"Well Documented, Even Outside the Bible"

[Cratylus]

Looks like Max closed the other thread while I was typing a message to seasoned vet. Given that the other thread very quickly went off topic, I understand Max's action. But this is an important point I wanted to touch on and I was hoping we could use this thread to have some intelligent conversation about the subject at hand.

Jesus walked the earth and His miracles and works are well documented, even outside the Bible.

This is a claim I'm not going to let slide. You and I obviously have a difference of opinion about what is considered "well documented, even outside the Bible." Let me be perfectly clear here:

No authors who were contemporaries of Jesus mention him, let alone talk about his "miracles and works". None.

The writers who were contemporaries of Jesus are absolutely silent about him, which is odd considering that, given the nature of their works, one would expect them to have mentioned such an important figure or the unusual events surrounding his life and circle of influence (if the Bible's claims about him are true).

Take the Hellensitic Jewish author Philo for instance. He was a contemporary of Jesus and wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time Jesus was alive. Philo was living in or near Jerusalem during Jesus' supposedly miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre of the infants (which also has no independent corroboration). He was there in Jerusalem when Jesus supposedly made his triumphal entry. He was there when the alleged Crucifixion with its accompanying earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead would have taken place... when Jesus himself purportedly rose from the dead. Yet none of these events are ever mentioned by him, even though his philosophical writings indicate he was very interested in the concept of resurrection. In the totality of his more than 30 works of history, philosophy, and religious commentary, Philo doesn't say a single word about Jesus, Christianity, or any of the events described in the New Testament.

Then there's Gaius Plinius Secundus, also known as Pliny the Elder. Pliny was a Roman author and philosopher known mostly for his work Naturalis Historis. This encyclopedia mentions hundreds of people and events and includes exhaustive data on all manner of natural, geographical, and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary - which Pliny himself did not regard as factual. Yet he makes no mention of Jesus, and he records no anomalies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as a "star of Bethlehem" appearing during Jesus' birth, or an earthquake and darkening of the skies during the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Given the nature of everything else Pliny managed to squeeze into his encyclopedia, this silence about Jesus is deafening. It is blatantly obvious that Pliny would have seen, heard of, or at least investigated events as incredible as those reported in the books of Matthew and Mark. Yet not a single word of these alleged events is alluded to in his work.

Finally we have Lucius Annaeus Seneca, also known as Seneca the Younger. Seneca was a Roman philosopher and statesman who wrote both philosophical works and treatises on morality. He was a contemporary of Jesus and, given his family's wealth and stature in the Empire, had close relatives among the Roman authorities who would have had contact with Jesus. More importantly, he was interested in matters of morality and religion very similar to the concerns of later Christians. Yet Seneca does not take note of any of the miraculous events reported in the gospels. In fact, he doesn't mention Jesus or his followers or Christianity at all. This lack of any reference to Jesus or Christians by Seneca was such an embarrassment to the early Church fathers that one of them, Tertullian, inspired a futile attempt to rectify this problem by the completion of a series of forgeries claiming to be correspondence between Seneca and the apostle Paul. So much for intellectual integrity.

Every single reference to Jesus outside the New Testament comes from writers who were neither eyewitnesses nor contemporaries of Jesus. All of them are secondhand accounts at best, and most of them are third-, fourth-, or fifth-hand accounts... or worse. That's hardly what I would consider "well documented". Additionally, many of the so-called early references to him have been thoroughly examined by textual and historical scholarship and found to be lacking in both validity and authenticity. If you like, we can discuss the shortcomings of the references by Titus Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus... but I have a hunch that no amount of facts or evidence will make a difference in what you believe. And if that's the level you're on, that's fine. But for many of us, the act of "burying our heads in the sand" in the face of challenging evidence is something we simply can't do.

 

[Man Called X]

Damn Max.

 

[Kouki]

is this really happening in 2014

i thought everyone was supposed to know what a troll is by now

come on guys

 

[Tornicade]

Looks like Max closed the other thread while I was typing a message to seasoned vet. Given that the other thread very quickly went off topic, I understand Max's action. But this is an important point I wanted to touch on and I was hoping we could use this thread to have some intelligent conversation about the subject at hand.



This is a claim I'm not going to let slide. You and I obviously have a difference of opinion about what is considered "well documented, even outside the Bible." Let me be perfectly clear here:

No authors who were contemporaries of Jesus mention him, let alone talk about his "miracles and works". None.

The writers who were contemporaries of Jesus are absolutely silent about him, which is odd considering that, given the nature of their works, one would expect them to have mentioned such an important figure or the unusual events surrounding his life and circle of influence (if the Bible's claims about him are true).

Take the Hellensitic Jewish author Philo for instance. He was a contemporary of Jesus and wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time Jesus was alive. Philo was living in or near Jerusalem during Jesus' supposedly miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre of the infants (which also has no independent corroboration). He was there in Jerusalem when Jesus supposedly made his triumphal entry. He was there when the alleged Crucifixion with its accompanying earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead would have taken place... when Jesus himself purportedly rose from the dead. Yet none of these events are ever mentioned by him, even though his philosophical writings indicate he was very interested in the concept of resurrection. In the totality of his more than 30 works of history, philosophy, and religious commentary, Philo doesn't say a single word about Jesus, Christianity, or any of the events described in the New Testament.

Then there's Gaius Plinius Secundus, also known as Pliny the Elder. Pliny was a Roman author and philosopher known mostly for his work Naturalis Historis. This encyclopedia mentions hundreds of people and events and includes exhaustive data on all manner of natural, geographical, and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary - which Pliny himself did not regard as factual. Yet he makes no mention of Jesus, and he records no anomalies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as a "star of Bethlehem" appearing during Jesus' birth, or an earthquake and darkening of the skies during the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Given the nature of everything else Pliny managed to squeeze into his encyclopedia, this silence about Jesus is deafening. It is blatantly obvious that Pliny would have seen, heard of, or at least investigated events as incredible as those reported in the books of Matthew and Mark. Yet not a single word of these alleged events is alluded to in his work.

Finally we have Lucius Annaeus Seneca, also known as Seneca the Younger. Seneca was a Roman philosopher and statesman who wrote both philosophical works and treatises on morality. He was a contemporary of Jesus and, given his family's wealth and stature in the Empire, had close relatives among the Roman authorities who would have had contact with Jesus. More importantly, he was interested in matters of morality and religion very similar to the concerns of later Christians. Yet Seneca does not take note of any of the miraculous events reported in the gospels. In fact, he doesn't mention Jesus or his followers or Christianity at all. This lack of any reference to Jesus or Christians by Seneca was such an embarrassment to the early Church fathers that one of them, Tertullian, inspired a futile attempt to rectify this problem by the completion of a series of forgeries claiming to be correspondence between Seneca and the apostle Paul. So much for intellectual integrity.

Every single reference to Jesus outside the New Testament comes from writers who were neither eyewitnesses nor contemporaries of Jesus. All of them are secondhand accounts at best, and most of them are third-, fourth-, or fifth-hand accounts... or worse. That's hardly what I would consider "well documented". Additionally, many of the so-called early references to him have been thoroughly examined by textual and historical scholarship and found to be lacking in both validity and authenticity. If you like, we can discuss the shortcomings of the references by Titus Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus... but I have a hunch that no amount of facts or evidence will make a difference in what you believe. And if that's the level you're on, that's fine. But for many of us, the act of "burying our heads in the sand" in the face of challenging evidence is something we simply can't do.

Pliny did write a letter

PLINY THE YOUNGER (63 - 113 A.D) Pliny the Younger admits to torturing and executing Christians who refused to deny Christ. Those who
denied the charges were spared and ordered to exalt the Roman gods and curse the name of Christ. Pliny addresses his concerns to Emperor
Trajan that too many citizens were being killed for their refusal to deny their faith."I asked them directly if they were Christians...those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they were or ever had been
Christians...worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and
sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were
called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination,
and hastened to consult you...on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are
brought into danger..." Pliny's letter to Emperor Trajan


CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen
Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the
hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius."Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of
Rome also." Annals XV, 44

THALLUS (~ 52 A.D.) Although his works exist only in fragments, Julius Africanus debates Thallus' explanation of the midday darkness which
occurred during the Passover of Jesus' crucifixion. Thallus tries to dismiss the darkness as a natural occurrence (a solar eclipse) but Africanus
argues (and any astronomer can confirm) a solar eclipse cannot physically occur during a full moon due to the alignment of the planets.
Phlegon of Tralles, a 2nd century secular historian, also mentions the darkness and tries to dismiss it as a solar eclipse. He also states the
event occurred during the time of Tiberius Caesar."On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness. The rocks were rent by an earthquake and many places in Judea and other
districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the
sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the
passover. But an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time... Phlegon
records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth-manifestly that one
of which we speak. Chronography XVIII, 47



eithin a century here was an avid opponent of jesus. he seemd to accept Jesus as anyone would . George washington or abraham lincoln existed

CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.) Celsus was a second century Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity. He went to great lengths to disprove the
divinity of Jesus yet never denied His actual existence. Unfortunately for Celsus, he sets himself up for criticism by mimicking the exact
accusations brought against Jesus by the pharisees which had already been addressed and refuted in the New Testament. There are two very
important facts regarding Celsus which make him one of the most important witnesses in this discussion:

• Though most secular passages are accused of being Christian interpolations, we can accept with certainty this is not the case with Celsus! The sheer volume of his writings (specifically designed to discredit Christianity) coupled with the hostile accusations presentedin his work dismiss this chance immediately.
• The idea of Celsus getting his information entirely from Christian sources (another recurring accusation against secular evidence) is wholly absurd. Though he is obviously aware of his opponents' beliefs (as anyone who is engaging in a debate should be), Celsus wrote his exposition in the form of a dialogue between a "Jewish Critic" and himself. This gives us cause to believe he used non-Christian (probably Jewish) sources.

On Jesus' Miracles: "Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain [magical] powers... He
returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of
sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding
of a multitude with a few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of
incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of [miraculous] power..."

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (37 - 100 A.D.) Josephus was a first century pharisee and historian of both priestly and royal ancestry who provided
important insight into first-century Judaism. Josephus was born only three years after the crucifixion of Jesus, making him a credible witness to
the historicity of Jesus."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 among 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 tribes of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." Antiquities XVIII, 3:2

not an outside source but not abible source

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (? - ~100 A.D) Ignatius was a Bishop of Antioch reported to have been appointed to his position by Peter of whom
he was a disciple. He is also believed to be a disciple of Paul and John. Ignatius was arrested by the Romans and executed as a martyr in the
arena. Even though his testimony would ultimately lead to his death, Ignatius was adamant about the things he witnessed. He reinforces early
Christian beliefs in the letters he penned while in prison. Even when execution was imminent, Ignatius refused to recant his faith."Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under
Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth. Who moreover was truly
raised from the dead, His father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe in Him." Trallians"He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh but Son of God by the Divine will and powered, truly born of a virgin and baptized by
John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch...
That He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection." Smyrneans, 1"Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius
Pilate. For these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope." Magnesians XI


In regards to personal writings, Socrates, for example, exists only in the writings of his students. There is not a single document still in
existence that contains his original works. If we apply the same logic with Socrates skeptics use to determine Jesus' historicity, we must
assume Socrates was a figment of the imagination of his students. But if we are to accept Socrates as a historical figure based on four
secondary accounts, we must also accept Jesus as a historical figure whose life was documented by His disciples, historians, and those who
rejected His divine claims. When skeptics claim there is a difference between a man such as Socrates and Jesus, they would be absolutely
correct- Jesus had more accounts written about Him.

AREN'T THE WRITINGS THAT REFER TO JESUS JUST HEARSAY ACCOUNTS?Critics claim because some accounts were recorded after Jesus' life they cannot be considered historically reliable. But this skepticism comes
from a misunderstanding of antiquity. We need to place ourselves in a time where 95% of the population was illiterate. If I really wanted to get
this research across to the typical English speaking American, I would not post this website in Latin! Likewise, documenting the Gospels
preserved the accounts for future generations but oral evangelism was the practical method in making the Gospel available to the current
population. Whether the accounts were written the day after Jesus' ascension or 30 years later, the fact is they were still penned by either the
original witnesses or during the lives of the original witnesses who could confront heretical accounts.

Jesus also concentrated His ministry in various provinces of Judea- not secular hubs of the ancient world like Rome or Alexandria. Christianity
spread into the surrounding areas after the life of Jesus. I would be far more suspicious of a Roman historian writing an excerpt about Jesus
in 30 A.D. rather approximately 95 A.D. when Christianity had reached Rome. When critics argue the only first hand accounts of Jesus' life are
found in the Bible, it makes me wonder where else they think should be. Jesus' ministry only lasted three years and was limited to Judea
(considered the ghetto of the Roman Empire). There would have been no reason given the short time frame and limited area of Jesus' ministry
to have been exhaustively recorded in Roman literature without the accusation of forgery.
http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

 

[Tornicade]

is this really happening in 2014

i thought everyone was supposed to know what a troll is by now

come on guys

I already proved that the world ended in 1896!

 

[Tornicade]

I found proof

 

[The Oi]

Pie Jesu Domine
Dona eis requiem

 

[seasoned vet]

The biggest anti-christian religion, the same people that are slaying christians as we speak, the Muslims, yes, the quran, have written documents of Jesus. They dont believe Him to be Gods son, yet they acknowledge His mothers virgin birth. Even acknowledge His crucifixion, But they claim His apostles took Him down and put somebody else up who looks like Him. Right, some non-sense. On top of that, they say they took His body from His stone grave, to explain why His body was gone after He was risen. But that stone grave was guarded by enemies who witnessed His resurrection, they went and told their king but their king didnt want people to know so he made up a lie to prevent people from knowing. And just like the Bible says, that lie? They still believe today. Actual events. the fool says in His heart God is not real. Amen.

But talking to deaf people serves no purpose. Go ahead and choose your faith. I will see you soon.

 

[The Oi]

Since you're back on the oppression topic, how are you proving that christians are the most persecuted religion on the planet?

Volume? Quality?

Also, how much have you read about other religions? Specifically the major ones.

 

[Simon]

By reading the last page, I think @seasoned vet called Max a troll....

 

[Randolphkeys]

The Qu'Ran was written around five centuries after Jesus walked the Earth. By the time Islam began, the Christians had created a powerful political presence in the Middle East as well as Western Europe. In fact, Christianity had already led an insurgence of Germanic tribes to overthrow the Roman Empire under the shortsighted banning of Christianity by Emperor Diocletian.

Assuming that everyone on RCF hasn't done any research on both their own faith and their own history has been the most hilarious aspect of Seasoned Vet's rant. Know your audience, dude.

 

[The Oi]

I want so badly to think seasoned vet is real and believes what he's saying.

I just can't imagine someone being so poorly researched, myopic, hypocritical and enthusiastic about pissing on other religions and walks of life. Not to say these people aren't out there. It's just that when you encounter them it's surreal for the first few interactions with them.

Eventually it settles in that these people are some combination of ignorant (in an ok way) and unbalanced and you just hope that they're using their religion for good.

If he's not trolling, I suspect he's using it for good. I just get that impression. It's not a crime to be persistent and annoying and if prople truly believe preaching the Bible is good and right, who am I to say it's "wrong" to do it?

It he's doing what he does here and just putting people down and then playing martyr when they respond, he's useless. If he's trying to help people better themselves, great.

 

[Cratylus]

Pliny did write a letter

Problem is, you're citing Pliny the Younger, who wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. My claim was that Pliny the Elder (different guy), a contemporary, didn't mention Jesus. Everyone else you cite wasn't a contemporary of Jesus either.

In regards to personal writings, Socrates, for example, exists only in the writings of his students. There is not a single document still in existence that contains his original works. If we apply the same logic with Socrates skeptics use to determine Jesus' historicity, we must assume Socrates was a figment of the imagination of his students. But if we are to accept Socrates as a historical figure based on four secondary accounts, we must also accept Jesus as a historical figure whose life was documented by His disciples, historians, and those who
rejected His divine claims. When skeptics claim there is a difference between a man such as Socrates and Jesus, they would be absolutely
correct- Jesus had more accounts written about Him.

Of the four writers who discuss Socrates and his teachings, three were students or contemporaries of his (Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes). None of these writers claim divine or supernatural attributes for Socrates. So citing what's known as the the "Socratic problem" and attempting to liken it to the problem we have with Jesus and our lack of contemporary sources for details about his life is misplaced and incorrect.

I'm not questioning Jesus' existence; I'm questioning the reliability of the documents that say he was a divine miracle worker some 40-150 years after the fact. Moreover, the "secular" sources you quote don't attest to Jesus being a divine miracle worker. They simply state that Jesus lived and had followers, some of whom attempted to ascribe divine qualities to him. Those non-Christian writers don't claim that Jesus was in fact divine, so to cite them as bolstering the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus is misguided at best.

Not a single contemporary of Jesus writes about him. Not a single follower/disciple of Jesus writes about him. The earliest references to Jesus were written by followers of followers of Jesus who were attempting to promote their own religious agenda. No disinterested, neutral source writes about the veracity of the Biblical divine and miracle claims about Jesus.

Again, I can discuss the shortcomings of the references you gave regarding Josephus, Tacitus, and Thallus (as well as an oft cited statement by Suetonius), but I doubt the facts would make a difference to you.

 

[pr26]

@seasoned vet

A recent article stated that Dion fasted for a period of time for Ramadan.........does this negatively affect your fandom of him?

 

[AuxiliaryPie]

religion is stupid