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.
Finally, that was what I was waiting for, you guys finally admitting the only reason you do not believe the historians I quoted is because if they are true then it lends weight to the gospel records and you guys just cannot have that, thus you fight against it.
So lets look at things from the standpoint of your own reasoning. Which is Josephus, Suetonius and Cornelius Tacitus are historians of fables and myths.
Which mean then that Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian are really nothing more then myths.
And
That the Jewish and roman war of AD70 never really happened.
You guys just dug yourselves one heck of a hole, lets see how you try to get out of that one.
How could someone be so totally ......OFF....so much of the time....I mean totally clueless.
Quote:
the only reason you do not believe the historians I quoted is because if they are true
That's an incredibly big "if. If's don't have any place in this discussion. What if the moon was made of green cheese??
Quote:
Josephus, Suetonius and Cornelius Tacitus are historians of fables and myths.
You keep mentioning these historians and we, at least I, keep telling you the same thing: these historians were writing a century after Jesus' death. As such, they are only reporting hearsay, things they've heard from 10th-hand sources. So as such, what they write is not historically reliable. How many times does that have to be repeated?
Quote:
That the Jewish and roman war of AD70 never really happened.
Whaaa......???? Whoever said that?
Quote:
You guys just dug yourselves one heck of a hole, lets see how you try to get out of that one.
What one???
Pneuma, from the immaturity of your remarks I'd determine you are mid-20's and really wet-behind-the ears. As such I can forgive you for this kind of gibberish.
How could someone be so totally ......OFF....so much of the time....I mean totally clueless.
That's an incredibly big "if. If's don't have any place in this discussion. What if the moon was made of green cheese??
You keep mentioning these historians and we, at least I, keep telling you the same thing: these historians were writing a century after Jesus' death. As such, they are only reporting hearsay, things they've heard from 10th-hand sources. So as such, what they write is not historically reliable. How many times does that have to be repeated?
Whaaa......???? Whoever said that?
What one???
Pneuma, from the immaturity of your remarks I'd determine you are mid-20's and really wet-behind-the ears. As such I can forgive you for this kind of gibberish.
S/he was also unaware of the difference between the scientific use of the word "theory" versus the colloquial.
The fact that some ancient writings were collected and assembled into a religious canon does NOT change their historical or archeological importance. Only the atheists and secularists like to pretend there is a difference among the ancient writings. The idea that 2000+ years of impact on the world stage is the result of a non-existent person is just too ludicrous for words! Questioning any elaborations or hyperbole in the content is legitimate, but the absurd idea that a non-existent person was the basis for such enormous impact is preposterous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
You keep mentioning these historians and we, at least I, keep telling you the same thing: these historians were writing a century after Jesus' death. As such, they are only reporting hearsay, things they've heard from 10th-hand sources. So as such, what they write is not historically reliable. How many times does that have to be repeated?
All history is hearsay! Stop pretending ancient writings being chosen for inclusion in a religious canon automatically makes them NOT historical and not reliable. That is preposterous. During that time, their content is certain to be a mix of myth, legend, hyperbole, elaboration and exaggeration - or did George Washington really chop down that cherry tree or toss a coin across the Potomac???
S/he was also unaware of the difference between the scientific use of the word "theory" versus the colloquial.
Miriam webster
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
How could someone be so totally ......OFF....so much of the time....I mean totally clueless.
That's an incredibly big "if. If's don't have any place in this discussion. What if the moon was made of green cheese??
You keep mentioning these historians and we, at least I, keep telling you the same thing: these historians were writing a century after Jesus' death. As such, they are only reporting hearsay, things they've heard from 10th-hand sources. So as such, what they write is not historically reliable. How many times does that have to be repeated?
Whaaa......???? Whoever said that?
What one???
Pneuma, from the immaturity of your remarks I'd determine you are mid-20's and really wet-behind-the ears. As such I can forgive you for this kind of gibberish.
So how can you believe ANYTHING those 3 historian say is true? You believe the history's recorded in their works about Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian.
And
You believe the Jewish and roman war of AD70 really happened.
Yet when Jesus is mentioned it is just a myth.
This is the hole you dug for yourself Thrill.
You simply cherry pick what YOU want to believe is true historically and reject from the history's what you do NOT want to believe as historical.
S/he was also unaware of the difference between the scientific use of the word "theory" versus the colloquial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Miriam webster
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
: the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject
an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
That is the definition I was thinking of, but did not want to get into a word war on the word theory.
Don't be one of those deliberately obtuse Christians who - for instance - dismiss evolution as "just" a theory.
It's as theoretical as gravity. I don't see a lot of people jumping off buildings to test that "theory."
Trout maybe I should have used the word theory and provided the meaning of the use I was using it in, however just because I did not use the definition of the word does not mean I did not use the word correctly, it just means you misunderstood in what fashion I was using the word.
oh and I also believe in evolution after a kind as we all evolve over time.
Trout maybe I should have used the word theory and provided the meaning of the use I was using it in, however just because I did not use the definition of the word does not mean I did not use the word correctly, it just means you misunderstood in what fashion I was using the word.
oh and I also believe in evolution after a kind as we all evolve over time.
"After a kind..."
In other words, you deny the truth of scientific, physical evolution.
I understand. Thankfully, your numbers are dwindling as people become more educated.
Historical Jesus:
Many people today question whether there was indeed a historical Jesus. They question this because they say there is no evidence outside of the New Testament that Jesus ever lived. Because they believe this they believe Jesus is nothing more than a myth made up by Christians to support the Christian belief. Whether one believe Jesus was the son of God is not the issue, the issue is are there historical record of a man named Jesus.
However; there are historical accounts made by Roman historians that Jesus did indeed live during the time spoken of in the New Testament. Let’s explore some of these historical documents.
On the birth of Jesus:
The Jews at the time of Jesus birth held the belief that their Messiah would come and become the governor of the earth. This belief was not only recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus but was also recorded by two Roman historians.
Josephus37AD-100AD Jewish historian states:
“the Jews had the belief that about that time one from their country should become governor of the established earth”.
Suetonius 70 AD-130 AD Roman historian states:
“there had spread over all the orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world’.
Cornelius Tacitus 56 AD-117 AD Roman historian and senator states:
“There was a firm persuasion that at this very time the east was to grow powerful and rulers coming from Judea were to acquire universal empire”.
So we can see by these three historians that the Jews expected their Messiah around the time that Jesus was born. However that still leaves the question is there any historical evidence that Jesus was ever born? Let’s look again at the same three historians.
Josephus states:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:
Suetonius states: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
Cornelius Tacitus states:
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 Tiberius 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 Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre 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.
All three historians, one Jewish and two Roman, agree that there was indeed a historical person named Christ. They agree that at around the time of Jesus birth that the Jewish nation held to the belief that their great governor, the Messiah of their hopes, was about to come. They all agree there was a man named Christ, and Cornelius Tacitus goes even farther than mentioning the person of Christ he tells us of the extreme penalty this Christ suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilatus.
Some however will continue to question the historical Jesus; they do so contrary to the historical records. They cry for historical evidence outside of the New Testament and when that evidence is given they refuse to believe it. They continue to believe Jesus is nothing more than a myth perpetrated upon the world by Christians. A myth they must believe historians would put in a historical record, thus in my opinion showing how little they think of the field of the historian. This is ironic as they cry for historical records, then call those records nothing more than a myth. Why oh why would a Roman historian record as fact a Christian myth?
Not one single word was written about Jesus while Jesus was still alive. If he was a genuine historical figure, he did not generate enough interest or controversy during his lifetime for anyone to bother putting it into written form. This is simply a fact of history. What IS clear historically is that several decades after Jesus was supposed to have been executed, a cult had grown up around the name of Jesus the Christ. These individuals considered themselves to be followers of Jesus. These individual DID write about Jesus. Whether any of these individual, the writers of the four gospels, ever personally met the subject of their writings is the still the subject of considerable debate. But it is also true that some few non Christian writers had begun to take note of this new movement, these "Christians," by the end of the first century.
It is a clear and certain fact of history that Christians existed by the end of the first century. And that is what writers such as Tacitus confirm. The historical Jesus, if he ever existed at all, has never proven to be historically recoverable. All that exists is the legend that was being spread decades later, most of which we know about only through the anonymously written Gospels. Because that is what the Gospels represent; the nature of the story as it was being told when the Gospels were written down.
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.
