But, that story has nothing to do with Jesus. It's about a woman who will give birth after the troubles have passed. The troubles pass, the child is born, the story moves on. Nothing to do with Jesus. Nothing to do with prophecy. Anyone who READS the passage in Isaiah will see this. Of course, apologists like IceAge never do - they just repeat the preachings of their priests. Iasion
Greetings, Well, my posts with facts just get ignored now, oh well... Here is the list again : 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 Jesis, 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
False. That's an outright LIE Ayodhya. I GAVE the sources - these are well-known sources - I named them, I linked to copies in many cases. I DID give the sources, right there in my post. You lied. Your bear false witness. You break the Christian commandments. Readers note well : I gave sources. Ayodhya claims I gave no sources. Ayodhya lies. Beware. Iasion
Interesting to note perhaps is that Harry Potter, (who is also fictional), did and does cause worldwide frenzy. The amount of people that sat out all night long waiting to see what his next adventure would entail, the amount of books sold within the first hour of release etc etc. You'd be amazed what fictional people can do.
