historicity of jesus

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

No, you are incorrect. My argument isnt that the piece was written after death... although the particular piece in question was nearly a century after the supposed time period, it is that the AUTHOR WAS NOT ALIVE DURING THE TIME PERIOD. Therefore they are not a primary source, period. Timaeus the historian, lived 345 BC to 250 BC his work on the Punic Wars (264 BC - 146 BC) would have been a primary source since he would have witnessed it himself, and thus is a credible source on the topic.

The author being alive during the time period has no bearing on the historicity of the person being written about and a Primary Source is not necessary to establish historicity. Tacitus is a credible source of Roman History.

Without any other corroborating evidence, 2nd hand or 3rd hand reports ought be handled accordingly, not necessarily dismissed but taken for what its worth. That there was a man named Jesus is not peculiar at all, hell, the bible even has at least two that were crucified. And it suggests that there may have been many nikkaz named Jesus runnin round gettin nailed to crosses. But that doesnt show that the particular one existed.

It actually DOES show that particular one existed. The one executed by Pontious Pilate as told in the Gospel of Mark written about 30 years after the fact.

​

 

[intilectual recipricol]

That's just in-addition to the source I've already given you. Now, you have even more evidence that Jesus existed through your own research. The author being alive during the time period has no bearing on the historicity of the person being written about and a Primary Source is not always necessary to establish historicity.



It actually DOES show that particular one existed. The one executed by Pontious Pilate as told in the Gospel of Mark.

You now have 3 independent sources.
​

You seem to be confused as to what a source is. The video you posted stated that because geographical locations in the bible exist, so did Jesus. That argument doesnt work. The video also said, because Pontius Pilate existed, so did Jesus. That argument also doesnt work, it also works against Jesus in that he went on to acknowledge ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for the geography and Pilate. None for Jesus. He's offering concrete evidence for the existence of cities and people... but offers none for Jesus. I'm surprised you dont see the problem.

The Bible is a known book a fables. That doesnt count.

Tacitus was not alive during the supposed time period, thus his information is sketchy. His source would be what I am looking for. Where did he get this story from? Perhaps there is a diary entry from that time period, that supports this supposed person.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You seem to be confused as to what a source is. The video you posted stated that because geographical locations in the bible exist, so did Jesus. That argument doesnt work. The video also said, because Pontius Pilate existed, so did Jesus. That argument also doesnt work, it also works against Jesus in that he went on to acknowledge ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE for the geography and Pilate. None for Jesus. He's offering concrete evidence for the existence of cities and people... but offers none for Jesus. I'm surprised you dont see the problem.

Tacitus confirms what was already written in the Gospel of Mark 30 years earlier.

The Bible is a known book a fables. That doesnt count.

Why would a 'fable' be written in a book of Roman History? That makes no sense.

Tacitus was not alive during the supposed time period, thus his information is sketchy. His source would be what I am looking for. Where did he get this story from? Perhaps there is a diary entry from that time period, that supports this supposed person.

That's an invalid argument. A historian is not required to have been alive when a historical figure was alive to write about them. Are you now claiming that Tacitus is not a credible source of Roman History?
​

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Tacitus confirms what was already written in the Gospel of Mark 30 years earlier.



Why would a 'fable' be written in a book of Roman History? That makes no sense.



That's an invalid argument. A historian is not required to have been alive when a historical figure was alive to write about them. Are you now claiming that Tacitus is not a credible source of Roman History?
​

Is it possible that Tacitus read Mark, the book of fables? Why would fables be in a book of history? The same reason Josephus and Tacitus mention Hercules. Are you suggesting Hercules was a real person as well?

Tacitus is a credible source for that which he would have been alive to witness. Other than that he would be a credible source on what some people of his time believed. Thus he would be able to say, "some people believe in this Jesus fable" but he could neither confirm nor deny the fable.

I know you like to ignore parts of posts that you cant refute, but lets address the Hercules part... hmmmm kay?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Is it possible that Tacitus read Mark, the book of fables? Why would fables be in a book of history? The same reason Josephus and Tacitus mention Hercules. Are you suggesting Hercules was a real person as well?

No, we know Hercules was a Roman version of the Greek 'Divine Hero', Heracles, not a person who was killed by a Roman procurator named Pontious Pilate and buried in a tomb owned by a priest named Caiphas. Are you suggesting that Tacitus would read the Gospel? Why would he do that when he disliked Christians and Jews?

Tacitus is a credible source for that which he would have been alive to witness. Other than that he would be a credible source on what some people of his time believed. Thus he would be able to say, "some people believe in this Jesus fable" but he could neither confirm nor deny the fable.

Tacitus is a credible source for all his material just as any historian is unless there is evidence to the contrary. There is none. Whether he was alive as history was being made is immaterial. Your objection is invalid.
​

 

[MeachTheMonster]

The overwhelming majority of experts on antiquity believe that Jesus existed. There is plenty of evidence outside the bible that they point to as evidence.

 

[valet]

@intilectual recipricol So what's the alternative explaination of why/how this Christian movement started? When did it start historically? Why were these former Jewish people willing to die for this man that did not exist?

 

[Mr swag]

So u want proof from 2040 years ago?

 

[Mr swag]

I was listening to coast 2 coast radio on YT. Video on time traveling. Apparently Jesus did exist and like 400 people got crucified that day. But now do you believe in time travel?

I'll try to find the vid tomorrow on my comp. but I dont count this as viable evidence, nor do I expect it to convince you.

They wasn't crucifying 400 people on Passover and not expect a riot

fukk out of here

 

[daze23]

the question is how far do we have to get from the accepted story before that person is no longer "Jesus"? in another thread I brought up that his story could be the story of more than one person, and cats were like "that doesn't matter, he still existed". but in that example "he" did not exist because "he" is more than one person

this is obviously a subject that people have some emotional attachment to. but I'm not sure how we could know much about such an individual that lived so long ago. if the circumstances are that there's little evidence, and/or all the lines of evidence aren't direct, then so be it. IMO the problem seems to be that people feel the need to lower the bar, and give this kind of inference a 'pass', based on an appeal to general acceptance. and that goes very 'deep', as many members of our society obviously have a lot of baggage wrapped up in the idea that Jesus did exist

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I can't find it now but I saw a video with a non religious historian who basically said if you claim jesus didn't exist then you'd have to remove plenty of other people from the history books as well. Evidence of any person or place from that time is scarce and full of holes.

This is supposed to be "higher learning" and we are supposed to respect the scientific or intellectual community, so why do we choose this issue to disagree with?

It's a consensus, just like the Big Bang, jesus did exist. Two events in particular are almost universally agreed on, his baptism and his crucifixion. Everything else is up for debate.

 

[The Real]

Tacitus confirms what was already written in the Gospel of Mark 30 years earlier.



Why would a 'fable' be written in a book of Roman History? That makes no sense.



That's an invalid argument. A historian is not required to have been alive when a historical figure was alive to write about them. Are you now claiming that Tacitus is not a credible source of Roman History?
​

While I think Jesus probably existed, I don't think this is an airtight argument. Considering that 3 of the 4 synoptic gospels were almost certainly copied from 1 (making them not truly synoptic at all,) there's no reason to assume that authors who came decades later were simply not getting their information from these ultimately copied texts. If there's no real corroborating power in the synoptic gospels, which must be the case if only one of them is a truly original document (making its claims impossible to bolster,) then anything based on them has no such corroborating power, either.

If Tacitus got evidence from outside the gospels, from a source that itself was not reporting based on the gospels, then I think the case would be much clearer. But chances are, he got them from other Christians, considering that there were no documented execution records for him to look at dating back a century, and because, as he acknowledges, Christianity was already entrenched enough in the area that it had a wide following of people who would all have echoed the Jesus story as a matter of belief, even though none of them would have been alive during Jesus's time. It's possible that there were people alive who had heard from the people one generation earlier who directly witnessed the crucifixion, without having had to hear it from the gospels, but there's no way to confirm that.

 

[Hip-Hop-Bulls]

Dude existed. There's no reason for him to be written of anywhere aside from the New Testament and Qu'ran. There was only this one dude that is referred to, no one else.

The vast majority of 'believers' think that science is one of 'G-d's' tools. Each discovery is 'G-d' revealing Itself to them so this supposed 'war' that rages between believers and non doesn't really exist. They'd be the last people to throw science in the bushes.​

So because he's in the bible and quran, that automatically makes him real? Science means to know. You say that science is one of god's tools but then in your next quote say no one(including yourself) knows what god is.

Not really considering no one knows what 'Gzd' is. We also know 'miracles' happen, we just refer to them as 'scientific anomalies' and people have 'come back from the dead' a few times in recent history.​

No such thing as miracles and luck. They are just words used when you don't know how something happened. Like a half court shot in a bball game, we say they are lucky to hit it, but we all really know how the person hit it, so it's not really a lucky shot. Nobody is coming back from the grave. The only people coming back from the dead are the zombies Nas talked about. Nobody is curing the blind without some scientific procedure. Not simply putting a hand upon them...

 

[daze23]

I can't find it now but I saw a video with a non religious historian who basically said if you claim jesus didn't exist then you'd have to remove plenty of other people from the history books as well.

that's fine with me

 

[50CentStan]

Subhanallah the truth is still out there and it is in the Quran, it is just up to the people to realize the truth is right there in front of them.

Peace be with you