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 2
markdohle

Four Reasons I Think Jesus Really Existed

73 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

A small handful of scholars today, and a much larger group of Internet commenters, maintain that Jesus never existed. Proponents of this position, known as mythicists, claim that Jesus is a purely mythical figure invented by the writers of the New Testament (or its later copyists.) In this post I’ll offer the top four reasons (from weakest to strongest) that convince me Jesus of Nazareth was a real person without relying on the Gospel accounts of his life.

Continue: http://www.catholic....-really-existed

IF Jesus ever existed, the proof is not in the Bible. If one is looking for evidence, it must come from sources not now considered to be biblical (Although, some were part of the Bible at one time.).

Most "authorities" on the question are useless because of a lack of scholastic rigor. The usual approach is to lay out the evidence, then make two or three assumptions based on the author's own "gut feeling" and use them to validate Jesus. This is poor scholarship. If you're trying to demonstrate that something is true, you can't use your own hunches as evidence! Apparently, most of these "investigators" are so strongly influenced by their Christian upbringings that they are unable to think objectively and/or never learned how to use analytical reasoning in the first place.

Josephus: the Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus was a Pharonic Jew. He lived and died a Pharonic Jew. If he believed Jesus was divine, he would have been a Christian. But he wasn't. The Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian redaction.

Brother James: Who was Josephus' "James the Brother of Jesus?" James was James ben Damneus. His brother was Jesus ben Damneus. They were Pharisees. James was the leading contender for High Priest. In 62 AD, Sadducees and Pharisees were in competition for the position of High Priest (Think Conservatives vs. Liberals). The High Priest, Ananias the Younger, took advantage of the lack of a Roman governor to convene the Sanhedrin (The Roman governor had to give consent and as there was no Roman governor at the moment, the act was illegal.). He denounced his competition, James ben Damneus, and had him stoned. When Alibinus, the new governor, arrived, he deposed Ananias and replaced him with: Jesus ben Damneus, the brother of Ananias' victim.

(There is a problem here: Jesus is brought before Pilot because, according to the Bible, it is against the law for the Jews to execute someone; Rome needs to do it. But in Josephus, Ananias convenes the Sanhedrin and does just that.)

Does it make sense that Ananias would bother with the leader of an obscure cult when he had an opportunity to get rid of his major competitor? The Brother James reference is about Temple politics. The Brother James reference is a Christian redaction.

Tacitus supposedly said that Nero had Christians burned at his garden parties as retribution for the Great Fire of 64 AD. Nobody else ever said that, including Seneca, Suetonius, Josephus or Cicero. The event is related ONLY in Tacitus. Cicero was Nero's advisor at the time and wrote a book about those times. He mentioned the Great Fire, but not the torches. Same with the others. Josephus wrote about everything under the sun, but apparently never heard of the Christian torches. Again, we are left unable to conclude that this story is anything other than a Christian redaction.

If one takes the surviving fragments of early writings and gives each a rough date, based on emperors and events mentioned, a surprising observation develops. The earliest writings lack apocryphal events. These get added later as more and more gospels are written. It is not until the time of Eusebius (c. 260 - 339 AD) that apocryphal writings really get going. And our version of the gospels are loaded with apocryphal stories.

Mr. Horn cites Irenaeus (? - 202 AD). Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresy" in five volumes. He is correct that Irenaeus tried to stamp out heresy and never ventured an opinion that Jesus never existed. But Irenaeus was a Christian partisan. If he'd said that Jesus didn't exist, he would have undermined his own version of heresy. Irenaeus only knew what he read in the newspapers (other extant writings of the time). He was an excellent scholar, but was severely limited by his sources.

Mr. Horn also mentions Celsus. His work refuting Christianity was written in 177 AD. You can't exactly say he had first-hand knowledge of events 140 years earlier. Lucian (c. 125 to 180 AD), likewise could not claim any firsthand knowledge of Jesus and would have to base everything he claimed on stories obtained from Christian partisans.

Mr. Horn says that nobody opposed the idea of Jesus before the eighteenth century, but I note that the Atomists, Leucippidus (c. 500 - 450 BC), Democritus (460 - 370 BC) were all atheists as were Euripides, Aristophanes and the Sophists. Then there's Diagoras of Melos who blasphemed by making public the Eleusinian Mysteries, Cyrenaic and Epicurus. Even the Bible, Psalms 14:1-3, admits the existence of atheists. Your source can't even read his own Bible.

Regarding the letters of St. Paul: there is only one that has a good historical reference to support its authenticity. That is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (1st Corinthians in the Bible). It is mentioned in First Clement, written about 96 AD (We think.). But in that letter is a reference to "Blessed Judith" that would seem to place it around 117 AD. So while 1st Corinthians may have existed before 96 AD, we can't be sure of that. But even "authenticity" has a problem: it only means that someone who might be Paul wrote it at about the right time.

There is also reason to believe that Paul of Tarsus may actually have been Apollonius of Tyana. Tyana is a small town in Asia Minor, only 25 miles from Tarsus. Apollonius was known as "Pol." As a child his family moved to Tarsus, making him "Pol" of Tarsus. Apollonius' travels are almost an exact duplicate of Paul's. Some references in the Bible to "Apollos" have led to speculation that Paul and "Pol" were the same person.

One further problem with Paul: he supposedly lived in Jerusalem when Jesus was executed, yet never mentions anything about it. According to him, all his knowledge of Jesus came about in a vision. Visions were rather popular in the early days of the church. In order to be an Apostle you had to have direct knowledge of Jesus, but as Jesus was dead and gone, the only way to get a vision (and the status of being an Apostle) was to have a vision. Lots of people had them; there's something like 70 examples in the Bible.

We know that Christians existed from at least the time of Nero (64 AD) and it is possible that Seneca wrote about them (65 AD). But nowhere is there anything to indicate that Christianity is anything more than an urban legend. It was and is widely believed, but people once believed the earth was flat (Some still do.). Because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.

I do not claim to be a historian, but I am a lot better at it than Mr. Horn. You need to find some new sources and do some reading.

Edited by Doug1o29
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not here to convert you, I respect your an Atheist, and I respect that you and others hold that position and even why, because what your asked to believe is a difficult bridge to cross, and all this sounds strange.

I didn´t ask you to convert me. I asked you to provide the prophesy that you claimed you had. That meaningless gobbledeegook that you posted makes no sense either way. Please post your prophesy so that we can check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

however since you also discount the bible with others , here is some idea of the history shown in a video ..

(please dont assosiate this find with Ron Whyatt, he was a fraud, many knew of it before him and even wrote books) ..yet tradition is a hard thing to break..i hope you do watch this video sometime.

[media=]

[/media]

Gebel el Lawz has a lot of problems if one is going to claim it as Mt. Sinai. First of which is a mountain in Sinai named Gebel Saniya. Gebel Saniya is part of the same massif as Gebel Ghorabi (Mount Horeb), on top of which is a Temple to Hathor, thus providing "Moses" with the opportunity to go up the mountain, talk to the god, and come down carrying some stone tablets. At the foot of Gebel Ghorabi are numerous broken stelae with writing on them, which, if you are an illiterate nomad, look a lot like they might be the Ten Commandments. As a matter of fact, what's written on them does contain information like what is a proper sacrifice to the gods. So they might very well be the original version of the Ten Commandments. There's a lot more, but I haven't got the time.

Nobody has ever brought back a sample of rock from Gebel el Lawz that would show why its rocks look like they have been burned. Maybe it's a carbonized layer, but maybe they're Andesite. Evidence is available - all the supporters have to do is go get it - but they don't.

In the biblical version of events, the "Israelites" traveled from Ramses to the Red Sea in about two week's time. That's doable if you mean the Red Sea at Suez. But if you mean the Gulf of Arabia, then octogenarians have to travel close to 15 miles a day - something impossible in Sinai's fierce April heat. And if they do this, the only place there is to cross the Gulf is at an ocean deep with water depths of 3000 feet and slopes of 60%.

A lot of people choose to investigate one little detail of the Bible and fill in what they don't know with hunches and assumptions. I think that's what these guys have done.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF Jesus ever existed, the proof is not in the Bible. If one is looking for evidence, it must come from sources not now considered to be biblical (Although, some were part of the Bible at one time.).

Most "authorities" on the question are useless because of a lack of scholastic rigor. The usual approach is to lay out the evidence, then make two or three assumptions based on the author's own "gut feeling" and use them to validate Jesus. This is poor scholarship. If you're trying to demonstrate that something is true, you can't use your own hunches as evidence! Apparently, most of these "investigators" are so strongly influenced by their Christian upbringings that they are unable to think objectively and/or never learned how to use analytical reasoning in the first place.

Josephus: the Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus was a Pharonic Jew. He lived and died a Pharonic Jew. If he believed Jesus was divine, he would have been a Christian. But he wasn't. The Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian redaction.

Brother James: Who was Josephus' "James the Brother of Jesus?" James was James ben Damneus. His brother was Jesus ben Damneus. They were Pharisees. James was the leading contender for High Priest. In 62 AD, Sadducees and Pharisees were in competition for the position of High Priest (Think Conservatives vs. Liberals). The High Priest, Ananias the Younger, took advantage of the lack of a Roman governor to convene the Sanhedrin (The Roman governor had to give consent and as there was no Roman governor at the moment, the act was illegal.). He denounced his competition, James ben Damneus, and had him stoned. When Alibinus, the new governor, arrived, he deposed Ananias and replaced him with: Jesus ben Damneus, the brother of Ananias' victim.

(There is a problem here: Jesus is brought before Pilot because, according to the Bible, it is against the law for the Jews to execute someone; Rome needs to do it. But in Josephus, Ananias convenes the Sanhedrin and does just that.)

Does it make sense that Ananias would bother with the leader of an obscure cult when he had an opportunity to get rid of his major competitor? The Brother James reference is about Temple politics. The Brother James reference is a Christian redaction.

Tacitus supposedly said that Nero had Christians burned at his garden parties as retribution for the Great Fire of 64 AD. Nobody else ever said that, including Seneca, Suetonius, Josephus or Cicero. The event is related ONLY in Tacitus. Cicero was Nero's advisor at the time and wrote a book about those times. He mentioned the Great Fire, but not the torches. Same with the others. Josephus wrote about everything under the sun, but apparently never heard of the Christian torches. Again, we are left unable to conclude that this story is anything other than a Christian redaction.

If one takes the surviving fragments of early writings and gives each a rough date, based on emperors and events mentioned, a surprising observation develops. The earliest writings lack apocryphal events. These get added later as more and more gospels are written. It is not until the time of Eusebius (c. 260 - 339 AD) that apocryphal writings really get going. And our version of the gospels are loaded with apocryphal stories.

Mr. Horn cites Irenaeus (? - 202 AD). Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresy" in five volumes. He is correct that Irenaeus tried to stamp out heresy and never ventured an opinion that Jesus never existed. But Irenaeus was a Christian partisan. If he'd said that Jesus didn't exist, he would have undermined his own version of heresy. Irenaeus only knew what he read in the newspapers (other extant writings of the time). He was an excellent scholar, but was severely limited by his sources.

Mr. Horn also mentions Celsus. His work refuting Christianity was written in 177 AD. You can't exactly say he had first-hand knowledge of events 140 years earlier. Lucian (c. 125 to 180 AD), likewise could not claim any firsthand knowledge of Jesus and would have to base everything he claimed on stories obtained from Christian partisans.

Mr. Horn says that nobody opposed the idea of Jesus before the eighteenth century, but I note that the Atomists, Leucippidus (c. 500 - 450 BC), Democritus (460 - 370 BC) were all atheists as were Euripides, Aristophanes and the Sophists. Then there's Diagoras of Melos who blasphemed by making public the Eleusinian Mysteries, Cyrenaic and Epicurus. Even the Bible, Psalms 14:1-3, admits the existence of atheists. Your source can't even read his own Bible.

Regarding the letters of St. Paul: there is only one that has a good historical reference to support its authenticity. That is Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (1st Corinthians in the Bible). It is mentioned in First Clement, written about 96 AD (We think.). But in that letter is a reference to "Blessed Judith" that would seem to place it around 117 AD. So while 1st Corinthians may have existed before 96 AD, we can't be sure of that. But even "authenticity" has a problem: it only means that someone who might be Paul wrote it at about the right time.

There is also reason to believe that Paul of Tarsus may actually have been Apollonius of Tyana. Tyana is a small town in Asia Minor, only 25 miles from Tarsus. Apollonius was known as "Pol." As a child his family moved to Tarsus, making him "Pol" of Tarsus. Apollonius' travels are almost an exact duplicate of Paul's. Some references in the Bible to "Apollos" have led to speculation that Paul and "Pol" were the same person.

One further problem with Paul: he supposedly lived in Jerusalem when Jesus was executed, yet never mentions anything about it. According to him, all his knowledge of Jesus came about in a vision. Visions were rather popular in the early days of the church. In order to be an Apostle you had to have direct knowledge of Jesus, but as Jesus was dead and gone, the only way to get a vision (and the status of being an Apostle) was to have a vision. Lots of people had them; there's something like 70 examples in the Bible.

We know that Christians existed from at least the time of Nero (64 AD) and it is possible that Seneca wrote about them (65 AD). But nowhere is there anything to indicate that Christianity is anything more than an urban legend. It was and is widely believed, but people once believed the earth was flat (Some still do.). Because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.

I do not claim to be a historian, but I am a lot better at it than Mr. Horn. You need to find some new sources and do some reading.

I'm going to counter all this with this link that does , and once again I apologise for using wiki, but this is a forum not a University submission so I feel its acceptable in this aspect : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Please note the info stated about Josephus is incorrect , he was not a Christian , also 7 Pauline letters, not just Corinthians as you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josephus was not a Christian redaction, and you make sweeping claims of redactions all through your post to justify your own " gut feeling". If you think he never existed your in the minority, as the simple quoted link above would show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small handful of scholars today, and a much larger group of Internet commenters, maintain that Jesus never existed. Proponents of this position, known as mythicists, claim that Jesus is a purely mythical figure invented by the writers of the New Testament (or its later copyists.) In this post I’ll offer the top four reasons (from weakest to strongest) that convince me Jesus of Nazareth was a real person without relying on the Gospel accounts of his life.

Continue: http://www.catholic....-really-existed

Rome kills Jesus, but later submits to His authority. Now that's some heavy history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant, I am still waiting.

Your so-called "prophesy" was:

"" The sun will be darkened and the Moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from Heaven, then they will mourn as they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven""

Well, I am still waiting to hear from you what this discombobbled nonsensical word soup is supposed to mean in straight English, and how we can verify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that Jesus as a person is almost certainly a myth evolved in an early Greek Jewish-Messiah mystery cult, written down as the Gospels late in the first century or perhaps later (the earliest mss fragments date from a century after that).

The fact is we have nothing of an independent nature to verify him (at least except for the clearly fraudulent additions to Josephus) dating from before the first century -- way to late to be considered good sources.

There is also serious reason to doubt that the "city" of Nazareth existed until the fourth century, when a church was that claimed to be Nazareth and a settlement that we know today grew up around it. The place is not mentioned in any earlier sources, including long lists of Galilean towns found in the Talmud and in Josephus.

What are we to conclude if the Jesus story is a myth? Does that mean all of Christianity is essentially based on fable. Well, yes, it does, but so what? Even if the whole story were absolute truth, it would have no bearing. What Christians do today is what matters.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really are pushing, why do you want to know ?

Have you read the story of Simon the magi in the bible?

I'm not here to convert, the Holy Spirit does the work with this and thats why i say it.

I would rather let one of the others tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Josephus was not a Christian redaction, and you make sweeping claims of redactions all through your post to justify your own " gut feeling". If you think he never existed your in the minority, as the simple quoted link above would show.

Josephus was a priest who was also a commanding general in Galilee during the Great Jewish War. He was captured by the Romans and offered amnesty if he would persuade some of the defenders of the Temple to surrender. He subsequently was sent to Rome as a slave where he wrote his histories, the most recent of which, the Great Jewish War, was completed in about 92 AD. He is a historical figure, but his writings have been redacted, as I demonstrated.

Tacitus' account of the human torches would be much easier to defend if somebody else had mentioned it. But not even Nero's advisors who wrote books and would have had firsthand knowledge of such an event, mention it.

Please show me how these constitute "gut feelings."

Your Wiki post is by an anonymous author who quotes anonymous sources. It presents no information at all to support its contentions. Anybody can post on Wiki. It is a good place to look for sources, but worthless for anything else.

I never said that Josephus was a Christian. I said that if he believed what is written in the Testimonium Flavianum, he would have been one. But he wasn't and that speaks volumes about the reliability of the Testimonium and its authorship.

There are seven Pauline letters commonly regarded as "authentic." But only one, the first one, can be dated. And the best date for it is 96 AD; although, 117 is a possibility that can't simply be dismissed.

I'm not saying that an itinerant Galilean preacher named Jesus did or didn't actually live. I am saying that there is no evidence that such a person ever existed. No evidence is just that: no evidence. It neither supports nor refutes a claim. Jesus may have been real, but we have no way of knowing that.

Please read what I wrote and don't try to misquote me.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That one letter is of Mark`s, the gospel of Mark, there is no virgin birth, and his uncle Joseph takes him down from the cross and wraps him in a cloth( the shoud)? and takes him to his tomb. However Jesus was not dead.He and others then take Jesus to his disciples badly injured, when Jesus was finish speaking to his disciples, he then passed on. I believe much of what was written after that was added, the virgin story ect, ect. The inguires Jesus had from the cross, he could have never just walked out of a tomb or walked around for forty days.

I am Christain, but it does`nt take miracles or stories for me to believe the goodness and hope Jesus had to teach, he was truely one of a kind.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's many who claim it http://en.wikipedia....ssiah_claimants

What's interesting is that Muslims, Christians , Mesianic Jews acknowledged Jesus as the one in his age, there's a few there who are missing from the list..Barabas, " give us Barabas" was one many thought might be because he led revolts against the Romans another

Ben Judah, .years shortly after Jesus from memory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menahem_ben_Judah

It's been a long time since I did my overview on this topic.

Another interesting point. Bar Abbas means Son of the Father (God?)
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That one letter is of Mark`s, the gospel of Mark, there is no virgin birth, and his uncle Joseph takes him down from the cross and wraps him in a cloth( the shoud)? and takes him to his tomb. However Jesus was not dead.He and others then take Jesus to his disciples badly injured, when Jesus was finish speaking to his disciples, he then passed on. I believe much of what was written after that was added, the virgin story ect, ect. The inguires Jesus had from the cross, he could have never just walked out of a tomb or walked around for forty days.

I am Christain, but it does`nt take miracles or stories for me to believe the goodness and hope Jesus had to teach, he was truely one of a kind.

According to Walter Cassels ("Supernatural Religion"), the existence of what we now call the gospels cannot be demonstrated at any time before they are mentioned by Irenaeus in about 186 AD (I'd argue slightly earlier for Matthew, and I note that Theophilus of Antioch referred to the Book of John in a letter he wrote shortly before his death in 180 AD.). The fact that the earliest writings lack apocryphal stories and that these were added with time argues for a fourth century date on our gospels.

I admit that this conflicts with what I have posted on previous threads. I am now having to rethink some of that.

The earliest datable fragment is 12 verses in Mark (without which Mark would have 666 verses) that were written by Philo of Alexandria in 41 AD when Herod Agrippa ("King of the Jews") visited Alexandria. Because 666 is the number of "Caesar Nero" (Emperor from 54 to 68 AD) in Jewish numerology, I propose that this fragment about Jesus' hazing and the purple robe, is an add-on, discovered by some writer at a later date and added to the gospel. This could have happened no earlier than 54 AD. The victim's name in the hazing incident is Carabbas. The name is gibberish, but change one letter... And Philo was a Jew and would have known that.

The fall of the Temple is clearly mentioned in the gospels, placing them after 70AD. Paul's first letter (1st Corinthians) is mentioned in 1st Clement, placing it before 96 AD.

Matthew and Mark describe an "abomination in a high place" where it "had not ought to be." That high place being Temple Mount and the abomination being the Temple to Zeus built by the Roman Tenth Legion in 131 AD. The Legion placed a statue of their mascot - a boar's head - in front of the temple, probably to antagonize the Jews and remind them that they were a conquered people. In the Bible Jesus solved the problem by ordering a bunch of demons (named "Legion") into 2000 pigs (the number of men in a Roman legion). The story effectively dates to the Bar Kochba Rebellion of 132-135 AD. The Apocalypses of Matthew and Mark suggest that the hammer-blow from Rome has not yet fallen, but is imminently expected.

I used to think that this story dated Matthew and Mark to the Bar Kochba Rebeliion, but then I realized that writings of that time contain no apocryphal references. Those started being added about the time of Eusebius, so now I am thinking that a writer in the fourth century took the second-century version of the gospels and added some embellishments and that is what we now have.

Also, I used to think that Justin the Martyr quoted heavily from our modern gospels. Then I realized that the stories he was telling were fundamentally different and contained details unknown in our current gospels - like Jesus being enveloped in fire when he emerged from being baptized in the Jordan. So, our current gospels are not the same as those known to Justin.

While the four modern gospels date from much later, there remain non-canonical gospels from far earlier. If there is any historical truth to the story of Jesus, it will be found there. But finding it is not going to be easy.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't able to edit my post Doug so I had to write it again somewhat underneath. The wiki link I apologised for in advance, however it was short and to the point with regards to a overview of the established information point of view, including on the Pauline letters.

Here's a angle:

Have you reviewed the Persian Zorastrian connections? there's 3 city's in Iran that claim the magi are from them,St Jude established what could be the oldest Christian churches ( converted zorastrian temples)..this is before Rome.

And then there's the Astronomy aspect, Jupiter ( the king maker)..something the monotheistic Zoroastrians knew about, hence why they came looking for Jesus. Astronomical/Physical evidence is there for this event.

And then there's the Dead Sea scrolls, external information, buried away, the Gospel of Mary, its claimed as the oldest book contemporary to Jesus ( one day we may all like to do a thread on why those pages might be missing) what is interesting is when the Dead Sea scrolls are reconciled against other scripture, there accurate, and there's still many more being translated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't able to edit my post Doug so I had to write it again somewhat underneath. The wiki link I apologised for in advance, however it was short and to the point with regards to a overview of the established information point of view, including on the Pauline letters.

Here's a angle:

Have you reviewed the Persian Zorastrian connections? there's 3 city's in Iran that claim the magi are from them,St Jude established what could be the oldest Christian churches ( converted zorastrian temples)..this is before Rome.

And then there's the Astronomy aspect, Jupiter ( the king maker)..something the monotheistic Zoroastrians knew about, hence why they came looking for Jesus. Astronomical/Physical evidence is there for this event.

And then there's the Dead Sea scrolls, external information, buried away, the Gospel of Mary, its claimed as the oldest book contemporary to Jesus ( one day we may all like to do a thread on why those pages might be missing) what is interesting is when the Dead Sea scrolls are reconciled against other scripture, there accurate, and there's still many more being translated.

All I'm saying here is that what is in the modern gospels can't be trusted. They contain no reliable evidence for Jesus. There are a lot of non-canonical sources that have a lot to say and going through them is going to take a lot of time. There are many historical events and people referenced in the gospels (official and unofficial). I have mentioned some of them. Historical references is a good way to determine dates (Justin dedicates his Apology to Antoninus Pius and his sons Lucius Veras and Marcus Aurelius, clearing dating the book before 160 AD).

Jor-el, right here on UM, has done a lot of work on the astrological aspects. I haven't had time to go back and dig up all his stuff, but it sure sounds intriguing, though. One thing does puzzle me, though. The Jews didn't believe in astrology. They regarded it as a black art. I think we need to be very careful about claiming astrological connections for the Bible, unless we're trying to show a later date in something written by a gentile.

But you're right: those books may have a lot to say.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I believe Jesus was a real person. I believe he was a prophet. But, the Son of God? No. Just someone who preached peace and brotherly love as anyone with any caring in such a harsh period of history would have.

Edited by glorybebe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's why none knew in Israel of the astronomy pointing to the birth of Jesus , whilst the Zoroastrians did. And we with modern science can trace these events right back to the very day ( or so)

A lot of your work involves those from Rome, Justin the martyr was beheaded and not much of his work is known (from memory) .

There is minor discrepancies in the canonised bible accounts, that shows its not made of collusion IMO.

There's also the Gospel of Thomas...used by the Coptic Christians, in that the resurrection account differs, it was a spiritual resurrection, which interestingly enough points to why Jesus asked him to poke his flesh in the traditional Canonised books..

I'm not saying I don't agree that some might very well have done a nip and tuck in places, we only need to read the various printed bibles of today to see the different translations in our age, Some say Eagles some say Vultures for the same passage.

And the way the traditional mt Sinai was founded by Constantine is likewise strange..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I believe Jesus was a real person. I believe he was a prophet. But, the Son of God? No. Just someone who preached peace and brotherly love as anyone with any caring in such a harsh period of history would have.

But what would motivate you to leave everything you have, your family, your job, everything; to go out and make the rest of the world believe in someone who was dead?

That's your motivator, that's what changed history, not words, not speeches ...POWER.

Back then, people didn't live long lives like we do today. The average life expectancy was half or even less. The promise of eternal life, coming from a man who they believe rose from the dead, was the motivation. They weren't stupid, they saw something different. They saw a unique power, and they ran and told everyone else until the day they died.

Edited by Raptor Witness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Existed, he's dead now.

Maybe, I miss Mako, he was a good historian who knew his stuff. Here is was something he posted a long time ago. Hail, Mako, whatever you may be doing, be well, my friend.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98256entry1743797

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really are pushing, why do you want to know ?

Have you read the story of Simon the magi in the bible?

I'm not here to convert, the Holy Spirit does the work with this and thats why i say it.

I would rather let one of the others tell you.

Yes, I am pushing. You claim to have a prophesy, so tell it!

The nonsensical rambling that you did post makes no sense at all.

I am simply calling your BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Walter Cassels ("Supernatural Religion"), the existence of what we now call the gospels cannot be demonstrated at any time before they are mentioned by Irenaeus in about 186 AD (I'd argue slightly earlier for Matthew, and I note that Theophilus of Antioch referred to the Book of John in a letter he wrote shortly before his death in 180 AD.). The fact that the earliest writings lack apocryphal stories and that these were added with time argues for a fourth century date on our gospels.

I admit that this conflicts with what I have posted on previous threads. I am now having to rethink some of that.

The earliest datable fragment is 12 verses in Mark (without which Mark would have 666 verses) that were written by Philo of Alexandria in 41 AD when Herod Agrippa ("King of the Jews") visited Alexandria. Because 666 is the number of "Caesar Nero" (Emperor from 54 to 68 AD) in Jewish numerology, I propose that this fragment about Jesus' hazing and the purple robe, is an add-on, discovered by some writer at a later date and added to the gospel. This could have happened no earlier than 54 AD. The victim's name in the hazing incident is Carabbas. The name is gibberish, but change one letter... And Philo was a Jew and would have known that.

The fall of the Temple is clearly mentioned in the gospels, placing them after 70AD. Paul's first letter (1st Corinthians) is mentioned in 1st Clement, placing it before 96 AD.

Matthew and Mark describe an "abomination in a high place" where it "had not ought to be." That high place being Temple Mount and the abomination being the Temple to Zeus built by the Roman Tenth Legion in 131 AD. The Legion placed a statue of their mascot - a boar's head - in front of the temple, probably to antagonize the Jews and remind them that they were a conquered people. In the Bible Jesus solved the problem by ordering a bunch of demons (named "Legion") into 2000 pigs (the number of men in a Roman legion). The story effectively dates to the Bar Kochba Rebellion of 132-135 AD. The Apocalypses of Matthew and Mark suggest that the hammer-blow from Rome has not yet fallen, but is imminently expected.

I used to think that this story dated Matthew and Mark to the Bar Kochba Rebeliion, but then I realized that writings of that time contain no apocryphal references. Those started being added about the time of Eusebius, so now I am thinking that a writer in the fourth century took the second-century version of the gospels and added some embellishments and that is what we now have.

Also, I used to think that Justin the Martyr quoted heavily from our modern gospels. Then I realized that the stories he was telling were fundamentally different and contained details unknown in our current gospels - like Jesus being enveloped in fire when he emerged from being baptized in the Jordan. So, our current gospels are not the same as those known to Justin.

While the four modern gospels date from much later, there remain non-canonical gospels from far earlier. If there is any historical truth to the story of Jesus, it will be found there. But finding it is not going to be easy.

Doug

Maybe from a psychic but could be some what true. John Mark Jesus`s consin wrote the frist letter of Jesus`s life, he was the beloved at the cross. He was seventeen at the time of the crucifiction. He was the compiler of a letter that later became the gospel of Mark, He wrote the letter at the age of fifty nine, 42AD. Paul and Barmbas did not ever meet or know Jesus only what known from John Mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am pushing. You claim to have a prophesy, so tell it!

The nonsensical rambling that you did post makes no sense at all.

I am simply calling your BS.

call what you like,( the answer you seek is in my main post on the first page..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jor-el, right here on UM, has done a lot of work on the astrological aspects. I haven't had time to go back and dig up all his stuff, but it sure sounds intriguing, though. One thing does puzzle me, though. The Jews didn't believe in astrology. They regarded it as a black art. I think we need to be very careful about claiming astrological connections for the Bible, unless we're trying to show a later date in something written by a gentile.

But you're right: those books may have a lot to say.

Doug

No we dont need to be careful because the Astrologers are using highly advance computer programs to predict the positions of the sun and the planets in ancient times...

The Late Rev Don Jacobs ( AKA: moby dick jacobs) published a ground breaking book called "Astrology's Pew In Church" ( 1981) by the Joshua Foundation ( USA) at the very year that he died. in it he outlines his careful research indicating that there was a 1in2500 year conjunction of the Sun with several Planets, including Jupiter ( known as the king maker) on 1st march 7bc.

it just so happens that the Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, Barbara Thiering from the university of Sydney in her book " Jesus the Man" page no 58 and page 283 ( published 1992 )had concluded that Jesus was born among the Essenes on 1st of march 7bc, therefore we have 2 independent scholars coming up with the same date! and there is much other evidence to support, but 2 reference is enough for now..

here is a independent link by Hanabul Gudice who quotes some aspects of Moby Dick Jacobs..

link: http://www.stargazers.com/jesus.html

When Was Jesus Born?

by Hannibal Giudice (Published October 1996)

Was Jesus really born on December 25th? If he were a Capricorn, wouldn't he have become a philanthropist or run for public office instead of sacrificing his life? Today most astrologers and historians agree that Jesus was probably not born in December, and he also was not born in 1 AD. Until now, exactly when he was born has been a mystery and the subject of much debate. It wasn't until the advent of main frame computers that an outstanding biblical scholar/ minister/astrologer, Rev. Don Jacobs, was able to accurately replicate the same celestial dyna- mics observed by the ancient Magi that Matthew glorified "center stage" in his gospel account of the nativity. Jacobs describes his research and the date he chose in his book, Astrology's Pew in Church.

According to Jacobs, Jesus was born March 1st in the year 7 BC, at 1:21 a.m. in Bethlehem. The birth chart for this moment in time contains a cluster of six planets in Pisces: the Sun, Moon, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. (No wonder the fish was used as a symbol for Jesus.) With all this Pisces energy, Jesus was highly spiritual, compassionate, and willing to sacrifice himself for others. A Mercury in Aquarius reveals a revolutionary mind, and Mars in Virgo indicates a tireless worker. Sagittarius rising adds the perfect personality for spreading the truth and for bringing the search for truth and meaning to others. Jacobs used this chart to follow the events which occurred in Jesus' life, and showed what astrological transits he was experiencing each time. But is this really the birth chart of Jesus?

Finally, one of the most compelling mysteries of the past two millennia has been solved. Cuneiform tablets discovered during this century in the ancient astrology school in Sippar (Babylon) reveal that the astrologers were nearly obsessed with noting and tracking movements of an extremely rare heavenly occurrence in the year 7 BC. It was a "once in 25,000 years" celestial event when the two zodiacs (sidereal and tropical) met. It was considered the promise of the birth of an avatar of all avatars. Is this why the Magi journeyed so far to meet the infant Jesus and instruct his parents as to their son's important mission, as well as to warn them of impending danger?

Exhaustive research on this rediscovered birth chart, combined with the latest historical evidence of that period, validate beyond any reasonable doubt that it is indeed the moment of incarnation of the man we have come to know as Jesus, The Christ. The implication of this recent find, once fully realized, will be nearly incalculable. The wealth of information already gleaned would fill volumes. One significant fall-out of this unique revelation will be the emergence and elevation of the use of astrology in the near future to a level unknown since the time of Jesus.

The most significant outcome of this astrological renaissance, however, will be the ability for us to now see the real Jesus illuminated in the light of astrology, the original science of the human experience. We now know what those wise Magi told the parents of Jesus concerning his life's destiny. We also know that he fulfilled his mission in absolute perfection.

Hannibal Giudice (born January 14, 1939) was a professional astrologer and futurist who maintained a full-time practice in Marin County, California, since 1978. He was been a student of history and theology for his entire adult life. Hannibal has researched the Message of the Magi since 1978.

Edited by Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and here is a video to verify aspects about Early Christianity in Iran.

much later Marko Polo is also recorded as to have come this way and referenced the 3 city's of the magi..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv4tq7Ccym4

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting the last words on the video, " that the rest of the world not forget there legacy in early christian history"

yet seams many have...

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.