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 a common misconception but it is absolutely incorrect.
Roman contemporaries Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger all refer to Jesus in their historical writings. None of them were followers of Jesus. There is, in fact, more independent written evidence of the existence of Jesus than any other person from the ancient world. You may or may not believe that he was God, but no one reasonably argues against his existence.
I include a link to wikipedia not as proof but as a starting point for your own independent research.
This was covered extensively in the thread I linked. Both Josephus and Tacitus mention Jesus. However, they often do so within the scope of speaking about Christians. Neither were exactly "contemporaries" either as Josehpus was born after Jesus' death and his books were published 40+ years after Jesus' death. Same story with Tacitus, he was born after Jesus's death and did most of his writing 60+ years after Jesus' death.
Here is what Josephus wrote:
Book 20 Chapter 9, 1:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned
Book 18 Chapter 3, 3:
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
In the first reference he is merely talking about James' relationship to a man named Jesus who was known as Christ. This does not definitively support the existence of Jesus, merely repeats what James claimed or was said about James. FWIW, James died 30 or so years before Josephus wrote anything, so his knowledge would have been second hand at best.
In the other more detailed section, Josephus is basically parroting the "Biblical summary of Jesus". He also specifies that he is really talking about the "tribe of Christians", or basically explaining who the Christians are and what they believe in.
There is also a strong belief among historians that the writing in Book 18 was heavily edited at a later point when Christianity dominated the Empire to serve as the basis for a "historical proof" of Jesus. Reading it, the passage is a little over the top for what I would imagine a secular Roman historian would write and basically implies that Jesus is divine.
What we have are historical records that revolve around the explanation of what is Christianity and site its founder. The best we can gather out of this is that there is a reasonable degree of probability that a man named Jesus existed. We can also probably agree that he was some sort of messianic rebel/preacher that was very common during that time in Judea. Anything else about him is rather suspect.
As for there being more "written independent evidence of Jesus", not even close unless you want to count the gospels.
This is a common misconception but it is absolutely incorrect.
Roman contemporaries Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger all refer to Jesus in their historical writings. None of them were followers of Jesus. There is, in fact, more independent written evidence of the existence of Jesus than any other person from the ancient world. You may or may not believe that he was God, but no one reasonably argues against his existence.
I include a link to wikipedia not as proof but as a starting point for your own independent research.
You are mistaken. The Roman sources make no first hand mention of Jesus or provide any biographical details by way of confirmation of his reality. You are confusing mentions of the cult of Christianity with mentions of Jesus himself.
Might I suggest that in the future, before you include a link which you claim establishes your position, you actually read the contents of that link to see if it does indeed do that, which in this case it does not.
What Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Josephus establish is that there is a Christian cult in Rome, and that the members of the cult state that they are followers of a man named Jesus who lived in Palestine and was executed by the Roman prelate. None of that can remotely be interpreted as confirmation of the existence of Jesus, only confirmation of the existence of Jesus followers. Neither Tacitus nor Pliny the Younger were working from any sort of Roman documentation of Jesus.
The mention of Jesus by Josephus has of course long been viewed as a false insertion by Christian followers. The passage is completely out of keeping with the tone of the works, it has Josephus stating that Jesus was the real deal messiah and son of God, something Josephus clearly did not believe as one can readily tell by reading the rest of his work.
There are no surviving Roman records which provide any Roman account of the life of Jesus, only decades after the fact accounts of what they would have been told by the members of the cult.
So, do your homework before you attempt to correct others.
I do believe that we can all agree that a boy named Jesus was born to unwed parents.
That is probably the LEAST certain "fact" about the life of Jesus. At no point in the chronology is that any more than unauthenticated speculation. There is certainly no evidence linking the adult Jesus with the child born of Mary, and least of all is there evidence of Mary's unwed status.
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of the existence of the adult Jesus, but none whatsoever asserting that the infant of Mary was one and the same, nor of Mary's marital status. And precious little basis for the existence of a woman named Mary at all.
Biblical scholars claim to have more certainty about the birth circumstances of Jesus, than about those of the currently sitting president of the United States. We can't even all agree that a boy named Barack was born in Hawaii.
You are mistaken. The Roman sources make no first hand mention of Jesus or provide any biographical details by way of confirmation of his reality. You are confusing mentions of the cult of Christianity with mentions of Jesus himself.
Might I suggest that in the future, before you include a link which you claim establishes your position, you actually read the contents of that link to see if it does indeed do that, which in this case it does not.
What Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Josephus establish is that there is a Christian cult in Rome, and that the members of the cult state that they are followers of a man named Jesus who lived in Palestine and was executed by the Roman prelate. None of that can remotely be interpreted as confirmation of the existence of Jesus, only confirmation of the existence of Jesus followers. Neither Tacitus nor Pliny the Younger were working from any sort of Roman documentation of Jesus.
The mention of Jesus by Josephus has of course long been viewed as a false insertion by Christian followers. The passage is completely out of keeping with the tone of the works, it has Josephus stating that Jesus was the real deal messiah and son of God, something Josephus clearly did not believe as one can readily tell by reading the rest of his work.
There are no surviving Roman records which provide any Roman account of the life of Jesus, only decades after the fact accounts of what they would have been told by the members of the cult.
So, do your homework before you attempt to correct others.
You are quite wrong, of course. And as I said, I included the link as a convenient starting point for those who chose to research this for themselves independently. It is quite preposterous for you to post your completely unsupported opinions as fact, and then correct ME for providing inadequate evidence for MY position.
I was a comparative religions minor in college. Jesus did exist. There's is no valid dispute about that, even among historians who are atheists. But as for the rest -- all we know for certain is that he was crucified.
But for those of you who don't believe -- and for you those of you who do -- and I'm one of the ones who does not believe -- I've always found it astounding that Paul could have some kind of fit, write a few epistles -- and the world has never been the same. Some of the Jews and Gentiles of that time -- not very many -- went from being an eye-for-an-eye people to a people that believed in love and forgiveness. Christianity quickly spread, and 2000 years later, it's still a viable religion. So there was either something very different about this man Jeshua OR humanity was ready for a paradigm change. And it has been a profound change. For both good and evil.
And that is what is remarkable. Not whether or not Jesus was divine. But how did this religion -- with few followers to begin with -- become such a force throughout the world in such a short period of time.
Of course, Greece's Oracles at Delphi existed for 2000 years, give or take, and I do suppose that Christianity -- the religion -- will come to an end. But not the basic principles of love and forgiveness.
You are quite wrong, of course. And as I said, I included the link as a convenient starting point for those who chose to research this for themselves independently. It is quite preposterous for you to post your completely unsupported opinions as fact, and then correct ME for providing inadequate evidence for MY position.
All you are doing is shouting, offering no evidence or argument. I have done my homework in this area while clearly you have not. The information I presented to you is accurate, it is affirmed by the post just before it contributed by Goat.
If you have some specific argument or evidence which suggests any of what I contributed is false, present it. If all you can do is the above sort of post, I've no further interest in you.
All you are doing is shouting, offering no evidence or argument. I have done my homework in this area while clearly you have not. The information I presented to you is accurate, it is affirmed by the post just before it contributed by Goat.
If you have some specific argument or evidence which suggests any of what I contributed is false, present it. If all you can do is the above sort of post, I've no further interest in you.
Well, perhaps not all of us try to love and forgive.
As a student of Roman history I can assure you that Jesus was mentioned many times during the reigns of both Tiberius and Caligula.
Pontius Pilate was ordered to report to Tiberius as a result of the uproar over what was a routine crucifixion of a ordinary religious zealot. Fortunately for Pontius Pilate, Tiberius died while Pilate was en route. Caligula, Tiberius' successor, sent Pilate into exile or ordered his execution - no one is really sure. But Pilate sure got the Emperor's attention by messing things up so badly in Judea.
What are the specific references to which you refer above?
And are any of these references helpful in establishing the historical Jesus?
Grandstander, do your own research. It's readily available on the Internet. There are books written about this by antiquity historians. Or, third, take a class in introductory comparative religions.
The fact that Jesus was a real person and died by crucifixion has been agreed upon by the vast majority of historians, Christians and atheists. Yes, there are some holdouts, but then there are people who don't believe The Holocaust ever happened. These people just aren't taken seriously by the vast majority of the rest of us.
Really, this is a moot issue. Don't embarrass yourself.
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.
