Jump to content

The Writers Who Knew Nothing About Jesus


thunderbolt
 Share

Recommended Posts

The contemporaries in Jesus’ time who does not write a single word about him (give and take a couple of forgeries):

 

Josephus (disputed forgery)

Arrian

Philo-Judaeus

Petronius

Dion Pruseus

Pliny the Elder

Paterculus

Suentonius

Appian

Juvenal

Theon of Smyran

Martial

Phlegon

Persius

Pompon Mela

Plutarch

Quintius Curtius

Justus of Tiberius

Lucian

Appolonius

Pausanius

Pliny the Younger (rejected by most scholars)

Valerius Flaccus

Tacitus (disputed)

Florus Lucius

Quintilian

Favorinus

Lacanus

Phaedrus

Epictetus

Damis

Slius Italicus

Aulus Gellius

Statius

Columnella

Ptolemy

Dio Chrysostom

Hermogones

Lysias

Valerius Maximus

 

Jesus: Fact or fiction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the pivotal issue with regards to Christianity, isn't it? Did this person named Jesus ever actually exist? It's taken for granted by so many people, that it's quite an eye-opener when you realize that there is a very good possibility that the entire story is fictional.

 

Take away this god-man having actually walked the earth, and the entire thing becomes just another excursion into the imaginations of human beings.

 

Here is a pretty good little article by Lee Salisbury about the pervasive silence from the first century concerning this enigma called Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might as well add to that list Paul and his disciples as well.

 

Sure, they talked about Jesus a lot, but always in a spiritual sense, never a physical sense. In all the earliest documents (prior to the gospels), there is hardly one word about the "life" or deeds of Jesus.

 

Add to that the obviously plagiarized nature of virtually everything in the gospels, and it is the most telling evidence of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Paul never makes any references to when he met Jesus in person, but only when he met Jesus in a vision. He got his whole "insight" into Christianity through revelations, while he was on a 3 year trip to Persia. He didn't even speak to the disciples.

 

If Paul really had met Jesus in life (even as an enemy and an unbeliever) I find it really strange that he doesn't mention it, or compare his former and newer self. It would have been a strong testimony to tell the Romans "I met Jesus, and I hated him, even though he did miracles, I didn't believe, then I met him in a vision, and now I believe"... something like that. Wouldn't references of that kind made a strong impression? I think so. And the reason why he doesn't, is because he never met Jesus in person.

 

And since the disciples didn't write the Gospels, but it was hearsay, there's a chance those "apostels" never really existed, or they had a completely different Gospel, and that message was distorted into something else after Jerusalem's destruction in 70 CE. I believe the apostels did exist, but they had a completely different religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Mythra

 

Added to my favorites. I tend to lean towards myth as well.

I don't know if you have this one already, but if not it's got some great insights into the question:

 

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

 

Take away this god-man having actually walked the earth, and the entire thing becomes just another excursion into the imaginations of human beings.

I tend to lean toward the mythicist camp myself, but even if there was some original guy of little importance who was later transformed into a god/man hero myth by relgious devotees and politicians, I would still say that qualifies as an excursion into human creative too. Would you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Mythra

 

Added to my favorites. I tend to lean towards myth as well.

I don't know if you have this one already, but if not it's got some great insights into the question:

 

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

 

Take away this god-man having actually walked the earth, and the entire thing becomes just another excursion into the imaginations of human beings.

I tend to lean toward the mythicist camp myself, but even if there was some original guy of little importance who was later transformed into a god/man hero myth by relgious devotees and politicians, I would still say that qualifies as an excursion into human creative too. Would you agree?

Hi Antlerman

 

I love Doherty's work, and I have personally checked with some other historians, and his references checks out for the most part. But I totally AGREE, even if not myth, Jesus was just some guy who was deified after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I totally AGREE, even if not myth, Jesus was just some guy who was deified after the fact.

Just a weird thought that crossed my mind as I'm sipping a New Castle at home, what if you were able to come back 100 years after your death to find out that you had been transformed by some religious sect into having been God in human flesh while you were alive? I mean, wow, it's one thing to be remembered as some larger than life figure, but GOD? What a head trip!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I totally AGREE, even if not myth, Jesus was just some guy who was deified after the fact.

Just a weird thought that crossed my mind as I'm sipping a New Castle at home, what if you were able to come back 100 years after your death to find out that you had been transformed by some religious sect into having been God in human flesh while you were alive? I mean, wow, it's one thing to be remembered as some larger than life figure, but GOD? What a head trip!

True - maybe that was the goal of all mortal gods, or man's way to reach "immortality." Antlerman - I LIKE your mind. Keep it up.

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.