The Extra Biblical Evidence for the existence of Jesus

a reply to: windword

1st century Christians, as we understand them today, weren't the first Christians, not by a long shot.

In AD 134, after a visit to Alexandria, the Emperor Hadrian wrote a letter to his elderly brother-in-law, Servianus, in which he commented: "

That is after even the most skeptical date of Acts which is around 90 AD. So sorry Christianity predates that.

Second I can't find any manuscripts of this letter. This is quoted in roughly 300 AD by Flavius Vopiscus in Vita Saturnini 8.

books.google.com... =en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-073Xg8rOAhXJdSYKHS7oAGAQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=Flavius%20Vopiscus%20letter&f=false


According to this passage it is consider spurious, and should be used cautiously and only as a 3rd century witness.

Historia Augusta consists of the lives of most rulers from Hadrian (117-138) to Carinus (283-285).

List of books :Book by Aelius Lampridius, Aelius Spartianus, Flavius Vopiscus, Iulius Capitolinus, Trebellius Pollio, and Vulcacius Gallicanus


Not to mention it seems you have never read the letter in context

"Saturninus17 was a Gaul by birth, one of a nation that is ever most restless and always desirous of creating either an emperor or an empire.18 2 To this man, above all the other generals, because it seemed certain that he was truly the greatest, Aurelian had p399given the command of the Eastern frontier, wisely charging him never to visit Egypt.19 3 For, as we see, this far-sighted man was well acquainted with the Gallic character and feared that if Saturninus visited this turbulent land he might be drawn by association with the inhabitants to a course toward which he was by nature inclined. 4 For the Egyptians, as you know well enough, are puffed up, madmen,20 boastful, doers of injury, and, in fact, liars and without restraint, always craving something new, even in their popular songs, writers of verse, makers of epigrams, astrologers, soothsayers, quacksalvers. 5 Among them, indeed, are Christians and Samaritans and those who are always ill-pleased by the present, though enjoying unbounded liberty. 6 But, lest any Egyptian be angry with me, thinking that what I have set forth in writing is solely my own, I will cite one of Hadrian's letters, taken from the works of his freedman Phlegon,21 which fully reveals the character of the Egyptians.

8 1 Legamen ad paginam Latinam From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus22 the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. 2 There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. 3 There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. 4 Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, p401by others to worship Christ. 5 They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. 6 Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen23 or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle. 7 Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt. 8 I granted it every favour, I restored to it all its ancient rights and bestowed on it new ones besides, so that the people gave thanks to me while I was present among them. Then, no sooner had I departed thence than they said many things against my son Verus,24 and what they said about Antinous25 I believe you have learned. 9 I can only wish for them that they may live on their own chickens, which they breed in a fashion I am ashamed to describe.26 10 I am sending you over some cups, changing colour27 and variegated, presented to me by the priest of a temple and now dedicated particularly to you and my sister. I should like you to use them at banquets on feast-days. Take good care, however, that our dear Africanus28 does not use them too freely.""

The context is about the multitudes of religions they were following in the region. The author cites the letter to show these are not just his saying. In the letter Hadran is explaining that some who follow Serapis are actually Christians and vice versa.

Conclusion way to late to back up your original claim, not used by any serious scholar that I can find, and it doesn't really say what you were pretending it said.

a reply to: Akragon

He considers most IF not all of the sources you quoted as spurious and or edited by Christian scribes

From the quote you provided:

He is mentioned a couple of times within about 80 years of his life by two Roman sources (Pliny and Tacitus; I’m not sure Suetonius can be used).

So Ehrman agrees with my position on Pliny and Tacitus and says hes not sure about Suetonius.

And he is almost certainly referred to twice in the Jewish historian Josephus, once in an entire paragraph.

And he agrees that Josephus at least mentioned Jesus and I am pretty sure in a debate I was watching of his today he mentions that he thinks it has been partially interpolated as I have stated in the thread. So of the sources I've quoted one he mentions not being sure of. I see no mention of his opinion on some of the others.

The really compelling evidence, though, comes in the Christian sources.

In complete agreement here but this is extra biblical evidence so I didn't go into that.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That is after even the most skeptical date of Acts which is around 90 AD. So sorry Christianity predates that.

First of all, that citation confirms that there were other cults that called themselves Christians at the time, that could have been the very people that Pliny and Tacticus were referring to. So, the time period is on topic. Anyway, the Serapis Cult pre-dates Christianity, and so does the pagan concept of Christ.

Also, Acts isn't a historical document. And, we know that early followers of Paul were called "Nazarene" and followers of "The Way".

Hadran is explaining that some who follow Serapis are actually Christians and vice versa.

No. Serapis is not/was not Jesus. This is Christianity's attempt to rewrite history.

Christianity doesn't own "Christ". Christ is a pagan concept that pre-dates the advent of Jesus of Nazareth, if he even existed. That's a FACT! There were lots of "Christs" walking around in the 1st century.

Tacticus and Pliny do NOT prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

a reply to: windword

It was an existent Greek word. "Christ" isn't a concept owned by Jews, even though King Saul, King David, King Solomon and Cyrus the Great wore the "Christ" title. So did the Geek and Egyptian priests who had passed and were tasked to lead other through the Eleusinian Mysteries and baptism.

No but the Messiah and the two forms he would come in is a concept unique to Abrahmic religions. This source is bogus. I am not gonna waste my time reading something that long that isn't from a reputable source. I am trying to let historical sources and the evidence surrounding them speak for it selves. You seem to be googling and posting the first few things you can find on the topic.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

BS! Jesus of Nazareth doesn't fit the Jewish Messianic prophecies. "Christ" in the Septuagint doesn't refer to an human incarnation of Yahweh, who serves as a human sacrifice for the sins of the world and then is resurrected and flies up to heaven in a cloud.

It mean one who has been anointed to be warrior leader of Israel.

New Testament "Christ" is a superimposed, Hellenized bastardization of the pagan concept of Christ merged with Philo's Angel of the Lord, i.e. LOGOS.

Christ as the resurrected human person, "Jesus of Nazareth" is a completely made up myth.

a reply to: windword

First of all, that citation confirms that there were other cults that called themselves Christians at the time, that could have been the very people that Pliny and Tacticus were referring to

Its not considered a reputable source by anyone, and you'll be hard pressed to find any scholars that use it for what your saying. The only reference we have to this letter that I can find is from Flavius Vopiscus in 300AD. Pliny was writing between 109 and 111 CE. A good 20 years before this alleged event. Tacitus was some where around 109 C.E. You have one reference and the reference doesn't even fit what your saying. He is discussing the mix of religions in the area and the portion you are citing says "2 There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis." The context of the passage and middle school level reading comprehension shows that the author is trying to convey that people who were worshiping Serapis where closer to Christians and those worshiping Christ were closer to devotees of Serapis. Continue to read the letter and you get "3 There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. 4 Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ."

So sometimes this man was worshiping Serapis and other times worshiping Christ." Again describing people squashing religions together. Not describing a preexisting Christianity. Be pretty hard to worship Christ sometimes and Serapis other times if Christianity wasn't already around. Sorry but your beliefs simply aren't backed up by the evidence.

a reply to: windword

BS! Jesus of Nazareth doesn't fit the Jewish Messianic prophecies.

Oh okay which ones don't apply to Jesus?

"Christ" in the Septuagint doesn't refer to an human incarnation of Yahweh

It refers to the Jewish Messiah and the Messiah is definitely called God.. The writers are speaking of a specific Christ. I am not saying the mystery schools didn't use the word "Christ" to refer to the anointed ones, but pretending that is what is meant by the Gospel writers is dishonest.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"Christ" was a pagan concept. It was adopted by what we now call Christians through Paul's teachings. The Old Testament Messianic prophecies don't fit Jesus of Nazareth.

The Chistian concept of Christ, adopted by 1st century Jews came from Philo of Alexandria's concept of the pagan Christ being quite the same as the Jewish Angel of the Lord. He married the two concepts into the Christian concept of Christ that we enjoy today. It has nothing to do with a man, who may or may not have really existed, named Jesus of Nazareth.

Any historical references to "Christus" or Chrestus" do NOT confirm the existence of one "Jesus of Nazareth".

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

....but pretending that is what is meant by the Gospel writers is dishonest.

No! Pretending that John 1:1 is a messianic reference to the Old Testament messianic prophecies dishonest. To claim that John 1:1 is anything but plagiarism of Philo's LOGOS is dishonesty.

a reply to: windword

"Christ" was a pagan concept. It was adopted by what we now call Christians through Paul's teachings.

I don't care about your generalizations with nothing backing them up. I am not saying your wrong. I am saying show me.

The Chistian concept of Christ, adopted by 1st century Jews came from Philo of Alexandria's concept of the pagan Christ being quite the same as the Jewish Angel of the Lord. He married the two concepts into the Christian concept of Christ that we enjoy today. It has nothing to do with a man, who may or may not have really existed, named Jesus of Nazareth.

show me...

Any historical references to "Christus" or Chrestus" do NOT confirm the existence of one "Jesus of Nazareth".

Oh show me these other Christ who had a vast number of followers in the early second century based on a man who was crucified. You are making a lot of claims I don't think you can back up without silly sources with website design from 200 years ago lol.

a reply to: windword

No! Pretending that John 1:1 is a messianic reference to the Old Testament messianic prophecies dishonest.

I wasn't talking about John 1:1. I was talking about portions of the OT that call the messiah God such as Isaiah 9:6
"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore."

or

"The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f]"

This is a title and the title is God with us. The Messiah is God. If Jesus was the Messiah, then Jesus is God.

The Old Testament Messianic prophecies don't fit Jesus of Nazareth.

Oh really? Which ones? Specifics plz

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This thread is sooooo repetitive, and this subject so tedious.

Start here; www.sacred-texts.com...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Isaiah's hero is a personification of The Nation of Israel. You can't cherry pick parts of Isaiah, claiming Jesus fits the bill, and leave out all the other parts that don't align with the Christian version of Jesus, or the parts that Jesus doesn't fulfill.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f]"

Pure intellectual dishonesty. Either that or you're too ignorant to even discuss this subject.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You know, its like bashing your head on a wall, they dont know the truth
I had 30 pages going asking for empirical evidence for evolution, many atheists promised they had it would show it, made it clear they knew empirical evidence existed
No one showed any, 30 plus pages and all talk

Sometimes you just cant reason, you cant tell a person they have only opinion

The fundamentalist atheists are the ones who use words like, 'do NOT, is a completely made up myth, That's a FACT', when he cant know because he wasnt there and thats a fact

Cant reason with a Fundamentalist Servant of the Lamb, you just cant

a reply to: Raggedyman

Jesus Christ and HIS Christianity is a matter of faith, not fact. Don't try to prove what Jesus Christ, if he existed, didn't care to.

Laz is posting to bookmark. Will return later with evidence to be duly rejected by skeptics, but I will not be posting for the skeptics.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So Ehrman agrees with my position on Pliny and Tacitus and says hes not sure about Suetonius

Notice i said "most" of your sources... IF not all...

Scholars are far from unanimous on any extra biblical writings on Jesus... Most will say they are fraudulent, which includes Josephus... its only the Christian "apologetic scholars" that will accept every single shred of evidence for the most part

And he agrees that Josephus at least mentioned Jesus and I am pretty sure in a debate I was watching of his today he mentions that he thinks it has been partially interpolated as I have stated in the thread. So of the sources I've quoted one he mentions not being sure of. I see no mention of his opinion on some of the others.

that would be because most of the other references to Jesus are blatant forgeries... not even worthy of consideration. And there are many early 2nd to 4th century forgeries across the board that are attributed to certain people that did not write said documents... even in the NT

In complete agreement here but this is extra biblical evidence so I didn't go into that.

Fortunately i am not against you on this... but extra biblical evidence is lacking big time...

Though there isn't much reason to go outside of biblical references... Its still the earliest material we have

Im waiting on something from the 1st century to add the proverbial nail