Jesus discussion

[Restitvtvs]

Thank you all for the facts, opinions, methods, conclusions, etc. that you shared in this thread, regarding people, events & writings from various ancient & late antiquity religions. Since posters used various research & scientific terminology, I decided to provide a brief, generalized comparison of “natural scienceâ€

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Historic writings are vulnerable to the same author, translator & reader limitations as natural science writings, but to a greater degree because of less tangible evidence, less accurate/precise data, etc. For these & related reasons, historic writings/discussions would merit even more skepticism.

yes, okay, but if you have several ancient authors writing about the same subjects, you can therefore try and make a comparison in a scientific manner.

subjective feelings, opinions, biassedness etcetera can render this impossible if one of the parties involved in the discussion will not listen anymore to what is said or compared, thus killing the original intent.

The same applies for natural science. what was regarded as a fact by past scholars, can be rendered useless by new research, however models can never be totally admissed as proof since the infinite variables in real life are never truly set and can never all be calculated.

thats why for me personally Murphys law is one of the best, since that theory takes into account the infinite possibilities, with all their outcomes.

in case of something going wrong that is.....

:wink:

M.VIB.M.

[Restitvtvs]

Das stimmt! Rejected scientific hypotheses, theories, predictive models, etc. are not necessarily "false".

Some have been modified/merged & yielded predicted values that were closer to observed (actual, real life) values, and if sufficiently accurate (some want +/- 10% accuracy, others want +/- 5% accuracy, etc.).

Related science humor...

"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.â€

[Daniel S Peterson]

Much has been added since I last looked at this thread, but to back up a bit, Johnny, I am surpised you would think Zoroastrianism was heavily influenced by Judaism, and not vice-versa. All the evidence points to just the opposite, as does every scholarly book and article I am aware of.

Satan is an obedient servant of God throughout the Old Testament and it was not until the return from Babylon is there any connection at all between Satan and the serpent in Eden, fallen angels, etc. These things only appear in the later, apochryphal works which Judaism no longer acknowledges.

So desperate was the early Christian church to "turn" Satan into the Zoroastrian Ahriman dragon of Revelation, that the "fallen angel Lucifer" was invented, and claimed to be "Satan" before his "fall", an incident that appears nowhere in the Holy Torah. Serious Biblical scholars now know these passages are about the very real king of Babylon, and not a heavenly creature.

In Persian mythology written long before the Book of Revelation, Ahura binds the dragon Ahriman and casts him into the Abyss exactly as Michael binds the dragon Satan. Despite the millions of dollar "Left behind" Book and film industry, there can be no doubt whatsover that "John of Patmos simply copied the earlier legend almost verbatim. There is even a very famous stele of Ahura fighting the Ahriman dragon which appears in virtually every school book about ancient Persia.

This of course, doesn't mean Jesus is not the Son of God. It simply means the author of this particular book heavily "borrowed" his ideas from earlier Zoroastrian legends, and this book therefore, perhaps should have been among the many that were not judged to be inspired, and ultimately not included in what now know as the New Testament. There are a number of other ancient Christian "apocolypse" books that do not have such a blatant similarities to Pagan mythologies that could have been chosen instead.

Dan

[Goffredo]

Guys
please keep up the discussion, but I frankly feel that discussions about Jesus or about any religion never get anywhere. People don't get convinced to believe more or less as a result of "discussions". Any attempt to frame a religion or religious figure in historic terms, speaking of influences, interpretations, falsifications, or verified events and dates, leaves out the true essence of religion, namely faith.

Faith is a mental attitude where you believe not because of some net positive evaluation of the sources and evidence, but because you abandon yourself to it. Faith is abandonment, letting yourself go, like drowning safely in an calm ocean of amniotic fluids.

Horror Vacui. Fear of emptiness is subtle and shapes and eats at the sense of self of individuals and groups more than what foolish materialist thinkers think. I am not religious, but I am always deeply impressed by the need and ability of humans to believe without question in things regarding "deep" issues, not only superficial things (here say) and ordinary matters (news). When I was younger I despised those that believed without question. I now recognize it is an extremely powerful, very human trait and quite ubiquitous. It can bring good and evil consequences, nobody is immune. We all run risks of messing up, but can also reach for the stars. Powerful, terrible and wonderful.

However when a faithful person and a non-believer meet and even make a very big effort to speak to each other in an educated way, hold nice debates and show all kinds of formal openness, there is no real conversation going on, no real exchange of ideas. Faith does not thrive on new information. It is unsurprised by positive evidence (of course!) and it is perfectly capable of remaining unshaken by contrary evidence (A photographic film that does not capture a supernatural event is not expected to!). On the other hand, the non-believer does not even conceive the firmness of the believer.

Why can't they find common ground? Because "evidence", "certainty" and "truth" do not have the same meaning. For a believer evidence is superfluous, with truth and certainty beyond the reach of imperfect evidence. For the non-believer, evidence is crucial and it plays a strategic and tactical role in a debate. Of course any good scientist knows that evidence is always imperfect, but this is ammunition for the believer. The argument of science is never a proof or disproof but one of likely-hood. But this is meaningless to the believer, also because to him a likely belief is not very impressive. To him an impressive belief is an un-likely one.

[Narukami]

Guys
please keep up the discussion...

Why can't they find common ground? Because "evidence", "certainty" and "truth" do not have the same meaning. For a believer evidence is superfluous, with truth and certainty beyond the reach of imperfect evidence. For the non-believer, evidence is crucial and it plays a strategic and tactical role in a debate. Of course any good scientist knows that evidence is always imperfect, but this is ammunition for the believer. The argument of science is never a proof or disproof but one of likely-hood. But this is meaningless to the believer, also because to him a likely belief is not very impressive. To him an impressive belief is an un-likely one.

Greetings,

Goffredo, you touch upon the core concept at play here, the distinction between knowledge and certainty.

If you will allow I will refer back to Jacob Bronowski, who spoke much more eloquently on the topic than I ever could. It is a long quote, and one that I would think most members of this site have at least heard or read at one time in their life, and yet it bears repeating, particularly in this day and age...

From "Knowledge or Certainty", an episode from the 1973 BBC series "The Ascent of Man", transcribed by Evan Hunt:

The Principle of Uncertainty is a bad name. In science--or outside of it--we are not uncertain; our knowledge is merely confined, within a certain tolerance. We should call it the Principle of Tolerance. And I propose that name in two senses: First, in the engineering sense--science has progressed, step by step, the most successful enterprise in the ascent of man, because it has understood that the exchange of information between man and nature, and man and man, can only take place with a certain tolerance.

But second, I also use the word, passionately, about the real world. All knowledge--all information between human beings--can only be exchanged within a play of tolerance. And that is true whether the exchange is in science, or in literature, or in religion, or in politics, or in any form of thought that aspires to dogma. It's a major tragedy of my lifetime and yours that scientists were refining, to the most exquisite precision, the Principle of Tolerance--and turning their backs on the fact that all around them, tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair.

The Principle of Uncertainty or, in my phrase, the Principle of Tolerance, fixed once for all the realization that all knowledge is limited. It is an irony of history that at the very time when this was being worked out there should rise, under Hitler in Germany and other tyrants elsewhere, a counter-conception: a principle of monstrous certainty. When the future looks back on the 1930s it will think of them as a crucial confrontation of culture as I have been expounding it, the ascent of man, against the throwback to the despots' belief that they have absolute certainty.

It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false: tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality--this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge or error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

Narukami

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Sorry but we are talking about the HISTORICAL Jesus who was called the Christ by his followers. We are also talking about the way in which his followers started the religion, and how it grew, and was able do totally destroy the natural polytheistic beliefs of the ancient, and hellenistic world.

Faith has nothing to do with this discussion, it is the people who believe who are trying to block this entire thing by quoting bibletexts as valid and undeniable proof.

(of course with an underlying wish we should drink a cup of Shut the F... up)

hereby totally disregarding the fact that the new testament as we know it today has lost considerable parts, and versions of the contemporary written gospels, due to mistranslation, translation from arameic into greek, into latin into all kinds of languages.

this discussion is deep and has a purpose, to try and shed some more light on the mysteries surrounding Jesus the prophet, Jesus the Jewish rebel, Jesus the rabbi, Jesus the son of god, Jesus the messiah et cetera et cetera.

not to mention the distance in time from the execution of Jesus to the first written gospels.

faith does not come into this discussion since it is scientifically debated, and would only destroy the purpose of it.

M.VIB.M.

[Goffredo]

Hi Marcus Vibius Marinus

indeed please continue the "discussion".
But allow me to ask a few questions:
1) Do you think attempts to historically frame the figure of Jesus is going to change the evaluation of what Christianity, as a religion, was and is?
2) I sense a religious fervor in your writings. Am I wrong?
3) Is your drive purely historical? Is it scientific? (Is History science?)
4) If you evaluate a religion in historical terms then, to be consistent, shouldn't you do so for all religions, psuedo-religions, beliefs or all sorts?
5) Are you capable/willing to historically frame your positions?

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Hey Goff! long time no wax tablet!!!

1: No, it will certainly not change the evaluation of what christianity as a
religion was and is, at least nor for the believers.
However I do believe that in the scientific/historical world these
discussions are valid in their own rights and might change certain
perspectives.

2: My religious fervor (favour) preference is a highly difficult one for most
people. it is a mix of Ancient Roman religion, Christian heritage,
Bhuddism, Shinto, Bushido(no religion but a way of life), some parts of
Islam,
Mithraism, The Force(see what Yoda tells us about it in "the empire
strikes" back, vedic hinduism, and a lot more philosophys and
theories.

I can However say this: I am mordicvs against:
Dogmatism in any religion, new age mumbo jumbo, intolerant
religions, biggottry, mass hysteria, healing preachers, fascists, nazis
and other nutters, and any and all who try to convince me that i should
do anything in their line to prevent damnation. to cut it short: general
blindness.......

3. my drive is both! history can be science, as science can be history!

4. yes, but many religions are based on certain universal priciples, and to
get to the bottom of that is the answer to many of our questions.

5. Both! if challenged................

M.VIB.M.

[Restitvtvs]

Life seems to be analagous to wandering through moderate fog. :?

We're all somewhat "blind"...

Thank you all who have given relevant recommended readings. Literally mountains of materials.

[Goffredo]

Hi Marcus Vibius Maurinus

Good answers. By the way, I was indeed challenging you to historically frame and contextualize your positions, but with no animosity.

I agree that there may be universals at the basis of some (all?) religions, but I skeptically feel we can’t really learn much about them (the universals) by studying religions, history, and even philosophy, other than show that they exist. I especially doubt we can learn from what people say about religion.

It is a little like languages. A linguist might show that all languages have a common structure, but the how and why our basic language skills tick the way they do might very well be understood only using a non-linguistic, cognitive approach. Of course the super-structures and details of languages are subject to the forces of history and evolve in many and wonderous ways. And of course even if we one day understand the cognitive basics of how we linguistically tick, we will never stop being mystified by the beauty of a poem or a novel. A linguist, a literary historian or a critic will still have interesting things to say and their jobs will not be at risk.

Similarly the universals of religion might very well arise from how we are hard-wired and ultimately have very little to do with history, let alone philosophy, ethics, at least in the traditional sense. I feel that only by studying how our brain works and how we perceive and represent the world can we make any deep breakthrough. Of course historians, anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers and theologians still have interesting things to say (well I might take theologians off the list!). Their jobs will never be at risk because the details and super-structures of religions are the products of history and history is indeed very interesting. In addition the world is small and to know how your neighbors think, behave and pray, it is certainly a good idea to begin by studying their behavior and history. But it is not enough. Not simply because our own history is confusing and need continuous study and re-thinking, but because we just don’t know how humans think!

The reason I feel the cognitive approach is the best way to study the basics of religion and languages is that what we think and say about how we think and talk does not faithfully correspond to how we actually do them. Indeed we not only ignore how the brain works, but we are not even aware that it is working. In this precise moment you are becoming AWARE that your right foot senses the fact that it is inside a shoe! Now how did your brain do that? How does the brain perceive and then represent the world? Our sensations, feelings and thoughts are artifacts, constructs, maybe reality driven, but then maybe not. What does “awarenessâ€

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Goff, well spokenm, however i think that the cognitive approach should get its own topic on the forum.

The difficulty in thie matter is that we have a book, called New Testament / the gospels, that basically speaks of someone performing great deeds, miracles, after which he was crucified by the then ruling power, Rome.

Now Rome has been extensively described by contemporary authors, like TACITvS, JOSEPHvS, well to put the list of all classical authors on here is a bit too much.

so : common sense dictates that the contemporary sources would UNDENIABLY have written about these miraculous events.

for instance, according to this book, there was an earthquake, which damaged the Temple. In NO Jewish contemporary history, not even written by rabbis, sanhedrin, farisees, and Romans, anything like that is mentioned, while for instance small earthquakes on the Italian peninsula have been described.

Also, no written records or references in any literature exist that clearly put out the exceptional act of a crucifiction on the day before Pesach.

No evidence of trials, public outcries, barrabbas his release, and any miracles or important happenings.........

while a small insurrection like the one CIVILIS started has been EXTENSIVELY mentioned in contemporary literature.

Only the Bible writes about these happenings. Not the Romans, Nor the Jews........ (no this isnt an intentional musical quote)

so. THAT in my opinion is the problem, and that is also the reason why we should investigate all this thouroughly.

M.VIB.M.

[Robert Vermaat]

so : common sense dictates that the contemporary sources would UNDENIABLY have written about these miraculous events.
for instance, according to this book, there was an earthquake, which damaged the Temple. In NO Jewish contemporary history, not even written by rabbis, sanhedrin, farisees, and Romans, anything like that is mentioned, while for instance small earthquakes on the Italian peninsula have been described.
Also, no written records or references in any literature exist that clearly put out the exceptional act of a crucifiction on the day before Pesach.
No evidence of trials, public outcries, barrabbas his release, and any miracles or important happenings.........
while a small insurrection like the one CIVILIS started has been EXTENSIVELY mentioned in contemporary literature.
Only the Bible writes about these happenings. Not the Romans, Nor the Jews........ (no this isnt an intentional musical quote)
so. THAT in my opinion is the problem, and that is also the reason why we should investigate all this thouroughly.

Hmm. Well.

Only the Bible writes about these happenings. Not the Romans, Nor the Jews.

Not to split hairs or anything, but the Bible was written by Jews.. Or most of it. But I see what you mean, you're talking about historical writings, chronicles and stuff.
How do you know they never did? Sure, we don't have any such sources available today, but I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say that much what has been written did not survive. Any Roman records of who was punished and who was pardoned (did any such stuff even survive in other parts of the Empire???) may well have been lost during the Jewish Wars a generation later. It was by no means stuff to inspire historians from Greece or Rome, anyway.
But that's negative evidence, and not admissable. But maybe no-one wrote about it. The region was too early to attrackt Roman historians, and for local historians these events may not have held much significance. It was not as if earthquakes were rare, maybe the damage to the Temple was slight, and rebels were very common those days. And how do we know that Crucifictions never took place on the day before Pesach before? Crucifiction was a Roman sentence, they would hardly have cared what day it was.

[Spurius]

Do we know if there is a record of Roman Christians serving in the army prior to the great fire? I imagine it would be very uncommon, but I do not know if there is any record to suggest so.

[Restitvtvs]

Biblical scriptures: The unnamed "faithful Centurion"? & possibly a few, unnamed others (e.g., "Longinus" from other sources) as early as about 30-35 AD.

Any other sources?