taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
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.
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:
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 ...![Eek! :eek: :eek:]()
This is found on the Atheist Community of Austin (TX) website, and is entitled, `Jesus: Fact or Fiction,' by David Kent.
There are a couple of reasons I believe this.I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, a literal, historical figure, was born in ~104 or 105BC.
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
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.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.
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 ...