Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is there any scholarly support for this Jesus myth? To simply say "no" would be a huge understatement. But then again, behind every historian is a conspiracy, including ancient historians.
Nevertheless...
...Christ remains the most influential figure in history. Any list of "world-transforming" individuals would no doubt also include Moses, Buddha, and Muhammad. Those three never professed to perform miracles or claimed to be anything more than mere men.
People who are not Christians or even religious are affected in big and small ways by Christ. Time is divided before and after his birth, BC and AD. Sunday is a worldwide holiday, not, as many believe, because it is the day of the Sabbath (which is Saturday) but because it was traditionally held to be the day of Christ's resurrection.
While there is much about his early life that we don't know, we do know that Christ existed. Historians debate whether some other figures of ancient times, like Homer, existed at all, but there is general unanimity among historians that Christ was a real person.
There are references to him in Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and Tacitus. These sources testify not only that Christ lived but also that he had a big following, that he alienated the Jewish and Roman authorities, and that he died by crucifixion.
"Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death."
--Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.
Before I get into the reasons why we believe Jesus existed, let me first ask the skeptics the following...
Why must I continue to repeat myself? If you've read the past five pages, you can see a logically formulated argument for why there is no evidence to support the alleged life of Jesus Christ.
The "evidence" with which these historians assert Jesus' existance is based off of documents which were written well after Jesus' alleged death. According to the evidence we have within the text itself, the earliest gospel - the Gospel of Mark - was probably written between 70 and 75 CE, although Catholic sources claim the date was closer to 50 CE. Either way, it was clearly written after Jesus died, supposedly 33 CE.
Explain to me how a document that wasn't even written during an individuals' alleged life can be reliable? Not to mention the many forgeries, omissions, and changes that have occured since this was originally written.
There are references to him in Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and Tacitus. These sources testify not only that Christ lived but also that he had a big following, that he alienated the Jewish and Roman authorities, and that he died by crucifixion.
The only one of your sources written during the first century (read: the same as Jesus' life and death) was Josephus' "Antiquities", in 90-95 CE. Note, this is still roughly sixty years after Jesus' alleged death.
His two short mentions of a man named Jesus who had disciples and did good works are under heavy controversy, and recently, the discovery of the probable original of "Antiquities" shows that one of the two passages was a later fraudulent addition.
Even if all these objections are false, Josephus cannot be a contemporary source.
As for Thallus, he is also reported as having talked about the crucifixion of Jesus, but this is only known second-hand, and critics claim that he said nothing about Jesus.
All of the other contemporary "sources" of Jesus were all written after the first century, and therefore are not proof of his existence when he supposedly existed.
There are references to him in Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and Tacitus. These sources testify not only that Christ lived but also that he had a big following, that he alienated the Jewish and Roman authorities, and that he died by crucifixion.
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos". This Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was. So, this passage is not evidence for Jesus, it's nothing to do with Jesus, it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws. Suetonius
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, Pliny only referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events. So, Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus, just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ. Pliny the Younger
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events, Tacitus allegedly wrote a now famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
1. Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
2. Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
3. This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records - but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time. So, this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus. Online Library of Liberty - The Works of Tacitus, 4 vols.
Philo of Alexandria wrote to Gaius Caligula, c. 40 AD, in which he spent a whole paragraph complaining what a miserable prat Pontius Pilate had been. In the course of that denunciation he never mentions that Pilate may have killed someone who "multitudes" hailed as the Messiah. Even more amazingly, he never mentions that the man that Pilate killed supposedly "came back to life" which would seem to be a pretty clear indication that "god or the gods" were not happy with Pilate's action. Clearly, the story had not been invented in 40 AD.
The case for this Jesus is weak because no one living and writing in the early to mid-first century ever seems to have heard of him. We are left with a pile of self-serving religious documents which could easily have been tampered with throughout the years. The "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work. Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artefacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay.
Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.
Last edited by Cheguevara; 11-12-2007 at 12:38 AM..
There are references to him in Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, and Tacitus. These sources testify not only that Christ lived but also that he had a big following, that he alienated the Jewish and Roman authorities, and that he died by crucifixion.
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos". This Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was. So, this passage is not evidence for Jesus, it's nothing to do with Jesus, it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws. Suetonius
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, Pliny only referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events. So, Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus, just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ. Pliny the Younger
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events, Tacitus allegedly wrote a now famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
1. Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
2. Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
3. This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time. So, this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus. Online Library of Liberty - The Works of Tacitus, 4 vols.
Philo of Alexandria wrote the Embassy to Gaius Caligula, c. 40 AD, in which he spent a whole paragraph complaining what a miserable prat Pontius Pilate had been. In the course of that denunciation he never mentions that Pilate may have killed someone who "multitudes" hailed as the Messiah. Even more amazingly, he never mentions that the man that Pilate killed supposedly "came back to life" which would seem to be a pretty clear indication that "god or the gods" were not happy with Pilate's action. Clearly, the story had not been invented in 40 AD.
The case for this Jesus is weak because no one living and writing in the early to mid-first century ever seems to have heard of him. We are left with a pile of self-serving religious documents which could easily have been tampered with throughout the years. The "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work. Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artefacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay.
Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.
theres no reason to ponder this matter anymore...it should be put to rest ..in that there is no KNOWN concrete evidence supporting the existence nor the non existence of jesus ..and until such evidence is found..which may very well prove to be impossible..their is no point in discussing with the other side of this argument
what is known is even if he was never present ..he does exist in the minds and culture of our society today
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
