Did Jesus exist?

Monsta: Quite an interesting thread.

I dunno if It's been pointed out but Jesus shares a whole host of biographical infomation and life expierence with dozens of other ealier Deity's of other religions and cultures. Here's just a small selection. Some of it is spookily farmiliar.
Click to expand...


*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums, Monsta, and thank you for posting that detailed list of ancient mythologies which Jesus was based upon.
 
nds1 said:
If Jesus was truly born in a poor area and performed miracles and taught in or around the confines of that area it does seem unlikely that there would be many outside sources on Jesus.

I'm very interested to know how many of the people living around Jesus could read or write. If he lived and worked in a poor area it's unlikely that anyone had to ability to record his actions. Paper and pens weren't as available then as they are now. Not to mention, public schooling didn't even exist yet (as far as I know).

Aside from that, even if people could have written about Jesus, the risk of being caught and tortured by the Romans would have been enough to stop anyone from writing about Jesus or his teachings.

In any case, even if sources other than the authors of the Bible did write about Jesus' miracles, they were far too poor to get their writing published and reproduced. So their writings became destroyed with no way to preserve them.

I wonder what the entire geographical area of Jesus' teachings were so we could analyze the people he would have been around. A map would be good.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: nds1, I am quite pleased to learn you have a keen concept of the people of Jesus' time. Your explanation about the locals writing about him is quite perceptive, and you are so correct! The average citizen couldn't read nor write, and as you stated, pens and paper were a rarity. The documents that were written by scribes and commissioned by the holy Romans contained many forgeries about this Jesus their masses were following.

You bring up a good point regarding the local apostles and the writings they were credited with publishing. Since no original documentation is preserved, then who do you think wrote the new testament? I find it odd that Jesus didn't write anything himself especially if he was a rabbi! Rabbi's were learned people. They could read and write.

So that brings me to the question. Do you believe Paul was who he said he was? He was credited with writing the most about Jesus, yet he never knew him. Personally, I don't believe Paul existed either. Paul is just another name for the god Apollo. Peter is a human name for Jupiter, etc.

The Roman Empire, however, had scribes who wrote a bunch of christian literature, but they wrote it as parody. They compared the divine Jesus to the divine Caesars. Neither were divine, but that was a way to controll the masses.

Thank you for such an astute observation regarding ancient writings.
 
Monsta said:
The man's a Globetrotter according to the Gospels. People queue up to see him. He's supposadly well known to the Roman Authorities, who are meticolous record keepers. They didnt write a sentance about him. He's feeding 5000 people, and raising people from the dead. Weve got Dead Saints rising from the Dead after his JC's death.
Surely this would have been news for Scribes and Writers. Surely if this was happening Word of Mouth would have carried across the whole Country, and there would have someone there to record it.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Yeah, one would think so!
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Pliny, Suetonius, and Tacitus.
Click to expand...



I think there's been doubt cast on all of them regarding their authenticity. That one of them was mistranslated, and that none of them mention JC by name.
Even giving the benefit of the doubt, and saying they are geniune (which is a big if) they still arent eye witness accounts. They are at best second or third hand accounts.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Hey Med Woman, from where do you suppose those common myths came?
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: From the same place astrology came from. Early man's creation of a god who created the world, and to them, hopefully saved the world. These myths have been documented from the beginning of recorded history. That still doesn't make them a true god. Humans created god and all the stories in the bible, not the other way around.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
"Proven forgeries," please tell us more.
Click to expand...


*************
M*W: This has been gone into detail just yesterday, as a matter of fact, but I don't remember who wrote it. However, I do believe it's factually documented. Your questions show that you have a thirst for knowledge. Keep it up. I wore your shoes once.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Let's see what you can come up with.
Click to expand...


*************
M*W: I'm not going to waste my time repeating what the other poster said. He was quite extensive in his documentation. Go back and look for it, yourself. I already know about the forgeries. It is still for you to learn. Take some responsibililty for your own knowledge or you will just continue to be brainwashed by those others who are brainwashed. Take back control of your friggin' mind!
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
You "know about the forgeries," but nothing to say, not very impressive.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Since you're so intellectually lazy, I am quoting this very extensive work by Iasion (sorry I forgot you wrote this!) recently posted.

"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."

I hope you take the time to read Iasion's excellent references for the later christian forgeries of earlier Roman works. Also, I hope you look up the links. If you have any further questions, please address them to Iasion. He is more knowledgeable about this than I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top