Grand Fromage wrote:Mulu wrote:Are there any non-Christian contemporaneous records of Christ's existence?
Not really. The first reliable mention of him outside of Christian tradition appears about eighty years later in Tacitus' writings, and that's only referencing the existence of the Christian cult and a report of a man named Jesus being executed in Judea. There is no reference to why.
In all probability, there didn't need to be. In 115 A.D., Tacitus wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." It is believed by some scholars that Tacitus gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate.
Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references include Justin Martyr (150 A..D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.). Both references correspond with the fact that there was an official document in Rome from Pilate. The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles. Emperor Tiberius acted on Pilate's report, according to Tertullian, to the Roman Senate. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians."
Grand Fromage wrote: Josephus' writings are earlier but are, at best, suspect--and are not contemporary or any more reliable than Tacitus, even if they are real.
Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian and a member of a priestly family. He was a Pharisee at the age of 19 and became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." These historical writings predated the Old Testament and Josephus died in 97 A.D.
Grand Fromage wrote: Thallus' writings have been entirely lost and are therefore useless--there are only a few second-hand references, and the content is the same sort of mystical crap that you find in other histories, like Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars.
His writings date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in his work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse.
Grand Fromage wrote: Pliny the Younger's writings only reference the relationship between the Christian Cult and the Roman state, and come about the same time as Tacitus.
Pliny was a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. He wrote in 112 A.D., "[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn
to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." That citizens would worship a known man ( Jesus of Nazareth, aka "the Christ"), as a god, was significant and differed from the mystical cults of Mithras and Dionysus. Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.
Grand Fromage wrote: The Talmud is within the religious tradition and unreliable; even if we accept it as accurate, it never explicitly mentions Jesus and may be about someone else entirely. And Jesus was a wizard, if the reference is accurate.
The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. The writings in the Talmud embrace the legal, ritual and exegetical commentaries that have developed right down to contemporary times. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded. Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty." These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence.
The New Testament speaks of a census at the time of Christ's birth. Historical records indicate that a census was ordered in Syria and Judea between 6 and 5 B.C. and 5 and 6 A.D. Returning to a person's home city was definitely the practice of the time. Luke refers to Quirinius being governor of Syria during the time of the census, again historically correct.
Grand Fromage wrote:Lucian was a storyteller and many of the attributed works likely weren't his at all, so there's nothing reliable there. What he does say is just reference to the existence of Christianity.
Lucian, a second century Greek satirist, speaking derisively of Jesus and the early Christians, does establish the worship of Christ within the first century of his death. "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; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods, alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Grand Fromage wrote:I can't find any reference to any historian named Valentius, so he'll have to give me more there.
He wasn't a historian but a Gnostic author like Saturninus.
Quite a bit of evidence there.
Also, the New Testament refers to the High Priest Caiaphas. Records of the Temple of Jerusalem where destroyed and history has not been able to verify that Caiaphas, like Christ, existed. If no evidence existed of Caiaphas when the New Testament was embraced by the Christians of the second century, then it would have been a fact lost to history. A public works project building a water park in November 1990 accidentally uncovered an ancient burial cave. The inscription in the burial chamber was that of the Caiaphas family. The Caiaphas name had only been mentioned in the New Testament and by Flavius Josephus, no Jewish records have been found with Caiaphas' name linked to being the high priest. The remains of a 60-year-old man were found in the burial cave that may have been the High Priest Caiaphas. The inscription on his craved ossuary, fit for a high priest, was the name Yehosef bar Qafa (Joseph, son of Caiaphas). Coins found in the cave were bronze minted in 42/43 (C.E.) during the reign of Herod Agrippa I.
According to Ron Reich in an article in Biblical Archaeology Review, "Very few of the hundreds of people who walk through the pages of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament have been attested in archeological finds. Now, to that small list, we may add, in all probability, the high priest who presided at Jesus' trial, or at least a member of his family." It adds, "From the period between the second century B.C.E. and the second century C.E., there are only six such names, and perhaps you will exclude one or two of these because they are names of rulers or former rulers. Three of these names, however, are especially pertinent here because they, like Caiaphas, come from priestly families."
The New Testament only refers to the High Priest as Caiaphas, but Josephus refers to him as Joseph, who was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood. Joseph or Caiaphas was the high priest in Jerusalem between 18 and 36 C.E.
Historical evidence has become more supportive of Jesus of Nazareth having lived and been a dominant figure during his lifetime and of a major concern to the establishment of the Temple and of Rome.
Grand Fromage wrote:Killthorne wrote:*edit: And oh sh**.. let's talk about how the romans basically ruled religion in their lands for hundreds of years, slaughtering people who believed in Christ. It was Constantine to even actually say " whoa " in "some" regretful way... though I think there was one before him who was slightly bothered by roman attitude on christian religion.. (can't remember his name at the moment but I could definitely look it up). Other than that, it was pure control over what was followed and taught or studied in layman terms.
This is not really true at all. The Romans were extremely tolerant of religious and cultural diversity; in many ways, more tolerant than we are. I'm not denying that there were persecutions of Christians, since there certainly were, but these were not on religious grounds. Much like the earlier persecution of Bacchus followers, Christians were rooted out because they were perceived as a threat to the stability of the State, or because they made a convenient scapegoat. Otherwise, they were left alone. This is the same basic policy applied to all the non-Roman cults, with some exceptions (Magna Mater for example). Constantine's legalization prevented any further persecutions from occurring, and paved the way for the eventual change of the state religion to Christianity.
There were ten very significant persecutions that occured. As many as 100,000 (if not more) of the early Christians were put to death between 64 A.D. and 337 A.D. Hardly a period of tolerance.
http://www.unrv.com/culture/christian-persecution.php
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/persecution-russell.html
Mulu wrote:For 10 pieces of silver you can get a lot accomplished in the Ancient world. Like having a guard look the other way, and then snicker over all the stories being told afterwards.
A scenario not rationally fitting for a Roman guard at the tomb of Jesus.
Mulu wrote:Vaelahr wrote:Blaise Pascal wrote, "The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out."
The kicker is that no one ever confessed (freely, or under pressure from bribe or torture) that the resurrection was a lie, a deliberate deception. Even when citizens broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in the bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn't have become Christians. Thousands of people do not die for what they know to be a lie.
Technically only one person would need know it was a lie, the guy who stole the body (again, assuming any of this happened). The rest could have been easily tricked by the deception, as they *wanted* to believe it.
Vaelahr wrote:
Furthermore, there was no motive for such a lie. Lies are always told for some selfish advantage. What advantage did the "conspirators" derive from their "lie" ?
To validate their beliefs. I could list a thousand ways in which Christians have lied to validate their beliefs.
Vaelahr wrote:If the resurrection was a lie, the Jewish authorities would have produced the corpse and put a swift end to the movement
Not if it was stolen.
So who would, and
could, have stolen it? ...and why?
