The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Is it solely because of the supernatural claims made (his miracles and resurrection) that people dismiss his existence in history?  We have no contemporary writings on Cleopatra, only greco-roman scholars and historians, yet I don't think anyone will claim she didn't exist.  There are non-biblical historians who mention him or his followers and even attest to him being crucified under Pilate's rule.  The gospel writings are written between 20-40 years after his death.  That would be no different then someone who was close with Martin Luther King Jr and decided today to write all about their times and life with him before his death.  I don't see how you find this ridiculous.  There are very few historians that say he never existed.  They acknowledge he existed and dead by crucifixion under Pilate's rule.  Enemies of the Christians acknowledged his existence and even showed their disdain for Christians and what they thought of them.

Lucian a second century Romano-Syrian satirist and a pagan who lived during the second century also wrote in his book "Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pere that “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…”

---

Tacitus the Roman historian who lived between A.D. 54 and AD. 119 also wrote in his book ‘Annals XV, xliv’ that Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Suetonius, who was another Roman historian and lived from AD 75 to AD 160 similarly mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus. Pliny the Younger (AD 61- AD 115) wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan in which he confirmed the crucifixion of Jesus. Other pagan writers who acknowledged the crucifixion of Jesus are Numenius, Galerius, Phlegon and Celsus. These pagan writers did not believe in the sacrificial and redeeming death of Jesus on the cross. Indeed, some of them even laughed at this earth-shattering incident, but in writing and making fun of Christianity they have contributed to a preservation of historical records that provide ample testimony that Jesus was indeed a historical person, was crucified and died

Do you have a source for the original Tacitus the Roman historian who lived between A.D. 54 and AD. 119 also wrote in his book ‘Annals XV, xliv’ ?  Or is this just another golden tablets kind of BS?

[Pizza]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory
This is interesting. There is more than one "Jesus myth theory" position.

However, Volney and Dupuis did not agree on what the Christ myth was. Dupuis held that there was no human being involved in the New Testament account which he saw as an intentional extended allegory of solar myths while Volney allowed for confused memories of an obscure historical figure to be integrated in a mythology that compiled organically.[10] So from nearly the get go the modern Christ Myth theory had two parallel lines of thought: There was no human being being behind the New Testament and confused memories of an obscure historical figure were woven into the mythology. For the most part the 'no human being being behind the New Testament version is presented as the Christ myth theory ignoring Volney's confused memories of an obscure historical figure version.

As mentioned before Volney and Dupuis had different views regarding the Christ myth which resulted in a large number of ideas beings called "Jesus myth theory" or "Christ Myth theory" (going from totally imaginary to partly historical):
Jesus is an entirely fictional or mythological character created by the Early Christian community. (Effectively Dupuis position)
The Christ Myth may be a form of modern docetism.[20]
Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical.[21]
Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.[22][23] (Effectively Volney's position)
The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition.[24]
Jesus was historical but lived around 100 BCE.[25][26]
The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this.[27] Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price and Eddy-Boyd.[28] while Richard Carrier has used them as examples of an ahistorical Jesus.[29]
Christianity cannot "be traced to a personal founder as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."[30]A Jesus who died of old age or only preached 'End of the World is nigh' speeches to small groups would qualify.
(The Christ myth is) "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition.[31] "In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity" [32]
"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."[33] There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.
Christ-myth theories are part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."[34]

[Minimalist]

Do you have a source for the original Tacitus the Roman historian who lived between A.D. 54 and AD. 119 also wrote in his book ‘Annals XV, xliv’ ?  Or is this just another golden tablets kind of BS?

There is a single manuscript for each of two parts of Tacitus' work.  One is called "The Histories" and the other "The Annales" although truth be told no one knows if Tacitus intended one work or two.

http://www.nndb.com/people/875/000087614/

The Histories, as originally composed in twelve books, brought the history of the empire from Galba in 69 down to the close of Domitian's reign in 97. The first four books, and a small fragment of the fifth, giving us a very minute account of the eventful year of revolution, 69, and the brief reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius, are all that remain to us. In the fragment of the fifth book we have a curious but entirely inaccurate account of the Jewish nation, of their character, customs and religion, from a cultivated Roman's point of view, which we see at once was a strongly prejudiced one.

The Annals -- a title for which there is no ancient authority, and which there is no reason for supposing Tacitus gave distinctively to the work -- record the history of the emperors of the Julian line from Tiberius to Nero, comprising thus a period from AD 14 to 68. Of these, nine books have come down to us entire; of books V, XI, and XVI we have but fragments, and the whole of the reign of Caligula, the first six years of Claudius, and the last three years of Nero are wanting. Out of a period of fifty-four years we thus have the history of forty years.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Do you have a source for the original Tacitus the Roman historian who lived between A.D. 54 and AD. 119 also wrote in his book ‘Annals XV, xliv’ ?  Or is this just another golden tablets kind of BS?

There is a single manuscript for each of two parts of Tacitus' work.  One is called "The Histories" and the other "The Annales" although truth be told no one knows if Tacitus intended one work or two.

http://www.nndb.com/people/875/000087614/

The Histories, as originally composed in twelve books, brought the history of the empire from Galba in 69 down to the close of Domitian's reign in 97. The first four books, and a small fragment of the fifth, giving us a very minute account of the eventful year of revolution, 69, and the brief reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius, are all that remain to us. In the fragment of the fifth book we have a curious but entirely inaccurate account of the Jewish nation, of their character, customs and religion, from a cultivated Roman's point of view, which we see at once was a strongly prejudiced one.

The Annals -- a title for which there is no ancient authority, and which there is no reason for supposing Tacitus gave distinctively to the work -- record the history of the emperors of the Julian line from Tiberius to Nero, comprising thus a period from AD 14 to 68. Of these, nine books have come down to us entire; of books V, XI, and XVI we have but fragments, and the whole of the reign of Caligula, the first six years of Claudius, and the last three years of Nero are wanting. Out of a period of fifty-four years we thus have the history of forty years.

The problem with such things as Tacitus' supposedly manuscripts is that a person has to suspend critical thinking to believe that they are real.  

Think about it.  The material was supposedly written around 100 AD.  That's 1,900 years ago.  The guy wrote a story on some scrolls.  He gave the scrolls to someone who kept them in a locked and secure vault that was safe from environmental damage, theft, fire, and degradation.  The scrolls survived numerous fires, wars, political upheavals, invasions, etc.  And then, presto, some guy in the 20th Century gets his mitts on them.  I gotta call major BS.  The story is unreasonable and too far-fetched.  Now if it had been written on stone there might be a basis for discussion.

[Minimalist]

You have quite a few assumptions there and not a shred of evidence.

We actually have quite a bit of recorded history concerning these two manuscripts.

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expa...hp?id=4199

But they do seem to have survived and, on those occasions when copies were made it seems likely that the originals were tossed.  Remember, it was not until the 10-11th century that some unknown scribe altered "Chrestians" to "Christians."  Before that, it probably wasn't of all that much interest to anyone.  One might speculate that the big interpolation was made at the same time.  In that one, Tacitus probably repeated the tale of his friend Suetonius and mentioned that the Chrestians had been thrown out of Rome by the Emperor Claudius.  That's a fairly mild observation considering where jesusism was in the 11th century so the much better line was substituted where "Christos" was then executed by Pilate because every fine catholic boy had been regurgitating the various "creeds" which the church insisted the sheeple repeat.  I'm sure it sunk in.

[Brian37]

The problem with all claims of magic men is solved quite easy by accepting that humans make up these bullshit claims.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The problem with all claims of magic men is solved quite easy by accepting that humans make up these bullshit claims.

I definitely agree with that observation.

[Minimalist]

Lataster, after taking apart the pauline epistles, writes:

Had there been an earthly and historical Jesus, Paul’s writings might be expected to portray him in a more historical manner (with reliable and trustworthy sources named), and there certainly would have been fewer disagreements – and less violence – among ancient and modern Christians. It is noteworthy that there did exist early Christians who held alternative views on Jesus’ fleshly existence. There are also numerous passages within the Pauline Epistles that portray a Jesus that is very different from the Gospels’ image. A Jesus is depicted, who need not necessarily have been on Earth, at a certain point in our history.

 

The example of the Luddites also demonstrates how a movement/s and writings can spring forth from (or be retrospectively associated with) a character that scholars have no good reason to assume existed historically, and how a movement can have many ‘origins’. It is therefore not necessary that there was a historical Jesus behind the beginnings of Christianity; and the writings of early Christians, as well as the clear evolution of the story among the available texts, give us ample reason to doubt that there was a historical Jesus at all. As Droge noted, “To start a religion, all you need is a name.”

 

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Even the Bible says that all religions are pure BS so why exclude the biblical religions from that astute observation?

[Minimalist]

There are other examples of people creating myths for themselves.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in...11/?no-ist

Seven hundred years ago, William Tell shot an arrow through an apple on his son's head and launched the struggle for Swiss independence. Or did he?

As the saying goes, 'bullshit makes the flowers grow.'

Applies equally to King Arthur, Wilhelm Tell, and fucking jesus.