JESUS CHRIST: Myth or Historical Person?

it wasn't HER claim, though. it was a furphy made up by MEN because 'ooooh yucky naughty naughty unclean girlie!!'

 

Wrong on all three counts.

Tacitus never mentions a Jesus nor did he ever see a Jesus. The reference in Annals 15:44 is only confirming that christians were in Rome at the time shouting something about a Christus as their saviour. This is in no confirming a Jesus ever lived.

This wrote some 75 years after the fact. What was his source? Hearsay by christians? Not a reliable source.

Oh my, poor old Josephus. Ant 18:3:3, parts of the passage were interpolated by a later hand and in no where else in all his writings does he mention a Jesus. It takes the Bible 66 Books to come up with this Jesus and Josephus does it in 127 words! WTH! Also there are 21 other references to other men named “Jesus” in Josephus writings. Lets cap this off with the fact that jesus does not appear in his writings until the start of the 4th Century! And how can Josephus remain an Orthodox Jew and still claim that this Jesus was Christ?

Pliny the Younger

Written 112 AD some 90 years after the fact. Where does Pliny in all this verify an historical Jesus? Pliny is not writing what he saw only what he heard.

No where in the writings of these three historians is there any proof of a Jesus. Mentions are only made in passing either by hearsay or forgery.

 

ACtually Josephus didn't belong to a group that killed Christians, but let's leave that aside. Christ is a title not a name. So it has little meaning to someone who doesn't believe so I have to ask for direct quotes from these people to determine your point. I know that Josephus made passing references to Jesus but was living during the rise of Christianity.

I see the Josephus was really good about protecting Josephus. I take much of his writing with a grain of salt.

Show me the writing.

 

I'm leaning towards the latter. With the caveat that I think his deeds have been greatly exaggerated.

 

If you have seen the (fabricated) passage it makes Josephus the only Jew accepting Jesus as the messiah without ever abandoning judaism .

Tactitus was born like 30 years after the alleged death of JC and the oldest copy of his work comes from a Benedictine monastery . The passage itself shows that he knew about christians and you shouldn't forget that in 1st century scriptures were already into circulation .

 

Biased as it maybe this site details some things:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

 

Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesus' Existence

Bart Ehrman says he doesnt know any serious ancient world scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus Christ.

[video=youtube;WUQMJR2BP1w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w&list=PLYcuLAArq58T3ODmYAMnKW2U 6Q-EOkDo-&index=110[/video]

 

Thank you for the link but it does not prove anything , Jewish scriptures are about judaism and have nothing to do with the subject of christianity.
The comparison to Homer's epics is interesting ... how many times James is mentioned without John and how many times they are mentioned as John and James ? here is an analogy with a very common Greek myth of the same era , they are always together and Castor is always mentioned before Polydefkis .
I can go on on how many times Jesus appears to use a boat in order to travel in a landlocked land with a tiny lake and draw parallels to Odyssey but i am sure you can understand the similarities without any examples.

 

Your joking right?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667/

http://vridar.wordpress.com/earl-dohertys-response-to-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/

Has anyone here even bothered to read his last book? Low and behold what do we have on page 46:

Still, to press yet further on the issue of evidence we do not have, I need to stress that we do not have a single reference to Jesus by anyone— pagan, Jew, or Christian— who was a contemporary eyewitness, who recorded things he said and did.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 46). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

He goes on further on the same page:

But what about the Gospels of the New Testament? Aren’t they eyewitness reports? Even though that was once widely believed about two of our Gospels, Matthew and John, it is not the view of the vast majority of critical historians today, and for good reason.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 46). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

He goes on further but rather than risk taking his words out of context those that are arguing this should really read the book.

 

Iesus is a fiction brought about by one Ptolemy V, Epiphanes Soter. The name he used was Serapis.
Now, the prophetic Messiah did not exist at the time the Church teaches, so it is a fiction.
Here is a quote from Pope Leo X:

It is as I have stated for years now, Prophet Isa, whom the Church uses his story to hide that they are actually promoting the worship of Zues (Iesus), Perseus and Serapis (Ptolemy V). As a result, the people actually believe that now is the kingdom of Heaven or Jannah. Some Muslim scholars go along with the lie of Iesus/Serapis in an attempt at showing "brotherhood" or sameness. I disagree with this move because there was never a recorded history of a prophet, messenger or warner by the name of Iesus (Jesus), there is however a recorded history of prophet Isa and his mother Maryam, who were both signs of the end times.

 

Let me be clear here.

I do believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But she wasnt a virgin, and if she said she was, she was lying. We all know where babies come from. And Jesus was no mystical being. Simply a man. Nothing more and nothing less than you or I. After all. We all create god in our own image right? But I do believe that he existed.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me be clear here.

I do believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus. But she wasnt a virgin, and if she said she was, she was lying. We all know where babies come from. And Jesus was no mystical being. Simply a man. Nothing more and nothing less than you or I. After all. We all create god in our own image right? But I do believe that he existed.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- ALIF QADR:
Do tell. Is that why the following historians mentioned him in their HISTORICAL writings?

1. Cornelius Tacitus, known as the greatest Roman Historian of his time
2. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian
3. Pliny The Younger (born Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus), Roman Governor

How do you explain that?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- TURIN:
Let me be clear here: This thread is not about whether or not you believe Mary was a virgin or even whether or not you believe the Bible is the inspired word of Almighty God Jehovah. Your skepticism along that line is irrelevant. This thread is to prove that Jesus Christ was a historical person who was not confined to the pages of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

 

Can you post the primary sources and we'll have a look? i.e verse quotations.

 

Annals 15:44 is not a reference to an historical real life jesus. Tacitus was only repeating what he had heard not what he saw. FAIL.

Another FAIL....apparently you did not research this. Only thing you saw was a mention of the name jesus and automatically assumed they were eyewitness accounts to this god man.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

Ant 18.3.3 was forged. Parts of that was not written by any Jew. Agian a FAIL.

 

Ehrman said he doesn't know a serious scholar who doubts the existence of a historical Jesus.

Ehrman also said he gets misquoted a lot. Seems you read his book though your glasses of wishful thinking. From the book description on amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0062206443

The very fact that this thread is still going just goes to show that a lot of atheists in this forum are just as resiliant to reasonable thought as some Christians are.

 

The notion that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth involves people in the question of who could possibly have gained by making up the story, and where they got four novelists-before-the-novel to create so convincing and unusual a character? The 'Christ' bit is another thing, and embodies, I think, the mix-up of two cultures, the Hebrew with its barely-approachable One God and that of Roman citizens like Paul, who had to accept successful politicians as one of a more-than-rugby-team of' gods'. The result is Messiah Godson. Paul was a propaganda genius, but that was a long time ago, and we are freer to think these days.

 

If RAbbi Jesus/Yehoshua had never been a real person it would be unlikely for him to turn up in so many near death experience accounts?????!!!

http://www.thomastwin.com/6 A Thomas background.html

Background to The Thomas Book

©by Bruce Fraser MacDonald, PhD 2011

 

I would be curious what you personally think of this message......supposedly from Paul to a Charismatic Christian pastor back in 1995??!!

Pastor Rick Joyner meets apostle Paul in visionary dream of heaven in 1995!
https://www.facebook.com/notes/fans...onary-dream-of-heaven-in-1995/439397829471068

 

I find it interesting, but difficult to enter into the thought-world it suggests. I think (a bit vaguely perhaps) that the last battle was going to be the overthrow of Rome and the establishment of the Kingdom of Justice and Righteousness here on Earth, but that Constantine managed to avoid that by sort-of-buying-up the Church, so that we are now living with beliefs that need re-stating for this time, now, here - which I do not think are the Last Days by a long shot.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- WOODY:
Who said Tacitus, Josephus, or Pliny the Younger had to see Jesus Christ or were even required to be alive when Jesus was alive? For that matter, who said any historian has to personally be present at every event he/she writes about?

Next you will be arguing that historians of the 21st century who write about the 1861-1865 American Civil War would have had to have been right there on the scene in order for their writings to be accepted as historically accurate.

 

21st century historians have primary documents from the Civil War. There were no primary source documents produced during Jesus' life about his life. That's the distinction.

 

We know that the Gospels are derived from unknown source materials that the authorities destroyed to cover up their appropriations from other races so as to make their work seem authentic and original. We also know that various forms of Christianity existed prior to the birth of Jesus Christ. Finally, in view of the fact that the Jews rejected the Gentiles’ hijacking of their spiritual ideal and turning Him into a historical messiah following a pattern of sacrificial saviors found across numerous races, we have to suspect that the Gentiles have nothing to offer but a common mythoplasm. The NDE/white-light being at the end of the tunnel has a job to do, but we don’t get to see the resume that got him the position.

Later, Christianity had to resolve the conflict between two major factions, one being the Gnostic-leaning Pauline sect in Antioch, Syria, and the other being the Petrine sect in Nazareth, the latter eventually prevailing in the blending. The council of Nicea canonized the Bible and disabled the Gnostics in support of an organized religion controlled by a hierarchy of priests. Knowing this, you can get whatever suits your fancy, big brother mandate, unofficial mysticism, or some other belief system (or non-belief system).

On the other hand, a real-life Jesus character of modest human origins would have fit right in as a wise teacher showing the way. If he was brought about through the tweeking efforts of another part of the galaxy, the promoters knew it was worth a try but are perhaps resorting to the use other avenues of influence, since the prevailing establishment always disposes of those who rock the boat too hard.