Any Historical Sources That Dispute The Existence Of Jesus?

[DeistPaladin]

John isn't admonishing believers into believing anything; he is giving instructions about how to test whether someone is a true or a false prophet. That test is whether the person accepts the central tenet of his reader's Christian faith: the incarnation. (Thus he does not just have Docetism in view (or whatever form of proto-Gnosticism that was going round at the time) but also those who deny the divinity of Jesus.

So he wasn't telling people what to think. He was just telling people to "test" whether or not an idea is correct. The way to do this is, of course, to see if the idea agrees with his way of thinking. It's correct if it's correct. Anyone who doesn't believe what they're supposed to believe is wrong. But he's not telling people what to think or anything. So glad we cleared that up.

This elaborate - and to my mind, very historically confused - scenario, which I look forward to seeing explained in fuller form, still does not explain why the Docetics believed that Jesus appeared in human form at all.

What is "confused" about it? Do you dispute that urban legends morph from works of fiction to "true stories"? It happens today. Do you dispute that allegorical literature was popular at the time, particularly in religious circles? Most importantly, do you dispute the order in which the NT books were written?

It's interesting to read the NT in the chronological order in which they were authored. Revelation, then the epistles of Paul, then Mark, Matthew and Luke and finally John (a Gospel that, when compared with the others, suggests from it's advanced theology and distinction from "the Jews" a much later date than Christians like to believe). (EDIT TO CLARIFY: ) It's a tale that got better with the telling. Jesus evolved over time and it wasn't until John's Gospel that the Trinitarian Jesus took shape.

You require a theory as to why these Gnostic people came to believe in this "Celestial King".

I never said "Gnostic people". That the Jews were going through a theological crisis in the 1st century isn't hard to understand. What happened to the promise to King David? Judea was chaffing under foreign rule when they were supposed to be the favored people of Yahweh. It's also not hard to understand how the Jews began to look up in the sky and decided their kingdom was in a higher place. Revelation, though it is taken by modern Christians to foretell events just around the corner, was written to the Jewish audience of the time that their celestial king would come soon to punish the Romans.

It is a basic historical fact that the genre four gospels is that of ancient biography (Greek:bioi).

A "basic historical fact", is it? How many other bios do we take seriously that involve zombies, walking on water, and flying up into the sky (presumably flying through space like Superman)? Do we also consider the Iliad to be a historical account of the Trojan War as well as proof that Zeus was real?

From the skeptical and rational view, this seems less like a basic fact and more like special pleading.

This has been thoroughly demonstrated by New Testament scholarship in the last thirty years by comparing the gospels to other bioi of the period (such as Philo's Moses and Tacitus' Agricola).

Let me guess. when you say "NT Scholarship", I should read "Christian apologetic crap". Sorry, I don't regard theology and apologetics as legitimate fields of academic study. When we live in a truly rational society, we'll put the Bible on the same shelf with Greek mythology and apologists can write their articles in tabloids alongside stories of UFO abductions and sightings of Bigfoot.

Later on in your post when you talk about Acts you basically state that the mere inclusion of miracles is enough to discredit an ancient source as historical: but this simply won't do by way of historical method. When it comes to New Testament studies, that is simply a question-begging criterion for reliability. I await hearing your reasons to believe that the gospels fall under the category of "mythology" by way of comparison to other literature of the time.

Before I get to that, I note you didn't answer my question and I would be keen to hear your answer. Let me repeat the question:

Do you believe that mortals, by the power of their faith, can heal the sick, cause blindness, speak in tongues and perform other blatant supernatural feats?

If yes, you are a kook. If no, we agree that Acts is a collection of fanciful tales. Either way, I dismiss Acts as a historical document.

I'm not begging the question by thinking that outlandish claims damage the credibility of a story. Rather, you are using special pleading by considering the Gospels as "historical bios" but not lending the same credence to the myths of other religions. I'm using the same rules that we all operate by, both in examining history and in day to day life. The difference between us is I don't suspend these rules in favor of cherished faith-based beliefs. Consider:

1. If I tell you I had lunch with a local friend today, you'd take that claim at face value.
2. If I tell you I had lunch with Obama today, you'd think it a tall tale without evidence.
3. If I tell you I had lunch with my deceased father today, you'd reject it outright as crazy talk unless I had profound evidence.

ECREE, my friend. The more outlandish the claim the more suspicion needs to be applied and the more supporting evidence is required.

(As for Matthew "lying his ass off", much has been written about Matthew's use of the Old Testament too in the last thirty years, and I think it can be demonstrated that Matthew is using a consistent and reasonable method of interpretation which centres around his implicit claim throughout the whole gospel that Jesus constitutes and represents a New Israel by being the fulfilment of the Old Testament story. But that is for another time.)

I have a video on that subject that details all of Matthews lies about the OT. I'm prepared to discuss that in greater detail any time you like to bring up a separate thread on it.

I'll let Minimalist debate with you on Tacitus, Josephus et al as this is more his department.

[SleepingDemon]

The roman Catholic Church practiced book burning for centuries. If there was anything, its long gone now. When it comes to the existence of Jesus, look at it this way.

If some guy were walking around my town for 20 years or so healing the sick and raising the dead, I might mention it in my diary. No one said anything at all about him for 50 years after he "died. Don't believe that biblical Horseshit about people living to be 900 or whatever, 50 years was a human lifespan. Life expectancy back then was at best 60 or so, so everyone who had anything to say about jesus never knew him. It's nonsense. Even of we take Josephus and Tacitus at face value, which most people do not, it was second or third hand at the very least which makes it as unreliable as a junior high gossip session.

[Phil]

I'll let Minimalist debate with you on Tacitus, Josephus et al as this is more his department.

He can debate this guy if he wants but there really is no debate there is only Christian apologists trying to hang onto a thread. Here are a few reasons why.

On Tacitus:

1. There are no quotes of this passage by any of the church fathers.
2. Tertullian was familar with all the writings of Tactius and if this passage existed it would have been cited as an answer to his arguments (Chapter 5 of Tertullian's Apology and Chapter 21 of the same).
3. In the beginning of the 3rd century Clement of Alexandria compiled a list of all references from Pagan writers to Jesus and Tactius is missing from it.
4. Origen in his arguments with Celsus would have referred to it had it existed.
5. Eusibius in the 4th century did the same as Clement of Alexandria and once again, no mention of Tactius.
6. The first quotation of it by a Christian writer was in the 15th century.
7. At the time of the quotation it was said only one copy of the Annals existed and it was made 600 years after Tactius died.
8. Conveniently, this single existing copy was in the possession of a Christian so insertion of a forged passage would have been extremely easy.
9. The story about the orgies of Nero do not read anything like the writing of Tactius.
10. This story is almost word for word in the writing of Sulpicus Severus who was a Christian in the 5th century but there were no references to Jesus.
11. Suetonius, a Roman historian, who condemned Nero heavily even tells us Nero took care not to sacrifice a human life, not even of a convicted criminal.
12. Tactius even claims at the time of the fire that Nero was not in Rome but in Antium.

These are just a few reasons that scholars see this passage from Annals as nothing to be reckoned with as it most probably is a forgery in the same vein as Josephus' Testimonium and at best it is nothing more than heresay.

On Josephus:

The Testimonium was not written by Josephus and there are many reasons in the text itself. One example is that in the text Jesus is called the messiah yet Josephus remained an observant Jew and never became a Christian therefore he could not have called Jesus the messiah. Secondly, there are 3 different manuscript of the Testimonium and as expected, the later manuscripts have more details than the earlier ones as if the story evolved with time. Third and EXTREMELY DAMNING is that there were no references to it nor was it even mentioned in any writing until the 4th century when Constantine appointed Eusibius official church historian (Eusebius is the suspected author of the Testimonium) Fourth and a final nail in the Testimonium's coffin is textual analysis of the text with Josephus known writing shows certain phrase and words that were not used by Josephus but were found in the writing of only one church historian by the name of Eusibius.

[Minimalist]

Thanks for handling my light work, Phil.

Here's a link to Severus' Chronica. The passage which will undoubtedly give this jesus freak a hard on is Part II. XXiX.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII11-5.TXT

[SleepingDemon]

Lololz. 4 chapters in and im laughing so hard it hurts.

[Cosmic Ape]

The lack of contemporary sources during the time of the claims and miracles is more than enough evidence to dispute it.