im taking a philosophy class at the moment.
and while going thru philosophers in chronological order i noticed an interesting thing
during the transition from bc to common era theres no mention of jesus in any philosophy writings as far as i know
i mean the whole philosophy was trying to answer one basic question. whats our purpose.
and to understand our beeing.
but when jesus(the closest beeing to GOD as it can be) comes to earth... you would imagine the philosophers would be allover him with millions of questions trying to squeeze out every lil piece of possible knowledge and understanding out of him.
but they dont. they seem to be neutral to his appearance.
and then the philosophers just keep going on about the purpose of existence even though if jesus was in fact there alive there would be no more questions as to what is our porpose and other questions
what is going on there?
A few things that don't make sense to me (please bear with me, I really don't understand...
Quote from: tenshi_R on March 04, 2010, 22:39:44
im taking a philosophy class at the moment.
and while going thru philosophers in chronological order i noticed an interesting thing
during the transition from bc to common era theres no mention of jesus in any philosophy writings as far as i know
That's because historically, it would make no sense. In western civilization (I will set aside asian philosophy in this answer) philosophy was a greek practice, and the Jewish population did not practice it. Before the roman conquest, there was no jewish philosophy period. Yes, the Jews were law scholars, and religious scholars. But the discipline of philosophy simply did not exist. So Jesus, as a jewish common man, did not practice philosophy in the sense the greeks did. Later on in history, there were philosophers that discussed christianity and christ, but not at the time, because it wasn't a discipline that existed at the time and in the place.
Quotebut when jesus(the closest beeing to GOD as it can be) comes to earth... you would imagine the philosophers would be allover him with millions of questions trying to squeeze out every lil piece of possible knowledge and understanding out of him.
You are looking at a view that isn't 'real'- there were no philosophers in Judea at that time, and if there were any greeks that happened to be visiting their colonies, they wouldn't be able to talk to Jesus, who spoke Aramaic, not greek. So I don't see how that is possible.
Quotewhat is going on there?
Lack of historical context, I think.
If you look at the Torah (which is the only set of books in existence at the time of Jesus, along with other OT works- you will see that it is a work of Law, it is a work of art (the Psalms are to this day the most beautiful poems ever) and a work of Religious Cosmology- but it is not a book of philosophy- because philosophy was a greek invention (in western civilization), and not practiced in the middle east at the time.
To add to what CFTraveler said (we were typing at the same moment):
You could say that's what the whole of gnosticism is. Some believe that John (of the gospel) was gnostic, as well as many others in Greece the first couple hundred years after the crucifixion.
Also, there is evidence of other earlier cultures prophesying a coming "messiah", but before the name Jesus existed (it's near impossible to say if that's the reference). I believe Zarathustra (Zoroaster) was one.
Anthropsophy teaches that there were 2 beings to inhabit Jesus, the first being a reincarnated Bodhisattva that prepared the physical body of Jesus to receive the Christ, and then the Christ entered when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. In other words, this ties together Buddhism, which is much older and in another part of the world, with the coming of the Christ. And if you think about it, some of the main principals of Jesus' teachings and the Buddha's are very similar, especially the themes of Love and Compassion.
Last but not least, there were many times in history when the Church shot down anything contrary to it's rules and views, so some philosophers didn't really didn't have a chance when it came to Jesus. And many philosophers weren't/aren't Christian so never entered that territory in the first place.
Our education system and society in the western world is based on judeo-christian models. Its just assumed. Its funny though because most Christians don't even know the teachings of Jesus.
Personally I don't think he existed, the story and philosophy are ones that have been regurgitated countless times going back to sumer and probably earlier. Find the Greek story of the Godman.
This is an interesting thread. I am not a christian or any other religion for that matter but religions do interest me as they shape how so much of the world thinks.
Is there any actual historical evidence for the existence of a man called Jesus (or Joshua as I believe Jesus was the Greek translation rather than his actual name) in pimary texts written at the actual time of his life? The gospels are secondary texts as they were written long after his death.
It seems strange that the writers of the time seem to hardly mention him, assuming there are any that do mention him. The bible paints this picture of a radical who really rattled the Romans so you'd have thought there would be more written than just the gospels which were written years later.
Cleopatra took on the Romans and we know this becasue there is written texts about it (albeit from a Roman perspective) so we know she existed but it doesn't seem to be the case for Jesus. Are there any?
Lou
Josephus wrote about Jesus and christians in general. Don't know what that proves, other than documentation.
no, there is no evidence of jesus. unless you count all the fake stuff, like the bible
I just did a few searches on what Josephus had to say on Jesus and it seems it depends on what translation you read and what stance the translator takes; either christian or non-christian.
I also noticed that Josephus was writing in the later half of the first centuary so quite a while after the death of Jesus so it again is a secondary text and not a primary text.
I cannot find anything written at the time of the biblical events (the gospel manuscripts having been dated between 60-150 years after these supposed events) to support the claim that they are accounts of actual events. Nothing about Herod killing lots of babies which you would think would have been big news and commented on a fair bit...but nothing.
The only conclusion I can come to at the moment is that the gospels are works of fiction with spiritual messages contained within them and it is unlikely that any of these events actually happened.
I have always found it odd that a census required Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem as they were from the House of David, an ancestor of some thousand years before. I would have great difficulty tracing my ancestors from a thousand years ago even with all the records and resourses at my disposal. I have tried and can barely get a hundred years back. I now see this part of the story as a literary device used by the author of the gospel of Luke (I think that's the one that mentions it) to get Jesus to the place he would need to be born in, to make him fit the prophecy. I couldn't find anything about a census in Herods reign anyway.
I still looking for evidence though, so if anyone knows where there is some I'd be very interested.
Lou
Quote from: Louise43 on April 14, 2010, 06:03:24
I cannot find anything written at the time of the biblical events (the gospel manuscripts having been dated between 60-150 years after these supposed events) to support the claim that they are accounts of actual events.
I'm curious to know what documents exist for that specific time- other than the official Roman writings in which the emperor brags about how many jews he had crucified.
It is not a challenge, I just have never seen a 'list' of documents pertaining to that time.
QuoteI have always found it odd that a census required Joseph and Mary to return to Bethlehem as they were from the House of David, an ancestor of some thousand years before. I would have great difficulty tracing my ancestors from a thousand years ago even with all the records and resourses at my disposal. I have tried and can barely get a hundred years back. I now see this part of the story as a literary device used by the author of the gospel of Luke (I think that's the one that mentions it) to get Jesus to the place he would need to be born in, to make him fit the prophecy. I couldn't find anything about a census in Herods reign anyway.
One thing to consider is that there were two Herods, Herod the Great, and Herod Jr., the one who has been ascribed the biblical acts. Once again there is some information about details, but no 'meat'- such as he had coins minted with palm fronds instead of the Caesar's profile, etc. I wonder how much historicity this has.
My understanding is that the 'census' and other 'literary devices' were used to justify the accomplishment of prophecy- the messiah was supposed to be born in a certain region to be of the right lineage, so they invented this census to explain that away, and other similar things- once again, the new testament being some sort of midrashic comment on the prophecy. Who knows.
I still looking for evidence though, so if anyone knows where there is some I'd be very interested.
Lou
There is no evidence for something that never was.
Intersting site I came across:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)
Lou
so how would existence of jesus and our creation by god relate to the archeological findings of the neanderthals and other human predecestors many thousands years ago.
i mean the archeological discoveries seem to be a solid evidence while presense of jesus is backed up only by old tales and religion..
if we were created in gods image and our ancestors were kinda hairy and looked like apes... that raises the question.
who was the creator.
it seems like the story doesnt add up with timeline of human evolution.
The parallels between most religions is quite astounding, but not really surprising when one realizes they are actually based on astrology.
For example many of the 'Gods' share the following attributes
Born Dec 25th
Born of a Virgin
Star in the East
Adored by 3 kings
Teacher at 12
Baptized at 30
12 disciples
Performed mircales
Crucified
Dead for 3 days
Resurrected
For anyone wanting to know more the following 3 parts of the movie Zeitgeist are quite fascinating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDWYEbsnWMg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISkle1d45B0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGMsxl7FEDg
In my opinion, Jesus did not exist, he was just a tool for manipulation of the masses
It all came out of sun worship.
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/articles/astrotheology/index.html (http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/articles/astrotheology/index.html)
wasnt that movie debunked or something?
they picked out certain parts to make them look like it all centered around the sun god.
but once you read full descriptions of the facts they brought up it doesnt make sense...
it's not a movie, it's a "logical theory" proposed based on evolutionary development. the idea is that people would have worshiped the sun because it was associated with the daytime and safety (and therefore life) because the worst predators were out at night. So "prehistoric" man would have worshiped the return of the sun each day because it was the "light bringer" (which incidentally is a term used to describe both Jesus and Lucifer....) and savior for people who lived through each night in a terrifying state of anxiety.
Jesus, many New Testament scholars believe, was not born in Bethlehem but Nazareth.
Continuing that theme, alot of what became Chistianity in retrospect was derived from some Egyptian salvation cults (Isis, Ra, etc), with the emphasis on astrology and sun worship, and the promise of eternal life (which to many ancient peoples was pretty new concept). Isis had been offering her covenant with mankind for hundreds of years, and the groups had jsut made their way to Rome at the time.
Later, about 400 years later actually, Christianity absorbed a lot of Greek Platonism in the trinity and other concepts, which are reflected in the Nicean Creed, as the Romans had by this time adopted to the Greek mindset, and that lens further shaped the development of Christianity. It is also important to note though, that pretty much all of the New Testament was written decades after the supposed events, and so must be seen in yet another context of removal. It is really difficult to understand Christian doctrine fully without understanding that it was the cultural product of more than six different cultures, which applied their own views and ideologies over the course of five centuries in the formative period.
To respond to your original question, I will also point out that there are no less than 20 men and women living on earth today, who profess the most astounding miracles imaginable, and claim an equivalent of pretty much every miracle Christ performed between them, and many more. Are these people in the public and scientific spotlight (today's equivalent of popular Greek philosophy)? Most supposedly saintly people become much more famous in death, and why not? A saint is a much more powerful idea when you can't meet them, and they can become for you whatever wonderous thing you can conceive.
First, ^
Second,
Quote from: LincolnJohns on April 08, 2011, 06:23:52
Jesus, many New Testament scholars believe, was not born in Bethlehem but Nazareth.
He wasn't born in either place because there was no historical person named "Jesus" in the way that christians think of him. The myth of the Godman (a Greek myth, but probably much older) is a common story among ancient spiritual traditions. It's not about
a man, it's about mankind. Jesus was a representation of the "anointed one", the initiate.
Quote from: tenshi_R on October 23, 2010, 20:08:38
wasnt that movie debunked or something?
Please do not forget that "debunking" is a rhetorical strategy, most often applied by scoffers and 'pro' skeptics who want to negate everything. However, to be fair, to some degree everybody does it. You can debunk almost anything as well as you can 'declare as debunked' almost everything that you don't like. Saying "it is debunked" is almost like an affirmation then.
Moreover: who is the highest institution that can say the final verdict here? Every 'debunking' is in the end another opinion of one 'side' or another.
A few years ago, I read a work by Acharya S /DM Murdock. She is a scholar in comparative relgion and who scientifically investigates 'the case'. She seems to apply some dilgence and scrutiny. However, she seems nevertheless also biased against Christanity. She concludes that it's all myth.
Personally, I think that despite the lack of conclusive historical evidence nothing speaks against the fact that a 'famous' and later crucified preacher and healer named "Joshua/Jesus" existed around that time (creating a following that later developed into this religion) and that the 'stories' were then created around him (and partially adapted from former ancient son-of-god-myths). Some of these accounts seem very 'personal' about him. So it is the problem to differentiate between the reproduction/creation of myth and the 'real person'.
(At least by 'mundane' methods, but for us metaphysicians: how about consulting the Akashic records? 8-) :wink:)
^ This.
You have to remember that Jesus taught how to walk the path towards God, towards the Absolute which is the path towards total liberation, this is the straight and narrow path that leads us towards everlasting life, the path of the razors edge.
There could be many reasons for why that has happened, although at the base of it all.. our highly developed ignorance about anything spiritual is a great clue.