Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 lovableladywanted
Joined: 5/14/2006
Msg: 2
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?Page 1 of 12    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
I am an atheist and I see religion as brainwashing PERIOD. Think about it . The people that believe in each religion are in their own havens of the world where that religion was dominant . For example you do not see a billion muslims scattered around the world , and the same for Christians and any other religion. They are dominant in certain parts of the world. I have a mind of my own and choose to believe in myself . There is no proof of Jesus . I saw a great documentary titled THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE. Religion was created by the elites to control the masses based on fear .
 lovableladywanted
Joined: 5/14/2006
Msg: 4
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 2:44:27 AM
I am not a fundamentalist. People can believe what they want as long as they do not push it on me . If you are secure about yourself you would be ok how others felt . Though I must admit I do have a bit of an air of superiority because I did not let Western society get to me so to speak and I think logically. Besides all that you will never see an atheist suicide bomber because we believe when you are dead you are just dead.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 5
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 2:02:43 PM

If one seeks Jesus, one has to understand what was going on before the said arrival of this man who was the 'Supposed' last of the Davidic line. One also has to realise the history of the Jews and the goddess they worshiped, long before the Edomite, Herod, was given the right to govern Judea by the Roman Empire.
Here are a few hints for you...
It is a fact the Jews, before Christianity came, worshipped a Female deity called 'Mary'.
This earth goddess had temples which were guarded by female priests, called 'Vestal Virgings'... Getting my drift?
Joseph was the leader of the 'Macabi' tribe, one of the twelve tribes of Israel; in fact the chief tribe. 'Macabi', translated from the Greek, means 'Bradawl', a carpenters tool. In fact the twelve tribes of Israel are all named after a carpenter's tool...And guess who was a Carpenter!
It has also to be remembered that 'Christus', from the Greek again, means...'Simple folk' those who used the sign of the 'Fish', the Pisces symbol.

In the Jewish religion, the Mother takes precedence... I should know; my Father was Jewish, my mother Scots/Irish...If my mother had been Jewish, then I, too, would have been Jewish!... It has to be understood that, at the times of the Romans, religion was undergoing change, from a Matriarchal society to a Patriarchal society. There was a need for a Male God...So 'The Virgin Mary' gave birth to a boy, the 'New Son' of a male diety, Jehovah...


I don't suppose you have some citations and sources for the above points?
 sum1reel
Joined: 6/5/2005
Msg: 7
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 6:20:48 PM
i may be mistaken here but didn't Pontius pilate himself provide a written account about JC, even as far giving a physical description of him!

there are also reports from Josephus, Pliny, and various others.

even the Talmud makes mention of JC, but not in a positive light!
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 8
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 6:54:27 PM


i may be mistaken here but didn't Pontius pilate himself provide a written account about JC, even as far giving a physical description of him!

there are also reports from Josephus, Pliny, and various others.

even the Talmud makes mention of JC, but not in a positive light!


Alas none of these sources are either contemporaneous, not contentious in some major way or in the case of Josephus, out and out pious frauds. The earliest possible account that claimed to have a "letter of Pilate" was the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus, not accepted as canonical by most Christians and written no earlier in any case than 150-200 CE. There is no official Roman document by Pilate.

This thread would be the place to do a source by source listing and why they are or are not acceptable and if someone feels like doing that, jump right in...I'm out of gas from a busy weekend
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 10
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 7:25:05 PM
If you can name ONE contemporaneous historian... one... I would be amazed. I can tell you one who lived in Jerusalem during the time Jesus was said to have lived and practiced his ministry...a prolific writer who wrote not one word about Jesus, the miracles he was said to have performed or any of his followers or for that matter the entire Christian movement. Philo.

All the accounts, as I noted, are either:

1 - not contemporaneous
2 - easily disputed
3- pious frauds

The simple fact that there was a known, writing scholar living in the Galilee at the time who wrote nothing of the man and his movement is far more telling than reams of positive near misses.

BTW ...Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar as a result probably didn't write much about Jesus...at least without a ouija board...unless it was Zombie Cicero!
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 15
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 9:52:59 PM


If you can name ONE contemporaneous historian... one... I would be amazed

I'm just curious fiddler. I know my own passion. I am an educated,sober, father of one and I can asure you that not long ago I had as much reason to doubt as anyone, and Jesus chose to stop me shortly after I had been casting doubt toward someone, my own family even, and made me aware as I am now of the truth. That's the basics of it for me. But what could be yours? Even as I doubted I revered those who had faith, the same way I encouraged my son to believe in Santa when he was younger, because that sort of belief fosters a beautiful, more selfless and imaginative mind. What fuels you to speak out so vehimently against those of us who have chosen to believe?


In other words you can't name a single contemoraneous historian that talks about Jesus.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 16
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 10:00:52 PM
Tacitus wasn't born until about 20 years after Jesus had supposedly died. How would he have any knowledge of Jesus? The fact that he misidentifies Pilate as a procurator suggests that his investigative powers were sub-par.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 17
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 10:14:07 PM


I do not doubt that Yeshua lived in Nazareth and became an awesome symbol of hope.


You should have doubts. Nazareth was a necropolis at the time Jesus allegedly lived. Jesus wouldn't have been from Nazareth. The Gospels contradict each other on just about every point regarding Jesus' birth. They also contradict history. For example, the description of the census is at odds with how we know Roman's conducted censuses. The Gospels also have numerous OT Scriptures taken out of context in order to support the notion that Jesus was the Messiah. No contemoraneous historian knows anything about him. Most of the details of Jesus's life have parallels in the OT or were borrowed from pagan mythology. Put it all together and it doesn't look good for the historical Jesus.
 maxxoccupancy
Joined: 2/5/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 10:14:34 PM
The Roman Emperor Constantine, in an effort to hold the Empire together and expand his own personal wealth, declare Christianity (or rather, a paganized form of it) to be the national religion. He convened the Council of Nicea in 325AD, which chose to burn 76 of the 80 Gospels written about Jesus, leaving just the four in the New Testament.

The Library of Nag Hammadi (as it's been labeled) uncovered several texts supporting the existence of Jesus, including just two written gospels that had escaped this purge. These two books support a non-miraculous story of Jesus and his disciples. Spoken words in those days were memorized word for word, in order to be retold accurately. Words on paper could not be trusted, as so many documents have been forged. Written contract and history has only taken precedence over a man's word in the last few hundred years.

Remember that Constantines Roman Church was based almost entirely on polytheistic temples that were organized to control the masses. The common man did not gain access to the Bible and its secret passages until about 400 years ago, with the Protestant Revolt.

The Romans also have many written records left behind, including extensive tax records and names of men imprisoned or executed. A man named Immanuel (as Christ was known amongst close friends) was crucified around 33 AD alongside two other criminals. The Romans have other accounts and historical records of the era. However, their perspective gives Christianity a rebellious appearance which, in their eyes, presented a clear threat to the established order--that is, of the military, pagan temples, the Pharisees, tax collection, etc.

One little known fact is that the Romans would frequently crucify religious revolutionaries, then bury them alive to make an example of them. This is typical of Roman barbarism, but it's possible that Jesus himself was still alive when placed in the tomb.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 19
view profile
History
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 10:29:01 PM

Question and doubt is work of the devil.

Which is why you still believe in Zeus, Odin, and all the rest. Never question anything, ever. That is the lulu1980 way.

It is a truly sad day when searching for truth is considered devil's work.
The work of the devil is better accomplished by discouraging others from questioning and doubting.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 20
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 10:39:14 PM
"To dispel the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following."


The author of the book and the website "Jesus Never Existed" deals with this issue very succinctly. The phrase "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" comes to mind...

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

When entering statements of belief and faith into the area of historical fact and truth, you have to put them up against verifiable and comparable pieces of real documentary evidence. That's the difference between quasi-mythological individuals and people who leave a solid footprint in history...the weight of real verifiable material they leave behind, comment made by their peers, reference made to them in contemporaneous works by non-biased individuals.

The question of this thread is what actual historical evidence is there for Jesus the man, not Jesus the myth. Kenneth Humphreys dispels the Tacitus forgery fairly well...


Caius Suetonius (c.69–140 AD)
Nowhere in any of Suetonius's writings does he mention 'Jesus of Nazareth.'

Suetonius did write a biography called Twelve Caesars around the year 112 AD and of Emperor Claudius he says:

'As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.'
Jesus in Rome in 54 AD? Of course not. But the unwary can be misled by this reference.

'Chrestus' does not equate to 'Christ' in English but to 'The Good' in Greek, It was a name used by both slaves and freemen and is attested more than eighty times in Latin inscriptions. Clearly, Suetonius was explaining why the Jews (not Christians) were expelled from Rome and is referring to a Jewish agitator in the 50s – not to a Galilean pacifist of the 30s.


It is also said that Suetonius, in his Life of Nero, described Nero's persecution of the Christians:

'Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief ...' (16.2)

We have moved from 'rebellious Jews' to 'mischievous Christians'.



BUT WAIT A MINUTE:
Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD) ?

Would (could) Nero have made such a fine sectarian distinction – particularly since there was no identifying faith document (not a single gospel had been written) – so just what would 'Christians' have believed? Even St Paul himself makes not a single reference to 'Christians' in any of his writings.


The idea that a nascent ‘Christianity’ immediately faced persecution from a cruel and bloodthirsty pagan Rome is an utter nonsense. For one thing, it is only in the last third of the 1st century AD, that Christ-followers emerged as a separate faction from mainstream Judaism. Until then they remained protected under Roman law as Jews. The irritation they caused to their more orthodox brethren meant nothing to the pagan magistrates. Says Gibbon:


‘The innocence of the first Christians was protected by ignorance and contempt; and the tribunal of the Pagan magistrate often proved the most assured refuge against the fury of the synagogue.’

Early Christ-followers called themselves 'saints', 'brethren', 'Brothers of the Lord' and their critics used various names: Nazoreans, Ebionites, 'God fearers', atheists. The Jewish association remained strong throughout the first century and when Christian sects got going in Rome in the second century they were identified by their rival leaders – Valentinians, Basilidians, Marcionites, etc.

So little were christ-worshippers known in the Roman world that as late as the 90s Dio Cassio refers to 'atheists' and 'those adopting Jewish manners'. Christians as a distinct group from the Jews appear only late in the 1st century, not long before the Jewish curse on heretics at the council of Jamnia (around 85 AD). The label 'Christian' itself only appears with the 2nd century Acts – with the story that the term 'began in Antioch' (11.26).

Equally odd, is that Suetonius's isolated sentence appears in a section on Nero's 'good points.'

It should also be noted that Suetonius does not associate punishment of the Christians with the fire that swept Rome, a crucial part of the later myth.

Quite simply, the reference is a Christian forgery, added to Suetonius to backup the work of the 5th century forger Sulpicius Severus, who heavily doctored the work of another Roman historian – Tacitus – with a lurid tale of brutal persecution ('torched Christian martyrs') which immortalized Nero as the first Antichrist in the eyes of the Christian church. (The second Antichrist being the reformist Luther.)





Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-117 AD)
Christianity has no part in Tacitus's history of the Caesars. Except for one questionable reference in the Annals he records nothing of a cult marginal even in his own day.

Sometime before 117 AD, the Roman historian apparently wrote:

"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."

(Book 15, chapter 44):
Yet Cassius Dio gives a more convincing report of the same "expulsion":

"As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings." – Roman History, 60.6.


As we have seen, the term 'Christian' was not in use during the reign of Nero and there would not have been 'a great crowd' unless we are speaking of Jews, not Christians. 'Jewish/Christians' – being perceived by Roman authorities (and the populace at large) simply as Jews meant that early Christ-followers also got caught up in general attacks upon the Jews.


‘Their effects to dissemble their Jewish origins were detected by the decisive test of circumcision; nor were the Roman magistrates at leisure to enquire into the difference of their religious tenets.’

– Edward Gibbon (Decline and Fall)
One consequence of the fire which destroyed much of Rome in 64 AD was a capitation tax levied on the Jews and it was the Jews – throughout the empire – who were required to pay for the city’s rebuilding – a factor which helped to radicalise many Jews in the late 60s AD.

Not for the first time would Christian scribes expropriated the real suffering of a whole people to create an heroic 'origins' fable...

No Christian apologist for centuries ever quoted the passage of Tacitus – not in fact, until it had appeared almost word-for-word in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, in the early fifth century, where it is mixed in with other myths. Sulpicius's contemporaries credited him with a skill in the 'antique' hand. He put it to good use and fantasy was his forte: his Life of St. Martin is replete with numerous 'miracles', including raising of the dead and personal appearances by Jesus and Satan.

His dastardly story of Nero was embellished during the Renaissance into a fantastic fable with Nero 'fiddling while Rome burned'. Nero took advantage of the destruction to build his 'Golden House' though no serious scholar believes anymore that he started the fire (we now know Nero was in his hometown of Antium – Anzio – when the blaze started.) Indeed, Nero opened his palace garden for temporary shelter to those made homeless.

In short, the passage in Tacitus is a fraud and adds no evidence for a historic Jesus.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 22
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/9/2007 11:36:16 PM
Oh call the whaaaaaa-mbulance...

So not bothering to actually examine the evidence, weigh the data, or even look at the argument, you're going to hit the dusty trail? Well since I imagined that to be a fairly typical kind of response when confronted with an actual cogent argument versus a simply passioned, faith-based approach to the issue, I am hardly surprised.

Just say it. You've got nothing. No response. It's a fair cop, no harm no foul...time to go back to the library and learn something in regards to real history and the context of Christianity. Some people have actually taken the time to do that you know...you might actually come away with some personal growth and a better understanding of your own beliefs that way.

But you need to take a look at the OP's question - the issue was facts to support the existence of an historical Jesus. Your use of the term "subjective" as an ad hominem parting shot, simply because you can't even begin to address the historical weight of evidence being dealt with in the issue at hand is more than telling.

This is not an issue of denying faith and not a thread about it. You can believe whatever you want. But if you attempt to add a layer of historical glaze to a quasi-mythological figure, you must be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims.

I certainly did not make the claim that Jesus did not exist...while the author of the site may hold that to be the case, a full examination of his material should make it evident that what he is arguing, and supporting well in that argument, is that the Jesus of the Gospel narrative has no historical support. That should not come as a great shock to anyone except someone who is desperate to find such evidence to found their beliefs upon. Christianity as a religion does not by any means need a solid factual base in history to be valid as a moral creed...

Unless you are one of those individuals who subscribes to the worlds attributed to, if I am not mistaken, Paul, who suggests that if the Ressurrection did not happen in real truth, that the belief is meaningless. Then, what can I say but rotsa ruck

But don't take your ball and go home crying to momma because you simply cannot bring a cogent argument to bear against the weight of historical documentary evidence...some days the bear just gets you *shrug*
 eternalknight
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 23
view profile
History
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/10/2007 12:31:14 AM
No evidence of the man could exist. Nothing that could be proven after 2000 years. No piece of furniture that He supposedly made, no letters He supposedly wrote,...no PHYSICAL evidence remains because we believe by spiritual means. Therefore the only evidence any of us has is spiritual and therefore subjective.
The Spirit of the man does live on. He is The Holy Spirit. But I have nothing I could show you to convince you to believe.
No physical evidence exists that we know of because God does not want it to be discovered. He wants us to trust Him on this.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 24
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/10/2007 10:12:05 AM
With respect, the OP asked the following question of us:



It's just that so much of the Christian Bible has proven to be self-contradictory and is not authentic to the earliest and best manuscripts studied, and so little historical evidence of Jesus interacting publicly exists. What do we definitely know about this man that has been the major influence in our society for centuries?


The original question is not saying that there was not likely some person or persons at the root of the Jesus myths (and please take note I am not using this word in the pejorative but rather its classic sense - of course that won't placate some of you and really if you're a fanatic you probably don't want to be in this discussion anyway). Far from it. The question is what is definately known and the answer is a clear and resounding nothing or not much.

A few of you seem to be under the misapprehension - perhaps due to faulty reading skills - that lack of confirmation of the Gospel narrative in history seems to be the same thing as an out and out denial of Jesus existence entirely and obviously this is not the case. It does mean that it is likely he "did not exist" as the person described in the Gospel narrative because there is simply no evidence for that person. It does not mean that someone or several someone's who lived in and around that period did not collectively contribute to creating a man/myth that developed over time.

How much is man and how much is myth however is highly debatable and obviously that much is very open to discussion and historical examination and study. But seriously, a few of you need to read the entire post and not fixate on single sentances or phrases.

And regarding Graves, with respect, while an excellent and imaginative writer, his scholarship is hardly in the forefront in those areas...not by a longshot actually. Citing one scholar whose pet theories happen jibe with one's own does not really make good science. "King Jesus" is a lovely novel but historical fiction is just that. I'll stick with peer review and multiple sources thanks. As much as I enjoyed the White Goddess, I will keep my poets and my scientists in seperate rooms.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 25
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/10/2007 10:47:33 AM
I read it very carefully thanks all the same...but I was trying to politely note that it was off-topic. Imagination is a wonderous thing and can help you get to places when you are stuck for answers...but some people in this debate - not saying you - are using it to make up answers that suit them when the real ones make them uncomfortable...

You may feel my boots were too heavy, I felt yours were too light...I guess we'll have to agree to
 lovableladywanted
Joined: 5/14/2006
Msg: 26
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/10/2007 5:22:49 PM
I continue to remain shock that in a species where everyone places a high value of logic that people actually believe in this external influence called god . lmao . Talk about societal brainwashing .
 fitman2005
Joined: 8/18/2005
Msg: 27
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/10/2007 7:42:52 PM

There is plenty of proof that Jesus lived. He was written about in historical texts of his contemporaries, Cicero for one. No affiliation, simply an historian from that era.


of course He existed!! His name is still on people's lips--that's how popular He was.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 28
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/10/2007 8:43:41 PM

of course He existed!! His name is still on people's lips--that's how popular He was.


Robin Hood, King Arthur, Merlin...and then eventually Heracles and Hippolyta, Odin, Beowulf, et al, all by that same standard of evidence. Off-topic to the original posters question and missing the point...

We all know there is a variety of legends and lore, and so-called "circumstancial evidence" surrounding the Jesus story as well as any other list of quasi-historical figures you may choose to name from the Bible including Moses or Daniel or Abraham...or people from any other faith for that matter or the figures from any other major or minor world religion past or present.

The question was:



It's just that so much of the Christian Bible has proven to be self-contradictory and is not authentic to the earliest and best manuscripts studied, and so little historical evidence of Jesus interacting publicly exists. What do we definitely know about this man that has been the major influence in our society for centuries?


So instead of weaseling around it or trying to derail the thread, maybe trying to look some up might be a thought hmm? There must be SOMETHING?? Surely some among you have done some reading into the subject?
 tuppencehapenny
Joined: 3/29/2007
Msg: 29
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/10/2007 9:13:48 PM
Starpoet
May I suggest that before setting yourself up as an authority just because your daddy is Jewish you do us all a service by getting your facts right.

You state: "It is a fact the Jews, before Christianity came, worshipped a female deity called Mary"

Well that's a new one. Your reference? Maybe you meant to say Tammuz.

"The earth goddess had temples which were guarded by female priests called 'Vestal Virgings' (sic). Vestal Virgins were in Roman Temples, dedicated to the goddess Vesta.

"Joseph was the leader of the Macabi tribe...in fact the chief tribe of Israel."

Joseph was in fact of the House of David, and the tribe of Judah.
The Maccabees , which included the priestly Hasmonaean House (Mary Magdalene's
ancestors) reigned in Jerusalem from 166 BC until the Roman occupation from 63 BC under General Pompeii and were of the House of David.

"In fact the twelve tribes of Israel are all named after a carpenter's tool"

Helloooo? Where did you dream up that one?
The twelve tribes are the division of ancient Israel, each traditionally descended from one of the twelve sons of Jacob. Ten of the tribes (Asher, Dan, Gad, Issachar, Levi, Manasseh, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon and Zebulun known as the Lost Tribes) were deported to captivity in Assyria c. 720 BC by Sargon II from which they are believed to have never returned, while the tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained.

" It has also to be remembered that Christus, from the Greek again, means 'simple folk', those who use the sign of the Fish the Pisces symbol"

Christos is generally taken to mean "The anointed one". It is the Greek translation, and Messiah the Greek transliteration, of the Aramaic meshiha, which itself derives from the Hebrew ha-mashiah, "the anointed (king)." The Greek 'Messiah' thus comes from the Aramaic word, which was the commonly spoken language at the time, rather than from the Hebrew. The Messiah is the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible; Jesus is regarded by Christians as the savior of humankind.

The fish is a common Christian symbol, the reference is usually believed to be to the loaves and fishes, or the "fisher of men" allusion.
There is a deeper significance in that the birth of Christ heralded the Age of Pisces from which we are currently transitioning to the Age of Aquarius.

As for the commonly accepted view that Jesus was a carpenter like his father, this is probably a total fallacy.

Joseph is given in the Matthew and Luke genealogical lists as a descendant of the royal House of David. Many Christian apologists, in an effort to justify the Virgin Birth dogma, have suggested that since Jesus is said on so many occasions to have been 'made of the seed of David according to the flesh' (for instance, Romans 1:3),then it must have been Mary who was a descendant in this royal line. Maybe she was, but the Gospels do not at any point state this as a fact.They claim only that Joseph was a Davidic dynast, and that Jesus gained his royal heritage as the Christ from his father.

This being the case, why would the apparent high-born Joseph be classified in the gospels as a 'carpenter'? In fact, he was never given as such--at least not in any accepted original Gospel. As with the word almah in respect of Mary, it is the 17th century translation into English ( subsequently translated from English into other European languages)that is at fault.

The term that was translated into English as 'carpenter' was the ancient Greek ho tekton, a rendition of the Semitic word naggar. As pointed out by the Semitic scholar and Scrolls translator Dr Geza Vermes it could perhaps be applied to a trade craftsman, but would more likely define a notable scholar or teacher. It certainly did not identify Joseph as a woodworker. More precisely, it defined him as a man with skills - learned man and a master of his occupation. Indeed, a better translation of ho tekton would be 'master of the craft'.

So Mr Starpoet, I would humbly suggest that your time would be more profitably spent by doing a bit of research into authentic sources than writing a whole lot of rubbish and trying to confuse people. I am attempting to be polite about this but people who promote themselves as authorities on subjects about which they know very little just to gain attention for themselves do more harm than good.
Shalom.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 30
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/10/2007 10:16:10 PM


The Romans also have many written records left behind, including extensive tax records and names of men imprisoned or executed.


This is true.



A man named Immanuel (as Christ was known amongst close friends)


Please provide any scripture where Jesus is called Immanuel by any of his close friends.



was crucified around 33 AD alongside two other criminals.


Where can I find these records?
 fitman2005
Joined: 8/18/2005
Msg: 31
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/11/2007 3:04:39 AM

Robin Hood, King Arthur, Merlin...and then eventually Heracles and Hippolyta, Odin, Beowulf, et al, all by that same standard of evidence. Off-topic to the original posters question and missing the point...



-not even close!!
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 32
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/11/2007 9:24:10 AM
From a spiritual standpoint, there is evidence Jesus lives when Christians act out of love and selflessness, take care of widows and orphans, and lay down their lives for others.

From an archeological standpoint, there isn't any. But, to put the NT into perspective, there isn't any evidence of Moses, the exodus, Noah's ark or the flood in the OT, either.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 33
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/11/2007 10:37:35 AM
Matthew's writer is referring, in error to Isaiah 7:14 and attempting to make this a Christological prophecy. The Hebrew word "ha'almah" used in Isaiah means a "young woman" and was given wrongly the translation of virgin in this context to make it seem a prophecy about Jesus...had the Tanakh writer meant to say virgin, they would have used the specific Hebrew word "betulah" as was used in many other contexts where it was correctly translated.

The Isaiah verse is most likely referring to King Ahaz...

Rabbi Singer of Outreach Judaism has an excellent essay dealing with this topic here
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/virgin.html

In any case, it's not historical evidence for anything, as the poster should well know, nor does it in any way prove that Jesus was actually referred to by any of his compatriots by the title of Immanuel...all we have is the post hoc reference by the gospel writer...whoever that was, trying to paint a prophecy wrongly into the words to the Tanakh and doing such a half-assed job of it that any twelve year old from a Hebrew School could wipe the floor with him... pretty weak "evidence"
 themadfiddler
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 34
What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?
Posted: 4/11/2007 11:36:39 AM
Humble apologies for snapping your head off sir...see that's what happens when I post before my first coffee... my bad...

Now there is an excellent point...why has no one mentioned the Jesus family tomb?

I can tell you one big reason no one mentioned it...

Because from a religious standpoint it is extremely bad juju...

But on the other hand, it could very well point to the exact kind of evidence of which the original poster is looking for, though perhaps not of the Yeshua of the Gospel narrative...

But of a real flesh and blood man who walked through history, was at the root of the stories told of him, was born of a living mother and father, perhaps married and had children of his own according to Jewish law and custom at the time, and eventually died or was perhaps even killed for his teachings?

But THAT Yeshua is antithetical to fundamentalist beliefs so it's little wonder he has not yet been mentioned...

But in any case...once again my apologies for being snappy *red-faced..kick the dirt* I'll go have coffee now heheh
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > What evidence do we have that the historical Jesus lived?