Was Jesus the Messiah real?

[Max]

Ugh...but he won't accept wikipedia as a source (although he used it). I don't want to use jesusneverexisted.com yet...because he'll yell bias.

[Duckie]

Google it, see if it appears quoted on another webpage. It's dishonest, but quoting from Skeptics Incorporated or somesuch website that quotes Jesusneverexisted might pass it through.

Or better yet, find a website that plagarizes Jesusneverexisted and quote that, so that the title doesn't sully it.

I feel so dirty now.

[Kettch]

OK, there is alot gong on here. So if I may be permited, to break it down a bit.

I. Did an individual names Jesus/Yesua/etc. really exist in the begining of the first centry CE? Is there any textual evidence to support this?

II. If this Jesus existed, how many of those actions attributed to him did he actually perform?

III Is he actually the Christos / Messiah?

OK, I think there is good circumstantial evidence that Jesus did exist & trigger the creation of a religeous movement. One of the best pieces of evidence is, ironiclly enough, all of the different gospels, from MMLJ, & all of the gnostic gospels, etc. There were rich & competing oral traditions about Jesus. Also Pauls letters, which date to an earlier date than the gospels, also show a community that had developed after Jesus's death, lead by his brother, James. (Yes he was a real brother, none of this step or really good friend, crap). Interestingly enough James get more space in Josephus's histories than Jesus.

My interpretation is that alot of the quotes attributed to Jesus are real, & that he was a real Apocolyptic preatcher, though it could be interpreted that he himself did not claim to be the Messiah & was preaching that people should take a radical interpretation of the Judaic laws in preperation of the coming of the Messiah. (A good summary of this is in Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium by Bart Ehrman.) While he probably did some of the explainable miracles, minor "healings" casting of out of demons, 'curing' of lepers, etc. Other miracles are misunderstandings of real events. (The whole walking on water store most likely originated from Jesus walking along a shallow sand bar to help Peter's boat in during rough seas. The incident occured near Bethsaida which is on the north end of the Kinnerett [Sea of Galile] where the Jordan discharges silt in the north end of the sea. The story became 'miraculus with the retellings.) Other miracles entered the tradition to keep up w/ the prophets shut as Elisia or w/ other competing cults or movements.

And this is as far as I'm going to get tonight, the GF is punting me off.

Good night.

[Knife]

Does anyone have a source or some info to refute "why Christianity became the popular religion" and not any other ones? Apparently he's a student of religion /sarcasm

Geograph, look at what chunk of land lays between the two empires. There was still trade, and with trade comes ideas and customs and religions.

[Lord Poe]

One of my other interests besides sci-fi is the Old West. One interesting fact is that Wyatt Earp personally drew a map of the location of the famous gunfight in Tombstone Arizona 45 years later...and got it completely wrong.

Earp also claimed to have snuck back into Arizona and killed Johnny Ringo. Historians proved this to be impossible, unless Earp had a rocket car to zip between Denver Colorado and Arizona.

Historical documents need to be fact-checked. You can't fact-check the Bible; especially since many of the stories in it that have to do with Jesus appeared in other religious texts before Jesus was allegedly born. "The God who sends his son to live among mortals story" is as old as recorded history.

[Rye]

OK - The Nicene council established the NT in its written format as we know it today (vaguely - excluding things like the KJ editioralism).

No, the Nicene council was about trinity issues, Carthage was about canonicity.

Up until that point there is no evidence that the gospels had existed together.

Wrong. Both Matthew and Luke had access to Mark's gospel, and likely had access to a seperate document that held a load of Jesus' teachings, called Q.

Virgin births, resurrection, redemption, betrayal .... sort of recurrent themes in cults and religions that preceded Christianity ... all that really sets it apart is its global success at converting the faithful, which seems more like an accident of history than anything else.

They also existed in Judaism, so that's not really that surprising. It's not like a load of jews just went "let's make a totally different mythology" one day. Christianity is a splinter of first century judaism, that was really successful due to mass appeal.

Regarding Tacitus and Josephus, they were repeating what Christians told them, they were both born after his supposed death, but they do show that Christians were around in the first century, and were notable. Paul even complains of groups of heretical (gnostic?) christians, iirc, in one of his letters.

Personally, I find the sudden arisal of Christ-based cults indicative that he wasn't a total fabrication. The mythology in the new testament is still obviously mythology, and not taken seriously by anyone talking about the historical man. The Jesus Seminar (controversially among some christians and clergy) talks about the historical man Jesus, and automatically discounts the mythological parts as anything but stories and hero worship.It's educational and not preachy, so if you want to know more, check that out.

Now, was he the messiah? I have my own page on that, that conclusively shows he wasn't: click here.

As for jesusneverexisted, it's not a reputable site, don't use it. It says blatantly wrong things like Nazareth didn't exist, and regurgitates some old refuted arguments. It's like an atheistic version of a creation site.

[Magnetic]

So, what's the conclusion of this Mithra religion as related to early christianity? Is this a proven fact, that if its age predating christianity? From the snippet that Chmee placed in his reply, it seems to mirror, with no way of coincidents, that of what one sees in the NT.

"the Light of the World"
mediator between heaven and earth
member of a Holy Trinity
born of a virgin
final day of Judgment
dead would resurrect
ritualistic baptism
drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god

If you went on the street and gave this list of 8 things to anyone, christian or non-christian, they would say it was Jesus. Probably close to 100% of the time. Someone saying Mithra would be an oddity, to say the least.


DARN these webpages that continue to add to my doubts of my life long religious beleifs.

[Magnetic]

"Coincidents"? Supposed to be Coincidence.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Ugh...but he won't accept wikipedia as a source (although he used it). I don't want to use jesusneverexisted.com yet...because he'll yell bias.

If he refuses to accept you using the same source he does, you can frankly, jam it up his ass and accept his concession.

[Vendetta]

So, what's the conclusion of this Mithra religion as related to early christianity? Is this a proven fact, that if its age predating christianity? From the snippet that Chmee placed in his reply, it seems to mirror, with no way of coincidents, that of what one sees in the NT.

Mithras, and the worsip of same, has been around since at least the sixth century BCE. He gets around a hell of a lot, appearing not only in Persia, where he originates, but also Babylon, Rome, India, and China.

There was a cult of Mithras in Rome for a good deal of the first four centuries CE, so it's not impossible that it's influence crossed over into formative NT material.

[Jarl Sven]

Does anyone have a source or some info to refute "why Christianity became the popular religion" and not any other ones? Apparently he's a student of religion /sarcasm

Look, I don't claim to be using Wikipedia in an honest or dishonest manner. I'm pulling out stuff that I know to be true. I took two classes on this stuff last year and have studied a bit on my own. You say that Mithraism, derived from Zoroastrinism, was practiced by the Persians? Why, then, did nearly the whole of that nation convert to Christianity? .....

Sassanid Persia converted to Christianity???? When was this?

while they may have tolerated some form of Nestorian Chrisitanity, IIRC Zoroastrianism was the Persian state religion until the Islamic conquest

perhaps he is confusing Persia proper with some of the areas further west?

[Max]

Is the story of Jesus taught in European history classes? I'm just curious, or is there simply not enough information on him?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

we were taught about him in my college western civ classes.

[Jarl Sven]

Well it seems logical to teach about Jesus in history class or at least about the effects he had or more precisely his followers had.

While we may know little or nothing about the historical person there is a major religion(s) that was named after him. The existence of that religion has effected 100s of millions for centuries

Does that make his life a “historical event”?

I don’t know. Interesting question. People and cultures act and make decisions based on what they know and believe. So if an army marches based on the soldiers’ personal beliefs and that event has historical consequences the what they believe has historical consequences.

[Max]

Does anyone have a source or some info to refute "why Christianity became the popular religion" and not any other ones? Apparently he's a student of religion /sarcasm

Look, I don't claim to be using Wikipedia in an honest or dishonest manner. I'm pulling out stuff that I know to be true. I took two classes on this stuff last year and have studied a bit on my own. You say that Mithraism, derived from Zoroastrinism, was practiced by the Persians? Why, then, did nearly the whole of that nation convert to Christianity? They weren't even under the Roman's sphere of influence! In fact, they were the most bitter enemies of the Eastern Roman Empire! I also know for a fact that the last book of the New Testament, Revelation, was written in the mid-90's A.D. by John(Jesus' disciple), albeit with the assistance of a scribe. Therefore, all that stuff about the Gospels being written after the turn of the first century is bull. Besides, anybody can rewrite the stuff on Wikipedia any way they want, so it's not like it's the most reliable source in the world. Max, although I respect your prowess in argument, this is an arena that you can't win in, so just drop it, okay?

Mystery cults like Mithraism were very restrictive in membership in comparison to Christianity ... you had to learn a bunch of secret rites and not publicize them ... the Christians took anybody, peasant or prince.

It was by no means a sudden process for nations to switch from paganism to Christianity ... and if 'nearly the whole' of Persia (Iran) converted to Christianity, I would say it didn't stick too well and maybe I wouldn't be bragging about *them* as a test case.

I don't know too much about Persians and Christianity, but apparently I'm being told that they didn't abandon Christianity until the Arab Muslims arrived. The whole basis for the argument, originally, was whether Jesus existed and resurrected...so I think this may be getting off topic. I'm not going to try to refute this, but I just thought you'd like to see the direction it's headed, lol.

Max, the Persians didn't abandon Christianity until they were overrun by the Arab Muslims. Even though the Arabs didn't horribly mutilate and molest Christians like they did pagan captives, they didn't treat them very well, so of course the Persians didn't stay a Christian people for long. I don't care how devout you may be, I doubt most people would willingly for their beliefs when you could live instead. Believe me, Max, I know what I'm talking about here.

[raptor3x]

Try Can we trust the New Testament? : thoughts on the reliability of early Christian testimony by George Wells. That should act as a very good source and it doesn't have an obvious bias.
[/quote]

[Kettch]

More recommended reading.

Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliot Friedman
A modern classic in Biblical research, very readable. It is centered on the OT but I highly recommed it even if you are more intrested in the NT. Why? Because it deals with how different traditions are taken & shoe horned into a single text, the Torah/Penatuch.

101 Myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg
A so-so book, also OT oriented, breaking up the text into 101 bits causes repetion problems. Genesis makes up the biggest portion of the book, by far. But it is an excellent analysis on how Messoptamian religion influcenced the Bible, & proto-Judaism came from Egyptian religion. I gives you an idea on how religions pick up stuff from other religions. (& it is in the cheap bin @ B&N)

Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan & Jonathan L. Reed
Good & really wide ranging book dealing with the top archaeological finds in Israel that give evidence about 1st century CE Judea, the circumstances that Jesus would have operated in & how his message was interprested & distorted by following generations.

Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium by Bart Ehrman
Asserts that Jesus believed that the end of the world was approaching & that the Messiah was coming, that he did not neccissarily belive that it was himself. Much of his preaching was a radicalization of the existing Judaic laws, to take them to the extreme, because the end was nigh. Jesus was premtively killed because he was being a social disruption during the socially charged passover feast. Ehrman then discusses how his followers attempted to deal w/ his death, & the following First Jewish War & the destruction of the temple. (Also fun because he sets the stage in Chapter 1 by describing 7 other dooms day prophets that followed Jesus.)

The brother of Jesus and the lost teachings of Christianity by Bütz, Jeffrey
OK, the last chapter is a little flakey w/ how understanding James will bring peace to the middle east. But the rest of the book is a really good discussion on how Jesus & our understanding of him was shapped by debates between James, & Paul, which led to all of those letters by Paul. (BTW, eve notice how Paul is all whiny in those letters? Well, its because Paul was loosing to James.)

What all of these books bring out really well is that the Gospel writers had an axe to grind. The gospels were written down because 1) the kingdom of God that was supposed to be coming really really really soon, wasn't so we need to write this stuff down, because the new pups are telling the storeis wrong / in a way I disagree with. 2) to get additional authority for my interpretation by having it written down & diseminated. The first two are good for showing how it operated in a different context.

[drachefly]

As for jesusneverexisted, it's not a reputable site, don't use it. It says blatantly wrong things like Nazareth didn't exist, and regurgitates some old refuted arguments. It's like an atheistic version of a creation site.

Why is it blatantly wrong that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus' birth? Obviously there is such a place now, and I'd be ready to believe there was then; but I don't see how it's obvious that it was there at that time. Especially considering how the gospels with the birth myth were written later.

[Kettch]

Why is it blatantly wrong that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus' birth? Obviously there is such a place now, and I'd be ready to believe there was then; but I don't see how it's obvious that it was there at that time. Especially considering how the gospels with the birth myth were written later.

Nazareth was a small hill top village of 2-400 people in the Roman period. Occupation evidence has been found in the area arround 'Mary's Well' including Roman era pottery, possiblely coinage, & lime stone vessles (which are unique to Judaism of this time period). Evidence of actual buildings is difficult to determine, due to later occupation & the apparent use of field stones instead of cut stones for the houses.

Sources
Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan & Jonathan L. Reed Revised & Updated, Chapter 2 Layers upon Layers upon Layers

Course work at the University of Hartford:

JS 306/HIS/306/POL 306/SOC 306 Archaeology of the Land of Israel.
JS 307/HIS 307/POL/SOC 307 Archaeological Field Methods Material Culture

w/ Dr Richard Freund.

There is a small chance that the village was even larger, a bath house has been discovered, but the dating has been disputed between Ottoman, Byzantine & Roman eras. If roman, then the village should have been much larger than 400 people.

[Chmee]

So, what's the conclusion of this Mithra religion as related to early christianity? Is this a proven fact, that if its age predating christianity? From the snippet that Chmee placed in his reply, it seems to mirror, with no way of coincidents, that of what one sees in the NT.

Mithras, and the worsip of same, has been around since at least the sixth century BCE. He gets around a hell of a lot, appearing not only in Persia, where he originates, but also Babylon, Rome, India, and China.

There was a cult of Mithras in Rome for a good deal of the first four centuries CE, so it's not impossible that it's influence crossed over into formative NT material.

Very popular mystery cult among soldiers of the Empire, which helped spread Mithraic worship across their known world ... sound familiar?

Not pretending to be an expert on Mithraism, but I've been interested in it since reading Cornwell's fictional Warlord Chronicles ... Arthur and his principle warlords are all Mithraists in the tale, and some of the bad blood that leads to Lancelot's disaffection is caused by him being refused membership in their Mithras cult because he hasn't proved his worth in battle ... Merlin gives a character a stern lecture for how much of the original Mithras worship they've lost and letting Christianity 'steal your god's clothes!'

[Rye]

Why is it blatantly wrong that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus' birth? Obviously there is such a place now, and I'd be ready to believe there was then; but I don't see how it's obvious that it was there at that time. Especially considering how the gospels with the birth myth were written later.

It's an argument from silence, and not one supported by serious scholars in the subject.

"Archaeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.

The pottery remains testify to a continuous settlement during the period 600-900 BC. After those years, there was a break in settlement until the year 200 BC. Since then, the site of Nazareth has been consistently inhabited.

Most of the archaeological finds consist of caves, cisterns and grain storage bins.

The agricultural character of the site is made obvious with the discoveries of oil mills and mill stones - There were a large number of underground rooms because the soft chalk of Nazareth made it easy to hew caves."

[drachefly]

Good to know, thanks.