Tacitus: ca. 64
"Christus suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius [14-37] at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"
Thallus ca 80
On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.
(describing the darkness upon Jesus death)
Josephus ca 60
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous. and many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive
more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
2007-12-22 12:17:56 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Oh I don't dismiss Jesus as an actual person, just as a deity.
2007-12-22 12:20:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 1⤋
So what? There was a guy called Christus who was crucified.
There was an earthquake at the time he was crucified. Earthquakes cause a lot of dust which could mean why it got dark, or it may have co-incided with another event.
Josephus says "they reported that he had appeared" - he's repeating a rumour - it's the same as a newspaper saying "allegedly" so they won't get sued.
Those prove nothing whatsoever. Tacitius didn't say "And Jesus came before me and healed me of my ills" nor is Josephus saying "I was present at the feeding of the 5 thousand, and it really did happen" - THAT is far more credible as evidence.
2007-12-22 12:24:11 · answer #2 · answered by Mordent 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Well, I smell if not a rat then at least a very big mouse. The motives for fabricating evidence to establish Jesus as a person who was actually alive are pretty strong. I think the likelihood of an assumed truth being a lie increases with motivation for telling the lie. In this case, the motivation to control, manipulate and extort the populace is indeed a very strong motivation.
2007-12-22 12:30:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The works of Pontius Pilatus that mention Jesus have been proven as forgeries that were created after the historian's death. (Unless you think he came back from the dead, too?)
Of the hundreds of historians alive during the time in locations near enough to have heard of Jesus, why didn't any of the others mention the SON OF GOD who died and was RESURRECTED? Doesn't that seem odd, that none of them would document such a strange occasion?
Next question.
2007-12-22 12:27:57 · answer #4 · answered by DiDi 1 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The texts of the three authors that we have today are copies of copies of copies of manuscripts. Thallus' supposed text we only know from a reference to it by a third century Christian, Sextus Julius Africanus.
By analysing the language of the texts it is often possible to sort out what was written by the original author, and what was likely to have been added later by editors and copyists.
Most scholars would argue that the reference from Jospephus was not written by him, but was added later.
Tacitus was not writing around 64 CE, but about 50 years later.
2007-12-22 12:26:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
properly, many "scholars of religious learn" are themselves believers, so as that they settle for it on faith. I very lots doubt that "the overwhelming majority" of secular scholars of heritage settle for it as such. There quite isn't any historic data outdoors the Bible, and no data in any respect from the quite existence of Jesus. in my view, i think of it rather is totally available that a real individual existed upon whom the memories of miracles and stuff like that have been added - in the comparable way that i think of there could have been a real individual in the back of the Robin Hood myths.
2016-10-09 02:24:08 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something to think about...
At best, you have second-hand accounts presented.
Yet right now, in the modern society of video and voice recorders, and in front of a literate society, people are claiming the divinity of Sai Babba. They testify to his miracles and extraordinary acts (including resurrecting people from the dead).
Why do you consider the 2000 year old accounts more reliable?
2007-12-22 13:01:16 · answer #7 · answered by skeptic 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Some of the texts are questionable and may have been altered. Most are unconvincing given the time frame they were wriiten in.
Even if there was evidence he existed, that does not mean he walked on water or rose from the dead.
2007-12-22 12:38:22 · answer #8 · answered by mismembered 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Isn't the question more along the lines of "why do atheists deny that Jesus was the son of God"? I don't know if they really deny his existence as an actual person.
2007-12-22 12:24:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good stuff. I always liked Tacitus anyhow.
Where's the historical records concerning him being anything other than a man?
2007-12-22 12:21:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Well they aren't eyewitness accounts which means that the guy wasn't impressive enough that anyone who actually met him that they bothered to write it down. That's pretty impressive since he was supposed to be doing miracles in front of large crowds.
And that "whole of the Earth" statement is pretty funny You would think some other culture would notice a thing like that.
2007-12-22 12:23:43 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋