Yes, There Was A Historical Jesus

[Abiyoyo]

There is much topic going around about the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Christ was recorded by Tacitus, who was a historian, as existing and being persecuted by Pilate between 26AD and 36AD. Tacitus who was a historian in that surrounding era of which we have the knowledge of much of Roman government of that time to thank.

 

Like I said, I hear a lot of refutes to this so I figured I would start a topic because from what I have studied, I haven't seen one as of yet and would like to open up to anyone else research that discredits the history.

[Shyone]

There is much topic going around about the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Christ was recorded by Tacitus, who was a historian, as existing and being persecuted by Pilate between 26AD and 36AD. Tacitus who was a historian in that surrounding era of which we have the knowledge of much of Roman government of that time to thank.

 

Like I said, I hear a lot of refutes to this so I figured I would start a topic because from what I have studied, I haven't seen one as of yet and would like to open up to anyone else research that discredits the history.

Tacitus was a historian, not a news anchor.

 

He published his 5th book of the histories some time after 96 AD, about 60 years after Jesus died. By that time, the gospels were mostly written, Paul had visited Rome, and so the information that Tacitus used when referring to the Great Jewish Revolt, or and specific characters, was not from his personal knowledge or research.

 

From that alone, it is Christian heresay.

 

Were you aware that the passage does not exist in any document prior to the 11th century as a Christian scribal copy?

 

Why do you suppose that Jesus was a real person? Isn't it because you were told that? If you asked someone who also believed that Jesus was real, what would they say? Would your personal statement be more believable than Tacitus?

 

It also seems Tacitus, or someone who interpolated this text, made some mistakes that Tacitus in particular would be loathe to make.

 

I think Christians, looking through ancient texts, were shocked an embarrassed by the complete absence of mention of the Greatest Human On Earth. He wasn't there. But He had to be there. What to do, what to do?

 

It is sad that Christians feel the need to lie to support their beliefs. It still goes on today.

[oddbird1963]

Sources generally cited as historic confirmation of the existence of a person pointed to as "the" historical Jesus are generally poor as Shyone has just pointed out by decimating Tacitus as a reliable source of historic confirmation.

 

We just do not have strong enough evidence to conclude that a person remotely fitting the person named Jesus as depicted in the New Testament ever existed.

 

If a single flesh and blood person was used as the basis of the stories we find in the gospels, any shreds of evidence are lost to us in a fog of uncertainty. Thanks to the fact that stories were told in the form of orally transmitted "pericopes" which were susceptible to elaboration and adaptation, the details asserted about Jesus' life in the New Testament will forever be shrouded in a cloak of uncertainty and unreliability. Of course the obvious addition of "facts" to the stories of Jesus life from earlier gospel to later gospels is another clue that the Jesus of the New Testament is more myth than reality.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

It is sad that Christians feel the need to lie to support their beliefs. It still goes on today.

 

It's not a lie, it's just not enough for you to worship Jesus anymore. Sadly, every skeptic that has left Christianity has to conform to the skeptics standards as well, just like those lying Christians.

 

Who did Tacitus copy? Who did they copy? Have you researched that?

 

See that is the point, about what you said of the passage. You are willing to deny the authenticity placed on this work from classical antiquity just to twist it around and say Jesus didn't exist. Same thing my friend, same thing.

[Abiyoyo]

Sources generally cited as historic confirmation of the existence of a person pointed to as "the" historical Jesus are generally poor as Shyone has just pointed out by decimating Tacitus as a reliable source of historic confirmation.

 

We just do not have strong enough evidence to conclude that a person remotely fitting the person named Jesus as depicted in the New Testament ever existed.

 

If a single flesh and blood person was used as the basis of the stories we find in the gospels, any shreds of evidence are lost to us in a fog of uncertainty. Thanks to the fact that stories were told in the form of orally transmitted "pericopes" which were susceptible to elaboration and adaptation, the details asserted about Jesus' life in the New Testament will forever be shrouded in a cloak of uncertainty and unreliability. Of course the obvious addition of "facts" to the stories of Jesus life from earlier gospel to later gospels is another clue that the Jesus of the New Testament is more myth than reality.

 

Again, you deny classical antiquity here just as Shyone just to say Jesus didn't exist, which is a lie, not the other way around. Just because He existed doesn't mean He was God's Son or anything else, but it does place Him as existent.

 

I think it is a great thing that we have reference outside of Catholic history that collaborates with Jesus existing. I could sit here all day and say scientists have dated the tomb of Paul to be 1st/2nd century, or the inscriptions from 400AD saying this is the tomb of the apostle Paul the martyr. But, I know you will say as the Christians, ..the church did it.

[Shyone]

 

 

It is sad that Christians feel the need to lie to support their beliefs. It still goes on today.

 

It's not a lie, it's just not enough for you to worship Jesus anymore. Sadly, every skeptic that has left Christianity has to conform to the skeptics standards as well, just like those lying Christians.

 

Who did Tacitus copy? Who did they copy? Have you researched that?

 

See that is the point, about what you said of the passage. You are willing to deny the authenticity placed on this work from classical antiquity just to twist it around and say Jesus didn't exist. Same thing my friend, same thing.

I was referring to Pious Fraud. You are aware of this, aren't you? If not, you might want to read the link or do your own search.

 

You seem to misunderstand the basis for my criticism. I have nothing against Tacitus or his work. You can read about his sources although he didn't bother to document everything he wrote. Basically, the problem is that several factors suggest that he didn't write the passage in question at all. A Christian scribe inserted the text, or "interpolated" as the word preferred for the manipulation of text that the fraudster thought should be in the body of work but wasn't.

 

Seriously, there are errors that Tacitus would not have made. It would be like if you were said by a later historian that the Holy Spirit was named Gabriel and someone put that in your diary. You would do what Tacitus did: Role over in your grave.

 

It really doesn't matter if Jesus, or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard or Marcus Welby really existed or not. Truly, it doesn't matter to me. I dislike fraud and liars whether religious, secular of fictional.

 

Part of the problem with pious fraud is that it exists. People have lied. And when people start lying about something, and then someone else comes with "evidence" that says the same thing that the person lied about, you have to really consider the possibility that this evidence is tainted.

[Shyone]

 

I think it is a great thing that we have reference outside of Catholic history that collaborates with Jesus existing.

 

You have zeroed in on the problem. You think it's great that Tacitus and Josephus "documented Jesus' existence".

 

So did the ancients who were under some pressure by the gnostics to show that Jesus was not just a "spirit" of some sort but a real man of flesh.

 

Unfortunately, it wasn't there. You could pick up a book and start reading, and right where Jesus' story should be is nothing.

 

So you, the pious scribe, in possession of the only known copies of these historians' documents, familiar with the style of the writer, the gospels, the letters and the church's doctrines see an opportunity to "correct" Tacitus or Josephus. There wouldn't be those inconvenient "gaps" in the history, and the writing that YOU have done proves that Jesus existed - which you knew anyway from other sources.

 

It sure beats the hell out of saying, "I don't know why there is no mention of Jesus in the writings of the ancient historians..."

 

Yep, "it is a great thing."

[chefranden]

There is much topic going around about the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Christ was recorded by Tacitus, who was a historian, as existing and being persecuted by Pilate between 26AD and 36AD. Tacitus who was a historian in that surrounding era of which we have the knowledge of much of Roman government of that time to thank.

 

Like I said, I hear a lot of refutes to this so I figured I would start a topic because from what I have studied, I haven't seen one as of yet and would like to open up to anyone else research that discredits the history.

 

The supposed passage:

 

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 Chrestians 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. 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

 

Written in 116 if authentic. Tacitus could well just be reporting what the Chrestians claimed. He might even have believed that this Christus fellow was real. But this is pretty tenuous evidence. Certainly it is not a primary source like say a report written by Pilatus would have been. Nevertheless I tend to think there could well have been a Jew named Joshua that started a Jewish sect that Paul later morphed into a gentile cult. If this Joshua existed nothing very much real is known about him. Old Josh, who ever he may have been, was lost in legend making the Jesus you think you know unhistorical.

[Shyone]

There is much topic going around about the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Christ was recorded by Tacitus, who was a historian, as existing and being persecuted by Pilate between 26AD and 36AD. Tacitus who was a historian in that surrounding era of which we have the knowledge of much of Roman government of that time to thank.

 

Like I said, I hear a lot of refutes to this so I figured I would start a topic because from what I have studied, I haven't seen one as of yet and would like to open up to anyone else research that discredits the history.

 

The supposed passage:

 

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 Chrestians 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. 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

 

Written in 116 if authentic. Tacitus could well just be reporting what the Chrestians claimed. He might even have believed that this Christus fellow was real. But this is pretty tenuous evidence. Certainly it is not a primary source like say a report written by Pilatus would have been. Nevertheless I tend to think there could well have been a Jew named Joshua that started a Jewish sect that Paul later morphed into a gentile cult. If this Joshua existed nothing very much real is known about him. Old Josh, who ever he may have been, was lost in legend making the Jesus you think you know unhistorical.

It might be worth pointing out that to Pilate, Jesus was not known as "Christ". To put it differently, the word Christ would have had no significance to Pilate.

 

If Tacitus was documenting the persecution of the Chrestians (sic), he was passing along third hand information.

 

The only problems relate to the style, substance and the provenance.

[Abiyoyo]

 

I think it is a great thing that we have reference outside of Catholic history that collaborates with Jesus existing.

 

You have zeroed in on the problem. You think it's great that Tacitus and Josephus "documented Jesus' existence".

 

So did the ancients who were under some pressure by the gnostics to show that Jesus was not just a "spirit" of some sort but a real man of flesh.

 

Unfortunately, it wasn't there. You could pick up a book and start reading, and right where Jesus' story should be is nothing.

 

So you, the pious scribe, in possession of the only known copies of these historians' documents, familiar with the style of the writer, the gospels, the letters and the church's doctrines see an opportunity to "correct" Tacitus or Josephus. There wouldn't be those inconvenient "gaps" in the history, and the writing that YOU have done proves that Jesus existed - which you knew anyway from other sources.

 

It sure beats the hell out of saying, "I don't know why there is no mention of Jesus in the writings of the ancient historians..."

 

Yep, "it is a great thing."

 

 

There is much topic going around about the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Christ was recorded by Tacitus, who was a historian, as existing and being persecuted by Pilate between 26AD and 36AD. Tacitus who was a historian in that surrounding era of which we have the knowledge of much of Roman government of that time to thank.

 

Like I said, I hear a lot of refutes to this so I figured I would start a topic because from what I have studied, I haven't seen one as of yet and would like to open up to anyone else research that discredits the history.

 

The supposed passage:

 

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 Chrestians 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. 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

 

Written in 116 if authentic. Tacitus could well just be reporting what the Chrestians claimed. He might even have believed that this Christus fellow was real. But this is pretty tenuous evidence. Certainly it is not a primary source like say a report written by Pilatus would have been. Nevertheless I tend to think there could well have been a Jew named Joshua that started a Jewish sect that Paul later morphed into a gentile cult. If this Joshua existed nothing very much real is known about him. Old Josh, who ever he may have been, was lost in legend making the Jesus you think you know unhistorical.

 

 

There is much topic going around about the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Christ was recorded by Tacitus, who was a historian, as existing and being persecuted by Pilate between 26AD and 36AD. Tacitus who was a historian in that surrounding era of which we have the knowledge of much of Roman government of that time to thank.

 

Like I said, I hear a lot of refutes to this so I figured I would start a topic because from what I have studied, I haven't seen one as of yet and would like to open up to anyone else research that discredits the history.

 

The supposed passage:

 

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 Chrestians 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. 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

 

Written in 116 if authentic. Tacitus could well just be reporting what the Chrestians claimed. He might even have believed that this Christus fellow was real. But this is pretty tenuous evidence. Certainly it is not a primary source like say a report written by Pilatus would have been. Nevertheless I tend to think there could well have been a Jew named Joshua that started a Jewish sect that Paul later morphed into a gentile cult. If this Joshua existed nothing very much real is known about him. Old Josh, who ever he may have been, was lost in legend making the Jesus you think you know unhistorical.

It might be worth pointing out that to Pilate, Jesus was not known as "Christ". To put it differently, the word Christ would have had no significance to Pilate.

 

If Tacitus was documenting the persecution of the Chrestians (sic), he was passing along third hand information.

 

The only problems relate to the style, substance and the provenance.

 

I had a similar debate around a year ago with Heimdall about Tacitus being forged. Look guys, there are alot of things that float around the validity of early Christian documents, but, as far as the Tacitus account, scholarly agreement is that it is not forged. Heimdall and I debated this, and the only source I could find that claimed it was forged was on wiki.

 

This is a link he referred me which at the end if you keep reading states that if a change was made, it was by the same author. Heimdall contended a few other notions elaborating early writings and told me that the study is still young and not substantiated completely. Hers the link to the site he referred. And he agreed that it wasn't forged.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9463515/The-Ques...n-e-llumination

This is the thread about it.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/23970-the-trouble-with-timelines/page__st__20

 

 

Until some substantial evidence is provided that it is not copied, then I will take it as legit, at least for history that is.

[florduh]

It seems likely to me that the Jesus character in the NT writings would be based on a real person, but I haven't found evidence to confirm that. As is sometimes the case, a single character might have been built upon a composite of several real people. So far, we have no reliable or corroborating historical data that I know of to confirm anything either way.

[R. S. Martin]

There is much topic going around about the idea that Jesus didn't exist.

 

Abiyoyo, test question: Why does it matter to you whether or not Jesus existed historically?

[Shyone]

 

I had a similar debate around a year ago with Heimdall about Tacitus being forged. Look guys, there are alot of things that float around the validity of early Christian documents, but, as far as the Tacitus account, scholarly agreement is that it is not forged. Heimdall and I debated this, and the only source I could find that claimed it was forged was on wiki.

 

This is a link he referred me which at the end if you keep reading states that if a change was made, it was by the same author. Heimdall contended a few other notions elaborating early writings and told me that the study is still young and not substantiated completely. Hers the link to the site he referred. And he agreed that it wasn't forged.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9463515/The-Ques...n-e-llumination

This is the thread about it.

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/23970-the-trouble-with-timelines/page__st__20

 

 

Until some substantial evidence is provided that it is not copied, then I will take it as legit, at least for history that is.

The first link is deleted.

 

I'm not sure that Tacitus, legit or not, proves what you hope it will prove.

 

Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and Jesus: Why These Writers Don't Prove Jesus Existed

 

For a detailed analysis of the ancient historians and how they are being views (both by scholars AND Christians - ahem), see the following link:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

 

You are, after all, arguing that there was a historical Jesus, are you not?

 

The issue of early Christian forgeries is a sad phenomenon that destroys trust, and faith is trust, and so suddenly everything written by a Christian (or owned by a Christian, or copied by a Christian) becomes suspect. Including the bible itself.

[R. S. Martin]

It seems likely to me that the Jesus character in the NT writings would be based on a real person, but I haven't found evidence to confirm that. As is sometimes the case, a single character might have been built upon a composite of several real people. So far, we have no reliable or corroborating historical data that I know of to confirm anything either way.

 

As I read your post it occurs to me to ask: Considering that the fate--real or imagined--of so vast proportions of the human population throughout the past two millenia has been strongly impacted by the Christian religion, why don't we have any "reliable or corroborating historical data...to confirm anything either way"?

 

They say that "absence of evidence does not prove evidence of absence." However, if one seeks exhaustively without finding for long enough, it is time to move on and assume the absent item either does not exist or is irrelevant. I grew up in a large family living in a relatively large house with many rooms. Losing items (clothing, toys, school things) was a daily occurrence and one had to develop a floor-to-ceiling system for finding lost items in back corners under other stuff behind furniture. Come to think of it, so do rescue workers, esp. in cases of house fires and earthquakes, etc., when the number of residents is not known.

 

I think if we have searched every inch of floor, wall, and ceiling and come up empty, we are justified in concluding that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

At precisely this point, the concept of "motivation" tends to be thrown in, i.e. "You have to be sincere/genuine in your desire because God has promised to let himself be found of the sincere/genuine seeker." Abiyoyo, you raised this issue early on in this thread. You accused someone of "no longer" wanting to believe in Christ. Note the word "want." That speaks of motivation. I'm not sure on what you based such accusation because you don't provide the evidence on which you make your charge.

 

If we believe because we want to believe...Excuse me, but where is the line between imagination and reality? This is why I insist on empirical historical evidence. And the evidence has to be as solid as any argument I have to present for top grades in an academic paper. The argument my devout Christian professor presented for the historical Jesus fell short and he admitted it--sort of. He had Tacitus and all the other "evidences" on hand. Not a single one is authentic first person testimony.

 

Shyone, where can I read about the Gnostics pressuring the "ancients"for "evidence" that Jesus was a historical person, as you mention inPost 7?

[Shyone]

 

Shyone, where can I read about the Gnostics pressuring the "ancients"for "evidence" that Jesus was a historical person, as you mention inPost 7?

Let's see.. I ran across this while researching the authorship of 2 Peter.

 

But it is the Gnostics of the second century who have opposed the parousia and reinterpreted it along spiritualistic lines. It is probably also they who are meant by the proclaimers of the "clever myths" (1:16) and of "knowledge" (see point 2). Characteristic of them are the libertinism and the insolent disrespect for spirit powers (see point 1). II Pet is therefore aimed against a movement which bears the essential features of second-century gnosis.

 

I should explain that the Docetists and Gnostics were not convinced of Jesus' physical nature or the physical resurrection, so the burden of establishing the physical nature fell on the Church. Hence the "pressure" to establish a real, historical physical Jesus.

 

This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, many of whom believed that matter was evil, and as a result God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil, lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.

 

Docetism can be further explained as the view that since the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus must have been an illusion and, likewise, his crucifixion. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view.

 

Anyway, in response to the Gnostics, Ireneas and Tertullian cranked up the importance of the physical stuff, and hunt for the "evidence" proving Jesus was real began in earnest.

[qadeshet]

There is much topic going around about the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Christ was recorded by Tacitus, who was a historian, as existing and being persecuted by Pilate between 26AD and 36AD. Tacitus who was a historian in that surrounding era of which we have the knowledge of much of Roman government of that time to thank.

 

The so called Annals of Tacitus were never mentioned by any ancient writer. They were "discovered" by Johannes de Spire in 1468. No mention of this passage was made prior to the 15th century. However, forgery or not, the fact remains that there is not even one contemporary reference to Jesus, not by any writer or historian who would have been alive at the same time. The Gospel Jesus never existed.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

The issue of early Christian forgeries is a sad phenomenon that destroys trust, and faith is trust, and so suddenly everything written by a Christian (or owned by a Christian, or copied by a Christian) becomes suspect. Including the bible itself.

 

I found this opinion interesting.

 

 

© No other ancient writers mention the conversion. Obviously Tiberius' deeds were of interest to contemporary writers of the time. (After all, he was Caesar.) Moreover, had Tiberius become a Christian, this would not have been just another one of his deeds; this would have been the most significant event in Roman history: the Pontifex Maximus, priest of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, renouncing the protection of the gods of Rome in favor of a hated foreign Jewish cult? Yet not one contemporary writer corroborates Tertullian's second- or third-century report.[16]

 

(d) The passage is very late and is therefore unreliable. Even McDowell will admit that one hundred years is enough time for legendary development. Since we have no hint of this tradition before Tertullian's writing in the late second- or early third-century, this passage is therefore highly suspect.

 

I found that to be the exact truth, just as, if Christ was not real, just, then Apollo wouldn't have said that he was silenced because of the 'just on the Earth'.

 

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/423675

http://books.google.com/books?id=QXPA5iCjapUC&pg=PA847&lpg=PA848&ots=hUkN1cXLc0&dq=Eusebius,+Vita+Constantini+2.50

[Shyone]

 

 

The issue of early Christian forgeries is a sad phenomenon that destroys trust, and faith is trust, and so suddenly everything written by a Christian (or owned by a Christian, or copied by a Christian) becomes suspect. Including the bible itself.

 

I found this opinion interesting.

 

 

© No other ancient writers mention the conversion. Obviously Tiberius' deeds were of interest to contemporary writers of the time. (After all, he was Caesar.) Moreover, had Tiberius become a Christian, this would not have been just another one of his deeds; this would have been the most significant event in Roman history: the Pontifex Maximus, priest of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, renouncing the protection of the gods of Rome in favor of a hated foreign Jewish cult? Yet not one contemporary writer corroborates Tertullian's second- or third-century report.[16]

 

(d) The passage is very late and is therefore unreliable. Even McDowell will admit that one hundred years is enough time for legendary development. Since we have no hint of this tradition before Tertullian's writing in the late second- or early third-century, this passage is therefore highly suspect.

 

I found that to be the exact truth, just as, if Christ was not real, just, then Apollo wouldn't have said that he was silenced because of the 'just on the Earth'.

 

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/423675

http://books.google.com/books?id=QXPA5iCjapUC&pg=PA847&lpg=PA848&ots=hUkN1cXLc0&dq=Eusebius,+Vita+Constantini+2.50

The passage you quoted argues against a historical Jesus in the sense that Tertullian is supposed to have claimed something incorroborated by other writers. Pious Fraud.

 

Liars for Jesus. Whatever. Again, I can't believe you are quoting this as some kind of evidence of Jesus, or that he was "real", whatever that means.

 

Here's a little ditty on "Eusebius the Forger."

 

http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/fathereusebiustheforger.html

[Abiyoyo]

There is much topic going around about the idea that Jesus didn't exist. Christ was recorded by Tacitus, who was a historian, as existing and being persecuted by Pilate between 26AD and 36AD. Tacitus who was a historian in that surrounding era of which we have the knowledge of much of Roman government of that time to thank.

 

The so called Annals of Tacitus were never mentioned by any ancient writer. They were "discovered" by Johannes de Spire in 1468. No mention of this passage was made prior to the 15th century. However, forgery or not, the fact remains that there is not even one contemporary reference to Jesus, not by any writer or historian who would have been alive at the same time. The Gospel Jesus never existed.

 

 

Well, that's not true. True among debates with skeptics, because a skeptic sometimes is like a fundamentalist Christian, they make it what they want. There are many references to Christians, the movement, the Apostles. The problem is that skeptics discredit them and put them on a higher level, one like the Bible.

 

The difference is that the Bible was composed by their heritage. Christ's was not liked by either Romans or any Jews that would have been influential at the time, which makes for the displaced literature about Him. We have documents, but they all get scratched off as, "Don't count".

 

Honestly, after this statement, and the others in pure redundancy; I wish I had never started this topic and probably won't be back to it much.

 

The reason is that history can't be history with the skeptic. It always becomes more than that. I have heard it said here before that, "We should have more than this for the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ"

 

All I will say is that even the Jews don't disagree that he existed and they think he was a false prophet. What more do people need?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

The issue of early Christian forgeries is a sad phenomenon that destroys trust, and faith is trust, and so suddenly everything written by a Christian (or owned by a Christian, or copied by a Christian) becomes suspect. Including the bible itself.

 

I found this opinion interesting.

 

 

© No other ancient writers mention the conversion. Obviously Tiberius' deeds were of interest to contemporary writers of the time. (After all, he was Caesar.) Moreover, had Tiberius become a Christian, this would not have been just another one of his deeds; this would have been the most significant event in Roman history: the Pontifex Maximus, priest of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, renouncing the protection of the gods of Rome in favor of a hated foreign Jewish cult? Yet not one contemporary writer corroborates Tertullian's second- or third-century report.[16]

 

(d) The passage is very late and is therefore unreliable. Even McDowell will admit that one hundred years is enough time for legendary development. Since we have no hint of this tradition before Tertullian's writing in the late second- or early third-century, this passage is therefore highly suspect.

 

I found that to be the exact truth, just as, if Christ was not real, just, then Apollo wouldn't have said that he was silenced because of the 'just on the Earth'.

 

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/423675

http://books.google.com/books?id=QXPA5iCjapUC&pg=PA847&lpg=PA848&ots=hUkN1cXLc0&dq=Eusebius,+Vita+Constantini+2.50

The passage you quoted argues against a historical Jesus in the sense that Tertullian is supposed to have claimed something incorroborated by other writers. Pious Fraud.

 

Liars for Jesus. Whatever. Again, I can't believe you are quoting this as some kind of evidence of Jesus, or that he was "real", whatever that means.

 

Here's a little ditty on "Eusebius the Forger."

 

http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/fathereusebiustheforger.html

 

 

Things haven't changed have they Shyone. People will still think, hear, see what they want to believe. Didn't Jesus say that?

 

The Jews called Christ a liar too, hmmm.

 

But, 2000years later, ...they still call him a liar, and a false prophet.

 

Did you notice what I didn't say in that sentence?

 

I didn't say the Jews say that Jesus didn't live. Wouldn't they have to discredit their own if they did that?

 

Josephus was a Jew, ,....who Jews use for historical data.

 

To what benefit does Christ have to the Jews?

 

 

Haven't you heard Shyone??

 

Though it may have been altered, it is very plausible through other translations, versions that he did indeed, SPEAK OF THIS JESUS FELLOW

[Shyone]

 

The reason is that history can't be history with the skeptic. It always becomes more than that. I have heard it said here before that, "We should have more than this for the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ"

 

All I will say is that even the Jews don't disagree that he existed and they think he was a false prophet. What more do people need?

Actually, the push is from the other direction.

 

You would have us believe that there was a historical Jesus. I could concede that, but I would say it doesn't matter any more than that there was a historical L. Ron Hubbard. Big deal.

 

But you would then say, He existed, so he performed miracles, so he was the Christ, so he fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. And so on.

 

The bottom line is that this line of reasoning implies that there is a clearly defined set of events, notable throughout the world with no legendary or mythological quality, and this is proved by ancient writings attesting to his existence, actions, and divinity.

 

That isn't the case. To prove divinity requires a lot more than just a person, but it requires at least a person.

 

No one denies that there are Christians, or that there were Christians, but the movement seems to have actually begun in Greece rather than Jerusalem, and all accounts are second or third hand or forged.

 

Why are there forgeries at all? Have you stopped to consider that question? Why did the early Christian "fathers" see the necessity of creating a body of "proof" that there was actually a real person, unless there was either 1) insufficient evidence and/or 2) there was never a person in the first place.

 

Even the construction of the gospels shows evidence that some of the life and acts of Jesus are "created" from presumed prophecies from the OT. You could write your own gospel by cherry picking verses from the OT and attributing them to someone that is already "larger than life."

 

Here's an example:

 

and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.

 

But the OT says, "2. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall make a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself unto Jehovah,

 

[Or you can use Amos]

 

A confusion of words, and the birthplace and home of Jesus fade into the mists of time, possibly real, possibly just some guy's idea of where Jesus grew up based on this misunderstanding.

 

And so it is with any verse picked from the OT. Do you really think Jesus happened to spend time in Egypt, or was that some projection of an OT passage onto the mythological character of Jesus? Was there a real slaughter of innocents, or was that a projection of myth onto the Legend of Jesus?

 

Details of Jesus' life were missing, and the story's narrative incomplete, so since he "fulfilled prophecy" they took the approach that anything they could pick from the OT could become something that happened in Jesus' life - whether it really happened or not.

 

Was Jesus born in Bethlehem? Or did he have to be born there to fulfill the prophecy, and therefore, whether he was born there or not, he would be written to have been born there.

 

And the Legend Grows.

[bdp]

every skeptic that has left Christianity has to conform to the skeptics standards as well

 

Bullshit.

[bdp]

 

 

Honestly, after this statement, and the others in pure redundancy; I wish I had never started this topic and probably won't be back to it much.

 

 

Coward.

[chefranden]

I had a similar debate around a year ago with Heimdall about Tacitus being forged...

 

I come down on the side that the Tacitus passage is real. Nevertheless it strikes me as a report of hearsay, from the story the Christians told about their god. It is strong evidence that Christians existed and believed in Christ at the time of Tacitus, but then no one argues that. All I'm say is that if the passage is real then it falls far short of any "Ah ha! I told you so!" sort of thing. And it is a hell of a leap from this to the Christ of legend er of the Gospels. There was a Davy Crockett, but I doubt if he actually killed him a bar when he was only three. There was a Jew named Joshua, but I doubt that means that he turned water into wine and rose from the dead.

[par4dcourse]

 

Though it may have been altered, it is very plausible through other translations, versions that he did indeed, SPEAK OF THIS JESUS FELLOW

Speaking only for myself: I see no verifiable proof of a deity. That leads me to the conclusions: I don't believe in a divinity and I don't give a flying fuck if you do or not. For me at least, problem solved.