• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Invention Of Jesus

.

Much appreciated and thought provoking reply, thank you.

After due consideration, perhaps no need for an ontological discussion at all...

Either the Bible, or any other religious scribe is a literal truth, or it isn't.

All of said are comprehensively exposed, now that we have an infinitely greater understanding of science, which was impossible at that time.

Consequently, anything arising from such a specious foundation is fallacious.

What, precisely, is the argument otherwise?

You can't dismiss the whole thing that way. It is obviously a mish mash, starting with a cosmology, then the history of the tribes of Israel;, then the story of the Messiah. Anyone who maintains the Bible is literally true hasn't read it. But you can't extrapolate that to say that as a result there is no truth in it (or other religious books, for that matter). On that basis we would have to disregard virtually all dark age and medieval writings as well.
 
My copy of Atwill's book has just arrived: it look to be excellent: "Caesar's Messiah- The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus (Flavian Signature Edition").

I'm going to quote relevant extracts from the Introduction - the video is good, and the book looks to be even better
 
Caesar's Messiah P158 said:
The mystery of Jesus' identity begins with his very name. "Jesus Christ", or a Paul calls him, "Christ Jesus" was certainly not the real name of the founder of Christianity. Christ is the Greek word for "Messiah" and Jesus is a Greek homophone (ee-ay-sooce) for the Hebrew word Yeshua, which can mean either "God saves" or, as in the case of Jesus, "Saviour"
 
On one visit to my beloved Isle of Iona, there were a number of pilgrims on the bus as we headed towards the ferry crossing.

Not thinking, I mentioned that the surrounding geology had proven to be some of the oldest - millions of years ago.

To quote Billy Connolly, my observation was as welcome as 'a fart in a spacesuit'...
 
Which parts are true?
I don't know. Some people have identified the flood with the event when the Black Sea suddenly expanded. I imagine quite big chunks of the Jewish history are as true as you can expect from a 2000+ year old manuscript. They didn't approach History the same way as we do now. I do believe the Gospels are attempting to describe true events, and that Revelations is the consequence of eating the wrong mushrooms.

The chronology of the creation is not part of the Bible - it's a medieval meditation which is about as much use as determining how many angels can dance on a pin.
 
Comfortably Numb,

As it's not factual, anything laid on that specious foundation - predominantly incorporating Jesus therein is inevitability fallacious.

If the Bible, especially Genesis, is comprehensively exposed as such, then why even remotely debate whether Jesus performed miracles...

Possibly because the believe in the word for word revelation of the Bible has such a hold on some people, particularly in the American Mid West, that to even question it can be detrimental to your health.

When any group become so dependent on a teaching of any sort then they are prone to making some very dubious decisions.

Some very powerful people in these communities have a lot to lose if some aspect of the Bible can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be misleading or outright false.

INT21.
 
The mystery of Jesus' identity begins with his very name. "Jesus Christ", or a Paul calls him, "Christ Jesus" was certainly not the real name of the founder of Christianity. Christ is the Greek word for "Messiah" and Jesus is a Greek homophone (ee-ay-sooce) for the Hebrew word Yeshua, which can mean either "God saves" or, as in the case of Jesus, "Saviour"

See, this is the sort of nit picky stuff that hurts the credibility of those trying to debunk the Bible. Christ was both the messiah and the saviour, so that's a perfectly sensible name for him. Remember how many translations the Bible has been through. Joshua of course is a common rendition of Yeshua into English, and Jesus would seem to be equally valid. Christ is represented as Christos in many languages.

Similar things apply to the Arthurian legend. He was probably called Ambrosius but the name has been distorted down the centuries.
 
And which parts are false, I'm just kidding. Not taking a stance for the life of me.
'False' is harsh. you are asking people who wrote things down between 1800 to 2500 years ago to have the same attitude to history as we do. They didn't. Myth and history are interwoven in almost all 'historical' manuscripts up until at least the 16th century.

I'm not trying to defend the fundamentalists, fundamentalists in any religion are dangerous but particularly so in Christianity and Islam.
 
...They didn't. Myth and history are interwoven in almost all 'historical' manuscripts up until at least the 16th century. ..

And, it seems, some documents right up to the present day.

One would think that in today's world of information technology, we could at least rely on accounts of events being accurate.

INT21.
 
Comfortably Numb,

As it's not factual, anything laid on that specious foundation - predominantly incorporating Jesus therein is inevitability fallacious.

If the Bible, especially Genesis, is comprehensively exposed as such, then why even remotely debate whether Jesus performed miracles...

INT21.
Easy answer. Many liberal Christian churches use the older books (as well as Revelation) as narratives (they believe in evolution, etc.). However they still hold true that Jesus was who it's claimed he was. Similar more conceptual non-fundamental believers exist with Judaism and Islam.
 
Coming in at a tangent: what did Jesus look like ? Below is a computer-modelled composite of what a First Century Israelite most probably would have resembled. The point commonly made by believers is that it doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, what's important is what he said and did. Yes but ... I don't believe them, I think it does matter what your Messiah looked like. Visions of the Blessed Virgin Mary usually entail some blue-eyed white skinned colleen and not that of a women who has spent her life working in the fields under a Mediterranean sun. Like-wise the face on the Turin Shroud was morphed into an image of the man at an earlier age (picture somewhere on Binternet) - and looked just like the trimmed-bearded Hipster that we all know and love from the paintings. According to one of my favourite archeologists John Romer, the Christ images (complete with halo) all came from Apollo originally.

Remodeled-Jesus-Facebook.jpg
 
Jim.

Post #164 is a bit misleading. You have only quoted what I quoted (the blue text) from Comfortably Numb.

My contribution is the black text following it.

INT21.
 
... See, this is the sort of nit picky stuff that hurts the credibility of those trying to debunk the Bible. Christ was both the messiah and the saviour, so that's a perfectly sensible name for him. Remember how many translations the Bible has been through. Joshua of course is a common rendition of Yeshua into English, and Jesus would seem to be equally valid. Christ is represented as Christos in many languages. ...

No, this is the sort of fuzzy stuff that hurts the credibility of those professing the Bible to be a precise historical resource.

In the context of this thread's theme (evaluating Jesus' status as an actual historical figure) it would be crucial to know what this historical figure's name was.

There's no question the 'Christ' part is a title rather than a personal name.

Knowing that the Greek-derived 'Jesus' comes from 'Yeshua' / 'Joshua' doesn't necessarily close the issue of the historical figure's given name. 'Yeshua' / 'Joshua' has several interpretations, all of which refer to saving or salvation in some sense.

There's the lingering issue of whether 'Yeshua' was retroactively applied to some historical figure as a way to reinforce his professed status as a savior. The common rebuttal is that two of the Gospels (Matthew; Luke) claim Mary was specifically instructed to name her child 'Jesus' by an angel. Furthermore, the Gospel accounts state the angel explained the prescribed name with regard to the child's destiny as a savior.

None of these accounts originated until after Jesus' life story had run its course and he'd been lauded as just such a savior. Was there a historical figure originally given a name connoting 'savior' / 'salvation' here, or was the 'savior'-related name attributed later - either as a more fitting personal name by which to cite him or even as a quasi-title analogous to the 'Christ' labeling?

This latter possibility is reflected in Matthew's single pronouncement of yet a third name (Emmanuel) which connotes God 'being with us'.

The most relevant name issues aren't how the figure was named afterward, but rather how he was or may have been named during his lifetime.
 
Also what did the H stand for and did he have a bicycle?
 
The mystery of Jesus' identity begins with his very name. "Jesus Christ", or a Paul calls him, "Christ Jesus" was certainly not the real name of the founder of Christianity...

See, this is the sort of nit picky stuff that hurts the credibility of those trying to debunk the Bible.

Yes and no. Firstly, it is possible that Jesus/Joshua (etc.) had a different birth name. It is possible that he chose or was given the name Jesus/Joshua in later life. It is also possible that the name Jesus/Joshua was attributed to him after his death. I have no view on this as I do not see it is as fundamental to whether or not he existed.

For comparison, there was no one called Confucius. That name is a Latinised version of "Kǒng Fūzǐ" which, in turn, means "Master Kong" — the "Master" part of which is clearly an honorific. This does not mean that Confucius does not exist — only that we know him by a different name from the one he used in life.

Indeed, the idea of a person having one name, linked in some way to a family name, and it sticking with them throughout their life is far from universal.

Throughout history, people have been known by a variety of names and titles during their lives. Monarchs often choose a regnal name, which may be different from their birth name.. The Battenbergs became the Mountbattens. Norma Jeane Mortenson became Marilyn Monroe. Marion Morrison became John Wayne. Karol Jozef Wojtyla became John Paul II. My wife is on her third surname, and my ex partner had documents in 4 different surnames, one of which she had made up for professional purposes.

Therefore, the fact that Jesus may have been known by another name in his early life, or throughout his life, does not cast doubt on his existence as a historical person.

However, in all the other examples above, there is clear evidence of who the person was and what name they were known by before they adopted or were given their new name or title.

It is reasonable for someone who doubts the historical existence of Jesus to seek evidence of his existence, and in order to do so, they would need to identify the name by which he was known in life, then find contemporaneous records relating to that person. This is perfectly reasonable when considering the historicity of Homer, Arthur, or Robin Hood, and it is equally reasonable when considering the historicity of Jesus.

Huge claims are made for Jesus, not only in metaphysical terms, but also in terms of what he is claimed to have said and done in his life. If we compare him to other figures of the time, we have very little contemporaneous evidence. We have none of his writings, and the reports of his preaching were written long after the event. For those who choose to believe, it is a matter of faith and I respect their right to believe. For those who prefer evidence to faith, there is less to go on than would be ideal.
 
That's a tremendous exegesis..
I don't even know what exegesis means.

What I have tried to explain is really only my own reasoned position having respect to what I think I have experienced. I would never ask anyone else to believe exactly what I believe

I think the appropriate phase is the US one - Your Mileage May Vary.

Good luck to you all and as the brilliant Dave Allen used to say, 'May your God go with you'.
 
I don't even know what exegesis means.

What I have tried to explain is really only my own reasoned position having respect to what I think I have experienced. I would never ask anyone else to believe exactly what I believe.

...

Good luck to you all and as the brilliant Dave Allen used to say, 'May your God go with you'.
Exegesis - "...critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture"...

{Let you into a secret, I didn't know what it meant either until a couple of days ago, when I came across it and had to look up the meaning. it was thus a mission to use it in this discussion - way too tempting...}.

"I think the appropriate phase is the US one - Your Mileage May Vary".

Fair shout... I'm also old enough to remember, "We're All Bozos On This Bus"!
 
Coming in at a tangent: what did Jesus look like ? Below is a computer-modelled composite of what a First Century Israelite most probably would have resembled. The point commonly made by believers is that it doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, what's important is what he said and did. Yes but ... I don't believe them, I think it does matter what your Messiah looked like. Visions of the Blessed Virgin Mary usually entail some blue-eyed white skinned colleen and not that of a women who has spent her life working in the fields under a Mediterranean sun. Like-wise the face on the Turin Shroud was morphed into an image of the man at an earlier age (picture somewhere on Binternet) - and looked just like the trimmed-bearded Hipster that we all know and love from the paintings. According to one of my favourite archeologists John Romer, the Christ images (complete with halo) all came from Apollo originally.

View attachment 14234
Er - I know you are nor going to believe this but very much like that but with longer hair and beard. And the aforementioned painfully white cloak. I repeat - YMMV.
 
See, this is the sort of nit picky stuff that hurts the credibility of those trying to debunk the Bible
Oh, rest assured, Atwill doesn't appear to place any substantial emphasis upon this name aspect, though in my opinion he could. His research on the myth of Christ overall is outstandingly-good. I will expand, with lots more detail- his arguments are extremely persuasive.

There is a deeper significance to the name angle, though, we surely all must agree. If, even if we accept, that the name of a literal historical Jesus of Nazareth was not what we are told it is (contemporary with the era within which the narrative is reported by Gospel to have occurred) then that individual must have had some actual name: let's say "on the charge sheet" (by which we shall mean behind-the-job-title-cum-alias). However: this does not appear to be the case: at all.

The key hypothesis of Atwill is that Christianity was a strategically-modified variation of Judaism, built via propaganda and retrospective self-fulfulling paper prophesies. A semi-Hellenic personality cult, which encouraged a violent Jewish populace to worship a Flavian Caesar of Imperial Rome, to become passive cheek-turning workers, and to pay taxes.

It's been a remarkably-successful franchise- since it has run for over two thousand years.

Atwill's book is outstanding- I may be at this for some time. Please watch the video, if not already done so, and buy the book (I'll be extracting further key parts of it here- it is fascinating)
 
Last edited:
Oh, rest assured, Atwill doesn't appear to place any substantial emphasis upon this name aspect, though in my opinion he could. His research on the myth of Christ overall is outstandingly-good. I will expand, with lots more detail- his arguments are extremely persuasive.

There is a deeper significance to the name angle, though, we surely all must agree. If, even if we accept, that the name of a literal historical Jesus of Nazareth was not what we are told it is (contemporary with the era within which the narrative is reported by Gospel to have occurred) then that individual must have had some actual name: let's say "on the charge sheet" (by which we shall mean behind-the-job-title-cum-alias). However: this does not appear to be the case: at all.

The key hypothesis of Atwill is that Christianity was a strategically-modified variation of Judaism, built via propaganda and retrospective self-fulfulling paper prophesies. A semi-Hellenic personality cult, which encouraged a violent Jewish populace to worship a Flavian Ceasar of Imperial Rome, to become passive cheek-turning workers, and to pay taxes.

It's been a remarkably-successful franchise- since it has run for over two thousand years.

Atwill's book is outstanding- I may be at this for some time. Please watch the video, if not already done so, and buy the book (I'll be extracting further key parts of it here- it is fascinating)

As I said, YMMV. I don't mean that as an insult or disregarding your argument. I know what I thought I saw. And the feeling that attended upon the vision or whatever it was I can't describe. I cannot explain anything about that experience just that it happened and it was utterly convincing.
 
I cannot explain anything about that experience just that it happened and it was utterly convincing.
But that was your experience, which I fully-accept happened to you. You're a trustworthy open-minded individual: there can be many reasons and explanations for what we experience in life, I know we can all agree on that.
 
A major factor within Bible references to a Jesus Christ is considered by Atwill to be typology. I was aware to an extent of this effect (eg the redevelopment of themes between the Old and New Testaments) but Atwill persuasively argues that retroscription and pre-developmental planting of prophesies (ie appearing to have successfully-predicted events which have already happened) is a major factor in ascribing the divine nature of Christ.

Before quoting any examples from "Caeser's Christ", here's an extract from the main Wiki definition of typology (I find it useful to think of this word almost meaning stereotypologically, to break my mental word-association with the word half-reminding me of typefaces or typesetting)

Typology(Theology) said:
Typology in Christian theology and Biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament. For example, Jonah may be seen as the type of Christ in that he emerged from the fish's belly and thus appeared to rise from death. In the fullest version of the theory of typology, the whole purpose of the Old Testament is viewed as merely the provision of types for Christ, the antitype or fulfillment. The theory began in the Early Church, was at its most influential in the High Middle Ages, and continued to be popular, especially in Calvinism, after the Protestant Reformation, but in subsequent periods has been given less emphasis

I will quote examples shortly- Atwill really looks to be making a lot of sense with his interpretations.
 
I *think* some hindus view Jesus as an avatar of one of the hindu gods.

That is when they choose to be polite. In fact the prevailing view of the Hindus is that the deity of Monotheism is an Asura, or Hell Lord. This means he is a God, but is insecure and overly concerned with how he will punish people because he is basically evil. Jesus is essentially an avatar of Yahveh, the Volcano Asura of Palestine. The Buddhists are inclined to see even the supreme Godhead Brahma as being an unenlightened and bloody handed entity who created the world and perpetuates suffering. They regard Jesus as being a very neurotic enlightened being, with all sorts of parental, sexual and absurd Judaic religious hangups; the Woody Allen of Buddhas. Of course both Buddhists and Hindus are normally a lot more polite about such theological points to strangers in public. These are opinions I got from confidential informants when they were drunk, so they're bound to be true. In vino veritas + studies in comparative religion FTW.
 
Last edited:
Coming in at a tangent: what did Jesus look like ? Below is a computer-modelled composite of what a First Century Israelite most probably would have resembled...
Is that not the same guy who's on the, 'most wanted' list...

14224-2e59743e554ab176845ac67e0292fa94.jpg
 
Back
Top