Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

Bannasidhe

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Ooh, ooh, do Rome next!

For the historically accurate dirt on Rome I recommend Mary Beard

http://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/faculty/staff-bios/academic-research-staff/mary_beard/

I could have linked to the wikipedia entry on her but some people get sniffy about that kind of thang


:pac:

coolhull

tallaghtmick wrote: »

Cant wait to call a scumbag a Dandyprat and watch his reaction

I find that word totally offensive!

Doctor Strange

tallaghtmick wrote: »

I don't get why people argue over "Jesus" so much, Without a time machine no one can prove he did or did not exist. If you are religious fair play to you, you believe in what you do it doesn't affect me. If you are not religious fair play to you, you believe in what you do it doesn't affect me.

WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!!:pac:

I don't have a go at my Liverpool supporting mates wrong for supporting a rival team.

Anyway Jesus was an Alien :pac::pac::p:p....... RUNS AWAY FROM THREAD.

In fairness, the only group with bigger delusional beliefs than religious people are Liverpool fans :pac:

endacl

Deadwood fell foul of the 'curse of Endacl'. As soon as I started watching it, it was doomed to be cut short at two seasons and a vaguely unsatisfactory ending.

Deadwood, Firefly, Carnivale...

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

Deadwood fell foul of the 'curse of Endacl'. As soon as I started watching it, it was doomed to be cut short at two seasons and a vaguely unsatisfactory ending.

Deadwood, Firefly, Carnivale...

STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM GAME OF THRONES MISTER!!! :mad:

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM GAME OF THRONES MISTER!!! :mad:

Too late,,,,

Gordon

georgieporgy wrote: »

In addition to this most accurate ancient historical narrative, we have archeological evidence to verify biblical stories. Not to mention the physical evidence of Jesus' body.

Do you have one of Jesus' foreskins?

endacl

Gordon wrote: »

Do you have one of Jesus' foreskins?

They're plainly visible. Orbiting Saturn.

Multiple foreskins are a dead giveaway when identifying divinity!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So when I ask for primary sources for the existence of Jesus I mean texts dating to Jesus' lifetime (c0001 - c0033) which specifically refer to Jesus at the very least.

Just to set context, would many texts of any kind exist from that period?

You'll know what I mean. If you were trying to establish the existence of a particular person, and particular events, in a given location in Ireland in 1950 you'd expect that many records would exist - official records, local newspapers, whatever. So if you found no record of (for the sake of argument) of a preacher being crucified in Mullingar in 1950, you'd probably feel you'd have a basis for saying it didn't happen - just because you'd expect that if the Westmeath Examiner found space to report the theft of a bicycle in Kinnegad, that they'd surely give some space over to report a lynching.

But if you were trying to establish if anyone was crucified near present-day Mullingar in the year 1, it would be a good bit harder. Available records (I'd guess) might be precise enough to say "Ireland may have been invaded by Romans, or it may not. It may have seen military action by persons giving allegiance to Rome, or maybe not. While there is no direct evidence of crucifixions of holy men, the possibility cannot be completely ruled out. Certainly, timber would have been widely available in Ireland at the time. Holy men may also have been widely available. The practice of fixing holy men to timber frames may have come to the island through a Roman influence, or may have been discovered independently. Or it may just not have happened at all."

I suppose, what I'm wondering is whether the answer is simply that the origins of Christianity are simply beyond the reach of historical research. So, as with the whole God thing, someone can contend pretty much what they like - so long as they don't contend that it's verified fact.

Sulla Felix

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just to set context, would many texts of any kind exist from that period?

You'll know what I mean. If you were trying to establish the existence of a particular person, and particular events, in a given location in Ireland in 1950 you'd expect that many records would exist - official records, local newspapers, whatever. So if you found no record of (for the sake of argument) of a preacher being crucified in Mullingar in 1950, you'd probably feel you'd have a basis for saying it didn't happen - just because you'd expect that if the Westmeath Examiner found space to report the theft of a bicycle in Kinnegad, that they'd surely give some space over to report a lynching.

But if you were trying to establish if anyone was crucified near present-day Mullingar in the year 1, it would be a good bit harder. Available records (I'd guess) might be precise enough to say "Ireland may have been invaded by Romans, or it may not. It may have seen military action by persons giving allegiance to Rome, or maybe not. While there is no direct evidence of crucifixions of holy men, the possibility cannot be completely ruled out. Certainly, timber would have been widely available in Ireland at the time. Holy men may also have been widely available. The practice of fixing holy men to timber frames may have come to the island through a Roman influence, or may have been discovered independently. Or it may just not have happened at all."

I suppose, what I'm wondering is whether the answer is simply that the origins of Christianity are simply beyond the reach of historical research. So, as with the whole God thing, someone can contend pretty much what they like - so long as they don't contend that it's verified fact.

We have a lot of contemporary texts for the period and even before. That's what makes the non-appearance of Jesus in any of them so damning.

Agus

Sulla Felix wrote: »

We have a lot of contemporary texts for the period and even before. That's what makes the non-appearance of Jesus in any of them so damning.

Not really. We don't have the kind of level of documentation of that region in the first third of the 1st century which would make his non-appearance in texts of those few decades "so damning". He simply wasn't prominent enough. If you were talking about someone who was claimed to have been the Roman Emperor for example, then yes it would be damning to find no source mentioning him during his lifetime. But you have to remember Jesus would have been a pretty minor figure during his life, well-known only in his local region and only for the last few years of that life. If you search for sources mentioning other comparable people from that period while they were alive, it soon becomes clear that it isn't overly shocking for them not to exist at all in the case of Jesus.

Most historians agree that Jesus existed based on the sources we have from the period after his death, and that we can establish a small number of facts about his life that are probably true, but that's about it.

m4smith

Sulla Felix wrote: »

We have a lot of contemporary texts for the period and even before. That's what makes the non-appearance of Jesus in any of them so damning.

You can't assume that his non-appearance in texts of the time means he did not exist. Its pretty much universally accepted within academic circles that the historical person called Jesus did exist and that he was crucified. The contemporary texts of the day were mostly written by Roman or Greek scholars, usually from an upper class, these people would not have been interested in a poor Galilean peasant, who only preached for 3 years. There were no reporters or media who followed people around recording actual live events.

We have no actual writings from the period of plato, we just have copies of his works that have survived but that were copied of earlier copies, that does not mean Plato does not exist.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Just to set context, would many texts of any kind exist from that period?

You'll know what I mean. If you were trying to establish the existence of a particular person, and particular events, in a given location in Ireland in 1950 you'd expect that many records would exist - official records, local newspapers, whatever. So if you found no record of (for the sake of argument) of a preacher being crucified in Mullingar in 1950, you'd probably feel you'd have a basis for saying it didn't happen - just because you'd expect that if the Westmeath Examiner found space to report the theft of a bicycle in Kinnegad, that they'd surely give some space over to report a lynching.

But if you were trying to establish if anyone was crucified near present-day Mullingar in the year 1, it would be a good bit harder. Available records (I'd guess) might be precise enough to say "Ireland may have been invaded by Romans, or it may not. It may have seen military action by persons giving allegiance to Rome, or maybe not. While there is no direct evidence of crucifixions of holy men, the possibility cannot be completely ruled out. Certainly, timber would have been widely available in Ireland at the time. Holy men may also have been widely available. The practice of fixing holy men to timber frames may have come to the island through a Roman influence, or may have been discovered independently. Or it may just not have happened at all."

I suppose, what I'm wondering is whether the answer is simply that the origins of Christianity are simply beyond the reach of historical research. So, as with the whole God thing, someone can contend pretty much what they like - so long as they don't contend that it's verified fact.

It's very much like a court of law - evidence in the form of texts and artifacts are gathered - text's being akin to witness statements with artifacts as physical evidence.

Each text is 'interrogated' - who/what/when/where/way - and any corroborating statements are examined, as are statements that contradict.

Using all of the available information you construct a picture of what happened - ignoring evidence that does not fit your scenario is unwise as one's colleagues will delight in mentioning it to you - often in print or at a conference... the darlings.

Arguments are usually about interpretation and weight of particular pieces of evidence but the material facts are usually pretty clear. For each statement the relevant evidence must be presented via footnote. Without such supporting evidence one cannot make a definitive statement - one can posit, infer, conjecture or even if one is feeling pompous, 'put it to you'.

As for the amount of sources available- that varies from time period to time period, location to location and dependent on the type of society - there are far more sources available for Judea and Galilee in the first century then there are for Ireland in the 16th century as the Roman Empire - with it's far flung colonies - needed to keep records, enter into lengthy correspondences, compile reports etc etc so from the Roman side there is a wealth of information - particularly as the region was a hot spot. The Jews were a highly literate people who also kept records - granted most of these would have been destroyed during the Jewish Revolt.

Given that the Roman Empire was multicultural, expansive, valued literacy highly and had a policy of posting legions far from home - it is not unreasonable to ask for records dating to c30-33 AD be produced when we are being presented with documents which it is claimed are dated to c50 AD and told these are proof of events which happened a mere 20 years earlier...funny how those survived but not anything from 20 years earlier...dinnit.

Then there is the fact that Jesus was crucified - that was a serious punishment for what was considered to be the most heinous and dangerous crime of all - Treason. The region was a hot spot so it was carefully monitored as small revolts which could spiral out of control were frequent. Now *dons tinfoil hat* perhaps there were documents which referred to this trouble maker who was causing problems with his 'do not be a dick' philosophy - everyone knows that being a dick on a global scale is the foundation of imperialism - maybe they spoke of this man who was a political threat - a man who not only had to be shut up, he had to be shut up publicly in as painful and lengthy a manner as possible so no one dared to follow his example. Now, 'Political' Jesus who was executed for treason would be a hard sell in Rome so Jesus needed to be rebranded and the politics removed - Wouldn't be the first (or last) time people engaged in a spot of re-writing 'history'....
Now, of course all of that is pure conjecture. *removes tinfoil hat*

Ironically, we have far less sources for 16th century Ireland for a number of reasons - no absolute central authority so few central records unless the area was under complete or partial control of the English - or next in line...

As individual clans were conquered their records were systematically destroyed as part of the policy of Anglicisation (e.g. the extensive genealogies each family kept were an integral part of the Tanaiste system so had to go. The Brehons who kept these records and the histories were enemy #1 as they were living cultural repositories and Gaelic culture was officially condemned to death), the Plantations caused the first mass movement of people in Ireland for around 1000 years - these people had no deeds to show what they owed or certs to say who they were - the Brehons kept care of all that information and sure 'everyone knew who was who and who owned what' - neighbours/allies/enemies for 1000 years and all that. Then there was the bombing of the Four Courts - the greatest act of vandalism against Gaelic culture ever committed.

Gaelic Ireland ws a total war zone by the 1580s - constant war and famine with mass executions and extensive land grabbing by quasi-legal means - in short, an uncentralised society consisting of autonomous 'countries' were being attacked and conquered one by one using the 16th century idea of 'total war' where every single expression of Gaelic identity was targeted for ruthless exterminated.
Despite all of this, I could tell you the names of three little boys aged under 5 who were hanged on the shores of Loch Mask in 1586 - It's taken me 15 years to find out and I had to really search but in the end using the few remaining Gaelic sources plus those contained in the State Papers Ireland (compiled in the 19th century and thankfully published) I was able to determine their identities.
Likewise I was able to discover the names of the only two 'slaves' taken from Baltimore in the 1630s to be repatriated. How? The man who paid their ransom published a pamphlet in London in the 1650s and named those he managed to 'buy back' - I 'found' the pamphlet in the British Museum.
Both these are time periods for which many claim there are no surviving sources

Surely, in a literate multicultural Empire someone, somewhere mentioned the hippie in Jerusalem who got himself crucified - a letter to a wife, an official report, a list of those executed, a merchant telling his partners, an officer to his wife, a father to his son - but there is nothing but silence...then wham - the Gospels telling a tale of an apolitical peace loving guy who although he was really the son of God, he was glad to render onto Caeser. A non Status Quo threatening Jesus...

Without textual evidence historians cannot make definitive statements - yet, I read definitive statements about Jesus and the accuracy of the Bible all the bloody time.

I object!

Wibbs

It's a hard one to pin down. Personally do I believe a bloke called Jesus, a messianic Jewish preacher(among many) existed? Broadly yes. Why? While contemporaneous sources are lacking, sources soon enough after his death agree he was a real person. Sources that would have known people who knew him.

Take Paul, who basically readied up the whole package for a romano greek audience, the historicity of half of his writings is a lot more solid. Now he didn't meet Jesus, but he did have contact and run ins with the early Jewish movement springing up around him in Palestine, people who were apostles and contemporaries of Jesus. Now it's certainly possible a man by this name and general description didn't exist and certainly the sayings attributed to him are likely chinese whispers, hearsay and a lashup after the fact, but like I said I'd be very surprised to find the story is a complete fabrication.

Pontius Pilate is an interesting bit player in the story. Contemporaneous sources for him were also lacking and this guy was a fecking prefect of the Roman empire, someone important and someone who should stand out and as Bannasidhe points out the Romans kept pretty good records. Apparently not and one could argue he was an invented character too. Well not until they found a stone with a lickarse dedication of his to Tiberius back in the 1960's(70's?). So he's real as it were.

I'd add the question, how much do we know from solid contemporary sources for anyone from 100 years either side of 0 BCE? I mean outside of very historically "loud" individuals like emperors and such like. The fact that a movement does kick off with an apparent point zero and stories start circulating in text within a long lifetime of the point zero, would suggest to me at least something historical at it's core.

Take another faith founder Muhammed. It's rare indeed people will suggest he was anything but a real person, however there is almost nothing outside the religious canon that mentions him. There is a single document written by a Greek bloke a few decades after the fact that says Mahmet was a merchant and leader of the Arabs who followed Abraham. It's not dissimilar to the Josephus text, but that's about it. Even within the canon the stories of his life come from at least a century after his stated death and more like two. The Quran is supposed to be the earliest source(but gives little enough info) and there's little evidence for that in a single form until 80 years after his stated death date. Now this is a guy operating 600 years after Jesus was supposed to be walking around, the stories have him dealing with the Greeks/byzantines/Persians, a famous trader from a very important trade center Mecca* beforehand and a great military leader who was kicking arse all over the place. He should have been historically much louder, but it seems not.

Do I believe he existed? Again similar to Jesus, no doubt there is a helluva lot of hagiography going on, maybe even more than Jesus, but a movement did kick off with a point zero and that man likely existed. Though IMHO we've more chance of discovering more about Jesus than Muhammed, as the pruning of the sources of the latter was even more thorough. The period and area Jesus lived in was also more recorded by a few sources so more likely something may show up. Plus to even suggest any changes to the Islamic written in stone facts would likely invite serious repercussions for any scholars who dared.

Aside Bannasidhe, I'd agree with your tinfoil hat notion. In a big way. I'd be far more open to believe in the political Jesus, the insurrectionist, the messiah who would kick out rome. After all that's what a Jewish messiah of the time would be expected to do. The king of the Jews. Maybe with a side order of peace love and blessed are the meek. The latter is what got pushed. Or maybe, just maybe that's what the locals, Roman and Jew were expecting and Jesus shows up and does a Gandhi and is the peace and love dude. Both sides would be out for his blood at that point for different reasons.

The trial of Jesus is an interesting one for me. More, the scene where Pilate(OK we're solid on him:)) gives the mob a choice between Jesus and a "terrorist" and enemy of Rome. It's pretty much a historical given that this didn't happen. 1) No record exists of such a Roman practice of pardon for capital prisoners on local holy days. 2) A Roman prefect ain't gonna be asking a mob of already pissed off and dangerous barely conquered types for their opinion on such a matter and 3) I can't see even collaborating Jewish religious leaders handing up "one of their own" to a bunch of filthy pagans, even if they wanted him bumped off. The interesting thing for me are the names. the choice between Jesus son of god, the guy we know and Jesus Barabus. Barabus means son of the father, and we aint talking his daddy. IMHO it's far to obvious a word play not to have some meaning in the canon. Two Jesus' both son of the father. "Which Jesus do you want? Hippie or terrorist. Oh by the by it's the Jews fault you know. Not us Italians, or Greeks for that matter. We're over here with the soap out, so it's OK true Romans, you can worship this guy with zero guilt. Oh and keep eating pork. Ham's great isn't it. I like ham me. And you can leave your mickeys alone too. Feckin barbarians".




*Mecca is mentioned nowhere on any of the extensive trade maps or writings on trade by anyone in the area. Bit sus that.

Geomy

Im not an Atheist but my hat's off to some of ye.

You sure do have a vast knowledge and a great interest in religion.

I learn more in the A+A forum about religion than any other forum on boards.ie

endacl

Geomy wrote: »

Im not an Atheist but my hat's off to some of ye.

You sure do have a vast knowledge and a great interest in religion.

I learn more in the A+A forum about religion than any other forum on boards.ie

Hardly surprising. I can imagine that the fact of 'no god' isn't one that came easily to many, to say nothing of cultural and family pressure to maintain the status-quo. One would need to know the subject inside out.

Quatermain

Reminds me of the old chestnut:

"For an atheist, you know a lot about religion".
"Umm...I think you have that backwards, mate."

Obliq

Quatermain wrote: »

Reminds me of the old chestnut:

"For an atheist, you know a lot about religion".
"Umm...I think you have that backwards, mate."

Feck. Nope, I need that explained to me....:o

Geomy

endacl wrote: »

Hardly surprising. I can imagine that the fact of 'no god' isn't one that came easily to many, to say nothing of cultural and family pressure to maintain the status-quo. One would need to know the subject inside out.

I think that's a good way of looking at it, im lucky I wasn't brought up in a religious home and im under no pressure or obligation to maintain any status-quo...

I have my own way of living, you could try walking a straight line in a desert or a lush rain forest but at the end you will end up back in the same spot....

Through my journey here and in the world outside of forums gradually im realising all that no matter how much someone prays or doesn't believe in God at the end of the day it's all about just being yourself and contentment with my lot....

Geomy

Quatermain wrote: »

Reminds me of the old chestnut:

"For an atheist, you know a lot about religion".
"Umm...I think you have that backwards, mate."

Thanks, would you mind if I can PM you on my posts, you can proof read them and correct the grammar etc

Wibbs

Geomy wrote: »

Im not an Atheist but my hat's off to some of ye.

You sure do have a vast knowledge and a great interest in religion.

I learn more in the A+A forum about religion than any other forum on boards.ie

I'd reckon G it's cos many agnostics/atheists have done something quite alien to many theists in that at a crossroads in their lives they have actually questioned theology and those questions involved research and this is where such knowledge and interest comes from. It's in the nature of humans to join the dots, to seek knowledge, to seek patterns in existence and when you start to seek and then find the patterns start to fade in the various faiths out there you start to question everything.

Geomy

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd reckon G it's cos many agnostics/atheists have done something quite alien to many theists in that at a crossroads in their lives they have actually questioned theology and those questions involved research and this is where such knowledge and interest comes from. It's in the nature of humans to join the dots, to seek knowledge, to seek patterns in existence and when you start to seek and then find the patterns start to fade in the various faiths out there you start to question everything.

I broke free of a lot modern day living and sheep mentality. ..
I like to be more of a leftie rather than a righty...

Living alone in the Burren, working with plants and surfing slabs can be challenging and can obscure the thinking lol.
I like venturing into the town's and cities now and again :-)

But many a night I trawled this forum trying to find out more about Atheism Agnosticism and Theism....

It's been fun and I think I am nearing an end as I read enough here to help me with figuring it all out. ...

Sarky

Geomy wrote: »

But many a night I trawled this forum trying to find out more about Atheism Agnosticism and Theism....

Not much to get, really. Well, "getting" theism is the part that requires some reading up. Atheism and agnosticism are pretty much varying degrees of looking at theism and saying "Nah, that sounds a bit dodgy."

robindch

...wonders what 'Deadwood' is...

Corkfeen

robindch wrote: »

...wonders what 'Deadwood' is...

You'd better be joking or I'm going to feedback and having you removed from your position of authority. How can we trust you in such a role after such a betrayal :mad:

robindch

Corkfeen wrote: »

You'd better be joking or I'm going to feedback and having you removed from your position of authority. How can we trust you in such a role after such a betrayal

Five seconds with Google suggests that I've missed a western. A spaghetti western.

/sheesh

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Five seconds with Google suggests that I've missed a western. A spaghetti western.

/sheesh

Google is not always the best guide : http://www.god.com/ found by googling 'God'.

Jose1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Please link me a document contemporary with Jesus (i.e not a gospel) that proves he existed?

Otherwise, it is speculation based on second hand, noncontempornious accounts - aka hearsay.

Intrigued and having read through most of the posts on this topic it's pretty clear that proving Jesus Christ's existence is tough to say the least. Right now I'm on the fence on this one!

This may have already been mentioned, sorry if that is the case, but if indeed 'JESUS CHRIST SUFFERED UNDER PONTIUS PILATE, WAS CRUCIFIED, DIED, AND WAS BURIED' as gospels would suggest, then surely detailed historical Roman records were kept of his arrest and subsequent trail, thus proving or disproving his actual existence around that time.

Were records of this or similar events ever written and if so do, or should they they currently exist?

endacl

Jose1 wrote: »

Intrigued and having read through most of the posts on this topic it's pretty clear that proving Jesus Christ's existence is tough to say the least. Right now I'm on the fence on this one!

This may have already been mentioned, sorry if that is the case, but if indeed 'JESUS CHRIST SUFFERED UNDER PONTIUS PILATE, WAS CRUCIFIED, DIED, AND WAS BURIED' as gospels would suggest, then surely detailed historical Roman records were kept of his arrest and subsequent trail, thus proving or disproving his actual existence around that time.

Were records of this or similar events ever written and if so do, or should they they currently exist?

Interesting conspiracy theory regarding those records. Apparently they were 'misplaced' by the tabula sermonibus fidem...

Sarky

Were they now?