quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Metacrock:
Bold Faced assumptions and infrmal fallacies: that which by arogance and sheer ignorance and will to power over others seeks to subvert truth with undounded assertions and bad understanding of history.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is the most exact description I have heard of Christianity so far. Thank you.
Although I would have attempted to correct my spelling.


Meta => Why is it a description of Christianity? It's a description of a half backed idea that is so absurd it pretends that the Jews had no God before Plato gave them one! Ever heard of the fertile crecent? Think maybe they had a few concepts of gods down there before Plato?


IT also assumes a is like b, therefore, a caused b. That is fallacious.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO serious historian today denys the historicity of Jesus!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will respond to this deliberate Troll (since most of your comments begin with (this is silly, or this idiotic assumption)).
My professor at Penn State University must not have been a serious historian.

MEta => What was his field? Was he actually an historian? I can see a lit Crit guy thinking this, but not a real historian. And in fact I have quoations by a dozen historians saying it's bs, and every historian where I do my Doctoral work (UT) says it's absurd.

[/QUOTE]
What I learned was that the myths about Jesus were myths, as there has been no proof to authenticate the claims of Christians. In historical accounts, Christians were a very barbaric bunch masquerading as innocents. I supposed those were just the people claiming to be Christians however.[/QUOTE]

Meta => Than you are just ignoring the evidence. I quoted at least 7 histoirans of secular ilk who doctument Jesus' existence, plus also three chruch fathers who knew Apostles. So how can we say that there is no historical basis for it?


Once again:
Science: That which refines and strengthens itself by proving portions of itself as false, therefore being left with a more exact truth


Meta => Well my Ph.D. is in history of ideas, and I study the rise of modern science. this is a total inadquate description of science. Kuhn shows us that science turns on paradigm shifts, it is not cumulative. These paradigms are not chosen based upon the scientific data that they preporte to illustrate, but upon sociaological grounds. So this is not a good description of science.


Religion: That which is weakened by its claim to the Truth and Absolute knowledge when its views are constantly proven wrong by science


Meta =>Now why exactly is this a definition of anything? IT's a self serving ideological slgoan that has no reliation of any kind to the nature of reigion. All you have said so far is "I don't like religion, boo religion."

1. Earth Flat

Meta => I dont' know any religious people that believe the earth is flat. The Bahagavod Gitta says it is round, and Columbus was a Christian, he believed the world was round. This is merely argument ad hominiem.


2. Earth the center of the universe

MEta => Every great astronomer in the rise of early modern science From Galleleo to Keppler, to Newton, was a Christian. So if you get your facts stairght you would actually have to say that Christainity taught the modern world that the earth is not the center of the universe.


3. new thought is detrimental to society


MEta => Yea, like Keirkegaard and Libnitze, Aquinas, Newton, Boyle, all Christinas. Do you think they did not have new ideas?
4. Genetics

Meta => What about it? Atheistts are embracing the notion of genetic detemrinism which has no foudnation in reality and is merely reducing humanity to the level of a robot.


Nice troll post Metacrock!

MEta => You are the troll. Your original post ismerely hate and bigotry and doesn't even pretend to think rationally about religion. All you are saying Is "I hate religion" well good for you. You dont' know anything about it but you hate it. That's typical of people who can't read the facts and use informal fallacies as the basis of their arguments.

Ulrich

Not that I necessarily believe that Plato inspired the writers of the New Testament, I could not let this list of "historians" pass by without comment, as most of these references do not even metion Jesus, and the single references that does (Josephus) is highly suspect.

1) Thallus & Phlegon - There are no existant copies of the works of either of these men. Julius Africanus mentions that the works of these men confirm that the sun darkened for three hours when Jesus was crucified. Julius also makes it clear that neither man mentioned Jesus, and that both attributed the darkening to a solar eclipse.

2) Josephus - Any credible historian (secular or theistic) will tell you that the Josephus passage was subject to some form of interlopation between the time it was written (1st century CE) and the time of the earliest existant copy (8th century CE). Since the authenticity of the passage is questionable at best, it shouldn't be held as evidence. If you want the exact details, they can be discussed, but I am sure you already know of the interlopation and the ramifications of it.

3) Pliny Secundus (the Younger) - Pliny simply instructs his correspondent (Trajan) that the Christians of the day could not be made to curse Christ, therefor, anyone claiming to not be Christian is likely not a Christian. He also mentions that Christians are fond of singing hymns (some things never change). Either way, this is hardly a witness to the historicity of Jesus.

4) Tacitus - Tacitus simply mentions that there were Christians in Rome during the time of Nero, and that they were persecuted. He also says that their leader was named Chrestus. Once again, this is not a passage that in any way vaguely implies that Jesus ever lived.

5) Suetonius - from the Life of the Deified Claudius "[Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews who were continually causing disturbances through the instigator Chrestus." Very similar to the Tacitus passage, Suetonius only confirms for us that Christians were alive and capable of causing trouble during the first century CE.

6) Galen - Another 2nd century CE historian who confirms for us that Christians were practicing their religion during his time. Like Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius, he never mentions Jesus directly.

7) Celsus - I wonder why you even mention Celsus on your list, as Celsus was the first person to notice (and write about) the similarities between Plato's Philosphy, and the teachingsof Christianity. He certainly did not endorse the notion that Jesus was a historical figure. Here is the quote, you will see why I am confused as to why you include Celsus in this list:

"These things (the New Testament Scriptures) are stated better among the Greeks, and in a manner which is free from all exagerations and promises on the part of God, or the son of God."

Unless you think that at the end of this quote Celsus is actually professing his belief in Jesus as the 'Son of God'. Ignoring the fact that he doesn't mention Jesus by name, the tone of the passage should make it obvious that this is not what he is doing.

8) Mara Bar Serapion - A letter by a man (not a historian) to his father penned sometime after 70 CE, in which he says the fall of the Jews could have been avoided if they had not executed their "most Wise King". No mention of the name Jesus, but it is obvious to whom he is referring. I hardly see how this helps build a case for the truth of his historical existence, as this was obviously non-contemporaneous to the supposed life of Jesus.

9) The Talmud - post 300 CE is right, as it was actually not completed until about 500 CE, and was obviously influenced by the Gospels.

10) Lucian - He gives the following account of Peregrinus, who publicly burnt himself in Greece soon after the Olympic games, about the year 165: "Peregrinus, or Proteus, appears for a while to have imposed on the Christians, and to have joined himself to them." Lucian, after saying that "Peregrinus learned the wonderful doctrine of the Christians by conversing with the priests and scribes near Palestine," he also goes on to observe that they "still worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine, because he introduced into the world this new religion,". He goes on to tell us of Peregrinus' arrest and imprisonment, and the fact that the local Cristians were very upset, and later informs us that Peregrinus was set at liberty by the governor of Syria, and that at length he parted from the Christians. Once again this is not ringing endorsement of the historicity of Jesus, but rather a detail of how Christians of that day acted and were percieved.

11) That only leaves Numenius and Galerius, and I am not familiar with their writings, but suspect that it is more of the same. Feel free to post what they have to say, if you believe it to be relevant and persuasive, but I don't have the time to look them up right now.

Originally posted by Ulrich:
Not that I necessarily believe that Plato inspired the writers of the New Testament, I could not let this list of "historians" pass by without comment, as most of these references do not even metion Jesus, and the single references that does (Josephus) is highly suspect.

1) Thallus & Phlegon - There are no existant copies of the works of either of these men. Julius Africanus mentions that the works of these men confirm that the sun darkened for three hours when Jesus was crucified. Julius also makes it clear that neither man mentioned Jesus, and that both attributed the darkening to a solar eclipse.


Meta => Yea,but they document the historicity of a NT event. The darkness could not have been an equilpse becasue of the time of year at which it occurred.


2) Josephus - Any credible historian (secular or theistic) will tell you that the Josephus passage was subject to some form of interlopation between the time it was written (1st century CE) and the time of the earliest existant copy (8th century CE). Since the authenticity of the passage is questionable at best, it shouldn't be held as evidence. If you want the exact details, they can be discussed, but I am sure you already know of the interlopation and the ramifications of it.

Meta => Any credible historian will tell you that this does not invalidate the passge. "Some amount of interpolation" does not mean made up from whole cloth. the arabic text proves that the original passage did speak of Jesus. Moreover there is another paassage which is never seriously questioned.That is the one on James, which designates him as Jesus' brother. IN fact whole athist websites are devoted to proving the validity of the passage, so that is far from invalidated.


3) Pliny Secundus (the Younger) - Pliny simply instructs his correspondent (Trajan) that the Christians of the day could not be made to curse Christ, therefor, anyone claiming to not be Christian is likely not a Christian. He also mentions that Christians are fond of singing hymns (some things never change). Either way, this is hardly a witness to the historicity of Jesus.

Meta => I meant to take Pliny out of the passage. That one really isn't a very strong example.

4) Tacitus - Tacitus simply mentions that there were Christians in Rome during the time of Nero, and that they were persecuted. He also says that their leader was named Chrestus. Once again, this is not a passage that in any way vaguely implies that Jesus ever lived.

Meta => Tacitus is well defended by Holding. He believed in absoulte documentation. He also had a hobby of exposing false resurrection claims. He had access to the archieves and was in a position to know the facts on the life of Christ. The fact that he deosn't challenged the historicity of his life indicates that he undestood him to be an hisorical character.

5) Suetonius - from the Life of the Deified Claudius "[Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews who were continually causing disturbances through the instigator Chrestus." Very similar to the Tacitus passage, Suetonius only confirms for us that Christians were alive and capable of causing trouble during the first century CE.


Meta => He understood their leader to be a guy named Christ (being Roman he thought Christ was a proper name).

6) Galen - Another 2nd century CE historian who confirms for us that Christians were practicing their religion during his time. Like Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius, he never mentions Jesus directly.

7) Celsus - I wonder why you even mention Celsus on your list, as Celsus was the first person to notice (and write about) the similarities between Plato's Philosphy, and the teachingsof Christianity. He certainly did not endorse the notion that Jesus was a historical figure. Here is the quote, you will see why I am confused as to why you include Celsus in this list:

"These things (the New Testament Scriptures) are stated better among the Greeks, and in a manner which is free from all exagerations and promises on the part of God, or the son of God."

Unless you think that at the end of this quote Celsus is actually professing his belief in Jesus as the 'Son of God'. Ignoring the fact that he doesn't mention Jesus by name, the tone of the passage should make it obvious that this is not what he is doing.

MEta => He's not professing actual belief but he does imply his historicity. That's not true, actually he presents the same information about him that is found in the Mishna. He speaks of his birth, his mother Mary (who he says was a hair dresser which is what the Msihna says) and even alludes to the Pandera thing about the son of a Roman soldier.

8) Mara Bar Serapion - A letter by a man (not a historian) to his father penned sometime after 70 CE, in which he says the fall of the Jews could have been avoided if they had not executed their "most Wise King". No mention of the name Jesus, but it is obvious to whom he is referring. I hardly see how this helps build a case for the truth of his historical existence, as this was obviously non-contemporaneous to the supposed life of Jesus.

Meta => Yea he was thinking of some other King of Kings crucified as Messiah in Palestine int he first century.

9) The Talmud - post 300 CE is right, as it was actually not completed until about 500 CE, and was obviously influenced by the Gospels.


Meta => The Mishna, Sanhedrin 95 and other sources are from the first century. And the info is the same presented by Celsus, so they clearly drew upon the same sources.

10) Lucian - He gives the following account of Peregrinus, who publicly burnt himself in Greece soon after the Olympic games, about the year 165: "Peregrinus, or Proteus, appears for a while to have imposed on the Christians, and to have joined himself to them." Lucian, after saying that "Peregrinus learned the wonderful doctrine of the Christians by conversing with the priests and scribes near Palestine," he also goes on to observe that they "still worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine, because he introduced into the world this new religion,". He goes on to tell us of Peregrinus' arrest and imprisonment, and the fact that the local Cristians were very upset, and later informs us that Peregrinus was set at liberty by the governor of Syria, and that at length he parted from the Christians. Once again this is not ringing endorsement of the historicity of Jesus, but rather a detail of how Christians of that day acted and were percieved.


Meta -=> Lucean like Tacitus had a totally passonate committment to researching his soruces. What he says clearly implies that he understood Jesus as a real person. and he absolutely and unequivically did not believe in speaking about things that he coudln't prove. He was a fine historian , even though he actually was a play write So there is every reason to expect that he had info about jesus.

11) That only leaves Numenius and Galerius, and I am not familiar with their writings, but suspect that it is more of the same. Feel free to post what they have to say, if you believe it to be relevant and persuasive, but I don't have the time to look them up right now.

Meta =>
These are the typical criticisms which are pretty well done away with by a closer look, here are some pages.

Historical Jesus I


Historical Jesus II


Historical Jesus III

Metacrock: You originally replied to my statement :
Religion: that which is weakened by falsehoods in itself because of a claim to absolute knowledge and truth:

With: Bold Faced assumptions and infrmal fallacies: that which by arogance and sheer ignorance and will to power over others seeks to subvert truth with undounded assertions and bad understanding of history.

Which is also true of religions. The basic fact is: When a group of people claim absolute knowledge and truth, they must support it. When views are stated that conflict with those of the church (Copernicus, Darwin to support the mistakes the church supported/supports 1. Earth is center of Universe 2. Genetics) the church's claim to absolute knowledge is weakened.

My point is this: religion does not have infallible knowledge of the workings of the universe- it is gained through observation and description. Scientists go against the grain of religious mediocrity to discover knowledge that benefits humanity. Do not partake of the benefits of science (genetically engineered vegetables, cows that are bred for increased size and milk production, bacteria that make insulin through inserted DNA) if you are going to fight against the gain of knowledge. If knowledge is "Evil" because it goes against the myths of the bible- do not use it.

Your doctorate is in the history of ideas, so you hopefully are aware of the concept of memes. That is what religious thought is: a meme. Pop culture is not the answer to humanities problem: logical thought is.

While religious thought is extremely popular, it is less beneficial than scientific thought because it does not produce tangible benefits. Religion is a way to placate the overly emotional individuals among us (this is the useful action of religion). I recognize the need for religion for these people, but it should not be used in the logical decision making process on the future of humanity. To many wars have been fought by emotionally immature people.

It's late and I have to go home, I will be happy to continue this conversation with you later.

[This message has been edited by Kharakov (edited January 23, 2001).]

Ulrich

1) Thallus & Phlegon - There are no existant copies of the works of either of these men. Julius Africanus mentions that the works of these men confirm that the sun darkened for three hours when Jesus was crucified. Julius also makes it clear that neither man mentioned Jesus, and that both attributed the darkening to a solar eclipse.


Meta => Yea,but they document the historicity of a NT event. The darkness could not have been an equilpse becasue of the time of year at which it occurred.

Ulrich - Only according to Julius, Phlegon and Thallus apparently had no problem with attributing it to a perfectly natural event. They presumably would have known as much about astronomy as Julius, who retroactively decides that the event was supernatural. Julius also had a vested interest in making it appear that secular sources confirmed the event, as he was a church father. Without any existing copies of the histories of these men, though, we cannot be sure.

2) Josephus - Any credible historian (secular or theistic) will tell you that the Josephus passage was subject to some form of interlopation between the time it was written (1st century CE) and the time of the earliest existant copy (8th century CE). Since the authenticity of the passage is questionable at best, it shouldn't be held as evidence. If you want the exact details, they can be discussed, but I am sure you already know of the interlopation and the ramifications of it.

Meta => Any credible historian will tell you that this does not invalidate the passge. "Some amount of interpolation" does not mean made up from whole cloth. the arabic text proves that the original passage did speak of Jesus. Moreover there is another paassage which is never seriously questioned.That is the one on James, which designates him as Jesus' brother. IN fact whole athist websites are devoted to proving the validity of the passage, so that is far from invalidated.

Ulrich - The arabic text still comes hundreds of years after the book was written, and further, church fathers who wrote extensively, much closer to the time that Josephus wrote, make no mention of the passage when it would have clearly benefited them. Historians disagree as to the degree of interlopation involved, ranging from a total insertion to a simple rewording, but it is enough to cast serious doubt. Given that Josephus is the only source that comes close to being solid evidence, there should be no doubt if the historicity of Jesus is to be believed.


4) Tacitus - Tacitus simply mentions that there were Christians in Rome during the time of Nero, and that they were persecuted. He also says that their leader was named Chrestus. Once again, this is not a passage that in any way vaguely implies that Jesus ever lived.


Meta => Tacitus is well defended by Holding. He believed in absoulte documentation. He also had a hobby of exposing false resurrection claims. He had access to the archieves and was in a position to know the facts on the life of Christ. The fact that he deosn't challenged the historicity of his life indicates that he undestood him to be an hisorical character.

Ulrich - But he manages to get Pilate's job title wrong doesn't he? This leads some think that portions of Tacitus have been reworked by later hands, though I certainly agree that he at least makes mentions of the Christians, and "Christus, from whom the name had it's origin". It simply shows that Tacitus had some knowledge of the beliefs and origins of Christianity. It certainly was not uncommon for the Romans to have knowledge of various religious beliefs, they worshipped enough gods.

5) Suetonius - from the Life of the Deified Claudius "[Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews who were continually causing disturbances through the instigator Chrestus." Very similar to the Tacitus passage, Suetonius only confirms for us that Christians were alive and capable of causing trouble during the first century CE.

Meta => He understood their leader to be a guy named Christ (being Roman he thought Christ was a proper name).

Ulrich - He also understood this 'guy' to be active in Rome, are you advocating that this is true as well? Given the lack of information provided by Suetonius, we can't be sure he was refering to the Christians at all. It could have been one of any number of Jewish groups active in Rome at the time. Certainly, many of the Christians in Rome wouldn't have been Jewish at all, the were mostly Roman and Greek.


Unless you think that at the end of this quote Celsus is actually professing his belief in Jesus as the 'Son of God'. Ignoring the fact that he doesn't mention Jesus by name, the tone of the passage should make it obvious that this is not what he is doing.

MEta => He's not professing actual belief but he does imply his historicity. That's not true, actually he presents the same information about him that is found in the Mishna. He speaks of his birth, his mother Mary (who he says was a hair dresser which is what the Msihna says) and even alludes to the Pandera thing about the son of a Roman soldier.

Ulrich - There is no doubt that Celsus thought Jesus was an actual historical person, he argues that Jesus was a magician after all, but then again Celsus lived and wrote in the latter half of the second century (ca. 178 CE), and so is not a contemporaneous source. Celsus was also very critical of the Christians. "Some [Christians] ," says Celsus, "do not even want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as "do not ask questions; just believe,' and "Your faith will save you.' - sound familiar?

8) Mara Bar Serapion - A letter by a man (not a historian) to his father penned sometime after 70 CE, in which he says the fall of the Jews could have been avoided if they had not executed their "most Wise King". No mention of the name Jesus, but it is obvious to whom he is referring. I hardly see how this helps build a case for the truth of his historical existence, as this was obviously non-contemporaneous to the supposed life of Jesus.

Meta => Yea he was thinking of some other King of Kings crucified as Messiah in Palestine int he first century.

Ulrich - The point is that the man was obviously a believer, living some time after the date given for Jesus' death, and he was certainly not a historian. This is only proof that Christians existed and wrote letters during the first century CE.

9) The Talmud - post 300 CE is right, as it was actually not completed until about 500 CE, and was obviously influenced by the Gospels.

Meta => The Mishna, Sanhedrin 95 and other sources are from the first century. And the info is the same presented by Celsus, so they clearly drew upon the same sources.

Ulrich - You had better check your sources, I have never seen the Mishna dated to before 200 CE (Judaism FAQ - soc.culture.jewish). If you have better info on this I would like to see it.

10) Lucian - He gives the following account of Peregrinus, who publicly burnt himself in Greece soon after the Olympic games, about the year 165: "Peregrinus, or Proteus, appears for a while to have imposed on the Christians, and to have joined himself to them." Lucian, after saying that "Peregrinus learned the wonderful doctrine of the Christians by conversing with the priests and scribes near Palestine," he also goes on to observe that they "still worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine, because he introduced into the world this new religion,". He goes on to tell us of Peregrinus' arrest and imprisonment, and the fact that the local Cristians were very upset, and later informs us that Peregrinus was set at liberty by the governor of Syria, and that at length he parted from the Christians. Once again this is not ringing endorsement of the historicity of Jesus, but rather a detail of how Christians of that day acted and were percieved.


Meta -=> Lucean like Tacitus had a totally passonate committment to researching his soruces. What he says clearly implies that he understood Jesus as a real person. and he absolutely and unequivically did not believe in speaking about things that he coudln't prove. He was a fine historian , even though he actually was a play write So there is every reason to expect that he had info about jesus.

Ulrich - Lucian as well was writing at least a hundred years after Jesus lived, and he is simply relating the beliefs of the Christians to the reader, he offers us no proof as to whether or not Jesus actually lived.


[This message has been edited by Ulrich (edited January 23, 2001).]

Kharakov:


Hey I apologize for coming on so strong. I dont' know why I did, unless it was just a residual thing from the acramony on the other board. Shouldn't have taken it out you, I apologize. And also for calling you a "Troll" I was acting Trollish. Sometimes I'm just in a Trollish mood.

Thank you. I feel trollish too. .

It's hard to avoid that sometimes on these boards, since poinons are so poloraized, and religion can be a touchy subject for all sides. But I want to try and have a good will disucssion (a pleasant one) with someone, so I promise to start anew here! ;-)

1) Thallus & Phlegon - There are no existant copies of the works of either of these men. Julius Africanus mentions that the works of these men confirm that the sun darkened for three hours when Jesus was crucified. Julius also makes it clear that neither man mentioned Jesus, and that both attributed the darkening to a solar eclipse.

Meta (Before) => Yea,but they document the historicity of a NT event. The darkness could not have been an equilpse becasue of the time of year at which it occurred.


Ulrich - Only according to Julius, Phlegon and Thallus apparently had no problem with attributing it to a perfectly natural event. They presumably would have known as much about astronomy as Julius, who retroactively decides that the event was supernatural. Julius also had a vested interest in making it appear that secular sources confirmed the event, as he was a church father. Without any existing copies of the histories of these men, though, we cannot be sure.


Meta => He didn't know he was a Chruch father, so it's not like he was trying to save his future rep. He is a creible source, and before Tacitus was discovered he was the best source aside from Josephus. The event could not have been a natural one:

2) Josephus - Any credible historian (secular or theistic) will tell you that the Josephus passage was subject to some form of interlopation between the time it was written (1st century CE) and the time of the earliest existant copy (8th century CE). Since the authenticity of the passage is questionable at best, it shouldn't be held as evidence. If you want the exact details, they can be discussed, but I am sure you already know of the interlopation and the ramifications of it.


Meta => Any credible historian will tell you that this does not invalidate the passge. "Some amount of interpolation" does not mean made up from whole cloth. the arabic text proves that the original passage did speak of Jesus. Moreover there is another paassage which is never seriously questioned.That is the one on James, which designates him as Jesus' brother. IN fact whole athist websites are devoted to proving the validity of the passage, so that is far from invalidated.


Ulrich - The arabic text still comes hundreds of years after the book was written, and further, church fathers who wrote extensively, much closer to the time that Josephus wrote, make no mention of the passage when it would have clearly benefited them. Historians disagree as to the degree of interlopation involved, ranging from a total insertion to a simple rewording, but it is enough to cast serious doubt. Given that Josephus is the only source that comes close to being solid evidence, there should be no doubt if the historicity of Jesus is to be believed.


Meta => Many credible historians accept the Arabic passge as proof that the original did mention Jesus.


4) Tacitus - Tacitus simply mentions that there were Christians in Rome during the time of Nero, and that they were persecuted. He also says that their leader was named Chrestus. Once again, this is not a passage that in any way vaguely implies that Jesus ever lived.

Meta => Tacitus is well defended by Holding. He believed in absoulte documentation. He also had a hobby of exposing false resurrection claims. He had access to the archieves and was in a position to know the facts on the life of Christ. The fact that he deosn't challenged the historicity of his life indicates that he undestood him to be an hisorical character.


Ulrich - But he manages to get Pilate's job title wrong doesn't he? This leads some think that portions of Tacitus have been reworked by later hands, though I certainly agree that he at least makes mentions of the Christians, and "Christus, from whom the name had it's origin". It simply shows that Tacitus had some knowledge of the beliefs and origins of Christianity. It certainly was not uncommon for the Romans to have knowledge of various religious beliefs, they worshipped enough gods.
5) Suetonius - from the Life of the Deified Claudius "[Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews who were continually causing disturbances through the instigator Chrestus." Very similar to the Tacitus passage, Suetonius only confirms for us that Christians were alive and capable of causing trouble during the first century CE.


[b]MEta =>[b] That doesn't answer the argument. He bleieved in having the facts, believed in it ardently. He researched resurrection calims as a matter of course, he had access to the imperial archieves and other archieves so he was in a position to know, he had a motive to know, why would he not have researched it?


Meta => He understood their leader to be a guy named Christ (being Roman he thought Christ was a proper name).
Ulrich - He also understood this 'guy' to be active in Rome, are you advocating that this is true as well? Given the lack of information provided by Suetonius, we can't be sure he was refering to the Christians at all. It could have been one of any number of Jewish groups active in Rome at the time. Certainly, many of the Christians in Rome wouldn't have been Jewish at all, the were mostly Roman and Greek.

Unless you think that at the end of this quote Celsus is actually professing his belief in Jesus as the 'Son of God'. Ignoring the fact that he doesn't mention Jesus by name, the tone of the passage should make it obvious that this is not what he is doing.


MEta => He's not professing actual belief but he does imply his historicity. That's not true, actually he presents the same information about him that is found in the Mishna. He speaks of his birth, his mother Mary (who he says was a hair dresser which is what the Msihna says) and even alludes to the Pandera thing about the son of a Roman soldier.


Ulrich - There is no doubt that Celsus thought Jesus was an actual historical person, he argues that Jesus was a magician after all, but then again Celsus lived and wrote in the latter half of the second century (ca. 178 CE), and so is not a contemporaneous source. Celsus was also very critical of the Christians. "Some [Christians] ," says Celsus, "do not even want to give or to receive a reason for what they believe, and use such expressions as "do not ask questions; just believe,' and "Your faith will save you.' - sound familiar?


Meta => Celsus clealry thought Jesus was an histoirical figure. The soruces he used were clearly the root sources of the Mishna acocunts and go back to the first century. Celsus was a skpetic writting against Christanity. If he had any inkling that Jesus wasn't a real guy why would he not have said so?

8) Mara Bar Serapion - A letter by a man (not a historian) to his father penned sometime after 70 CE, in which he says the fall of the Jews could have been avoided if they had not executed their "most Wise King". No mention of the name Jesus, but it is obvious to whom he is referring. I hardly see how this helps build a case for the truth of his historical existence, as this was obviously non-contemporaneous to the supposed life of Jesus.

Meta => Yea he was thinking of some other King of Kings crucified as Messiah in Palestine int he first century.


Ulrich - The point is that the man was obviously a believer, living some time after the date given for Jesus' death, and he was certainly not a historian. This is only proof that Christians existed and wrote letters during the first century CE.
9) The Talmud - post 300 CE is right, as it was actually not completed until about 500 CE, and was obviously influenced by the Gospels.


Meta => NO he clealry wasn't a believer, he gets basic points of doctrine wrong in ways that no Christian would. He never says "Our Lord" and if he was a Christian in that period he would have named him by name and probably refurred to him as "our lord Jesus Christ." Moreover, why is it that there is not one single historian who even half suspects that Jesus didn't exist as an historical figure (form the anceint world that is?)


Meta => The Mishna, Sanhedrin 95 and other sources are from the first century. And the info is the same presented by Celsus, so they clearly drew upon the same sources.


Ulrich - You had better check your sources, I have never seen the Mishna dated to before 200 CE (Judaism FAQ - soc.culture.jewish). If you have better info on this I would like to see it.


Meta => The Mishna itself is older but the sources it draws upon go back to the first century. this is meantioned by many shcoalrs. See Alfred Edersheim Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.


10) Lucian - He gives the following account of Peregrinus, who publicly burnt himself in Greece soon after the Olympic games, about the year 165: "Peregrinus, or Proteus, appears for a while to have imposed on the Christians, and to have joined himself to them." Lucian, after saying that "Peregrinus learned the wonderful doctrine of the Christians by conversing with the priests and scribes near Palestine," he also goes on to observe that they "still worship that great man who was crucified in Palestine, because he introduced into the world this new religion,". He goes on to tell us of Peregrinus' arrest and imprisonment, and the fact that the local Cristians were very upset, and later informs us that Peregrinus was set at liberty by the governor of Syria, and that at length he parted from the Christians. Once again this is not ringing endorsement of the historicity of Jesus, but rather a detail of how Christians of that day acted and were percieved.

Meta -=> Lucean like Tacitus had a totally passonate committment to researching his soruces. What he says clearly implies that he understood Jesus as a real person. and he absolutely and unequivically did not believe in speaking about things that he coudln't prove. He was a fine historian , even though he actually was a play write So there is every reason to expect that he had info about jesus.


Ulrich - Lucian as well was writing at least a hundred years after Jesus lived, and he is simply relating the beliefs of the Christians to the reader, he offers us no proof as to whether or not Jesus actually lived.


MEta => I don't know why you think that living after the first century is a problem. That's why they were historians. The assumption is that they didn't have access to the facts, but they did. They had access to a vast archieve and had there been any hint of the notion that Jesus wasn't an historical person they surely would have said this, at least some historian form that era would have done so.

Agreed. I don't remember religion claiming to be a science book either though. Many early pioneers in the scientific field were Christians and free thinkers.

As also the "religious" go against the grain of relative morality and that which promotes it, in order to answer questions about existence and purpose. They are two different realms of study. When Christians have tried to speak to the workings of the universe, they have often been mistaken. Equally so, when science has tried to speak to purpose and morality, it has made many mistakes.

Knowledge is not evil. It is a tool that can be used for good or for evil. There are many passages in the Bible that promote understanding, pursuit of knowledge, and wisdom. The is a quote from the Black Beauty that goes something like this, "Ignorance is second only to wickedness, but I don't know which has done the greater harm."

I'm curious as to what you think the problems of our society are? The "less benefit" because of lack of "tangible benefits" statement is a very ignorant one. On the individual level many lives have been changed radically after every other option had been exhausted. They have lives, marriages, families, careers given back to them. Since I know that this will not be considered by many, I also submit the fact that the abolitionist movement was largely headed by the "church". The church's high view of humanity has also been involved in the origins of all the civil rights movements to my knowledge except the women's liberation movement. The "religious" are very innovative socially in a positive way. While I appreciate and utilize modern science, personal lives are more important. While science and logic can provide a better environment, it can not make a better humanity. Humanity always misuses and abuses its world and each other. That is a matter of the heart, to which logic has never and can never change.




Humanity is emotionally immature. Not all wars are fought over religion, but many wave a banner of religion over their wars. I submit Abraham Lincoln as a very logical, wise, and successful president who was lead many times by his religious views. If your arguing that only the logical should have power, what about WWII when Hitler very logically convinced Germany that the Jews were inferior and needed to be exterminated? What about old American encyclopedias that used to logically deduce that blacks are only two-thirds human? Logic can be wielded just as manipulatively and deceptively as emotions in a religious service.

So then who do you trust, the one with logical appeals, or the one with emotional appeals? Neither, you investigate which one has the truth in any given circumstance. And then use all methods (logic and emotion) to appeal to others about what you have found.