Did contemporary historians mention Jesus?

[AMbomb]

The original Christians knew there was no Jesus, just like the followers of other pagan mystery religions knew their godmen didn't exist. It was only later that somebody got the idea that one of these guys actually existed. That was how literalist Christianity got started. For millenia prior to that, people had practiced mystery religions knowing full well that their godmen didn't really exist. The godman myths were allegories. They were supposed to reveal teachings of the mystery religions. They were never intended to be taken literally. If Jesus actually existed, that would mean that a godman myth propagated some 3,000 years earlier actually came true. Do you really think that's a more reasonable explanation than the one that says the Jesus myth was simply taken from earlier godman myths?

[jcr4runner]

You write that

The original Christians knew there was no Jesus, just like the followers of other pagan mystery religions knew their godmen didn't exist.

This is quite a ridiculous statement since the earliest non-biblical Chritian writings are clear on the divinity of Christ. There are no Christian writings that do not recognize Jesus as God.

Archaeologists have, in recent years, uncovered many manuscript fragments. Many of these fragments have been dated from the second and third centuries. The oldest known fragment is a tiny scrap of papyrus, 3-1/2" by 2-1/2" containing John 18:31-33. Scholars have assigned this fragment to the early part of the second century.

It should come as no surprise to the orthodox Christian, that the oldest surviving Gospel text matches what today's Bible says:

"Then Pilate said to them, "You take Him and judge Him according to your law." Therefore the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spoke, signifying by what death He would die. Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, "Are You the king of the Jews?

How ironic in view of your claim that a central passage concerning Christ's deity is in fact the oldest surviving record of the Gospel!

Corroboration for the New Testament also includes recently discovered archaeological inscriptions of people mentioned in scripture, such as the High Priest Caiaphas, but not recorded elsewhere. This tells us that the New Testament is a highly reliable document.

With your regard to the reliability of the Old Testament, your claim that the Jews were not in Egypt, there are Egyptian inscriptions that mention the Hebrews and Moses.

We also have several accounts by pagan writers of the Christians at the time of Nero who were put to death for their belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It would be hard to imagine contemporaries of Jesus dying for a belief that they did not hold or knew to be fraudulent.

I don't discount the writings of early Christians as being "biased" or untrustworthy. Since Jesus was the Son of God and He had unlimited power to illuminate men's hearts, it isn't remarkable to see that most of the writings of people who knew Him were by his disciples. In fact, all who encountered Jesus became believers to some degree even if by thought only and not by true faith. For example, we see the mere mental assent in the account of the Roman centurion who witnessed Jesus' death and exclaimed, "Surely this was the Son of God."

[jcr4runner]

But besides first century Christians who were eyewitnesses there are other pagan historians I haven't mentioned yet who record the existence of the man Jesus.

THALLUS, the Samaritan-born historian

One of the first Gentile writers who mentions Christ is Thallus, who wrote in A.D. 52. However, his writings have disappeared and we only know of them from fragments cited by other writers. One such writer is Julius Africanus, a Christian writer about A.D. 221. One very interesting passage relates to a comment from Thallus. Julius Africanus writes:

Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun -unreasonably, as it seems to me" (unreasonably, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died).

Thus, from this reference we see that the Gospel account of the darkness which fell upon the land during Christ's crucifixion was well known and required a naturalistic explanation from those non-believers who witnessed it.

PHLEGON, a first-century historian

His Chronicles have been lost, but a small fragment of that work, which confirms the darkness upon the earth at the crucifixion, is also mentioned by Julius Africanus. After his (Africanus') remarks about Thallus' unreasonable opinion of the darkness, he quotes Phlegon that

"during the time of Tiberius Caesar an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon."

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen in Contra Celsum, Book 2, sections 14, 33, 59.

Philopon [De. opif mund. 11 211 says:

"And about this darkness ... Phlegon recalls it in the Olyinpiads [the title of his history]." He says that "Phlegon mentioned the eclipse which took place during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ, and no other [eclipse], it is clear that he did not know from his sources about any [similar] eclipse in previous times ... and this is shown by the historical account itself of Tiberius Caesar."

LETTER OF MARA BAR-SERAPION

F. F. Bruce records that there is in the British Museum an interesting manuscript preserving the text of a letter written some time later than A.D. 73. This letter was sent by a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion to his son Serapion. He compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras and Christ.

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.

Of course, an atheist will doubt this as unreliable simply because the information was preserved by Christians without contrary proof that it is unreliable. That is the agenda of atheism, to suppress the truth in unrighteousness with no regard to the facts of history.

[AMbomb]

The earliest known Christian writings were the letters of Paul, written around the year 50. Paul was, in fact, a gnostic. He knew there was no Jesus. Nero was emperor from 54-68. Christians believe Jesus died between the years 30 and 35. In any case, there were no literalist Christians at the time of Nero. Literalist Christianity didn't get started until sometime after the Maccabee rebellion in 70. Besides, even if they did believe that Jesus really did exist and really was the son of God, that doesn't mean they were right. I never said the New Testament was wrong about every single thing contained in its pages. I said that its uncorroborated with respect to Jesus. The fact that certain things it contains have been corroborated is irrelevent. In other words, just because parts of it are true doesn't mean all of it is. The Egyptians, like the Romans, kept tons of records. There is no record of the Jews ever being in Egypt. Your reasoning for refusing to discount the writings of Christians is circular. You know Jesus existed because of these writings. You know these writings are correct because Jesus is the son of God. Illogical. And you didn't answer my question.

[AMbomb]

Let me get this straight. A Christian with reason to lie writes that these other two guys wrote about Jesus. The alleged writings of these other two guys are unavailable. Some time in the near future, there may be a court case to determine whether or not there was a Jesus. What do you think will happen if someone tries to submit the writings of Julius Africanus as evidence? Mara Bar Sarapion doesn't mention Jesus by name. Furthermore, even Christians don't claim Jesus was king of Israel despite the Christmas carol. Speaking of Christmas, December 25 is the birthday of the pagan godman Mithras, who was born to a virgin mother. What a coinkydink!

[jcr4runner]

We seem to be going around in circles on the topic of whether pagans mentioned Jesus in the first and second century and whether early Christians have any credibility at all.

But I consider your logic to be circular: "Christian historians are not a credible witness of Christian history." That would be like saying that there is no written evidence that Augustus Caesar existed or that he was proclaimed in some Roman inscriptions to be the son of a god. He was merely a legendary hero such as King Arthur and we cannot trust historians within one generation of his death because they were ROMANS holding to the Roman religion and therefore biased. The fact is that ALL Roman historians at the time of Caesar were Romans -- just as ALL Christian apologists for Jesus were Christians. It's so obvious. But there are records and inscriptions by both Christians and pagans from the first and early second centuries recording the Christian belief that Jesus was the Son of God. The most obvious one is by Pliny the Younger and there are at least a dozen other references and archaeological evidences in the form of inscriptions.

It wasn't that unusual in Roman times for a person to be proclaimed divine. The difference is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of the ONE Creator God and His followers REALLY believed it and were willing to be martyred for that belief.

In any case, we ought to move on to some of your other objections. I won't be touching on this again for a while.

[jcr4runner]

Some of your facts are wrong.

The earliest known Christian writings were the letters of Paul, written around the year 50.

But you are right here.

I think it is great that you admit that a man named Paul wrote the letters of Paul. For a long time, liberal critics would not admit this, but with so many of the early Church fathers quoting Paul, there would have to have been widely circulated letters at least 20 to 40 years prior to AD 90. So I agree. The letters of Paul were written from the early 50s to the mid 60s.

The Gospels existed in oral form until the same time period. The Bible was written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry His own disciples and by apostles that later arose in the first century church, Paul, Luke, Mark, James and Jude. Although 19th century scholars once tried to assign later dates to New Testament books, modern scholars regard the New Testament as a primary source document from the first century. There are many ways to validate the Bible's authenticity.

Eusebius, the 4th century historian, drawing information from Papias, who was the Apostle John's student, tells us that the Gospel of Mark was actually Peter's account of the life of Jesus as told to his student Mark:

"The Elder (John) used to say this also: 'Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down everything that he mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required ... So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them."

Eusebius also tells us that Mark was Peter's interpreter and travelled with him to Rome in 60 A.D. During the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, the Roman authorities used a copy of Mark's Gospel as evidence to implicate the Christians as the cause of a large fire which had burned much of the city. On a papyrus scroll appeared the title: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." In the ensuing period, Christians were persecuted as scapegoats. Evidently the title of Mark's Gospel was misconstrued as treasonous.

Paul was, in fact, a gnostic. He knew there was no Jesus.

Gnostic views of the Godhead were opposed by Paul in his writings, by Peter in his second epistle, by the Apostle John in his writings, and by the Church Fathers and apologists.

The Apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to Timothy:

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20).

It's worth noting here that the word translated as "science," or as "knowledge" in some translations, is the Greek word gnosis. Paul is warning his young disciple Timothy against the error of Gnosticism. Likewise, the letter to the Colossians also deals with Gnosticism.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ "(Colossians 2:8 ) .

"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind" (Colossians 2:18 ) .

Peter's second epistle also warns against heresies. Many scholars believe he is referring specifically to the teachings of Gnosticism.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2:1).

John's writings were written in part to counter the Gnostic error that supposed that Christ came in spirit form only, but not in human flesh.

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands" (1 John 1:1).

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God" (1 John 4:2) .

John further condemns the "mystery religions" that had corrupted first century Jews represented by the harlot in the book of Revelation.

"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS" (Revelation 17:3,4) .

Nero was emperor from 54-68. Christians believe Jesus died between the years 30 and 35. In any case, there were no literalist Christians at the time of Nero. Literalist Christianity didn't get started until sometime after the Maccabee rebellion in 70.

The Maccabean Rebellion occurred at the time of 165 BC not 70 AD.

You may be thinking of the seige of Jerusalem by Titus from 68 to 70 AD.

Besides, even if they did believe that Jesus really did exist and really was the son of God, that doesn't mean they were right. I never said the New Testament was wrong about every single thing contained in its pages. I said that it's uncorroborated with respect to Jesus. The fact that certain things it contains have been corroborated is irrelevant. In other words, just because parts of it are true doesn't mean all of it is.

You may not believe it, but this is what good historian does in order to evaluate whether a source is reliable. The historian looks for other independent sources that corroborate the history of the primary source. If there is a great deal of matching facts, then the source is considered highly reliable. For instance, Luke speaks in His Gospel many times of Jesus' interaction with historical persons who can be cound in other records and inscriptions. Therefore, Luke's record is considered to be accurate. It is also a fact that the greatest historians of ancient times were the Jews. That is why Josephus and Trypho are considered to be so valuable in corroborating the Gospel accounts and Acts.

The Egyptians, like the Romans, kept tons of records. There is no record of the Jews ever being in Egypt.

Archaeologists have discovered the Stele of Mernptah whic contains the following inscription:

Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt

http://www.touregypt.net/victorystele.htm

According an article at Wikipedia:

"Rameses II, is commonly considered to be a pharaoh with whom Moses squabbled - either as the 'Pharaoh of the Exodus' himself, or the preceding 'Pharaoh of the Oppression' who is said to have commissioned the Hebrews to "(build) for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses." These cities are known to have been built under both Seti I and Rameses II, possibly making his successor Merneptah 'Pharaoh of the Exodus.' This is considered plausible by those who view the famed stele of Merneptah's 5th year (ca. 1208 BC), claiming that 'Israel is wasted, bare of seed,' as propaganda covering up his own loss of an army in the sea."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Moses_in_history


Here is another interesting article giving some archaeological evidence that the Hebrews escaped from Egypt.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/redsea.html

[AMbomb]

My logic isn't circular at all. My logic is perfectly straight. Christians believe that Jesus existed. Therefore, it's no surprise that they wrote that he existed. It also means that what they wrote can't be trusted because we already know they believe Jesus existed. If you already know someone believes something, it really doesn't mean anything if he writes down what he believes. Let's say you knew someone who believed aliens have visited Earth. Let's say that person wrote a book in which he claimed aliens have visited Earth. Would you be more inclined to believe aliens have visited Earth just because that person wrote down what he believed in a book? No, you wouldn't. You already knew what that person believed. So, the fact that he wrote it down doesn't mean anything. What you need to establish whether or not what that person believes is true is verification from an objective source. The Jesus story doesn't have that.

[AMbomb]

I'm sure Paul wasn't his real name. It's probably an anglicized version of his real name. Anyway, some of the letters attributed to him are forgeries. Read The Jesus Mysteries for more information on the letters of Paul. Lack of records isn't the only problem with the Moses story. According to the Bible, 600,000 men were held as slaves in Egypt. Assuming 600,000 women and 300,000 kids, that's 1,500,000 people. There's no evidence of anything more than a few scattered encampments out in the desert where the Jews were supposedly wandering around. Not only that, but how would all these people have survived in the desert for 40 years? And why would it have taken them so long to get where they were going? And evaluating parts of a book may be what historians do to assess reliability under ordinary circumstances. But, we're talking about a book that makes supernatural claims here. In that case, it's not logical to assume that just because one part of a book is true that all of it is true. If someone wrote a book in which he claimed ghosts or zombies or vampires or werewolves existed, would it be enough to simply verify that certain other parts of the book were true?

[AMbomb]

By the way, why did you change the title of my thread?

[jcr4runner]

The new title will help the search engines index the page better now.

[revrosado]

"AM"'s focus is on the verification of the Biblical record aka "Christian writers" by other sources, to wit, pagans. For any other non-christian source would be pagan as you have all held as established.

Yet in the very same argument the alluded verification of "Jesus the Godman" is stated by "AM" himself.

For in all of man's history God has manifested the truth and veracity of Jesus by way of the created reality. The created stuff of the universe and the intellectual pursuit of knowledge (science). Therefore, the myths of yeateryear(secular, gentile, pagan) and the shadows of the old testament (Jew) were all brought to light in the person of Jesus Christ.

Reasoning properly applied to the sciences and to logic will bring forth the matter of the Christ as the illumination of man from his dark slumber of ignorance and basic information processing. History without reasoning is a waste of the human experience and mind. If we do not LEARN from history - we are doomed to repeat the errors of history as in the arguments of "AM" are the denial of the sum of all human thought.

If an ignorant mind views history, that history is devoid of any light. The illuminated mind sees light and sees history in the light thereof.

To wit, if Jesus was of no existential significance, then the whole of the universe was unable to squash a myth. Reality is a force of truth. Reality has permanence. All others are such - myths. Yet only one piece of history - changed all the world forever! A Myth?

Reason....Reason....

If the permanence of the Christian "myth" serve as no foundation for a man's reasoning, then in light of the sum of all the myths of humanity that speak to God as man, to virgin birth, to redemption from darkness, to restoration of life, to perpetuity of life, to duality of existance, et al - do they all not serve as a hint at least?

And what derive ye of that hint? If you take the sum of all the sciences and what acumen have you therein, can you not see a relationship in truths between them and the myths culminating and blossoming in Jesus the Christ? And if your brain now offers the question "how so?", then I say to you that you have a lot to learn before you can consider yourself intellectually qualified to discount Jesus the Christ as mere myth!

For I say this truly, that it is far easier to assimilate the Christ by faith than it is to deny him on the basis of facts and science - it is a hard thing to turn the sun off.

[AMbomb]

Your writing is hard to understand, revro. But, it seems to me you're wrapped up in assumptions. You assume the existence of God and Jesus. But, in reality, there's no evidence of the existence of either. Reason doesn't tell me that there was such a person as Jesus. It tells me that there wasn't.

[AMbomb]

You've heard the expression till the cows come home, right? Well I substituted bombers for cows. And I'm not a pagan; I'm an atheist. The Jesus myth isn't a shadow of prior historical events. It's a godman myth taken from earlier godman myths. The New Testament is totally uncorroborated with respect to Jesus. It may be corroborated with respect to other things. It doesn't matter. As for my distrust of Christian writings. why don't you ask yourself the question I asked in message 23? By the way, Jackal, is that Obi Wan Kenobi in your little motion picture box? It should be Darth Vader. :D

[jcr4runner]

Reason doesn't tell me that there was such a person as Jesus. It tells me that there wasn't.

I've asked this question before several times.

Can you list any contemporary historians who claim that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist in first century Galilee and Judea? I know that there are some people on the web who claim this. But I am talking about major historians who have been published by reputable publishing houses.

You can insist that "reason" tells you something, but until someone agrees with you, your reason is unreasonable.