It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Harvin
a reply to: Spider879
At least you should know that that you are mainly referring to the old testament and surely you, at least, understand there is a difference. Beside that, the term "slave" is not the same as we know now. One important distinction is the lack of a solid monetary system, among other differences, that makes those quotes much different than what we would know today.
originally posted by: Spider879
originally posted by: Harvin
a reply to: Spider879
At least you should know that that you are mainly referring to the old testament and surely you, at least, understand there is a difference. Beside that, the term "slave" is not the same as we know now. One important distinction is the lack of a solid monetary system, among other differences, that makes those quotes much different than what we would know today.
Mark,Luke and Ephesians are N.T and there was a solid monetary system tied to slavery you had to go to your local slave mart to pick one-up.
You could say eastern slavery sometimes had rm for upward mobility but that mainly came form elite house holds or if you were a military slave,but the acquiring of slaves treatment and dehumanizing of slaves mirrored that of later western counter part.
originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
What are you talking about? I said that a better story then a peasant man who lead people to love and pacifism in a violent time is NOT a good story.
if Jesus was made up don't you think they would have a better story then a poor carpenter being born in a barn that performed miracles and preaches extreme pacifism ?
and Jesus never blamed anyone for being nailed to the cross he did it willingly.
Thats why i can't call myself an Atheist because I respect people and their beliefs. I see so many Atheist insult people and calls them dumb or call it a "fairy story" it insults people.
I claim to know nothing and wanna learn through living and not insulting people
originally posted by: Tusks
Even the anti-Christ-ruled wikipedia has this to say:
en.wikipedia.org...
Many examples of early Roman Historians discussing Christians. Op chooses to ignore.
originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
It is actually very relevant to the OP. The history of early Christianity is directly tied to the case for a historical Jesus.
For instance, we now know that there were Christian communities in Judea and elsewhere as early as 40 A.D, not even a full 10 years after Christ is thought to have been crucified. If mythicists want to continue pedaling their theories as fact, they need to explain how an entire religion with a rich background in Judaism (which is very apparent throughout the new testament as Jesus frequently quotes from the Torah) was invented in under 10 years and managed to spread as far as rome.
But will never prove it. A group called Christians who claim there was a Jesus, are not Jesus. Increased relevance to you because you have nothing else?
Ok. Lets look at your sources.
If legitimate, this could be very good indication he was mythical. Historians noticing a a new sect of Judaism, amounting to few men and their goats with remarkable claims. Yet completely missed the originatorof the claims themselves, the magic man responsible for them, despite drawing great multitudes, the kerfuffle with the sanhedrin and pilate...only a few years earlier...missed by everyone?
A rich background in Judaism lol? A breakaway sect of Judaism itself, you mean (probably a very insignificant one at the time, if it did exist). I get the feeling that a lot of the struggles and persecution of the Jews in general, is claimed by Christians.
Some would (and have) claimed "Christian" (as in followers of a Christ/Messiah) communities existed in the area long before Jesus was (supposedly) born. With followers of the mythical Jesus, it was thought to be late 1st/early 2nd century before the term denoting this particular sect, was used, or in any way common.
originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
If you think "I" have nothing else, you clearly haven't read the entirety of the thread, or the plethora of similar threads like it on ATS. It would also seem you haven't honestly looked into the issue of a historical Jesus, or you would know why the majority of secular historians agree that he was a real person.
It seems to me that many people are incapable of separating their preconceived notions of Christianity itself from the issue of whether or not a real individual named Jesus actually existed 2000 years ago which the New Testament was based on. For whatever reason, people let their emotions get the best of them and simply can't accept the idea of a historical jesus either because they have a bone to pick with Christianity itself, or they assume such a person couldn't have existed because of the miraculous events attributed to him in the bible.
There are a number of reasons why Jesus is thought to have existed by the vast majority of secular scholars. Many of them have been covered in this thread and others like it on ATS, so I won't bother going over them again, since it's clearly pointless.
They aren't "my" sources. If you honestly want to know why scholars believe a historical Jesus existed, maybe you could try putting your bias aside for a time, and viewing the vast amount of material on the subject that is available to you, instead of just the information that already conforms to said bias. I've done enough hand holding throughout this thread and elsewhere to know it's a futile endeavor. I know from your other posts on this site that you are a very intelligent person, capable of doing your own research, so perhaps you could instead tell me why the vast majority of scholars are wrong about the historicity of Jesus? I haven't really seen anybody refute the key issues. They simply plug their ears and yell "NO CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS" even when it's been demonstrated to them countless times why that is a poor argument.
They were not missed by everyone. The New Testament was written via eyewitness testimony from people who were there. But because it's the New Testament, people immediately discard that fact. Further, we have historical non-biblical references to Jesus within 70 years of his crucifixion (much sooner if we consider Paul's writings). That is quite remarkable in terms of ancient history when one considers the earliest writings we have on Alexander the Great are from 300 years after his death.
Yes, a rich background in Judaism. What would you call it? Just because Christianity can be considered a breakaway sect does not mean it's original members did not have a rich background in Judaism, since they were all Jews. I also fail to see what your last point has to do with anything, since both groups were persecuted heavily, and we have plenty of historical evidence of the Christians being persecuted by the Romans in the centuries that followed the birth of the Christian religion.
They would be wrong. There is no evidence for Christians (outside of the NT itself) before 40-50AD. None. Zero. Zilch. You are however correct about the term "Christian", as this became more common in later centuries, and there is some debate as to whether or not early Christians identified themselves as "Christians".
In the end, what I find most curious about the story of Jesus is that it still has not ended almost 2000 years later. No other figure in history seems to be as polarizing. If we look at Buddhists, we do not see the same scrutiny, vitriol, or even the same standards used to determine if Buddha was a real person or merely just a figment of someones imagination. Nor do we see the same for figures like Mohammed. It is only Jesus who seems to be the center of a campaign to erase history, despite the fact he is probably one of the most written about figures in the history of the world.
Thats basically crapola. A very poor appeal to authority/ numbers fallacy. Where is your poll of universities and historians from around the world, showing this?
Many secular historians "assume" there was probably a normal unremarkable man as a kernel of the story that became wildly mythicised ie. the Jesus myth.
Though not many of them specialise in this area and it isn't based on evidence (because there isn't any) as much as "where there's smoke, there's probably fire". This overlooks the historians who have looked closer and found no jesus.
There are no historians of any persuasion who give any credence to a Jesus of the gospels.
The ones who do are not academics, they are religious believers/charlatans pretending to be scholars.
Over much of the last 2 millennia this myth was forced on people, for part of that time to doubt it was to risk torture and people en masse were taught it as fact.
Somehow it became the default that jesus existed
This is one of the last bastions for the religious academic/charlatans.
No, many secular historians give an excellent case for why there was most likely a historical Jesus.
As Zeitgeist nears the end of part 1, it then calls the historicity of Jesus into question by saying not a single historian mentions Jesus. It then goes on to say,
"Four historians are typically referenced to justify Jesus’s existence. Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and the first three. Each one of their entries consists of only a few sentences at best and only refer to the Christus or the Christ, which in fact is not name but a title. It means the “Anointed one”. The fourth source is Josephus and this source has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years. Sadly, it is still sited as truth."
The film says that the first three historians mentioned only use the term “Christus,” or the “Christ,” and then goes on to say that it is only a title and not a name. — No Christian denies that Christ is a title. But it seems that the impression Zeitgeist is tying to give is that this “Christ” could be someone other than Jesus.
If that is the impression it is trying to give, then it is guilty of yet more deliberate distortions because at least one of then, Tacitus, is more specific as to what happened with “Christ” and his followers,
"He [Nero] falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."
The next historian that has been cited to support the existence of Jesus is Flavius Josephus....
However, the claim that Zeitgeist makes by saying that this passage “has been proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years” is actually am oversimplification. It is not that simple. — Livius.org, a website which specializes in ancient history in its discussion on the Testimonium Flavianum states,
"Some argued that we had to admit that Flavius Josephus had become a Christian; others maintained that it was made up by some Byzantine monk who copied the Jewish Antiquities. The latter explanation can be ruled out because a more or less identical text had been found in an Arabian translation of a part of the Jewish Antiquities. In 1991, John Meier has suggested that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus, but that the text was glossed by a Christian author."
Scholars do not seem to object to the idea that Josephus actually mentioned Jesus. Where the objection lies is that there are detailes in the passage that would not likely have been used by a non-Christian Jew who was still awaiting the Messiah. — Personally, I believe the first option mentioned can be ruled out as well since there is no evidence that Josephus converted to Christianity. Basically in this case, it appears that secular scholars and Christian apologists (like J. P. Holding) are largely in agreement that the passage is authentic with later interpolations.
Other than the Testimonium, there is another passage that mentions Jesus in passing,
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still upon the road. So Ananus assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of that Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. (Antiquities 20, 200)"
The basic objection that the “Jesus Myth” crowd brings up is that Josephus uses the term “was called Christ” in association with Jesus. — However, Glenn Miller did a word study of the term used for “was called.” He concluded that the term used in Josephus’ passage “λεγόμενος” (pronounced as “legomenos”) was just a general term for naming without determining accuracy of the name. – Not to make simply an appeal to authority, I looked at how this term was used in the New Testament and it seemed to confirm what Glenn Miller argues
Lastly, a major objection used by the “Jesus Myth” crowd is that even if these passages were authentic that doesn’t mean that they are reliable because they were written decades after Jesus lived. The problem is with this kind of logic we would therefore throw out a lot of known history because a good amount of what he know comes from historians such as Herodotus and Xenophon who wrote their historical accounts decades and even centuries after the events they describe. But no reputable historian would ever make the claim that because they are not first hand accounts that therefore they are not authentic.