figuer

I did not, your interpretation is again out of context.

My only claim is that it is evidence, not that it is reliable evidence.

spamandham

I am unconvinced by mountainman's idea that Christianity, and it's history, were constructed from whole cloth by Constantine. I'm allowing for the possibility of that, but it doesn't seem like the simplest explanation for the evidence we see.

The simplest explanation is simple myth/legend making built on top of gnostic symbolism and OT exegesis, followed by a later period of abject propoganda in support of the church.

There may or may not have been a historical Jesus, but if there was, from what I can tell, we know nothing about the specifics of such a man.

I'm saying it's silly to think we can ever know the details of Jesus' life without some new information. The information we have on him is so highly legendary as to be useless for such an endeavor. It's useful for understanding the culture of the writers, but not for trying to recover the 'real' Jesus.

He's the most researched ancient figure of all time, and there is still little/no concensus among those who research for a living, regarding the details of his life.

...and without the ability to establish any details of his life, it doesn't make much sense to assert he existed. His existence, and details of his life, go hand in hand. We can not properly assert one without the other.

aa5874

Your position is reasonably sound with respect to Jesus of the NT.

His existence, and details of his life, go hand in hand.

People only have in him their head, not in their hand.

Littlejohn

"..but it doesn't seem like the simplest explanation for the evidence we see.."

The idea that Jesus was a totally syncretic construction, based on pre-existing myths and legends built around characters of fantasy or mythicizeds previously, it had a certain following in the first decades of the 19 century. But soon it lost "appeal" into intellectual circles that initially had it adopted. As you hardship to believe (at least in Italy and as far as my personal experience) today are environments very close to apologetic Catholic world, who are trying to somehow support the hypothesis of non-existence of historical Jesus.

When I was able to take note of such a truth, I was initially amazed, almost I believed not the evidence collected. Then, reflecting carefully about these disconcerting aspects, I have not took much time to wholly understanding the affair. The truth is that the Catholic clergy has much more afraid also "in excavating" behind a historical Jesus that rather "prove" for non-historical existence of Jesus. The clergy all knows that by the such "truth" has nothing to fear, since it is virtually impossible that it be accepted by the catholic faithfuls, given the lack consistency of reasons to support such a hypothesis.

What are for you "evidences" which do to doubt the "theories" of mountainman? ..

The simplest explanation is that Jesus could have been a healer taumaturgo and a charismatic figure like Simon Magus, Dositeus, Apollonius of Tyana, John the Baptist (magician and gnostic master of Simon Magus, Jesus and Dositeus), etc..

Many "gods" of the various myths, especially the Hellenic one (to which catholicism was particularly related) were initially of the ordinary mortals, then divinizeds by the "common- imaginary" because of the particular features of these characters. What's strange if Jesus followed the same fate of charismatic personalities whose preceded him, in coming in turn "divinized"? ..

Myth and legend came heavily in syncretism that led to the birth of Catholic worship, because most characteristic that the cult had to have was that of "universality" (catholicum), namely that it should be easily "recepito" (get it in own mind) by individuals accustomed since their birth to have to do with the "gods" and the mythology. But from this premiss, come to affirm the not-historicity of the character Jesus, it frankly appears also too!

During the subsequent "travel", along the path of the history, when by then Catholic worship, for both spontaneous accessions that for "forced" those (certainly the most numerous), could count on a broad consensus, then they went to "refine" initial syncretism, that did extensive use of resources lying in mythological deposit of the various polyteistic cults, in pruning it as possible of pagan appearances. (and/or gnostic residues )

This phenomenon began mainly after the "marriage" between "mitraismo" (relative to god Mitra) of Constantine and the Catholicism of the various porporate "foxes", favoured both by generous funding from rich linked in some way to the Catholic Church, and by the influence of the mother of Constantine (Elena ) on the own son. The woman, in fact, almost certainly was "plagiata" (relative to mental plagiarism) from catholic missionaries.

In the process of refining were rewritten all the patristic works of earlier centuries, in order to "prune it" everything that could appear compromising, compared to the image that the clergy, and therefore the whole church, was preparing to give of himself, seen its candidacy to unique worship of the empire. The "engine" for this process was particularly Pope Damasus: one of more cynical and merciless foxes of catholic ecclesiastical landscape of the time.

".. but if there was, from what I can tell, we know nothing about the specifics of such a man."

If there delayed us on the path prepared about 19 centuries ago by "cheerful" founders of Catholic worship, then we will not ever know nothing of "specific to that man "!... All this, of course, to the benefit of current counterfeiters, who can continue undisturbed to "sell" their existential drug. (one of the worst in this area!)

The problem is by no means to establish whether Jesus existed or not, since we find traces of him in all the world's cultures Roman of the time: pagan, Christian, Orthodox, gnostic, rabbinic, mandaean, Manichean, etc..

In particular, in rabbinic literature ARE NOT stated in any place that Jesus was not a real historical character! Yet, since the second century the Catholic world has done nothing but one throw fiercely against the Jewish world, accusing him of killing Jesus, the living God!

If Jesus had not been a real character, for what purpose the Jews had to tolerate for so long (almost up to the present day) an accusation as that ?!...

If Jesus had never existed, why not deny the assumption of Catholic clergy, about the historicity of Jesus, who turned against them ??... All this is not "EVIDENCE "?... We have no news about even with a single pagan writer of first centuries, which challenged the historical existence of Jesus! All we know is that some pagan writers (of which we have news through the "quoting" carried out by "fathers"), such as Celso and Hierocles, who asserted that the figure of Jesus was very different from that propagated by Catholic missionaries! This is what has disturbed most of the clergy of all time, not theories about his alleged non-historicity.

I hope that you realize the absurdity of the thing ... No rabbi has ever written that Jesus has never existed. The Jewish tradition point on evangelic evidence that to kill Jesus was a Roman official, who could decide independently and without Jewish conditioning (see Josephus) on the life or death of Jesus (admitted but not granted that was Pilate to kill Jesus).

Rabbinic writings not only not say that Jesus never existed, but they return us by him a profile very different from one "passed off" for 19 centuries by the forger clergy! A similar view point by the rabbis, about Jesus, was also one of the ancestors of the current Mandaeans, who belonged to the sect of John the Baptist (and therefore had to know very well Jesus!) Yet Mandaeans also not say that Jesus, the inspirer of the Christian religion, was an "invented" character but, on the contrary, in giving us an opinion little flattering about him, attest us virtually his HISTORICAL EXISTENCE.


Littlejohn
.

aa5874

No rabbi has ever written that they SAW Jesus.

Philo never wrote a single word about Jesus, it should be obvious he could not say Jesus did not exist if he had never heard of him.

Josephus wrote that the Messiah was expected at around time of the Jewish War, he could not have written that Jesus did not exist, he obviously did not know anyone by that name who was worshipped as the Son of the God of the Jews.


When was the first time that a rabbi heard that there was someone called Jesus, the Lord and Saviour and Son of the God of the Jews who died for their sins?

Littlejohn

"..No rabbi has ever written that they SAW Jesus.."

You are wrong! .. Read more closely the steps of the Talmud referring to Jesus!

"..Philo never wrote a single word about Jesus.."

Because Philo died before Jesus (almost certainly "JESSE": Yeshay in Hebrew) became "Jesus", namely the famous character we today know. Remember that I maintain that not only Jesus was crucified NEVER, but even that died after 70! In short, for Philo Jesus was a perfect unknown! (when Philo died, in 50s according to current estimates, Jesus was not even in Palestine).

"..Josephus wrote that the Messiah was expected at around time of the Jewish War.."

In facts! It was precisely in this context that Jesus, for the first and only time in his life, was acclaimed as the Messiah expected by the Jewish "common-imaginary". The episode described in the canonical gospels, namely the "Palm Sunday", relative at the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, cheered by the crowd festive, has a high probability of being true. What is false it is its temporal collocation: not in 30s, at the time of Pilate, but between 68 and 70 AD! They help us understand this both Lactantius that the same Josephus!

Before of the "vicenda" (storic event) about the first Jewish war, Jesus was known, both in the pagan world that in the world of gnostic sects, which get own origins by his preaching, as CHRESTOS and NOT as Christos! This means that at the time of Nero (55-68) Jesus could not absolutely be known in Rome as Christus! From this it puts forward, as a logical consequence, that "Christus" which appears in the Annals of Tacitus, is a theatrical fake! Do not forget that Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Lactantius complained that the romans called the Orthodox Catholics "chrestians" and not "christians."

This is mainly due to the fact that before the birth of Catholic worship, which occurred between 140 and 150, in Rome there were already sects linked to the semi-divine and charismatic figure of Jesus the nazarene.

Since Jesus was appealed Chrestos, the followers of these sects were, in turn, called "chrestians." From this aspect spring out the main reason that drove the counterfeiters to not translate in the latin the greek word "Christos" (in latin "Unctus"), in order to maintain the necessary ambiguity between the terms "Chrestos" and "Christos" and so to do believe to their faithfuls that the pagans were wronging while appealed Jesus "Chrestus" and the Catholic faithfuls with "chrestians"!

Do not forget absolutely the important detail that, still today, in France the Christians are called "chrestians"! (chrètien = chrèstien = chrestians). This is because for the first time to bring the image of Jesus in the Gaul of first century, was his son John which, in this context, take up the nickname "Marcus". (this explains because in the Acts of the Apostles one meet the name "John Mark" and because "Peter", in his first epistle, salutes from BABYLON also on behalf of his SON Mark!). It is clear that John Mark spoke to the inhabitants of southern Gaul, where was to live for some time, before returning to East (Ephesus), as CHRESTOS/CHRESTUS about his father Jesus and NOT Christos!

Probably the Catholic "Orthodox" authorities did anything for to do lose to the inhabitants of Gaul the use of the term "chrestians" in favour of the term "christians. The story, however, shows that there was not succeeded!

"..When was the first time that a rabbi heard that there was someone called Jesus, the Lord and Saviour and Son of the God of the Jews who died for their sins?.."

Around 140-150. Before of then, certainly there was not ever anybody who had claimed that Jesus the nazarene died crucified at the time of Pilate! Jesus was crucified in "literary" way by the counterfeiters who founded the Catholic-Christian worship, as they superimpose in syncretic way its figure to that of John of Gamala: the TRUE self-styled Messiah awaited by the Jews, made crucify at the time of Pilate! (but certainly not by Pilate). John of Gamala also stated to be applicant to the throne of Israel, as Asmonaeans (also called "maccabei") were the last legitimate king of Israel, before Herod the Great usurped them the throne, thanks to the Romans.

However, since the first century (from the years 70 AD) the rabbis knew that the "sorcerer" Jesus, who had "lead-astray" the Jewish people, was executed by stoning, after the Sanhedrin had expressed its condemnation to death! THIS IS BECAUSE the Jews could not reject the accusation of having killed the "God" of Catholics, although his crucifixion was a resounding historical false!


Littlejohn

________________

all the material posted by Littlejohn in this forum of Infidels.org and in others forums must be deemed in all respects copyright©
.

spamandham

That isn't true. The Dutch radicals are still quite active. No new discoveries have been made that discount the idea that Jesus was purely myth. The discoveries that have been made are compatible with that theory.

However, I don't think it's necessary to go as far as saying there is no historical core to Jesus, to recognize that the only Jesus we have information for is a legend.

The idea that we could extract the historical core from what we have is not much different from claiming that we could extract the historical St. Nick from "The Night Before Christmas".

I have no evidence he's wrong. But his explanation is not the simplest.

That's not an explanation, it's a list of possibilities. You might want to add to that list of possibilities, that Jesus was a high priest. If you read through the works of Josephus, you'll see that the name 'Jesus' is used almost exclusively by high priests (or high priests in waiting).

How can you claim a process like this affirms a historical Jesus? How is it any different from the process that created Jinn, Paul Bunyan, or the tooth fairy?

Constantine worshiped Sol Invictus prior to his 'conversion', not Mitra.

Littlejohn

But the "Dutch Radikal Kritik" did not EVER said that Jesus was a fictional character! One of the few things on which its representatives were largely in agreement, concerns the alleged epistles of Paul. According to this line of thought, none of these epistles was written before the end of the first century: therefore, none of those letters was written by "Paul of Tarsus "!... Today there is an important document that in practice comfort such a assumption!

It is not very clear for me the concept about you want to express, however I think to understand that you continue to argue that there is no evidence to support the historicity of Jesus.

In my previous post I did mention to the aspect relative to the jewish world and the rabbinic one in particular. I showed that the Jews, in past centuries, were persecuted by Christians as responsible for the killing of Jesus the nazarene, the God of Christians. Now you, that urgent on archaeological evidence (without knowing if they actually exist or not) could you explain, using the mere logic, as it is possible that an entire people, chased away from his land, could be accused and persecuted for having killed a man NEVER EXISTED? .. Why the Jews have never claimed that this character has never existed and that the accusation was unfair? .. This justification is not "pulled at stake" even today that the israelite people has itself enfranchised from any physical and ideological coercion ... Why?

".. that Jesus was a high priest.."

One can't rule out that it can have been so, also: obviously in his personal worship! There are special elements, in the ancient papal "trousseau", leading to specific elements of ancient gods typical of Palestine: both pre-Jewish that Jewish. (the reference is, in particular, at the god Dagon)

The name "Jesus" is of greek origin and NOT Jewish and is excluded that the Jewish priests had such a name! The real name Jewish, indeed very widespread, brought by these characters and many other Jews, was "YEHOSHUAH" and not Jesus. This jewish name (Yehoshuah) was transliterated with Joshua in English and in Italian with Giosuè and not with JESUS '!

It is not such a process that bears witness to the historicity of Jesus, but the lying quotes in multiple sources, diversifieds between them, and the same logic as that applied to the case of persecution of Jews, who have been subjected to "having killed a man never existed "!... As you see, there is no need for any archaeological discovery to reiterate the historicity of Jesus: just the logic ..

"..Constantine worshiped Sol Invictus prior to his 'conversion', not Mitra..."

from the: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mithraism.html

"..Emperor Constantine officially fused Mithraism and Christianity.."

from the: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/ar..._invictus.html

"..When Mithraism became the chief religion in the late Roman Empire, Mithras was called Sol Invictus, or the invincible Sun. The eye of Mithras was the Sun itself (Mithras, the Soldier's God). The players are now complete for the incredible transformation of Constantine. "

from the: http://www.geocities.com/shivsantan/mithra.htm

"..This date for Jesus’ birthday was fixed much later in 313 A.D. by Emperor Constantine, who was a follower of Mithra when he adopted the cult of Christianity ..."

from the: http://saturniancosmology.org/files/.../mithraism.txt
"..Emperor Constantine officially fused Mithraism and Christianity "During the 1st century BC, a cult of Mithra, made much progress in Rome, after enduring ..."

Etc.

There are a myriad of sites that speak of this argument: that you must do it is only to choose!

However, beyond what you can find in the sites, there are clear archaeological evidence showing the close link between the two cults, starting probably from the late third century.


Littlejohn
.

aa5874

Don't just say I am wrong, produce the passage in the Talmud where a rabbi SAW Jesus of the NT ALIVE.

mountainman

Obviously the "Dutch Radikal Kritik" were not sufficiently radical at that point.

Best wishes,


Pete