or even equivalent to his last name.

 

[dogsgod]

Appearing to be influential, and laying the theological foundation of Christianity are very different.

I don't think anyone would doubt that Christianity was influenced by many different aspects.

He was listed as a church Father, and his writings are the earliest so anything is possible. I wouldn't say he founded Christianity but he may have developed the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. If Paul wasn't the founder he certainly was a chief architect. Now that Christianity revolves about the gospel storied fictions, that makes the unknown author of Mark a founder as well.

Without the gospels Christianity falls flat on its face.


"Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity."

"The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo’s The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely. Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 C.E.) even lists him as a church Father."