Did Jesus exist?

[IanS]

We are of course discussing the Historical provenance of Tactitus, which of course is likewise dependent on a range of scientific disciplines, such as archaeology, geology, etc. I would have thought that having read the entire post in context that was absolutely clear. Nevertheless, I would cheerfully modify my statement as follows:

if my position was rejected by the overwhelming majority of HISTORIANS and BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.

Well they are not by any means objective scientists producing anything so objectively evidenced and properly supported as scientific theory, are they!

There is absolutely no comparison at all. Your comparison was bogus.

 

[dejudge]

That is a curious response. We are discussing a fairly straightforward and simple matter: the authenticity of Tacitus. You yourself provided a link that established the consensus of historians and biblical scholars.

which link shall i believe, your earlier link or the youtubey?

You claim is openly fallacious. Robert Eisenman claimed NO-ONE has solved the HJ question at the very start.

Robert Eisenman presented no data, no survey that showed there was a consensus among historians. In fact, he claimed the subject is controversial.

 

[IanS]

Well that’s a bit of problem then for anyone believing in Jesus, isn’t it?

Because as far as anyone can honestly tell, when any other writer outside the bible, such as Josephus or Tacitus etc., makes any mention of Jesus the only known source from which any of those later hearsay writers could have obtained any mention of Jesus, is the earlier biblical writing itself.

That is - there is actually no other known primary or independent source except the bible.

In which case, any belief in Jesus really rests entirely upon belief in the truth of the bible.

"makes any mention of Jesus the only known source from which any of those later hearsay writers could have obtained any mention of Jesus, is the earlier biblical writing itself. That is - there is actually no other known primary or independent source except the bible."

Well that is patently false. Tacitus, for one, was alive during the very period he was describing (i.e. the Great Fire, the persecution of the Christians by Nero) Actually, it appears undisputed that he obtained his information from sources other than the "bible."

Tacitus was supposed have lived from c.56AD to c.117AD. Jesus was supposed to have died around c.30AD. In which case Tacitus was not even born at the time of anything Jesus was ever supposed to have said or done, and therefore could not himself have personally known anything about Jesus ... except what he received as “hearsay” from unknown anonymous sources that he does not mention.

And even that quite useless anonymous hearsay story telling comes not from anything ever actually known to have been written about Jesus by Tacitus, because we actually have nothing ever written about Jesus by Tacitus. But instead apparently only from what was actually written by self-interested Christian religious copyists themselves writing a whopping and vastly too late 1000 years later from around the 11th century onwards. As evidence of Tacitus knowing anything about Jesus, that is utterly hopeless.

 

[maximara]

"makes any mention of Jesus the only known source from which any of those later hearsay writers could have obtained any mention of Jesus, is the earlier biblical writing itself. That is - there is actually no other known primary or independent source except the bible."

Well that is patently false. Tacitus, for one, was alive during the very period he was describing (i.e. the Great Fire, the persecution of the Christians by Nero) Actually, it appears undisputed that he obtained his information from sources other than the "bible."

No it is not patently false as Tacitus does NOT mention Jesus and that the oldest copy of his work talks of Chrestians which could have been a reference to a cult that worshiped Osiris under Chrestus Serapis or in the original Egyptian Un-nefer Osiris. Or it could be reference to another group who followed a Chrestus and was confused with the later group of Christians due to similarities in the names.

 

[The Big Dog]

You claim is openly fallacious. Robert Eisenman claimed NO-ONE has solved the HJ question at the very start.

Robert Eisenman presented no data, no survey that showed there was a consensus among historians. In fact, he claimed the subject is controversial.

My claim? What a baffling post. I don't care what you think YOUR youtubey said about "HJ." The issue on the table is Tacitus.

Tacitus was supposed have lived from c.56AD to c.117AD. Jesus was supposed to have died around c.30AD. In which case Tacitus was not even born at the time of anything Jesus was ever supposed to have said or done, and therefore could not himself have personally known anything about Jesus ... except what he received as “hearsay” from unknown anonymous sources that he does not mention.

And even that quite useless anonymous hearsay story telling comes not from anything ever actually known to have been written about Jesus by Tacitus, because we actually have nothing ever written about Jesus by Tacitus. But instead apparently only from what was actually written by self-interested Christian religious copyists themselves writing a whopping and vastly too late 1000 years later from around the 11th century onwards. As evidence of Tacitus knowing anything about Jesus, that is utterly hopeless.

sigh. Enough with the straw men. I've explained patiently time and again, that Tacitus had first hand knowledge of the fire in Rome, and Nero's persecution of the Jesus community. No one has ever claimed that he knew Jesus personally, and the repeated claims that it renders what Tacitus did write about suspect is laughable.

We've discussed the forgery, and it has been, as discussed at length, your claim that they are later added comments are completely unproven. The consensus of historians and biblical scholars is that the Annals are absolutely authentic.

 

[The Big Dog]

No it is not patently false as Tacitus does NOT mention Jesus and that the oldest copy of his work talks of Chrestians which could have been a reference to a cult that worshiped Osiris under Chrestus Serapis or in the original Egyptian Un-nefer Osiris. Or it could be reference to another group who followed a Chrestus and was confused with the later group of Christians due to similarities in the names.

Sure, that cult that derived its name from Christus who suffered the ultimate penalty under Pilate, right?

"called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

That don't sound like Osiris, Serapis or Un-nefer Osiris. Sounds like desperation.

C'mon, if you are not going to even address the actual writing in context, why bother?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Well they are not by any means objective scientists producing anything so objectively evidenced and properly supported as scientific theory, are they!

There is absolutely no comparison at all. Your comparison was bogus.

 

[roger_pearse]

Most first century history is based on Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Josephus. Cassius Dio says nothing. Tacitus mentions Christ, Suetonius mentions Christians, and Josephus has a passage about the brother of Christ (and another long and corrupt passage which probably did so originally).

You will find, however, that the headbangers are ready with excuses to ignore this data.

Only a fool manufactures a silence and then argues that his manufactured absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

They are not so much excuses but alternative explications.

(snip excuses)

The only headbanger material is with regards to anyone who presents these three as "proof" Jesus existed.

Why not engage with what I wrote?

Those excuses were originally composed by very ignorant people... Ancient history is not done like that, because anybody can manufacture excuses to selectively ignore evidence.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[IanS]

sigh. Enough with the straw men. I've explained patiently time and again, that Tacitus had first hand knowledge of the fire in Rome, and Nero's persecution of the Jesus community. No one has ever claimed that he knew Jesus personally, and the repeated claims that it renders what Tacitus did write about suspect is laughable.

We've discussed the forgery, and it has been, as discussed at length, your claim that they are later added comments are completely unproven. The consensus of historians and biblical scholars is that the Annals are absolutely authentic.

You have no legs left to stand on when claiming Tacitus as evidence of a human Jesus. And that IS who we are talking about - JESUS ...

... Tacitus was not even born at the time of Jesus and could not possibly of known what happened to him, except as hearsay from other sources he does not name.

But the only known earlier, supposedly original primary source from which those stories of Jesus arose (inc. the story of his death), is the biblical writing itself.

Tacitus is not, and cannot be, evidence of the author himself knowing anything about Jesus.

And that’s apart from the quite laughable fact that what is being offered as Tacitus, are Christian religious copies dating from c.1000 years after Tacitus had died!

As evidence of Jesus that is hopelessly compromised.

 

[roger_pearse]

I was paraphrasing you with regard to Mithras, Horus et al. It was a condition for my following your suggestion. Used in such a way, it's perfectly normal usage.

It's usually better to write correct English than try to justify not doing so.

Different standards of proof. You demand historical rigour for just about everything except the Gospels, which were written long after the purported events.

I have no idea why you are introducing the gospels; nothing to do with my argument. In fact nothing in your post appears to engage with what I said.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[The Big Dog]

You have no legs left to stand on when claiming Tacitus as evidence of a human Jesus. And that IS who we are talking about - JESUS ...

... Tacitus was not even born at the time of Jesus and could not possibly of known what happened to him, except as hearsay from other sources he does not name.

But the only known earlier, supposedly original primary source from which those stories of Jesus arose (inc. the story of his death), is the biblical writing itself.

Tacitus is not, and cannot be, evidence of the author himself knowing anything about Jesus.

And that’s apart from the quite laughable fact that what is being offered as Tacitus, are Christian religious copies dating from c.1000 years after Tacitus had died!

As evidence of Jesus that is hopelessly compromised.

I see we are getting nowhere, because I have established that Tactitus had direct knowledge of the Christians in Rome and their beliefs, and the fact of Pontius Pilatus. This is not hearsay.

There is no doubt that Tactius annals are completely authentic.

 

[IanS]

I see we are getting nowhere, because I have established that Tactitus had direct knowledge of the Christians in Rome and their beliefs, and the fact of Pontius Pilatus. This is not hearsay.

There is no doubt that Tactius annals are completely authentic.

You are getting nowhere because you have nowhere to go ... Tacitus did not know anything about Jesus except what he had heard as hearsay stories.

How did Tacitus know that Jesus was executed?

Who told Tacitus that, do you know?

 

[Brainache]

You are getting nowhere because you have nowhere to go ... Tacitus did not know anything about Jesus except what he had heard as hearsay stories.

How did Tacitus know that Jesus was executed?

Who told Tacitus that, do you know?

As a Roman Chronicler he would have had many sources. He made it his business to learn all he could about Rome and document it as best he could.

So we have evidence that there were Christians in Rome in the 60s. That is before the destruction of Jerusalem.

How is this possible, given your MJ scenario?

 

[The Big Dog]

You are getting nowhere because you have nowhere to go ... Tacitus did not know anything about Jesus except what he had heard as hearsay stories.

How did Tacitus know that Jesus was executed?

Who told Tacitus that, do you know?

How did Tacitus know about the fire? how did Tacitus know about Christians? How did Tacitus know what Christians believed? How did Tacitus know that Nero blamed them for the fire?

answer: he lived it.

His knowledge on Pilate: numerous sources from his life as a Roman official

 

[Navigator]

There are several threads currently active on the subject of Jesus existence.

Here is a summation of the major points, many others have been raised but these seem to be the ones that recur.

(HJ = Historical Jesus MJ = Mythical Jesus)



Pro HJ:

Deny Jesus, deny history. The same methods used to verify Jesus are used to verify most of history.


Academic Consensus: Most professors of ancient history agree on an HJ only a lunatic fringe believe in an MJ.

Christianity: You need Jesus to explain the existence of Christianity

Motivation: Insecure atheists need to attack Christianity by denying Jesus

Anti HJ:

John Frum: proves religions can develop without an actual human founder.

Gospel unreliability: we don't know who wrote the gospels or just when they were written, many of the stories are unbelievable.

Academic bias: most of the professors who advocate the HJ are Christian theologians and teach at bible colleges.

Motivation: Some people have rejected Christianity but still have a soft spot in their hearts for Jesus.

For me it doesn't matter a toss whether Jesus was a made up fictional character, with made up extras attached, or something else entirely which no one has thought of.

I like the message. Any part of the message which contradicts the message I assume has possibly been toyed with.

That is the most attractive thing about the character Jesus. The message. It was very human and humanly understandable and doable.

I don't see him as a Jew but as a Human Being. That is because his character gives me the impression he is a human being.

I couldn't vote in the poll because there wasn't a particular position for me to do so, apart from perhaps the last one re Planet X.

 

[tsig]

I see we are getting nowhere, because I have established that Tactitus had direct knowledge of the Christians in Rome and their beliefs, and the fact of Pontius Pilatus. This is not hearsay.

There is no doubt that Tactius annals are completely authentic.

Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.


J. C.

 

[dafydd]

I like the message. Any part of the message which contradicts the message I assume has possibly been toyed with.

How do you spot which parts of the message have been toyed with if you don't know what the original message was? Which parts of the message contradicts the original message?

 

[Tricky]

How do you spot which parts of the message have been toyed with if you don't know what the original message was? Which parts of the message contradicts the original message?

The message is whatever you decide it is. That's why so many people can read the same texts and come out with vastly different interpretations. Such is the nature of religion. Navigator can assume it has been "toyed with" as much as he likes, but he is also doing some toying to make it fit his own personal morality.

 

[dafydd]

The message is whatever you decide it is. That's why so many people can read the same texts and come out with vastly different interpretations. Such is the nature of religion. Navigator can assume it has been "toyed with" as much as he likes, but he is also doing some toying to make it fit his own personal morality.

Very well put. Religion is a pick and choose box of chocolates, you leave the ones that you don't like.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rational Wiki has the most thorough and objective analysis of the evidence as I have ever seen.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ