175 replies to this topic

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Im workmg from memory so bare with me I may get the name wrong.there was only one reference I could find awhile back that supported a man spreading the word of Yahweh named Jesus. I believe it was a report of sorts from pontius to Cesar. I spelt Cesar wrong. Anyways it described a man with the characteristics of Jesus and I believe they indicated his name as Jesus. Ill look forthwith reference and get back if I find it.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Imaginarynumber1, on 11 April 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Hmmm.. .I've give you Josephus, but the rest wrote about Christians, not Jesus.

From wiki;



As to Suetonius' reference specifically;


I'm not saying he did or did not exist. I don't care one way or the other.
What seems more likely however, is that there was a person who did exist and this myth sprang up about him after his demise. Too many christian beliefs are too similar for them to be original. I would say that there is little to no historical evidence of a Jesus.

Yes, you are right for the most part. Christus is generally translated into "messiah." One problem with that is there were many Jewish messiahs during that time (which I think supports the probability of Jesus) but at the same time if they are refering to the messiah of the Christians, it can only be Jesus they are talking about because there were no other "Christian" sects. It does get messy though.

But yeah, I am with you in that I do not care one way or another...I also agree that these myths about him sprang up after his dimise. If it means anything I did ask our expert on Jesus at my school about this very question. He said Jesus was most certainly a historical figure. He gave me the name of a few books but I am yet to read them. But more importantly I study Judaism and based on the events of the time and the Jewish texts, it is almost certain he existed. But like you, I could give a crap one way or another because if he did exist he was just a unorthodox, hellenized, Roman supporting, rebellious, rabbi. He was not the son of a made up God...

[CommunitarianKevin]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 11 April 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Im workmg from memory so bare with me I may get the name wrong.there was only one reference I could find awhile back that supported a man spreading the word of Yahweh named Jesus. I believe it was a report of sorts from pontius to Cesar. I spelt Cesar wrong. Anyways it described a man with the characteristics of Jesus and I believe they indicated his name as Jesus. Ill look forthwith reference and get back if I find it.

Did they discribe him as white? My wife's uncle (big time conspiricy theorist) talks about a letter like the one you mention that claims Jesus is white. I find it kind of humorous...

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I may in fact be wrong with my last post. I thought I found a Roman record to Caesar about a man spreading the word of Yahweh but I cannot locate it again. Pontius was the man condemning Jesus so I think I was wrong with that name also. I do apologize and if I fnd anything else ill post. So far no physical record from the time of Jesus exists. All hear say and mentions after the fact. I'm not sure anyone can prove his existence.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 11 April 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Im workmg from memory so bare with me I may get the name wrong.there was only one reference I could find awhile back that supported a man spreading the word of Yahweh named Jesus. I believe it was a report of sorts from pontius to Cesar. I spelt Cesar wrong. Anyways it described a man with the characteristics of Jesus and I believe they indicated his name as Jesus. Ill look forthwith reference and get back if I find it.

I think the letter from Pontius to Caesar is generally considered to be a forgery.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

HuttonEtAl, on 11 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Did they discribe him as white? My wife's uncle (big time conspiricy theorist) talks about a letter like the one you mention that claims Jesus is white. I find it kind of humorous...

Yes I believe so but I cannot find the reference. Well not white I believe fair complexion or some other term like that. I hope I can locate the reference.

[Imaginarynumber1]

I always found the off-the-cuff conspiracy theory of Jesus from Umberto Eco's magnificent 'Foucault's Pendulum' to be both hilarious and probably closer to the truth than any of us realize.  

From the aforementioned book;


"Now that you mention it, let’s see. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are a bunch of practical jokers who meet somewhere and decide to have a contest. They invent a character, agree on a few basic facts, and then each one’s free to take it and run with it. At the end, they’ll see who’s done the best job. The four stories are picked up by some friends who act as critics: Matthew is fairly realistic, but insists on that Messiah business too much; Mark isn’t bad, just a little sloppy; Luke is elegant, no denying that; and John takes the philosophy a little too far. Actually, though, the books have an appeal, they circulate, and when the four realize what’s happening, it’s too late. Paul has already met Jesus on the road to Damascus, Pliny begins his investigation ordered by the worried emperor, and a legion of apocryphal writers pretends also to know plenty...Toi, apo-cryphe lecteur, mon semblable, mon frere. It all goes to Peter’s head; he takes himself seriously. John threatens to tell the truth, Peter and Paul have him chained up on the island of Patmos. Soon the poor man is seeing things: Help, there are locusts all over my bed, make those trumpets stop, where’s all this blood coming from? The others say he’s drunk, or maybe it’s arteriosclerosis...Who knows, maybe it really happened that way.”

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Imaginarynumber1, on 11 April 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

I think the letter from Pontius to Caesar is generally considered to be a forgery.

You may very well be correct. I can't find it again to say either way though.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 11 April 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

You may very well be correct. I can't find it again to say either way though.

You are originally from the Minnesota/Wisconsin area? So what is it, Minnesota or Wisc?

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

HuttonEtAl, on 11 April 2012 - 12:52 AM, said:

You are originally from the Minnesota/Wisconsin area? So what is it, Minnesota or Wisc?

Both... lol grew up right on the tip of lake superior right on the border. Superior wisc. and Duluth MN. They are sister cities so to speak. So while I lived in superior until around 16 I spent just as much time in Minnesota. I moved to Minnesota at 17 officially and stayed there until about 26 then moved to Arizona.

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch, 11 April 2012 - 01:02 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 11 April 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

You may very well be correct. I can't find it again to say either way though.

Here we go...

Quote

The Acts of Pilate is purportedly an official document from Pilate reporting events in Judea to the Emperor Tiberius (thus, it would have been among the commentarii principis). It was mentioned by Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (c. 150) toAntoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus. He said that his claims concerning Jesus' crucifixion, and some miracles, could be verified by referencing the official record, the "Acts of Pontius Pilate".^[78] With the exception of Tertullian, no other writer is known to have mentioned the work, and Tertullian's reference says that Tiberius debated the details of Jesus' life before the Roman Senate, an event that is confirmed by Eusebius^[79], but is today almost universally considered absurd.^[80] There is a later apocryphal text, undoubtedly fanciful, by the same name, and though it is generally thought to have been inspired by Justin's reference (and thus to post-date his Apology), it is possible that Justin mentioned this text, though that would give the work an unusually early date and therefore is not a straightforward identification.^[81]

Here is a link to the often referenced part of the text. It is clearly absurd when one considers the supposed author and audience.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 11 April 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Both... lol grew up right on the tip of lake superior right on the border. Superior wisc. and Duluth MN. They are sister cities so to speak. So while I lived in superior until around 16 I spent just as much time in Minnesota. I moved to Minnesota at 17 officially and stayed there until about 26 then moved to Arizona.

Wow...you would think being from Minnesota I would know they were sister cities...not really my neck of the woods though...

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Imaginarynumber1, on 11 April 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

Here we go...



Here is a link to the often referenced part of the text. It is clearly absurd when one considers the supposed author and audience.

Thank you for this reference.  After that reference there is no other document saying Jesus existed officially. And so in saying that Jesus as a real living person is simply conjecture.
as an aside I had run across the letter mentioned while looking up another outright lie. I was researching Jesus in his misssing years and started down a trail of Jesus in Tibet and a supposed book which Jesus signed when he entered the monastery .... it turned out to be a red Herring and the whole missing years a snipe hunt. But that's for another topic.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

HuttonEtAl, on 11 April 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Wow...you would think being from Minnesota I would know they were sister cities...not really my neck of the woods though...

Its referred to as the twin ports.  Where do you hail from?

[CommunitarianKevin]

Aus Der Box Skeptisch, on 11 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Its referred to as the twin ports.  Where do you hail from?

I'm from down south...Owatonna to be specific. I now live in Apple Valley, one of the southern suburbs. I am in the area that has the best wrestling in the country