Was there a real Jesus? Archeological evidence.

Amergin · #1 (**permalink**) 22nd September 2008, 08:38 PM

Was there a real Jesus? Archaeological evidence.

On TV cablevision, there was a documentary on History Channel International called the Naked Archaeologist. One recent episode was about Jesus. Simcha Jacobovici is an Israeli born archaeologist who specialises on the Middle East. In his documentary, he explored the home reputed to be that of Shimon Peter. Then he talked with Jewish Scholars who noted a number of "miracle workers" and "sons of God" who coexisted at the supposed time of Jesus.

One was named Honi, who would pray to "My Father" in heaven. His prayer brought rain to drought-ridden Galilee. It is interesting that he was another SON OF GOD. In addition, there were several other preachers who called God the Father.

The most interesting one was Hinara ben Dosi. He also referred to God as "my Father". The Jewish writings referred to Hinara being a healer and reformer. Hinara was approached by some high official's messenger. The messenger begged Hinara to come and heal the official's very ill son. Hinara replied, "He is now healed." Moreover, Hinara did not go. Later they report that the official's son was healed completely at the time the messenger was talking to Hinara. This is identical to a story attributed to Jesus by later Christian Greeks Gospel writers. Hinara also preached redemption and the impending end of days.

The only difference is that Hinara was not crucified or resurrected. He was buried in a graveyard in a currently Arab town in Galilee. One of the few Jewish graves in the ancient cemetery, it had an inscription identifying him by the name Hinara ben dosi in Hebrew lettering.

Interestingly whether Honi, Hinara, or Yeshua were all sons of God. Being a son of God did not make one an actual god. There is no record of a Yeshua ben Yusef being crucified or resurrecting except in the Christian gospels. I suspect that the virgin birth of Jesus in a stable and his last part (death and resurrection) of Jesus story is taken from Mithra son of Ahura Mazda the Father God. Mithra was one of 16 slain and resurrected saviours. I think the life of Jesus in the gospels was taken from Mithra with the biography taken from Hinara ben Dosi.

Jesus the demi-god and later in 4th century a full god is a composite of virgin born Mithra 600 years earlier; with the biographical story being Hinara's ministry in the early first century; and finished with the death and resurrection story of Mithra to construct the mythical Jesus Christ.

Amergin

**Rev. Kelly** · #2 (**permalink**) 22nd September 2008, 09:40 PM

I love the Naked Archeologist. Too bad I missed this episode.

I find it interesting that historically we are still looking for evidence of Jesus. I wonder if we will ever find any substantial evidence to prove his existance and the story we are all familiar with.

**arthra** · #3 (**permalink**) 23rd September 2008, 01:05 AM

Yeh I like the Naked Archeologist as well..

I recall one show where they found a tomb that had burial boxes with the names of Jesus family and Mary of Magdala on it which raises some interesting questions..

You can see it here:

Jesus Family Tomb: The Decoders of the Jesus Tomb Discovery

So this would imply there was maybe a historical Jesus..anyway.

and by the way,

Mithras is much older than six hundred years before the time of Christ.. Mithras actually goes back to Vedic India.

See:

The Iranian: Mitra, Mithra, Mithras

Mithraism of the Roman Empire certainly was a popular rival to Christianity and I think probably influenced it.

See the wiki article:

Mithraic Mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

aged hippy · #4 (**permalink**) 23rd September 2008, 11:03 AM

Well i can't argue with that, Amergin,

my own belief runs along very similar lines.

It seems to me that the "Christ" concept was borrowed (or even downright stolen) from the Gnostics, who held that particular belief prior to the establishment of the Christian Church.
It was subsequently enforced by the burning of the Gnostic Scriptures, (though some fortunately survived; i.e. the Nag Hammadi Texts), and the killing of those who refused to convert.

I think that the dominant Christian sect copied the reported healings and actions of several men (who actually lived) and -- realising that they needed to be attributed to one man for the sake of consistency -- pasted them onto one character who they named Jesus - who may or may not have actually lived.

The problems of the identity of the actual god arose in the merging of the (probably symbolic) Jesus with the Christ figure, which is why there are two very different gods in the bible, the one of the Old Testament, and the one to whom Jesus refers as "My Heavenly Father".

This is a site i stumbled across last night with some interesting videos which you may or may not be familiar with: http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspo...ent-myths.html

I found it very interesting, to say the least.

Peace, Love, & Light

**Travis Clementsmith** · #5 (**permalink**) 23rd September 2008, 01:55 PM

I wouldn't put too much stock in ossuaries, these type of discoveries have been numerous and there is no way to definitively date them. Further, throw in the very common names used by the New Testament and the rampant forgeries (as the last "great find" proved), and you don't really get much more than a reason for those who want to believe a false confirmation of it:

Bone-Box No Proof of Jesus

Quote:

Ossuaries Not Uncommon

Sending thrills through the Christian community, Lemaire dated the ossuary and inscription to 63 CE, which places it squarely in the time of active Christian church-building. Although the faithful believe that this astonishing pronouncement was rooted in science, Lemaire's precise dating is based on the a priori assumption that the find is indeed the bone-box of James the Just, the disciple whose death is assigned by Christians to the year 62 CE. Nevertheless, it is not the case that the ossuary contains an inscribed date or is conclusively dated by other means to exactly 63 CE and must therefore represent the burial box of James the Just. In other words, the dating is based on circular reasoning: Since James died in 62 CE, and since this is apparently his ossuary, it must date to 63 CE, when his bones would have been placed in it. There is no proof, however, that James died in that year or that this is his ossuary. Yet, triumphant apologists will falsely claim that this ossuary has conclusively been proved to be that of James and to date to exactly the right time! As is well known to those who have scientifically investigated so many previous Christian claims, apologists constantly use this type of flawed logic. To repeat, even though news reports make it seem the box itself contains this very date, in reality the dating of 63 CE attached to this particular ossuary is based on the tradition of James's death, not because the box possesses a dated inscription or there is some other precise dating method.

According to CNN, the "Israeli government's geological survey test" concluded that "the object is more than 19 centuries old," but the author cites BAR as the source, and this particular statement does not appear on the BAR website article. Jewsweek.com's Debra Berman reports, "The Geological Survey of Israel conducted electron-microscope tests on the box that proved the inscription was not added at a later date; no traces of modern elements were found." Apparently, however, this claim is erroneous, as another Jewsweek writer, Rochelle Altman, debunks the last part of the inscription. Hence, such "scientific" tests are questionable; even if the entire inscription were genuine, electron-microscope dating could not pinpoint the exact year. Even carbon-dating, which is used to date organic remains, not stone, has an error factor of + or -150 years. Hence, this limestone box, which is nevertheless apparently fairly old, based on the fact that it cracked severely during transport, could date from another century altogether, particularly the two to three following Jesus's purported advent. Supposedly also the box was heavily damaged specifically by a crack in the inscription. The ossuary's handlers have been surprisingly careless, especially considering how priceless would be this artifact, were it and/or its inscription genuine.

In "First Proof of Jesus Found?," Lorenzi uses another tactic that is convincing at first glance: She states that during the first century these ossuaries were used in "the second of a two-stage burial process, when bones of the deceased were transferred from burial caves." By saying "In the first century," the writer is implying that such a use is unique to that century, thus giving the find even more credibility as deriving from the correct era.

Although these enthusiastic newsbites make it seem otherwise, the James ossuary is not unusual, nor is it necessarily dated to the convenient year of 63 CE. In giving his contrived date a professional flourish, Lemaire also claimed the box must date from the first century because it fits in with when "Jews" used ossuaries, between 20 BCE and 70 CE. While it may be argued that "Jews," i.e., members of the tribe of Judah and territory of Judea, used ossuaries "only" between those dates, it is quite clear that their predecessors, Canaanites, Israelites and Hebrews, utilized them for centuries prior to that. The site of Hederah in northern Israel, for example, yielded numerous fragments and complete ossuaries, some of which were in the exact square shape as that of James's. There were other shapes as well, including one that resembled a house, with a peaked roof. These finds were dated by their discoverer, E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University, to the fourth millennium BCE. (Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, II, 496.) Sukenik concluded that these house-shaped vessels were akin to the "soul-houses" of the Egyptians and "house urns" of the Europeans. Finds at other sites that confirm these dates include those at Azor, Bene-Berek and Tel Aviv. (EAEHL, II, 496.) As we can see, this type of vessel is not uncommon and does not necessarily date to the first centuries BCE-CE.

In actuality, the use of ossuaries even in the Palestine/Judea area dates back to at least the Second Temple Period and continued for several centuries into the Common Era. In other words, even "Jews" used ossuaries well beyond the fall of the Temple, i.e., 70 CE. Based on findings from the Jerusalem necropolis of the Second Temple Period (6th cent. BCE-70 CE), the editor of the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations of the Holy Land, Michael Avi-Yonah, says, "The custom of re-internment of the bones (in ossuaries) was widespread among Jews at the end of the Second Temple Period and for several centuries afterwards. Numerous laws in the Mishnah and Talmud deal with the modes of burial and the form and size of tombs." (Emphasis added.) These burials refer specifically to ossuaries, which were used once the flesh had decayed, leaving the bones alone. (EAEHL, II, 628.) Obviously, the ossuary-burial did not end in 70 CE, so Lemaire's terminus a quem is erroneous, as is his terminus a quo. Hence, this ossuary and its inscription could date from any of several centuries, including the Constantinian era, when bogus relics and forged texts were all the rage. As can be seen, ossuaries in Jerusalem were fairly common as well, so that, if the James ossuary is bogus, its creator would have plenty of examples upon which to draw.

Furthermore, as Avi-Yonah states regarding the numerous bone-boxes found in the Tombs at Dominus Flevit, which contained "122 ossuaries of the usual type [square]," common names included Jeshua or Yeshua (Jesus) and Maria (Mary). (EAEHL, II, 636.) In one of the surviving family tombs in Jerusalem are 18 ossuaries with Greek inscriptions, one of which contains the names "Joseph" (twice) and "Maria." (EAEHL, II, 635.) By the typical media and religious standards this tomb should have been exalted as that of Jesus's family.

In another example, in the "Tomb Cave in the Talpiot Quarter, discovered in 1945," are found large charcoal crosses on one of the ossuaries, while "two other ossuaries had Greek inscriptions reading IhsouV iou. IhsouV alwq," a phrase that contains the name Jesus twice. "The excavator interpreted the crosses and the inscriptions as expressions of sorrow at the crucifixion of Jesus, an interpretation not accepted by other scholars." The tomb itself dates to the beginning of the first century and demonstrates the commonality of the name Jesus before the purported time of the Christian messiah. (EAEHL, II, 635.) If this Jesus tomb had dated to a few decades later, no doubt the media and faithful would have had a field day in presenting it as the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, thus "proving" the biblical fable, although these two tombs mentioned herein would certainly infuriate the keepers and believers in the "Holy Sepulchre," yet another profitable tourist attraction. It would be surprising that no such incautious and mirthful rush to judgment has occurred concerning this particular Jesus tomb. In reality, at least one sloppy sensationalist author has claimed this tomb to be that of "Jesus of Nazareth," asserting that the tomb also contained the ossuaries of not only a Jesus, but also a Joseph, two Marys and a Jude. The excavation report, however, does not mention these other burials, leaving the question as to whether or not this particular author is prone to fiction, as is suggested by his other writings as well. As is evident, looks can be deceiving, such that caution should be utilized in regard to artifacts.

In Jerusalem there is even a "Tomb of Jason," complete with an ossuary and a scratched image of a warship, which could lead to the conclusion that this is the tomb of the Jason of Greek mythology. "On the walls of the porch are charcoal drawings of ships, a Greek inscription, and several Aramaic inscriptions, the longest of which consists of three lines lamenting Jason, the deceased." (EAEHL, II, 630) Using coins and pottery, the tomb is dated to having been used between the Hasmonean (2nd-1st cent. BCE) and the Herodian eras (37 BCE-70 CE). Although it is evidently the tomb of a real person of that era, true believers in the demigod Jason of Argonaut fame could attempt in the same manner as Christians to "prove" the existence of Jason and his Argonauts, such as Hercules, as "real people."

The name or epithet "Jason," meaning "healer" was commonly utilized in describing "Pagan" gods such as Asklepios, whose cult extended far and wide in the ancient Mediterranean world. As stated by Bronsen Wickkiser, fellow of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Asklepios was "known as a healer since Homer," and his cult spread rapidly at the "beginning of the late fifth century B.C." "So popular was he," says Wickkiser, "that his sanctuaries spanned the ancient world, from Hispania in the west to Ecbatana in the east." Hence, we have for several centuries prior to the Christian era a healing god--called "Iasios," "Iesios," i.e., Jason or Jesus--whose sanctuaries were widespread around the Mediterranean. A healer associated with these gods might be called a "brother of Jason" or a "brother of Jesus," long before the Christian era. Indeed, all roads point to Christianity as an expose of the secret Pagan rituals that concerned a healing god with long curly hair who rose from the dead, etc. This particular designation of the "brother of Jesus" has been one of four that have been bandied about since early times. The news reports regarding the James ossuary mention only three: 1. James was Jesus's blood brother, born of the Virgin Mary; 2. James was one of Josephs's children by another marriage; or 3. James was Jesus's "cousin." These reports ignore what is likely the most appropriate, i.e., that "James" was a member of a brotherhood such as the Nazarites or Nazarenes.

As Frank Zindler points out, the "brother of Yeshua" (Joshua/Jesus) could also be translated "the brother of the Savior," which would indicate a title of someone involved in a specific society or cult, rather than a familial bloodline. The fact that James is cited in this inscription as the "son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" creates suspicion since it is by no means agreed within all the Christian sects that Jesus had any blood brothers, despite the assertions in the New Testament. The wording on the James ossuary, if it is to be interpreted as referring to a blood brother born of Mary, would indicate that of the many sects one particular was involved in its apparent forgery. A Protestant minister at the Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, Ben Witherington III, argues that the phrase "brother of Jesus" refers to a blood brother, giving etymological reasons for his assumption. However, in an article from Believenet.net and reproduced by ABCNEWS.com, Witherington ironically uses a passage from Acts 15:13-21, in which James is made to address a group of men using the word "Brethren." The word in the original Greek for "brethren," i.e., brothers, is adelphoi, which is the plural of the word, adelphos, used to describe James at Galatians 1 and elsewhere. Witherington argues that this word adelphos, as in Philadelphia, "City of Brotherly Love," probably refers to blood brothers. Yet, in the passage at Acts, James is clearly not referring to blood brothers but to "brothers" in the sense of the word as used by the clergy and members of other brotherhoods and fraternities into modern times. The proper usage concerning James is in reality the fourth interpretation, which is that to be called a "brother" means you are a member of a male-based society, church, organization, secret or otherwise. In another instance, Witherington points out the phrase in 1 Cor. 15:3-9, which discusses "500 brethren." Now, if that refers to Jesus's blood family, he certainly had many brothers! It is quite clear that the phrase "500 brothers" refers to members of the community, not a family, so why has this meaning been ignored constantly over the centuries? Matthew 13:55-56 also mentions Jesus's "sisters," but this phrase too is usually ignored. As we know, such Christian communities as the Quakers refer to their female members as "sisters," while their male members are "brothers."

Unbeknownst to the masses, tombs of gods are common around the world and are part of well-established priestcraft. The mention of a character on such a tomb or ossuary does not prove that the person really existed. No doubt many Indians, for example, have recorded the names of their various gods on their own epitaphs--by this "logic," all these gods would have to have existed as "historical characters." Certainly in ancient Egypt Osiris and Isis were included in all solemn events, especially burials, and Osiris's numerous tombs may be found all over Egypt--they therefore must have been real people!

**arthra** · #6 (**permalink**) 23rd September 2008, 04:23 PM

That's a pretty long citation there Clement. I meant to ask...who is "Archarya S"? and why does she use that name if she has the credentials and academic background why not use her real name.. It kind of detracts from credibility in my view. I mean we know Gerald Massey..he didn't have to use a pseudonym.

See:

Gerald Massey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would still urge that if you haven't seen Simcha's film to view it.. He's done a remarkable job.

There is a dilemma though.. in that if the film is accurate then the Gospel story isn't really supported in any case.

My own leaning is that there is unlikely to be much extra -Gospel evidence for the existence of Jesus.. You can't take a cast of the sand where He wrote.

But I would consider that the Gospels themselves and their development suggests to me there was a historical Jesus even though there's not much evidence out there and that layers of mythologizing were applied later.

- Art

**Travis Clementsmith** · #7 (**permalink**) 23rd September 2008, 07:08 PM

Well, I don't think you should let a pen name detract from credibility, it should be the actual content that is judged. She used that name to avoid direct contact with radical Christians, but was outed recently, and so goes by her name, Murdock.

If you will note at the beginning of the piece, it was highly commended. Dr. Robert Price has said her scholarship is generally sound.

By your reasoning, we should also accept Jason and Hercules and a host of others as "historical" as well. I just don't see any real reason to.

-TC

Amergin · #8 (**permalink**) 23rd September 2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthra

There is a dilemma though.. in that if the film is accurate then the Gospel story isn't really supported in any case.

I think that the gospels fail on their own in indicating that Jesus was a God. The writers never quote Jesus as saying "I am God." Jesus talks to God as his father much like Honi and Hinara ben Dosi talked to God as Father. They quote Jesus actually saying that he (Jesus) was sent BY GOD, to do GOD'S WORK. The Apotheosis (deification) of Jesus into the God head is unjustified on the Gospels alone. Even Christ, the anointed one, does not imply that he is actually God. So Christianity as we know it is a false religion based on its own basic writings, the gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthra

My own leaning is that there is unlikely to be much extra -Gospel evidence for the existence of Jesus.. You can't take a cast of the sand where He wrote.

Jesus will likely remain controversial, viewed by many as fictional, others as a charismatic human being, and others unjustifiably as a new god. Since the Aramaic version of "Jesus" was a common name in Palestine, and street corner preachers were common; it is more than likely that one or more of those Apocalyptical ranters might have been named the equivalent of Jesus. The important issue is the fact that the religion, Christianity, is founded on very arguable assumptions contrary to its own scripture. Why do so many Christians miss this obvious omission that seems so clear to me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthra

But I would consider that the Gospels themselves and their development suggests to me there was a historical Jesus even though there's not much evidence out there and that layers of mythologizing were applied later.

I think that there was a Yeshua/Jesus more likely than not, just like there is always a "Donald" in Scotland, a "Vlad" in Russia, and a "Nigel" in England. There is no evidence at all that Jesus ever performed miracles or resurrected. Ressurection is a common belief but unsupported. There is no reason from the Gospels to call Jesus a God. I agree he may have been a wise and charismatic preacher with an advanced moral message.

Amergin

Amergin · #9 (**permalink**) 23rd September 2008, 07:54 PM

The death and resurrection are a major problem. I realise that about 16 other god-men died and resurrected before Jesus, so the theme was popular. But looking at it as a realist, we have three possibilities.

1. Jesus died on the cross. Blood flow to his brain ceased. Within a few hours his neuronal nuclei began to die off. If blood was not restored in 3 hours he suffered permanent brain cell loss. Brain cells undergo apoptosis, nuclei fragment, and cells first swell when the mitochondria run out of energy, the K+/Na+ pump has failed. Then the cell breaks down. But by 36 hours the brain is turning into a thick mush with circuits and neuronal generators gone. The grey-white junction is gone. If Jesus died, he couldn't have possibly resurrected because even if his muscles still partially contracted, his brain was mush and incapable of conscious awareness, thinking, reasoning, memory, or moving his limbs.

Pathologic changes within the neuropil follow the metabolic abnormalities. One of the first effects is cytotoxic oedema that results from failure of the Na/K ion pump. Early on, this stage is still reversible, but only in terms of minutes at room temperature. Soon Calcium ion channels fail and Ca++ influx kills the neurons. Prolonged ischemia leads to cell death and coagulation necrosis of the vessels. After 3-6 hours of ischemia, irreversible damage occurs to the capillary endothelium. Recovery never happens in documented brain death by medical criteria.

One must postulate magic and big time magic. God would have to rebuild his billion or more neurons, 10 billion astrocytes/glia, many billions of axons, and trillions of synaptic connections in one human brain. They comprise many millions of circuits, circuits overlapping into supercircuits, and networks, a million billion synapses, and a number of neurochemical receptors in the trillions. That would be a horrendous magic trick. If God COULD do that, why did he not heal the relatively minor wrist and ankle wounds?

2. Jesus did not die on the cross. He was on the cross very briefly (few hours) then went into shock. Dusk at Passover required his quick burial. He was not even given the usual anointing and washings. We know that because the women were going to do that on Sunday Morning. If Jesus did suffer brain anoxia and if it lasted 3-5 hours he would be really totally dead. But he was taken down within three hours. Fluid had accumulated in his legs (oedema) and abdomen (ascites) as he went into cardiogenic shock and autonomic postural hypotensive shock. His pulse and heart beat may have been undetectable. A piercing of the abdomen would have released ascitic fluid of congestive heart failure along with some blood. The gospel reports this.

Then once down, he was placed in a horizontal position. Blood perfusion and perfusive blood pressure would have recovered. Some lung ventilation could return as the downward pull of the diaphragm was relieved. Lying horizontal may require 6 or more hours of reperfusion of the brain for him to wake up. That may well have occurred in the tomb. Then he gradually stabilised.

In 38 hours he was up and about. Perhaps he then pushed the boulder enough to roll it back. The rocks used were of two types: most common was a small cubical rock maybe 50 Kg that could be pushed out. The other was basically a stone wheel that sat in a stone groove. Archaeologists verify this. It did not require super strength to get the stone wheel rolling down to open the small tomb opening. After all a woman, Mary Magdalene was going to remove the stone to enter the tomb to anoint Jesus with oils.

He then walked out. He had not resurrected but recovered from shock. This occurrence is well known in the history of many particular hospitals. Each has its own story. During the mass English reburials when grave space was taking too much room, coffins were opened and bones removed. But scratch marks were supposedly found on 25% of the coffin lids. That sounds like an exaggeration but it surely did happen.

We should note the absence of detail showing death in the gospels.

Amegin

Amergin · #10 (**permalink**) 23rd September 2008, 08:29 PM

Rhetorical assumption that the Crucifixion actually happened.

If Jesus truly died, his brain received no oxygen or blood flow for more than 15 minutes. The biologically dead brain can produce no electrical saltatory transmission. No synapses would be left anyway. This is "Brain Death" which I am compelled to determine to my great sadness in patients about once per week. True Brain Death is determined by:

1. Loss of pupillary reflexes,
2. Loss of reflexive eye movements (Doll's eyes and caloric responses,)
3. Loss of corneal responses,
4. Absence of any spontaneous breathing trigger with measured hypoxia/hypercarbia,
5. Loss of patterned motor responses (flaccid paralysis).
6. Flat lined EEG done twice 24 hours apart, or non-flow on MRAngiography.*
7. In the 24 hour period, blood tests showing zero sedative drug levels.*
8. Then that is the final form of death, irreversible Brain Death/necrosis. *

*Only 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 could be observed in 29 CE.

None have EVER recovered if all 5 clinical criteria are met, in multiple different studies. Since there are no shortages of people dying, the numbers in studies summated are 5 digits.

Unfortunately the Gospel writers never mentioned the following:

No one noted a carotid, radial, or femoral pulse on Jesus.
No one noted pupillary reactions, (size, symmetry, light, and accommodation.)
No one noted his ocular motor reflexes (Doll’s Eye, Cold water calorics)
No one checked his patterned motor responses that may persist in some reversible comas.
No one recorded total flaccid paralysis, decerebrate or decorticate rigidity, myoclonus.
No one noted listening to his heart.
No one noted listening to his lungs with an ear or stethoscope.
No one noted presence or absence of corneal reflexes.
No one noted muscle tone.

Then once down, he was placed in a horizontal position. Blood perfusion and perfusive blood pressure would have recovered. Some lung ventilation could return as the downward pull of the diaphragm was relieved. Lying horizontal may require 6 or more hours of reperfusion of the brain for him to wake up. That may well have occurred in the tomb. Then he gradually stabilised.

In 38 hours he was up and about. Perhaps he then pushed the boulder enough to roll it back. The rocks used were of two types: most common was a small cubical rock maybe 50 Kg that could be pushed out. The other was basically a stone wheel that sat in a stone groove. Archaeologists verify this. It did not require super st