Jesus Christ! Fact or fiction?

Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: Against my better judgement, but here goes nothing... Tacitus wrote of christians in 112CE and Suetonius in 119CE, both during their account of the reign of Nero and the burning of Rome in 64CE so they were not writing about a real person as such so their source for the origins of christianity are most likely to have come from the christians themselves, either from the gospels (such as Mark, written some 40 years earlier) or simply as common knowledge. AFAIK the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite being fairly comprehensive on the torah and ketuvium books (especially those concerned with mosaic law), are actually extremely fragmented and thin on texts from the nevi'im History books.  SteveG wrote: However, the chronicles of these writers was the media of it's age and that these accounts are independent of the gospels only falls into focus when supported against the histories written by the Jewish historian Josephus, at approximately the same time, on behalf of the Roman emperor Trajan after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE.  Josephus did plainly state, without much fanfare in a unadorned passage (when stripped of an inane later Christian introjection) about Christ, that he did actually live and was crucified by Pontius Pilate, along with many other Jews for sedition. Well, no. It doesn't. Aside from the blatantly obvious observation that once the text had been corrupted by later christian embellishment, (of which there is very little doubt) then its veracity becomes highly questionable, one also has to ask where Josephus came by this piece of information in 93CE if not from the christians themselves? So using the claims of the christians to prove the provenance of the claims of the christians is the very definition of a circular argument. There is nothing to show that Josephus' account was independent of the gospels given that three of the four gospels were written before his Testimonium Flavianum. Now, I haven't actually come down on one side or the other as to whether Jesus existed or not, and I don't see much reason to vote either way.  SteveG wrote: Edit: Btw, The Dead Sea Scrolls maybe highly fragmented, but what is legible does not conflict with any of the writings of the Hebrew canon.  I never said they did, so what's your point? Here goes nothing? Correct, as you put nothing of value forward. Dismissing and thus ignoring the question I posed regarding the source of Josephus' information as "nothing of value" is cute, but not unexpected. My judgement proves to be right again. SteveG wrote: Forgive me. I don't have time, or the eyesight, for a good old dust up these days so I'll make this as brief as possible. First off, the removal of interpolations form Josephus' writing of Jesus from the writings commonly known as the Antiquities is and has been widely excepted by generations of biblical scholars, and is believed to put forward an accurate account that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was crucified for sedition by the Roman prefect known in the New Testament as Pontius Pilate. Josephus, unlike the gospels, makes no apologies and holds the Romans accountable for their brutal mistreatment and murder of numerous Jews during  their 30 year occupation of Judea. Secondly, Josephus' also related the lives of New Testament figures John the Baptist and James the Brother of Jesus, without any fantastic Christian invention such as miracles, resurrection, etc., similar to his depiction of Jesus. Not ironically, Josephus' messianic comrades of temple priests actually killed James on the steps of the great temple in Jerusalem. There is no apologetics in any of Josephus' writings regarding  these people and events. So what? You appear to put great weight on this observation but it does not make what he actually wrote any more factual if he doesn't cite his sources.  Note here I am not stating as absolute fact that Jesus did not exist and that Pilate didn't have him executed (I've not opined on that at all, nor will I), I merely point out that none of the non-christian historians can be regarded has wholly independent of any previous christian version, either oral or written, as you (and others) seem to imply. Therefore claiming these as evidence that Jesus did exist isn't as conclusive as it first appears. SteveG wrote: I place Josephus' quote on Jesus below with the later interpolation and with the interpolation removed so that other members can see what we're discussing: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18 chapter 3,3 Redacted without the later Christian interpolations: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was (called) the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. This long held belief by academics to the accuracy of Josephus' passage on Jesus is supported by scholars as faithful as N.T. Wright to as sceptical as John Dominic Crossan and Reza Aslan. This is no way a circular argument. However, you are free to accept it or reject as you wish. The redacted version is what it says on the tin - an a priori reconstruction of what academics believe the original could have said. Argue as much as you like, unless the original text as Josephus wrote it is rediscovered then all we have are educated guesses as to what the actual wording was. Agapius, an Arabic christian writing some 700 years after Eusebius, cited Josephus yet his quotation does not contain the words christ or christian, which is curious to say the least in light of the later redacted version that does. I find it highly unlikely that the Testimonium is a forgery or later invention (IMO that claim is just silly blustering) but once a text has been corrupted any attempt to recreate the original, however well-meaning, can only be a guess. However, none of that is particularly relevant if the source of Josephus' information is unknown. If, as I suggested with Tacitus and Suetonius, this was simply based upon common (i.e. oral) knowledge then consider then where that oral history came from and who maintained the oral tradition in the intervening years. SteveG wrote: As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I wanted to make sure that I understood you correctly. With two thirds of the known Old Testament remarkably preserved for two millennia and first written a thousand years before that, I thought that you would give some credit to a oral tradition that had only been around for 60 years. Not a lot of time when compared with two thousand years for DDS, is it? Then you thought wrong as there is no correlation between how old a written text is and the time-interval of an oral tradition, as someone once said: "Oral sources can also evolve over time and be corrupted.". Oral traditions also include hearsay, mythology and invention. My only point about the Dead Sea scrolls was they are not a factual history book and I strongly doubt that they were ever intended to be.

 As for my stating “a written source cannot be compared to an oral source “, that's because a written tradition thousands of years old cannot be compared to an oral tradition thousands of years younger because of a phenomenon called “diffusion” which is the cross pollination of ideas and motifs that filter from one culture to another with advent of world exploration, territorial conquest and technological advances in communication from one area of the world to another. This is not the case with Christian gospels in first century Judea.

That Josephus has documented known Biblical figures is not a priori that he “must have known about these figures from early Christians”. The common counter view is based on the observation that he does not go into the details of the cult beliefs of the Christians, as he had with the little known Jewish sect that he identifies as the Essenes, whose practices, asceticism being the most notable, he found incredible and worthy of relating in his writings.

 The crux if the argument is this: If he had received his information from early Christians, or from early gospel sources, would not Josephus have written of the bizarre death and resurrection stories at the center of the Christian faith? And would not Josephus have related the Christians’ take on Jesus’ coming apocalyptic return as Josephus himself was also of the messianic mindset and led a faction of the Jewish rebellion prior to his defection to the Romans? This omission seems too incredible if Josephus received his information from Christian sources and not from some form of Temple archives, of which he had free reign to as he was a direct decedent of the Temple’s renowned Chief Priest Jonathon. 

lazland wrote: HackettFan wrote: Lazland wrote: As I have said before, none of this makes folk such as I right when we profoundly believe in the Divine. It does, though, allow us to state that there is at least some historical basis behind the scripts which tell of the times. I will say this about Jesus, and this as someone who is a believer in the Divine, and someone extremely interested in both the period, and its impact across the millennia. I actually think that Jesus is best viewed as what he was historically. When I look back on the period, I tend to envision original Christianity looking a whole lot more Gnostic than Orthodox. A Gnostic, would believe in a holy spirit form of Jesus even prior to crucifixion, and, I presume, downplay the importance of a historical Jesus. What is your perspective on this? Why is historical veracity so often presented as a prerequisite for spiritual authenticity in Orthodox Christianity? Interesting. The trouble a lot of modern, thinking, Christians have, especially those who, like me, tend towards the Jew in Jesus, is that the Gnostic movement lost, and their attitudes and beliefs in the nature of Christ obliterated from the official early church post Constantine. This was, btw, the actual historical intervention by the Empire. Jesus was not, as has been suggested, invented by the Romans for some spurious reason, the reasoning behind which I still fail to comprehend despite having looked at the relevant posts again, but his church most certainly did become Roman in nature following its adoption by the Empire, even to the point of a rigid hierarchy and set of instructions as to the nature of the divinity and how we should all worship it. It is mainly for this reason that I do not attend church particularly often. Much of the creeds there are, I freely admit, interpretations and rules which have been passed down by powerful figures down the centuries. My own relationship with both God and Jesus is a deeply personal one, and I feel free to place my own belief system to it, one which, actually, takes from many different cultures and beliefs in the nature of the divine. In a previous post, addressed to Dean, I believe, I joked about Jon Anderson, but, actually, I rather like his amalgam of many faiths, although there are bits I shy away from. I dislike intensely any statement that "because it says this in that verse of the Bible, it must be unerringly accurate for all of time, because it is the word of God". In much the same way that we are born, go through childhood, mature, and, hopefully, achieve some form of wisdom as we get older (too old, in my case ), I believe that we as a race are still infants, awaiting a growing up phase into adolescence. A changing understand of, and relationship with, God is a part of that process.

Although my historical background very limited I’m of a similar mindset.  The early Gnostics were much closer to the original teachings of Jesus.  I would think that it was much more of an inner science than outer rituals. They also imparted the concept of reincarnation which is now shunned for some silly reason.

I always liked Jon Andersons lyrics but trying to figure them out is almost as hard as trying to figure out Biblical text.  Close to the Edge is one of my favorite albums, both musically and lyrically. Here’s an example of one such verse.  At least with this one I was on the right track.

 ‘A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace’ – that means your higher self will eventually bring you out of your dark world.”

http://yesworld.com/2012/12/jon-anderson-talks-yes-close-to-the-edge-track-by-track/

However, with Roundabout I was way off base, I swore it was about reincarnation.  Boy was I wrong.  What I’m trying to illustrate here is just how difficult it is to interpret modern day works from someone that may have little insight.  Now take ancient texts, even more cryptic in nature, that were written by those with incredibly deep insight into creation. 

I think the concept of creation actually paints an incorrect picture. A better way of looking at it is that an infinitesimal part of God’s infinite Being became the universe. God’s presents is reflected and can be accessed within every single atom of creation.

On a side note, there are many physicists that believe in a holographic universe.  Check out some of the many youtube videos on this subject by the genius himself, Leonard Susskind.

I agree that we are all still just infants, both intellectually and spiritually.  Science knows less than 5% and tries to extrapolate the rest from what little they do know.  Who knows, given enough time, perhaps before this universe expires, science will finally figure out all the mechanics of it.  But even with that spectacular feat, science and the human intellect will still not be able to completely comprehend any one single thing.  The finite human intellect is incapable and will never fully understand a mere pebble.  

So does this mean we are doomed to forever wonder?  Of course not.. One of the things that all the great masters wanted to impart on us is that we are not just this meat suite that we carry around with us.  We are divine beings capable of transcending our ego and the thoughts of the ego. Nothing is impossible for us; time, space, life and death as well as nature herself can be transcended.

And will be transcended, no soul can wallow in delusion forever.