Outside of the new testament do you read or hear any source or sources that describe what jesus was like and what he taught? As far as my memory goes, I don`t believe that there is, I stand corrected if there is, What is your take on this Jesus?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Mentioned this a million times, but why not one more time.....
The greatest civilisation of that era where the Romans, who were exceptional record keepers.
The only reference to Jesus Christ was by Senator Tacitus who was born over 20 years after his apparent crucifixion and wrote about it in 116AD.
The reference only made up one page of his 'Annuls' and refers to 'Christus' being prosecuted.
One could take this as a confirmation of a person called Christus at the time, but equally the Christian religion was prominent then in time and could have had been embellished...... who knows.
Personally, thinks it's up in the air.
You give the Romans too much credit where it supports "Jesus probably didn't exist" and give them not enough credit where it supports "Jesus probably was a real person"
Where do the Romans record anything about Jesus life?
See Tacitus on Jesus. Nothing about his life and teachings. But was mentioned.
He mentioned that someone had mentioned that someone had mentioned him.
That is incorrect. Please review your sources.
You have NO ONE who spoke of Jesus during his supposed time on earth....NO ONE. Jesus is a fabrication and a perpetual myth based on word of mouth by people who never met the man, much less, were even alive during his supposed time on earth. Remember the book by the Columbine parents..."She Said Yes"? People still talk about that as truth. And this in the age of the internet where you can actually know the truth of it and people are still perpetuating that myth....because it's a nice story. This is a VERY good indicator of how mankind will pass down myths as truth.
See Hannibal. A Carthaginian General and considered the greatest military commander of all time. You know how many contemporary sources we have to him? None.
Jesus doesn’t have any contemporary sources but we has 4 separate accounts of his ministry. 2 from eyewitnesses. The other two had access to eyewitnesses. That’s more than what Hannibal has.
4 that don't exactly agree with each other. Seems more damning than affirming. And eyewitness's? Those people couldn't go to walmart and buy a journal to write their conflicting account in. And even if they were able to do that, that cheap walmart crap wouldn't weather the ages very well anyhow! Lol. Your eyewitness's didn't get a choice as to what their testimony would say. haha.....Your ass got punked. Lol. It's okay, I fell for it too.
I've said it on another thread but I wonder why 4 accounts that don't agree with each other is actually damning. What I've noticed from atheists is when two or more sources tell the same story (ex. the synoptic gospels) they're clumped together into one and instead of having three separate accounts, we have just one. And when they disagree, it's then used as a basis for not believing them at all. But this criteria is only reserved for one person in history, Jesus Christ.
With literally any other person in history, differing accounts are taken with a grain of salt and taken together to come up with a cohesive biography. When accounts are similar, they boost the probability that the narrative happened. I say, be fair to everyone in history and either treat them like you do Jesus (i.e. not believe anything actually happened in history) or believe that Jesus existed. He may not have done miracles but he existed.
@JoC
Because they aren't actually four different accounts. What they are are four repeated stories none of which came from a reliable first-hand source.
Most accounts of history are corroborated by independent sources.
We actually do have 4 independent sources. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Where shall I start with the discrepancies?
No JoC there are no independent sources. The "gospels" are copies of the one the came before it with modifications and the oldest gospel isn't a firsthand account. The gospel of Mark was written nearly 90 years after the supposed events. The other three come much later. The only independence was the fact they there may have been 4 different authors of the gospels. I suspect that there may have been at least 100 different people that actually wrote the gospels, all with no information but the folklore that existed in the 3rd century.
It is as if I took 'Mary had a Little Lamb' and wrote my own version based on nothing but the original poem, but that I had never read the poem in the first place but wrote from hearing the poem many times, and that I added or subtracted what I wanted to fit MY narrative.
That is the case with the gospels. That isn't independent sourcing. That is copying and editing.
JoC: 2 from eyewitnesses. The other two had access to eyewitnesses. Or so it was decided in Nicea they would be...
P.S. And Hanibal's story was documented at least by famous Roman historians Polibio, Cornelius Nepus and Plutarch. Not exactly contemporary to him (Polibio almost) but pretty good reliable sources.
See what I'm saying? With literally any other person, it's fine to not have contemporary sources as long as they're recorded by good reliable sources. But with being mentioned by Tacitus or Josephus means absolutely nothing when talking about Jesus. As well as being recorded by the early Christians. Nope. They mean absolutely nothing.
@JoC:
There are no contemporary sources about Hannibal because his city state, Carthage, was utterly destroyed by the Romans at the end of the Third Punic War in the second century BCE.
But that doesn't matter because there's no global religion based on second-hand stories and myths about Hannibal. The Jesus myth has had a dire impact on European history and continues to have an unhealthy influence on government policies in many countries. That's why we challenge the veracity of this fairy story.
The question here is the idea of Jesus, who founded Christianity existing at all. You don't even have to concede how Jesus was portrayed in the Bible. Just that he existed and was a real person.
You make your excuses for Hannibal about Carthage being destroyed yet completely throw away the fact that Christians were persecuted for 300 years following Christ's death.
Basically, you don't believe that anyone of note ever lived in the ancient world. Maybe the Caesars but not even Pontius Pilate, Tacitus or Josephus could exist using your conditions.
@JoC: "Christians were persecuted for 300 years following Christ's death"
Not much proof of that either.
@JoC: "You make your excuses for Hannibal about Carthage being destroyed"
I'm not making excuses. I'm just saying it doesn't matter because Hannibal isn't a major influence on the modern world. Followers of Jesus ARE a major influence on the world and are still trying to impose his teachings on the world, so we need to apply a higher standard of evidence.
Who's actions are more important in terms of world security, Kim Jong Un or Kim Kardashian? I think we need to apply a higher standard of evidence when discussing Kim Jong Un. Don't you?
@JoC, I didn't answer before, because I agree on everything @Algebe replied: "We need to apply a higher standard of evidence". If Hannibal was considered the son of a god, and still a major influence in the XXI century, we would probably be more critical about these historians.
But the NT wasn't even written by historians or another independent sources, but by followers, and the Bible has been written and rewritten for centuries; the Apostles didn't talk only about political and warlike events as an objective account of facts, but they take a very personal point of view, including even transcriptions of supposedly private conversations, sometimes when they weren't even there; and these words are being taken literally by millions of people throughout the world, using their words as an excuse to commit horrific acts sometimes.
"Followers of Jesus ARE a major influence on the world and are still trying to impose his teachings on the world, so we need to apply a higher standard of evidence."
-of his existence? I don't understand your logic. At all. Doesn't the fact that followers of Jesus have had a major influence on the world proof enough that the man existed? I seems to me that it's very convenient for you to dismiss or doubt the existence of Jesus when in fact denying he existed at all poses a bigger problem. Who then was the founder of Christianity? How did it get the following that it did? None of the earliest apostles ever claimed to be the founder of Christianity so how did Christianity even start?
There are Jedi followers. Does that mean that the Jedi existed? People are credulous; religious people doubly so.
I'd like to meet those Jedi followers. Like really. We were talking about Jesus and Hannibal and Pontius Pilate and Tacitus and Josephus and you come up with Jedis.
I don't know how you actually got four people to agree with your point.
Well I assure you, they do exist. Do a little googling and you'll find more than you could ever want. And as far as I'm concerned, your beliefs are just a nutty as theirs.
On second thought, yours are nuttier: at least as a minority group their beliefs are mostly harmless.
John, doesn't the fact that followers of [insert any male famous fictional character in history with millions of followers] have had a major influence on the world proof enough that the man existed?
Of course it doesn't! Nyar's example of Jedis is very revealing.
To your last questions, I comply with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Jedi? Really? You're missing the crucial context of the thread. See my response to Nyar.
Ahhhh. The First Council of Nicaea. This doesn't actually show that this is where Christianity started. You're discounting the numerous Christian texts which date to the first and second centuries if you assert that Nicaea is where Christianity began. And with Constantine. Really, this doesn't hold like any water. Please improve your research.
@JoC Jedi? Really? You're missing the crucial context of the thread. See my response to Nyar. I don't think so.
If religions were treated like any other trend of thought, and be only taught, as I've said many times, from a historical, philosophical, etc. point of view, and got that many followers, as an only product of critical thinking in adulthood, I would be probably more impressed. But religion is indoctrinated, Christianity in an almost 2000 year-old system of well-refined tools of thought control and well-trained people everywhere speaking on their favor. I'm not implying pay-rolled, but people, like probably you are, who really believes to be doing the right thing defending its ideas.
Religious institutions get public money and other tax advantages, and they have powerful lobbies and political agendas. In my country, apart from tax exempts and being the only institution with their own donation box in the tax return file and weekly televised rituals on national public tv, RCC owns major radio and tv stations, and other important written media; they are major investors in banks and other businesses; and their religion is the one taught in schools all over the country.
I'm impressed by Jedi's followers. I'm not impressed by the huge number of the followers of the heroes of such evils organizations as religious institutions are. I really feel like being in the right side of history.
P.S. About the First Council of Nicaea. I was just making a point on how easily manipulable supposedly holy texts can be.
@JoC: "Doesn't the fact that followers of Jesus have had a major influence on the world proof enough that the man existed?"
So as a Christian do you accept the reality of the Hindu gods? They've got millions of followers and have a major influence in the world. Is that proof that they exist? The Greek-Roman gods had a huge following for many centuries. Were they real? How about the Egyptian gods, the Japanese gods? All of these deities had millions of believers. Did that make them real?
I didn't realize that Christians see popularity as the litmus test for their god's existence. Perhaps that's why American Christians got so angry back in the 60s when John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.
Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster have pretty big influence on the world, but that doesn't make them real.
JoC,
Yeshua didn't found Christianity; the Paul character did. Paul was the first to preach and write about the Yeshua (Jesus) character. He established the religious doctrine and the worship rituals.
Pages