Historical Jesus

Originally posted by Jamuhn
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?

They are mentioned in the Bible as being "robbers" or "thieves". Armed robbery was a serious crime and was sometimes punishable by crucifixion.
But again the evidence is very contradictory. Mark and Matthew have them both hurling insults from the cross whilst Luke claims that one of them venerates Jesus.

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...

You can even find claims that there were 4 other people crucified with Christ.

www1.itech.net...

Maybe that's where Monty Python got the idea for the end scene in The Life of Brian.

Wow guys this is exactly the questions I have been wrestling with.

A couple days ago I finished reading "The Bible Fraud" by Tony Bushby.

This man spent 12 years researching for the truth. He traveled to many countries and located old documents to include in his research. There are over 40 pages of references in his book.
Much of the documents contaning the truth were destroyed in the first few centuries. I believe when Jesus talked about the "lie that would decieve even the elect, if that were possible." He was referring to this great big deception.

Tony Bushby gives detailes and references to explain the history of christanity. There has been a lot of deception and purposeful manipulation. His life story has been distorted. His words too. The details that have lead some to believe he was homosexual are explained in that he had an identical twin brother named Judas Khrestus. The Jesus Christ created by the church is a combination of 2 people. One a rabbi the other a homosexual drunken troublemaker. Jesus lived longer than we have been lead to believe and died in a different way than we have been told. The crucifiction is explained too.

Anyhow it shook my world up. I had been asking to know the truth. I am getting what I asked for. Jesus the rabbi is still a holy man but we don't have many of his true teachings.

I do recomend this book. Here is the website. www.joshuabooks.com...

I ordered it from here just because I wanted to suppost this site. They carry lots of "forbidden" material. www.hiddenmysteries.com...

There is a bible called the "Sinai" Bible. It is very old and I believe only old testament. There are over 14,000 differences between this bible and the one we value. Tony explaines some about where the new testament came from. Not what we have been told.

A few weeks ago in my searching I found a document is thought to be written by Jesus. Darn I can't find it now. They began to translate it and didn't get very far before the document dissapeared.

If I can refind it I will post it here but very little is translated.

Originally posted by kinglizard
IMHO - The fact that so many people wrote about his life should be proof enough that he existed.

If the above logic is true, then Luke Skywalker and his family really do exist because people are not even writing about them, they even made movies based on these books!

Originally posted by TheEXone
Many people do not believe jesus to be devine, and that may even be true, but it just seems to me very improbable that a figure like that could just be invented out of nothing. Its not even like the ancient greek myths of say herecles because in this instance the descriptions of his life and what happened to him have a clear historical timeframe and place.

The force is strong with this one, but you underestimated the power of the human imagination. Trust me young jedi, we do make alot of things up like that. May the force be with you.

I realize that this is still from a Christian perspective, but this site lists several writings from the early church fathers. These are writings that are not in the Bible. These writings are interesting to read if for no other reason than to see what some of the early Christians believed. www.ccel.org...

I completely disagree with the comment that Jesus was not considered God until Constantine established the Roman Catholic Church. The books of the New Testament were written 200 years before Constantine.

Originally posted by tkeax1088
I completely disagree with the comment that Jesus was not considered God until Constantine established the Roman Catholic Church. The books of the New Testament were written 200 years before Constantine.

Sure they were. But nowhere in the NT does it say that Jesus is God. He makes the claim to be Son of God, but then he also makes the claim to be Son of Man.

This link shows you that it wasn't until the Council of Nicea that Jesus was recognised as a god. Until this time, most people believed that he was a man.

www.gospelcom.net...

This link explains to you the politics surrounding the Council of Nicea and how it was used to bind Christianity to pagansim and consolidate Constantine's power base.

www.wsu.edu:8080...

Here are a few sites with lot's of info......dating back to the early church .....

www.intratext.com...

God has manifested Himself yet more in supernatural revelation and through the Incarnation

of the Son of God, the God, �who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time-past unto

the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son� (Heb. 1:1-2). �No

man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He

hath declared Him� (John 1:18).

Thus, did the Savior Himself teach concerning the knowledge of God? Having said, �All

things are delivered unto Me of My Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither

knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, the Savior added, and he to whomsoever the Son will

reveal Him� (Matt. 11:27). And the Apostle John the Theologian writes in his epistle: �And we

know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us light and understanding that we may know

the true God� (1 John 5:20).

www.intratext.com...

./Quote//and the world hath hated them,
because they are not of the world,
even as I am not of the world" (John 17:14). "If ye were of the world,
the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world,
but I have chosen you out of the world,
therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19).
These words of the Savior demonstrate the incompatibility of righteous life with sinful and out-of-Church customs of the secular world. "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).

Thus, the Church is a graceful, supernatural, unity of born-again people who form the mystical Body of Christ, founded by Christ on Calvary, filled with the Holy Ghost, and headed by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

www.orthodoxphotos.com...

The Holy Scripture interprets the life's tests and sufferings as an opportunity of taking effort to achieve the supreme reward in Heaven.
For example,
in the Epistle of the Apostle Peter we read,
"Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you,
as though some strange thing happened unto you:
But rejoice,
inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy" (1 Peter 4:12).

A Christian: Warrior for Christ.

www.orthodoxphotos.com...

Helen,
We probably have tens upon tens of posts elsewhere citing bible verse "proving" Jesus existed. But, the whole point here was to get non-bible proof. Secular writings showing that Jesus existed when it is claimed he walked the earth. Something other than scripture written much later, with possibly few first-hand accounts.

Originally posted by RedHare

Originally posted by kinglizard
IMHO - The fact that so many people wrote about his life should be proof enough that he existed.

If the above logic is true, then Luke Skywalker and his family really do exist because people are not even writing about them, they even made movies based on these books!

Today writing is more common amongst common people and is commonly used for entertainment. 2000 years ago it was an art reserved exclusively for the scholar to record history and other events deemed important enough to record.

The bible is not simply a book it is a collection of books more like a library. It wasn�t written by one man, the New Testament chronicles the life of Jesus from differing perspectives. People like to point out discrepancies in the stories of Jesus among the four gospels as proof that Jesus was not real. But actually, it shows that all four had different perspectives of Jesus. It shows that all of them did not have a common source of information other than the life of a very real man named Jesus.

We can look at other works besides the bible that mention Jesus. Joseph ben Matthias, better known as Josephus the "Roman" historian. His history - "Jewish Antiquities" - was written around 93 AD. It is considered very reliable.

After describing the death of the Roman procurator Festus, and the appointment of Albinus to take his place in AD 62, Josephus mentions Jesus. Albinus is on his way to Palestine to take over his new position. Meanwhile, the Jewish high priest Ananus the Younger called the Jewish leaders together without the Roman procurator's okay - a huge no-no in those days of Roman rule. Ananus then has certain people he doesn't like put to death before Albinus can get there to veto his action. The passage says (Ant. 20.9.1 #167;200)

Being therefore this kind of person [a heartless Sadducee], Ananus - thinking he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and Albinus was still on his way - called a meeting [a 'sanhedrin'] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah, James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.

Now, Josephus probably only mentioned this because Ananus got himself thrown out of office. It's clear who this Jesus is, though. He was called the Messiah and had a brother who survived him named James (see Acts 12:17, 15:13). Tacitus, another Roman historian, also mentions Jesus but the point is made. Jesus really did exist, was called the Messiah, and stirred up lots of trouble even after he died.

www.jonsplace.org...

[edit on 9-6-2004 by kinglizard]

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by tkeax1088
I completely disagree with the comment that Jesus was not considered God until Constantine established the Roman Catholic Church. The books of the New Testament were written 200 years before Constantine.

Sure they were. But nowhere in the NT does it say that Jesus is God. He makes the claim to be Son of God, but then he also makes the claim to be Son of Man.

This link shows you that it wasn't until the Council of Nicea that Jesus was recognised as a god. Until this time, most people believed that he was a man.

www.gospelcom.net...

Actually, that link showed nothing of the sort. It only establishes the date when the church officially made the statement that Jesus Christ was/is God. That's like saying people didn't believe in gravity until Isaac Newton "invented" it.

Ignatius (AD 30-107) believed Jesus to be God

being united2 and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God:

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

If thou wilt give me leave, I desire to go up to Jerusalem, and see the faithful2 saints who are there, especially Mary the mother, whom they report to be an object of admiration and of affection to all. For who would not rejoice to behold and to address her who bore the true God from her3 own womb

A Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John.

Historical Jesus was a revolutionary figure. He was the Malcolm X of his era, not the Martin Luther King, Jr.

He was a preacher, a wise man. He was called Rabbi in the Temples which means good teacher.

He was married and most likely had children.

The figure of Jesus was corrupted though as someone mentioned earlier in the Council of Nicea in 325a.

Early Christians back in the day rejected the divinity of Jesus, the concept of the Trinity, and the whole teachings of Paul. They were all fed to lions.

Originally posted by kinglizard

Today writing is more common amongst common people and is commonly used for entertainment. 2000 years ago it was an art reserved exclusively for the scholar to record history and other events deemed important enough to record.

[edit on 9-6-2004 by kinglizard]

This then creats a serious problem. If the art of writing was so privilaged and only a handful of people had access to it... I cant imagin what consequences there would be if the power to shape people's mind and the history was controled by such a low population? Could they have used it for their own gains? As a method of dictating people?

Originally posted by TheEXone

I don't agree with that at all. If we are to believe the story of the crucifixtion then it makes sense that the Romans try not to mention Jesus again, after all he was causing social tension and was a challenge to Roman rule in the area. They would most certainly try to bury his memory instead of keeping it alive by recording the details of his life. In addition I doubt that many Roman writings and documents concerning an area that they considered unimportant would be preserved for very long.

If a government wants to put down or debunk a conspiracy, all they have to do is by spreading false informations. If Jesus existed, I believe there would be thousands of Roman writings talking trashes about him. Dont you think so too? Com'on take a look at our goverment today.

Historical Jesus was a revolutionary figure. He was the Malcolm X of his era, not the Martin Luther King, Jr.

He was a preacher, a wise man. He was called Rabbi in the Temples which means good teacher.

He was married and most likely had children.

And where is the unbias proof of this ?

The ' fact ' that Jesus was a revolutionary figure and was never written of is the curiousty risen by these members.

Deep

I don't know if you are interested, but there are ancient Hindu scrolls that have documented a period of time in which Jesus lived and taught in India. He was called Issa and the message he taught, according to their accounts, is very similar to his message in the Gospels of the NT. You can read about it here. I read all 14 chapters pretty quickly, they are not very long, and found it very interesting.

There are many other manuscripts and references throughout Asia and Europe which date back to around the same time as the Biblical Jesus would have lived, referring to the Christ by the following names:
Jesus Messiah, Isha Masih, Issa Mashiha, Hazrat Issa, Yuzu Asaph, Yesu, Esus
Here is a site that has some of those references.

8 "For man," said he, "has not been permitted to see the image of God, and yet he has made a host of deities in the likeness of the Eternal.

9 "Moreover, it is incompatible with the human conscience to make less matter of the grandeur of divine purity than of animals and objects executed by the hand of man in stone or metal.

10 "The Eternal Lawgiver is one; there is no other God but he. He has not shared the world with anyone, neither has he informed anyone of his intentions.

11 "Even as a father would act towards his children, so will God judge men after their deaths according to the laws of his mercy. Never would he so humiliate his child as to transmigrate his soul, as in a purgatory, into the body of an animal."

12 "The heavenly law," said the Creator by the mouth of Issa, "is opposed to the immolation of human sacrifices to an image or to an animal; for I have consecrated to man all the animals and all that the earth contains.

That is a very interesting link, but something strikes me as odd. Why would Buddhists rever a man who is preaching the world of God, which is unfound in Buddhism?

Buddhism is athiestic in its own accord.

Also, where are the actualy manuscripts ?

I'm gonna read this in more detail.

Deep

Sure they were. But nowhere in the NT does it say that Jesus is God. He makes the claim to be Son of God, but then he also makes the claim to be Son of Man.

The new Testament does tell us that Jesus is God 1)John 1:1-In the beginning was the Word(Jesus) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2)John 8:58-Jesus said unto them. Verily,verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was I am.(I am is a name for God the Father. 3)John 14:9-Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father: (and then continue reading into verse 10). Jesus was 100% man and at the same time 100% God.

Originally posted by tkeax1088
Actually, that link showed nothing of the sort. It only establishes the date when the church officially made the statement that Jesus Christ was/is God. That's like saying people didn't believe in gravity until Isaac Newton "invented" it.

Unfortunately no. Gravity is a scientific fact. Jesus as God is a faith or belief. When Newton founded his theory of gravity, how many people believed it was there before? Obviously not many or it would have been common knowledge and we wouldn't have needed Newton to "discover" it.

The link might show that this was the time that Jesus was officially made God, but doesn't this show a contradiction? If everyone believed that Jesus was God, why would it need to be set down?
And what about Paul's Letters? They show that "heresy" was widespread.

There is proof that many people did not believe that Jesus was God. There is no proof that many believed otherwise.

The link might show that this was the time that Jesus was officially made God, but doesn't this show a contradiction? If everyone believed that Jesus was God, why would it need to be set down?

No, this does not show a contradiction. I'm not claiming that everyone believed Jesus was God. The majority of people alive then probably thought otherwise....just as the majority of people alive today probably do not think Jesus is God. However, this does not mean that the majority of Christians do not believe Jesus is God.

The church created an official stance on the topic because smaller groups would develop within the faith, teaching beliefs contrary to the tradition and beliefs that had been handed down since the founding of the church at Pentecaust. Creating an official church ruling/position on the subject made it easier for believers to determine what was accepted by the church and what was considered heresy.

The evidence seems to be, that those smaller groups were around at the beginning. And they weren't exactly small either.

When Chrisitanity began it seems that there were all sorts of doctrines being preached by all sorts of groups - and they all claimed that they were the ones with the truth. The Orthodox of today was not necessarily the orthodox of back then. We see hundreds of places in literature (in the Bible too) where modern orthodoxy had to literally fight for it's survival against competing creeds.

The very reason that the resurrection was so popular was because it was already a recognised story and therefore sat comfortably with converts. Many pagan religions taught doctrines similar to Christianity and they all had their own Christ figures who had performed miracles, been born of virgins and been crucified.

You have to ask yourself why, if Jesus was a recognised god, it took so long for Christianity to become anything like a major religion. It took literally over a thousand years from the death of Christ for it to spread and take a firm root in Europe - and that was even with the help of the Holy Roman Empire which would have been the major promoter of the time. Again hardly a religion which seems to have convinced most of it's doctrine. Once it took hold in Europe it was only able to compete with pagan religions because it was pushed by the landed gentry. The masses were literally told that they had to follow Christianity or they wouldn't eat.

There is so much historical evidence out there which shows that Christianity has only succeeded through being pushed with power and money - not by promotion of it's message. When you introduce power or money to anything, it inevitably ends up corrupting it.

Leveller knows what he's talking about. The christianity of today was not the major force back then. There were Jewish "christians" that still believed in the old covenant, we also had Paul and his gentile converts which is where Christianity came from, and don't forget the Gnostics. Arguments over the divinity of jesus, the virgin birth, etc fluorished at that time. The writings of early Christians from around 200AD and earlier show this to still be true.

And, on top of what Leveller a,d KSoze said, there were more that just the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We also had Thomas, and I've heard Mary Magdalene.
It was as if the early Church had written traditions and stories, and had to pick the ones to make official.

As an aside, when I was growing us, Mary Magdalene seemed to be a "fallen" woman. Now, she appears to be one of his original disciples. Goes to show how the church had picked and chosen what stories they want us to believe.

__________
In addition to other divine cruxifications and virgin births, these religions sometimes included trinities. Bible stories also mimic other religious traditions.