The historical Jesus

[Guest Downhome]

One can not discuss Jesus Christ without bringing in Christianity. If you think it's possible, you are a blatent fool. You didn't even say anything in your original post other than "here is a site, check it out", you didn't even get into the discussion, that confused me.

 

That site also is the perfect example of people taking the Bible out of context. When studying the Bible, one can not just read verses here and there. You must take entire verses, chapters, and books into account. You CAN NOT just take a piece here, and a piece there. I could make the Bible say anything I wish if I used such tatics. You also can't just read certain parts of the Bible, as you must go back to the original languages which the Old and New Testements were written in. Some of the words which appear in English today meant much different things in the original tongues.

[Guest Silence]

NEW TEACHING 'IN PARABLES'

 

We are once more with Jesus and His disciples by the Lake of Galilee. We love to think that it was in the early morning, when the light laid its golden shadows on the still waters, and the fresh air, untainted by man, was fragrant of earth's morning sacrifice, when no voice of human discord marred the restfulness of holy silence, nor broke the Psalm of Nature's praise. It was a spring morning too, and of such spring-time as only the East, and chiefly the Galilean Lake, knows, nor of mingled sunshine and showers, of warmth and storm, clouds and brightness, when life seems to return slowly and feebly to the palsied limbs of our northern climes, but when at the warm touch it bounds and throbs with the vigour of youth. The imagery of the 'Sermon on the Mount' indicates that winter's rain and storms were just past. [a. St. Matt. vii. 25.] Under that sky Nature seems to meet the coming of spring by arraying herself in a garb more glorious than Solomon's royal pomp. Almost suddenly the blood-red anemones, the gay tulips, the spotless narcissus, and the golden ranunculus [1 It adds interest to these Solomon-like lilies that the Mishnah designates one class of them, growing in fields and vineyards, by the name 'royal lily' (Kil. v. 8, Bab. Talmud, p. 29 a). At the same time, the term used by our Lord need not be confined to 'lilies' in the strictest sense. It may represent the whole wild flora of spring, chiefly the anemones (comp. Tristram, Nat. Hist. of the Bible, pp. 462-465). A word with the same letters as (though of different meaning) is the Rabbinic Narkes, the narcissus, of course that (of fields), not (of gardens).] deck with wondrous richness the grass of the fields, alas! so soon to wither [b u.s. vi. 28-30.], while all trees put forth their fragrant promise of fruit. [c vii. 16-20.] As the imagery employed in the Sermon on the Mount confirmed the inference, otherwise derived, that it was spoken during the brief period after the winter rains, when the 'lilies' decked the fresh grass, so the scene depicted in the Parables spoken by the Lake of Galilee indicates a more advanced season, when the fields gave first promise of a harvest to be gathered in due time. And as we know that the barley-harvest commenced with the Passover, we cannot be mistaken in supposing that the scene is laid a few weeks before that Feast.

 

Other evidence of this is not wanting. From the opening verses [a St. Matt. xiii. 1, 2] we infer, that Jesus had gone forth from 'the house' with His disciples only, and that, as He sat by the seaside, the gathering multitude had obliged Him to enter a ship, whence He spake unto them many things in Parables. That this parabolic teaching did not follow, far less, was caused by, the fully developed enmity of the Pharisees, [b St. Matt. xii. 24 &c.] [1 This seems to be the view of Goebel in his 'Parabeln Jesu,' a book to which I would here, in general, acknowledge my obligations. The latest work on the subject (F. L. Steinmeyer, d. Par. d. Herrn, Berlin 1884) is very disappointing.] will appear more clearly in the sequel. Meantime it should be noticed, that the first series of Parables (those spoken by the Lake of Galilee) bear no distinct reference to it. In this respect we mark an ascending scale in the three series of Parables, spoken respectively at three different periods in the History of Christ, and with reference to three different stages of Pharisaic opposition and popular feeling. The first series is that, [c St. Matt. xiii.] when Pharisaic opposition had just devised the explanation that His works were of demoniac agency, and when misled affection would have converted the ties of earthly relationship into bonds to hold the Christ. To this there was only one reply, when the Christ stretched out His Hand over those who had learned, by following Him, to do the Will of His Heavenly Father, and so become His nearest of kin. This was the real answer to the attempt of His mother and brethren; that to the Pharisaic charge of Satanic agency. And it was in this connection that, first to the multitude, then to His disciples, the first series of Parables was spoken, which exhibits the elementary truths concerning the planting of the Kingdom of God, its development, reality, value, and final vindication.

 

Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim, Vol 1, Ascent 23

[Guest JMA]

Quite frankly, it was unintelligent of you. You can't not use Christian theology when discussing Jesus Christ. You can't have a secular discussion about a non-secular man.

Unintelligent? You're the one who called liberals "pro-abortion," or need I remind you? This thread is about the historical aspects of the man known as Christ, a philosopher I admire. I just don't want it to turn into a big theological debate. That's all.

[Guest JMA]

One can not discuss Jesus Christ without bringing in Christianity. If you think it's possible, you are a blatent fool.

No, I wanted to discuss Jesus, the man. Not Jesus, the messiah of the Christian faith. I'm simply trying to find common ground for a discussion. I would just prefer it if we didn't get into anything supernatural.

[Guest JMA]

You can't have a secular discussion about a non-secular man.

I respectfully disagree. You could discuss a preacher (a non secular man) without making his religion a big issue.

[Guest JMA]

When speaking of the life and times of Jesus on this page, I plead with you to use only non-Holy-Bible based facts (as they're somewhat biased). I respect your viewpoints and do not wish to insult them, but I am not interested in hearing information I'm already familiar with. Once again, this isn't because I disreguard your viewpoints; it's because I'm seeking alternative resources.

Thank you for your understanding

[Guest NoCalMike]

I don't understand the big deal, All Dreamer was trying to do was talk about Jesus Christ from a NON-religious standpoint, not debate on whether he was real or whether he is the lord/savior. He wasn't trying to state he was right and anyone was wrong, he just wanted to(I assume) copy n paste some literature. What in the hell is the big deal about that?

[Guest JMA]

I don't understand the big deal, All Dreamer was trying to do was talk about Jesus Christ from a NON-religious standpoint, not debate on whether he was real or whether he is the lord/savior. He wasn't trying to state he was right and anyone was wrong, he just wanted to(I assume) copy n paste some literature. What in the hell is the big deal about that?

Thank you, Mike. I'm not trying to undermine anyone's religion or use this to stir things up.

[Guest Silence]

THE QUESTION OF TRIBUTE TO CAESAR

 

Feigning themselves just men, they now came to Jesus with honeyed words, intended to disarm His suspicions, but, by an appeal to His fearlessness and singleness of moral purpose, to induce Him to commit Himself without reserve. Was it lawful for them to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? were they to pay the capitation-tax [a Jos.Jew. War ii. 16. 4.] of one drachm, or to refuse it? We know how later Judaism would have answered such a question. It lays down the principle, that the right of coinage implies the authority of levying taxes, and indeed constitutes such evidence of de facto government as to make it duty absolutely to submit to it. [b Babha K. 113 a and the instance of Abigail pleading with David that Saul's coinage was still in circulation. Jer, Sanh. 20 b.] So much was this felt, that the Maccabees, and, in the last Jewish war, Bar Kokhabh, the false Messiah, issued a coinage dating from the liberation of Jerusalem. We cannot therefore doubt, that this principle about coinage, taxation, and government was generally accepted in Judaea. On the other hand, there was a strongly party in the land; with which, not only politically but religiously, many of the noblest spirits would sympathise, which maintained, that to pay the tribute-money to Caesar was virtually to own his royal authority, and so to disown that of Jehovah, Who alone was Israel's King. They would argue, that all the miseries of the land and people were due to this national unfaithfulness. Indeed, this was the fundamental principle of the Nationalist movement. History has recorded many similar movements, in which strong political feelings have been strangely blended with religious fanaticism, and which have numbered in their ranks, together with unscrupulous partisans, not a few who were sincere patriots or earnest religionists. It has been suggested in a former part of this book, that the Nationalist movement may have had an important preparatory bearing on some of the earlier followers of Jesus, perhaps at the beginning of their inquiries, just as, in the West, Alexandrian philosophy moved to many a preparation for Christianity. [1 For fuller particulars on this point see Book II. ch. x.] At any rate, the scruple expressed by these men would, if genuine, have called forth sympathy. [2 Some might have even religious scruples about handling a coin of Caesar. Such an instance is mentioned in Ab. Zar. 6 b, where a Rabbi is advised to throw it into the water, and pretend it had accidentally dropped from his hand. but probably that instance refers to the avoidance of all possibility of being regarded as sharing in idol-festivities.] But what was the alternative here presented to Christ? To have said No, would have been to command rebellion; to have said simply Yes, would have been to give a painful shock to keep feeling, and, in a sense, in the eyes of the people, the lie to His own claim of being Israel's Messiah-King!

 

But the Lord excaped from this 'temptation', because, being true, it was no real temptation to Him. [1 However pictorial, the sketch of thisgiven by Keim ('Jesu von Nazara,' iii. 1, pp. 131 &c.) is, as too often, somewhat exaggerated.] Their knavery and hypocrisy He immediately perceived and exposed, in this also responding to their appeal of being 'true.' Once more and emphatically must we disclaim the idea that Christ's was rather an evasion of the question than a reply. It was a very real rather, when pointing to the image and inscription on the coin, [2 By a strange concurrence the coin, which on Christ's demand was handed to Him, bore 'the image' of the Emperor. It must, therefore, have been either a foreign one (Roman), or else one of the Tetrarch Philip, who exceptionally had the image of Tiberius on his coins (comp. Schurer, N.T. Zeitgesch. p. 231). Neither Herod nor Herod Antipas had any 'image' on their coins, but only the usual 'devices' of the Maccabaean period. And the coins , which the Roman emperors had struck specially for Palestine, bore till the time of Vespasian, in accommodation to Jewish prejudices, no image of any kind.] for which He had called, He said, 'What is Caesar's render to Caesar, and what is God's to God.' [a St. Markxii. 17.] It did far more than rebuke their hypocrisy and presumption; it answered bot only that question of theirs to all earnest men of that time, as it would present itself to their minds, but it settles to all time and for all circumstances the principle underlying it. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world; a true Theocracy is not inconsistent with submission to the secular power in things that are really its own; politics and religion neither include, nor yet exclude, each other' they are, side by side, in different domains. The State is Divinely sanctioned, and religion is Divinely sanctioned, and both are equally the ordinance of God. On this principle did Apostolic authority regulate the relations between Church and State, even when the latter was heathen. The question about the limits of either province has been hotly discussed by sectarians on either side, who have claimed the saying of Christ in support of one or the opposite extreme which they have advocated. And yet, to the simple searcher after duty, it seems not so difficult to see the distinction, if only we succeed in purging ourselves of logical refinements and strained references.

 

Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim, Vol 2, Cross and the Crown 3

[Guest DrTom]

No, I wanted to discuss Jesus, the man. Not Jesus, the messiah of the Christian faith.

That's an inherently sticky situation there.

 

See, most Christian faith believe that Jesus was both human and divine, and had to be both to do what he did. For Catholics, it's a dogma in the Catechism, and it's blasphemous to deny it. You're asking people not to look at the most vital figure in their religion in a non-religious way. I doubt that's going to happen.

[Guest DrTom]

Silence, your IP matches the work IP of Dangerous A, NCM, etc. To me, this means you're either Dopey or Bubble Bitch. So I'm going to give you the chance to leave the boards and not come back. If you don't take that opportunity, I'll ban the IP address, and none of you will be able to post from work. I'm tired of banned posters using new names and trying to hide the way they used to post.

 

It's up to you. Do the Christian thing.

[Guest Downhome]

By the way, to say that you wish to discuss Jesus without bringing the Bible and Christianity into the equation, and THEN citing a source which attempts to USE the Bible, is very hypocritacal (sp?).

[Guest JMA]

By the way, to say that you wish to discuss Jesus without bringing the Bible and Christianity into the equation, and THEN citing a source which attempts to USE the Bible, is very hypocritacal (sp?).

Look, I just don't want a lot of religious debates popping up in this thread. That's all. So, what does everyone think of the site?

[Guest JMA]

The reason I started this thread was pretty simple. I wanted to learn more about the man known as Jesus, but being an atheist I wanted to learn about him in a way that didn't involve the supernatural. So, I googled and found this site. I'm interested in the man but don't want to worship him as God incarnate and/or a savior. I want to get away from the mythology and examine the man. It's kinda hard to put into words.

[Guest Downhome]

By the way, to say that you wish to discuss Jesus without bringing the Bible and Christianity into the equation, and THEN citing a source which attempts to USE the Bible, is very hypocritacal (sp?).

Look, I just don't want a lot of religious debates popping up in this thread. That's all. So, what does everyone think of the site?

I understand that, but by using a web site which blatantly brings the Bible into this, IS bringing Christianity and the Bible into your discussion. How do you expect anyone to discuss the site and this topic without doing the same thing? If he had've gave a site which didn't already bring the Bible into this, I would have no problem with it as long as it was more historical records and the such.

 

The fact however, is that there is not all that much about there about Jesus and his life (there are some sources, but not all that many, which means that one must bring the Bible into a discussion about Jesus), outside of the Bible, that is where most get what they know of him, even the site you listed apparently.

[Guest Downhome]

While I'm at it, if you wish for me to list a few of the sources outside of the Bible which pertains to Jesus and his life, many which back up much of what is found in the New Testement, then just let me know. I'll have to re-dig some of them up though, so give me time.

[Guest JMA]

When I'm in doupt I like to ask our resident oracle, DrTom.

 

DrTom, you're a pretty smart guy who's opinion most people (including myself) respect. I also know you've studied Christianity and are well versed in history. Do you have any idea who the historical Jesus was?

[Guest Downhome]

When I'm in doupt I like to ask our resident oracle, DrTom.

 

DrTom, you're a pretty smart guy who's opinion most people (including myself) respect. I also know you've studied Christianity and are well versed in history. Do you have any idea who the historical Jesus was?

So is that a no in regards to my offering you help on the actual topic at hand? There may not be an endless ammounts of manuscripts which mention, and confirm Jesus, but there are enough to hold true, some written by even the very pagan philosopher's which hated Christians.

[Guest JMA]

So is that a no in regards to my offering you help on the actual topic at hand? There may not be an endless ammounts of manuscripts which mention, and confirm Jesus, but there are enough to hold true, some written by even the very pagan philosopher's which hated Christians.

It is not a "no." I welcome any information that can be provided. After all, someone must have inspired the Christian sect of Judaism (which is what it started out as).

[Guest Downhome]

Ok, I will list just a few tonight, and if you want I will list more later. Just as I tell anyone else when speaking to them about the Bible, Jesus, or other such topics (I suppose it can apply to anything really), please take what I say, and study it and look into it for yourself. I am not one for the belief of just believing what one says, have it be me, parents, or even a pastor. I don't mean you are like that, it's obvious you are not. Anyhow, for now, here we go...

 

1) Testimonium Flavianum --- In Latin, that is translated to The Testimony of Flavius. What this is exactly, is a paragrah found in Jewish Antiquities, by Flavius Josephus. Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 37-100) was born to an aristocratic Jewish family, served as a priest, and later became the commander of Jewish forces in Galilee following the revolt against Rome that began A.D. 66. Captured by the Romans, Josephus spent his later life in Rome under the patronage of the Roman emperors where he composed his history of the Jewish people and his account of the Jewish war that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70.

 

The paragraph which this is speaking of, is found in Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3 of said Jewish Aniquities. It reads as follows...

 

"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 among 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 for him, are not extinct at this day."

 

...the chapter which this comes from is speaking of the rebellion of the Jews against Pontius Pilate. Concerning Christ, and what befell Paulina and the Jews at Rome. You must understand that the worlks of Josephus is a historical record, and is not in any way anything to do with the Bible.

 

The above quote has been debated, discussed, and picked apart for years. Many say that the this paragraph had words added here and there by Christians down the line in order to make it more "pro-Jesus", and I wouldn't be suprised if that's the case. The fact remains however, that Josephus did indeed mention, and speak of Jesus in his writings of the Jewish faith. This is the the only place in his works where he mentions him, but it is the most famous of them all. Josephus also made mention of John the Baptist in xviii, 5, 2 of the same work as where the above came from, claiming him to be "the good man".

 

2) Cornelius Tacitus --- This man was a Roman historian, senator, consul and governor of the province of Asia. In The Annals of Imperial Rome, xv, 44, he wrote concerning Jesus and Christians...

 

"Nero . . .punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome."

 

...again, this is not someone "pro-Jesus", this was a pagan Roman historian who hated everything Christian, including Jesus himself. This man had acces to various govt. records, thus had acces to the proof that Jesus was put to death.

 

3) Julian the Apostate --- This individual was a fourth-century emperor who wrote a major work going against Christianity. In this work, he wrote...

 

"Jesus, whom you celebrate, was one of Caesar's subjects. If you dispute it, I will prove it by and by; but it may be as well done now. For yourselves allow, that, he was enrolled with his father and mother in the time of Cyrenius... But Jesus having persuaded a few among you, and those the worst of men, has now been celebrated about 300 years; having done nothing in his lifetime worthy of remembrance; unless anyone thinks it a mighty matter to heal lame and blind people, and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany."

 

...if you must know, that can be found in the polemic of Cyril of Alexandria against Julian, Cyril Contra Julian, vi, pages 213, 191. This is a man also who could have simply denied the life of Jesus, but instead went on to proclaim that he was for real. Not only did he do that, but he also decided to come out and proclaim Jesus's miracles as "mighty manters", instead of just claiming them to be false.

 

4) The Talmud --- Now this one is a truly interesting work. The Talmud ("teaching" or "study") is a multi-volume compilation containing the Mishnah (oral legal teachings) and Jewish commentary on the Mishnah (Gemara). It is the basis of Jewish religious life. The accepted version was compiled by Rabbis Akiba (died AD 135) and Meir and completed by Rabbi Judah in AD 200. The following is a passage...

 

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged. . . but since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

 

...which can be found in Babylonia Sanhedrin 43A. The above states three Biblical facts, Jesus was hanged or crucified, Jesus died on Passover eve or Friday afternoon, and almost no one defended Jesus. The Talmud also records more of the crucifixion and the earthquake and the tearing in two of the Temple curtain during the time of Jesus' death. I'll have to get back with you with exact quotes on that, as I don't have them here with me.

 

5) Pliny the Younger --- He was simply a Roman proconsul in Asia Minor. in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter that also referred to Jesus. Here is that part of the letter...

 

"...it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but

not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit

when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food..."

 

...that is all on him and on that letter that I have.

 

6) Tacitus --- A Roman historian who wrote in 115 A.D. about Jesus Christ and his church...

 

"The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea...but throughout the city of Rome also..."

 

...as you can see, Tacitus treated the execution of Christ as historical fact, even though he hated the Christian faith drawing connections to Roman events and leaders such as Pontius Pilate ).

 

...then we have things here and there like Suetonius in his biography of Claudius, Phlegan, who recorded the eclipse of the sun during Jesus' death and even Celsus, a pagan philosopher. Most of these guys despised Christians, yet they affirmed that Christ was a real person. None of these guys had any reason to support the Christian faith, yet they treated Christ as a real person.If Jesus didn't exist, these guys would have said so.

 

Now obviously not everything here was my word by word post. Some of this was different resources that I found, and printed off, years ago concerning Jesus Christ. I spent a good many years in my past studying the Bible, Jesus, Christianity, and various other religions. I'm no expert, but perhaps this can be some sort of starting point for which you are looking for.

[Guest DrTom]

Do you have any idea who the historical Jesus was?

I'm hardly an oracle, but I'll give it a try.

 

Jesus was a philosopher and preacher. Perhaps he claimed to be the son of the God he was talking about, or maybe that was an "urban legend" about him that spread in the area at the time. Obviously, his message was quite counter to what the Romans were doing, so they murdered him to shut him up, then adopted his ideas later.

 

I have no doubts that someone like that was walking the earth circa 30 AD. I just don't believe there was any divinity attacked to him at all.

[Guest Downhome]

Wow, for someone who was proclaiming to want to talk about this so bad with actual historical information, sure did cease to speak of it when we actually began to do so.

[Guest Vyce]

I don't understand the big deal, All Dreamer was trying to do was talk about Jesus Christ from a NON-religious standpoint, not debate on whether he was real or whether he is the lord/savior. He wasn't trying to state he was right and anyone was wrong, he just wanted to(I assume) copy n paste some literature. What in the hell is the big deal about that?

Because some here thought that the author of the site he linked too was using the Bible to put forth INACCURATE information on Jesus.

 

And when they wanted to put forth what they felt was a correct account of the life of Jesus, JMA would say, "I don't want this to turn into a religious debate."

 

It is somewhat hypocritical. It's a double-standard. If you have one side using the Bible to put forth information which some question the veracity of, you can't disallow the other people from using the Bible, or other sources, to put forth information they say corrects the initial "untruths."

[Guest Downhome]

I don't understand the big deal,  All Dreamer was trying to do was talk about Jesus Christ from a NON-religious standpoint, not debate on whether he was real or whether he is the lord/savior.  He wasn't trying to state he was right and anyone was wrong, he just wanted to(I assume) copy n paste some literature.  What in the hell is the big deal about that?

Because some here thought that the author of the site he linked too was using the Bible to put forth INACCURATE information on Jesus.

 

And when they wanted to put forth what they felt was a correct account of the life of Jesus, JMA would say, "I don't want this to turn into a religious debate."

 

It is somewhat hypocritical. It's a double-standard. If you have one side using the Bible to put forth information which some question the veracity of, you can't disallow the other people from using the Bible, or other sources, to put forth information they say corrects the initial "untruths."

You make great points, and all of them are valid, but it wasn't even the way I looked at it. He comes here, makes a post saying he wants to talk about the historical Jesus WITHOUT using the Bible (even though it is quite historicly accurate) by citing a website that DOES use the Bible to talk about this. That didn't make any sense to me. If he doesn't want to bring the Bible into it, then he shouldn't have used a website that attempts to use the Bible in the first place.

 

That is why I went and found just some of the information I had on Jesus, that is NOT simply from the Bible. After I finally did what he said he wanted, something even himself did not do, he just disapears. It doesn't make sense to me at all. I was more than willing to talk about Jesus from a non-Biblical perspective, it wouldn't be the first time I've done so.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Uh, Death Angel, if you wanna really be cynical about it, we ARE ignorent and oblivious. We just have more creative ways to do it now.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Religion and science fucked up the world. Why couldn't the human race have just stayed ignorant or oblivious to everything?

Well, since the life expectancy would likely be around 30, I'd be at death's door right now and that would kinda suck.

-=Mike --- who thinks idiocy fucked up the world, actually