IamJoseph

We can be certain no one in Judea would have been called by a latin name, but this aside,there is no proof or evidence of any kind this is a historical figure. However, this is only my summation from the known and identifiable facts at hand, so correct me if my firm conclusion is faulty. The only known and reliable evidence is the Hebrew writings [The Talmud - which appears contemporary to some degree], and this cannot be directly attributed to a person in the 25-30 AD/CE. Itcan apply to anyone named Joshua in any other decade.



Barabbas was a Bin Laden like figure for Rome, and much was expended in his capture. He would not have been released for a Rabbi or any other prominent Jew, nor is there any proof of a trial any place. Rome was totally brutal against rebellion, as seen with numerous other nations with far less annimosity than with the Jews.

The other factor is that at this time, both the Nazerite and the Ebonite groups were not large but very small. The most important question is, why would Rome entertain a pardon to a Jew calling himself 'king of the Jews' - when there was a decree of heresy in Judea; admittedly, this was not made official till 66 by Nero, but there was still great rebellion in Judea at this time against Rome, and it appears implausable anything could have been said to soften Rome. Unless the Gospels is talking about a Norwegian and not a Jew!

spin

I'm sorry for your misapprehension. You have misunderstood my intent, which was to show that Mithras was also referred to as Sol Invictus and so when Aurelian instituted the worship of his Sol Invictus whose birthday we know, the mithraist soldiers would likely have celebrated their Sol Invictus on that day.

Here is what I said again:

Do you think that "inconrupti Solis invicti Mithra[e]" (to cite Nock's Ostian inscription - CIL xiv,66) was not celebrated on Dec 25th along with the Sol Invictus of Aurelian? Do you think that Aurelian's imposition of his own brand of Sol Invictus would make the army put aside the Sol Invictus many of them already worshiped (as evinced by the numerous Mithraea in the provinces featuring votive offerings by very many soldiers)? The soldiers would have celebrated Mithras.

I cited Nock for you to check out the inscription and its context earlier. Your understanding isn't derived from my comment.


spin

bupanishad2012

Jesus (Iesous) is a Greek name, for the record.

show_no_mercy

IamJoseph has weird ideas about Jews in the 1st century. He thinks that all Jews in the entire world only lived in Judaea and only spoke Aramaic.

JGL53

I think a more sensible question would have been "Is the Jesus of the bible totally made up - an utter fictiion - or was he based on a real person, after adding on all the acts of magic?

I would have checked "What frigging difference does it make?".

spin

The range of options for the poll were limited, but the question "Is the Jesus of the bible totally made up - an utter fictiion - or was he based on a real person, after adding on all the acts of magic?" is just as limited. There are a few lost souls who believe that the stuff was "totally made up"/fiction. They aren't interested in the production of the literature. The notion of fiction is one that indicates an intention to deliberately create an unreal character. The mainstream mythers don't believe this at all. Here the notion of myth is one of theological narrative, ie its purpose is theological rather than narrative or historical. That doesn't mean that the material could be considered fictional. Again, if the original source of the Jesus tradition is the result or errors or psychotic events or dreams or drug related experiences, then strict notions of neither fiction nor myth are appropriate.

The range of substantive positions include:

1. historical
2. mythical
3. fictional
4. psychotic
5. dream
6. drug
7. error

or whatever I haven't thought about. Sloppy uses of myth and fiction will only obscure the significant choices.

A lot of people are interested for various reasons. I can understand but not hold your position: "What frigging difference does it make?"


spin

IamJoseph

They did not live only in Judea, but had prominent positions in Greece [Paul of Tarsus] and Rome. Its a great fallacy to think Judeans spoke Aramaic - they spoke, read and prayed only in Hebrew, untill this was forbidden after 70 CE, which was continued by the church. We know this from the dead sea scrolls, the Talmud and a host of Hebrew writings. Aramaic was only spoken with foreigners.

IamJoseph

Whatever. The greek or latin name application for a Judean Jew is a total fiction, and should not be given such credibility - its a distortion of truth and history with a clear agenda.

IamJoseph

A factor which even transcends whether truth or fiction applied here is that no one in Europe challenged or questioned the Gospels, accepting it as gospels from a far away land and by people who had no incline with its descriptions. That they did not have a choice here with Rome or the church for some 1800 years does not excuse them. Today, the belief has become part of their being, as with a language, and cannot be separated. The cherished lie has become more preferred than a disdained lie.

Rick Sumner

Alas, the reading deficiency is yours. Nock, p9, admits that his reconstructions of the inscriptions are open to question. Unless you're going to close those questions, Nock isn't giving you a point, he's giving you a possibility. Since you aren't dealing with the questions Nock admits exists, I can only assume that you are no more certain than your source is.

Another rhetorical tour de force that, unfortunately, has no actual substance behind it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner