Jesus mythology discussed here

joepistole said:
Does it matter if Jesus existed or not?
Click to expand...

If He does not exist then neither do you:

For by Him (Jesus) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
 
I am critical of no man for his religion. But those who try to shove religion down the throats of others are insecure in their faith. If one is secure in ones faith, then there is no need to force feed it to others. And if ones faith is true, others will be attracted to it like a light in the darkness.
 
joepistole said:
I am critical of no man for his religion. But those who try to shove religion down the throats of others are insecure in their faith. If one is secure in ones faith, then there is no need to force feed it to others. And if ones faith is true, others will be attracted to it like a light in the darkness.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, part and parcel with the religion is the active recruiting of flock. The faith demands it.
 
I am very sad to see that religion has come to this...it is much better. It is the practice of man, that dispoils the name of God. Let me remind you that Mother Theresa was led by God, and so were a great number of other saints.
 
joepistole said:
Let me remind you that Mother Theresa was led by God, and so were...
Click to expand...

So?

"Dear Lord, you're big, ooo you are so huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed down here I can tell you..."
my apologies to... never mind the apologies
From Monty Python "Meaning of Life"
 
joepistole said:
I am critical of no man for his religion. But those who try to shove religion down the throats of others are insecure in their faith. If one is secure in ones faith, then there is no need to force feed it to others. And if ones faith is true, others will be attracted to it like a light in the darkness.
Click to expand...
then all religions should stop indoctrinating children, stop witnessing and pushing their faith on all and sundrie and in particular stop fight wars over these evil cults.

photize said:
Please list these "few, if any," contemporary sources or evidence"
Click to expand...
read this from Iasion

Josephus is considered some of the best evidence - even though is is generally considered to be tampered with, if not an outright forgery (of course, the word used is "interpolated" - scholars avoid the word "forgery" even though that's exactly what it is.)




JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

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.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

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.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm


The Acts of Pilate (3rd, 4th C.)

Justin does refer to such a report or Acts of Pilate, but no such document existed, until forged in two versions in 3rd and 4th century. The story Tertullian tells is patently absurd.


MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.


with thanks to Iasion
 
Q
Yes, and those who do believe are shoving it down everyone else's throat, whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...
that’s the right – the only reason atheists are exempt from tangling one’s tonsils is because they don’t have a “belief”
:rolleyes:

MW

**************
M*W: Propaganda was created by the believers in a false reality.

Propaganda created for the purpose of controlling the believers.
Click to expand...
and I guess if we happen to get controlled by your belief that’s simply because it’s the truth of the matter, eh?
 
Wow. Thanks for that geeser.

IMO, the NT documents are the best source of information about Jesus. In most cases, they're penned by eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ (Paul, Peter, John, etc.)

Paul: "Dear brothers and sisters, I solemnly assure you that the Good News of salvation which I preach is not based merely on human reasoning or logic. For my message came by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ Himself. No one else taught me. You know what I was like when I followed the Jewish religion how I violently persecuted the Christians. I did my best to get rid of them..."

Peter: "For we were not making up clever stories when we told you about the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming again. We have seen his majestic splendor with our own eyes. "

John: The One who existed from the beginning is the One we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is Jesus Christ, the Word of Life. This One Who is Life from God was shown to us, and we have seen him. And now we testify and announce to you that He is the One Who is Eternal Life. He was with the Father, and then He was shown to us. We are telling you about what we ourselves have actually seen and heard, so that you may have fellowship with us.

Yep, you're certainly free to 'believe' they're lying, or that these documents are embellished through/with deliberate intent to deceive, the express purpose of which is to foist a cruel hoax upon humanity... or, in reference to Jesus, are merely composites of many personas/"Messiah's", forgeries, i.e. in some way, shape, or form, fraudulent...however, for me?... well, to deny they are telling the truth would be to lie to myself. But... you be true to yourself...be confident of your ability to 'smell a rat' so to speak...you know phake, phony, phrauds when you see 'em don't you... Like The Image that greets you every morning (in the mirror) for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top