I had a similar thread here once, but it died after the hack/rollback. So here goes.
Why do people assert so vehemently that jesus was a real living breathing man? When I see people skip right past this crucial point on to debate whether or not he was just a man, or the son of ‘god’ i can’t help but wonder why.
Lets look at the facts. Lets start with the overwhelmin co-incedental - the stories of the life of jesus HEAVILY reflect the stories of the lives of older god-men figures. Look at this example of what I mean. bluehoney.org/Chart.htm
Assuming that can be explained away somehow, let me get to my next point.
Evidence. Where is it? To my knowledge (perhaps someone can expand it) there are a grand total of 2 non biblical historical mentions of jesus, both 4th hand information written a lifetime after his suposed death.
Where were the historians of jesus time? The romans kept records, right?
How is the name of jesus absent from all historical accounts from his era?
Why do people accept this as history, at all?
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Are you suggesting that there wern’t any Jewish people claiming to be Messiahs around that time? There were plenty.
Or perhapse your suggesting that the Roman authorities, never had any of them executed? I’m no history buff, so I can’t really answer that.
Or maybe your just suggesting that none of these radical new preachers were named Josha and were the son of a man named Josheph. I suppose thats possible, but I’m not sure it would matter much if Jesus was named ted.
I guess this gets into Phil of Language. But I really don’t understand what you would mean.
It is accepted as history because of the records of Pontius Pilate, the then governor of Judaea.
Plus, the 33 odd gospel accounts of Jesus’ life written by separate authors in the 30 years after his death provide very strong, dare i say irrefutable evidence.
Almost all the major historians of the centuries A.D. mention Jesus Christ and the impact of his followers. Tacitus and Suetonius mention the Christians explicitly…I think Plutarch does too and they were all writing during the 1st century or at the beginning of the 2nd.
In this post, I’ve merely scratched the surface…there is alot more evidence than this…
Don’t forget Josephus. I think there’s actually a record some where that says “Yeshua Ben Miriam bought bread here in Galilee” but I couldn’t begin to tell you where that is.
yes
tacitus and josephus were the two non biblical references I was refering to.
And both of these men lived a good lifetime after christ would have. And from what I can find, their accounts mentions christians, but not christ.
Big whoop
Mentions of christians, are in no way indicitive of the existance of christ. Millions of christians exist today that accept christ on faith alone, why wouldn’t it have been the same then?
And of Pontius Pilate. I would really like to see a non biblical verifiable reference of him about christ. I have yet to see one.
And what of the fact the jesus myth mirrors almost IDENTICALY the myths of krishna, budha, horus, and more? Would this not just sugest that jesus, like everything else in the bible, is just older myth and legend that has been hijacked?(I would really like to see someone challenge this last statement…)
I would believe Jesus was real for the following reasons:
People experiencing schizophrenia, hear voices; see visions; feel someone is watching them most of the time; experience delusions in the form of a belief, form conceptions that can mislead or deceive them; experience hallucinations in the form of voices and find their brain bombarded with brilliant ideas at a time, etc. Some can also begin to feel they are superior to others on earth and few will go so far as to actually believe they are God or were sent here on earth for a purpose and preach the same. If you don’t mind my saying this, personally I feel this is what gave rise to “Jesus Christ,” “Prophet Mohammed,” “Mahavir,” “Rama,” “Krishan,” etc.
“Drugs that are most potent in treating schizophrenia are also the most effective blockers of dopamine receptors. These results suggest that schizophrenia may be the result of excessive dopamine activity.” [As a side note, I do not believe in treating schizophrenia through drugs because I think it should be left naturally to be cured or otherwise it is just a way of life that you live with, very similar to some physical handicap].
“A general theory is proposed that attributes the origins of human intelligence to an expansion of dopaminergic systems in human cognition. Dopamine is postulated to be the key neurotransmitter regulating six predominantly left-hemispheric cognitive skills critical to human language and thought: motor planning, working memory, cognitive flexibility, abstract reasoning, temporal analysis/sequencing, and generativity.”
“It is entirely possible that it is not the size, but rather the structure of the brain that determines how intelligent a species is. Fred H. Previc feels that dopamine plays a key role in the evolution of intelligence in hominid species (299).”
Most of these messengers talk about humanity and that God is speaking to them. Their higher consciousness is I believe that brings them closer to THE HIGHER CONSCIOUSNESS and so they can relate with God. And because I believe that God and Devil are the same - have to be for justice purposes, therefore, God’s and Devil’s both voices talk to them (schizophrenics) and they need to differentiate between the two and let responsibility be their guide.
Jesus talked about, ‘turning the other cheek.’ Now, I know that He was crucified to the cross by the government at the time for His sayings that the govt. didn’t like. So, is it not possible that this govt., had the written stuff changed and would have dire incentive to do the same and that is why, Christ’s, ‘turning…’ happens to mean to pay off some other’s debt when someone pays off yours, which has like NO relation to the cheek or a slap. I feel that Christ actually meant by the cheek example to mean that we should give the slapper the benefit of doubt.
I know that the governments in those times were more like dictators. I read this at the library that, it was a girl who really invented the, was it the light bulb or the telephone, whatever it was. The story is that she invented it but the guy who invented it after got it patented in his name first because his father was the mayor of the town or was a big political figure. So, you see the govt., in those times did what the hell they liked. Whatever…
I don’t really believe in the re-surrection thing because first it is not possible and second I believe that it must have been government manipulated.
The following saying ascribed to Jesus by the Great Mogul Akbar as inscribed on a gateway of the ruined city Futtey-pore-Sikri in India.
"Jesus had said : ‘The world is but a bridge, over which you must pass, but must not linger to build your dwelling.’ "
(See Resch, [i]Agrapha /i, no. 95, p. 292)
Where did Akbar get this saying from? I don’t remember seeing it in the N.T.
What I mean by hijacked in this instance is ‘taken from older mythology and incorperated into their own’ The zoroastrian and pagan influence on christianity is pretty hard to deny. If you wish Ill provide a score of examples, but all you need do is google it.
Actually Tacitus was born around the year 55, and Josephus around the year 37 source
That would be a little like my giving acounts of the life of someone that died in 1920, and my account being the only one of two to exist. Credible? hardly.
Beena,
I don’t disagree psychosis can play a part in creating a belief.
I also don’t dispute the possibility of some grand conspiricy to cover up the existance of jesus, as you outlined. However, I also don’t dispute the possibility of an omipotent god, or richard simmons heterosexuality.
That says nothing of their likelyhood, however.
If this were indeed true (which, not owning that book, I cannot verify) jesus would have not only would have had to live, but also survive the crucifixion, as this theory posits. Interesting, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support this one.
Intertesting associations between the Zoroastrian ideas and the Juedo-Chrisitian ideas. Interesting to think that there is an older monthestic religion from the same geographic area. What is it about that desert that makes people think, one god? Zarathustra, Abraham, Moses, Mohammed.
Judeism was originally polytheistic. The ‘other’ gods just got phased out at some point. The fact that christianity is just an offshoot of a religion that itself did not start as monotheism is not really what I was refering to, however.
Almost every story from the bible, every holiday, every parable, assimilated from another religion or culture. I would imagine to aid in gaining converts. Christianity seems to contain very little if any original content…and it would seem Jesus is no exception.
Well Xanderman the oversimplified theory on that is that Gods are represataions of the forces that effect one’s life. And in the desert, one such force, the sun, prettymuch outshines all others. Which get religated to the status of demons- not worth the supplication.
There has been a move away from the use of these terms of late: ‘monotheism’ and ‘polythyeism’ just dont tend to be helpful when conceptualising religion.
For example, explain how the Christian trinity and veneration of saints sits comfortably with the idea of monotheism in a literal sense. You will find it difficult.
You’re being unduly simplistic here. There are reasons behind the fusion of pagan and christian thought and calendar for instance: they made religious-social reform easier: this does not dent the claim of christianity to truth.
And as far as original content goes? Come on, christianity has plenty of it…its theology is brimming with unique aspects, it brought monasteries into the west, it made celibacy and associated values commonplace, it stressed the holistic nature of a religion that was available to all through one truth.
"Zoroastrianism was the source of Jewish monotheism, brought from “exile†on the “return†(Isa 43:10-13; Jer 10:1-16). Even Christian scholars note that the concept of Ahuramazda is closer to that of the Jewish God than that of any other eastern religion. The old Israelites of the Palestinian hill country were not monotheists. Before it was remodelled by the Persians, Judaism was polytheistic. The Jewish god was a tribal god—one of many Semitic tribal gods, generally called Lord, which in Semitic languages is Baal or Bel. A tribal god, of necessity, implies polytheism since there are other tribes. The idea of the covenant with one tribe, the Israelites, implies polytheism. In it God commands:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me,
Ex 20:3
admitting there were other gods. When the sages wrote down the holy books, they introduced ideas from Zoroastrianism. Spentas became angels and divas became demons (devils). Their tribal god became a universal God but one which still favoured his Chosen People. " askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0200Per … ml#judaism
^one of many many sources of this same information.
The Quran tells the story of Jesus in detail. Furthermore Muhammed has said numerous times things about Jesus. I know it’s not an authentic proof for you but just to make it clear and in no way you can deny the existance of Muhammed although he ‘only’ lived 600 years after Jesus.
Nor would I attempt to. There is ample documented proof of the existance of mohammed. That doesn’t mean he was a prophet, but it means the debate whether or not he was is reasonable.
the debate whether jesus was a prophet/son of god isn’t reasonable because there isn’t even any evidence to back up his existance in the first place.