Did Jesus exist?

[athrock]

The history of a man named Jesus? There are several, as you know. 

However, Tacitus tells that a man put to death by Pontius Pilate had followers who were called "Chrxstianos".

What a coincidence. The Book of Acts tells us pretty much the same thing.

Actually, that passage was entirely unknown until it was claimed by Sulpicius Severus in the early 5th century.  No Christian apologist prior to that ever claimed anything about that passage supposedly written by Tacitus.  It is widely thought to be a fraud, just like the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities.

So, not only is all of the Bible a fairy tale, but every non-Biblical source that might possibly corroborate anything in the Bible is a forgery?

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that -every- non biblical source?  Why are we even having the discussion, then? No historical jesus, QED.

[athrock]

On "Christians" and "Chrestians" in Tacitus’ Annals
 


(Detail of the gap where an "e" was replaced by an "i".)

From time to time in this forum and elsewhere on the Internet, atheists persist in grasping desperately for any means to call the historical existence of Jesus into question. One common tactic is to undermine the significance of the witness of Tacitus as found in his history of Rome, Annals. Wikipedia addresses the controversy in an article as follows:
 


 
+++
 
In summary, this article contains the following points and explanations regarding the i/e gap:
 
1.     The terms “Chrestianos” and “Christianos” (as well as “Chrestus” and “Christus”) were used interchangeably during this period without any impact on the meaning of the passages in question rendering the entire kerfuffle moot.
2.     It is possible that Tacitus intentionally wrote “Chrestianos” originally and then used the word “Christos” immediately after to demonstrate his own superior knowledge.
3.     It is possible that Tacitus wrote “Chrestianos” and that a scribe in the 11th century corrected what he thought to be a blunder by Tacitus by changing the “e” to an “I”.
4.     It is possible that Tacitus wrote “Christianos” and that a later scribe wrote “Chrestianos” –an error subsequently corrected back to the original “Christianos”.

Thanks for posting evidence which disproves your argument, you little ball sucking shit you.

Brilliant riposte, Constable. 

A truly dazzling display of the intellectual and rhetorical prowess of the "bright" side.

[athrock]

Paul of Acts is out the window, ofc.  Even the christians know better.  Heres an article for ya CL.  We can work on common ground.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily...ical-paul/

1) Authentic or Early Paul: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon (50s-60s A.D.)
2) Disputed Paul or Deutero-Pauline: 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians (80-100 A.D.)
3) Pseudo–Paul or the Pastorals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (80-100 A.D.)
4) Tendentious or Legendary Paul: Acts of the Apostles (90-130 A.D.)

Do you think that the paul you're asking about would be one of these pauls?  Add a category, if not.

Authentic aka Early Paul would be devastating enough for your position.

The proto-creed in 1 Corinthians 15 is a walk-off home run.

[athrock]

Just as Paul had never heard of the great majority of the jesus narrative.  Paul himself gives the strong impression of what would later be deemed a docetic heretic in the narratives attributed to him.  Supposedly, Marcion had nothing but praise for the man....not that he'd ever met him, of course.

Clement of Rome mentions him:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...tfoot.html

And, of course, Paul mentions Clement.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement  and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

[Jehanne]

Clement of Rome mentions him:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...tfoot.html

And, of course, Paul mentions Clement.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement  and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Indeed; both are historical personages.  Doesn't change the fact that Paul was an epileptic with delusions of grandeur who believed that angels and demons populated the atmosphere with heaven above the Earth, which, for him, was flat at the center of creation.

[Jehanne]

Clement of Rome mentions him:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...tfoot.html

Peter Kirby's "Early Christian Writings" site is excellent.  You should read more of it....like what he notes in the lead-in to "Clement."

Loisy maintains that the author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century. Notably, a writing is mentioned in 1 Clement 23:3 in which the challenge is quoted, "These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us." Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of "bishops and deacons" (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be "a rule of succession" for bishops and deacons who have "fallen asleep" (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.

Oh, please excuse me, but yes, I am not about to argue for the authenticity of the Epistle of Clement anymore than I am going to argue for the authenticity of all of the letters of Paul.  Having said that, I think that both Paul and Clement were historical figures, just as Julius Caesar was an historical person.

[Minimalist]

Except we have real evidence for Caesar.

And nothing but self-serving pious blather for the other two.

[Cephus]

Actually, that passage was entirely unknown until it was claimed by Sulpicius Severus in the early 5th century.  No Christian apologist prior to that ever claimed anything about that passage supposedly written by Tacitus.  It is widely thought to be a fraud, just like the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities.

So, not only is all of the Bible a fairy tale, but every non-Biblical source that might possibly corroborate anything in the Bible is a forgery?

Wow, you must have a lot of room in your ass, considering all the stuff you pull out of it.

[Minimalist]

Joseph Wheless, from 1930:

http://www.harrington-sites.com/f4.htm#BM6

1. Clement of Rome (about 30-96 A.D.)

He is alleged to be the first, second, third, or fourth, Bishop, or Pope, of Rome (CE. iv, 13); and to be the author of two Epistles to the Corinthians, besides other bulky and important forgeries, thus confessed and catalogued by CE:

"Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement: (1) The 'Second Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians.' Many critics have believed them genuine [they having been read in the Churches]. ... But it is now admitted on all hands that they cannot be by the same author as the genuine [?] Epistle to the Corinthians. ... (2) Two Epistles to Virgins.' (3) At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. (4) Ascribed to Clement are the 'Apostolic Constitutions,' 'Apostolic Canons,' and the "Testament of our lord.' (5) The 'Clementines' or 'Pseudo-Clementines,' including the Recognitions and Homilies," hereafter to be noticed. (CE. iv, 14-15; cf. 17, 39.)

The second of these alleged Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians is thus admittedly a forgery, together with everything else in his name but the alleged First Epistle. The case for this First Epistle is little if any better; but as it is the very flimsy basis of one of the proudest claims of Holy Church-though suppressed as "proof" of another claim which it disproves,-it is, as it were, plucked as a brand from the burning of all the other Clementine forgeries, and placed at the head of all the writings of the Fathers. Of this I Clement EB. says: "The author is certainly not Clement of Rome, whatever may be our judgment as to whether or not Clement was a bishop, a martyr, a disciple of the apostles. The martyrdom, set forth in untrustworthy Acts, has for its sole foundation the identification of Clement of Rome with Flavius Clement the consul, who was executed by cominand of Domitian,"-A.D. 81-96. (EB. iii, 3486.) This First Epistle is supposed to have been written about the year 96-98, by Clement, friend and coworker of Paul, according to the late "tradition" first set in motion by Dionysius, A.D. 170. But "This Clement," says CE., after citing the Fathers, "was probably a Philippian." (CE. iv, 13.) "Who the Clement was to whom the writings were ascribed, cannot with absolute certainty be determined." (ANF. i, 2.)

       It is notable that the pretendedly genuine "First Epistle" does not contain or mention the name of any one as its author, nor name Clement; its address is simply: "The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojurning at Corinth." There is only one MS. of it in existence, a translation into Latin from the original Greek. This is the celebrated MS. of "Holy Scripture" known as Codex A, which was discovered and presented to Charles I of England by Cyril of Alexandria, in 1628; the Fathers cited both I and II Clement as Scripture. On this MS., at the end of I Clement, is written, "The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians": a subscription which proves itself a forgery and that it was not written by Clement, who could not know that a later forger would write a "Second Clement," so as to give him occasion to call his own the First. (ANF. viii, 55-56.)

       By whomever this "First Epistle" was written, by Father, Bishop, or Pope of Rome, his zeal and his intelligence are demonstrated by his argument, in Chapter xxv, of the truth of the Resurrection; in proof of which he makes this powerful and faith-compelling plea: "Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the City called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the 500th year was completed." (ANF. i. p. 12. Note: "This fable respecting the phoenix is mentioned by Herodotus (ii, 73) and by Pliny (Nat. X, 2), and is used as above by Tertullian (De Resurr., see. 13), and by others of the Fathers." CF,. iv, 15.)

       The occasion for the pretended writing of this Epistle, and the very high significance of it, will be noticed when we treat of the origin of the Church which sojourns at Roine.