9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

originally posted by: lambs to lions

Wow, nice ignorant bashing of millions of believers in Jesus Christ. How Christian of you, friend.

You didn't see what I said then?
 

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

There is no doubt that this portion of Tacitus has been edited by Christians. Right off the bat, the title is changed from "Chrestus" to "Christus". They are two entirely separate titles.

Also, Pontius Pilate probably had a some Jewish zealot executed once a month during his reign. Josephus is very prolific in his lists of zealots that were hunted down and killed or run out of town. Not any mention of Jesus' crucifixion though.

And, the followers of Jesus Christ weren't the only group that was identified as "Christians" during the first and second centuries.

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

No I did not, I'm just beginning to read this thread.

originally posted by: [post=19061132]
Can you elaborate on your reasoning here?

"Christian" wasn't a term in use at the time of the fire. Plutarch, Epictitus and others who lived through it, don't even mention it (it was possibly greatly exaggerated itself) let alone "Christians" being persecuted for it. Pliny the elder mentions it only in passing/briefly (no mention of Christians being persecuted for it). While the notion that there were "great crowds" of Christians in Rome at the time is more than a little fanciful, we know there were plenty of Jews. The idea that an Emperor would segregate a small (if that) sect of Judaism seems unlikely. In fact, the "Jews" (with no delineation between the many and varied sects) were made to pay, in large part, for the rebuilding.

Again, no Christian apologist mentions this text until it had also appeared in a Christian work in the early 5th century (Sulpichius Severus).

According to that same historian (Tacitus), Nero was not even in Rome when the fire broke out (he was at Antium). Though when he arrived he showed great compassion and did all he could to help refugees (even opening his own grounds/gardens).

While it is at best "hearsay" regarding whether such a person as "Christ" ever existed, it seems strange also that in all of the history that Tacitus wrote, covering the 1st century up to 70 CE, he only gives this one brief mention of "Christians" themselves.

From what I read there were a good amount of Romans that believed Nero himself set the fire. Yet the absence of Christians in Rome, or their innocence, doesn't negate what is written. Which is mention of Christ, and Christians, and his execution by Pontius Pilate.

The accounts of the fire regarding Nero are wildly contradictory and probably amount to rumour and/or political mudslinging.

*Edit: unless of course he didn't write it.

There are many reasons to consider just that.

originally posted by: lambs to lions
a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

No I did not, I'm just beginning to read this thread.

Oh, well. There is no Jesus...it's Ishmael (or Ismail if translated from Arabic).
 

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter whether there was a Jesus or not. Or whether he was married or not. Or what his name was. Or any of that other stuff. None of that impacts the esoteric dimension of the Gospel, which is where Christianity is headed.

Wake up, fundamentalists. Grow up.

"The Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not exist at all." - Karl Rahner

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

So long as I got the Spirit with me, I'm good.

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

Yeah. But, the intolerance of fundamentalism/literalism is not compatible with the spirit of a Christian mystic who groks the esoteric essence; the perennial philosophy.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

I've never been one for scripture, that's for sure. Personally, I like to have a free spirit but keep it close to God also.

Behold....the man has become as one of us to know what is good and what is evil.
Genesis 3:22


Who is us?

Its not the Christian Islamic or Judea God. Its not Elohim or the plural of God.

Until you come to this true fact you will be forever chasing your tails like the Ouroboros until you exist no more .

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

If you've never been one for scripture, what informs your concept of God?

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

Revelation.

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

So, you're a Christian who doesn't care about scripture (but quotes it) and yet somehow has a concept of revelation, Satan, God, and Jesus. Is that about right?

I'm preparing to call shenanigans.

👣

a reply to: Rex282

“I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that none of them is like this. Of the text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close to the facts... Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this simply has not learned to read."

I have never heard or read of C.S. Lewis saying a single intelligent thing. This is very much on form.

First of all, the versions of the Gospels known to us are creations of the late Renaissance, a time by which 'modern novelistic, realistic narrative' was already well under development. Lewis also conveniently forgets the works of historians, who had been active for more than four hundred years when Christ was born. The 'storytelling techniques' of Thucydides and even Herodotus are 'realistic narrative' par excellence. And before that, we find the Homeric epics, which (apart from the irruptions into the story of various supernatural entities, just as in the Gospels) form a pretty 'realistic narrative'.

C.S. Lewis was obviously a clever man. He was also a religious fool, who sacrificed his intellect and his critical abilities upon the altar of his faith. He was one of the biggest intellectual failures, in my opinion, of the twentieth century.

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

There is no reliable text. There is only God.

'There is no reliable text. There is only this fairytale I made up for myself.'

Exercise:

1. Convincingly demonstrate, to a third party, the difference between the above statements.
   
   
2. If unable to demonstrate (1) above, explain why you are wasting your breath.

If there is a God, everyone can ask Him the answers. If there isn't, then we not worry.

All will be settled in the end, when we all die.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Just want to clarify my position on Jesus.

I do believe in a 'historical Jesus'. An actual human being that walked the Earth, and no not your gardener.

Watching this series of lectures was fairly compelling for me:

Historical Jesus, Professor Bart D. Ehrman Ph.D., M.Div.

Bart Erhman says there's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus ever lived. Is that fairly compelling for you?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: FlyersFan

Oh, and the Shroud of Turin puts the height of Jesus at about 5'8". (no, the Shroud of Turin has not been proven to be fake. In fact, a lot of evidence points to it's probable authenticity).

You've got to be kidding me! Never been proven to be a fake of what?

There is an extremely plausible explanation for the carbon dating furore over the shroud.

The sample tested was cut from a corner, this corner is believed to have been repaired by 'splicing' I.e. old and new fibres woven together to make am invisible repair.

Several experts in the field of textiles have verified that the remaining pieces of the original sample are indeed spliced. This means that while the carbon date results are technically correct, they are from a contaminated sample.

The frustrating part is that we can't retest from a new sample because the Vatican had the shroud radio something or other treated just after the sample was taken, meaning it can't be carbon dated any more due to the treatment affecting the carbon atoms.

a reply to: FlyersFan

And has it been proved that the Shroud of Turin ever enfolded the body of Jesus?

Post evidence here please, if you have it.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Very good post and very interesting. I am familiar with some of those 9 points, having been in a position to do some research myself.

In my opinion, Jesus, and likely all those referred to as prophets, were mythologized in the same state of human mysticism as the forefathers from prehistoric times mythologized the elements of the universe as representing various forms of deity (IE. sun, animal worshipers).