Did Jesus exist?

Cornelius Tacitus referenced Jesus when talking about Christians in Rome.

Flavius Josephus Mentioned Jesus when talking about James "He is the brother of jesus, who was called christ"


there are more if you wish, but those two should suffice
 
Thank you!:)

Not familiar with them but I will let you know what I think after a little research.
 
Cornelius Tacitus referenced Jesus when talking about Christians in Rome.

Flavius Josephus Mentioned Jesus when talking about James "He is the brother of jesus, who was called christ"


there are more if you wish, but those two should suffice

Apparently there is some concern over the writings of Tacitus. The most prominent writing I can find concerning Christianity is as follows:

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

But it would seem that nobody has been able to corroborate that Nero prosecuted the Christians and the term Christian was not a common term in first century Rome. Nero did not start the fire in Rome. Like I said, I am not familiar with these works and will continue to look into it but my first impressions don't support that these writings are authentic. Perhaps others with some knowledge of these works could ring in?
 
Cornelius Tacitus referenced Jesus when talking about Christians in Rome.

Flavius Josephus Mentioned Jesus when talking about James "He is the brother of jesus, who was called christ"


there are more if you wish, but those two should suffice

More research on the writings of Tacitus...

It would seem that Tacitus referred to a class of people "called christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin," rather than calling him Christ or Jesus. I have also read that Christus is the latinized greek translation of the hebrew word for "Messiah". If that is the case then Tacitus would be referring generally to the Christian Messiah and not Jesus himself.
 
Greetings,

Cornelius Tacitus referenced Jesus when talking about Christians in Rome.

TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* 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.)
* 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 (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php


Flavius Josephus Mentioned Jesus when talking about James "He is the brother of jesus, who was called christ"

The Jesus in this passage is Jesus, son of Damneus the High Priest.
Nothing to do with your Jesus.


there are more if you wish, but those two should suffice

See my other post - Alleged Evidence for Jesus.
I deal with all of them.


Iasion
 
So the numerous historians who reference him, and whos references match up with the bibles, just all got together and decided to invent someone?

There are no contemporary records of any kind for Jesus.

All we have is much evidence for BELIEF in Jesus.

From long after any alleged events.

But
there is no historical evidence for Jesus at all.

Have a look at my other thread - all the alleged "evidence" is either
* late,
* forged, or
* not about Jesus at all.


Iasion
 
*************
M*W: Flavias Josephus wrote about a man named "Jesus," but he never wrote about a Messiah. In any event, FJ never wrote about a savior.
 
In order to prove that Jesus was the Son of God or had supernatural powers, I think a historical document other than the bible which could attest to any of the miracles performed by Jesus in the bible, would be good proof.

So far The Talmud has been presented, but The Talmud only has one small paragraph about Jesus performing miracles which doesn't really prove anything. The text is below.

"It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a)"

Also SkinWalker has said that "The earliest Talmud was created nearly 400 years after Jesus was alleged to live. I don't even see how this is part of any believer's argument. The Talmud is, therefore, dismissed from this argument."

Can anyone produce anything else in this matter?
 
Sorry, wrong, the Jews who wrote the Talmud were against Christianity, so they begrudgingly included it as to not be seen as fudgers and omitters of history, which is what you're trying to do.
 
I guess if they did include that statement it must have meant that Jesus did show signs of supernatural ability. I just wish I knew more about The Talmud. Maybe they sell a copy of it.
 
I was actually giving the Talmud some credibility. I wasn't trying to sound sarcastic. The Talmud is a start.
 
Here is a passage from Josephus in his work Testimonium Flavianum:

"About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."

(Source: Wikipedia --> Antiquities of the Jews: Book 18 by Josephus)

The only problem with this quote, is that Josephus references Christ's resurrection, insinuating that it is just second-hand information, much like you or I, if ignorant of this man, asked who Jesus was and what he did.
 
Yeah exactly, the idea is to prove the credibility of the NT with other outside sources to agree with it. And The Talmud is a start. The Josephus account could also be applicable, but as Ayodhya said, it could be just a reiterating of the Gospels.
 
So why are you unwilling to say that Jesus never existed?

You probably didn't revise this post :p before you made it because it doesn't seem that you would support the non-existence of Jesus, but...

Few people discredit Jesus' existence simply because of bias, but instead, out of evidence analysis.
 
Please do not refer to me as Ayo, as it is childish and stupid.

Jesus of Nazareth, of course, existed and all the evidence proves it, including my post above, written during the time of Jesus himself. The evidence for our Savior surmounts that of several other ancient "historical" figures, noted in the New Testament and the ample amount in other secular sources.

Yes, IAC, there is a Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior (including all of the other prophets and people, Moses, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, etc.)!
 
Back
Top