Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is what really gets me riled up: if we Atheists are going to separate ourselves from the religious/magical thinkers of the world, we better put up or shut up. We can't say we are logical, rational, evidence-based thinkers and then willingly give in to a religious non-evidence based assumption that this myth character really existed. If we do, we're no better than they are.
If some of us are constantly showing that there is NO evidence that Jesus existed and the rest of us (Jaggy, rogead and John13) are saying, "Well, gee. I guess Jesus was a real leader who had some good ideas, but he wasn't the son of god because there is no god"... or worse: "I don't care because it's not important," then we've lost the moral high ground because we have already given in to magical thinking we so oppose.
This is why it's important.
If we truly are going to agree that we live in a world based on science, truth and rational thought, then you better damn well show me the truth that Jesus existed. I think I already shown above that he didn't.
Correction: nowhere have I said that JC either existed or did not exist. Neither did I express a view on his alleged leadership qualities. My view is that I don't care whether he existed or not and I don't think proof of existence (or not) is relevant to their belief system.
Correction: nowhere have I said that JC either existed or did not exist. Neither did I express a view on his alleged leadership qualities. My view is that I don't care whether he existed or not and I don't think proof of existence (or not) is relevant to their belief system.
That's not a correction. I correctly lumped you 3 together who have taken either of those two quotes' positions. You fall into the latter quote because you say "I don't care whether he existed or not." In doing so, you reduce the credibility of atheists like me who are trying to argue the merits of living in an evidence based world.
This is what really gets me riled up: if we Atheists are going to separate ourselves from the religious/magical thinkers of the world, we better put up or shut up. We can't say we are logical, rational, evidence-based thinkers and then willingly give in to a religious non-evidence based assumption that this myth character really existed. If we do, we're no better than they are.
If some of us are constantly showing that there is NO evidence that Jesus existed and the rest of us (Jaggy, rogead and John13) are saying, "Well, gee. I guess Jesus was a real leader who had some good ideas, but he wasn't the son of god because there is no god"... or worse: "I don't care because it's not important," then we've lost all credibility because we have already given in to magical thinking we so oppose.
This is why it's important.
If we truly are going to agree that we live in a world based on science, truth and rational thought, then you better damn well show me the truth that Jesus existed. I think I already shown above that he didn't.
I also believe Mohammed existed. However, I don't believe he ascended to heaven on a golden ladder. Nor do I conflate the likelihood of the man's existence with the actions of those who express belief in Islam.
Very few non-theists I know reject the idea of the physical existence of Jesus. Very few historians I've encountered, including non-theists, deny the evidence of the physical existence of Jesus. I know of no one who has ever shown "that there is NO evidence that Jesus existed". The evidence is there from early Roman historians. If you'd prefer to throw out the writings of Tacitus, for example, then you'd need to deny a significant portion of Roman history as we know it today. If it's more comfortable for you to refute the historical accuracy of a historian known for his assiduousness and accuracy, I'm fine with that. Personally, I'll take Tacitus over you. No offense, it's just that history was his gig.
I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but my non-belief in Christian mythology has absolutely no relationship to my acceptance of historical persons and events. I'm quite capable of separating the mundanity of human existence from fairy tales.
Lastly, please refrain from using my name, and connecting it to a mocking "quote" of your creation. It's incredibly bad form.
I also believe Mohammed existed. However, I don't believe he ascended to heaven on a golden ladder. Nor do I conflate the likelihood of the man's existence with the actions of those who express belief in Islam.
Very few non-theists I know reject the idea of the physical existence of Jesus. Very few historians I've encountered, including non-theists, deny the evidence of the physical existence of Jesus. I know of no one who has ever shown "that there is NO evidence that Jesus existed". The evidence is there from early Roman historians. If you'd prefer to throw out the writings of Tacitus, for example, then you'd need to deny a significant portion of Roman history as we know it today. If it's more comfortable for you to refute the historical accuracy of a historian known for his assiduousness and accuracy, I'm fine with that. Personally, I'll take Tacitus over you. No offense, it's just that history was his gig.
I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but my non-belief in Christian mythology has absolutely no relationship to my acceptance of historical persons and events. I'm quite capable of separating the mundanity of human existence from fairy tales.
Lastly, please refrain from using my name, and connecting it to a mocking "quote" of your creation. It's incredibly bad form.
The lack of eyewitness accounts and other confirming documents from that era, regardless of Tacitus' writings after the fact, suggests that Jesus did not exist. But, in the whole scheme of things, its not that important.
I think there is sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus existed. The problem comes with separating logical conclusions about his life, from mythology and religious symbolism. Josephus and Tacitus both make casual reference to Jesus, the latter indicating that Jesus was executed in Judaea during the governance of Pontius Pilot.
But the validity of the passages from those two historians referring to Jesus is disputed. A rather large swath of historians think that the passages referring to Jesus from Josephus might be partial or total forgeries. As for Tacitus, he was 7 during the Great Fire he wrote about, so by the time he wrote his Annuls, the origins of Christianity would have been relatively well-known, even if they weren't true. That he'd write about a "Christus" is unsurprising, even if one didn't actually exist.
It's well-known that early historians rarely provided the sources of their information, and thus most historical work that we use as first-hand is, in fact, second-hand itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
I also believe Mohammed existed. However, I don't believe he ascended to heaven on a golden ladder. Nor do I conflate the likelihood of the man's existence with the actions of those who express belief in Islam.
Very few non-theists I know reject the idea of the physical existence of Jesus. Very few historians I've encountered, including non-theists, deny the evidence of the physical existence of Jesus. I know of no one who has ever shown "that there is NO evidence that Jesus existed". The evidence is there from early Roman historians. If you'd prefer to throw out the writings of Tacitus, for example, then you'd need to deny a significant portion of Roman history as we know it today. If it's more comfortable for you to refute the historical accuracy of a historian known for his assiduousness and accuracy, I'm fine with that. Personally, I'll take Tacitus over you. No offense, it's just that history was his gig.
No one is calling Tacitus himself into question. It is simply his lack of sources that is being questioned.
By the time Tacitus wrote Annuls, some of the ideas and traditions that would eventually become the New Testament were already taking shape. He would have been aware of these, and, being a "good historian", he would have mentioned the "origins" of Christianity. Seeing as how Tacitus often failed (like mot historians of his age) to provide his sources, it is unknown where he could have gotten that information. How do we know that he was not fed the information by a Christian at the time? If he was, then that would provide one possible explanation of why he calls Pilot a procurator as opposed to a prefect; his source (a Christian alive when Christianity was still a sect of Judaism) was unaware of the difference, and Tacitus himself would be unaware of it as well, because there'd be no reason for him to need that knowledge.
For the record, I actually do think that somebody upon which the Jesus legend was built had to exist. I think the existence, power, and population of Christianity is proof enough itself of that. I don't see how a cult could grow so big around a person if that person is non-existent (no, this does not apply to God, as God was never exactly a "person").
What I reject, of course, is the virgin birth, the miracles, and so on. I'm also not too sure about a crucifixion, mainly because of a lack of any real reference to it outside of Tacitus, which, as shown, can be explained if there was no Jesus ever crucified without actually calling Tacitus's veracity into question.
I think the man around whom the legend was built was a traveling preacher, or perhaps even an ordained Rabbi. Whether or not he was actually captured and crucified is questioned.
I think it was Paul who invented the mythology, however.
Also, you mentioned Muhammed. If we're going to compare sources, Muhammed is mentioned much more frequently in history than Jesus ever is, so it's a lot harder to question the existence of Muhammed, because many historians wrote about him, while only two really referred to Jesus directly and specifically, and the authenticity of the account in Josephus is, to this day, still hotly debated (and, at least in my opinion, very likely a forgery, based upon the available evidence). So if the Josephus account is a later forgery (and it probably is, IMO), that leaves Tacitus only as far as direct and substantial historical references go, and, I hate to say it, but, that's not much.
But the validity of the passages from those two historians referring to Jesus is disputed. A rather large swath of historians think that the passages referring to Jesus from Josephus might be partial or total forgeries. As for Tacitus, he was 7 during the Great Fire he wrote about, so by the time he wrote his Annuls, the origins of Christianity would have been relatively well-known, even if they weren't true. That he'd write about a "Christus" is unsurprising, even if one didn't actually exist.
It's well-known that early historians rarely provided the sources of their information, and thus most historical work that we use as first-hand is, in fact, second-hand itself.
No one is calling Tacitus himself into question. It is simply his lack of sources that is being questioned.
By the time Tacitus wrote Annuls, some of the ideas and traditions that would eventually become the New Testament were already taking shape. He would have been aware of these, and, being a "good historian", he would have mentioned the "origins" of Christianity. Seeing as how Tacitus often failed (like mot historians of his age) to provide his sources, it is unknown where he could have gotten that information. How do we know that he was not fed the information by a Christian at the time? If he was, then that would provide one possible explanation of why he calls Pilot a procurator as opposed to a prefect; his source (a Christian alive when Christianity was still a sect of Judaism) was unaware of the difference, and Tacitus himself would be unaware of it as well, because there'd be no reason for him to need that knowledge.
For the record, I actually do think that somebody upon which the Jesus legend was built had to exist. I think the existence, power, and population of Christianity is proof enough itself of that. I don't see how a cult could grow so big around a person if that person is non-existent (no, this does not apply to God, as God was never exactly a "person").
What I reject, of course, is the virgin birth, the miracles, and so on. I'm also not too sure about a crucifixion, mainly because of a lack of any real reference to it outside of Tacitus, which, as shown, can be explained if there was no Jesus ever crucified without actually calling Tacitus's veracity into question.
I think the man around whom the legend was built was a traveling preacher, or perhaps even an ordained Rabbi. Whether or not he was actually captured and crucified is questioned.
I think it was Paul who invented the mythology, however.
Also, you mentioned Muhammed. If we're going to compare sources, Muhammed is mentioned much more frequently in history than Jesus ever is, so it's a lot harder to question the existence of Muhammed, because many historians wrote about him, while only two really referred to Jesus directly and specifically, and the authenticity of the account in Josephus is, to this day, still hotly debated (and, at least in my opinion, very likely a forgery, based upon the available evidence). So if the Josephus account is a later forgery (and it probably is, IMO), that leaves Tacitus only as far as direct and substantial historical references go, and, I hate to say it, but, that's not much.
The Romans were methodical record keepers. Typically, Tacitus would utilize the legal and imperial documents within the Roman archives at the time. You certainly could call into question methodology and source material. However, it would be irrational to do so only for Tacitus' reference to Jesus. It is, of course, a given that most historians are working with individuals and events which pre-date their writings.
The Annales is strongly anti-Christian, and the specific reference made to Jesus is a passing one which occurs during Tacitus' history of the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus is making unsavory comments about Christians living in Rome during The First Century, C.E. He simply points out that they (Christians) were followers of a man named Jesus who was executed during the governance of Pontius Pilot [26-36, C.E.]. The theory of Christian embellishment in Tacitus' writings isn't supported by the tenor of the text, which ranges from derogatory (towards Christianity) to matter-of-fact.
We know that Romans generally used one of two methods of execution: one for citizens and one for non-citizens. Citizens were given the relatively painless penalty of decapitation. Non-citizens were typically subjected to the more torturous and gruesome act of crucifixion, a practice not original to the Romans (Alexander is reported to have ordered crucifixions).
Quote:
What I reject, of course, is the virgin birth, the miracles, and so on.
On this point, We're in complete agreement, and that is the important part!
The Romans were methodical record keepers. Typically, Tacitus would utilize the legal and imperial documents within the Roman archives at the time. You certainly could call into question methodology and source material. However, it would be irrational to do so only for Tacitus' reference to Jesus. It is, of course, a given that most historians are working with individuals and events which pre-date their writings.
I do so for most references to Jesus, actually, because there are very little, if any, from when Jesus would still have been alive which, if he was considered an enemy of the Roman state, is a tad odd.
Quote:
The Annales is strongly anti-Christian, and the specific reference made to Jesus is a passing one which occurs during Tacitus' history of the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus is making unsavory comments about Christians living in Rome during The First Century, C.E. He simply points out that they (Christians) were followers of a man named Jesus who was executed during the governance of Pontius Pilot [26-36, C.E.]. The theory of Christian embellishment in Tacitus' writings isn't supported by the tenor of the text, which ranges from derogatory (towards Christianity) to matter-of-fact.
Which is why I didn't implicate the Annales with Christian embellishment; only Josephus's histories.
Quote:
We know that Romans generally used one of two methods of execution: one for citizens and one for non-citizens. Citizens were given the relatively painless penalty of decapitation. Non-citizens were typically subjected to the more torturous and gruesome act of crucifixion, a practice not original to the Romans (Alexander is reported to have ordered crucifixions).
True. But I'm questioning if the man upon whom the legend is built was even judged by a Roman court. The lack of Roman writing on this dissident while he was alive is odd. You would think we would have heard from the Jewish courts, or Herod, or even Pilate himself. I find it strange that the very first mentions of Jesus are after his death... long enough after that the legends would already have grown enough to constitute "history" for that time period.
That doesn't mean there wasn't a "Christus" who was crucified... it just means that the evidence is rather scarce.
Quote:
On this point, We're in complete agreement, and that is the important part!
I understand that atheists/nonbelievers do not believe in Christianity or any other religion, but if you read the holy Bible (New Testament), read quotes by Jesus Christ and saw how loving, friendly and great he was; Do you at least acknowledge him as a hero or great leader/person?
The reason why I brought up this topic was due to having an atheist friend who dislike religion, but had an image of Jesus Christ in his room because he loved his quotes and consider him an awesome hero and said everybody should be like Christ.
I also watched a clip online when a Muslim Imam said that even him had an image of Christ, along with some other famous people.
Yes, there are enough historical evidence that a person named Jesus Christ existed. Now, we cannot proof that he was Son of God just like we cannot proof that God exists 100% (Even though we believe in Him) and nobody could proof that God does not exists either.
I'm gonna go against the grain and say Yes. Jesus is clearly a Hero.
But then again... so is Hercules, or Gilgamesh, or Luke Skywalker or Frodo Baggins.
A hero is an archetype... an idealized human being that others look up to and demonstrates characteristics worth emulating. A true hero is very rarely a living, breathing person...rather it's a ideal.
Anyway, Jesus is our culture's ideal leader. He's the guy who has all the power of the universe at his fingertips, uses it judiciously and even more importantly, knows when NOT to use it. Jesus has no desire to dominate or lord over anyone, he does not desire worldly possessions or wealth, is eminently wise and unusually intelligent, is strong and healthy, fights against evil and corruption and seeks to not only help the downtrodden temporarily but actually bring them out of their miserable state and teach them to stand on their own!
Jesus is also that benevolent older brother... you know, the kind most everyone saw now and again in their REAL brother but never got on a permanent basis . He was the trailblazer of the family who always lead the way and served as the example (and test subject), making you aware of the pitfalls so that you could avoid them and have an easier time of growing up.
Who wouldn't want such a leader running things?
Sadly, there is no real Jesus... but "Trying to be like Jesus" is not an empty wish or silly desire. We really should be aspiring to be like that archetype. We all waste too much time trying to make him a real man (or not) and completely miss the actual point of the Jesus story.
Have never given it a thought. If there was a man named Jesus who said to love thy neighbor, I sincerely hope that the world didn't need him to give us that idea.
The Romans were methodical record keepers. Typically, Tacitus would utilize the legal and imperial documents within the Roman archives at the time. You certainly could call into question methodology and source material. However, it would be irrational to do so only for Tacitus' reference to Jesus. It is, of course, a given that most historians are working with individuals and events which pre-date their writings.
The Annales is strongly anti-Christian, and the specific reference made to Jesus is a passing one which occurs during Tacitus' history of the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus is making unsavory comments about Christians living in Rome during The First Century, C.E. He simply points out that they (Christians) were followers of a man named Jesus who was executed during the governance of Pontius Pilot [26-36, C.E.]. The theory of Christian embellishment in Tacitus' writings isn't supported by the tenor of the text, which ranges from derogatory (towards Christianity) to matter-of-fact.
We know that Romans generally used one of two methods of execution: one for citizens and one for non-citizens. Citizens were given the relatively painless penalty of decapitation. Non-citizens were typically subjected to the more torturous and gruesome act of crucifixion, a practice not original to the Romans (Alexander is reported to have ordered crucifixions).
On this point, We're in complete agreement, and that is the important part!
Yes, that is the sound conclusion, with the observation that Tacitus calls Pilate a procurator which he wasn't. he was a Praefectus. That suggests that he was not working from Roman records but just repeating what the Christians said -which was that the governor, or just Pilate, crucified their leader. Tacitus knew that the governors of Judea were procurators so he assumed that Pilate was, too.
Finally, of courser, that it is a matter of complete disinterest for you is accepted. We simply report that Jesus' historicity is a matter of importance to very many Christians and is thus an important matter for us and your lake of interest is in noted but it quite irrelevant to the rest of us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. He was the trailblazer of the family who always lead the way and served as the example (and test subject), making you aware of the pitfalls so that you could avoid them and have an easier time of growing up.
