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.

 

Jesus born on 9/11......3 B.C.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Come on now people. Someone needs to rattle your heads around just a bit. First establish if Jesus even existed, before trying to accomplish the impossible task of "pinpointing" his birthdate.


Just because you believe in Jesus does not mean you know that information to be true. It means you believe it and nothing more.




posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sight2reality
Come on now people. Someone needs to rattle your heads around just a bit. First establish if Jesus even existed, before trying to accomplish the impossible task of "pinpointing" his birthdate.


Actually there is decent enough documentary evidence of his existence. The annals of tacitus for example mention him as the founder of christianity who was put to death by Pontius Pilate. It is clear that the commonly cited source was doctored later by Christians, with glowing praise inserted, however uncorrupted Arabic versions confirm that Tacitus did indeed verify Jesus' historical existence, although he did not sing Christ's praises as the more commonly known version does.

There is enough evidence to easily conclude that there was in fact a man named Jesus who was preaching a message heavily touched by the rebellious politics of 1st Century Judea. His divinity is up for debate of course, and I don't intend to be a part of that debate, but that's another issue.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Actually there is decent enough documentary evidence of his existence. The annals of tacitus for example mention him as the founder of christianity who was put to death by Pontius Pilate.


When did Jesus supposedly live and die, and when did Tacitus write?



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Tacitus lived from circa 56 - 117. and although I can't find a firm date on the annals what I am seeing suggests that he had intended to write more and died before finishing, so we can place it at the late end of his life. So that puts his writing within 1 century of the typically given timeframe for Christ's life.

The key question in determining whether or not his backing of Christ's existence can be accepted hinges on how quickly opposition to a bold-faced lie can be silenced. He names a Roman governor (procurator actually), attributes an act to that person, names the victim, and gives the reason.
How in the world is a historian going to make such statements about events that occurred within the lifetime of the preceeding two generations if they are not true and not be refuted?

Another thing to keep in mind is that objectively (that is, without taking the miracles and such forgranted) a character like Jesus isn't exactly unlikely. What is Jesus' story exactly? Well, basically a guy who knew his Torah got fed up with the Roman occupation and what the religious establishment had become under Roman rule, during a time when there was apparently a lot of that going around (afterall, Jesus lived in the generation preceding the Jewish revolt which lead to the destruction of the temple), and so he went around telling people that the Jewish Messiah was coming soon to kick Rome's butt, and implying that he just might be the guy to do it.

That's not exactly an unheard of scenario. I'm sure any one of us could name half a dozen people who thought they were Jesus- some of us might have even met somebody like that. So if you're not inclined to believe, you could just say that Jesus is the best known case of some screwloose thinking that he's Jesus, if you'll pardon the bad joke.

There is nothing threatening about the possibility that Jesus was a historical figure, there is decent evidence that he was, it's not illogical that such a person might have done the things Jesus supposedly did (miracles excluded), and the opposite theory by contrast is simply ludicrous.

What do I mean by that last point- what is the alternative to a historical Jesus? Well, if there wasn't a Jesus, he must have been made up. But if you were going to make up a religion which you KNEW to be false, why would you custom tailor it to draw the hatred of virtually everyone? Christianity was heretical, treasonous, and theologically contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day. It's not the kind of story you'd make up, except perhaps as a joke. The only way you'd push something that objectionable, especially to the point that it made the government start killing your people, is if you actually believed it.
So especially for the reasons immediately above, I would have to conclude that there was a Jesus, he really had a messiah complex, and he convinced a few people that he was right. For a variety of reasons, the idea that he was a nutcase makes a great deal more sense than the idea that he was a myth.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Tacitus lived from circa 56 - 117. and although I can't find a firm date on the annals what I am seeing suggests that he had intended to write more and died before finishing, so we can place it at the late end of his life.


Agreed. He wrote nearly 100 years after the "facts".


Originally posted by The Vagabond
The key question in determining whether or not his backing of Christ's existence can be accepted hinges on how quickly opposition to a bold-faced lie can be silenced. He names a Roman governor (procurator actually), attributes an act to that person, names the victim, and gives the reason.
How in the world is a historian going to make such statements about events that occurred within the lifetime of the preceeding two generations if they are not true and not be refuted?


Unless you claim he had earlier records to base his accounts on, he could have done nothing more than record the hearsay he had heard retold numerous times. We see urban legends pop up on verifiably false topics all the time, and yet they propogate anyway.

In an age before newspapers when few really understood the methods of inquiry we use today, there would be no way to verify the accuracy of 80+ year old hearsay, no matter how outrageous it may have seemed.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Another thing to keep in mind is that objectively (that is, without taking the miracles and such forgranted) a character like Jesus isn't exactly unlikely.


You're right that such a character would not be unlikely if you remove the magic aspects of the stories and examine only what Tacitus wrote. However, by 110+ the church was firmly established. Tacitus got his information from the Christian stories. We know this because he refers to him as 'Christus' and not 'Jesus of Nazareth'. So we have a historian recording the Christian myths he heard from Christians. This proves nothing about a historical Jesus.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Tacitus got his information from the Christian stories. We know this because he refers to him as 'Christus' and not 'Jesus of Nazareth'. So we have a historian recording the Christian myths he heard from Christians. This proves nothing about a historical Jesus.


I would disagree with that interpretation on the basis of the context. He referred to Christians as a class hated for their abominations, etc. He seemed to be providing a history of a social phenomenon from the general public's perspective. Hearsay I grant you, but since when do the opponents of an urban legend substantiate parts of the legend?

I have read of Rompa the Enlightened one only from skeptics, yet I know him as Rompa and refer to him as such more frequently than as Cyril Hodgkins because nobody knows who Cyril is. Ditto Prophet Yaweh.

Furthermore, I have to reitterate in contrast to the logical nature of a historical Jesus (not necessarily a devine one who preformed magic tricks mind you- he could have been another Simon Magus), stands the illogical nature of a Jesus myth.
Why would the 4 gospel writers, James the supposed brother of Christ, and Paul have gotten together and spontaneously assembled a body of fictions in the mid to late first century which were so abominable to the religious and political sensibilities of the day that they resulted in the muder of many believers including several of the church leaders, and yet did not recant?
It stands to reason that they believed what they were saying. I think they believed wrong, but it doesn't make any sense to believe that they were all engaged in a lie from which they gained nothing and lost everything.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I would disagree with that interpretation on the basis of the context. He referred to Christians as a class hated for their abominations, etc. He seemed to be providing a history of a social phenomenon from the general public's perspective. Hearsay I grant you, but since when do the opponents of an urban legend substantiate parts of the legend?


Tacitus would have no reason to reject the basics; a man named Christus crucified under Pontius Pilatus for mischief who is the source of what he considers to be a scourge in the 2nd century. Again, why would Tacitus refer to 'Christus' as the one who had been crucified unless he got the information 2nd hand from Christians? If he were re-recording prior Roman records, he would have used 'Jesus of Nazareth' or something similar.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Furthermore, I have to reitterate in contrast to the logical nature of a historical Jesus (not necessarily a devine one who preformed magic tricks mind you- he could have been another Simon Magus), stands the illogical nature of a Jesus myth.
Why would the 4 gospel writers, James the supposed brother of Christ, and Paul have gotten together and spontaneously assembled a body of fictions in the mid to late first century which were so abominable to the religious and political sensibilities of the day that they resulted in the muder of many believers including several of the church leaders, and yet did not recant?


You're right that this makes no sense. But, this isn't how it happened.

If you read the Christian writings in chronological order (rather than Bible order), and make no assumptions that these writers all knew eachother, you can see the myth unfolding.

Early Christian writings

Paul's writings are the oldest (ignoring the assumed Passion Narrative and Q). By the time Paul starts writing, which is supposedly only about 20 years after Jesus' ministry, there are already several established churches with competing doctrines. Explain how that could happen in such a short time. Some of those who actually witnessed Jesus' ministry would still be alive and would have kept the doctrines consistent over such a short time period.

Further, if you read Paul's writings without predjudice of the other NT writings (which were written much later), you do not see any evidence of a physical Jesus. Paul is writing about a mystical spiritual Christ who conquered sin before the beginning of time. Not only that, but he indicates that his form of revelation is no different than the other apostles, and he further tells us about the nature of his revelation as a vision rather than physical.

Other Internal evidence of Paul's mystical Jesus

- Paul never refers to Jesus as 'Jesus of Nazareth' nor does he refer to his geneaology, nor his place of birth, nor anything else that would establish Jesus as a physical historical human.

- Paul never refers to any of the miracles of Jesus

- Paul quotes the Old Testament at times when he could have made a greater impact by quoting Jesus directly. In fact, Paul never quotes Jesus

- Paul's savior parallels the savior in the books of Enoch, who's sacrifice is made in the spiritual domain

Details of Jesus physical existence are added by later writings, with more detail being added as time progresses.

Myths start out vague and become more detailed over time. Actual history starts out detailed and becomes vague over time. Which do we observe when we read the Christian writings chronologically?


Originally posted by The Vagabond
It stands to reason that they believed what they were saying. I think they believed wrong, but it doesn't make any sense to believe that they were all engaged in a lie from which they gained nothing and lost everything.


They probably weren't involved in a knowing lie, they were involved in the making of a myth.

Even in an age of widespread communication and written documentation the Christian myth continues to evolve. Biblical inerrancy is an example of an evolution of that myth, as is the popular view of the end times. On the Catholic side, the Marian movement is another example of this myth continuing to unfold.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Again, why would Tacitus refer to 'Christus' as the one who had been crucified unless he got the information 2nd hand from Christians? If he were re-recording prior Roman records, he would have used 'Jesus of Nazareth' or something similar.


As I have already explained, when commenting on a social phenomenon you use the name by which it is commonly known. If I wrote about Prophet Yaweh, but used his real name, nobody would know who I was talking about, even if I had gotten all of my info from skeptics, I would call him Prophet Yaweh.

Now going into this, it really is a shame that I don't have time to mull over my bible, because I've had quite a bit of fun in the past nitpicking the contradictions in that book (strange that I own a bible and concordance strictly as a conspiracy reference- am I alone in that?) but anyway I'll try to hold up my end of the conversation as best I can here with the limited time I have.


If you read the Christian writings in chronological order (rather than Bible order), and make no assumptions that these writers all knew eachother, you can see the myth unfolding.


The gospels explicitly say that they knew eachother, do they not?


Explain how that could happen in such a short time. Some of those who actually witnessed Jesus' ministry would still be alive and would have kept the doctrines consistent over such a short time period.


Not necessarily. Today when a politician finishes speaking on TV we immediately begin to fight about what he really meant. People want to view the world through a lense which is convenient to them and which meshes with their background. Then there are personal agendas to consider as well- people who would dilleberately twist things for their own gain.


Further, if you read Paul's writings without predjudice of the other NT writings (which were written much later), you do not see any evidence of a physical Jesus.


Philippians 2:7-8 "But made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant and coming in the likeness of a man. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point od death, even death on the cross."


- Paul never refers to Jesus as 'Jesus of Nazareth' nor does he refer to his geneaology, nor his place of birth, nor anything else that would establish Jesus as a physical historical human.


Consider the emphasis of his books though. He did not write the story of Christs life. Why would you write the story of Christs life to people who already believed in him? It seems to me that Paul was clearly trying to hijack the church, and that 4 or 5 apostles played ball with him. We've got 4 gospels, we've got Peter's name everywhere, but several of the apostles are scarcely even mentioned in connection to any event or discussion which occurs after the purported life of Jesus. The gospel of Thomas was outright expunged infact, although supposedly it's been rediscovered in Ethiopia.


- Paul's savior parallels the savior in the books of Enoch, who's sacrifice is made in the spiritual domain


A unique aspect of the Book of Enoch which is mirrored only in one book of the old testament and in the gospels is the referral to the Messiah as the Son of Man. You see less of this from Paul. He seems to prefer Christ or Christ Jesus. In that sense it seems hard to believe that he was referring to the same person as the Book of Enoch in the same context as the Book of Enoch.


Myths start out vague and become more detailed over time. Actual history starts out detailed and becomes vague over time. Which do we observe when we read the Christian writings chronologically?


A bit of a generalization there, which holds more true in the information age than to the dissemination of a widely opposed story during the first century. Just a little something to consider- off the top of my head. The only books that survived from during the worst of the persecution are the epistles, which give instructions which include respect for government in several cases, and only as the church grows do lasting gospels get penned. Could it then be that the any original writings on Christ were suppressed, and that our gospels are infact not written by the apostles at all, but designed to replace what has been lost?


They probably weren't involved in a knowing lie, they were involved in the making of a myth.


They said they spent several years with a man of flesh and blood who performed miracles before their very eyes. If that's not true then they're lying their butts off, plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
In Luke 2 is says (I'm quoting from memory now, so don't pile on if I lose or gain a word) "...and there at that time shepherds in the fields about the City keeping watch over their flocks by night...."

Now every single culture who keeps sheep (and just about every one does) keeps watch over them only during lambing season, what with the predators coming along to bite them and all.

And lambing season is always in the spring time.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
As I have already explained, when commenting on a social phenomenon you use the name by which it is commonly known.


You are correct, which proves Tacitus was writing about a social phenomenon and not prior history per se. His source is the Christians themselves and not pre-existing Roman records. If his intent was to write about a historical Jesus (which it clearly isn't) and show how this individual created Christianity, he would have bridged the gap between these two records with something like 'Jesus of Nazareth known as Christus'.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
The gospels explicitly say that they knew eachother, do they not?


The gospels are written by anonymous authors, not the men who's names they bear. The gospels contain geographical and historical errors that make it impossible for the writers to have been intimately knowledgable of the time and area of which they wrote (i.e., they were not eyewitnesses). So even if the gospels depict Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as eyewitnesses, it isn't compelling.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Not necessarily. Today when a politician finishes speaking on TV we immediately begin to fight about what he really meant. People want to view the world through a lense which is convenient to them and which meshes with their background. Then there are personal agendas to consider as well- people who would dilleberately twist things for their own gain.


I'll concede this point. The argument is really only applicable to those who claim Jesus was who the Christians say he was.


Originally posted by The Vagabond

spamFurther, if you read Paul's writings without predjudice of the other NT writings (which were written much later), you do not see any evidence of a physical Jesus.


Philippians 2:7-8 "But made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant and coming in the likeness of a man. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point od death, even death on the cross."


Note the language Paul uses. He speaks of Jesus coming as a man in appearance. He does not simply say he came as a man, which is what you would expect if he were writing of a physical human being.

"Born of woman" is a lot like another phrase used almost universally of the activities of Christ: "in flesh" (en sarki, kata sarka). It may actually mean little more than "in the sphere of the flesh" or "in relation to the flesh." In his divine form and habitat a god could not suffer, and so he had to take on some semblance to humanity (eg, Philippians 2:8, Romans 8:3); his saving act had to be a "blood" sacrifice (e.g., Hebrews 9:22) because the ancient world saw this as the basic means of communion between man and Deity; and it all had to be done within humanity's territory. But the latter could still be within those lower spiritual dimensions above the earth which acted upon the material world. And in fact this is precisely what Paul reveals. In 1 Corinthians 2:8 he tells us who crucified Jesus. Is it Pilate, the Romans, the Jews? No, it is "the rulers of this age (who) crucified the Lord of glory." Many scholars agree that he is referring not to temporal rulers but to the spirit and demonic forces—"powers and authorities" was the standard term— which inhabited the lower celestial spheres, part of the territory of "flesh." (See Paul Ellingworth, A Translator's Handbook for 1 Corinthians, p.46: "A majority of scholars think that supernatural powers are intended here." These include S. G. F. Brandon, C. K. Barrett, Jean Hering, Paula Fredriksen, S. D. F. Salmond, and it also included Ignatius and Marcion.) Colossians 2:15 can hardly refer to any historical event on Calvary.

- Earl Doherty


Originally posted by The Vagabond

- Paul never refers to Jesus as 'Jesus of Nazareth' nor does he refer to his geneaology, nor his place of birth, nor anything else that would establish Jesus as a physical historical human.


Consider the emphasis of his books though. He did not write the story of Christs life. Why would you write the story of Christs life to people who already believed in him?


You might not write a gospel per se, but to never reference anything about the life of your god made man, including his miracles and quotes is a compelling argument from absence. Considering the volume of Paul's writings, that he never once took advantage of something Jesus had said or done (other than the crucifixion) to further a point he was making is astounding to say the least if he thought Jesus were historical, but it makes perfect sense if he did not view Jesus as an historical physical human.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
It seems to me that Paul was clearly trying to hijack the church,


That much is pretty clear, but to attempt such a hijack without using quotes from the founder of the church to support such a hijack is incredulous.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
A unique aspect of the Book of Enoch which is mirrored only in one book of the old testament and in the gospels is the referral to the Messiah as the Son of Man. You see less of this from Paul. He seems to prefer Christ or Christ Jesus.


Paul's nonusage of the term "son of man" does not discount the other parallels between Enoch and Paul's writings. All it says is that Paul was not intimatey familiar with these books, but it does not mean his own mythology was not based on other myths floating around in his day. I think you discount the parallels too easily.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
A bit of a generalization there, which holds more true in the information age than to the dissemination of a widely opposed story during the first century.


It is a generalization, but it adds to the body of evidence, especially when the the only evidence such a man ever existed is a conglomerate of contratictory hearsay written decades after the "fact" and containing impossible historical and geographical errors. We will never be able to conclusively show whether Jesus existed or not, we can only weight all the evidence and make a best guess.

All cults have a cult leader who starts them off. The cult leader of modern Christianity was Paul, not Jesus.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
They said they spent several years with a man of flesh and blood who performed miracles before their very eyes. If that's not true then they're lying their butts off, plain and simple.


Where do you see that they made such a claim? The authors do not claim that the writings are first hand. The author of Acts (presumed to also be the author of Luke) explictly states that his knowledge had been passed down to him - a direct admission that he was not an eyewitness to the actual events.

The gospel's are written in the third person except for the postscript of John, which is widely accepted even by Christian scholars merley to be a claim that the account as the author knew it had been properly recorded, and not a claim that the author was John. Apologists claim, "oh, they weren't wanting to shed light on themselves so they wrote in the third person". This is possible, but rediculous and supported by nothing but a desire to harmonize this obvious detraction.

Besides, even if the authors had made such claims, we could easily dismiss them based on internal evidence (in which case they would simply be liars).



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I'm not in the habit of replying to well researched posts at a kneejerk, and with the school week coming back up you'll have to forgive me if I don't have time to get back into the epistles in detail and give a response for a week or so.

It's been fun though spam, and hopefully we can continue this soon.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join