Did Jesus, Buddha & Mohammed really exist?

[S.J.]

He probably looked very much like anyone in the middle east.

If he was the son of God, I'm sure he was probably very unique in his appearance.

Why would you think that? Kinda defeats the whole purpose if He shows up with a big ol' sign over His head saying, "Messiah".

He didn't come here to fool everyone. He came to give us a choice, he didn't try to hide who he was. I don't know what purpose you're talking about. He was unique in every other way, why wouldn't he be unique in appearance as well, especially being the son of God?

 

[Composer]

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

Source: nobeliefs.com/exist.htm/Did Jesus exist?

&

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: truthbeknown.com/pliny/Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus)

 

[Intense]

In the final analysis there is no evidence time exists.

 

[JoeB131]

Not my boy. I'm not even vaguely Christian. Yes, there were a lot of cults. By the 3rd century there was practically open warfare between them. So what? We are talking about the beginning. When did those cults start? Do you see any indication of them prior to the 1st century?

If there was a Jesus, then that was the beginning. There was one cult which then became many cults. Perfectly ordinary human behavior. You still have shown me absolutely nothing to make me think this just appeared without an original personality. Nothing is absolute, but it is always a good bet to assume that people behaved like people.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience as a child. I did not, though I flat rejected Christianity the first time it was explained to me at an age I was capable of understanding. I have never been a Christian or had the slightest inclination to become one. Still, you should not allow that experience to color your approach to this.

" Do you see any indication of them prior to the 1st century?"

Yes, you did. There were all sorts of cults before the 1st century. That was the point. Mithrasim, Sarapis, etc. Mirthras and Sarapis were not real people, but their mythology got hard-welded on the Jesus God Man. Zoroasterism. There's a group in the middle east that thinks John The Baptist was the real Messiah and Jesus was the fake.

You look at the Gospels, and Jesus is not just trying to lay claim to the mantle of the Jewish Messiah, but a whole lot of other cults as well.


"I'm sorry you had a bad experience as a child. I did not, though I flat rejected Christianity the first time it was explained to me at an age I was capable of understanding. I have never been a Christian or had the slightest inclination to become one. Still, you should not allow that experience to color your approach to this.[/"

They taught me everything I needed to know about REligion. Religion is bullshit that is based on people bullying other people into believing it. I kind of feel sorry for those nuns. Most of them joined the Holy Orders because they figured at a young age, they really liked girls, and instead of getting some scented candles and sensible shoes and some Indigo Girls albums, they picked Jesus instead.

And no wonder they were so fuckin' miserable.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'm sorry. I failed to respond to your last sentence. Julius Caesar was the head of the greatest political organization then on the planet. Jesus was a itinerant preacher in a small province of the empire. Are you really going to compare the two? Barrack Obama is the leader of the United States. I'll bet you can find out his birth date pretty easily. What's my birthday? Does the fact you don't know mean I don't exist?

I added it in later- no foul.

The point is, no, I don't know who you are. But I am willing to bet if you were the founder of a cult that burned down Washington DC in 30 years, they'd have damned sure gotten your back story out there and found out who you were.

Ah.... but you have said that particular history was added much later on by people who were very familiar with the birth date. Also, remember that Tacitus was a Roman historian, not a Christian one. He wrote during the times of the emporers and it was not a good idea to irritate them. History is a funny old thing.

Not really. Tacitus was so hostile to the emperors that he's probably distorted our view of many of them.

As one later historian pointed out, Tacitus was particularly notorious for having villified Tiberius, who was actually probably a pretty good emperor.

The reason why the Christian Passage in Tacitus is questionable is that it seems to be shoe-horned in there with no previous or subsequent references to this cult. As opposed to Tacitus opinions on the Jews, where he goes into great detail about them and why he despised them.

Again, we are talking about a weird cult that was blamed for burning Rome. They should have been a much bigger part of the plot... unless they didn't exist.

 

[PratchettFan]

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

Source: nobeliefs.com/exist.htm/Did Jesus exist?

&

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: truthbeknown.com/pliny/Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus)

That is pretty much the case for just about every human being who lived more than 150 years ago. Does that mean they did not exist?

 

[JoeB131]

That is pretty much the case for just about every human being who lived more than 150 years ago. Does that mean they did not exist?

No, but if it was claimed those people were the son of God, walked on water, rose from the dead, etc. then I think you need to provide a slightly higher level of proof.

 

[PratchettFan]

I added it in later- no foul.

The point is, no, I don't know who you are. But I am willing to bet if you were the founder of a cult that burned down Washington DC in 30 years, they'd have damned sure gotten your back story out there and found out who you were.

Ah.... but you have said that particular history was added much later on by people who were very familiar with the birth date. Also, remember that Tacitus was a Roman historian, not a Christian one. He wrote during the times of the emporers and it was not a good idea to irritate them. History is a funny old thing.

Not really. Tacitus was so hostile to the emperors that he's probably distorted our view of many of them.

As one later historian pointed out, Tacitus was particularly notorious for having villified Tiberius, who was actually probably a pretty good emperor.

The reason why the Christian Passage in Tacitus is questionable is that it seems to be shoe-horned in there with no previous or subsequent references to this cult. As opposed to Tacitus opinions on the Jews, where he goes into great detail about them and why he despised them.

Again, we are talking about a weird cult that was blamed for burning Rome. They should have been a much bigger part of the plot... unless they didn't exist.

Tacitus was not an idiot. He was hostile to emporers when the current emporer was hostile to them. He was never hostile to the current emporer.

You are losing me on your logic. You seem to be saying that Tacitus was modified later on so the Chrisitians did not exist because they weren't blamed for the burning? I am sure there were a lot of groups, even cults, which weren't blamed either.

 

[PratchettFan]

That is pretty much the case for just about every human being who lived more than 150 years ago. Does that mean they did not exist?

No, but if it was claimed those people were the son of God, walked on water, rose from the dead, etc. then I think you need to provide a slightly higher level of proof.

Well, yes. If I was claiming that I would certainly agree. But I'm not. I think all of that was added on later. We are talking about the man, not the God.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Tacitus was not an idiot. He was hostile to emporers when the current emporer was hostile to them. He was never hostile to the current emporer.

You are losing me on your logic. You seem to be saying that Tacitus was modified later on so the Chrisitians did not exist because they weren't blamed for the burning? I am sure there were a lot of groups, even cults, which weren't blamed either.

You'd have to understand logic in order to lose it.

Okay two possibilities.

1) Christianity was this very big deal in the reign of Nero. So big that they got the blame for the Fire of Rome and there were enough of them IN Rome so that they made a convienent scapegoat.

2) Christianity didn't even exist for another century, which is why so few historians and writers of the first or second mention them at all. And when they do, it's only in the second century, and you aren't entirely sure who they are talking about-

Again, I go back to Hadrian thinking worshippers of Serapis were "Christians".

Now, if #1 was true, then Christians would have been the fricking Al Qaeda of the First Century. Everyone would have had an opinion on them. Yet few Pagan or Jewish writers mention them or mention Jesus at all until the late 2nd century.

Now, #2- where Christianity evolved later and shoe-horned itself into history- yeah, that kind of makes more sense, especially when you see how out of place the passages in the few writers who do talk about them seem, and realize that these only come down to us through Christian sources.

 

[PratchettFan]

Not my boy. I'm not even vaguely Christian. Yes, there were a lot of cults. By the 3rd century there was practically open warfare between them. So what? We are talking about the beginning. When did those cults start? Do you see any indication of them prior to the 1st century?

If there was a Jesus, then that was the beginning. There was one cult which then became many cults. Perfectly ordinary human behavior. You still have shown me absolutely nothing to make me think this just appeared without an original personality. Nothing is absolute, but it is always a good bet to assume that people behaved like people.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience as a child. I did not, though I flat rejected Christianity the first time it was explained to me at an age I was capable of understanding. I have never been a Christian or had the slightest inclination to become one. Still, you should not allow that experience to color your approach to this.

" Do you see any indication of them prior to the 1st century?"

Yes, you did. There were all sorts of cults before the 1st century. That was the point. Mithrasim, Sarapis, etc. Mirthras and Sarapis were not real people, but their mythology got hard-welded on the Jesus God Man. Zoroasterism. There's a group in the middle east that thinks John The Baptist was the real Messiah and Jesus was the fake.

You look at the Gospels, and Jesus is not just trying to lay claim to the mantle of the Jewish Messiah, but a whole lot of other cults as well.


"I'm sorry you had a bad experience as a child. I did not, though I flat rejected Christianity the first time it was explained to me at an age I was capable of understanding. I have never been a Christian or had the slightest inclination to become one. Still, you should not allow that experience to color your approach to this.[/"

They taught me everything I needed to know about REligion. Religion is bullshit that is based on people bullying other people into believing it. I kind of feel sorry for those nuns. Most of them joined the Holy Orders because they figured at a young age, they really liked girls, and instead of getting some scented candles and sensible shoes and some Indigo Girls albums, they picked Jesus instead.

And no wonder they were so fuckin' miserable.

There have always been cults as long as there have been people. Let's deal with the cults surrounding this particular person. They began around the same time and were centralized (after a good deal of blood) into the Catholic Church. Which later diverged back into yet more cults. People are always going to act like people no matter how hard you try.

But we keep coming back to the beginning. This is not about religion. It is not about God. I think that is why we keep hitting this wall. This is about how people behave. How do I know Jospeh Smith existed, because there are Mormons. How do I know Martin Luther existed? Because there are Protestants. Organizations such as these quickly take on a life of their own and the people they are based upon become larger than life. That is human behavior. You expect it to occur, like Washington and the Cherry tree. What you don't see happening are these things just popping into existence of their own accord. Something is always the initiator.

Now, that initiator could well be a thunder storm and an old man making his living by explaining it to the rest of the tribe. But when you have a personality cult, the initiator is always a personality.

So is there any historical record you can point to? No. I would take any such record with an enormous grain of salt. A dinky little preacher in a backwater province garnering the notice of contemporary historians? Ludicrous. The only reason you would expect that kind of record is if you thought the man was truly special, and you suposedly don't think that. I certainly don't think it. It makes no sense at all that there would be such a record. But it also makes no sense for there to be a personality cult without the personality.

So let us agree that Jesus was not a God. He didn't walk on water, he didn't feed the masses, he didn't raise the dead. He may well have been crucified, but once he was dead he stayed dead. He was just a man with, perhaps, a gift for public speaking.

 

[PratchettFan]

[

Tacitus was not an idiot. He was hostile to emporers when the current emporer was hostile to them. He was never hostile to the current emporer.

You are losing me on your logic. You seem to be saying that Tacitus was modified later on so the Chrisitians did not exist because they weren't blamed for the burning? I am sure there were a lot of groups, even cults, which weren't blamed either.

You'd have to understand logic in order to lose it.

Okay two possibilities.

1) Christianity was this very big deal in the reign of Nero. So big that they got the blame for the Fire of Rome and there were enough of them IN Rome so that they made a convienent scapegoat.

2) Christianity didn't even exist for another century, which is why so few historians and writers of the first or second mention them at all. And when they do, it's only in the second century, and you aren't entirely sure who they are talking about-

Again, I go back to Hadrian thinking worshippers of Serapis were "Christians".

Now, if #1 was true, then Christians would have been the fricking Al Qaeda of the First Century. Everyone would have had an opinion on them. Yet few Pagan or Jewish writers mention them or mention Jesus at all until the late 2nd century.

Now, #2- where Christianity evolved later and shoe-horned itself into history- yeah, that kind of makes more sense, especially when you see how out of place the passages in the few writers who do talk about them seem, and realize that these only come down to us through Christian sources.

There are three possibilities. You are ignoring the third and it is by far the most likely. Christianity was this tiny little cult which was only being noticed at the local level. It caught on, spread and was later shoe horned in. It didn't just spring up overnight with thousands of followers spread over a large area.

 

[JoeB131]

[
There have always been cults as long as there have been people. Let's deal with the cults surrounding this particular person. They began around the same time and were centralized (after a good deal of blood) into the Catholic Church. Which later diverged back into yet more cults. People are always going to act like people no matter how hard you try.

But we keep coming back to the beginning. This is not about religion. It is not about God. I think that is why we keep hitting this wall. This is about how people behave. How do I know Jospeh Smith existed, because there are Mormons. How do I know Martin Luther existed? Because there are Protestants. Organizations such as these quickly take on a life of their own and the people they are based upon become larger than life. That is human behavior. You expect it to occur, like Washington and the Cherry tree. What you don't see happening are these things just popping into existence of their own accord. Something is always the initiator.

Except there is documentation in real time that Joseph Smith and Martin Luther really existed. (and Geo Washington, for that matter.) In short, people who lived at the same time as they did wrote about them and in some cases drew pictures of them. We even know where their bodies are buried. (Pissing on Smith's grave is on my bucket list!)

In the case of Jesus, we don't have any documented writing of him until decades later, and even then, the people writing about him contradict, plagarize and embellish the story to the point where you can't believe any of it.

 

[PratchettFan]

[
There have always been cults as long as there have been people. Let's deal with the cults surrounding this particular person. They began around the same time and were centralized (after a good deal of blood) into the Catholic Church. Which later diverged back into yet more cults. People are always going to act like people no matter how hard you try.

But we keep coming back to the beginning. This is not about religion. It is not about God. I think that is why we keep hitting this wall. This is about how people behave. How do I know Jospeh Smith existed, because there are Mormons. How do I know Martin Luther existed? Because there are Protestants. Organizations such as these quickly take on a life of their own and the people they are based upon become larger than life. That is human behavior. You expect it to occur, like Washington and the Cherry tree. What you don't see happening are these things just popping into existence of their own accord. Something is always the initiator.

Except there is documentation in real time that Joseph Smith and Martin Luther really existed. (and Geo Washington, for that matter.) In short, people who lived at the same time as they did wrote about them and in some cases drew pictures of them. We even know where their bodies are buried. (Pissing on Smith's grave is on my bucket list!)

In the case of Jesus, we don't have any documented writing of him until decades later, and even then, the people writing about him contradict, plagarize and embellish the story to the point where you can't believe any of it.

Not really. I think we will just have to disagree on this. I don't find your argument persuasive and you feel the same about mine. It has been a pleasure though to disagree with you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If he was the son of God, I'm sure he was probably very unique in his appearance.

Why would you think that? Kinda defeats the whole purpose if He shows up with a big ol' sign over His head saying, "Messiah".

He didn't come here to fool everyone. He came to give us a choice, he didn't try to hide who he was. I don't know what purpose you're talking about. He was unique in every other way, why wouldn't he be unique in appearance as well, especially being the son of God?

He came the way He did in order to be a person and live a human life, as an example to us. If He was going to wander around glowing with a halo, He might as well have just skipped the whole exercise and shown up in a fiery chariot with hosts of angels singing, and had done with it.

Since He went to the trouble of being born, living, and dying as a regular human does, it's safe to assume He also looked like a regular human.

 

[S.J.]

Why would you think that? Kinda defeats the whole purpose if He shows up with a big ol' sign over His head saying, "Messiah".

He didn't come here to fool everyone. He came to give us a choice, he didn't try to hide who he was. I don't know what purpose you're talking about. He was unique in every other way, why wouldn't he be unique in appearance as well, especially being the son of God?

He came the way He did in order to be a person and live a human life, as an example to us. If He was going to wander around glowing with a halo, He might as well have just skipped the whole exercise and shown up in a fiery chariot with hosts of angels singing, and had done with it.

Since He went to the trouble of being born, living, and dying as a regular human does, it's safe to assume He also looked like a regular human.

Who said anything about a halo?

 

[HUGGY]

Why would you think that? Kinda defeats the whole purpose if He shows up with a big ol' sign over His head saying, "Messiah".

He didn't come here to fool everyone. He came to give us a choice, he didn't try to hide who he was. I don't know what purpose you're talking about. He was unique in every other way, why wouldn't he be unique in appearance as well, especially being the son of God?

He came the way He did in order to be a person and live a human life, as an example to us. If He was going to wander around glowing with a halo, He might as well have just skipped the whole exercise and shown up in a fiery chariot with hosts of angels singing, and had done with it.

Since He went to the trouble of being born, living, and dying as a regular human does, it's safe to assume He also looked like a regular human.

Nonsense. It's too bad Speilberg wasn't around at the time to invent a story that was plausible..yet entertaining.

 

[roger_pearse]

No, the account in Tacitus is pure bullshit inserted by later Christian writers.

Could you prove this, from your own knowledge? Or did you find someone who says this? If so, who?

I can tell you that no classical scholar thinks this. The claim is only made by headbangers, who, one and all, are Christian-haters desperate to rubbish all the data about early Christianity so that they can then make an argument from silence. But, regardless of whether Christianity is true or not, that KIND of argument must be crap. I mean, "debunk all the evidence, and then claim the lack of evidence proves non-existence?" No sane person does history like that.

Again, I point to the passage from Emperor Hadrian where "Christian" was used as a description for worshipers of Sarapis.

You are referring to the letter in the 4th century "Historia Augusta", I think. But I fear you have been reading the headbangers. The passage does not say what they claim. It states that the religious indifference of the Egyptians is so great that Jews and Christians go along to worship Serapis and vice versa. Read it in context. Sorry, but you've been fed a lie here.

Now, if the Christians REALLY had been blamed for the Roman fire, Hadrien would have known damned well who they were.

Since his predecessor Trajan issued a rescript dealing with how they should be prosecuted and punished, which is preserved in book 10 of Pliny the Younger's letters, there can be little doubt that Hadrian did know.

How's this for a more likely explaination

Rather than inventing "explanations", wouldn't it be better to look at the data, see what it says, and state whatever that happens to be? It is very telling that the people you are reading are desperate to evade all the data, to manufacture a silence. Isn't it?

- there were probably a lot of cults back then that called themselves "Christian"

Such a claim needs to be evidenced.

Until Constantine made it the official state religion in 303,

Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. That was Theodosius I, in the 390's A.D. He did make Christianity legal, with the edict of Milan in 313, and was himself a Christian. But the empire remained legally pagan in his day, and most of its inhabitants were pagans.

So they purged out all other religions, they purged any accounts of Jesus that didn't agree with the official one, and then they purged out Arianism and Monophysitism and all the other different interpretations.

This is a very confused set of ideas, which seems to project back the Spanish Inquisition into the 4th century. The early church certainly rejected groups who attempted to hijack its teaching; for every ideological movement must define both what it is, and what it is not. To call this a "purge", in the age of the Gestapo and KGB, is anachronistic and rather loaded; the early church did not possess policemen!

Until they finally boiled it down to four Gospels that don't contradict each other too much if no one actually bothers to read them too closely.

I'm afraid the idea that there were any number of gospels in circulation in the church in the 4th century A.D. is mistaken. The New Testament contains every early Christian text that had any claim to be of apostolic origin. Anything that didn't make it is generally very clearly not.

I started questioning the bullshit of Christianity when I was 11.

An age at which you were, no doubt, supremely qualified to mount an intellectual critique!

Surely the average 11-year old is mainly motivated by his peer group?

And ... anyone may "question" a minority view, as an excuse to adopt and conform to the ideas and mores of the time and place in which one happens to live. Such a process involves abandoning critical thought for conformity, you know. We have to be critical about whatever views we hold; not just adopt some blind conformity to the society we live in (which, by default, is what most of us do).

And frankly, after getting whacked over the knuckles by a nun's ruler too many times, I'm just not buying into any of the bullshit.

Indeed? So the argument is that Christianity is not true because you hated Sister Sadist so baddddd?!?

That, you know, is not a rational argument. Not for or against anything. Think for yourself, lad.

Give me real fuckin' evidence, or your boy's a fake, as far as I'm concerned.

Right back at you, I'm afraid. Give us some evidence for your claims, give us some evidence that the system of life by which you live has anything to be said for it. Until you do, why should anyone listen to you? Why should anyone suppose you are making any valid points? Anyone can throw stones.

It is really important to be critical of things we find convenient. Always google search arguments of the type you repeated (in good faith, no doubt) earlier. It's the only way to avoid being taken in by headbangers.

Christianity did indeed come into being more or less in the way its advocates claim; a charismatic preacher who taught, a secondary leader who organised, the treatment of early texts as definitive, state opposition, gradual increase, and so on. It's how every successful ideological movement starts. They all start with a chap with a beard on a soapbox saying, "Follow me". (The soapbox is optional, but the beard appears to be compulsory, should you feel the urge to go down this career path).

None of which means that it is necessarily true, of course; only that it isn't false for the sort of reasons you've read. The terrible arguments made against it rather suggest that those who say it isn't are desperately afraid that it might be! Maybe going to Sunday School does that to you ... I wouldn't know.

Be sceptical.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Some proof of this daft claim would be interesting to see. The ancient sources claim otherwise.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.

From this we learn that the author of this is entirely ignorant of ancient history, which is not done in this way. The claim is made since to cast doubt, rather than to inform.

In fact most people who ever lived would not pass this test; particularly wandering teachers. Which ancients, I wonder, WOULD pass this contrived "test"?

All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.

Indeed so. Whether it matters is not explained. I believe L. Ron Hubbard would pass this "test of truth", which suggests that it isn't a very good one.

There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus.

Which historians consider this nonsense (a) true and (b) devastating? Is there a single professional ancient historian who questions the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Anywhere?

Note the introduction of the weasel-term "contemporary". This again is designed, not to inform, but to exclude evidence.

Jesus lived in the reign of Tiberius. What, we may ask, are the sources for the reign of that emperor, master of the world as he was? The answer is Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Josephus for events in Judaea. Not one of these wrote before 94 A.D. We do have the (largely useless) history of Velleius Paterculus, which was written in the reign in question. But we can't use it for much.

So ... comparing like with like, why is it rational to demand for one person what does not exist even for emperors?

All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

What a lot of random excuses to ignore data. The four gospels consist of writings, two by people who knew the guy, two by people who worked for people who did. That isn't my opinion, by the way; that is the statement of Tertullian ca. 200 A.D. in Adversus Marcionem book 4. There are no doubt people who have excuses to ignore that data. But I don't have a lot of time for people who ignore data; I expect them to produce evidence for their claims, not try to rubbish the data, and I am invariably disappointed. People who knew Jesus were still alive in 100; people who knew them were still around in 155 A.D. The mass of early Christian literature gives us information; scattered testimonies over the first two centuries of the Christian era confirm that this was all going on. What data is against? None.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Note the attempt to define evidence out of court; a sure sign of polemic.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

QED; "I define all ancient literature as hearsay, and so I can ignore it". This fellow was utterly ignorant that, by the same standard, almost all our information about antiquity would vanish.

Source: nobeliefs.com/exist.htm/Did Jesus exist?
[/quote]

Nobody questions that Jesus existed. Those who do are all cranks.

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

Curious; there is a great long list of evidence. What the author means is that there is no evidence which he can't find some excuse to ignore. That, of course, is a very different question! And ... why can't he find any evidence that actually shows that Jesus did not exist? Any archaeologist could tell you that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ... yet this muppet believes that he can prove his case if only he can rubbish all the data somehow.

As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: truthbeknown.com/pliny/Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus)

Good to see the dim-witted Acharya S being deployed. Love the "Justice of Tiberias"...

The name of that author was Justus of Tiberias. He was a contemporary of Josephus, not Jesus which means -- if we accepted the daft claims of this author -- that neither side could use him as evidence. But of course the claims above are only meant to apply to *inconvenient* evidence -- not to useful stuff to debunk Christianity! Oh no.

Justus' history is lost. A short summary of it is preserved in the Bibliotheca of Photius, who wrote in the 9th century. Nice, contemporary stuff, eh? Real historians aren't worried; but ... isn't this hearsay? <grin> Anyway, Photius says that Justus is (a) short, (b) largely fictional and (c) being Jewish, doesn't mention Jesus. And that's it.

"Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al. " ... oh dear. So unless all these authors mention Jesus, he doesn't exist? Philo doesn't mention him. In which of his books, mainly devoted to philosophy, are we certain, positive, utterly, screamingly certain, that absence proves non-existence? Josephus ... erm, the last time I looked he mentioned Jesus twice. Oh, but there are EXCUSES to ignore these, right? Seneca ... erm, again, in which work MUST, MUST L. Annaeus Seneca, a noble Roman, talk about this obscure Jew? Petronius ... you know, Jesus gets mentioned in very little porn. Even today. Pliny the Elder ... erm, in his "Natural History"?

This is rubbish argumentation. The authors of it were desperately ignorant people who never read a line of Philo, never pondered on the moral letters of Seneca, never looked outside of Josephus Antiquities 18, wouldn't have been welcome at the dinner of Trimalchio, and never browsed the Historia Naturalis or read Pliny the Younger's letters describing his uncles works and days.

Christianity may not be true. But it won't be shown to be false by ignorant obscurantism like this! Any educated atheist would be ashamed of it.

Think for yourselves. Question every belief you live by, every idea you find convenient. Ask just why it must be so; ask why the opposite is not so; ask what the evidence is for things we find uncontroversial, rather than what evidence can be ignored.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not sure how much bandwith I want to waste on a sock puppet...

No, the account in Tacitus is pure bullshit inserted by later Christian writers.

Could you prove this, from your own knowledge? Or did you find someone who says this? If so, who?

If you aren't going to pay attention to the whole thread, where I did exactly that, I'm not wasting time with you.

I can tell you that no classical scholar thinks this. The claim is only made by headbangers, who, one and all, are Christian-haters desperate to rubbish all the data about early Christianity so that they can then make an argument from silence. But, regardless of whether Christianity is true or not, that KIND of argument must be crap. I mean, "debunk all the evidence, and then claim the lack of evidence proves non-existence?" No sane person does history like that.

You are referring to the letter in the 4th century "Historia Augusta", I think. But I fear you have been reading the headbangers. The passage does not say what they claim. It states that the religious indifference of the Egyptians is so great that Jews and Christians go along to worship Serapis and vice versa. Read it in context. Sorry, but you've been fed a lie here.

No, that's not the context at all. The context was that worshippers of Sarapis were calling themselves Christians, which would indicate that the term was a lot more broadly used.

Since his predecessor Trajan issued a rescript dealing with how they should be prosecuted and punished, which is preserved in book 10 of Pliny the Younger's letters, there can be little doubt that Hadrian did know.

Except Trajan never makes a mention of the fire, and actually tells Pliny to only bother the Christians who make a lot of noise.

Rather than inventing "explanations", wouldn't it be better to look at the data, see what it says, and state whatever that happens to be? It is very telling that the people you are reading are desperate to evade all the data, to manufacture a silence. Isn't it?

No, I've looked at the data.. and frankly, what it tells me is the Christians spent a lot of time creating a backstory for their God-man.

Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion. That was Theodosius I, in the 390's A.D. He did make Christianity legal, with the edict of Milan in 313, and was himself a Christian. But the empire remained legally pagan in his day, and most of its inhabitants were pagans.

Actually, Constantine did a lot more than that. His goal overall was to make it a state religion to justify a true monarchy, as opposed to previous Emperors who were operating under they mythology that Rome was still a Republic ruled by a Senate.

This is a very confused set of ideas, which seems to project back the Spanish Inquisition into the 4th century. The early church certainly rejected groups who attempted to hijack its teaching; for every ideological movement must define both what it is, and what it is not. To call this a "purge", in the age of the Gestapo and KGB, is anachronistic and rather loaded; the early church did not possess policemen!

So, um, why aren't there any Arians or Monophysites today? It strikes me as odd that the Romans were unable to stamp out Christianity, but the Catholics were able to stamp out all these "heresies".... Oh, must have been the will of God or some shit.

I'm afraid the idea that there were any number of gospels in circulation in the church in the 4th century A.D. is mistaken. The New Testament contains every early Christian text that had any claim to be of apostolic origin. Anything that didn't make it is generally very clearly not.

That's sophistry. There were dozens of Gospels in circulation. The Church just piked the ones that told the story they wanted to tell.