Did Jesus exist?
- Thread starter nds1
- Start date
Congratulations, it is truly an exciting adventure with Him, look forward to great things.
I would advise extreme caution when using the word "proves", indeed I would suggest that it not be used at all in instances like this. It need not be said that the jesus issue is far from being proven or even remotely substantiated.
I see. When did jesus die exactly?
Such as?
But it is proven, and that's why I use the word.
Jesus died after a three year ministry and was revived three days later.
It's all right there, you just have to look for it.
One thing needs to be clarified. Yes, I know it wont make a dent in that thick headed skull of yours but I thought I would point it out nonetheless..
It starts:
"It has been taught"
What this means is that a certain belief has been taught. It has no value in determining whether a belief is valid or not. There were many things taught in my school - from the minotaur to the mass array of Greek and Roman gods. The fact that these things were taught is not an indication that these things were real. Comprende?
True. The "It has been taught" statement seems to discredit the mentioning of Jesus performing sorcery. The Talmud states it was "taught" that Jesus performed sorcery (probably from analysis of the Gospels). It doesn't state that Jesus did in fact peform any sorcery.
GReetings,
False.
There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.
You cited Tacitus.
Tacitus did NOT write during the time of Jesus.
Your claim is FALSE.
(Readers should thus beware of Ayodhya' claims.)
Tacitus wrote 80 years later - after two wars had destroyed Jerusalem completely, dispersed the Jews, razed the Temple, and erased Judea from the map.
Tacitus is merely repeating Christian beliefs from later times - there is nothing written by anyone who met any Jesus.
I see that no-one can be bothered to respond to the facts I post, or to check the facts for themselves.
How sad.
All we get now is endless preaching...
I hope lurkers are learning something from the apologists failure to provide any historical evidence for Jesus.
Iasion
False.
There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.
You cited Tacitus.
Tacitus did NOT write during the time of Jesus.
Your claim is FALSE.
(Readers should thus beware of Ayodhya' claims.)
Tacitus wrote 80 years later - after two wars had destroyed Jerusalem completely, dispersed the Jews, razed the Temple, and erased Judea from the map.
Tacitus is merely repeating Christian beliefs from later times - there is nothing written by anyone who met any Jesus.
I see that no-one can be bothered to respond to the facts I post, or to check the facts for themselves.
How sad.
All we get now is endless preaching...
I hope lurkers are learning something from the apologists failure to provide any historical evidence for Jesus.
Iasion
Last edited:
Greetings,
False.
Only true believers believe that.
Scholars do not.
There is NO comtemporary evidence for Jesus.
Iasion
False.
Only true believers believe that.
Scholars do not.
There is NO comtemporary evidence for Jesus.
Iasion
Greetings,
We ARE looking for it.
We ARE asking for it.
We ARE expecting you to provide evidence.
But,
you don't
Because you can't.
Because there isn't any.
The more you preach, the more lurkers turn away from religion.
Iasion
We ARE looking for it.
We ARE asking for it.
We ARE expecting you to provide evidence.
But,
you don't
Because you can't.
Because there isn't any.
The more you preach, the more lurkers turn away from religion.
Iasion
Greetings all,
The Talmud keeps getting mentioned.
Why?
CENTURIES after the alleged time of Jesus, stories started circulating among the Jews - that Jesus :
* learnt black magic in Egypt
* worshipped a brick bat
* was a bastard son of Roman soldier
* was conceived during menstruation
* burnt his food
* had 5 disciples
* was stoned to death in Lydda
And some people think this is historical evidence for Jesus.
Incredible.
Iasion
The Talmud keeps getting mentioned.
Why?
CENTURIES after the alleged time of Jesus, stories started circulating among the Jews - that Jesus :
* learnt black magic in Egypt
* worshipped a brick bat
* was a bastard son of Roman soldier
* was conceived during menstruation
* burnt his food
* had 5 disciples
* was stoned to death in Lydda
And some people think this is historical evidence for Jesus.
Incredible.
Iasion
I cited Josephus who did live during Jesus' times, not Tacitus.
Greetings,
(Sorry, mixed my posters up
But anway -
You are wrong again.
Josephus did NOT live during Jesus' time.
Josephus was born c.37 and wrote c.96.
Iasion
(Sorry, mixed my posters up
But anway -
You are wrong again.
Josephus did NOT live during Jesus' time.
Josephus was born c.37 and wrote c.96.
Iasion
Greetings,
Here is the list of alleged evidence for Jesus -
I hope someone will bother to read it...
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refer to Jesus, son of Damneus.
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
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
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny 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 of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) 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.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
THALLUS (date unknown)
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
PHLEGON (c.140)
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
VALENTINUS (c.140CE)
In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html
POLYCARP (c.155CE)
Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.
GALEN (late 2nd C.)
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm
MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)
A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.
Iasion
Here is the list of alleged evidence for Jesus -
I hope someone will bother to read it...
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* The other tiny passage in Josephus refer to Jesus, son of Damneus.
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
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
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny 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 of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) 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.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
THALLUS (date unknown)
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
PHLEGON (c.140)
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
VALENTINUS (c.140CE)
In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html
POLYCARP (c.155CE)
Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.
GALEN (late 2nd C.)
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus" born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm
MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)
A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.
Iasion
Greetings,
We don't for sure.
But the evidence suggest otherwise.
Do you have a point to make ?
Iasion
We don't for sure.
But the evidence suggest otherwise.
Do you have a point to make ?
Iasion
Iasion, very nice post with the alleged historical evidence of Jesus. This gives the thread a good foundation to build off. We should start analyzing the texts presented by Iasion.
Iasion has given us a list 13 sources for us to analyze and look over. These seem to be the only sources which are out there which possibly mention the character of Jesus, unless someone can produce anything else.
Iasion has given us a list 13 sources for us to analyze and look over. These seem to be the only sources which are out there which possibly mention the character of Jesus, unless someone can produce anything else.
Who says I'm wrong?