The Myth of The Jesus Myth

[blueman]

Then explain to me why this Jesus dude, or Yeshua of Nazarath, or Messiah or any number of names he became known by was never mentioned once in any Roman piece of literature? The Romans were well known for keeping detailed and accurate information so you would think there would be at the very least a slight blurb somewhere mentioning this Son of God person, wouldn't you think? How about the list of people crucified that day? Nope, he's not there either.

Would you consider the writings and historical record of Tacitus valid?

Book 15 of the Annals (written c. 116) by the Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christus as a person convicted by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign:

auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat[1]
​

The passage is part of an account of the Great Fire of Rome (64), which emperor Nero blamed on a religious group called Chrestians or Christians (see below), and offers an etymology for the group's name. This has become one of the best known and most discussed passages of Tacitus' works.[2]

 

[Oberon]

I mean the answer to the original question that started this path of conversation:

There are numerous sayings which I think go back in some form to the Jesus, as well as various healings and such. However, to get into which ones are most likely would be beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Oberon]

Then explain to me why this Jesus dude, or Yeshua of Nazarath, or Messiah or any number of names he became known by was never mentioned once in any Roman piece of literature? The Romans were well known for keeping detailed and accurate information so you would think there would be at the very least a slight blurb somewhere mentioning this Son of God person, wouldn't you think? How about the list of people crucified that day? Nope, he's not there either.

The romans were not "well known for keeping detailed and accurate information" on every citizen, let alone preachers from the backwaters of galilee. Our historical record is very scant for even much of the political and social elite. There would be zero reason for a roman to historian to be interested in a preacher like Jesus until his followers were numerous enough to make an impression. And, indeed, this is where the romans begin to record. We know that by Nero's time, shortly after Jesus' death, his followers were well known enough and disliked enough by the romans to be blamed for the fires.

 

[blueman]

There are numerous sayings which I think go back in some form to the Jesus, as well as various healings and such. However, to get into which ones are most likely would be beyond the scope of this thread.

Sounds like the Jesus seminar approach to me. A clever, but another failed attempt to taint the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. If you totally eliminate the supernatural from the equation, you will never accept the gift of God through Jesus Christ that is available to all.

 

[Oberon]

Sounds like the Jesus seminar approach to me. A clever, but another failed attempt to taint the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. If you totally eliminate the supernatural from the equation, you will never accept the gift of God through Jesus Christ that is available to all.

I don't "totally eliminate the supernatural." I believe Jesus was believed by witnesses to perform various miraculous feats. However, that doesn't mean that I believe he actually performed miracles. Additionally, sayings and teachings are more likely to be accurately recorded than events, miraculous or not.


Furthermore, this is the approach of every historian, whether the Jesus seminar or a catholic like Meier or whoever. A historian can say that a miracle was believed by witnesses to have taken place. S/he cannot say that it did. History is about what "most likely" happened. Miracles are by their very nature unlikely.

Finally, I'm not christian. So the gift of God through Jesus isn't my aim.

 

[blueman]

I don't "totally eliminate the supernatural." I believe Jesus was believed by witnesses to perform various miraculous feats. However, that doesn't mean that I believe he actually performed miracles. Additionally, sayings and teachings are more likely to be accurately recorded than events, miraculous or not.


Furthermore, this is the approach of every historian, whether the Jesus seminar or a catholic like Meier or whoever. A historian can say that a miracle was believed by witnesses to have taken place. S/he cannot say that it did. History is about what "most likely" happened. Miracles are by their very nature unlikely.

Finally, I'm not christian. So the gift of God through Jesus isn't my aim.

That's fine Oberon, but God still extends His hand to you in grace and love. The miracles referenced in the Bible underscore the Godly nature of Jesus Christ. They could have been easily disputed by witnesses of said events if the authors were truly embellishing. The authorship of the New Testament Gospels and Paul's Epistles occurred within the lifetime of said witnesses and virtually eliminated the possibility of legend evolving. Miracles are supernatural and represent God intervening in a natural world.

 

[Oberon]

That's fine Oberon, but God still extends His hand to you in grace and love.

Well, I hope so. Sincerely.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's truly pathetic and weak to make an argument regarding whether Jesus was a historical figure. Even the majority of skeptics agree that there is sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus in 1st century Palestine. Secondly, the Bible is truly the greatest and sustaining historical book of the 1st century. Compare it to any other historical work and you cannot argue with the attention to detail, historical precision associated with the greatest book of all time.

Complete rubbish. There's nothing wrong trying to figure out if Yeshua was a historical person.

You say it as if we should except it as a fact because some one told us he was or some sort of consensus of scholars making an educated guess says he was...or "believed"....he was.

As far as skeptics...SO WHAT....???? Because 2 is more than 1...this ends the debate?...Nope...At best it prompts us all to continue to study and challenge preconceived notions of the supposed historicity of Yeshua......


EDIT: You do realize the bible is a collection of scrolls and letters....? The bible is no "history" book......and anyone using it as such may find themselves looking foolish.

 

[Smoke]

It's truly pathetic and weak to make an argument regarding whether Jesus was a historical figure. Even the majority of skeptics agree that there is sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus in 1st century Palestine.

I agree with that myself. However, I don't see anything wrong with posing the question and carefully considering it. What's wrong with asking? What's wrong with considering the evidence?

Secondly, the Bible is truly the greatest and sustaining historical book of the 1st century. Compare it to any other historical work and you cannot argue with the attention to detail, historical precision associated with the greatest book of all time.

I can't help wondering whether a person who talks about the "historical precision" of the Bible has ever read it with attention. Historical precision is not one of its notable traits.

 

[EtuMalku]

Would you consider the writings and historical record of Tacitus valid?

Book 15 of the Annals (written c. 116) by the Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christus as a person convicted by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign:

auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat[1]
​

The passage is part of an account of the Great Fire of Rome (64), which emperor Nero blamed on a religious group called Chrestians or Christians (see below), and offers an etymology for the group's name. This has become one of the best known and most discussed passages of Tacitus' works.[2]

116 years later? I'm not buying it. Another Roman Emperor passing the buck to some Jewish Sect, that's all.
But don't get me wrong, I actually believe this person existed but not in the capacity of which he became known as.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

116 years later? I'm not buying it. Another Roman Emperor passing the buck to some Jewish Sect, that's all.
But don't get me wrong, I actually believe this person existed but not in the capacity of which he became known as.

And as a true skeptic....I can agree with this.....

 

[Oberon]

You say it as if we should except it as a fact because some one told us he was or some sort of consensus of scholars making an educated guess says he was...or "believed"....he was.

Not consensus. Virtually every single one for over century. All the people who have studied the matter most intently.

At best it prompts us all to continue to study and challenge preconceived notions of the supposed historicity of Yeshua......

They aren't "preconceived." Critical historical inquiry and doubting whether Jesus actually was a historical figure began several centuries ago. The issue was already hammered out and tired by the beginning of the 20th century, so much so that at the very beginning Schweitzer could write his monumental work on the history of the quest for the historical Jesus Von Reimarus zu Wrede.

The bible is no "history" book

No, but it contains books which are clearly in the genre of ancient history.

 

[blueman]

Complete rubbish. There's nothing wrong trying to figure out if Yeshua was a historical person.

You say it as if we should except it as a fact because some one told us he was or some sort of consensus of scholars making an educated guess says he was...or "believed"....he was.

As far as skeptics...SO WHAT....???? Because 2 is more than 1...this ends the debate?...Nope...At best it prompts us all to continue to study and challenge preconceived notions of the supposed historicity of Yeshua......


EDIT: You do realize the bible is a collection of scrolls and letters....? The bible is no "history" book......and anyone using it as such may find themselves looking foolish.

I don't fault you for searching for the truth, but if you or anyone else makes a statement that Christ does not exist or the Bible is not the authoritative word of God, the burden of proof for you is overwhelming in light of biblical, secular history, archeaoligical and circumstantial evidence.

 

[EtuMalku]

It's impossible to prove that something didn't exist . . . lol
If you would want us to prove the 'Christian' (there are other bibles you know?) Bible is not an authoritative word of God, then 'you' will first need to prove there is this God, then we can work to disprove that these gospels were in fact written by men with the intent to initiate and solidify a new sect of Jewish religion while promising political and emotional control over its subjects.

 

[blueman]

116 years later? I'm not buying it. Another Roman Emperor passing the buck to some Jewish Sect, that's all.
But don't get me wrong, I actually believe this person existed but not in the capacity of which he became known as.

First off, we're really talking about 83 years later if like most historians believe, Jesus was cruxified around AD 33. This is well within the lifetime of some of the individuals who may have witnessed said event. Just like the gospels and Paul's epistles were written within a 15-60 year period following Chirst's death and ressurection, which could have been easily disputed by the witnesses of the claimed events. Homer's Iliad and Alexander The Great's biography (which by the way was written 400 years after his death) could not touch this. If you are truly wedded to the fundamentals associated with the precision that histoirans follow in uncovering truth and sound rationale, you have to respect the Bible as an authoratative source.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't fault you for searching for the truth, but if you or anyone else makes a statement that Christ does not exist or the Bible is not the authoritative word of God, the burden of proof for you

Again, COMPLETE Rubbish. We can say all we like that given the current available information on the biblical Yeshua we are left with the impression that the man descibed in the gospels may not have existed. May be a an outspoken man existed. He was an activist but as far as all of the magic and miracles associated with him may have been all hype.

As far as the bible being some sort of authoritative word of a god....well the burden of proof is on you to prove god. You can't. That's not a problem for me if you can't. You have to take the existence of your god on faith.....just as others have to do theirs. You believe your god is true but on the other hand deny the existence of the gods of Rome/Greece, those of Hinduism etc. by calling them myth and false.....well.....prove it.....if you can't prove yours exist and you can't prove others don't.....then I fail to see how you reason a god authorized the bible....which by the way is only a fraction of scrolls assembled together to make what you call "the bible"..... Did not your god authorized the rest of the other books/scrolls that aren't (weren't) included...?

is overwhelming in light of biblical, secular history, archeaoligical and circumstantial evidence.

I'm sorry but this is stupid. I'm not doubdting the bible contains some "historical" data but given its fantastical and mythical claims as well as some historical and scientific inaccuracies I wouldn't go around toting it as if it was an authoritative piece of historical fact. Ever wonder why we don't use it in our schools as a history book???

 

[blueman]

Again, COMPLETE Rubbish. We can say all we like that given the current available information on the biblical Yeshua we are left with the impression that the man descibed in the gospels may not have existed. May be a an outspoken man existed. He was an activist but as far as all of the magic and miracles associated with him may have been all hype.

As far as the bible being some sort of authoritative word of a god....well the burden of proof is on you to prove god. You can't. That's not a problem for me if you can't. You have to take the existence of your god on faith.....just as others have to do theirs. You believe your god is true but on the other hand deny the existence of the gods of Rome/Greece, those of Hinduism etc. by calling them myth and false.....well.....prove it.....if you can't prove yours exist and you can't prove others don't.....then I fail to see how you reason a god authorized the bible....which by the way is only a fraction of scrolls assembled together to make what you call "the bible"..... Did not your god authorized the rest of the other books/scrolls that aren't (weren't) included...?




I'm sorry but this is stupid. I'm not doubdting the bible contains some "historical" data but given its fantastical and mythical claims as well as some historical and scientific inaccuracies I wouldn't go around toting it as if it was an authoritative piece of historical fact. Ever wonder why we don't use it in our schools as a history book???

I think we've made a good enough argument that the historical Jesus existed and claimed to be the essence of God in the flesh. As far as the miracles go, if you totally throw the supernatural out of the equation, you will never have an open heart and mind to believe. To be relegated to "That's rubbish" and all other slights towards not so much my opinion, but historical fact. As far as it not being taught in schools does not make it any less credible. We live in a very secular society dominated by modern relativism and embracement of things that at the end of the day, don't really matter. Regarding the other gods you refer to, if there was the weight of evidence for those beings that I outlined in my argument for Jesus and His deity, we would acknowledge. The problem is it doesn't exist.

 

[dogsgod]

There are no historical facts regarding the Jesus of the gospels. Jesus is a religious figure without historical merit. The gospels are a narrative, they tell a story about the Son of God, and I hate to be the one to burst the bubble but, God doesn't really have any children. God is imaginary, invisible, and there are no facts regarding his existence either. So sorry.

 

[Oberon]

There are no historical facts regarding the Jesus of the gospels. Jesus is a religious figure without historical merit. The gospels are a narrative, they tell a story about the Son of God, and I hate to be the one to burst the bubble but, God doesn't really have any children. God is imaginary, invisible, and there are no facts regarding his existence either. So sorry.

Spoken like one without any idea of what he is talking about. Augustus Caesar was also called the son of god in a narrative about his life. I suppose he didn't exist either.

 

[EtuMalku]

How silly! What is the point of that statement?
Let's call me the 'Son of God' . . . I exist!
Let's call my 6 year old's imaginary friend Jerry the Son of God . . . doesn't exist!