Religion

[Octavian]

It’s something I am interested in so need to do more reading around it. I want to find more evidence than I’ve seen or heard so far, even then it may only show that the Yeshua in question did exist but the Yeshua in question isn’t the man of the gospels.

Start by watching Ehrman debate Christians on YouTube, you’ll very quickly forget all about any bias you’re concerned he has in favour of Christianity.

Then I would read his book on the historical Jesus. He goes a long way to attack parts of Luke and other elements of the Gospels but his evidence for the man actually existing is beyond compelling.

 

[tonea2003]

Start by watching Ehrman debate Christians on YouTube, you’ll very quickly forget all about any bias you’re concerned he has in favour of Christianity.

Then I would read his book on the historical Jesus. He goes a long way to attack parts of Luke and other elements of the Gospels but his evidence for the man actually existing is beyond compelling.

lets just say ehrman is correct and he may well be, i actually do have an open mind about it

what difference does it actually make, he's not divine either way

 

[tonea2003]

It wasn’t the trial of the century, not at the time. Christians were a few dozen shepherds following someone seen a religious zealot. Pilate and the Jews would have sentenced many people to death at that time, it was only absolutely huge for the people who bought it all.

It’s seen as trial of the century to us now tho because of who Jesus became and how the religion grew and in my opinion, this is because the preaching done by Jesus the man (or what the gospels claimed he preached) was more impressive than other religious preachers at the time, so it caught on when it reached written form.

The biggest factor tho is that Pilate is specifically mentioned by the Romans, as being the governor when Jesus was executed by the Romans. This backs up the gospel account.

no it does not, it only means pilate was the governor at the time, nothing else nothing more
if as you say the romans recorded everything then there should be a reference to this particular execution/crucifixion
and that would indeed be a deal breaker, but unfortunately there isn't
there is absolutely nothing that backs up any of the 4 differing gospels certainly not from a roman perspective

 

[arfurclue]

lets just say ehrman is correct and he may well be, i actually do have an open mind about it

what difference does it actually make, he's not divine either way

Are you open to the idea that on some level - beyond appearances - all is connected? This connectedness could be what is called ‘divine’ and that the likes of a Jesus is really but a messenger for this connectedness- and that the connected and seemingly unconnected (human) can come be in union?

 

[tonea2003]

Are you open to the idea that on some level - beyond appearances - all is connected? This connectedness could be what is called ‘divine’ and that the likes of a Jesus is really but a messenger for this connectedness- and that the connected and seemingly unconnected (human) can come be in union?

no

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Start by watching Ehrman debate Christians on YouTube, you’ll very quickly forget all about any bias you’re concerned he has in favour of Christianity.

Then I would read his book on the historical Jesus. He goes a long way to attack parts of Luke and other elements of the Gospels but his evidence for the man actually existing is beyond compelling.

Ta.

The sources I’ve looked at have bypassed the modern scholars and went straight to the contemporary sources of the time (or more accurately just after the time).

Most have had their claims refuted as unreliable, with people like Josephus have been shown that much of what he wrote on all sorts of things has been proven to be untrue (for example, his account of the Siege of Masada).

Obviously an author writing an entire book about it must have done greater research on it than I have, so I will delve into them.

 

[arfurclue]

no

Well, there you go then :)

Out of curiosity, what do you make of this sort of thing? :

“"You can't prove quantum mechanics, but local realism, or hidden local action, is incompatible with our experiment," NIST's Krister Shalm says. "Our results agree with what quantum mechanics predicts about the spooky actions shared by entangled particles."”

NIST Team Proves 'Spooky Action at a Distance' is Really Real

BOULDER, Colo.—Einstein was wrong about at least one thing: There are, in fact, "spooky actions at a distance," as now proven by researchers at the National

www.nist.gov

 

[Octavian]

Ta.

The sources I’ve looked at have bypassed the modern scholars and went straight to the contemporary sources of the time (or more accurately just after the time).

Most have had their claims refuted as unreliable, with people like Josephus have been shown that much of what he wrote on all sorts of things has been proven to be untrue (for example, his account of the Siege of Masada).

Obviously an author writing an entire book about it must have done greater research on it than I have, so I will delve into them.

Motivation is a key factor when it comes to sources like Josephus and anyone else who was anti Christian that early, which there wasn’t short supply of.

 

[Octavian]

no it does not, it only means pilate was the governor at the time, nothing else nothing more
if as you say the romans recorded everything then there should be a reference to this particular execution/crucifixion
and that would indeed be a deal breaker, but unfortunately there isn't
there is absolutely nothing that backs up any of the 4 differing gospels certainly not from a roman perspective

There was, Roman historian Tacitus wrote Jesus was given the highest punishment during the reign of Pilate. He was an independent source who slated christians but yet stated the above.

 

[Octavian]

lets just say ehrman is correct and he may well be, i actually do have an open mind about it

what difference does it actually make, he's not divine either way

Well for an amateur historian like me it makes all the difference, as historical fact is all I care about.

Theologically it makes absolutely no difference and as I’ve said, I’m not going to argue with you that miracles and people rising from the dead never happened.

 

[tonea2003]

There was, Roman historian Tacitus wrote Jesus was given the highest punishment during the reign of Pilate. He was an independent source who slated christians but yet stated the above.

you are now scraping the barrel, one tacitus wasn't even alive at the time alleged events and two he didn't write his annals until the 2nd century, well after at least 3 of the gospels, plenty of time for heresay and chinese whispers to take hold
especially as there wasn't any official records from the time.
and in your own words "it wasn't the trial of the century it was a few dozen shepherds following a zealot" that the romans put to death
yet a man from rome saw fit that he needed to include this unremarkable event in his history of the roman empire
why would he do that? if it is indeed how you portray it, there is no need for him to know about it.
as you well know at the time of the annals Christianity would be no more than just cult of little significance

 

[tonea2003]

Well for an amateur historian like me it makes all the difference, as historical fact is all I care about.

Theologically it makes absolutely no difference and as I’ve said, I’m not going to argue with you that miracles and people rising from the dead never happened.

it makes a difference of course to the fact if he existed or not
but it makes no difference to the core question which i think we agree on

 

[Octavian]

you are now scraping the barrel, one tacitus wasn't even alive at the time alleged events and two he didn't write his annals until the 2nd century, well after at least 3 of the gospels, plenty of time for heresay and chinese whispers to take hold
especially as there wasn't any official records from the time.
and in your own words "it wasn't the trial of the century it was a few dozen shepherds following a zealot" that the romans put to death
yet a man from rome saw fit that he needed to include this unremarkable event in his history of the roman empire
why would he do that? if it is indeed how you portray it, there is no need for him to know about it.
as you well know at the time of the annals Christianity would be no more than just cult of little significance

It wasn’t “well after”, Tacitus died in 120AD, this is just a few decades after the Gospels were written and when Christianity started to take off. John was probably written just 30 years prior.

He was a professional historian who had access to Roman records. Why would a non Christian professional historian write that? He felt Christians were beneath Romans by the way.

Tacitus did his research after the fact.

 

[tonea2003]

It wasn’t “well after”, Tacitus died in 120AD, this is just a few decades after the Gospels were written and when Christianity started to take off. John was probably written just 30 years prior.

He was a professional historian who had access to Roman records. Why would a non Christian professional historian write that? He felt Christians were beneath Romans by the way.

Tacitus did his research after the fact.

lets quantify well after, mark around 70 ce matthew/luke 90ish, annals 116ce so i would say a generation, thats pretty much well after in my book. but why, it was an unremarkable event(your words) one of many that attracted little or no attention, no one deemed it fit to be recorded at the time.
yet this esteemed roman historian(to my knowledge never went near judea) felt the the need to include in his history of the roman empire.
you have got to agree something isn't right here

 

[Octavian]

lets quantify well after, mark around 70 ce matthew/luke 90ish, annals 116ce so i would say a generation, thats pretty much well after in my book. but why, it was an unremarkable event(your words) one of many that attracted little or no attention, no one deemed it fit to be recorded at the time.
yet this esteemed roman historian(to my knowledge never went near judea) felt the the need to include in his history of the roman empire.
you have got to agree something isn't right here

It would be now, to only see biographies of Margaret Thatcher for example being written today as the earliest copies would be astonishing but back then, this was not only very common as so few could read and write but mentions of Jesus were actually pretty close to the fact, compared to other ancient historical figures. Alexander the Great I’ve mentioned, we have coins with him on and other artefacts which confirms it but he wasn’t written about for 300 years after he died, well we don’t have any writing about him until 300 years after he died, there likely was a lot written nearer and at the time.

The crucifixion itself was pretty unremarkable other than it being described very brutally compared to others for that time, in the gospels.

But the reason Tacitus chooses to write about it is because by the 2nd century Christianity had taken off substantially and christians were becoming a very significant minority group in Rome itself.

Nobody in Rome would know about it at the time it happened in 30-33AD but by 100-120AD, everyone in Rome knew the Christians and that’s why he wrote about them and wrote about where they came from.

 

[tonea2003]

It would be now, to only see biographies of Margaret Thatcher for example being written today as the earliest copies would be astonishing but back then, this was not only very common as so few could read and write but mentions of Jesus were actually pretty close to the fact, compared to other ancient historical figures. Alexander the Great I’ve mentioned, we have coins with him on and other artefacts which confirms it but he wasn’t written about for 300 years after he died, well we don’t have any writing about him until 300 years after he died, there likely was a lot written nearer and at the time.

The crucifixion itself was pretty unremarkable other than it being described very brutally compared to others for that time, in the gospels.

But the reason Tacitus chooses to write about it is because by the 2nd century Christianity had taken off substantially and christians were becoming a very significant minority group in Rome itself.

Nobody in Rome would know about it at the time it happened in 30-33AD but by 100-120AD, everyone in Rome knew the Christians and that’s why he wrote about them and wrote about where they came from.

if that was the case where is he getting his info from certainly not from any roman because it was deemed not fit to be recorded at the time even though they recorded everything!!
would he have known any of the gospels i'm not so sure, maybe mark as it was probably written in rome
and maybe the stories concocted by early Christians promoting the myth that was gaining traction.

 

[Octavian]

if that was the case where is he getting his info from certainly not from any roman because it was deemed not fit to be recorded at the time even though they recorded everything!!
would he have known any of the gospels i'm not so sure, maybe mark as it was probably written in rome
and maybe the stories concocted by early Christians promoting the myth that was gaining traction.

The Romans probably did record it, they were known to record executions, wouldn’t that be some document if we could get our hands on? Alas we obviously can’t. However, Tacitus would have had access to whatever information he wanted in the empire at that time as he was nearing the end of his career/life and was highly regarded.

In the Annals he’s actually writing about Nero’s persecution of Christians, as Nero was losing his grip on Rome and was using a scapegoat for the fire.

Knowing what I do about Tacitus, I doubt he’d have been as lazy as to just take the Christian line on Jesus, especially as he didn’t like them and wasn’t sympathetic to Christianity.

Tacitus is regarded by scholars as the greatest Roman historian. He’s very highly thought of.

 

[tonea2003]

The Romans probably did record it, they were known to record executions, wouldn’t that be some document if we could get our hands on? Alas we obviously can’t. However, Tacitus would have had access to whatever information he wanted in the empire at that time as he was nearing the end of his career/life and was highly regarded.

In the Annals he’s actually writing about Nero’s persecution of Christians, as Nero was losing his grip on Rome and was using a scapegoat for the fire.

Knowing what I do about Tacitus, I doubt he’d have been as lazy as to just take the Christian line on Jesus, especially as he didn’t like them and wasn’t sympathetic to Christianity.

Tacitus is regarded by scholars as the greatest Roman historian. He’s very highly thought of.

I know he is but will concede my interest in him only extends to his link on this topic of his career which isn’t much

so will defer to your apparent greater knowledge on him with other stuff

Which makes the missing years 29 through 31 of his history and annals curious and interesting
So much so some historians think it may have been done deliberately
Why one could only hazard a guess

 

[Octavian]

I know he is but will concede my interest in him only extends to his link on this topic of his career which isn’t much

so will defer to your apparent greater knowledge on him with other stuff

Which makes the missing years 29 through 31 of his history and annals curious and interesting
So much so some historians think it may have been done deliberately
Why one could only hazard a guess

The missing years cover two of the biggest maniacs to Emperor Rome so that could have something to do with it but who knows.

The Vatican claims a missing manuscript gives a year for the crucifixion of 41AD but I highly doubt this to be true and could be the Vatican doing what they do best, be slippery fuckers.

 

[tonea2003]

The missing years cover two of the biggest maniacs to Emperor Rome so that could have something to do with it but who knows.

The Vatican claims a missing manuscript gives a year for the crucifixion of 41AD but I highly doubt this to be true and could be the Vatican doing what they do best, be slippery fuckers.

That we will agree on ref the Vatican