No contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth [Archive]

View Full Version : No contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth

Iasion

March 10th 2003, 01:11 AM

Greetings spl_cadet et al,

Mention has been made of contemporary historians and references to Jesus and the Gospel events.

In fact there is NO such evidence, even where it would be EXPECTED.

I have a page detailing the first 150 years or so -
Early Writers (http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/EarlyWriters.html)

There are 2 contemporary writers whose silence on Jesus and the Gospel events is most surprising as they wrote books which covered those very times and places and subjects :

* Justus of Tiberias

* Philo Judaeus

We still have the works of Philo, but Justus is lost - yet we know from later reviews that he wrote nothing about Jesus.

There is another arguable contemporary -

* Apollonius of Tyana - If he was real (another murky case, in some ways similar to Jesus - we know of him only through his disciple Damis as recorded by Philostratus c.220) then it is odd there is no mention of him meeting Jesus (or Paul) - they are so similar and both allegedly travelled teaching and debating religious/spiritual issues. It seems likely that they cannot BOTH have been historical.

There are several more 1st century authors who could, or even should have mentioned Jesus or the alleged Gospel events and characters :

Mid 1st century -

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

* C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome.

* Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.

* Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote several satires in Rome.

* Petronius Arbiter wrote the Satyricon in Rome.

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

* Geminus wrote on astronomy in Greece.

This matches with the Christian writers of the period who also make no mention of the life of Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events : 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon, Hebrews (Paul's references are to a spiritual Christos dwelling in all humans).

Late 1st century -

* Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.

* Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times

* Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.

* Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome.

* Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems in Rome

Christian writers from this period also have no mention of Jesus or the Gospels: Colossians, 1 John, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, 1 Peter, Revelation.

Josephus' very suspect reference occurs late 1st century - also 1 Clement which has 2 Sayings of Jesus but does NOT quote Gospel writings.

Several early 2nd century authors made no mention :

* Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy.

* Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome.

* Nicomachus of Gerasa wrote on mathematics.

* Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.

* Hierocles wrote some Stoic works

The first clear early (but vague) references Jesus Christ occur in early 2nd century :

* Pliny
* Papias
* Tacitus (probably)
* Epictetus (maybe)
* Suetonius (maybe)
* Aelius Aristides (maybe)

None of these authors show any solid evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, merely repeating later Christian beliefs.

This matches the Christian record of the period - at best a tiny number of vague references, but no real evidence for Jesus or the Gospels : Jude, Barnabas, 2&3 John, Polycarp, Ignatius

Two other early authors (possibly early 2nd century) often mentioned, are in fact highly suspect :

Thallus perhaps wrote about this time 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 a mis-reading, falsely cited by Christians.

Phlegon probably wrote during this period - 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 said anything about Gospel events, if he did it is too late to prove anything about Jesus.

So, these times were actually rather well recorded, with multiple writers from each decade of the era, totalling over 60 writers for the 1st century and a half.

Yet NOT ONE of these early writers shows any real evidence for Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events or characters. What evidence that is usually cited is all suspect, late, or merely vague reports of later Christianity.

The evidence best supports the conclusion that there was NO historical Jesus of Nazareth, but a spiritual being, whose founding myths (Gospels) were later mis-understood as biographies.

Iasion
(Quentin)

Sheepdog

March 10th 2003, 06:13 AM

In fact there is NO such evidence, even where it would be EXPECTED.

unfortunately to your case, you haven't shown why we should expect early secular historians to produce such evidence. the fact of the matter is, to them Judea was redneck country (figuratively speaking), and most of the historians in question had no interests in the news from that area. they were more concerned about the politics and such of the Roman Empire. it would be analogous the a CNN doing an article on a zealous, obscure preacher in wankerville, Alabama. the fact that we do see it reported later is because the preaching of the said preacher became a major headline issue (or, Christianity started becoming a potent issue in Rome). thus, there is no reason to expect Roman historians to report on Jesus until later.

....

also, i am suprized that you didn't appeal to the Babylonian Talmud, which destroys your case[1]. it is (1) an early witness to Jesus, (2) contains much polemic against Christianity (hence we can't assume they are stacking the deck), and (3) it makes a historical account of Yessua (Jesus' Hebrew name). though the Talmud was compiled from A.D. 70 to 200, it is reasonable to conclude that since Jesus was a Jew who is presumed to have taught in Judea, especially in Jerusalem, the Talmud (written by Jews) would be an excellent evidence for Jesus. this is because, the events are alleged to happen in the Jewish culture, and many of the Jews (especially the Talmud writers) were hostile to Christianity. if they had any reason to suspect that Jesus was not real, they would have been more than happy to expose Christ as a myth. but they do not: the Talmud, as you can see from the page linked above, presumes Jesus indeed existed.

there are actually a couple of passages from Josephus, one of which is too often neglectied by skeptics. "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done." [1] (note, in the Greek, "who was called Christ" is qualifying "Jesus", and "whose name was James" is qualifying "brother"). to my knowledge there are no valid critical arguments against the validity of this passage.

in regards to the "eclipse" recorded in Thallus, if you were more informed on the passage, you'd know that the eclipse was said to have occured on the Full Moon, which is physically impossible for a natural solar eclipse.

The evidence best supports the conclusion that there was NO historical Jesus of Nazareth, but a spiritual being, whose founding myths (Gospels) were later mis-understood as biographies.

woah, woah, woah, at best what we have is an incomplete account of all the existing historical information from that era. since we do not have an exhaustive history of everything (as you show by admitting that Justus and Thallus are lost), you have commited the "Absense of Evidence is Evidence of Absense" fallacy. the lack of evidence does not merit the truth of a negative claim, unless there is reason to believe the existing information is more or less complete (i.e. if a bus schedule does not say a bus will arrive at a stop at 3:00 PM, it is reasonable to conclude that no bus will stop there at 3, as we expect a bus schedule to be exhaustive).

in other words, you need to change your argument, becuase it does not support your conclusion. or you need to revise your conclusion.

and furthermore, just because the secular writers don't appear to report Jesus until later, doesn't mean such evidence ought to be discounted. you seem to be riding on a begged question that the later historians only parroted the later Christians (when it may be posible that they actually reported from highly credible sources which are no longer available to us today). many of the secular witnesses we do have tend to be very careful to distinguish between fact and myth (with exceptions of course, i.e. evoking events as caused by gods). for example, they casually granted the existance of a real Jesus Christ, as though it should have been accepted a priori at the time; while in the same breath they carefully drew a line between what they concidered fact (crucifixion, etc.), and what was argued by Christians (i.e. resurrection). see Lucian of Samosata's report for an example of this [1]

something that is interesting to note, no writers at all from the first, second centuries ever question the existance of some historical Jesus figure. in fact, his existance has only been disputed from the lat 18th century on [2]. why is this so? maybe the earier writers had more evidence to go on than "modern" Skeptics who are heavily biased against Christianity? anyone not heavily baised against Jesus has to admit it is probable. Skeptics have no problem granting the existance of Buddha, Mohammed, and Zoroaster, even though their is more favorable historical evidence for a historical Jesus than any of these other founders of religions [3]. why the inconsistency?

1. Slick, Matt. http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm. accessed March 2003.

2. Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th ed. p. 145. New York. University Press 1970.

3. France, R.T. "Life and Teaching of Christ." New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. p. 564. Downer's Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press. 1996.

Inadvertant expletive. Nothing to see here. Please move on.

Pate

March 10th 2003, 12:17 PM

Hey Iasion,

You might be interested on J. P. Holding's challenge to debate formally in this site's debate section, the subject of the existence of historical Jesus .

J. P.'s challenge can be found at http://www.tektonics.org/special.html

jpholding

March 10th 2003, 01:27 PM

Pfft ha,

Iso seems to have swallowed several cans of Earl Doherty Christ Myth Beer. :rofl: I'd also add

http://www.tektonics.org/remslist.html

As an aside the Gospels ARE in the form of ancient bios.

How about it, Iso? Care to debate or are you just one of those Fart and Go sorts?

LilPunkishOfTerror

March 10th 2003, 01:54 PM

Hi

Is that mud I spy on your clothing? Hi, I'm Zeus :lightning bolt:

:rofl: :bonk:

so you think the rapist Iasion is a pagan parallel to Jesus do ya? arf arf. That's realy funny. Um, I've not heard that one before, except in the works of ..say...Robert Taylor. :teeth:

Yes, I've read your page on this, I came across it while I was researching Iasion, wanna discuss it?

from Guy

Admin note - the comment about a "rapist" Iasion was NOT directed towards the member Iasion but a mythological figure who is the namesake.

johnransom

March 10th 2003, 02:23 PM

03-10-2003 @ 04:13 AM
Sheepdog:

...wankerville, Alabama...

Hey! I live in Alabama, thank you very much. And I'm British by birth, so I know what "w***er" means. I am mortally offended and demand an immediate apology!:rant:

As above.

Sheepdog

March 10th 2003, 06:59 PM

yikes! i am terribly sorry, john. i just threw that together, i forgot that w***** was a real slang term, and an expletive to boot.

and about Alabama. well, no one is perfect :teeth: (actually, i have nothing against Alabama itself. i just picked it because the state is commonly associated with rednecks. but heck, here in Michigan we have our fair share of rednecks)

johnransom

March 11th 2003, 12:55 AM

03-10-2003 @ 04:59 PM
Sheepdog:

yikes! i am terribly sorry, john. i just threw that together, i forgot that w***** was a real slang term, and an expletive to boot.

and about Alabama. well, no one is perfect :teeth: (actually, i have nothing against Alabama itself. i just picked it because the state is commonly associated with rednecks. but heck, here in Michigan we have our fair share of rednecks)

You're forgiven, you d**n Yankee! :fight:

LilPunkishOfTerror

March 11th 2003, 04:50 AM

Greetings,

Iasion, you have a page on the Internet related to Christian origins. I would like, if I may to write a response.

you write,
"Authors who could reasonably be expected to at least mention Jesus or Christianity"

and cite John E Remsburg's "The Christ" as a source (which you have updated)

The problem here is, Remsburg is not talking about Jesus the man, but of the supernatural Christ. (I do not agree with this distinction btw, but that's his argument.)

He writes, (The Christ, chapter 1, "Silence of Contemporary Writers")
"It is not against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology" and "Jesus of Nazareth...is a possible character and may have existed" and "That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true" (the latter from chapter 2, and he was writing in 1909)-- he then changes tack and goes on to speak of the (supernatural, theological) Christ consistently through the chapter, listing the 40-odd (supposedly) first century writers (some are second century) in this context, and of the birth and miracles of Christ.

So you cannot use the list to exclude Jesus, because he's not writing about the man, who he admits to "possibly" existing. He writes excluding the supernatural character Christ, presupposing as an impossibility of miraculous which he outlines in chapter 1. Again, I disagree with the distinction he made. (On the other hand he could be playing games with the reader, because in his conclusion - after writing about pagan myth origins of Christianity - supposedly - he then casts doubt on the historicity of Jesus! How do you cast doubt on his existance, which is a historical issue, after talking about a different topic? That's not a fair discussion of the evidence at hand, and he knows this, because when he starts the book he declares his readers might think such a critique is "unjust".)

Thus, I believe you article is based upon a misreading of Remsburg's book, plus using that work as an authority when it shouldn't be. (Either that or it's possible you didn't consult it, as I did.)

I would welcome your response,
from Guy

Iasion

March 12th 2003, 01:17 AM

Greetings Guy,

Thus, I believe you article is based upon a misreading of Remsburg's book, plus using that work as an authority when it shouldn't be. (Either that or it's possible you didn't consult it, as I did.)

Not really - Remsburg's views have little to do with it - he was merely the seed of my idea, which was -

to compile an accurate list of early witers, and what they said about Jesus (and/or Christ) using any name.

My list shows ALL such writers that I can find, it is MY list, based on MY researches.

The point was that I found Remsburg's list (which is endlessly requoted on JM sites WITHOUT chronological order) to be inadequate and flawed, but the IDEA was good.

My list, now fairly complete (its been a long time since I have found a new name, I'd love to here of any more obscure writers any one here may know of) clearly supports my view that Jesus and Christ or both or whetever was/were unknown to contemporaries.

Its true that not all WOULD mention him, but if even HALF the Gospel stories HAD really happened, even the NON-magical ones - you'd think that there would be SOME mention in the writings of FIFTY contemporaries.

To be specific -
* If Jesus had existed in any form, Philo would surely have mentioned him
* If Jesus had existed and done even SOME of the stories, surely Justus of Tiberias would have mentioned him.

Furthermore,
* the Josephus passage (the T.F.) is a FORGED passage - even pretending its an interpolation of an earlier underlieing true passage is the weakest of straws to clutch at.
* The James mention is a tiny scrap, perhaps a respect formula, another straw of the weakest kind

* Tacitus makes a vague reference to an un-named "Christ" 80 years or so after the event - the vaguest of evidence.

* Pliny makes a small reference to a "Christ" being worshipped - how on Earth can anyone claim this is a Historical Jesus of Nazareth?

Its clear to me -
Jesus was not a historical personage.

Iasion
(Quentin)

jpholding

March 12th 2003, 10:20 AM

Iasion,

Care to talk big like that in a one on one debate with me? I have a special challenge this month just for people like you.

dizzle

March 12th 2003, 10:44 AM

Iasion it would be very interesting if you would accept JP's debate challenge.

Pilgrim

March 12th 2003, 11:41 AM

I second that.

LilPunkishOfTerror

March 12th 2003, 12:10 PM

hello Quentin,

03-12-2003 @ 05:17 AM
Iasion:

Not really - Remsburg's views have little to do with it - he was merely the seed of my idea, which was -

to compile an accurate list of early witers, and what they said about Jesus (and/or Christ) using any name.

My list shows ALL such writers that I can find, it is MY list, based on MY researches.

The point was that I found Remsburg's list (which is endlessly requoted on JM sites WITHOUT chronological order) to be inadequate and flawed, but the IDEA was good.

My list, now fairly complete (its been a long time since I have found a new name, I'd love to here of any more obscure writers any one here may know of) clearly supports my view that Jesus and Christ or both or whetever was/were unknown to contemporaries.

Its true that not all WOULD mention him, but if even HALF the Gospel stories HAD really happened, even the NON-magical ones - you'd think that there would be SOME mention in the writings of FIFTY contemporaries.

To be specific -
* If Jesus had existed in any form, Philo would surely have mentioned him
* If Jesus had existed and done even SOME of the stories, surely Justus of Tiberias would have mentioned him.

Furthermore,
* the Josephus passage (the T.F.) is a FORGED passage - even pretending its an interpolation of an earlier underlieing true passage is the weakest of straws to clutch at.
* The James mention is a tiny scrap, perhaps a respect formula, another straw of the weakest kind

* Tacitus makes a vague reference to an un-named "Christ" 80 years or so after the event - the vaguest of evidence.

* Pliny makes a small reference to a "Christ" being worshipped - how on Earth can anyone claim this is a Historical Jesus of Nazareth?

Its clear to me -
Jesus was not a historical personage.

Iasion
(Quentin)

Remsburg has little to do with it, really - interesting that your views contradict what he writes in chapter 1, that Jesus may have existed, which means you're ripping the list from its original context :hrm: (oh yeah, are you going to contact all the sites that list Remsburg's original inaccurate list and help update them?)

Besides, Remsburg isn't even living up to the book's subtitle, critical yes, but analyisis? :rofl: Giving a list of 40 odd authors without saying WHY they would or would not mention Jesus, or giving numerous negatively critical sound bites while discussing Josephus - when pro and con arguments existed - is hardly "analysis." (Please give your reasons for calling the Testimonium forged?)

I think it's misplaced to begin with this guy's work. Now, about the idea, what was your motiivation please? Why was it a good idea, what are you trying to achieve?

Odd that you wish to find "obscure" writers who are LESS likely to speak of an obscure person (to the Romans, anyway) in an obscure place...I really do wonder about why you started this project.

Why should we expect these contemporaries to write of Jesus? Now I see you are adding spin to the meaning of the word "Christ" ("Paul's references are to a spiritual Christos dwelling in all humans"), so I'll reply to the whole list in one swipe: such an explanation is self-defeating - I could argue in reply that none of the listed refer to such a Christ.

Pliny the Elder, for example, wrote a Natural History, what place is a spiritual anything in that? Quintillian was a rhetoritician, why would he write of internal things? In fact, we could go down the whole list and say the same about all of them - they're all writing of objective subjects and thus a spiritual Christ [in everybody] is not going to be mentioned, and then by your reasoning I conclude such doesn't exist. (As an aside, is Tacitus' Annals 15:44 more or less relevant, being written a full century before Philostratus' bio of Apollonius?)

Tacitus, vague? What, well he cannot be referring to a spiritual Christ can he, otherwise there would not be such (having been executed!) in everyone since Pilate, so why give "Christ" this meaning? And then the same goes for Pliny. The explanation, when thought through shoots itself in the foot.

I have more to say (especially about your dating methods) but I'm busy researching things for James Holding so I'll get back to this later in the week.

Bye for now,
from Guy

ACFaith.Com

March 12th 2003, 12:34 PM

* The James mention is a tiny scrap, perhaps a respect formula, another straw of the weakest kind

Lets see, a secular historian before the turn of the century mentions that Jesus had a brother named James. The language is not "Christian" and this cannot be argued to be an interpolation (see Kirby's article and Meier's discussion in v1 of Marginal and his bibliography).

Mark mentions Jesus' brother James as well in what many consider to be solid tradition (embarrassing family material not likely to be woven from whole cloth?). And going back to the first stratum, we have Paul who claims to know the Lord's brother James (primary eyewitness source data on the existence of a James who was said to be the Lord's brother???)

I write about this here here (http://www.acfaith.com/jamesjesus.html)

Should this triple independent attestation secure the historicity of a person from antiquity? I think so.

Vinnie

Jaltus

March 12th 2003, 06:33 PM

ACFaith.Com

March 12th 2003, 11:20 PM

Jo is not secular (my bad). Non-Christian is more accurate.

Vinnie

Iasion

March 18th 2003, 04:42 AM

Greetings sheepdog,

you haven't shown why we should expect early secular historians to produce such evidence.
... there is no reason to expect Roman historians to report on Jesus until later.

My list included more than Roman historians, it included Jewish contemporaries.

* Justus of Tiberias wrote a history Galilee in the 1st century - the VERY TIME and PLACE of the alleged Jesus's work - yet mentions NOT a WORD of Jesus or the Gospel events.

* Philo Judaeus was a contemporary of Jesus and wrote many books all about the Jews and their beliefs and history (including many early references to the Logos), even spent time in Jerusalem - yet mentions NOT a word about Jesus or his followers or their beliefs or actions.

These two writers were from the very same time and place as the alleged Jesus and wrote works which are directly relevant - one a history, the other about the Jews and their affairs.
They clearly WOULD be expected to have mentioned him if he had existed, clear evidence that Jesus did NOT exist historically.

The ancient philosophical school which is closest to Christianity is the Stoics, and two Stoic authors wrote at Rome in the mid-late 1st century, just in the period when Christ's teachings were spreading, even to Rome -
* Lucius Annaeus Seneca
* C. Musonius Rufus

Yet neither of them mentions a word about the alleged teachings of Christ, (which somewhat similar to there own) to agree or reject or discuss.
(The connection between Seneca and Paul's writings is so obvious that letters between Paul and Seneca were later FORGED to fill this gap.)

These two writers could PROBABLY be expected to have mentioned Jesus and his teachings had he existed.

Other writers could POSSIBLY be expected to mention the alleged Jesus and/or the Gospel events, depending on how much you believe -
* Pliny and Theon of Smyrna are pretty clear evidence that the miraculous Gospel darkness and earthquake are fiction.

Yes, some in my list would NOT be expected to mention Jesus,
but
some POSSIBLE would,
some PROBABLY would,
a few CERTAINLY should.

Yet, ALL the earliest authors say nothing.
This clearly supports the view that Jesus did not exist historically.

the Babylonian Talmud, which destroys your case

Oh, Poppycock!
The Talmud references to Jesus are later Jewish responses to the Gospels, they date centuries after the alleged events. They prove no more than that Jews eventually heard the stories of Jesus and rubbished them.

in regards to the "eclipse" recorded in Thallus, if you were more informed on the passage, you'd know that the eclipse was said to have occured on the Full Moon, which is physically impossible for a natural solar eclipse.

So what?
Later Christian fables about an event that never happened.
We have no idea what Thallus wrote, or when, merely 3rd hand stories of Christian's claiming Thallus's support.

no writers at all from the first, second centuries ever question the existance of some historical Jesus figure. in fact, his existance has only been disputed from the lat 18th century on

Rubbish.
Both Christians and non-Christians alike expressed various doubts about Jesus being historical :

2 John warns of those who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".

Trypho, (possibly Rabbi Tarphon), in early 2nd century , reportedly claimed (in the Dialogue with Justin Martyr) :

“But Christ - if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere - is unknown...”

Marcion, in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :

“Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”

“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”

“Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour ... [who] independent of birth, Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues.”

Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :

"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies"

Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.

"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -

Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :

"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Iasion

Iasion

March 18th 2003, 05:07 AM

Greetings jpholding,

Thanks for your invitation.

Pfft ha,...
How about it, Iso? Care to debate or are you just one of those Fart and Go sorts?

Hmmm..
But...
We are debating, right here.

I posted many pages of detailed arguments, rich in original sources, with names and dates.

I came back again, ignored the insults, answered with pages of further polite arguments.

Yet I have seen no substantive posts from you, jpholding.

Merely rude comments, deliberate insults, wrong names, and personal invective (with the occasional factoid).

I invited knowledgeable members to debate when I arrived here - a few answered, some polite, some thoughtful and knowledgeable.

It is you who won't debate me.

As for your formal debate,
no thank you,
you can't even keep the insults out of your "invitation".

I posted many pages of detailed argument on various related issues, you did no debating at all, merely tried to dismiss my work as a "fart" in the very same breath you try to invite me to you bizarre "debate".

No, sorry,
you do not meet the minimum requirements for polite rational discourse, jpholding. (I gave up on fart jokes decades ago, how OLD are you, for God's sake?)

Iasion
(Quentin)

Iasion

March 18th 2003, 05:26 AM

Greetings Guy,

Thanks for you reply,

Remsburg has little to do with it, really - interesting that your views contradict what he writes in chapter 1, that Jesus may have existed, which means you're ripping the list from its original context

I thought the list I found endlessly repeated on the web needed improvement. I made an accurate, complete list.

How can a simple List of NAME and DATES and quotes be out of context? Sure, I add some prose opinion, its clear when I do.

Yes, I disagree with Remsburg, so what?
That does NOT mean to me that I should hide my inspiration.

(oh yeah, are you going to contact all the sites that list Remsburg's original inaccurate list and help update them?)

What?
The lists are the internet are mostly simple copies of each other, I submit that my list is the best on the 'net (in terms of completeness).

Odd that you wish to find "obscure" writers who are LESS likely to speak of an obscure person (to the Romans, anyway) in an obscure place...I really do wonder about why you started this project

I beg your pardon?
I said so very clearly up front, last post :

* to compile an accurate list of early witers, and what they said about Jesus (and/or Christ) using any name.

As a result of this study and others, I have formed the view that there was no historical Jesus, which is the point of my site. I don not think my personal opinion has llea me to omit any names or change dates etc. - merely express my view on the reference.

Iasion

Iasion

March 18th 2003, 05:54 AM

Greetings Vinnie

thanks for your reply :smile:

Lets see, a secular historian before the turn of the century mentions that Jesus had a brother named James. The language is not "Christian" and this cannot be argued to be an interpolation (see Kirby's article and Meier's discussion in v1 of Marginal and his bibliography).

Secular historian?
Why not call him Jewish turncoat who wrote a history to absolve himself?

Pardon?
The language is EXACTLY Christian - it appears just so in Matthew 1:16 and in John 4:25.

It is a small phrase and could easily be an interpolation. Kirby's view not withstanding, I note Earl's argument from Origen's comments that this key phrase may not have been present in his copy at all, pointing to interpolation.

Mark mentions Jesus' brother James as well in what many consider to be solid tradition (embarrassing family material not likely to be woven from whole cloth?).

What many consider solid TRADITION?
Indeed,
but no facts.

We know nothing for sure about Mark. His Gospel was originally anonymous, unknown until early-mid 2nd century, and not finally named until late 2nd century. It is patently religio-mythical.

I just do not consider this document can be considered solid evidence of much.

And going back to the first stratum, we have Paul who claims to know the Lord's brother James (primary eyewitness source data on the existence of a James who was said to be the Lord's brother???)

Paul gives some vague spiritual formulae - "brother of the Lord" is exactly the sort of phrase I can imagine being said of a devout pious leader.

But there is NOTHING that a historian would call history - no personal details, no relationships, no dates, no places etc.

Should this triple independent attestation secure the historicity of a person from antiquity? I think so.

I sure don't.
These are weak as water.
The VAGUEST sorts of unclear references that YOU say prove a historical person.

The mere fact that such weak planks have to be relied on show just how flimsy the whole case is - there is no solid evidence, so all sorts of vague references are interpreted in terms of later dogma.

Iasion

LilPunkishOfTerror

March 18th 2003, 10:43 AM

Greetings Quentin

My reply will have to be split over two or three postings, if you don't mind:
you wrote,

"My list included more than Roman historians, it included Jewish contemporaries.

* Justus of Tiberias wrote a history Galilee in the 1st century - the VERY TIME and PLACE of the alleged Jesus's work - yet mentions NOT a WORD of Jesus or the Gospel events."

Hmm. As far as I know, we only know this by Photius' Biblioteca, 9th century, and he says Justus' work (Codex 33) is a chronology (or genealogy) of Jewish kings - so calling it a history of Galilee is not correct - and he was a contemporary of Josephus, so "the very time" is not necessarily true. He complains of his work that "he omits a great deal that is of the utmost importance", citing Christ's life as an example of omission. Now historically speaking Christ was not crowned king (except in mockery) - so the reply is, "So what?" A further reason why Justus does not mention Christ is given by Josephus - he was a man given over to vice and greed, what possible reason does he have to speak of the righteous?

If you do not hold to reliability of oral tradition then there is a problem with citing Justus via Photius. He writes in the Biblioteca's preface that he had not read these works summarised for a long time, that he is relying solely on memory and that his readers should forgive mistakes:

"If, during your study of these volumes, any of the summaries should appear to be defective or inaccurate, you must not be surprised. It is no easy matter to undertake to read each individual work, to grasp the argument, to remember and record it; but when the number of works is large, and a considerable time has elapsed since their perusal, it is extremely difficult to remember them with accuracy."

He says he engaged a secretary to commit his memory of these book summaries to the codices. So Quentin, what's your view on oral tradition? If you think it unreliable, then why cite Justus from this work?

* Philo Judaeus was a contemporary of Jesus and wrote many books all about the Jews and their beliefs and history (including many early references to the Logos), even spent time in Jerusalem - yet mentions NOT a word about Jesus or his followers or their beliefs or actions.

Guy> Sorry, references to the Logos are THEOLOGICAL not historical. Photius says of Philo that he was exegeting Jewish ancient history. What relevance is that to events around him?

Have you read Biblioteca's Codex 105, where Photius mentions Philo? He says of Philo he wrote commentaries of the Old Testament. Where does Jesus fit into that? He also says he wrote about ethical teachings, well perhaps there is a place here, but note that his work on the Essenes relates to monastic religious communities - Christianity was not monastic at this point, so why would he mention it?

Quentin>They clearly WOULD be expected to have mentioned him if he had existed, clear evidence that Jesus did NOT exist historically.

Guy> Why, given the above facts?

<snip>
Yet neither of them [Seneca, Rufus] mentions a word about the alleged teachings of Christ,

Guy> I'll look into this one.

(which somewhat similar to there own) to agree or reject or discuss.
(The connection between Seneca and Paul's writings is so obvious that letters between Paul and Seneca were later FORGED to fill this gap.)

Guy> Uh, what. Please present the relevant details of this claim.

These two writers could PROBABLY be expected to have mentioned Jesus and his teachings had he existed.

Guy> Why? They were philosophers. Sure - possibly the teachings, but expecting mention of his existance is implausible.

Other writers could POSSIBLY be expected to mention the alleged Jesus and/or the Gospel events, depending on how much you believe -
* Pliny and Theon of Smyrna are pretty clear evidence that the miraculous Gospel darkness and earthquake are fiction.

Guy> Uh, no. Pliny the Elder do you mean? He wrote a Natural History, why would he be interested in such a miraculous darkness? Again, you're not doing your homework: Let's discuss events and the Roman attitude towards them. Glenn Miller writes regarding the volcano that killed Pliny:

"This volcano (still active) sits off the Bay of Naples in Italy. Prior to its eruption in 79, the surrounding area was populated by upper-class Romans. These were the wealthy, literate, and decadent. When the volcano erupted, it buried the famous towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum,...[Pompeii alone had an amphitheater that seated 20,000 folks.] No one from Pompeii survived, but a considerable number from Herculaneum had abandoned the city long before it was buried in the 65 feet high mud-flood. All in all, some 100,000 to 250,000 people would have been able to see, hear, and experience the smoke, explosions, flooding, and general chaos of the event.

(here he added that nearby Naples was a literary place, and supposedly Virgil's tomb was there.)

There are few areas in antiquity that would have been more likely to leave multiple records of this eruption. ...

So how many [accounts] do we have? One. We have some correspondence from Pliny the Younger to Tacitus some 30-40 years later, describing the events as an eyewitness (Letters, VI.16). Naples was at that time the home of Pliny the Elder (PE) who had assumed the education of his nephew Pliny the Younger (PY). PY was 18 at the time, and was working on a school assignment for PE when the volcano went off. PE went to attempt rescue of some friends and perished in the process, but PY and the wife of PE fled and survived. PY did NOT write a record of the event at the time, and only recounts the incredible event 30 years later to his friend Tacitus for his upcoming Histories. He doesn't even refer to a previous written entry of his in the letter, but gives all indications that it is from memory. Had Pliny not been prompted by the possibility of publication in Tacitus, we would probably not have this information at all. In other words, the writing down of this information had nothing to do with being impressed by the event itself! There are many subsequent references to this event in government relief and clean-up operations, of course, but these are all third-hand documents written in Rome by non-observers. We are indeed fortunate that PY had just moved there, and that unrelated factors (i.e., Tacitus' plans for publication) surfaced, or there would have been NO literary accounts of this event at all. "

My question is this: if this is the attitude towards what WE consider major events (but not so to them i.e. mention of them is very indirect and unlikely) then why would Pliny Elder write of the Gospel earthquake, even if it wasn't a miraculous event?

Theon of Smyrna, ok, another one to look into. But what I'm able to look up, shows your homework is somewhat lacking! :brow:

Thanks, from Guy

LilPunkishOfTerror

March 18th 2003, 11:00 AM

Quentin,

I am amazed that you cite the Dialogue with Trypho from Justin Martyr. Have you read the work itself, or merely quoting the philosopher Arthur Drews? (or maybe Earl Doherty, who is at least qualified to speak on JM - very unusual in this crowd!) Consider:

xxxii -- "...But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."
xxvi -"Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made."
xxxviii - "For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped."
xxxxix -- And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."

That these things come from Trypho himself suggests the wording you gave above refer to the OFFICE of the Messiah and that Trypho thinks that Jesus did not fulful that office, not that He never existed! Using this one makes me wonder about what level of research JM folk (eg Drews, Wells, Doherty) do to support their thesis, if context has to go out the window...what kind of response is JM anyway, to ignore context?

from Guy

LilPunkishOfTerror

March 18th 2003, 11:03 AM

Hi Quentin

you wrote,
The Talmud references to Jesus are later Jewish responses to the Gospels, they date centuries after the alleged events. They prove no more than that Jews eventually heard the stories of Jesus and rubbished them.

Guy> Well, heard the stories from who? Why would Jews copy a nonJewish source for this? Wouldn't they rather use their own sources? Your response to Sheepdog didn't make sense, sorry.

jpholding

March 18th 2003, 11:36 AM

Dear Ios, my poppet, my pigsnie,

Guy beat me to some of this -- I'll cover the rest:

The ancient philosophical school which is closest to Christianity is the Stoics

Pfft, hack -- get real! The Stoics? What a load of rubbish. The Stoics had nothing in common with Christianity that was not common to other modes of philosophy, and shared nothing that was unique with them.

Seneca

Please! Seneca was Nero's teacher; given his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject of Jesus, and none of the works he wrote would have had the occassion to include Jesus. Here is a list of his writings from Bartleby.com <http://www.bartleby.com/65/se/SenecaY.html>:
His Epistolae morales ad Lucilium are essays on ethics written for his friend Lucilius Junior, to whom he also addressed Quaestiones naturales, philosophical—rather than scientific—remarks about natural phenomena. The so-called Dialogi of Seneca include essays on anger, on divine providence, on Stoic impassivity, and on peace of soul. Other moral essays have also survived, notably De elementia, on the duty of a ruler to be merciful, and De beneficiis, on the award and reception of favors. The Apocolocyntosis is a satire on the apotheosis of Claudius. The most influential of his works, at least in so far as European literature is concerned, were his tragedies. It is generally agreed that his plays were written for recitation and not for stage performance. Nine plays, based on Greek models, are accepted as his—Hercules Furens, Medea, Troades, Phaedra, Agamemnon, Oedipus, Hercules Oetaeus, Phoenissae, and Thyestes. A tenth, Octavia, is now ascribed to a later imitator.
So which of these works from him do you think ought to have mentioned Jesus, and why?

Musonius Rufus

Please, again. A teacher of morals. Where and why should he mention Jesus, other than your ridiculous idea of commonality with Stoicism? You're not dealing with suckers who will swallow your every word here, Iso.

Pliny and Theon of Smyrna are pretty clear evidence that the miraculous Gospel darkness and earthquake are fiction.

Why? Pliny was a rationalist who would have rejected reports of supernatural signs in nature, and certainly did not record every earthquake, and every unusual phenomenon, all over the Empire; if he had his work would need to be hauled in moving vans. Theon was a mathematician and astronomer who wrote a "handbook for philosophy students to show how prime numbers, geometrical numbers such as squares, progressions, music and astronomy are interrelated." Maybe Theon could have counted the 5000 people fed fishes and loaves?

Later Christian fables about an event that never happened.

Quite a handy dandy excuse for you when you are cornered.

2 John warns of those who don't "acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".

Whoops, sorry, that's not doubt of a historical Jesus, that's a heresy called "adoptionism". You need to stop listening to Earl Dohetry.

Marcion, in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :

Um, yeah, but that does not help your "myth" thesis, because it means that Marcion thought that people would be able to see a Jesus walking around, etc. as though he were a historical figure. Nice try, Acharya S. Ditto with Basilides. May I recommend a critical thinking course?

Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.

This BS (baloney sandwich) attempt of yours has been addressed in another thread you trolled up.

Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :

Um, yeah, but he didn't endorse a Christ myth. Hello? Try sticking to the subject. All Celsus did anyway was vaguely generalize like you do. Did he give reasons? No. He just ran his yapstack.

We are debating, right here.

Shrug. I can crush you here or there; I can crush you in a box, I can crush you with a fox...

I posted many pages of detailed arguments, rich in original sources, with names and dates.

You posted a lot of vague blatter, though given your poor scholarship you probably do think it is "detailed".

you can't even keep the insults out of your "invitation".

A spermologos like you truly deserves calculated contempt. You have done nothing but regurgitate the same stale arguments that have been refuted time and time again by historians.

you do not meet the minimum requirements for polite rational discourse, jpholding. (I gave up on fart jokes decades ago, how OLD are you, for God's sake?)

Old enough to realize that your work doesn't deserve the dignity of a label above bodily emission.

Secular historian? Why not call him Jewish turncoat who wrote a history to absolve himself?

Gee, the two are mutually exclusive? And what would his "absolution" have to do with mentioning Jesus, Mr Tar Brush?

Pardon? The language is EXACTLY Christian - it appears just so in Matthew 1:16 and in John 4:25.

Do some homework, will you? Christian language? So any common word combination that appears in the NT, Josephus could not use? Glenn Miller writes (using sources as well): The Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus translates legomenos as 'so-called' or 'alleged', and refers as an example to Josephus, Contra Apionen II 34, where he speaks of Alexandria as Apion's 'not birthplace, but alleged (birthplace)'. other uses of the same phrase: be called, named Mt 13:55; Hb 11:24. "ho legomenus" the so-called (Epict. 4, 1, 51: "so-called kings"; Socrat., Ep. 14, 7: "so-called Death") ...(Herm. Wr. 2, 14 the "so-called gods" in contrast to "the only God" Somewhat differently Josephus., Ant. 12, 125 ("Antiochus who is called 'god' by the Greeks")...The LXX uses legomenus only once, in 3rd Macc. 1.3, where the sense is clearly that of 'called or named' (without ANY commitment to accuracy of the attribtuion): "Dositheus, known as the son of Drimylus..." Eusebius has two somewhat later uses of the word-form, and both have this non-committal or formal character to them: "Among these was Leonides, who was called the father of Origen, and who was beheaded while his son was still young" . (Eusebius, History, 6.1.1) In the Hendriksen set, this footnote occurs at this passage: "We know very little about Origen's father. The fame of the son overshadowed that of the father, even though the latter was a martyr. The phrase used in this passage to describe him has caused some trouble. "ho legomenos Origenous pater". Taken in its usual sense, the expression means "said to be the father of Origen," or the "so-called father of Origen," both of which appear strange, for there can have been no doubt as to his identity. " "He is said to have been formerly the emperor's general finance minister ; yet he did nothing praiseworthy or of general benefit" (Eusebius, History, 7.10.5)... Athanasius uses the word-form once: "For with such an initiation we too are made sons verily , and using the name of the Father, we acknowledge from that name the Word in the Father. But if He wills that we should call His own Father our Father, we must not on that account measure ourselves with the Son according to nature, for it is because of the Son that the Father is so called by us; for since the Word bore our body and came to be in us, therefore by reason of the Word in us, is God called our Father" (Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition, 7.31)

Iso, you are truly one of the worst out there.

It is a small phrase and could easily be an interpolation.

Any small phrase "could be" an interpolation but that and 50 pence will get you a cocoa krispies treat at Starbucks.

What many consider solid TRADITION? Indeed,but no facts.

I.e., not what you arbitrarily declare non-factual, for your own purposes.

We know nothing for sure about Mark. His Gospel was originally anonymous, unknown until early-mid 2nd century, and not finally named until late 2nd century.

:rofl: Oh boy, another subject to flatten you on! We have as much info on Mark as we have for any ancient author on average, and his Gospel has much more external authorial attestation that any secular document like Tacitus' Annals. The "not finally named" bit is rubbish. Bring on your arguments porving otherwise. I'll drop you like a fly on malathion.

It is patently religio-mythical.

This is patently bald assertion. I love these details you throw in! :lol:

Paul gives some vague spiritual formulae - "brother of the Lord" is exactly the sort of phrase I can imagine being said of a devout pious leader.

More Doherty doo doo, I see. Catch this: "the brother of" is an individual possessive. It is not "of the brothers" which contains no possessive; nor is it "my brothers" indicating a personal collective, but it is an entirely different phrase that only by the most arduous stretching can be interpreted to refer to "brother" in the sectarian sense. I challenged Doherty to produce even ONE instance in ancient literature where " the brother of" is used in a sectarian sense, and without any further qualifiers, but he hasn't done so yet. His interpretation is a grossly begged question.

But there is NOTHING that a historian would call history - no personal details, no relationships, no dates, no places etc.

Gosh. Quote me two professional historians who say that "personal details relationships, dates, places" all specificed are needed to establish that a person mentioned in a text is historical. Or is this just you making up criteria on the spot with your cherry picker?

These are weak as water.The VAGUEST sorts of unclear references that YOU say prove a historical person.

For once I am with Vinnie. This is no answer, this is just you trying to dodge a bullet. Too bad it's over 500 feet wide.

salvationfound

March 1st 2004, 01:47 AM

Hey there Iasion,

I can't remember if anybody else brought this up but could I ask a question that I've asked a few other Jesus myth believers??

Basically my question is what are the requirements that you have to tell whether a person lived in ancient history or not?

I mean what writings or whatever is needed for you to be convinced that someone existed.

I admit there is a catch. Your requirements have to show that any accepted historical figure existed as well.

So like Pilate, Caesar, Buddha or Muhammad and anybody else who lived in ancient history.

SO in other words my question is, what proof convinces you that Pilate, Caesar, Buddha and Muhammad existed but shows Jesus didn't?

Thanks alot for reading this question

Omega Red

March 2nd 2004, 01:44 PM

Thallus perhaps wrote about this time 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!) –

If his works are preserved in the writing of others and that your research shows him to have lived around 150BC, does this mean that Thallus never existed in the 1st Century?

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.

And later…

Later Christian fables about an event that never happened.
We have no idea what Thallus wrote, or when, merely 3rd hand stories of Christian's claiming Thallus's support.

Julius Africanus directly relates the event, that Thallus wrote about, to the Gospel event…

Thallus in History (recorded by Julius Africanus in fragments of Chronology 18:1)

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye.” (XVIII.1)

Thallus (unknown) writing ca. 52AD
Julius Africanus (200-245AD) writing in 232AD

So Julius Africanus reports that Thallus incorrectly recorded an event which (according to JA) could not have happened naturally. I would agree that this passage is an inference and Thallus does not explicitly state “Jesus/Christ”. Do you believe Julius Africanus accurately reported what Thallus wrote on the darkness? Why is it an event that never (emphasis mine above) happened and what evidence are you presenting to support it? Who do you suppose started this "darkness" myth?

Phlegon probably wrote during this period - 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 said anything about Gospel events, if he did it is too late to prove anything about Jesus.

I added some emphasis here really to highlight your seemingly underlying attitude towards this kind of research. Phlegon could have written any number of things that may have even assisted a Jesus myth, would you have deemed it useless then?

What Phlegon said (by Origen, Eusebius, Julius Africanus, Philopon):

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” Origen in Against Celsus 2.14. “And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles."” Origen in Against Celsus 2.33. “He (Celsus) imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention;142 but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered.143” Origen in Against Celsus 2.59

“And after the 70 years of captivity, Cyrus became king of the Persians at the time of the 55th Olympiad, as may be ascertained from the Bibliothecae of Diodorus and the histories of Thallus and Castor, and also from Polybius and Phlegon, and others besides these, who have made the Olympiads a subject of study. “Chronology 13.2. “Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one of which we speak. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period. But it was a darkness induced by God, because the Lord happened then to suffer.” Julius Africanus in Chronology 18:1

“All which things agree with what happened at the time of our Saviour's passion. And so writes Phlegon, and excellent compiler of the Olympiads in his thirteenth book, saying: ÔIn the fourth year of the two hundred and second olympiad there was a great and extraordinary eclipse of the sun, distinguished among all that had happened before. At the sixth hour the day was turned into dark night, so that the stars in the heavens were seen, and there was an earthquake in Bithynia which overthrew many houses in the city of Nice.” Eusebius Chronicon Paschale?

“Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus and no other (eclipse); it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any (similar) eclipse in previous times . . . and this is shown by the historical account of Tiberius Caesar." De. opif. mund. II21, Philopon

Phlegon (?) writing in ca. 138AD
Origen (185-254AD) writing in 230AD
Julius Africanus (200-245AD) writing in 232AD
Eusebius (ca.?-340AD) writing in 325AD
Philopon writing in the 6th Century

Afaics only Eusebius recorded Phlegon’s words, so I do not see why you mention a problem of differing accounts when the writers do not allude to quoting Phlegon directly. Do you believe any of these writers accurately reported what Phlegon wrote about? I've been told that the Eusebius passage may be unreliable.

I wonder why you spent time discounting the worth of Thallus and Phlegon when it is probably easier to discount their existence, utilising your analytical techniques, from their few random quotes by other writers? Any thoughts?

Both Christians and non-Christians alike expressed various doubts about Jesus being historical

In that list maybe you can point to which Christian expressed a doubt that Jesus was historical? And distinguish between the doubts of a “historical person” and “supernatural person” Jesus?

Yet NOT ONE of these early writers shows any real evidence for Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events or characters. What evidence that is usually cited is all suspect, late, or merely vague reports of later Christianity.

What is meant by “real evidence” exactly? You seem to have arbitrarily determined what can and cannot be counted as evidence from ancient writers. What kind of system do you use when evaluating pieces of evidence? You suspect collusion, fabrication and deceit behind the NT. Who initiated the lies, what evidence are you presenting? There are a number of unanswered questions and unacknowledged posts in this thread, will you be responding to them?

shunyadragon

April 23rd 2004, 07:13 PM

When you work in the "layering" technique, do not be overly surprised to see specific layers rejected. After all, Paul was the true founder of Christianity, not Jesus (yes, that is sarcastic).

The bottom line is that unrealistic historical expectations are put on Jesus as opposed to any other figure. Jesus is a major figure in current history, but He was a bump on the road until Constantine, more or less (and give or take the persecutions under D and N).
Its not unrealistic to expect that the earthquake reported in the bible at the time of the crucifiction and reserection of Jesus should have been reported by someone.

Christians portray Jesus Christ as far more than a bump on the road until.

I am interested in the role of Mithrism and Mithrite/Zorastrian prophecies in the forming of the Christianity, Early church and Christian theology. There were large numbersof Mithrites in Rome at the time of Christ and there was a strong expectation among Mithrites of the expectation of a messiah. Apparently Mithrites worshiped with Christians and some Mithrite temples became Christian churches. Apparently Mithrism was absorbed into Christianity.

Could Jesus Christ be partly a creation of a Mithrite messiah?

Any comments on the this relationship.

LilPunkishOfTerror

April 23rd 2004, 07:19 PM

Hi Shunyadragon,

Can you tell me your source for Mithraic messiah expectations, please?

Thanks, Guy

shunyadragon

April 27th 2004, 01:54 AM

Hi Shunyadragon,

Can you tell me your source for Mithraic messiah expectations, please?

Thanks, Guy
I was actually asking for information on the relationship of Mithraism/Zorastrianism and Christianity. My knowledge is a bit sketchy.

I know Zoraster also claimed to be the Incarnate word of God. There are traditional prophesies and beliefs in Astrology to the coming of other messiahs. I read someplace that the wise men were Zorastrian or Mithrite priests following their prophecies in astrology looking for the messiah.

I am checking the net, but I have trouble in China getting to many sites.

Dan Zebiri

April 27th 2004, 02:12 AM

shunyadragon

May 7th 2004, 01:49 AM

Whao! Its been more than ONE Year since our bumbling skeptic Iasion surfaced! Wonder what happened to him after JP (above) flattened all his pseudo arguments against the historical records of Jesus Christ! :eek:

Hopefully he may still be trying to do some more 'research' to undo what he had claimed about the Gospel records..:ahem:

Anyway, we even have non-Christian (and non-evangelical) scholars who think very lightly of the Jesus Seminar's conclusions. Prof.Phlip Jenkins, a distinguished professor of History and a non-Christian holds a greater trust for the New Testament historical records over those positions being peddled by the Jesus Seminarians.

Available from amazon.com here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195156315/qid=1083045973/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-6731133-6499825?v=glance&s=books

Its a very worthwhile read that exposes the scholars at the J.S. and their kind, and what the actual facts of the issue actually involve.

Iasion should buy Jenkins book as a gift for himself! :lol: ...really!

Dan.
Not all including myself applaud Jenkins book. To me it simply provided another viewpoint and did not present any significant scholarly support. I have not taken any side on this issue and consider these issues open to further discoveries and research.

I do believe the lack of historical records at the time of Jesus's life a problem and the Josephus references are not important and only a second hand reference regardless whether it is genuine or not.

I am not sure if Jenkins is Christian or not, but his views are pretty far to the right.

The following review reflected my view.

Reviewer: A reader from Cambridge, MA United States I am an educated layman with an interest in Q, the Gospel of Thomas, and Gnosticism. I find the work that various scholars are doing in these areas fascinating but also a little speculative, and I looked forward to reading Philip Jenkins' critique of the work. I was therefore disappointed to find that his book is primarily a popular survey and contains essentially no academic-quality discussion of the issues.

I was not at all surprised that Jenkins takes conservative positions in the book; what did surprise me is how reluctant he is to say what exactly his positions are. This is true for many specific historical issues such as the date and authorship of various NT and apocryphal texts, and even more true for major spiritual and social issues such as the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven and the role of women in the church. He was also very sparing in his citation of "mainstream" scholars, and, though he implies that they are busily working over the same issues as the "fringe" scholars (liberals, feminists, and seekers, i.e. New Agers and other free-thinkers) with whom he is mostly concerned, he never gives any account or indeed any idea at all of what the mainstream scholars have been doing for the past thirty years.

One of the funniest parts of the book is where he bemoans how the fringe scholars (especially the members of the Jesus Seminar) have dominated most popular media (TV and press) coverage of NT issues in recent years. He notes how the programs and articles are always careful to show a semblance of balance and always include mainstream as well as fringe scholars, but they always let the fringe scholars set the agenda and have the last word. It is hardly a mystery why this is. The media is looking for news. Could it be that the mainstream scholars have nothing new to say?

The titles of the book are not very descriptive. Their content is roughly as follows:

1 Finding and Seeking - here's the problem (no real content)
2 Fragments of a Faith Forgotten - interest in NT apocrypha in the US in the 19th and first half of the 20th century
3 The First Gospels? Q and Thomas - like it says
4 Gospel Truth - other apocryphal texts, especially other Nag Hammadi texts
5 Hiding Jesus: The Church and the Heretics - the rise of organization and orthodoxy
6 Daughters of Sophia - The feminist perspective on NT and the early church
7 Into the mainstream - penetration of fringe people and ideas into mainstream institutions (churches, academia, society at large)
8 The Gospels in the Media - TV and press coverage of NT issues
9 The Next New Gospel - now you know (no real content) I actually found the book fairly informative. The author tells a lot about who the fringe people are, what they think, and what books they have written. (The footnotes at the end of the book contain a huge amount of bibliographical information.) I especially appreciated the information about the work of women scholars and church members in chapters 2, 6 and 7. For me reading Jenkins is a lot like reading the great heresiologists (Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Epiphanius). The orthodoxy is kind of dull but the heresies are really interesting.

LilPunkishOfTerror

May 9th 2004, 07:52 AM

shunyadragon

May 10th 2004, 09:25 PM

I havent read Jenkins book, so I can't comment. But I did find this interesting,

Shunyadragon> "I do believe the lack of historical records at the time of Jesus's life a problem and the Josephus references are not important and only a second hand reference regardless whether it is genuine or not."

Please explain why it is a problem, and why you think Josephus' references are not important. And since you have problems getting to sites in China I could send you via theologyweb private message some pages from sites I consider are the best info on Mithraism, if you like,

from Guy
Events like the earthquake, slaughter of the infants and any reference to Jesus Christ are completely missing from any contemporary record. The description of the events surrounding the trial and crucifixtion have many problems particularly the role of Pilate. Yes I consider these all serious problems. I believe Jesus existed, but to substantiate the rigid doctrinal view of Christianity at the exclusion of other beliefs, you need more evidence to clear up the contradictions and inconsistences.

Josephous was simply a second hand statement that there were people around in his life that believed that there was a man called Jesus who claimed to be the messiah Christ. The statement cannot be extrapolated back to document the life of Christ. Josephus also described a number of men around the time of Christ that made the same claim.

One problem I have is the radical rift between Jewish and Christian theology that took place when Christianity became Roman. My research of scripture from the Hebrew viewpoint brings into question many traditional Christian beliefs and theology.

Private messages concerning Zorastrianism and Mithraism would be appreciated.

LilPunkishOfTerror

May 19th 2004, 04:59 PM

Dan Zebiri

May 22nd 2004, 12:16 PM

I quite agree with Bearman above.

Yo Frank,

You claim '..No contemporary record for the Christ event..' ? Is pretty far-fetched indeed. I think you (and others too) just try to conveniently ignore the facts like those listed below:

(referenced from : http://www.carm.org/questions/extrabiblical_accounts.htm) :

Non biblical accounts of
New Testament events and/or people
<LI style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2 <LI type=A>"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

Note: There is dispute as to the reliability of the Josephus accounts. However, there is no textual/manuscript reason for doubting them since the extant Greek manuscripts all agree with the texts in question; namely, the quotes shown on this page. However, the reason the quotes are in doubt is because of the text in italics in the various quotes; they seem a little too favorable regarding Christ. Also, it appears that the writings of Josephus were transmitted to us through the Christian community.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

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. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For an examination of this please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus (http://www.carm.org/evidence/Josephus_Jesus.htm).

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Acts/acts_23.htm#1)
<LI style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana" type=A>Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

Acts 23:2 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Acts/acts_23.htm#1), "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt (http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt)

Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
<LI style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana" type=A>

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
<LI type=i>Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Luke/luke_23.htm#44), "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."

The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.

Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante–Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

The Talmud
<LI type=A>

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
<LI type=i>Gal. 3:13 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gal/gal_3.htm#But), "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."

Luke 22:1 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Luke/luke_22.htm#1), "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."

This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11–13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

___________________
Sources

McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino, CA, Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1979.
Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Encarta on the Web at http://encarta.msn.com .

You've got the eclipse too, referred to in the above ancient sources. Plus other quite pertinent facts too.

As to the 'rift between Judaism and Christian teachings..', Bearman is right to point out that really was 300 years later.

Also, the so-called 'rift' that you presumptuously allude to does not exist for these Jewish people, who are equally informed, learned and critically thoughtful like you if not, even more than you.

Questioning Jewish 'sacred cows' - http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/issues/15-02/sacred.htm

Facts of the Identity of the Jewish Messiah-
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/issues/13-02apr00/fourfacts.htm

Y'shua-The Righteous Tzaddik by Dr.Louis Golberg-
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/issues/09-07/tzaddik.htm

Is the NewTestament Jewish? -
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/issues/10-05/NT.htm

among a whole collection of pertinent intelligent discussions by Jewish intellectuals, more here: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/ (http://www.jewsforjesus.org/)

As for Professor Jenkins Book; 'Lost Gospels, How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way', whom you describe as leaning towards orthodox views or 'having orthodox leanings'. This is precisely an outstanding example of how the views, premises and preconceptions of anti-supernaturalist liberal scholars (eg.Jesus Seminarians) are actually only non-conclusive opinions!

Prof.Jenkins is no 'Christian' nor an Evangelical by any measure. So he has no 'Gospel propoganda' to push to anybody. Yet, writing from a neutral, intellectual and purely scholastic perspective, we find here a non-evangelical Professor of History and Religion, who surely must value his reputation, debunking the findings and general 'conclusions' of the Jesus Seminar.

Prof.Jenkins states in his book that the New Testament records actually have greater historical reliability and factual trustworthiness than what the anti-supernaturalists opinions propogandize! :ahem:

So, we can actually take the Jesus Seminarians general opinions with a LARGE PINCH of Salt..! :teeth:

Regards, Dan Zebiri.

shunyadragon

May 23rd 2004, 07:57 AM

Hiya,

Shunya> Events like the earthquake, slaughter of the infants and any reference to Jesus Christ are completely missing from any contemporary record.

So are you saying Matthew isn't a contemporary record? Would you define "contemporary" please, and explain why e.g. Tacitus is too 'out of range' to use?Contemporary reference would have to be outside the Bible and alive at the time of Jesus. There were people writing and recording events at that time. Tacitus is definitely out of scope and another second-hand late quote.

Shunya> The description of the events surrounding the trial and crucifixtion have many problems particularly the role of Pilate. Yes I consider these all serious problems.

Please give some examples of the Pilate problems you have. I think you're overblowing these a little, e.g. if the slaughter of the infants involved say 20 babies, it might not be enough to warrant a mention.Contemporary and later descriptions of Pilate do not fit the description of Pilate giving the option of freeing Jesus or another criminal, washing his hands of responsibility for his death. Christ claimed to be the King of the Jews and a rebel leader in Pilates view, that is punishable by death in Rome. Facing rebellion and unrest in Judea Jesus would never have been released. The records concerning Pilate portray a ruthless cold governor and he sentenced to death everyone even remotely suspected of opposing Rome and many who were not.

The earthquake and the darkness would be rather major events definitely not recorded by anyone who was recording events at the time they occured. Where do you get the figure of 20 babies?

People crucified for crimes would not have been allowed to have a proper burial under either Roman or Jewish law, nonetheless have Roman guards at the tomb.

Shunya> I believe Jesus existed,

Hmm, I could ask why you are posting on this thread :smile: Can I ask on what basis you believe He existed?I believe he existed. My main opposition is to Christians who claim an inflexible traditional theology they say can be traced to Jesus Christ. The most that can be said is that these beliefs may be, I stress may be, traced to about 110 AD in some early churches like Antioch.

Shunya> but to substantiate the rigid doctrinal view of Christianity at the exclusion of other beliefs, you need more evidence to clear up the contradictions and inconsistences.

Not quite following here, but a list of inconsistencies would be nice :smile:. This has been presented many times. I may post a few if I think they are specifically relevant like the problems with Pilate and the events around the death of Jesus.

Shunya> Josephous was simply a second hand statement that there were people around in his life that believed that there was a man called Jesus who claimed to be the messiah Christ. The statement cannot be extrapolated back to document the life of Christ.

oh sure, if we remove "He was the Christ" from the paragraph and one or two other statements we're left with quite a good, positive reference about Jesus and his ministry:

Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Where do you get "second hand" from please, and explain why this makes it less relevant, if true. Why would anyone need to make reference to Jesus anyway, in this period, given his social standing and where he had his ministry? Second-hand is simply a fact, If this reference is valid, like Tactius, he simply got the information from others that believed there was a man that lived call Jesus Christ. You brought out a good point that brings to question the legitamacy of these quotes. Besides being second hand most historians say they are not legitamite, because Josephus was a Jewish historian and not sympathetic to Jesus. We do not have anything close to originals of his works. Christian historians very near to when these copies of the works were found do not consider them legitamite.

Shunya>Josephus also described a number of men around the time of Christ that made the same claim.

No I disagree here. They aren't messianic claims, such things didnt appear until Bar Kochba..would you like to show me why you think they are? have reviewed enough of the historians review of these references to be firmly convinced that they made messianic claims. The prophcies they claimed to fulfill were those related to promised messiah. I will post a summary of these later.

Shunya> One problem I have is the radical rift between Jewish and Christian theology that took place when Christianity became Roman.

That's three centuries later. Can we stick to the first century for the time being please? Thanks. Anyway "radical shift" is a bit exaggerated, given Jewish Wisdom theology.

cheers, from GuyThis last bit needs some thought, but with the lack of much of anything in the first century, there is a need to refer to the second century and the third.

Can you cite one reference outside the Bible made between 1 and 50 AD?

stevy

May 23rd 2004, 07:42 PM

Pfft ha,...
How about it, Iso? Care to debate or are you just one of those Fart and Go sorts?

Greetings jpholding,

Thanks for your invitation.

Hmmm..
But...
We are debating, right here.
what happened to the debate - i think Iasion's gone??????

shunyadragon

June 4th 2004, 10:20 AM

what happened to the debate - i think Iasion's gone??????
[/color]
Iasion stated a very well documented logical arguement and no one was able to refute it, why hang around and listen to the emotional and irrational buts.

stevy

June 4th 2004, 01:53 PM

Iasion stated a very well documented logical arguement and no one was able to refute it, why hang around and listen to the emotional and irrational buts.iasion never reponded when Jpholding made a home run

shunyadragon

June 6th 2004, 04:41 AM

iasion never reponded when Jpholding made a home run
Which homerun? Never saw it. Jpholding is not known for great coherent arguements.

Dan Zebiri

June 8th 2004, 03:12 AM

shunyadragon

June 9th 2004, 11:00 AM

You say:

'Jpholding is not known for great coherent arguements.'

Thats just your small opinion.. Theres lots of others who don't think so!

Why dont you try to debate with him, then, if you are so confident..?? or even (more ?) coherent..??! :lol:

The proof of your claim is in the real interaction with the person concerned..so don't just make empty blind claims and try to fly them as facts!

Dan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevy

iasion never reponded when Jpholding made a home run

Which homerun? Never saw it. Jpholding is not known for great coherent arguements.
Not a problem what so ever?

My arguement is simple. there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ.

The miracles he performed and the associated miracles and occurances that are recorded in the Bible should be recorded by someone, but no one did.

Because of the amazing miracles performed by Christ, confounding the authories with his profound wisdom, events like the earthquake and the multitude of witnesses reported to have witnessed these events, he cannot be assumed to be a little known carpenter from an unknown town that caused the authorities to crucify him.

There were writer recording events at the time we have records of cited before. Claiming that they would have to fill volumes recording stuff like this at the time is bogus as a three dollar bill. The events recorded in the Bible are extrudinary and not local small talk.

No one else claimed what is claimed the amount of miracles and amazing events in the Bible. there are other would be messiahs that made similar claims, but as recorded they failed to make the level of miraculous calims made by Christ in the Bible and the of course were also executed or killed by the Romans.

stevy

June 9th 2004, 01:18 PM

Events like the earthquake, slaughter of the infants and any reference to Jesus Christ are completely missing from any contemporary record. .
dear shunyadragon

That's only a problem if you view historical documents as guilty until proven innocent. However if everything was guilty till proven innocent you could not live, you would have to take your can-opener to the shop and open the can of beans to prove that there is beans in them before you brought them. :lol:

In fact the way we live and the way all historical documents are viewed are as innocent until proven guilty. All the available external evidence corroborates with the NT accounts. In fact when the new testament is put to the historical test it passes with flying colours.

In fact Sir William Ramsey spent 15 years trying to disprove the NT on historical grounds but had to conclude: "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of tfact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

cya

cbro

June 9th 2004, 08:16 PM

How is this different than people saying there is no evidence for Creation today or even worse that we have no proof that many Jews died in WW2?

shunyadragon

June 14th 2004, 10:03 PM

dear shunyadragon

That's only a problem if you view historical documents as guilty until proven innocent. However if everything was guilty till proven innocent you could not live, you would have to take your can-opener to the shop and open the can of beans to prove that there is beans in them before you brought them. :lol:

In fact the way we live and the way all historical documents are viewed are as innocent until proven guilty. All the available external evidence corroborates with the NT accounts. In fact when the new testament is put to the historical test it passes with flying colours.

In fact Sir William Ramsey spent 15 years trying to disprove the NT on historical grounds but had to conclude: "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of tfact trustworthy . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

cya

Your analogy is not relevant. If an extraudinary claim is made, the NT Bible, and there is no evidence to support the claim then the claim can be extraudinary. the testimony of the multitudes and the events are absent outside the Bibble.

Sir william Ramsey was one researcher and he did his work ~100 years ago. Other scholars alive at the time drew different conclusions. Albert Schwietzer and others concluded there was no support in the evidence for Jesus Christ or the NT. There has been a lot of research since that time and there is more controversy than concensous among the scholars today.

There is far more concensous among scientists for evolution than Biblical scholars for the historisity of Jesus Christ.

The reality of archeology is e have learned agreat deal abour Rome and Palistine at the time of Jesus, but nothing about the man himself or many of the events in the Bible about his life. The point of the thread is 'No contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth'. The fact is there is none.

shunyadragon

June 14th 2004, 10:15 PM

How is this different than people saying there is no evidence for Creation today or even worse that we have no proof that many Jews died in WW2?I am not sure how this logic works. The slaughter of the Jews is well documented modern history by photos, witnesses, bodies and the sites where this took place.

Creation? The Bible is yes/no proposition. There is some archeological support and collaboration from outside sources, but the evidence is not consistent. There are other people and their writings that are older and far better documented like Confucius and LaoTze. The ancient book Gilgamesh is far better documented than the Bible with older sources found in different places.

stevy

June 15th 2004, 12:42 PM

to shunyadragon

That's only a problem if you view historical documents as guilty until proven innocent. However if everything was guilty till proven innocent you could not live, you would have to take your can-opener to the shop and open the can of beans to prove that there is beans in them before you brought them.

In fact the way we live and the way all historical documents are viewed are as innocent until proven guilty. All the available external evidence corroborates with the NT accounts. In fact when the new testament is put to the historical test it passes with flying colours.

Your analogy is not relevant. If an extraudinary claim is made, the NT Bible, and there is no evidence to support the claim then the claim can be extraudinary. the testimony of the multitudes and the events are absent outside the Bibble.

Sir william Ramsey was one researcher and he did his work ~100 years ago. Other scholars alive at the time drew different conclusions. Albert Schwietzer and others concluded there was no support in the evidence for Jesus Christ or the NT. There has been a lot of research since that time and there is more controversy than concensous among the scholars today.
My point still remains and i think the analogy above is relevant. The NT is only rejected when it is viewed as guilty until proven innocent and when viewed with anti-supernatural pre-suppostions. The new testament should be studied in the same way all historical documents are studied and that is innocent until proven guilty - the NT passes with flying colours.

shunyadragon

June 15th 2004, 08:03 PM

to shunyadragon

My point still remains and i think the analogy above is relevant. The NT is only rejected when it is viewed as guilty until proven innocent and when viewed with anti-supernatural pre-suppostions. The new testament should be studied in the same way all historical documents are studied and that is innocent until proven guilty - the NT passes with flying colours.Your point may remain, but it does not respond to 'No contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.'