Jesus Invented By The Romans?

[Randall]

If Jesus did live two thousand years ago, it is safe to say he didn't have long hair or white skin with Anglo-Saxon features.

Black Jesus

 

[mike]

BBC News | UK | Why do we think Christ was white?

By the Middle Ages a number of documents, generally of unknown or questionable origin, had been composed and were circulating with details of the appearance of Jesus. Now these documents are mostly considered forgeries.[4][5][6] While many people have a fixed mental image of Jesus, drawn from his artistic depictions, these images often conform to stereotypes which are not grounded in any serious research on the historical Jesus, but are based on second or third hand interpretations of spurious sources.[7]
By the 19th century theories that Jesus was non-semitic, and in particular Aryan, were developed.[8] However, as in other cases of the assignment of race to biblical individuals, these claims have been mostly subjective, based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific analysis

If he did exist, he wouldnt have looked like the white angolo saxon version we see today, But he didnt exist imo, hes a created mythical figure not a real person

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Did you guys here about the condemned man, I think in Iran, that was hung for 20mins, taken down and the next day was found breathing in the morgue? He is being nursed back to health just to face the noose again.
Anyway, all that is horrible, I'm anti-death penalty but the point is, this man I imagine had about as good a chance of an NDE as anyone surely?

 

[Randall]

Did you guys here about the condemned man, I think in Iran, that was hung for 20mins, taken down and the next day was found breathing in the morgue? He is being nursed back to health just to face the noose again.
Anyway, all that is horrible, I'm anti-death penalty but the point is, this man I imagine had about as good a chance of an NDE as anyone surely?

I heard story once of a Canadian who survived a hanging sentence way back when we still were barbarians and did that to people. The rationale is that the sentence was carried out ( death by hanging ). So having completed the sentence, the punishment was deemed to have been carried out. Sorry I don't have a link handy ( though I did look ).

 

[breddell]

I think Jesus was real and it is supported by the historical record, not to mention that the New Testament is probably the most reliable document in history. When I say this, historians judge the reliability of a document by the number of manuscripts as well as how close they are to the actual events. The most accepted sources accepted by everybody are those by authors such as Plato and Aristotle...and those show several hundred copies with the gaps of over 700 years from the originals. The New Testament blows this out of the water...with over 5,000 copies as early as ~100 years from Jesus's era. Nothing comes close to that.

To top this off, it is well documented by Jewish historians/documents from Josephus and the Talmud as well as other ancient historians (Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus) also describe many aspects corroborating his existence/events of Jesus.

If you do some background research on the author of the article that started this thread, I think you will find by most standards that he is considered a quack on this subject and not taken seriously by real researchers/academians (including atheists).

 

[stonehart]

Removed my comment because frankly this is all old ground and I can not be bothered these days.

Enjoy the thread all and keep it peaceful

 

[mike]

Jesus Did Not Exist

Bart D Ehrman: Parts of Bible's New Testament written by 'pretend apostles' | Mail Online

Why a historical Jesus never existedThere is no contemporary historical record of any kind of Jesus!! No written Roman, Greek or Jewish sources from this time (apart from the gospels) know of any historical Jesus or Christ. The name "Christ" is mentioned in some later texts (Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny d.y.) but then merely as the name of the idol of the Christians' worship (Read what these sources really say here). We don't even know who the writers of the Gospels were, and don't have the original manuscripts themselves either. We just have later copies of copies of copies of copies … of copies of the assumed lost originals. And with each copy the copyist usually felt free to alter details or rewrite whole parts of the manuscript. (We usually don't trust dubious anonymous sources as evidence for anything, do we?)
All the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. Actually there are few (if any) things about Jesus that are original at all. Jesus is just the Jewish version of this popular mythic Saviour- character in the Mystery-religions of Antiquity. (See the similarities here).
All the teachings of Jesus are "borrowed" from older sources, for example from the teachings of Buddha. Many of Jesus teachings are almost word for word identical with some of Buddhas sayings (400 years earlier). The so-called "Golden rule" can be found in several earlier pagan Greek (and Jewish) texts. The famous "Sermon on the Mount" was never held by Jesus (of course, since he never existed), but also because it was actually first produced in the second century AD by Christian priests, assembled from what they assumed were sayings of Jesus in different other texts.

Why Jesus didn't exist.

The "witnesses" who saw and heard nothing
As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).
Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.
Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18).
One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the "apostate" Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).
Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.
Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.

Witness to Jesus? - Philo of Alexandria

The romans were meticulous record keepers, but not one mention of jesus, youd imagine if the sky turned dark for 3 hours and dead saints wandered the streets, the romans would have recorded it.........

The Gospel of Matthew states that there were earthquakes, splitting rocks, and the graves of dead saints were opened (and subsequently resurrected after the resurrection of Jesus). These resurrected saints went into the holy city and appeared to many people, but their subsequent fate is never elaborated upon

The bible as a source of "fact" is useless, and no greater proof of this is in the australian aboriginal, They have been here for over 40, 000 years, but the biblical flood should have wiped them out........

The only way to reconcile this is that the flood story is just that, a story.
A majic sky man did not wipe out every man woman and child, every animal and bird and fish on the planet (with the exception of noah and his floating zoo)

I'm astounded than in this age of science and reason, people would still cling to the preposterous notion these fairy tales are true.

 

[mike]

Itinerarium Burdigalense – the Itinerary of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux – is the earliest description left by a pious tourist. It is dated to 333 AD. The itinerary is a Roman-style list of towns and distances with the occasional comment.
As the pilgrim passes Jezreel (Stradela) he mentions King Ahab and Goliath. At Aser (Teyasir) he mentions Job. At Neopolis his reference is to Mount Gerizim, Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob's well at Sichar (where JC 'asked water of a Samaritan woman'). He passes the village of Bethel (Beitin) and mentions Jacob's wrestling match with God, and Jeroboam. He moves on to Jerusalem.
Our pilgrim – preoccupied with Old rather than New Testament stories – makes no single reference to 'Nazareth.'

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

4th Century Roman Map – and NO NAZARETH!

 

[boomerang]

Instinct tells me Christianity began as a cult of personality, perhaps indeed in response to political oppression. It also seems likely that it was at some point usurped by the Roman aristocracy and utilized as a means of continuing empire by less overtly forceful in lieu of more psychological means. Although "heathen" tribes were often converted at the tip of a sword. They don't teach you that in Sunday school .

I would defer on the issue of whether Romanization, either in its original martial or later psycho-social form (winning hearts and minds), was ultimately a good or bad thing for those assimilated. The old cliche that "victors write history" certainly applies.

 

[Han]

Most of this thread goes over my head, due to the fact that I have never studied the Bible.
However I think it is wrong to think that "Jesus" was invented by "the Romans" because surely if he was "invented" it would have been by "Christians" who may or may not of been "roman citizens".
My understanding is that "Rome" (as in the state and empire) did not fully embrace "Christianity" until about 350 years after the "event" and if it was me I would have blamed the death of "Jesus" on another group. In other words I would have "written out" the fact that he (Jesus) was killed by "Roman" soldiers.

My personal opinion is that "Jesus" was a real man, but (with the greatest possible respect) I doubt the "miracles" he is said to have performed.

 

[breddell]

All I am saying is that there is support for the existence of Jesus. I think you have some of your facts wrong. I agree that there are errors in the bible, but it was never meant to be 100% factual, especially on the fine details - as they were written by human hands. However, the main point/message is still present despite the details. No (or very few.. out of thousands probably) credible researcher (one who is actually trained in religous/historical/ancient languages) in the last 2000 years actually believes he didn't exist, including Bart Erhman, who is mentioned above.

Bart D. Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?

Erhman also states, "It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly
count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place.
Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of
his day, Pontius Pilate."

Nobody (including these same researchers) believe all the details in the Bible, as they were written from human
perspective. Nowhere in the Bible does it state the age of the earth or the time between creation days, etc., so
I think it is possible to believe in humans being around longer than 4000 years or whatever some people take as
literal from the Bible.

I think at the end of the day, people can make many claims about what they think, like those who think that the
holocaust didn't happen. But as I said before, there is plenty of evidence by real researchers over thousands of
years that corroborate at least his existence. As for the specific details, I can't argue (nor most others) on
how factual some of the events are.

 

[exo_doc]

Post it Exo and people can chose to read and agree or not.. that is the great thing about this forum.

• (quote="ufology", post: 172726, member: 1102")I don't find the subject boring. Try me.

Not ignoring you guys, it's just that I've covered this before in other threads. I'll get back to this because I think it's important.

 

[withoutlimits09]

A few years ago fringe anti-Jesus folks were convinced the "evidence" suggested Jesus was married and escaped to France....

Oops.

95% percent of all New Testament scholars, both theist and atheist alike, agree in the historical Jesus. So the majority of scholarship on this is well documented, peer reviewed, and pretty much settled. Though you can find a handful of oddballs who disagree with this, due recognize they are the extreme minority..

"However, today virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.Robert E. Van Voorst and (separately) Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of the non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted."

"A few contemporary writers, notably G. A. Wells, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price hold a variety of views that regard the question as to whether Jesus ever existed as open. This position is not held by most professional historians, nor the vast majority of New Testament scholars"


Richard Carrier, one of the few academics who does argue that Jesus never existed had this to say about the guy presenting this information (Atwell).

"Atwill never has any defensible examples, rarely knows what he is talking about, gets a lot wrong, makes stuff up, never admits an error, and is generally in my experience a frustrating delusional fanatic. He also has no relevant academic degrees that I am aware of. And he appears to have made no effort to acquire fundamental skills (like a working knowledge of Greek or how to use a biblical textual apparatus). Yet he claims to be an expert. When will audiences get a clue?"

 

[DaveM]

I would rather postulate that what we have as Christianity today was brought about by the apostle Paul and later Constantine. Paul formulated what the Roman Catholic church believes in. The fact is, the various New Testament books in the Bible were written long after by men who had never even met Jesus (if you want to believe he existed.) What we know of Christianity was changed at the Councils of Nicaea. The Emperor Constantine (and his mother Helena) decided to stop the bickering by all the factions and make the church under their own set of rules.

 

[Rizla]

Ditto Dave M.

Ehrmann is always worth reading.

However, there's still Tacitus (he mentions JC once). Tacitus (at least for a while) had access to some interesting Imperial sources/libraries, so perhaps Jesus actually did exist... Jesus's relatively peaceful philosophy was likely an improvement for the time and place. Maybe he was accurately transcribed, maybe not. Otherwise, the OT and NT are completely ludicrous as history. Interesting historical artifacts of the mythology of a peculiar, self-obsessed tribe, certainly. But come on... read 1 Samuel, a complete chronological mess of a book. Don't get me started on Numbers, Judges, or Leviticus, or for that matter Genesis and Exodus, which contradict themselves and each other, often in the next chapter (to say nothing of all 4 Gospels, which do the same). Comparing the OT or even Matthew to something like Suetonius is completely ludicrous. Suetonious and Tacitus were actually excellent writers. Check out Numbers 31 (especially v. 17-20) -- what kind of deity comes up with that? George Adamski's aliens seem like saints in comparison. I like what Robert Graves said about the Bible -- a book containing not a single laugh or smile from start to finish. I think the ancients would be mystified at the current religions (3) inspired by it.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

If we're going to discuss Tacitus, it would help to mention that he was born in AD 56 - well after Jesus' alleged crucifixion. The earliest versions of the gospels were being written before or immediately after his birth. These were certainly done before Tacitus was writing Annals and Histories.

We therefore can't exactly say that Tacitus used any first-hand knowledge of Jesus' existence. It's a safer bet he simply used other contemporary texts, such as the gospels, for his research, regardless of whether or not these texts were factually flawed.

 

[starise]

OK I also say that Napolean never existed. Just a figment of someones imagination

I'm with breddell on this one.

I am in agreement with ufology on the apparent take over of christianity by the Romans for their own purposes. They didn't succeed on actually doing it of course but they did succeed in creating an organization with a christian name.

 

[breddell]

But come on... read 1 Samuel, a complete chronological mess of a book. Don't get me started on Numbers, Judges, or Leviticus, or for that matter Genesis and Exodus, which contradict themselves and each other, often in the next chapter (to say nothing of all 4 Gospels, which do the same). Comparing the OT or even Matthew to something like Suetonius is completely ludicrous. Suetonious and Tacitus were actually excellent writers. Check out Numbers 31 (especially v. 17-20) -- what kind of deity comes up with that?

Like everything else, it must be put into perspective/context. Pulling out verses here and there, anyone could interpret it wrongly. If you actually read the full account in Numbers (and OT in general) you will find that normally in wars outside of Canaan the women were spared... but the women here were responsible for seducing the Israelites and had to be killed based on Gods laws for uncleanness. In addition, if every male "among the little ones" were killed, this would preclude the perpetuation of the Midianite people and eliminate the Midianites as a nation forever. (This info taken from the notes in the ESV Bible).

The Bible is loaded with God directing 'evil/bad' things, but he himself never does it himself - it is always carried out by human hands and for a greater cause that eventually glorifies God.

Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that it is very common for people to quote single quotes out of the Bible, completely out of context, and say that it means something else.

As for the contradictions in the Bible (not sure which ones you are referring to), could be the minor details associated with stories coming from different authors. That is certainly a possibility. Some experts actually say that that gives evidence/support for the actual event really happening as observed (or in this case) told by different witnesses. But surely, these minor differences do not detract from the overall message, do they?

This is certainly an interesting topic, but this thread was really supposed to be about if Jesus was fictitious or not.

 

[DaveM]

Here is something more to add to the mix: Jesus survived the crucifixion and eventually made his way to Kashmir in India. The Muslims living there called him Isa or Issa and he is buried in the Rozabal section of Srinagar.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

95% percent of all New Testament scholars, both theist and atheist alike, agree in the historical Jesus.

That's certainly an interesting figure. Where'd you get it?

You lay out some quotations, but I don't know where they come from, either.

I'm just kind of interested in how that information was collected by your source, and following collection, how it was parsed.