What if Jesus travels the Mediterranean?

No. Actually what I said is exactly the opposite. There is independent, non biblical evidence that Jesus existed as a PERSON. If he was the Son of God (with all the capitals) or not is an entirely different matter.

And again, I say this mention was about a group of people. Tacitus said "they claim to be followers of Christus that lived in Judea". He basically reported what these guys believed. Nowhere he said "Here's what i'm thinking", mostly because he didn't cared about it outside saying "These people believe that, and without any contradictory source, I'll put like this".
 
And again, I say this mention was about a group of people. Tacitus said "they claim to be followers of Christus that lived in Judea". He basically reported what these guys believed. Nowhere he said "Here's what i'm thinking", mostly because he didn't cared about it.

LS, can we look at the historical consequences of this Christus being reported as travelling the Mediterranean instead of what was reported OTL, laying aside the rest?

It would be a shame for this to get ugly for nothing.
 
LS, can we look at the historical consequences of this Christus being reported as travelling the Mediterranean instead of what was reported OTL, laying aside the rest?

It would be a shame for this to get ugly for nothing.

The main problem is we don't talking about something historical. We're talking about a Jesus as Gospel-pictured. I'm fine with that, as long it's stated. But we're kind in a non-issue way here.

We can't do anything plausible with Gospel figure, because...it's Gospel not "History Manual of 60 AD". As said, the Gospel was written for fulfilling a Jewish prophecy in the judean situation. From this, hard to make a Jesus preaching in Rome without breaking the Gospel use.
 
And again, I say this mention was about a group of people. Tacitus said "they claim to be followers of Christus that lived in Judea". He basically reported what these guys believed. Nowhere he said "Here's what i'm thinking", mostly because he didn't cared about it outside saying "These people believe that, and without any contradictory source, I'll put like this".

What is your problem with simply accepting the premise that he existed for the sake of the discussion?
 
The main problem is we don't talking about something historical. We're talking about a Jesus as Gospel-pictured. I'm fine with that, as long it's stated. But we're kind in a non-issue way here.

We can't do anything plausible with Gospel figure, because...it's Gospel not "History Manual of 60 AD". As said, the Gospel was written for fulfilling a Jewish prophecy in the judean situation. From this, hard to make a Jesus preaching in Rome without breaking the Gospel use.

Now that's more problematic, because I don't know what would motivate a Jesus preaching in Rome to be reported by alt-Gospels.

WHATEVER the historical guy (in either scenario), if there was one, did.
 
as you're apparently too busy by insulting people to read posts.

and as you're apparently SO enthused with your own cleverness and are mentally incapable of actually following the OP and instead insist on picking the exact pointless debate the OP tried to avoid :rolleyes:. Now please, actually contribute something or go troll some other thread.
 
Now that's more problematic, because I don't know what would motivate a Jesus preaching in Rome to be reported by alt-Gospels.

WHATEVER the historical guy (in either scenario), if there was one, did.

Plenty of different ways to interpret the prophecies, as with any. They'd be hard pressed to ignore a large part of his ministry, anyway. Particularly if they were with him.
 
No. Actually what I said is exactly the opposite. There is independent, non biblical evidence that Jesus existed as a PERSON. If he was the Son of God (with all the capitals) or not is an entirely different matter.

Source, please?
Anything I´ve read till today doesn´t mention "independent, non biblical evidence that Jesus existed as a PERSON"?
Everything that was brought forward as proof is still being hotly debated by scientists. Or was exposed as fraud.
 
I thought this thread was an interesting concept, unfortunately it appears that it has been hijacked by the 'Historicity of Jesus debate' that pops up in every single thread remotely related to Jesus.
 
I dont get why the historicity of jesus as a man is so controversial. Setting aside any supernatural claims, the circumstantial evidence including traceable followers who knew him personally (I dont include Paul) seems reasonable enough. Proving the existence of any person from 2000 years ago is tough, we didnt even know until recently that Pontius Pilate really existed and he was a prefect.

Tacitus derogatory remarks about christ and christians dating from the year 64 is close enough that records of Jesus existence would still exist. Tacitus said "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" . Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian and would have no reason for indulging in writing about someone who never existed.
 
Jesus

Many believe that Christianity had multiple origins. Therefore a Jesus who is able to travel far beyond his reputed Palestinian homeland makes no difference on the development of the religion.
 
That doesn't exist for Jesus, the only mentions are about 75-100 years later. You would think someone like Livy, contemporaneous with Jesus would have recorded him.

Why would he bother recording some "random" Jewish rabbi?

It's also not hard to see why casual commentators might think this rabbi called Christos was still alive. Ask a Christian if Jesus is dead and .. :p

The earliest fragment of the Gospel of John that we have now dates to the reign of either Trajan or Hadrian. So within a generation of the recorded events we have copies circulating of an eyewitness report. The two earliest biographies of Alexander The Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch, more than four hundred years after his death, and they're still generally considered trustworthy. The legends and myths about Alexander only developed after that date. 30, 40, 50 years is not enough for significant myths/legends to spring up.

Really, there is no good reason to discard the four Gospels as historical records, given they were all written within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if these texts were outright lies. Furthermore, none of these people had anything to gain by making Jesus up and much to lose. Who would go to death for something they knew to be untrue?

Beyond that, it's generally accepted that most of Paul's epistles were written before the Gospels, starting in the 40s. He records creeds he received from the early church, which he visited about ten years before in Jerusalem. He knew the apostles, including Peter and James, brother of Jesus, and was a student of the rabbi Gamaliel, who famously advised his peers to be cautious in their judgement of Jesus. Paul was therefore also in a position to know if such a Jesus existed, if Gamaliel ever spoke on him, or if any of what he was being told was an outright lie (in which case, why would he bother joining them, even when they themselves were less than eager to embrace him?).

See for example how he records an oral tradition which had been formulated and was already in use in the church by the time he came around circa 35 AD:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles". (1 Cor 15).
 

BlondieBC

Banned
To try to get the thread back on subject.

1) Jesus spoke Aramaic, and probably not Greek or Latin. So Jesus traveling the Roman Empire likely means he speaks these languages well, and he has much better education in Greek and Latin Classics. I would expect the gospels to use more Greek/Latin images. Something like the parable of the Good Samaritans could be the parable of the Good Gladiator. Not sure it has much long term impact theologically, but I do believe Jesus would have changed his sermons to make the more relatable to his different audience.

2) Travel takes time. This means Jesus lives longer, so even he is eventually executed, it will be years later than OTL.

3) If Jesus is executed in another city, the new city will the holiest city. Tripoli being the holiest city would have some major butterflies.

4) More years of preaching leads to more gospels, and IMO, a more diverse set of Christian beliefs. The Gospel of Jesus life in Latnium will have some different teaches than the the four we have, and after 2000 years of analysis, will result even even more variety of beliefs.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It could be possible that he would have more followers. Maybe his cruxification could take somewhere else. maybe Rome?

If he is in an area with a lower % of Jews, he might never be executed by the Romans.


We would certainly have this discussion involving events in the Book of Mormon if there was at least one INDEPENDENT reference to the settlement of the Americas by the Jews (or any other Middle Eastern group) or even any accepted archeological evidence, or near real time multiple references to such an event. Since there is no such independent source or accepted evidence, the simile is somewhat lacking. I would, however, say that a reasonably constructed T/L, based on a non deity created POD which had a Middle Eastern (or East/North African) group reaching the New World is possible, although it would require considerable research into real world factors to avoid handwave.

There is proof Levi (Jewish priest) made it to Zimbabwe/South Africa, and there is small tribe where there are both oral traditions of the trip all males carry a Y Levi chromosome. So it is clear that Jews were willing to travel over 5000 miles after the fall of the first temple. The only think to be check is that one can reach the New World with ship technology from the time frame, and I think the Ra I and Ra II ships showed this is possible. So no handwavium is required.

Now just because it is possible, does not mean it happened.

If the Mormons identify which group of Native American contacted Jews, evidence probably can be found by looking for DNA markers in that Native American Tribe.
 
It doesn't really matter if Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem or Rome. Fact is he is proclaimed King of the Jews when he was an infant. Something the Romans did not like. The Romans appointed Herod to be king of the Jews and the Magi asked him where they could find the real king! Well imagine the shock and horror with Herod and the Romans....

Now when Iesus was borne in Bethlehem of Iudea, in the dayes of Herod the king, behold, there came Wise men from the East to Hierusalem,
Saying, Where is he that is borne King of the Iewes? for we haue seene his Starre in the East, and are come to worship him.

The "Wise men" or Magi were the Kingmakers of the Middle East and if they say someone was a king, he was the king. The Magi were Persian priests who were believing monotheists. When they travelled the travelled with armed guards and a whole caravan. So the visit of the wise men was quite a spectacle.

So the claim of the Magi was so threatening for the Romans that they seek to kill Jesus, just out of fear for losing influence.

One further remark: There might have been more sources which verified the excistence and deity of Jesus. But many books and documents have been lost for ever after the Great Library in Alexandria burned down.
 
Top