Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2014, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 01:10 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 08:32 PM)BPatton Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 07:15 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  “What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

An amusing notion, that there are no birth records, trial transcripts or death certificates concerning Jesus. The author you cite should also mention that there are no DVD or audio recordings, either! Common sense seems to have departed him. The Jesus of 30AD started a small but rapidly growing movement in Israel, and remained a predominately Jewish phenomenon until late in the first century. It was only AFTER his death, and a brief 3 year ministry, that word of Jesus began to slowly spread from Israel . How could Roman or Greek writers make mention of a person during his life that they had never heard of, with a religion they did not understand? It would be decades after his death before there were enough Christians for the pagans to scarcely notice, let alone comment on. The author you cite would seem to have no answer for that. Do you?

I think you may have missed the point. It isn't striking that all historians, royal scribes, and various literate people of the time failed to mention jesus, as afterall, he was just one of many self called prophets of the time. The problem is, if he was the son of god messiah of the jewish prophesy, and was walking on water, healing the sick, causing the world to go dark, the ground to shake and a sizable zombie invasion upon his death...someone AT the time would have thought that worthy of writing down.....especially well known local area historians like Philo or Justus. This odd period of silence completely discredits the son of god fairy tale as per the NT.

The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).

Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him.

It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

Justus of Tiberius
There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.”

Consider

My thought is the story was exaggerated based upon older stories...like Romulus for example.

When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication.

The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; than he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power.

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

I have had christians claim that Romulus's story was based from jesus...um no. As you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when in fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact.

Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

Blink

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
17-11-2014, 12:54 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 10:46 AM)Free Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 10:30 AM)unfogged Wrote:  The latter gospels were based on the first so they aren't independent accounts.
The Synoptic perhaps, but each is an individual record nonetheless.

Now that's just funny.

Quote:
Quote: I don't know if Paul's claims can be linked the same way or not but it makes sense to me that both could be based off a same prevailing myth that was being built up. Josephus and Tacitus are interpolation or hearsay and add nothing.

They could be, but no evidence of that. What needs to be understood is the "argument from silence" position. An argument from silence can be a valid argument if something should reasonably be expected. Therefore, in the case of Jesus being a myth, it is very reasonable for us to expect to find at least one record of somebody someplace in antiquity claiming that Jesus was a myth.

I don't agree that there's reason to expect there to be much of anything claiming it was a myth. I would expect more if it were actually historical as GWG has so eloquently posted. As a myth it was just one of many and probably not worth much notice at the time.

Quote:...This is why I said to Bucky that the trial of Jesus was "laughable" and nothing but an amusement to Pilate.

Roman soldiers could not just go out and kill people, otherwise they would spark a revolt.

My understanding is that anybody breaking the law could be summarily executed and that while the Romans may not have wanted to deal with a revolt, they had little to fear from the population. Certainly causing a disturbance like the scene at the temple would have had Jesus either killed or thrown in jail for later execution. They would not have had to bribe Judas to identify his location, and him, at a later time and gone through a trial, especially with Pilate. To assume an ad-hoc speculation like Pilate having any interest at all in a minor criminal matter is unwarranted. It makes far more sense to think that the later writers were exaggerating the importance of their story than to think any of it really happened.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
17-11-2014, 12:54 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 11:46 AM)photon9 Wrote:  You don't understand ad hominem obviously, but it is telling that you view my post as one lol!

Non-sequitor, perhaps. I'm just trying to keep people from wasting their time engaging you when it's clear you you can't and won't listen to what they say.

This is also not ad hominem but I know you will take it as such.

You sir are a fraud!

If you don't like it, I suggest you do what Brian told Stewey to do:

"Go on the internet and complain."

Now you really should stop the cross-thread harassment and move along before a Mod gives you a spanking.

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 11:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 10:05 AM)Free Wrote:  If you discount the consistency of all 4 gospels, and the letter attributed to Paul mentioning Jesus witnessing to Pilate, and consider Jospehus' entry a complete and total interpolation, then you can say that.

6 consistent records need to be dismissed, not including what Tacitus said.

Note: Even if Josephus' was a complete interpolation, it is still a record of a trial regardless of who wrote it. In fact, it is still a record of the existence of Jesus as well.

The accounts of the (supposed) trial are vastly different. Gospels are not "accounts" of anything. There are hardly "consistent records". We know peasants were not afforded trials, in general. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to summarily execute trouble-makers without a trial. The gospels are in no way "independent accounts". The Synoptics are based on "Q", and what is written in John, (who changed the day to accord with his "sacrificial lamb" theory AND put a long speech in his mouth, AFTER the others claimed he was silent) is not exactly reliable.

You're vastly exaggerating what there is.

Each version of the trial in each Gospel record demonstrates the exact same consistency.

The Jews brought Jesus to Pilate, and Pilate executed him.

Although I agree that there may have been a Q document, we have no direct evidence for that. I will concede however that the Synoptics are based on virtually the same source, but that source could easily be Mark.

Nonetheless, all 4 Gospels say the same consistent thing, and the very reason why they are credible is exactly because of what you said; "The accounts of the (supposed) trial are vastly different."

If they were identical, you would have a point, but because you have said that they are vastly different, it makes my point very clear. 4 "vastly different" accounts of a trial is very persuasive. Wink

Like I said, the trial was but a mere amusement to Pilate.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 12:03 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  The consistency of all 4 gospels?

You gotta be full on face fucking me?!

This intentionally misrepresents my point.

I said that the trial of Jesus by Pontius Pilate in all four gospels is what is consistent.

If you didn't understand that, then you are "face fucking" yourself, and that visual is not something I expected today. Thanks for that.

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 11:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 10:05 AM)Free Wrote:  If you discount the consistency of all 4 gospels, and the letter attributed to Paul mentioning Jesus witnessing to Pilate, and consider Jospehus' entry a complete and total interpolation, then you can say that.

6 consistent records need to be dismissed, not including what Tacitus said.

Note: Even if Josephus' was a complete interpolation, it is still a record of a trial regardless of who wrote it. In fact, it is still a record of the existence of Jesus as well.

The accounts of the (supposed) trial are vastly different. Gospels are not "accounts" of anything. There are hardly "consistent records". We know peasants were not afforded trials, in general. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to summarily execute trouble-makers without a trial. The gospels are in no way "independent accounts". The Synoptics are based on "Q", and what is written in John, (who changed the day to accord with his "sacrificial lamb" theory AND put a long speech in his mouth, AFTER the others claimed he was silent) is not exactly reliable.

You're vastly exaggerating what there is.

and the interpolation would not validate a trial, it would validate someone wrote that in after the fact, in an attempt to validate the story...it comes down to motive. In and of itself, the interpolation in no way proves a trial of "jesus".

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 01:04 PM)Free Wrote:  If they were identical, you would have a point, but because you have said that they are vastly different, it makes my point very clear. 4 "vastly different" accounts of a trial is very persuasive. Wink

Yes, it is very persuasive that what we have is a case of fan fiction. Trial story is written, next author says "I can make that sound even better" and adds details, third author says "if you liked that, wait until you hear this...", etc.

I am totally at a loss as to how anybody can look at 4 versions of a story, note that they are "vastly different", and conclude that that increases the chance that they are true.

Quote:Like I said, the trial was but a mere amusement to Pilate.

Which, again, is a purely ad-hoc rationalization needed to make the an extraordinary claim seem somehow plausible.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
17-11-2014, 02:15 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 01:57 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 11:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The accounts of the (supposed) trial are vastly different. Gospels are not "accounts" of anything. There are hardly "consistent records". We know peasants were not afforded trials, in general. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to summarily execute trouble-makers without a trial. The gospels are in no way "independent accounts". The Synoptics are based on "Q", and what is written in John, (who changed the day to accord with his "sacrificial lamb" theory AND put a long speech in his mouth, AFTER the others claimed he was silent) is not exactly reliable.

You're vastly exaggerating what there is.

and the interpolation would not validate a trial, it would validate someone wrote that in after the fact, in an attempt to validate the story...it comes down to motive. In and of itself, the interpolation in no way proves a trial of "jesus".

Nothing "on its own" proves anything. But when added to the evidence as a whole, it demonstrates a far greater probability that it actually occurred.

I judge the situation according to the evidence in totality, and not on a singular item.

I'm sure most people do. Smile

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 02:12 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 01:04 PM)Free Wrote:  If they were identical, you would have a point, but because you have said that they are vastly different, it makes my point very clear. 4 "vastly different" accounts of a trial is very persuasive. Wink

Yes, it is very persuasive that what we have is a case of fan fiction. Trial story is written, next author says "I can make that sound even better" and adds details, third author says "if you liked that, wait until you hear this...", etc.

I am totally at a loss as to how anybody can look at 4 versions of a story, note that they are "vastly different", and conclude that that increases the chance that they are true.

4 people each standing on a separate corner at an intersection and witness a car accident. A police officer is called and he questions the witnesses.

1st One Says: The white car ran a red light and hit the blue car on the passenger side door.
2nd One Says: I didn't notice the lights, but the white car hit the blue car on the passenger side door.
3rd One says: The white car ran the lights and hit the blue car, first on the rear of it, then on the passenger side.
4th One Says: The white car ran a red light and struck the front right bumper of the blue car.

Some things are quite clear.

a) There was an accident.
b) The white car hit the blue car.
c) The white car hit the blue car on its passenger side.

Other things are probably true:

a) The white car ran the red light.

And other things are probably not true:

a) The white car hit the rear on the blue car and then hit the passenger side.
b) The white car ran a red light and struck the front right bumper of the blue car.

But the point is an accident happened. Smile


Quote:
Quote:Like I said, the trial was but a mere amusement to Pilate.

Which, again, is a purely ad-hoc rationalization needed to make the an extraordinary claim seem somehow plausible.

Pilate, as a Prefect, could actually condemn people to death without a trial. But since the Sanhedrin brought Jesus to him with an accusation of treason, all Pilate had to do was verify the accusation enough to condemn the guy to the cross. That, and the probability that the Jews blackmailed Pilate, is all that was really needed.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 01:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 11:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The accounts of the (supposed) trial are vastly different. Gospels are not "accounts" of anything. There are hardly "consistent records". We know peasants were not afforded trials, in general. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to summarily execute trouble-makers without a trial. The gospels are in no way "independent accounts". The Synoptics are based on "Q", and what is written in John, (who changed the day to accord with his "sacrificial lamb" theory AND put a long speech in his mouth, AFTER the others claimed he was silent) is not exactly reliable.

You're vastly exaggerating what there is.

Each version of the trial in each Gospel record demonstrates the exact same consistency.

The Jews brought Jesus to Pilate, and Pilate executed him.

Although I agree that there may have been a Q document, we have no direct evidence for that. I will concede however that the Synoptics are based on virtually the same source, but that source could easily be Mark.

Nonetheless, all 4 Gospels say the same consistent thing, and the very reason why they are credible is exactly because of what you said; "The accounts of the (supposed) trial are vastly different."

If they were identical, you would have a point, but because you have said that they are vastly different, it makes my point very clear. 4 "vastly different" accounts of a trial is very persuasive. Wink

Like I said, the trial was but a mere amusement to Pilate.

Nice story bro. Needs some dragons and vampires though.

There is no way to falsify this fantasy-narrative you keep repeating.
You actually have no idea what did or did not happen, and no way to verify it. Constantly repeating a fiction does not make it true.
It may be "persuasive" to you. It is not to me. Any other event told with "vastly different" details would be dismissed as historical rubbish. You're desperate to maintain that the historicity
of this dude is reasonable. It is not.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: