• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 10th November 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Jesus: Truth Or Myth?

A

Anonymous

Guest
I read a book about how he was probably a member of this sect of healers. I can't remember the name sadly. But I don't see any need to bring in India. Those guys probably had some similar things. I also imagine the ressurection thing could have been caused by tetrodoxin or so. It would be a good way to get down from the cross.
 
Another story is that JC spent his early years in Egypt, learning his stuff from the magicians there.

And one theory for the 'resurrection' is that it was a deliberately planned rescue by Joseph of Aramathea (who according to yet another story was in fact Jesus's father!). The vinegar on the sponge was drugged, as suggested by Xanatic, to induce death-like symptoms, even though JC had only been on the cross for 3 hours (crucifiction usually took days to kill).

And another story has JC coming to Cornwall with Joseph of A., who was probably a rich trader who came here regularly for tin.

Pick 'n' Mix from that little lot!
 
Don't say that JC landed in Cornwall to them in Zummerset rynner, they reckon that he landed at Breen Down, south of WSM & walked across the Quantocks to Glastonbury where he built a chapel.

Hence the origin of the Glastonbury legend!!!

The reality is that most Christian countries wanted a piece of the JC story for themselves. So if JC, or one of the disciples couldn't be 'organised' to visit the required site in life, a relic or vision, often both would happen to endorse the 'fact' that JC endorsed or blessed the place, be it country city or church!!!!!
 
Has anyone else read the Baigent and Leigh 'Messianic Legacy' books? I guess if one looks hard enough it's possible to find 'facts' that fit one's theories but, even so, I found them to be an enjoyable read.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have heard the fishes and loaves things was nicked from a God and Goddess religion. Fishes being girly and loaves being all phallic like. It isn't really surprising that since Christianity likes to take ideas of other religions and adapt them or just plain nick them like.

Jesus went to Japan, there is a town there with lots of crosses and His tomb (allegedly).
 
Ev,

A good amount of Christian imagery is lifted pretty much wholesale from Isis and Osiris although, of course, the unbiquitous Mithraic symbolism of Chrisitianity is pretty well documented and is not god/godess based to the best of my knowledge. The Mediterranian obsession with dead and ressurecteds god, is pretty well pervasive, except in Judaeism, where the god there seems to be similar to the Babylonian god of War, only promoted to creator of all things.
Xan,

The flight into Egypt figures in the Gospels, I forget which.

8¬)
 
about the Jesus Christ being an amalgam of many deities and such ,if you compare the life of Osiris and Dyonisus (specially him) you can see the most of the stuff about J.C is taken from earlier sources;like the virgin birth,death and resurrection and so on.
Even David Icke wrote about it so it must be true!:D
 
I was going to post this in the Jesus and Magdelin thread but was worried about hijacking it or more likly cutting it dead lol

anyway.......

Are there any writings/theorys etc about Jesus that put him down to being a simple nutter/conartist? I do belive in Jesus to a degree but I cant help feeling he was a normal bloke with mental problems or just bulls**ting everyone for a laugh. I mean nowadays there must be at LEAST 10 people in the world claiming to be sent from god or the actual reincarnation of Jesus or a god itself and now we just feel sorry for them or in some cases lock them away. I can help seeing him as a bit like an ancient "Archie Moon" lol

I'd be interested to read any evidence for this if there is any.
Also presumable if Jesus did exist he would be mentioned in other writings of the time both holy and non. Are there any of these? I will have a search myself but you people are always so helpful ;)
 
If you haven't been hit by a thunderbolt by this time tomorrow, I guess you could be right.:eek!!!!:
 
From what I've read there were hundreds of little Messiah cults in the area at the time and more Sons Of God than you could shake a stick at. Jesus was by no means the only claimant.

This is the premise of 'Life Of Brian'- that people are conditioned to believe what suits them.

Jesus just seemed to have the best PR at the time.

(scans the sky anxiously)
 
There is no record of Jesus outside the Gospels, apart from a highly disputed passage in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus - you can read the pros and cons of that particular argument here.
Life of Brian had it about right - there were dozens of messiahs/gurus/cult leaders at the time. It was just luck that Paul picked on the Jesus sect when he decided to start a world-beating religion.
 
i have always wondered, seeing as he was executed as a, for want of a better word, 'Terrorist' by the Romans, surely there would be some actual Roman documentation of this?
 
The Islamic Koran state him as Isa but to muslims God is one and inseperable so he is just a man to them who speaks the word of god a prophet. Other prophets are Adam(the first man), Moses, Isa(jesus already mentioned) and Mohammed as the last and most recent.

Jews do not have a new testement so for all intents and purposes do not believe in Jesus as their Messiah

Christians in the middle road believe in jesus and not Mohammad

I pesonally do believe and don't think he was BS'ing everyone (if he was I think he took it a little too far) I'm not sure whether he was god, a prophet of god or the son of god though.
 
4imix said:
i have always wondered, seeing as he was executed as a, for want of a better word, 'Terrorist' by the Romans, surely there would be some actual Roman documentation of this?
Click to expand...

Not really - throughout the whole Roman Empire there would have been thousands of executions on the basis of "terrorism" - why should one in particular survive? He didn't lead men into battle (something which the Romans would have noted hisorically - mainly to boast their success over the "barbarians" and for the successful Emperor to celebrate a Triumph).

On the Josephus text - here is a more substantial account of it's context...................

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
 
I became more and more infuriated becuase I was sure that Tacitus made a passing mention of Jesus (or at least the foundings of Christianity). Thanks to Google, I have found the following passage direct from Tacitus' Annals.............

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. "

Doesn't mention Jesus by name - but all the ingredients are there.
 
4imix said:
i have always wondered, seeing as he was executed as a, for want of a better word, 'Terrorist' by the Romans, surely there would be some actual Roman documentation of this?
Click to expand...
I imagine that the early Roman Church managed to loose this quite early on...
 
Documented Jesus

I think we've touched on this briefly before, but the book
"The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry" by Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas
states that there IS a "wanted-by-the-law" notice for Jesus that
actually carries a description of him. Copies of this document were hunted down and destroyed by the Catholic Church, because of this description. At least one document, however, survived. The book describes where it was found, and what it contains.

To make a long story short, Jesus was a progressive teacher of
Masonic practices and his real heresy was that he believed women and the poor are JUST as worthy to be initiated and
taught as ANYONE else. That is also (supposedly) why the Dead Sea Scroll translations were "supressed" for so many years.

His physical description, however, describes him as a very small man, with a hunchback and thinning hair. (Which completely changes the meaning of the Bible School song about Zachias being a "wee little man who climbed up in a sycamore tree" -- it was so he could see the wee Jesus in the crowd!)

FWIW

TVgeek
 
Re: Documented Jesus

TVgeek said:
I think we've touched on this briefly before, but the book
"The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud and the Great Secret of Freemasonry" by Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas
states that there IS a "wanted-by-the-law" notice for Jesus that
actually carries a description of him.
Click to expand...
So, are there any "wanted" notices for other terrorists and criminals that we can compare the "Jesus" notice to?
 
Re: Re: Documented Jesus

Annasdottir said:
So, are there any "wanted" notices for other terrorists and criminals that we can compare the "Jesus" notice to?
Click to expand...

Good question -- its been a while since I read the book, but I think it was implied that such things were commonly distributed amongst the Roman army when someone was "wanted" for a "high crime".

Anyone have a copy handy?

TVgeek
 
4imix wrote:

i have always wondered, seeing as he was executed as a, for want of a better word, 'Terrorist' by the Romans, surely there would be some actual Roman documentation of this?
Click to expand...

Almost right! He was executed, under political pressure from the organized religious of the locale, as a 'Blasphemer' by the Romans.

As for documentation, anyone know of any Roman documentation which survives on ANY individual case of crucifixion, never mind one of thousands in an insignificant outpost of the empire?
 
It occurs to me that perhaps we should take a look at the early history of Islam to try to find answers about "Jesus, the man". Afterall, do you think that Muslims would have accepted Jesus as being a holy man if he truly hadn't existed or had just been one of many charlatans?
 
Mana said:
It occurs to me that perhaps we should take a look at the early history of Islam to try to find answers about "Jesus, the man". Afterall, do you think that Muslims would have accepted Jesus as being a holy man if he truly hadn't existed or had just been one of many charlatans?
Click to expand...
I'm not too sure that the Muhammed and the other 8th-century writers of the Koran would have any more written records or hard information about Jesus than say, the Jews (who have some wonderfully scurrilous legends about both Christ and Paul). After all, they were hundreds of miles from Israel, speaking and writing a different language, and of a completely different culture and time. At the time of the beginnings of Islam, Christianity was quite a powerful force in the region, and Muhammed would have heard many stories about Jesus and probably met many Christian teachers. He was after all, a scholarly, religious man and would have developed great respect for other religious traditions. However, he saw himself as the messenger for a new phase in God's plans, bringing the "new" Word of God that Moses, Abraham and Jesus had failed to deliver. That is why Muslims honour (in theory) the other two "religions of the Book" - they are regarded as the forerunners to Islam.
 
I have never understood why Jesua bar Josef was executed by the Romans in the manner described. The punishment for blasphemy against the Temple was (I think) stoning, not crucifiction.

Execution by crucifiction was reserved for revolt, banditry and slaves who stole from or assaulted their masters. In general the Romans left local punishments in place or, if the criminal was Roman, garotting.
 
From much reading around this area, I think the most important thing to remember in interpreting what information is extant about the man, is the context of the times he lived in.

This means that the Roman tradition one the one hand and the Jewish on the other. So the fact that the Jews are still waiting for two messiahs, as foretold, means that Jesus has to be looked at in relation to what the Jewish tradition of Messiahs.

The Jews are waiting for a priestly messiah who will be contemporary with the kingly messiah. The priestly messiah will annopint the kingly one and the kingly one will then lead the nation of Jews to earthly triumph against her enemies, ensuring that the temple of YHWH is restored allowing the Jews to worship in piece. So in that context, the question must be asked, which was Jesus?

There are two schools of though on who the messiahs were in light of this. One says John the Baptist was the priestly messiah who annointed Jesus who was the kingly one and thus fulfilled the prophecy. However, the CHristians then say that Jesus was a step beyond the prophecy and instead of leading an earthly kingdom he spoke of the kingdom of god and a lot of peace and love stuff and so the Jews said well then you're not the messiah.

Another school of though says that James was supposed to be the priestly messiah and Jesus the kingly one and that James and he fell out over the inclusion of women and gentiles and that at that point Jesus assumed the mantle of both messiahs and the Jews said no dice.

As such, the Romans, reserving crucifiction for sedition and treason only, would have seen Jesus in the light of what they were aware of as the Jewish messiah, that is one who wopuld lead them against their Roman oppressors, and so Jesus in their eyes was guilty of sedition and treason and so found himself nailed to a tree. Then when Constantine hedged his bets by converting to no less than five religions during his lifetime saw that the Christians were emerging as a powerbase, and the Roman links were forged, the early bible had to be changed to reflect the roman benefactors. As such, Constantine got the Christaisn together and got them to codify the bible, with himself having the deciding vote. So the Jews were then portrayed as the villains, not the romans and so the context of the whole thing was lost as the accounts were skewed to favour the romans not the Jews.

If you look at the Messianic Legacy by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh they go into all of the sources available and there are more sources than you might think, but any information is only valuable when looked at in the context of the time and the traditions.

LD
 
the early bible had to be changed to reflect the roman benefactors
Click to expand...

This is an interesting assumption/theory. I'd be interested in hearing the hard facts & evidence behind it...
 
OK,
from memory, will have to look up some references :)

Constantine met with early church leaders and a mjor topic of discussion was the bible, a lot of books and gospels were floating around and there was much debate as to what was apocryphal and what was not.

The council of Nicea was conveined to put this to rest once and for all, in 325CE. This threw out certain things, like the Gospel of Thomas, and included what we know today as the catholic bible. However, heavy editing had already begun. Helena, Constantines mother was a christian and had pressurised Constantine to give them recognition. However the emperor was also fighting with the factions of the crumbling state religion of Sol Invictus (a hodge podge of the Greco-Roman pantheon based around Apollo as the Invincible Sun), the Jews and a ferw other sects. His empire was crumbling and he hatched deal with the various factions to keep them on side, the Council of Nicea and the bible codification being one of them. As such, with recognition from the Roman authorities, those gospels which were most kind to them were chosen to be THE gospels, with some judicous editing of course. Specific examples were given by Baigent et al. in Messianic Legacy where the authors describe the arrest of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane and point out that a warrant for Jesus arrest had been issued and yet early greek gospels say a legion was sent to arrest him. This does survive today as the same account as todays versi0on indicates a few soldiers were sent to arrest him. Where as a legion at the time would have consisted of anything between about 900 and 1200 men (ie a legion on full battle readyness), givcing an entirely different complexion to what seems a fairly simple incident.

I will look up some more examples but there are plenty. Such as the crucifiction itself. If Pontius Pilate washed his hands, why was Jesus executed by the Jews in a manner that was unheard of in their tradition but was a Roman punishment for sedition and rebellion?

Fomr my reading there is much to say that the early church fathers, after 325CE did much to alter the anti-Roman sentiment of the early church writings as favour came their way. The result was the villification of the Jews as the actual killers of the messiah. An dwe are left with that legacy today.

Will look up some references.

LD
 
I don't know about contemporary historical references to Christ, but the Gospel of Q is a fascinating insight into the transformation of Christ from man to myth.

This is a great place to start. It clearly delineates what Christ is "known" to have said, inferred to have said, and the words put into his mouth. Note that he initially refers to himself as the "son of man," not "son of God."
 
Isn't it possible that the biblical Jesus is an amalgamation of several different historical figures?

Just my ha'penny :)

Jane.
 
intaglio said:
I have never understood why Jesua bar Josef was executed by the Romans in the manner described. The punishment for blasphemy against the Temple was (I think) stoning, not crucifiction.
Click to expand...

Jesus's trial was a political hot potato in jurusalem the best surviveing account comes from the Gospel of Jhon. heres what happened and how he came to be Sentenced.

1) Jesus, after his arrest, was first sent to a former high priest called Annas who was the father in law of the curent high priest Caiaphas who had come up with the idea of killing jesus in order to stop the romans from pesecuting the Jewish church as the greaks had done before the romans came (the greaks had erected a big statue of Zeus in the temple in an attempt to quell posible rebellian by the jews by trying to do away with their religian).

2) Jesus was taken for questioning to Caiaphas after Annas's questioning could't pin anything on him. Caiaphas decided to take him to see the roman govenor Pilate.

3) Pilate was intreged by jesus and couldn't work out what to charge him with because the guy appeared to be of no theret to the roman empire when he questioned him and pilate had no doubt heard all the roumours about the jewish messiah that had come into town last sunday exactly the way that had been prophisised and had no doubt heard about what jesus had said about taxes and that while you use roman coinage and enjoy the benifits the romans give to you you should pay them taxes.
Pilate interveiwed jesus untill he was satisfied that he could be of no thret to the roman state and in order to stop possible inserections it may be an idea to keap him around.

4) The fly in Pilate's ointment was the Pharacies (the most powerfull sector of the jewish church) who were convinced jesus should be put to death because he had pointed out that they were currupt and were totaly missing the point of the jewish religian just to feather their own nests (jesus's protest at the money lenders was one of his critacisams of the pharacies), however the church could not put people to death without the goveners permition which pilate would not freely give because he was convinced jesus was better off alive and free (!).

5) The bargin was somehow reached by pilate and the jewish church that as one prisoner was relesed every passover that there would be a choice between 2 chriminals one perseved as a threat to the Jewish church but not to the Romans (Jesus) and the other percived as a threat to the Romans but not to the jewish church (Barabbas, a zealot freedom fighter) the loser would be crusified by the roman state.

The reson therefore that Jesus was crucified was that he had to be Condemed to death under Roman law in order to be relesed by pilate. Pilates plan backfired how ever when he thought he would up jesuses chances of release by refreing to jesus as the king of the jews, which was offensive to many jews as acording to urban legends the messiah was ment to crush the romans with amazeing superpowers not be advocated by them!

However Jesus did posthumusly 'crush the romans' so it just gos to show a little patiance go's a long way:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top