Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2016, 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2016 05:00 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 08:04 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(08-07-2016 03:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Where is your evidence Nazareth was occupied by Nazarenes at the supposed time of Jesus?

It's merely a plausible theory based upon what we know in regards to how towns and territories were named throughout history.

Bethlehem, for example, is named after "house of bread." Judea was named after the tribe of Judah, and so on.

Quote:Who "started" the Nazarene sect?

Unknown.

Quote:What is your evidence the "Temple scroll" was associated with the Nazarenes?

I never said it was. However, since many assign the Temple Scroll with the Essene, and we both agree on the connection the Essene have with the Nazarene, then we can reasonably postulate that the Temple Scroll may also be adhered to by the Nazarene.

Quote:Tell us about John the baptist? Was he a Nazarene?

Unknown. He may have been an Essene, however.

Quote:If "jesus" was a Nazarene, he couldn't have been a "Christian." Do you agree?

Does that question even need to be asked?

Quote:Was James a Nazarene?

I believe he was. In fact, all of Jesus' family were likely Nazarenes.

Quote:Was James a brother of "Jesus?"

The evidence indicates he was.

I can also flesh out the discussion on James...

Josephus and other historians mention at least a dozen Jewish leaders from the first century CE who were hailed as messiahs but killed by the Romans or in sectarian fights with their countrymen (http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html - overview). Each time, the movements they inspired faded into nothing after the demise of their leader. The movement Yeshua was part of (the Nazarenes) was different, because it definitely didn’t fade away until centuries later.

To take over the Nazarene leadership was a risky proposition. Both previous leaders, John the Baptist and Yeshua, had been executed. They needed a new charismatic commander. James, Yeshua’s brother, was just the man.

Yeshua had been a potential legitimate king and messiah because he was of the royal bloodline of David. James too was of this bloodline, and of the same flesh and blood as Yeshua through at least one parent in common, their mother. It’s possible James was the
“disciple Jesus loved,” (John 13:23 and 19:23–25 NJB) not named because Gentile editors wanted to minimize his importance.

Paul, writing in the 50’s CE, stated that he went to Jerusalem to
“meet Peter and James, the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19, NJB.) This hinted at the important status of James. Later in Galatians, Paul wrote,

“So James, Peter, and John, these leaders, these pillars…” (Gal. 2:9, NJB.) That James was in charge is convincingly confirmed by the following quote from Paul:

“When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision” (Gal. 2:11–12, NJB.) Peter (Cephas) was careful to be seen doing what James wanted.

The book of Acts also portrays James as the leader of the disciples (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...sion=KJV).

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 CE,) the most important early Christian historian of all, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea) wrote that:
“James, whom men of old had surnamed ‘Just’ for his excellence of virtue, is recorded to have been the first elected to the throne of the Oversight of the church in Jerusalem” (Church History 2.1.2.)

Saint Jerome, a prolific commentator and translator of early Christian material, quoted from Hegesippus’ (a first century writer) account of James from the fifth book of his lost “Commentaries:”

“After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.” (De Viris Illustribi.)

The “Holy of Holies” was a term referring to the inner sanctuary of the temple in Jerusalem. Since it was unlawful for anyone but the high priest of the temple to enter it, and then only once a year, this suggests James was considered a de facto high priest. The official high priest at the time had been chosen by Rome, and the Nazarenes considered him illegitimate.

Josephus also described James as a pious Jew who was well respected, and observed all the obligations of Judaism. (http://historical-jesus.info/appc.html).

James had obviously managed to achieve a high status among his own people. He was described in terms that emphasized his association with the temple and Judaism. His vegetarianism, unshaven state and wearing of linen were all Essenian traits.

He was clearly a leading Jewish figure in Jerusalem until his death in 62 CE, yet he’s barely mentioned in the bible or in the annals of church history. The Gospel writers and church historians have deliberately diminished his importance for obvious reasons; he was too Jewish, and his beliefs were diametrically opposed to Paul’s proto-Christian theology. His existence as Jesus’ successor also discredits the untrue Catholic idea that the leadership of the movement was transferred to Peter.

Let’s consider the community led by James in the two decades after Jesus’ death. The traditional story about this group is in the book of Acts, in which they’re portrayed as Christians, but I think this was a deliberate misrepresentation. The loss of two leaders in close succession, John the Baptist and then Yeshua, must have devastated them. Matthew and John have the disciples going back to Galilee, yet Acts and Luke have the risen Jesus telling them not to leave Jerusalem. What’s clear is that over the next few decades, they settled in Jerusalem.

There’s no doubt that for them, Jerusalem was a dangerous place. Yeshua had been crucified there. The Sadducees and a garrison of Roman troops were an ever-present threat. I think they settled in Jerusalem because they were still dreaming about the kingdom of God, centered in the capital of the Jewish world. The author of Acts explains that this kingdom was still a general expectation when, in the first chapter, the resurrected Jesus appears:

“Now having met together, they asked him, ‘Lord, has the time come? Are you going to restore the kingdom of Israel?’ He replied, ‘It is not for you to know times or dates that the Father has decided by his own authority, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judea and Samaria, and indeed to the ends of the earth’” (Acts 1:9–12, NJB.)

The author was writing seventy-plus years after Yeshua’s death. At this late time the second coming of Jesus hadn’t happened, so he was advising his readers they’d better not hold their breath waiting. This was in marked contrast to what Paul wrote in the early 50’s CE:

“Brothers this is what I mean: our time is growing short. Those who have wives should live as though they had none, and those who mourn should live as though they had nothing to mourn for; those who are enjoying life should live as though there were nothing to laugh about; those whose life is buying things should live as though they had nothing of their own; and those who have to deal with the world should not become engrossed in it. I say this because the world as we know it is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31, NJB.)

The Nazarenes called themselves “saints” or “followers of the way” or “the faithful” or “disciples” or “the poor” or the “children of light.” They saw themselves as preparing “the way” for the return of Yahweh as described in Isaiah:

“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (Isa. 40:3, KJV.) They saw themselves as God’s chosen people, and were true believers in the power and glory of Israel. They had a broad base of support among Jews throughout Judea and much of the Roman Empire. All other Essenes and zealots throughout Judea would have regarded them favorably, as would many Pharisees and common Jews. The Roman world considered any member of the Nazarenes

“a pest” who “stirs up trouble among Jews the world over,” (see Acts 24:5) with good reason, as they were xenophobic and militant.

They were fundamentally opposed to Paul’s doctrine, (the basis of Christianity) didn’t accept him as an apostle, and quite rightly considered him an annoying heretic allied to the Gentile world. So Yeshua’s family and friends were, therefore, strongly opposed to what became Christianity.

Some early church fathers claimed they wrote an early Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel, from which Jesus’ genealogy is derived, but one without the pro-Gentile changes. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/alexander_a/can...i.v.html). That would definitely have made an interesting read, but not surprisingly, no copy has survived. It would bear only a passing resemblance to what has become today’s Gospel of Matthew.

Some Nazarenes were sent out as missionaries to other cities. The author Douglas Lockhart believes that by the time James died in 62 CE, the Nazarenes had boosted their numbers to about eight thousand by recruiting Jews. Peter went to Antioch (as described in Galatians 2.) These missionaries may have even got as far as Rome.

Many historians, particularly those favorably biased towards the “traditional” story put forward in Acts, don’t accept that James and Yeshua’s original disciples weren’t Christians. The writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, have made a deliberate choice not to discuss the Nazarenes, despite the fact they are mentioned in the bible and by some church fathers. I think the encyclopedia’s authors would have some difficult explaining to do if Catholics around the world started learning about James and the Nazarenes.

References;
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty.” Harper Collins. London.
Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls”
This Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon “Operation Messiah”
http://www.thenazareneway.com/james_the_..._jesus.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/siljampe.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ebionites/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
08-07-2016, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2016 05:02 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
GU, you replied to the following question

"If "jesus" was a Nazarene, he couldn't have been a "Christian." Do you agree?"

with

"Does that question even need to be asked?"

I agree, totally, with your implication that Jesus was not a Christian... he was Jewish.

What perplexes me about you is how vehemently you attack "militant atheists" and "mythicists" (although you appear now to be softening your opinions).

Which part of the "historical Jesus" are you defending? None of the magic, you admit, is true. The Jesus character was not a Christian, you also appear to admit, so most of the spiel he allegedly said in the gospels is obviously made up too. What is there left about the "historical Jesus" for you to defend? Can you not see how the harder one looks at this, the more irrelevant the fact of "his" existence or not, becomes?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 04:29 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2016 12:57 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 08:04 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(08-07-2016 03:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Where is your evidence Nazareth was occupied by Nazarenes at the supposed time of Jesus?

It's merely a plausible theory based upon what we know in regards to how towns and territories were named throughout history.

Bethlehem, for example, is named after "house of bread." Judea was named after the tribe of Judah, and so on.

Quote:Who "started" the Nazarene sect?

Unknown.

Quote:What is your evidence the "Temple scroll" was associated with the Nazarenes?

I never said it was. However, since many assign the Temple Scroll with the Essene, and we both agree on the connection the Essene have with the Nazarene, then we can reasonably postulate that the Temple Scroll may also be adhered to by the Nazarene.

Quote:Tell us about John the baptist? Was he a Nazarene?

Unknown. He may have been an Essene, however.

Quote:If "jesus" was a Nazarene, he couldn't have been a "Christian." Do you agree?

Does that question even need to be asked?

Quote:Was James a Nazarene?

I believe he was. In fact, all of Jesus' family were likely Nazarenes.

Quote:Was James a brother of "Jesus?"

The evidence indicates he was.

"Mark Fulton Wrote:
Where is your evidence Nazareth was occupied by Nazarenes at the supposed time of Jesus?"

"It's merely a plausible theory based upon what we know in regards to how towns and territories were named throughout history."

Ok. The only problem with that is that there is no concrete evidence that Nazareth even existed in the first century. We know that James and the other Nazarenes lived in Jerusalem...not a hypothetical Nazareth.

Also...you bad mouthed me for giving an opinion that some of Paul's writing had been interpolated. I admitted it was an opinion, and I gave reasons for that opinion. That wasn't good enough for you...you demanded evidence. Yet here you are giving an opinion ( a "plausible theory") (without any real evidence) that the Nazarenes hailed from a place called Nazareth. It appears that you don't apply the same standards to your own opinions that you do to others.

In my opinion, Nazareth didn't exist until centuries later. It was a fictional place made up by gospel authors. I agree with you it may have been invented to disguise Jesus' sectarian affiliation with the Nazarenes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 04:33 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Small correction, Mark... Hegesippus was a second-century writer, not a first. He wasn't even born in the first century.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
08-07-2016, 04:39 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
In case anyone is interested in what I think about the existence or nonexistence of an historical Jesus here is my spiel. I bow down to GWG's narrative which is far more comprehensive, although I have a slightly different angle...

Did Yeshua Exist?

The Gospels’ writers and editors were mythmakers. Many historians suspect they didn’t base their writings on a genuine historical character, and they may be right. No definitive contemporary archaeological evidence has ever been found for Yeshua’s existence, despite many wordy claims, lacking in facts, to the contrary (such as here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-dhelsPbY). Do contemporary historians mention him?

Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html) although not all scholars accept this (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157). So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.

Justus of Tiberias (35–100 CE) was a first-century Jewish author born in Galilee. Although he wrote extensively about contemporary Jewish history, he never mentioned Jesus. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...505.html).

Philo-Judaeus, (15-10 BCE - 45-50 CE) a prolific writer and historian, was an Alexandrian Jew who visited Jerusalem in the years Jesus was allegedly teaching and working miracles. He too failed to mention Jesus.
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...letter=P).

We might expect Jewish religious officials to have said a significant amount about him, but they didn’t. The earliest references to him in Judaic rabbinical literature didn’t occur before the third century CE and bear little relation to the Jesus of the Gospels.
What about the Roman writers of the first century? There are no Roman records of Pilate’s or Herod’s dealings with Jesus. The Roman world left behind senate records and volumes of other writings, which provide historians with a large amount of data, yet nothing about Jesus.

Edward Gibbon, (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/egibbon.htm) writing in the latter half of the eighteenth century in his classic work Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated:

“How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.” Gibbon devoted twenty or so years of his life to his seventeen-volume work. It’s the result of exhaustive research, so we can trust that his comments are authoritative.

Saint Paul, who probably appeared on the historical scene only fifteen plus years after Yeshua’s death, does repeatedly commend his Christ, but some scholars suspect he refers to a different character to Yeshua. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm). If this is so, his references to “Jesus” may be interpolations. Whether or not Paul’s Christ was Yeshua, his writings are remarkably deficient in facts about Jesus.

Pliny the younger did mention the existence of Christians in Asia Minor in 112 CE, but wrote nothing about Jesus the person (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html).

It’s said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus. However, this reference isn’t mentioned by any of the church Fathers, (eminent priests and theologians of early Christianity) and is considered by many historians to be a forgery. This reference is frequently referred to in pro-Christian literature.

The surprising truth is that no contemporary literate official, scribe, merchant, soldier or priest documented details about Jesus that have survived. If he’d preached to thousands, cured cripples, expelled demons, and risen from the dead, surely someone would have jotted down some notes about him, but it appears they didn’t.

Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries.

Once Yeshua’s existence is assumed, anyone who writes about him must comb through the Gospels to get specifics about his life. This is unfortunate, because the Gospels are unreliable records; yet to do so is unavoidable because details about him are lacking in other literature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
08-07-2016, 04:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 04:33 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Small correction, Mark... Hegesippus was a second-century writer, not a first. He wasn't even born in the first century.

You're right. Bugger!Big Grin

Thanks
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
08-07-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
This is quite a good article on the Nazarenes and Nazareth...

https://lostchristianity.wordpress.com/t...hristians/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 08:10 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 04:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  In case anyone is interested in what I think about the existence or nonexistence of an historical Jesus here is my spiel. I bow down to GWG's narrative which is far more comprehensive, although I have a slightly different angle...

Did Yeshua Exist?

The Gospels’ writers and editors were mythmakers. Many historians suspect they didn’t base their writings on a genuine historical character, and they may be right. No definitive contemporary archaeological evidence has ever been found for Yeshua’s existence, despite many wordy claims, lacking in facts, to the contrary (such as here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-dhelsPbY). Do contemporary historians mention him?

Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html) although not all scholars accept this (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157). So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.

Justus of Tiberias (35–100 CE) was a first-century Jewish author born in Galilee. Although he wrote extensively about contemporary Jewish history, he never mentioned Jesus. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...505.html).

Philo-Judaeus, (15-10 BCE - 45-50 CE) a prolific writer and historian, was an Alexandrian Jew who visited Jerusalem in the years Jesus was allegedly teaching and working miracles. He too failed to mention Jesus.
(http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...letter=P).

We might expect Jewish religious officials to have said a significant amount about him, but they didn’t. The earliest references to him in Judaic rabbinical literature didn’t occur before the third century CE and bear little relation to the Jesus of the Gospels.
What about the Roman writers of the first century? There are no Roman records of Pilate’s or Herod’s dealings with Jesus. The Roman world left behind senate records and volumes of other writings, which provide historians with a large amount of data, yet nothing about Jesus.

Edward Gibbon, (http://kirjasto.sci.fi/egibbon.htm) writing in the latter half of the eighteenth century in his classic work Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated:

“How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the Church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.” Gibbon devoted twenty or so years of his life to his seventeen-volume work. It’s the result of exhaustive research, so we can trust that his comments are authoritative.

Saint Paul, who probably appeared on the historical scene only fifteen plus years after Yeshua’s death, does repeatedly commend his Christ, but some scholars suspect he refers to a different character to Yeshua. (http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/parttwo.htm). If this is so, his references to “Jesus” may be interpolations. Whether or not Paul’s Christ was Yeshua, his writings are remarkably deficient in facts about Jesus.

Pliny the younger did mention the existence of Christians in Asia Minor in 112 CE, but wrote nothing about Jesus the person (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html).

It’s said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus. However, this reference isn’t mentioned by any of the church Fathers, (eminent priests and theologians of early Christianity) and is considered by many historians to be a forgery. This reference is frequently referred to in pro-Christian literature.

The surprising truth is that no contemporary literate official, scribe, merchant, soldier or priest documented details about Jesus that have survived. If he’d preached to thousands, cured cripples, expelled demons, and risen from the dead, surely someone would have jotted down some notes about him, but it appears they didn’t.

Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries.

Once Yeshua’s existence is assumed, anyone who writes about him must comb through the Gospels to get specifics about his life. This is unfortunate, because the Gospels are unreliable records; yet to do so is unavoidable because details about him are lacking in other literature.

I just have one question.

If he existed, did Jesus take a bath ?
I mean. What the hell was the matter with that James ? No bath ? Peeee-ewwwe.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 08:49 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Quote:It’s said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus.


Tacitus does not mention anyone named "jesus." Neither does Suetonius or Pliny. They may have heard of christos although more probably they were talking about chrestus before some helpful scribes "corrected" their spelling.

The mid second century Roman writer Lucian of Samosata heard of the tale of a crucified criminal being worshiped by xtians but he never mentions any "jesus" either. No the earliest mention of the godboy by name is Celsus in the late 2d century although even for that we have to take the word of the xtian writer, Origen.
I see no reason to doubt him, though. Clearly by the late 2d century the jesus tale had been invented and fleshed out.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2016, 11:38 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(08-07-2016 08:49 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:It’s said that in 115 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus made the first mention of Jesus.


Tacitus does not mention anyone named "jesus." Neither does Suetonius or Pliny. They may have heard of christos although more probably they were talking about chrestus before some helpful scribes "corrected" their spelling.

The mid second century Roman writer Lucian of Samosata heard of the tale of a crucified criminal being worshiped by xtians but he never mentions any "jesus" either. No the earliest mention of the godboy by name is Celsus in the late 2d century although even for that we have to take the word of the xtian writer, Origen.
I see no reason to doubt him, though. Clearly by the late 2d century the jesus tale had been invented and fleshed out.

Good point.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: