Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

Jesus probably existed, he is referenced in some Roman and Jewish historical texts. Also, if you compare it to modern times with the number of people who spout all sorts of religious non-sense or even cult leaders, it's not really that hard to believe that someone like that existed in ancient times and was ultimately put to death over it.

It's not hard to believe that there may have been many such people - rebellion is part of the human spirit.

As stories of Jesus were passed down, they more than likely were embellished and with some sprinkling of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman mythology for effect, you ended up with the New Testament of the Bible.

Romans notably liked to allow the locals to keep their religions and to also amalgamate the cooler gods into their own multi-deistic worship. What you say is very likely true, but possibly in a far more mixed up way

 

[mistersafeway]

Jesus probably existed, he is referenced in some Roman and Jewish historical texts.

Jewish ones? I know there are Roman ones, but they're all (possibly bar one, which says something like 'people say [non divine Jesusy stuff]') altered at a later date or not at all contemporary with the supposed time of Jesus's life. That makes the records weak evidence, at best.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Jewish ones? I know there are Roman ones, but they're all (possibly bar one, which says something like 'people say [non divine Jesusy stuff]') altered at a later date or not at all contemporary with the supposed time of Jesus's life. That makes the records weak evidence, at best.

Only if you think that Jews stopped writing stuff down as soon as His Jesusness arrived. They didn't. This Wiki article has some good sources in and offers a good overview of the texts/arguments that may (or may not) specifically reference Jesus.

None explain why he had a Mexican name though.

 

[Dotini]

None explain why he had a Mexican name though.

Perhaps the Egyptians had contact with the Inca? Some of their gold artifacts and jewelry look alike.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Perhaps the Egyptians had contact with the Inca? Some of their gold artifacts and jewelry look alike.

The similarities extend to masonry styles and their relatively-unusual funerary methods. It's not impossible that there was some crossover, but how? The travel distances by sea were not insurmountable... the problem is the difference in years

 

[mistersafeway]

Only if you think that Jews stopped writing stuff down as soon as His Jesusness arrived. They didn't.

I'm aware, I just wasn't aware of any contemporary writings that specifically mentioned the Jesus of the New Testament.

This Wiki article has some good sources in and offers a good overview of the texts/arguments that may (or may not) specifically reference Jesus.

I've bolded the critical part, that's why I wasn't sure, and still am not. Unless my memory is a bit iffy on this, the Jewish texts of the time reference multiple young rabbis who bucked the current (for the time) orthodox views, not a specific super rabbi who could fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes was the basis for a major religious revolution.

 

[Dotini]

The similarities extend to masonry styles and their relatively-unusual funerary methods. It's not impossible that there was some crossover, but how? The travel distances by sea were not insurmountable... the problem is the difference in years

Both civilizations are hypothesized to be related but scattered descendent's of a common civilization dating to the Paleolithic Pleistocene.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Both civilizations are hypothesized to be related but scattered descendent's of a common civilization dating to the Paleolithic Pleistocene.

It's unlikely that a divergence so early would allow the continuation of such similar cultural practices. We know about the migration of gene pools around each of the two relevant continents - neither set of migration data suggests why two particular resultant pools would share such "recent" cultural indicators. The cultural heritage is likely shared (if indeed it is shared) post-pleistocene by quite some margin.

 

[Dotini]

It's unlikely that a divergence so early would allow the continuation of such similar cultural practices. We know about the migration of gene pools around each of the two relevant continents - neither set of migration data suggests why two particular resultant pools would share such "recent" cultural indicators. The cultural heritage is likely shared (if indeed it is shared) post-pleistocene by quite some margin.

For your amusement, the many, many similarities between the Egyptians and the pre-Incas.
http://www.richardcassaro.com/suppr...gyptians-incas-on-opposite-sides-of-the-globe

 

[TenEightyOne]

For your amusement, the many, many similarities between the Egyptians and the pre-Incas.
http://www.richardcassaro.com/suppr...gyptians-incas-on-opposite-sides-of-the-globe

I'd caution that some of the "strikingly identical" features can be found in many other cultures too - many cultures produce works that can be similar (or nearly identical) to works of another culture without the overall body of work bearing any average similarity at all. I'd agree that some Incan/Egyptian jewellery works are similar but the overall body doesn't support any greater similarity than works of worship in many other cultures. The real similarities are in the masonry and the (quite unusual) funerary practices. Most cultures at that time exhibit a "pillar-of-silence" type system or good old-fashioned internment.

 

[Dotini]

I'd caution that some of the "strikingly identical" features can be found in many other cultures too - many cultures produce works that can be similar (or nearly identical) to works of another culture without the overall body of work bearing any average similarity at all. I'd agree that some Incan/Egyptian jewellery works are similar but the overall body doesn't support any greater similarity than works of worship in many other cultures. The real similarities are in the masonry and the (quite unusual) funerary practices. Most cultures at that time exhibit a "pillar-of-silence" type system or good old-fashioned internment.

One of the more interesting funerary practices is that of excarnation, where the body is hoist up for the buzzards to eat. I think the Zoroastrians in Persia practiced this, as did some North American Indians. Potentially the builders of Gobekli Tepe did as well.

 

[TenEightyOne]

One of the more interesting funerary practices is that of excarnation, where the body is hoist up for the buzzards to eat. I think the Zoroastrians in Persia practiced this, as did some North American Indians. Potentially the builders of Gobekli Tepe did as well.

That's still practised in some parts of the world (e.g. the "Pillar of Silence" that I referred to), that method, internment and cremation form the basis of most culture's funerary traditions. Mummification is relatively uncommon... and what's interesting about it is it takes a loooong time to know that it's a working thing.

 

[Dotini]

That's still practised in some parts of the world (e.g. the "Pillar of Silence" that I referred to), that method, internment and cremation form the basis of most culture's funerary traditions. Mummification is relatively uncommon... and what's interesting about it is it takes a loooong time to know that it's a working thing.

Another interesting thing about mummification is that the Egyptians mummified literally millions of birds (and other animals).

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Then you were mistaken, people who actually study religion are most certainly not all convinced of the existence of Jesus, even as a normal person.

Thanks for that. 👍

I was preparing a rather longer reply than the above because I assumed that article had been broken since I last read it, apparently somebody just hadn't read it.

Cool story but, apparently I had read it since just above that it says:

Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][33][34][35] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.

 

[Joey D]

Jewish ones? I know there are Roman ones, but they're all (possibly bar one, which says something like 'people say [non divine Jesusy stuff]') altered at a later date or not at all contemporary with the supposed time of Jesus's life. That makes the records weak evidence, at best.

I know there are a few, but the only one I can think of right now off the top of my head is the Antiquities of the Jews by the Roman-Jewish scholar Josephus. I know he wrote other works too, I just can't remember their names.

 

[LeMansAid]

Genuinely brilliant. A glimpse into a sane world where God and religion are merely a thing that people used to do, and a thread like this could be so active without contributions from an SCJ, a DCP, or another unhinged and not so sharp type. Just good, not emotionally driven chin scratching, and sharing of info.

There is a God!!!

 

[mistersafeway]

Cool story but, apparently I had read it since just above that it says:

Try reading the evidence.

Link

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

To be fair to the Historical Jesus article, it does say that that was likely subject to alteration by later Christians. To be honest, though, it says it contained some truth originally, which is entirely unverifiable because, as you are about to see, none of that appears to have been written by Josephus himself. This means, amusingly enough, that some of the strongest evidence for Jesus as a real person may have been destroyed by his own followers... I'm not sure if that speaks more about Christians or humanity in general (probably the latter though).

Link

so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions];

Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

That is apparently considered good proof, although I don't know if the second part is referring to the biblical Jesus... probably not. If you can't tell, I find it unconvincing at best.

Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food.

Make of that what you will, I find it too boring to read, hence my earlier comment about none of the fawning praise heavily edited by later Christians being written by Josephus himself. The man just seems to have been exceptionally boring, probably why he was a good historian.

And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other;

Jesus was a rather common name in the priesthood it seems, so... how can anyone claim that there is historical evidence of a specific Jesus? It's all very surface level at best, including Tacitus's work, which only references a "Christus"*, which doesn't necessarily refer to anyone called Jesus. It was also written somewhere in the region of half a century after Jesus likely (if he existed, of course ) died, which also took place around the time Tacitus was born.

*According to Wikipedia, I'd heard that it was Chrestus (unless I'm mistaken, sorry if I am, although this little aside isn't that important either way). Not sure if that changes anything, although it implies that there are different versions of it, so it's possible somebody's not playing fair. Not sure who or for what purpose, though. Considering Rome's... let's say interesting history with Christianity, it could be either.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Try reading the evidence.

Link



To be fair to the Historical Jesus article, it does say that that was likely subject to alteration by later Christians. To be honest, though, it says it contained some truth originally, which is entirely unverifiable because, as you are about to see, none of that appears to have been written by Josephus himself. This means, amusingly enough, that some of the strongest evidence for Jesus as a real person may have been destroyed by his own followers... I'm not sure if that speaks more about Christians or humanity in general (probably the latter though).

Link




That is apparently considered good proof, although I don't know if the second part is referring to the biblical Jesus... probably not. If you can't tell, I find it unconvincing at best.



Make of that what you will, I find it too boring to read, hence my earlier comment about none of the fawning praise heavily edited by later Christians being written by Josephus himself. The man just seems to have been exceptionally boring, probably why he was a good historian.



Jesus was a rather common name in the priesthood it seems, so... how can anyone claim that there is historical evidence of a specific Jesus? It's all very surface level at best, including Tacitus's work, which only references a "Christus"*, which doesn't necessarily refer to anyone called Jesus. It was also written somewhere in the region of half a century after Jesus likely (if he existed, of course ) died, which also took place around the time Tacitus was born.

*According to Wikipedia, I'd heard that it was Chrestus (unless I'm mistaken, sorry if I am, although this little aside isn't that important either way). Not sure if that changes anything, although it implies that there are different versions of it, so it's possible somebody's not playing fair. Not sure who or for what purpose, though. Considering Rome's... let's say interesting history with Christianity, it could be either.

....So it still remains that point 1 is likely to be true?

 

[Scaff]

....So it still remains that point 1 is likely to be true?

It's possible that Josephus wrote that and that he made mention of Jesus.

Two point to keep mind are that debate does exist as to the authenticity of the works, with some claims that his texts were edited after his death. Also that while Josephus is the closest we have, he was still not a contemporary of Jesus.

On a personal note I'm of the opinion that a man called Jesus certainly existed as a thorn in the side of both the Roman and Jewish authorities of the day. However i don't have a belief in the divine actions attributed to him, as they have numerous sources in earlier religions of the region.

I find it more likely that the stories are a mixture of myth and lore from the region combined with the actions of a number of people who were actively resisting the Roman and Jewish authorities.

 

[mistersafeway]

....So it still remains that point 1 is likely to be true?

True that it's evidence for a Jesus of the time who may have been a basis for the biblical figure? Sure. Proof of The Biblical Jesus? Ehhh, not really. There is literally no proof of a magic man named Jesus who could heal the blind and similar seriously awesome 🤬 beyond the bible itself, and I'm sure you can see why a lot of people think its obvious bias makes it untrustworthy as an honest historical document. Once you remove that from the equation, what's left? A rather common name among holy men of the period, hence why it's damn near impossible to point to one and say 'that one, he's the Jesus I worship', because it's just as likely that he was based on all of them.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

As for the others, I guess that's a matter of faith

 

[huskeR32]

Before continuing, why is it a "big if" He existed?

Let's have the continuing now, eh?

You claimed that "Jesus came and proved many of those things." I've been eagerly awaiting the proof you speak of.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Let's have the continuing now, eh?

You claimed that "Jesus came and proved many of those things." I've been eagerly awaiting the proof you speak of.

I'd have to use the Bible, but I'm starting to get the impression that might not be good enough here....

 

[huskeR32]

I'd have to use the Bible, but I'm starting to get the impression that might not be good enough here....

The Bible is certainly "good enough" as a way to explain why you believe what you believe. But when the word "proof" enters the picture, then, no, it's not really an adequate source.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

The Bible is certainly "good enough" as a way to explain why you believe what you believe. But when the word "proof" enters the picture, then, no, it's not really an adequate source.

If we had that, why would we need faith? God would turn into something scientific.

 

[mistersafeway]

If we had that, why would we need faith?

Why is faith necessary?

 

[Danoff]

Why is faith necessary?

...or desirable at all.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If we had that, why would we need faith? God would turn into something scientific.

Pointless question. If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.

I'd have to use the Bible, but I'm starting to get the impression that might not be good enough here....

Finally you draw closer to the whole weakness of secondary "evidence".

 

[Scaff]

If we had that, why would we need faith? God would turn into something scientific.

How do you know your faith is the right one?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Why is faith necessary?

It's not necessary. Or do you mean to have belief in Jesus?

...or desirable at all.

It's not necessarily desirable. Some may say the drawbacks outweigh the perks

Pointless question. If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.

It's not pointless

Finally you draw closer to the whole weakness of secondary "evidence".

I do, or do you grow closer to the strength of faith?

How do you know your faith is the right one?

Good question.... I don't! But I believe it is, however that's based on my experience of leaving the faith and almost converting - I can't speak for anyone else