Christ's birthday

[rjh4 is back]

You would be correct.

However, part of being a skeptic means that one does not automatically trust anything that is written. Therefore, as the author was kind enough to provide citations, I made it a point to check a random sample and found him to be correct.

This site was invaluable for that.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

At least concerning those early xtian writers who seem to know nothing about any Neronian persecution of xtians. Nero is one of those people in history who we know about only through the writings of his enemies, (Herod the Great and Caligula come to mind as two others.)

Actual Roman records of "persecution" of xtians begins in the mid-3d century

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/persecu...ersecution

and it appears that with xtians cheering the repeated military defeats which the Empire suffered in the East at that time at the hands of the Parthians that they went out of their way to make themselves unpopular.

I only recently found a translation of Severus' Chronica into English (I don't speak Latin) and if you'd like to read it, I'm sure I saved the link somewhere.

Great. Now it seems to me that if the writings of the authors provided in the site are useful as support for the idea that Tacitus was not correct in what he said, their writings can also be used to support other things also. Remember, this whole thing came up when I cited something that indicated that Jesus was not fictional. I then cited the Tacitus quote as support. You now say the writings provided by these various authors rebuts the Tacitus quote. Maybe so. But many of those same authors wrote about Jesus and indicated that he was an historic person. For example 1 Clement, Turtullian, Origen, the writers of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Eusebius, and Augustine. It seems then to me that the writings of these provide sufficient support for the historicity of Jesus. Do you agree that this is enough evidence at least the historicity of Jesus? If not, maybe it is because your own presuppositions against Christianity won't let you and not because there is no evidence.

[Minimalist]

1 Clement, Turtullian, Origen, the writers of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Eusebius, and Augustine.

The epistle known as 1 Clement is dated by Early Christian Writings to between 80 and 140 AD. The later date makes more sense in the context of the other second century apologists. The basis for a first century date is some alleged persecution at Corinth under Domitian but the connection is dubious, at best.

Tertullian is generally dated from 160 - 220 AD in other words, 3d century.

Origen is dated at 185 - 254 AD, 3d century.

You left out Polycarp d 155 AD, Irenaeus, d 202 AD, and Justin Martyr although perhaps you are including them in the catchall phrase Ante-Nicene fathers...in any case, they are all 2d century.

Eusebius 263-339 AD late 3d - 4th century

Augustine 354-430 AD late 4th -5th century.

So, everything you suggested is not first century writing, except for perhaps 1 Clement and if you'd like to talk about "Corinth" by all means lets do so. Its an interesting story.

There has been much speculation ( to put a polite face on it ) about Tacitus and Suetonius having learned of xtians by speaking to them and learning what they believed but not that there were any Roman records to sustain these opinions. There is a serious problem with this and it revolves around Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger.) Pliny left behind volumes of correspondence and one exchange of letters with the Emperor Trajan is of particular interest. However, Pliny's earlier career is on point. He was not a stranger to the East. In his youth he served as a military tribune with the 3'd Legion in Syria c 80 AD. He entered the senate and prospered as a lawyer in the capitol. In 110 AD he was appointed by Trajan as the Governor of the Roman Province of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor. Before getting to the point, Tacitus was a good friend of Pliny's and Suetonius was a junior officer on his staff in Asia Minor. Thus, all 3 of these men knew each other and of course would have known each other's work.

Now, somewhere around 110 (and Pliny died in 112) so the date is pretty solid Pliny writes to his boss, Trajan, (I'll give you a link to the correspondence at the end) and reports that he has come upon a group of christians who were breaking the law. NOT by being christians...but rather by holding "secret meetings." The issue for Pliny was possible sedition, not religion. This is the earliest, non-christian reference to christians. More important, Pliny was not writing a history. He was merely making a report and asking for advice. Yet, he seems to know nothing about christians. Apparently he never heard of them in Syria, either. Now, if his good friend Tacitus comment is correct why is it that other Roman aristocrats, Pliny and Trajan, do not seem to know that christians were crazed arsonists who tried to burn the capitol to the ground a mere 46 years earlier. If there were "multitudes" of christians in Rome being persecuted, why did the lawyer Pliny not seem to know anything about them? We cannot reconcile Pliny's bland report with what seems to be blatant christian propaganda which was not even copied by Severus. Moreover, Trajan replies with mildness that any christians who sacrifice to Roman gods (which included himself at that point) were to be pardoned and Pliny was not to allow anonymous accusations to be made. I wish Trajan were running the US Justice Department under Bush....he comes across as a combination of Gandhi and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Seriously, were the Emperor dealing with a group of crazed nut jobs who tried to burn the capitol to the ground do you think he would have been so gentle in his reply?

Lastly, Suetonius can be envisoned holding the stylus while the christians who were being questioned....or tortured in the case of the slaves...by Pliny. One suspects that whatever he learned of christians came from the mouths of those who were being questioned. As you will see when you read the letter, there was nothing about any jesus coming back from the dead or being crucified in jerusalem mentioned. These christians were not much of a threat to the state in 110 AD.

Pliny correspondence

By all means, read it over and get back to me.

[chatpilot]

God does not have to be some being it can be anything. Buddhism teaches self reflection and the attainment of enlightenment:Understanding the truth of life, freedom from ignorance, and nirvana:An everlasting state of great joy and peace. Buddhism speaks of everlasting life and has within it's teachings supernatural beings such as ghosts etc. Man is God and god is within you one way or another some kind of god is present.

[rjh4 is back]

1 Clement, Turtullian, Origen, the writers of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Eusebius, and Augustine.

The epistle known as 1 Clement is dated by Early Christian Writings to between 80 and 140 AD. The later date makes more sense in the context of the other second century apologists. The basis for a first century date is some alleged persecution at Corinth under Domitian but the connection is dubious, at best.

Tertullian is generally dated from 160 - 220 AD in other words, 3d century.

Origen is dated at 185 - 254 AD, 3d century.

You left out Polycarp d 155 AD, Irenaeus, d 202 AD, and Justin Martyr although perhaps you are including them in the catchall phrase Ante-Nicene fathers...in any case, they are all 2d century.

Eusebius 263-339 AD late 3d - 4th century

Augustine 354-430 AD late 4th -5th century.

So, everything you suggested is not first century writing, except for perhaps 1 Clement and if you'd like to talk about "Corinth" by all means lets do so. Its an interesting story.

Are you suggesting that in your view the only valid evidence for the historicity of Jesus is first century writing? In your view can such evidence come from first century historians or does the evidence have to be from eyewitnesses? In your view does the evidence have to come from someone who was not a Christian? In other words, what type of historical evidence would you accept as valid to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus?

Yet, he seems to know nothing about christians. Apparently he never heard of them in Syria, either.

I think you need to reread the article again. If neither Trajan nor Pliny knew anything about Christians, then why did Pliny use the term "Christian" and then never explain what a Christian was? Doesn't this suggest that they both knew the term "Christian" and what a Christian was? Furthermore, Pliny doesn't indicate that he never heard of them, he says he was never present at any legal examination of a Christian. There is a big difference. There is nothing in the article you provided that indicates that nothing about Christians was known. Even in the intro to the letters the author tells about Christianity spreading.

Lastly, Suetonius can be envisoned holding the stylus while the christians who were being questioned....or tortured in the case of the slaves...by Pliny. One suspects that whatever he learned of christians came from the mouths of those who were being questioned.

This seems absurd for the reasons given above. At best the letter indicates that Pliny may have only just learned what the Christians were doing in their meetings. That is it.

As you will see when you read the letter, there was nothing about any jesus coming back from the dead or being crucified in jerusalem mentioned.

I am not really sure what your whole point is with this statement as my whole point in this thread was that Jesus was a historical person and not fictional. I didn't bring up anything in this thread that I can think of relative to the death and resurrection (except for what Tacitus said but again that was only cited relative to the historicity of Jesus, not anything else).

[Tiberius]

Eyewitnesses at the time would be a good start. Historians at the time would be better, since they generally know what they are talking about, and are trying to keep history accurately recorded. What would be even better would be the writings of Jesus himself...but they don't seem to exist at all.

I think Jesus existed because of the evidence of people hailing him as the messiah so soon after his supposed death. The quick growth of the church is another factor pointing towards some kind of event at that time. However I can understand how people can think that he never existed. The primary evidence is non-existent, and the secondary isn't that good at all.

[Minimalist]

Are you suggesting that in your view the only valid evidence for the historicity of Jesus is first century writing? In your view can such evidence come from first century historians or does the evidence have to be from eyewitnesses? In your view does the evidence have to come from someone who was not a Christian? In other words, what type of historical evidence would you accept as valid to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus?

Yes, pretty much. You see, here is the xtian paradox. You claim you have this guy who was so dangerous to the establishment that the priests had to break every rule in their own book to get him killed on Passover but, then they were so worried about their law that they had to get the body down in order to give it a proper burial. Yet, at the same time that this dangerous person was being killed no one living at the time paid any attention to him. Not Philo, who wrote extensively on Jewish issues. Not Pliny the Elder who wrote volumes about all sorts of goofy stuff but seems to have missed out on someone that the Romans had crucified coming back from the fucking dead. No one. It is no good trying to claim that Jerusalem was some out of the way little town. It wasn't and thanks to Herod's genius of building a port at Caesarea, Judea was tied in to Roman commerce. Such a story would have spread like wildfire across those trade routes...yet, not a word.

"In your view can such evidence come from first century historians"

Well, they didn't mention him so that is out. The biggest embarrassment of all is that later xtians tried to go back and insert such references into Josephus. Had there been an actual reference why the need to forge one?

In other words, what type of historical evidence would you accept as valid to demonstrate the historicity of Jesus?

Some reference to him from a non-christian source (and if you don't know the reason for that, then read Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted and find out just how much your 'holy' books have been tampered with) Roman, Greek or Jewish which indicates that some portion of the story was true and noted at the time. We have nothing along those lines. As I said, the first non-christian mention of them is Pliny. As far as Pliny goes, read it again yourself. Trajan had passed a law forbidding secret meetings. People who were called "christians" were denounced to Pliny for violating that law and they were arrested and questioned or tortured if they were slaves. If you are too squeamish to understand what "torture" means check it out with Dick Cheney. They were not charged because they were christians - they were charged because they were violating the law and told Pliny they were christians. By the way, they also apparently told Pliny that they worshiped Christ quasi deo or LIKE a god or AS IF HE WERE a god... which is certainly an interesting way for a christian to phrase it, wouldn't you say?

I am not really sure what your whole point is with this statement as my whole point in this thread was that Jesus was a historical person and not fictional.

That's because you have your little holy blinders on and are desperately trying to cling to some shred of historicity for your god boy. Here is what Pliny reports:

But they declared their guilt or error was simply this – on a fixed day they used to meet before dawn and recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god. So far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, they swore to keep from theft, robbery, adultery, breach of faith, and not to deny any trust money deposited with them when called upon to deliver it. This ceremony over, they used to depart and meet again to take food – but it was of no special character, and entirely harmless. They also had ceased from this practice after the edict I issued – by which, in accord with your orders, I forbade all secret societies.

I then thought it the more needful to get at the facts behind their statements. Therefore I placed two women, called ‘deaconesses,’ under torture, but I found only a debased superstition carried to great lengths, so I postponed my examination, and immediately consulted you.

No mention of Jesus, resurrection, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Pilate, crucifixion, Jerusalem, temples,
Barabbas, even under torture. Of course, perhaps those parts of the tale had not been written yet.

At best the letter indicates that Pliny may have only just learned what the Christians were doing in their meetings. That is it.

No. Far from "it" it diminishes the notion that the Tacitus reference is legitimate. Had there been "multitudes" of Christians in Rome, accused of burning the city in 64 (Pliny would have been a young child but he would have grown up amid the ashes) who were "persecuted" by Nero it is simply inconceivable to imagine that Pliny, Suetonius and Trajan would not have known about it.
Yet...Suetonius fails to mention it and Pliny and Trajan are actually quite mild in their treatment of christians. Pliny refutes the later forgery which was inserted into Tacitus' work.

---

Eyewitnesses at the time would be a good start.

You know, Adrian, eyewitnesses are overrated. I've served on 3 juries and watching a defense attorney rip an eyewitness to shreds does give one a fair understanding that most people are about as observant as a loaf of bread.

But, more to the point, I'm reading a history of the crusades right now and, as it turns out, there are three "eye-witness accounts" of the Speech of Urban II at Clermont which launched the crusades. All 3 were written by men who had attended HOWEVER they wrote at least 20 years after the event. Fulcher of Chartres, Robert the Monk, and Guibert de Nogent. The author notes
" they disagreed with each other, using the speech to reflect their own visions of what they later thought worthy of recognition." This is actually typical of ancient "historical" writing. Ancient authors invented "speeches" for their characters as literary devices to explain the issues. Thus, when Livy writes something like "Fabius Maximus stepped to the podium and addressed the senate as follows...." we can be pretty sure that Fabius did no such thing. There was a notorious shortage of stenographers in the ancient world!

Yet, when you get some xtian reading his bible and he comes to jesus' soliloquy in Gethsemene they never stop to ask, 'who wrote this down?' Did jesus use a dictaphone? Everyone else was asleep so who was taking notes? It's a speech, just like Fabius' speech above, and it serves as a literary device...but it isn't "real." And of course the xtians will shriek bloody murder when this is pointed out to them!

[rjh4 is back]

That's because you have your little holy blinders on and are desperately trying to cling to some shred of historicity for your god boy.

Actually, Minimalist, I think it is you that has the blinders on. It seems to me that you have presupposed Christianity wrong, looked at the evidence, found a way to reject any reasonable evidence/reasoning for Christianity, and then concluded that Christianity is wrong because there is no evidence.

Let me ask you about Luke here. Was he an accurate historian in Acts and the Gospel of Luke?

No mention of Jesus, resurrection, Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, Pilate, crucifixion, Jerusalem, temples,
Barabbas, even under torture. Of course, perhaps those parts of the tale had not been written yet.

Any why would they? As you said, they were on trial for holding meetings when they were not supposed to. Wouldn't one expect the questioning and tesimony be limited to what they did at the meetings? This seems pretty reasonable to me. Why would you expect more?

No. Far from "it" it diminishes the notion that the Tacitus reference is legitimate. Had there been "multitudes" of Christians in Rome, accused of burning the city in 64 (Pliny would have been a young child but he would have grown up amid the ashes) who were "persecuted" by Nero it is simply inconceivable to imagine that Pliny, Suetonius and Trajan would not have known about it.
Yet...Suetonius fails to mention it and Pliny and Trajan are actually quite mild in their treatment of christians. Pliny refutes the later forgery which was inserted into Tacitus' work.

I think you read way too much into this. Pliny's letter was for a specific reason. There was no need in this letter to mention the writings of Tacitus or the accusations of the Christians burning Rome, if it in fact did happen. So, to me, this is not convincing evidence that the quote from Tacitus is forged or wrong. You seem to think that if it (the accusation of Christians by Nero mentioned by Tacitus) really happened, Pliny would have mentioned it in this letter to Trajan. Why would you expect that?

[Craveman]

Sounds like you are saying that there is evidence or reasoning that people give for Christianity but you do not find it plausible. What evidence would you accept for Chrisianity? Or would you reject all possible evidence based on a presupposition of atheism?

"Evidence" is a pretty optimistic word for Christianity. What shall we use for "evidence" then? The Bible? What is written in it? Writings from old authors in the time of Christ? "Personal experience" with God? I can't think of ANY concrete evidence...You have so far avoided giving examples from your side.

I am happy accepting Chrisianity. I do not think I accept it blindly as there are reasons.

What are your reasons?

I would like to know why you think atheism as you see it does not require faith

Why do I need faith to believe in nothing? What do I need to have faith in?

[chatpilot]

rjh4 your statement that atheism requires faith just serves to demonstrate your ignorance about atheism. Firstly faith is exclusively a religious concept and has no place in science, logical thought or reason. You can't prove the existence of God since just believing that he exists in itself requires faith. Faith is a concept that requires no evidence and if you come to think of it is in itself blind.

By stating that I don't believe in the biblical god or gods of any kind does not require faith, in fact it is an actual lack of faith that would lead me to my conclusion. And that lack of faith is due to a lack of objective evidence.

Subjective evidence:is evidence that you cannot evaluate -- you have to simply accept what the person says or reject it. By definition, "faith" is subjective.

I obtained these defintions from the following link: http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/objctive.htm

Subjective evidence in my view is invalid as evidence for the existence or non existence of God, Jesus etc.

[rjh4 is back]

rjh4 your statement that atheism requires faith just serves to demonstrate your ignorance about atheism.

It seems then that I am not the only one. See the posts above where Rhizo indicates that strong atheism requires faith and your admission that your are a strong militant atheist. So are you suggesting that Rhizo, an atheist, is demontrating ignorance about atheism? Maybe you need to get this straight with the other atheists before you begin to accuse me of being ignorant about atheism.

---

What are your reasons?

What are you interested in? Why I originally believed in God? Why I initially became a Christian? Why I still believe in God? Why I still am a Christian? All of the above?