over 90% of historians (Christians and non-Christians) believe Jesus existed

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Crystal,

You cited comments allegedly from Pliny the Younger and Tacitus. Are those the two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers?

"Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ."

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills, I think.

Jimbo

Not necessarily Jimbo. In the 19th century Pliny's letter was considered a forgery.

But yes Remsburg did mean Josephus and Tacitus. Now please explain why you're citing Remsburg as an authority in the first place. Have you read his book? You know he kinda allows Jesus to exist don't you? He's railing against a supernatural Christ.

[jimbo]

Jedi,

But yes Remsburg did mean Josephus and Tacitus. Now please explain why you're citing Remsburg as an authority in the first place. Have you read his book? You know he kinda allows Jesus to exist don't you? He's railing against a supernatural Christ.

I have not read Remsburg's book, but I found his comments that I linked to interesting. I don't know what Remsburg ultimately believes or doesn't believe about Jesus, but the fact remains that none of those contemporary historians/writers who lived in that area seemed to be aware that God himself came down to earth and had a little ministry set up in their neighborhood. Wonder how they missed it?

Jimbo

[lilpixieofterror]

Crystal,

You cited comments allegedly from Pliny the Younger and Tacitus. Are those the two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers?

"Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ."

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills, I think.

Jimbo, let's see if you can understand this... Tacitus and Pilney the Younger ARE NOT jewish writers and there is NO EVIDENCE that these passages are forged. Therefore your source is wrong, I think Jimbo needs to stop accepting whatever he wants to hear. You were caught uncritically accepting a source that told you exactly what you wanted to hear. I even gave you a link to JPH's study of this 'source' and he showed even more of the list as being invalid. I think you need to work on your study skills. Try again Jimbo.

Crystal

[Carpedm9587]

And again he misses the point.

No - I got your point, LPOT. You simply have missed the point of the objection that has been raised.

That being said - we're now at the point in the discussion of accusing one another of "missing the point," so the discussion has become useless.

Were done here, I think.

Michel

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I have not read Remsburg's book, but I found his comments that I linked to interesting. I don't know what Remsburg ultimately believes or doesn't believe about Jesus, but the fact remains that none of those contemporary historians/writers who lived in that area seemed to be aware that God himself came down to earth and had a little ministry set up in their neighborhood. Wonder how they missed it?

Jimbo

Now isn't that telling. Why not read books at source? Second thing, most of the folk on that list were NOT historians (Columella for example wrote about agriculture) and one wasn't a writer. (Epictetus didn't write things down himself) So the description of the list isn't accurate to begin with.

Please explain why non-historians (mostly Romans at that, who sneered at the superstitious Jews) would make mention of a person like Jesus.

I realise to Christians Jesus is God-in-the-flesh but He did not make an awful lot of that himself did he? Then why would this be reported outside the faith?

I would say though that a couple of the names on the list (Seneca and maybe Plutarch along with Tacitus and Josephus) are the most likely to have mentioned Him, and indeed two of these did but Remsburg disputes that. I wonder why that is. Is it because the data doesn't fit his theory?

[lilpixieofterror]

No - I got your point, LPOT. You simply have missed the point of the objection that has been raised.

No I haven't Carpe, the thing is... this isn't directed at you. It's directed at Jimbo and company for uncritically swallowing whatever they want to hear without question. Have you been paying attention? Did you just see how he uncritically quoted something without taking an entire 15 minutes to look up this list to see if it's even valid? This is what I'm talking about! I'm trying to get him and his company to spend some time researching to see if it's really a valid theory that Jesus didn't exist. So far, nobody wants to take the extra time required to actually back up their theory and they spend more time crying about a hyperbole (which I clearly made, but it seems most are too dense to see it) then they do researching their theories. If Jimbo and company spent half the time looking up things that they did crying, they might actually make some valid points. Now that I'm done explaining to you (again) my entire point of making Jimbo and company 'prove me wrong' do you want to tell me what the issue is?

Crystal

[Bagger_Vance]

blah blah blah...they spend more time crying about a hyperbole (which I clearly made...) blah blah blah

Crystal

That is all you had to say. You pulled one out of your rear without anything to back it up. Winner, Carp.

[Carpedm9587]

...they spend more time crying about a hyperbole (which I clearly made, but it seems most are too dense to see it)...

No issue beyond the one raised, Crystal. And I think this is the first time I have actually seen you come close to acknowledging an error. Pearls for taking that step.

Michel

[lilpixieofterror]

That is all you had to say. You pulled one out of your rear without anything to back it up. Winner, Carp.

Translation: "I disagree with your methods, therefore your wrong." The fact that everybody has failed to name just 5 historians who say the Jesus never existed theory is valid speaks volumes to me. Now go back and read this thread and figure out what my point is in making Jimbo actually have to do some research to back up his rather stupid idea that Jesus never existed. So, can you name 5 historians, who have the proper degrees, who say Jesus never existed and name the method(s) they use?

Crystal

[lilpixieofterror]

No issue beyond the one raised, Crystal. And I think this is the first time I have actually seen you come close to acknowledging an error. Pearls for taking that step.l

I'm sorry, but I've admitted to errors before. The problem is... well you don't want to get to know me. (Didn't you say something a while ago about judging a person before you know something about them?) Have you paid attention at all to Jimbo's rather sad attempts thoughtout this thread to a rather simple request (IE name 5 historians who say Jesus never existed)? Did you notice were he uncritically swallowed something that told him exactly what he wanted to hear? Did you see how Punkish proved that the website he pulled from was taking the book out of context and the book was really referring to something else? These errors Jimbo has made every since the day he joined T-web. He is not interested in learning anything in here and as such I do not treat him like he is, he is here to rant and as such will get treated that way. Now, if he happens to show a change of heart and becomes interested in a discussion, then I'll change my treatment towards him.

Crystal

[jimbo]

Jedi,

JIMBO: I have not read Remsburg's book, but I found his comments that I linked to interesting. I don't know what Remsburg ultimately believes or doesn't believe about Jesus, but the fact remains that none of those contemporary historians/writers who lived in that area seemed to be aware that God himself came down to earth and had a little ministry set up in their neighborhood. Wonder how they missed it?

JEDI: Now isn't that telling. Why not read books at source?

Because I was just quoting a web page and don't have the book in my possession.

Second thing, most of the folk on that list were NOT historians (Columella for example wrote about agriculture) and one wasn't a writer. (Epictetus didn't write things down himself) So the description of the list isn't accurate to begin with.

Quibble.

Please explain why non-historians (mostly Romans at that, who sneered at the superstitious Jews) would make mention of a person like Jesus.

Because Jesus was supposedly God himself and was allegedly known far and wide for his great wisdom and miraculous powers.

I realise to Christians Jesus is God-in-the-flesh but He did not make an awful lot of that himself did he? Then why would this be reported outside the faith?

According to the Bible, people came from miles around to see the amazing miracles of Jesus and hear him speak. Whole towns turned out to see him, supposedly. Strange then that no one thought to mention the amazing ministry of this miracle-working god on earth.

Consider...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

'...the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." '

And yet no one from that time thought to write anything down about him, as far as we know.

Curious. Very curious indeed.

I would say though that a couple of the names on the list (Seneca and maybe Plutarch along with Tacitus and Josephus) are the most likely to have mentioned Him, and indeed two of these did but Remsburg disputes that. I wonder why that is. Is it because the data doesn't fit his theory?

The writer only says that two of these mentions of Jesus are disputed, which is true. He doesn't claim that they are proven forgeries.

Regardless, the main point is that Jesus supposedly worked wonders and miracles and drew great crowds and the attention of the authorities, and yet there is no contemporary evidence whatsoever for any of this. It doesn't prove that some kind of Jesus did NOT exist, but it fits in with the idea that the Gospels are essentially made up stories.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[Bagger_Vance]

Translation: "I disagree with your methods, therefore your wrong." The fact that everybody has failed to name just 5 historians who say the Jesus never existed theory is valid speaks volumes to me. Now go back and read this thread and figure out what my point is in making Jimbo actually have to do some research to back up his rather stupid idea that Jesus never existed. So, can you name 5 historians, who have the proper degrees, who say Jesus never existed and name the method(s) they use?

Crystal

Your methods are what were in question. You've already admitted that you were wrong. End of story.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi Jimbo,

Because I was just quoting a web page and don't have the book in my possession.

Not necessary. It's online: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/...0.htm#CONTENTS

Quibble.

Really. So is accuracy important to you when presenting information?

Because Jesus was supposedly God himself and was allegedly known far and wide for his great wisdom and miraculous powers.

Hang on, that's a theological statement (Jesus was God) - please explain why Jewish nonbelievers or Roman writers would make anything of this, since they a) didn't believe it was right for a man to claim to be the Jewish God or b)didn't believe in the Jewish God at all.

The issue here is, did Jesus exist as a man. (If you want evidence that Christians in the first century held that Jesus was God, then I can provide that)

I pointed out to you that Romans sneered at Jewish superstition. (cf Tacitus Annals 15:44-45) That would include claims of Jesus performing miracles, wouldn't it? Then why would we expect Roman writers to mention this? (your reply merely begged the question by bringing up Jesus' miracles repeatedly)

According to the Bible, people came from miles around to see the amazing miracles of Jesus and hear him speak. Whole towns turned out to see him, supposedly. Strange then that no one thought to mention the amazing ministry of this miracle-working god on earth.

Theological point aside, Josephus and Tacitus mention his ministry and/or something about the Christian movement being associated with the supernatural:

Josephus said that he was a man who performed "wonderful works". (I'll admit this does not necessarily involve the supernatural. But at least it admits to him having a ministry.)

Tacitus notes (with contempt) that the superstition continued after Jesus' death. (Question: since Josephus, Tacitus and Celsus admit to Jesus and/or the Christian movement having some sort of engagement with the supernatural -Celsus saying it was Egyptian magic - then how come you deny its existance entirely?)

I'd also note that since Jesus stated about himself "someone greater than Solomon is here" (Matthew 12:42) that the people coming from miles away to hear him speak / hear his wisdom could well be a reference to people travelling to hear Solomon's wisdom. (1 Kings 10)

Consider...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Okay I went there and read "Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus."

And got no further. Sorry, but that is not devasting to historians, and this writer clearly hasn't read any. Instead he lists as sources a bunch of non-historians suchas McKinsey, Remsburg, Helms (English professor!),Spong, Marshall Gauvin (aviation mechanic) etc etc. The closest we get to actual historians would be Elaine Pagels (who does not deny Jesus' existance) and Earl Doherty. Okay so he has a degree in the subject but the pot pourri displayed here (and outdated works as well while proclaiming modern scholarship! historical method excludes works more than 50 years old, did you know that?) means this page isn't worth the time of day thanks.

So what about the bible quote that says Jesus was widely known ? It could be to boost the reputation and honour of Jesus. It might be that Jesus was widely known, but this wasn't the sort of thing that the writers in Remsburg's list were interested in. Gamaliel was an important Jewish teacher who doesn't get mentioned either. (apart from in the book of Acts, as far as I know) It might be that Jesus was seen as dishonourable (that he claimed to be a king other than Caesar) and therefore was not worthy of mention.

And yet no one from that time thought to write anything down about him, as far as we know.

So Luke, an associate of Paul of Tarsus, and an historian, didn't write anything down about Jesus. Got it. Your statements are absurd.

The writer only says that two of these mentions of Jesus are disputed, which is true. He doesn't claim that they are proven forgeries.

"Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."
"And yet a ranker forgery was never penned" - about Josephus
"8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy." - about Tacitus

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

and yet there is no contemporary evidence whatsoever for any of this. It doesn't prove that some kind of Jesus did NOT exist,

I want to ask why you demand contemporary evidence. Are you admitting there was a Jesus of some sort?

EDIT: Whoops. We also have one clear case of misuse of a historian. I've found that page Jimbo linked to quoting Steve Mason, a historian yes, but here's the work in question:

http://web.archive.org/web/200104142..._nazareth.html (two pages)
His conclusion was that we cnnnot know whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Nazareth, not that Jesus wasn't born at all ! So maybe the author did read a historian. But proper use of such a work wasn't on his mind.

Punkish

[jimbo]

Hi Jimbo,

JEDI: Now isn't that telling. Why not read books at source?

JIMBO: Because I was just quoting a web page and don't have the book in my possession.

JEDI: Not necessary. It's online: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/...0.htm#CONTENTS

Again, I was just quoting a web page. I didn't know that I was required to read an entire book before I can take a quote from it.

JEDI: Second thing, most of the folk on that list were NOT historians (Columella for example wrote about agriculture) and one wasn't a writer. (Epictetus didn't write things down himself) So the description of the list isn't accurate to begin with. JIMBO Quibble.

JEDI: Really. So is accuracy important to you when presenting information?

You are quibbling about what writers wrote about and what the percentage of writers to historians is and whether a particular writer had someone write for him. The point remains that no contemporary historians or writers mention Jesus.

JEDI: Please explain why non-historians (mostly Romans at that, who sneered at the superstitious Jews) would make mention of a person like Jesus.

JIMBO: Because Jesus was supposedly God himself and was allegedly known far and wide for his great wisdom and miraculous powers.

JEDI: Hang on, that's a theological statement (Jesus was God) - please explain why Jewish nonbelievers or Roman writers would make anything of this, since they a) didn't believe it was right for a man to claim to be the Jewish God or b)didn't believe in the Jewish God at all.

As I noted, the Bible portrays Jesus as being known throughout the lands he traveled, by common folks and by the authorities. Yet there is no written record from that time that he existed. I am just taking things from your perspective.

The issue here is, did Jesus exist as a man. (If you want evidence that Christians in the first century held that Jesus was God, then I can provide that)

Did he exist at all? It is pretty hard to tell. I know that decades later Christians believed Jesus was a god. The question is: Where did they get their information from?

I pointed out to you that Romans sneered at Jewish superstition. (cf Tacitus Annals 15:44-45) That would include claims of Jesus performing miracles, wouldn't it? Then why would we expect Roman writers to mention this? (your reply merely begged the question by bringing up Jesus' miracles repeatedly)

The only point I am making is that no one-Jew, Roman, Greek, or Chinese-seemed to notice Jesus when he supposedly lived.

JIMBO: According to the Bible, people came from miles around to see the amazing miracles of Jesus and hear him speak. Whole towns turned out to see him, supposedly. Strange then that no one thought to mention the amazing ministry of this miracle-working god on earth.

JEDI: Theological point aside, Josephus and Tacitus mention his ministry and/or something about the Christian movement being associated with the supernatural...

I am talking about CONTEMPORARY references to Jesus, which are non-existant.

Tacitus notes (with contempt) that the superstition continued after Jesus' death. (Question: since Josephus, Tacitus and Celsus admit to Jesus and/or the Christian movement having some sort of engagement with the supernatural -Celsus saying it was Egyptian magic - then how come you deny its existance entirely?)

I am talking about CONTEMPORARY references to Jesus, which are non-existant. You are referring to people who were not even born when Jesus was supposedly alive.

I'd also note that since Jesus stated about himself "someone greater than Solomon is here" (Matthew 12:42) that the people coming from miles away to hear him speak / hear his wisdom could well be a reference to people travelling to hear Solomon's wisdom. (1 Kings 10)

Still, there exists no contemporary evidence that Jesus existed.

JIMBO: Consider...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

JEDI: Okay I went there and read "Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus."

And got no further. Sorry, but that is not devasting to historians, and this writer clearly hasn't read any. Instead he lists as sources a bunch of non-historians suchas McKinsey, Remsburg, Helms (English professor!),Spong, Marshall Gauvin (aviation mechanic) etc etc. The closest we get to actual historians would be Elaine Pagels (who does not deny Jesus' existance) and Earl Doherty. Okay so he has a degree in the subject but the pot pourri displayed here (and outdated works as well while proclaiming modern scholarship! historical method excludes works more than 50 years old, did you know that?) means this page isn't worth the time of day thanks.

You have not refuted that "...there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus."

So what about the bible quote that says Jesus was widely known ? It could be to boost the reputation and honour of Jesus. It might be that Jesus was widely known, but this wasn't the sort of thing that the writers in Remsburg's list were interested in. Gamaliel was an important Jewish teacher who doesn't get mentioned either. (apart from in the book of Acts, as far as I know) It might be that Jesus was seen as dishonourable (that he claimed to be a king other than Caesar) and therefore was not worthy of mention.

Or it could be that Jesus did not exist and the Gospel stories are made up fictions. It is a pretty good explanation of the facts, from where I am standing.

JIMBO: And yet no one from that time thought to write anything down about him, as far as we know.

JEDI: So Luke, an associate of Paul of Tarsus, and an historian, didn't write anything down about Jesus. Got it. Your statements are absurd.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...gan/intro.html

"Many biblical authors are unknown. Where an author has been named, that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual authors. The present names were assigned long after these four books were written. And--in spite of what the Gospel authors say--biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry."

JEDI: I would say though that a couple of the names on the list (Seneca and maybe Plutarch along with Tacitus and Josephus) are the most likely to have mentioned Him, and indeed two of these did but Remsburg disputes that. I wonder why that is. Is it because the data doesn't fit his theory?

JIMBO: The writer only says that two of these mentions of Jesus are disputed, which is true. He doesn't claim that they are proven forgeries.

"Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

JEDI: "And yet a ranker forgery was never penned" - about Josephus

Yes, Josephus was Jewish, and Remsberg said this in reference to him: "aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author,..." He differentiates between a forged passage from a Jewish writer, Josephus, and two disputed passages from Roman writers.

"8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy." - about Tacitus

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

In the comment from Remsberg I cited previously, he referred to " two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers." Apparently he was referring to commentary attributed to Tacitus about Nero and his persecution of Christians. Remsberg writes, "This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons," and then Remsberg lists several problems he sees with the passage, including #8: "As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy."

Remsberg says that two passages from Roman writers are disputed, and he specifically says that a passage attributed to Tacitus must be declard doubtful and provides reasons for stating this.

I am somewhat baffled by what point you are trying to make, if any. Would you care to clarify yourself?

JIMBO: and yet there is no contemporary evidence whatsoever for any of this. It doesn't prove that some kind of Jesus did NOT exist,

JEDI: I want to ask why you demand contemporary evidence. Are you admitting there was a Jesus of some sort?

I don't know. It is kind of hard to tell one way of the other, isn't it?

Cheers,

Jimbo

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

It's not difficult to see why he's called Dimbo by JPH. I'm too busy today to respond to your drivel - back later.