List of early writers who could have mentioned Jesus

Greetings malice_devious,

what about the people who were christian antagonist and recorded things about Jesus and his followers and/or natural disasters surrounding a certain death; Thallus, Tacticus, Suetonius, Lucian, Josephus, Letter of Mara Bar Serapian, Pliny the Younger,

None of these references stand up under scrutiny, they are all either :
* forgeries
* far too LATE
* not about Jesus at all
* merely later response to Christian beliefs



TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)


Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation,
it is not evidence of a historical Jesus based on earlier Roman records,
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)


THALLUS date unknown

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote,
there are NONE of Thallus works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely refered to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a mis-reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is NO evidence for Jesus at all - merely Christian wishful thinking.


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "good") and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was,
* Jesus was never said to have lead the Jews in Rome into trouble during Claudius' time.

So, this passage is unlikely to refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all - I am surprised that this obviously un-related passage is cited so often.



LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.

So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely evidnce of much later ridicule of Christians.



JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)

An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
www.humanists.net...


In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)


But,
its COULD be actual evidence for Jesus. late, corrupt, but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.

Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.


MARA BAR SERAPION 3rd century? later?

A fragment which says -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.

It is NOT at all clear who this is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny refered to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.


So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.



Such is the evidnce for Jesus - late, suspect, or not even about Jesus.


Iasion

About Tacticus, 80 years is not so far away from the events. the children would still remember who Jesus was. so there were people alive to correct any errors that might have been recorded. the changes in the word procurator from prefect could have just been made out of revision, possibly how today instead of thou we say you. same with the word christ, that is how Jesus was identified, his story is that he is the sun of God not joseph. the stories were certainly circulating as the witnesses were still alive.

is it not possible that the eclipse could have been their darkness? why does it have to be christian wishful thinking? what if at the death of jesus there was an eclipse that caused the darkness?

your right, jesus did not raise a ruckus in rome, but Paul did, sometime after his encounter with Jesus. that changed him from a murderrer of christians to following christ himself.

yes, Lucian did not mention christ just christians.

it is said that things were added removed, who knows for sure but the link doesnt convince me either way because who knows what was removed and what wasnt. also, just because there "two" referrences worded similarly in the gospels as in josephus doesnt mean it was forged. the writer of the link kinda dances around a lot with it and doesnt really offer any convincing proofs it kinda just gives him as much reason to believe it was a forgery as it gives the christians reason to believe it is true. i grew board reading it because it was a waste of time, it just didnt cut to the point. like you said it is just possible, but as i say it is just possible both ways.

what king of their own did the jews murder? honestly, i cant think of any other than Jesus that he could be referring to.

again 80 years, still witnesses alive. tell me, is there anyone else who worshipped a christ and continued to worship any other than Jesus of nazareth to this day. therefore, it would be common knowledge that Jesus of Nazareth was the same christ referred to by Pliny. so, it is my conclusion that it is a referrance to Jesus. but to each his own.

Originally posted by malice_devious
About Tacticus, 80 years is not so far away from the events. the children would still remember who Jesus was.

Imagine yourself a descendant once or twice removed from the most important figure next to God himself, where belief in the glory of the second in command grants you everlasting life in heaven. Do you, extol his virtues; preach; write or dictate to others his works and miracles, or do you say nothing and content yourself with obscurity? The latter is highly unlikely, for such is the nature of man…to brag, despite the mortal consequences.

Jesus had 6 or 7 siblings, and while the NT is mute as to his fathering any children, it is unlikely that his siblings would also have been childless, with the only known (presuming it is authentic) association with any writings from his siblings coming to us via James, and stopping there. Jesus had at least one aunt; Mary, who in all likelihood was the wife of Peter, and with the passing remark or John Mark being called Peter’s son, we have possibly only three writings from this side of the family. Then we have his cousin, the mother of John the Baptist, also with no evidence of descendants and no written account or even oral legacy later placed into text. An entire family barren stricken, either that or they were illiterate, which would be very rare amongst the priesthood.

Next we have the scribes who followed him like paparazzi from the National Enquirer, from whom we have no word on this man’s life. Then we have the other third-hand accounts of those who supposedly knew either one or two of the apostles, which as far as I can discern total a scant two of such contacts.

He likely did exist, but only as the messiah to those who never knew the man, and who sought political opportunity, because not a soul who counted actually remembered this so-called messiah.

Originally posted by jake1997


Lets not forget a few others from that time who certainly wrote about Him

Mark
Mathew
Luke
John
Paul
Peter
Jude
James
John


Those have all be brought INTO one book....but they were separate at the time,

This is your factual evidence!Ha ahahahaha HAHA Oh please stop my sides are splitting

Greetings,

Originally posted by malice_devious
About Tacticus, 80 years is not so far away from the events. the children would still remember who Jesus was.

They "would" ?
In other words, you have no evidence, just speculation.

The life expectancy then was about 40-50 at most.
The Romans DESTROYED Jerusalem, RAZED the Temple to the ground, DISPERSED the Jews, and erased Judea from the map.

You REALLY believe that say, 10 year olds, saw Jesus in the 30s, survived the Roman wars, lived to about NINETY FIVE YEARS of age then travelled to ROME to make sure Tacitus got it right?

Are you serious?

Do you have ANY evidence for this?

so there were people alive to correct any errors that might have been recorded.

Only IF you assume there WAS any real events to correct.
You have failed to show this.

the changes in the word procurator from prefect could have just been made out of revision, possibly how today instead of thou we say you.

So,
if I called George Bush "the POPE"
that would just be like a revision?

Using the WRONG word is NOTHING like a revision - its just wrong.

is it not possible that the eclipse could have been their darkness? why does it have to be christian wishful thinking? what if at the death of jesus there was an eclipse that caused the darkness?

Hmm .. you ignored the facts.
Saying "it COULD have been" and ignoring the facts is not an argument.

your right, jesus did not raise a ruckus in rome, but Paul did, sometime after his encounter with Jesus. that changed him from a murderrer of christians to following christ himself.

So,
you are claiming that "Chrestus" refers to PAUL?

it is said that things were added removed, who knows for sure but the link doesnt convince me either way because who knows what was removed and what wasnt.

So,
you really think a devout Jew who never admitted anyone was the Messiah, could have written Jesus "was the Messiah"?
You really believe that?

what king of their own did the jews murder? honestly, i cant think of any other than Jesus that he could be referring to.

Do the Jews call Jesus their King?

again 80 years, still witnesses alive.

Pardon?

You mean, you BELIEVE there were witnesses still alive.

You are so transparent -
* you WANT to believe there were witnesses still alive,
* you believe there COULD have been witnesses still alive
* you therefore believe there WERE witnesses still alive
* therefore there is witnesses to Jesus.

What a laugh.

There is NO evidence for Jesus.
There are NO witnesses to Jesus.

You provide no evidence, just beliefs.


Iasion

It seems rather ironic to me that someone who 'supposedly' didnt exist can 'Always' elicit so many pages and draw so much attention on this Site whenever he is mentioned

I gues thats how its always been with him hasnt it

Originally posted by Iasion

There is NO evidence for Jesus.
There are NO witnesses to Jesus.

Iasion

Seriously, is it possible that Christianity has been alive for quite awhile and still there are people who just don't get it ? Where is this thread headed ?

What athiests, non-believers, skeptics etc, probably just don't get is that the christian religion CANNOT nor will EVER be debunked. In criticizing it, you will only fulfill its contents. Thats the funny thing about the Bible. The more you oppose it, the clearer you'll make it for me. The more you try to disprove it, the more you'll prove its POINT. There is no possible way to struggle against the Bible or christianity. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,. It is as they say the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD. Incapable of failing and never erring.


But haven't you ever read in the scriptures the prophecy in Isaiah concerning Jesus ?

He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living

I guess your're right then. Nobody did declare Him. And He was not only cut off but no mention of Him anywhere. You see, The Son of God has no need to leave "proof" in a historians notebook to make sure that christians believe on His name. Jesus left all the proof christians were ever going to need. And if He didn't want to use historians then so be it. But why would He do that you may ask?

For I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And my sheep will hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

And if such is the case, then whats the point of this thread ?

I believe a lot of people didnt mention Jesus was because he was just an every day prophet. There were many prophets back in Judea during that time period and i dont think many classical writers wrote down every prophets name and stuff like that. I believe i read somewhere that Pilate sentenced many heretics / prophets / people like Jesus a day and that it was very common for something like that to happen. im sorry if someone has already said this, in that case i agree

its incredible that 2000 years later there are still people (Iasion) whining about him. He is definitely the son of god I and there is more than enough to prove that Jesus did exist, just look at his Genealogy.

2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

If Jesus didnt exist then I guess that his whole Genealogy was made up as well, and there are lots of important historical figures in his Genealogy that you would have to say were all invented, and to believe that its all a lie somebody invented is redicules and embarrassing.

Every philosopher, wise man, inventor, discoverer, profet, spiritual leader, has write some thing, a theory, some wisdom, an invention, a discovery, a prophecy, a message. And by doing this has recorded there names in history. all man have done this with the exception of one JESUS CHRIST the son of GOD the son of the UNIVERSE never wrote anything all we know of him was recorded by others who were impacted by him and testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. And yet not one man can be compared to him the man that divided history the man that resurrected from the dead.

that's what's beautiful about the Bible its prophecies always fulfill.
John 1:10-13
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God

Iasion: You are so transparent -
* you WANT to believe there were witnesses still alive,
* you believe there COULD have been witnesses still alive
* you therefore believe there WERE witnesses still alive
* therefore there is witnesses to Jesus.

What a laugh.

There is NO evidence for Jesus.
There are NO witnesses to Jesus.

You provide no evidence, just beliefs.

I dont "want" to believe I believe. the Bible is the evidence and there is evidence that the bible is real, and I know you want to believe but hey the tickets already sold out. (For I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel) If you want to laugh about the evidence that is one thing but you cant say there is no evidence thats lack of knowledge or education,
deny ignorance man for your own sake.

In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
Iasion palomaso, i dont expect you to understand.

palomaso

Greetings,

If Jesus didnt exist then I guess that his whole Genealogy was made up as well,

Haven't you ever NOTICED the two genealogies in the NT are DIFFERENT?
Are you really that ignorant?

Its all myth.

and there are lots of important historical figures in his Genealogy

Rubbish.
Name one "important historical figures in his Genealogy" ?

that you would have to say were all invented, and to believe that its all a lie somebody invented is redicules and embarrassing.

No-one said its a lie.
Please pay attention.

Do you have anything apart from insults to contribute?

Every philosopher, wise man, inventor, discoverer, profet, spiritual leader, has write some thing, a theory, some wisdom, an invention, a discovery, a prophecy, a message. And by doing this has recorded there names in history. all man have done this with the exception of one JESUS CHRIST the son of GOD the son of the UNIVERSE

Yup.
Pretty clear evidence is a legend.

never wrote anything all we know of him was recorded by others who were impacted by him and testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.

Funny how there is NO EVIDENCE in history for this person.
Funny how there is NO EVIDENCE in history for the Gospel stories.

And yet not one man can be compared to him the man that divided history the man that resurrected from the dead.

There are many myths and legends such as Jesus - Osiris, Attis, Dionysus.
There are various legends of people rising from the dead.
None are considered history.

Funny that Jesus had no affect on his time and place.
Funny that no contemporary mentions Jesus.

John 1:10-13 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God

Preaching your beliefs does not make them true.
When the Mormon's preach to you, do you believe it?
But you think preaching will prove YOUR argument?
So sad.

(snip more preaching...)

Well,
you totally failed to even address my arguments,
let alone answer them.

I declare victory :-)


Iasion

Wow you are Ignorant jesus other genealogy is on his mother's side how embarrassing you must fill.
.......

I was going to address some of the things you mentioned in your post until I got to this part.

I declare victory :-)

Doesnt seem like you really care for them. You just want to 'win' something and raise your prestige with yourself or something.

Whats the point?
If we arent here to share and learn then whats the point?

Greetings,

Originally posted by Sevenstars_777
Wow you are Ignorant jesus other genealogy is on his mother's side how embarrassing you must fill.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Hmmm ...
You've never read them have you?

BOTH specifically name JOSEPH.

How can you claim one is for Mary?

Only by FALSIFYING the documents and pretending that "Joseph" somehow really means "Mary"

What a laugh :-)

If "Joseph" really means "Mary",
then any Gospel name can really mean ANYONE !

Heck,
maybe "Peter" really means "Santa Claus"
maybe "John" really means "the Easter Bunny"
maybe "Jude" really means "James Bond"

Basically,
you just admitted the Gospels cannot be trusted to mean what they say.


Iasion

Iasion, I would like to commend you on one thing, you're certainly very passionate about this subject. Would you mind sharing with me why?

Sevenstars_777, do you think you can approach your neighbors with a little more love and a little less condescending tone? After all, you weren't born a Christian were you?

jake1997, your calm replies come through like crystal. Kudos for that.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

I have included astronomers on the list who might have mentioned the Star of Bethlehem and/or the darkness at the crucifixion - if they had heard of them. This is a lesser issue then the existence of Jesus, and I have rated such writers as 0.5.

Maybe someone has said this but Im not searching every page so let me just state that your Astronomers may have seen this but the Astrologers seen and knew what it meant and most likely first. Astrology was and is a useful and respected science in Judea. It helped pinpoint the coming of Jesus and where. Astrology is like a spiritual map.

Now when you rate these people again if you find them, they should rank very high because for one, they can mark the coming and exit of christ. No other group or group of believers can besides those who claimed to have been there via writing or who were written in.

You should begin with "The Three Kings" which illustrate how the astrologers knew what was going on and their relation to the Signs/Stars. This video can be found through A&E or the HIstory Channel.

Star of Bethlehem: The Mother Star or Mother with Child Star might help you because it was said to give birth to the star that pinpointed where Jesus was. The Star seemed to be born from another at his birth. The darkness upon his death was probably an eclipse but equally spiritual, marking a milestone, and no coincendence.