«Home

Quest For The Historical Jesus Christ - Was Jesus A Myth?

Around the world over the centuries, much has been written about religion, its meaning, its relevance and contribution to humanity. In the West particularly, sizable tomes have been composed speculating upon the nature and historical background of the main character of Western religions, Jesus Christ. Many have tried to dig into the precious few clues as to Jesus's identity and come up with a biographical sketch that either bolsters faith or reveals a more human side of this godman to which we can all relate. Obviously, considering the time and energy spent on them, the subjects of Christianity and its legendary founder are very important to the Western mind and culture.More in this link;

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Avatar
Newbie
15 answers

No problem

I would never have been able to say a word on the historicity of Christ if I had not read any of those materials quoted above. The problem is, we've been told earlier that there was just nothing to indicate that Jesus ever existed; and the same sources also claimed that none of the Roman officials existed - not even Pilate! And what is staggering is that the same scholars came back to tell us that John the Baptist actually existed as a historical figure, even though they previously denied that he did.

In my experience though, most of the scholars aren't misleading people, at least not intentionally.

It is for that reason I leave room for several possibilities like, rather Yeshua ben Yosef ever existing, "Jesus" as a whole, could have been built around the amalgation of several people, which may have included the likes of John the Baptist, Simon the Magi, Yeshua ben Pandira, and Yeshua ben Stada.

0
Avatar
Newbie

We should bear in mind that there were many messiah candidates,and people with the "christ" epithet.

There is no way the gospel Jesus could've been ignored by historians with all those miracles he did!Walking on water and miraculously feeding thousands are events that are not simply possible to be ignored by any historians,if those things actually happened.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The most credible historian to have mentioned christ in his writing - most credible because he was a jew and a Jesus contemporary - was FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS.But even his has been proving to be nothing but forgeries after close scrutiny.

Here is an excerpt from the article in the link of the other thread i opened;

[center]Historically unknown[/center]

Few Christians are aware that there is not a single piece of legitimate historical evidence that the gospel Jesus ever existed. The birth, life, miracles, teachings and death of Jesus are not referred to by any historians of the time, despite the fact that the centuries surrounding the beginning of the Christian era were some of the best documented in history. Apart from Luke's Gospel, no historical sources mention the Roman census that supposedly required Mary and Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. In fact, a Roman census could not have been carried out in Palestine in the time of King Herod, for his territory was not part of the empire. Nor are there any independent historical accounts of the guiding star (which, very unstarlike, wandered through the sky and came to rest over the building where Jesus was born!), Herod's slaughter of the innocents, or the dramatic events that allegedly accompanied the crucifixion -- i.e. three hours of global darkness, an earthquake and the rending of the veil of the temple of Jerusalem, followed, according to Matthew, by corpses emerging from their graves, including the resurrection of the saints and their subsequent appearance to many in Jerusalem!

    The only Roman writers to mention anything of relevance to the historical reality of Jesus are Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius, but they were all writing at the beginning of the 2nd century and none of them mention Jesus by name [1]. Pliny simply says that some Christians had cursed 'Christ' to avoid being punished. Tacitus mentions that Christ was executed by Pontius Pilate, but it is clear that he is merely quoting hearsay information from his own day. Suetonius states that Jews were expelled from Rome around 49 CE because a man called Chrestus instigated disturbances among them. But Chrestus was a popular name, and even if Suetonius really meant 'Christus', Jesus was never said to have been at Rome, and certainly not nearly 20 years after his supposed crucifixion. Moreover, the authenticity of all these passages has been questioned.

    Turning to Jewish historians: Philo was an eminent Jewish author who lived at the same time that Jesus is supposed to have lived and wrote around 50 works that still survive. They tell us much about Pontius Pilate, yet make no mention of Jesus. Philo's contemporary, Justus of Tiberias, wrote a history that began with Moses and extended to his own times, but again made no mention of Jesus [2].

    Josephus, on the other hand, a younger contemporary of the apostle Paul, wrote two famous history books, one of which (Antiquities of the Jews) contains two passages which do refer to Jesus: one of them speaks of him as the messiah, who was crucified under Pilate and appeared to his disciples three days later. For hundreds of years these passages were seized on by Christians as conclusive proof that the gospel Jesus was an historical figure. But more careful scrutiny has shown them to be later forgeries. Since Josephus was an orthodox Jew, he would hardly have called Jesus the messiah if the Jews had really put him to death for blasphemy. Origen explicitly stated in the 3rd century that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the messiah. It was not until the beginning of the 4th century that Bishop Eusebius, the Roman Church's notorious propagandist and falsifier, suddenly produced a version of Josephus which contained these passages. Nevertheless, given the lack of any other serious, nonbiblical evidence for an historical Jesus, some Christian apologists still go to desperate lengths to claim that the passages in Josephus are at least partially authentic [3].

    The Jewish Talmud comprises an older stratum called the Mishna and additional matter known as the Gemara or 'completion'. The Mishna was founded in 40 BCE and was edited and amplified till about the beginning of the 3rd century CE. It contains an unbroken record of all the rebels against the authority of the Jewish Sanhedrin from 40 BCE to about 237 CE, and provides a history of the Pharisees, who allegedly put Jesus to death. H.P. Blavatsky asks:

how is it that not one of the eminent Rabbis, authors of the Mishnah, seems to have ever heard of Jesus, or whispers a word in the defence of his sect charged with deicide, but is, in fact absolutely silent as to the great event? [4]

The Talmud does contain references to a certain Jeshu, on whom the gospel Jesus may partially have been based, but one passage implies that he lived about 100 BCE. The Talmud certainly provides no support for the historical reality of a gospel Jesus living in the early 1st century.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@nferyn,

Go back and read my posts - I did not claim that those sources were contemporaneous with Jesus' time. Materials that are dated precisely as stated in my post point to what I've said. Besides that, I'm interested in knowing where the present claims have come about that Jesus was born in a cave (if He actually didn't exist), and some of the twisted Greek words that some of these 'scholars' have been misreading to the public. When I get home, I'll follow up and send you a list to go through.

The larger claims are still standing: what have been denied as being in the Jewish religion and tradition are actually there - these can be sourced from the TANACH.

0
Avatar
Newbie

As far as contemporary historical sources indicating the existence of Jesus are concerned:

* Tacticus was not a contemporary of Jesus and is likely to have used second hand sources and not official sources.

* There are no manuscripts found of Thallus, all we have is Thallus being referenced as source, which makes it a dubious source at best

* Ignatius was one of the Church Fathers an successor to the throne of Peter, hardly an objective source and he was not contemporary to Jesus anyway

* Emperor Hadrianus was no a contemporary of Jesus and lived when Christianity was already established as a religion

*Pliny The Younger was not a contemporary of Jesus and writes about Christians and their persecution. He cannot be considered a primary source

0
Avatar
Newbie

Thank you for your comments, KAG.

I would never have been able to say a word on the historicity of Christ if I had not read any of those materials quoted above. The problem is, we've been told earlier that there was just nothing to indicate that Jesus ever existed; and the same sources also claimed that none of the Roman officials existed - not even Pilate! And what is staggering is that the same scholars came back to tell us that John the Baptist actually existed as a historical figure, even though they previously denied that he did.

It was such kinds of claims that drove me to obtain the copies of the materials and read for myself whether or not these claims had substance. Please believe me, KAG - when you have read them, you will see how these scholars are misleading the public; and so many people who don't take the time to check the claims will fall for them. That is why I have appealed time and again that people should go read these sources for themselves and see what is really going on!

Thank you once again for your comments.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I would remove Thallus and Pliny from the list, never heard of Hadrian, and never read Ignatius, so i can't comment on them. Tacitus is slighly debatable, but in my opinion, it holds.

I can understand where the "Jesus was a myth" crowd are coming from, because with all due respect, there is more evidence for Pilate existing, and even more for the Caesars, than for Jesus'. That is not to say though, that a Yeshua ben Yosef never existed.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@jagunlabi,

it's not new for you to keep up your denials. Now it only gets interesting that you can deny my claims to have experienced the power of Christ in my own life. Two things I'll tell you in that respect:

1) unbelievers will continue to deny any and everything about Christ because they really hate to be told the truth, even where experiential evidences are tendered.

2) your denials do not take away from what I know in my life - I have been actually healed and have prayed for circumstances that defy human manipulations. Further, I have seen the lives of people powerfully changed by the Gospel of Christ - drug addicts, people whose marriages were falling apart, thieves, prostitutes, and those who were on the verge of committing suicide. Now may I ask you this simple question: your Osiris - what has he done for you or anyone else? If Osiris was true and powerful, why has his/her advocates not been able to replicate the works that Christ is doing in the lives of people today?

Your denials only show me that you'd like to just do that - deny everything about Christ. But that's not my loss - it's yours. One-on-one, what has Osiris done for you or Andrew Walker?? At least, I can personally tell you what Jesus has done for me.

I extend once again to you the love and grace that are richly available in Jesus Christ: it's up to you to receive Him into you life, or to reject Him if that makes you happy after this life is over.

Blessings.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@jagunlabi,

I have told you once, twice and I'll do it again - GO READ THE TANACH AND GNOSTIC DOCUMENTS FOR YOURSELF - there are more than enough English translations and they are cheap like N5 pure water!! Your "researchers" are misleading you; and until you read the materials for yourself, you will still continue to miss the point. You have continued to run shy from my challenge, so what's the point? You picked the article of an 18 year-old UK student who did not know the simplest of the Greek language, and he twisted certain words to mislead you - and you're still holding on to that as research?

You're avoiding the critical issues here, so I'll help you by restating them:

1) your research is weak because your researchers are twisting the Greek language and you're buying their lies; I've shown you the difference between Katalemna and kataluma - you have continued to be blind to that, or you would have proven me wrong by telling me that kataluma was not Greek. (follow this link).

2) what you denied as being in the Jewish tradition and religion are actually there - go read the TANACH for yourself: why is that so difficult for you to do if you have any desire to settle this issue instead of all your efforts to sweat out your misconceptions? Just simply read the documents and come back to prove me wrong!

3) how many gnostic documents have you read? Go read the documents for yourself and see how much your researchers have sold their misrepresentations to you - that's not difficult to do, is it? If you continue to dodge these issues, you make everyone suspect you're afraid to face up to my challenges because you fear you may discover the plain truth for yourself.

4) how many of these scholars have told you that they have added to the gnostic documents when they accuse the Bible of "later additions" and all else to sell their propaganda? Go and ask your researchers why the keep changing their own documents - that isn't difficult, is it?

Now let me address your curiosity. You speak of why it is so difficult to account for a historical Jesus. My challenge is again repeated for you - go and read what your researchers don't want you to read!!

If you can be a gentleman and face up with the facts in front of you, go and read these historical sources -

   ¤ - Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD) - read his literary works

   ¤ - Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD

   ¤ - Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD)

   ¤ - Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), in his letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul

   ¤ - Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD

You may call all these 'myths', and that would be forgiveable as long as you're only trumpeting the same propadanda that your researchers are selling to you. I have read those materials for myself, and I urge you to read them for yourself as well - be bold and take up my challenges! One more thing your scholars have not been able to answer: if these outside sources are myths, would it be right to say that Pontus Pilate was also a myth, or that Caesar and the Romans were myths? All I ask is that you lay down your noise and go read these historical documents and prove to yourself who has been selling lies to the public - me or your researchers!!

jagunlabi, once again I'll repeat loud and clear - be a gentleman and read the sources your own researchers do not want you to read - read them and find out the truth for yourself!

Boldly, I'll beat my chest to throw you these challenges and claims:

             ¤  Your researchers twist the original languages, . . .

             ¤  misrepresent the documents, . . .

             ¤  fabricate their own stories to buttress their propaganda. . .

             ¤ add and delete some parts of the gnostic gospels and documents when

                translating them into other languages, . . .

             ¤ and then deny certain explicit elements in the Jewish religion and tradition.

These are my bold challenges and assertions and I am waiting for you to read the TANACH and the gnostic materials and prove me wrong!!

How many times have they told YOU that they are guilty of doing the same things they accuse Christians of doing? For example, the Jesus Seminar group sat down for over a decade and produced an edited version of the Bible where they added and deleted some texts which they claim are not likely the words of the original Christ. Have they told you that they are the ones adding and deleting to and from God's Word? No, they won't tell you that - because it  would simply blow up their own baked myths in their faces and show you how biased they are; then and only then will you see the whole truth for yourself. This is why this argument that you're trumping up is ever so weak because you refused to take up my challenges and still come back recycling the same old propaganda that they are selling to you.

You may not believe in Christ and you may join the camp that call Him a myth and liar - does that take away from the fact that Christ Jesus has proven Himself faithful to those who believe in Him? No. He is real, jagunlabi - He lives regardless of what your researchers are selling to you. He has proven His power in my life and in millions of others. Yet, millions are still calling Him a myth and a lie and all sorts of crazy things. We are not the ones fooled - those who refuse to read and investigate the claims of these needlessly vexed souls calling themselves researchers and scholars are jeopardising their own destinies.

Whether you realise it or not, you may come back with unproven research to continue your slurring of Christ; but He loves you, He still forgives you - are you still going to be in the camp that rejects His love and grace? The choice is entirely yours.

With goodwill, welborn.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Excerpt from the article in the link.An interesting read.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Maybe we should just leave the preaching and face the real theme of this thread,sef.

The question is this;

Why is it so difficult to historically account for a figure like Jesus?

The very fact that he cannot be accounted for have to be really shocking to christians,and that is if one should put into consideration that John The Baptist and Pontius Pilate who both lived in his time were historically accounted for!

I'm not saying that he never existed,but why the historical silence?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I have no problem with God,wellborn.I just don't like religions that are based on lies posing as the only legitimate way to the creator,when it is clearly not.It stinks to high heavens!Sorry,maybe you can take the stink,but i can't.People like us just think it wise to let folks like you know what has been hidden from you,and since you claim to love this faith so much,you might as well know the skeletons in the cupboard so as to know how to deal with them.

Peace be unto you.

Chiao!

0
Avatar
Newbie

If you had eyes opened, take up my challenges and read the sources I've always told you to (the TANACH, the Bible and the gnostic gospels).

I don't understand why people who make claims of some pagan deity and gnostic movements are refusing to read the gnostic documents or the Jewish religion and traditions that they say certain concepts do not appear. I still my grounds - what you deny in those books and the Jewish religion and tradition actually exist there! And as long as you shy away from reading those sources, you will never know how far away from truth your researchers are. The problem is not mine - it's yours.

All the same, God still loves you and Jesus is still the Saviour. jagunlabi, believe in Him and see what difference He could make in your life!

0
Avatar
Newbie

I see that the tone is beginning to change.The realization that christians have been taken for a ride and fooled for so long is beginning to dawn on you guys!Well,about time,too!

Relating to the Jesus that walked the earth 2000 years ago is one thing,relating to the NT version is quite another.

0
Avatar
Newbie

He is just as human as u, he is just as "GOD" as u. this is exactly what the bible says. he is as much like u as ur brother or ur sister. if there is more "relation" than this, i dont know of it.

Jesus is not a far-off mystical figure. he is a friend and a brother, he speaks to us everyday, he laughs with us, he cries with us, he knows how i feel when ogle a girl i see on the streets of PH. But of course all this is "blind faith" and "unscientific" and "the opium of the masses" and "religious hogwash" so u really dont have to accept it. but that is what the bible says. so if anyone cant "relate " to Jesus, it is his choice, he has chosen the "sensible" way

@wellborn

God bless you

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.