spin

1. Not one of the non-christian sources are contemporary with the reputed time of Jesus and thus are not primary sources.
   
2. All of these sources were preserved by christian scribes.
   
3. Nearly all of the references to christ and christians are suspicious in themselves.

If christian scribes could not maintain the integrity of their own religious works (note for example the rewrites of the gospel of Mark -- itself with various endings -- to produce new gospels; John gained the adultress pericope; 1 John gained its trinitarian addition, etc.), it's hard to consider christian preserved non-christian sources without them having tendentious developments of a christian nature.


spin

aa5874

Where do you see anywhere that those called Christians in Pliny and Tacitus were adherents of Jesus of Nazareth? According to Justin Martyr even followers of magicians were called Christians in the 1st century.

And Josephus' references to Jesus Christ are forgeries. It is highly unlikely that Josephus wrote the word "Christ" in Antiquities of the Jews at 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

Josephus wrote about the prophecies of Daniel and claimed that the Messiah was expected around 70 CE and was likely to be Vespasian, even Suetonius and Tacitus made the same claim with regards to Vespasian or Ttitus. See 'Wars of the Jews "6.5.4, Suetonius Life of the Caesars , and Tacitus "Histories".

Jesus of Nazareth has no history whatsever based on extant non-apologetic sources, even Philo who was alive and contemporary of the so-called Jesus and his thousands of adherents never mentioned Jesus, his followers or his doctrine one single time in all of his writings that have survived.

And before Constantine, in 4th century, the word Christian did not inherently mean followers of Jesus of Nazareth, it could mean followers of Valentinius, Caprocates, Simon Magus, Menander or Cerinthus.

eliotsj

http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...uscripts.htm#4
Lucian circa 170 CE: "...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world..."

Neither of these are wholly reliable sources, but they corroborate the claim that by the 2nd and 3rd centuries, a story akin to that of Jesus Christ was propagated and was the basis of a Christian religion. I don't see that it's unreasonable to suggest that the story of Jesus of Nazareth may have some historical basis. Obviously Christian doctrine did not ossify until much later, but that Christianity emerged in the 1st century is worth positing as a reasonable theory. It is not solely "based on imagination."

Doug Shaver

I don't know any such thing, and I cannot know it as long as I believe the contrary, because if I knew it I would believe it.

spin

The overhopeful dating of P52 has been much discussed here. Check out the Wiki article for dating, as a start.

So Lucian of Samosata believed what christians told him and recorded it. Does that help you for something that was supposed to have happened well over a century before?

Why shouldn't Lucian be reliable for 170CE?

They don't corroborate the claim that christianity for the century prior.

It's not unreasonable to suggest it. It's getting past the suggestion stage that should interest you.

Is there any preference for the 1st century over the 2nd (when first news of a gospel emerges)? or for that matter the 1st c. BCE (some Jewish sources for a Yeshu suggest 1st c. BCE)?


spin

aa5874

Belief does not require knowledge just imagination.

At one time, in the first century, Apollo was believed or imagined to have the ability to answer prayers and Temples were built as a place were Apollo could be worshipped, yet Apollo is not now even considered to be a figure of history.

On the other hand, unlike Apollo that was mentioned by many writers and historians of antiquity, no non-apolgetic source, except for forgeries in Josephus, can account for Jesus, his disciples, his teachings, his miracles and even the "Pauls" of the Epistles. And further none of the "Pauls" have given a single sighting of Jesus or his miracles, although giving the impression that they were alive when the so-called Jesus was preaching and teaching, in the public, thousands of people on a regular basis.

Even Apollo, the myth, had more "air time" than Jesus in the 1st century. Jesus had none except for those faked in Josephus.

mountainman

This is an interesting comment in itself. However I would like to add that independent of the question as to whether the (clearly pre-500 BCE) Apollo was "mythical", there are extant today, a vast number of acknowledged archaeological and literary citations for the historical existence of the followers and disciples of Apollo in the form of the therapeutae.

If you have not already done so, have a brief glance through this index of citations to the historical existence of The Therapeutae of Antiquity for the time period from c.500 BCE continuously and in abundance through to 500 CE. As a cult in the ROman empire of the first 3 centuries, it was very popular. Plato's last words were favorably about this cult. It was about as Greek as you could get, with traditional Egyptian influences via Imhotep (c.2500 BCE).

The followers of this cult were executed by the first mass-publisher of the New Testament. The "early christians" all walked the earth without leaving any unambiguous archaeological record outside of the literary remains. Just like Jesus did in the non canonical "Acts of John":

Why have the followers of Apollo left numerous footprints, yet the followers of this Jesus the Galilaean left nothing before Nicaea?


Asclepius: The God of Medicine- By Gerald D. Hart documents most Roman emperors (until Constantine) depicted Asclepius on one of their coins series.

You really need good looking classes to spot the christian activities in these early centuries.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

Nice of you to leave out the fact -- stated by Hart himself -- that what he documents is the depiction on coins of Asculelpius or Salus.

So Hart does not do what you say he does, and you have done with other historians' remarks, you misrepresent what he says.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the question of whether nothing was left, why would you expect them to be there to see?

How many of Apollo's footprints -- which were state and polis sponsored/financed, widely attended, as well as ancient, numerous, and cross cultural -- were subjected to the local and systematic attempts to confiscate, burn, destroy and wipe them out that the footprints of a new, persecuted, relatively impoverished, minority sect --which until the fourth century did not build "temples" or houses of worship -- were subjected?

Jeffrey

Zarathustra42

This is not right. Where did you get this information?