Leave the bible for a moment, How do you relate to that whole Juses Christ thing, true? false? half truth?

I don't think it's possible to talk about Jesus without talking about the Gospels. they're the closest thing to a coherent historical record that exists.

Without the Bible, all that is left are a few scraps from Josephus, Tacitus, and others, written decades or centuries after the time of Jesus.

Leave the bible for a moment, How do you relate to that whole Juses Christ thing, true? false? half truth?
About the same as I relate to Venusians.

I can't say any of them is impossible, just highly unlikely -- in my experience.

I would say "blown out of proportion". My call is that he was social reformer who got snapped up as a media icon. He was marketable. He was Elvis, but only after his death. Read the Jefferson Bible for a bible without the razzle-dazzle dog and pony show.

What would he be doing today? Probably throwing rocks at Israeli tanks. (I don't know why I think he would be Palestinian. Just an image. Where the hell was he from again?)

I think there was someone by that name (actually more like Yeshua) who was probably religious and had some followers, but it would be difficult to sort the myths from the facts.

The letters of Paul, Mathew, Mark, and the source known as Q suggest that the "Christ" of Jesus does in fact exist. But he was just a good person, like Che and Socrates, and not a God. Fanatics to this day worship him as the "son of God" and act in perversions of all his character and beliefs.

He was either the Son of God incarnated or a liar/lunatic.

The invisible and the non-existant look very much alike. ;)

The letters of Paul, Mathew, Mark, and the source known as Q suggest that the "Christ" of Jesus does in fact exist. But he was just a good person, like Che and Socrates, and not a God. Fanatics to this day worship him as the "son of God" and act in perversions of all his character and beliefs.

I thing you're mistaken...Socrates WAS a god(metaphorically).

shaky

I think there was someone by that name (actually more like Yeshua) who was probably religious and had some followers, but it would be difficult to sort the myths from the facts.you mean there were 2 Jesus's?

In around 117 Tacitus wrote in his 'Annals' regarding the fire in Rome of 64:

'Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired'

This is written only 53 years after an event which happened only eight years before Tacitus was born so it's the equivalent of someone today born in 1962 writing an historical record of something that happened in 1954. This would not be difficult and there would be lots of personal testimony to collate as well as official records available. If tacitus were lying, there would conversely be plenty who could have and would have disputed the account.

It is likley therefore that Tacitus's version is accurate.

That being the case there were a large number of people in 64 who were prepared to die for their belief in the life, death and resurrection of 'Christus'.
It appears that Tacitus believes this to be a name rather than the Latin version of 'christos' which is Greek for Messiah, but that is not particularly surprising for a Roman with little idea of Jewish religion.

Now 64 is only 34 years after the likely date for Jesus' crucifixion, so again if there was a new 'cult' based upon a non existent person or a non existent event, there would have been plenty of people still around who could prove the falsehood and plenty with a motive to do so (the Jewish religious establishment for instance). But this clearly did not happen. In fact the Jewish leaders (and thus mainstream Judaism to this day) has never denied the existence of Jesus as a person but still adheres to the Gospel reported story that Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples whilst the guards were asleep.

This of course requires gross dereliction of duty by the guards (punishable by death in accordance with Roman military procedure) and also requires the disciples to have been inspired to be prepared to suffer martyrdom for their own deception and lie. Both are extremely unlikely.

The concept of the life of Jesus being a story made up centuries later there being no such historical character is a relatively modern idea promulgated by those with an anti-christian motive and on any objective analysis simply does not fit the facts.

'Yeshua' (which is transliterated to Jesus in English via Latin) was a common Jewish name (meaning 'God Saves'). It is the same name which (via Greek this time) is transliterated as Joshua. This is the reason why the Jesus to whom we are referring here is normally referred to as Jesus Christ or Jesus the Christ ('Jesus the Messiah'). This would explain Tacitus's confusion over the word 'Christus'.

If anyone wants to check historical evidence and make up their own mind, I recommend 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel.


Regards,


Gordon.

Good clear thinking post there Gord.

Most of the posts addressing this topic are either vehemently for or against the historical Jesus...the kind of vehemence that fogs up the brain.

Greetings Gordon


In around 117 Tacitus wrote in his 'Annals' regarding the fire in Rome of 64:
It is likley therefore that Tacitus's version is accurate.

Not at all.

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:


Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.


This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus circulating in Rome.


That being the case there were a large number of people in 64 who were prepared to die for their belief in the life, death and resurrection of 'Christus'.

There is no evidence of that - just later legends attempting to support earlier legends.

Anyway - so what?
People die for false beliefs all the time - so what?

Heaven's Gate cult did - therefore according to your argument - their beliefs were correct.

Suicide Bombers still die for their beliefs - therefore according to your argument - their beliefs are correct.

This is a nonsense argument.

In fact the Jewish leaders (and thus mainstream Judaism to this day) has never denied the existence of Jesus as a person but still adheres to the Gospel reported story that Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples whilst the guards were asleep.

Nonsense.

The Jewish writings say all sorts of rubbish about Jesus :
* that he was the bastard son of Roman soldier
* that he learned black magic in Egypt
* that he burned his food
* that he was conceived during menses
* that he was stoned to death in Lydda
* that he had 5 disciples

Do you think that is accurate information about Jesus?


The concept of the life of Jesus being a story made up centuries later there being no such historical character is a relatively modern idea promulgated by those with an anti-christian motive and on any objective analysis simply does not fit the facts.

Rubbish.
Numerous authors have claimed Jesus was a myth for many centuries. And many early Christians denied Jesus ever came in the flesh.

The earliest Christian writings show NO KNOWLEDGE of any historical Jesus of Nazareth - Paul, James, Jude, John, Peter, Clement .. no mention of any historical Jesus.

Indeed,
no Christian even mentions the empty tomb until over a CENTURY after the alleged fact !

If anyone wants to check historical evidence and make up their own mind, I recommend 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel.

Pure apologetics.
No discussion of the issues - just preaching Christian beliefs.

Strobel is throughly proven wrong here:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm



Iasion

Great post Iasion

He was either the Son of God incarnated or a liar/lunatic.

You leave out a ton of other options, IAC. He could be fictional, and Paul could have been crazy or a liar (I personally think he was both). He could have been real, but others could have bastardized his teachings for their own gain (look at the subsequent 2,000 years of church history for much proof that this is likely).

The liar/lunatic argument was never a good one, and has been kicked in the teeth for many years now. Only people of unthinking devotion prop it up these days, and it just leads to another thrashing.

If you called yourself the Messiah, swivel, I would call you a liar/lunatic, want to try?

Jesus, if he existed and if the Gospels are to be believed, never said he was the Messiah - but that others chose to call him that.


However, the 4 main Gospels are only one source - and not to be taken as any more or less significant or valid than any other source - and should be viewed as that until proven true / false.

One must also remember that they were written for a purpose - and thus would be expected to be full of bias and subjective interpretation to fit their desired audience and purpose.

However, that is also not say they should be dismissed out of hand, just understood and accepted for what they are.

Sarkus, if you had to bet on whether Jesus existed and performed those miracles, or didn't, which way would you bet?

I've seen a man walk on water.

His name was Criss Angel.

Sarkus, if you had to bet on whether Jesus existed and performed those miracles, or didn't, which way would you bet?Existed? I would probably bet that there existed a man, probably named Jesus (or equivalent), on which the stories of the gospels are based. It wouldn't be a "safe bet" and I'm not sure how one could prove either way. But I would take a flutter. What odds are you offering?

Performing the miracles as described and accepting them as described, as events that defy the laws of the Universe - I would bet against it.

Doing things that might appear to defy the laws of the Universe through either exaggeration or misunderstanding of what actually happened etc - possibly.

Why do you want to know?

The cornerstone of the historical accounts about Jesus' life on Earth is the miracles, He would not even be historically mentionable had it not been for the miracles, the miracles are what brought attention to Him.

The cornerstone of the historical accounts about Jesus' life on Earth is the miracles, He would not even be historically mentionable had it not been for the miracles, the miracles are what brought attention to Him.Unfortunately, while it is reasonable to accept that the person existed, it is not reasonable to accept that the "miracles" were as recorded.

As I said earlier, reason and miracles do not mix.

He would have been nothing to remember without the miracles, just another "blithering idiot."

He would have been nothing to remember without the miracles, just another "blithering idiot."Is it more rational that he performed the miracles as described, defying the laws of nature that have remained undefied before then and ever since, or that he was "just another blithering idiot" that some people wanted other people to remember and thus exaggerated what he did?

Remember, we're talking "reason" here, not truth, not actuality, but what is more reasonable.

He would have been nothing to remember without the miracles, just another "blithering idiot."

Exactly.

God is supremely logical. So he knew that unless he told Jesus to perform miracles, no one believe in him. Jesus would have had to perform miracles to prove who he was. It wouldn't take away from his sacrifice or truthful teachings (assuming belief in Jesus).

Is it more rational that he performed the miracles as described, defying the laws of nature that have remained undefied before then and ever since, or that he was "just another blithering idiot" that some people wanted other people to remember and thus exaggerated what he did?

Remember, we're talking "reason" here, not truth, not actuality, but what is more reasonable.

It is reasonable to believe that only the Son of God would be given the power of God to perform law-defying miracles. That is why no one will be able to raise people from the dead ever again, and why no was able to up to the point of Jesus.

"Is it reasonable to believe"...
Good one. :)

It is never reasonable to believe - only to assess the probability on the weight of evidence.


You can start with assumptions and reach logical conclusion that only hold with those assumptions...
e.g. ASSUMING God exists, and ASSUMING Jesus is the Son of God, and ASSUMING God can perform miracles, then one could logically assume that he would bestow miracle-power on his son etc.

But that rationale is dependent upon the base assumptions.

It is, unfortunately, NOT reasonable to take those assumptions as given.

True.

Greetings,

The cornerstone of the historical accounts about Jesus' life on Earth is the miracles,

There are no historical accounts of Jesus.
Just anonymous legends from long afterwards.

Miracles?
The early Christians knew of NO miracles -

Paul - no miracles mentioned
Peter - no miracles mentioned
Hebrews - no miracles mentioned
John - no miracles mentioned
Jude - no miracles mentioned
James - no miracles mentioned
Clement - no miracles mentioned
Pastorals - no miracles mentioned

The first mention of any "miracles" is over a CENTURY after they allegedly occured.

Clear evidence it's all myth.


He would not even be historically mentionable had it not been for the miracles, the miracles are what brought attention to Him.

Jesus is not mentioned in history.

Jesus' miracles are not mentioned in history.

Jesus' miracles are not even mentioned in CHRISTIAN writings until mid 2nd century.
http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html

Clear evidence it's all myth.


Iasion

How can writings about events be "clear evidence it's all myth?"

How can writings about events be "clear evidence it's all myth?"

Once again, you ignored the facts.
The LACK of writings is what shows it's a myth.

How do you explain these facts :

no contemporary writer mentions Jesus
no CHRISTIAN writer mentions miracles until a good CENTURY later

Explain that Ice -

How come the early Christians knew NOTHING about any miracles?

YOU said the miracles are so important - yet you ignore the fact that the early Christians knew NOTHING about any miracles.

I expect you will continue to ignore these facts, and just preach on and on ...


Iasion

The Gospels were being written and circulated from 50 to 80 A.D., and no one contested the accounts therein.

If you called yourself the Messiah, swivel, I would call you a liar/lunatic, want to try?

What would be the point? Would this prove anything?

I don't call myself the messiah, and I don't think Jesus ever did either. Mainly because I'm skeptical that he ever existed, but also because even if he did exist, he never would have claimed to be the son of his deity. He was a good Jew, not a revolutionary trying to create a new religion.

You belong to a cult, IAC. Wake up.

No, you belong to a cult, wake up.

I believed he existed but Christianity is probably an abomination of his beliefs. I also doubt he believed he was the son of God unless he was delusional or con artist.

For those that believe he was the son of God, here's my question. Was he also illerate? Why didn't he write the Bible himself when he was here instead of allowing people he didn't know write it hundreds of years later?

The Apostles wrote them, you know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Timothy, etc.

The Gospels were being written and circulated from 50 to 80 A.D.,

Wrong again.
The Gospels are dated by scholars to 65-120 or so - and none of them were written by the person whose name they bear - they were originally ANONYMOUS and only named in the 180s.

But no CHRISTIAN writer mentions the Gospels or their contents until early-mid 2nd century.

You ignored that and kept right on preaching.

NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any historical Jesus - you mention Timothy, but seem totally unaware it's a FORGERY !

Incredible.


and no one contested the accounts therein.

Wrong again.
I showed cases of EXACTLY that - such as
* Celsus calling the Gospels FICTION based on MYTH, or
* Porphyry calling the evangelists INVENTORS, or
* Julian saying the Gospels were FABRICATED.

You ignored that and kept right on preaching.


Iasion

The Apostles wrote them, you know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Timothy, etc.

Yeah, but why didn't Jesus write them...You know, God,the Holy Spirit, aka The Word Made Flesh?

Something that important seems like the kind of thing someone perfect should do....like himself...right?

Never understood that. Why Jesus left the all important task of writing out his belief to less than perfect sinners.

The Gospels were being written and circulated from 50 to 80 A.D., and no one contested the accounts therein.

Yes in fact they did. You gloss over the history of the early Christians, which was much less uniform in theology than even today. Elaine Pagels tells the story.

The early Christians were compiling the Gospels and other NT books through the decades after 50 A.D., and no one contested their authorship, nor the veracity of them, except a few wack jobs cited by Iason.

Pagels argues that early authority figures within the church, particularly Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, concluded that the writer of the Gospel of Thomas erred in suggesting that Jesus taught "that we have direct access to God through the divine image within us," Pagels writes. In contrast, the majestic Gospel according to John--which Pagels believes was probably written in response to Thomas, with the two texts "in dialogue" but also often in conflict--took a far different view of Jesus and his ministry and proved more useful in uniting the growing Christian movement.

If Thomas believed humans should try to emulate Jesus as a way of discovering inner divinity, John's Gospel "succeeded ever after in persuading the majority of Christians," Pagels writes, that "only by believing in Jesus can we find divine truth."

"The history of Christianity is not a triumphal march of ideas but a series of intense arguments and conversations," Pagels said. "I love that side of it."

But Jesus said "you must be born again."

Discovering inner divinity, born again, they are both symbols of transformation.

If everyone has "inner divinity," then why did He need to come to Earth to die on the cross?

That necessity is part of orthodox doctrine. I think Thomas Christians would argue that the crucifixion was merely an example of Jesus living his teaching, rather than the ultimate "holy lamb, your sins are magically clean, yada, yada, yada".

How strong is your belief in Jesus from an historic point of view?

I think Jesus is based on a real person. I think upon his death, people he knew were probably taken by surprise at the amount of people who soon became interested... and greedily, they borrowed, stole and invented a lot of stories to further that interest. Hence why most of the writings are decades after his death and absolutely nothing written during the life of this so-called son of god.

I don't believe there were really any great supernatural aspects about Jesus during his lifetime, they came about after his death. If christians today could go back and see the real Jesus (if he ever existed at all), they would be sorely disappointed.

People who think the story of Jesus is anything like being accurate, are really delusional or stupid... or both.

It's a bit like searching out the historical King Arthur, or the historical Homer. Very few facts, and lots of rumour, and damn near impossible to determine which is which.

Pete: It's a bit like searching out the historical King Arthur, or the historical Homer. Very few facts, and lots of rumour, and damn near impossible to determine which is which.

*************
M*W: Interesting point. Homer allegedly wrote the Iliad, but was it really Homer? Or was it somebody else using the pseudonym Homer?

I used to believe there was a King Arthur, but now I know he is just a metaphor for the Great Bear Constellation (Ursa Major). The "round table" of course is the 12 signs of the zodiac. The knights of the round table are the different signs/positions of the zodiac. Avalon=heaven. The holy grail, well, it's a cup, so that must be a metaphor for Aquarias.

It's like this: Someday we will all be mythological characters, too. Some good, some evil. I just hope I'll be remembered as one of the good ones. Well, maybe, not on sciforums, but in real life. I guess this is only a reality show we're in. "All the world's a stage...". ~ Shakespeare (the original reality show creator). A Simon Cowell of his day, I suppose!

I used to believe there was a King Arthur, but now I know he is just a metaphor for the Great Bear Constellation (Ursa Major). The "round table" of course is the 12 signs of the zodiac. The knights of the round table are the different signs/positions of the zodiac. Avalon=heaven. The holy grail, well, it's a cup, so that must be a metaphor for Aquarias.I know it's off topic but...

I prefer the idea that King Arthur was based on the myths / legends that would have circulated at the time in every little village - where the strongest warriors would have earned the nickname of "Arturus" - meaning Bear in Latin - for the feats that they did.
Each village would have its own stories of what its "bear" would do, and as the stories spread, they slowly amalgamated into one person - "Artur" / "Arthur".

That necessity is part of orthodox doctrine. I think Thomas Christians would argue that the crucifixion was merely an example of Jesus living his teaching, rather than the ultimate "holy lamb, your sins are magically clean, yada, yada, yada".

The Council of Nicea effectively threw out the Gospel of Thomas account.
With the concept of "hidden divinity" they knew this would self empower people too much. It's much easier to control the masses with the concept of a jealous, vengefull ,and harsh god who is apart from his creation.

Greeetings,

The Council of Nicea effectively threw out the Gospel of Thomas account.

No it didn't.

The CoN had nothing to do with chosing the books of the bible, nor did it discuss the GoT at all.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

But this urban legend is repeated endlessly online.


Iasion

Greetings,

The early Christians were compiling the Gospels and other NT books through the decades after 50 A.D., and no one contested their authorship, nor the veracity of them, except a few wack jobs cited by Iason.

Now that is truly hilarious.

First he says :
"no-one contested them",

then he says
"except those who DID"

What a laugh.
As if calling them "wack jobs" means their testimony is false.

We can see how good Ice is at researching and fact checking by his inability to get a simple name right.


Iasion

There are also wack jobs who say the holocaust never occurred, I bet you're one of those Iasion.

If everyone has "inner divinity," then why did He need to come to Earth to die on the cross?

So, is he still dead?

There are also wack jobs who say the holocaust never occurred, I bet you're one of those Iasion.

Are they all still dead?

Think about it.

He is risen!

I think many of the Holocaust victims are now with the Lord, saved by their belief in Jesus Christ, the Jewish and Gentile Messiah.

He is risen!

I think many of the Holocaust victims are now with the Lord, saved by their belief in Jesus Christ, the Jewish and Gentile Messiah.

He came down, allegedly died and then rose up again.

He never really died, did he?

Had could the Romans have been so wrong, and what happened to the Roman guards who let Him get away?

Greeetings,



No it didn't.

The CoN had nothing to do with chosing the books of the bible, nor did it discuss the GoT at all.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

But this urban legend is repeated endlessly online.


Iasion


Then I stand corrected.
Thanks for the link !

Had could the Romans have been so wrong, and what happened to the Roman guards who let Him get away?

You missed the point, he never really died, for sins or any other reason.

Greeetings,



No it didn't.

The CoN had nothing to do with chosing the books of the bible, nor did it discuss the GoT at all.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

But this urban legend is repeated endlessly online.


Iasion

Where and how was the event that decided what would go in the bible and what would be thrown out?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Canon

He came down, allegedly died and then rose up again.

He never really died, did he?


Thomas, one of his apostles, apparently agreed.

When told by other apostles that Jesus had been risen from the dead, Thomas resonded: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."