I Want Proof Jesus Even Existed

by Farkel 199 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  mP

  Help:

  "Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable source historians of first-century Rome, wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars. Among the highlights that he reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus" (15:44). He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution.

  mP:

  Im not disputing that Tacitus was important and all that. Im just asking you to read the actual TEXT for what it says instead of listening to his opinion.

  The text is simple enough that we can read.

  "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus"

  Christ = Messiah = as in "leader". Pilate ruled for a long time. There were many rebel leaders amongst the jews during his reign. It was standard practice to execute them when possible. This could identify any rebel leader of the time. Jesus was a popular name back then. There were many rebel leaders called Jesus as well. WIki also lists a few. This is but a start. Given the Jews hated the Romans and wanted to be saved, then saviour which is what Jesus means is also a great title for an aspiring rebel leader.

  Do you still honestly beleive that this identifies Jesus Christ of xian fame ?

  When one understands why xianity fails to teach that Messiah is a title hardly unique to Jesus, its easier to see why they omit this important fact. In fact the BIble itself gives dozens of other messiahs. Every priest or king was a messiah. They were supposedly selected by god for their commision.
• 

  mP

  Help:

  "Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus also recorded events of the first century in his famous Lives of the Twelve Caesars . He, too, regarded the Christians as a sect "professing a new and mischievous religious belief" ( Nero 16) and doubtless cited "Christus" as well, spelling his name "Chrestus" ( Claudius 25). That the vowels "e" and "i" were often interchangeable is demonstrated by the French term for "Christian" to this day: chretien

  MP:
  Sorry we arent talking about French. Since you dont speak Greek or Latin go check what the words actually mean.

  The word cretan as in idiot, are we too assume that christian == idiot ?

  Supposedly the origin of bigot comes from German where some observed the idiot xians always said "bi got" which means by god in Ger of course.
• 

  mP

  Help:

  Ive read quite a few books, but this discussing hardly rests on who i am or what ive read. I always try and show examples to references so you can read not only what i wish to highlight but the entire text if you so wish. I dont believe in personalities, i m only trying ti help to get you started o nyour own investigations. We all can read so lets use that um for lack of a better word , god given capa bilities.
• 

  mP

  Help:

  Mp, how about debating

  Paul L. Maier, The Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History, Western Michigan University? His fiction books are so-so but his expertise is with ancient Christianity, he is formidible for being an old geezer! We both are reading different historical accounts of Jews and Christians. Are you using other sources than Wiki, have you read the big volume books with plenty of details or do you focus on anti-Jesus websites? I've read most of Maier's, Wallace, Bart D's and many more books on the ancients. Can you comment on Maier's short page here? Here's the link:

  http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952895

  MP: Is PLM a scholar or xian first, looking at the domain name, one has to wonder...

  Ive read most of Barts books, but i wonder how one can trust a scholar that takes 30 + years to realise the gospels are mostly fiction. Ive read and studied far less, and the same is true of just about everyone else here and we didnt take that long to realise the same conclusion. Most ppl heer whie they were attending WTS KH and so on, were not really studying the bible, they were reading a carefuly constructed set of limited scriptures etc, so that hardly counts.
• 

  DarioKehl

  There is none. Reseach the "Q" source. It's amazing! The synoptic gospels are a JOKE. Scholars theorize that Mark was written first while Luke and Matthew were written much later and are obvious works of plagiarism. "Q" may have been a common list of Jesus quotes. The areas where Mark, Matthew and Luke deviate from each other give evidence that each author cherry picked quotes from another unknown source called "Q."

  Also, google "New Testament Plagiarism from Hebrew Scriptures" and prepare to be blown away. Of course, as JWs and ex-JWs, we may be familiar with most of these similarities because it was pounded into our heads that any similarity is "PROOF of the Bible's accurate prophecies!" Bah Humbug! The New Testament is nothing more than a pastiche of old Jewish writings and tweaked enough to start a new religion DECADES after Christ was allegedly living. Moses and Jesus have so many similarities it's astonishing: (A ruling king orders the execution of all babies in the land at news of their arrival. Moses and Jesus both impressed religious leaders with their intelligence as children, both fasted alone for 40 days, both made many identical quotes--some verbatim--about freeing "my people.") Isaac and Jesus do as well (They were both products of miraculous births. Their dad's both offered them up for sacrifice. Isaac had to gather the wood for the altar, Jesus had to carry his "toture stake," Abraham's altar was built on the same mountain later identified as the Mt. of Olives). King David and Jesus: (David's sidekick drew a sword against Absalom's sidekick and David told him to put it away just like Jesus said to Peter when he drew his sword---BOTH ACCOUNTS occured in the Garden of Gethsemane!) Sure, you can say "Hey! Proof of prophecy!" Or, you can apply Occam's Razor and ask what's more likely? And why would the almighty creator of the universe confine himself within the perameters of a literary device like forshadowing? "Oh, well, you see, this account pictures that... you know... just because. Why? Because! Jehovah made it that way..."

  BULLCRAP. Only FICTIONAL NOVELS do that!

  Another glaring example even appears in the NWT. At Mark 13:14, the author--obviously copying from another pamphlet--mistakenly includes instructions that are so out of place it will blow your mind. Surely, Jesus wouldn't have said, "let the reader use discernment" as a parenthetical aside during his speech about the last days LOL! That's like an actor saying "exit stage right" or "turn page" in the middle of a play! Ridiculous.
• 

  mP

  Help:

  http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952897

  . Accordingly, Josephus has always been deemed a crucial extrabiblical resource, since his writings not only correlate well with the Old and New Testaments, but often provide additional evidence on such personalities as Herod the Great and his dynasty, John the Baptist, Jesus' half-brother James, the high priests Annas and Caiaphas and their clan, Pontius Pilate, and others.

  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html

  In this passage Josephus is talking about machinations to secure the high priesthood. Ananus comes from a dynasty of high priests. We have a passing, almost blasé, reference to someone called James, whom Joseph obviously considers a minor character:

  "... when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

  Some translations, to preserve a more 'authentic' tone, have Josephus write "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ".

  But if we read on, in the same paragraph, Josephus tells us that there were appeals to the new procurator (not over the stoning of James but because of the calling of the Sanhedrin by Ananus!) and:

  "... Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

  How does one explain this total omission of the later paragraph not being mentioned ? Surely this cherry picking is completely dishonest and amounts to down right lying. If he were honest he would also mention this problem. No xian reading that text along the with fact that Jesus was the son of Damneus would accept that as the same Jesus.
• 

  Heaven

  A "Jesus" may have existed but not the Bible "Jesus." God may also exist, but I don't think "Bible-God" exists, and if he does, I offer my middle-digit to Him.

  Well said. I'm fine with people believing a guy named Jesus of Nazareth existed. Everything else after that is heresay. Much, if not all of what is purported in the Bible about him is myth, urban legend, stories made up to justify the invention of another faith based belief system to keep people under control and to re-direct the peoples' funds into the coffers of those who invented and continue to run said system. If this guy, Jesus, was so important, why didn't HE do the writing/documenting?

  My conclusion from what history reports and what is written in the bible is that Christianity had and still has an agenda... convert or die. In ancient times, the dying was pretty real and bloody. If you did not believe as you were told to, you were swiftly dealt with in some form of tortuous execution. Centuries pass and it becomes apparent that these types of strategies aren't working. So things change to emphasize the impending judgment and punishment after you die if you don't believe as you are told to and tow the line in this physical life. Abuse of people morphs from physical brutality into emotional, mental and psychological fear and oppression. Belief systems that were forbidden go underground or die out.

  A friend of mine who is presently going through a divorce is getting back into 'God' and wanting to raise his kids Christian. I have asked him a number of questions to which I have received zero answers. He has not researched any other belief systems, let alone the one he has chosen... he has 'faith' and 'believes' blindly. What I see with him is that he wants this all to be true regardless of whether it is or not. I have given him some things to think about... I asked him exactly what it is he believes. No answer from him. He just ignores it. I sent him a link to Steve Hassan's BITE model. I want him to at least have reference material he can go to should his church be or morph into a cult. He has no idea how to identify one. He has stated to me that 'some Christians' would think I am evil and have the devil in me for what I have written to him about. I hope I am planting seeds for him later on when his faith starts failing especially when he can't answer his kids questions.

  Don't let your wishes separate you from the truth.
• 

  Pistoff

  I don't think any seriously regarded scholar in the field would say that Jesus did not exist, but they would also say he was most definitely not the figure depicted in the NT.

  But the movement surrounding Jesus after his death likely had a real man as the source, as Leo so eloquently showed, and there are secular references to Jesus as the leader of a movement. Strong likelihood is the gold standard when it comes to antiquity, per Thomas Sheehan.

  I like what Crossan has to say about it, that what Paul must have seen in the Jesus community, people caring for each other and living in principle true to the spirit of the 'rule of God', that is what converted Paul, that was his powerful religious experience that others described as being blinded by Jesus.

  To me, so much of the problem is in the reading of the Bible as literal, including the gospels. How do we know what the gospel writers really meant? Did they really mean to convey that Jesus walked on water, or was it just the equivalent of powerful storytelling, was it just metaphor that they would connect with? Did they read it and understand it as metaphor, and did the leaders of the church default their duty over the centuries by allowing people to conclude it was real and literal?

  And the same with Paul. Paul exaggerates as much as the gospels do, he says so. I am a madman, he says; I saw visions, I was in the 3rd heaven.

  Paul gives us clues.

  For me the takeaway is that the movement raised Jesus, that Jesus lived on in the movement after his death, NOT that he was literally resurrected.

  And that is powerful. As I see it, Jesus (the Q Jesus) was not an advocate for building congregations, but he was for challenging rules that were out of touch with reality and that actually hurt people; you didn't need structure to achieve the rule of God in Jesus' world.

  The problem is that Paul comes along and makes Jesus into something he was not, Matthew's gospel posits that he was a good observant Jew after all, and a new power structure evolves up around a small movement. The anti-semitism in the Gospels becomes a real problem when Christianity becomes a powerful majority religion, and the abuses Jesus rebelled against plague the church into our own time.
• 

  Phizzy

  Good post P.O , if the Historical Jesus is as you say, he was far more political than religious, reason enough for the Romans to want him dead.
• 

  Pistoff

  Phizzy:

  Yes, no matter what the WT or others may say about Jesus being non-political, his was a very political message.

  Elaine Pagels says we can't begin to understand the gospels until we understand that they are war time literature, being written during Roman occupation and near the time of revolt against Rome.

  Jesus was an outsider to the religious and political mainstream; he opted out. Does someone want your coat? Give him your underwear too.

  Work? No.

  Wash before meals? No.

  Kowtow to authority? No.

  Break the sabbath? Yes.

  Eat with sinners? Yes.

  How much of it was actually Jesus and how much was his followers seeing him as a heroic rebel, impossible to say. But what I get from the gospels treatment of Jesus is to cast him as a rebel against religious and civil authority when it conflicted with his vision of what was right.