Could Abraham be from the Vedas?

[Forum Monk]

Searching for historical references to famous dead people is not a proper approached to determing the validity of their existence. There is no doubt that the various faithful have exaggerated and magnified the importance of their various founders. To be sure, to the adherents these personalitiess were and continue to be extremely important, but in the eyes of the world, they were merely another nameless face in a crowd of lives which lived their existence in relative obscurity. This is especially true when history was recorded on frail parchments or other materials which had little hope of surviving the volatile course of history; wars, earthquakes; fires and purges.

Rome had a long of history of murdering those considered enemies, nonconformists, malcontents, seditious, etc. and there can be little doubt that thousands of christians were among the countless thousands who perished at the hands of roman justice. As early as 200-300 years prior to the conversion of Constantine, the faith survived in the catacombs and back-alleys of the empire. These are matters of historical fact. Prior to the church of Rome and its government, chrisitianity grew and spread by word of mouth and by means of something much more profound: a genuine enlightment and esoteric fulfillment in the lives of the believers. Only a fool dies for lie. These people willingly gave up their properties and their lives for something they believed was very real, long before the church made martyrs of them. But no doubt many will try to diminish their lives in their rush to discredit the Roman church and its often uneven history, but for me, the reality of their existence is fact and it is upon their dead corpses that the faith of christianity was built, not the pillars of St. Peter's Cathedral.

Just for the record, I am neither Catholic or am I anti-catholic. I simply make a distinction between religion and faith.

Its an easy thing to say Paul or Peter or even Jesus did not exist because no other surviving historical documents survives to confirm their existence. Its even easier to say that some reference could just have easily mentioned another Jesus of which there were many at that time. But denying their existence forces one into the position of explaining how, in spite of every early effort to eradicate it, the faith has survived for nearly 2000 years (in homes and huts and alleys and street corners) and even today thrives inspite of every discrededation and shame heaped upon it by skeptics and unbelievers.

[clubs_stink]

Oh..I'm sorry to hear that.

But the shaman death dream/experience is a classic and common phenomena among trainee shamans. I don't know if you remember, I mentioned a book on here a few weeks ago by Mircea Eliade, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Eliade died in the Fifties but he was Professor of the History of Religions at Harvard and he pulled together all the reports from anthropologists (who hadn't a clue at what they were looking at) about shamans around the world. And he finds so many commonalities of experience between different shamanic groups, even those on opposite sides of the world who had never met one another. And one common factor was that initiates underwent some form of 'death' and 'rebirth'.

So I expect the Fire the Grid lady was just cashing in on that. I'd be interested to know what you heard about her Clubs.

If you can remind me of her name I can quickly find the links to the information on a website that had it all posted!

[Minimalist]

Searching for historical references to famous dead people is not a proper approached to determing the validity of their existence. There is no doubt that the various faithful have exaggerated and magnified the importance of their various founders. To be sure, to the adherents these personalitiess were and continue to be extremely important, but in the eyes of the world, they were merely another nameless face in a crowd of lives which lived their existence in relative obscurity. This is especially true when history was recorded on frail parchments or other materials which had little hope of surviving the volatile course of history; wars, earthquakes; fires and purges.

Well, searching for historical references is what historians do. It kind of goes with the territory. Still, we have a representative sample of writings from the Roman Imperial era and not much about Jesus or Christians....except from those adherents. We have an even higher percentage of writings from the East than we do from the West which simply makes the question that much more intriguing.

Rome had a long of history of murdering those considered enemies, nonconformists, malcontents, seditious, etc. and there can be little doubt that thousands of christians were among the countless thousands who perished at the hands of roman justice. As early as 200-300 years prior to the conversion of Constantine, the faith survived in the catacombs and back-alleys of the empire. These are matters of historical fact. Prior to the church of Rome and its government, chrisitianity grew and spread by word of mouth and by means of something much more profound: a genuine enlightment and esoteric fulfillment in the lives of the believers. Only a fool dies for lie. These people willingly gave up their properties and their lives for something they believed was very real, long before the church made martyrs of them. But no doubt many will try to diminish their lives in their rush to discredit the Roman church and its often uneven history, but for me, the reality of their existence is fact and it is upon their dead corpses that the faith of christianity was built, not the pillars of St. Peter's Cathedral.

Rome definitely disposed of rebels. There were palace intrigues and various plots which were dealt with, although the principal biographies of those emperors who were deemed nuttiest were written by their enemies, not their friends. It is not so clear that the provinces were quite so lawless...Hollywood aside. As for the Christians, this is probably worth a thread of its own but actual evidence for such persecutions is rare. The catacombs were created as burial places for Jews and Christians who did not wish to abide by the Roman laws on funerals. Did anyone ever hide in them? Probably. Could mass meetings have been held in them? Unlikely.

This website contains an interesting chart of Christian 'persecutions.'

http://jesusneverexisted.com/persecutions.html



Just for the record, I am neither Catholic or am I anti-catholic. I simply make a distinction between religion and faith.

Its an easy thing to say Paul or Peter or even Jesus did not exist because no other surviving historical documents survives to confirm their existence. Its even easier to say that some reference could just have easily mentioned another Jesus of which there were many at that time. But denying their existence forces one into the position of explaining how, in spite of every early effort to eradicate it, the faith has survived for nearly 2000 years (in homes and huts and alleys and street corners) and even today thrives inspite of every discrededation and shame heaped upon it by skeptics and unbelievers.[/quote]

The fact is that we are handed a series of non sequiturs and told it is 'fact' when what it is is 'tradition.' For 3 millenia, a belief in Osiris persisted. Does that make it real? In WWII, Japanese willingly died or killed themselves because they thought their emperor was a 'god.' Young Islamic males blow themselves to bits for 72 virgins. Frankly, the list of stupid shit that humans believe in is nearly endless and hardly constitutes proof of anything.

Let's take one example of something you hinted at above. I call it the "Jesus was a Nobody" defense. On one hand the absence of Jesus in the historical record is explained away by the claim that he was just one more "crucifixion" of a local figure in an age known for its brutality. Thus, goes the claim, why should anyone take notice of it?

Except, at the same time we are asked to believe that "multitudes" greeted his entry into Jerusalem or gathered for his sermons.

This same "Nobody" who the Sanheddrin could not condemn to death on their own then becomes the focus, within a very few years, of a movement so widespread that the same Sanheddrin has to go to Tarsus to recruit Paul to persecute this on-again, off-again, multitude. I guess there were no local boys available?

Then we are told that this same Paul, on his way to Damascus, has a revelation and is told to stop persecuting Christians. One is inclined to wonder what the Roman Governor of Syria, sitting in his headquarters in Damascus, would do if someone who was not attached to his staff started persecuting anyone in his province. One imagines he would have been somewhat pissed.

Next we hear that these multitudes have migrated to Rome itself where they are blamed for burning down the city in 64BC....according to one historian.

In spite of all these "multitudes" causing problems in Jerusalem and Syria and Rome itself, no one mentions them. Not Philo who wrote extensively on Jewish issues before 50 AD. No Josephus, who fails to mention Christians as a power bloc in his run up to the Great Revolt. Not even Tacitus in his Histories which makes no mention of Christians as any sort of influence in the Great Revolt. For that matter, there is the lost history off Justus of Tiberias which was read by a 9th century bishop (Photius) who mentioned that Justus made not a single mention of Jesus....in spite of the fact that Justus lived at the same time as Josephus, was a Galilean himself and would presumbly have known about his allegedly famous countryman.

Now, with all of that, let us remember that this was an age in which superstition was paramount. Even Emperor Vespasian was credited with miraculous "healings." One thing that the Romans prided themselves on was that when they killed someone, they stayed DEAD. Even the rumor of someone who had been executed by a Roman Praefect coming back from the dead would have been big news throughout the Empire. It would have been seen as a divine rebuke to Pilate's action and to think that it could have been hushed up is simply not possible. Jerusalem was no longer an out of the way little hill town. It was a major city, connected by land and sea trade routes to the rest of the Empire. Such a wondrous event would have attracted the attention of the entire world.

[kbs2244]

I have to come out and comment on this.

I am sorry Istar, but you need a better foundation.

Multiples of the same type experience doesn’t prove anything. You claim multiple, similar, shamanism experiences as proof.
What about the multiple, similar, vision experiences that are common to the various “Saints?” What are they proof of?

I have seen that fuzzy, bright light at the end of the tunnel, image too many times on bad TV shows. It is a stock footage clip avaible out of a catalog.

FM is on the right track. Just because we do or don’t have a record of something doesn’t mean it did or didn’t exist or happen. As has been claimed about the “Christian” story, records can be destroyed, altered, or entirely fabricated.

On the science front, the DNA/cloning guy in Korea comes to mind.

[kbs2244]

Min:
Read your last paragraph.
The “Official Records” would have to ignore Jesus for the very reasons you give. That is why they do not exist.
But the story was big news throughout the Empire. And the fact is that tens of thousands of people believed in various parts of the story. Believed strongly enough that they died for that belief.
Enough people believing strongly enough that the Emperor had to accept the story as the State Religion.

[john]

All -

Now we get into an interesting cognitive divide. Watershed, even.

Oral history and written history, not to mention mixing the metaphors of both.

Oral history, by which I mean the oral and or physically demonstrative means of passing on a learned skillset, whether physical or cognitive or both, seems to have served the various human species well for half a million years, or more.

For example, I do not believe that each and every generation of Heidelbergian, or Neandertal, or Magdalenian flint knappers "relearned the alphabet" individually and uniquely and by themselves in terms of physical toolmaking skills or environmental knowledge. There was a knowledge base being passed on. Which requires cognitive knowledge being communicated in an organized fashion. Therefore my point about early boats: we have no physical evidence of the object, but how else did the resulting physical evidence get there?

Mythos is similar to this. Shamanism, the Great Mother, and many other expressions of a systematic "spiritual" understanding of the perceived universe existed far before the written word.

As a matter of fact, probably ran indivisibly along with the generational transmission of toolmaking skills and environmental knowledge.

This way of knowing, I'll argue, did not require the identity or the lineage of an historic personage for validation.

"Organized" politics, religion, warfare, and economics seem to me to be awfully simultaneous with the appearance of written language.

Like boats, I have no direct physical evidence, but the results are present.

john

[Minimalist]

The “Official Records” would have to ignore Jesus for the very reasons you give. That is why they do not exist.

What Official Records are you referring to? The Romans did not maintain a ministry of propaganda. This was not Nazi Germany. The Romans were notoriously tolerant of other religions. They tolerated local gods all over their empire. By the first century AD, many Romans had adopted Mithras (Sol Invictus), Isis, or Cybele. These cults also swore allegiance to the official state cult. The Jews were given an exemption to this requirement by Augustus and Tiberius. As I have discussed elsewhere, this exemption did not survive the reign of Caligula and there is no indication that it was ever extended to Christians.

But the story was big news throughout the Empire. And the fact is that tens of thousands of people believed in various parts of the story. Believed strongly enough that they died for that belief.

You need to read Pliny's letter to Trajan (and Trajan's answer.)

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/latin/pliny.html

Pliny was governor of a province in Asia Minor in 112 AD. Since it will probably come up, Suetonius was a junior member of his staff and Cornelius Tacitus was a personal friend.

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

What this tells us is that 50 years after "multitudes" of Christians supposedly burned down Rome, Pliny, a Roman aristocrat, knows so little of them that he is not even sure "what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate." Clearly, he did not think of them as a mob of crazed arsonists. Then, there is Trajan's reply.

Trajan to Pliny
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Again, another Roman aristocrat replies mildly. Pliny at least indicates that there is some spread in Asia Minor but there is no indication of Trajan being similarly concerned. The implication of this is that there was no widespread concern on the part of Roman officialdom. It is the failure of Christians to swear allegiance to Roman authority that seems to be the issue. Treason, not religion, per se.

Enough people believing strongly enough that the Emperor had to accept the story as the State Religion.[/quote]

That's doctrine but is it reality? There is little actual evidence.

[Forum Monk]

Min - your most recent reply to KB is stretching the words to make your point but you will soon be guilty of making the same kinds of historical exaggerations you are blaming the church for doing. specifically for example, the multitudes of christians who burned rome is not mentioned in Tacitus' texts and you know it, it is a straw-man. But Tactitus does mention how chritians were blamed as I mention below.

With respect to your response to my post:
There may be some evidence of manipulation of historic texts by later christian redacters but it is an easy out for skeptics to claim that every mention of early christians or Christ was altered. Especially since the extrabiblical sources are often critical of christians.

First, with regard to the Book of Acts account of Saul. Saul was from Tarsus but lived in Jerusalem where he was a member of sect of pharisees if I recall correctly. He was known as a zealot and approved the stoning of Steven. According to the text a persecution of christians broke out at this time. In fact prior to this time christians may have been considered a sect of Judaism by outsiders but this period marked a schism which separated them from identification of one to the other.

Saul received letters from the ruling religious council which he sought to deliver to the synagogs in Syria for the purpose of bringing the christians to trial for religious crimes. These were not civil law matters which would have disturbed the Roman procurators. In fact, IMO the Jewish religious authoritues were careful NOT to arouse the attention of the Roman authorities.

The resulting schism, in fact drove the core of christian leadership out of Jerusalem and Saul, later named Paul, established christianity as a gentile religion as none of missionary work occured in the middle east south of Syria. In general it is not correct to say that christians were identified as jews. The great revolt which eventually resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem was not a christian issue, it was a jewish one.

As for the mulitudes which followed Jesus or welcomed him or heard his sermon on the mount, we are talking about the first century. There was no media, no television and no live coverage. Even today, there are events which occur in my relatively small town that I never hear about. Gatherings, meetings, disturbances, etc. and were it not for the newspaper most of these events would be completely obscure in this enlightened age of high-speed communications. Jerusalem was a large, crowded city was lots of commotion. Probably, most people ignored it.

While your historical writers did not mention christians or Jesus in relation to the great revolt, they are mentioned apart from that incident:

Tacitus (c. A.D. 55 - c. A.D. 117)

Annals, book XV:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt 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 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.

Suetonius (c. A.D. 69 - c. A.D. 140)
Lives of the Caesars - Claudius, sec. 25:

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.
Lives of the Caesars - Nero, sec. 16
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

Julius Africanus (c. 160 - c. 240)
Chronography, XVIII refers to writings by Thallus and Phlegon concerning the darkness during the Crucifixion:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun...Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak.

In addition Pliny and Origen wrote of the Christians.

I know the 'pat' arguments you will give in rebuttal but for the sake of brevity and due to the fact this is probably not the correct forum to discuss these issues, I have not carried it beyond what is here. Suffice to say, these things were being said about christians prior to the rise of the christian church and are mentioned in a matter-of-fact manner as if spoken from common knowledge. But of course you know these arguments as well as you are well read on the skeptical websites having honed your 'game' in sparring with Arch. I on the other hand, am not so skilled as a warrior for any world-view.

[Minimalist]

Sorry, Monk, you are wrong. Tacitus does use the word "multitude" in relation to christians in Rome.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

I don't really blame Tacitus for this, though. It seems as if this is a much later interpolation as no Christian writers prior to the 5th century Sulpicius Severus ever mention this passage....and Severus may be the original author as he does not quote Tacitus.[/quote]

[Minimalist]

Okay, I'll skip the pat replies, since I accidentally hit one in replying the first time, and you obviously already know them.

As authors such as Earl Doherty have pointed out, the 'Paul' of the Epistles seems to be a completely different guy from the 'Paul' of Acts. I can only recommend you to read The Jesus Puzzle, which is available online.

As for your assertion:

Acts 9

1But Saul, still breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, came to the high priest

2and asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues, so that if he found any who were of the way, both men and women, he might bring [them] bound to Jerusalem.

What authority did the High Priest have to order the kidnapping of Roman subjects? This is a little more than being a mail man.

[Ishtar]

kbs2244 - how much longer are you going to keep up this low level whining? You are completely misunderstanding so much of this discussion, mainly because you are viewing it through a lens of fear that your belief system is under attack. So instead of making any valid or useful points, as FM does, you're just sniping from the shadows and making points that are either senseless, in the context of this debate, or irrelevant.

I am sorry Istar, but you need a better foundation.

To study whether or not Jesus was a historical figure is a perfectly legitimate line of enquiry for a discussion board such as this one, and in fact, any board that takes a scientific line of inquiry to arrive at its conclusions. We are allowed to talk about these things openly, kbs2244, these days, even though we were prevented from doing so for nearly 2,000 years by the very religion you worship. And yes, I mean 'religion' that you worship, and not its figurehead, Jesus. If you were truly in touch with the spirit of Jesus, you wouldn't worry about whether there was a literal or historical Jesus, or even what others thought about it, because it would be irrelevant to your experience. It is you, kbs2244, who needs to look at your foundation, and not me. If you could broaden your mind enough to look at other religions and their history - instead of fearing that they are Satan in disguise - you'd see that their foundations are underpinned by a common mythology that stretches back thousands upon thousands of years, that is centred around a dying and resurrecting God figure which in my view, most likely finds it roots in shamanism.

Multiples of the same type experience doesn’t prove anything. You claim multiple, similar, shamanism experiences as proof.

I very rarely use the word 'proof', and I haven't used it here. But man has been given a brain, and that brain can identify patterns that help him to make predictions. For example, man noticed that the sun rises every day. Therefore, he deduced from that that he would have daylight between sunrise and sunset. Therefore, he could use that time profitably. It's just reasoning. It's what we do.

I have seen that fuzzy, bright light at the end of the tunnel, image too many times on bad TV shows. It is a stock footage clip avaible out of a catalog.

I'm sure it is. But surely you know that Hollywood is always in tune with the zeitgiest - so they know that most people who have had a near death experience report seeing a tunnel of light.

Did you not see that episode of The Simpsons when Homer accidently went on a shamanic journey? It was brilliant. They had it right, down to the last detail, peyote plants, power animals, ziggurats...the works.

Hollywood makes it their business to know what we're thinking and then they mirror it back to us. It's why they get so many bums on seats. We like looking at ourselves.

kbs2244, you may think that Jesus will take you for a sunbeam if you try to undermine this legitimate discussion with senseless remarks. But I have news for you. He won't.

[Forum Monk]

Sorry, Monk, you are wrong. Tacitus does use the word "multitude" in relation to christians in Rome.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

I missed the bold text in the writings, so I stand corrected. I could make a couple of points however. Tacitus explicitly states that Christians who were convicted were not necessarily the number who were charged with arson, but rather with "hatred against mankind". I find this very curious in light of the subsequent history of the church and the intolerance that christians are often accused of even today. Secondly, Tacitus' statement does provide some additional support to the historocity of the christian persecution. So I submit, one should not be so quick to dismiss it as church fantasy.

[Forum Monk]

As authors such as Earl Doherty have pointed out, the 'Paul' of the Epistles seems to be a completely different guy from the 'Paul' of Acts. I can only recommend you to read The Jesus Puzzle, which is available online.

This could be an interesting read - I'll look into it.

What authority did the High Priest have to order the kidnapping of Roman subjects? This is a little more than being a mail man.

You are right, he was more than a "mail man" and I am convinced that Saul was an active and authorized perpetrator of the persecution at that time. I can't answer the question, what authority....? I don't know. I do know that the nation was granted a fair amount of religious freedom and Rome apparently was not disturbed by Jewish crimes against Jews. Assuming that the Jewish residents of Syria were Roman citizens is not necessarily correct. Many Jews who had Roman citizenship, purchased it, and so it is logical to assume it was the exception rather than the rule.

I will look a little deeper into the authority question.

[Forum Monk]

All -

Now we get into an interesting cognitive divide. Watershed, even.

Oral history and written history, not to mention mixing the metaphors of both.
...
"Organized" politics, religion, warfare, and economics seem to me to be awfully simultaneous with the appearance of written language.

Like boats, I have no direct physical evidence, but the results are present.

John, I think your musings about oral vs. written history are interesting and something I had not previously considered. I wonder what effect, writing had on the transmission of historical facts? And could it be that once a "fact" is commited to writing it is elevated to defacto truth whether it truly is or not?

However, I tend to disagree with the statement that organized religion and politics followed writing. I think these things predate writing by many millenia.

[Ishtar]

And could it be that once a "fact" is commited to writing it is elevated to defacto truth whether it truly is or not?

That's an interesting point, FM. Even today, we have a tendency to believe something if we see it on the page, in black and white.