wiki: Virtually all modern scholars agree that Jesus existed
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Alright guys and girls.
Time to stir the pot here.
Wikipedia: Historicity of Jesus
then ... over at:
Wiki: Crucifixion of Jesus
Also, of note to me, since i have heard *repeatedly* by skeptics of all sorts that "crucifixion did not even exist at the time of jesus" (and the cross is only an astrological reference, blah blah blah) ...
Okay.
So?
i'm not taking sides here. (ok, per below, well maybe a bit)
i just find it interesting.
although personally (having no religious affiliation, having been raises agnostic by parents who were catholic (mom) and jewish (dad) by familial relation, but staunchly agnostic by personal opinion) ... after having waited till i was in my late 20's to even bother opening a bible, and having finally read a good bit of it -- out of raw curiosity, not some sort of miraculous midlife conversion -- (still haven't read Acts or Romans, and maybe missed an epistle or two) ... i find it rather hard to believe that not only was the entirety of this book "fabricated" "out of thin air" with NO basis in fact\history (ie. the central character is entirely false \ fabricated) but i find it even less plausible (far less plausible) that SOOOO many people would have meticulously HAND copied these works and passed them on without *strong motivation* (and by strong motivation, i am really referring to a: "you fucking killed my leader, we will not let his memory die" sort of thing)
also, if you start digging in to the dead sea scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi library texts, and you start reading the research around them (and you actually study who the Essenes were) it becomes pretty hard not to start making connections. Once you have done that you have already started the process vis-a-vis a KNOWN historical backdrop of connecting the "jesus" of "myth" with an actual factual historical milieu. At this point things start becoming pretty goddamn intriguing, if not compelling even.
Just saying.
ramble over.
Time to stir the pot here.
Wikipedia: Historicity of Jesus
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
then ... over at:
Wiki: Crucifixion of Jesus
Jesus' crucifixion is described in all four Canonical gospels, attested to by other ancient sources, and is firmly established as an historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources.
Also, of note to me, since i have heard *repeatedly* by skeptics of all sorts that "crucifixion did not even exist at the time of jesus" (and the cross is only an astrological reference, blah blah blah) ...
Although almost all ancient sources relating to crucifixion are literary, the 1968 archeological discovery just northeast of Jerusalem of the body of a crucified man dated to the 1st century provided good confirmatory evidence of the gospel accounts of crucifixion .[26] The crucified man was identified as Yohan Ben Ha'galgol and probably died about 70 AD, around the time of the Jewish revolt against Rome.
Okay.
So?
i'm not taking sides here. (ok, per below, well maybe a bit)
i just find it interesting.
although personally (having no religious affiliation, having been raises agnostic by parents who were catholic (mom) and jewish (dad) by familial relation, but staunchly agnostic by personal opinion) ... after having waited till i was in my late 20's to even bother opening a bible, and having finally read a good bit of it -- out of raw curiosity, not some sort of miraculous midlife conversion -- (still haven't read Acts or Romans, and maybe missed an epistle or two) ... i find it rather hard to believe that not only was the entirety of this book "fabricated" "out of thin air" with NO basis in fact\history (ie. the central character is entirely false \ fabricated) but i find it even less plausible (far less plausible) that SOOOO many people would have meticulously HAND copied these works and passed them on without *strong motivation* (and by strong motivation, i am really referring to a: "you fucking killed my leader, we will not let his memory die" sort of thing)
also, if you start digging in to the dead sea scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi library texts, and you start reading the research around them (and you actually study who the Essenes were) it becomes pretty hard not to start making connections. Once you have done that you have already started the process vis-a-vis a KNOWN historical backdrop of connecting the "jesus" of "myth" with an actual factual historical milieu. At this point things start becoming pretty goddamn intriguing, if not compelling even.
Just saying.
ramble over.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Jesus, son of god is another story.....
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
How do we know this?
Because he lived at home till he was 30
And his mom thought he was god!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UYFuILEfao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCdfYkUPvTs
First, many of the origins of Jesus also coincide with the existence of other historical deities. I question whether those who wrote the Bible were aware and/or borrowed their historical thoughts from previous incarnations of "deities" like Horus, etc.
Second, all historicalaccounts of the existence of Jesus come many years after his death. Most cited sources include Josephus who was not a contemporary of Jesus. Citing the gospels is problematic, in my mind, because then we have to determine whether those men existed, knew Jesus, etc. I haven't read any books on this particular topic but it is definitely an interesting topic to pursue!
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
I have an obsession, compelling feeling about Jesus the man. I have enjoyed
what I have learned about his life. Though I can not say without a doubt that
he rose from the dead I am inclined to believe because we all do in a manner.
It's just not something we see everyday
God and spirit. So I take the story from long ago and bring it to my life.
It feels right, actually much better than right. It fits.
Another theory is that the myth of Jesus was created by combining the tales/stories/legends/myths/possible facts of a number of people together. A bit like the legend of Arthur.
As riotgrl said, the many gospels were not contemporary and therefore the 'legends'. One must bear in mind that the bible is a catalogue of several gospels/writing - all written at different times - that was put together with an 'agenda' (thus the gospels that were left out because not deemed to further the doctrine).
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Reading through this thread, couldn't help but think of these lyrics. Kinda makes sense, and even applies in these modern times to those we (mistakenly, stupidly, blindly) consider or deem god-like.
You've started to believe
The things they say of you
You really do believe
This talk of God is true
And all the good you've done
Will soon be swept away
You've begun to matter more
Than the things you say
Listen Jesus
I don't like what I see
All I ask is that you listen to me
And remember
I've been your right hand man all along
You have set them all on fire
They think they've found the new Messiah
And they'll hurt you when they find they're wrong
I remember when this whole thing began
No talk of God then, we called you a man
And believe me
My admiration for you hasn't died
But every word you say today
Gets twisted 'round some other way
And they'll hurt you if they think you've lied
'take this cup away from me' each of us would beg the same.
To conquer death all we must do is die.
You need this guy!!!
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... Aw&dur=666
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Such as?
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
And Professors are always 100% accurate and never have their own agendas, correct?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Hey Byrnzie.
I removed all the source footnotes from those quotes to keep them clean.
They were all trailed by 3 or 4 source notes a piece.
Feel free to check out the source links i left in the OP and browse them yourself.
That wasn't my statement. Those were from wikipedia pages.
I just thought it was really interesting.
I know wiki is publicly editable,
but i've seen plenty of contested\debated pages, and they are usually marked "the neutrality [or accuracy] of this page is in dispute, click here to read the dialogue" or some such.
I REALLY thought, with such "wild" claims, these two jesus pages would have those notes up top, but they dont.
Weird?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hey Byrnzie.
I removed all the source footnotes from those quotes to keep them clean.
They were all trailed by 3 or 4 source notes a piece.
Feel free to check out the source links i left in the OP and browse them yourself.
That wasn't my statement. Those were from wikipedia pages. I can't speak for the sources' validity.
I just thought it was really interesting.
I know wiki is publicly editable,
but i've seen plenty of contested\debated pages, and they are usually marked "the neutrality [or accuracy] of this page is in dispute, click here to read the dialogue" or some such.
I REALLY thought, with such "wild" claims, these two jesus pages would have those notes up top, but they dont.
Weird?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
- Mitch Hedberg
http://youtu.be/J3W0Jesk8iE
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
... in coyotes, and time as an abstract?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
In my opinion, what we should be doing is following His teachings, rather than worshiping Him as a god. I believe that Jesus wanted us to have a personal relationship with God (the God of Abraham), instead of having to go through the conduit of a church.
Jesus was promoted to Christ by His deciples... namely, Paul and Peter.
Hail, Hail!!!
if he existed, he was a good man, no different than most. lots of dudes were crucified. NEXT.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Just like Christmas.... Santa is just invented.
And just like Santa Claus... Jesus is a folk hero based on a real person... Maybe.
See. I have to disagree here, having done as much reading around the bible and also around esoteric traditions as I have. It is rather plainly apparent that Jesus was entirely different from all that proceeded him in one massively important aspect.
In fact the world can rather be divided distinctly between two periods:
a. That period before the PUBLIC teachings of Jesus, and
b. that period AFTER the public teachings of Jesus.
Why?
Why is it that a man, as you claim - Hugh, who did nothing more than have decent teaching of morality without prejudice and hate, divided the world in to two distinct periods?
Because what you are picking up on as his only accomplishment is ONLY THE OUTER GARB of his teachings.
JESUS WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO PUBLICLY DISSEMINATE THE FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS OF "THE MYSTERIES". Certainly he did not reveal "everything", and what he did reveal was either in parables, or by way of parables enacted ("miracles") ... but anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear would have been at least capable of picking up on these truths.
You are probably rolling your eyes, wondering what the fuck I'm on about. But here it is:
For thousands of years certain "truths" regarding the human soul, its function, and its relation to the cosmos were known by INITIATES, and ONLY by "initiates". These SECRETS were kept JUST THAT by said initiates. Passed orally from one to the other, after LONG periods of trials (7 to 14 years was not uncommon on in to the classical period for a candidate's training prior to initiation) and then kept inviolably secret, with BLOOD OATHS being sworn.
What the Message of Jesus REALLY TAUGHT (if you had ears to hear and eyes to see) was THE SECRETS OF THE AGES. It was the message of the existence of your soul, how to access it, the path that must be traveled, and the kernels of truth that would bring a man to the BEGINNING of that Journey.
We can come to the truth of what I am saying directly by way of Clement of Alexandria (in response to "the Secret Gospel of Mark") here:
See?
Teaching to the un-initiated only that which would be helpful to bring them closer to knowledge, but revealing not that which would put him in violation of the Oaths of the Mysteries. Of course this practice was used not just by Jesus himself, but adopted by his true disciples as well. All shielding what needed shielding, but revealing that which it was now time to be revealed. The outer moral teachings -- which is the only thing that so many pick up on -- is what THEY need. One must be lead by whatever means to a knowledge of his own soul. Yes, sometimes the good inner work must be proceeded by the good outer work (sometimes it is the opposite, it just depends on a mans composition, and the state of his soul, i suppose) ... so these outer teachings of morality were meant to prepare the lay people for the more advanced studies -- to help cleanse their outer functioning selves, so that eventually they would be in a place to cleanse their inner functioning selves, and hopefully to one day lead the entire world to "gnosis" (where all would truly be "initiates" or at least "at the door of initiation") and to bring about by that task (revelation to all) "the kingdom of heaven on earth".
Here is a whole page on Esoteric Christianity and how it differs in large parts from "modern" christianity. What its actual message is, and what Jesus was actually on about:
Esoteric Christianity
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I'm not rolling my eyes at all. history fascinates me. but made up history does not. just because 2000 year old writings tell us someone did something, does not make it true. christian writers had an agenda, an extremely strong agenda, which makes everything they have written over time extremely suspect in my eyes.
most experts believing that any given human being existed 2000 years ago means nothing in the grand scheme. proving Jesus was a real human does not prove he did anything of any significant merit. all it proves , and "proves" is a strong word here, is that he was born and was killed. nothing more. I refuse to use christian scripture as any type of historical record.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014