At the time I lacked the resources to argue against his assertions effectively, however in the years since my findings are much like those expressed by Dr. Ehrman.
Kind of seems odd for a man who supposedly had such an incredible impact on the century in whihc he lived, don't you think?
P.S. I am aware that there are some of you who will disagree with this, but if you do please cite your sources so they can be verified.
A proper witch moves the world without consuming it or bending it out of shape. Light footprints, if you will; rely upon ripples.
ReplyDeleteOh... and always, always, mystify the people!
DeleteThis fact is what convinced me the whole shebang was made up by men with an agenda. Control being that agenda.
ReplyDeleteFllavius Josephus (37 A.D.- 101AD)
ReplyDeletehttp://carm.org/regarding-quotes-historian-josephus-about-jesus
More:
Testimonium Flavianium (Rome, 93 AD.)
http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm
Probably the ist popular near-contemporary writings about Jesus from 1st Century A,D. Josephus' existence is "confirmed" through his other writing during the same time period in other writings of others during the time. I'm limited on time to discuss at length, but the first article gives the pros and cons of Josephus' scholarship and the integrity of his writings.
I believe there is another historian of the era who makes casual mention of Jesus as well, although I have no details at hand. I'll check beck later to see if someone else has covered the source, and if not, I'll do a quick search for the source and text.
I will say this as a general disclaimer and statement of my position. There's not enough text mentioning Jesus to satisfy my own standard of 100% proof of existence. But Josephus was not considered to be a schlub or shill for Rome in that era, and his other scholarly works appear to make him one of the preeminent reputable historians of that time. According to the calendar, his writings are not as eye- witness, but soon enough afterwards to speak directly to those who either witnessed Jesus' existence or knew of him in the region, as Josephus was born 4 years after the date that Jesus was crucified, according to the Bible and other early Christian writings.
Like most historical things that are controversial, there are layers of "truth" that have to be peeled away to support a strong opinion, but in the end, what will be one person's "proof" will be another person's "lack of concrete evidence".
I'm agnostic on the deification of Jesus, but tend to believe that he existed, was a wise man who taught human morals and love for fellow man that are timeless in any era.
For me, his teachings are the most important part of his work, and becsuse he was a kind, loving teacher who stood up for the poor and disadvantaged, my opinion is that he was a community organizer whose teachings were considered to the power structure of the political/religious culture of the day.
I've read as much in the subjects of his works by other writers from many eras, and I understand how the political , cultural, economic and religious environment affect the way that moral stories and "good works" in an era are reflected in literature and in the arts.
I'll be interested to read other opinions and research done by others here as well, so thanks in advance. And thanks to you as we'll, Jesse. I think we can all learn a lot more about this world and about ourselves by learning through the insights gained by others through their own reading and research.
Just for the record, I grew up in a loving, Christian home, in which the Gospel of the New Testament was considered the standard of behavior expected of mature, kind, loving, individuals, and although I was rebellious to a point when I began questioning how and why society's norms were often inconsistent with the methods used to create certain outcomes, i.e., hypocrisy, paying lip service, etc. Naturally, I questioned religion and its role in my life and its destructive potential within and between societies from a standpoint of how differences can or cannot be resolved, given mutual respect, and how these clashes of culture affect not only the "parties at odds w/ one another", but also the neutral parties affected by the situations.
I'll cut it off and come back later. I don't have time to edit, so if my iPhone spells a word that looks stupid, blame it on technology (so much for personal responsibility, huh?) But if it's an idea or opinion that's flawed, I welcome critique and the thoughts of others. This is how I tend to learn best when there is an unknown outcome without perfect information available. I hope everyone has a great day.
Josephus didn't mention Jesus. Such mentions were added to his writings long after the fact to make it appear he had.
DeleteThank you Anonymous 5:23. Exactly what I was going to reply, that the Jesus reference was inserted later.
Delete@523
DeleteThat's convenient.
So they only added these FAKE references to this one man's writing. .. and no one else as cited above in the blog post?
Whatever.
How many books have you read, Gryph, that claim jesus was real? There was a very recent book. Not saYing it's true but I would rather listen to your objections to their research than this.
Easier to digest those nifty little sceen shots, eh? You used to like to read.
5:23.
DeletePerhaps it is widely known and I'm just ignorant on the matter. In that case, perhaps you vould firect me to a resource that you consider to be reliable.
Rather than just a refutation, I'd be interested to see the source material. Can you cite some sources supporting your statement(s)?
Thanks to you and others for offering your opinions.
I’ve covered similar ground and arrived at the same conclusions.
ReplyDeleteJesus was likely the brother of James the Just, and Jesus was POSSIBLY called the Christ. If James was nice, then his brother could have been nice, but all we have are two nice brothers.
There’s been a lot of extraneous writing and cobbling of old stories to create the Jesus we know today.
Some excellent research has been done on the early church and the life of Jesus by Peter Owen Jones, a priest of the Church of England. His research is historical and not at all dogmatic. I found it unusually even-handed and extremely interesting.
DeleteI started with the video on youtube called 'Jesus was a buddhist monk' and continued with a work on the lost books of the Bible. He has several videos that I intend to view, but I recommend these, strictly from an historical perspective. (he reminds me alot of crocodile dundee, o/t, but just saying)
Be well in TRF.
The B.
From Reza Aslan's Intro to "Zealot": Josephus writes of a fiendish Jewish high priest named Ananus who, after the death of the Roman governor Festus, unlawfully condemned a certain James, the brother of Jesus, the one they call messiah"...
ReplyDeleteBut yep, few and far between...
Agreed, Darlene and SarahPac. According to Reza Aslan, there were many men in that period of history who claimed to be the messiah and were executed for it. What eventually set Jesus apart were the fictions of the virgin birth and the resurrection, neither of which were original ideas and can be found in the literature of more ancient cultures. Without those two "miracles" nobody could have convinced the populace that he was anything other than a mortal guy who also happened to be a great teacher.
ReplyDeleteBut WHY the need to "convince the populace"???
DeleteWHY this guy and not THAT guy?
And jesus was ajew who preached love above all else. Meaning he wasn't trying to stay his own religion.
WHO was the person behind that? ? What would their purpose be? Increase kindness?
The virgin birth claim wasn't all that unusual as claims go for the gods down through the ages.
DeleteAnd Elijah ascended directly into heaven according to the Old Testament.
But the story of the resurrection miracle is what started the movent of Jesus' followers.
Proving jesus existed is of absolutely NO value whatsoever!
ReplyDeleteIt is the GOD thing that sticks in the craw of a lot of people - me included.
And if he DID exist, his supposed teachings, while nice and good advice for civilizations, do absolutely NOTHING to prove one way or the other the claims made by millions.
So who cares if there is or is not any evidence he lived? Only those who believe in him as a god - and they already believe he lived! And even more, it would be impossible to convince them of anything else!
Proving jesus lived would be phenomenal.
DeletePeople are inspired by Ghandi, mother theresa, etc.
What if people in thousands of years claimed they never existed? They were fictitious, people didn't act that in the 20th century, come on!
And what would be the point?
To make people who tried to emulate them feel foolish? To stop kindness?
Christians are not kind.They are judgmental and mean spirited.Killing has been done in Christ's name for thousands of years .
DeleteI believe that would be the "so-called" christians. If you've never met individuals that are truly faithful to their religion and live the positive values that are taught regarding treatment of other human beings, that's a complete shame. But they exist, not just in Christianity but in many sects. But you are correct that often the most visible are the ones that slander the movement the pretend to follow.
DeleteBe careful with blanket statements like " All Libruls are dumb or all politicians are crooks." It's hard to take seriously the absolutes which don't apply to every one, even if you've never met one personally that you like or admire.
Apollonius of Tyana,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.librarising.com/spirituality/apollo.html
The conclusion that I eventually came to is that the Jesus described in the Bible is essentially an amalgam of several historical figures and many of the god/men worshipped in the various mystery religions so popular during the first couple centuries BC/AD.
ReplyDeleteThe three most likely historical figures were a couple of Yeshus, one who was killed on a tree ~60 BC and the other killed by the Romans toward the end of the First Century AD. The other was Apollonius of Tyana, whose life also has parallels with Paul as well as Jesus.
As for the god/men, the list is long: Attis, Adonis, Osiris, Dionysus, Mitra, Mithras, etc.
A group which very well may have been the foundation for what later became Christianity were the Hysistarians. They were monotheists whose beliefs were essentially Hellenized Judaism. Not only were their beliefs similar to and predated Christianity, but they are well represented in the cities to which Paul wrote his epistles.
Ehrman's work--his books and debates available on youtube-- was key to my ability to finally and joyfully walk away from the Christian myth which had been the center of my life for decades.
ReplyDeleteFor clarity, Ehrman wrote a book defending Jesus' existence as an actual person, although not the person most believe him to be. There's a video at the Amazon site that summarizes his position.
http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1383583739&sr=1-6&keywords=bart+ehrman
Thanks, Gryph, for instigating the stimulating conversation. Love it when you make us think and learn.
ReplyDeleteFinally!!! A real conversation that goes deep beyond shallow thought processes, name calling and insults. I knew the IMM family was capable. I just had to be patient and wait.
ReplyDeleteI love you Uncle Gryphen for this (obviously) well screened thread. I've fallen in love with IMM all over again!
I think that Jesus of Nazareth, aka Yeshua bar Yusef (son of Joseph), brother of James the Just, was a real person who lived and died in the so-called "first century." This person may or may not have claimed to be "Meshiach (Messiah)" but is not the mythical "Christos" or "Christ" around whom Paul constructed his new Greco-Roman religion. Many scholars have demonstrated this distinction. If you want some good reading. read "Zealot" by Reza Aslan (the newest), anything at all by Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, John Meier, and most of the scholars they cite. For myself, I prefer to follow the religion OF Jesus rather than the religion ABOUT Jesus, which he probably would have found to be horrendous and opposed to everything he stood for.
ReplyDelete