It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Evidence For Jesus' Existence Is Nothing But Hearsay

page: 28
27
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 



As I recall when I read The Case for Christ, I got the definate impression that lee Strobel most definately struggled around the topic of Josephus.Ie Strobel accepting that Josephus had been doctored and probably by a christian in order to create evidence of christ.

The case for christ did not impress me in the least as any sort of case for anything, I was not suprised to read strobel desperately try and make facts fit.


Interestingly enough I was given this book by a christian who had baught it to prove to me that the Jesusgod had some sort of extrabiblical historicity. Needless to say the dude who gave me the book had not actually read it himself but had acted upon the christian premise, " if another christian who souds like he knows what he's talking about said it's true then it must be".

Lee Stroble proved Jack# to anyone but himself and other gullable believers.


I like to live in a nicely decorated house but am totally ignorant to colour schemes, if my ex wife had claimed beige is beautiful who the hell was I to no accept what she told me,. My life would have been hell if I'd asked my neighbours wife he opinnion of beige LOL.


Again, there is no evidence other than hearsay to prove the reality of the jesugod, and christians are too afraid of hell to question why they believe what they do.








You do realize that believing Jesus to be a historical figure is NOT just a "christian" thing? Scholars from all faiths (or lack of faith) believe that he did exist, and walk the earth.

"The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh." - Will Durant, Secular historian, humanist.

"But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. " - Atheist historian, Micheal Grant.

ADDITION:

The 5 biographies avaialable to us about Alexander the Great were written in 400 centuries after he lived. They are based on earlier information and one of them is regarded to be pretty reliable, the others vary. The original sources are all lost to history, which doesnt mean they never existed.
www.livius.org...

Much of history at the time was composed of retrieving sources, and putting them all together (not to different from modern day).
So we have 4 biographies of Jesus written within 70 years of his death which are all based on earlier sources as even critical scholars agree on this fact these sources are: Q, and the Pre-Gospel Passion Narrative.
The basic facts of these are mentinoed in the writings of paul which were written between the late 40s to late 60s.

You can say that most of what we have of ancient history is "hearsay" because we only have documents reffering to events that the author did not witness. You could say Tacitus Annals are hearsay along with many historians who have written of things they did not witness.





[edit on 12-9-2008 by Boywonder13]




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by sir_chancealot

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I am going to ask for the third time. And so far, no one has answered me.

What year is it again?

In answering that question, you'll have all the proof you need.


Why it is the year 2008 CE, good sir. Did you hit your head? Amnesia is a serious condition which should be checked.


2008 years from WHAT EVENT?


About 2000 years from the time that a fable became popular, and the ignorant masses took it as fact, as they had no resources to check for themselves.
What's your point?


Popular?

That would have been after the Roman Emperors were killing anyone they could find who accepted Jesus Christ.

A couple CENTURIES after 33 A.D.




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simplynoone
[christians are too afraid of hell to question why they believe what they do.]

Why would Christians be afraid of hell when they do not think they are even going there ?
If anything its those who say they do not believe in Hell who are afraid of even talking about it.

I have no fear of Hell whatsoever .

Hahahaha

PRECISELY!!!



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Boywonder13
 





ADDITION:

The 5 biographies avaialable to us about Alexander the Great were written in 400 centuries after he lived. They are based on earlier information and one of them is regarded to be pretty reliable, the others vary. The original sources are all lost to history, which doesnt mean they never existed.



Dude, I already brought this up and it went in one ear and out the other.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   


Popular?

That would have been after the Roman Emperors were killing anyone they could find who accepted Jesus Christ.

A couple CENTURIES after 33 A.D.



Yah i love how skeptics like to forget how persecuted Christianity was, for about 300 years. A problem arises pretty early on to the reason why the early leaders would preach that this nazarene raised from the dead, when they were persecuted heavily for it.

They like to think, that the story of Christ just spread randomly and people liked it so they decided to follow and everything was happy and dandy.

Tacitus in his Annals (116 CE) says refering to the Great Fire of Rome c. 64 CE:

"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 Christians 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. ....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."



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
[

Dude, I already brought this up and it went in one ear and out the other.


sorry, i didnt really go through the thread.
its a pretty big point isnt it.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13
[

Dude, I already brought this up and it went in one ear and out the other.


sorry, i didnt really go through the thread.
its a pretty big point isnt it.

Oh absolutely, if we are to use the EXACT same litmus test for Alexander as we are to use for Christ then Alexander the Great was a myth as well.

In fact, this Alexander dude also claimed to be a God, I wonder why no one worships the "Alexandergod" today. Why we don't celebrate his birthday or death today?

Or why instead of it being "AD" 2008, it's not actually A.D. 2235????

(People NEED an excuse to reject Christ, they NEED something to hold onto so that they can continue to live any way that pleases them without a guilty conscience.)



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


Well if Jesus didn't exist, then niether did budda, or Mohamad existed. I believe that you need to look up Glenn Kimball, the childhood of jesus Christ. he's no right wing conspiracy guy, just a dude who loves to collect old manuscripts.
Also many of the great religious leaders of our contemporary religions didn't write anything down. Budda didn't put anything down on paper, nor did Jesus. they realized that the Alphabet has a curse to it. This curse causes the supression on women and there ethical values. (I recommend the book "The Alphabet versus the Goddess, by leonard Shailn.) Now i got the title right, but not the Author though. This will explain why these guys didn't write anything down in the first place.
As for your dis-belief, well, there's another book called "the god part of the brain." Perhaps like other human beings, you lack connectiveness to this part.
Whether there is a god or not, that is for you to decide. And thanks to our tolerance society, we have that today.

Sir Bikes A Lot
San Antonio, TX



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
What can we say about the history of Jesus? Is it reasonable to conclude that Jesus never existed, based on the weight of all the historical evidence? Or is it more reasonable to conclude that Jesus was an unparalleled historical figure; that not only was he a great teacher and "doer of wonderful works", but that something extraordinary - perhaps even supernatural - happened in history to spark a movement that "turned the world upside down".

Christianity presents a founder who is unmatched in history - one who really lived, taught unlike any other, performed miracles that testified of His authority, really died, and really rose from the dead to be seen by literally hundreds before His ascension.

Either He existed, and was who He claimed to be - Lord and Savior; or not. If He did exist, fulfill prophecy, perform miracles, die in our place, and rise again, then you, I -- we all -- have to deal with the ramifications of this.

Consider the written historical evidence of Jesus from these varied sources ...

1. Non-Christian, non-Jewish sources (principally Roman, Greek). These consist of the writings of a number of Greek or Roman historians, and refer to the history of Jesus because of the trouble the Christian movement was causing in the empire at the time. The records are normally antagonistic, since they have nothing to gain by admitting the historicity of the events.

2. Jewish sources - Josephus, the Talmud. Josephus, a Jewish aristocrat turned politician, was recruited by the Romans during the first Jewish revolt to act as a mediator and write a historical record of events at the time. He records that Jesus was a wise man that did many wonderful works, and that many people - both Jews and Gentiles - followed after him. The Talmud, written by Jewish sources at the time, is (not surprisingly) unfriendly toward the founder of Christianity. The important point, however, is that Jewish sources do not deny that Jesus was a real historical figure -- they only promote a different interpretation of of his conception.

3. Christian sources - the Gospels, early church fathers and historians. The four gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are judged by most scholars to be reliable, historical testimony of eye-witnesses. These gospels, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of Paul and the other Apostles, are judged to have been written from 40 A.D. to 100 A.D. -- all within a few decades of the life of Jesus. The early church fathers were the leaders and teachers in the church who followed the apostles - many were also disciples of these same apostles.

Non-Christian, Non-Jewish Historians Comment on the History of Jesus

Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120)

A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors1, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals covers from 14 A.D. to approximately 68 A.D. (the death of Augustus up to the time of Nero), while Histories proceeds from 68 A.D. (Nero's death) to 96 A.D. (the time of Domitian).

Here is what Tacitus wrote concerning the history of Jesus, and the existence of Christians in Rome:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)1.

Some points to note about the narrative from Tacitus:

He mistakenly refers to Jesus as "Christus", however this was a common practice among the pagan writers at that time.
He supports the fact that Christ existed, and was put to death by Pontius Pilate - agreeing with the Christian scriptures.
He alludes to "the pernicious superstition" which broke out, was repressed, but then spread even more - even throughout the city of Rome itself. This may indeed be referring to the core belief which caused the early church to explode and "turn the world upside down" -- that Jesus had died indeed, but that He had also risen from the grave.


Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about 52 A.D., wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world (Habernas, VECELJ, 93). Although the original writings of Thallus are lost to us, Julius Africanus, a Christian historian of the late second century (2221 A,D.), was familiar with them and quotes from them. One very interesting passage from Thallus relates to the darkness that enveloped the land at the time of Christ's crucifixion. Julius Africanus writes as follows:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1)

Points to note:

This quote testifies that the gospel accounts of darkness falling upon the land about the time of Christ's death were well known, and thus required a naturalistic explanation from non-Christians.
Thallus did not dispute that Jesus has been crucified -- he was more concerned with coming up with another explanation for the darkness that enveloped the land.

How many more references do you need? If you need more, then I would refer to this passage in Luke 9, of Jesus' instructions to His Apostles: "Take nothing for your journey--neither staffs, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats apiece. Into whatever house you enter, stay there, and depart from there. As many as don't receive you, when you depart from that city, shake off even the dust from your feet for a testimony against them."

In other words, I gave it my best shot.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Bombeni]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
There seems to be a misconseption in this thread that "hearsay" is used in science as a valid method to dis-prove evidence.

This is simply not true. A huge number of discernable illustrations, based on objective reality, have been presented in this thread. A man named Jesus explains this huge accumulation of scientific knowledge, although, it is based on some hearsay. Just because 1 piece of evidence, by itself, does not conclusively provide proof, does not mean it is discarded when trying to collect data to support scientific theory. The problem with this arguement is the term hearsay is being stretched to deny much of accepted reality. The basis for much of accepted scientific knowledge is based on many things, including hearsay, that supports a theory. It does not require a leap of faith to understand how these pieces fit together and confirm the existence of Jesus, regardless of who He is.

Hearsay does not disqualify evidence in several different exceptions.

All of the literary texts used as evidence in this thread fall under one or more of these exceptions.

1. Rule 803 (1) Present sense impression.— A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter

example:Sauls vision on the road to Damascus is written giving a definate present sense impression.

2.Rule 803(2) A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition."

example: Matthew 8:26 "But the men marvelled, saying, what manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!"

3. Rule 803(3) Statement of the declarant's then existing . . . physical condition

example: Mark 8:24 "I see men, as trees walking."

4. Rule 803(13) Family records.— Statements of fact concerning personal or family history contained in family Bibles, genealogies, charts, engravings on rings, inscriptions on family portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.

example: The genealogies of Jesus Matthew 1 and Luke 3


5. Rule 803 (8) Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth the activities of the office or agency, or
matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, or
in civil actions and proceedings and against the Government in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

example: All of the contempory writers that speak of Jesus or Christ.

source


There is also a law in science known as "cause and effect". The life of Jesus has had a huge effect on billions of people for 2000 some odd years.



Here is a interesting piece of case law regard hearsay and ancient documents.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Hi,


Originally posted by Simplynoone
Hey I found those supposed letters from Harod and Pilate
...
www.pseudepigrapha.com...


Mate -
don't you know what pseudepigrapha means?

False writings.
That is - forgeries.

These books are know forgeries.


Iasion


You really stretch definitions to meet your religious perceptions. Pseudepigrapha does not automatically mean a document is a forgery. One example is often specific details were written about people by personal acquaintances and incorrectly thought to be written by the subject themselves. This does not mean it is a forgery, Instead, that even though the specific details may point to the author writing about himself, there is evidence that has surfaced that does not support that theory.

Also the letter from P Pilate I linked to earlier in the thread is not among the Pseudepigrapha.com collections, interesting.

Here it is again from a second source...


Pontius Pilate unto Claudius, greeting.
There befell of late a matter which I myself brought to light (or made trial of): for the Jews through envy have punished themselves and their posterity with fearful judgements of their own fault; for whereas their fathers had promises (al. had announced unto them) that their God would send them out of heaven his holy one who should of right be called their king, and did promise that he would send him upon earth by a virgin; he, then (or this God of the Hebrews, then), came when I was governor of Judaea, and they beheld him enlightening the blind, cleansing lepers, healing the palsied, driving devils out of men, raising the dead, rebuking the winds, walking upon the waves of the sea dry-shod, and doing many
other wonders, and all the people of the Jews calling him the Son of God: the chief priests therefore, moved with envy against him, took him and delivered him unto me and brought against him one false accusation after another, saying that he was a sorcerer and did things contrary to their law.

But I, believing that these things were so, having scourged him, delivered him unto their will: and they crucified him, and when he was buried they set guards upon him. But while my soldiers watched him he rose again on the third day: yet so much was the malice of the Jews kindled that they gave money to the soldiers, saying: Say ye that his disciples stole away his body. But they, though they took the money, were not able to keep silence concerning that which had come to pass, for they also have testified that they saw him arisen and that they received money from the Jews. And these things have I reported for this cause, lest some other should lie unto thee (lat. lest any lie otherwise) and thou shouldest deem
right to believe the false tales of the Jews.


source

There are also several characteristics about this document that make it an exception to the hearsay rule.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
2008 years from WHAT EVENT?


You DO realise that the year is WRONG, don't you?

You do realise that when the A.D. system was created CENTURIES after the alleged Jesus, Little Dennis got it wrong!

The date of Jesus birth, even according to Christians, is NOT 1 A.D.

The fact that the dating system is WRONG, shows that believe in Jesus is WRONG.


(I see sir_chancealot will never address the issue of month and day names, so I thought I'd take another tack.)


Iasion


Are you really serious?

Just because they got the events exact date wrong does not mean it didn't happened.

Poppycock? Pot/kettle?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
There is outside Bible sources that prove Yeshua of Nazareth lived and was crucified on a cross on the day before passover. So if you question if the man ever lived that would be misinformed.

The Jews kept immaculate records and they have it recorded

Josephus talked about it as well as the roman records for that pre passover crucifixion and the in fact refer to Barabbas also in their records. There are other outside souses also.

I aint arguing if he was God in the flesh, or raised 3 days later, although I do believe those things, I am only pointing out their are many outside sources that refer to him being hung on that cross on the day before passover by name. And the Romans crucified lots as I am sure most know.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
Nope, not arguing that at all. You have lost my point.


Thats EXACTLY what your point was, but you are too dishonest to admit it. Which is shown by your complete FAILURE to say what your point really WAS then.


First shearder said :

"Why do you think that is? Why no roman records of Jesus or OTHER crucified criminals? In fact, why are there no records of almost anything from that time? Here's a clue - Nero, Fire, 64AD."

In other words sheader pretends that the fire in ROME prevented there being any records of that time - ANYWHERE. Of course, this is complete nonsense, because we DO have records of this time, such as Philo, and even from Rome.

So I answered :
"How does a fire in ROME stop people from ELSEWHERE from writing? "

sheader responds :
"Like where elsewhere? Northpole? "
(As if there are only two places in the world where records would be made - Rome and the North Pole.)

To which I replied :
"Like where Philo wrote e.g. - Alexandria (and/or Jeruselam.)
You seem to be arguing that a fire in ROME stopped ANYONE ANYWHERE else in the world from writing about Jesus - such as in the region where Jesus allegedly lived !"

Finally he claims :
"Nope, not arguing that at all. You have lost my point. "
And conspicuously FAILS to expand what his point really was, supposedly.

It is clear shearder will say anything, even complete lies, to avoid admittting he is wrong.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
That does not prove to me it was proven to be a fraud. That i was possibly on Mars is for a different thread. But this has to do with how they proved it was a fraud. There were only a few cases where it was examined. The last was when there was some sort of technologically advanced mechanism of testing. Not to mention 30 minutes
. The bible supports the markings on the shroud. So either it is real OR it was done by a very artistic doctor or someone who knew how the body works VERY VERY well.


Impossible to even understand most of this gobbledygook.
But the facts are clear - the Shroud is a proven fake.




Originally posted by shearder
Again you missed the point. It goes hand in hand with what was written about - yes, not just Jesus - other events are ALSO in the bible. So they too must be ALL wrong because all events were not personally observed, in the 66 books, by most of the authors.


No, you got it wrong, and failed to admit it, so now you try and change the subject.

YOU claimed about 60 authors wrote about Jesus.
You were wrong.

Oh bugger it, can't be bothered with this anymore...


Iasion

[edit on 15-9-2008 by alien]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boywonder13
"The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. "


Christ yes,
Jesus of Nazareth, no.



Originally posted by Boywonder13
Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh." - Will Durant, Secular historian, humanist.


Nonsense.
Please QUOTE where "Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh."
He did NO SUCH THING.



Originally posted by Boywonder13
"But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. " - Atheist historian, Micheal Grant.


Yawn.
Another quote from a believer.
So what?

Faithful believers seem to think a faithful belief quoted from a faithful believer is evidence.

How bizarre.
Because a quote from a sceptic will simply be dismissed by a believer. In other words, they agree with anyone who agrees with them, and simply reject anything which doesn't.



Originally posted by Boywonder13
The 5 biographies avaialable to us about Alexander the Great were written in 400 centuries after he lived.


So?
We have contemporary historical and archeological evidence for Alexander - coins with his likeness, the Esagila diary, cities founded in his name.

We have NOTHING contemporary for Jesus.



Originally posted by Boywonder13
So we have 4 biographies of Jesus


Wrong.
We have anonymous legends about a Jesus myth.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Dude, I already brought this up and it went in one ear and out the other.


Because it's completely irrelevent nonsense.

We have direct contemporary historical and archeological evidence for Alexander. Nothing for Jesus.

Of course, faithful believers have to IGNORE this fact for their arguments.

This nonsense about Alexander is all over the 'net lately.

But it's complete bollocks.
Note how the apologists conspicuously FAIL to address the hard contemporary evidence for Alexander.

I predict they will continue to do so.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Hiya,


Originally posted by Boywonder13
Yah i love how skeptics like to forget how persecuted Christianity was, for about 300 years.


False.
Christianity was not persecuted for 300 years, but there WERE some broef periods of persecution, off and on.

Another apologist who doesn't know his history.



Originally posted by Boywonder13
A problem arises pretty early on to the reason why the early leaders would preach that this nazarene raised from the dead, when they were persecuted heavily for it.


No problem at all.
There is no actual evidence of EARLY martyrdoms - they are just later legends made up to support the earlier legends.

Anyway - people die for false claims all the time (suicide bombers, Heven's gate cult.) Proves nothing.



Originally posted by Boywonder13
They like to think, that the story of Christ just spread randomly and people liked it so they decided to follow and everything was happy and dandy.


What does that even MEAN ?



Originally posted by Boywonder13
Tacitus in his Annals (116 CE) says refering to the Great Fire of Rome c. 64 CE:



TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) 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.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


Iasion



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Oh absolutely, if we are to use the EXACT same litmus test for Alexander as we are to use for Christ then Alexander the Great was a myth as well.


Completely false, as anyone who checks the facts can see.

We DO have hard, contemporary, historical and archeological evidence for Aexander.

Nothing like that for Jesus.

Note how the faithful believers here simple IGNORE this fact that poroves them wrong.

Expect them to keep ignoring it, and keep preaching.



Iasion



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by Bombeni
1. Non-Christian, non-Jewish sources (principally Roman, Greek).


Are you going to cite them?



Originally posted by Bombeni
2. Jewish sources - Josephus, the Talmud.



JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews 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 devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),
* The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early Church fathers who reviewed Josephus.
* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.
* 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 refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

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, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt, controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



Originally posted by Bombeni
3. Christian sources


Anonymous religious legends.



Originally posted by Bombeni
Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120)


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) 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.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.




Originally posted by Bombeni
Thallus,


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 referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

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

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



Originally posted by Bombeni
How many more references do you need?


Only a few - IF THEY STOOD up to scrutiny.
None of your cites did.



Originally posted by Bombeni
If you need more, then I would refer to this passage in Luke 9, of Jesus' instructions to His Apostles: "Take nothing for your journey--neither staffs, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats apiece. Into whatever house you enter, stay there, and depart from there. As many as don't receive you, when you depart from that city, shake off even the dust from your feet for a testimony against them."


Riiight.
Now you PREACH at us !

Very convincing.
What next - we will burn in hell if we don't believe you ?


Iasion



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join