Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Still Waters

'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case

176 posts in this topic

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

Here we go...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'd not heard that story before. I have heard of him in Egypt in his early life and I have heard of him traveling to India after another was crucified in his place.

I believe that was from the Second Treatise of Great Seth, one of the Nag Hammadi Scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls)

It reads as follows;

“I did not succumb to them as they had planned… And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them… For my death which they think happened [happened] to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death… It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns… And I was laughing at their ignorance.”

The Koran seems toagree with the above;

And for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’…yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them.

Just something interesting I thought I would share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd not heard that story before. I have heard of him in Egypt in his early life and I have heard of him traveling to India after another was crucified in his place.

I believe that was from the Second Treatise of Great Seth, one of the Nag Hammadi Scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls)

It reads as follows;

“I did not succumb to them as they had planned… And I did not die in reality but in appearance, lest I be put to shame by them… For my death which they think happened [happened] to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death… It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns… And I was laughing at their ignorance.”

The Koran seems toagree with the above;

And for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’…yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them.

Just something interesting I thought I would share.

Interesting...

I believe the reference was to a supposed holy man named issa who was supposed to be Jesus.

Ill search and find what I'm referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh here's a decent reference to the hoax.

http://home.swipnet.se/corbie/Fuskwww/notov.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, there doesn't seem to be any real reason to assume much more than someone inspired the legend of Christ, which later became this major myth.

As for why there's more concern over Jesus than say Socrates... if we had no other writings affirming the existence of Socrates, then fine (Homer's existence is readily debated, after all, as to who he or they were).

The difference here is, no one to my knowledge has killed in the name of Socrates, or said that if you reject Socrates, they will bend in unending fire forever and and ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, there doesn't seem to be any real reason to assume much more than someone inspired the legend of Christ, which later became this major myth.

As for why there's more concern over Jesus than say Socrates... if we had no other writings affirming the existence of Socrates, then fine (Homer's existence is readily debated, after all, as to who he or they were).

The difference here is, no one to my knowledge has killed in the name of Socrates, or said that if you reject Socrates, they will bend in unending fire forever and and ever.

True though Scientology is going this direction with their beliefs. And if there is a real man sealed inside a valcano then I give up... LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their is no evidence what so ever to suggest that their was a man with the name of Jesus, beholding of some many incredible and helaing supernatural powers ever exsisted, FULL STOP.

It's like believing in Father Christmas, they both have a book about them, they both present people with gifts (aparently), they both have unexplainable powers and they both dont exsist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their is no evidence what so ever to suggest that their was a man with the name of Jesus, beholding of some many incredible and helaing supernatural powers ever exsisted, FULL STOP.

It's like believing in Father Christmas, they both have a book about them, they both present people with gifts (aparently), they both have unexplainable powers and they both dont exsist.

I shouldn't do this but St Nick may have been a real person. Uggh so much mud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shouldn't do this but St Nick may have been a real person. Uggh so much mud.

Ha. I'm sure St Nick wasn't found flying in the mid air with his magic reindeers pulling his sledge along while he constantly repeated Ho..Ho...Ho. Should I mention while wearing his best shinny red outfit ;). Haha.

Oh the embarassment. My first post ever on Unexplained-Mysteries and I made so many spelling errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard, Ophelia.

We do have one other distinction. There is a mountain of evidence that Santa Claus does not exist, and that he is consciously and continually refabricated by adults for the entertainment of children. We can even watch the lore get built, with new elements, like Rudolph, being added as recently as 1939. For Jesus, there is hardly any evidence either way, and the lore is static.

It is interesting that the children's character is "associated" with an historical person, a Catholic-Orthodox bishop. So far as I know, however, there is no lore that links any biographical details of Nicholas' life with the children's character. At least in America, a good deal of the point of "Santa Claus" stories appears to be to distance him from anyone resembling a Catholic priest.

The magical aspects of Santa Claus are unrealistic for any time or place. There are no flying reindeer, and no adult anywhere has ever believed in such things. Even apart from magic, realism is avoided. It isn't just Santa Claus who doesn't operate an industrial complex at the North Pole, nobody does.

In contrast, Jesus isn't depicted as doing anything unique according to the beliefs of his reputed time and place. In realistic matters, he is yet another learned rabble rouser. In magical practices, his disciples are reported as doing the same things, as is disciple-wannabe Simon of Samaria. As a literary figure, Jesus is an instance of the well-worn Jewish character type now called a tzadik, a righteous person who works wonders based on his religious faith in YHWH.

So, the goyim thought a tzadik was God himself? How incredible is that? According to the same sources, some Gentiles mistook Paul for a Roman god. That story is plausible enough, and Paul is well-attested (somebody wrote Galatians).

The difficulty in assessing the Jesus story historically is that nothing historical depends on his being real, and nothing historical depends on his being fabricated. In contrast, a real Santa Claus would imply revolutionary developments in geography, biology and operations research.

So long as some disciples of John the Baptist went to Jerusalem (as the Fourth Gospel says they did), and those disciples told Jesus stories (as Luke says in Acts), then everything that happened afterwards turns on what non-witnesses believed about the stories. That is, everything depends on what the same people who believed that Paul was a Roman god believed about a man Paul saw only in visions.

That's about as close to a coin-toss as it gets, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Right, eight bites.

considering everything that needed to be said has been said, I will now move onto the next thread =).

Though I would just like to add. A few weeks back I came a cross this youtube video called 'Athiest Experience' which is very a educational video which brings to light good points about Christians, christianity or anyone who believes in God. Basically it's about Christrians ringing up the athiests to argue about wether or not Jesus/God and etc is real or fake.

I'll give you a link. Worth watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Right, eight bites.

considering everything that needed to be said has been said, I will now move onto the next thread =).

Though I would just like to add. A few weeks back I came a cross this youtube video called 'Athiest Experience' which is very a educational video which brings to light good points about Christians, christianity or anyone who believes in God. Basically it's about Christrians ringing up the athiests to argue about wether or not Jesus/God and etc is real or fake.

I'll give you a link. Worth watching.

Ooops another hic-cup on my grammar =/ *Is a very educational* Link:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Exactly Right, eight bites.

considering everything that needed to be said has been said, I will now move onto the next thread =).

Though I would just like to add. A few weeks back I came a cross this youtube video called 'Athiest Experience' which is very a educational video which brings to light good points about Christians, christianity or anyone who believes in God. Basically it's about Christrians ringing up the athiests to argue about wether or not Jesus/God and etc is real or fake.

I'll give you a link. Worth watching.

I listened to the video, and I think it had plenty of good points about Atheists, but the Christian who rang up was so inarticulate that I learned virtually nothing him or his beliefs. I learned about the atheist stance on Christianity, but Christianity itself, and Christians themselves, I did not learn anything except that some people can't express themselves very well.

That said, welcome to the forums, Ophelia, I hope you enjoy your stay here :tu:

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, there doesn't seem to be any real reason to assume much more than someone inspired the legend of Christ, which later became this major myth.

As for why there's more concern over Jesus than say Socrates... if we had no other writings affirming the existence of Socrates, then fine (Homer's existence is readily debated, after all, as to who he or they were).

The difference here is, no one to my knowledge has killed in the name of Socrates, or said that if you reject Socrates, they will bend in unending fire forever and and ever.

If you reject me, you will burn in unending fire forever and ever. Better now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to the video, and I think it had plenty of good points about Atheists, but the Christian who rang up was so inarticulate that I learned virtually nothing him or his beliefs. I learned about the atheist stance on Christianity, but Christianity itself, and Christians themselves, I did not learn anything except that some people can't express themselves very well.

That said, welcome to the forums, Ophelia, I hope you enjoy your stay here :tu:

~ PA

That video was one of the lesser interesting ones produced by 'Athiest Experience', though mind you, they are all relatively intereseting. I do agree, not much is learnt from the side of the Christian, perhaps he should spend more time practising how to articulate him self better rather than practising Christianity =)

Thankyou, for your welcoming =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The further one moves from the light, the dimmer it appears. We are two thousand years from that light and questioning the source. Certainly there is ample evidence, e.g. I recall the works of Josephus as a reasonably well regarded historian of that era. But, if one insists upon this type of recurrent questioning, why not exact more rigor and subsequent validity using more modern analytical techniques that look at the mass of information, particularly that which is closer to the source, rather than the speculative works of a few timely authors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do not need to refer to the New Testament (Gospel)writing nor we need to read the book of Bart Ehrman to convince uorselves that Christ exsisted, preaced and He was

cruchefix. All we have to read is the Roman history written by Romans who were colonising Palestina where the Consul Pilate had to decide about Christ destiny according to the Lex Romana which state that a person should be judged according to his citizen status and Christ was not a Roman citizen therefore Pilatus under the pressure of the Jewish colonial community had to accept crocefixion for a man that the crime he did was a blasfemy for the locals. Still for Pilate and the Romans Christ did nothing wrong since they were pagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm unfamiliar with Mr Ehrman's body of work but these statements of his place him in a group that the Bible foretells will have "a form of godliness, while denying the power thereof". I'm not criticizing him for his viewpoint, simply explaining my own.

As to denying global devastation preceding His return, I can deny the sky is blue if I choose to. Doesn't make the sky green or purple though. If Ehrman is expecting Christ to return then he must think humanity is going to sort out our issues without catastrophic violence occurring prior to that return. I applaud him for his optimism.

And you would be quite correct in doing so, on many levels.

First, there is no 'sky' as a division between the atmosphere and space. The 'sky' is the atmosphere, which obviously surrounds us at ground level and from which we can tell is not 'blue'.

Second, the colour we see in the sky is not a reflection of light such as we might see from a blue flower, or the blue in a painting. It is just that the wavelength of light corresponding to the colour blue is the most energetic of all visible wavelength's, and so makes up the greatest proportion of that light which makes it through the thickness of Earth's atmosphere. As we usually reference things by colour according to the light they reflect, and the light we see from above is not reflected, the sky cannot be blue.

How does this have any relevance to the OP?

Because different groups of people use the term 'Jesus' to refer to different things, just as different groups of people might have different definitions of "sky" or "the sky is blue".

Christians see in the Jesus of the bible, the incarnation of God in human form - and they are quite entitled to see that. It does not follow that Christians have to view the bible as an historically accurate work to arrive at this conclusion. That many Christians do view the bible as (at least in part) historically accurate is quite irrelevant to their belief in God, though they perhaps do not realise that. Blame the various Christian church authorities for that if you will, as it is more a political leveraging of the biblical narratives than it is a theological one.

I agree with eb's assessment that there is no dichotomy at work here, but add that there is no requirement to have the Christian belief (or any belief, for that matter) dependent on an historically accurate rendition of events - just as there is no requirement for "the sky is blue" to accurately reflect any science behind that observed phenomenon.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video was one of the lesser interesting ones produced by 'Athiest Experience', though mind you, they are all relatively intereseting. I do agree, not much is learnt from the side of the Christian, perhaps he should spend more time practising how to articulate him self better rather than practising Christianity =)

Thankyou, for your welcoming =)

Indeed. There is a proverb in the Bible stating that the first person who speaks sounds right, until someone comes in to cross-examine them. The video reminded me of that. The atheist in the video was well-spoken and put their views there for us all to see, and they sounded good. But we only heard one side. Someone with a different world view (such as myself) sees it differently, and therefore presents a different (not necessarily inferior) position. It reminds me of a book on comparative religions that I first bought when I converted to Christ. It was heavily biased towards Christianity, stating what a particular world view believed, and then pointing out why it was wrong and insufficient to explain life. We only got one side of the discussion. I pretty much tossed that book in the garbage and found a much better book to outline how different beliefs work (not really topical, but I recommend John Dickson's "Spectator's Guide to World Religions" as an unbiased source into the different beliefs that are out there, if anyone's interested).

And glad you could be here. I just noticed your profile says your from right here in Aussie-land. I'm out in the Western Suburbs of Sydney, maybe different to where you're from (wherever that is), but it's always good to have a fellow Aussie on the forums. Catch you around :)

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.