...That we have writing from 2000 years ago...and nobody ever mentioned Jesus around that time?! Seems unbelievably odd...unless, of course, he didn't exist, which is my guess. The first known writings were 400 years after his supposed death...and even those just referred to stories (fairy tales) that they had heard from generations prior.
shareI have this idea that jesus was born from the martyrs against the Romans, i mean it's pretty obvious and instead of left and right politics we just had the jesus people and the romans, right ? ok i need to poo.
shareIt's impossible to say whether Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Possibly not, but he may have been. At the time people claiming to be the Messiah were a dime a dozen. Most never attained a great deal of popularity but the right person, a natural born showman, could have amassed a respectable following. If you look at the gospels with an eye toward imagining what kernel of truth there might be to their stories, the Jesus they describe certainly resembles modern cult leaders. Charismatic, with a sense of grandiosity about themselves, and a bit of a temper under the right circumstances. Surrounded by a group of devoted and entranced groupies.
Sometimes these people are scammers. Sometimes they believe their own BS, or come to believe it after they've been surrounded by fawning supplicants long enough. Thinking oneself a god (or the son of one) is usually not an indicator of robust mental health. It's possible the historical Jesus, if he existed, never actually made that claim. What we have are traditions passed down by his followers. To keep a good thing going, I'm sure they would've been tempted to embellish a few facts. For instance tombs were usually in caves, and most caves in that area have a whole network of tunnels so slipping in the back way and removing a body - he's gone, it's a miracle! - wouldn't have been that hard to do. Make up some stuff about him showing up resurrected and you've got yourself the beginnings of a legend.
Just look at the way the cult of Trump has formed over just a few years in the United States. Somehow an extremely uninspiring man has become an object of near worship through bluster and false bravado. Ancient people were even more superstitious, less educated on average, and easier to manipulate. And by the time people started writing down the tales they were many decades old and had undoubtedly become taller and taller with countless retellings.
Yes believe it or not that catfish I caught when I was 17 wasn't actually 12 feet long. I may have exaggerated a little. But give it a few generations and you'd hear about the time I walked across the water and wrestled a 50 foot sea monster with my bare hands. If modern Christians could go back in time and meet the man behind the myth they'd be underwhelmed. Just a regular guy. Who doesn't understand a word they're saying.
Agreed. Tacitus, Suetonious, Pliny...
The highest profile historians of that age and no one wrote a single word about Djeesus. Very plausible.
They did. There was a Bible uncovered in Turkey describing Jesus as a prophet. The Ethiopians also wrote about him. Christianity in Ethiopia is the largest religion in the country and dates back to the ancient Kingdom of Aksum which existed from approximately 80 BC.
"The first known writings were 400 years after his supposed death"
Although that number is false. That's because the Romans controlled the world at the time and like all empires they destroyed the histories before them. What's more is Christianity wasn't considered very large at the time. Why would people have written about a random religion located in another part of the world?
What's more many traditions throughout the world were passed down orally and still are.
The internet should be renamed the ignoranet because it seems this is where the ignorant are given the most volume.
Sorry but you're just wrong. Nobody wrote about Jesus until well after his death. Please provide proof otherwise with links.
JD
The internet should be renamed the ignoranet because it seems this is where the ignorant are given the most volume
I don't have a horse in the race on this topic, but I'll chime in.
There seems to be a common argument that since nothing was written about Jesus that he was created whole cloth, inspired by other dying-and-rising savior gods such as Osiris, Dionysus, Zalmoxis, Inanna, Adonis, Romulus, Asclepius, Baal, Hercules and probably many more (see Richard Carrier).
On the other hand, if Jesus did exist he would have had stories made up about him anyway, see Apollonius of Tyana (Bart Ehrman) for the similar treatment he received from his acolytes.
If Jesus did exist (I'll assume he did), he was born poor, without a father, a nobody, who thought and developed his own ideas amidst a very fervent mindset geared toward apocalyptic themes in his time and place. I'm not sure why anyone would know about him, let alone write about him.
Now if Jesus had performed the miracles attributed to him. Then yeah, I'd expect someone to take note.
Wrong. Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus and the following He had in book 18 and book 20 of "Antiquities of the Jews".
There also seemed to be a few more Gospels than we ended up getting. Some scholars date the Gospel of Thomas to 60 AD. From a scholarly POV, the gospel of Thomas does actually seem quite early, since it only consists of quotes from Jesus and doesn't tell any story/narrative in it.
I've never heard of the Gospel of Thomas dated anywhere near 60 CE, the very earliest I've seen it dated around the time of the Gospel of John (i.e., around the turn of the century). Which would seem to make sense as the GOJ seems written to counteract the GOT at every turn. But most scholars I've read seem to date the GOT decidedly later than the GOJ.
It would be quite something if the GOT was as early as your sources claim. It traditionally has been deemed Gnostic in nature.
GOJ counteracts Thomas? Not really.
There's a few radical quotes in Thomas, but there's not really anything that super crazy. If anything, Jesus actually expands upon some of the teachings from the regular Gospels, which adds more context to them.
"Gnostic" simply alludes to "knowledge". Have you even read the Gospel of Thomas? It mentions the Trinity in Thomas verse 44. And verse 44 is also in the synoptic Gospels. A quarter of the content in Thomas is the same content as the synoptic Gospels. There's maybe 8 or 9 parables from the synoptic Gospels that are in Thomas. Thomas mentions that Jesus is the son of God. And Thomas mentions nothing about Sophia, Demiurge, Pleroma, Aeons, etc. My honest opinion is that Thomas is a true authentic Gospel of Jesus, but the Catholic Church couldn't handle some of the radical quotes in it.
From a scholarly POV, yes - Thomas could be a very early Gospel. Because Thomas is what scholars theorize the "Q" source to be - exclusive sayings/teachings/quotes by Jesus. There is no narrative or story in Thomas, it's only sayings by Jesus. So, Thomas has actually encouraged scholars to believe in the Q idea.
I have read the GOT, though many years ago. And the lasting impression I have is that Thomas emphasizes how everyone has the light within, and by connecting with that inner source, one can come to know God. Whereas John insists that the divine light was embodied in Jesus and that we could only come to God via Jesus, as Jesus was the sole source for this light.
I agree that the Catholic Church suppressed the GOT, but it was suppressed long before then, as I believe the early church fathers had issues with it as well.
True, the GOJ & GOT are similar in many ways, for example, how they are so different from the other three Gospels. Which I think might allude to their composition in the same time frame. I think the GOJ resists many things found in the GOT, though to be honest I can’t remember since it’s been awhile since I read it. Perhaps even the “doubting Thomas” story, found only in John, is but another example.
Lastly, as for "gnostic," I was using it more as the early church fathers used it, as a term of derision, that "Gnostics think they know it all" and have direct access to knowledge. Which of course the church would never tolerate, as the church wanted to be the sole source of knowledge for the people and galvanize its power and position.
Lastly, I still don't know of any scholars that claim the GOT is as early as 60 A.D. Though if that could be supported it would make for an interesting discussion as to whether it was sampled by Mark, Matthew and Luke.
Our discussion will be limited since you're not familiar with Thomas, then. I'm studying this stuff almost every day and I learn new things.
Yes, that is one teaching. But you're not really getting into the meat of Thomas though. "Light within us" isn't the main teaching of Thomas, and the "light within us" teaching is in the regular Gospels (Matthew 6:22-23, Luke 8:16, John 8:12). It sounds as if you're just reading someone else's interpretation of Thomas, who they themselves did not go far enough into reading it. I'll break it down for you: Jesus announces to everyone in Thomas that His nature is in fact "transgender" and that Jesus is a Motherly figure. Jesus is both male and female. Truly, Jesus is a disguised female entity. Jesus's appearance looks to be male, but within, it is female. This fact is still known in the 4 regular Gospels, but Thomas makes it more obvious.
Huh? So what if John has a story about Thomas doubting Jesus? John never flat out says he's against Thomas's teachings. To compare this in a Jewish sense - the tribe of Levi is never blessed in the book of Genesis, instead - Jacob actually cursed and criticized Levi - and Moses is strangely from Levi's lineage. Levi was not at all Jacob's favorite son, Joseph was. However, the entire tribe of Levi becomes chosen out of the other tribes in Exodus. There's no foreshadowing of Levi/Moses's importance in Genesis, oddly. You wouldn't assume it all.
You really gotta read Thomas. We can't talk about it unless you have. I would actually look forward to our discussion about it. Thomas is not that long of a book either. It would probably just take you half an hour to read.
Wikipedia said it. The source for that wiki entry is Richard Valantasis's commentary on Thomas. Dunno if the idea is from him or another person.
I don't think Thomas is that necessary in a theological sense. The 4 Gospels do stand on their own. Thomas is simply the "secret sayings" of Jesus. But I do include it in my canon.
Yes, I think we're at the end of what has been a brief and amicable discussion. I'll say a couple of things and then let you have the last word.
Just to reiterate, I am "familiar" with Thomas, as I've said before I've read it, a couple of times in fact. It's just been awhile. Though I'm not a believer as you are and that's where our conversation dovetails. You're close to the material in a way that steers your thinking as opposed to someone strictly objective who only has historical curiosity.
For the record, my conclusions about Thomas ARE someone else's interpretation -- I've read a book or two about the GOT in the past, a couple of articles here and there, etc. It's not a primary focus of study and I don't pretend to be an expert. I was only relaying the impressions that I came away with after having read what some scholars have had to say. So your disagreement is really with them, not me. And even though I can't recall the many things in Johns Gospel that seek to "call out" Thomas, I know there are several instances that point to the GOJ rebutting (rebuking) the GOT.
Lastly, since you've not provided any scholarly reference to support a date of 60 CE for Thomas, I'll assume your dating is based on your reasoning, not from scholarly opinion.
Bible studies are very complicated and complex, it takes a lot of time and conversation to get them across. There's things that I debate upon with other Jews, Christians and Academic scholars. At times, it really feels like no one is reading the Bible. And everyone is simply reading off each other's commentary without looking at the actual source text. I've been studying the Torah/Bible for 3 years now and I'm still learning new things. Along with Thomas, I'd say the book of Maccabees and Antiquities are very important in understanding the bridge between Judaism and Christianity. It sucks that the Hebrew Bible abruptly stopped telling the history of the Jews. The Hasmonean dynasty and the Herodian dynasty provide context as to why Jesus had to incarnate.
Ha, "steers my thinking"...You have no idea what has happened or the kind of things that I have seen. I am a Jew, so these things are my blood.
I think you would be entertained by Thomas. Thomas is fun to read.
I think 60 AD is possible. Yes, no one knows for sure. Maybe if you were to actually read Thomas, you would see why some choose to date it so early. It may not be 60 AD, but others think Thomas could possibly be earlier than the 4 Gospels. Which is reasonable, because the 4 Gospels are NARRATIVE gospels, while the Gospel of Thomas is only a SAYINGS gospel. The idea behind the "Q" theory is that the original source gospel is only "sayings/teachings" by Jesus and doesn't involve any narrative/story. I don't think Thomas is the original source gospel, but Thomas has encouraged scholars to believe in the Q theory more so. If that makes sense to you.
There are two passages in the writings of Flavius Josephus, dismissed by both scholars and Christians as forgeries, that purport to refer to Jesus. Proof of the forgery, beyond the testimony of scholars who studied the work, is that before the 4th century A.D. the passages were not found in Josephus' works, and were unknown to Origen of Alexandria and the earlier patristic writers. The "proof" was first mentioned by Bishop Eusebius in the 4th century, a figure known to have inserted forged lines into other documents.
Regarding Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32). He openly admits that it is the accepted norm to add text where needed in order to propagate the story he wants to tell.
On the Josephus reference of Jesus: "We know Josephus published the Jewish War about 75 A.D. And no mention of the Christian Jesus is in it. Josephus then published the Jewish Antiquities about 93 A.D. And in surviving manuscripts of that today, there are two references to the Christian Jesus: the Testimonium Flavianum (in book 18) and a reference to James the brother of Jesus (in book 20).
The first is a brief fawning paragraph about Jesus whose authenticity has been widely doubted for centuries. How much of it is authentic, or if any reference to Jesus existed there at all, remains widely debated."
"The latest research collectively establishes that both references to Jesus were probably added to the manuscripts of Josephus at the Library of Caesarea after their first custodian, Origen—who had no knowledge of either passage—but by the time of their last custodian, Eusebius—who is the first to find them there. The long passage (the Testimonium Flavianum) was almost certainly added deliberately; the later passage about James probably had the phrase “the one called Christ” (just three words in Greek) added to it accidentally, and was not originally about the Christian James, but someone else." (Richard Carrier)
Yep, it was just added by another person. Great dismal. But it's still there.
Josephus has helped me out tremendously. Without him, I probably would not be a Christian. I was actually just a regular Jew before I read Josephus. Josephus shedding light on the Maccabee/Hasmonean dynasty and the Herodian dynasty adds so much context as to why Jesus Christ incarnated. There are several prophecies in the book of Deuteronomy that become fulfilled in Maccabees and Antiquities of the Jews.
I think that's a huge thing to overlook. Prior to the 4th century, Josephus' work did not mention Jesus. If I were to add some lines now about, say, the Gingerbread Man, would you consider that to be religious truth, since it's in Josephus' writings?
shareAnd you lived during the 4th century? Or the person who thinks that did? Right.
Uh, what? Do you even know what Josephus wrote about Jesus? It was only like 2 or 3 lines total. He just vaguely mentions Jesus and the sect known as the Christians. He doesn't even try to convince you that Jesus is the Messiah - only what this sect believed. Josephus himself was a Pharisee, not a Christian. Josephus also recorded the beliefs of differing Jewish denominations: Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, etc.
Josephus was simply being informative by recording the Christian sect. He wasn't even trying to convince anyone of Jesus.
You're acting as if this hypothetical interpolation is more ridiculous and unbelievable than it actually is. It really isn't. It's weird that you think it is.
Maybe you misunderstood. In copies of the text of Josephus that predate the 4th century, there is no mention of Jesus. It's only in copies made after Eusebius altered the text that Jesus appears at all.
sharePerhaps, but is that proof that Jesus never existed?
No!
Was it offered as proof he didn't exist?
I do think if one looks at the sum total of all evidence, writing, and history relating to Jesus, it's difficult to make the case that he did exist, at least as a singular individual. It's more likely that he is either a complete fabrication, or a composite of a number of religious figures who existed over many years.
The bottom line is that anyone who does believe he existed is doing so based entirely on faith, not evidence, just as is anyone who ascribes divine powers to him, or any other figure, historical or mythological.
Ah, I just knew that you too would claim that Jesus never existed.
Seriously though: why?
How can it be so important to some people to make that claim?
It is not like someone asked you to believe in the miracles or anything religious.
Really, I'm not sure what to think about that myself and won't preach to you about it.
What I don't get though is why someone would say that Jesus didn't exist at all.
I mean, who would have made him up anyway?
So you think it is a matter of faith whether Jesus existed or not.
But that is just bullshit.
However, it is clear that most sceptics have one reason to make their claims.
It is that they want to feel smarter and better than "those Christians".
I'm not saying he did or didn't, merely that there is no solid evidence that he did. I don't know if he did or didn't, and am not stating definitively either way.
Do you believe Ulysses existed, or Gilgamesh, or any other figure who shows up in ancient myths? I think, much like Jesus, that Ulysses may have been based on a real soldier, or was the combination of tales told about several soldiers, but it's all guesswork, just as it is with Jesus.
And no, it has nothing to do with feeling smarter or better than anyone else. I'm not opposed to Christianity at all. I think religion plays a positive role in society. I describe myself as "religious, but not spiritual." I think the traditions and rituals of the church, along with the lessons and lifestyles it teaches, are good for society, and I embrace them. I don't believe in magic or superstition. There's no basis for the belief in anyone or anything divine. It's 100% faith. If you believe it, that's up to you. I don't think I'm smarter because I don't, but if you try to pretend there is any evidence for magic, or proof Jesus existed, I think it's reasonable to point out that there isn't.
It is very much likely to me that Ulysses is based on a historical person.
I'm not as sure about Gilgamesh, but maybe.
What I mean is that a story from ancient times can have supernatural elements.
But that doesn't mean that nothing in it is based on historical truth.
I don´t think its about feeling smarter. People don´t want accountability for how they live so best to dismiss the existence of God at all costs.
shareCertainly weird people so confident in their faith in atheism obsess over other peoples chosen faith in Christianity yet ignore all other religious faiths. But let’s be honest, they’re just spiritual lemmings following the faith they were spoon faith by the communist education system.
share