Skip to main content

Originally Posted by willie:

i would think, if the son of god, walked the earth preforming miracles and raising the dead... there would be TONS of stuff written about it... even if it was from the oral tales passed through the generations... but, you only see one book... and it's riddled with inconsistency!  so, let's say i have my doubts about the whole religious process.

 

There are actually several works written by different authors. They just happened to be compiled into one book.

Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by NashBama:
Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Nash,

 

Tacitus journalized Christians, not Christ.  Many ancient Greeks journalized Zeusians, that does not make Zeus real.

 

DF

Actually, Tacitus was speaking about Nero torturing and executing Christians. Tacitus was explaining their "superstition" and it's origin, blaming Pilate for executing Christ which led to the beginning of Christianity. Since Tacitus was a historian, it provides an excellent non-Biblical confirmation that like Pilate and Nero, Jesus did in fact exist as a real person.

Even if what you said is true, you only have evidence of the existence of a crazy person, no likely to be the "son of god".

______________

 

What I said is true. Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself. That's why I posted it.

 

The point of the conversation isn't about whether or not Jesus' claims are true. It's whether or not He existed at all.

 

Like you said, it's not evidence of Jesus' divinity. You admited it yourself, it's simply evidence of the existence of Jesus. So now you have the evidence you asked for.

 

As for Jesus' divinity, since we've already established that He actually existed, that leaves us with three options. He was either a liar, a lunatic, or he was telling the truth.

 

That's a discussion for another time. 

 

Originally Posted by NashBama:
Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Nash,

 

Tacitus journalized Christians, not Christ.  Many ancient Greeks journalized Zeusians, that does not make Zeus real.

 

DF

Actually, Tacitus was speaking about Nero torturing and executing Christians. Tacitus was explaining their "superstition" and it's origin, blaming Pilate for executing Christ which led to the beginning of Christianity. Since Tacitus was a historian, it provides an excellent non-Biblical confirmation that like Pilate and Nero, Jesus did in fact exist as a real person.

Absolutely absurd.  Ancient historians recounted the origins of Zeus.  This, once again, does not make Zeus real.  Tacitus wrote decades after Jesus, and simply described the mythology around him. 

L. Ron Hubbard has been dead for decades, and contemporary historians will recount Scientologists and their ridiculous notions about the origin of their foolish religion.

The fact is, that not one journalist contemporary of Jesus wrote of this allegedly remarkable man, and there were many journalists.  There were also many saviors, prophets, godmen, and sons of god at the time.  It was practically a cottage industry, somewhat like megachurch preachers in Texas.


The fact is that Christianity is a spinoff of Judaism in which blood sacrifice was meaningful.  It is a cult of a particular human sacrifice that alleges to cleanse believers of an absurd Original Sin.  It is a mythology of magic and mysticism and cannibalism, nothing more.  It is a cruel and mean and vicious superstition that relies on the frailties of the human psyche, and manipulates those psyches to the advantage of a dishonest priest class who would be better employed at any factory or farm.


DF

There is a big difference between an ancient writer telling about Zeus and an ancient historian that is used as a source for information by modern day scholars.

 

In that one passage, Tacitus mentions Nero. We know that Nero existed

 

He also mentions the great fire of Rome. We know that really happened.

 

He writes about Nero torturing and executing Christians. That is an historical fact.

 

He includes Pilate and says he is a Roman procurator. We know that Pilate was indeed a proctor of Judea.

 

So at this point, you really believe that Tacitus suddenly bypasses fact and pulls a fairy tale out of his butt and inserts it right in the middle of all this?

 

That's not logical or rational.

 

Tacitus doesn't describe any mythology around Jesus. He simply says that Nero killed a bunch of people who believe some guy that Pilate had executed was divine. He gives that guy's name.

 

There is no reason to believe this person executed by Pilate never really existed. It would be irrational to do so given the evidence.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

No, you didn't establish he actually existed. You just kept repeating "uh huh". You have no more evidence for jesus than we do for zeus.

______________

 

I posted the most famous example from Tacitus. Did I not?

 

When I posted that, did you read it?

 

So let's try a different one.

 

Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who wrote "The Antiquities of the Jews" among other works. He very clearly mentions Jesus' existence. Again, it's significant because it's not a religious work and it wasn't written by a Christian.


http://www.josephus.org/


The passage can be found on this website. I'll let you poke around and find it.

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)

In addition to the palpably bogus passage in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus called the "Testimonium Flavianum" is another of the pitiful "references" dutifully trotted out by apologists to prove the existence of Jesus Christ: To wit, a short passage in the works of the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. While proconsul of Bithynia, a province in the northwest of Asia Minor, Pliny purportedly wrote a letter in 110 CE to the Emperor Trajan requesting his assistance in determining the proper punishment for "Christiani" who were causing trouble and would not renounce "Christo" as their god or bow down to the image of the Emperor. These recalcitrant Christiani, according to the Pliny letter, met "together before daylight" and sang "hymns with responses to Christ as a god," binding themselves "by a solemn institution, not to any wrong act." Regarding this letter, Rev. Robert Taylor remarks:

If this letter be genuine, these nocturnal meetings were what no prudent government could allow; they fully justify the charges of Caecilius in Minutius Felix, of Celsus in Origen, and of Lucian, that the primitive Christians were a skulking, light-shunning, secret, mystical, freemasonry sort of confederation, against the general welfare and peace of society.

Serapis the ChrestosTaylor also comments that, at the time this letter was purportedly written, "Christians" were considered to be followers of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis and that "the name of Christ [was] common to the whole rabblement of gods, kings, and priests." Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated:

"The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money."

It is thus possible that the "Christos" or "Anointed" god Pliny's "Christiani" were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE. In any case, this god "Christos" was not a man who had been crucified in Judea.

Moreover, like his earlier incarnation Osiris, Serapis—both popular gods in the Roman Empire—was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Indeed, Osiris was styled "Chrestos," centuries before his Jewish copycat Jesus was ever conceived....

In any event, the value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed. As Taylor remarks, "We have the name of Christ, and nothing else but the name, where the name of Apollo or Bacchus would have filled up the sense quite as well." Taylor then casts doubt on the authenticity of the letter as a whole, recounting the work of German critics, who "have maintained that this celebrated letter is another instance to be added to the long list of Christian forgeries..." One of these German luminaries, Dr. Semler of Leipsic provided "nine arguments against its authenticity..." He also notes that the Pliny epistle is quite similar to that allegedly written by "Tiberianus, Governor of Syria" to Trajan, which has been universally denounced as a forgery.

Also, like the Testimonium Flavianum, Pliny's letter is not quoted by any early Church father, including Justin Martyr. Tertullian briefly mentions its existence, noting that it refers to terrible persecutions of Christians. However, the actual text used today comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century, Iucundus of Verona, whose composition apparently was based on Tertullian's assertions. Concurring that the Pliny letter is suspicious, Drews terms "doubtful" Tertullian's "supposed reference to it." Drews then names several authorities who likewise doubted its authenticity, "either as a whole or in material points," including Semler, Aub, Havet, Hochart, Bruno Bauer and Edwin Johnson. Citing the work of Hochart specifically, Drews pronounces Pliny's letter "in all probability" a "later Christian forgery." Even if it is genuine, Pliny's letter is useless in determining any "historical" Jesus.

Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian, (c. 56-120 CE)

Publius/Gaius Cornelius TacitusTurning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist ****nal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."

Eusebius of Caesarea, Catholic Church HistorianBased on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author....

In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations."

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."

It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed—to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

Suetonius, Nuremberg ChronicleMoving through the standard list of defenses, we come to the Roman historian Suetonius. The passage in Suetonius's Life of Claudius, dating to around 110 CE, states that the emperor Claudius "drove the Jews out of Rome, who at the suggestion of Chrestus were constantly rioting." The passage in Latin is as follows:

Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.

We see that the reference is to "Chresto," not "Christo." In any case, Claudius reigned from 41-54, while Christ was purported to have been crucified around 30, so the great Jewish sage could not have been in Rome personally at that time. Even such an eager believer and mesmerized apologist as Shirley Jackson Case must admit that Christ himself couldn't have been at Rome then, that the "natural meaning" of the remark is that "a disturbance was caused by a Jew named Chrestus" living in Rome at the time, and that Suetonius's "references to Christianity itself are very obscure."

It is possible that these diasporic Jews—a mixture of Hebrew, Jewish, Samaritan and Pagan descent—revered their god under the epithet of "Chresto." Or, as Eisenman suggests, the incident may record Jews agitating over the appointment of Herod Agrippa I as king of Judea by his friend Claudius in 41 CE. In this regard, Agrippa I is called "chrestos" by Josephus.

In his Life of Nero, Suetonius refers to "Christiani," whom he calls "a race of men of a new and villainous, wicked or magical superstition," who "were visited with punishment." This passage, although establishing that there were people called "Christiani" who were a fairly recent cult in

 

Suetonius's time, obviously does not serve as evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed.

Regarding these "references," if they were genuine they would no more prove the existence of Jesus Christ than do writings about other gods prove their existence. In other words, by this same argument we could provide many "references" from ancient writers that the numerous Pagan gods also existed as "real people." In this case, Jesus would be merely a johnny-come-lately in a long line of "historical" godmen.

 

 

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."

 

 

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius:
No Proof of Jesus

by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S

Excerpted from:

Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

As I said nash, for every site you have claiming there is absolute proof he existed there are equally as many refuting it. If you believe he existed why do you care if anyone else does or not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 You atheists get more absurd by the day. "Ever learning, but never able to come to the knowlege of the truth"

 

 just goes to show how that sin makes you stupid.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

As I said nash, for every site you have claiming there is absolute proof he existed there are equally as many refuting it. If you believe he existed why do you care if anyone else does or not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 You atheists get more absurd by the day. "Ever learning, but never able to come to the knowlege of the truth"

 

 just goes to show how that sin makes you stupid.

------------------------

If sinning makes one stupid then you've obviously sinned enough for a hundred people.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

As I said nash, for every site you have claiming there is absolute proof he existed there are equally as many refuting it. If you believe he existed why do you care if anyone else does or not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 You atheists get more absurd by the day. "Ever learning, but never able to come to the knowlege of the truth"

 

 just goes to show how that sin makes you stupid.

No. Religion makes you stupid.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

As I said nash, for every site you have claiming there is absolute proof he existed there are equally as many refuting it. If you believe he existed why do you care if anyone else does or not?

 

You quoted Murdock and Acharya S. Zero credibility.

 

Just because some crack pot says something isn't true, doesn't mean they are right.

 

History is history and fact is fact. NASA really did land on the moon. JFK was not killed by the mafia or Communists. 9/11 was not an inside job. Jesus is not another version of Horus.

 

I personally don't care what you believe. My goal is to prove that those who choose to believe Jesus never existed do so in spite of the evidence, not because of evidence.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

I "quoted" no one. I showed you that for every site you have claiming jesus existed there is a site with facts showing he didn't. You can find them as easily as I do. Now again, if you believe it, why bother others about it? Why do you care? 

____________

 

Best, you posted an entire article written by Murdock and Acharya S.

 

Remember this?

 

"Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius:
No Proof of Jesus

by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S

Excerpted from:"

 

That's from your post, not mine.

 

There are also sites that claim the moon landing in 1969 was staged on a Hollywood set and never happened. Do you believe that as well?

 

As for bothering others about this issue, keep in mind that I didn't start this post.

 

If someone tells a lie and others believe that lie, would you not want to at least give them an opportunity to see the truth?

 

The claim that Jesus never existed and is a recycled Horus/Mythra/Whatever is a lie. It easily falls apart when exposed.

 

Why does that bother you?

Nash, That's posting a site, as I said, to show you that for every one you post claiming absolute "facts" he existed, there is one using facts to say he didn't. And it doesn't "bother me". Try to remember how this started, I posted, "I CAN SEE HOW ONE LED TO THE OTHER". That's it, that's what I posted. You were the one that it "bothered" so much that you had to start this whole long back and forth thing determined to prove to me, who couldn't care less, that jesus existed. 

Post Master
 
December 8, 2011 3:22 PM
  Delete Edit
 

So to say that Jesus never existed and to believe the Horus comparison is to disregard a lot of facts and evidence.

 

So why disregard all of that before considering it?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Horus myth/jesus myth-both myths. No reason to believe either one, but I can see how one led to the other.

No one is forcing you to reply. This doesn't bother me in the least, I think it's interesting.

 

So you're saying that because there are two sides of an issue, you can pick which one you want to be true?

 

You could probably find a site claiming the moon is made of green cheese. Would that mean it is true?

 

Truth is not relative. Either something is true or it's not, regardless of how one may feel about it.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Now from that nash, you proceeded to tell me that it meant I believed horus existed. It was plain and simple that was not what I meant or posted, but you couldn't let it go. So why would I be "bothered" nash? 

____________

 

I never said you believe Horus existed. I said you believe Jesus never existed and that He is a recycled myth.

 

Am I wrong?

So you're saying that because there are two sides of an issue, you can pick which one you want to be true?



How about this nash. Go back and read all the posts. All this has been answered. I said that I read all the stuff, I come to the conclusions I do based on which has the most convincing argument. It has nothing to do with wanting anything to be true. I ask you once why you think I would care if jesus existed or not. You didn't answer that. I ask you that because I said to you that there were people that held the opinion that he lived, but was just an ordinary man. No son of god, no special or supernatural powers. IF I thought he had existed I'd simply say to you "so what, he was just a man."  Because that is all he would have been. But for some reason it is important to you to say that i don't WANT him to have ever existed. I know I don't have to respond, but it was interesting that when I stopped responding you declared, "As for Jesus' divinity, since we've already established that He actually existed" and I pointed out that you did no such thing. So here we are, you claiming proof FOR jesus with your sites, me showing you, once more, that there are just as many with proof AGAINST jesus.

" I ask you once why you think I would care if jesus existed or not. You didn't answer that."


I don't know the answer to that. Obviously whether or not Jesus existed has some importance to you. Otherwise you wouldn't respond to this thread or any thread about religion.


As I've said before, the sites you found claiming Jesus never existed are using false information.

 

I'll use the example again. There are people who believe NASA never landed on the moon. They have a lot of reasons why they believe this. However, a reasonable person knows that they are wrong because there is overwhelming evidence against them.

 

There are also people who believe our own government was behind 9/11. There are lots of websites, books, and articles written about the great conspiracy behind it. Again, given the evidence we have of the actual events, we know this theory is not true regardless of how much is written about it.

 

It's the same with the recycled Jesus theory. There are several authors who cite each other and claim that Jesus never existed. They have plenty of books, websites, and articles making this claim. Once again, when the evidence is examined logically and rationally, their theory falls apart.

 

It really makes no difference to me why you would chose to believe that Jesus never existed. I simply provided the evidence that proves otherwise.

 

I don't know the answer to that. Obviously whether or not Jesus existed has some importance to you. Otherwise you wouldn't respond to this thread or any thread about religion.


If you don't "know the answer" then you shouldn't be making the claim.

No nash, his non-existance has nothing at all to do with why I post here. That is something else you've been told and choose to ignore. It's the things being done, and things that people want to be done, in his name that keeps atheists posting on these forums. I always wonder why christians think they need a forum to post their opinion, but they don't think anyone else has the rights to post theirs. This is not a "for christians only". As long as you're fighting with another christian about something you're fine, you never ask why they're here. But if you have to go head to head with atheists all of a sudden you get your hackles up. 

You've mixed up everything I've written.

 

Your question was why I thought you cared on whether Jesus existed or not. My answer is I don't know.

 

The truth is that Jesus did in fact exist. We have documented proof of this.

 

I have also shown why the arguments against Jesus actual existence fail.

 

It's a very basic, black or white issue. Either Jesus was a real person or He was not a real person. The evidence we have proves He was.

 

You've been given that evidence to review.

 

You refused. That is your choice. It makes no difference to me.

 

I keep responding simply to clarify my posts. Your responses shows me that either I'm being too confusing or you're misreading. Hard to get a point across through miscommunication .

 

Hopefully, it worked this time.

Originally Posted by lexum:

........

It’s amazing the athiest are left to invent characters of imagination to discredit Jesus.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

boy that's rich.... atheist invent characters of imagination....

like talking snakes and imaginary friends that live in the sky?

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by willie:

nope... too many werewolves for me! 

___________________

Hi willie!

Didn't you know?......I'm a werewolf. I can suck the blood from your body!

-_______________________________

 

semi... you can't give me openings like that.... it's taking all i got... just to let that one go! 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×