3DJay

Oldest version is early 3rd century, I believe. Try again?


Peace

Chris Weimer

Explain the relevance?

PS - Paul was mentioned and quoted before the third century.

Zeichman

I'm not sure why I'm responding to this, but the presence/mention of Pontius Pilate, the early Christian leaders, the Baptist, the Herods, Tiberius, etc. all beg to differ.

Also, you need to stop excluding the middle. The Jesus "born of the virgin Mary" may never have existed, but the Jesus who was conceived like everyone else in history almost assuredly did. Once more: stop creating false dichotomies, it is anything but productive and removes the possibility of nuance.

Chris Weimer

You shouldn't've. If people quit quoting them, then I would never have to read them! IIDB now has it that I can't even see when they posted if they're on my ignore list.

3DJay

So there's a contemporary source that quotes Paul?


Peace

Minimalist

I have always found it instructive that the early church was so embarassed by the lack of historical reference to their god that they actually resorted to fraud to create a few.

Josephus comes to mind but even more to the point is Pliny's letter to Trajan... and no less important is Trajan's reply. For if, as Tacitus' is alleged to have written, that Nero persecuted "multitudes" of christians for having set the great fire in Rome why does the thrust of Pliny's letter seem to be:
How do you want me to handle these people? He would have had a clear historical precedent on how to handle a sect of dangerous arsonists, wouldn't he?

Trajan's reply is, if anything, less hostile than Pliny's original question.

http://community.middlebury.edu/~har...inytrajan.html


A mere 40 years after 2/3 of Rome was burned to the ground this seems like a relatively mild discussion between two Roman aristocrats who should have been infuriated at what the Christians allegedly did to their city. Unless...the passage in Tacitus is also an interpolation and there was no such stigma attached to the christians until later?

Chris Weimer

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

spamandham

Of course I'm starting from the evidence. That's what throwing out preconceptions is all about. I have not rejected the idea that there was a historical person somehow intertwined in the Jesus stories. I have neither assumed there was a HJ, nor have I assumed there was not.

But yes, of course we start with what we think the evidence is. Where else would you suggest we start?

Chris Weimer

What do you think the evidence is?

Salamander

Of course there is no definitive evidence of a specific Jesus of Nazareth who preached and was crucified by Romans for supposedly making a Royal Claim to be King of the Jews.

What does one accept as evidence? Most historical figures are based on their accounts by contemporaries. The best hearsay evidence is that which is recorded by the man/woman's own people, and recorded by other people including enemies who have nothing to gain. The existence of Julius Caesar is quite reliable in that he left writings. His death led to a Roman Civil War with battles recorded. Julius was known by the Gauls, the Greeks, and the Egyptians.

The same applies to Octavian (Augustus), Nero, Constantine, and Theodosius. Cyrus and Xerxes of Persia were well documented by Persian and Greek historians and even in the Book of Daniel in the Bible.

Jesus has a weaker case in that he left no writings. His only accounts claiming to know him were the Gospels which were by those who wanted to believe in him. Logically one can never prove Jesus didn't exist. But the Roman historians only mention that there were people who believed in Jesus. However, the Romans meticulously recorded the execution of rebel leaders, insurrectionists, rival Emperors, rebellious native kings, or over-ambitious generals. They spread the news of such executions to serve as warnings to would be rebels or royal claimants. Examples were made of Vercingetorix of the Gauls, Boadica of the Icenii, Antonius and Cleopatra, Pompeii, and Queen Zenobia of Syria.

One should question why the Romans did not make Jesus into another "dead rebel" example. Yet they fail to even mention it in official records. All of this makes the existence of a human Jesus at the very best "controversial."

The divinity mythology is clearly myth, it seems to have been copied from perhaps a dozen older virgin born god-men redeemers who died and resurrected. It is interesting that those who made Jesus into a god were not the Jews who were around him, but pagan Romans and Greeks who not surprisingly used the traditional god-man redeemer story applied to Jesus.

Salamander