The Three-Headed "Jesus" Problem

[Minimalist]

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.

No, he did not.  Regardless of whether or not the passage is a later interpolation - and by later I mean MUCH later - Tacitus does not mention any "jesus."  In fact, no Roman writer mentions "jesus" until Celsus c 185.

[Kingpin]

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

They are still writings, decades after the alleged events, and even if they were contemporaneous with this jesus figure, that wouldn’t prove anything about the stories in the gospels.

People writing about events decades after they happened, and then having more people compile their opinions on top of other people’s opinions that weren’t there in the first place, is not intelligent evidence to go off of, especially with a figure who has such extraordinary claims attached to his reputation.

Those people weren’t there, that’s no where near good enough evidence to go all-in on, and to just accept the christian faith. People still do this stuff today, that’s why christianity still exists, along with other religions. They keep passing stories down from generation to generation, and barely any of them care to think about whether they think it’s true or not, that’s what these people back then, likely did. Even, if there was enough proof that this man was crucified, what would that prove about his miracles or that he was the son of god?

This was only regarding his existence and death by crucifixion.  I believe there is sufficient evidence for those two facts and most scholars agree there.  I mentioned nothing of the miracles and resurrection evidence, I was just asking if people refuse to believe he even existed and died purely because of the supernatural claims tied to him.  I think those that claim he never existed are simply ignoring facts.  The fact he existed and died by crucifixion lends no credence to the stories of miracles or resurrection itself.  But the same in reverse, the miracles and resurrection accounts lend no credence to deny his existence.

I can say that Alexander the Great while he was alive performed all these same miracles, but that does not diminish his existence in any way, we have other sources to confirm his existence.

[Minimalist]

I believe there is sufficient evidence for those two facts and most scholars agree there.

And what is that "evidence?"  Before you answer, take a moment to review the definition of "primary sources" above.

[Kingpin]

Min there is no need to rehash something that is readily available (and been mentioned innumerable times before on this forum) for everyone to peruse themselves. Skeptics and attackers of Jesus Christ's divinity still acknowledge that most historians agree he existed and died by crucifixion. Again, not making any claim to his divinity or miracles as recorded in NT, purely his existence.

---

Though since I will be viewed as having a presupposition bias, maybe you would prefer an atheist historians view on the subject who has done even far more research than I have.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2014/...again.html

[Minimalist]

Translation:  All you have is self-serving pious scribbling, heavily edited and interpolated throughout the centuries.

Remember what one of those scholars said about your "gospels."

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman describes the Gospels as: few, relying upon each other, written decades after the alleged events, problematic, contradictory, biased, and written by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. The Gospels are not the kind of sources historians would want in establishing what probably happened in the past.

Let me ask you a question.  Do you think Apollo was real?

[Kingpin]

Translation:  All you have is self-serving pious scribbling, heavily edited and interpolated throughout the centuries.

Remember what one of those scholars said about your "gospels."

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman describes the Gospels as: few, relying upon each other, written decades after the alleged events, problematic, contradictory, biased, and written by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. The Gospels are not the kind of sources historians would want in establishing what probably happened in the past.

Let me ask you a question.  Do you think Apollo was real?

Again, this was not discussing the "events" in the gospel.  Just the fact of Jesus existence in history and his death by crucifixion.  For that there is little dissention.

No Apollo was not real and was never written about in a historical sense or by historical scholars as a real person.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Min there is no need to rehash something that is readily available (and been mentioned innumerable times before on this forum) for everyone to peruse themselves.  Skeptics and attackers of Jesus Christ's divinity still acknowledge that most historians agree he existed and died by crucifixion.  Again, not making any claim to his divinity or miracles as recorded in NT, purely his existence.

---

Though since I will be viewed as having a presupposition bias, maybe you would prefer an atheist historians view on the subject who has done even far more research than I have.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2014/...again.html

Hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay, isn't evidence of jesus's existence. As Min wrote, check your primary sources of this information, and maybe reevaluate, especially looking at the timeframe when these people lived.

Then, maybe check out some of the contradictions in the gospels, including when jesus's birth took place. Jesus was born during the reign of Herod and when Quinirius was governor of Syria (two different periods of time). If your primary sources can't even agree on his birth, how can you definitively say that he existed, especially with absolutely nothing from the period of time when he was supposedly alive?

[Kingpin]

Min there is no need to rehash something that is readily available (and been mentioned innumerable times before on this forum) for everyone to peruse themselves.  Skeptics and attackers of Jesus Christ's divinity still acknowledge that most historians agree he existed and died by crucifixion.  Again, not making any claim to his divinity or miracles as recorded in NT, purely his existence.

---

Though since I will be viewed as having a presupposition bias, maybe you would prefer an atheist historians view on the subject who has done even far more research than I have.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2014/...again.html

Hearsay on top of hearsay on top of hearsay, isn't evidence of jesus's existence. As Min wrote, check your primary sources of this information, and maybe reevaluate, especially looking at the timeframe when these people lived.

Then, maybe check out some of the contradictions in the gospels, including when jesus's birth took place. Jesus was born during the reign of Herod and when Quinirius was governor of Syria (two different periods of time). If your primary sources can't even agree on his birth, how can you definitively say that he existed, especially with absolutely nothing from the period of time when he was supposedly alive?

Do more digging Salacious.  all "contradictions" have points and counter-points on every side and you can google them all to death.  the discussion was about jesus existing.  My point is even among secular historians, there are very few dissenters to this being a fact.

http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp

[KevinM1]

Kingpin, this whole line of argumentation was beaten to death in Randy's "Five Facts" thread in this subforum. No need for anyone to rehash it all again after 100+ pages of it, IMO.

[Kingpin]

Kingpin, this whole line of argumentation was beaten to death in Randy's "Five Facts" thread in this subforum.  No need for anyone to rehash it all again after 100+ pages of it, IMO.

Kevin, I agree which is exactly what I said to Min a few posts ago.  Not going to repost what is easily searchable and already been done to death.  I made a point about the existence of Jesus and it started to get turned in to gospel contradictions and historicity.