Italian priest ordered to prove Jesus existed

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by The Familia

No one knows for sure either way, so I think it would be appropriate for people to stop asking the stupid question.

That's funny. I think the stupid people want to stop asking the appropriate questions.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

I don't know how things work in the Italian courts, but in Canada it would have to be done the other way around. It would have to be proved that he WAS deceiving them (i.e. proving Jesus doesn't exist). The whole innocent until proven guilty thing. The onus would be on the guy bringing the charges to provide proof, rather than the defendant. In Canada. In Italy, I don't know.

"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to criminal presumption, and in a roundabout way also applies in most torts, but the point might be moot here. Civil law is a little confusing re: the blur between tort and criminal law. It is hard to tell here whether this is a tort, a criminal offence, or somewhere in between. In civil law, an individual can bring a criminal charge against another individual (we can do it here too but it is very rare, usually the Crown makes the charges).

But you are right, that's exactly what I was getting at.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

There's no circumstantial evidence that holds up under examination either.

I've found this to be a very thorough look at the issue:

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

A middle of the road look is here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

You'll remember the gigantic hope a few years ago that came out of the purported discovery of the burial box of Joseph, the brother of Jesus. It would have been the first direct archeological evidence from the time of Jesus. It was a fraud.

Jesus appears to be a complete myth . . . . . .


Cowperson

Blah blah blah.....what a load of dung. Ancient history is a lot of guess work and hearsay anyways. Historians and Egyptologists hadn't a clue about ancient Egyptian civilisation until someone triped over a rock that gave them translation of Egyptian heirglyphics.

Troy WAS a myth told by some crazy blind story teller...600 years after the fact until a German decided to dig it up. Now we're starting to think Hector, Agamemnon, Achilies were real!!!! Hmmmm...... No writings there and the evidence would certainly NOT have lived up to inspection in a court of law.

Yet Jesus was a myth because we can't find writings closer to his date of Birth? So if you are not going to believe in the hearsay of people 1800-2000 years ago...there isn't much we can do to persuade you. The fact that he is mentioned as a prophet in the Koran will obviously do little. Mohammed lived in the 7th century.

Somehow I don't think a myth would create 2 billion followers. Especially after suffering the persecution, for centuries, of the mightiest empire at the time. An empire so powerful that it emptied Israel of Jews. Or is that a myth too?

No state religion of the Romans lasted without the Emperor's blessing. Yet Christianity did. Judiasm did. Pagan religions in the ME and Europe disappeared when Christianity rolled by. Even the Vikings finally turned to Christianity. I strongly doubt an idea or movement built on a myth would have been so powerful.

Editted for Spel'n corrikshon

[FFF]

I don't have the time to take part in this debate other than this quick comment, which obviously isn't much. However, as a student of classical antiquity I've always been convinced of Jesus' existence. The guys on his side (more than) mention him, which clearly counts for little in proof. However, as already said, he is mentioned in Josephus's writings, who is a Jew and a opponent of the early Christians and in Tacitus's Annales, which is a Roman work, and quite possibly in the works of Suetonius, another Roman. Besides, the point of none of the gospel writers not making the claim of having seen Jesus isn't valid, as the vast majority of scholars regard not only John but also Mark as portraying themselves in their gospels.

Moreover, Mr Cowperson, the timings of the gospels are not that clear-cut, there's no great consensus on for example John - some think his gospel is the oldest, some think it's the youngest.

Isn't it by the way the most logical explanation to the birth of Christianity that there in fact lived a man by the name Jesus? I mean, it seems to be the easy way to assume that there was a Jesus since so many believed his existence (as a man) at the time? Both his opponents and his own, I might add.

We believe many things of the past with far, far feebler proof - Troy is a good example. I mean, Homer sang about Troy roughly about 400 years after its destruction - and Homer's very existence continues to be questioned. Still we have no problem with the existence of Troy. Obviously there is the archaeological evidence, but it isn't really anything without Homer.

Just my two cents that I felt I had to add given that I study such things for a living. Sorry if I repeated something that's been already said, cause I hadn't got the time to go through it all.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

A few quick comments that percolated while reading this thread.

* Karl Marx wasn't too far off when he said that religion was the opiate of the masses. People are always searching for something (a crutch) to lend support and make them feel better, and relgion/faith is that something to the majority of the world.

* Religion has, and always will be, a form of organized control over the masses. A "spiritual" leader directs people how to live their lives. Its pretty straight forward.

* Religion, and the belief in God, has been an extension of explaining the unexplainable. Man, as a species, has this incredible urge to understand how and why things work. Why are we here? What is our purpose in life? Who made liquid soap, and why? Man is a quizical animal that needs to have an explanation for everything. What is not known is attributed to an all powerful being. As man becomes more and more aware of his environment and is able to explain many of the mysteries of the universe the belief in God wanes. It is man's own need to know things that has led to the creation of God. Ironically, its man's ability to learn that is contributing to the destruction of the God ideal.

* God is inside each of us. Now when I say that, I mean inside our brains. God lives within the neurons and electro-chemical soup that allows our brains to function. He is a creation of this organ and manifestations of Him or his messengers can be created in the lab. A study was conducted to debunk alien abduction stories to prove they were nothing more than figments of the person's imagination and a production of an over stimulated region of the brain. This study was able to recreate "abduction" events. Unfortunately, it was also able to recreate events of visitations from angels and from God himself. Final, proof positive, that we create God ourselves, and he is indeed in our own image.

* As Cow has pointed out, the Gospels are not good accounts of Christ and are no longer considered first-hand accounts of his life. The average life-span at the time of Christ was 28 years (shorter for "Christians" who were persecuted by Romans and Jews alike). The first of the Gospels was purported to be written 35 years after Christ's death. It is very unlikely that the individual who wrote that was an apostle of Christ himself. It is even less likely that the three other tomes, written even later (one 70+ years after Christ's death) were first hand accounts either. I find it impossible to believe that FIVE of Jesus' apositles, the leaders of his renegade church, would survive well into their 60's-90's, given the environment they lived in. It is more likely that these were written passages done by someone else, but attributing them to the apositles. That would account for the increasing number of supernatural occurences in each of the Gospels. The oral tradition that would be used to pass the stories along would distort them to the point where they would no longer be accurate when finally recorded to paper.

* There is no direct evidence in any shape of form to prove Christ's existence. No burial tomb, no burial shroud, no remnants of the cross to which he was nailed. No definite records to indicate his birth, his trial, or his death. That's pretty interesting considering the Romans were real sticklers for stuff like that, especially when they were trying and putting to death a religious leader. In 2000 years, and with all the resources the church has had at its disposal, not a single artifact that can prove the existence of Christ exists. Not that they haven't tried. Some very good hoaxes have been exposed by those attempting to support their faith.

* Faith is a strange thing. Faith allows people to see things that aren't there. Images of the Virgin Mother in windows (been there, saw that, it was water vapor in faulty coating for crying outloud!), in grilled cheese sandwiches, in tree trunks and on walls on an under-pass. Only those that believe see it though. The power of the mind can do many things, including making us see, do and believe things we likely shouldn't.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FFF

I don't have the time to take part in this debate other than this quick comment, which obviously isn't much. However, as a student of classical antiquity I've always been convinced of Jesus' existence. The guys on his side (more than) mention him, which clearly counts for little in proof. However, as already said, he is mentioned in Josephus's writings, who is a Jew and a opponent of the early Christians and in Tacitus's Annales, which is a Roman work, and quite possibly in the works of Suetonius, another Roman. Besides, the point of none of the gospel writers not making the claim of having seen Jesus isn't valid, as the vast majority of scholars regard not only John but also Mark as portraying themselves in their gospels.

Moreover, Mr Cowperson, the timings of the gospels are not that clear-cut, there's no great consensus on for example John - some think his gospel is the oldest, some think it's the youngest.

Isn't it by the way the most logical explanation to the birth of Christianity that there in fact lived a man by the name Jesus? I mean, it seems to be the easy way to assume that there was a Jesus since so many believed his existence (as a man) at the time? Both his opponents and his own, I might add.

We believe many things of the past with far, far feebler proof - Troy is a good example. I mean, Homer sang about Troy roughly about 400 years after its destruction - and Homer's very existence continues to be questioned. Still we have no problem with the existence of Troy. Obviously there is the archaeological evidence, but it isn't really anything without Homer.

Just my two cents that I felt I had to add given that I study such things for a living. Sorry if I repeated something that's been already said, cause I hadn't got the time to go through it all.

Maybe the prof who taught you your classical antiquity course had a religious bent? Heres another little piece that talks about the writings you refer to:

Christians have listed a number of ancient historians who allegedly were witnesses to the existence of Jesus, the only two that consistently are cited are Josephus, a Pharisee, and Tacitus, a pagan. Since Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of Jesus, who supposedly was crucified in 30 CE. So we could really end our article here. But someone might claim that these historians nevertheless had access to reliable sources, now lost, which recorded the existence and execution of our friend JC.

and

Considering now the supposed evidence of Tacitus, we find that this Roman historian is alleged in 120 CE to have written a passage in his Annals (Bk 15, Ch 44, containing the wild tale of Nero's persecution of Christians) saying "Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus..." G.A. Wells [p. 16] says of this passage:

[Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as "the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16).

There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.

[Cowperson]

Thank the Lords of Kobol Lanny and Cheese are picking up the torch on the details today because I don't have time for it.

I did get a kick out of HOZ telling us there must be something to it because look how big it is 2000 years later. Yeah, that seals the deal.

The interesting thing about this Italian case, we should hope, is that the debate will be focussed on the factual issues and we'll be able to see both sides present their expert cases while we, as armchair quarterbacks, sit back with a Diet Coke and some Doritos and watch it unfold.

Jesus will be on trial.

As to whether or not we should even be asking the question . . . . well, as Jean Luc Picard once said to the Xenophobes, "Humans can't resist a mystery. It MUST be solved."

Of course we must ask the question. We're human.

Cowperson

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Of course we must ask the question. We're human.

Indeed. But that doesn't necessarily privilege positivism.

Paradoxically, postmodern thought (which seems to be pervading the present discussion, I guess as a sign of the times) at once denounces both God and positivistic thought.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by icarus

Indeed. But that doesn't necessarily privilege positivism.

Paradoxically, postmodern thought (which seems to be pervading the present discussion, I guess as a sign of the times) at once denounces both God and positivistic thought.

It's actually not a denunciation of God on my part. God and Jesus can be mutually exclusive topics. The concept of a God or Gods will never be proven or disproven. We can probably agree on that, even with the atheists here.

However, if someone puts the question of "Did Jesus Exist" in my wheelhouse, with the assertion that Jesus was a physical, tangible thing, unlike God, then how can I not be curious to go looking for the answer?

And why should I simply ignore the answer if it threatens to tear down the value placed upon it? Wouldn't that be dishonest in itself?

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I did get a kick out of HOZ telling us there must be something to it because look how big it is 2000 years later. Yeah, that seals the deal.
Cowperson

Is that all I said? Hmm...

You built up a straw man to knock him down. You have basically said you don't trust any biblical or extra-biblical documents because they are to far removed from Christ's life and their for unreliable. And since there are no true, in your opinion, "Documented facts" about him he is a myth. Since you don't trust them you have left us with nothing. You need more proof...something that is not coming. Why?

When you have the mightiest empire of the age commit the first "signed sealed and documented" genocide in Israel...how many documents do you think would survive this? (We have the Dead Sea scrolls.....) Especially when they sacked Jerusalem and it's temple? When the Romans were carting off the booted from Solomon's temple do you think they stopped to check for documents purtaining to Jesus of Nazareth (or Galalie) on their way out?

Peter who was the "Rock which Jesus would build his church" travelled to Rome. Due to pursecution they had to meet in caves and crypts beneith the city of Rome. How many documents do you think survived the Lions in the Arena?

Back to Homer. As I am sure you know, Oral tradition not written tradition was the way stories, history and lesson were taught. Why? Not many people could read. So more than likely the History of Christ was transmitted orally...until someone had the great idea to write some of them down. Leads to mistakes, embellishments, etc. Back to Homer. Do you believe than Athena, Mars, Zeus really were on the fields of battle back then? Probably not. Yet Homer described the city that was dug up in Turkey to a T....for Troy.

You need Jesus' "Troy" to be dug up to believe in him since the documents about him are not reliable, in your opinion.

I said I find it difficult to beleive that a mere myth would be strong enough to survive the Roman empire persecution (remember they empied a country of their people and massicered 500,000 Guals), barbarian invasions (see Vikings, and others on the History channel...awesome viewing!) and massive plagues.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Is that all I said? Hmm...

You built up a straw man to knock him down. You have basically said you don't trust any biblical or extra-biblical documents because they are to far removed from Christ's life and their for unreliable. And since there are no true, in your opinion, "Documented facts" about him he is a myth. Since you don't trust them you have left us with nothing. You need more proof...something that is not coming. Why?

When you have the mightiest empire of the age commit the first "signed sealed and documented" genocide in Israel...how many documents do you think would survive this? (We have the Dead Sea scrolls.....) Especially when they sacked Jerusalem and it's temple? When the Romans were carting off the booted from Solomon's temple do you think they stopped to check for documents purtaining to Jesus of Nazareth (or Galalie) on their way out?

Peter who was the "Rock which Jesus would build his church" travelled to Rome. Due to pursecution they had to meet in caves and crypts beneith the city of Rome. How many documents do you think survived the Lions in the Arena?

Back to Homer. As I am sure you know, Oral tradition not written tradition was the way stories, history and lesson were taught. Why? Not many people could read. So more than likely the History of Christ was transmitted orally...until someone had the great idea to write some of them down. Leads to mistakes, embellishments, etc. Back to Homer. Do you believe than Athena, Mars, Zeus really were on the fields of battle back then? Probably not. Yet Homer described the city that was dug up in Turkey to a T....for Troy.

You need Jesus' "Troy" to be dug up to believe in him since the documents about him are not reliable, in your opinion.

I said I find it difficult to beleive that a mere myth would be strong enough to survive the Roman empire persecution (remember they empied a country of their people and massicered 500,000 Guals), barbarian invasions (see Vikings, and others on the History channel...awesome viewing!) and massive plagues.

Well, lets examine your rant a bit further.

First, is it possible for a religion to be founded out of myth and survive thousands of years?:

Some critics doubt that a historicized Jesus could develop from myth because they think there never occurred any precedence for it. We have many examples of myth from history but what about the other way around? This doubt fails in the light of the most obvious example-- the Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc., assumed that there must have existed a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, etc. These writers put their mythological heroes into an invented historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to determine when Hercules lived. As Robert M. Price revealed, "The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who originated it." [Price, p. 250] Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized mythologies: UFO adherents who's beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily invasion, and then expressed as actually having occurred (some of which have formed religious cults); beliefs of urban legends which started as pure fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fiction but believed by their constituents. Scientology provides a glaring modern example of a cult founded by a science fiction writer that has now progressed to a full fledged religion within just 50 years!

People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and colleges. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian friends. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.

As to your second point Hoz, if Jesus was such a wonderous guy, why isn't he in any record from his time, including the notoriously volumnious Romans?:

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what got later written about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jersulaem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumberable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Yes. Quite a riddle that one. A real logic box. Please squirm here. Your only defence in your post above seems to revolve around hoping the dog ate the homework.

And any other point you want to reference is likely adequately dealt with at the link below, which I'll produce for the fourth time in this thread. (Lest you think I'm relying on this individual, I simply finds he covers fairly simply, but in detail, what you can find at a myriad number of other places. The bottom of the article includes a great number of referenced individual experts questioning the existence of Jesus.)

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

By the way, the straw man is your creation, not mine. I'm just sitting here answering objections. The burden of proof is on the person asserting a fact.

The Italian court has ordered a Priest to prove that Jesus existed. You would think that would be a slam dunk. Its obviously not.

This isn't about being anti-Jesus. Like others, I would have started this assuming Jesus was a factual figure. Obviously there is tremendous debate and obviously their is no contemporary physical evidence of his existence or even contemporary written evidence. That's not my formulated or biased opinion . . . . . that's the opinion of quite a mittful of experts which I have placed in front of you.

Cowperson

[Jiggy_12]

^^^

Good post, two thumbs up.

[HOZ]

Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.

I concede this point. Without a doubt there is a leap of faith to believe in Jesus and God. Though I do not agree with the statements above this one.

I am not trying to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus the man existed. I am trying to make you concede that there is certainly a good possibility that he might have.

As for the writing or documentation of Jesus....

again.....

1) As in the example of Homer. Oral tradition not written tradition was the way stories, history and lesson were taught. Why? Not many people could read. So more than likely the History of Christ was transmitted orally...until someone had the great idea to write some of them down. This leads to mistakes, embellishments, etc.

2) How many Jewish documents survived the sacking of Jerusalem and of the Temple of Solomon and the expulsion of the Jews from Israel???? Do you think the head Rabbi grabbed the documents relating to a radical when the Romans marched in? This is hardly a move to the next neighbourhood.

3) Why would the Romans write voluminously about a backwater province like Israel? The only time that province came into their thinking is when they revolted. Then the Romans ticked off the bootie from the temple and the numbers crucified. They only left the Jews one wall to wail on!


I hardly think this is the "Dog ate the homework" stuff.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I said I find it difficult to beleive that a mere myth would be strong enough to survive the Roman empire persecution (remember they empied a country of their people and massicered 500,000 Guals), barbarian invasions (see Vikings, and others on the History channel...awesome viewing!) and massive plagues.

A lot of pre-contact NA locals have some longstanding religious beliefs that have stood the test of persectution/massacre/plague/invasion. You must find it difficult to believe that they are mere myths as well, correct?

[Cowperson]

I am trying to make you concede that there is certainly a good possibility that he might have.

Why would I? I've seen nothing that would indicate he did.

It's not fundamental to my existence whether he did or didn't exist, just as I don't really care if Homer or Krishna was real.

In fact, if Jesus did exist then I would probably find it quite keen and I might even join your team.

However, from what I've seen, or more likely, what I haven't seen, I wouldn't even categorize it as a "good possibility."

As to your points:

1) As in the example of Homer. Oral tradition not written tradition was the way stories, history and lesson were taught. Why? Not many people could read. So more than likely the History of Christ was transmitted orally...until someone had the great idea to write some of them down. This leads to mistakes, embellishments, etc.

2) How many Jewish documents survived the sacking of Jerusalem and of the Temple of Solomon and the expulsion of the Jews from Israel???? Do you think the head Rabbi grabbed the documents relating to a radical when the Romans marched in? This is hardly a move to the next neighbourhood.

3) Why would the Romans write voluminously about a backwater province like Israel?



"Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous (or infamous) Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus (born 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E.) He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

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

Cowperson

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by HOZ

1) As in the example of Homer. Oral tradition not written tradition was the way stories, history and lesson were taught. Why? Not many people could read. So more than likely the History of Christ was transmitted orally...until someone had the great idea to write some of them down. This leads to mistakes, embellishments, etc.

So you admit that even if it was a possibility that it was passed on orally that it could have been embellished or had mistakes? That is quite the leap of faith!
So how many embellishments or mistakes would you accept and still maintain a solid belief? Better yet...um...how would you know what was embellished? Perhaps its the whole thing?

[FFF]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Maybe the prof who taught you your classical antiquity course had a religious bent? Heres another little piece that talks about the writings you refer to:

A fair question, but the answer is no. Like some professors of Classics, he considers Judeo-Christian a bit rough and common in comparison to Ancient Greek and Roman culture.

Christians have listed a number of ancient historians who allegedly were witnesses to the existence of Jesus, the only two that consistently are cited are Josephus, a Pharisee, and Tacitus, a pagan. Since Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of Jesus, who supposedly was crucified in 30 CE. So we could really end our article here. But someone might claim that these historians nevertheless had access to reliable sources, now lost, which recorded the existence and execution of our friend JC.

Sorry, but that doesn't sound like someone who understands the ancient world at all. It was a tumultous world, where there weren't any broadcasting companies which had huge databases of reliable information. Historians travelled a lot, interviewed many eyewitnesses and checked their stories from other eyewitnesses. Just because Tacitus couldn't have seen Jesus's death doesn't mean that he isn't reliable. That's an absurd requirement. So no, don't end your article here. And by the way, Tacitus is considered very reliable. Josephus not as much. Tacitus might've been fed this story by a Christian, but even so, he must've had other sources, be they eyewitnesses, or imperial records, to confirm this passage. Otherwise he wouldn't have included it in his book.

[Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his correct title, prefect.

That's not really valid. Roman government in the Palestine was a messy affair, with titles changing and people holding several titles at once. We have one epigraph that maintains Pilate was a prefect. And here Tacitus says he was a procurator. So what do you know, Tacitus, a former Senator who would know government through and through, must be wrong. No. But who's to say Pilate was a procurator and not a prefect? As I said, titles changed quickly in Palestine.

Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as "the Messiah was executed this morning."

Really? For it is the Roman "secret police" in Antiochia that first gave the Christians their name, deriving from "Christ", a name which the Roman government had no problem using. Maybe because it is easy; Christ, Christians.

Third, hostile to Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults.

That is speculation. Besides Christianity was from the beginning associated with the Jews so he didn't really have to prove anything. Everybody obviously knew that it was a recent myth, since nothing of it occurred in the Graeco-Roman mythology.

(The Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16). There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything of the outrage either.

Well, Tacitus's work is "Annales", that is, it tells what happened during one year and then moves on for the next year. Why would he allude to this small incident later? There was much, much more important business going on in Rome itself.

Most significant, however, is that ancient Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from Tacitus, knows nothing of the story.

That is again speculation. First, the fact that we don't have a passage of Clement quoting Tacitus doesn't mean there wasn't ever one (majority of ancient literature is lost). Secondly, if there never was such a passage, it doesn't mean Clement didn't know the quote, since he didn't have a volume on all the quotations. Thirdly, even if Clement didn't know the quote it doesn't prove it didn't exist, as Clement wrote in Greek and Tacitus in Latin (civilized Romans read Greek literature, most Greeks didn't consider Roman literature worth reading).
Same goes for Tertuallian as well, without the language barrier. But what's more, it wasn't a relevant question. Jesus' historical existence was beyond discussion. The Pagans and the Jews admitted it. So a quote proving it isn't very useful. It was only hundreds of years later that the question was first raised.

According to Robert Taylor, the author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de Spire himself to have been the forger.

Sorry, but that is a little bit ridiculous. The method of text criticism (sp?) is a good one, but it has one drawback. It's all too easy to use to disprove a passage you wish was never written. Just say "this is clearly a later passage" and pretend it's fine. It is not. You have to look at the manuscripts and their history. Taylor says de Spire was a forger at the fifteenth century. But this passage exists in every single manuscript, thus, there is no reason to believe that it is a forgery. Besides, the language is in line and there are no other reasons to suspect it isn't original. Forging is not so easy, many who have tried to pamper with ancient manuscripts were caught. What is the logical conclusion? That the passage is original.

However, all the quotations we're now discussing all secondary evidence. The primary evidence are the Gospels or better, the tradition behind them. There is a rich tradition behind the gospels (all of them, not just the four) which can easily be identified when you compare the gospels. All of them seem to have common sources (sometimes quoting one another), but all of them have sources of their own as well. Matthew and Luke quote Mark but correct it at a passage, all according to their sources. John draws from sources of its own as well as the other gospels. There were a lot of sources, a lot of eyewitnesses. It's a ripple effect. You can't see the stone, but the ripples are all over the pond. There must have been something to set out the ripples, to create all these eyewitnesses who then serve as sources. To say the whole net of tradition is reaching. Nobody creates such a net. Moreover, it was in no one's control, as is seen by the Gospels contradicting each other. So it couldn't have been created by somebody.

Sorry about the length.

[FFF]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous (or infamous) Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus (born 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E.) He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).
If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Palestine was a dreaded, distant periphery, where the failures of the government were sent as a punishment. It was constantly in state of tumult, there was a lot of blood being shed and a lot of spiritual leaders executed. Why should Seneca, a Roman who was in the very centre of government, teaching the young emperor, occupy himself with what wasn't even out of the ordinary in Palestine? Do you think he cared about what went on in Palestine? Don't you think he had more pressing matters to cover in Rome? Same goes for Pliny. It's like saying that since the great thinkers of the French revolution say nothing about Finnish events, it proves whatever was supposed to happen in Finland didn't. That's just silly.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Cheese

So you admit that even if it was a possibility that it was passed on orally that it could have been embellished or had mistakes? That is quite the leap of faith!
So how many embellishments or mistakes would you accept and still maintain a solid belief? Better yet...um...how would you know what was embellished? Perhaps its the whole thing?

So what us your excuse for Homer then? 600 years after the fact a blind crazy man tells a story of Greeks, Asians, Gods, and Heroes toiling for 10 years trying to decide the fate of man.....ORALLY

Yet a German takes a leap of faith based on a "translated copy" and digs up Troy. A city that existed 300 years before Alexander the Great.

So how much of Homer's story was embellished??? All of it??? How much can you believe?

Yet we have a historical book.....embellished...maybe that is why they settled on 4 accounts instead of making one. 200 years after the fact 4 gospels ended up being the majority's accepted account of Christ's life.

Noah's Ark was of a great flood.....yet there is ample geological evidence that there WAS a GREAT flood. Sinking pretty much all of the known world for these people. I will agree Noah's age may be an embellishment.

How about the creation of the universe? The Big Bang vs GOD said " let there be life".....

Find an Astro-physicist that can disprove GOD....

You'd be amazed how many star gazers are believers...........

Like I said yes it does take a leap of faith.....

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

A lot of pre-contact NA locals have some longstanding religious beliefs that have stood the test of persectution/massacre/plague/invasion. You must find it difficult to believe that they are mere myths as well, correct?

Hey nice university, lack of real world argument! No they haven't. As a matter of fact more often than not many misguided young native men due to the fact that they have no other reference to their own culture assume long hair or braided hair of the plains indians, a minority of NA native americans, though occupying a massive TV image of natives. Other natives have, like the "mohawk" tribes have hung onto their tradition because they have been able to adapt.

Yet a majority of these indians have become Chrtistian in one form or another.

So I don't care how many Teepees you put up....Un-PC yet very true....like the Gauls their culture has disappeared.