Historical Jesus

DontTreadOnMe

They not only chose what stories they want us to believe. They changed the origional documents. Added documents that were not really written by the apostles and created a religion that would be profitable for them. Based on fear.

They burned as much origional text as they possibly could find so the story they made up would not be proven false.

Even when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found the Church monitered what was released and when and I would bet you my next paycheck they did not release much of it. It is really funny how the few documents we can find are "fragmented" right where the really important point was about to be made. Like the Gospel of Mary.

In "Bible Fraud" Tony Bushey found (after 12 years of researching the oldest documents he could find) that The Gospel of Mark is an origional document but was added to and changed. The other Gospels are a duplication of Mark with a little variation to make them seem real but were not written by anyone who was an eye witness. The resurection was not in the first Gospel. The death of Jesus was not at the time or in the way or for the reason we have been lead to believe.

The King James Version has the truth in a secret code. One way secret societies get their plan all over the world without any real written evidence. These secret codes are in Shakesphere writtings too. a few artists new the truth and revealed hints in their paintings. Tony has a second book called secrets in the bible that help one decipher these codes.

Paul wrote only 2 epistles not 14 as was credited to him. The real authors are recorded in pre 1900 editions of the Oxford Bible.
The Talmud said of Paul (Aher) that he corrupted the work of that man. (refering to Jesus.)

Mary Magdalene was not the prostitute. She was royalty as was Jesus. There was a Mary from Egypt with very long hair who was repentant and had been a prostitute.

I wish this book were on a web site I could direct you to but it is not. After traveling the world for 12 years researching history the author may want some reimbursement for his work from selling his book and so did not publish it online.

Best of luck in your search for the truth

The "Jeezuz" of history is very hard for us today to attempt re-capture since the Christian message was spread orally at first (for 50 years) and by the time traditions about its founder (originally R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean, Greek :"Iesous") were written down some 60 years later, it was in a totally different language and all the original setting was lost or misunderstood by a largely foreign audience who did not know Palestine first hand.

CK Barrett used to say to us: "Reconstructing the Jesus of History from the Gospel material is like trying to re-build the proverbial Pig from the Sausage. Too much original material has already been carefully pre-digested and re-formed for totally new usage, that the original animal has been completely obscured and indeed totally unrecognisable. "

That said, the Roman historian Suetonius does NOT say "the name derives from "Christus", he said, [translated for you]

"their name derives from one "CHRESTUS", which was one of the many mystery cults in Antioch around AD 60 ("Chrestus" means "kindly, gentle").

The Greek "Christos" meant "annointed, smeared with oil" (translation of the Hebrew Meshiaq, "smeared", with which such persons as Priests, Kings and Prophets were "ordained" into service). It is not a name but a title applied to perhaps more than 100 different people. When Christians say "Christ" they usually refer to "Iesous" ("Jeezuz"), but even Cyrus the Mede in Isaiah chapter 45:1 is called "My Christ Cyrus", and that was more than 450 years before "Jeeezuzz" was even born !

And it is even more confusing when you count up all the references in Antiquity to Chrestus, which is NOT Christos.

Big Difference.

There were many cults which used the word Chrestus in the 1st century, so we cannot know if Suetonius was confusing things, so many years after the event. And there were many Messianic movements between AD 30 and AD 66 when the Jewish War finally broke out into full scale rebellion, and NEWSFLASH: the Jews lost, and the Temple and Jerusalem was ground to a fine powder in AD 70, with only the western "wailing" wall left deliberately standing "so that future generations will know a great city once stood on this spot..."

We do not know if the cult of Chrestos and the Cult of Christos were inter-related. Possibly converts mixed back and forth between these Mystery Cults in the ancient Roman Empire.

One cannot get back to the HISTORY of this period outside of the CONTEXT OF ROMAN OCCUPATION OF JUDAEA which formed the background to the Christian message. And it was ANYTHING by "Chrestos".

The stories which revolved in the gospels around R. Yehoshua bar Yosef ("Jeezzuzz" to Americans and "Iesous" in Greek) who was executed SPECIFICALLY for armed sedition against Rome during the reign of Tiberius, i.e. breach of LEX MAIESTATIS, the no King but Caesar Law) are not particularly "chrestus" (gentle) like: and nice kind little soft Rebbes who go around teaching nice kind little harmless parables don't get themselves strung up on a gibbet for armed insurrection against Rome during a revolt.

[on the 100th anniversary in AD 36 of the Invasion of Jerusalem by Roman Army under General Pompey in BC 63]:

The "Jeeezzuzz" of the "gospels" (R. Yehoshua bar Yosef, the Galilean) is purported to have said something like:

"Behold, the Times of the Gentiles is Fulfilled: The Kingdom of God is near: repent and believe in the Good News, [i.e. before it is too late]"

(i.e. since the Judaeans had enjoyed exactly 100 years of semi-independence from the Greeks under the Macabbees from the revolt c. BC 163 which freed them all the way to the year 63BC, which was the year that Rome invaded Jerusalem : By the time of Jesus' gospel ("good news of the Kingdom") message, the Judaeans had endured exactly 100 years of Roman Occupation:

Jesus' message was therefore proclaiming a POLITICAL mesage, one of the "End of the Times of the Gentiles," echoing the words of Moses in the Torah: "the times of the Amorites is fulfilled" (i.e. "we're taking back the land of Israel from the occupiers!") = not exactly peaceful (Chrestus) intent, but one of POLITICAL AGITATION, for which he was eventually strung up by Roman authorities for armed sedition and "claiming to be a Nazir" i.e. "Behold the Man who is Called the "Branch" of the Line of David which was supposed "to REBUILD THE TEMPLE OF YHWH" (see Zechariah chapter 3:8 and 6:12).

Elsewhere we see some not-so-Chrestus like sayings placed into the mouth of Jeeezuzz in the Gospels:

"Do you think the Son of Man cometh to bring Peace? By No Means! The Son of Man cometh NOT to bring Peace, but to Bring a Sword! Not to bring Harmony, but DIVISION ! To set husband against wife, and wife against husband, father against son, and mother against daughter, to set mother in law against son in law, and father in law against daugher in law, so that a man's enemies may be found within his very own home !" (Midrash on Micah chapter 7:6).

Also see how he called Herod Antipas (who was appointed /confirmed on the throne as King of the Judaeans by Rome) a "cowering Jackal":

"And they said to him, Rabbi, Herod the King would like you to cease and desist..and he said, Tell that Cowering (and frightened) Jackal (an "unclean" animal known to hang his shivering tail between his legs, i.e. someone afraid of the Roman authorities) that the Son of Man will continue to perform Signs [of his kingship] today, and tomorrow and the next day, until he is Ingathered."

And don't forget the "Temple Tantrum", i.e. the Riot in the Temple during the Feast of Tabernacles (?), which could have clearly been seen by the Romans hovering above the Court of the Gentiles from their perch atop the Fortress of Antonia next door...:

"And Yeshua began to string together whips and cords and stood up and began driving out the money-changers from the court of the Gentiles of the Temple: nor did he allow any sacrifices to be continued that day, but blocked off the way of those who would sacrifice their oxen and the sheep and the goats and the doves and all who sold them: and he said, My father's House is to be a House of Prayer even for the Goyim, and yet ye have changed it into a Den of Thieves...!!"

Not too peaceful...to me at least. More like a Political Agitator. And the Galilee was full of them (Judah the Galilean led an armed revolt in Jerusalem in AD 6, leaving 30,000 dead Judaeans)

Of course when the Slave of the High Priest Lost an Ear Story, we recall that somehow swords were involved on the part of the Disciples....and we assume that the ear of the slave of the high priest was NOT cut off the a butter knife left over from the Last Supper !

read it in Luke chapter 22:18 and following: on the Hill when he armed his disciples with Swords thinking a Miracle would occur on the Mount of Olives from heaven, in a coup attempt to take Jerusalem from the "goyim" (see Deutero-Zecharian chatper 9 through chapter 14)

"And he said to the 12: When I sent you forth two by two to announce the Kingdom without shoes or staff or money did ye lack anything? And they said, no Rabbi. But now---Amen Amen I say unto you : let each one of you tonight go out now immediately and sell his outer tunic, and purchase swords with the money...and they came back to him saying, Rabbi, rabbi here are two swords: and he said to them, Do you really think Two will be Enough?" (many of the earliest Greek texts have a questionmark, ommitted in the KJV)

Historically we are quite removed from the words of "Jeeezzuzz" because he spoke a kind of Galilean (northern) Aramaic dialect, and the gospels were written in Koine Greek (around AD 90), long after the event. And most of the translations of his words have been doctored and heavilly edited out of their original contexts ("Let he who would strike you on the right cheek turn to him the other" in Aramaic is not so peaceful: in effect, ithas a political connotation which is tantamount to a "passive resistence movement" : into modern English, the sense of this section means (roughly):

"But ye, be Defiant against your Oppressors [the Romans]: if a Gentile ("dog ") tries to strike you with the BACK of his hand [like he would slap a slave or a conquored people with disrespect, ] don't give him the chance: quickly turn your face around the other way--- so he will have to strike you with the FRONT of their hand----[i.e. don't let them abuse or humiliate you ! Remember who you are, the Chosen Ones !]"

Unfortunately we have nothing in writing from R. Yehoshua bar Yosef himself, and the socalled Gospels were not committed to writing until the last of the disciples had died off after the Jewish War, and they were written in translation (i.e. Greek) a language which the first disciples and "Jeeezuz" did not speak.

The letters of Paul are the earliest Christian writings we have (e.g. Galatians or 1 Thessalonians) but are of little use to us, since Saul of Tarsus "Pau"l never ever met "Jeezuz" in his lifetime, and what is worse, fought bitterly with the disciples (galatians 2: he calls them Hypocrites and "so called Pillars" , so he can hardly be a reliable witness to anything "historical" about "Jeeezuz" (notice he only says a few things in his letters about him, e.g. "born of a woman" or "from the line of David", and that's about it. He did not care about his earthly life, nor did the early Christians, since they believed the end of the world was coming any second and that "Jeezuz" was coming back to over throw Rome and put the Righteous of Israel (and believers in "Jeezuz") at the Center of the New Creation...

Since the Dead Sea Scrolls were being copied during the lifetime of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (BC 12 to AD 36), and came into contact in the Judaean desert with John the Baptist (Yohanon bar Zechariah) was a teacher of "Jeezuz" who baptised him as a disciple, you might catch a glimpse of some of the flavour of the times by reading the Dead Sea Corpus: i.e. if you want contemporary documents, you can read the WAR SCROLL (1 QM), the Rule for the Monastery of Damascus (1 QS) and the Hymns of the Teacher of Righteousness (1QH) oir the Commentary (Pesher) on Habakkuk (1QpHab) for example.

You can see at a glance how violently ready for armed rebellion against the Kittim (=Romans, "peoplesof the Sea") those kinds of groups were, and Jeezuz was no exception if we remember how and why he was executed.

Although the "Gospels" are clearly not pure "history" in the modern "positivistic sense" (even John's gospel says, "These things were written SPECIFICALLY SO YOU WILL BELIEVE THAT IESOUS IS THE MESSIAH"), there are some historical kernels buried in them, most of the hard facts are "uncomfortable" and "embarrassing" i.e. why was "Jeezuz" baptised in the first place if he was "sinless" and why was he strung up naked on a cross if he was the Messiah who was "going to redeem Israel from the hands of its enemies" (Road to Emaeus story in Luke chapter 24)?

The problem is that the original contexts (the Germans called this the original SITZ IM LEBEN) are missing, since the gospels circulated in greek 50 years after the events, and moreover, after Israel was ground to powder, so any "warrior messiah" language was carefully brushed under the carpet in order to make Roman and Greek converts alla Paul's warped theology, which borrows most of its language from the Mystery religions (e.g. the popular pagan sun god Mithra, which had its HQ in Tarsus, significantly).

If you want to know the "Jeezuz" of History, you would most likely end up with a picture of another hot tempered Jewish "Daviddic" pretender ion the mid 30s AD in Jerusalem, executed during the Passover (the Feast of Deliverance from Oppression) by Rome specifically by crucifixion, which was reserved particularly for Sedition against Caesar (including Breach of LEX MAIESTATIS, who was trying, by virtue of his Daviddic Bloodline and the Messianic Hope of his followers and family (both were intermixed), to regain the throne of David SPECIFICALLY on the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of Rome in fulfilment of Jewish prophecies (among them e.g. Amos chap 9: I shall rebuild the Tabernacle of David which was fallen, and Zechariah 9:9 Behold thy KING cometh unto thee O Jersualem...and HE shall DICTATE THE TERMS OF THE PEACE WITH THE GENTILES") into what they called the "kingdom of God" from the reigning Hasmonean Levites priest-kings who had seized control of the throne of Judae from Syrian Greeks in 163 BC (the Macabbean revolt) and finally (End of Days language) oust the Roman Gentiles from the Land of Israel, and thereby instituting the Messianic Age and the End of the World, where all the Righteous would be saved and all the Wicked would be Destroyed.

In other words, hardly a Chrestus ("kindly") figure, but one who had specific political goals in mind, including armed rebellion against the prevailing Roman Occupation.

But look how all that turned out.


I hoip that this will start the discussion in the right direction !

Amadeus, my apologies for not reading your long post sooner. Are we to believe that the Christian--Catholic--Church was based on a political rabble-rouser. The stories you relate certainly could be taken as being un-peaceful and rebellous. These are your own conclusion, or are other sources also used?

It's certainly not the direction I thought of, but it is certainly a possibility.
I'm not comfortable with the standardized stories we've had handed down.

[edit on 17-6-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]

Hello "Don't Tread on Me:"

Remember that it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand the "Jesus of History" outside the Context of the Roman Occupation of Judaea, and the fact that R. Yehoshua bar Yosef not only was of Daviddic Blood (descended from the bloodline that was in Exile since Zerubbabel, waiting at any second to come back to power) but that his "message of the Kingdom of God" was proclaimed (culminating in AD 36) by his followers and family (most were intermixed) as it approached the 100th anniversary of the Invasion of Jerusalem (in BC 63) by Roman Troops (under General Pompey).

The Church today has no interest in the historical "Jeezuz": if it did, you would see him portrayed as a Davvidic Jewish King with middle eastern features, instead of a light haired light eyed pagan-god like figure floating on the clouds...or walking on water, which ever you prefer.

I think you and others on this post will have to remember some basic facts when it comes to reviewing any kind of "Historical Jesus" v. "the Christ of Faith" which is not the same thing.

The historical living person who lived and breathed and ate and drank (and defecated!) in early 1st centiury Palestine---only to be eventually executed for armed Sedition against Rome during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius c. AD 36 cannot be recaptured in historical terms today by modern readers from the Gospel Material alone (or by looking at stained glass windows in a church) since we simply today do not have all the necessary historian's tools with which to re-constitute him.

If you had video tape back then, you would probably not like the person whom you were taping, and no one outside Messianic minded 1st century Roman-Occupied Palestinian Jews would have taken an interest in him or his message of Political Deliverance (e.g. The Times of the GENTILES is fulfilled...")

We have some scant references in Roman historians' works (e.g. Tacitus, Suetonius, doctored-up-Josephus etc.) to the MOVEMENT (Christiani) that followed the historical person, but nothing concrete about the actual historical individual himself.

CK Barrett used to tel us: Trying to reconstruct the "Jesus of History" is like trying to rebuild the Pig from the Sausage...too many original parts have been lost or deliberately thrown away.

Remember this: the writers of the 4 gospels were writing MIDRASH not history, filling in the gaps of their knowledge with old testament prophecies.

The writers were NOT eyewitnesses and had no AIM of presenting any kind of a historical "Jesus" :

The gospels circulated orally for 40 years and when the disciples were dying off, they began to be written down in small aphorisms and pericopes, first in Aramaic and then reorganzed in Greek i.e. circulating in a "foreign"tongue (Koine Greek), that is foreign to Jesus and his disciples, and spread in Greek among foreign people (Greek Speaking Messianic Jews and God "fearing" Gentiles scattered around the Roman Empire, who never set foot in Palestine and could not speak the original language of the "Jeezzuz" and his disciples: Galilean Aramaic).

The ORIGINAL SITZ IM LEBEN (setting in life) of this man and his little band of messianic hopefuls in Palestine has been completely distorted in the process to make "Jeeezzuzz" into a god---i.e. more palatable to the masses of Greek speaking pagans and Messianists who wanted a personal god-saviour, not some rabble rousing militant Davvidic pretender-politican who waited for miracles to happen on the mount of Olives while arming his disciples with swords on a hill attempting to re-capture Jerusalem "from the Kittim" and re-instate the Davids (i.e. his family) on the throne.

The earliest "Christians" (like the Dead Sea Scroll sect) believed they were living in the LAST DAYS: they were all anxiously waiting for the end of the world to happen any second (i.e. the Parousia or "second coming") and not sitting around calmly writing historical biographies (in the modern sense) of their hero who died a martyr's death during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.

As time went on, the Christian Church who promulgated the "Jesus-as-Saviour" Cult was COMPETING with other pagan PERSONAL SAVIOUR CULTS (e.g. Mithras or Attis): since Judaea lost the war against Rome (not once but twice, first in AD 72 and the second time under Shimeon bar Kosiba (Bar Kokhba) in 136AD) Chrisitans had to TONE DOWN THE POLITICAL-SEDITIONIST MESSAGE of the gospels and of their hero "Iesous".

(Cf: The Road to Emaeus pericope in Luke chapter 24: "and we thought He was going to be THE ONE who would REDEEM Israel from the hands of its Enemies....")

It would have been a different story if the Jews won the war against Rome.

Notice how Paul, a successful evangelizer of his own brand of Christianity among the goyim (non Jews), never even met "Jeeezuz" and fought bitterly with the disciples and family members who did know "Jeezuz" in the flesh (e.g. Galatians chapter 2: where he calls Peter a hypocrite, and refers to James the blood brother of "Jeezuz" and Yakkob bar Zavdai (James son of Zebedee) as "those so called pillars" simply because they stuck to the Jewish Law of Moses and ate kosher foods, still sacrificed animals in the Temple, and and did not in any way associate with any of those dirty rotten non-Jewish idol woshipping Gentiles.

What is interesting is how much of the under-painting of the "racist-rabble rouser warrior-Daviddic-Jesus" still leakes up through the Nice-Rebbe-Overpainting in the Gospels (i.e. whitewash) of Jesus, which have only to be looked at with a little effort, to see "the real bones coming through the fake plastic body" that the church covered him up with to make him more "sellable" (cf: "the Greatest Story Ever Sold...").

For example, "Jeezuz" did not preach to Gentiles during his earthly mission and even called all non-Jews dogs (see Matt chapter 15: Since when is it right to take the CHILDREN's bread out of their mouth and THROW IT to the DOGS UNDER THE TABLE?"

The Greek words placed into his mouth after his death are grammatic howlers: ("preach ye among" which is non-sense): better linguistics would produce a rather different sense when worked back into the original Galilean Aramaic: Preach ye the Message of the Gospel of the Kingdom [of God] to the Elect [of Israel] Scattered Among the Gentiles" (in other words he did not advocate them to "preach the kingdom TO the Gentiles").

Paul changed all of that, but he broke off from the original "church" (the Nazorean followers of "Jeeezuz" ) after AD 45.

Earlier in the racist-story of the Syro Phoenician Gentile in Matthew chapter 15, "Jeeezuz" is purported to have said: "Lady, I have come to save ONLY the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL"----a phrase which specifically refers to Jews who had been "scattered among the Gentiles" i.e. Diaspora Jews (beginning back in the forced reolcation exiles of 722BC (Assyria) and again in 587BC (Babylon) and later during the Persian period.)

The Ingathering of the "12-Tribes scattered among the goyim" was supposed to be one of the Functions of Coming Messiah (see Trito-Isaiah 56-66) : Even "Jeezuz" was supposed to have said "Behold, I have sheep that are not of this fold..."

And in Luke's "sending of the 70" Iesous SPECIFICALLY tells his disciples NOT TO PREACH TO GENTILES but ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.

What did "Jeezuz" mean when he was said to have called that poor SyroPhoencian gentile a "DOG?"!!!

In the Dead Sea Scrolls (many of which were being copied out WHILE "Iesous" was still alive) the word "dog" (a ritually Unclean Animal) is often used to describe Gentiles: in the Middle East, a dog is the lowest form of animal life, sort of what Americans would call "a cockroach" etc.

The historical "Jeezuz" would have therefore used the term as others did in his vicinity having been influenced by John the Baptist (Yohanon bar Zechariah) who baptised him as a disciple. The Baptist preached in the "Wilderness of Judaea" which refers to the area around Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were being copied: he seems to have used words that parallel the Scrolls verbatim, and must have been influenced by their theology and perhaps even racism. That racism would have percolated to his disciples, one of which was.....Jesus !

No wonder the Catholic Church did not want those Scrolls read by the average church goer. Too many parallels with the words put into the mouth of "Jeeezuz" : it also drew too clear a "historical" picture of the political scene during the time of Jesus, which culminated in a War which killed over 800,000 people in Palestine.

And the scrolls revealed TOO MUCH OF THE RACISM OF THE 1st Century Palestinian Jewish population, which had direct parallels with the EARLY CHURCH and THE DIRTY UNDERBELLY OF THE JEWISH WAR HISTORY OF THE PERIOD they wish to hide from their followers, who if they found out, would probably have "left the fold"...

Get a highlighter out and mark up your Gospels with these kinds of sayings (e.g. the racism in Matthew chapter 15, the arming of the disciples in Luke chapter 22, the cutting off of the slave of the high priests ear in Luke 23, and other verses we mentioned in our earlier posts).

If you look over this kind of "political" evidence in the text of the gospels (which was considered a "mortal sin" (!) requiring confession for Catholics to read the text of the bible for themselves without the intervention of a "priest", until fairly recent times, i.e. up until about the year 1800) you might begin to see that there is an under-current of history in the very text themselves that is not too pretty, and the embarrased "church" spent a great deal of time NOT talking about it.

As another Christmas approaches, I bump this thread of mine to perhaps get more opinions on Jesus and his historical and not religious life.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe


I haven't read all the responses, so if this has been said already, my apologies..
The early Church fathers wrote about Christ (Ignatius- late 90's early 100's) as well as Justin Martyr, and there has been also "graffiti" found that point to a crucifixion and death of a deity...

I don't know if this helps at all...
God Bless~

Hi,

Originally posted by CommonSense
DTOM,
It'll take a little work to pull up the factual detail, but I've read accounts of historical data that supports the existence and lineage of Jesus. (i.e Roman History)
CS

Actually -
There is no contemporary historical records for Jesus at all - Roman or otherwise.

Roman History LATER records the BELIEFS of Christians about Jesus - but no evidence for Jesus himself.


WB5

Originally posted by kinglizard
IMHO - The fact that so many people wrote about his life should be proof enough that he existed.

So,
the fact that so many people wrote about Osiris means he existed?
the fact that so many people wrote about Hercules means he existed?
the fact that so many people wrote about Bacchus means he existed?

In fact - people wrote and improved the stories long long after the alleged events.

That's not history - that's myth.


WB5

Hiya,

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
But, who wrote about him? His disciples?

Actually - no.
Not one of the books of the NT was written by ANYONE who ever met Jesus.

Apart from the late forged 2 Peter, we do not have a SINGLE claim to have met Jesus, or Mary, or Joseph, or Lazarus etc.

The people IN the stories were completely UNKNOWN to the people who WROTE the stories long long aftewards.


WB5

Hiya,

Originally posted by TheEXone
I don't agree with that at all. If we are to believe the story of the crucifixtion then it makes sense that the Romans try not to mention Jesus again, after all he was causing social tension and was a challenge to Roman rule in the area. They would most certainly try to bury his memory instead of keeping it alive by recording the details of his life.

Riiiight.
A conspiracy to keep Jesus secret !

Did they keep Sparticus a secret?
Or all the other troublemakers?
No.
But you believe in a conspiracy to keep Jesus a secret?
Really?

Originally posted by TheEXone
In addition I doubt that many Roman writings and documents concerning an area that they considered unimportant would be preserved for very long.

Wrong.
We have DOZENS of books from the period, including references to people and events in Palestine.

Originally posted by TheEXone
Here is a link to some writings by the historian Flavius Josephus a jew who lived in 66 a.d who wrote about the jewish rebelion of the time.

So what ? Jesus was not involved in that !
The passage about Jesus in Josephus is almost certainly a forgery

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.

Originally posted by TheEXone
And here is a list of non christian references to jesus

None of them stand up to scrutiny.
Here is why :


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.


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred 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.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), 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.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...



QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


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.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...


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 late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and are merely negative Jewish responses to Christian beliefs.
* the alleged Jewish references to Jesus are highly variant, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. that "Jesus" was born about 100BC, that he had 5 disciples, that he learned black magic in Egypt, was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, conceived during menstruation, now in hell in vat of boiling excrement.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.



MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)

A fragment which includes -
"... 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 WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.



In short,
* there are no Roman recods of Jesus,
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus,
* the claimed evidence is very weak - late, forged, suspect or not about Jesus at all.
* the T.F. is probably the best "evidence", but it is at best corrupt, at worst forged.


WB5

Gday,

Originally posted by kinglizard
The first set of historical records of course is the New Testament. The 27 books of the NT refer to the life of Jesus.

Many of them do NOT refer to a historical life of Jesus at all.
Have you ever READ the NT ?

Originally posted by kinglizard
If Jesus was not real, why did Matthew and Luke go to such lengths to trace his lineage? Making up a person is one thing. But assigning him a set of relatives is another thing.

So, you actually don't realise that the lineages are completely DIFFERENT ?
Clear evidence of MYTH.
You've never actually read the NT, have you?

Originally posted by kinglizard
People also point to the discrepancies in the stories of Jesus among the four gospels as proof that Jesus was not real. But actually, it shows that all four had different perspectives of Jesus. It shows that all of them did not have a common source of information other than the life of Jesus.

It shows they had NO historical source.
It shows it's MYTH.

Originally posted by kinglizard
All four writers give verifiable names and places in their testimonies. We can check out where is Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Golgotha, King Herod, and many other things. People making up a person would not go to the lengths of having everything verifiable except the main person in the story.

Wrong.
Ancient myths DO have veifiable names and places in them.
Have you ever read any Greek myths, e.g. ?

Originally posted by kinglizard
There are also many other secular writers that talked about Jesus.

Wrong.

Originally posted by kinglizard
In 112 AD, a Roman historian named Cornelius Tacitus wrote:
"Christus, the founder of the name(Christians), was put to death by Pontius Pilate."

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 kinglizard
Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome"

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), 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.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Originally posted by kinglizard
During the early second century, a Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, wrote:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure."

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.

Originally posted by kinglizard
"The Roman sources show a vague awareness that Jesus was a historical figure as well as the object of a cult;"

Wrong.
The Roman sources show Christians who BELIEVE in a Christ.
Just like Roman sources show people who BELIEVE in Bacchus etc.

Originally posted by kinglizard
the reliable Jewish sources tell us that he was a Jewish teacher who was put to death for sorcery and false prophecy and that he had a brother named James. The Jewish evidence is especially valuable because of the hostility between Jews and Christians at the time: it would have been easy for the Jewish side to question the existence of Jesus, but this they never did." (NGME 94)

Hahahahahaha.
The "reliable Jewish sources" say :

* Jesus was a black magician who learned sorcery in Egypt
* Jesus hid the black magic in a cut in his skin
* Jesus has 5 disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.
* Jesus was stoned to death in Lud
* Jesus is in hell in a boiling vat of #
* Jesus was a bastard son of a Roman soldier
* Jesus was conceived during menstruation
* Jesus burned his food
* Jesus worshipped a brick-bat

Is THAT what you call "reliable Jewish sources", kinglizard ?
Really?


WB5

Hiya,

Originally posted by AD5673
Well there were find of the cloth he was warapped in,

The Shroud is a proven forgery.

Originally posted by AD5673in his tomb.

We do not know where Jesus' tomb is - there are currently FIVE claimed tombs of Jesus.
Did you know that ?

Also in ancient Roman hisotry Constantine built an enourmous Church (i thikn it was a church) near the place of Jesus's crycifiction, and tomb.

3 CENTURIES later !
So what?

And "crycifiction" ???


WB5

Hiyas,

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
That's an interesting theory which I too have entertained. According to popular bias, Jesus had created such havoc in Rome that the entire people were shamed,

Why?
Where was the shame?
What is the evidence?
How did havoc create shame?

Anyway - there is no evidence that Jesus HIMSELF created any havoc - contemporary writers do NOT mention Jesus at all. Romans and Jews showed NO knowledge of Jesus until a century or more after the elleged events.

Incredibly - even the early CHRISTIANS don't mention any personal connection to Jesus !

Amongst all the early Christian writings - there is NOT ONE authentic claim to have met Jesus, or Mary or Joseph or Lazarus or Nicodemus etc. NONE.

What we DO have is later CLAIMS about meeting Jesus, or forged books such as 2 Peter.
Let's examine the evidence -

How many :
* identifiable people
* claimed to have met Jesus
* in authentic writing.
?

Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.

It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person.

the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.

G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.

G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.

G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.

G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.

Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.

James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.

Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.

the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.

Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had.
He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said.
Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.

Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus

Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus.
Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.

So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.

There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever met Jesus.

Just later books and claims, and claims about books.


WB5

Hiya,

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
The Romans could in theory, being shamed, decided to broom this revolution under the carpet to save the remaing honour they may have had.
Deep

Can you please explain how the Romans were shamed?
How does hiding Jesus save their honour.
Please explain that.

Meanwhile - how about all the writers of the period FAILED to notice Jesus - were ALL these writers part of your grand conspiracy ?


WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

PHILO

Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.

Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.

If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings.

Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 5



WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

SENECA

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.

Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.

In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul.

How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4


PLUTARCH

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.

Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.

Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the "Vision of Aridaeus", a spiritual journey, or out of body experience, or religious fantasy -
members.iinet.net.au...

If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4



JUSTUS

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.

Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3



WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS


DAMIS

Damis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person.

If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



APOLLONIUS

See Damis.




PLINY THE ELDER

Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CE

Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.)

It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



JUVENAL

Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd century.

Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian, Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.)

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



MARTIAL

Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century.

Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
* Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
* virgin's blood,
* Roman funerary practices,
* the way accused men look in court,
* Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
* anointing the body with oil,
* Molorchus the good shepherd,
* Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
* the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,

This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and issues.

He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events).

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PETRONIUS

Petronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon" c.60CE.

Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including :
** a CRUCIFIXION !
** a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
** a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision,
* gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
* writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
* books such as the Iliad,
* Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
* people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
* female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
* baths, shipwrecks, meals...

This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PAUSANIAS

Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century.

Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. He mentions a large number of minor figues from within and without Greece.

He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown: "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]

Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



EPICTETUS

Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant.

Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to :
* the early Christians,
or
* the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.

Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a figure such as Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



AELIUS ARISTIDES

Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2)

If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



FRONTO

Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd century.

According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PERSIUS

Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.

The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus, is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus (but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.)

Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people and issues.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



DIO CHRYSOSTOM

Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.

Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



AULUS GELLIUS

Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium of many topics and which mentioned many people.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



LUCIUS APULEIUS

Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MARCUS AURELIUS

Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MUSONIUS RUFUS

C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome in mid 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



HIEROCLES

Hierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in late 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MAXIMUS of TYRE

Cassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



ARRIAN

Arrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE.

The subject is not related, but Arrian wrote a very large work which mentioned HUNDREDS of people, some not from Alexander's time.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



APPIAN

Appian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid 2nd century.

It's not particularly likely that this specific writer would mention Jesus.
But,
he wrote a LARGE work which mentions HUNDREDS of people.
Appian does mention some issues of HIS day (mid 2nd century), e.g. a decision by Hadrian.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



THEON of SMYRNA

Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century.

Theon wrote about philosophy. If Jesus and his teachings were known, it is entirely plausible for to mention them.

Theon also wrote about astronomy.
If he had heard about the Star of Bethlehem or the Darkness (as an event, or from the Gospels) he could easily have mentioned it.

Apologists frequently cite Phlegon and Thallus, astronomers who mentioned eclipses (but NOT Jesus or the Gospel events, that is merely later Christian wishful thinking) as evidence for Jesus.

An astronomer could easily be expected to mention those incidents, especially when apologists claim other astronomers of the period did exactly that.

The silence of early astronomers about the Star of Bethlehem or the crucifixion darkness argues these "events" were unknown until later.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



QUINTILIAN

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the "Education of an Orator" in Rome in late 1st century.

One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds.

If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS

Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.

Although not directly on subject, Florus wrote a large work which mentions many names. He could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



LUCAN

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century.

In his large poem, the Pharsalia, he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing.
He:
* mentions an event from 56CE,
* refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
* refered to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world,
* refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



STATIUS

Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome in late 1st century.

Statius wrote many works on several subjects, he could have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



HERO of ALEXANDRIA

Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



GEMINUS

Geminus wrote on mathematics astronomy in Greece.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



ALBINUS

Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in early 2nd century, a little survives.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



ARISTOCLES

Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, early 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



APOLLODORUS

Apollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



HEPHAESTION

Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



SEXTUS EMPIRICUS

Sextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS

JOSEPHUS

Much has been said about Josephus, but not here.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.



TACITUS

Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.



NUMENIUS

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"

Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed to him.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.



SUETONIUS

Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman Caesars c.120CE.

He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.



PHLEGON

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the Gospel darkness.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.



THALLUS

Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.



WB5

It is a subject I have always been interested in. Is there any proof of Jesus.

I have been chatting/posting in discussion forums since ICQ. (at least 10 years ago).

I have encountered in this timeline (among others) 3 seminary students who tried to prove the existence of Jesus. All 3 eventually left the seminary because of what they found - - which was contrary to what they had been taught.

As far as Josephus - - being an authority on Jesus. Most of the writings attributed to him in regards to Jesus have been proven forgeries.

Hiya, Jamuhn,

Originally posted by Jamuhn
As far as hearsay accounts of Jesus, how much hearsay was the word of the day during 0 Ad?

Well,
Pointing out OTHER hearsay doesn't make Christian hearsay any more reliable.
But-
We do not have ONE SINGLE authentic claim to have met Jesus - even by CHRISTIANS!
Jesus left NO mark on ANYONE in history - no-one ever wrote about meeting or even seeing Jesus.
No Jew, no Roman, no Christian.
It starts with Paul's spiritual Christ, followed eventually by the Gospel stories - anonymous stories from a century or so after the alleged events.

Have a look here at this table which shows that knowledge OF the Gospel stories of Jesus came FROM the Gospels :
members.iinet.net.au...

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Also, how much historical writing actually occured around this time?

Heaps, as I listed up-thread. A large number of writers of the period should have, or could have, mentioned Jesus - dozens of writers. NONE of them did so.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Do we just throw the Bible out the window?

No.
We evaluate it, like any other source.

But you seem to have just ASSUMED it is a "historical source", when that is the very question under discussion - HOW historical are the Gospels?

There is a great deal of evidence to show it is NOT historical at all.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I for one am a believer, I'm not a Christian, but I do believe that there was a man named Jesus.

Yup.
The vast majority or people agree that Jesus existed.
Why?
BECAUSE the vast majority or people agree that Jesus existed.
It's easy to go along with the crowd on this one.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I don't think its fair to relate the history during 0 AD

A minor nit-pick -
there was no year 0 AD.
The year of Jesus birth is now numbered 1 AD, the year before was 1 BC.
(Although astronomers sometimes do use a year 0.)


WB5

Hiya,

Originally posted by zero_snaz
Why should it be expected that Jesus would have had the same amount of 'press' as a Emperor, King, or the likes.

It shouldn't be expected.
But no-one here said it should.

Originally posted by zero_snaz
Why would anyone write books about his life when he was a low class citizen.

Who cares why?
But they WERE mentioned!

Even MINOR people WERE mentioned in ancient times - consider this minor nobody mentioned in Pausanias :
"Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]

Here is low-class citizen - a total nobody - a prophetess from PALESTINE - mentioned in ancient writings. There are 1000s of such minor nobodies mentioned in my list above.

The idea that only Kings etc were mentioned is simply FALSE.

Originally posted by zero_snaz
He was a carpenter whose greatest impact came after he died. The fact that people were writing about him, following him 100 years after he died is impressive. How many cults die with the leader? If there was nothing of interest about this man, he wasn't rich or powerful, why did he draw the attention he did?

In other words - people BELIEVED in Jesus 100 years after his ALLEGED life.
That means it's all about BELIEF. But no-one EVER met Jesus.
No-one ever CLAIMED to have met a historical Jesus.

So he is just the same as any other God - Bacchus, Dionysus, Osiris, Krishna, etc. etc.
People BELIEVED in Jesus - so what?
People BELIEVE today in Scientology - many more than the early Christians.
Does that make it true?
No.
But when it comes to Christianity - somehow BELIEF is equated with truth.


WB5

Originally posted by kinglizard
IMHO - The fact that so many people wrote about his life should be proof enough that he existed.

That doesn't mean anything at all. Many people have written about Santa Claus too, is Santa real? Television writers in cartoon series write a whole life for the characters, are they real? As for Ancient Jewish Historians,

Titus Flavius Josephus comes to mind instantly. Josephus's two most important works are Jewish Wars and Antiquities of the Jews.
Jewish Antiquities [18.63-64] - 'Testimonium Flavianum':
"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

This passage is now and has been for centuries regarded as a forgery. I tend to think is was inserted by later scribes and priests to further the Christian power base and history, of which there is little. This isn't a direct forgery, but rather an interpolation, an little alteration made here and there

Secondly, Philo of Alexandria, or Philo Judaeus, or Philo the Jew) (c. 20 B.C. - A.D. 50) was a Jewish-Egyptian philosopher of the Hellenistic period, and one of the most important Jewish Historians of Ancient Times.

The very few biographical details we have are found in Philo's own works and in those of the 1st Century Jewish historian, Josephus. The only event that can be determined chronologically was his participation (and leadership) in the deputation which the Alexandrian Jews sent to the Roman Emperor Caligula in the year 39 or 40 A.D. in order to ask for protection against attacks by the Alexandrian Greeks, to seek relief from anti-Jewish riots promoted by Flaccus, the Roman governor of Alexandria, and also to complain about the introduction of statues of the emperor into the synagogues.

Although this is the latest known fact in Philo's life, he is assumed to have died around A.D. 50.

Source Link

Philo Judæus

Philo of Alexandria
I have never found, or read, or heard about Philo mention anything at all about Jesus or his family. Neither did the other Jewish Historians of the time...

Why Are The Ancient Historians Silent About Jesus?

Some say there were 10 such men planted here on Earth at near the same time period, to correct mistake made by the ETs that were interacting with humanity, and actively altering their DNA.
As for the famous "red letter edition" King James Bible New Testament, it was wholly written by the Piso Family of Rome.

WHO WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT?

THE PISO FAMILY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Hiya,

Originally posted by Leveller
Jesus was not a divine figure until over 300 years after his death.

Whoa!
Stright out of The Da Vinci code.
But,
unfortunately it's not true, as a quick check of the NT would show.

Consider the famous prologue of G.John :

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. "

The "word" refers to Jesus, who was "God".

Or consider Ephesians :
"the Image of the invisible God,
the first -born of Heaven,
for in him all things were created,
in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions,
principalities or authorities,
all things were created through him and for him
he is before all things,
and in him all things hold together,
he is the Head of the Body, the church,
he is the beginning,
the first born from the dead,
that in all he might be first,
for in him was the Pleroma,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things,
whether on earth or in heaven,"

Many more examples are found throughout the NT showing that Jesus was considered divine from the very beginning - the historical Jesus came LATER with the Gospels in early-mid 2nd century.

Originally posted by Leveller
Historically he may or may not have lived. I don't believe that matters though. In my opinion it is the teachings of Christ which are all important and that is why the whole religion came about originally.

But the teachings of Jesus only come from the LATER Gospels.
Pauls mentions almost nothing about Jesus teachings, nor do the other NT epistles.
Why is that?


WB5

Hiya,

Originally posted by Khonsu
I must agree with DTOM and Leveller. Yashua as a historical figure may have certainly existed but as Leveller revealed he and his position of divinity was established by Constantine during the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Wow.
It's astonishing how many people believe thus false claim from The Da Vinci Code.
Astonishing, because a quick look at the NT would show it is not true at all.

The Gospel of John describes Jesus like so :

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

See that ?

"The word is God"
"the one and only Son, who is himself God"

The NT is filled with examples of Jesus being considered divine from the earliest times.
Another example would be Hebrews :
"For Christ has entered . . . heaven itself "

It is NOT TRUE that Nicea decided this 300 years later.
Completely UNTRUE.
Please - go check this, so you all know better next time,
OK?
:-)


WB5