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.

 

Historical Jesus

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
But, CS, what does the Shroud even prove? If it is from that era? It isn't really historical evidence, IMHO.
We are still taking the word of people who lived way after Jesus' death?


[edit on 6-6-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The Shroud of Turin proves nothing. For the Image of Jesus himself is highly debated. This is a thread created in homage to the turanic dogma.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting points raised.

Deep



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 08:03 PM
link   
ZeroDeep,
I believe your own sources are biased as well. As far as hearsay accounts of Jesus, how much hearsay was the word of the day during 0 Ad? Also, how much historical writing actually occured around this time? Do we just throw the Bible out the window?

I for one am a believer, I'm not a Christian, but I do believe that there was a man named Jesus. I don't think its fair to relate the history during 0 AD with the history of the present's constant media attention of events.

Do we not listen to much "HEARSAY" when we listen to the news, yet we still accept it....



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Did you actualy take the time to read the links, or just judged them by the snippet I provided?

There are some interesting points raised, I do suggest reading over them.



The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]


Deep



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
DTOM,
The Shroud is very special. There are many who will attempt to debunk it with false info. I'll send a U2U.
CS



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
No, I didn't read the links, and no I'm not that concerned about the dates.
My argument is more along the lines of how much historical writing actually occured during this time and even before the life of Jesus because it is hard to compare all the writing produced today with the amount written in the past. If these links cover that aspect, I will probably read them.

Plus, history is written by those who conquered it, but I think thats been covered.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   


Plus, history is written by those who conquered it, but I think thats been covered.


So its safe to assume that all history is Christian biased?

Deep



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Why should it be expected that Jesus would have had the same amount of 'press' as a Emperor, King, or the likes. Why would anyone write books about his life when he was a low class citizen. He was a carpenter whose greatest impact came after he died. The fact that people were writing about him, following him 100 years after he died is impressive. How many cults die with the leader? If there was nothing of interest about this man, he wasn't rich or powerful, why did he draw the attention he did?



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   

So its safe to assume that all history is Christian biased?


Apparently, not around the time of Jesus, thats why he was crucified...



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Jamuhn~~
Please elaborate on your last statement. Why was Jesus allegedly crucified? Before I reply with my thoughts, I want to be sure I understand your position!



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Here's something you might like; its not exactly proof of him. But it shows that there was belief in a man named Yeshua who ascended during that time period, this evidence is within 10years of his crucifixion:

Professor Eliezer Sukenik (a notable archaelogist) uncovered a tomb of one of the very first believers. Inside the ossuarie there was a coin minted 41 AD in reign of King Agrippa I. In addition there was pottery from the first century. There are dedications to "yeshua son of Yosef" OR "Yeshua the ascended". This article is in pdf file; if you don't have Adobe I'll try to find something else.
www.jerusalem.edu/members/pdf/95/pict1.pdf

Yes, this is from a Christian website...however, its up to you to look into the evidence (or lack thereof) and decide whether you want to believe...
There is also a picture of an ostracon with his name inscribed in the book "Jesus' Jewishness" by James Charlesworth. It dates within this time period...



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Alas, there is no firm evidence that Jesus lived. The writings of Josephus and other scholars where Jesus is mentioned are thought by many to be later additions. Josephus' text certainly seems to be most suspect.

An ossary thought to be belonging to James (Jesus' brother) was discovered, but again, this is thought to be a fraud.
It is a suprise that Jesus was never documented by either the Romans or the Egyptians. To say that he was insignificant whilst he lived is totally untrue if we are to believe the Bible - we see him preaching to crowds of thousands and being hunted by the authorities. I find it unthinkable that someone with such a public face at the time would not be documented.

Jesus was not a divine figure until over 300 years after his death. Constantine used the Council of Nicea to bind Christianity to other religions of the day and I believe that although there was a historical Jesus, he was probably nothing like the figure that we know today. I believe that, in all likelihood, Jeus was something like the Martin Luther King of his day (although probably less well known outside of his immediate circle). He was chosen as a figurehead for early Christianity (well he would have to have been with that name wouldn't he?
) and the figure that we know today is an evolution of the religion.

Historically he may or may not have lived. I don't believe that matters though. In my opinion it is the teachings of Christ which are all important and that is why the whole religion came about originally.



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
The Shroud is very special. There are many who will attempt to debunk it with false info.

The conclusion I have drawn from what I've read about the Shroud makes me believe it probably is not authentic.
And, as iit is a Christian "relic", it cannot be used to prove Jesus.
So, CS, I respectufully disagree about its specialness.
_______________
After reading all the links here, as well as Zero Deep's linked thread. I tend to go along with Leveller's conclusions. They make the most sense to me.
Jesus, a prophet or a holy man, did live.
At some point, people capitalized on his life and formed what we now call Christianity. Works for me. The following quotes seem to also point to his existence.

This from the Annals by Tacitus, Written 109 A.C.E.:
"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. "
classics.mit.edu...

[with thanks to zero_snaz for the link to the above quote
]

"Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.)."
www.nobeliefs.com...



[edit on 7-6-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I must agree with DTOM and Leveller. Yashua as a historical figure may have certainly existed but as Leveller revealed he and his position of divinity was established by Constantine during the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. That is the founding date not only of Christianity but also Jesus Christ. The real jewel however regarding the story/myth of Yashua is that this same story of virgin birth, death and resurection has been taught for thousands of years by thousands of different cultures all over the globe, it is nothing new, and in this sense the story is not unique. Thus one must ask oneself what is the true lesson to be learned, and what is the truth in general. What about Yashua matters and what matters not, in the grand scheme of things?



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   


It is a suprise that Jesus was never documented by either the Romans or the Egyptians. To say that he was insignificant whilst he lived is totally untrue if we are to believe the Bible - we see him preaching to crowds of thousands and being hunted by the authorities. I find it unthinkable that someone with such a public face at the time would not be documented.


If the Romans were trying to surpress him, why would they validate his history. The Roman writings about Jesus after his death were probably written by people outside of present-day Israel. How well would Jesus have been known outside of Israel at the time of his life? I'm not too educated about this, but were there any writings about Jesus by Israelis during this time period, if any writings by them during this time period? If there were would it be safe to assume they would be destroyed by the Romans?

But anyway, I'm on the same page as other people in that it doesn't matter if there is proof, but that what he stood for still stands for itself, even if it is misinterpreted by some. I believe he did exist though...



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn


How well would Jesus have been known outside of Israel at the time of his life? I'm not too educated about this, but were there any writings about Jesus by Israelis during this time period



The Bible is contradictory on this. It states in one place that Jesus travelled outside of Israel and then later states that he only ministered in Judea. We know, according to the Bible, that Jesus at least went to Egypt. There are also many Asian countries with legends that he visited.

The Israeli writings are called the New Testament.

There are also the Nag Hamedi texts which are referred to as the Gnostic Gospels, but unfortunately, they don't prove Jesus' existence either.

I agree with your point that the Romans may have expunged Jesus from the history books - the winner does get to rewrite history after all. But I find it hard to believe that no other country would have documented him - eg: the Greeks and the Egyptians. It should also be remembered that there is plenty of Roman documentation about figures who opposed them. Spartacus is just one who springs to mind. There were also plenty of Jewish uprisings with figures who stood out far more against the Roman Empire and in fact, one seized Jerusalem and tied up many armies, and these are well documented too.

We also have to remember that in the Bible, Jesus also seems to show that he has no argument with Rome - "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's". But then we have the contradiction of him supposedly saying that he comes with a sword, as if to make war.

I believe that he did fall foul of Rome in some way though, if his crucifixion story is in any way true. Crucifixion was only reserved as a punishment for enemies of the Roman Empire. Any other transgressions would have been punished by different methods.

We are led by hundreds of different contradictions in the Bible. There is no solid literature that can be found to either refute these contradictions or to affirm them. But when you take a look at the origins of Christianity and the religions and cultures of the time, everything seems to me to point to Jesus' story being a symbolic one with no real emphasis on actual history.



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Well, on the other side, wasn't Jesus being tried for something petty. Maybe the Romans weren't aware of his significance, nor anyone else for that matter?



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
To be an enemy of the Roman Empire you needed to have commited more than a petty crime. Crucifixion was normally reserved for those who were deemed to be of a great threat.

www.milism.net...

Most petty crimes were dealth with by stoning to death. Others would be used as fodder in gladatorial spectacles.

"Cicero calls crucifixion the summum supplicium or most extreme form of punishment".

mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk...


[edit on 8-6-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
For those who do nothing but mock, there is no point to this post. For those open to another point of view, try this link.
www.shroud.com...



posted on Jun, 8 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
What about the two guys that were crucified with Jesus, weren't they there for petty crimes? Do we know about these guys through the Bible only as well, or are they mentioned else where?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join