I am really sorry if this has been posted before.
If you knew me in person, you would know I love getting into discussions with people about religion. One of the questions that seems to keep coming into the discussion loop is Jesus.
So I was at a social gathering the other night at a restaurant and I dropped my silverware and out of habit I said "Jesus Christ!" And a random girl that was a friend of a friend said, "Don't use the Lords name in vain."
So obviously we got into a debate.
I brought up the point in the discussion that Jesus never existed. Well everyone looked at me like i was off the wall insane...
At that point the discussion just turned into incoherent ramblings and Grrrr... So frustrating that people base their whole life on hearsay! Simply dumbfounding!!!
Help me feel better... seriously.
Non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact there were many more citizens than history writers that therefore we should expect to be no written evidence of a historical Jesus.Tacitus in Histories had nothing more to say about Jesus's time as: "Under Tiberius all was quiet." (sentence 10.)
Then in the later Annals (15:44) an account: "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" (9th sentence.)
This passage is thought to be a 15th century forgery. Though Tacitus was extensively quoted by Church polemicists and historians nothing of this is quoted or mentioned in any pre-15th century writing. In this case the purpose might have been different than to fake evidence for a historical Jesus, the context suggests other priorities. (Nero's persecutions.)I want to make a note of it that we are now in the strange situation that those who deny the existence of a historical Jesus are put in the position to prove a negative while those who maintain there was are satisfied merely with making up excuses why there shouldn't be any evidence in order to then conclude from that, that it is unreasonable to deny the existence of a historical Jesus. This seems to me to be a reversal of the normal course of action and the proper way to do things. Just sayin'
If it is true that the Romans kept good records, you are only further undermining your case, there being no evidence while there should.
If there is then please don't wait any longer and let me see it, so I can change my mind.
The important part, relevant to the evidence for a historicity of Christ, is the passage above the red rectangle.
"Judea during the period 6-66 stands out among the Roman provinces for the amount of detailed information available about it's internal conditions and the relations between government and the governed. For the Jews were unique among the subjects of Rome at the time in being articulate through the survival of Josephus contemporary account of local history, supplemented by Philo who records two episodes in the history of the province in his Legatio."
Philo never heard of Christ or Christianity and in Josephus, one well known forgery and one referring to a James the brother of Christ who is being brought before the sanhedrin who them sentenced him to be stoned. The passage "who was called Christ" there has been inserted later. So no reliable reference to any Christ in either works mentioned here.
Lots of other rebels, lots of other crucifixions. No Jesus on a cross. No Pilate sentencing Jesus. No Jesus at all, except a brother of James and even that is unclear.
"You can see more scanty records here
Bagnall, Roger S., and Bruce W. Frier. 1994. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Beloch, Julius. 1886. Die Bevölkerung der Griechisch-Römischen Welt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot..."and on and on..
Yes I see, before I have read them all I should shut up.
Well alright then, if that's the game then I quit.
I don't think you could. Everything's been distributed amongst the faithful along with the nails and the pieces of shroud by honest businessmen.
But if you are suggesting I have high demands then rest assured I don't at all, just something that's actually valid will do.
I think you are confused by my lack of clarity--I sometimes forget that posting doesn't convey vocal tone or facial expressions.
I was actually trying to convey agreement with Linda. If Jesus was really the son of god, then you would think he would stand out from the crowd of alleged Messiahs and cult leaders and appear in the historical record.
I have already stated that I think the existence of an actual person fits the facts that we do know better than a conspiracy made out of whole cloth. There is no solid evidence. We all know that.
Indeed doone, a person called 'Jesus' (Jesus and Judas were very popular names back then...) did exist and His disciples founded what we know as the Nazarene sect, which later evolved to be Chrstianity...
Mithranism has little to no influence on the rise of the Nazarene sect, although there are some similarities, it had a HUGE impact on Christianity; but that is another debate.
I do not understand why people want to deny that Jesus ever existed? There is enough for any serious historian to conclude that He did...