Who is Jesus to you?

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
a reply to: ltrz2025
Great questions. As long as you have an open mind and don’t have any contempt before investigation I would be happy to send you some evidence.

Thank you, but I don't think they are good questions. These are normal questions that come up when someone claims to have abundant proof of something that has been so elusive. Then, I do have an open mind, but much of what you've said I heard it before and it's very easy to come to the conclusion that they are not real evidence. I'll show you.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
a reply to: ltrz2025
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure. Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives, and only two key events are almost universally accepted, namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.

1. You keep claiming that 99% (that's quite a big number there) of academia "accepts" that Jesus was a historical figure. But you still need to provide the source, poll, election for that claim. Please share, I would like to see it really. Then, what people agree or not... just look the last 2 years, the majority of the world "agreed" that the mRNA vaccine was safe and effective. To agree on something doesn't prove much. And, strange, because every serious scholar I crossed considers that nothing can truly confirm the existence of Jesus.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
a reply to: ltrz2025
Historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed from non-Christians at the time.

Roman historian
Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44,describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that the founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself. The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

2. The books of Tacitus and Flavius Josephus are written records, not hard archeological evidence of the times. For example, the older version we have of the books of Tacitus, date to 1.500 AD, that's 1.500 years after the supposed existence of Jesus.

3. For this reason, and for much of the contents of Tacitus books, a big part of academia considers that the Tacitus documents could be fake, or could have been tampered. Their authenticity is highly disputed, because, as said before, the only record we have of these documents come from 1.500 AD. Uncountable documents and artifacts from all the organized religions have been discarded as fakes, apocrypha, manipulated, by the Academia throughout the years. So, forgery and fakery is very common in these fields. Even 7 of the 14 pauline letters have been discarded as fake already. The Pauline letters are the base of the Christian Church.

4. Moreover, even in the case that those documents were real, Tacitus would have written his documents 80 years AFTER the alleged existence of Jesus. He is not telling us a direct account of something he saw, he is simply reporting what he heard from other people. So, this evidence becomes even much more unreliable.

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
a reply to: ltrz2025

The extant manuscripts of the book Antiquities of the Jews, written by the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus around AD 93–94, contain two references to Jesus of Nazareth and one reference to John the Baptist.

5. In the case of Josephus, something similar happens. The oldest copy we have of this book is from 1.100 AD, that's 1.100 years after the alleged existence of Jesus. The statement of Josephus talking about Jesus (Testimonium Flavianum) has always been put into question, and many scholars consider it totally fake. In fact, linguists and other specialist have indications that the part about Jesus was added to the book, since it is misplaced between the other paragraphs.

6. Moreover, Josephus (a Jew) talks positively of Jesus and calls him the Messiah, when most of the things that Josephus did was always criticize the fake messiahs for the Jewish faith. Josephus never became a Christian. So, makes little sense that he spoke positivily of Jesus. There are many other things that don't fit with Josephus and Jesus, and academia keep asking this questions. You can check them by yourself,they are well known. So, clearly, this "evidence" is far from being conclusive, is unreliable, and highly disputed in Academia.

7. Additionally, it has to be said that many of Josephus statements in other subjects have been refuted as fakes or incorrect by archaeologist and historians. So, from the go, the guy wasn't very reliable.


Ok, thanks for sharing, but these elements you shared are like the most common things that google shows, there is nothing out of the ordinary in this "written accounts" that you talked about. I was expecting something new and groundbreaking, well, no. These elements have been contested for over 200 years, with extensive and well constructed arguments, so I wonder why you think that they are full hard core conclusive evidence of the existence of Jesus... they are certainty not. I can understand that you believe in Jesus, but this is no hard evidence. Written documents, which don't fit in many cases, written over 1 millennia after this Jesus lived, highly disputed by Academia, are really flimsy as hard evidence.

I’ve been so caught up in computing I tell the date using the Unix epoch.

:/

a reply to: kwakakev

I think alot when the Word of the Lord is quoted or thought of the term is out of context. The meaning of it in Bible context is the news and can be mistaken sometimes also as honesty which can be understood but the meaning is pretty basic as news.
a reply to: kwakakev

a reply to: ltrz2025

I think we agree on some things here.

We also still disagree on some as well but it’s a start.

When it comes to the metaphysical part of the discussion around God, Jesus, Angels and so on, I agree, there is no solid physical proof.

That part takes faith. I believe this is intentional. Christ preached the importance of faith in many occasions and Thomas was a doubter for having to see and touch.

There are personal truths revealed in relation to the above but that’s just antidotal.

That just leaves the historical part on which I guess we will still disagree.

Also the Covid thing. You’re spot on.

a reply to: didntasktobeborned

New World Translation (Study Edition; NW)

I think the ones you were talking about are Matthew 24:24 regarding "the elect", or "the chosen ones" (NW):

For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead,+ if possible, even the chosen ones.

And 2 Thessalonians 2:11 (the + above includes a Bible reference to 2 Thess 2:9, so I'll start there, normally I remove those + signs when quoting from the NW):

9 But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

It is related to the same subject, but a bit more specific as to who is doing the deceiving, whereas 2 Tim 4:3,4 is more general, thus it includes the "false Christs and false prophets" (indicating the religious nature of this group) in the general reference to "teachers" who do their best to tickle the ears of their victims. But other types of teachers promoting false stories in that manner* as well (*: by telling people what they want to hear, such as that the Bible is a book of "lies, myths and legends stolen from other places"). One can think of evolutionary philosophies (myths/false stories) for example and other examples of pseudoscience (as being included in the "false stories" discussed at 2Ti 4:3,4).

a reply to: Brassmonkey

“They (Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food, but of an ordinary and innocent kind ,” wrote Pliny in Epistles 10.96.

With a calendar being a symbol of empire, just what was going on back then to reset the calendar around just one man? Anyone can come up with a new calendar, but for it to be accepted by the community there must of been something powerful around it. Reports like this is the kinda thing I expect for the Julian calendar to take hold as it has.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

While I'm sure faith has it's uses, I think it does more harm than good overall. How many people have blind faith in religion and follow along with their religious leader's interpretion that ends up doing harm?

Faith may have its uses but ultimately it's completely unreliable. It's much better to have a direct approach such as meditation.

I think there is a reason Jesus never wrote a book because his message of faith can't be transported across history without being alterted, misunderstoud, and changed.

Jesus may have been a great spiritual leader during his time, but his disciples who created the bible only ended up creating more harm and confusion than any good IMO.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: ltrz2025

I think we agree on some things here.

We also still disagree on some as well but it’s a start.

When it comes to the metaphysical part of the discussion around God, Jesus, Angels and so on, I agree, there is no solid physical proof.

That part takes faith. I believe this is intentional. Christ preached the importance of faith in many occasions and Thomas was a doubter for having to see and touch.

There are personal truths revealed in relation to the above but that’s just antidotal.

That just leaves the historical part on which I guess we will still disagree.

Also the Covid thing. You’re spot on.

I would NEVER go against your faith. Never my friend. If you feel you find your truth, you carry it in your heart, it makes you happy, the only thing I wish is that you keep it forever. I will never question what you believe. History goes one way, Faith is another thing. I don't mix both, although some people do. In fact, in my humble opinion, I don't think that people who has faith need to discuss history, because for your personal life, faith is stronger than any intelectual process.

And I've never said that Jesus didn't exist, of the Hebrews themselves. The only thing I say is that so far we have not found conclusive evidence. But, there is always chance that Jesus existed, as well as the kingdom of Israel, but we haven't found the proof yet. And, could be the case that maybe Jesus existed, but the story that we have in the bible is not reliable, so we are confused on who he might have been. But, if you feel Jesus in spirit, if he is a divine truth for you, whatever books or historians says, nothing of that should matter when it comes to your faith.

Love, light and truth brother. Be happy.

up:

a reply to: Turquosie

For myself faith is different from how you view it.

I’d never put my faith in a living person, I agree that is a dangerous thing.

a reply to: TINCOAL

Questioning your first paragraph, Why

This one?

When trying to make sense of all the madness going on these days, Religion is one flavor in this chaotic soup.

When looking at the state of the world these days and how all the fraud, debauchery, corruption and lies are growing in strength it is a worry. Has some of that end of times vibe as the insanity is spreading like a malignant cancer.

To get back to basics, what was one of the foundations that helped shape and grow society into the world we have today? I see the general decency and morality that Christianity strives for as an important component. As government have turned their back on 'Trust in God', the highway to hell looks to be one alternative.

If there is one way out of this growing mess, a friendly reminder of the things that Jesus lived and died for is one way to get things back on track.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: ltrz2025

I have a feeling nothing will be enough.

The behaviour I described in my previous response often reminds me of this scene in Blackadder, which always makes me chuckle:

Especially after seeing the predictable response to the actual archaeological and historical evidence. I do somewhat feel the same way as General Melchett there now.

Here's a question to ponder, how do you link any non-written archaeological "hard" or "physical" evidence, to a specific name for a region, place or people? Aren't names like Israel, Judah, Jew, Israelite, Jerusalem, etc., written? How do you link a find like the six successive Israelite fortresses from the time of Solomon’s kingship (1037-998 B.C.E.) down to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., found during excavations at Arad, to being Israelite fortresses without comparing it with the inscriptions found on the potsherds (ostraca) found there as well (and the names used in those inscriptions)?* Or other historical documents (or written evidence) that gives us clues concerning how to differentiate an Israelite fortress from a Canaanite or Roman fortress for example, and why we use those names, Israelite, Canaanite and Roman, in the first place.

*: as discussed in my previous comment on page 9 concerning "The Arad Ostraca".

λόγος

a reply to: TINCOAL

I could teach you a thing or two about the bible. What is that one again?

The part where Jesus died for our sins. I know we all make mistakes, some bigger than others. If we are to grow past it we do need to acknowledge it. This is what repentance is about.

Despite doing dumb things, there is still hope we can get some things right.

a reply to: ltrz2025

I'm replying to your first post, but you may take this to refer to your entire contribution to the thread.

You’re essentially off topic –- they're discussing the ‘meaning’ of Jesus, not whether he was a fictional character on not -- but the points you make are interesting none the less. The anger you have evoked from the partisan, the superstitious and the just plain stupid are evidence that your posts have hit home.

It is true, as you say, that no archaeological evidence exists from the Ancient Israel period to substantiate the claims of the Old Testament, although the archaeological record for the relevant territories and dates shows plenty of evidence for the presence of other cultures and civilizations. Certainly there is no evidence for Saul and David’s Jerusalem.

From about the sixth century BCE, however -- from about the time of the Decree of Cyrus -- there seems to be sufficient evidence from ancient sources, particularly Roman ones, attesting to the existence of Israel and Judah as ethnic and geographical territories. The evidence is conformable to many of the historical claims of the Old Testament although it certainly does not ‘prove the Bible’.

We know that the Jews, or the Hebrews if you prefer, existed as a nation –- that is, a people -- from this period onward. Moreover, since they first appear in the record as a fully formed nation, it is logical to assume that they existed in at least some rudimentary association before this period. And since there exists a putatively historical record of this period, it would seem logical to accept its relative historicity, even if many specific details in it are false or fictitious. I refer, obviously, to the Old Testament.

As for later historical periods, I’m afraid your insistence on archaeological evidence as some sort of gold standard doesn’t cut any ice. It certainly cuts none with professional historians.

Archaeological evidence is by no means the unambiguous arbiter of historical truth you appear to think it is. Ultimately, the story told by an unearthed artifact is only a narrative assembled by those who have examined it; and although they are experts, and are supported by radiometry, chemical analysis and other scientific tools, they are hardly infallible. Often, other sources are more reliable (because more easily correlated and verified) than objets trouvées of uncertain provenance.

Besides, if the Children of Israel didn’t exist at all, who wrote the Old Testament? And why?

Hi there, thanks for your post, very interesting to read.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ltrz2025

From about the sixth century BCE, however -- from about the time of the Decree of Cyrus -- there seems to be sufficient evidence from ancient sources, particularly Roman ones, attesting to the existence of Israel and Judah as ethnic and geographical territories. The evidence is conformable to many of the historical claims of the Old Testament although it certainly does not ‘prove the Bible’.

We know that the Jews, or the Hebrews if you prefer, existed as a nation –- that is, a people -- from this period onward. Moreover, they since they first appear in the record as a fully formed nation, it is logical to assume that they existed in at least some rudimentary association before this period. And since there exists a putatively historical record of this period, it would seem logical to accept its relative historicity, even if many specific details in it are false or fictitious. I refer, obviously, to the Old Testament.

I don't deny that the Bible uses elements from real history. Egypt and Babylon existed as real civilizations, people like Nebuchadnezzar existed for real. But the fact that the Bible uses some historical verified facts, doesn't confirm the existence of Judah and Israel. Let's say, we have comics of Spiderman, who is based in New York. New York exists, that's a fact, but that doesn't make Spiderman real. Spiderman comic uses a historical verified place, to tell a fictitious//myth story.

And this is were the Bible fits, because the bible is full of myths (like Exodus) which Jewish scholars themselves have dismissed of being historical; they conclude that it's impossible that happened when looking at the evidence. Or in the case of the Flood and Noah, it has been proven that this myth was stolen from another culture, which shows that the Bible is not original (more like a fake Chinese comic book of the Marvel Spiderman, sort of). When you understand that, you start to have a more honest view of what the Bible is. A document which uses some historical facts (New York exists), to talk about tales and characters that are simply not there (Spiderman and Aunt May).

Then, telling you with much respect, when you say "there seems to be sufficient evidence", it's usually the phrase that one uses when there is actually no hard evidence. No foul, I've used it myself many times. When you say that there is "sufficient", you are making a personal assumption (which you have the right to), but this is "sufficient" only in your view, or in the "personal perspective" of certain people you might have read. However, in Academia, the kingdom of Israel and of Judah remains a myth with no confirmation of any kind. If it was a historical fact, we would not be discussing it today. Then, sufficient or insufficient, will depend on who you talk to. And I totally respect if you decide to have your personal opinion or perspective, for sure.


About Israel
1st. Romans never spoke of any Israel. All of the things that the pro-bible sources assign an "Israelite" origin, are plain assumptions that are not based in archaeological evidence. Remember that there is a lot of money and power involved in maintain the myth of ancient Israel, as well as the one of Jesus. These pro-bible and pro-Zionist sources literally read something from the Bible, check the terrain, find "something that looks like something" and, without thinking twice, they first tell you "oh this could be the temple of Jezebel", and a few weeks later they directly call it "this is the temple of Jezebel", and it appears like that in Google. Literally that's how they operate.


About Judah
Romans only spoke of a Judaea place, which was a huge regional province for them that encompassed many different groups of peoples and cultures. Many people assume that this Judaea is a reference to the Kingdom of Judah, but there is no evidence of that. Moreover, makes little sense. If it existed, the Kingdom of Judah would have been only one group, not that relevant, in all the entire province of Judaea. Plus, they would not have been a sophisticated culture, archaeological evidence shows that at the place and time, people were mostly nomadic (that's why they were called tribes), with not much to give to the Romans. So it makes little sense that this mythical Kingdom of Judah would have given the name to the entire Roman province.

Now, we could look away for a second from the lack of hard archeological data that we have, and play with the possibility that this mythical Kingdom of Judah existed and was so relevant that the Romans ended up naming the Province after it. However, the Romans ended changing the name of Judaea to Syria Palestine short after, with no reference to any kingdom of Judaea. Romans would change the name of the place to refer to the peoples that they would find. So, they found groups called something similar to Syrians and Palestinians, no Judaeans, or Jews. The people who are pro-bible will tell you that Romans changed the name of the province to Syria-Palestine as a revenge against the Jews... but there is absolutely NO record of such a thing anywhere, but mainstream media pushes it as real... that's how far the dishonesty goes.

No records of any Kingdom of Judah was ever found. The oldest recorded references of this Kingdom of Judah appear only as written records in the middle ages, that's between 1.000 and 1.500 years after the alleged existence of this mythical Kingdom.


About the Jews
A big chunk of my family is what you would call "Jew". Right from the label "Jew", we have a lot of trouble, and you can infer them by reading back what I wrote. The word "Jew", historically speaking, is a reference to the Roman Province Judaea (which was huge and had completely different nations, cultures and religions). It wasn't a term to describe one particular people with one particular culture, it never was from what the evidence shows us. It was a geographical term, like what we use as Asians... without detailing if we are talking about Japanese or Mongolian.

So, why this broad and extensive word (Jew) became a way to describe, not only a "nation", but a particular religious group, it's still unknown. And again, archeological records show that there is no references to the word "Jew" until the middle ages. So, from all the excavations and research, absolutely no artifact naming "Israel", "Hebrew", "Jew, "Judah", "David", "Solomon", or anything that pin points to the mythical kingdom of Israel or Judah was ever found in 2.000 years, that says a lot.


Last
The rest of what you wrote are mostly personal opinions of yours, which I don't agree. But I'm trying to stay with facts and no need to debate opinions, we can disagree on opinion matters. Your last question should be: who and why wrote/compiled the bible? Good question, there are lots of theories... but that is very off topic. But consider that power is the force that shapes the world, and power is always achieved via conspiracies. You just need to see what happened the last 3 years, with the covid-19 agenda.

Jesus was the real life "Neo" in the Matrix.

He was able to bend reality to his will and Agent Smiths are surely after him lol.
Jesus even managed to resurrect himself from the dead. lol.

Perhaps it's where the directors "Wachowskis" got the inspiration for NEO came from. lol.

Jesus was the real life "Neo" in the Matrix.

Ok..so compare selling pirated software for a living to being a Carpenter.

If one buys into it there was the Mary Magdalene scandal and the fracas at the temple. Other than that Jesus was pretty much squeaky clean. Neo, in the Matrix, was as dirty as they come..even dirtier some would say.

a reply to: ltrz2025

Meneptah

“Israel has been shorn,” it declares. “Its seed no longer exists.” These few words constitute the first known written reference to the Israelites.

13th century BC
article

a reply to: didntasktobeborned

You didn't get the gist... You also didn'tasktobeborned.

Yet still here you are... I wonder why is that. lol.

One part of the bible that sticks out at this time, John 3:16

 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This can come across as a leap of faith and what are these claims of immortality about? There is a lot of conflict around this one these days.

The way I read it, it does not matter if Jesus as a man did or did not exist. What matters is what has been written and the values shard. I do believe in what Jesus was going on about. While a society does have good and strong community values, it is going to be in a better position to survive and thrive despite whatever is thrown at it.

It is when we abandon the values and morals that does make a community strong that things start to fall apart and die. Perhaps one day Earth will become a dead rock as the Sun gets old. Hopefully by then our descendants have found a way to travel the stars and see what else is around? To get closer to what this immorally is about, where are our ancestors now?