It’s funny how there’s another thread where there’s a debate as to whether the social sciences are useless or not. 
No, I do not believe in a God.
I find people are weak and need to believe in a benevolent, all knowing and all powerful being to feel safe.
I don’t feel safe but I refuse to believe in an obvious falsehood.
[quote]Spry wrote:
No, I do not believe in a God.
I find people are weak and need to believe in a benevolent, all knowing and all powerful being to feel safe.
I don’t feel safe but I refuse to believe in an obvious falsehood.[/quote]
The fact that you believe it is a falsehood, shows you do believe in something.
Wow. 8 pages of a combination of logical argument, linguistics, inane bickering, and personal attacks. And all in four days. Nice post, OP.
I believe in God. I believe in organized religion. I admit the past (and curent) transgressions of power-hungry officials in high offices of various religious sects actively transgress against the spirit and law of their faith to get and keep power. I maintain a damn hefty skepticism with regards to the scope and intent even of my own faith.
That said, I believe every religion started out with a prophet of God, and was only subsequently fundamentally changed by power-seeking individuals.
There’s only one religion- the religion of God.
As humanity developes, God sends new messengers to change social teachings and to clarify spiritual concepts (progressive revelation).
Politics is within the scope of religion, as concepts for the equality of men and women, the abolition of slavery, and the appropriate distribution of wealth are and should be religious goals as well as political.
I believe that science and religion can agree.
I believe that it is the responsibility of every individual to search for the truth and take action based upon their results.
And I think many people that doubt the existence of God should be lumped in with religious fundamentalists who nurture prejudice and resentment under the guise of popular sentiment.
Where are your logical minds gone?
I’m all for little churches that keep communities together and help each other without bothering anyone else, etc. But to believe in invisible & imaginary forces controlling the world is just…LOL!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Spry wrote:
No, I do not believe in a God.
I find people are weak and need to believe in a benevolent, all knowing and all powerful being to feel safe.
I don’t feel safe but I refuse to believe in an obvious falsehood.
The fact that you believe it is a falsehood, shows you do believe in something.
[/quote]
Word up!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You don’t pay attention very well. Or maybe you can’t take a hint.
The government allows the charitable organization designation.
Let me be more direct - mind your own fucking business. You don’t pay a fucking thing for my church, or any church in the US.
If you want to change shit up in the tundra - knock yourself out. I really don’t care what you, or your gov’t does.
But either shit or get off the pot. You are like tits on a boar hog.
Is that legible? Let me make it shorter - just in case the bright, flashy lights of the interwebz gets you all confused:
I don’t care what you like or don’t like. Change the shit you don’t like, or shut the hell up. [/quote]
You’re so cute when you realize you’ve lost an argument.
How did the varmint hunt go?
[quote]pookie wrote:
You’re so cute when you realize you’ve lost an argument.
How did the varmint hunt go?
[/quote]
The fact that you irritate me like a pimple on my scrotum does not constitute an argument.
What is a varmint?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The fact that you irritate me like a pimple on my scrotum does not constitute an argument.[/quote]
No, but the fact that you start off by not seeing how churches can pick any pockets and end up, three posts later, claiming you don’t mind them doing so shows that you’ve admitted - unwittingly, most likely - the truth of my initial claim.
Explaining to you what public services are and how taxation and exemption work was all that was required for you to suddenly “see” how churches can and do pick our pockets.
That you enjoy the Holy Pilfering of our Wallets is, like most of your ignorant second-hand opinions, completely irrelevant to the issue.
The smartest life form found in Texas, if you’re anything to go by.
[quote]Spry wrote:
No, I do not believe in a God.
I find people are weak and need to believe in a benevolent, all knowing and all powerful being to feel safe.
I don’t feel safe but I refuse to believe in an obvious falsehood.[/quote]
The following should convince the open minded that a fellow by the name of Jesus Christ walked the earth about 2000 years ago. You can deny that he was God if you want, no one can prove the existence of God. But to deny Christs existence is foolhardy.
And once you realize that he existed you have to convince yourself that he was not who he said he was. And that’s mighty hard to do based upon the facts.
Also, how many men would go to their deaths for anyone? But it seems that those who knew Chris the best died some pretty horrific deaths.
Did they do this for a liar, or a lunatic?
Think again my friend!
I did not gather this information it was actually posted previously:
"Historical writers mentioning Jesus:
Following is a list of extra biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available.
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, “And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth.”
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/...s/annals.mb.txt
Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”
The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been.
Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante?Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
The Talmud
“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”
Gal. 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”
Luke 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.”
This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day?the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11?13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.
The historical Jesus is debated by very, very few. You can find people that still believe the world is flat so just because you can find a few in a google search doesn�??t mean that they hold much credit, regardless the above listing should answer your question.
as far as atheistic leaders causing harm are you debating this? Hitler was an athiest and believed in a naturalistic worldview and based his supieror race theory on this. This is a moot point and the whole point was that bad things have been done by people claiming to be religious or non-religous and doesnt prove anything. I think its safe to say that Hitler, Musilini, Saddam, Stalin etc didnt hold to Jesus’ teachings or hold to a christian world view. Before Hitlers relations to the catholic church are mentioned, I will say this was soley a political move on hitlers part and not based on his true faith in the church. "
[quote]rsg wrote:
Where are your logical minds gone?
I’m all for little churches that keep communities together and help each other without bothering anyone else, etc. But to believe in invisible & imaginary forces controlling the world is just…LOL![/quote]
What logical errors have theists committed? The laws of logic are as follows:
- The law of identity
- The law of non-contradiction
- The law of the excluded middle
The fact that such abstract, universal laws exist to make knowledge even possible should give atheists pause.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
(Very dated and quite obsolete “information”)
[/quote]
[i]
Do Any First Century Historians Mention the Jesus of Christianity?
Kenneth Harding
2002
Lately, much effort has been expended by the more educated
Christians in trying to establish that first century historians
mention Christ in their writings. This is really nothing new, but a
reincarnation of earlier attempts.
Firstly, I should mention that I consider that it is a possibility
that a man named Jesus really did live in that part of the world, at
that time. If he did, I think he was a political radical, a religious
reformer, and a teacher of morals (much like Ghandi), and I think his
followers built up a religion around him, turning him into a god.
But I will also state that it is a possibility that he never lived
at all, and was a construction of those who would create a new
religion. I do not know-- and I don’t think anyone else does either.
That being said, let us look into the possibility that first
century historians wrote about him. If this is true, that would lend
weight to the claim that he really walked the earth. But some caution
needs to be exercised here. If there was positive proof that
historians wrote about him, then that might substantiate his
existence, but not his divinity. All it might do is indicate that a
man of that name once lived. It might even mean less than that. It
might show only what Christ’s followers said about their leader, and
may mean nothing in regards to the man himself.
What is a good source? A contemporary historian-- that is to say,
an historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ is
said to have lived. Any historian living or writing after that time
could not have seen the events with his own eyes-- possibly could not
have even known any witnesses personally. Any historian writing
decades or centuries after the events could only write of those things
which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing
hearsay… secondhand accounts of what Christ’s followers said about
him. Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. The
followers of any cult leader certainly would exaggerate the character
of the man they follow. As you shall see, whatever the authenticity of
the documents turns out to be, none of the historians in question were
contemporaries of Christ.
Here is something to keep in mind as you read this article. Ask
yourself this question. Could historic passages have been forged?
Could the volumes of the historians have been tampered with? The
answer is: yes they could have. Where were these historic volumes
stored? In the local public library? In individuals’ private homes?
No. They were in the posession of the Church, who studied from them
and made copies of them. In what form did these writings take? On a
typeset page, bound like a modern book? No. The printing press was not
invented for a further 1300 years. The fact that the Church could
write means that the forgeries could have been made. The Church had
the opportunity, the means, and the motive to forge historical
documents.
This simple truth is widely admitted by Christian scholars. One
case in point is our first example: Josephus Flavius, a famous
historian. There are two alleged mentions of Jesus in his histories.
The first of them, the more extensive and more famous one, is no
longer quoted by Christian scholars. That is because they know it is a
blatant Christian forgery. The second passage is still in use.
"Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, was a native of Judea.
He was born in 37 A. D., and was a contemporary of the Apostles. He
was, for a time, Governor of Galilee, the province in which Christ
lived and taught. He traversed every part of this province and visited
the places where but a generation before Christ had performed his
prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said
to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage
of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there
during the first seventy years of the Christian era. But Christ was of
too little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from
this historian’s pen." (Remsberg, Ibid.)
But first things first. Josephus was not a contemporary historian.
He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus’ alleged
death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from is own
personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the activities of
the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified
leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is not a credible
source.
The first "Jesus Passage" is discussed below. The paragraph on
Jesus was added to Josephus’s work at the beginning of the 4th
century, during Constantine’s reign, probably by or under the order of
Bishop Eusebius, who was known for saying that it was permissible for
Christians to lie in order to further the Kingdom of God. This
behavior is justified directly in the New Testament, where Paul writes
in the 3rd Chapter of Romans: “For if the truth of God hath more
abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a
sinner?”
Josephus
John E. Remsberg, The Christ
Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work, "The
Antiquities of the Jews," giving a history of his race from the
earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work
contain the following passage:
“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful
to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of
such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both
many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and
when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not
forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the
divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful
things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him,
are not extinct at this day” (Book IXVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).
For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this
passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but
to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was
never penned.
Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a
Christian writer. “If it be lawful to call him a man.” “He was the
Christ.” “He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine
prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things
concerning, him.” These are the words of a Christian, a believer in
the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the
Jewish faith-- the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity
of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized,
and Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance
(360 A. D.) offers the following explanation, which only a theologian
could frame:
"If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their
own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said
this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was
his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer
as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver
historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive,
while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart,
and his perfidious intention."
Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is
voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are
devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty
chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable
being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets
foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any
earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines.
It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing
it gives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by
Pilate with great slaughter. The account ends as follows: “There were
a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran
away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.” Section 4, as
now numbered, begins with these words: “About the same time also
another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” The one section
naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two
closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed;
thus making the words, “another sad calamity,” refer to the advent of
this wise and wonderful being.
The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin
Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have
quoted this passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even
one of these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt
upon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves
conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during
the second and third centuries.
As this passage first appeared in the writings of the
ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, as this author openly advocated
the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the
church, as he is known to have mutilated and perverted the text of
Josephus in other instances, and as the manner of its presentation is
calculated to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been charged
to him. In his “Evangelical Demonstration,” written early in the
fourth century, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity,
he thus introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the attestations I
have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient.
However, it may not be amiss. if, over and above, we make use of
Josephus the Jew for a further witness” (Book III, p. 124).
Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a
reader of Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the
fourth century, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence,
but was too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision
of Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius,
ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention of
Christ.
Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a
forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity,
adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:
"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to
Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before
Eusebius. Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the
name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above
mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother. It
interrupts the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not
quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could
not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not
quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.
Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly
states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the
least notice of Christ. Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the
Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient
authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.
But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work,
Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the
Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ" (Answer to Dr. Chandler).
Again Dr. Lardner says: "This passage is not quoted nor referred
to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the
beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in in the
works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in
their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by
Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen,
men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus.
It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might
also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so
favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after
our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his
own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus,
would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist"
(Lardner’s Works, vol.I, chap. iv).
Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: "If a Jew owned the
truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore,
certainly ,conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much
a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge
Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a
rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works,
Vol. I, chap. iv).
The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:
“Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the
style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage
as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by
some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as
Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ,
their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his
discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns,
or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the
Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was
a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his
countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the
Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian
himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a
Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion,
and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting
most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine,
we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would
have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen
or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical
historian (I, ii), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the
judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow
our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine”
(Christian Records, p. 30).
The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his "Lost and Hostile Gospels," says:
“This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two
places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but
it was unknown to Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) Clement of Alexandria (A.
D. 192), Tertullian (A. D. 193) and Origen (A. D. 230). Such a
testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology
or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the
copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more
significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a
Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not
have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew,
had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly
affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).”
Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent
regarding Christ. He says: “The entire silence of Josephus upon the
subject of Christianity, though he wrote after the destruction of
Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that period in which Christ and
his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance”
(Kneeland’s Review, p. 169).
Canon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ
yet penned, repudiates it. He says: “The single passage in which he
[Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious”
(Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46). The following, from Dr. Farrar’s pen,
is to be found in the “Encyclopedia Britannica”: “That Josephus wrote
the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.” “There
are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the
whole passage is spurious-- one that it was unknown to Origen and the
earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is
uncertain.” (Ibid)
The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: "Flavius Josephus, the
well known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A. D. 37, only
two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of
inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the
times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not
seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his
“Jewish Antiquities” that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was
inserted by a later and a Christian hand." (Bible for Learners, Vol.
III, p. 27) This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the eminent
Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.
Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America's ablest Christian
apologists, says: “Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary
with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation
and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the
rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of this
religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The
present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very
respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the
Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this
passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth
century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted
spurious” (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p.
312).
The Silence of Josephus
J.M. Robertson
When we are considering the possibilities of underlying historical
elements in the gospel story, it may be well to note on the one hand
the entirely negative aspect of the works of Josephus to that story,
and on the other hand the emergence in his writings of personages
bearing the name Jesus. If the defenders of the historicity of the
gospel Jesus would really stand by Josephus as a historian of Jewry in
the first Christian century, they would have to admit that he is the
most destructive of all the witnesses against them. It is not merely
that the famous interpolated passage (19 Antiq. iii, 3) is flagrantly
spurious in every aspect-- in its impossible context; its impossible
language of semi-worship ; its “He was (the) Christ”; its assertion of
the resurrection; and its allusion to “ten thousand other wonderful
things” of which the historian gives no other hint–but that the
flagrant interpolation brings into deadly relief the absence of all
mention of the crucified Jesus and his sect where mention must have
been made by the historian if they had existed. If, to say nothing of
“ten thousand wonderful things,” there was any movement of a Jesus of
Nazareth with twelve disciples in the period of Pilate, how came the
historian to ignore it utterly? If, to say nothing of the resurrection
story, Jesus had been crucified by Pilate, how came it that there is
no hint of such an episode in connection with Josephus’ account of the
Samaritan tumult in the next chapter?
And if a belief in Jesus as a slain and returning Messiah had been
long on foot before the fall of the Temple, how comes it that Josephus
says nothing of it in connection with his full account of the
expectation of a coming Messiah at that point?
By every test of loyal historiography, we are not merely forced to
reject the spurious passage as the most obvious interpolation in all
literature: we are bound to confess that the “Silence of Josephus” as
is insisted by Professor Smith, is an insurmountable negation of the
gospel story. For that silence, no tenable reason can be given, on the
assumption of the general historicity of the gospels and Acts.
Josephus declares himself to be in his fifty-sixth year in the
thirteenth year of Domitian. Then he was born about the year 38. By
his own account (Life, § 2), he began at the age of sixteen to “make
trial of the several sects that were among us” --the Pharisees, the
Sadducees, and the Essenes-- and in particular he spent three years
with a hermit of the desert named Banos, who wore no clothing save
what grew on trees, used none save wild food, and bathed himself daily
and nightly for purity’s sake. Thereafter he returned to Jerusalem,
and conformed to the sect of the Pharisees. In the ANTIQUITIES, after
describing in detail the three sects before named, he gives an account
of a fourth “sect of Jewish philosophy,” founded by Judas the
Galilean, whose adherents in general agree with the Pharisees, but are
specially devoted to liberty and declare God to be their only ruler,
facing torture and death rather than call any man lord. A careful
criticism will recognize a difficulty as to this section. In § 2, as
in the LIFE, “three sects” are specified; and the concluding section
has the air of a late addition.
Seeing, however, that the sect of Judas is stated to have begun to
give trouble in the procuratorship of Gessius Florus, when Josephus
was in his twenties, it is quite intelligible that he should say
nothing of it when naming the sects who existed in his boyhood, and
that he should treat it in a subsidiary way in his fuller account of
them in the ANTIQUITIES.
On what theory, then, are we to explain the total silence of
Josephus as to the existence of the sect of Jesus of Nazareth, if
there be any historical truth in the gospel story? It is of no avail
to suggest that he would ignore it by reason of his Judaic hostility
to Christism. He is hostile to the sect of Judas the Galilean. There
is nothing in all his work to suggest that he would have omitted to
name any noticeable sect with a definite and outstanding doctrine
because he disliked it. He seems much more likely, in that case, to
have described and disparaged or denounced it. And here emerges the
hypothesis that he did disparage or denounce the Christian sect in
some passage which has been deleted by Christian copyists, perhaps in
the very place now filled by the spurious paragraph, where an account
of Jesuism as a calamity to Judaism would have been relevant in the
context. This suggestion is nearly as plausible as that of Chwolson,
who would reckon the existing paragraph a description of a Jewish
calamity, is absurd. And it is the possibility of this hypothesis that
alone averts an absolute verdict of non-historicity against the gospel
story in terms of the silence of Josephus. The biographical school may
take refuge, at this point, in the claim that the Christian forger,
whose passage was clearly unknown to Origen, perhaps eliminated by his
fraud a historic testimony to the historicity of Jesus, and also an
account of the sect of Nazaraeans.
But that is all that can be claimed. The fact remains that in the
LIFE, telling of his youthful scarch for a satisfactory sect, Josephus
says not a word of the existence of that of the crucified Jesus; that
he nowhere breathes a word concerning the twelve apostles, or any of
them, or of Paul; and that there is no hint in any of the Fathers of
even a hostile account of Jesus by him in any of his works, though
Origen makes much of the allusion to James the Just, also dismissible
as an interpolation, like another to the same effect cited by Origen,
but not now extant. There is therefore a strong negative presumption
to be set against even the forlorn hypothesis that the passage forged
in Josephus by a Christian scribe ousted one which gave a hostile
testimony.
Over a generation ago, Mr. George Solomon of Kingston, Jamaica,
noting the general incompatibility of Josephus with the gospel story
and the unhistorical aspect of the latter, constructed an interesting
theory, 3 of which I have seen no discussion, but which merits notice
here. It may be summarized thus:
1. Banos is probably the historical original of the gospel figure
of John the Baptist.
2. Josephus names and describes two Jesuses, who are blended in
the figure of the gospel Jesus: (a) the Jesus (WARS, VI, v, 3) who
predicts “woe to Jerusalem”; is flogged till his bones show, but never
utters a cry; makes no reply when challenged; returns neither thanks
for kindness nor railing for railing; and is finally killed by a stone
projectile in the siege; and (b) Jesus the Galilean (LIFE §, 12: 27),
son of Sapphias, who opposes Josephus, is associated with Simon and
John, and has a following of “sailors and poor people,” one of whom
betrays him (9 22), whereupon he is captured by a stratagem, his
immediate followers forsaking him and flying. Before this point,
Josephus has taken seventy of the Galileans with him (5 14) as
hostages, and, making them his friends and companions on his journey,
sets them “to judge causes.” This is the hint for Luke’s story of the
seventy disciples.
3. The “historical Jesus” of the siege, who is “meek” and
venerated as a prophet and martyr, being combined with the “Mosaic
Jesus” of Galilee, a disciple of Judas of Galilee, who resisted the
Roman rule and helped to precipitate the war, the memory of the “sect”
of Judas the Gaulanite or Galilean, who began the anti-Roman trouble,
is also transmuted into a myth of a sect of Jesus of Galilee, who has
fishermen for disciples, is followed by poor Galileans, is betrayed by
one companion and deserted by the rest, and is represented finally as
dying under Pontius Pilate, though at that time there had been no
Jesuic movement.
4. The Christian movement, thus mythically grounded, grows up
after the fall of the Temple. Paul’s “the wrath is come upon them to
the uttermost” (1 Thess. ii, 16) tells of the destruction of the
Temple, as does Hebrews xii, 24-28; xiii, 12-14. This theory of the
construction of the myth out of historical elements in Josephus is
obviously speculative in a high degree; and as the construction fails
to account for either the central rite or the central myth of the
crucifixion it must be pronounced inadequate to the data. On the other
hand, the author develops the negative case from the silence of
Josephus as to the gospel Jesus with an irresistible force; and though
none of his solutions is founded-on in the constructive theory now
elaborated, it may be that some of them are partly valid.
The fact that he confuses Jesus the robber captain who was
betrayed, and whose companions deserted him, with Jesus the “Mosaic”
magistrate of Tiberias, who was followed by sailors and poor people,
and was “an innovator beyond everybody else,” does not exclude the
argument that traits of one or the other, or of the Jesus of the
siege, may have entered into the gospel mosaic.
Given the clear and undeniable forgery of this Josephus passage,
no one, including any Christian, can say that the Christian Church
cannot and did not forge historic documents. The fact that Christians
do not generally use this passage is testimony to the fact that the
guilt of the Church has been recognized. Given all this, what reason
do we have for supposing that the second alleged mention of Jesus by
Josephus is any more reliable? And if this first passage has been
“retired”, how long will it take before we see the inevitable demise
of the second?
On the second "mention of Jesus"
Excerpt from The Christ, by John E. Remsburg
"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took
the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper and very insolent;
he was also of the sect of Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging
offenders, above all of the rest of the Jews, as we have already
observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought
he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but
upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and brought
before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name
was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation
against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"
(Josephus, Antiquities, Book XX, chap. ix, sec. I).
This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause,
“who was called Christ,” which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is
generally regarded as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have
quoted reject it. It was originally probably a marginal note. Some
Christian reader of Josephus believing that the James mentioned was
the brother of Jesus made a note of his belief in the manuscript
before him, and this a transcriber afterward incorporated with the
text, a very common practice in that age when purity of text was a
matter of secondary importance.
The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with
Josephus, and who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of
Christ’s existence, do not cite it, while Origen expressly declares
that Josephus has not mentioned Christ, is conclusive proof that it
did not exist until the middle of the third century or later. Those
who affirm the genuineness of this clause argue that the James
mentioned by Josephus was a person of less prominence than the Jesus
mentioned by hiÃ, which would be true of James, the brother of Jesus
Christ. Now some of the most prominent Jews living at this time were
named Jesus. Jesus, the son of Damneus, succeeded Ananus as high
priest that very year; and Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, a little later
succeeded to the same office.
To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother
of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church
which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after
the James of Josephus [see the above quote] was condemned to death by
the Sanhedrim. Whiston himself, the translator of Josephus, referring
to the event narrated by the Jewish historian, admits that James, the
brother of Jesus Christ, “did not die till long afterward.”
The brief "Discourse Concerning Hades", appended to the writings
of Josephus, is universally conceded to be the product of another
writer-- “obviously of Christian origin”-- says the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
On Tacitus
The Christ, by John Remsburg, pp. 39-43
In July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There
is a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of
an incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the
incendiary. Modern editions of the “Annals” of Tacitus contain the
following passage in reference to this:
"Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people
who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians:
These he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus,
who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the
procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked
for awhile, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the
source of this evil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all
quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and
encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed
themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by
them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning
the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were so
contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were
covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by
dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with
combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and
thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on
this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus,
sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a
charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length
those men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment,
began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of
regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one
man." (Annals, Book XV, sec. 4)
This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared
doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:
1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his
arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century,
made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity
that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of
Tacitus furnished no recognition of them. .
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have
used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century,
cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and
Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth
century.
7. At this time but one copy of the “Annals” existed, and this
copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century–600 years after
the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the
insertion of a forgery was easy.
9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily
disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable
than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make
rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear
improbable.
10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus
have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In
the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings
of Quintilian.
11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero
reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like
Tacitus.
12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the
reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius
Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero,
says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no
human lives should be sacrificed, “not even those of condemned
criminals.”
14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself
declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.
Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals"
believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in
the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an
interpolation. Whatever may be said of the remainder of this passage,
this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It
interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related
statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the
narrative.
In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that
Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence, if genuine,
is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That it existed in
the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was
ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, no
intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not write this sentence.
Pliny the Younger
This Roman author, early in the second century, while serving as a
pro-consul under Trajan in Bithynia, is reputed to have written a
letter to his Emperor concerning his treatment of Christians. This
letter contains the following:
"I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought
before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians;
if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening
them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be
executed. . . . . They assured me that their only crime or error was
this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it
was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as
to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath-- not to do anything that
was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor
break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them
when called upon to restore it. . . . . I therefore deemed it the more
necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be
attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But I
found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition."
Notwithstanding an alleged reply to this letter from Trajan, cited
by Tertullian and Eusebius, its genuineness may be well questioned,
and for the following reasons:
I. The Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all, and the Roman
government tolerated and protected every religious belief. Renan says:
“Among the Roman laws, anterior to Constantine, there was not a single
ordinance directed against freedom of thought; in the history of the
Pagan emperors not a single persecution on account of mere doctrines
or creeds” (The Apostles). Gibbon says: “The religious tenets of the
Galileans, or Christians, were never made a subject of punishment, or
even of inquiry.” (Rome, Vol. 2, pg. 215)
2. Trajan was one of the most tolerant and benevolent of Roman
emnerors.
3. Pliny, the reputed author of the letter, is universally
conceded to have been one of the most humane and philanthropic of men.
4. It represents the distant province of Bithynia as containing,
at this time, a large Christian population, which is improbable.
5. It assumes that the Emperor Trajan was little acquainted with
Christian beliefs and customs, which cannot be harmonized with the
supposed historical fact that the most powerful of primitive churches
flourished in Trajan’s capital and had existed for fifty years.
6. Pliny represents the Christians as declaring that they were in
the habit of meeting and singing hymns “to Christ as to a god.” The
early Christians did not recognize Christ as a god, and it was not
until after the time of Pliny that he yeas worshiped as such.
7. “I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I
asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with
punishment; if they persevered I ordered them to be executed.” That
this wise and good man rewarded lying with liberty and truthfulness
with death is difficult to believe.
8. “I therefore deemed it more necessary to inquire of two servant
maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to
apply the torture.” Never have the person and character of woman been
held more sacred than they were in Pagan Rome. That one of the noblest
of Romans should have put to torture young women guiltless of crime is
incredible.
9. The declaration of the Christians that they took a solemn
obligation “not to do anything that was wicked; that they would commit
no
theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word,” etc., looks
like an ingenious attempt to parade the virtues of primitive
Christians.
10. This letter, it is claimed, is to be found in but one ancient
copy of Pliny.
11. It was first quoted by Tertullian, and the age immediately
preceding Tertullian was notorious for Christian forgeries.
Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny-- these are the disinterested witnesses
adduced by the church to prove the historical existence of Jesus
Christ; the one writing nearly one hundred years, the others one
hundred and ten years after his alleged birth; the testimony of two of
them self-evident forgeries, and that of the third a probable forgery.
But even if the doubtful and hostile letter of Pliny be genuine,
it was not written until the second century, so that there is not to
be found in all the records of profane history prior to the second
century a single allusion to the reputed founder of Christianity.
To these witnesses is sometimes, though rarely, added a fourth,
Suetonius, a Roman historian who, like Tacitus and Pliny, wrote in the
second century. In his “Life of Nero,” Suetonius says: “The
Christians, a race of men of a new and villainous superstition, were
punished.” In his “Life of Claudius,” he says : “He [Claudius] drove
the Jews, who at the instigation of Chrestus were constantly rioting,
out of Rome.” Of course no candid Christian will contend that Christ
was inciting Jewish riots at Rome fifteen years after he was crucified
at Jerusalem.
Significant is the silence of the forty Jewish and Pagan writers
named in this chapter. This silence alone disproves Christ’s
existence. Had this wonderful being really existed the earth would
have resounded with his fame. His mighty deeds would have engrossed
every historian’s pen. The pages of other writers would have abounded
with references to him. Think of going through the literature of the
nineteenth century and searching in vain for the name of Napoleon
Bonaparte! Yet Napoleon was a pigmy and his deeds trifles compared
with this Christ and the deeds he is said to have performed.
With withering irony Gibbon notes this ominous silence: "But how
shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic
world, to those evidences which were represented by the hand of
Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age
of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine
which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame
walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised,
demons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended
for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned
aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations
of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the
moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of
Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the
Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours.
Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder,
the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in
an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of
Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate
effects, or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of
these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded. all the great
phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which
his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other
have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal
eye has been witness since the creation of the globe" (Rome, Vol. I,
pp. 588-590).
Even conceding, for the sake of argument, both the authenticity
and the credibility of these passages attributed to the Roman
historians, what do they prove ? Do they prove that Christ was
divine-that he was a supernatural being, as claimed? No more than do
the writings of Paine and Voltaire, which also contain his name. This
evidence is favorable, not to the adherents, but to the opponents, of
Christianity. If these passages be genuine, and their authors have
penned historical truths, it simply confirms what most Rationalists
admit, that a religious sect called Christians, who recognized Christ
as their founder, existed as early as the first century; and confirms
what some have charged, but what the church is loath to admit, that
primitive Christians, who have been declared the highest exemplars of
human virtue, were the most depraved of villains.
[It is a] proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and
not a historical character in the silence of the writers who lived
during and immediately following the time he is said to have existed.
The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the
time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have
lived and performed his wonderful works:
Josephus, Arrian, Philo- Judaeus, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus,
Pliny the Elder, Paterculus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius,
Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus,
Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy,
Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon
Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus
Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio
Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.
Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list
remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan
literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish
author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there
is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.
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 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 marvelous events which must have filled the world
with amazement, had they really occurred, were 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 was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee.
He wrote a history covering the time of Christ’s reputed existence.
This work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of
the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: “He [Justus]
makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what
things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did”
(Photius’ Bibliotheca, code 33).
Judea, where occurred the miraculous beginning and marvelous
ending of Christ’s earthly career, was a Roman province, and all of
Palestine is intimately associated with Roman history. But the Roman
records of that age contain no mention of Christ and his works. The
Greek writers of Greece and Alexandria who lived not far from
Palestine and who were familiar with its events, are silent also.
[/i]
Long story short: The best “proof” for Jesus’ historical existence is a forgery and nearly every later work builds on that forgery.
Hey I reckon there was a carpenter called Jesus that lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, I believe he had a bunch of buddies that were all extremely talented story tellers, I also believe that these people got togehter and wrote the majotity of what is the bible.
They obviously got very carried away with their story telling and wrote about a lot of stuff that didn’t happen maybe this was to appease a growing number of dedicated followers of their little group, Jesus was probably crucified by the Roman’s too.
But thats all I am prepared to belive, becuase there is no factual eveidence to support anything else. 2000 years ago this group of very intellegent (and most probably very stoned) fooled a lot of people with their stories, and now 2000 years later people that have the historical and scientific evidence to know better are still try to make sense of this fairytale book that was written, and the only reason is becuase you have had this idea pumped into your head from birth, maybe you have not had a strict religious upbringing, but the idea of a god exsisting was instilled into you from an early age and you just can’t shake it.
At the age of 8 it was soothing to hear that Grannie had gone to heaven and is still somehow alive, and this emotional crutch has remained with you to this day.
I have suffered a similar fate, i support a really shit football team that play 200 miles away from the town I was born and have lived most of my life, I have the teams badge tattooed (sp?) on my body, I love the team with all my heart and I am a very passionate and dedicated follower of my team, but why? They are a pretty shit team nd I have no connection with them whatsoever, aprt from my dad, he took me to my first game at 4 years old and i have had the religion of football worship drilled into me from a very early age.
If my dad had done the same with religion any religion I would still be a follower of that religion, but as an adult I would at least admit its all a load of old bollocks, just like I can now admit that my football team are shit 
[quote]Long story short: The best “proof” for Jesus’ historical existence is a forgery and nearly every later work builds on that forgery./[quote]
The Gospels themselves are histories of Jesus’ life, just not ones that you would accept because of your presuppositions.
The life Jesus lived wouldn’t have left evidence that would have found their way into man-made history books: He didn’t lead a military, he didn’t conquer territory, he didn’t have an empire that would have left monuments and architechtural (sp?) works. His kingdom was “not of this world,” as he himself claimed, therefore one would not expect his life to have captured the interest of historians of his time, who were documenting things happening in the Roman empire and its outskirts. Since he was rejected by the Jews, you wouldn’t expect Jews to form a history favorable to him, if they formed one at all.
The question, for you at least, is why the Gospels are to be rejected as historically inaccurate.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Long story short: The best “proof” for Jesus’ historical existence is a forgery and nearly every later work builds on that forgery.[/quote]
The Gospels themselves are histories of Jesus’ life, just not ones that you would accept because of your presuppositions.
The life Jesus lived wouldn’t have left evidence that would have found their way into man-made history books: He didn’t lead a military, he didn’t conquer territory, he didn’t have an empire that would have left monuments and architechtural (sp?) works. His kingdom was “not of this world,” as he himself claimed, therefore one would not expect his life to have captured the interest of historians of his time, who were documenting things happening in the Roman empire and its outskirts. Since he was rejected by the Jews, you wouldn’t expect Jews to form a history favorable to him, if they formed one at all.
The question, for you at least, is why the Gospels are to be rejected as historically inaccurate.[/quote]
[quote]Hey I reckon there was a carpenter called Jesus that lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, I believe he had a bunch of buddies that were all extremely talented story tellers, I also believe that these people got togehter and wrote the majotity of what is the bible.
They obviously got very carried away with their story telling and wrote about a lot of stuff that didn’t happen maybe this was to appease a growing number of dedicated followers of their little group, Jesus was probably crucified by the Roman’s too.
But thats all I am prepared to belive, becuase there is no factual eveidence to support anything else. 2000 years ago this group of very intellegent (and most probably very stoned) fooled a lot of people with their stories, and now 2000 years later people that have the historical and scientific evidence to know better are still try to make sense of this fairytale book that was written, and the only reason is becuase you have had this idea pumped into your head from birth, maybe you have not had a strict religious upbringing, but the idea of a god exsisting was instilled into you from an early age and you just can’t shake it.[/quote]
Do you have any proof for these claims?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
rsg wrote:
Where are your logical minds gone?
I’m all for little churches that keep communities together and help each other without bothering anyone else, etc. But to believe in invisible & imaginary forces controlling the world is just…LOL!
What logical errors have theists committed? The laws of logic are as follows:
- The law of identity
- The law of non-contradiction
- The law of the excluded middle
The fact that such abstract, universal laws exist to make knowledge even possible should give atheists pause.[/quote]
Fucking typical. Pick apart the words I use instead of the actual subject.
[quote]rsg wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
rsg wrote:
Where are your logical minds gone?
I’m all for little churches that keep communities together and help each other without bothering anyone else, etc. But to believe in invisible & imaginary forces controlling the world is just…LOL!
What logical errors have theists committed? The laws of logic are as follows:
- The law of identity
- The law of non-contradiction
- The law of the excluded middle
The fact that such abstract, universal laws exist to make knowledge even possible should give atheists pause.
Fucking typical. Pick apart the words I use instead of the actual subject.[/quote]
If you want to get into the philosophy of religion and the belief in God, you have to use logic. Atheist philosophers do it. You should be able to also, if you want credibility.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If you want to get into the philosophy of religion and the belief in God, you have to use logic. Atheist philosophers do it. You should be able to also, if you want credibility.
[/quote]
Ok hold on, lets take a step back here.
Do what extent do you believe the bible to be “credible truth”?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The question, for you at least, is why the Gospels are to be rejected as historically inaccurate.[/quote]
Because there is no reason to believe them to be historically accurate.
Zeb was trying to show that there was non-biblical support for the historical existence of Jesus, when in actuality there is nothing of the sort.
Note that many of his contemporaries, some simple merchants or simply rich men, have historical documentation. A man performing miracles and drawing large crowds everywhere he went should have rated at least a passing mention somewhere. Yet the most notable mentions Jesus gets turns out to be a Christian forgery.
If we cannot find any evidence that Jesus ever actually lived, how can we trust the gospels’ accuracy? There are a lot of books of historical fiction, stories that incorporate real places, events and historical facts into fictitious tales. There is no compelling reason to see the gospels as anything different than those novels.