Originally posted by Adam_PoEI recognized your objection when i explained that the Capital letters were the words that are in question, and most likely forgeries. The other reference to James, the brother of Jesus, is accepted nearly by all historians as accurate. Can you give solid evidence that the Tacitus reference is a forgery. From the sources I've seen the majority of Historians accept this as Tacitus himself, the only claim against its validity is that he was echoing what he heard from the Christians. These arguments are mostly speculation and have very little foundation to stand. Do you believe that Jesus did not exist, or that he did and his disiples made him out to be a god.
The references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus are forgeries by Eusebius.
There is a difference between believing that a charismatic cult leader named Jesus existed as opposed to the belief that he was divine. The gospels themselves are not valid sources, not in the slightest. They were passed down through oral tradition and written down by Greek authors near the end of the century, long after Jesus' death.
The letters of Paul came first (at least eight of them we know were to be written by Paul, the rest are believed to be forgeries) and have little to do with the gospels. Not that they are a valid source either.
The bible is simply not a valid source for anything, given its dogmatic nature.
Originally posted by AutokratOk so you do believe that Jesus existed. Now you have to ask why the disiples and others at the time truely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and suffered horrible deaths because of it. Also, you must ask if Jesus was someone to admire and look to for moral wisdom. If you say he was then you must also accept that he claimed to be the Son of God and had power to forgive people of sins. If he claimed this and was not who he said he was, than he is a terrible blasphemer and most likely mentally unstable. And the letters by Paul have everything to do with Jesus paying for our sins and that he is the only way to salvation. Also, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul asserts that Jesus appeared to around 500 people after the resurrection.
There is a difference between believing that a charismatic cult leader named Jesus existed as opposed to the belief that he was divine. The gospels themselves are not valid sources, not in the slightest. They were passed down through oral tradition and written down by Greek authors near the end of the century, long after Jesus' death.The letters of Paul came first (at least eight of them we know were to be written by Paul, the rest are believed to be forgeries) and have little to do with the gospels. Not that they are a valid source either.
The bible is simply not a valid source for anything, given its dogmatic nature.
Originally posted by jgiant
Ok so you do believe that Jesus existed. Now you have to ask why the disiples and others at the time truely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and suffered horrible deaths because of it. Also, you must ask if Jesus was someone to admire and look to for moral wisdom. If you say he was then you must also accept that he claimed to be the Son of God and had power to forgive people of sins. If he claimed this and was not who he said he was, than he is a terrible blasphemer and most likely mentally unstable.
Aside from the absurd logic of this argument and premises that can't be independently proven. C.S Lewis forgot to add one option to the false dilemma you have just stolen from him.
Perhaps Jesus rising from his grave was simply legend fabricated through oral tradition like any other myth. Perhaps the entire romanticized affair was myth and Jesus was just some apocalyptic Jewish rabbi that believed the world would end in his generation.
Two, it is perfectly possible to accept that Jesus had some reasonable ethical advise without believing that his other absurd claims (claims that he may have not even made.) In any case, Buddha and Confucius were way ahead of Jesus in the ethics department, long before Jesus even existed. Nothing Jesus said was special.
Originally posted by AutokratIt is true that these figures were before Jesus, but to say what Jesus said was not anything special is an argument onto itself. Its like saying that Moses was way ahead of Buddha and nothing that he said was special. Also, Buddha's focus was never on a god, but on people freeing themselves from ignorance and greed to end suffering. Some of the Buddha's teachings on how to treat others overlaps Jesus's teaching, but the underlying motives for each teacher is different. Also, no other religion truely recognizes the sin of man as Christianity. Jesus taught that that everyone was guilty of sin and deserved eternal judgement. Someone had to pay the penalty for our sins, no amount of good deads can make up for our sinful nature and that is why Jesus was put to death on the cross, to pay our sin debt. No other religion shows the need for a savior such as this. There are similarities between Buddha and Confusius (who didn't even believe in a god) and Jesus, but they are miniscule in light of the driving forces behind each. This only shows the moral cravings of mankind, furthur proving that the moral laws given by God are not only in a book or some tablets, but written on the hearts of all men. According to the aposle Paul, "14"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."
Aside from the absurd logic of this argument and premises that can't be independently proven. C.S Lewis forgot to add one option to the false dilemma you have just stolen from him.Perhaps Jesus rising from his grave was simply legend fabricated through oral tradition like any other myth. Perhaps the entire romanticized affair was myth and Jesus was just some apocalyptic Jewish rabbi that believed the world would end in his generation.
Two, it is perfectly possible to accept that Jesus had some reasonable ethical advise without believing that his other absurd claims (claims that he may have not even made.) In any case, Buddha and Confucius were way ahead of Jesus in the ethics department, long before Jesus even existed. Nothing Jesus said was special.
Originally posted by jgiant
I recognized your objection when i explained that the Capital letters were the words that are in question, and most likely forgeries. The other reference to James, the brother of Jesus, is accepted nearly by all historians as accurate. Can you give solid evidence that the Tacitus reference is a forgery. From the sources I've seen the majority of Historians accept this as Tacitus himself, the only claim against its validity is that he was echoing what he heard from the Christians. These arguments are mostly speculation and have very little foundation to stand. Do you believe that Jesus did not exist, or that he did and his disiples made him out to be a god.
The argument that Jesus existed is mostly speculation and has very little foundation to stand. I am not asserting that he existed; you are. I do not have to prove anything; you do. The fact of the matter is that there is no extra-biblical evidence to support that Jesus existed.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEAs far as Jesus never existing, well that would put you in the radical fringe if you were a historian. The existance of Jesus was never contested until recently, around the 18th centrury.
The argument that Jesus existed is mostly speculation and has very little foundation to stand. I am not asserting that he existed; you are. I do not have to prove anything; you do. The fact of the matter is that there is no extra-biblical evidence to support that Jesus existed.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Appealing to historians on the subject of history is entirely reasonable. He just has to now back up his claim that most historians really do agree with him.
His argument is that if one holds that Jesus did not exist, then he is a member of an unpopular group, or if you prefer, not a member of a popular group. He is not appealing to the expertise of historians, he is appealing to the popularity of a particular belief.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEI am appealing to the fact that if credible historians recognized Jesus existing within the first and second century then the fact that a few historians believing that Jesus being a myth a thousand plus years later makes that argument laughable. Now if I do state these sources and you make the argument that a Christian scribe just forged them all, you must also present your proof. As I mentioned earlier the Josephus source in dispute was recognized by me, but the other source from Josephus and Tacitus are not to my knowledge disputed by the vast majoritiy of Historians. Ok so here is my sources:
His argument is that if one holds that Jesus did not exist, then he is a member of an unpopular group, or if you prefer, not a member of a popular group. He is not appealing to the expertise of historians, he is appealing to the popularity of a particular belief.
Pliny the Younger: A 1st and 2nd century Roman Senator whose letters to Emperor Trajan mention Christ:
"I asked them directly if they were Christians...those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they
were or ever had been Christians...worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ.
They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed
it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of
torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination,
and hastened to consult you...on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes,
and both sexes already are brought into danger..." http://www.tyrannus.com/pliny_let.html
Objections to accuracy:
1. Christ is never confirmed as a real person here, so what makes this source valid? There is no reason not to belive that he belives Christ was not a real person, other wise he would most likely have mentioned it. Pliny states they "sing to Christ AS IF he were a god" this indicates that was regarded as a person, but not of devine nature.
2. If some of the Christians denied Christ, they must have known it was a myth, right? That would not account for those who did not deny Christ, and suffered and died for him. Those who denied Christ were not truely commited to him and did not believe that he was the Christ with all their hearts.
Celsus: a 2nd century Roman philosopher and opponent of Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus
Celsus Jesus reference on miracles: "Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired
certain [magical] powers... He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of
them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders
which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a
few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by
the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..."
It is painfully clear that Celsus believes that Jesus existed. If he had any reason to believe he did not then his main arguments would be that he never existed and thus destroying the Christian faith.
Celsus Jesus reference on Virgin birth: "Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her
living by the work of her hands. His mother had been turned out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade,
on being convicted of adultery [with a Roman soldier named Panthera]. Being thus driven away by her husband,
and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard."
This again shows that he believes that Jesus existed, he is just arguing against his virgin birth.
Celsus Jesus reference on Apostles: "Jesus gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character... tax-collectors,
sailors, and fishermen... [He was] deserted and delivered up by those who had been his associates, who had him
for their teacher, and who believed he was the savior and son of the greatest God... Those who were his
associates while alive, who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him
subjected to punishment and death, neither died with nor for him... but denied that they were even his disciples,
lest they die along with Him."
Again proving he belived Jesus existed and that he had disciples and that he was crusified.
Celsus Jesus reference to divinity: "One who was a God could neither flee nor be led away a prisoner... What great deeds did
Jesus perform as God? Did he put his enemies to shame or bring to an end what was designed against him? No
calamity happened even to him who condemned him... Why does he not give some manifestation of his divinity,
and free himself from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his Father?"
Again proving the biblical accounts of Jesus's life and death.
LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA: a second century Greek satirist and rhetorician (http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Lucian) who describes his views of early Christianity:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel
rites, and was crucified on that account... It was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all
brothers from the moment they are converted and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and
live after his laws..."
This shows that even though Lucian was trying to mock the Christian faith he did not bring up the question of his existance.
Objections to Accuracy:
1. Can we take Lucian's work as a serious historical work?
Lucian prided himself on representing historical truths as in his writings. In "The Way to Write History" Lucian states, "The historian's one task is to tell the thing as it happened... He may nurse some private dislikes, but he
will attach far more importance to the public good, and set the truth high above his hate... For history, I
say again, has this and only this for its own. If a man will start upon it, he must sacrifice to no God but
Truth. He must neglect all else."
2. Was this just an insertion by a Christian scribe? Considering the way he talks about Jesus and the Christians I would say no. If there is any evidence for an insertion it would be new to me.
Mara Bar-Serapion: This was a prisoner who wrote a letter to his son. The date of this letter is after 70AD-3rd century AD so this is possibly the newest (youngest) reference:
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as
a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment
their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just
after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: The Athenians died of hunger.
The Samians were overwhelmed by the sea. The Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete
dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good. He lived on in the teachings of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for
good. He lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good. He lived on in the teaching which He
had given."http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/mara.html
This shows that Jesus (the "King" of the Jews) did live and die and is put in the same categories as other historical figures.
Objections to Accuracy:
1. How do we know that this is reference to Jesus? Considering that she referes to the King of the Jews (a title for Jesus given by the Romans) and she mentions that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed soon after his death, this narrows the options to one person, that is Jesus.
These aboved mentioned references are most of the secular writings from Jesus's time and show that Jesus was accepted as a real person. If these historians and critics mentioned did not argue the existance of Jesus then why should critics thousands of years later question it. As for historians questioning Jesus's existance in the present time here are some quotes from some scholars about that.
"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."Michael Grant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grant_(author)
"Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher." Graham Stanton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Stanton
"The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. On such logic, history is no longer possible. It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus. I know not one. His birth, life, and death in first-century Palestine have never been subject to serious question and, in all likelihood, never will be among those who are experts in the field. The existence of Jesus is a given." Nicholas Perrin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Perrin
And my final quote from Albert Schweitzer who wrote, The Quest for the Historical Jesus", which contained a throughal section of the myth of Jesus. Schweizer himself challenged the secular and Christian views of Jesus, but ultimately stated: "An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis."
Tacitus is recording information about Jesus that he was told by Christians.
Pliny the Younger is reporting the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor to the emperor Trajan.
It does not follow from Celsus and Lucian being critical of Jesus that they believe he existed.
Mara Bar-Serapion is writing an allegory that not only does not reference Jesus by name, but also references Socrates, whose historicity is also in question.
Not to mention that none of these accounts constitutes independent confirmation.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Tacitus is recording information about Jesus that he was told by Christians.Pliny the Younger is reporting the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor to the emperor Trajan.
It does not follow from Celsus and Lucian being critical of Jesus that they believe he existed.
Mara Bar-Serapion is writing an allegory that not only does not reference Jesus by name, but also references Socrates, whose historicity is also in question.
Not to mention that none of these accounts constitutes independent confirmation.
Originally posted by jgiant
I answered your remark about Tacitus in my post.
Tacitus refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos." Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but by his given name. Ergo, Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus.
Originally posted by jgiant
Pliny the Yonger does not dispute Jesus's historicity.
Pliny the Younger is only reporting on the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, not editorializing on them.
Originally posted by jgiant
Your arguments for Celsus and Lucian is interesting because if they are trying to denounce Christianity why don't they attack the historicity of Jesus.
The aim of Celsus is to characterize Christianity as profane, and the aim of Lucian is to characterize Christianity as absurd.
Originally posted by jgiant
If Mara is not talking about Jesus, then who?
It is of no consequence since the writing is allegorical in nature.
Originally posted by jgiant
Your aguments are possible, but far from the most probable. I accept your stand on Jesus not being divine (tho I hope and pray that one day you will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ), but to say he was not a historical figure I would need early documentation on this claim, since this hypothesis is a fairly new one developed in the 18th century. This hypothesis is also not accepted by serious historians and scholars.
No, you need documentation from non-Christian accounts during the time in which Jesus is purported to live that he existed. The burden of proof of historicity is on you, not the other way around.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, you need documentation from non-Christian accounts during the time in which Jesus is purported to live that he existed. The burden of proof of historicity is on you, not the other way around.
Originally posted by jgiant
As far as Jesus never existing, well that would put you in the radical fringe if you were a historian. The existance of Jesus was never contested until recently, around the 18th centrury.
strange, thats the same time as the enlightenment, the general birth of science and tthe end of violently enforced conformity to church doctrine...