I get that, and I agree that's true, however I don't think the Bible is evidence for that alone. I think other sources such as Tacitus are the only things that confirm that.
What I think he is saying is that there was probably a man named Jesus who taught people in religious ways during that time but he probably … morewasn't any kind of mystic or son of a god. People extorted his life in order to make him more appealing to people.
I don't think the Bible is good evidence at all for that (as said above, early hexameter poets went to great lengths to portray the existenc… moree of Athena, that doesn't mean she existed.
However, Tacitus, a relatively contemporary historian, DOES mention Christ. Now that's a good source.
I believe he was real. Not in a religious way. I don't think Jesus planned on creating a new religion just to right things he saw as wrong in Judaism at the time. It was his followers who turned him into a martyr and later in almost all respects a "God." He is a "God" in almost every religious way but being Christianity was born from Judaism which believed in only one God, Jesus' followers in turn likely claimed he was the son of god just to get around that technicality. Islam was born in a similar way both are a branch religion off of Judaism, people who left it. Mormonism is a branch of Christianity, but one that came much more recently, and like Christianity it's founders REALLY did exist, we have real public records that they existed. Because of this I also believe Jesus, and some of his followers also really existed. Now you can argue the real historical technicality of the events surrounding their lives but it is very hard to deny that they existed.
I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw. Had they been writing a fiction based on the Judaic messiah they would have had him born in Bethlehem because reasons, but there needed to be a justification as to why Jesus was born there when his mother was from Nazareth. So, for the purpose of suitability, the writers needed to manufacture a cause for Mary to venture to Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus, which explains why they mention a census that didn't take place. This wouldn't have been worth mentioning if the story wasn't somewhat based in real accounts and wasn't trying persuade others to think of Jesus as a savior that complies with Judaic expectations.
I don't think the Bible is good evidence at all for that (as said above, early hexameter poets went to great lengths to portray the existenc… moree of Athena, that doesn't mean she existed.
However, Tacitus, a relatively contemporary historian, DOES mention Christ. Now that's a good source.
Sorry, Jen. Flavius' words about Jesus are forged. They were added to his text later. Earlier Christian historian says Flavius does not know… more about Jesus, then (suddenly) here IT is. And the fragment makes no sense. Jewish historian writes - that wise man was a Messiah? In the part about Ancient Rome tragedies? Fake.
About Tacitus. He was born 56, died 117. If he really wrote about Christians, he did it 80 years after Jesus. Got informations probably from (well known then) sect or their gospels. Anyway, story concerned the Great Fire of Rome 64 AD. There were rumors Emperor Nero destroyed Rome but it's hard to believe. Secondary source.
I get that, and I agree that's true, however I don't think the Bible is evidence for that alone. I think other sources such as Tacitus are the only things that confirm that.
I always think that he walked on shallow waters but the dumb people of the time didn't know it and when they saw him doing that they thought he was walking on deep water.
Heard about Epic of Gilgamesh, epic poem from Mesopotamia? It's Noah's story, but older. Almost the same tale about great flood.
There were few gods before Jesus who were born on 25th december, their mother was virgin, three wise man came, performed miracles as adults, taught, had disciples, were crucified, came back from the dead. Does that make Jesus historical?
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." - Antiquities, 18.3.3
"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned." - Antiquities, 20.9.1
by Titus Flavius Josephus, more about this, BUT there are some doubts regarding the authenticity
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center 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. - Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44
by Tacitus
“…Christus…suffered crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of its procurators, Pontius Pilatus…”
- The Talmud says in Sanhedrin 43
"…on the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged.” - Josephus reported in Antiquities 18.3.3:
"Now there was about this time Jesus...Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us...condemned him to the cross". - Mara Bar-Serapion wrote in his letter:
“What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished". - Lucian wrote in The Passing of Peregrine:
Yeah, The Testimonium Flavianum was mentioned. It's fake. Not much from the guy who was born and raised in Jerusalem. If Jesus was popular Flavius had to hear stories about him from people. Wasn't very interested, it seems.
Tacitus, yes. We did mention him. Unfortunately, lived 80 years later.
You've switched the authors and sources;
Talmud - that must be another Jesus, one with 5 disciples.
Mara Bar Sarapion - we don't know when he wrote that. Who was "wise king" of Jews? Maybe not a Jesus.
Lucian of Samosata, lived 125 - 180 AD. Won't help.
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such… more men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." - Antiquities, 18.3.3
"But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was o… [view original content]
I think Jesus was a real person that did a lot of the things described in the bible. First off, I'm not religious, and the things I'm talking about do not include turning water into wine or walking over water, making blind people see or heal the crippled. I'm talking about a man who was fed up with the way people were opressed and humiliated. Think an ancient Che Guevara, just less violent. Many people were starving and fearing for their very lives every day, but they were to scared to do something. What they needed was a symbol of hope, a leader, and that leader was Jesus. Remember that the first written sources indicating his existence came about years after his death. Years that the story had time to grow, to be exaggerated and enrichened. One thousand fish turned into one hundred, then ten, then one. At first, he could only give consolation to the sick, later he was a healer, then he could do the impossible.
His story was exaggerated so much in this near century that not much of the original story remained. Was there a man named Jesus who was a symbol of hope to the people? Certainly, I don't doubt it one second. Every myth is based on a tiny bit of truth. But I'll still never be religious, because the stories in the bible are just that: stories, slices of life and myths. Now, everyone can decide wether they want to live by these stories, but they should definitley not be taken for bare coin. A peaceful revolutianary named Jesus existed, a son of god did not.
Been lucky enough to have in depth tutorials about gilgamesh at Oxford. The biblical relevancies are fascinating, and informing oneself about all the lore preceding christianity regarding simil,ar motifs should be enough evidence for many that the bible is nothing particularly special in and of itself, not more so than gilgamesh, or the iliad, or the aeneid, or even the bleedin Georgics.
Heard about Epic of Gilgamesh, epic poem from Mesopotamia? It's Noah's story, but older. Almost the same tale about great flood.
There we… morere few gods before Jesus who were born on 25th december, their mother was virgin, three wise man came, performed miracles as adults, taught, had disciples, were crucified, came back from the dead. Does that make Jesus historical?
I knew this would would happen.. Not everyone has to have the same opinion as you. At the start of my post I said "TO ME" You started a fourme and people gave their information and opinions and I shared what I have too. Wow just wow.
This is slightly off-topic. But last week I briefly played a RP scenario based on Pastwatch. And in that scenario we made the choice to see and observe historical Jesus.
And in our scenario we found Jesus flirting and trying to woo his brother's wife. On their wedding day no less. We observed his miracles and we found someone from the future helping Jesus with his miracles.
I knew this would would happen.. Not everyone has to have the same opinion as you. At the start of my post I said "TO ME" You started a fourme and people gave their information and opinions and I shared what I have too. Wow just wow.
I knew this would would happen.. Not everyone has to have the same opinion as you. At the start of my post I said "TO ME" You started a fourme and people gave their information and opinions and I shared what I have too. Wow just wow.
I mean to begin with this makes the Torah, or Qur'an, or Iliad just as credible, so doesn't make christianity any more plausible than Islam, judaism or owrshipping the greek gods
Well you can't prove a negitive. " Faith is beliving in things when common sense says not too!". But if his presentation is accurate,it just means the records have been lost or altered. Can I prove that ? Just look at the things being taught today as fact. The appearance of the "Rebel Flag" in current History Books for instance! I mean the one that no longer appears on the state house grounds in Alabama. Those who know better are still here and breathing, but thanks to gun toting racist idiots,we've chose to change historic fact! If Jesus were a real, he would be atleast as polarizing as a friggin flag! So Jewish Historians of the day may well have just avoided the subject! " Jewish man son of god" seems like something they may like hushed. Just saying.
Comments
I get that, and I agree that's true, however I don't think the Bible is evidence for that alone. I think other sources such as Tacitus are the only things that confirm that.
The problem is - when did he mention. 80 years after Christ. Long time in ancient world. And he was first.
Wat fuk did u sai aboot de lawd?
Most of them do.
I believe he was real. Not in a religious way. I don't think Jesus planned on creating a new religion just to right things he saw as wrong in Judaism at the time. It was his followers who turned him into a martyr and later in almost all respects a "God." He is a "God" in almost every religious way but being Christianity was born from Judaism which believed in only one God, Jesus' followers in turn likely claimed he was the son of god just to get around that technicality. Islam was born in a similar way both are a branch religion off of Judaism, people who left it. Mormonism is a branch of Christianity, but one that came much more recently, and like Christianity it's founders REALLY did exist, we have real public records that they existed. Because of this I also believe Jesus, and some of his followers also really existed. Now you can argue the real historical technicality of the events surrounding their lives but it is very hard to deny that they existed.
I think it's a reasonable conclusion to draw. Had they been writing a fiction based on the Judaic messiah they would have had him born in Bethlehem because reasons, but there needed to be a justification as to why Jesus was born there when his mother was from Nazareth. So, for the purpose of suitability, the writers needed to manufacture a cause for Mary to venture to Bethlehem to give birth to Jesus, which explains why they mention a census that didn't take place. This wouldn't have been worth mentioning if the story wasn't somewhat based in real accounts and wasn't trying persuade others to think of Jesus as a savior that complies with Judaic expectations.
I've always found the accounts dubious due to the large gaps in time between Jesus and their being written.
Wasn't saying you were wrong about that, just explaining his view point.
I don't believe in this thread.
But Athena was a goddess and Jesus was a man. And Jesus's life story occurred in real places with real issues of the time.
That makes a lot more sense.
Heard about Epic of Gilgamesh, epic poem from Mesopotamia? It's Noah's story, but older. Almost the same tale about great flood.
There were few gods before Jesus who were born on 25th december, their mother was virgin, three wise man came, performed miracles as adults, taught, had disciples, were crucified, came back from the dead. Does that make Jesus historical?
by Titus Flavius Josephus, more about this, BUT there are some doubts regarding the authenticity
by Tacitus
“…Christus…suffered crucifixion during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of its procurators, Pontius Pilatus…”
- The Talmud says in Sanhedrin 43
"…on the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged.” - Josephus reported in Antiquities 18.3.3:
"Now there was about this time Jesus...Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us...condemned him to the cross". - Mara Bar-Serapion wrote in his letter:
“What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished". - Lucian wrote in The Passing of Peregrine:
source & more about it here
Yeah, The Testimonium Flavianum was mentioned. It's fake. Not much from the guy who was born and raised in Jerusalem. If Jesus was popular Flavius had to hear stories about him from people. Wasn't very interested, it seems.
Tacitus, yes. We did mention him. Unfortunately, lived 80 years later.
You've switched the authors and sources;
Talmud - that must be another Jesus, one with 5 disciples.
Mara Bar Sarapion - we don't know when he wrote that. Who was "wise king" of Jews? Maybe not a Jesus.
Lucian of Samosata, lived 125 - 180 AD. Won't help.
I think Jesus was a real person that did a lot of the things described in the bible. First off, I'm not religious, and the things I'm talking about do not include turning water into wine or walking over water, making blind people see or heal the crippled. I'm talking about a man who was fed up with the way people were opressed and humiliated. Think an ancient Che Guevara, just less violent. Many people were starving and fearing for their very lives every day, but they were to scared to do something. What they needed was a symbol of hope, a leader, and that leader was Jesus. Remember that the first written sources indicating his existence came about years after his death. Years that the story had time to grow, to be exaggerated and enrichened. One thousand fish turned into one hundred, then ten, then one. At first, he could only give consolation to the sick, later he was a healer, then he could do the impossible.
His story was exaggerated so much in this near century that not much of the original story remained. Was there a man named Jesus who was a symbol of hope to the people? Certainly, I don't doubt it one second. Every myth is based on a tiny bit of truth. But I'll still never be religious, because the stories in the bible are just that: stories, slices of life and myths. Now, everyone can decide wether they want to live by these stories, but they should definitley not be taken for bare coin. A peaceful revolutianary named Jesus existed, a son of god did not.
Been lucky enough to have in depth tutorials about gilgamesh at Oxford. The biblical relevancies are fascinating, and informing oneself about all the lore preceding christianity regarding simil,ar motifs should be enough evidence for many that the bible is nothing particularly special in and of itself, not more so than gilgamesh, or the iliad, or the aeneid, or even the bleedin Georgics.
I knew this would would happen.. Not everyone has to have the same opinion as you. At the start of my post I said "TO ME" You started a fourme and people gave their information and opinions and I shared what I have too. Wow just wow.
This is slightly off-topic. But last week I briefly played a RP scenario based on Pastwatch. And in that scenario we made the choice to see and observe historical Jesus.
And in our scenario we found Jesus flirting and trying to woo his brother's wife. On their wedding day no less. We observed his miracles and we found someone from the future helping Jesus with his miracles.
To you and to reality are different things.
Refer to my reply.
But we were talking about reality. . . the historical accuracy.
Thanks for not being mean, i'm not going to comment here anymore.
It's Allah akbar, ya wingding.
Allahu akbar
What would happen? Are you oversensitive? Quran talks about Jesus and that's reason for you to call him real. I doubt holy book ever lied to you.
Historically, I feel like he had to exist. Although the religious Jesus, I have no idea.
Being agnostic, it would be nice for the religious and historical Jesus to have been on in the same. But I don't think I'll know in my lifetime!
I think Comedian Brad Stine said it best.
enter link description here
Yes
He made me laugh, but not as intended I would assume.
Hahaha this is quite ridiculous
I mean to begin with this makes the Torah, or Qur'an, or Iliad just as credible, so doesn't make christianity any more plausible than Islam, judaism or owrshipping the greek gods
Well you can't prove a negitive. " Faith is beliving in things when common sense says not too!". But if his presentation is accurate,it just means the records have been lost or altered. Can I prove that ? Just look at the things being taught today as fact. The appearance of the "Rebel Flag" in current History Books for instance! I mean the one that no longer appears on the state house grounds in Alabama. Those who know better are still here and breathing, but thanks to gun toting racist idiots,we've chose to change historic fact! If Jesus were a real, he would be atleast as polarizing as a friggin flag! So Jewish Historians of the day may well have just avoided the subject! " Jewish man son of god" seems like something they may like hushed. Just saying.
Because what's better than unchallenged dogma?
If you want to get real technical, it often comes sound sounding like allaw akbar.
=/=
Which one is it? Questioning and critiquing isn't the same as forcing beliefs on you.
Aloha Snackbar