Crosswords0 min ago
Who was Jesus?
130 Answers
Any idea?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nope. But I have always thought he may have been a rabbi or at least a good teacher because he had some good thoughts about life, and they seem to have lasted down through the years. Bear in mind that I am an atheist, although can accept some of the teachings of the Bible, and other religious books as being a good way to lead your one and only life.
A Jew who was the Martin Luther of Judaism. He objected strongly to the practices and teachings of the established religion. That brought him into conflict with the leaders of that religion, who saw him as a threat to their own power. As the Romans ruled the province with the assistance iof those leaders, and the province had the potential of being troublesome,they were readily persuaded that Jesus presented a threat to good order and their own rule and Jesus was arreseted and put to death.
Otherwise, the interest of the Romans would be a mystery. They freely tolerated all religious beliefs and practices in their empire, so the religion itself was not a problem. But they were quick to suppress any organised threat to their rule of it.
Otherwise, the interest of the Romans would be a mystery. They freely tolerated all religious beliefs and practices in their empire, so the religion itself was not a problem. But they were quick to suppress any organised threat to their rule of it.
Not really, Starbuck - not everything makes it into history. Joshua Ben Joseph had many contemporaries whose lives have simply evaporated - these would hav ebeen equally passionate and altruistic in their worship of Ba'al, Astarte, Tammuz or Amun - or any number of other belief systems.
But because records of their thoughts and transactions have been long since destroyed, they have not become mythologised.
But because records of their thoughts and transactions have been long since destroyed, they have not become mythologised.
As you well know, naomi, I require some evidence that Jesus (that is, the Nazarene who was allegedly the son of God and who performed miracles) existed at all before speculating as to who he was.
Since there is no more evidence that he existed than there is that Zeus or Mercury existed, then speculating as to who he was is bootless.
Of course, if someone has such evidence (as distinct from mere stories) let them tell us on AB first before being lauded by astounded scholars and making his or her fortune. That would be wonderful.
Since there is no more evidence that he existed than there is that Zeus or Mercury existed, then speculating as to who he was is bootless.
Of course, if someone has such evidence (as distinct from mere stories) let them tell us on AB first before being lauded by astounded scholars and making his or her fortune. That would be wonderful.
Chakka, do you mean there's 'no proof' that the human now called Jesus Christ existed,or 'no proof' that he was a miracle worker etc? If the former, how do you explain Tacitus's account [Annals 15, chapter 14]? He is writing about the great fire of Rome in 61 AD. He says Nero blamed the Christians for it, and had Christians killed. Tacitus also says that the Christians took their name from Christus, their leader, and that Christus was put to death in Judea , and he gives particulars of whose reign in that was and who ordered the death.
Now, Tacitus would have been 7 at the time of the fire, so he grew up with the history of it. He was born in 56.
Which non-existent human was he referring to as Christus?
Anyway, it seems reasonable to think that the existence of 'Christians' does rather suggest that there was a human from whom they took the name. Why else would they be calling themselves Christians in 61 AD ?
Now, Tacitus would have been 7 at the time of the fire, so he grew up with the history of it. He was born in 56.
Which non-existent human was he referring to as Christus?
Anyway, it seems reasonable to think that the existence of 'Christians' does rather suggest that there was a human from whom they took the name. Why else would they be calling themselves Christians in 61 AD ?
Probably: He was a real person, educated in a Buddhist seminary, survived his Crucifixion, was taken down from the cross while still alive by wealthy Joseph of Arimathea with the help of Simon. He was wrapped in the 'Turin' Shroud - which is genuine - hidden, and when healed, helped away and travelled along the Silk Route to India, where he died.
Fredpuli I think Christus means 'anointed'.
Anointing was used in many cult practices back in't day.
If you take a look at the actual evidence from the first century AD the picture is one of confusion. Where large amounts of archaeology, and inscriptions, have survived, it seems to be that beliefs and imagery were very intermingled. Even in the second century AD 'outsiders' ie most of the rest of the romanised world couldn't distinguish Jews, Christians and Apollo worshippers.
Sadly, as Christianity became increasingly turned to by powerful politicians its intolerance of other beliefs prevailed and a huge amount of 'unacceptable' knowledge was destroyed.
Anointing was used in many cult practices back in't day.
If you take a look at the actual evidence from the first century AD the picture is one of confusion. Where large amounts of archaeology, and inscriptions, have survived, it seems to be that beliefs and imagery were very intermingled. Even in the second century AD 'outsiders' ie most of the rest of the romanised world couldn't distinguish Jews, Christians and Apollo worshippers.
Sadly, as Christianity became increasingly turned to by powerful politicians its intolerance of other beliefs prevailed and a huge amount of 'unacceptable' knowledge was destroyed.
Jom, rumour has it that Jesus did indeed survive the crucifixion, and spent his days in India, where his tomb still exists.
http://www.tombofjesus.com/
http://www.tombofjesus.com/
