NT versus reality

[Rat]

That's New Testament, not WinNT.

I'm sure this has been covered before, so if someone just wants to point me at the relevant thread (I couldn't find one), I guess I'd be happy with that.

How much is based in fact of what is related in the bible of the life of our lord saviour Jesus Christ, the redeemer and Messiah, forgiver of sins, Son and lamb of God, conquering lion of Judah, Jah, Rastafari? (Some of this may not be correct).

I'd always been led to believe that contemporary non-Christian sources corroborate the existence of someone of that name who did some preaching and was crucified, but I don't think I've ever questioned that. Is there such evidence, and, if so, what form does it take and how reliable is it?

King Herod was (I believe) real, but did he receive advice about the coming Messiah and order the murder of infants?

If he was crucified (begging question of his existence), were the events and people as they are supposed to be? Mary Magdalene, Barrabas, Pilate, all that.

Cheers,
Rat.

[Dancing David]

None, zilch, nada, niente, zero.

there was a thread
Look for a book called Jesus the Magician.

[Skeptical Greg]

It's been kicked around a lot...

There are some real people mentioned in the Bible..

Specific events described therein, regarding the life and ministry of Jesus, lack extra biblical corroboration..

[TheMashiah]

Acording to Newsweek
Because the Romans kept very advaced and elaborate files, there have been documents recoved that state there was a registered
birth of a boy named Jesus Crist around the time period.

[Gregor]

Birth certificate for the Chrestos? What a riot.

He wasn't called the Christ until probably 60 CE, thirty years after his death.

Yeshua ben Joseph's historicity has been debated at length. After some weeks or months a majority of posters agreed, I think, that the historical evidence for Yeshua was just about as valid as for any minor prophet of the time. Less than that of Bar Kochba, more than that for the Teacher of Righteousness from the DSScrolls.

The general agreement on the historicity of the NT, I believe, was little to no historical truth.

If you want to read a good book on the good book, read Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity"

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Scizerus
Acording to Newsweek
Because the Romans kept very advaced and elaborate files, there have been documents recoved that state there was a registered
birth of a boy named Jesus Crist around the time period.

You're joking right?

[swstephe]

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man (IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN), for he was a doer of wonders, (A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE). He drew many after him (BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST). When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, (FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM), and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities (of the Jews) 18:63-64).

The words in caps are most probably added by zealous Christian copyists since they don't appear in all copies. The mixed case was probably closer to the original. However, Origens says that Josephus never mentions Jesus at one point, so the whole part section might have been an addition. Also,

So he (Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest) assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, he who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned.

Check this out: http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awmob/awpaul/chr210MANCensoringJosephus.html

There was acutally a lot of censorship, (and book burning), especially of anti-trinitarian views, during the formation of the Roman Christian church.

The Herod part is actually a problem. The slaughter of children was never mentioned by anyone, despite the magnitude of the event. The grand census order by Augustus/Qurinius, (6 AD), which was supposed to have lead the Jesus' parents to Nazareth was after Herod's death (4 BC). This is why the actual date of Jesus' birth is disputed so much. See: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/maugcensus.html

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ratcomp1974

I'd always been led to believe that contemporary non-Christian sources corroborate the existence of someone of that name who did some preaching and was crucified, but I don't think I've ever questioned that. Is there such evidence, and, if so, what form does it take and how reliable is it?

There is no other evidence than the Gospels - and they were written in Mark (70AD-80AD), Matthew (80AD-90AD), Luke (85AD-95AD), John (100+ AD).

[Mark is identified at that time because there are references in his story to the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD - so his Gospel would have been a reaction to those devestating events. Matthew and Luke used Mark to write their Gospels. Matthew is concerned with writing his story to sway the Jews. He makes many OT references become reality in the NT....and I mean make. Because of Matthew and the OT: Jesus is born of a virgin (mistranslation), he is born in Bethleham, Herod is made to put forth an edict to slaughter the innocents, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on an ass - but the High-larious part here is - in Matthew he rides in on two animals because the author of Matthew misinterpreted a Jewish double-speak. There's more but I won't bore you]

Jesus was supposedly a pinata in 30 AD.

So the Gospels were written at least 40 to 100 years after the event. So think of writing a story now of a man who died in 1963...and write this story in an age of superstitions and horrid means of communication.

There were over 40 'historians' writing at that time - in that area - and none of them mentions this Jesus. (There are known forgeries available thanks to the Christian Church Fathers)

A more reasonable way to look at this is - a common mythic tale of a dying godman was mistakenly believed as history by a group of people.

King Herod was (I believe) real, but did he receive advice about the coming Messiah and order the murder of infants?

Josephus wrote an extensive history of the Jews. Josephus was a Jew. He HATED Herod. Yet there is no mention of the Slaughter of the Innocents. He rambles on and on about some small particulars, but fails to mention this? There are no non-biblical records of this event happening.

If he was crucified (begging question of his existence), were the events and people as they are supposed to be? Mary Magdalene, Barrabas, Pilate, all that.

There are no records of anybody except Pilate. Pilate was an actual dude.

[LW]

Originally posted by swstephe

However, Origens says that Josephus never mentions Jesus at one point, so the whole part section might have been an addition.

I haven't read Origen, but, for example, the Historicity of Jesus FAQ (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html) tells that Origen states that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. A different thing.

[LW]

Originally posted by triadboy

There is no other evidence than the Gospels

Josephus.

There were over 40 'historians' writing at that time - in that area - and none of them mentions this Jesus.

Is this a reference to the tired list that included, for example, a guy who wrote about Trojan War? And a guy who died 10 years before the crucification allegedly happened? Several satirists making fun of the life in Rome? And a number of people writing in mid second century?

(There are known forgeries available thanks to the Christian Church Fathers)

It is clear that the text of Josephus was altered at the same point, but it is far from clear that it is a complete fabrification. The consensus among the scholars seems to be that there was some original mention, probably negative, of Jesus in the text.

[LW]

Originally posted by triadboy

There are no records of anybody except Pilate. Pilate was an actual dude.

Forgot to add: and Caiphas, the high priest. His tomb was found some time ago.

Josephus also mentions John the Baptist and James, brother of Jesus called Christ.

[a_unique_person]

I think he was just as real as The Budda and Confucius. That is, he really existed, was smart enough to be dismayed by the sensibilities of people he lived among, said some intelligent things about their existence, died, and was subsequently appropriated, misinterpreted, lied about, hijacked and distorted as to lose most of the intent of his original intent.

[Gulliamo]

This is the best link I've read on the subject.

http://joeatwill.com/

It's a long read but worth it. Download the first 2 chapters for free. There is enough info in the first 2 chapters to answer your questions.

[Cinorjer]

I know there's even a theory that the Jesus of the NT never existed, but after reading numerous articles on the subject, all of the historical and scholarly research seems to boil down to:

The NT Gospels are not historically accurate by any means, known both from internal inconsistancies and archeological evidence. Determining who this man Jeshua bar Joseph actually was, where he came from and what he did and said from what was written about him by the early Christians is impossible. All we really know is what the early Christian church wanted people to believe. The few external sources that mention Jesus show signs of having been inserted into the writings by early Christian apologists.

There most likely was a wandering prophet/teacher who collected a cult around him, and ended up crucified by the Romans, and this man became known as the Messiah and was the focus of this Jewish cult. A Jewish man of Roman citizenship named Paul somehow got involved in it after the death of their prophet, and ended up spending the rest of his life spreading his own particular version of Jesus, one that was less Jewish Messiah and more Romanized God-Savior. The Jewish sect ended up destroyed when Rome trashed Jeruselem, and the Pauline version survived and took root as one of several mystery religions popular at the time.

That there is little external evidence of the life and death of Jesus is understandable, since Jeruselem was not that important a city and Jesus was just one of thousands of Jewish troublemakers crucified around that time. Only later, when the Pauline Gentile churches spread and came into conflict with the Roman authorities, did contemporary scholars begin to wonder who this Jesus was and what happened to start this religion. By then it was too late: Jeruselem was no more and all you had was official doctrine.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LW

Is this a reference to the tired list that included, for example, a guy who wrote about Trojan War? And a guy who died 10 years before the crucification allegedly happened? Several satirists making fun of the life in Rome? And a number of people writing in mid second century?

Yes it is. The reason this is significant is - if a miracle guy was changing water into wine, assembling thousands of people and performing miracles for them, raising the dead, healing the sick, walking on water, pulling bouquets of roses out of his butt, etc. - you would think SOMEONE would have written about it!

A logical conclusion one can draw is - if Jesus existed - the miracles were added later. So if Jesus was just a sage, he obviously didn't cause much of a problem since Roman records don't mention him. So now you have an insignificant sage whose sayings may have been maintained in a source document - Sayings of Q.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cinorjer
There most likely was a wandering prophet/teacher who collected a cult around him, and ended up crucified by the Romans, and this man became known as the Messiah and was the focus of this Jewish cult.

What if the entire thing starts with Paul creating a Jewish Mystery Religion? Paul is known as the Great Gnostic to the Gnostic community. Paul doens't delve into Jesus' personal life. His Jesus is spiritual. Paul was from Tarsus - a city that embraced Mithraism.

Paul doesn't know anything about a virgin birth, Bethlaham, etc. The key to xianity is Paul. Who does Paul think Jesus was?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cinorjer
There most likely was a wandering prophet/teacher who collected a cult around him, and ended up crucified by the Romans, and this man became known as the Messiah and was the focus of this Jewish cult.

What if the entire thing starts with Paul creating a Jewish Mystery Religion? Paul is known as the Great Gnostic to the Gnostic community. Paul doens't delve into Jesus' personal life. His Jesus is spiritual. Paul was from Tarsus - a city that embraced Mithraism.

Paul doesn't know anything about a virgin birth, Bethlaham, etc. The key to xianity is Paul. Who does Paul think Jesus was?

Paul is indeed a paradox of the Christian Religion.. As you point out, he makes virtually no mention of who Jesus is or what he did.


The fundies dismiss this with the suggestion that Paul's writings were for the informed, and details about Jesus were assumed to be common knowledge among them.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Scizerus
Acording to Newsweek
Because the Romans kept very advaced and elaborate files, there have been documents recoved that state there was a registered
birth of a boy named Jesus Crist around the time period.

What is more telling is that in light of Romans keeping very advanced and elaborate files, and that fact that these records were kept for executions, there is no record of a crucifixion of Jesus.


Of the many problems with the story is that as the Bible tells the story Jesus is crucified with 2 thieves. Thieves were not crucified they would have had their hands chopped off.

[Cinorjer]

What is more telling is that in light of Romans keeping very advanced and elaborate files, and that fact that these records were kept for executions, there is no record of a crucifixion of Jesus.

From what I've read about the Roman culture, they were overwhelmingly concerned only with Roman citizens, and when it came to their own people they kept meticulous records on births, adoptions, family finances, and of course kept track of taxes and who ruled what territory. Are you saying they also bothered to record births and deaths of non-Roman citizens (except for slaves)? That doesn't sound like them at all. Where might I find information about this?
Jerry

[Cinorjer]

What if the entire thing starts with Paul creating a Jewish Mystery Religion? Paul is known as the Great Gnostic to the Gnostic community. Paul doens't delve into Jesus' personal life. His Jesus is spiritual. Paul was from Tarsus - a city that embraced Mithraism.

Paul doesn't know anything about a virgin birth, Bethlaham, etc. The key to xianity is Paul. Who does Paul think Jesus was?

All we have are the few letters that survived and most likely did come from Paul (some of the letters attributed to him in the NT are generally considered by scholars as bogus). We know from these letters that he had an uneasy relationship with the original Jewish cult, ran by James the brother of Jesus. He seems to have bought their grudging approval of this radical Gentile version of Christianity by collecting donations on their behalf. So Jesus wasn't just someone he sat down and invented. He did transform Jesus from just the Jewish Messiah (the savior of the Jewish people) to the savior of all people everywhere.

It's interesting that Paul considers himself to be a disciple equal in every way to the original followers of Jesus, the first 12 or so. In fact, in none of the writings does he feel the need to defend his special status. His definition of disciple was someone who received the missionary charter from the risen Christ after the crucifixion. Given the criticism he is always responding to in the letters about other things, and since Paul admits he only saw a vision, it was probably believed at the time that the other disciples also only saw a vision, not an actual resurrected body walking around.

But in the end, we only have a tiny slice of a dynamic and probably chaotic religion in its infancy. There are enough hints to make us speculate about what happened and what was going on, but I don't think - baring some astonishing discovery equal to the Dead Sea Scrolls - that it will ever be anything but speculation.

[LW]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

What is more telling is that in light of Romans keeping very advanced and elaborate files, and that fact that these records were kept for executions, there is no record of a crucifixion of Jesus.

I don't think any Roman official archieve survived to this day. Am I wrong?

[LW]

Originally posted by triadboy

Yes it is. The reason this is significant is - if a miracle guy was changing water into wine, assembling thousands of people and performing miracles for them, raising the dead, healing the sick, walking on water, pulling bouquets of roses out of his butt, etc. - you would think SOMEONE would have written about it!

And as has been mentioned before, it seems likely that Josephus did write about him but his text got modified later by Christians.

So if Jesus was just a sage, he obviously didn't cause much of a problem since Roman records don't mention him.

I don't think any Roman records have survived. For most Jewish rabble-rousers the only surviving source is Josephus (and only modified copies of his work are left). Jesus is also mentioned in Tacitus but it is likely that he got the information directly from Christians (otherwise he would probably have used correct title for Pontius Pilatus).

So now you have an insignificant sage whose sayings may have been maintained in a source document - Sayings of Q.

I don't think that we know enough of historical Jesus to conclude that he was an insignificant sage. He might have been a failed rebel who got caught before attracting enough followers to be a real threat.

But anyway, it seems to be more probable that there was some real living person whose life got mythified into the accounts that are preserved in NT.

Around AD 30 there were perhaps 100 million people living in the Roman Empire. We know perhaps thousand or two of them by name (a guess, I don't know exact figure). We have biographies for only small percentage of them. It is not that surprising that some minor rebel didn't get much attention in surviving texts.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
This is the best link I've read on the subject.

http://joeatwill.com/

It's a long read but worth it. Download the first 2 chapters for free. There is enough info in the first 2 chapters to answer your questions.


Your link is very interesting.. I wonder why these speculations haven't drawn more attention..

I wonder if some of our more informed ( in these matters )members; triadboy , Gregor, Cinorjer, Pahansiri, swstephe.. ( forgive me if you are informed, and I left you out ) can give it a quick look, and see if there are any obvious problems with this authors speculation that " Roman Emperor Titus Flavius created Christianity ..", with a lot of help from Flavius Josephus..???

,

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LW
...

It is not that surprising that some minor rebel didn't get much attention in surviving texts.

No, not surprising at all.. I can't say the same about the son of God though...;)

[LW]

Originally posted by Diogenes
if there are any obvious problems with this authors speculation that " Roman Emperor Titus Flavius created Christianity ..", with a lot of help from Flavius Josephus..???

I'd say that the most damning one is Tacitus who writes that Emperor Nero accused Christians for the great fire in 64. Two years before the rebellion started, and five years before Vespasianus ascended to throne. Of course, Tacitus wrote in early 100s so he might have been caught by an eleborate lie.

Tacitus was born in 56 so he was eight years old when the fire happened and he might have had first hand knowledge about Nero's accusations.

[Edited to add: I skimmed through the two online chapters. My first notice was that they had very unprofessional look suggesting that not much editing went into the text. Which, in my personal opinion, is a warning sign about possible crackpotdom.]

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by LW


I don't think any Roman official archieve survived to this day. Am I wrong? I'm not sure about that, but consider that Pontius Pilate would obviously have figured far more prominently than Jesus in the official records of his own administration (while he was governor of Judea). Yet, except for the discovery a few decades ago of a single stone tablet bearing his name and office, Pilate is known to us only from the New Testament, Josephus, Philo and Tacitus. I'm inclined to infer from this fact that none (or virtually none) of the Roman records from that precise place and time survived, even in recopied form.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Scizerus
Acording to Newsweek
Because the Romans kept very advaced and elaborate files, there have been documents recoved that state there was a registered
birth of a boy named Jesus Crist around the time period.

Just goes to show that Newsweek doesn't check thier facts at all, no Roman proof of Jesus exists. And he didn't become Crhist until his annointing.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Just goes to show that Newsweek doesn't check thier facts at all, no Roman proof of Jesus exists. And he didn't become Crhist until his annointing.

Heh, Heh..

At the Census desk:

Roman Census taker " What's the kid's name ? "
Joseph .. " Uh, we call him Yeshua The Annointed One.. You see, we were hanging out in this stable, sharing it with a lot of animals, and this darn sheep dog, well.... "

He didn't become ' Christ ', until some Greeks got around to writing about him..

[swstephe]

Originally posted by triadboy
What if the entire thing starts with Paul creating a Jewish Mystery Religion? Paul is known as the Great Gnostic to the Gnostic community. Paul doens't delve into Jesus' personal life. His Jesus is spiritual. Paul was from Tarsus - a city that embraced Mithraism.


One of the most glaringly obvious contraditions of the NT is that Paul is described in the books of Acts as going to Jerusalem to join the disciples immediately after his unusual "conversion", (direct revelation). in 9:1-28,21:6,26:12 of Acts. But in Galatians 1:15-23, Paul himself, (allegedly), directly denies this saying "I did not go to anyone for advice, nor did I go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me. Instead, I went at once to Arabia, and then I returned to DAmascus. It was three years later that I went to Jerusalem to obtain information from Peter" ... even ... "What I write is true, God knows that I am not lying".

There you go. Paul is calling the author of the book of Acts a liar. To resolve this contradition, the Christian church should either remove the book of Galatians, remove the book of Acts or admit that the contradictions in the NT are more than academic. This point is really underused. I know of one author who tries to resolve this contradiction by stating that Saul and Paul were actually two different people.

[Cristina]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ratcomp1974

King Herod was (I believe) real, but did he receive advice about the coming Messiah and order the murder of infants?

Josephus wrote an extensive history of the Jews. Josephus was a Jew. He HATED Herod. Yet there is no mention of the Slaughter of the Innocents. He rambles on and on about some small particulars, but fails to mention this? There are no non-biblical records of this event happening.



In a course I took on the New Testament as an undergrad, the professor made the very compelling argument that the early life of Jesus is written so as to parallel the life of Moses. This allows Jesus to be the NEW Moses leading his people to the NEW promised land i.e. the father's kingdom and giving them the NEW law.

If that theory is true, it explains the "slaughter of the innocents"

But I must admit, my New Testament scholarship is very very rusty.

[Pahansiri]

Hello LW.

As a statement of belief I do believe many Roman official archives survived concerning many topics and that my statement is valid.

As a statement of fact I can not provide the information I had seen on this as it was several years ago but will seek out again the person who had given me this date.

*******************************
Next:

As to Josephus and his Antiquities of the Jews there is but a paragraph about Jesus and non in any of his other works.

This one paragraph about Jesus did not even appear until the beginning of the fourth century and the time of Constantine and it was Constantine who was truly most responsible for Christianity as we know it.

Without Constantine making it the official religion of the empire there is much doubt it would have spread as it did.


I spoke to a Jewish historian who said the original versions of Antiquities of the Jews did not contain this paragraph and spoke only of 3 false prophets

Telling signs also would be as to Josephus is he never in text before or after of portions of The Antiquities of the Jews mentioned Christ NOR said he was NOW a Christian or follower of this man.

Josephus was a messianic Jew and never converted to Christianity, he would never Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth." If he did not believe he was the Jewish Messiah. If he did believe he was the Jewish Messiah all the rest of the book and all other writings would have been dedicated to him.

This is what the paragraf says:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

He clearly calls him a “man” a “wise man” would a messianic Jew refer to the Jewish Messiah as a wise man?

He also says“For he was one who performed deeds” would a messianic Jew refer to the Jewish Messiah’s deeds as just surprising?

He also says: “He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.” And He was the Messiah but it seems clear from the rest of the book that he really did not win Josephus over.?


Another very telling and perhaps most telling fact is he says And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

There was NO tribe called Christians at the time of Josephus.

One last and this is very misunderstood by Christians, here Josephus says He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold

NO where in the OT does it say any prophets said the Messiah would rise from the dead in 3 days.

[Cinorjer]

Yes it is. The reason this is significant is - if a miracle guy was changing water into wine, assembling thousands of people and performing miracles for them, raising the dead, healing the sick, walking on water, pulling bouquets of roses out of his butt, etc. - you would think SOMEONE would have written about it!

You have to try and imagine yourself in an entirely different world, one without mass communication or a transportation system, and where only a tiny minority of the people could read and write. News traveled at a snail's pace through an occasional letter (and with no postal service, you had to wait for someone to be heading in that direction) and strangers traveling through would be asked if anything was happening out there. And people, then as now, liked to make up stories and the stranger in the tavern might spin a good tale of some miracle worker over in Judea. But that would hardly be something the civilized world of that time would take notice of.

Consider, you live several hundred miles away from Jeruselem, and your cousin's mother's best friend overhears some men at the market talking about this Prophet that is supposed to be performing miracles like raising people from the dead. It might make you wonder, but even if you wanted to go see this guy, you could chase around the countryside all year and never catch up to him. What are you going to do, put an add in the daily paper?

[LW]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
As to Josephus and his Antiquities of the Jews there is but a paragraph about Jesus and non in any of his other works.

Please, go read through the Historicity of Jesus FAQ that I linked to above for a detailed account of Jesus and Josephus's works.

In short, there are two mentions of Jesus in Josephus. The long one that you quote (and is certainly at least edited by Christians) that is actually in the War, and a short one in Antiquites.

I spoke to a Jewish historian who said the original versions of Antiquities of the Jews did not contain this paragraph and spoke only of 3 false prophets

Since the earliest existing manuscript of Josephus's work is from around AD900 (IIRC, I may be off by few hundreds of years), we simply can't know what was in the original text.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That is, he really existed, was smart enough to be dismayed by the sensibilities of people he lived among, said some intelligent things about their existence, died, and was subsequently appropriated, misinterpreted, lied about, hijacked and distorted as to lose most of the intent of his original intent.

Which is my lifetime goal, too.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by swstephe


One of the most glaringly obvious contraditions of the NT is that Paul is described in the books of Acts as going to Jerusalem to join the disciples immediately after his unusual "conversion", (direct revelation). in 9:1-28,21:6,26:12 of Acts. But in Galatians 1:15-23, Paul himself, (allegedly), directly denies this saying "I did not go to anyone for advice, nor did I go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me. Instead, I went at once to Arabia, and then I returned to DAmascus. It was three years later that I went to Jerusalem to obtain information from Peter" ... even ... "What I write is true, God knows that I am not lying".

There you go. Paul is calling the author of the book of Acts a liar. To resolve this contradition, the Christian church should either remove the book of Galatians, remove the book of Acts or admit that the contradictions in the NT are more than academic. This point is really underused. I know of one author who tries to resolve this contradiction by stating that Saul and Paul were actually two different people. Hmm. Looking at the passages you cited in Acts, the narrative does jump straight to Paul's arrival in Jerusalem. On the other hand, it does not explicitly contradict Paul's statement in Galatians that this took place three years after the episode recounted immediately beforehand. I'd classify this as somewhat confusing, but not a front-runner for the "most glaringly obvious biblical contradiction" award.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by swstephe
...............................

This point is really underused.....

This is really good.. A gem of a contradiction... I'll make sure to use it as much as possible...

[Pahansiri]

Hello LW.


I should have said and I am sorry I did not Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews did contain 2 paragraphs.


Josephus mentions James, the brother of Jesus, in Antiquities, Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."

But you say The long one that you quote (and is certainly at least edited by Christians) that is actually in the War, and a short one in Antiquites.

That is not really the accurate, the longer quote I first gave is found in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3.

You write as to the first paragraph I posted:

The long one that you quote (and is certainly at least edited by Christians)

That as to what I believe a bit of a understatement. But I respect your opinion but to support your belief that it may be just “edited” please response to the other points of logic I made concerning that paragraph.

I will post them again and look forward to your responce and thoughts on each.


1- He clearly calls him a “man” a “wise man” would a messianic Jew refer to the Jewish Messiah as a wise man?

2-He also says “For he was one who performed deeds” would a messianic Jew refer to the Jewish Messiah’s deeds as just surprising?

3-He also says: “He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.” And He was the Messiah but it seems clear from the rest of the book that he really did not win Josephus over.?


3-Another very telling and perhaps most telling fact is he says And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

There was NO tribe called Christians at the time of Josephus.

4- One last and this is very misunderstood by Christians, here Josephus says He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold

NO where in the OT does it say any prophets said the Messiah would rise from the dead in 3 days.

Do not these facts or my view of facts and conclusions seem to point to the fact this was not just maybe simply edited and in fact placed in much later.

Again the most telling fact to me is he never became a part of this “Christian tribe” never after this passage referred to him ( other then talking about his brother and only said Jesus was “called Christ”). He never became Christian no wrote of this being the Jewish Messiah that would be the center of his belief.

You write Since the earliest existing manuscript of Josephus's work is from around AD900 (IIRC, I may be off by few hundreds of years), we simply can't know what was in the original text.

Many Jewish scholars would disagree but until I can provide you with their names and statements we will have to agree to disagree.

[LW]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

That as to what I believe a bit of a understatement. But I respect your opinion but to support your belief that it may be just �edited� please response to the other points of logic I made concerning that paragraph. I will post them again.

Please, read the FAQ that I linked to. It contains one possible reconstruction of the original text (though we can't know whether the reconstruction is actually close to the original text or not).

I didn't want to write the FAQ again so I didn't comment on your points. And I still don't want to rewrite it so I'll just mention that the very reason why we know that neither of the two existing variants of that paragraph is original is exactly that they don't fit into what we know of Josephus's personality (pharisaic Jew).

[Pahansiri]

Greetings LW.

I am speaking with you not the author or the FAQ site Scott Oser. I have read it and it is a good site but I you and I are speaking not Scott Oser and I.

You write It contains one possible reconstruction of the original text (though we can't know whether the reconstruction is actually close to the original text or not).

This is not really in anyway relevant to my points.

Josephus's works are clearly in totality other then these 2, well one really paragraph clearly the work of a messianic Jew, you point out he was a Pharisaic Jews.The Pharisaic Jews believed in the resurrection of the body.

I assume you say this in reference to my point # 4 ( should have been 5, I mis-numbered)

4- One last and this is very misunderstood by Christians, here Josephus says He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold

Your pointing out he was a Pharisaic Jews and believed in the resurrection of the body is not relevant to my point and what is said.

NO where in the OT does it say any prophets said the Messiah would rise from the dead in 3 days.

It does not say “I believe he rose 3 days latter” it says He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold

He makes a reference to the OT and statement of the prophets that clearly does not exist and it seems he would have know that.



A “possible reconstruction of the original text” may address

1- He clearly calls him a “man” a “wise man” would a messianic Jew refer to the Jewish Messiah as a wise man?

2-He also says “For he was one who performed deeds” would a messianic Jew refer to the Jewish Messiah’s deeds as just surprising?




But not
3-He also says: “He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks.” And He was the Messiah but it seems clear from the rest of the book that he really did not win Josephus over.?


4-Another very telling and perhaps most telling fact is he says And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

There was NO tribe called Christians at the time of Josephus.

5- One last and this is very misunderstood by Christians, here Josephus says He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold

NO where in the OT does it say any prophets said the Messiah would rise from the dead in 3 days.

Again do not these facts or my view of facts and conclusions seem to point to the fact this was not just maybe simply edited and in fact placed in much later.

Again the most telling fact to me is he never became a part of this “Christian tribe” never after this passage referred to him ( other then talking about his brother and only said Jesus was “called Christ”). He never became Christian no wrote of this being the Jewish Messiah that would be the center of his belief.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again

I just read through the Historicity Of Jesus FAQ link and see you are speaking about Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize as the Messiah.

So this is my mistake and my points are not relevant to your point as to Origen claims.

My apology, too busy today to fully read all the post here today and should have not spoken.

May you be well and happy.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Diogenes

I wonder if some of our more informed ( in these matters )members; triadboy , Gregor, Cinorjer, Pahansiri, swstephe.. ( forgive me if you are informed, and I left you out ) can give it a quick look, and see if there are any obvious problems with this authors speculation that " Roman Emperor Titus Flavius created Christianity ..", with a lot of help from Flavius [b]Josephus

Diogenes,

I don't buy it. Can I disprove it? I can knock down bits and pieces off the top of my head. For instance his dating of the Epistle of Clement to 96 AD. As if there was a Christian religion with Bishops, etc at that time. Pul-leeese! But there lies the problem of the story of Jesus. If he never existed, but there is a story about him that is believed as history - anything goes.

I don't believe Josephus wrote anything about Jesus. I believe the entire paragraph was inserted. If you remove it - the paragraph before and the paragraph after fit better.

I didn't read all of it, but it smacks of 'construction' to me. My readings have taken me down a different path. I don't think Jesus ever existed. I think Paul created Jesus as a Jewish Mystery Religion.

(I may be repeating myself here, but...)

In the Mystery Religions (Mithra, Dionysus, etc) - the initiate was given a story to read of a dying godman who is wrongly accused and killed. This story revealed the 'outer mysteries'. Once the initiate was fully versed and understood the allegory within the story - an 'inner mystery' initiation rite was performed - and the initiate recieved gnosis. This is where the initiate learned that HE was the dying godman! God is within US! There is one 'soul' and we are all manisfestations of that soul. Our struggle is to unite fully with this soul - no matter how many lives it takes. This is the same as Hinduism - one soul. This is Gnosticism.

Now what happened with xianity?

Paul created the outer mystery story (just like many others around). His congregations were initiated into the inner mysteries. However, through time the outer mystery text was taken for history. To a Gnostic, Xianity is a half religion because they never received the inner mystery.

Celsus, writing in the 2nd century, wondered incredibly, how these Christians could believe their myth as history!? Gnostic Christians drove the Literalist Xians crazy because they understood Jesus differently.

Eventually, the gnostics had to be dealt with. So the church fathers forged Timothy 1 and 2, and Titus. These are the Pauline letters that damn gnosticism. It was at this time that forgeries and insertion were rampant. Gnosticism was eventually destroyed by...Literalist Christians.

[Silicon]

WOW, Triadboy, you just blew my mind. That's FASCINATING stuff!


I want to learn more more more! What books can I read that spell this out in as plain language as you just did? I'm not at all versed in Biblical text (beyond the general sunday-school level). Can you recommend a book for me that talks about all this early history of christianity?

[Silicon]

Triadboy, is that Paul/saul that you are talking about?


(admitting my ignorance here)

[Cinorjer]

I also finally managed to skim through the offered chapters, and found a confusing mess. It seems to be an unsupported conspiracy theory that flys in the face of what we do know about the relationship between the early Christians and Roman authorities and the timeline of noted and undisputed events. Christians had already come to the attention of Rome during the reign of Nero (54-68 CE) and were blamed by Nero for the famous fire. This was even before the final revolt of the Jews and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem and when Josephus had yet to meet Vespasian, his patron and future Emperor. Christianity in its earliest form can be proved to exist before the author claims it was invented.

The main point of the chapters seems to be that the Christian belief system as it came down to us has a distinctly Roman bias and flavor. Hardly surprising, since the Roman church ended up in control and made the final decisions on doctrine.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Silicon
What books can I read that spell this out in as plain language as you just did? I'm not at all versed in Biblical text (beyond the general sunday-school level). Can you recommend a book for me that talks about all this early history of christianity?

The Jesus Mystery (Timothy Freke/Peter Gandy) spells out the Gnostic-first theory. They have a follow up I am reading now called The Lost Goddess.

Other books that don't necessarily speak to the Gnosis idea but are good:

Asimov's Guide to the Bible (Isaac Asimov)

On the Bible, Religion, and Morality (Steve Allen) is an easy read for someone just starting to delve into this

The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read is a wonderful complilation of essays. I recommend this to anyone.

The Hero With A Thousand Faces Joseph Campbell. I'm in awe of this guy. Once a year (fund-raising time) PBS broadcasts THE POWER OF MYTH which is an interview of Campbell by Bill Moyer. It is a must-see!

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Silicon
Triadboy, is that Paul/saul that you are talking about?


Yes Paul of Tarsus. The guy who had the epiphany and fell off his ass.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
Christians had already come to the attention of Rome during the reign of Nero (54-68 CE) and were blamed by Nero for the famous fire. This was even before the final revolt of the Jews and the consequent destruction of Jerusalem and when Josephus had yet to meet Vespasian, his patron and future Emperor. Christianity in its earliest form can be proved to exist before the author claims it was invented.


Yes, but you are speaking of Gnostic Christians. Literal Chrisitanity as you know it didn't come into existence for a hundred more years!

I believe Eusubius identified the first Christians as being the Theraputae in Alexandria. Strangely, they were practicing their religion in 10 AD!

[Rat]

Yay! Woohoo! Not only have I started a two-page thread, a first in itself, but also got varied and comprehensive answers to the question I asked, another first.

Thanks to all who responded. It seems I was, at least, misled, intentionally or otherwise.

Cheers,
Rat.

[Gregor]

My two denari on these subjects

CEO - I think the Galatians vs. Acts stories represents a contradiction of dramatic proportion, not just for what appears in the texts. In fact, it's the point of the remainder of my post.


Diogenes and Triadboy, as to the question of Titus' "creation" of the NT, and hence Christianity, it doesn't fit the facts. [aside: I hope I don't seem pedantic. I'm no scholar, I'm just an interested reader that doesn't mind opening his yap from time to time on Xian origins].

The seeds and themes for pro-Roman Xianity predated Titus by a decade. There was a Jewish sect based loosely on Jesus' teachings (if not Jesus as diety) from 35 CE onward. James was its leader. From 50 CE onward Paul was preaching a competing brand of Judiasm well before Titus road through in 67. Now, did a pro-Roman slant arise later in compiling and writing & editing various books? Certainly.

I think the reason that there are 300 books about the origins of Christianity is that there were 3,000 moving parts that got crammed together from 50 CE to 380 CE when the canon was issued. There is no one 'answer' to the questions of who was Jesus, who created the NT, why did Xianity succeed.


I appreciate Triadboy's exposition on his opinions. My opinions seem to ebb and flow with each new book I read, but in summary the NT seems only to make sense under the following explication:

> Jesus was an itinerant preacher of human birth. He had at least three brothers and two sisters. James took over the movement upon Jesus' crucifixion. James' brand of Judiasm was anti-foreigner, anti-accommodation to gentiles, strick torah, enthic Jews, only. Jesus was probably the same bent for two reasons: family tradition and his crucifixion. Jesus wouldn't have been killed if he was the preaching what was said of him in the gospels.

> Pilate and the high priest were Roman appointees, and they (coupled with the Pharisees) were accommodating to foreigners, pro-hellenization, and anti-strick torah.

> James was much more known, vocal, and charismatic than Jesus.

> Paul was competing with James for the hearts and souls of the public. The Pauline epistles demonstrate a dramatic fight between Paul (anti-strick torah, no circumcision, eat with gentiles, let gentiles go to the Temple, accept the Romans) and the hard-ass James. In letters Paul invented stuff about Jesus' ministry to get back at James, Jesus' brother. James led the hard core Jews who hated Paul, and would have had Paul killed, but Paul used his Roman citizenship and ties to the house of Herod to get away.

> After the revolt in 67 and Temple destruction in 70, the hard core Jews were in decline and Paul's accommodating strategy was in the ascendency. The gospel writers tried to eliminate James from history and took the Jesus sayings tradition and invented a history that was pro-Roman (and probably 180 degrees opposite from actual history). In essence James as strict-Jewish priest was recast as Jesus' killer at a time that few eye witnesses were around to contradict it.

Then re-writers of the gospels had to deal with competing themes and make them work together in Paul's orthodoxy, not James' orthodoxy.

Josephus is important to NT because the author of Luke almost certainly borrowed from him. Also, Josephus had the exact same belief as the victorious 'Xians' - and that was that those 'hard core' Jews incurred God's (and Rome's) wrath. Joe turned against the Jewish hard-cores. Paul was previously against the Jewish hard-core. The surviving group survived precisely because they were against the hard-core. And if James was hard-core, it's reasonable to conclude that Jesus was hard core, too.

So Jesus was a historical preacher, whose preaching was turned 180 degrees around to support Paul's camp and become anti-semitic. The NT is a poor re-writing of a dozen different theologies that tried to be harmonized.

[Cinorjer]

Yes, but you are speaking of Gnostic Christians. Literal Chrisitanity as you know it didn't come into existence for a hundred more years!

I believe Eusubius identified the first Christians as being the Theraputae in Alexandria. Strangely, they were practicing their religion in 10 AD!

I would of course agree that earliest Christianity bore little resemblence to the later Roman church that produced the Nicea council of 325 CE. As Christianity spread, it seemed to take on the form of religion that was familiar to the locals. Thus in Egypt we had the individualistic gnostic form that mirrored the Isis cult, while in Rome we ended up with the Priestly ritual of a man-God. Of course, Rome won the war of doctrine.

I'm not familiar with the Theraputae, other than a quick search shows Philo wrote about them and they were an Essenian group. Like the Essenes, they might predate Christianity. I'll have to look for more information. The gnostic churches are fascinating

[triadboy]

Throughout my studies, the recent idea that Gnosticism predated Literalism was the most elegant solution to all the problems.

It makes better sense for a Gnostic Jewish Mystery Religion to be created - into a LONG line of other mystery religions...and then Literalist Christianity springing from that - rather than an actual historical story occuring and Gnosticism springing from reality.

It is detailed in the book The Jesus Mystery (Tim Freke / Peter Gandy) When looked at in light of gnosticism Paul makes perfect sense. I realize it looks like I am excited about a new idea/book and buying into it hook, line, and sinker. But it does fall in line with everything I've studied so far. I recommend this book and would love to hear some critiques.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Cristina
In a course I took on the New Testament as an undergrad, the professor made the very compelling argument that the early life of Jesus is written so as to parallel the life of Moses. This allows Jesus to be the NEW Moses leading his people to the NEW promised land i.e. the father's kingdom and giving them the NEW law.


Yes the 2 allegories are one in the same.

The Moses story has Purification (Crossing the Red Sea), Losing the Old Self (Moses dying), Receiving gnosis (Promised land)

Jesus received Purification (Baptism), Losing the Old Self (Crucifiction) and Receiving gnosis (Resurrection).

Notice in the promised land there is 12 tribes and once Jesus is purified there are 12 disciples.

Of course the whole tale of Moses is not true. It is allegory. (you see what the clumsy oaf did with the 10 commandments!) Not only are there no Egyptian (or other secular) records of the exodus, but the whole story of Moses' birth mirrors that of Sargon I.

In the tale of Sargon, Sargons mom puts him in a basket and floats him down the river. "Akki, the drawer of water..." drew him out of the river.

In Exodus, the Pharoahs daughter drew Moses out of the river.

Exodus 2:10
And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

Moses is the Greek translation of Mosheh. In Hebrew, Masheh means "to draw".

Strange coincidence? You be the judge.

[ceo_esq]

I just remembered that we had a fairly in-depth discussion of Josephus scholarship in this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=290684&#post290684).

[ceo_esq]

triadboy,

In a nutshell, what do the authors of The Jesus Mysteries make of the relationship between Christianity and Mithraism?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
I can knock down bits and pieces off the top of my head. For instance his dating of the Epistle of Clement to 96 AD.What date do you give for 1 Clement?

I've consulted a number of sources for this, and the majority do in fact prefer a date in the vicinity of 96 A.D. If we exclude the earliest and the latest date proposed (I found one source that argued as late as 150 and another that argued no later than 70), the remaining range is roughly 80-140, with the average (just a quick guess on my part) probably falling in the 100-115 range - a figure weighted down by the number of scholars favoring a date near the very end of the 1st century.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
triadboy,

In a nutshell, what do the authors of The Jesus Mysteries make of the relationship between Christianity and Mithraism?

The entire mystery religion spectrum (Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, etc) eventually led to the formation of a Jewish Mystery Religion. This eventually led to a Christian Mystery Religion. (This addresses the conflict between Paul (Xian Mystery) and James in Jerusalem (Jewish Mystery)) This led to Literalist Christianity - who believed the dying godman of the mystery religion was real. This belief was based on the Gospel which placed the mythological figure in an historic setting.

The relationship between xianity and Mithraism is the archetypal image of the dying godman wrongly accused. But that is an image that existed for a thousand years before the creation of Jesus.

Celsus ridiculed the xians for believing an obvious myth.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
What date do you give for 1 Clement?

I believe the wording betrays a late authorship.

I copied this off the web:

Laurence Welborn writes about the dating of 1 Clement (op. cit., p. 1060):


Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.

Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century. Notably, a writing is mentioned in 1 Clement 23:3 in which the challenge is quoted, "These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us." Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of "bishops and deacons" (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be "a rule of succession" for bishops and deacons who have "fallen asleep" (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by ratcomp1974
That's New Testament, not WinNT.


I'd always been led to believe that contemporary non-Christian sources corroborate the existence of someone of that name who did some preaching and was crucified, but I don't think I've ever questioned that. Is there such evidence, and, if so, what form does it take and how reliable is it?


Think about it. We're talking about a movement that involved 15 or 20 people at the time of Jesus' death, excluding those that may have heard him teach...assuming he was real. I'm pretty sure everything was being passed via word of mouth until there was enough interest to start writing things down. You shouldn't expect too many (if any) corraborative sources during his lifetime. He was only a carpenter, after all.

But are you suggesting that the entire thing was made up? That's pretty hard to believe, considering the risk the conspirators were taking in promoting the faith. It's not too hard to believe that the story achieved mythical status in the retelling, so to speak. But it's very difficult for me to believe that the entire story (including the main character) was completely contrived. These dozen people sat around and simply decided to invent a religion that even if it didn't get them all killed was going to bring down the absolute wrath of the local authorities. What would be the motivation? Also, I'm pretty sure the only reason the religion succeeded at all was because there *were* people that had heard Jesus teach. He supposedly spent three years evangelizing all over the region before he was killed.

I'm not suggesting that just because it's quite reasonable to believe in a historical Jesus that the whole story is justified. E.g. It's not too hard for me to believe that the apostles could have made up his resurrection, because I can imagine some motivation there: they had basically given their lives over to Jesus and with him dead they were out of jobs.

Tim

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Rockon

......................

I'm pretty sure the only reason the religion succeeded at all was because there *were* people that had heard Jesus teach. He supposedly spent three years evangelizing all over the region before he was killed.
..........

Tim

But this would be reason to believe he would have had more of a contemporary following...


Why the strong support 40 - 70 years later?

If you are going to make stuff up, you have to wait long enough for truth to be obscured...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Rockon

But are you suggesting that the entire thing was made up?

I'm not claiming people sat around and 'made up' the Jesus story. I'm saying the Jesus story existed before the supposed existence of Jesus. It was and had been a common story told for thousands of years and had (around that time) become a Jewish Mystery Religion.

The Mark Gospel placed Jesus in an historical setting.

Matthew made him born in Bethleham (fulfilling the OT) of a virgin (even though the OT doesn't say 'virgin' - but pagan godmen are born of virgins).

Now we are taking a common godman story and placing him in familiar places, among recognizable people. People want to believe a fantastic story like this.

But there is no evidence anything in the story actually happened - which would be the case if it never happened.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
I'm not claiming people sat around and 'made up' the Jesus story. I'm saying the Jesus story existed before the supposed existence of Jesus. It was and had been a common story told for thousands of years and had (around that time) become a Jewish Mystery Religion.Prompted by some of your earlier comments, I've been searching the Web for a good overview of Mithraic scholarship, and it's not easy.

I did find this essay (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html), which contests the idea that Mithraism had any real substantial influence on Christianity. Granted, it's an apologetics site, but I'd be curious to know if your position on the matter is close to the position that the essay tries to refute.

[LW]

Originally posted by triadboy

Of course the whole tale of Moses is not true. It is allegory.

I fail to see how you can state that as a fact. The Pentateuch was apparently put together around the time (or shortly after) the Babylonian captivity, about 2500 years ago. so they predate Gnosticism (that, IIRC, arose in the Hellenistic times). We can't know for certain why the tale of Moses ended up like it did. It might well be that the authors of Pentateuch thought that they were writing down actual history.

I have read Campbell's Hero With Thousand Faces. I was very disappointed by it. It was so simplistic in its claim that every myth is a variant of a single basic outline. In my opinion it would be more accurate to explicitly state that there are a number of story motives that have gone round world so many times that their origin can't be traced anymore. In some places they end up as folk tales, in others as religious myths.

Not only are there no Egyptian (or other secular) records of the exodus,

In the end, there are very few Egyptian records about anything left. We know that Egyptians had a very efficient state archieve system (that made it possible to follow the ownerships of land plots for hundreds of years) but unfortunately none of those archieves have been preserved (with the exception of Ankhaten's and his father's diplomatic letters). Most surviving Egyptian texts are of religious nature.

There exists a (or few) commemorative stelae where Ramses II boasts for building new towns around the time when Exodus supposedly happened. It is not impossible that some Hebrews worked there. Though, it is also highly improbable that all of them were there as Ramses's son mentions Israel among the people who he won during his Syrian campaign. (In that stela Israel is written with determinative 'people' and not with 'land' suggesting that they were nomads without fixed settlements.)

Of course, if Exodus happened as described in the Bible, it would have been (from Egyptians' viewpoint) so great catastrophe that most likely records of it would have been preserved to the day.

[As a side note, there's also the interesting thing that some old Assyrian texts (from ~1700 B.C.) mention a nomad tribe "Bini-Jammi" lead by a warlord with the title "Dawidu". This suggests a connection with the Israeli Benjamin tribe and king David, though about 400 years before the supposed progenitor of the tribe lived and 700 years before the king lived.]

but the whole story of Moses' birth mirrors that of Sargon I.

And all n+1 other great heroes who survived being thrown into river.

[LW]

Originally posted by triadboy

I don't believe Josephus wrote anything about Jesus. I believe the entire paragraph was inserted. If you remove it - the paragraph before and the paragraph after fit better.

And as has been noted before, the current consensus among the scholars is that he probably wrote something that got later changed by Christians (and perhaps later by Muslims in the case of Agapius variant).

]b]I think Paul created Jesus as a
Jewish Mystery Religion.[/b]

I think that a more probable alternative is that Paul was into mystery religions, heard about a minor sect of followers of Jesus waiting for his return, and decided that he had found the God Man there.

Paul created the outer mystery story (just like many others around). His congregations were initiated into the inner mysteries.

And the concrete evidence for the existence of those inner mysteries is?

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Diogenes


But this would be reason to believe he would have had more of a contemporary following...


Why the strong support 40 - 70 years later?

If you are going to make stuff up, you have to wait long enough for truth to be obscured...
Keep in mind that I am not suggesting that the story of Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament is historical fact. I'm merely saying that it is very reasonable (and logical) to accept his existence as a real historical figure.

Re: strong support: it took that long for the evangelists to take whatever following Jesus was able to establish while he was alive and turn it into a real movement. (Under the face of immense persecution I might add.) If Jesus did not exist, how did the apostles succeed? And just who were these guys anyway? Incidentally, I wouldn't characterize the support as 'strong.' It wasn't until Paul got involved that the religion really flourished.

Originally posted by Triadboy

I'm not claiming people sat around and 'made up' the Jesus story. I'm saying the Jesus story existed before the supposed existence of Jesus. It was and had been a common story told for thousands of years and had (around that time) become a Jewish Mystery Religion.
But unless you are suggesting that the apostles themselves are a fantasy, you *are* suggesting that they sat around and 'made up' the story. At some point, they had to get off their duffs and start preaching a lie. Somehow they decided that the time was right to attach a real person to what was (in your words) a mythical rumor.

Originally posted by Triadboy
The Mark Gospel placed Jesus in an historical setting.
Of course. Mark's Gospel was written for people that were wavering under intense persecution for their beliefs. That's the whole point. They needed the narrative because they were scared. You know, like George Bush giving a television address regarding the war on terrorism.

Originally posted by Triadboy
But there is no evidence anything in the story actually happened - which would be the case if it never happened.
That goes without saying. And yet you haven't described any reasonable explanation for the existence of Christianity. According to your argument, there was a basic myth regarding a Jesus like figure that was very well known at the time, and somehow...*poof*... Christianity is born. Apparently out of the imagination of the evangelists that decided to give it a basis in fact. That's a bit of a stretch, IMHO. If you want to discount the veracity of the New Testament, it is *much* easier to believe that Jesus actually existed and the story "grew in the telling" so to speak.

Tim

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Rockon


But unless you are suggesting that the apostles themselves are a fantasy, you *are* suggesting that they sat around and 'made up' the story. ....

Tim

What reason do you have to believe, that the apostles as portrayed in the Bible, in fact existed ?

P.S. The veracity of the NT is very much in question..

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I'd be curious to know if your position on the matter is close to the position that the essay tries to refute.

I read some of the link - and the guy was struggling. He said he didn't see where Mithra changed water into wine. Which is ironic because another godman did - Dionysus. To set up Mithra as the sole pre-Jesus copy is unfair. Jesus seems to be an amalgam of others too.

Godmen must have a miraculous birth, a miraculous life and a miraculous death. Jesus' story was embellished to fulfill this.

[Cinorjer]

What reason do you have to believe, that the apostles as portrayed in the Bible, in fact existed ?

P.S. The veracity of the NT is very much in question..

And here, in the particulars, is where even Biblical scholars can sit around and argue endlessly. Which characters in the NT have a historical basis, and which ones were made of whole cloth? Given that buried somewhere in the stories might be actual events and the sayings of Jesus, can we ever hope to dig through the legend to find the historical truth?

Well, we can't. What we're working with now is Myth. Not myth as in "not true", but myth as in something that is meant to convey a universal message. The sacrificed God is a story as old as religion. That doesn't mean someone sat down and said "I'm going to invent another version of it." Savior figures are a recurring theme. They come from humble beginnings, undego trials, gather companions, and ultimately end up sacrificed for the sake of others.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
What reason do you have to believe, that the apostles as portrayed in the Bible, in fact existed ?
Nothing more than the stuff that was written around that time..some of which is attributed to the apostles themselves. And of course the fact that Christianity did start somewhere. Which leads to a question:

Where do you draw the line in terms of real people that were involved in the formation of Christianity? Are you suggesting that some other group of people were somehow involved in the faking of the religion? At what point did the *real* conspiracy start and who was involved? What was their organizational structure?

Originally posted by Diogenes
P.S. The veracity of the NT is very much in question...
Naturally. But that's not the issue on the table. The question is whether or not Jesus was a real historical figure or a complete fabrication.

Originally posted by Cinorjer

And here, in the particulars, is where even Biblical scholars can sit around and argue endlessly. Which characters in the NT have a historical basis, and which ones were made of whole cloth? Given that buried somewhere in the stories might be actual events and the sayings of Jesus, can we ever hope to dig through the legend to find the historical truth?

Well, we can't. What we're working with now is Myth. Not myth as in "not true", but myth as in something that is meant to convey a universal message. The sacrificed God is a story as old as religion.
I agree with you on the mythical nature of the NT (and the Bible in general) and the difficulty in separating fact from fiction. For religious people, I think it's simply a matter of faith to accept certain aspects of it as the truth. For Biblical scholars, it's much more difficult, if not impossible. But it *is* a fascinating area of study.
Originally posted by Cinorjer
That doesn't mean someone sat down and said "I'm going to invent another version of it." Savior figures are a recurring theme. They come from humble beginnings, undego trials, gather companions, and ultimately end up sacrificed for the sake of others.
I have to disagree with you here. If the historical Jesus was a complete fabrication, I don't see how the religion could have been established without some duplicity/conspiracy on the part of someone. It's not like the myth had a nice safe cradle to start from and *evolved* over many generations into a very detailed life story of a conquering hero. This story was revolutionary (for the time and place) and extremely dangerous. People were being executed on a regular basis for preaching this stuff. Whoever started telling the story for the first time was taking an enormous risk to life and limb.

Tim

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Rockon

Nothing more than the stuff that was written around that time..some of which is attributed to the apostles themselves. And of course the fact that Christianity did start somewhere. Which leads to a question:

Where do you draw the line in terms of real people that were involved in the formation of Christianity? Are you suggesting that some other group of people were somehow involved in the faking of the religion? At what point did the *real* conspiracy start and who was involved? What was their organizational structure?





That's where the problem lies for both sides.. The only ' real people ' we can be reasonably sure of, who might have been even remotely associated with Jesus, didn't document anything ( at least nothing that survived ) until at least 40 years after he was suppossed to have died.

Imagine how good a job you might be able to do, writing about the life of anyone, who died forty years ago, and the only resources you may use are word of mouth. Another rule would be, that the person cannot be related to you more closely than a 3rd or 4th cousin.

Of course the kicker may be, that you will have the Holy Spirit to guide you.
However, when the Holy Spirit gives three or four other people, different versions of the story, you will have some S'plainin to do, a couple of thousand years later..

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Rockon


People were being executed on a regular basis for preaching this stuff. Whoever started telling the story for the first time was taking an enormous risk to life and limb.

Tim

I think you may find that such ideas are as difficult to document as the rest of the origins of Christianity. If you can be reasonably sure that a Christian was executed, you can probably show that they were executed for something besides being a Christian. The early Christians ( if they even called themselves that ) were not as persecuted, as the latter ones would have you believe.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Diogenes


That's where the problem lies for both sides.. The only ' real people ' we can be reasonably sure of, who might have been even remotely associated with Jesus, didn't document anything ( at least nothing that survived ) until at least 40 years after he was suppossed to have died.

Imagine how good a job you might be able to do, writing about the life of anyone, who died forty years ago, and the only resources you may use are word of mouth. Another rule would be, that the person cannot be related to you more closely than a 3rd or 4th cousin.

Of course the kicker may be, that you will have the Holy Spirit to guide you.
However, when the Holy Spirit gives three or four other people, different versions of the story, you will have some S'plainin to do, a couple of thousand years later..
Well hold on a second here. No one is arguing that the NT is consistent.

The question remains: How much evidence is there that indicatesJesus was real?
Answer: Very little. At least in terms of historical records outside the faith. In other words, the only records that exist (for that time period) are those that were created by the people who cared enough about the movement to write about it.

What we know:
---------------------
1) Christianity is a religion that sprang up relatively quickly about 2000 years ago.
2) It created quite a buzz.
3) There is a bunch of writings laying around that is widely believed by most scholars to be written by the early leaders of that religion.
4) According to those writings, the whole thing started because of a charismatic preacher (known to many of the writers) that taught a compelling theology.

What we don't know:
----------------------------
It would fill a book.

I see no reason to doubt the fundamental notion that Jesus was a real person. It's the simplest and most logical explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Tim

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rockon
What we know:
---------------------
1) Christianity is a religion that sprang up relatively quickly about 2000 years ago.

Christianity, as we know it - didn't come around until ~350 AD...I guess that's relatively quick.

2) It created quite a buzz.

It seems to have caught on

3) There is a bunch of writings laying around that is widely believed by most scholars to be written by the early leaders of that religion.

Those early church fathers from the late 2nd century on. I'm not counting Paul since he was Gnostic.

4) According to those writings, the whole thing started because of a charismatic preacher (known to many of the writers) that taught a compelling theology.

That's how you start a religion. Just ask Joseph Smith.

I see no reason to doubt the fundamental notion that Jesus was a real person. It's the simplest and most logical explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Logic?
Likewise the simplest explanation of Mormonism is to believe Joseph Smith was guided by the Angel Moroni and found and translated golden tablets from ancient South America, which became the Book of Mormon. But it's not the most logical thing to believe.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by triadboy

Christianity, as we know it - didn't come around until ~350 AD...I guess that's relatively quick.
Ummm...no. Unless you're going to hold a hard line to the "...as we know it." The Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 315 AD. Christianity was well established, albeit an outlaw religion before 100 AD.


Originally posted by triadboy
Those early church fathers from the late 2nd century on. I'm not counting Paul since he was Gnostic.
Now you're really splitting hairs. Call him what you will, Paul believed in a real historical Jesus as did *all* of the other writers included in what is now considered to be the NT. Fer cryin out loud, Paul started out *hating* Christians...so clearly Christianity had enough adherents to draw the attention of some people "outside the inner circle" so to speak, long before 300 AD.

Originally posted by triadboy
That's how you start a religion. Just ask Joseph Smith.

Exactly!! Joseph Smith was a real person, regardless of the validity of his teaching.

Originally posted by triadboy
Logic?
Likewise the simplest explanation of Mormonism is to believe Joseph Smith was guided by the Angel Moroni and found and translated golden tablets from ancient South America, which became the Book of Mormon. But it's not the most logical thing to believe.
No. If you want to draw a parallel between my argument regarding Christianity and Mormonism, you should say that the simplest and most logical explanation for the *origin* of Mormonism is that a real person named Joseph Smith started it. Whether or not Joseph Smith was divinely inspired is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Tim

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rockon
What we know:
---------------------
1) Christianity is a religion that sprang up relatively quickly about 2000 years ago.

Christianity, as we know it - didn't come around until ~350 AD...I guess that's relatively quick.

2) It created quite a buzz.

It seems to have caught on

3) There is a bunch of writings laying around that is widely believed by most scholars to be written by the early leaders of that religion.

Those early church fathers from the late 2nd century on. I'm not counting Paul since he was Gnostic.

4) According to those writings, the whole thing started because of a charismatic preacher (known to many of the writers) that taught a compelling theology.

That's how you start a religion. Just ask Joseph Smith.

I see no reason to doubt the fundamental notion that Jesus was a real person. It's the simplest and most logical explanation for the origins of Christianity.

Logic?
Likewise the simplest explanation of Mormonism is to believe Joseph Smith was guided by the Angel Moroni and found and translated golden tablets from ancient South America, which became the Book of Mormon. But it's not the most logical thing to believe.

I think much more to the point, Joseph Smith was real. What is also pertinent is how quickly the aims and beliefs of his religion changed after he died.

What was really just a vehicle for his ego quickly had to adjust to the realities of the world. This has been done relatlively succsessfully. However, Mormonism now and then are two completely different things.

Also don't forget that the NT books themselves are based on more primitive books, which were just the sayings of Jesus, one of which was probably just passed on orally.

I still believe the simplest explanation is the most likely. Jesus was real, what he had to say, for political reasons, has mostly been lost. What he had to say was about as meaningful as other charismatic leaders of the past, such as the Budda or Confucious.

[Gregor]

CEO
I'm always wary of the tektonic ministries. The site author (Robert Turkel) is an an out of work prison librarian from Florida. While he does rely upon some legitimate scholars, he frequently overstates their conclusions and he frequently relies upon some Woo-woos.

I think the better analysis is from infidels.org - the work by Richard Carrier. He reviewed a debate on other godmen and reviewed portions of a book titled "16 Crucified Saviors."

www.geocities.com/intheword1/carrier_on_osiris.htm

Let me respond to the four questions posed earlier with another spin:

"1) Christianity is a religion that sprang up relatively quickly about 2000 years ago."

RESPONSE: Xianity was not a new religion. It was simply orthodox Judaism from 44 CE to 70 CE. After the Temple's destruction it became less Jewish oriented. By 150 CE there were more gentile believers than Jews. By 300 CE it was fully anti-semitic.

ADD: Many flavors of various religions spring up with great frequency.


"2) It created quite a buzz."

RESPONSE: It was no more buzz filled than any other Jewish sect. However, the HUGE difference was that Paul was evangelical, whereas James and the rest of the Essenes were intent on excluding people from their sect. A religion that goes looking for you (and adopts all your attributes) is going to grow much more rapidly than one that tries to reduce its membership.


"3) There is a bunch of writings laying around that is widely believed by most scholars to be written by the early leaders of that religion."

RESPONSE: Not really. Just because scholars 'date' Mark to 70 CE, doesn't mean we have a scrap of papyrus carbon-dated to 70 CE. The earliest scrap of a gospel is from 120 CE - a piece from John. Who knows what the words were between 70 and 200 CE. No one knows who wrote any of the dozens of stories. Eusebius picked those that were consistent with his beliefs, not those whose authenticity was judged to be best.


"4) According to those writings, the whole thing started because of a charismatic preacher (known to many of the writers) that taught a compelling theology."

RESPONSE: That's too much of a stretch. We have no writing from a known author who ever met Jesus. We really can conclude little as a result of the writings other than the lack of a consensus on Jesus and James and Paul.

[Skeptical Greg]

This discussion has got me ' googling ', and I came across this..

Robert Eisler on The Testimonium Flavianum (http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/eisler.htm)

I find it very interesting..

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cinorjer
There most likely was a wandering prophet/teacher who collected a cult around him, and ended up crucified by the Romans, and this man became known as the Messiah and was the focus of this Jewish cult.

What if the entire thing starts with Paul creating a Jewish Mystery Religion? Paul is known as the Great Gnostic to the Gnostic community. Paul doens't delve into Jesus' personal life. His Jesus is spiritual. Paul was from Tarsus - a city that embraced Mithraism.

Paul doesn't know anything about a virgin birth, Bethlaham, etc. The key to xianity is Paul. Who does Paul think Jesus was?
How do the Copts fit in with all this?

/ignorant git.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Gregor


RESPONSE: Xianity was not a new religion. It was simply orthodox Judaism from 44 CE to 70 CE.
Maybe. After all, Jesus was supposed to have been a Jew. But I don't know how you can classify the inclusion of Non Jews in the religion, as "Orthodox Judaism." It was a pretty radical change.

ADD: Many flavors of various religions spring up with great frequency.
How many of them spring up without any help from a real historical person?

"2) It created quite a buzz."

RESPONSE: It was no more buzz filled than any other Jewish sect.
Really? You mean there were other Jewish sects that conquered Rome?

"3) There is a bunch of writings laying around that is widely believed by most scholars to be written by the early leaders of that religion."

RESPONSE: Not really. Just because scholars 'date' Mark to 70 CE, doesn't mean we have a scrap of papyrus carbon-dated to 70 CE. The earliest scrap of a gospel is from 120 CE - a piece from John. Who knows what the words were between 70 and 200 CE. No one knows who wrote any of the dozens of stories. Eusebius picked those that were consistent with his beliefs, not those whose authenticity was judged to be best.
4) According to those writings, the whole thing started because of a charismatic preacher (known to many of the writers) that taught a compelling theology."

RESPONSE: That's too much of a stretch. We have no writing from a known author who ever met Jesus. We really can conclude little as a result of the writings other than the lack of a consensus on Jesus and James and Paul.
It's not much of a stretch at all. The *content* is assumed to be derived (through oral tradition) or copied (from another source) from the early leaders of the church. Or are you suggesting that the pieces of paper we found are the earliest written teachings that ever existed?

You say that "we really can conclude little..." I disagree. Most scholars conclude that the writings are (at the very least) a good approximation of what was believed (or at least written and taught) by the *very* early evangelists: people that were alive at the time that Jesus was supposed to have been alive.

But let's cut to the chase. It's postulated that Jesus was fake. Ok, what about his apostles? How about his apostles apostles? At what point did a real actual person get involved in the development of this religion? Where exactly do you put the missing link(s)?

Tim

[Skeptical Greg]

But let's cut to the chase. It's postulated that Jesus was fake. Ok, what about his apostles? How about his apostles apostles? At what point did a real actual person get involved in the development of this religion? Where exactly do you put the missing link(s
Her is an interesting take on how Christianity may have come to be..
It addresses many of your questions...

Qumran and Early Christianity (http://www.didjesusexist.com/qumran.html)

... and whether or not there was a real Jesus..

A pretty long read, but very articulate and interesting...

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Her is an interesting take on how Christianity may have come to be..
It addresses many of your questions...

Qumran and Early Christianity (http://www.didjesusexist.com/qumran.html)

... and whether or not there was a real Jesus..

A pretty long read, but very articulate and interesting...


Yep. Good article...lots to digest. I guess that's why some people spend a lifetime trying to figure this stuff out. :wink:

The author concludes that there is "faint support" for a historical Jesus. I think that's reasonable, although I myself would argue that there is at *least* faint support.

Tim

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Rockon
How many of them spring up without any help from a real historical person?


Hinduism is one of the oldest religions. I can't think of any person it's designed around.

I don't think American Indians have a human cheerleader for their religion.

The worship of ancestors in the east doesn't require a human guide.

The ancient Earth Goddess religions didn't require a human.

and many more...

[Rockon]

Originally posted by triadboy

Hinduism is one of the oldest religions. I can't think of any person it's designed around.
Check this out: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/masters.htm

I don't think American Indians have a human cheerleader for their religion.
Maybe not, (I don't think American Indians have one single religion) but they probably don't *claim* to have a human cheerleader either.

The worship of ancestors in the east doesn't require a human guide.
Ever hear of Confucius?

The ancient Earth Goddess religions didn't require a human.
I wouldn't know.

But anyway, I wasn't trying to say that most religions can be traced to a single human teacher/cheerleader. I was saying that it would be unusual for a "flavor" of a religion (a different sect) to originate of it's own accord. You mention Hinduism. As you can tell from the link above, there are many different flavors of Hinduism that are greatly influenced by a specific human individual. (Although the origins of the religion itself is completely shrouded in antiquity) Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism that was started by a single person.

Tim

[LW]

Originally posted by triadboy

The worship of ancestors in the east doesn't require a human guide.

I would think that the ancestors pretty much by definition count as "human guides" and were originally historical persons.

The ancient Earth Goddess religions didn't require a human.

Some cynical person might comment here that the evidence for the whole existence of Neolitic Earth Goddess religions is not much more than the evidence for historical Jesus, and if they existed, absolutely nothing is known about their origins or belief systems.

But anyway, a large majority of world religions sprung up in prehistoric times, or their births went otherwise unrecorded. We simply can't know how, for example, Hinduism started.

In some cases we have some vague glimpses of events. For example, it seems that the prevalence of the Sun God Re in Egypt seems to have been established around the time of Cheops. There's no evidence that Cheops himself was a sun worshipper, but a number of his sons had 'Re' as a part of their names and his immediate succcessor took the new title "Son of Re" (the one that is written with a duck with a sun over its back) and started to build his pyramid right opposite the main solar temple. Christine El-Mahdy argues in her Pyramid Builder that this suggests that several of Cheops's wives converted to Re worship and relayed that religion to their sons.

In many cases the only thing that we know about a religion is the name of the god or goddess in question, and occasionally even those are lost. For example, evidence suggests that the name of the old Finnish pagan god of agriculture, Äkräs, is actually a corrupted form of Pyhä Kreutz, or the Holy Cross (in combination of Finnish and German). It is highly probable that there was an original pagan god whose worship rituals got mixed with Christian saint worship sometime around year 1200 or so, but by the time Mikael Agricola wrote the first list of Finnish pagan gods (in mid 16th century) the original and imported beliefs could no longer be separated.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings triadboy

You write:


Hinduism is one of the oldest religions. I can't think of any person it's designed around.

What is now know as evolved from Brahminism also known as VEDISM, a polytheistic nature-worship of the ancient Aryan conquerors of northern India.


I don't think American Indians have a human cheerleader for their religion.

Many American Indians nations many beliefs but as to what I believe you may be right as I think most or all are really nature centered religions but all did have some form of Gods.



Greetings Rockon

You write:

Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism that was started by a single person.

This is not the case.

At the time of the Buddha there religion called Hinduism, Brahminism was the religion which you are right grew into Hinduism later.

But, the Buddha rejected most of the beliefs of Brahminism/ Hinduism.

1- no gods.
2- No cast system ( all beings the same)
3- Karma belief is different
4- No belief is a “self” and so rebirth belief different
5- No exorcisms and magical incantations etc

Are their similarities? Yes there can be truths found in all beliefs.

[Gregor]

Diogenes

My boss, wife, and family will soon be looking for you as the culprit who provided yet another time diversion for me.

That link appears (after 5 minutes of reading) to be a tremendous resource. It seems to be an effort by historians (amateur or professional) to excise religious biases in research and compile thoughts of dozens of researchers. At first glance it looks wonderful, and I might waste a few days going through the site.

Thanks

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gregor
Diogenes

My boss, wife, and family will soon be looking for you as the culprit who provided yet another time diversion for me.

That link appears (after 5 minutes of reading) to be a tremendous resource. It seems to be an effort by historians (amateur or professional) to excise religious biases in research and compile thoughts of dozens of researchers. At first glance it looks wonderful, and I might waste a few days going through the site.

Thanks I look forward to your assessment of the material presented there..


It looks like a ton of stuff your ' Pastor / Priest / Preacher ' was hoping you would never find...:)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

How do the Copts fit in with all this?

/ignorant git.

I believe Coptics stem from the line of Constantinople - not Rome.

[Gregor]

I think he means the Coptic Xians from Egypt, founded (supposedly) by Mark, and called heretics by the Church.

[Rockon]

Greetings Rockon
Hey there.

At the time of the Buddha there religion called Hinduism, Brahminism was the religion which you are right grew into Hinduism later.
Well, that's not what I remember from college. But most things I learned in college are pretty hazy. ;)

Here's one link that talks about the history of Buddhism: http://www.acay.com.au/~silkroad/buddha/h_life_frames.htm

Tim

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Gregor
I think he means the Coptic Xians from Egypt, founded (supposedly) by Mark, and called heretics by the Church. Indeed, though I believe they've now kissed and made up. The Copts (http://www.coptic.net/) claim to have protected Christianity from the gnostic heresies. (http://pharos.bu.edu/cn/articles/GnosticHeresies.txt)

Edited to add link.

[ceo_esq]

I believe there are two Coptic Churches, the Coptic Catholic Church (which is in communion with Rome and is thus part of the larger Catholic Church) and the Coptic Orthodox Church, which never accepted the Council of Chalcedon and the doctrine of the dual natures (human and divine) of Christ.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I believe there are two Coptic Churches, the Coptic Catholic Church (which is in communion with Rome and is thus part of the larger Catholic Church) and the Coptic Orthodox Church, which never accepted the Council of Chalcedon and the doctrine of the dual natures (human and divine) of Christ.
I was really thinking of the very early days of the Coptic Church in Egypt. I've not been able to find anything other than official Coptic accounts but they do seem to be literal Christians (to use the terminology of earlier in the thread). If I understand the argument correctly, this would make them followers of Pauls ideas. They claim to be followers of Mark. So either they're incorrect, or both Mark & Paul had the same ideas. I think that would strengthen the argument for an actual guy called Jesus.
I hope I'm making sense.