Non-Christian documents about the existence of Jesus Christ

[Robittybob1]

My post was meant to be more sarcastic than theological.

Was that sarcastic? I still can't get the sarcasm. Any non-Christian text that mentions the resurrection would be more than likely labeled "Christian" by others. I believe the Gospel according to Luke is a non-Christian document written for the benefit of the Jewish High Priest. Just because it has been grouped into the Bible doesn't mean it is "Christian" does it? All the OT books are non-Christian, being written for the Hebrews or the Jews.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Robittybob1

[John Cuthber]

Was that sarcastic? I still can't get the sarcasm. Any non-Christian text that mentions the resurrection would be more than likely labeled "Christian" by others. I believe the Gospel according to Luke is a non-Christian document written for the benefit of the Jewish High Priest. Just because it has been grouped into the Bible doesn't mean it is "Christian" does it? All the OT books are non-Christian, being written for the Hebrews or the Jews.

The OT isn't going to tell you a lot about the history of Christ since it was written before he (allegedly) existed.

The NT is pretty much definitely Christian.

So what we are looking for is testimony from someone reliable who saw the resurrected Christ, after his crucifixion, but who isn't a Christian.

That's probably not going to happen.

Of course it's possible that someone saw Him when He should have been dead and came to the conclusion that they somehow botched the execution.

If they did, would they be likely to record it- probably not, for two reasons.

They probably couldn't write and they would have got grief for pointing out that the authorities messed up.

If such a record had been made then it would have been unusual in that both "sides" would have wanted it destroyed.

It undermined the roots of Christianity so their followers wouldn't want it known about.

and the authorities wouldn't want it documented that they messed up.

Not very long afterwards when Christianity took off both those "sides" would have been the same bunch of people.

[Ten oz]

Was that sarcastic? I still can't get the sarcasm. Any non-Christian text that mentions the resurrection would be more than likely labeled "Christian" by others. I believe the Gospel according to Luke is a non-Christian document written for the benefit of the Jewish High Priest. Just because it has been grouped into the Bible doesn't mean it is "Christian" does it? All the OT books are non-Christian, being written for the Hebrews or the Jews.

The sarcasm in my post was the idea that it even matters. I am an atheist. I do not believe that had there been a Jesus he was the son of god or resurrected. The idea that a God would play pretend dead as a means of proving itself seems off.

[Eise]

Now it is going to a completely other topic then 'Non-Christian documents about the existence of Jesus Christ'. Isn't that called 'kidnapping of a thread'?

[Ten oz]

Now it is going to a completely other topic then 'Non-Christian documents about the existence of Jesus Christ'. Isn't that called 'kidnapping of a thread'?

It relates to this thread in that for Jesus to have existed he would've had to have been very different than ALL accounts of him. So much so that it become pointless from a theological stand point whether or not he (Jesus) in fact had ever been real. Only the apostles speak of Jesus' life and there stories a clearly works of fiction. Theologically if Jesus had never performed miracles, been resurrected, and wasn't a form or messenger of god than his existence becomes a formality of little importance.

[Moontanman]

 

Right. But again, most historians agree that the passage was changed in a Christian sense, but that in the core is mentioning Jesus (Christ). Do you see something different? What do you want to proof quoting us to death?

 

 

Obviously you want more heavy proof of Jesus' existence. Sorry, this is the way antique history must be done. If you have not that many sources, you ask what is the most probable assumption. You analyse how Christian texts developed through the ages, the languages and styles in which they were written, etc etc, and see what remains after shifting everything. It is not much, but it is enough to take it for granted that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was crucified by Pilate. Add the Josephus fragments, and a few others, which fit the hypothesis, and you can get even more secure. James is mentioned in one of the (considered authentic) epistles of Paul, he is mentioned in an independently of Paul written Gospel, and he is mentioned by Josephus (which fragment comes to us in via two independent paths).

 

Now consider the hypothesis that it was all made up: where is the proof? Any proof? Found writings show how scribes intentionally invented Jesus? Any evidence that in those days Jews in Palestine already had resurrecting gods or humans? Any proof that Jesus did not fit in the context of Palestine Jews in those days? No, there isn't. There are just parallels, insinuations, and wild hypotheses from the side of mythisists.

 

 

You want to believe so you are going to and the barest thread of evidence is all it takes. For me I require a higher standard than hints and second hand claims, when you don't know how much if any of a text or passage is real it casts a very big doubt on it and when it is the only passage that makes those claims then it should be ignored. If someone like Jesus really existed the historians should have written about it extensively, several hours of world wide darkness should have been written about in far flung places not to mention earth quakes and the rest. It's all at the very best speculation unsupported by any reality, like a tea pot in orbit of Uranus, until real evidence some to light I say there is no tea pot around Uranus...

[Ophiolite]

You seem to conflate the existence of a man called Jesus with that of the Jesus of the Bible. Occam's razor would direct us to accepting that a myth has grown around a particular man, rather than that he had been entirely fabricated. A strange position to take.

[Robittybob1]

.... The idea that a God would play pretend dead as a means of proving itself seems off.

That is important to me as well. That is why I don't have that view. I believe Jesus died like all of us will.

[Eise]

Ten oz and Moontanman,

You argue as 'climate skeptics'. Undisturbed by any knowledge how historians come to their conclusions, you already know in advance that they are wrong, and biased to their conclusions. Applied to climate science, we know that it is just the opposite: in fact the so-called skeptics are biased to their conclusions. They use the same strategy as you do. Use insinuations, parallels, and wild hypotheses to discredit established science, call some oppositional scientists as your witnesses.

 

To criticise the general agreement under historians about the existence of Jesus, you should do the following:

• know what criteria historians use to filter probable true facts from lies, exaggerations, propaganda, forgeries etc.
• evaluate these criteria: do you think they are correct?
• understand the methods that historians use to evaluate the authenticity of their sources, how they determine where they come from
• evaluate these methods
• See how these methods and criteria are used on the available material about Jesus (unpreoccupied, all the material: the criteria and methods filter the material, not your biases!)
• evaluate if these methods and criteria were correctly applied.

None of you have done any of this.

 

I think it is very useful to take a historical Jesus as background in dealing with (especially fundamentalist) Christians. In the first place you learn how many contradictions are in the the different biblical accounts of Jesus. Secondly, you can show that what is left after a serious investigation in the sources, has nothing to do with the kind of Jesus that most Christians believe in. By showing you understand and know the bible, you are in a stronger position than if you totally prejudiced just deny Jesus' existence. That is simply the end of the discussion.

 

The more people have insight in what we can know about Jesus and what he really thought, the weaker and stupid uncritical beliefs will look.

 

Just for the record: I am an atheist and do not believe in miracles, least of all the resurrection. But I do think that there is a historical core in the documents about Jesus. And seeing how much stupidity has been, and is done and believed under the banner of Jesus 'Christ', I think giving a fair and honest investigation into this is important.

 

But we don't need other biased believers: those that, without critical investigation, believe he did not exist.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

Ten oz and Moontanman,

 

You argue as 'climate skeptics'.

Climate is observable, messurable, and recordable. Tangible work has be done in regards to climate. The existence of Jesus is a theological thought experiment where the argument is made that Jesus was most likely a real person. No contemporary sources and the couple vague nonchristian sources do not actually biography his life. You post as if real evidence exists and is being ignored. Rather, I don't have faith in the best guesses of theologians.

Btw, I have not once said Jesus did not exist. Just that it is not clear. No scienctific concensus to rival that of climate change exists that would argue against the idea that it isn't clear. However, his existence is meaningless. Everything that matters about Jesus from a religious stand point clearly isn't real. Once you strip away the virgin birth, god, miracles, resurrection, and so on what is let? What literature Christian or otherwise do we have that biographies a real human? Seperate the man from the myth and all you are left with is some guy of unknown origin was probably baptized and the later crucified. No dates, relics, contemporary accounts, or anything else.

[Eise]

Climate is observable, messurable, and recordable. Tangible work has be done in regards to climate. The existence of Jesus is a theological thought experiment where the argument is made that Jesus was most likely a real person. No contemporary sources and the couple vague nonchristian sources do not actually biography his life. You post as if real evidence exists and is being ignored. Rather, I don't have faith in the best guesses of theologians.

Btw, I have not once said Jesus did not exist. Just that it is not clear. No scienctific concensus to rival that of climate change exists that would argue against the idea that it isn't clear. However, his existence is meaningless. Everything that matters about Jesus from a religious stand point clearly isn't real. Once you strip away the virgin birth, god, miracles, resurrection, and so on what is let? What literature Christian or otherwise do we have that biographies a real human? Seperate the man from the myth and all you are left with is some guy of unknown origin was probably baptized and the later crucified. No dates, relics, contemporary accounts, or anything else.

 

You do realise that you do not counter one single of my arguments, don't you? On the other hand... no I am afraid you haven't understand one word of my posting. I find no criticism on history, on its methods and criteria, and how they are applied on the question of the historicity of Jesus' existence.

 

What is left if you strip all the miracle stories I have said several times. And you keep repeating that the consensus of Jesus' existence is under theologians only. It is also under historians. You keep arguing from ill will.

 

If you do not even try to start with an understanding of how historians work, and give a critical evaluation on their work, you are just as prejudiced as climate skeptics, who also have their opinion ready before they understand climate science.

[Moontanman]

 

You do realise that you do not counter one single of my arguments, don't you? On the other hand... no I am afraid you haven't understand one word of my posting. I find no criticism on history, on its methods and criteria, and how they are applied on the question of the historicity of Jesus' existence.

 

What is left if you strip all the miracle stories I have said several times. And you keep repeating that the consensus of Jesus' existence is under theologians only. It is also under historians. You keep arguing from ill will.

 

If you do not even try to start with an understanding of how historians work, and give a critical evaluation on their work, you are just as prejudiced as climate skeptics, who also have their opinion ready before they understand climate science.

 

 

Name a few of those non christian contemporary historians, just a few if jesus was real there should be at least one.

 

BTW no one is trying to prove he did not exist, that is proving a negative, I want evidence he did exist and evidently you cannot provide it.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Moontanman

[Eise]

 

 

Name a few of those non christian contemporary historians, just a few if jesus was real there should be at least one.

 

BTW no one is trying to prove he did not exist, that is proving a negative, I want evidence he did exist and evidently you cannot provide it.

 

Yes. Bart Ehrman. You can use his books for further references.

 

I don't give evidence. I give reasons why assuming that he existed is more reasonable than that he didn't. But you do not want to dive into the questions how history is done as described here. You follow your own biases.

Here is a good link that summarises the arguments pro the historicity of Jesus, and arguments against the mythicists (here is part 2).

[Moontanman]

 

Yes. Bart Ehrman. You can use his books for further references.

 

I don't give evidence. I give reasons why assuming that he existed is more reasonable than that he didn't. But you do not want to dive into the questions how history is done as described here. You follow your own biases.

Here is a good link that summarises the arguments pro the historicity of Jesus, and arguments against the mythicists (here is part 2).

 

 

So you have nothing but stories written centuries after the fact... really sad...

[Robittybob1]

The ossuary of james the Just the brother of Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LncAZQ7-IOU

[Eise]

So you have nothing but stories written centuries after the fact... really sad...

 

You show you have no knowledge of NT history at all. The earliest Pauline epistle was written at most 20 years after Jesus' death, and he describes some events that occurred only a few years after it, e.g. that he met Peter and James (the brother of Jesus, the same that Josephus mentions). The gospels of the NT were written in the years 60 - 100, so definitely not 'centuries' after the fact.

 

It is also obvious you do not react at the contents of my postings, and not on the articles I linked to. It shows you have no arguments. You only have your preconceived prejudices on offer. And it is funny to notice that you give a negative point on a posting in which I link a good article, in the sense that it very well explains why historians think Jesus really existed. You do this for the second time. Clear articles should give you the perfect possibility of explaining why they are wrong.

 

You choose to react by giving an obvious falsity.

[Moontanman]

You show you have no knowledge of NT history at all. The earliest Pauline epistle was written at most 20 years after Jesus' death, and he describes some events that occurred only a few years after it, e.g. that he met Peter and James (the brother of Jesus, the same that Josephus mentions). The gospels of the NT were written in the years 60 - 100, so definitely not 'centuries' after the fact.

 

It is also obvious you do not react at the contents of my postings, and not on the articles I linked to. It shows you have no arguments. You only have your preconceived prejudices on offer. And it is funny to notice that you give a negative point on a posting in which I link a good article, in the sense that it very well explains why historians think Jesus really existed. You do this for the second time. Clear articles should give you the perfect possibility of explaining why they are wrong.

 

You choose to react by giving an obvious falsity.

 

 

You have nothing but second hand accounts written centuries after the fact, no manuscripts supporting your view exist from that time period, all you have is what someone claims to believe someone else said...

[Robittybob1]

The ossuary of james the Just the brother of Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LncAZQ7-IOU

I think this is far too underrated.

[Eise]

You have nothing but second hand accounts written centuries after the fact, no manuscripts supporting your view exist from that time period, all you have is what someone claims to believe someone else said...

 

You argue with a sledge hammer.

 

Yes, the documents we can actually have in our hands are written centuries after the fact. But some of them are copies, from copies..., not hearsay from hearsay... On basis of mentioning e.g. the gospels by other writers, on basis of language styles, translations form Aramaic etc etc. we know that the originals were written much before. On basis of criteria you refuse to look into, historians can conclude this. Using the same argumentation as you do, we could not conclude that Hannibal or Alexander the Great existed. From them we also have no physical, contemporary documents. Of Hannibal there even are no claims that such documents existed.

 

Following criteria are used by historians to decide if a document or fragment is probably authentic:

1. How old is the original document? The shorter after the events described, the better.
2. Are the events described by multiple independent sources? The more, the better.
3. Does the document fit in the agenda of the scribe? The better it fits, the less the chance it is authentic. And of course the opposite: the worse it fits, the bigger the chance it is authentic.
4. Do the events described fit in the historical context of the time and place where the events are supposed to happen? If they do they increase the chance that the document is authentic.

Again, not much is left of the wonder stories in the bible. But what is left is that Jesus existed, that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that he was an apocalyptic preacher, and that he was crucified by Pilate around 30 CE.

 

Read the articles I linked to, and tell me where the errors are.

I think this is far too underrated.

 

I think you overrate it. As long as the experts are discussing this, we should wait and see.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Eise

[Robittybob1]

 

I think you overrate it. As long as the experts are discussing this, we should wait and see.

It is just what you'd expect though isn't it? "James the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Fits in with history perfectly, and it is written in stone.

You can still be an atheist and accept that the ossuary in fact belonged to "James the brother of Jesus". You already accepted that Jesus existed and James is known from more sources as well. So I assume you accept James, and Joseph, their father as a matter of history.

No one is asking you to believe a virgin birth or a resurrection here, just a family connection.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Eise]

It is just what you'd expect though isn't it? "James the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Fits in with history perfectly, and it is written in stone.

You can still be an atheist and accept that the ossuary in fact belonged to "James the brother of Jesus". You already accepted that Jesus existed and James is known from more sources as well. So I assume you accept James, and Joseph, their father as a matter of history.

No one is asking you to believe a virgin birth or a resurrection here, just a family connection.

 

Yes, I accept that Jesus and James existed. But I also notice that the ossuary still is not accepted by the majority of historians. So, just wait and see. You have nothing to prove, because you believe.

[Robittybob1]

 

Yes, I accept that Jesus and James existed. But I also notice that the ossuary still is not accepted by the majority of historians. So, just wait and see. You have nothing to prove, because you believe.

What makes them make up their mind? Was it written in the incorrect language? Where did you see " that the ossuary still is not accepted by the majority of historians"?

 

See what Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary

 

Authenticity of the inscription has been challenged. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) determined in 2003 that the inscriptions were forged at a much later date.^[5][6] In December 2004, Oded Golan was charged with 44 counts of forgery, fraud and deception, including forgery of the Ossuary inscription.^[7]

The trial lasted seven years before Judge Aharon Farkash came to a verdict. On March 14, 2012, Golan was acquitted of the forgery charges but convicted of illegal trading in antiquities.^[8] The judge said this acquittal "does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago".^[9] The ossuary was returned to Golan, who put it on public display.^[10]

Edited November 18, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

 

You argue with a sledge hammer.

 

Yes, the documents we can actually have in our hands are written centuries after the fact. But some of them are copies, from copies..., not hearsay from hearsay... On basis of mentioning e.g. the gospels by other writers, on basis of language styles, translations form Aramaic etc etc. we know that the originals were written much before. On basis of criteria you refuse to look into, historians can conclude this. Using the same argumentation as you do, we could not conclude that Hannibal or Alexander the Great existed. From them we also have no physical, contemporary documents. Of Hannibal there even are no claims that such documents existed.

 

Following criteria are used by historians to decide if a document or fragment is probably authentic:

1. How old is the original document? The shorter after the events described, the better.
2. Are the events described by multiple independent sources? The more, the better.
3. Does the document fit in the agenda of the scribe? The better it fits, the less the chance it is authentic. And of course the opposite: the worse it fits, the bigger the chance it is authentic.
4. Do the events described fit in the historical context of the time and place where the events are supposed to happen? If they do they increase the chance that the document is authentic.

Again, not much is left of the wonder stories in the bible. But what is left is that Jesus existed, that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that he was an apocalyptic preacher, and that he was crucified by Pilate around 30 CE.

 

Read the articles I linked to, and tell me where the errors are.

 

I think you overrate it. As long as the experts are discussing this, we should wait and see.

 

 

I argue with a sledge hammer? Freudian slip?

 

A youtube blogger and friend of mine gave me permission to use his post, I thought it better than I could do or at least exactly what i would say.

 

 

Hitchens Argumentum:

The case against a historical Jesus:

The alleged secular sources for a historical Jesus??

sources include: Barker, Moss, Arnheim, Doherty, Fitzgerald, Carrier, Remsburg, et.al.

ALL serious scholars say that the Josephus quote is a fraud, put in by possibly Eusebius decades after Josephus died. Among many clues historians look for is continuity of a passage, ie: the subject matter flows in a way as to be understood logically and seamlessly. With Josephus' text the verse right before the forgery and right after it discuss the horrible events surrounding Pilate's killing of people. But, right in the middle of the story we have a jesus commercial as I call it! An obvious ADDITION made decades, maybe centuries, after the original writing by Josephus and, I might add, NO different than many parts of your bible which, in the nt, was repeated by orthodox fundies intent, just like YOU, on making the myths/legends of a christ going on and on.

The actual Josephus forgery was: “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.“ (Ant., book 18, chapter 3)

*My comment* - Josephus was an orthodox Jew, albeit perhaps not a very religious one but still a non-Christian. By using the word, Christ, among other things, he was committing blasphemy and would have been dealt with accordingly by local Jewish officials.

Tacitus offers a vague reference to a Chrestus which was a name for something OTHER than the mythical Christos. Regarding any followers, Tacitus claimed a christ ( I say 'a' christ because many deluded prophets were going around during that time claiming to be a christ) was put to death as criminal, nothing about a magical comeback. Tacitus went on to CRITICIZE the followers for 'their hatred of the human race' and being PROSECUTED for their crimes such as their 'depravity and filth'. Nothing about a Jesus or resurrection or miracles, etc.

Pliny reference - In 112AD Pliny, the younger wrote, christians were singing a hymn to christ as to a god. Nothing about a jesus, etc. No different than saying hari kristnas were singing to lord kristna. And Pliny may have been referring to the other false christs going around claiming to be THE one and only. Why would they write unconfirmed things?

Both Pliny and Tacitus say NOTHING about a specific jesus.

EVERYONE in a religious cult, xtian or otherwise, did that but the xtians were notorious for lying.

From: http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm

By Richard Smith

Consider the following list. These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a hundred years of it, after the time (41). Not ONE of them mentions a historical Jesus and/or any followers of his (some previously cited by me): Apollonius, Persius, Appian, Petronius, Arrian, Phaedrus, Aulus Gellius, Philo-Judaeus, Columella, Phlegon, Damis, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Pliny the Younger, Dion Pruseus, Plutarch, Epictetus, Pomponius Mela, Favorinus, Ptolemy, Florus Lucius, Hermogones, Quintius Curtius, Josephus, Seneca, Justus of Tiberius, Silius Italicus, Juvenal, Statius, Lucanus, Suetonius, Lucian, Tacitus, Lysias, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Pausanias

Nicolaus of Damascus (c. late 1st century B.C.E. – early 1st century C.E.) was, among many other things, tutor of Cleopatra and Mark Antony, and personal friend, advisor and court historian to King Herod the Great. Nicolaus wrote a world history in 144 books up to the end of Herod's reign, relying heavily on Herod's personal memoirs and of course his own first-hand knowledge (Josephus cites Nicolaus as a principal source for his own account of Herod's reign). Only a few fragments of this work remain, but if the nativity story in Matthew really happened, it is somewhat incredible that none of it was mentioned by Nicolaus. He would have been an eyewitness when the wise men came to Herod’s court and so badly troubled the King (“and all Jerusalem with him,” Matt. 2:3) that he summoned all the chief priests and scribes for an emergency meeting to learn more about this rival messiah. He would have been on hand when Herod learned that the magi had deceived him, went into a rage, and dispatched his soldiers to kill all the infant boys in Bethlehem “and all its districts” (Matt.2:16). Yet, Nicolaus says nothing of this.

This phenomenon is not just restricted to the history writers of the first few centuries. Even in fiction writing there is evidence that Christianity remained a largely unknown religious movement on the fringe of society for hundreds of years. We know of at least half a dozen ancient pagan novels written between the late 1st and 3rd centuries. Yet notably, Christians are never encountered in any of them before the 4th century, even though these stories typically involved adventures across the whole known world and through all areas of society. For example, in Apuleius' Metamorphoses he encounters a number of cultists from various religions, but never a single Christian.

In the case of Jesus, his believers are left with two unhappy choices: either the Gospels were grossly exaggerating Jesus’ life and accomplishments, and Jesus was just another illiterate, wandering preacher with a tiny following, completely unnoticed by society at large – or he was an outright mythical character. One common reaction from apologists is to insist that there are huge gaps in the historical record of the first century, big enough to hide Jesus in. This is not just untrue – as we’ve seen, there were plenty of writers who had every chance and every reason to discuss Jesus in their surviving work – but this situation is worsened by yet another consideration. Christians themselves were responsible for the lion’s share of all ancient writings that survived. Remember it was the Church that for hundreds of years doggedly preserved the writings they approved of – and destroyed or simply neglected to maintain the ones they didn’t like.

Source: Chapter 2, Fitzgerald, David (2010-09-30). Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All - Kindle Edition.

He began by mentioning the so called eyewitnesses or just witnesses to a Jesus. He had a timeline showing that the majority of them did not even live during the time of this jesus and that most of their writing appeared 100 years or more after the alleged birth of this jesus. Few are even talking about Christ in any context. For the most part, they are discussing Christians, not Christ at all. The two who appear to even mention a Christ, namely those of Tacitus and Suetonius, are just snippets that happen to mention common Christian beliefs of their day in passing while actually discussing some other subject altogether, not making any grand pronouncements on Jesus’ historicity.

*My addition*: the term, Chrestus, used by them was a common word meaning 'friend' among other things and had nothing to do with the messianic Christ.

Fitzgerald goes on to show us there were many first century writers, philosophers, historians, and other commentators who had good reason to notice Jesus, and despite apologists’ fervent denials, a wealth of their writings still exists today. But these perfectly respectable sources are never on Christian lists of historical witnesses. They include important figures like Epictetus, Pomponius Mela, Martial, Juvenal, Seneca the Younger, Gallio, Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria, Nicolaus of Damascus and more. And these are just the contemporaries; there are still later commentators who we would expect to have mentioned Christ, but did not.

Following are some living during or around the same time as this jesus.

Seneca the Younger (c. 3 B.C.E. – 65) Lucius Annaeus Seneca, philosopher, writer, statesman, and de facto ruler of the Empire for many years, had three compelling reasons to mention Jesus at least at some point in his many writings. First, though regarded as the greatest Roman writer on ethics, he has nothing to say about arguably the biggest ethical shakeup of his time. Second, in his book on nature Quaestiones Naturales, he records eclipses and other unusual natural phenomena, but makes no mention of the miraculous Star of Bethlehem, the multiple earthquakes in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death, or the worldwide (or at the very least region-wide) darkness at Christ’s crucifixion that he himself should have witnessed. Third, in another book On Superstition, Seneca lambasts every known religion, including Judaism.1 But strangely, he makes no mention whatsoever of Christianity, which was supposedly spreading like wildfire across the empire. This uncomfortable fact later made Augustine squirm in his theological treatise City of God (book 6, chapter 11) as he tried mightily to explain away Seneca’s glaring omission. In the 4th century, Christian scribes were so desperate to co-opt Seneca they even forged a series of correspondence between Seneca and his “dearest” friend, the Apostle Paul! They were notorious forgers known for doing this elsewhere regarding letters from Paul or John to others discussing their various myths.

Seneca’s silence is compounded by the fact that his older brother was Junius Annaeus Gallio (died 65 AD), who actually appears in the Bible. According to the author of the book of Acts (

-17), Gallio was the magistrate who heard Paul's case and threw it out of court. If this is true, it’s curious that Gallio never seems to have told his brother about this amazing Jesus character that everyone was so excited about, since Seneca was very interested in just this sort of thing. But Seneca shows no sign of ever having heard of Christians or Jesus at all. It’s also strange that even in Acts, Gallio has never heard of Jesus. This makes no sense at all if Jesus was a famous miracle worker recently executed who had returned from the dead and remained in Jerusalem for forty days, as Acts also says.

Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias (died c. 101) was a native of Tiberias in Galilee (not far from Jesus’ hometown), was personal secretary to King Herod Agrippa II (who allegedly met the apostle Paul), and even wrote a history of the Kingdom of Judah covering the entire time when Jesus lived. And it’s very interesting to read what he says about Jesus: Not ONE word.

The MOST damning of all - Philo of Alexandria (c.20 B.C.E. – c. 50) Writer, political commentator and esteemed Jewish statesman, Philo was above all the greatest Jewish philosopher of the Greco- Roman world; he fused Jewish and Greek thought to create Hellenistic Judaism. Philo was one of the more prolific writers in the ancient world. Around thirty of his books still survive, among which are his commentaries on contemporary politics and events of note affecting the Jews. He was certainly interested in fringe religions, and not afraid to talk about them. He wrote a great deal on other Jewish sects of the time, such as the Essenes(a form of christianity as posited by some), but nothing on Jesus, or on Christianity either, even though his home of Alexandria was supposedly one of the early cradles of Christianity, ie: Eastern Church (Western Church was Rome). Philo was in just the right time and place to be a brilliant historical witness to Jesus. He lived before, during and after the alleged time of Christ, and he had strong connections to Jerusalem. He didn’t just spend time in Jerusalem – his family was intimately connected with the royal house of Judea. So when Jesus’ fame and new philosophy spread all across Judea and beyond, when Jesus had his triumphant procession into the Holy City, drove the moneychangers from the temple, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to Heaven, when Jerusalem experienced two major earthquakes, supernatural darkness, and all the dead holy people emerged from their graves and made their way though Jerusalem – Philo was on the scene through all of that. In fact, he could have quite literally been on the scene for all of that. Philo would have loved to have been able to speak firsthand with these great Jewish saints he wrote so much about. But apparently neither their return from the dead nor any of those other miracles made much of an impression on either him – or anyone else in Jerusalem – because he never makes the slightest mention of any of these events. This absence is particularly strange considering what a huge influence Philo had on Christian theology. The early Christians were Philo’s biggest fans. It was early Hellenistic Jewish thinkers like Philo who first combined Jewish thought with the idea of “The Logos,” i.e. the Word, as in “In the beginning was the Word,” and “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Philo also wrote of the pneuma (“breath”) as the inspiration of God, the supernatural power that flows from God into the human soul. The word pneuma appears almost 400 times in the New Testament, most notably as hagion pneuma – the Holy Spirit. As Frank Zindler has noted, without Philo, the idea of the Trinity couldn’t have been invented years later by the second century Christians.

Following are some living after jesus.

There are still many other candidates from the century or two after the time of Jesus that, although they would not have been eyewitnesses, still could have had reason to comment on Jesus, his teachings, or the miraculous events associated with him. Seeing how eagerly the Roman church pounced upon and preserved the barest mentions of Christ in pagan writings, we can be quite certain that if any of these writers had talked about him, the church would have done the same with their writings as well. Here are just a few:

Pausanias was a 2nd century Greek travel writer whose stops included Antioch, Joppa, Jerusalem and the banks of the river Jordan. He was fascinated by all kinds of gods, holy relics and sacred or mysterious things, frequently pausing in his descriptions to relate local legends or digress on the wonders of nature, including earthquakes and meteorological phenomena. Says NOTHING about a jesus or his followers

Aelius Aristides (117 -181) (not to be confused with the Christian apologist Aristides) was a famous Greek hypochondriac who wrote extensively on his own visions of various gods. He was obsessed with pursuing miraculous healing of his endless imagined illnesses, which stretched on for 38 years. He wrote his best work on sacred teachings, and his other writings are praised for their social history of Asia Minor (where many early Christian communities existed). Yet nowhere do Jesus’ sacred teachings or his impact on history appear.

Marcus Cornelius Fronto (100-166) wrote Discourse against the Christians, of which only a single fragment survives. But judging by the reactions to his work, Jesus’ exploits never seem to have been mentioned.

Maximus of Tyre (c. 2nd century) was a Greek philosophical lecturer who drew upon a wide range of philosophies and mysticism. In fact, it was Maximus who turned the early Christian theologians on to Platonism. But he has nothing to say about Jesus’ teachings.

Athenaeus of Naucratis (c. 200) A Greek writer living in Egypt, Athenaeus wrote the monumental 15-volume work Deipnosophistae, “Philosophers at Dinner,” which records a series of seemingly endless, meandering conversations that range over most every conceivable subject, with countless digressions usually starting from some dinner-related issue (food or music or linguistics), but running off to encompass other things (like luxury, humor and pornography). It is rather odd that in all these conversations, Christians or Christianity never once came up. This may be because Christianity was a small movement not on anyone's radar at the time – except this is almost 200 years after Christianity began and Egypt was supposedly one of the early centers of the faith. One of Paul’s rivals is Apollos, a popular Egyptian preacher (Acts

-28), and Christian tradition claimed that Egypt had a line of bishops starting from the time of Mark.

Lucius Flavius Philostratus (c.170 – c. 244) Greek-born Roman courtier and writer. He is best known for his biography of Apollonius of Tyana, but he also wrote Lives of the Sophists, a collection of biographical sketches of illustrious men. Like Jesus, Apollonius performs miracles and healings, drives out demons, prophesizes, gains a large following and comes back from the dead. But Jesus himself gets no mention from Philostratus in either book.

Diogenes Laertius (c. early 3rd century) wrote Lives of the Philosophers, a monumental encyclopedia documenting in detail all the philosophical schools prominent in his day. Luke certainly painted Christianity as a philosophical school, so its failure to get even a brief mention suggests Christianity was still largely unknown even after two centuries.

Sextus Empiricus (c. 3rd century) wrote a massive collection of books refuting practically every philosophy that existed at the time, in elaborate detail. Just as with Diogenes Laertius’ compendium of philosophy, Christianity never gets a mention.

There are still more writers who covered a wide variety of subjects that might well have included Jesus or the events described in the Gospels, including Herodes Atticus, Lucius Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, Artemidorus Daldianus, and others. And these are just the writers we know about, yet not ONE of them refers to any historical jesus and/or any of



 

[Ten oz]

I argue with a sledge hammer? Freudian slip?

 

A youtube blogger and friend of mine gave me permission to use his post, I thought it better than I could do or at least exactly what i would say.

 

 

 

 

 

Hitchens was brilliant and well educated on this issue. As is Dawkins today. Unfortunately since great minds like theirs didn't spend their formative years attending bible study they are not considered "experts". Problem of course being there arent many nonbias people out there interested in committing their lives to scripture (theology). Most experts in theology were driven to it by faith. Those smart enough not to bother with the circular logic of using New Testament as the sole source to authenticate the New Testament a stuck with the label of denialist. Meanwhile theologians claim to know facts without evidence. Of course, knowing or believing without proof is faith regardless of how mainstream anyone tries to spin it.

[Eise]

I argue with a sledge hammer? Freudian slip?

 

A youtube blogger and friend of mine gave me permission to use his post, I thought it better than I could do or at least exactly what i would say.

 

Ah, the 'quoting to death strategy'. If you would have read the links I provided, you would see that the 'argument of silence' does not hold water. Again, you do not react on what I write. What do you think of the criteria I gave in my previous posting? Do they make sense to you? Will you answer this, or do you take your steam-roller this time?

 

Here is what one of my previous links has to say. For the complete argument, read the links I provided:

 

John Remsberg came up with a list of 42 ancient writers that he claimed "should" have mentioned Jesus and concluded their silence showed that Jesus ever existed. But the list has been widely criticised for being contrived and fanciful. Why exactly, for example, Lucanus—a writer whose works consist of a single poem and a history of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey (in the century before Jesus' time) "should" have mentioned Jesus is hard to see. And the same can be said for most of the other writers on Remsberg's list.

 

But it is hard to see why even Philo would be interested in mentioning someone like Jesus, given that he also makes no mentions of any of the other Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers, and Messianic claimants of the time, of which there were many. If Philo had mentioned Anthronges and Theudas, or Hillel and Honi or John the Baptist, but didn't mention Jesus, then a solid argument from silence could be made. But given that Philo seems to have had no interest at all in any of the various people like Jesus, the fact that he doesn't mention Jesus either carries little or no weight.

 

In fact, there is only one writer of the time who had any interest in such figures, who also had little interest for Roman and Greek writers. He was the Jewish historian Josephus, who is our sole source for virtually all of the Jewish preachers, prophets, faith healers, and Messianic claimants of this time. If there is any writer who should mention Jesus, it's Josephus. The problem for the "Jesus Mythicists" is ... he does.

 

Just to be sure: the writer is an atheist, not a theologian, or even a Christian.

 

And in your giganto-quote you only mention the rightfully criticised Testimonium Flavium (i.e. it was extended by Christian scribes). Not the one that that was discovered later, and fits in much better, and does not make exaggerated claims about who Jesus was:

 

At that time there was a wise man named Jesus, whose life was perfect, his virtues were recognized, and many Jews and Gentiles became his disciples. And Pilate condemned him to death on a cross, and those who had become his disciples, preached his doctrine. They claimed that he appeared to them alive three days after his passion. Maybe he was the Messiah, about whom the prophets had spoken of miracles.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Eise