Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-27-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Quote:

http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/jesus_evidence.htm

Examining All the Evidence for a Historical Jesus

Please, name one. Don't you understand, just one?

I will start and you can just fill in the blank space.

Jesus of the NT did exist during the time of Tiberius because he was mentioned by ...................., a credible source external of the Church writings.

Sheshbazzar · 09-27-2009, 10:33 AM

You know Tim, you can post another thousand similar pages and it is NOT going to change my opinion one bit. No amount of such Internet searches will avail, you are proving nothing to me, or to the others here with such tactic-
We have heard such reasoning's many, many, many times before, examined their premises, found them faulty in their assumptions and rejected them.

I note that you are a new member here, (a belated Welcome!)
Time to put on your thinking cap and do some reasoning for yourself.

TimBowe · 09-27-2009, 10:37 AM

Have you read any of the Encyclopedia Britannica articles I've been posting, they address what your talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

There are a few references to Jesus in 1st-century Roman and Jewish sources. Documents indicate that within a few years of Jesus’ death, Romans were aware that someone named Chrestus (a slight misspelling of Christus) had been responsible for disturbances in the Jewish community in Rome (Suetonius, The Life of the Deified Claudius 25.4). Twenty years later, according to Tacitus, Christians in Rome were prominent enough to be persecuted by Nero, and it was known that they were devoted to Christus, whom Pilate had executed (Annals 15.44). This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus. Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus’s original remarks cannot be discerned.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1/Jesus-Christ

TimBowe · 09-27-2009, 10:42 AM

Reasoning for yourself, lolololololol.

Man, do you guy's understand that an overwhelming majority of historians and scholars support the Historical Jesus!!!!!!!!!!! You guys are acting like I'm the radical, just because I'm saying that a man called Jesus existed!!!!!!!!

I am 21 years old, I attend NYU film school. I am an militant atheist, I read Nietzsche alot. But I still listen to what the MAJORITY of Historians say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gdeering · 09-27-2009, 10:59 AM

Tim,

You type it as often as you like, you can make in bold and increase to font size. You would not be the first.

The existence of Jesus is an assumption without evidence. It is a sensitive issue with most of the US population and consequently "accepted wisdom" trumps investigation. As has been said many times here, if Confucius or Buddha (the person commonly known as Buddha) are fictional how controversial is that to you? Add Jesus to that list and look at the evidence equally dispassionately. It might not change your mind, but it might help you to see the approach of those of us who do believe he is a myth propped up by faith rather than evidence.

Plenty of agnostics and atheists think Jesus existed, and there is no slam dunk for nonexistence, it's hard to prove a negative for Jesus or bigfoot. A Gospel supernatural Jesus is a fiction, a "real" Jesus is so insignificant to history that he is not worth arguing over.

Gregg

Barefoot Bree · 09-27-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Have you read any of the Encyclopedia Britannica articles I've been posting, they address what your talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about reading them yourself? For instance....

Quote:

There are a few references to Jesus in 1st-century Roman and Jewish sources. Documents indicate that within a few years of Jesus’ death, Romans were aware that someone named Chrestus (a slight misspelling of Christus) had been responsible for disturbances in the Jewish community in Rome (Suetonius, The Life of the Deified Claudius 25.4). Twenty years later, according to Tacitus, Christians in Rome were prominent enough to be persecuted by Nero, and it was known that they were devoted to Christus, whom Pilate had executed (Annals 15.44). This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus. Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus’s original remarks cannot be discerned.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1/Jesus-Christ

Bolds mine. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of iron-clad evidence for an HJ, in my view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Reasoning for yourself, lolololololol.

Man, do you guy's understand that an overwhelming majority of historians and scholars support the Historical Jesus!!!!!!!!!!! You guys are acting like I'm the radical, just because I'm saying that a man called Jesus existed!!!!!!!!

Not a radical, just one who we suspect hasn't inspected the detailed "evidence" for an HJ himself, but is instead relying on the opinions of self-appointed experts. Isn't there a named fallacy or two lurking in there somewhere?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

I am 21 years old, I attend NYU film school. I am an militant atheist, I read Nietzsche alot. But I still listen to what the MAJORITY of Historians say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goodie for you. Now, how about putting aside what historians say and making up your own mind, based on the actual evidence.

For that matter, how about just addressing some of that evidence directly right here, instead of digging up yet another quote from some famous source?

TimBowe · 09-27-2009, 11:06 AM

So you think that all the historians who support the Historical Jesus are self-appointed experts?

Also putting aside what historians say is very important to. Ok, ok, got that, must put all historians aside because they know nothing about the subject. Ok, did that now what next, o yes almost forgot, have to stand opposed to all mainstream scholarly opinion on the matter, of course nothing extreme about that. Well I suppose you were all right after all, who give's a fuck what any expert says anyway. They are self-appointed indeed!

aa5874 · 09-27-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Have you read any of the Encyclopedia Britannica articles I've been posting, they address what your talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

There are a few references to Jesus in 1st-century Roman and Jewish sources. Documents indicate that within a few years of Jesus’ death, Romans were aware that someone named Chrestus (a slight misspelling of Christus) had been responsible for disturbances in the Jewish community in Rome (Suetonius, The Life of the Deified Claudius 25.4). Twenty years later, according to Tacitus, Christians in Rome were prominent enough to be persecuted by Nero, and it was known that they were devoted to Christus, whom Pilate had executed (Annals 15.44). This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus. Josephus wrote a paragraph about Jesus (The Antiquities of the Jews 18.63ff.), as he did about Theudas, the Egyptian, and other charismatic leaders (History of the Jewish War 2.258–263; The Antiquities of the Jews 20.97–99, 167–172), but it has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus’s original remarks cannot be discerned.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...1/Jesus-Christ

I asked you for information about Jesus and you give me information about Christus and Chrestus.

Simon Barcocheba was called a Messiah but his name "Simon Barcocheba" was used to identify him not Christus or Chrestus.

Now, when did Christus or Chrestus die? How did Christus or Chrestus die? Can you name any other person in antiquity who was identified only by a title?

And are academics claiming that if two names are spelt similar they must refer to the same person?

It is not necessary for Christus and Chrestus to be the same person even if they lived at the same time. Very, very little is known about Christus and Chrestus.

So, far there is no evidence OF antiquity that can show Jesus of the NT existed. The name Jesus cannot be found in Tacitus or Suetonius and there is confusion about Christus and Chrestus.

And further, the magician Simon Magus and his followers were called Christians during the time of Claudius. See the writings of Justin Martyr.

The word Christians appears to have preceede the Jesus stories.

Jesus, his supposed followers or his teachings did not have to exist for there to have been people called Christians. See the writings of Justin Martyr "First Apology". And according to Tertullian, the word Christian is derived from the word "anointed''. It should be noted that King David was called anointed or CHRIST when transliterated in Greek.

The only mention of Jesus called Christ, external of the Church, are forgeries in Josephus.

Huon · 09-27-2009, 12:19 PM

Welcome, TimBowe !

An Encyclopedia which wants to be open to a large audience cannot publish opinions which would go against the beliefs of the majority of readers, or even of an important minority. If you are looking for a more complete view about Suetonius than that of the British Encyclopedia, you could read this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetoni...esus#Suetonius

Suetonius wrote rather late, about 100-120 CE. And he does not give a very good information about Jesus Christ. Suetonius served on Pliny’s staff when Pliny the Younger was Proconsul of Bithynia Pontus (northern Asia Minor) between 110 and 112. Pliny, in 112, wrote a letter to Trajan about the Christians. Tacitus, at about the same time, wrote something about the Christians at the time of Nero (64 CE), and the fire in Rome.

Look at what is said about that :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

You should note that, around 120 CE, the existence of Christians in the roman empire is not disputed. Now, what Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus say about the Christ is most certainly of christian origin, and not necessarily well understood.

What Suetonius writes is very imprecise : why Chrestus, why not Christos or Christus ? The Jews of Chrestus in Rome at the time of Claudius are not necessarily the Christians, followers of JC, or Paul. Chrestus is among the rioters. Is Chrestus physically at Rome among the rioters, or is Christus spiritually among the Christians (at Rome, or anywhere else) ?

Barefoot Bree · 09-27-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Also putting aside what historians say is very important to. Ok, ok, got that, must put all historians aside because they know nothing about the subject. Ok, did that now what next, o yes almost forgot, have to stand opposed to all mainstream scholarly opinion on the matter, of course nothing extreme about that. Well I suppose you were all right after all, who give's a fuck what any expert says anyway. They are self-appointed indeed!

Oi. Way to go, concentrating on one phrase and ignoring the gist of what I posted.

Even experts can be wrong. One can even disagree with the experts and rely on one's own evaluation of the evidence to come to one's own conclusions.

No, I'm not saying that YOU must automatically stand opposed to all mainstream scholarly opinion on the matter. I'm saying that if that's ALL you're going to rely on, then why even bother with an opinion at all? Go beyond the expert opinions, and examine the evidence for yourself!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-27-2009, 10:33 AM	#32
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	You know Tim, you can post another thousand similar pages and it is NOT going to change my opinion one bit. No amount of such Internet searches will avail, you are proving nothing to me, or to the others here with such tactic- We have heard such reasoning's many, many, many times before, examined their premises, found them faulty in their assumptions and rejected them. I note that you are a new member here, (a belated Welcome!) Time to put on your thinking cap and do some reasoning for yourself.

09-27-2009, 10:42 AM	#34
TimBowe Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Posts: 1,620	Reasoning for yourself, lolololololol. Man, do you guy's understand that an overwhelming majority of historians and scholars support the Historical Jesus!!!!!!!!!!! You guys are acting like I'm the radical, just because I'm saying that a man called Jesus existed!!!!!!!! I am 21 years old, I attend NYU film school. I am an militant atheist, I read Nietzsche alot. But I still listen to what the MAJORITY of Historians say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

09-27-2009, 10:59 AM	#35
gdeering Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 237	Tim, You type it as often as you like, you can make in bold and increase to font size. You would not be the first. The existence of Jesus is an assumption without evidence. It is a sensitive issue with most of the US population and consequently "accepted wisdom" trumps investigation. As has been said many times here, if Confucius or Buddha (the person commonly known as Buddha) are fictional how controversial is that to you? Add Jesus to that list and look at the evidence equally dispassionately. It might not change your mind, but it might help you to see the approach of those of us who do believe he is a myth propped up by faith rather than evidence. Plenty of agnostics and atheists think Jesus existed, and there is no slam dunk for nonexistence, it's hard to prove a negative for Jesus or bigfoot. A Gospel supernatural Jesus is a fiction, a "real" Jesus is so insignificant to history that he is not worth arguing over. Gregg

09-27-2009, 11:06 AM	#37
TimBowe Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Posts: 1,620	So you think that all the historians who support the Historical Jesus are self-appointed experts? Also putting aside what historians say is very important to. Ok, ok, got that, must put all historians aside because they know nothing about the subject. Ok, did that now what next, o yes almost forgot, have to stand opposed to all mainstream scholarly opinion on the matter, of course nothing extreme about that. Well I suppose you were all right after all, who give's a fuck what any expert says anyway. They are self-appointed indeed!

09-27-2009, 12:19 PM	#39
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Welcome, TimBowe ! An Encyclopedia which wants to be open to a large audience cannot publish opinions which would go against the beliefs of the majority of readers, or even of an important minority. If you are looking for a more complete view about Suetonius than that of the British Encyclopedia, you could read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetoni...esus#Suetonius Suetonius wrote rather late, about 100-120 CE. And he does not give a very good information about Jesus Christ. Suetonius served on Pliny’s staff when Pliny the Younger was Proconsul of Bithynia Pontus (northern Asia Minor) between 110 and 112. Pliny, in 112, wrote a letter to Trajan about the Christians. Tacitus, at about the same time, wrote something about the Christians at the time of Nero (64 CE), and the fire in Rome. Look at what is said about that : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus You should note that, around 120 CE, the existence of Christians in the roman empire is not disputed. Now, what Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus say about the Christ is most certainly of christian origin, and not necessarily well understood. What Suetonius writes is very imprecise : why Chrestus, why not Christos or Christus ? The Jews of Chrestus in Rome at the time of Claudius are not necessarily the Christians, followers of JC, or Paul. Chrestus is among the rioters. Is Chrestus physically at Rome among the rioters, or is Christus spiritually among the Christians (at Rome, or anywhere else) ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.