Jesusbots: Help me out

I met this guy the other day. He said to me, "Jesus never really existed, you know. It's simply the retelling of the archetype saviour myth handed down from antediluvian times. It was anthropomorphized to coincide with the new age...which is now about to draw to a close."

Wow, says I.

"What about the historical evidence?", I asked naively. "You know, stuff outside the bible that records Jesus of Nazareth? Fed the masses with two fish, condemned when Pilate washed his hands and turned him over to the Jewish Sanhedrin, yadda yadda yadda?" He replied, "There isn't any. The council at Nicea was a farce of the highest degree. Constantine worshipped Sol Invictus."

So...lay it on me, Jesusbots, if you are so inclined. Show me some indisputable historical reference(s) to Jesus H. Nice. I'll have to start off by pointing out the Josephus' "Mysteries" reference was a blatant forgery by the forgers' forger, Eusebius. What else you got?

Originally posted by David C
I met this guy the other day. He said to me, "Jesus never really existed, you know. It's simply the retelling of the archetype saviour myth handed down from antediluvian times. It was anthropomorphized to coincide with the new age...which is now about to draw to a close."

Wow, says I.

"What about the historical evidence?", I asked naively. "You k ...[text shortened]... ysteries" reference was a blatant forgery by the forgers' forger, Eusebius. What else you got?

Well I dont really have the time to look it up, But most people will say Jesus exsisted, even atheist's. Theres lots of evidence of it outside the bible, I read about it once but I forget where, and how

Originally posted by David C
I met this guy the other day. He said to me, "Jesus never really existed, you know. It's simply the retelling of the archetype saviour myth handed down from antediluvian times. It was anthropomorphized to coincide with the new age...which is now about to draw to a close."

Wow, says I.

"What about the historical evidence?", I asked naively. "You k ...[text shortened]... ysteries" reference was a blatant forgery by the forgers' forger, Eusebius. What else you got?

Formost, I do not consider myself a "Jesusbot", thought I suppose it would depend on the criteria for the term.

Anyway, all I can say is I would like to see "undisputable historical reference" for, literally, anything. There does not exist "undisputable historical reference" that man landed on the moon. I will not make a case on something that happened last week under this notion, let alone 2,000 years ago. If this is the criteria by which a person bases their beliefs, I would think that they do not believe in much of anything at all.

I don't have to be a Jesusbot to respond to your post, I hope.

I believe Jesus walked the earth. At the same time, I'm unaware of any conclusive physical evidence of his existence. He didn't ever have his bust done, or have a temple put up in his honour. Perhaps he wasn't the type. For his death, though, there is more substantial textual proof from a variety of sources, including the Talmud and the Roman author Tacitus. For example:

Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43a: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. ... Since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

(http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/crucified.htm)

I was unaware of the Koran's claim that the cross bore not Jesus but "a likeness".

Disputing the existence of Jesus bar-Joseph doesn't seem useful. The fact of his existence does nothing to substantiate claims of his godhood.

Early imperial Roman abounded with magicians. I find the story of Appolonius of Tyana to be quite as fascinating as that of Jesus.

Edit: How does the Saviour archetype function, David C?

Originally posted by flyUnity
Well I dont really have the time to look it up, But most people will say Jesus exsisted, even atheist's. Theres lots of evidence of it outside the bible, I read about it once but I forget where, and how

That's fine, flyU. Then the atheists are also incorrect. If you suddenly remember where, and how, please do revisit the topic.

Originally posted by Omnislash
Formost, I do not consider myself a "Jesusbot", thought I suppose it would depend on the criteria for the term.

Anyway, all I can say is I would like to see "undisputable historical reference" for, literally, anything. There does not exist "undisputable historical reference" that man landed on the moon. I will not make a case on something that happened last week under this notion, let alone 2,000 years ago. If this is the criteria by which a person bases their beliefs, I would think that they do not believe in much of anything at all.

I'll admit that "Jesusbot" is my own creation. It's meant to denote one who has accepted an historical Jesus as fact in a true automatonic fashion. It's not meant to be derogatory, although I now fear many will see it that way, given the context of my post.

Having said that, Omnislash, we're not discussing a minor fender-bender at the corner of Judea and Palestine here. It's the freaking Messiah, for bob's sake. The Lord and Saviour of all mankind for all eternity. The inference that we have no historical record for landing on the moon isn't quite accurate, either. We have pictures, video, audio, live eyewitness accounts, even some of the men who landed there are still alive today...you can go touch a moonrock at the Smithsonian if you wish. It may be disputable, but one might appear exceedingly foolish in doing so, given the physical evidence.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't have to be a Jesusbot to respond to your post, I hope.

I believe Jesus walked the earth. At the same time, I'm unaware of any conclusive physical evidence of his existence. He didn't ever have his bust done, or have a temple put up in his honour. Perhaps he wasn't the type. For his death, though, there is more substantial textual proof from a variety of sources, including the Talmud and the Roman author Tacitus. For example:

Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43a: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. ... Since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

(http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/crucified.htm)

I was unaware of the Koran's claim that the cross bore not Jesus but "a likeness".

Disputing the existence of Jesus bar-Joseph doesn't seem useful. The fact of his existence does nothing to substantiate claims of his godhood.

Early imperial Roman abounded with magicians. I find the story of Appolonius of Tyana to be quite as fascinating as that of Jesus.

Edit: How does the Saviour archetype function, David C?

Of course not, Bosse. Happy to have everyone and anyone's input.

Tacitus...for those unfamiliar with the reference, the Roman historian Tacitus is said to have remarked in his Annals of 117 C.E. that "Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."

The Tacitus reference is problematic, Bosse. It didn't appear until 1468 C.E. when de Spire published a copy of Annals. If this passage was available to early Christian proponents such as Eusebius, Clement, and Tertullian, and wasn't cited by them, then its' veracity is beyond doubtful. There is no Roman record of Pilate putting anyone named "Christus" to death during the reign of Tiberius.

The Talmudic reference means little. "Yeshu" was a fairly popular name back in the day. Even if it does mean "Jesus", Josephus mentioned 28 "Jesii" (lol) in "Mysteries". Plus, Jesus was not hanged, he was "crucified". Seems to be some ambiguity there. I think you may have also inadvertently left out some of the passage:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty day before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf."

Sorcery? Apostasy? Seems pretty un-jesus like. I'm not sure I buy the Talmud citation.

The archetype function in a nutshell: He (it) is giving his (its'😉 life so that we may live.

Originally posted by David C
[[i]"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty day before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone wh ...[text shortened]... nutshell: He (it) is giving his (its'😉 life so that we may live.[/b]

In claiming to be the Messiah and asking people to follow him, Jesus was asking people to turn away from the Jewish faith--clear enticement to apostasy . The sorcery seems obvious--healing, miracles--all attributable to sorcery (like the sorceror Simon Magus, accused of sorcery by Paul, I think).

Jesus does seem to have caused a historical stir--maybe enough for some people to decide he was a good figure on which to base a religion; I don't know.

Edit: hanging & crucifixion: most crucifixion victims were bound to the cross; they hung on the cross until they suffocated. The nails? Could easily be an invention.

My question about the archetype wasn't clear. I meant, when, why & how does it arise in the popular imagination? Not a flippant question at all.

Originally posted by David C
So...lay it on me, Jesusbots, if you are so inclined. Show me some indisputable historical reference(s) to Jesus H. Nice. I'll have to start off by pointing out the Josephus' "Mysteries" reference was a blatant forgery by the forgers' forger, Eusebius. What else you got?

Why don't you start with the Gospels themselves? Why should they not be treated as historical documents (though not as histories, if you are so inclined)?

Conversely, what "indisputable historical reference(s)" can you find as to the existence of Socrates, or Julius Caesar?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why don't you start with the Gospels themselves? Why should they not be treated as historical documents (though not as histories, if you are so inclined)?

They are, at best, secondary historical sources, as they were written long after the events described; and by their own accounts, none of the authors were present at the hanging.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
They are, at best, secondary historical sources, as they were written long after the events described; and by their own accounts, none of the authors were present at the hanging.

Not much longer after the life of Christ as, say, the people in Plutarch's Parallel Lives. That doesn't stop us using Plutarch's works, does it?

EDIT: Take the case of Alexander the Great, for instance. The only surviving records we have of his life are all secondary histories - all written centuries after his death. With the Gospels, at least, we can date them to within 30-40 years after the death of Christ.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why don't you start with the Gospels themselves? Why should they not be treated as historical documents (though not as histories, if you are so inclined)?

Conversely, what "indisputable historical reference(s)" can you find as to the existence of Socrates, or Julius Caesar?

I wouldn't/couldn't use the gospels in any fashion in this case. Would I use Yertle the Turtle to prove Yertle existed? No.

Caesar, well...I believe Caesar appears on Roman coinage of the time. Aren't there scores of contemporary literary references to him? Busts that he posed for? Extensive written histories of his military conquests? Hardly analogous. I'm not prepared to debate the existance of Socrates or Alexander, as both of those figures pose the same problem as Jesus.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In claiming to be the Messiah and asking people to follow him, Jesus was asking people to turn away from the Jewish faith--clear enticement to apostasy . The sorcery seems obvious--healing, miracles--all attributable to sorcery (like the sorceror Simon Magus, accused of sorcery by Paul, I think).

I'm sure someone might point out that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah...didn't that happen later as the Gospels were being canonized? Seems to be some incongruity there.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
My question about the archetype wasn't clear. I meant, when, why & how does it arise in the popular imagination?

Not sure I can answer that one, Bosseman. It just "is", from Mitrha and Osiris through Zarathustra, Krishna and Christ. Maybe someone smarter than me has a better response for you?

Originally posted by David C
[b]I'm sure someone might point out that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah...didn't that happen later as the Gospels were being canonized? Seems to be some incongruity there.



b]

Ha, problem is I don't know the Gospels well enough to quote what Jesus said. OK, he didn't claim to be the Messiah (a strictly Jewish figure in any case) --but there were more than enough people who wanted him to be exactly that. I seem to recall him fending off some such suggestions. (Christians, I could do with some help here.) The idea of the Messiah was not exactly new, people were waiting to be delivered from the Romans...for some people, Jesus filled the suit. Perhaps it was a frame job.

Do you believe that the Gospels are pure fiction or reworkings (with liberal rewriting to suit the early Christians) of traditional accounts concerning a certain charismatic figure about whom very little is known?

The switch from Jewish Messiah to Christian Saviour...hmm....

I'll ask Skywalker Red what he thinks about the saviour archetype...I'm interested in knowing how these archetypes manage to appear at just the right moment.

Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, that is why he was killed. At least, according to the Gospels. Which brings us back to...

If you acknowledge that Socrates and Alexander pose the same problems as Jesus, well I don't really feel the need to try to establish the historical existence of Jesus. Or Shakespeare or Mozart or Abraham Lincoln, for that matter.

I would suggest the onus is on you to prove these people DIDN'T exist. What reason have you got for saying there was no such person other than a bare assertion?

The question of what they actually said or did, well, that's an entirely different question, and you're perfectly entitled to debate whether particular quotes or reports are accurate. But the entire existence of a person...

I'm reminded of that Sandra Bullock movie, The Net, where she has her identity wiped (I've only seen half the movie). Even in this day and age it's pretty darn hard to prove you are who you say you are.

You can question absolutely everything, but at a certain point it gets completely silly. I could argue that George W. Bush is in fact the creation of a bunch of scriptwriters and an unemployed but talented actor from Omaha named Richard Smith, but how far would I get?

Sincerely,

orfeo (who you don't know a thing about, how do you know there aren't in fact 17 different people who all log into the one account when they feel like it)

PS AIt seems to me that anyone who claims that Jesus is a retelling of an archetypal saviour myth knows very little about Christianity, and how shocking its concepts were to the culture(s) it sprang from. Please give me a concrete example of this so-called archetype.

Originally posted by orfeo
Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, that is why he was killed. At least, according to the Gospels. Which brings us back to...

If you acknowledge that Socrates and Alexander pose the same problems as Jesus, well I don't really feel the need to try to establish the historical existence of Jesus. Or Shakespeare or Mozart or Abraham Lincoln, for that matter. ...[text shortened]... o the culture(s) it sprang from. Please give me a concrete example of this so-called archetype.

Precisely! Gets my rec.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'll ask Skywalker Red what he thinks about the saviour archetype...I'm interested in knowing how these archetypes manage to appear at just the right moment.

Something about the precession of the equinoxes, perhaps....