Did Jesus even exist?

@Professor Chaos,

Josephus' Antiquities: 20.9.1 and 18.3.3

@Dmizer,

Dmizer;10537 wrote:

Ok Chaos,
Look up Tacitus, He was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it.

Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

More to follow............

Tacitus? Really? You'll have to do better than that.

Some scholars believe that the passage in reference was a later interpolation by Christian scribes, and some others believe that the original text was "Chrestus," with "Christus" being a substitution. At any rate, this tiny little passage which says virtually nothing about Jesus was written in 115 CE!!!!

The fact remains that Tacitus wasn't even born until more than 20 years after Jesus' alleged death. The fact remains that there are no contemporary writings by or about Jesus during his alleged lifetime. This was a person so important that the Roman Empire singled him out to be killed. Thousands allegedly flocked to him wherever he went. Yet no historians of his time had ever heard of him. Even the earliest books of the New Testament, written decades after his death, mention him as a spiritual being only.

1 Reply

@Dmizer,

Dmizer;10539 wrote:

Josephus' Antiquities: 20.9.1 and 18.3.3

Josephus! Ha! Even worse.

Again, this comes decades after the alleged death of Christ, being published in 93 CE, about 60 years after the crucifiction. (Pun intended.)

Anyways, the vast majority of scholars, even Christians, agree that at least some of the T.F. passages in question are interpolation, and not genuine. The Catholic Church even says, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations."

It's obvious garbage, but even if it weren't, so what? It was still written 60 years after Christ's death, and the oldest copy in extant is from the 9th century.

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

Your assumption that he was a big deal in his own time is erroneous. I found this article and it summed it up nicely.

Summation from a article by J.P. Holding:
"As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

Also from J.P. Holding,
He surmises:

"At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).

Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven."

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

My point of the last two postings is this,
The foundation from which you deduce your opinnions is generally considered "bunk" in the majority of educational and historical circles. The criteria you propose for your deduction could just as easyily be applied to many ancient historical figures. It is the same type of arguements used by those wishing to prove that the Holocaust never happened or that the Moon landing was a hoax. But if thats the kind of conspiracy theory crap you subscribe to then, have fun, there are so many more subjects out there you have yet to get too. So many conspiracies, so little time.........

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

That's funny. First, you state, "Jesus is a historical figure, his existance is well documented in roman, greek and coptic texts."

When that statement is thoroughly debunked, you quickly change your tune. I assure you that J.P. Holding is not someone worth quoting. Funny that Jesus was so important that they let a murderer of a Roman Soldier (!) go, (Barabbus) in order to crucify the guy! Funny how thousands and thousands of people followed him!

Oh, and funny how when Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the land." And when he died, there was a great earthquake with many corpses walking the streets of Jerusalem. "Matthew's night of the living dead." Ironically enough, there are no other historical records of these events occuring.

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

Just because you say there isn't scholarly support for the Jesus-myth theory doesn't make it so. Hundreds and hundreds of scholars support the theory in some form. Most won't touch it, however, because their childish religious beliefs won't let them, presumably.

However, I'm more of a Jesus agnostic. I think it's likely he was a myth, but am open to the possiblity of him being an actual historical person. The fact is, I'm not making a claim. I'm simply asking for evidence from those who are making an extraordinary one. Sadly, the evidence is nil.

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

No tune was changed, the time frame that you require to certify his existance, specifically while Jesus was alive, does not have much documentation that has survived. The texts I mentioned, as you so astutely pointed out, are from time periods that are post Jesus. We will have to agree to disagree, I do not subscribe to your Jesus myth observations and you do not subscribe to anyone elses, so that is where the discussion shall remain. As Tulip is fond of saying, "Cheers".

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

Okay, fine.

Catholic Online - Breaking News, World News, Catholic and Diocese News & Multimedia

Miracle:

On September 20, 1918, Padre Pio was kneeling in front of a large
crucifix when he received the visible marks of the crucifixion, making him
the first stigmatized priest in the history of Church. The doctor who
examined Padre Pio could not find any natural cause for the wounds. Upon
his death in 1968, the wounds were no longer visible. In fact, there
was no scaring and the skin was completely renewed. He had predicted 50
years prior that upon his death the wounds would heal. The wounds of the
stigmata were not the only mystical phenomenon experienced by Padre
Pio.

The blood from the stigmata had an odor described by many as similar to
that of perfume or flowers, and the gift of bilocation was attributed
to him. Padre Pio had the ability to read the hearts of the penitents
who flocked to him for confession which he heard for ten or twelve hours
per day.

Again Catholic Online - Breaking News, World News, Catholic and Diocese News & Multimedia.

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

Is there any evidence of this? What is the name of the doctor? Are his medical records available to be viewed? Can anyone else corroborate that the alleged stigmata marks did not exist before his alleged incident? Were there any witnesses to the incident that can testify that he did not do this to himself?

This is hardly proof of a miracle.

1 Reply

@Professor Chaos,

Why is it that these "miracles" never happen anymore now that we have more technology for recording and communicating events?

Now, Jesus seems to limit himself to grilled cheese sandwiches.

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

Professor Chaos;10555 wrote:

Is there any evidence of this? What is the name of the doctor? Are his medical records available to be viewed? Can anyone else corroborate that the alleged stigmata marks did not exist before his alleged incident? Were there any witnesses to the incident that can testify that he did not do this to himself?

This is hardly proof of a miracle.

Can't you be pleased? I used that example because it was one of the most famous, and everyone knows about it. I offered evidence, as you asked, but you don't take it seriously because I haven't provided you with everything?

And who's changing his tune now? First off, you denied miracles existed at all, but now you say they don't exist anymore.

Here's one: Evidence of alleged cure credited to Cardinal Newman sent to Vatican - Catholic Online

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;10557 wrote:

Can't you be pleased? I used that example because it was one of the most famous, and everyone knows about it. I offered evidence, as you asked, but you don't take it seriously because I haven't provided you with everything?

And who's changing his tune now? First off, you denied miracles existed at all, but now you say they don't exist anymore.

Here's one: Evidence of alleged cure credited to Cardinal Newman sent to Vatican - Catholic Online

You didn't offer evidence, you pasted a story that nobody outside of the Catholic church believes, and most Catholics would label as bullshit, I'm sure.

I'll check out this new link, but here's a hint: If you want to convince somebody of a "miracle," the Catholic church's website is hardly the best source to cite. They're hardly objective.

EDIT: Read the link. Typical. No verifiable evidence. Nothing. Just empty Catholic BS. If these things were true, don't you think they'd be all over the news? Wouldn't other Christian denominations be all over them?

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

Oh, and I didn't "change my tune." I was very obviously being sarcastic and pointing out the absurdity in claims of miracles virtually disappearing now that the technology to instantly debunk them exists. Pay attention.

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

That's ridiculous. Padre Pio is one of the most venerated modern Saint. I assure you that no Catholic regards his stigmata as 'bullshit'. The History channel, which is not Catholic, ran a program discussing him, and it was acceted that his stigmata was real, they were just trying to explain it. I don't have a link to a viseo for that though, so I suppose you won't really believe me. It is pretty acccepted by all people who care about the subject that it was real. Catholic Online certainly isn't the Catholic Church's official website. I doubt if other Christian denominations would want to cover such miracles and cast the reasons for their own existense into doubt. Such miracles are also a common enough occurence to be disregarded by the media, however, are actually featured in at least a few news sources most of the time.

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;10561 wrote:

That's ridiculous. Padre Pio is one of the most venerated modern Saint. I assure you that no Catholic regards his stigmata as 'bull****'. The History channel, which is not Catholic, ran a program discussing him, and it was acceted that his stigmata was real, they were just trying to explain it. I don't have a link to a viseo for that though, so I suppose you won't really believe me.

Of course I don't. The History Channel would do no such thing.

Reagaknight wrote:

It is pretty acccepted by all people who care about the subject that it was real.

No, it isn't. You're making that up. Again, nobody outside the Catholic church believes this nonsense.

Reagaknight wrote:

Catholic Online certainly isn't the Catholic Church's official website. I doubt if other Christian denominations would want to cover such miracles and cast the reasons for their own existense into doubt. Such miracles are also a common enough occurence to be disregarded by the media, however, are actually featured in at least a few news sources most of the time.

Such as?

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

Well, whether or not you believe it, the History Channel did something on it. They tried to explain it scientifically, but did not refute it, if that makes you feel better.

You could just as easily be making upthe lies that no one outside the Church believes it. How about this: If it was all a lie, and no one believed it, wouldn't the news media be abuzz about it? At least at some point in time?

1 Reply

@Reagaknight,

Reagaknight;10564 wrote:

Well, whether or not you believe it, the History Channel did something on it. They tried to explain it scientifically, but did not refute it, if that makes you feel better.

It does. The History Channel remains neutral about such things. They're too much of cowards to go after these ridiculous religious claims more proactively, but I can't say I blame them. Their target demographic is largely Xian.

Reagaknight wrote:

You could just as easily be making upthe lies that no one outside the Church believes it.

Why would anyone outside the church believe it? I mean REALLY believe it? If one believed it, that would mean that Catholicism is the one true relgion.

Reagaknight wrote:

How about this: If it was all a lie, and no one believed it, wouldn't the news media be abuzz about it? At least at some point in time?

Why would they? Do you realize how many religions there are with similar absurd tall tales?

0 Replies

@Professor Chaos,

It is absolutely proven that Padre Pio had the same sorts of wounds that Jesus had, and they were not self inflicted. The opponents of this accept it, but claim it was some sort of strong subconsious connection or whatever. I really have to say you're pretty much alone in denying it altogether.

Also, I'm sure the largest single religion in the world (no 'Christianity' or 'Islam') would probably get more attention than some sect in Whateveristan if they had such a huge scandal on their hands.

1 Reply

Did Jesus even exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know