Jesus: fiction or non

[taijasi]

For an interesting argument of an extreme position - which is that we have NO evidence of a historical Jesus - check out ACA: Online Articles

This is found on the Atheist Community of Austin (TX) website, and is entitled, `Jesus: Fact or Fiction,' by David Kent.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, a literal, historical figure, was born in ~104 or 105BC.

There are a couple of reasons I believe this.

First, I think there is a historical record - some kind of evidence - that a literal, Jesus of Nazareth, existed during this time. All other legends either derive from this earlier, more likely Jesus ... or are deliberate falsifications, possibility adaptations or co-optings, even if we allow for the best possible of motive and intentions (which were by no means always the case in changing the facts).

And certainly, since Joshua/Jeshua is such a popular name, it is understandable how very many different individuals from ~2100 - ~2000 years ago may have become temporarily the focus of the public eye. As for the records, there is the article above, yet there is also the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu (Yeshu) of Judaism ... the Talmudic Jesus.


On Wikipedia, under Yeshu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, there is a quotation of Gerald Massey's which I do take seriously, and support:

Egyptologist Gerald Massey considered ben-Pandera to have been a real individual who existed in the second century BCE, and upon whom the stories of Jesus were based. He states

The personal existence of Jesus as Jehoshua Ben-Pandira can be established beyond a doubt. One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition 'that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia.' It also says, 'He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod.' That would be more than a century earlier than the date of birth assigned to the Jesus of the Gospels! But it can be further shown that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born considerably earlier even than the year 102 BC, although the point is not of much consequence here. Jehoshua, son of Perachia, was a president of the Sanhedrin—the fifth, reckoning from Ezra as the first: one of those who in the line of descent received and transmitted the oral law, as it was said, direct from Sinai. There could not be two of that name. This Ben-Perachia had begun to teach as a Rabbi in the year 154 BC. We may therefore reckon that he was not born later than 180-170 BC, and that it could hardly be later than 100 BC when he went down into Egypt with his pupil. For it is related that he fled there in consequence of a persecution of the Rabbis, feasibly conjectured to refer to the civil war in which the Pharisees revolted against King Alexander Jannæus, and consequently about 105 BC If we put the age of his pupil, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, at fifteen years, that will give us an approximate date, extracted without pressure, which shows that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born about the year 120 BC.​

Massey's identification of this character as the Jesus of the New Testament is, however, radically outside of the scholarly mainstream and enjoys no support from any New Testament scholar of any stature.
​

As for the second reason why ~105BC makes more sense to me, it has to do with astrological, and therefore astronomical, cycles. Even esotericists do not always agree on the precise date of the Sun's entry into Aquarius. Yet even taking the latest dates that we usually see, a `herald' for Pisces does not make sense just 2000 years ago.

I think it's easy to lose sight of a bigger picture ... especially if we're not used to even looking at it, at all. For instance, how many people even believe that World Teachers are really part of a liaison between God and Humanity, provided largely to help teach us, and show us the way, to live nobly and fit ... so that we may minimize unnecessary suffering both for ourselves & others, as well as fulfil our true Purpose in being here (alive, in the flesh!) as efficiently & effectively as possible (?).

I just accept this as a given, at this point ... since there's much more than a historical record to indicate it. There is a the mythological, but also the mystical .. as well as the esoteric, or occult record. I think it's when we try to pull one, single figure out of the "pantheon" mentioned, and exalt that figure to the point of Deity (to the exclusion of all others) - that we get into trouble. But then, that hasn't stopped us from trying ...

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Thomas. Just from my own reading it seems that the Gospels function to create Jesus' mythos. But who is the real man? What was his real name? When, and for how long did he actually live? I can't find anything credible on that. And then there's all this other Davinci Code stuff, black maddonas, secret bloodlines, Templars...not to mention Theosophy and it's pantheons. But underneath the mounds of lore and legend and derivitive mythology there isn't even a trace of the real man, unless one takes that one disputed passage from Josephus.

I would like to add a slightly different perspective here if I may.

Taking your questions into account with a comment made by Thomas about stories being written within a generation of the point and time in question, and combined with Andrew's thoughts on "exagerations" (sic), I present this for thought:

I, being born in 1960, could know nothing of my ancestors of Ireland, nor even of the first generation that came to the States in the 17 and 1800s. That is 150 to 250 years before my time. Agreed?

Yet, by questioning my parents, grandparents, great grand dames and Uncles, old friends of grand parents, etc., a picture of the past develops for me to record on paper. Now having half a brain, I know alot of what I am told is most likely "embellishment", yet the truth must be there, since all have a common core point of historical recall, that does not waiver or change.

So, I start with that "core" of apparent "facts" (and put the rest to the side for now). With this core set of actualisms, I am able to narrow down:

1. The existence of the root ancestors
2 The approximate times of their lives
3. The approximate locations of their "homes"
4. The approximate understanding of their livelyhoods
5. Who their neighbors might have been
6. What they collectively believed
7. How they might have lived.

With this "knowledge", I start combing through historical records of the era, the locations, folklore local, census records, church records, orginisational records, etc., and the picture begins to take solid footing, and begins to color in (just a little bit). Still I kept the "embellishment" of family out of the picture. I want only the facts.

It takes me 10 years to determine that:

1. my fore fathers arrived in the Americas from Ireland in 1750, 1840, and 1850.

2. They were located NOT in Pennsylvania (as family suggested), but in Maryland, NEAR the Pennsylvania border (close, but not dead on). Some moved to Pennsylvania, and some stayed in Maryland. (again, important deviations from the stories...close but not exact).

3. There were children born (obviously) and they married into other familys, and the lineage spreads from there, and as I move forward in History, the "facts of lives, locations, occupations, etc,. become clearer.

But that is not what I'm after. I want the "truth" of the beginning of the family. So I go backwards even still. So I focus on one branch of the family...(the one that makes my existence possible).

But I have to go there (to the place where I believe it all begins), and search out more than records, but families that still live there, the towns and their histories, listen to the tales of the local area. This takes another 10 years.

So far 20 years of research on tracing back the life of One man who started it all. (no computers or internet for helping either). And I still have no idea who the man was (personally).

I comb church records, county records, state records, which give me nothing, but a possible town...

So I go into that town, and stop to eat at a local pub/restaurant. Of course the locals being rather friendly inquire as to my business in town, and I tell them. The conversation stalls. And I'm being looked over (not at) by a whole lot of elderly people, as if they were not judging, but trying to recall old memories and comparing them with what was in front of them.

Then, they start murmuring to eachother (like I'm not even there), "yea he could pass for a Gelwicks. Naw, more like the Linggs, No, definately Crabbs..." I blurted out "you mean Cribbs?" And they laughed, and shook their heads. "Crabbs. You are part of the Crabbs...hell y'all part of all of them."

Then the oldest of them (must have been upper 80s), says "Go to St. Anthony's cemetary in the Grotto...right in front up the hill a bit, to the right of the statue of the Lady... I think you'll find what you're looking for, sonny."

He was correct. I found the grave sites of the first of my direct line from Europe.

So, now I know exactly where I came from. Time to find out "who they were", and what they did.

Well, five years later, I know my ancestor came from Ireland 1855. He arrived in Baltimore, could speak English and Gaelic, could write Gaelic, but was English illiterate (yet he could read a deed and call bull on a part that would give someone else the upperhand), and would sign his name over as X, once the deed was approved by all parties. He was a farmer/gardener in the states, but he was something else in Ireland, and it was never spoken about by the family, except to say he hated soldiering. Yet, he knew something about the military...

Reality is he signed up for the civil war and was given rank as "corporal", and designation "sharp shooter". He served honorably, was "retired" and after 1865 and given/earned US citizenship, at the end.

He was not considered a hero, because half of the town was pro-confederate, the rest was neutral, or pro Union. But he had given a "speech" that none could argue with about being at the mercy of a taskmaster (England), who cared less whether one lived or died, because they were red faced and ate roots from the ground, just to live. He said he just wanted to live, and so he'd fight to do so...

He acquired quite a bit of land (125 acres) for an ignorant immigrant. He married a shrewd woman who handled the financial affairs of the family (because of his "illiterateness"), but she always insisted that he place his "x" on signature line, before she signed. He hired a black man as his gardner/farm hand, and paid him an high wage, "for his continuance of service to the family", and gave him his own room in the house. When his right hand "man" died, he had him buried in hallowed ground (though he refused to step foot on church property). He hated the church fathers, and refused to go to Sunday services, yet insisted his wife and children go. He found the means to have both his sons and daughters educated, and tore up a classroom when a brother/monk/teacher dared call him a niggardly mick, who's children could not possibly learn the king's english, because of the loins they came from. He went before the parish priest...hat in hand. (it was his kids he worried about, and his wife's reputation (her family reputation). When he came out, he had new resolve.

He rebuilt the classroom, and the "brother" was sent elsewhere. And no one ever asked him to come to church again...(though they came to him for "talking matters over")

His daughters married into three families, in the area, but his three living sons migrated west to St. Louis, then south towards Texas and North towards Chicago, Il.

In the end, he was looked upon with chagrin and a bit of admirationbut the priest (drunk as he was), came to him sober, to give last rites in 1908.

I found that he was excommunicated from the Church in Ireland before arrival in the US (I've yet to find the reason why ), but he insisted his family partake in the local church constabulary/parish.



Bottom line is this:

After 30 years, I found out his life, what he actually did and what was "embellished" upon his existence (the two realities were actually quite close, though his factual life might be considered quite honorable by today's standards, but the familial history might not be, until the end).

But the fact is, it took me nearly a generation to be able to sit down and write a "good story" or "Gospel" about him, and have it reflect the facts of actual events in his life.

In this light, I can understand why the Gospels of the NT took a generation or more, before being published. The authors wanted to present the truth, and not embellishments, which would lead to mythos and folklore...but the Holy Bible is so much more, than a good story, it is truth. The authors did well in their research...

v/r

Joshua

edit: just as an aside...there is a man whom I've had the pleasure serving with in the military. We seemed to get along for the three years we were directly associated. Neither of us could quite put a point on it, but there was familiarity. We let it go at that. Even pondered earlier life times...naw.

Come to find out, his Great Grand mother, is my great great Aunt, who came from my "immigrant father" who started this whole line of family.

His dad, was Coast Guard too, just like him, and just like me...though we never met before.

For those who don't understand the Coast Guard, there aren't many of us (35,000). So linking with lost family is a 1 in a million shot, to be directly related...I can't even begin to calculate the odds...

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Q, Thinking about the Bible and the NT in particular as part of our family story is a pretty good way of going about it. luna

 

[taijasi]

Hi Q, Thinking about the Bible and the NT in particular as part of our family story is a pretty good way of going about it. luna

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this, luna? Especially the part I've underlined?

With relevance to Q's post, I can see the comparison (obviously) ... so I guess I'm trying to elicit something more about "the family" in question.

thanks,

~andrew

 

[Thomas]

Hi Sunny C –

Just from my own reading it seems that the Gospels function to create Jesus' mythos. But who is the real man? What was his real name? When, and for how long did he actually live? I can't find anything credible on that.

What makes the Gospels 'incredible'? It is your assumption that the gospels function to create a mythos, something Bultmann proposed, and something that Benoit has answered. But the orthodox view is that they are not a mythos. They happened.

What is more incredible is the idea that the gospels are an invention. I don't think you'll find any scholar who would give any creddibility to such a view today. Even the most skeptical Jesus Seminar voice allows that the gospels are the various accounts of a man who lived, preached and died.

And then there's all this other Davinci Code stuff, black maddonas, secret bloodlines, Templars...

Then one has to be discerning. The DaVinci Code and its fore-runners have been thoroughly discredited. They are fictions and fantasy, they don't even aspire to myth. It was greed that did for the Templars.

But underneath the mounds of lore and legend and derivitive mythology there isn't even a trace of the real man, unless one takes that one disputed passage from Josephus.

Actually there's Tacitus and Pliny, and two passages from Josephus, the first of which is not disputed. There's also the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 43a:

"On the Sabbath of the Passover festival Jesus (Jeshu) the Nazarene was hanged. For forty days before his execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "Here is Jesus the Nazarene, who is going forth to be stonedd because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy."

And this from Mara bar Sarapion, a Syrian Stoic who was imprised by the Romans and was facing execution. He wrote this to his son, in a letter commending him to be wise in the face of adversity:

"What good did it do the Athenians to kill Socrates ... the Samians to burn Pythagoras ... what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on?"

"Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera's statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law he has given."
(from The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide")

From the above, and from the findings of archaeology and sociology, that in all probability the Jesus of the Gospels is the most reasonable and reliable data with regard to the existence of the man. His being the Incarnate Son of God is, and can only ever be, a matter of faith and personal revelation.

But that is what was preached, and held to be true, from the very beginning.

Thomas

 

[lunamoth]

Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this, luna? Especially the part I've underlined?

With relevance to Q's post, I can see the comparison (obviously) ... so I guess I'm trying to elicit something more about "the family" in question.

thanks,

~andrew

Nothing deep Andrew, just that if you consider yourself a Christian then the NT is more than just history, or myth, or even wisdom. It's our sacred history, our family history, and that is always going to have more significance than other stories or books of wisdom.

 

[Thomas]

Nothing deep ... if you consider yourself a Christian then the NT is ... our sacred history, our family history.

If I dropped a penny into that well of wisdom of yours, Lunamoth, I could grow a beard Mount Athos would be proud of, before I heard it splash.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Just a thing on myth.

Plato really nailed the whole mythology thing with his 'Myth of the Cave' – this was not a myth, but an unveiling of the mechanics of what a myth is, how it works ... and after that, no philosopher who knew his Plato (and all the early Greek theologians knew their Plato) would resort to inventing myths, orr looking at shadows ...

That's why the Greek pantheon faded, and the oracles lost their powers of persuasion. Christianity didn't do for 'em, Plato did. Philosophy – the love of wisdom – took over.

Christianity just provided the bit that was missing, the bit that the human intellect cannot attain unaided – the bizarre idea that God would engage not only with, but in the world .... lunatic but, if you accept the impossible, this new doctrine the Christians were banging on about, then the logic was flawless, and explained everything ... it did not dissolve the old philosophies, the old myths, it made them luminescent, and then transparent ... and that was just the start ...

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Q, Thinking about the Bible and the NT in particular as part of our family story is a pretty good way of going about it. luna

Awwwshhhiiiiiit. I was just telling a story about my life. How close or far from the life of Christ is y'all's call.

I think it is right on or (spot on), as our constituents concider.

 

[Quahom1]

If I dropped a penny into that well of wisdom of yours, Lunamoth, I could grow a beard Mount Athos would be proud of, before I heard it splash.

Thomas

no...the penny hit sand within the first three feet of falling. Be carelful...

arrogance does not become you. (no joke).

v/r

Joshua

 

[lunamoth]

no...the penny hit sand within the first three feet of falling. Be carelful...

arrogance does not become you. (no joke).

v/r

Joshua

I think Thomas meant it is a compliment Josh, at least that's how I took it.

 

[Sunny C.]

Actually there's Tacitus and Pliny, and two passages from Josephus, the first of which is not disputed. There's also the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 43a:

"On the Sabbath of the Passover festival Jesus (Jeshu) the Nazarene was hanged. For forty days before his execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "Here is Jesus the Nazarene, who is going forth to be stonedd because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy."

And this from Mara bar Sarapion, a Syrian Stoic who was imprised by the Romans and was facing execution. He wrote this to his son, in a letter commending him to be wise in the face of adversity:

"What good did it do the Athenians to kill Socrates ... the Samians to burn Pythagoras ... what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on?"

"Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera's statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law he has given."
(from The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide")

From the above, and from the findings of archaeology and sociology, that in all probability the Jesus of the Gospels is the most reasonable and reliable data with regard to the existence of the man. His being the Incarnate Son of God is, and can only ever be, a matter of faith and personal revelation.

But that is what was preached, and held to be true, from the very beginning.

Thomas

Hi Thomas, thanks for the nice response.

This isn't by way of argument, just my thoughts at the moment.

1. Josephus: I'm reasonably certain the passage from the Testimonium is an insertion. That's the mainstream point of view. I'm less certain about the other passage which mentions James. It's disputation is less well established.
2. Tacitus: Tacitus says,

   Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

   Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This was written in the early second century CE, long after the synoptic Gospels came into circulation. The myth is already established, and it seems more likely that Tacitus is reporting the etymology of the word Christian in his account of Nero's fire. Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus by name, but rather refers to "Christus".
3. Pliny: Pliny writes about the same time as Tacitus. He's asking the Emperor if it's alright to execute Christians even if their only crime is that they are Christians. Pliny says,

   They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.

   Again no mention of Jesus, just Christus.
4. Mara bar Sarapion: His letter was written in 73 CE. Plenty of time to have absorbed the legend, and he refers to a Jewish "wise king."

   "What good did it do to the Athenians to kill Socrates, for which deed they were punished with famine and pestilence? What did it avail the Samians to burn Pythagorus, since their country was entirely buried under sand in one moment? Or what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken from them from that time on?
   
   "God justly avenged these three wise men. The Athenians died of famine, the Samians were flooded by the sea, the Jews were slaughtered and driven from their kingdom, everywhere living in the dispersion.

   Innerface International

Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 43a: This refers to the Yeshu character that Andrew X is talking about. This Talmudic stuff was written at least 200 years after the turn of the millenia.

Again, I just want to reiterate that I'm not arguing the point, just trying to demonstrate my thought process when considering this issue. None of this is meant to prove anything.

Sunny

 

[Sunny C.]

Wow, did I ever botch the layout on that. Sorry, I'm clerically illiterate.

 

[taijasi]

Then one has to be discerning. The DaVinci Code and its fore-runners have been thoroughly discredited. They are fictions and fantasy, they don't even aspire to myth. It was greed that did for the Templars.

Well, I'm not surprised that a Roman Catholic, in exercising his powers of discernment, might come to the consclusions you've come to, Thomas. But to say that "the DaVinci Code has been thoroughly discredited," doesn't show much discernment at all! I think it mostly shows that you find what is presented inconvenient, and rather difficult to account for. Just which parts do you feel have been discredited?

Brown certainly exaggerated certain facts, took creative license with others, yet he did not fabricate the greatest portion of his book. This is where good discernment, combined with serious investigation of what is presented, will show us that much of what Brown wrote is simply history (or even just scientific fact), a bit embellished, at best (or worst).

What you want to do, Thomas, is empty the baby out with the bathwater. And I for one, do not like to hear the drowning screams.

Please let us know which parts specifically you feel are pure fiction, and maybe we can take it up on another thread.

As for the Templars, now you're just being biased (though, again, I do realize that you understand the Knights Templar as a Roman Catholic ).

We know good and well that historically, the Templars were powerful, very powerful. They rivalled the Roman Catholic Church, answering only to the Pope, and they threatened the French Monarchy of Philip le Bel (who was anything but `bel,' or `fair'). Thus, history records that on Black Friday, Friday the 13th, FALSE charges having been drawn up against the Order, Jacques de Molay and scores of other French Templars were arrested, then tortured until they "confessed" to various heresies and blasphemies ... all this being done to eliminate the threat which the Order presented both to King Philip and to the Roman Catholic Church.

Were they, in their power, also greedy, even as corrupt as the Church and the French Monarchy? Probably so!

And in truth, the Templars were guilty of some of the charges of heresy, since in fact they had ALWAYS maintained a different Faith, or understanding, than that of Mother Church. And this had everything to do with their insistence on remaining an autonomous, independent Order, and not a Church militia.

In a critique of the modern-day Knights Templar, who claim descent from the original 8 or 9, and the 12th-14th Century Order, HPB writes in `Isis Unveiled,":

It is a mistake to state that the Order became only later anti-Catholic. It was so from the beginning, and the red cross on the white mantle, the vestment of the Order, had the same significance as with the initiates in every other country. It pointed to the four quarters of the compass, and was the emblem of the universe. When, later, the Brotherhood was transformed into a Lodge, the Templars had, in order to avoid persecution, to perform their own ceremonies in the greatest secresy, generally in the hall of the chapter, more frequently in isolated caves or country houses built amidst woods, while the ecclesiastical form of worship was carried on publicly in the chapels belonging to the Order.​

Though of the accusations brought against them by order of Philip IV., many were infamously false, the main charges were certainly correct, from the stand-point of what is considered by the Church, heresy. The present-day Templars, adhering strictly as they do to the Bible, can hardly claim descent from those who did not believe in Christ, as God-man, or as the Saviour of the world; who rejected the miracle of his birth, and those performed by himself; who did not believe in transubstantiation, the saints, holy relics, purgatory, etc. The Christ Jesus was, in their opinion, a false prophet, but the man Jesus a Brother. They regarded John the Baptist as their patron, but never viewed him in the light in which he is presented in the Bible. They reverenced the doctrines of alchemy, astrology, magic, kabalistic talismans, and adhered to the secret teachings of their chiefs in the East.​

From the above, and from the findings of archaeology and sociology, that in all probability the Jesus of the Gospels is the most reasonable and reliable data with regard to the existence of the man. His being the Incarnate Son of God is, and can only ever be, a matter of faith and personal revelation.

But that is what was preached, and held to be true, from the very beginning.

Perhaps, though not to the exclusion of every other such Incarnate Son of God - either before or since. And here is where we have a distinction between the early Christians, and those of today who have come to maintain Christ Jesus as the only Christ.

It is as if many are entirely unaware of where the terms `chrestos' and `christos' originated ...

... and I must add, that the ages have been unkind to the Mystery Traditions.

Affirming Christ is one thing, DENYING HIM as being Universally present within OTHER traditions, even from remotest antiquity ... is quite another!!!

The more light we can shed on the historical Jesus, perhaps will be the better. The job of Light, is indeed to Reveal!

Truth invites inquiry; Truth wants to be Known!

The Fox Mulders of religion will perhaps NEVER be a popular lot, even in this day and age, but at least they can no longer be physically tortured for contradicting "the experts" and "authorities." Thank God for that!

Laughed at, vilified, calumniated ... and challenged, at every turn, to PROVE for me - something that we can't even prove for ourselves, without due diligence and earnest dedication to a Spiritual Path!

What was that about a matter of faith, and personal revelation?

Oh Yeah. THAT

 

[wil]

There's also the Babylonian Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 43a:

"On the Sabbath of the Passover festival Jesus (Jeshu) the Nazarene was hanged. For forty days before his execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "Here is Jesus the Nazarene, who is going forth to be stonedd because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy."

I'm I lost...how the heck does this hanging and 40 days reference support the gospels?? It is completely contrary is it not?

 

[Sunny C.]

"Chullin 2:24 tells how Rabbi Eliezer was once arrested and charged with minuth. When the chief judge (hegemon) interrogated him, the rabbi answered that he "trusted the judge." Although Rabbi Eliezer was referring to God, the judge interpreted him to be referring to the judge himself, and freed the Rabbi. The remainder of the account concerns why Rabbi Eliezer was arrested in the first place. Rabbi Akiva suggests that perhaps one of the minim had spoken a word of minuth to him and that it had pleased him. Rabbi Eliezer recalls that this was indeed the case, he had met Jacob of the town of Sechania in the streets of Sepphoris who spoke to him a word of minuth in the name of Yeshu ben Pandera, which had pleased him. (A variant reading used by Herford has Pantiri instead of Pandera.)

Avodah Zarah, 16b-17a repeats the account of Chullin 2:24 about Rabbi Eliezer and adds additional material. It tells that Jacob quoted Deuteronomy 23:19: "You shall not bring the fee of a whore or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow." Jacob says that he was taught this by Yeshu. Jacob then asked Eliezer whether it was permissible to use a whore's money to build a toilet for the high priest. When Rabbi Eliezer did not reply, Jacob quoted Micah 1:7, "For they were amassed from whores' fees and they shall become whores' fees again." This was the teaching that had pleased Rabbi Eliezer."

Yeshu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems likely that this Jeshu was more a literary device, a type of character rather than a specific person in these talmudic tales. He's a sneaky kind of character who lures good jews into breaking the law. He's a caricature, a cartoon version of a Jewish Christian convert.

 

[taijasi]

It seems likely that this Jeshu was more a literary device, a type of character rather than a specific person in these talmudic tales. He's a sneaky kind of character who lures good jews into breaking the law. He's a caricature, a cartoon version of a Jewish Christian convert.

Sunny C., I will trust to your, bananabrain, and dauer's scholarship and understanding when it comes to Yeshu ben Pandera and the Sepher Toldoth Yeshu (Jeshu). I know almost nothing about this tradition ...


What I think makes the most sense, is something that appears in an online article by David Pratt entitled, `Who Was the Real Jesus?' Quoting from H.P. Blavatsky's `Isis Unveiled,' we read:

[T]he Nazarene Reformer, after having received his education in their [the Essenes'] dwellings in the desert, and been duly initiated into the Mysteries, preferred the free and independent life of a wandering Nazaria, and so separated or inazarenized himself from them, thus becoming a travelling Therapeute, a Nazaria, a healer.​

The motive of Jesus was evidently like that of Gautama-Buddha, to benefit humanity at large by producing a religious reform which should give it a religion of pure ethics . . .​

In his immense and unselfish love for humanity, he considers it unjust to deprive the many of the results of the knowledge acquired by the few. This result he accordingly preaches -- the unity of a spiritual God, whose temple is within each of us, and in whom we live as He lives in us -- in spirit.​

I am especially impressed by this article, of David Pratt's, and I think it's well worth reading. It attempts to address the Jesus of both fiction and history, in the Talmud, as a Nazar, and even as an avatara - the Universal Christ. Certainly I am sympathetic to the Theosophical view, as HPB summarizes it above, and thus:

all the civilized portion of the Pagans who knew of Jesus honored him as a philosopher, an adept whom they placed on the same level with Pythagoras and Apollonius. . . . As an incarnated God there is no single record of him on this earth capable of withstanding the critical examination of science; as one of the greatest reformers, an inveterate enemy of every theological dogmatism, a persecutor of bigotry, a teacher of one of the most sublime codes of ethics, Jesus is one of the grandest and most clearly-defined figures on the panorama of human history. His age may, with every day, be receding farther and farther back into the gloomy and hazy mists of the past; and his theology -- based on human fancy and supported by untenable dogmas may, nay, must with every day lose more of its unmerited prestige; alone the grand figure of the philosopher and moral reformer instead of growing paler will become with every century more pronounced and more clearly defined. It will reign supreme and universal only on that day when the whole of humanity recognizes but one father -- the [SIZE=-1]UNKNOWN ONE[/SIZE] above -- and one brother -- the whole of mankind below. (Isis Unveiled,' p. 150)​

It's somewhat amusing to me, along different lines, that in various accounts of supposed ET (Extra-Terrestrial) contact, we are told that the ETs created Jesus, or something to that effect. I try to wrestle with that, and I can't help but wonder, if there is any truth in this, what might it be?

I love the mindset that allows us to just laugh and move on, yet behind even the most apparently absurd or embellished of myths, I think there's a kernel of truth. The challenge is just to figure out WHAT on Earth this stuff about ETs making Jesus could possibly refer to, but then, we know so little about DNA, even as we move into the 21st Century and with all our scientific advance.

Have we even BEGUN to settle the story on the Shroud of Turin? If so, would someone care to tell me for certain that it's not Christ's burial linen? I mean, okay, I know that the best expert opinions are that it's much more recent ... but does that mean we KNOW for certain???

Ahhh, and this is a shroud, which we actually DO HAVE, physically. The PROOF!!! Carbon dating, you see, is not a flawless, 100% accurate method ... and given how far off it is in various other areas, I have serious doubts regarding anything we hear about the infamous Shroud not being that of Jesus. I have no idea whose death shroud it was. This is just to suggest that things are not always as certain as they seem. The historical Jesus, did he live??? I tend to believe so, yet not as we have been taught to believe!

Those of us who have no doubt whatsoever in UFO technology, and that our planet has long been visited by ETs, do have to wonder about what, if any, connections there might be ... with figures such as Jesus, and other enlightened of Earth's own Humanity ...

Perhaps for now it's just puzzlement!

 

[17th Angel]

My own take is that Jesus was a miltant hippy who on gaining a following was crucified as an upstart. I believe also that he survived crucifixtion by pure luck, not by resurection, and that he married and had children. The Man himself is of small importance, its the message that was developed from his teachings that has become huge.
My favourite Christ 'story' is the novel by Nikos Kazantakis "The Last Temptation of Christ". This paints Jesus as a deeply troubled, flawed individual that may have been schizofrenic. None-the-less he had a good heart and simply wished like most of us that life was fairer and better.
I am the last person you will find being an appologist for the bible...

For reals?

I would have never thought that would be your view, very interesting. I can see and understand where you and your book are coming from.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Sunny –

That, in one sense, is the point. There is not one single proof, but there is an existing body of evidence which, read alongside the emergence of a community of faith calling themselves 'Christian', points to the Gospels being the most reliable source of data regarding the 'historical Jesus'.

The 'Chrestos' debate again asks the question, if not Jesus, who? Where and how did this cult arise, and from every evidence we know it arose within the Jewish community and spread from there, so 'Chrestos' would have to be understood from an Hebraic perspective, not a hellenic one.

If we look at Josephus in detail:
About this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

The first two elements in italics are widely held to be later interoplations, and even excluded, Josephus still refers to a teacher called Jesus.

The third element, in bold, is not so easily dismissed by scholars, for it links to and explains the prior authentic statement, that his believers did not cease to believe after his death. Assuming Josephus got his information from Christians (which is not questioned) then it is unlikely he would be ignorant of their most fantastic belief.

Every point can be discussed ... but sometimes, in looking at every 'tree', we lose sight of the 'wood' ...

So on the one hand we have a scant body of evidence that gives no fixed and inarguable conclusion, but suggests some kind of founder, and on the other we have a body of people faithful to a teaching that apparently sprang up from nowhere ... is it so unacceptable to at least allow that there might be something more than coincidence?

If we look at the doctrine, we know that the tripartite baptismal rite, "In the Name of God the Father Almighty, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit" was in place from the very outset, and this rite was radical.

So we're left with the interesting paradox. The absence of evidence is not evidence in itself, but somehow we have to explain the emergence of a cult within Judaism, and the origins of its beliefs ...

... and that's the point. The Jesus of History is not the Jesus of Faith ...

Thomas

 

[17th Angel]

My own take is that Jesus was a miltant hippy who on gaining a following was crucified as an upstart. I believe also that he survived crucifixtion by pure luck, not by resurection, and that he married and had children. The Man himself is of small importance, its the message that was developed from his teachings that has become huge.

*giggles like a schoolgirl*

Family Guy - Jesus Video