Though the New Testament has many historical errors, the fact is that many of its points have been proven historically correct. Roman historians, Jewish historians, the finding of the Gnostic materials at Nag Hammadi and now the finding of Caiaphas' burial cave, establishes an historic fact that Jesus lived and died in a time and a place described in the New Testament. Some of the evidence supoorting these writings surfaced nearly 2000 years later, adding a strong rule of evidence toward their historic accuracy. Many books were omitted from the complication of the New Testament, the writings of John and of Mary, for instance, were never included in the scriptures. The exact words of Jesus may not be contained in the New Testament, but the essence of his teachings appeared to be confirmed from sources outside the New Testament.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Jesus Myth
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
- Status
Responding to points that you obviously haven't taken the time to consider is pretty rude.
If you're looking for a birth certificate, I can't help you. If you have any interest at all in conclusions based on deductive reasoning---which is what a huge part of historical "knowledge is--- read my second to last post before this one.
I can agree with your statement that the historical record is less than definite, but the "theological record"? If by "theological record" you mean the NT, are you trying to say that the New Testament doesn't make any claims for the existence of Jesus? Mind you, I'm not saying the gospels are a reliable source of history, but you seem to be saying that they're indecisive internally about his existence.
Yes, certain "facets", not his existence itself.
Yes it is. Read it again (or for the first time, whatever).
No, it isn't. What records are you talking about specifically? And bear in mind
that since you've decided to reject or ignore the the evidence I presented that points to the fact of his existence, in lue of any actual "record", please hold yourself to the same standard, ie., pointing out the fact that the same myths and legends that were already being told about other, more ancient figures wound up being applied to the Jesus story isn't an actual record; it's evidence pointing to a conclusion, and apparently you've decided for us that such conclusions are inadmissible for the sake of this debate.
Again: what "records" do we have that indicate specifically that Jesus never existed.
So you're saying that he (this person who you claim never existed) was the sole occupant of Judea/Galilee during his lifetime?
More like 13-15 years, actually. And the church itself, which I've already demonstrated was almost certainly in existence well before this, can reasonably be considered a "record".
Do you believe that the life expectencey of 1st. century people was less than 20 years?
Already showed you one way.
His existence doesn't rely on either of these things. Whether or not the evidence we have for his existence falls into one or the other of those categories is the question.
Only by those who think in absolutes---"either everything that was said about was true or nothing was"---and those who are satisfied with easy, superficial answers.
logician
Well-Known Member
This statement is certainly unture, as what few relics of history that mention a Christ are very generic, and go into no details at all about a suppsed Jesus. The reference from Josephus, a very generic, and unlikely one from a Jew, is out of context and quite likely a forgery added much later on. The rest can easily be assigned to hearsay, i.e. not-eyewitness accounts but just stories passed down.
No. Which is why there are maybe 2 or 3 historians in relevant fields (NT studies, biblical studies, classical studies, jewish studies, and other historians of that era and area) out of thousands who consider the idea that Jesus never existed credible. There are lots and lots of very skeptical scholars from all sorts of backgrounds who have waded into the historical Jesus debate, and yet they all agree he existed, had followers, was executed, and his followers began a religion (either continuing his teachings or perverting them or something in between).
A number of factors are important for understanding the reason for this universal acceptance of Jesus' historicity:
1. Sociological studies of religion. We have a good idea and a lot of scholarship on how different types of religious movement (sects, cults, etc) begin. Everything we have on the Jesus sect points back to Jesus as the founder. Whether his "real" message was lost early on, the earliest followers (even a contemporary like Paul) all point to Jesus as founder.
2. Josephus was in an excellent position to know what was going on in 1st century palestine both before and during his day. He mentions Jesus twice, and even if we threw out the longer reference as entirely spurious, the other reference names Jesus' brother, who was alive while Josephus was, and who was tried publicly in a trial Josephus knew about. This alone is more evidence for historicity than for many names that come down to us from antiquity.
3. That Jesus had a brother named James is also backed by Mark/Matthew and by Paul, who actually knew Jesus' brother.
4. Careful comparisons of the gospels with the genre of graeco-roman biography have shown that the gospels fit very well as "lives" or ancient biographies. You have to remember that ancient history, whether by Thucydides or Plutarch or Diogenes Laertius, was not held to modern standards. It often contained rumor, myth, magic, etc. This doesn't make such works historically worthless, and neither are the gospels (though how well they record historical events and teachings as they were witnessed is hotly debated). At the very least however, a number of independent "lives" of Jesus, the first written while there were still people around who were alive when the story took place, shows that an early community was interested in the historical mission of their founder, and clearly placed him in a historical time and place not long before.
History is all about trying to come up with the most plausible explanation for the available evidence. There is no better way to explain the evidence than that Jesus existed, inspired a following, and soon after his death his followers were interested in immortalizing his teachings, acts, and story.
Most of these "compilations" I have seen are extremely poor. For example, there are all sorts of comparisons between Jesus and Mithras, only the dying and resurrecting Mithras was the hellenistic one, and dates to about the beginning of the 2nd century CE, after at least three and probably all four gospels are written. Other comparisons take tidbits from this or that myth out of context and then attempt a comparison. Then there are the lists of comparisons like the one logician posted sometime ago that are chock full of outright historical errors and references to parts of myths that simply aren't there.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Calling the historical Jesus a rabbi is a bit of a stretch, I think. "Itinerate teacher" is a bit less specific.
You didn't approach the problem in a constructive way....
Consider this:
1) There were many, many people named "Jesus" in the ancient world.
2) The reconstruction of the historical Jesus is sourced from the Gospels.
3) The reconstruction of "Christ" need not be related to an historical Jesus. *This is critical. Just think about it - Paul doesn't need to know anything about Jesus of Nazareth to believe in Jesus the Christ.
4) The Gnostics and the early proto-orthodox didn't need to know the historical Jesus to construct their theologies.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
OK, I'll use that next time.
How many were there who had a brother named James and who were believed to be "the Christ".
Both Paul and Josephus mention such a person. How likely is it that they're talking about two separate people?
But the fact that Paul believed in a historical "Jesus Christ" who had been fully human is attested to by his many references to the crucifixion, "Christ's" resurrection form the dead, and again, his flesh and blood relationship with James.
But he seems to anyway. I realize Paul's focus was overwhelmingly on the metaphysical aspects of his theology, but I still think there's enough there to show that he was building his theology on an historic figure who was already the central character of an established religion.
Whether they needed to or not, and theology not withstanding, they seem to have had some knowledge of an actual historical Jesus anyway. I think in the same way that you can put the mythology to one side and look at the non-mythological assertions, you can just as well put theology to the side and recognize the non-theological clues.
Paul, Josephus, and the gospels all talk about a Jesus who:
Was believed by some to have been the Messiah
Had a brother named James
Was crucified
Taking all that into account I think the point I was trying to make about Paul's connection with the Jerusalem Christians, and (assuming) their connection with the beginnings of the movement, still makes a good case for an historical Jesus who lived and died in Judea around the time that the gospels claim he did.
Unless you believe that the Jerusalem Christians and the focus of their theology were something completely different from what's usually assumed.
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That is not entirely true. The most credible reconstructions of Jesus are based on a variety of factors, the Gospels and new Testament only being one. Gospels that were not included in the Bible are also included in the reconstruction. More so though, anthropological studies, as well as historical research of the culture of the Jewish homeland are also used. Archeological records, and writings from the time are also used in order to understand the time period better in which Jesus lived.
Credible reconstructions are based on a variety of different disciplines.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Yes, I visited the spot marked where Jesus was born, and the path he took carrying the cross, the place he was crucified, his burial shroud can be found in Turin, there are pieces of his cross on display in churches across Europe, I saw hand bones of John the Baptist in Istanbul, and of course there is the James ossuary, and not to mention what we have of the Gospels themselves, all contributing to the credible reconstruction of Jesus.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That is simply is misleading and purposely deceitful. If you want to argue what I said, actually do so, don't just add a sarcastic remark and believe that it really means anything.
You are quite correct, By isolating Jesus from the historical times in which he lived, is to see him outside the context of the reality that he was. this is a compilation of many historical and religious scholars.
Herod the Great was the Roman backed King of Judea from 37 BC , to when he died at Jericho in March or April of the year of 4 BC following an unsuccessful suicide attempt shortly after the big riots in which so many families lost their lives, in which riots the magnificent Hellenistic city of Sepphorus suffered extensive damage around the same time that Herod had ordered the slaughter of all the boys who were two years and below in the district of Northern Bethlehem, Nazareth and Sepphorus, where Jesus, who had been born in southern Bethlehem over a year earlier, then lived with his mother Mary and her husband Joseph the son of Jacob, who was the step father of Jesus. This Joseph whose genealogy is recorded in Matthew, should not be confused with the Joseph, who is the son of ‘Heli’, who is also the father of Mary. See the Genealogy recorded in Luke 3: 23, which is not that of Joseph the son of Jacob who had descended from Solomon the son of David and Bath-Sheba.
Although a practicing Jew, Herod was an Arab, the son of an Edomite named Antipater and whose mother was the daughter of a nobleman from Petra the capital of the rising Nabataean Kingdom. In 63 BC, Antipater sided with Rome when Pompey invaded Palestine and in 47 BC Julius Caesar whose mistress Cleopatra was to later bear to him a son ‘Caesarion,’ appointed Antipater procurator of Judea and bestowed Roman citizenship upon him, an honour that was inherited by ‘Herod the Great’ and his sons.
At the age of 16, Herod met his life long friend Mark Antony to who, in the year of 40 BC, on the 25TH December (An important date to remember) Cleopatra bore to Mark Antony, the twins whose names are Cleopatra Selene (Moon) and Alexander Helios (Sun) or Heli.
In 37 BC, the Roman senate nominated Herod as the King of Judea, a position he held for 32 years. Even after the defeat by Octavian, (who was to be known as the Emperor Augustus,) over his good friend Mark Antony at Actium (A promontory and ancient town of western Greece the ancient Hittite nation) in 31 BC in their struggle for the throne of the assassinated Julius Caesar. Octavian who knew of Herod’s love and earlier support for his now deceased friend Mark Antony, never the less knew that Herod was the one who would best rule Palestine as he himself would want it to be ruled, and Herod and Augustus were to later become close friends.
During his reign, Herod the Great built many massive fortresses and splendid cities, amphitheatres, and hippodromes for the Grecian games inaugurated in honour of Augustus, but his most grandiose creation was the Temple in Jerusalem, which he wholly built from the cornerstone up. Not only did he patronize the Olympic games, as did his sons, he was to become the president of those games, which, after his death continued to enjoy the support of his sons, Archelaus, Antipas and his brother Philip from Bethsaida, who was very popular and accessible to the Greeks, who came looking for Jesus.
Tetrarch, in Greek, means ‘Ruler of a quarter’, I wonder who the fourth Tetrarch of Israel was? Nathanael who was introduced to Jesus by Phillip, lived in the town of Cana where Jesus performed his first miracle at the insistence of his mother, who it would appear, had some hand in the organization of the wedding.
Herod’s descendants were not only the temporal rulers, but also the spiritual rulers of Palestine, or parts thereof during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. In his youth, Herod had married a woman named Doris, the mother of his first born son “Antipater’ who he later disinherited and killed.
Because he was an Idumaean and hated by the Jews, he attempted to appease them by marrying a Jewess, Mariamne a descendant of the Maccabees family of Jewish patriots, whom he actually loved. Mariamne, who had insisted that her brother be appointed high priest, was the daughter of Salome=Alexandra an heir from the old ruling Hasmonaean line and she is not to be confused with the niece of Herod Antipas, whose name is thought to be ‘Salome,’ the daughter of Herodias the wife of Philip 1, who is considered by some scholars to be one and the same as Philip of Bethsaida, the half brother to Herod Antipas.
With the support of the Queen of Egypt ‘Cleopatra’, a close friend of the Jewess Salome/ Alexandra, (the should have been queen) of the Hasmonaean line which was defeated by Pompey, Salome attempted to have Herod ousted in favour of her grand sons, finally ‘Herod the Great,’ had Mariamne, her brother and her two sons, plus her mother and grand father all killed, although one of Mariamne’s grand sons, ‘Herod Agrippa 1’ survived to rule in Palestine from about the late 41 AD to 44 AD.
According to the Encyclopaedia Britt, ‘Philip the son of ‘Herod the Great’ was born in 20 BC of a young woman by the name of ‘Cleopatra’ not Cleopatra the Queen of Egypt who died in 30 BC, 10 years after the birth of her twins, and 20 years before the birth of Philip who was about 14 years older than ‘Jesus’ who was born around 6 BC as the grandson of Heli, and the son of Mary from the tribe of Levi (Moses) whose cousin was Elizabeth, of the daughters of Levi.
Philip was given control of southern Lebanon and modern Syria, to the east of the Lake Galilee and Philip was a model ruler of whom almost nothing is known except for the fact that he ruled (throughout the life of Jesus) the district in which Jesus spent much of his ministerial time, and in which he worked most of his miracles. Matthew 11: 20-21, “The people in the towns where Jesus performed MOST of his MIGHTY MIRACLES,” did not turn from their sins, so he reproached those towns on the eastern side of the lake, “How terrible it will be for you, Chorazin! How terrible for you too, Bethsaida etc.” It was out side the walls of ‘Bethsaida Julias’ that had been rebuilt by Philip in 2 BC that Jesus healed a blind man, See Mark 8: 22-26......... To Be Continued
Last edited:
it was in Caesarea Philippi a city rebuilt by Philip, that Jesus asked his disciples ‘who people were saying he was.’ It was in this district that Philip from Bethsaida played a part in the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes and in medieval art Philips symbol was loaves, See John 6: 1-7 where Jesus puts Philip to the test.
The last Testament of Herod the Great which was approved by Augustus, provided that Archelaus receive ruler ship of Judea, with Philip and Antipas ruling two of the remaining tetrarch’s. The reason why Joseph, when returning from Egypt with his wife Mary and her child Jesus after the death of Herod the Great, was afraid to live in Judea was because this cruel, depraved and despised Herod Archelaus was ruling there. Archelaus was later recalled to Rome and banished because he had antagonized the entire population of Judea and Samaria. Judea then became a Roman province and the Herod who was in Jerusalem at the time of Passover Festival, when Jesus was being tried by Pontius Pilate on the evening and beginning of the Day of preparation to the Passover, was Herod Antipas, who ruled from Jericho, and whose first building project on succeeding his father in 3 B.C., was the reconstruction of the Hellenistic city of Supporhus, which suffered so much destruction in the riots of 4 B.C., and it was he who had John the Baptist beheaded at the request of Herodias the wife of Philip and mother of Philip’s daughter.
In 34 AD, shortly after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Philips reign came to a sudden end, and in 36 AD, Herod Agrippa 1, the grandson of Herod the Great and nephew of Philip and Antipas, received the tetrarch of Batanaera and Trachonitis to the east of the sea of Galilee, formerly held by his uncle Philip. When Herod Antipas and Herodias tried to discredit Agrippa 1, who was in favour with the Emperor Caligula, they themselves were banished, Antipas’ tetrarch passing on to Agrippa 1 in AD 39. Then in 41 AD and after the assassination of Caligula, Agrippa’s support for Claudius was rewarded with the government of Judea, which had, since the banishment of Herod Archelaus, been ruled by Roman procurators for about 30 years.
It was this Herod who enjoyed the support and adoration of the Jewish authorities, who did all in his power to crush the infant Jewish Apostolic Church. It was he who executed James the son Zebedee whose mother, the wife of Zebedee, was Salome, a close friend of Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s minister of finances and one of the women who supported Jesus, using their own resources.
Agrippa would have killed Peter also, had he not have escaped from prison. Agrippa’s sudden death in 44 AD is recorded in Acts 12: 21-23. Bethsaida on the eastern side of the Jordan where it enters Lake Galilee, was the birth place of Peter and his brother Andrew who was a close friend of Philip, who, with Andrew, were the two men to who John the Baptist pointed out his cousin Jesus as the one whom the light of man had chosen as the man through who he would reveal himself to the world; the man that he had promised Moses in Deuteronomy 18: 18; that he would in the future, raise up from among the Israelites, the one who would come in the name of the Lord, ‘Who I Am’ and speak only that which he was commanded to say by his indwelling spirit that had descended upon him in the form of a dove.
Paul’s first letter to Timothy 1: 1; The Lord God is our saviour, and to be one in the ruling body of Jesus is our hope. When Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well and she said to him that she knew that the Messiah would come and reveal all things, he answered, “The one who speaks to you is He.” These were not the words of Jesus, but those of our indwelling ancestral Father, who spoke to her through Jesus.
The words that Jesus spoke were not his words but were given for him to speak by our Father who sent him and who said, he who believes on me even though his is dead, yet shall he live again, but he who believes on me and lives, will never die. Death had absolutely no power over Jesus, but in order that the world should believe that he ‘The only Son of God’ who has made himself manifest in Jesus his servant and physical image that was to be lifted up in the same manner as Moses lifted up the image of the serpent, loves our father and does everything that he is commanded to do, he was obedient even unto death, proving to the world that even though you are dead, if you truly believe, yet shall you live again, but there is one among us, even now, who will prove to the world that he who believes and lives, will never die, but shall, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, be translated from a body of corruptible matter into an incorruptible body of light? Spontaneous combustion is a belief that is not only found in the bible, but also in the eastern religions. This I believe.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
These places and things really do exist and I did see them. You believe a gospel that is mythology from start to finish and you are not alone, just ask Oberon how many scholars believe, he will gleefully tell you of the vast majority of believing scholars. People read this story and believe, people see these places and artifacts and believe, so what is it you are trying to say when you accuse me of these things?
Last edited:
logician
Well-Known Member
"Paul, Josephus, and the gospels all talk about a Jesus who:
Was believed by some to have been the Messiah
Had a brother named James
Was crucified"
Except the Josephus reference is most certainly a forgery added much later on. The rest are biblical references of no historical value. Also, many books attributed to the so-called Paul were not written by such a person, in the ones that were attributed to him, he never mentions the teachings of the supposed Jesus, or acts like such a man existed.
Was believed by some to have been the Messiah
Had a brother named James
Was crucified"
Except the Josephus reference is most certainly a forgery added much later on. The rest are biblical references of no historical value. Also, many books attributed to the so-called Paul were not written by such a person, in the ones that were attributed to him, he never mentions the teachings of the supposed Jesus, or acts like such a man existed.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Again, not the Syrain one...
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
AND the "Josephus reference" is only a forgery in part.
Even scholars who reject ONE FORM of the Josephus reference still think that the "forgery" has some reference to Jesus.
Josephus'Testimony to Jesus
Except that people far more familiar with the nature of ancient historical genres and ancient texts than you are in a far better position to see the relative historical merit in the gospels. Your faith in the Jesus myth theory rivals the literalist approach to the bible.
Familiarize yourself with actual scholarship. The reference to James the brother of Jesus in Josephus is considered genuine by virtually all experts.
Yet historians would disagree. Why? Because, having read ancient historical works, they are well aware of the nature of ancient histories to blend myth, religion, rumor, etc, with fact.
Wrong. He cites Jesus' teaching on divorce. He states that he underwent a roman form of crucifixion, which would hardly have occured in Israel until it was fully under roman rule (which occured during Jesus' life). He states that he was descended from David according to the flesh. He states that he had a meal with his disciples. So yes, he does cite his teachings and yes, he does act like Jesus was at one point a walking, talking, breathing person.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Oberon....
I don't think that logician realizes that his views represent the most radical and implausible philosophy of historicity.
And on top of this, he refuses to review any of the evidence.
I don't think that logician realizes that his views represent the most radical and implausible philosophy of historicity.
And on top of this, he refuses to review any of the evidence.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:beach:
- Status