what are peoples thoughts on Jesus?

[pinkocommie]

In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

These were people living under an oppresive military occupation. Their "odd agenda" was to subvert that occupation. Using the Jesus myths to unify the people seems to me to be as good a tactic as any. And in the long run it worked, didn't it?

I'm misquoted here as having said that inner bit.  That was KebertX, not me.  So, just for clarification -

In terms of history, he's quite like a ghost.  His story went unchronicled until after he had died, and other than a couple hundreds written references about him from that time, there's no archaeological evidence of him doing anything.  Maybe he wasn't real (this seems unlikely to me, but...) maybe his entire story was just a fusion of myths that people mashed together as Jewish propaganda.  No one actually met him, they just heard of him.  It would be a massive conspiracy, coming from an organized network of people with an odd agenda of making people believe the Messiah had come.  Getting false news of Jesus' life out to the public convincingly enough that everyone thinks this fictional man is real, and start worshiping him and following his teachings, would be difficult to say the least.  But not impossible.

These were people living under an oppresive military occupation. Their "odd agenda" was to subvert that occupation. Using the Jesus myths to unify the people seems to me to be as good a tactic as any. And in the long run it worked, didn't it?

[KebertX]

There are a multitude of non-biblical references to Jesus, just as an ordinary human, dating back early enough to be within just a few decades of his death.

KebertX, this is simply not true. You shouldn't put forth untruths like this and offer no backup at all. I can easily dispute anything related to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny.

I'm no historian, but it stands to reason that the further back in time you go, the less specific facts become. We're trying to nail specific details to a guy who may or may not have even existed.  I don't see why we should just throw out any details that may have been influenced by a pro-Christian agenda.  If you refuse to acknowledge what documents there are to shed some light on the Jesus story, then of course you'd come to the conclusion that he didn't exist.

But I'm listening, why aren't any of those records admissible? I've been wrong throughout this thread, so I'm just here to learn at this point.

[lundberg500]

Hi KebertX,

Here is why you can't count Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny. I posted here in this thread already about Jopeshus and Tacitus so I will include those comments here too:

JOSEPHUS: Josephus wrote two very important histories; "History of the Jewish War" (70’s CE) and "Antiquities of the Jews" (90s CE). The work that you are referring to is the "Antiquities of the Jews". Right now I am reading his other work, "History of the Jewish War". Even though this book was written during the 70s CE, do you know how many times he mentions Christianity? ZERO. That's because Christianity did not develop until AFTER the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

Here is the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus writing “Antiquities of the Jews”:

"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 to this day."

Not a single writer before the 4th century â€" not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. â€" in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to these words.

All manuscripts before Eusebius (263-339 CE) do not have the passage in question. Also, no form of the Testimonium Flavianum is cited in the works of any writer until after Eusebius.

There is nothing said by Josephus about Jesus or Christianity in his “Jewish War”(70s CE). In the section on Pilate in the earlier "Jewish War" he outlines the same two incidents with which he began chapter 3 of Book 18 in the "Antiquities of the Jews" (90s CE). In the "Antiquities", these descriptions are immediately followed by the Testimonium about Jesus. In "Jewish War", no mention of Jesus or Christianity is included. Also, throughout the "Antiquities of the Jews" there is not one mention of Christianity or Jesus besides this one small interpolation. The work of Josephus is voluminous and exhaustive. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure leaders, yet he says absolutely nothing about Christianity or Jesus.

The statement “he was the Christ” is very out of place in its present position and disturbs the flow of thought. Also, Josephus being a devout Jew would NEVER claim Jesus as the Christ. In the case of every other would-be messiah or popular leader opposed to or executed by the Romans, Josephus has nothing but bad things to say. He condemns the whole movement of rebels as the bane of the century. It led to the destruction of the Temple. And yet the Testimonium would require us to believe that he made some kind of exception for Jesus?

Eubesius’s texts always sound like Eubesius. The phrases “maker of many miracles”, “tribe of Christians”, and “until this day” are found throughout the writings of Eusebius. Eusebius used the same trope or habit that a writer has that is relatively unique and acts as a fingerprint in identifying that writer’s work. The most used trope of Eusebius was the phrase “even to this present day” or “to the present time”. Eusebius liked to use this phrase a lot, especially when referring to proof of the truth not only being seen in the past but still being able to be seen in his present time. He used this same trope even when quoting other writers. Also, the term PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS (maker of miraculous works) is markedly Eusebian. POIHTHS never occurs in Josephus in the sense of "maker" rather than "poet," and the only time Josephus combines forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW it is in the sense of "acting contrary to custom" rather than "making miracles." Combining forms of PARADOXOS and POIHW in the sense of "miracle-making" is exceedingly common in Eusebius, but he seems to reserve the three words PARADOXOS, POIHW, and ERGON, used together, to describe Jesus. The Testimonium follows Eusebius' line of argument in his "Demonstratio" very closely.

TACITUS: The work you are referring to is his "Annals" written around 109 CE. Here is the passage:

Tacitus, Annals, 15.44
"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 Judaea, 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skin of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

This sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative and it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative. Tacitus does not mention Christians ANYWHERE ELSE in any other part of the Annals nor his other writing "Histories" before this one small passage.

The first copy of the manuscript was dated to around 600 years AFTER the time of Tacitus. This is the Beneventan rustic capitals manuscript that made it’s way to the Monte Cassino where another copy was made around 1038-1055 CE. As the first copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy. It is even admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity.

The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.This story, in nearly the same words, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century CE and the same type of slander against Nero is to be found in the writings of Eusebius.Tacitus was writing long before the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter were written. Nero blaming the Christians comes from these apocryphal writings Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Peter and Paul proving that these lines MUST have been interpolated into the Annals.

In this manuscript, the first 'i' of the Christianos is quite distinct in appearance from the second. This manuscript has been examined and it was found that there are signs of an 'e' being erased. It was discovered that under ultraviolet light that the 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latin word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρησÏ,,ÏŒÏ, (chrestos), meaning 'good, useful'.

The wrong title is used for Pontius Pilate of procurator. The term prefect should have been used. Also, Pilate is mentioned here over 25 years after his rule with no mention of a prior reference to him in another part of the Annals. Tacitus was writing the Annals of accounts year by year, hence the name. He surely would have referred the reader back to an earlier book where he mentions Pilate, especially after being 25 years since he was in office.

Tacitus, in his "Histories" repeatedly refers to Judaism as a “superstition” not Christianity. Many writers called Judaism a superstition. The interpolation changes Judaism to Christianity when talked about as a superstition. Chrestus (the actual word used by Tacitus), means "the good", a complementary title for just about anyone. Chrestos was a term used in mystic religions, to denote a perfected being. The interpolation changes Judaism to Christianity when talked about as a superstition.

Now, I will address Pliny and Suetonius.

First, you have to understand the words "chrestus", "chrestos" and "christos" and how they were used BEFORE Christianity. The classical Greek words Chrestos and Christos, predate the New Testament by centuries.  The word "Chrestus," meaning "good" or "useful," was a title frequently held by commoners, priests, and gods alike prior to the Christian era. Followers of any deity could be called "Chrestus" or "Chrestos". They were not "Christians" but "Chrestians". In early antiquity and within the mystery religions, the term "Chrestos" had a deeper meaning than simply a good man.  It referred to a disciple of the religion, someone who was actively seeking the Truth.  Philo of Alexandria speaks of ‘Theochrestos’, which means ‘God-declared’ or one who is declared by God.  He also refers to the ‘Logia Theochresta’, meaning “sayings delivered by God”.  The word Christos was easily confused with the common Greek proper name Chrestos. It is absolutely beyond doubt that Christus and Chrestus, Christiani and Chrestiani, were used indifferently by the Christian authors of the first two centuries to show "christos" the "annointed one". In Greek, 'e' and 'i' were similarly pronounced and often confused. So "chrestos" or chrestus" were words used to describe followers of a god BEFORE Jesus. These words were used long before Christianity. Osiris, amongst others, was called Chrestos. Mithras too, was called Chrestos. Chrestus or Chrestos were pagan terms used to refer to various pre-Christian deities.

Hadrian (76-138 CE) referred to the followers of the god Serapis as chrestos or christians. A letter inserted in the Augustan History, ascribed to the Emperor Hadrian, refers to the worship of Serapis by residents of Egypt who described themselves as Christians, and Christian worship by those claiming to worship Serapis, suggesting a great confusion of the cults and practices:

Hadrian said: “The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.”

Serapis was an invented god. He was a composite of several Egyptian and Hellenistic deities who was introduced to the world at the beginning of the Ptolemaic (Greek) Period in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy I, though his legacy lasted well into the Roman period. Thus, he was meant to form a bridge between the Greek and Egyptian religion in a new age in which their respective gods were bought face to face with each other, so that both Egyptians and Greeks could find union in a specific supreme entity. The god's name is a fusion of Osiris and the bull Apis.The chief center of the worship of Serapis in Ptolemaic times was Alexandria at the great Serapeum, which was considered a wonder and a site of pilgrimage throughout the Mediterranean world, until it was destroyed by order of Emperor Theodosius in 389 CE.

Now, a little before Hadrian, around 110-112 CE, there was a letter from the magistrate Pliny the Younger to his emperor Trajan, asking for procedures in dealing with the large number of Christians who were being brought before him daily. The worship of Serapis was imported into Egypt from Pontus, a province bordering on Bithynia. Pliny the Younger was stationed in Bithynia when he wrote this letter to Trajan. The Christians mentioned by Pliny the Younger were worshippers of Serapis not a man called Jesus from Nazareth. The value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. Also, the actual text used today about this letter comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century so the chrestos or chrestus used by Pliny was altered to christians just like the "e" was changed to an "i" in the Tacitus interpolation.

Now, for Suetonius. The only comment from him comes from his "Lives, Nero, 16" where it says: "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."

I have read the "Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius and let me assure you, he was referring to Jews and not Christians. Suetonius never mentions Christians in the entire 12 Caesars other than this line. Suetonius DOES mention Jews four times before and four times AFTER this line, showing that the original line referred to the Jews and not Christians. Suetonius was writing long before the apocryphal writings of Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, and Acts of Peter and Paul were written proving that the lines about punishment being inflicted upon the Christians must have been an interpolation after the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter were written. The words “mischievous superstition” is also used in the "Annals" (Tacitus) interpolation and sounds exactly like something Eusebius would say. The word, "superstition" was used by others when referring to Judaism. Tactitus used this word several times when referring to Jews.

[freeservant]

Regarding Tacitus I think lundberg500 has a problem in that one can seek out the most negative view one can find and then think it has enough scholarly authority.

The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Bible's New Testament gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some scholars have argued that it may not be authentic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

It is always helpful for you to provide a link to where you are getting your information from and if it is agreed to by a majority of the peers that can review it.

One can try to present a case for something but if it is a viewpoint only held by a minority of the authorities in that area of expertise then you can see the credibility problem.

I will look into the other issues you are presenting but I have to say that regarding Tacitus you are not in alinement with the majority view of the proper authorities on this matter.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Regarding Tacitus I think lundberg500 has a problem in that one can seek out the most negative view one can find and then think it has enough scholarly authority.

The passage contains an early non-Christian reference to the origin of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Bible's New Testament gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome. While a majority of scholars consider the passage authentic, some scholars have argued that it may not be authentic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

It is always helpful for you to provide a link to where you are getting your information from and if it is agreed to by a majority of the peers that can review it.

One can try to present a case for something but if it is a viewpoint only held by a minority of the authorities in that area of expertise then you can see the credibility problem.

I will look into the other issues you are presenting but I have to say that regarding Tacitus you are not in alinement with the majority view of the proper authorities on this matter.

You mean like how the majority of physicists once held that light propogated through luminiferous æther?

[freeservant]

You mean like how the majority of physicists once held that light propagated through luminiferous æther?

A proper authority would need to be in the context of what is held to by the scholarly peers and experts of today.  Any effort to conflate some incorrect conclusion held by a majority in the past is a strawman.  

As you know Science is often wrong but self correcting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f- ... 94303.html

Given the position of trust that scientists are placed in it is interesting when the corruption is exposed.

[tymygy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why does this guy post a link in every comment? Just tell me your argument I don't want to go to another site and read someone elses paper.  

[Davin]

A proper authority would need to be in the context of what is held to by the scholarly peers and experts of today.  Any effort to conflate some incorrect conclusion held by a majority in the past is a strawman.

"Authorities" are not to be trusted any more or less than any one else. It's the concepts that are important, not who says them.

[PoopShoot]

"Authorities" are not to be trusted any more or less than any one else. It's the concepts that are important, not who says them.

There is some degree of falsehood in this.  One would reject an assertion made on a scholarly subject if it were not made by an authority.  You will not see me accept an engineer's perspective on cardiac surgical procedures without agreement by an experienced cardiac surgeon.

[Davin]

"Authorities" are not to be trusted any more or less than any one else. It's the concepts that are important, not who says them.

There is some degree of falsehood in this.  One would reject an assertion made on a scholarly subject if it were not made by an authority.

What does this have to do with my statement?

You will not see me accept an engineer's perspective on cardiac surgical procedures without agreement by an experienced cardiac surgeon.

Would you accept the engineer's perspective just because an experienced cardiac surgeon agreed with it, or because the experienced cardiac surgeon could explain it?

[PoopShoot]

There is some degree of falsehood in this.  One would reject an assertion made on a scholarly subject if it were not made by an authority.

What does this have to do with my statement?[/quote]You imply that authority on a subject is meaningless.  This is patently false.

You will not see me accept an engineer's perspective on cardiac surgical procedures without agreement by an experienced cardiac surgeon.

Would you accept the engineer's perspective just because an experienced cardiac surgeon agreed with it, or because the experienced cardiac surgeon could explain it?

Neither.  I would accept it because the cardiac surgeon understood the argument and the implications without feeling the need to refute or correct statements made by the engineer.

[Davin]

There is some degree of falsehood in this.  One would reject an assertion made on a scholarly subject if it were not made by an authority.

What does this have to do with my statement?

You imply that authority on a subject is meaningless.  This is patently false.

No, I imply that one can't trust someone just because they're an authority, this is patently true.

You will not see me accept an engineer's perspective on cardiac surgical procedures without agreement by an experienced cardiac surgeon.

Would you accept the engineer's perspective just because an experienced cardiac surgeon agreed with it, or because the experienced cardiac surgeon could explain it?

Neither.  I would accept it because the cardiac surgeon understood the argument and the implications without feeling the need to refute or correct statements made by the engineer.

I guess you're far more trusting than I. I will only accept that which makes sense, never just because someone says so or doesn't appear to refute or correct something someone else says.

[PoopShoot]

I guess you're far more trusting than I. I will only accept that which makes sense, never just because someone says so or doesn't appear to refute or correct something someone else says.

Then you've a lot of schooling ahead of you.  This is aside from the fact that your argument is a clever strawman.

[lundberg500]

I think lundberg500 has a problem in that one can seek out the most negative view one can find and then think it has enough scholarly authority

Freeservant, every bit of what I listed about Tacitus, and the others, is true. I did not make these facts up. I got this information from several sources. The facts remain about this Tacitus comment in the "Annals":

1. Tacitus does not mention Christians or Jesus ANYWHERE ELSE in any other part of the "Annals" nor his other writing "Histories" before this one small passage in the "Annals". You can easily read the writings of Tacitus yourself and try to find any place else where he mentions Jesus or Christians. You will find nothing. You have to ask yourself why? This really doesn't make sense to devote one small line about Christians in all the volumes of work credited to Tacitus.

2. The first known copy of the manuscript of the "Annals" dated to around 600 years AFTER the time of Tacitus. The next one was the copy made by a monk around 1038-1055 CE.  Do you not see how there was plenty of opportunity for interpolations by the church? The surviving copies of these Medicean manuscripts are held in the Laurentian Library. Here is a link to a picture where you can see for yourself where the "e" was changed to an "i".The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, showing it to be the original letter.The original word used was "chrestians" not "christians". I have already gone into detail about how this word was erroneously thought to be about christians who followed Jesus.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Highlight_of_MII.png

3. Tacitus, in his "Histories" repeatedly refers to Judaism as a “superstition” not Christianity. Just read Tacitus for yourself and you will see.

I didn't hunt out the most negative thing I could find and then go with that. I resent that remark by you. I have spent a great deal of time studying these facts. They are facts. They are true. They make sense. It's truly amazing to see Christians in complete denial of facts. Anything to save the Jesus that they grew up with and learned in Sunday school and were taught to them by their parents. Christians are just amazing to me. Anytime evidence is presented they have some way of rationalizing it out so that Jesus will still seem as real as ever to them. To anyone who is not a Christian, the facts I and many others have presented like this make perfect sense. They make sense because they are true.

[Davin]

I guess you're far more trusting than I. I will only accept that which makes sense, never just because someone says so or doesn't appear to refute or correct something someone else says.

Then you've a lot of schooling ahead of you.  This is aside from the fact that your argument is a clever strawman.

The only schooling I need to do is that which is important for me to accept as true, if an authority says something is the way it is and I don't know how that works, there is no need for me to either accept or deny it. But if it's important that I accept it as true, then It's my responsibility to understand the things I accept as true.

I don't see how making sure an authority has the ability explain the concepts they claim to understand is a straw man.