I’ve recently watched a documentary “Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus” based on the book with the very same name. And I’m just wondering if any of this evidence presented is indeed legit ideas accepted by historians or were they completely made up out of thin air?
the film could be obtained via torrents or can be rented through amazon for $2.99
edit:
I’ve found a link to the full film on youtube
No, none of the Jesus myth stuff is accepted by any actual historical scholars, that is professors of religious history at the university level. It’s completely fringe. For more on this you should read someone like Bart Ehrman.
Also Richard Carrier Not The Impossible Faith free versions are online and he is working on more to come.
No, none of the Jesus myth stuff is accepted by any actual historical scholars, that is professors of religious history at the university level. It's completely fringe. For more on this you should read someone like Bart Ehrman.Majority opinion should dictate what is truth instead of the arguments in and of itself? Good to know then that some of our admins are willing to throw academic integrity out the window in favor of an ad populum fallacy. That being said, Bart Ehrman's book on the historical Jesus as a response to Mythicists is outright horrible and you only need to look at the responses it has garnered to gather such a conclusion. You don't even have to agree that Jesus never existed, just that Ehrman doesn't actually address any of the real arguments presented by Mythicists and instead engage in a lot of fluff. I look forward to R. Joseph Hoffman's response but considering how he has been acting online to others who disagree with him and how has literally done a 180 without explanation and the fact he denigrates people online who subscribe to mythicism instead of acting like a mature scholar, then I doubt it will be any better than Ehrman's. That being said, Jesus being invented by the Flavians is probably the most bunk idea you can ever imagine. In fact, all the scholars interviewed do not hold those views, there are some like Eisenmann for example who hold to an historical Jesus. But one major flaw in the thesis is this: who authored the other gospels? The other pieces of Christian literature make no mention at all of the Flavian's authoring the gospels and this would been a great boon to those Christians due to the very fact that Vespasian was viewed as a tool of god to bring forth the destruction upon the Jews for their rejection of Christ. So why not mention their authorship being by the same person? Or how about some of the other gospels expanding upon the canonical ones? There is just too much to account for, for this hypothesis to even be accurate in any sense.
Majority opinion should dictate what is truth instead of the arguments in and of itself? Good to know then that some of our admins are willing to throw academic integrity out the window in favor of an ad populum fallacy.Doug's answer was adequate to the person's inquiry in his OP, i.e., are these "ideas accepted by historians"? Don't be such a grump.
Doug's answer was adequate to the person's inquiry in his OP, i.e., are these "ideas accepted by historians"? Don't be such a grump.Actually, what he said was
none of the Jesus myth stuff is accepted by any actual historical scholars. Also, it is much better to explain why rather than just say, "nope, nobody accepts it." Let's also not forget that their are historians that do subscribe to mythicism, Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price being the two main ones that everyone know. But his own qualification of teaching degrees, etc... is ludicrous because not every historian teaches and not every historian will teach in the class room. The vast majority of historians write papers and publish books in peer-review never set foot in the class to teach.
And I'm just wondering if any of this evidence presented is indeed legit ideas accepted by historians or were they completely made up out of thin air?I'm not a historian, but I am a Christian. I watched two minutes of the video and saw the same old conspiracy nonsense that I've seen before. George Bush never said God told him to go to war. He's a Methodist, not a Dominionist. You can look up that controversy. Also, Christians don't think that war in the ME will bring the End Times. The truth is that the Hebrew Scripture alludes to a Messiah who will not only restore the nation Israel, but will also reconcile non-Jews to God. The Christian Scripture teaches that Jesus is that Messiah--the Christ. The NT is in Greek, because it contains the message to non-Jews. At one time Christianity could have been used to control the masses before they had bibles and could understand the message for themselves, but not today.
...At one time Christianity could have been used to control the masses before they had bibles and could understand the message for themselves, but not today.Wow that's a whopper if I ever heard one. You need to turn on this thing called a TV. Almost every other channel is some Televangelist controlling the masses to their own financial benefit. And the belief system itself, some sects at least, control people's actions indirectly. For example, when I was a teen, I knew a gal who refused to go to the movie because it was rated PG. She was convinced God would see her and punish her. Talk about mind control. Oh, and OP - IMO it's very uncool to use Sagan's name and image as your username and pic. If it was Sagan Fan or something like that, maybe. But not out and out identity borrowing, especially given your byline. Very un-Sagan like.
The Christian Scripture teaches that Jesus is that Messiah--the Christ.The problem is that the Messiah was supposed to be related to David, something that Jesus is not. The NT does show how Jesus is related to David through Joseph, but Joseph wasn't really Jesus's dad, was he? So, as per the Scripture, Jesus is automatically not the Messiah. You believe in the wrong god, and probably end up in hell. Sorry. :-S
...At one time Christianity could have been used to control the masses before they had bibles and could understand the message for themselves, but not today.Wow that's a whopper if I ever heard one. You need to turn on this thing called a TV. Almost every other channel is some Televangelist controlling the masses to their own financial benefit. And the belief system itself, some sects at least, control people's actions indirectly. For example, when I was a teen, I knew a gal who refused to go to the movie because it was rated PG. She was convinced God would see her and punish her. Talk about mind control. Oh, and OP - IMO it's very uncool to use Sagan's name and image as your username and pic. If it was Sagan Fan or something like that, maybe. But not out and out identity borrowing, especially given your byline. Very un-Sagan like. Well, technically, she's correct, except people don't read their Bibles. They listen to people tell them what it means as if they were illiterate. You can see it right in the standard lectionary. A couple months ago they went through the 1 Kings 19 verse about the still soft voice of God. Beautiful poetry. But they stop the reading just before God tells Elijah to who to anoint King and who they shall smite. It's right there in front of them in the pew, but they don't open it. Can you say someone is being controlled if they do it so willingly?
The Christian Scripture teaches that Jesus is that Messiah--the Christ.The problem is that the Messiah was supposed to be related to David, something that Jesus is not. The NT does show how Jesus is related to David through Joseph, but Joseph wasn't really Jesus's dad, was he? So, as per the Scripture, Jesus is automatically not the Messiah. You believe in the wrong god, and probably end up in hell. Sorry. :-S You're right, the Messiah must be a descendant of David. "When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom." 2 Samuel 7:12 However, the kingly line of Solomon, from which Joseph was a descendant, was cursed. "Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot, an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out, cast into a land they do not know? O land, land, land, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the LORD says: 'Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.'" Jeremiah 22:28-30 Through Mary, Jesus is descended from David through his son, Nathan and not physically of the cursed kingly line. "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit." Isa 11:1 " In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David's line; he will do what is just and right in the land." Jer 33:15 "Then Isaiah said, 'Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.'" Isa 7:13-14
How is Mary descended from David? Says who?
You need to turn on this thing called a TV. Almost every other channel is some Televangelist controlling the masses to their own financial benefit. And the belief system itself, some sects at least, control people's actions indirectly. For example, when I was a teen, I knew a gal who refused to go to the movie because it was rated PG. She was convinced God would see her and punish her. Talk about mind control.I have no doubt that there are people who abuse the Christian message for financial gain or power. This began before the ink was even dry on the letters of the apostles, "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping." 2 Peter 2:1-3 I wouldn't say televangelists control the masses, however, not like in the days before people could study the bible for themselves. I'm not sure where the young woman got the idea God was going to punish her for watching a movie. Perhaps it was a personal conviction, but Christianity doesn't teach Karma where everything we do comes back to bite us.
How is Mary descended from David? Says who?Luke 3:31
How is Mary descended from David? Says who?Luke 3:31 Sorry, that's the lineage of Joseph, not Mary.
How is Mary descended from David? Says who?Luke 3:31 Sorry, that's the lineage of Joseph, not Mary. It's the lineage of Jesus. Joseph's lineage goes through Solomon, not Nathan.
Yes, it’s the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, not Mary. Luke’s differs from Matthew’s, but this kind of inconsistency is typical for the Bible.
Yes, it's the lineage of Jesus through Joseph, not Mary. Luke's differs from Matthew's, but this kind of inconsistency is typical for the Bible.As you noted, Joseph's physical lineage wasn't that of Jesus', so Jesus had a different lineage through Mary that was not from Solomon, as Joseph was, but was through David's son Nathan. Perhaps there aren't inconsistencies in the bible, but a lack of understanding by the reader. The bottom line is this: Paul wrote concerning Jesus, the Christ, "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life (according to the flesh) was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 1:1-4 Christian teaching says Jesus was the son of David according to his physical lineage. You can accept that claim or reject it. Either way, that's the teaching.
What exactly is it I don’t understand? According to Luke (3:23–31):
“[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, … the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,…”
Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of blah, blah, blah, who was the the son of Nathan. What does Mary have to do with any of this?
You can accept that claim or reject it. Either way, that’s the teaching.that really sums up LilySmith. I doubt you'll get much further. When someone says, "Bob is the son of Boris through lineage", you'd think the next obvious question would be to show that lineage. But that doesn't matter to a Christian. It's "the teaching". End of question time.