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Anyway, all I can say is I would like to see "undisputable historical reference" for, literally, anything. There does not exist "undisputable historical reference" that man landed on the moon.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.
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.