> This story appears in the December 2017 issue of National Geographic magazine.
What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
31–40 of 102 posts
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#32The Historicity of Jesus is such an interesting topic. There almost certainly was a man from Nazareth named Jesus (we have pretty good unbiased sources there). However, unless you are a follower of his (or potentially some related religions), there are obviously mystical things associated with him that you likely do not believe to actually have happened. Even followers disagree about the veracity of certain stories.…
Well according to our understanding, on stories like these they usually embelish on the 'origin' part. In the case of the bible, the story of the archangel gabriel visiting Mary is number one on the suspect of being an embelishment. And speaking of being 'historical', as in written down by a witness, there are things in the bible that strikes me as 'filled in'. I only go to church during easter, so it I had it read t…
None of the gospels (out of the hundreds that existed before canon was decided on) were written by actual eyewitnesses, much less by the apostles. All of them are embellishments written years or decades after the fact.
The Religion for Breakfast has some interesting videos on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fyI1XOselI - Introduction to Biblical Archaeology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCy7NuujCLc - How Did the New Testament Form?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV9VPM7lIoQ - Did the Gospels copy each other?
Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6PrrnhAKFQ - Who Wrote the Bible (Useful Charts)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKp4yWGTfXo - 10 Changes Made to the Bible (part 1, Trey the Explainer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX62bRIG-OI - 10 Changes Made to the Bible (part 2, Trey the Explainer)
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
The important thing it seems is that his myth a part of our stories, and who we are, throughout a large part of the world. Myths tell us about ourselves. The sad thing is when people distort or weaponize myth to control others for personal egocentric agendas. Ultimately many of his apparent teachings seem to be timeless: finding joy in living simply; understanding that heaven is within; etc. Lots of overlap with Budd…
If you think Jesus being a 'good guy' is the most important part of Jesus, that's absolutely missing the point of Christianity.
So what is that point?
(atheist)
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#34Once I was convinced of the existence of God by considering the fact that life exists, it became easier for me to accept Christianity. Frankly, it's a relief. But, unfortunately, Christianity has a bad reputation now because of Trump.
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#35Christ's period in some ways is evocative of our own. An ancient sky-god-worshipping ethnicity having their first attempt at integrating into a secular culture, but then violently rejecting it, searching for God quite literally among the common straw. It sounds like the origin story for Flat Earth, or any of the other new faith movements we've been seeing lately, as the technocracy has spun out of democratic control.
The amazing part isn't that someone thought a man was God; the amazing part is that we just remember the one guy, because EVERYONE was a potential messiah among the resentfully-semi-Hellenized Jews of the region. They felt ripped off, and rightly so, the only ones who had gained from the exchange were the ones who had stepped out of their Jewishness (or, in the case of Antipater, maybe weren't quite 100 percent Jewish to begin with . . or so the rumors went). Prophets were everywhere. Josephus memorably rode that prophet train to get into Vespasian's good graces, thus providing us with one of the most entertaining primary sources of all time. He is a lovable scoundrel.
Josephus, Tacticus, and whatever else we can glean. Our secular archeology for the person of Jesus is pretty scant, but that's not all that surprising, you could say the same for Exodus, or, really, for any personal-scale events seen through the long lens of deep history. In the words of an anonymous German diarist stuck in the ruins of Berlin May 1945: "These are strange times," wrote the woman. "One experiences history in the making, things which one day will fill the history books. But while living through it, everything dissolves into petty worries and fears. History is very tiresome. Tomorrow I'm going to look for nettles and try to find some coal." What was her name? Where did she go? We don't know, and never will.
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#36I was staying in Rosh Pinna and on my way to Nazareth, when my rental car had a flat. Oh well. I have a picture of the Jesus Boat. For some reason, I didn't go to that fenced-off place in Capernaum. I did go to the (supposed) room of the Last Supper. Even if you're not a believer (as I'm not), these places are very moving. Totally worth the trip. Edit: the Jesus Boat has been accurately dated to Jesus' time. There's…
Jesus Boat?
I haven't heard of this. Is it some replica or an actual artifact?
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#37The Historicity of Jesus is such an interesting topic. There almost certainly was a man from Nazareth named Jesus (we have pretty good unbiased sources there). However, unless you are a follower of his (or potentially some related religions), there are obviously mystical things associated with him that you likely do not believe to actually have happened. Even followers disagree about the veracity of certain stories.…
Uhm, if you are interested so, you should realize it is these false narratives that are used most convincingly in support of Jesus historicity.
Consider that passage from Flavius referencing Jesus. It is somewhat different in the Arabic translation version. Some people goes as far as to doubt if this passage is altogether an insertion of later christian scribes.
On the other hand, they usually argue that Jesus being born in Bethlehem is made up to match some old prophets, and then they accept that if Jesus was completely made up he would not be from Nazareth. (*)
There are more analyses like that in "Gospel of Afranius" by Kirill Eskov (who is known for "The Last Ringbearer"), and I found out only today that it was translated to English recently, wikipedia says Dec 2022. Enjoy!
(*) it is relatively rare that someone will observe that there could have been another settlement called Bethlehem just closer to Nazareth.
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#38The Historicity of Jesus is such an interesting topic. There almost certainly was a man from Nazareth named Jesus (we have pretty good unbiased sources there). However, unless you are a follower of his (or potentially some related religions), there are obviously mystical things associated with him that you likely do not believe to actually have happened. Even followers disagree about the veracity of certain stories.…
As a secular person I can understand Jesus as an important historical figure, but it seems to me his "historicity" is a pretty uninteresting question. I know this can be hard for a person who was raised in Christianity to understand, but from an outside perspective, the guy is pretty boring. His moral lessons are mostly facile and poorly explained and similar ideas were expressed by the greek philosophers earlier (and they were better explained an examined by them). From this perspective, its hard to care about detailed historical questions about the guy except purely as history, which is full of a lot of other arguably more interesting questions.
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well according to our understanding, on stories like these they usually embelish on the 'origin' part. In the case of the bible, the story of the archangel gabriel visiting Mary is number one on the suspect of being an embelishment. And speaking of being 'historical', as in written down by a witness, there are things in the bible that strikes me as 'filled in'. I only go to church during easter, so it I had it read t…
None of the gospels (out of the hundreds that existed before canon was decided on) were written by actual eyewitnesses, much less by the apostles. All of them are embellishments written years or decades after the fact. The Religion for Breakfast has some interesting videos on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fyI1XOselI - Introduction to Biblical Archaeology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCy7NuujCLc - H…
I know, but I shouldn't have said 'written'. The early christians mostly use mouth-to-mouth to transmit the gospels. I agree that most of it are sus, but there are some couple elements that remains consistent, like the last supper, or the baptism of jesus, or his death and rise.
At least those elements of the lore, I believe are constant from the very first followers. A story must have a connecting thread, even though it may have many modifications.
I'm just saying this from a storytelling perspective of the early christians, not that I believe it really. I shouldn't even probably attend mass at this point.
Re: What archaeology is telling us about the real Jesus
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think Jesus being a 'good guy' is the most important part of Jesus, that's absolutely missing the point of Christianity.
Jesus being a "good guy" is fundamental to the role he plays in Christianity. How could you see it any other way?
From some Christians' points of view the important part of the Jesus story is that he is sacrificed by God as a way of dealing with a fundamental break between humanity and God having to do with the Jewish priesthood.