BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Did Jesus actually exist?

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Peach Pie
03:34 / 03.01.07

Have been doing some reading on parallels between Jesus and various other "sun-god" figures. I'd always taken it for granted that christian holidays were pagan in origin and that a large number of christian clergy do not accept the resurrection as literal fact. But more recently i've become aware that many of Jesus' significant life events were mirrored in the myth of Horus, where a messiah figure began preaching aged 30, with no bio info between the ages of 12 - 30.

I find the Da Vinci code ideas similarly unconvincing. somehow the idea of a mass conspiracy to suppress knowledge of a "super-genetic" bloodline for 2000 years seems far-fetched. Was wondering if there was in fact any persuasive evidence of a historical Jesus of which Barbeloids were aware.
 
 
Planet B
04:33 / 03.01.07
From my readings, there is no evidence for a historical Jesus. I personally believe the myth was created by the Gnostics and others, culling from many other sun gods -- Osiris, Krishna, Dionysus, Mithras, etc.

You might want to check out The God Who Wasn't There or The Christ Conspiracy.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
06:32 / 03.01.07
This may help.

Interesting bits:

Of the non-Christian writings from that time that have been preserved, very few mention Jesus or Christianity, and for that matter few of their authors showed much interest in Judea or the Near East in general. Nonetheless, the works of four major non-Christian historians contain passages relevant to Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger, among others. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Of the four, Josephus' writings, which document John the Baptist, James the Just, and possibly also Jesus, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus (see below). Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions popular opinion about Christus, without historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. Pliny condemned Christians as easily led fools.

Tacitus on Christ and christians:

book 15, chapter 44 of his Annals (c. 116):


But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Regarding Josephus:

Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93. In it, Jesus is mentioned twice. In the second very brief mentioning, Josephus calls James, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".[28] This is considered by the majority of scholars to be authentic,[29] though a few have raised doubts.[30]

More notably, in the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:

About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[31]


While some scholars do doubt the historical jesus, most agree that Jesus of Nazareth most likely did in fact exist. Planet B's idea that the myth of Jesus was started by the gnostics or other mystery tradition or sun cults from Egypt or wherever is shared by some, and is not such a bad idea: there were a ton of them around, and it was a pretty convinient time for a jewish messiah to pop up.

Personally I don't have any difficulty believing that a man from Nazareth named Jesus did in fact exist and that somehow a religion was grew from his life and teachings. Not too far-fetched in my mind, really.
 
 
EmberLeo
08:34 / 03.01.07
The pieces (like the above, and the general trend I've heard and read) add up to a real man named Jesus and a lot of after-the-fact myth applied to him from various trends and cultures, according to political and religious need at the time.

The book I liked most for this subject is A History of God. It's a well-written and easy to follow account of the history behind Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, given the known facts and surrounding political environments they each developed in.

--Ember--
 
 
Peach Pie
13:53 / 03.01.07
hmm... it's not the idea of a historical Jesus having existed and having a religion grow up from his life that I find difficult per se. It's the idea that the biblical account of his life could be factually accurate, when it has so many similarities to mythical figures pre-existing. I had always been happy to overlook the notion of a resurrection, because it still left room for a literal human being who inspired many by his deeds. But many of those deeds were identical to the ones a pagan god is also said to have performed:

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph"). Seb is also known as "Geb": "As Horus the Elder he...was believed to be the son of Geb and Nut." Lewis Spence, Ancient Egyptian Myths and Legends, 84.
He was of royal descent.
At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.
He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").
He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.
Horus walked on water.
His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."
He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God's Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.
He came to fulfill the Law.
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."

While I looked on the idea of the holy trinity in the nicene creed as so much hyperbole, pagan's literally believed souls could be saved not by living a holy life, but by having a sun-god descend into hell and physically retrieve your soul for you!

The fundamental thing for me about Jesus' life was the sermon on the mount. such a beautiful speech, and a rebuttal to anyone seriously claiming christianity could be compatible with war. But Horus did even that before Jesus...and if it really is true that Jesus' 12 disciples were based on the signs of the zodiac, it's hard to see what Jesus added to religion that wasn't already there.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
14:50 / 03.01.07
Christians added a material aspect to the Sun God mythology: an actual, physical person in addition to the archetype.

I suspect that may have been a novel introduction to the mythology.
 
 
Unconditional Love
17:47 / 03.01.07
Anup, anoup, anpu is another name for anubis.

Heru em anpu being a composite of horus and anubis.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:23 / 03.01.07
It's the idea that the biblical account of his life could be factually accurate...

Which "biblical account" would that be? The four synoptic gospels contradict each other all over the place as to the what / when / where / how of Jesus's biography.

Of course, you can largely account for the differences by considering the audience for whom each account was intended. Mark, for instance, was writing for a Jewish audience, and pitched Jesus as the culmination of Old Testament prophecy; he has Jesus giving His "Blest are they" sermon from a mountaintop, in accordance with the tradition of Jewish prophets receiving and dispensing signs from mountaintops.

Luke, on the other hand, was writing for a Greek audience, and emphasized Jesus's message of universal salvation and radical egalitarianism; when Jesus gives the "Blest are they" sermon in Luke, he's standing on a level plain.

But y'know what? It's really kind of beside the point. The concept of "historical accuracy" is only a couple of centuries old. The sort of "history" practiced by the Greeks and Romans wasn't that far removed from mythology; it was often presented from an explicitly moralistic framework. Adherence to the facts was neither desirable nor undesirable; it was simply irrelevant.

If four documents written in the first century fail to agree on certain specifics of Jesus's life and ministry, it means precisely fuck-all. The important thing for His biographers was the message, not the man. And the message that comes through is remarkably consistent.
 
 
EmberLeo
19:10 / 03.01.07
it's hard to see what Jesus added to religion that wasn't already there.

It's hard to see what Jesus added to whose religion that wasn't there?

Christianity pulled a lot of Polytheists into Monotheism, and added a lot of pagan aspects for the Jews that ... well, I guess converted would be the word. Actually, when I think about it that way, Christianity united concepts that were previously in opposition for quite a long while. A lot of what makes Judaism what it is is counterpoint to the surrounding pagan cultures.

I don't know what the goal my have been in the long run, if anything. It often seems like the goal of most new religions is a hope that this time we'll unite everybody under one god-concept, and there need never be religious wars again. But maybe that's just my perception.

On a related but sepparate note, I've often gotten the distinct impression that John the Baptist went and learned Headwashing from the African tribes as a way of getting closer to one's god. The idea that he then headwashed Jesus to Yaweh is one I find intruiging.

Alas, I know little of John the Baptist. Any good resources on the historical figure there?

--Ember--
 
 
Planet B
19:57 / 03.01.07
The important thing for His biographers was the message, not the man. And the message that comes through is remarkably consistent.

Too bad no one follows that message, eh? 'Specially not most so-called Christians.

As I stated earlier, I much prefer the message of the Gnostics anyway which basically said that we all have the ability to become "anointed" and to access the divinity in all of us and all of creation. In fact, I believe WE are supposed to be creators and not destroyers and THAT is the main point of Gnosticism, yet one which the Christians totally threw out the window because - like most organized religions - their sole purpose was to control the masses. One of my main beefs with Christians is their abdication of responsibility, placing responsiblity on some nebulous being out there instead of individually and as a society. "The lord works in mysterious ways" is one example of this but I've heard many Christians use it as an excuse to not act in the world. To not take a stand and do waht is right.

You can tell I'm no fan of religion. And watching the world today, who really can be? But it's interesting to learn where these actual ideas came from - and they all came from very real concerns. The sun/son gods were all about agrarian societies and their ties to the solar year. It IS the reason that there were 12 apostles, as that was how the night sky was broken up, by 12 constellations that cirled all the way round the horizon.

I'm actually re-reading some of Acharya S's stuff on the web thanks to this thread. Check it out.
 
 
Planet B
20:08 / 03.01.07
And, as a counterpoint to the previous reply about historians who wrote one or two sentences about Hey-Zues.

From Origins of Christianity:

In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which constitute many volumes, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by all scholars and even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, "brother" of Jesus. Bishop Warburton labeled the Josephus interpolation regarding Jesus as "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."29 Wheless notes that, "The first mention ever made of this passage, and its text, are in the Church History of that 'very dishonest writer,' Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century...CE [Catholic Encyclopedia] admits... the above cited passage was not known to Origen and the earlier patristic writers." Wheless, a lawyer, and Taylor, a minister, agree that it was Eusebius himself who forged the passage.

Regarding the letter to Trajan supposedly written by Pliny the Younger, which is one of the pitifully few "references" to Jesus or Christianity held up by Christians as evidence of the existence of Jesus, there is but one word that is applicable--"Christian"--and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire letter. Concerning the passage in the works of the historian Tacitus, who did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after his purported death, this is also considered by competent scholars as an interpolation and forgery.30 Christian defenders also like to hold up the passage in Suetonius that refers to someone named "Chrestus" or "Chresto" as reference to their Savior; however, while some have speculated that there was a Roman man of that name at that time, the name "Chrestus" or "Chrestos," meaning "useful," was frequently held by freed slaves. Others opine that this passage is also an interpolation.

As to these references and their constant regurgitation by Christian apologists, Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn says:

"The average Christian minister who has not read outside the pale of accredited Church authorities will impart to any parishioner making the inquiry the information that no event in history is better attested by witness than the occurences in the Gospel narrative of Christ's life. He will go over the usual citation of the historians who mention Jesus and the letters claiming to have been written about him. When the credulous questioner, putting trust in the intelligence and good faith of his pastor, gets this answer, he goes away assured on the point of the veracity of the Gospel story. The pastor does not qualify his data with the information that the practice of forgery, fictionizing and fable was rampant in the early Church. In the simple interest of truth, then, it is important to examine the body of alleged testimony from secular history and see what credibility and authority it possess.

"First, as to the historians whose works record the existence of Jesus, the list comprises but four. They are Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. There are short paragraphs in the works of each of these, two in Josephus. The total quantity of this material is given by Harry Elmer Barnes in The Twilight of Christianity as some twenty-four lines. It may total a little more, perhaps twice that amount. This meager testimony constitutes the body or mass of the evidence of 'one of the best attested events in history.' Even if it could be accepted as indisputably authentic and reliable, it would be faltering support for an event that has dominated the thought of half the world for eighteen centuries.

"But what is the standing of this witness? Not even Catholic scholars of importance have dissented from a general agreement of academic investigators that these passages, one and all, must by put down as forgeries and interpolations by partisan Christian scribes who wished zealously to array the authority of these historians behind the historicity of the Gospel life of Jesus. A sum total of forty or fifty lines from secular history supporting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and they completely discredited!"30a

Of these "references," Dujardin says, "But even if they are authentic, and were derived from earlier sources, they would not carry us back earlier than the period in which the gospel legend took form, and so could attest only the legend of Jesus, and not his historicity." In any case, these scarce and brief "references" to a man who supposedly shook up the world can hardly be held up as proof of his existence, and it is absurd that the purported historicity of the entire Christian religion is founded upon them.31 As it is said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"; yet, no proof of any kind for the historicity of Jesus has ever existed or is forthcoming.
 
 
Peach Pie
21:23 / 03.01.07
Thanks, Planet B. I can see how Horus, Krishna etc have been fused together. I was a bit confused by the idea of Buddha being in the 'Jesus' mix tho... I was relatively convinced by the idea he died a peaceful death and had 500 followers rather than 12. I wonder how the whole thing fits together with the Koran's idea that Jesus existed as a human prophet. Not very well, presumably.

Ember- do you mean 'brainwashing' by 'headwashing'? I just ask because I heard one rather strange theory that popular religion is a front for esoteric babylonian knowledge, and that John the babptist, rather than Simon should be regarded as the true magus. Jesus was a sort of "superman" he was trying to create...
 
 
Quantum
22:52 / 03.01.07
Ember- do you mean 'brainwashing' by 'headwashing'? I just ask because I heard one rather strange theory that popular religion is a front for esoteric babylonian knowledge, and that John the babptist, rather than Simon should be regarded as the true magus. Jesus was a sort of "superman" he was trying to create...

I think dipping someone's head in water is what ze meant (correct me if I'm wrong Ember) and I'm fascinated to hear more of the John the Magus theory- where did you hear that?

I much prefer the message of the Gnostics anyway which basically said that we all have the ability to become "anointed" and to access the divinity in all of us and all of creation. Planet B

That's an interesting perspective on gnostic thought, care to tell us more?
 
 
Planet B
01:01 / 04.01.07
S_G, if you go to the third or fourth page of that link I put earlier, she actually explains exactly how the Jesus and Buddha stories reflect each other.

As for my reading of the Gnostics, be warned that it's really only my interpretation of several things I've read about them. Anointing with oil was something they did to those who had completed spiritual trainings, and they called them Kristus or something (going just on memory here), which is one place that the name Christ could have come from.

To the Gnostics, Jesus was a story about how to live your life and how to achieve enlightenment. My personal opinion is that they are saying we should aspire to access our divinity through meditation and other spiritual methods and by moral living (like the Christ story). I think we - and all living things - are by our very nature divine, but we don't practice accessing it. Like the parts of our minds/brains we don't use. It's my belief that humanity's destiny is to fully accept that and free ourselves from our material chains. Ironically, I also think this means accepting the animal parts of ourselves in a duality with our spirit. This is pretty far out there, but I think that's what we're here for - to find the intersection of the spiritual world and the material world and how it's all sides of the same coin.

(although that may not even answer your question)
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
03:55 / 04.01.07
More interesting stuff from Wikipedia:

Ancient Creeds

The authors whose works are contained in the New Testament sometimes quote from creeds, or confessions of faith, that obviously predate their writings. Scholars suppose that some of these creeds date to within a few years of Jesus' death, and were developed within the Christian community in Jerusalem .[11] Though embedded within the texts of the New Testament, these creeds are a distinct source for early Christianity.

1Corinthians 15:3-4 reads: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. This contains a Christian creed of pre-Pauline origin.[12] The antiquity of the creed has been located by many scholars to less than a decade after Jesus' death, originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community,[13] and no scholar dates it later than the 40s.[14] Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"[15] whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability."[16]

Other relevant creeds that have been identified which predate the texts wherein they are found that have been identified are 1John 4:2,[17] 2Timothy 2:8,[18] Romans 1:3-4,[19] and 1Timothy 3:16, an early creedal hymn.[20]

I was not aware of that.

Another strange bit:

In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders used Alexander the Great as a paradigm—-the available sources tell us much about Alexander’s deeds, but nothing about his thoughts. "The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought."[59] Thus, Sanders considers the quest for the Historical Jesus to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander than to those historical figures with adequate documentation.


Plantet B's quoted material suggests a confidence on the issue that I doubt many scholars have. From what I can tell, most biblical and historical scholars believe that Jesus was a Jewish teacher and was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was executed by prelate Pontius Pilate for sedition against Rome.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
04:07 / 04.01.07
Too bad no one follows that message, eh? 'Specially not most so-called Christians.

Meh. They're no more or less faithful than any other religion, really.

...THAT is the main point of Gnosticism, yet one which the Christians totally threw out the window because - like most organized religions - their sole purpose was to control the masses.

...probably not their SOLE purpose, I imagine. That's a bit of a sweeping statement.

One of my main beefs with Christians is their abdication of responsibility, placing responsiblity on some nebulous being out there instead of individually and as a society. "The lord works in mysterious ways" is one example of this but I've heard many Christians use it as an excuse to not act in the world. To not take a stand and do waht is right.

Uh huh. As much fun as it would be to talk to you in regard to these points, this thread really isn't for anyone's beefs with Christianity. All this is doing is showing me that you may have a vested intrest in denying that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

You can tell I'm no fan of religion. And watching the world today, who really can be?

Me! Dude I totally love religion. All of 'em. But all this is only barely related to the topic at hand.
 
 
Peach Pie
08:12 / 04.01.07
I'm fascinated to hear more of the John the Magus theory- where did you hear that?

i don't remember the exact link, but I *think* the page in question was suggesting that John was so insistent on predicting the arrival of "the son of god" because he was creating a messiah like figure with powers like remote viewing with the use of the occult - a sort of "superman" figure. As bizarre as this might seem, it would arguably be a precedented occurrence in the bible - in the book of Daniel, the king of babylon forces four of his slaves onto some sort of regimen in order to endow them with unusual psychic powers.

According to
the Templar Revelation(http://en.wikipedia.org), Jesus is the disciple of John, rather than the other way round. The Johanites consider the John the true Christ and a scholar of the Egyptian mystery religions, although "christ" is not an exclusive term within the actual religion. The cathars have him as a demon, whose magical power, in keeping with occult tradition, is only transferred to jesus upon his death. Maybe this is the etymology of "catharsis"? I'm not sure where the "demon" idea originates, although Jesus apparently refers to a demon that had to be slain in order for prophecy to be fulfilled. This of course implicates Jesus in John's death. It is not hard to see why the Church and the Templar society have been such keen rivals over the years. Some believe John's disembodied head is represented by the symbol of Baphomet.

To the Gnostics, Jesus was a story about how to live your life and how to achieve enlightenment. My personal opinion is that they are saying we should aspire to access our divinity through meditation and other spiritual methods and by moral living (like the Christ story). your beliefs are compatible with Buddhism... I think Buddhism's refusal to appropriate a God has led to much less room for perversion of its primary texts for war than other religion. but i'm never really confident that human nature is naturally divine, precisely because of all the things going on in the world you mentioned earlier. have met buddhists who take the idea of renunciation and still somehow manage to twist into something egotistical- one buddhist I met didn't really listen to people because his accretion of knowledge through past lives was so much greater than anyone's around him. still, i guess you get better and worse practitioners, like in any religious sect.
 
 
EmberLeo
22:25 / 04.01.07
Ember- do you mean 'brainwashing' by 'headwashing'?
I think dipping someone's head in water is what ze meant (correct me if I'm wrong Ember)

*laughs* Yes, Quantum, you're right. I meant the Afrodiasporic ceremony of bringing one closer to one's patron or "Head" spirit by washing (with water, or a mixture of water and other ingredients) the spirit into the head of the devotee. The exact terminology and ceremony varies by tradition and language, but the concept stays about the same. I can elaborate, but I'm not sure if this is the thread for it?

--Ember--
 
 
Peach Pie
00:50 / 05.01.07

Please go ahead
 
 
Seth
00:57 / 05.01.07
I'm pretty sure that Christianity can failry easily just adapt around the fact that there's no historical proof for Jesus. The idea of him has always been more compelling than the actuality. I think it would make for a more interesting religion if the notion of historical truth were abandoned, but it certainly wouldn't kill it.
 
 
Quantum
11:26 / 05.01.07
I've always thought denying that Jesus was real was more work than accepting it. If he never existed, how do you explain the religion he started? Occam's razor leans toward a real live person IMO.

I'd never really considered a Gnostic view of Jesus before because it's a pretty broad term, but looking it up I found out all kinds of interesting things. For example in the second century the Sethian gnostics became Christianised by the identification of the Logos (the last member of the Father-Mother-Son triad) with Christ.

"Sethianism posits a transcendent hidden invisible God that is beyond ordinary description; much like Plato (see Parmenides) and Philo had also stated earlier in history. It is only possible to say what God isn't, and the experience of it remains something, again, in defiance of rational description...This original God went through a series of emanations, during which its essence is seen as spontaneously expanding into many successive 'generations' of paired male and female beings, called 'aeons'. The first of these is the Barbelo, a figure common throughout Sethianism,"

Barbelo the first aeon, eh? Where's that thread on the meaning of barbelith...
 
 
EmberLeo
00:13 / 06.01.07
Me: I can elaborate [on headwashing], but I'm not sure if this is the thread for it?
goldfish: please go ahead

I think it makes the most sense to add it to the John the Baptist thread, so I'll put it there.

--Ember--
 
 
Planet B
01:43 / 09.01.07
I've always thought denying that Jesus was real was more work than accepting it. If he never existed, how do you explain the religion he started? Occam's razor leans toward a real live person IMO.

Well, I actually agree with the post before yours about Christianity being able to deal with the possibility (I would say fact) that he never existed. Of course, they'd have to lose all the literalist bullshite and the hatred and lunatics it often engenders. Bully on that, I say.

fyi, I don't accept Occam's razor as anything but a way to work between competing theories. these are not two theories. all the facts point in one direction. the razor does not apply.

sorry, but this is one of my big pet peeves as I hear O'sR applied far too often to so-called conspiracy theories (like 9/11) when it really does not appply at all. the facts are what they are. with 9/11, the facts don't add up in the official conspiracy theory. yet people use the razor to say any other "theory" (which is usually only questioning of why we're not investigating further) is bogus. sorry for the threadrot also. but I just spent two hours the other day googling for info on Occam's Razor as it applies to logic (the field of study), and it really doesn't. it does not disprove anything, it only gives us a tool for looking at two competing theories.
 
 
Planet B
01:47 / 09.01.07
most biblical and historical scholars believe that Jesus was a Jewish teacher and was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was executed by prelate Pontius Pilate for sedition against Rome.

From what evidence? The historical and archaeological records simply don't support this. If you have examples, please provide them.
 
 
EmberLeo
07:15 / 09.01.07
With regards to proof, Occams Razor, and such:

You're right, Occam's Razor only works when two or more theories all equally represent the available evidence, and all it says thereafter is that the theory with the fewest unknown variables is most likely correct.

However, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so the reason Occam's Razor doesn't apply here isn't because one theory is better than the other, it's that there are few or no available facts on which to base any theory. It is impossible to have overwhelming evidence that Jesus did not exist.

From what I understand, we do have some evidence that Jesus did exist as a historical figure. That his life did not strongly resemble the myths now attributed him is pretty well certain. I'm digging back through A History of God by Karen Armstrong. Chapter 3 is a succinct 27 pages on the life of Jesus, and how he went from a relatively normal, if spiritually talented Jewish guy to the Only Divine Son of God.

"We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of his life was St. MArk's Gospel, which was not written until about the year 70, some fourty years after his death. By that time, historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements which expressed the meaning Jesus had acquired for his followers. It is this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable straightforward portrayal....

"During his lifetime, many Jews in Palestine had believed that he was the Messiah... Yet despite the scandal of a Messiah who had died like a common criminal, his disciples could not believe that their faith in him had been misplaced... His disciples believed that he would soon return to inagurate the Messianic Kingdom of God, and, since there was nothing heretical about such a belief, their sect was accepted as authentically JEwish by no less a person than Rabbi Gamaliel, the grandsom of Hillel, and one of the greatest of the tannaim."

Mmmm, actually, reading this again, I'm reminded of what I first thought when I read it originally: Given the context of Judaism at the time, it makes no sense at all that this sect would have started without a human leader of some kind to focus on. It took far too long for the mythical and deific elements to gain hold, historically speaking. The human politics move around an ill-defined cult leader the way orbital bodies move around an object we can't quite see. It's the behaviors of objects nearby that indicate the nature of the missing object.

The behaviors of the people around "Jesus" indicate the presence of a real human sect leader. Certainly not a man who, during his own lifetime, was regarded as divine. But a man charismatic and spiritually talented enough to inspire devotion beyond his death upon which to build the larger myths.

--Ember--
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:29 / 09.01.07
I think what Planet B was asking is if there are any primary sources which suggest that a chap of that name was born in Bethlehem at the time of the Tiberian census, was unusually spiritual at the age of twelve or so, turned up at 30, led a popular movement, was crucified somewhere between 26 and 36 AD, that sort of thing, apart from the testimonium Flavianum, the veracity of which has been questioned. I can't think of any, offhand, although that's certainly not proof that no such sources ever existed - it has, after all, been a spell.
 
 
EmberLeo
08:19 / 09.01.07
Yeah, I pretty much get that. I'm trying to find my notes from the Western Religion class I took a year or two ago. I remember that the name "Jesus" isn't what should be looked for with those other statistics, since that's not what they think his birth name was.

The notes I'm trying to find were something about there being basically two different candidates that we had data on from the applicable time period, and some suspicions that their lives had been concatenated into one story. But I can't find my notes on who the two people were. I keep finding notes about other related things, like what faction of Judaism Jesus most likely belonged to, but not quite what you're looking for.

--Ember--
 
 
Quantum
11:05 / 09.01.07
I don't accept Occam's razor as anything but a way to work between competing theories. these are not two theories. all the facts point in one direction. the razor does not apply.

Hum. You're right that it is a way to choose theories, but I'm not sure all the facts point in one direction. Quite apart from the nature of 'facts', what facts point to Jesus *not* existing? I'm taking the existence of a major religion based on him to be evidence of him once living.
The razor (or principle of ontological paucity) simply asserts that the simplest explanation is likely to be right. I find the simpler of the two options to be that a religion sprung up around a charismatic man, rather than a religion springing up and then inventing that man whole cloth. Your mileage may vary.
(Aside- the opposite of Occam's razor is Fryer's razor, the principle of ontological generation that states when deciding between theories choose the more complex, after my friend Mr Fryer who despises Occam.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:15 / 09.01.07
I remember that the name "Jesus" isn't what should be looked for with those other statistics, since that's not what they think his birth name was.

Well, yes. "Jesus" is late Latin. The koine is ιησουν, and there is a claim that this might have been his birth name, if such a he there be - that is, that he was a Greek-speaking Judaean - but it seems reasonably unlikely. So, probably (and I don't know the special characters for the Hebrew, sorry) Yeshua or the earlier form Yehoshua, which still appears to be in use in the later Second Temple period. Or do I misunderstand you? Should we be looking for someone called something totally different, like Shadrach or similar?

Otherwise, I don't think I know this two-blokes theorem, so would be interested in anything you find there.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:38 / 09.01.07
I think, from reading a little around the subject, the most likely spelling for the name of the possibly extant fellow, in English anyway, is 'Isho'...that's from the Peshitta Texts, from the Assyrian Church. Hard to properly translate the Aramaic into English characters, but 'Isho' is a pretty good bet. Yehshua or Yahshua would be the Hebrew equivalent, which also has all that gematria convenience alluded to in the other thread about Crowley and Jesus (Shin descending into the Tetragrammaton).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:51 / 09.01.07
Hmmm... except that the Peshitta texts are themselves translations, from koine into a different form of Aramaic. Take your point, though.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:13 / 09.01.07
Possibly.... There is some contention over that among modern scholars.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:19 / 09.01.07
Although, not all:

"Few mainstream scholars accept Lamsa's hypotheses and many strongly believe his research to be pseudoscience.
Where many scholars hold that the sources of the New Testament and early oral traditions of fledgling Christianity were, indeed, in Aramaic, the Peshitta appears to have been strongly influenced by the Byzantine reading of the Greek manuscript tradition, and is in a dialect of Syriac that is much younger than that which was contemporary to Jesus.[1]"

Anyhoo...
 
 
jentacular dreams
17:58 / 09.01.07
Planet B and Secret Goldfish - careful with some of those references comparing Jesus with other deities. I did some reading and found a lot of these simlarity claims unconvincing.

In fact, here's a secondhand reference from Acharya S: (about halfway down).

The majority of claims here comparing Jesus to Krishna I had personally never heard before (and I used to be absolutely fascinated by hindu mythology). Of the 27 Krishna claims 16 are definitely false, and five are either standard for Hindu mythology or an 'inevitable' result of Krishna being considered an incarnation of Vishnu. And one (he was called "lord", "Master", "Light of the World", "Holy One", "Redeemer", "The Way", "The Truth", etc) is pretty much unavoidable for any deity. I am unsure of the majority of the rest. Also keep in mind that the Krishna story is set between 30 and 1 centuries before Christianity (depending on the dating system used), but the majority of writings on his life date from the 9th and 10th century. So it's hard to say which way the influences went.

Hmm, have just come across much of the same info on Planet B's Acharya S link. Some of the claims about Buddha are also contrary to what I have read (though I've never read any direct tranlations of the buddha's early life - indeed I am only really familiar with the Siddhartha/Gautama Buddha). As it is believed that he was the 28th 'listed' Buddha (and the only one who didn't seem to live for several thousand years), which leaves plenty of room for similarities between the biblical jesus and one of the many millenial buddhas.

So try not to take any of these web pages (especially not one as to heart without checking out some of their references skeptically.

And I'm not sure if anyone takes December 25th as the literal birthdate of jesus. Christmas was overlaid on a previous pagan (solstice?) ceremony no?
 
 
Quantum
18:26 / 09.01.07
Astronomically speaking the nativity was probably in February or March.
In the year 274AD, solstice fell on 25th December, and Roman Emperor Aurelian proclaimed the date as "Natalis Solis Invicti," the festival of the birth of the invincible sun. In 320 AD, Pope Julius I specified the 25th of December as the official date of the birth of Jesus Christ. In 325AD, Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, introduced Christmas as an immovable feast on 25 December. In 354AD, Bishop Liberius of Rome officially ordered his members to celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 December.

Ah, the heartwarming tale of Christmas.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply