Did Nero and other Roman emperors exist?

Question

Many writers alleged that Jesus did not exist. But, history shows that his disciples and the 1st century Christians were fed to lions, and tortured horribly just for their belief in Christ.

Now, these writers alleged that they have proof that Christ never existed. It should also follow that his disciples and the 1st century Christians did not exist. If they did not exist, then their tormentors--the Roman emperors--did not also exist?

Answer 1

According to reliable reference materials--World Book Encyclopedia, Britannica, etc--Christ, his 1st century followers, and yes Nero & the Roman Emperors did exist. According to World Book, he was the man who have greatly influenced the world. Even our current calendar says Annu Domini (A.D), an acknowledgment of his existence.

But, according to most atheists Jesus did not exist. Oh by the way, in your earlier post you unintentionally ( or was it intentional ?) exposed atheists as LIARS.

Without offense atheist, read your answers to Borat's previous post ( Atheist vs. 1st century Christians). Many of you admitted that most of you are LIARS!

If most of you are LIARS, how can we believe what you say?

Answer 2

I completely get what you are saying here. I do think though that there is a lot of recorded evidence for these figures which is not the case (outside the Bible itself) with the figure of Jesus. The numbers of times not just their deeds but more mundane functions of life, such as let it be noted Emperor so and so order this tax, were recorded.

I feel a relatively higher level of certainity about the existence of these people and what we can know of them than I do for the figure of Jesus. In this latter case I have no strong opinion or conviction that there either was or was not a historical versus mythical basis for the Jesus figure. The very few historical references we have outside the Bible are second hand accounts written well after the events of his life and consist mainly of the writers being told of a figure known as Jesus. Some recent Biblical scholarship calls into attention the problems of what we can verify in the Bible, the accuracy of our accounts, and the changes early Christianity went through.

I don't personally believe that there is conclusive proof Jesus existed nor that Jesus did not exist. I do think we have lots of recorded events about early Christianity that we can feel pretty confident to know at least that there were Christians in the first century and some of the facts of the early Christianity movement and its beliefs.

Answer 3

I think you are guilty of several false steps in your thinking.

First, to answer your question. Although no one knows for sure, there is plenty of evidence (including contemporaneous accounts) that Nero, and other roman emperors existed. The same cannot be said of Jesus.

Second, I have not seen anyone in this forum claim they have proof that Jesus never existed. They only provided the facts that there are no contemporaneous accounts that mention Jesus. The only writings about Jesus happened many decades after his alleged resurrection. This is fact. The christian apologists even admit this.

In addition, the non-contemporaneous historical writings that many christian apologists provide that mention a Jesus have validity problems associated with them.

Third, assuming that Jesus did not exist, does not necessarily mean that disciples, apostles, or followers of a religion attributable to him do not exist. I don't understand how you can make this mistake. Just because the roman gods may not exist, does this mean that the romans that believed in them did not exist?

Please try to think more critically.

Answer 4

LOL...are you just trying to prove that "Christians" can't construct or follow a rational argument? Well done.

There is absolutely no historical evidence for "Jesus." The gospels, all other objections aside, are not contemporary. Nor is the account of Jesus in Josephus, which is, at any rate, almost universally regarded as spurious by scholars. We have no authentic artifacts - not even a corpse! Even such incidents as Herod's "Massacre of the Innocents" - which one would think would've provoked remark - are exclusive to the gospels.

On the contrary, there actually IS historical evidence for Nero. You may choose not to believe it if you wish; but if you don't understand the difference between the case for Nero and the case for Jesus, you're simply an imbecile.

Answer 5

Um, no, sorry, but the Roman Emperors did exist. Many independent sources (i.e. people not trying to form a religion) from those times have stated so. There's also archealogical evidence. There's also independent historicans from the time that wrote about the early Christians and physical evidence for them too. So far there has been no independent source that talks about Jesus (the only source so far were the disciples), and no physical evidence.

And you got it wrong: Not one of the disciples were ever fed to lions. Check the facts.

Answer 6

....... have you even read history?

Yes, Nero and the other emporers existed. Jesus did not. His disciples were fed to the lions but that does not say that HE existed, only that those that believed in the bible were tortured and killed.

Why in all bloody hell would the fact that Christian followers were murdered EVER mean that Christ must have existed?

That is not proof of Christ. Did you even think before you asked this question?

Answer 7

Someone came through at that time who had an incredible impact on the social, political, and cultural soils of Rome -- Chrisitanity as such would never have gotten off the ground without Rome. Historically, we do not really know who he was. But we've had about 20 centuries of religious superstition and religio-mythology projected & written by men and only men, who invented the theology of the Catholic Church. The main culprit? Saul of Tarsus and we know he existed as St. Paul -- the real "founder" of Christianity. I'm writing a book entitled the The Last Christian (he was the one who died on the cross) -- the Gospels were written some 60 - 90 years after the fact of his death around 30 -- 33 AD. A Catholic priest wrote a book on the Gospel of St. John and proved how that Gospel is "full of hatred and specialness" -- a religion of "some" but not "all" which is a Church full of egoism and false mysticism -- although billions have been duped by its "sin -- guilt -- fear" trinity, despite many Christian sects being a bit "nicer" and "kinder" in recent history. The underlying content, however, of a belief in sin, the devil, and a God killing some and saving others persists. cf: the Jesus Seminars on what is considered Jesus' actual words in the New Testament: something less than 20% of the total. The rest of it is Church inventions from the 2nd Century AD on.

Answer 8

There is a big difference in the documentation. There are tons of outside sources for Nero. He had foriegn enemys and was a very written about figure. There are coins with his likeness, remains of his house, and just in general a ton of cross references.

Jesus only has a book that was written after his death by people who probably never even saw him themselves. There is no direct physical evidence. The few writers were part of a small cult and were very zealous. I can't think of a worse primary source.

The outside sources like Josephus were written years later and were really only recounts of the story that was being circulated.

I think that he probably did exist, but it is a VERY weak case.

Answer 9

I though, when I first saw this question, that you had to be retarded. Then I read the rest of it, and I saw what you meant. There are very few people who actually deny that Jesus existed. A lot of people just don't think that he was the son of God. I think that he was, but that's just my opinion. I can't prove it, but it really isn't that hard to find evidence that he (or atleast the early Christian movement) did exist.

Answer 10

They may not have. I have a hard time believing any Bronze Age historian because most of the crap that comes from them is myths. But there is more evidence to prove the existence of Roman Emperors than there is to prove the existence of the biggest scam in history-Jesus.