Y.B

Just FYI, we know about the Council of Nicea. Jesus is said to have lived in the beginning of the first century, not 300 A.D. Any extrabiblical evidence from the first century about the existence of Jesus, or not?

one allegiance

Yeah I know that ..if you read further i say something about it.

sure. King herod. Pontiuos Pilate. The Roman satirist Lucian. Tacitus a Roman historian. Nazareth decree found in 1878, issued by Emporor Claudius. Lysanius.

I'm sure I can think of more...I gotta go though.

fromdownunder

one allegiance, what has BC/AD got to do with anything? this was a dating system first developed by a vertically challenged Monk (Denis the Short) in the sixth century CE, and he got his sums wrong anyway, since Jesus, if he existed, was not born 1BCE, or 1CE. How is this historical evidence for Jesus?

Do you use the terms Thursday? August? If so, you accept other Gods! This is as valid as arguing that the terms BC and AD are evidence of Jesus.

Norm

ZikZak

Usually, I'm just a lurker, but one allegiance, I am fascinated by your case. You are clearly very intelligent and articulate, and yet also so credulous and ignorant. I've been debating with myself over whether you actually believe that you are presenting a coherent argument. You've never met someone who doubted the historicity of Jesus? Then you are very new at this game.

You apparently do not understand what we are asking for when we ask for extra-biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus, because your responces are non sequiturs. Here is what we mean: if Jesus did exist, there should be contemporary supporting evidence of that existence in the form of Roman records, writings of contemporary historians, etc.

We all know that Constantine and the council of Nicea existed. This is because we have multiple independent lines of evidence for them. We have multiple unconnected, disinterested contemporary authors writing about them. We have records of what happened, written at the time it happened. If we did not have any independent evidence of the Emperor Constantine except for fantastic stories told a generation after his death, then we might indeed doubt that existence.

That is exactly the case with Jesus. If Jesus actually existed and was a religious leader of any importance whatsoever, and especially if he did the miracles described in the Bible, then someone in Judaea would have written about him. But even though we have the writings of Josephus (and others), which are excruciatingly detailed journals of current events at the time of Jesus, there is not one reliable mention of this person anywhere. Why?

You suggest to us that the existence of Emperor Constantine, the Council of Nicea, and the AD/BC calendar is direct evidence of the historicity of Jesus. Bwuh!??

Of what possible relevance is the existence of Constantine and Nicea in determining the historicity of Jesus? They were 300 years after the (supposed) fact!! At best, they are evidence for widespread belief in the existence of Jesus, but that is far afield from the question at hand.

And the usage of "A.D./B.C.?"!!! This is your proof that Jesus was a real person? That usage originates later than AD 500! Someone 500 years after the (supposed) fact decided to base a calendar on it. Of what relevance can it ever possibly be?

I suppose that you would claim that the existence of the AUC calendar proves the personal historical existence of Romulus and Remus--- personages with almost exactly as much historical evidence for them as Jesus, and generally considered to be mythological.

We want direct, contemporary, disinterested evidence of his existence. The only evidence we have at all is the Bible, which at best is biased, third-hand and written a generation or more after the supposed events. To a non-Christian, the Bible suggests that a person named Jesus might have existed... but if he had and was of any importance, we would also expect to see other lines of evidence. The fact that the Bible is not authenticated by any independent contemporary evidence whatsoever causes me personally to conclude that Jesus probably did not exist.

fromdownunder

I suppose someone as desparate to make a point as one allegiance would think that someone born circa 120CE and probably writing (without independant sources) between 150-180 is a first century source.

But then, despite ZikZak's complimentary remarks, I really don't think one allegiance has shown a lot of scholarship in this thread at all (not that I have either - some targets are so easy, even I can participate)

Norm

ZikZak

I didn't say he was scholarly; merely that he seemed reasonably intelligent and articulate.

Diogenes the Cynic

[Nitpick] That would be a 2nd Century source, not 1st Century. [/Nitpick]

seraphimkawaii

actually...i am QUITE familiar with the council of nicea, as are many others here. so please stop asking if we've heard of it. however, what i DONT see is how a relatively close vote among a bunch of christians over jesus' divinity helps your case. even among christians, there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence. also, the whole dispute over which books would go in the bible doesn't help either. they picked and chose what books would be considered divine revalation. wonder how they knew the divine, if god's works are so beyond human comprehension.

seraphimkawaii

well, as christians' faith is DECIDED by a single book...
actually, as i said, that was "one of the first books i read when i deconverted". one of many. so rather than pretending to be psychic enough to know my reading selection, would you like to accept that challenge, or no? if so, please do so in another thread.
as i said in the previous post, yes, i am fully aware of nicea. and as for all of history, while i can see that you are aware of it, you need to become a bit more familiar with the details yourself.
well, seeing as how you keep ranting that we're uneducated, don't know anything about history, etc...i guess you can tell me where you think that gets me.
[edit=grammatical mistakes]

Y.B

King Herod and Pontius Pilate wrote about Jesus? Where are those writings? Lucian wasn't born until the second century. Cornelius Tacitus wrote his Annals in 117 A.D. He only repeats a story that was commonly believed at that time.

Richard Carrier has written about the Nazareth inscription here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...zarethlaw.html