To whom it may concern, here's my final draft just before I posted it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warthog
Cornelius Tacitus - Roman Historian, born in AD 52-54 wrote of Jesus in a document of the history of Nero, and the existence of Christians at Rome in his Annals XV page 44.
Lucien of Samasota, 2nd century - a satirist who wrote scornfully of Christ and the disciples in his work "The Passing Pereginus" Also elaborated in his work "Alexander and the False Prophet" sections 25 and 29.
Josephus was born in 37 AD - Just because I wasn't alive when Pearl Harbor happened, nor an eyewitness, doesn't mean that it never existed. That was in 1941.
Suetonius - another historian and court official under Hadrian "Life of Claudius" sections 25.4 and "Life of the Caesars" sections 26.2.
Plinius Secondus aka Pliny the Younger - Procounsul of Asia Minor AD 112 - Writing to the Emporor Trajan, in his work, Epistles X.96.
Tertullian - Jurist of Carthage in his work about Titirius, Apologies 1.35.
Thallus - Samaritan Historian "Book of the Histories" 2.113.
Phlegon - first Century historian in the work "Chronicles".
Origen - Contra Celsiun Book 2 sections 14, 33 and 59.
Mara Bar - Serapion - Letter from the first centrury which is still in the British Museum.
|
”There is no mention of Jesus Christ by any non-biblical writer until about 100 CE. Jesus Christ is ignored by all the writers of his lifetime, Christian and non-Christian alike. And Jesus Christ isn't mentioned outside of the Bible for at least 70 years after his death.”
That’s what I said in my opening statement and nothing you’ve said here refutes it. In-fact your just further proving my case that the non-biblical record of an HJ is extremely weak. All the writers you mention here lived long after the alleged life of Jesus Christ and none were eye-witnesses to any of the events depicted in the NT. The earliest and best piece of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus wasn’t written for another 70 years after his alleged crucifixion, by JOSEPHUS’ in his “Antiquities of the Jews”(96 CE). The rest of them are second century, and a couple third century, writers that cannot be used as evidence for an HJ.
__________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warthog
Cornelius Tacitus - Roman Historian, born in AD 52-54 wrote of Jesus in a document of the history of Nero, and the existence of Christians at Rome in his Annals XV page 44.
|
I’m not even going to get into the debateable authenticity of this passage right now because this isn‘t even evidence for an HJ. What does the passage say about Jesus?
Quote:
|
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christos, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
|
There we have it. The second best piece of non-biblical evidence for an HJ. Christians portray this passage as if it is some sort of evidence for an HJ but it’s not. This passage was written some 80 years after the alleged events and Jesus wasn’t even the focus of what Tacitus was writing about. Tacitus (112 CE) was only relaying information that he could have gotten from contemporary Christians about an alleged founder of their religion. This is evidence
only for an early Christian movement and not an HJ.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Foundations of Christianity
Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but at best he is merely reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions. No-one refers to this passage in Tacitus for another millenium, and our earliest manuscript dates to c.1100 CE .
|
__________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warthog
Lucien of Samasota, 2nd century - a satirist who wrote scornfully of Christ and the disciples in his work "The Passing Pereginus" Also elaborated in his work "Alexander and the False Prophet" sections 25 and 29.
|
Lucien (170 CE) wrote this over 140 years after the alleged events and he doesn’t mention Jesus Christ by name. This is not evidence for an HJ.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Foundations of Christianity
Lucian of Samosata satirised Christians and their priests, and alluded to Jesus.
|
__________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warthog
Josephus was born in 37 AD - Just because I wasn't alive when Pearl Harbor happened, nor an eyewitness, doesn't mean that it never existed. That was in 1941.
|
WOW, I refute you and what do you do? You bring up the exact same piece of evidence and throw in a false analogy just for good measure. Great debating strategy.
“Just because I wasn't around to witness the Invisible Pink Unicorn pissing on the Blarney Stone doesn't mean that it did happen.” In short, that’s your argument. Now should I accept that the invisible pink unicorn pissed on the Blarney Stone without any eye-witnesses or physical evidence? NOPE! History doesn’t work like that. Pearl Harbour has multiple
first hand witnesses, actual footage of the attack, remains of the battle, etc, etc. What do you have going for you? Hearsay. Hearsay can’t even be used as evidence in a court of law but here you go, basing your case on hearsay evidence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Foundations of Christianity
Josephus (Flavianus) wrote Jewish Antiquities which nowadays contains a famous passage (the Testamonium Flavianum), which is not considered reliable evidence by most (non-Christian) scholars. Josephus could not possibly have called Jesus the Christ - it flies in the face of his beliefs and the very theme of the book. Josephus spent whole pages on minor criminals (debunking any claims to be Christ) yet supposedly wrote a tiny passage about this allegedly most signficant character and events. About a century later Origen comments that Josephus did not call Jesus the Christ - this, and other differences mean Origen's copy is not like our current copy. There are various versions of the passage, each are unlikely to have been written by Josephus - it was almost certainly inserted centuries later by Eusebius (whose copy of Josephus is the first to show this passage). Similarly, the other reference to Christ appears to be a later interpolation. Our earliest manuscript dates from c.1000CE.
|
__________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warthog
Suetonius - another historian and court official under Hadrian "Life of Claudius" sections 25.4 and "Life of the Caesars" sections 26.2.
|
Suetonius (115 CE) refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time but “Chrestus isn‘t the same name as “Christos,“ Jesus‘ name. Also, Chrestus was active in Rome, Jesus was not. This is not evidence for an HJ and in-fact has nothing at all to do with Jesus.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Foundations of Christianity
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus in Life of Claudius mentioned unrest at the instigation of 'Chrestus'. This is a common Greek name (meaning Useful) - this Chrestus seems to have been active in Rome c.49CE, thus is unlikely to have been Jesus Christ.
|
__________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warthog
Plinius Secondus aka Pliny the Younger - Procounsul of Asia Minor AD 112 - Writing to the Emporor Trajan, in his work, Epistles X.96.P
|
Pliny, friend of Tacitus, merely referred to Christians who worshipped a “Christ” as god but there is not mention of an HJ. This is evidence
only for an early Christian movement and not an HJ.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Foundations of Christianity
Pliny the Younger (Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus) wrote of a movement founded by ''Christ'' considered a God by his followers.
|
__________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warthog
Tertullian - Jurist of Carthage in his work about Titirius, Apologies 1.35.
Thallus - Samaritan Historian "Book of the Histories" 2.113.
Phlegon - first Century historian in the work "Chronicles".
Origen - Contra Celsiun Book 2 sections 14, 33 and 59.
Mara Bar - Serapion - Letter from the first centrury which is still in the British Museum.
|
Tertullian and Origen are from the 3rd Century and cannot be used as evidence.
There is no evidence of when or where Thallus lived and wrote and there is no evidence that he made a specific mention of Jesus or the Gospels, nor has any of his work survived. This not evidence of an HJ.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Foundations of Christianity
Thallus perhaps wrote about this time or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: ''Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.
|
Phlegon, too, had his works lost and there is no evidence he said anything about the Gospels. This is not evidence for an HJ.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Foundations of Christianity
Phlegon probably wrote during this period - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events, if he did it is too late to prove anything about Jesus.
|
Mara Bar wrote
“What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?". It’s not known when this was written or who he was referring to but there is no evidence it was Jesus. This is not evidence for an HJ.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Foundations of Christianity
Mara Bar-Serapion, perhaps as early as this, wrote: "What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished."
|
In conclusion, with the exception of Josephus, none of this is evidence for an HJ. And the only piece of evidence you can muster is possibly a total forgery. Your argument is a testament to how fragile the case for an HJ really is because Josephus' suspect passage, "Testimonium Flavianum," is your best piece of non-biblical evidence for an HJ.
__________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warthog
As for HJ - hmm, The book of Acts was written by the Disciple Luke - and is a Continuation of the book of Luke - and only very few people would dispute that (the alternative argument is for Apollos as possible author) - John, also written by an eyewitness, his name was John, the disciple Jesus loved, as he's known. Mark...same thing, the eyewitness. (By the way I take Paypal) because when this is said and done, I'm going to collect.
|
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
It appears you need a quick lesson in Biblical history.
Fundy Christians believe Matthew was the tax collector talked about in Matthew who ends up following Jesus. Luke was a physician of Paul's. John was the beloved disciple mentioned in John and Mark was a secretary of Peter's. But none of this is in the gospels. It is conjecture by 2nd century church leaders. The consensus of modern NT scholars is that Jesus' twelve apostles wrote nothing about his life or any of the events depicted in the Bible and that the names of the gospels were added in the second century and they were NOT written by eyewitnesses.
The Gospel authors used various earlier sources to compose their stories, that means someone or group(s) of people were just collecting sayings attributed to Jesus or, more likely, collecting sayings and then attributing them to Jesus, while other groubs were collecting miracle stories, while someone else wrote a description of the trial and execution (ie Passion narrative), etc.
Later, the author of Mark took some of these, as well as selected portions of Hebrew Scripture and created his story. Still later, the authors of Matthew and Luke took Mark, as well as some other sources, and rewrote the story. John is generally understood to have undergone revisions by more than one author and it, too, is thought to have been written with some earlier sources. In fact some suggest that Mark and John had access to the same miracle story source.
__________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Warthog
Actually, I won't want to collect, just an acknowledgement that mistakes happen, and well-intentioned as it was, you claims were still incorrect.
|
You still have yet to refute any of my arguments and everything you've said here does nothing to further your side of the case. Even if I had accepted the bet, you would never collect with the weak ass case your representing. You know that you can always concede your position, right? There's no shame in losing to a superior opponent. :P
Resources:
The Foundations of Christianity
05-04-2006, 03:51 AM
