Jesus wasn’t the only messianic prophet in the ancient world — but he’s the only one most people remember. This National Geographic documentary presents some of the rivals of Jesus and Judaism like Mithras, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Simon Bar Kochba, and Isis.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3126202689810625112(via)
Very interesting! Thanks
Great find! Thanks much!
Hmmm. These guys just didn’t get as good a press, did they? Jesus has a better messianic name then most, but Apollonius has some potential. It’s got Apple and Apollo roots….
But then again, it just doesn’t roll off the tongue if you need a good curse word, does it? Too many syllables. I’ll stick to Jesus for that one, I guess.
Interesting. They seemed a little too willing to present unverified claims as real events (baptism of Jesus by John the baptist, crucifixion of Jesus).
There was not one alternative Jesus, but several. Some thought Jesus was fully divine. Some thought Jesus fully human. Some thought Jesus fully divine and fully human, but not at the same time. (Source: Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus)
I got a kick out of this line: “[the New Testament] presents a consistent and coherent view of the life of Jesus.”
I got the impression some of the Biblical scholars crawl so deeply inside their work they lose touch with reality, like the one who said Jesus’ kissing of Mary Magdalene would have been perceived as religious, not sexual.
Finally, they left out a number of other rivals of Jesus:
Jesus vs. Hitler
This kind of thing is always an odd blend of caution and controversy. They want the ratings to spike, but they don’t want to get burned in effigy.
And they REALLY don’t want to show what the scholarship actually amounts to. They’d have to start with snapshots of a handful of documents, show 16 hours of historians engaging in turf wars, and end with the caption “damned if we know.”
OK, I’d probably watch that, but I can’t imagine too many others would.
Pingback: Rival “Messiahs” to Jesus. « The BEattitude
Wow great video thanks. It’s fascinating to me how much of the catholic church is pure tradition, blindly followed by the herd. Even the lent tradition of only eating fish on Friday was an old edict called ‘Fish Fridays’ in order to prop up the ailing fish industry at the time. That last part where they merged all the different traditions into Christianity in order to unite the realm was especially revealing.
When I was in Early Christianity, there was this story about Mithras and killing the Holy Bowl. I was totally baffled about the spilling of blood from the bowl.
“Why is there a giant floating bowl full of blood in teh sky?” I asked, thinking this was possibly the strangest ancient religion I’d yet encountered.
Who’d ever heard of a religion that deified dishware?
Anyway, it turned out that Mithras had spilled the blood of the holy BULL, which made a lot more sense. Sadly, I didn’t figure that out until I read the textbook later that week. Everyone in that class must have thought I was the biggest loser ever.
Good stuff. For anyone interested in digging deeper, I find “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong and “The Rise of Christianity” by Rodney Stark to be very good resources (fascinating in general).
Watched it from start to finish. It only underscores for me the role power, politics and economics plays in religion.
What about Ezekiel
Okay, it’s probably useless for me to comment on something like this, but I’ve read some of the comments and I feel inclined to say something. I am Christian, and yes there are churches that strive to persuade non-Christians to join them, with different methods. None spring to mind right now. My church, the New Apostolic Church, does strive to draw others to our religion, our denomination, but we do so in a peaceful manner. We believe in acting as God does, in the belief that he offers man a choice to follow him, so we give others the choice to join us. And for us, Jesus was more than a prophet. He was the Messiah, the Son of God, among many other names. And I don’t need proof to tell me that. That’s what faith’s all about. It goes beyond human understanding. And no church has all the answers, my church doesn’t claim that right either. So go on, discussing whether Jesus was as we believe He was, or whether He was a simple prophet. It doesn’t matter to me of affect my thinking.
I’m interested in your input. I have a couple of questions.
1) What do you think happens if one does not make the choice, when offered by your church, to follow Jesus?
2) What tells you that your faith, which you don’t need proof for, is any more likely to be correct than the faith of a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or Jew?
1.) You have to read the Holy Bible for yourself to find this answer. The scriptures tell us that if one chooses not to accept Jesus as,”The way, the truth and the light.”, damnation is where that individual will find themselves.
2.) Again proof is in the historical and religious writtings of each. Budda said,”I know the way.”, Confusist say,”I’ve seen the way.” Jesus said,”I am the way.” The choice is still up to you. If you believe that Jesus was man real as history proves, if you believe Jesus said the things that historical doccuments say he did, if you believe Jesus did the things he did as witnesses wrote of Jesus in the historical documents. Than you are a believer. It’s up to you after that. You can only make that move and no one else. There will always be delema’s to be searched out but that is an extremely personal thing.
Once again I hear this line and am forced to ask: What historical documents? What contemporary, reliable, third-party evidence exists for Jesus? Don’t give me that crap about what your apologetic “scholar” says – Give me actual evidence. You seem so certain it exists, so it should be easy to find, right?
Many of us here have read the bible, and basically everyone is aware of the concept of damnation. I think JohnMWhite’s point was that the god portrayed in christian doctrine is not the benevolent live-and-let-live type of god that David Hendricks was portraying him as. According to most christians (apparently including you), everyone must either accept their claims or burn for eternity. It sort of undermines the christians who keep saying that god is love. Maybe you guys should hold some sort of ecumenical council and decide whether christians believe in hell so you can present a unified argument.
The question here is, if you choose your religious beliefs on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, why do you think they are more likely to be true than the other religions which make similar claims and are tied at no evidence.
If the witnesses and historical documents you are referring to are the gospels, those are not witnesses, nor do they claim to be (Luke explicitly claims to have not witnessed anything he’s writing about). They are four anonymous documents most likely written between 70 and 120 AD by people who almost certainly never met Jesus. There is no Mark or Luke mentioned in any of the gospels. Matthew doesn’t meet Jesus until too far into Matthew to qualify as a witness (if Matthew was the author of Matthew). And John doesn’t seem to recall any details of the synaptic narrative (which would be a little weird if he was there for most of it).
That they are clearly not witnesses, along with the provably wrong statements about historical events, demonstrably wrong stories about things historians would have noticed, unverifiable miracle claims, conflicting biblical accounts on nearly every detail the gospels mention, and the obvious misquoting of source material (in this case the old testament) makes them somewhat less than reliable as historical documents.
If the historical witnesses you are referring to are Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny etc, those aren’t actually witnesses either.
Buddhism is a very vague religion. If not for the existence of Buddhist religious traditions and Buddhist theocracies (and dogmatic reverence for the various supposed incarnations of the Buddha) it would be more right to call it a school of philosophy than a religion. Confucianism literally is a school of philosophy and not a religion (though Confucius did claim a prophet-like authority, and the post-Confucius history of Confucianism is heavily interwoven with Taoism). The base teachings of Buddhism and Confucianism make no statement about whether there is a god or what kind of god it would be. Neither are in conflict with christianity. It is entirely possible for one person to simultaneously be a christian, a buddhist, and a confucianist.
Islam on the other hand, is in conflict with christianity. There is no way that both could be true. And neither has any evidence to suggest it is truer than the other. And both promise damnation to those who don’t believe in them. So to rephrase John’s question a little more specifically.
Why do you find christianity more convincing than Islam?
There is actually no historical proof that Jesus Christ lived as a human being on earth. You refer to the Bible and say “read the Bible”, but the Bible is not a history book. In fact, the Roman Catholic church decided which books should be placed in the Bible and in which order.
The Romans kept good record of everything and even when they conquered cities, did they record everything and kept the records locked away.
(In this writing, I am quoting from the 1611 King James Bible)
Now my questions:
1. Where are the records of Joseph, Mary and Jesus?
Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
Luk 2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Luk 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
Luk 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
Luk 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
To be “taxed” =
apographĹŤ
Thayer Definition:
1) to write off, copy (from some pattern)
2) to enter in a register or records
2a) spec. to enter in public records the names of men, their property and income
2b) to enrol
2. What about the relationship between Jesus and John. According to the Bible, they were family, yet John did not mention this when he baptized Jesus.
John = “Jehovah is a gracious giver”
1) John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth, the forerunner of Christ. By order of Herod Antipas he was cast into prison and afterwards beheaded.
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luk 1:57 Now Elisabeth’s full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.
Luk 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.
Luk 1:59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
Luk 1:60 And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
Luk 1:61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.
Luk 1:62 And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
Luk 1:63 And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.
Luk 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Luk 3:4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Joh 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
Joh 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Joh 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
3. Why did John say in Joh 1:33 “And I knew him not:”? Was he lying?
According to the Bible, Jesus had 3 fathers
a) Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
b) Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
c) Joh 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
And Joseph (the father of Jesus) also had 3 fathers.
a) Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
b) Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
c) Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
4. How is it possible for someone to have 3 fathers (not a father, a step-father and a godfather)
While it is clear there are those cynical and critical of Jesus of Nazereth today as it was in that time, I remind those who only seek comparison for wealths of knowledge.
Even the authors of comment bring a bit of turmoil to the table.
There are many historical spins to the actions and cause of Jesus of Nazereth. Peace, love and kindness are apirations of transending hopes of God to mankind in the Jesus of Nazereth message and the other messages fall short of that.
There are some in history who want to ascend themselves to the levels of Jesus of Nazereth and there are others who want to tear apart those messages. As in that day we still find things of this nature. The proof can be found even in the comments posted on this site. I remind those who seek only knowledge of this.
Many prophets have spoken the message of peace and love. It is part of what Jesus is alleged to have said. And it’s a really good message.
I fail to see how it becomes any better by being attached to a demigod.
Yoda would make a good curse word. “Yoda!”
So would “Calvin!”
And maybe even “Paul!”
Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus – Excellent resource!
“Jesus’ kissing of Mary Magdalene would have been perceived as religious, not sexual.” This is a chilling statement …on so many levels. I can think of so many victims in modern times who have heard something like this, and it is all to familiar to them. Again, chilling!
It’s also chilling and horrifying that christians are “2 billion strong”. Their maniacal, even demonic, desire to control others by force is greater than any other religion I’ve seen. (With the possible exception of extreme Islam.)
Hindus, Buddhists and Jews being 2 billion strong I’m OK with; they don’t have that blood-curdling desire to force everyone else into line with their own beliefs.
It’s also chilling and horrifying that christians are “2 billion strong”.
That would depend on who qualifies as a “Christian.” Remember that some Protestants (e.g. some Southern Baptists I have met) do not consider Catholics to be Christian. And are the Mormons Christians? The lack of unity cuts into the force of the numbers.