ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-03-2013, 08:08 PM (This post was last modified: 04-03-2013 08:13 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(04-03-2013 08:04 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 06:59 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Now with other digs like the one for Ashoka, not only do you have many textual references, you also have physical evidence to back up the claims of the texts.

With out physical evidence I don't think you can say somebody existed.

If that were true, we wouldn't be able to claim the existence of nearly every historical character. Christopher Hitchens' favorite example was Plato who not only left behind no physical existence but left no historical reference either (except his writings, which could indeed have been written under a pen name).
I don't have a problem with that.

At least it would be a honest position to hold.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 09:45 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(04-03-2013 05:54 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  i tend to think that the guy in the storybook is based on a real guy. i dont think this guy raised the dead or walked on water. i dont think that because im not 6. i think that there is no history surrounding this guy because who would record things about an unimportant rabbi who had 12 followers or perhaps less. im sure there was lots of guys walking around at that time preaching bullshit . but no, there is no historical evidence for a guy that is actually the son of god who could do magic.


Again, like the 'water to wine' miracle I discussed earlier, Jesus probably did 'walk on water'. You just have to know what this expression means.

Actually, 'walking on water' was a common Egyptian expression for testing someone's faith. And that is exactly what Jesus was doing to Peter, at the time.

I think every 'miracle' in the NT has a rational explanation.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 09:57 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
The Talmud offers excellent evidence for Jesus, particularly since it is mocking Him and says He did wonders but should not be trusted as Messiah. There is some debate as to how old the written Talmud is...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 09:58 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(04-03-2013 07:31 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Actually, Bart Ehrman provides a plausible explanation for this. If you look at the Jesus of the New Testament as an apocalyptic prophet who believed that "a new kingdom" would be brought about on Earth within his lifetime, then it's possible that he was arming them to take over a country that did not yet exist.


Alternatively, and more likely, Jesus was arming his disciples to take over a real country that did exist - Judaea, and then Rome.

Don't get too distracted by the spiritual terminology here. Jesus' grandmother, in this new scenario, was called Queen Aurania (of Parthia and thence Syria). And her lands in eastern Syria were known as the Kingdom of Aurania (they still are). But this translates in the English into the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh, these gospel authors were having some real fun, at the expense of the 'muggle' believers.

And we know all about Jesus' attempt to take over Judaea, because it is called the Jewish Revolt, and we have many contemporary books about these events. And it so happens that the leader of the Jewish Revolt was called Jesus (of Gamala), or sometimes Izas (of Adiabene). And the three leaders of this failed revolt were crucified outside Jerusalem by the Romans, but one of them was saved by Josephus (of Arimathaea?). See the end of Josephus' "Life" for details.

Sound like a familiar story? It should be, as this was the true origins of the biblical narrative.

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2013 12:25 PM by ralphellis.)
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
.

(04-03-2013 07:31 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Are you sure that you aren't reverse-engineering this story, or perhaps begging the question? After all, everything you know about the "Jesus" that you believe parallels Iziz comes from sources that you don't find reliable (such as the New Testament, and I totally agree with you there). From what I've read so far, I have no problem in believing that Iziz lived or did the things attributed to him, but I don't see any reason to think that his religious cult is Christianity.


Pretty sure, as everything fits too nicely for a 'forced fit' of characters. Too many coincidences.

For instance:

The biblical Jesus was called King Jesus Emmanuel.
The historical Izas was called King Izas Manu(el) VI of Edessa.

The biblical Jesus was a King of the Jews.
The historical Izas was a defacto King of the Jews (because his mother, Queen Helena, was the defacto Queen of the Jews).

The biblical Jesus was a Nazarene.
The historical Izas was a Nazarene.

The biblical Jesus was sent away to Egypt for his education.
The historical Izas was sent away for his education, and appears to have visited Egypt and stayed in Jerusalem.
... (his mother furnished the Temple of Jerusalem)

The biblical Jesus' disciples (Saul and Barnabas) took money from King Abgarus of Edessa, to provide famine relief for Jerusalem.
The historical Izas-Manu's father was the same King Abgarus of Edessa.

The biblical Jesus was a revolutionary who fought the Jerusalem authorities and the Romans.
The historical Izas was a revolutionary who fought the Jerusalem authorities and the Romans.

The biblical Jesus was captured and crucified.
The historical Izas was captured and crucified.

The biblical Jesus survived the cross (by being taken down early).
The historical Izas survived the cross (by being taken down early).

The biblical Jesus was taken down by Joseph of Arimathaea.
The historical Izas was taken down by Josephus Flavius.

The biblical Jesus wore a Crown of Thorns.
The historical Izas wore a Crown of Thorns.

The biblical Jesus wore a purple cloak (the Imperial cloak).
The historical Izas would have worn a purple cloak (the Imperial cloak), because he wanted to become Emperor.

The biblical Jesus was born under the Eastern Star.
The historical Izas was using the Star Prophesy of the Eastern Star to become Emperor.
.... (you will note that it was Vespasian who took the Star Prophesy, and used it to become Emperor, as Tacitus and Suetonius confirm).


I could go on, but you perhaps see my point. Jesus was a prince and king of Edessa, called King Izas Manu(el).

And the reason why you have never heard of King Abgarus or King Manu (even though they were very famous historically), is because the Catholic Church has done everything in its power to delete them from history (even though Abgarus appears in Acts of the Apostles in Acts 11:27). This is the unspoken truth, that has remained hidden for nearly 2,000 years - the historical truth that the Catholic Church thought it had buried forever.

These were pivotal events in the history of the Roman Empire, before Saul-Josephus poured fairy-dust over them and concocted the gospel fairytales. But because of Saul-Josephus' marvelously distorted history, these still are pivotal events, because some 2 billion people have based their life upon them (for some strange reason). And they did so without even bothering to discover if they were true or not - bizarre, I know, but that is humanity for you.



And as I intimated previously, this evidence does give us coins of the biblical Jesus that demonstrate what he looked like. This is Jesus, wearing his ceremonial Crown of Thorns (which was not made from the circlet of brambles the Church would like you to think).
http://www.edfu-books.com/edessa-jacket.html


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(05-03-2013 10:26 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  .

(04-03-2013 07:31 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Are you sure that you aren't reverse-engineering this story, or perhaps begging the question? After all, everything you know about the "Jesus" that you believe parallels Iziz comes from sources that you don't find reliable (such as the New Testament, and I totally agree with you there). From what I've read so far, I have no problem in believing that Iziz lived or did the things attributed to him, but I don't see any reason to think that his religious cult is Christianity.


Pretty sure, as everything fits too nicely for a 'forced fit' of characters. Too many coincidences.

For instance:

The biblical Jesus was called King Jesus Emmanuel.
The historical Izas was called King Izas Manu(el) VI of Edessa.

The biblical Jesus was a King of the Jews.
The historical Izas was a defacto King of the Jews (because his mother, Queen Helena, was the defacto Queen of the Jews).

The biblical Jesus was a Nazarene.
The historical Izas was a Nazarene.

The biblical Jesus was sent away to Egypt for his education.
The historical Izas was sent away for his education, and appears to have visited Egypt and stayed in Jerusalem.
... (his mother furnished the Temple of Jerusalem)

The biblical Jesus' disciples (Saul and Barnabas) took money from King Abgarus of Edessa, to provide famine relief for Jerusalem.
The historical Izas-Manu's father was the same King Abgarus of Edessa.

The biblical Jesus was a revolutionary who fought the Jerusalem authorities and the Romans.
The historical Izas was a revolutionary who fought the Jerusalem authorities and the Romans.

The biblical Jesus was captured and crucified.
The historical Izas was captured and crucified.

The biblical Jesus survived the cross (by being taken down early).
The historical Izas survived the cross (by being taken down early).

The biblical Jesus was taken down by Joseph of Arimathaea.
The historical Izas was taken down by Josephus Flavius.

The biblical Jesus wore a Crown of Thorns.
The historical Izas wore a Crown of Thorns.

The biblical Jesus wore a purple cloak (the Imperial cloak).
The historical Izas would have worn a purple cloak (the Imperial cloak), because he wanted to become Emperor.

The biblical Jesus was born under the Eastern Star.
The historical Izas was using the Star Prophesy of the Eastern Star to become Emperor.
.... (you will note that it was Vespasian who took the Star Prophesy, and used it to become Emperor, as Tacitus and Suetonius confirm).


I could go on, but you perhaps see my point. Jesus was a prince and king of Edessa, called King Izas Manu(el).

And the reason why you have never heard of King Abgarus or King Manu (even though they were very famous historically), is because the Catholic Church has done everything in its power to delete them from history (even though Abgarus appears in Acts of the Apostles in Acts 11:27). This is the unspoken truth, that has remained hidden for nearly 2,000 years - the historical truth that the Catholic Church thought it had buried forever.

These were pivotal events in the history of the Roman Empire, before Saul-Josephus poured fairy-dust over them and concocted the gospel fairytales. But because of Saul-Josephus' marvelously distorted history, these still are pivotal events, because some 2 billion people have based their life upon them (for some strange reason). And they did so without even bothering to discover if they were true or not - bizarre, I know, but that is humanity for you.



And as I intimated previously, this evidence does give us coins of the biblical Jesus that demonstrate what he looked like. This is Jesus, wearing his ceremonial Crown of Thorns (which was not made from the circlet of brambles the Church would like you to think).
http://www.edfu-books.com/edessa-jacket.html


.

Correlation doesn't prove causation, although I'm not so skeptical as to think that a strong correlation should be denied or ignored. However, I was questioning why you agree with the biblical narrative when it correlates to Izaz, seeing as you agree with me that the biblical narrative is questionable.

Furthermore, as a former Christian who read the bible many times, I instantly recognize some of these things said about the biblical Jesus as not accurate. For instance, Jesus was not called Emmanuel. There's a single reference to an angel telling Joseph to name him Emmanuel (in order to fulfill biblical prophecy), but this clearly didn't happen -- he was named Jesus, instead, and is never referred to as Emmanuel after that point. Plus, you're playing with the title of "Manu" a bit to make it fit this correlation.

Jesus was referred to as "King of the Jews" by the sign over his head (not universally in every gospel, but we are given that account nevertheless) but it appears to be a joke rather than a label. For instance, to quote Matthew 27:29 -- "...they knelt in front of him and mocked him. 'Hail, King of the Jews!' they said." and again in verse 42 -- "...He's the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him." The crown and the robe also appear to be attempts to mock his claim that he would someday rule over them.

The biblical Jesus was not "sent away to Egypt for his education" but rather his family "fled to Egypt" to escape Herod's slaughter of babies. And as you recognized, the one reference we have to Jesus' early education places him in Jerusalem, not Egypt.

Jesus may have been a revolutionary, but he didn't "fight" anyone (except the temple's moneychangers, notably). In fact, he preached against fighting in the Sermon on the Mount (saying instead that one should "turn the other cheek" in response to being attacked).

And I'll re-iterate, you're ignoring the claims that don't correlate. Wherever the bible's Jesus and the historical Izaz do different things (such as preach instead of start battles), you disregard this as being untrue. Your confirmation bias is helping you to see only the things that support your claim and discredit things that don't.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that these two stories do parallel each other as you believe they do. Have you ever considered that the story of Izaz might be a plagiarism of the Jesus narrative, rather than an actual person whose life was plagiarized by a differing-but-similar Jesus? As you've noted, the writer that you believe to be Josephus appears to think that Izaz was the Christ. Doesn't his pro-Izaz bias give you pause when considering whether he had motive to try winning over Christians to his Messiah, as many atheists suggest the Jesus narrative was an attempt to win over pagans by adding elements like a virgin birth?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 07:44 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(05-03-2013 09:58 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Alternatively, and more likely, Jesus was arming his disciples to take over a real country that did exist - Judaea, and then Rome.

Don't get too distracted by the spiritual terminology here. Jesus' grandmother, in this new scenario, was called Queen Aurania (of Parthia and thence Syria). And her lands in eastern Syria were known as the Kingdom of Aurania (they still are). But this translates in the English into the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh, these gospel authors were having some real fun, at the expense of the 'muggle' believers.

And we know all about Jesus' attempt to take over Judaea, because it is called the Jewish Revolt, and we have many contemporary books about these events. And it so happens that the leader of the Jewish Revolt was called Jesus (of Gamala), or sometimes Izas (of Adiabene). And the three leaders of this failed revolt were crucified outside Jerusalem by the Romans, but one of them was saved by Josephus (of Arimathaea?). See the end of Josephus' "Life" for details.

Sound like a familiar story? It should be, as this was the true origins of the biblical narrative.

.

I'm not entirely disagreeable with you on this, as Bart Ehrman's lecture on this twists some historical facts to fit his theory. To be honest, I do wonder why Jesus' disciples were armed after Jesus commanded them in Matthew 10:10, Mark 6:8-9, Luke 9:3 and 10:4 to journey with not a single possession except a staff. And as I already noted, Peter's drawing a weapon proves that at least one of them was armed.

Honestly, I think it's just yet another biblical contradiction, but it could suggest that Jesus wanted his men armed. Another example is Jesus driving out the moneychangers with a whip... where'd the whip come from? Did he buy one in the temple to then immediately use?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 04:33 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(04-03-2013 04:36 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 01:24 PM)Impulse Wrote:  Second, the story wasn't written down for 60 or 70 years - probably 2 full generations back then - so who would remember anything that was specifically said? All those quotes in the NT from Jesus are likely inaccurate at best and completely made up at worst.


A common fallacy, perpetrated by the clergy to explain away the many discrepancies in the NT. They try, time and time again, to imply this was a non-literate era.

The truth is, that we know that the Essenes were scribbling away furiously in this era. Josephus Flavius was also scribbling furiously in this era. And Josephus says that Jesus Justus of Tiberius also wrote a history of 1st century Judaea (this was probably the biblical Jesus, because Justus was a family name, same as James Justus, the brother of Jesus.) Meanwhile the Talmud says that Balaam also wrote a history of 1st century Judaea, and Balaam is a common pseudonym for Jesus in the Talmud (as the talmudic rabbis tell us). Plus much of the Talmud itself was a 1st century document, written by Johannan ben Zakkai, the 1st century creator of modern Judaism.


As you can see, this was a highly literate era and region. It is therefore highly likely that contemporary records of these events were being made at the time, by both Josephus Flavius and by his chief rival Jesus-Izas of Gamala (who was the biblical Jesus). Why would they not be doing so? Why would they not record their view of this highly contentious civil war?

The only great shame is that we no longer have the History of the Kings of Judaea, by Jesus Justus, to refer to. Josephus said it was full of falsehoods and slandered him - and with Josephus being the last man standing after the Jewish Revolt, you can be sure he destroyed all the copies. Likewise the Gospel of Balaam (the biblical Jesus, according to the Talmud), which was also destroyed. What secrets disappeared with these two texts?

So you can perhaps see why people say there is no evidence for these characters - for the only surviving document was written by the quicksilver-quilled and highly duplicitous Josephus Flavius. And for many reasons, Josephus just had to write the life of the real secular Jesus out of the historical record.

But Josephus did not quite succeed, because I have one of the biblical Jesus' coins at home, which portrays him wearing his Crown of Thorns (this was a ceremonial crown, not a circlet of twigs). Yes, he did exist as a real king in control of a small realm (that he was trying to expand by taking over all of Syria, Judaea and thence Rome.) And the foundations of his castle still exists.



Does this change anything? Not really, unfortunately.

The believers will deny that this is their Jesus, even though he had the same names and the same history (being born under the Eastern Star).
In a somewhat similar fashion, the unbelievers will still say it is still all mythology, and so this cannot be the biblical Jesus.


The truth, however unpalatable, appears to be that Jesus was a real person, and he was indeed a revolutionary who tried to become Emperor of Rome. (This is why he was dressed in an Emperor's purple cloak in the crucifixion scene.) But he lost to the Roman army, was crucified, but was taken down from the cross by Josephus Flavius (as Josephus narrates at the end of his book 'Life'). Thus Josephus Flavius gets a starring role in the gospels, as Josephus of Arimathaea.


But as you can probably see, there was no spiritual gloss on the original story. This was a tale of royal ambition, civil war, capitulation and bitter defeat. The gospel authors took this story, added a thick layer of sugar and fairy dust to it, and sold it as a tale of god's work. Why? Because Rome wanted to quell revolutionary Judaism, and it did so by creating a new form of Rome-friendly Judaism. Judaism for Gentiles, or Simple Judaism, or Judaism Lite. This was pure Roman propaganda, but it eventually became a religion, and we call it Christianity.


Not sure if you know, but modern Christianity has nothing to do with the Church of Jesus. Saul (Josephus) set up his own Gentile-friendly form of Judaism, which became the bitter enemy of the Church of Jesus. Thus the gospel story is a history of Jesus, written by his bitter enemy. This revised Sauline (Pauline) account is what Rome promoted and turned into Simple Judaism (Christianity). And they were able to do this, because (Saul) Josephus was the pet Jewish quisling, scholar and yes-man of Emperor Vespasian. Vespasian wanted a Rome friendly form of Judaism, and (Saul) Josephus morphed his new Simple Judaism for Gentiles into exactly what Vespasian wanted.

Which means that Vespasian's Simple Judaic propaganda must have been the most influential and 'successful' propaganda ever devised. But I have used inverted commas there, because the propaganda evolved a life of its own, and took over all of Rome in the name of Catholic Christianity. An entire empire that was eaten by its own propaganda!! Now there is a new one....


.
Wow!

Yep! Bingo! Bulls eye! .....Except for the bit about Paul and Josephus being the same person....do your best to convince me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 04:44 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(05-03-2013 09:45 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 05:54 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  i tend to think that the guy in the storybook is based on a real guy. i dont think this guy raised the dead or walked on water. i dont think that because im not 6. i think that there is no history surrounding this guy because who would record things about an unimportant rabbi who had 12 followers or perhaps less. im sure there was lots of guys walking around at that time preaching bullshit . but no, there is no historical evidence for a guy that is actually the son of god who could do magic.


Again, like the 'water to wine' miracle I discussed earlier, Jesus probably did 'walk on water'. You just have to know what this expression means.

Actually, 'walking on water' was a common Egyptian expression for testing someone's faith. And that is exactly what Jesus was doing to Peter, at the time.

I think every 'miracle' in the NT has a rational explanation.


.
That "rational explanation" would most likely be that people sat around a table and made the miracle stories up, don't you think?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 05:03 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 04:44 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 09:45 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Again, like the 'water to wine' miracle I discussed earlier, Jesus probably did 'walk on water'. You just have to know what this expression means.

Actually, 'walking on water' was a common Egyptian expression for testing someone's faith. And that is exactly what Jesus was doing to Peter, at the time.

I think every 'miracle' in the NT has a rational explanation.


.
That "rational explanation" would most likely be that people sat around a table and made the miracle stories up, don't you think?

One does not need a "rational" explanation. All the messiah figures, and "holy" prophet figures were seen to do miracles. It was an ignorant "magical" society, in a pre-scientific age. Miracle workers were a dime a dozen, and the literacy rate was < 5%.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: