Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Is there any solid evidence of Jesus or God?

Tiggs

May 19 2008, 02:13 PM

I presume you're referring to this?

QUOTE

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. 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. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

Apologies for not responding to this list earlier. Give me some time and I'll discuss each one in depth, if you wish.

fullywired

May 19 2008, 02:27 PM

QUOTE (Clovis @ May 19 2008, 01:55 PM)

Alexander was brought up only to disprove your legend conspiracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jes

I wasn't aware I had posted anything about a conspiracy .. Your not the first nor I expect the last to use Alexander and some even used Julius Caesar as if that somehow proved their point

fullywired

Paranoid Android

May 19 2008, 02:41 PM

It might be worth noting here that while textual evidence of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great are less reliable than the Bible (ie, fewer texts, less to work from, etc), the archaeological evidence for these figures is overwhelming. It is not an accurate argument to say "there are more copies of the Bible than there are copies of texts relating to Alexander'. It ignores a large part of history. If anyone can get a copy of "The Christ Files", by John Dickson (either the documentary or the book, though I have only watched the documentary), he addresses this in no small detail. Though being Christian, he does argue for the existence of Jesus, but this book/documentary is not so much interested in the miracle-working Jesus as it is the historical person. Dixon is not a fan of "apologetic history" which he believes overstates the case for Christ and makes unjustifiable leaps such as the Alexander references.

I watched his documentary last Good Friday, and while there was some small bias, I was impressed with the level of care he took in researching (he even discussed in detail the likely forgery of Josephus - I don't know how many Christian apologists would do that). He has a degree in Ancient History from Macquarie University, and is an Honourary Associate thereof.

If you can get his material, I would highly recommend it.

Tiggs

May 19 2008, 03:18 PM

QUOTE

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).

Tacitus (55 - 117 AD) was, indeed, an accurate Historian. Whether or not he wrote the following, however, is a point of debate:

QUOTE

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired

The great fire of Rome happened in 64 AD, during Nero's reign (54-68 AD). As such, It's pretty much given that the passage, if written by Tacitus, was written between 64 AD and 117 AD, between the date of the fire and his death.

Some historians raise two objections to the passage - the first of which is that Pilatus was not a procurator, and the second, that the term Christian had not yet been coined during this time period, and that part of the passage was likely redacted by later Christian scribes.

Interestingly - an almost word for word rendition of the Tacitus text was used by Sulpicius Severus in the early fifth century, in his Sacred History:

QUOTE

In the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night. In this way, cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians. Afterwards, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which were enacted; and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to be a Christian. At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to death, the former being beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion. And while these things went on at Rome, the Jews, not able to endure the injuries they suffered under the rule of Festus Florus, began to rebel. Vespasian, being sent by Nero against them, with proconsular power, defeated them in numerous important battles, and compelled them to flee within the walls of Jerusalem. In the meanwhile Nero, now hateful even to himself from a consciousness of his crimes, disappears from among men, leaving it uncertain whether or not he had laid violent hands upon himself: certainly his body was never found. It was accordingly believed that, even if he did put an end to himself with a sword, his wound was cured, and his life preserved, according to that which was written regarding him,—“And his mortal wound was healed,”—to be sent forth again near the end of the world, in order that he may practice the mystery of iniquity.

Some Historians believe that the text was added to the Annals by Sulpicius Severus. It's possible, but I don't think it actually matters, either way. The incorrect usage of Pilate's title obviously indicates that the information relayed was via word of mouth rather than sourced via official records.

Suetonius' reference:

QUOTE

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

The point has been made by several historians that Chrestus is quite possibly a Greek name, rather than referring to Christ. As I think we can agree that it's unlikely that Christ was actually in Rome at this point in history, in context, it seems quite feasible. Either way, it's not historical evidence that Christ existed - at best, it's only evidence that there were Christians within Rome.

brave_new_world

May 19 2008, 05:41 PM

I dont understand why so many Christians have such a problem with admitting that there is no 'solid' proof for Christ. Why dont they just admit that there isnt any solid evidence but say they have faith he existed nevertheless?

Tiggs

May 19 2008, 06:09 PM

I'll skip Joesephus for now - I think that's been pretty much done to Death, though we can go over it again, if you wish.

QUOTE

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

The quote from Julius Africanus (early third century AD) is as follows:

QUOTE

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. 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 but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun? Let opinion pass however; let it carry the majority with it; and let this portent of the world be deemed an eclipse of the sun, like others a portent only to the eye. 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. But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe? Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long period.

As can be seen from the above, Africanus was arguing that it's impossible for an eclipse to happen during the time of a full moon.

Sadly, Thallus's original work is no longer with us. The only mention of Thallus comes to us through quotations of the Early Christian fathers. As Africanus doesn't quote what he said, all we know for certain is that he mentioned an eclipse.

Phlegon's (Mid 2nd Century) recordings are also mainly only preserved through quotation, although a few extant pieces do exist to convince us of his Historicity. One of these quotations is from Eusibius:

QUOTE

"In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: 'Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad, a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea.'"

The fourth year of the 202^nd Olympiad equates to 32 AD.

A few things should be pointed out here. The first is that there is no independent evidence of Phlegon writing this, other than than within the writing of the Early Christina Fathers. 32 AD is the date given by Africanus for the crucifixion of Christ...by carefully calculating and projecting forward the 70 week prophecy in Daniel from the known date of the order for rebuilding the temple.

The second is that Science agrees with Africanus. It's completely impossible to have an eclipse at the time of a full moon.

Thirdly - Science states that the maximum time for eclipse totality is seven minutes and thirty one seconds. Not even close to three hours.

Fourthly - An eclipse in Bithynia would not be visible in Jerusalem.

All of which, although interesting, is not historical evidence for Jesus having existed.

The_Spirit_of_Truth

May 20 2008, 02:33 AM

QUOTE (OpenMyEye @ May 13 2008, 01:48 AM)

Is there any solid evidence of Jesus or God?

There is. People who do not have their own experiences of meeting with the God or with Jesus usually believe what they are said about them by other people. But the best thing is to meet (or feel) the God personally. Then it is the best solid evidence for you. A man without experiences is a believer, but a man with experiences is a knower.

archangel_josh

May 20 2008, 03:07 AM

QUOTE (OpenMyEye @ May 13 2008, 10:48 AM)

Is there any solid evidence of Jesus or God?

Are we talking about the BIBLICAL Jesus or the HISTORICAL FACTUAL Jesus.

The Biblical Jesus was a God who came from the sky and jumped into a virgin and was born and then performed miracles and walked on water and then ending up dying on a cross in order to save everyone from this evil unseen power called 'sin'.

The historical factual Jesus was a man who history have actual records about, thus we can only know about the factual man from historical findings and records.

-Josh

Rosewin

May 20 2008, 06:21 AM

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 19 2008, 10:18 AM)

Tacitus (55 - 117 AD) was, indeed, an accurate Historian. Whether or not he wrote the following, however, is a point of debate:

The great fire of Rome happened in 64 AD, during Nero's reign (54-68 AD). As such, It's pretty much given that the passage, if written by Tacitus, was written between 64 AD and 117 AD, between the date of the fire and his death.

Some historians raise two objections to the passage - the first of which is that Pilatus was not a procurator, and the second, that the term Christian had not yet been coined during this time period, and that part of the passage was likely redacted by later Christian scribes.

Actually Tacitus is the oldest source of records that we have that 'first' mentions the term which when translated is 'Christian'. So to say the word was not coined yet, when it most likely was in the vox populi, is not quite accurate and it cannot be proven on speculation. What is likely is that it was a word in use by some. Some speculate that it might have been first used as a term to ridicule the followers of this one some called Christ and not a label they used for themselves. Tacitus being there to capture the pulse of the people and the language in usage introduced the term which has been translated as 'Christian'. He did not 'coin' it but to claim his works are false because it had not been coined by another historian prior to him is not the same as saying Al Gore invented the 'internet' but it is just silly from a historical point of view.

The 'historian' who is credited with claiming 'that the term Christian had not yet been coined during this time period' is Gordon Stein who was 'an author and editor on secular humanist and paranormal subjects who was internationally known among freethinkers.' source. Not exactly a historian is it now? This is what Gordon Stein wrote:

QUOTE

In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gor...ein/jesus.shtml

Now I would have wished you provided actual work from historians but Gordon Stein's work, who is not a historian, does not cast doubt on Tacitus' works.

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 19 2008, 10:18 AM)

Interestingly - an almost word for word rendition of the Tacitus text was used by Sulpicius Severus in the early fifth century, in his Sacred History:

Some Historians believe that the text was added to the Annals by Sulpicius Severus. It's possible, but I don't think it actually matters, either way. The incorrect usage of Pilate's title obviously indicates that the information relayed was via word of mouth rather than sourced via official records.

Suetonius' reference:

Again you mention 'some historians' when again it was Gordon Stein who was not a historian. This is what Gordon Stein wrote:

QUOTE

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gor...ein/jesus.shtml

Your argument seems a lifted paraphrase of Gordon Stein's words yet you give him no credit for what you posted. But moving on to Pontius Pilate. The Pilate Stone is the only archaeological evidence of Pontius Pilate aka Pilatus ever existing. Here is a quote and link regarding the Pilate Inscription:

QUOTE

The first of these is the inscription on a block of limestone, which was found at Caesarea in 1961. One half of the stone is badly damaged, but we can still read the other half of it:

. . . . . . S TIBERIEVM
. . [PO]NTIVS PILATVS
[PRAE]CTVS IVDA[EA]E

Among scholars, this inscription caused some sensation, because it proves that Pilate's title was praefectus Judaea, and not procurator Judaea, as the Roman historian Tacitus states in his Annals 15.44. The first readable word, Tiberieum, is something of a mystery. Probably, it refers to a temple dedicated to the emperor Tiberius.

http://www.livius.org/pi-pm/pilate/pilate08.html

Now this does not prove Tacitus' works were false but it does cast light on his knowledge of some parts of the Roman government system. In some places procurators were used and in others prefects. They served similar purposes, both were in charge of a Roman province, both were governor like, but the procurator was the first office developed and the prefect came later. This is what one of the books in my collection states regarding the evolution of the office of procurator and the differences between proconsul, procurator, and prefect:

QUOTE

By the second century revenue was collected by local magistrates for forwarding to the procurator, or financial officer, of each province, or sometimes a group of provinces, in both cash and kind...Duty in the early Empire was still collected by tax-farmers working under contract, although it is probable that the task of collection, as with other taxes, was ultimately transfered to the procuratores.

As the number of provinces grew and they were incorporated into the Empire, so a system of provincial government came to be developed. As already noted, the older republican provinces of Africa, Asia, Gallia Narbonesis and others had been governed by proconsuls appointed by lot in the Senate. Under the principate this custom remained in force and some of these governorships became much sought after as rewards for a lifetime of loyal imperial service. In general, the senatorial provinces had no garrisons, except for a small body of troops acting as a bodyguard for the governor. The only exception was Africa, where, until Gaius, the proconsular governor also commanded Legio III August; elsewhere when garrisons were implanted in senatorial provinces they remained under the control of the army commander. In the imperial provinces the status of the governor usually depended on the quantity and type of of troops at his disposal. Those with more than one legion and auxiliaries in garrison, such as Britain or the Germanies, were normally commanded by a man of proconsular rank, although to avoid the difficulties of precedence with the emperor they normally took the lower title of propraetor: legatus Augusti propraetore. Provinces with only one legion and auxiliaries, such as late second-century Noricum, were governed by a man of propraetorian rank while those with only auxiliaries, such as Raetia before the Marcomannic wars, were most frequently in the hands of a man of only equestrian rank, a procurator or prefect; Tiberian Judaea is the best-known example of a province governed by a procurator, Pontius Pilate, while Egypt was ruled by a career structure. All were appointed by the emperor.

Wacher, John. "The Roman Empire" Barnes & Nobles Book. 1997 p 88-89

As we can see territories entered the empire differently and those under Senate control had a different type of governor than those under the Emperor's control. We can see that Wacher makes the same mistake and refers to Pilate as a procurator.

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 19 2008, 10:18 AM)

Some historians raise two objections to the passage - the first of which is that Pilatus was not a procurator, and the second, that the term Christian had not yet been coined during this time period, and that part of the passage was likely redacted by later Christian scribes.

I wanted to focus on this one passage again. To claim Tacitus' works were 'likely redacted by later Christian scribes' in regard to this one passage or even others might be true but no historians question it. In fact Tacitus was working within a framework of criticism towards some parts of the Roman government system. So it is very likely he reported what he saw, the good and the bad, and did not squeam on the details regarding Roman treatment of the early Christian martyrs even though Tacitus was himself a Senator but more notably a historian as well.

QUOTE

An equally damaging view of Roman society, once again despite the current Trajanic improvements, was implicit in the works of Tacitus (b. ca A.D 55- d. ca. 116?), the greatest of Roman historians. Perhaps the son of a tax collector in one of the provinces of Gaul, he became a well-known advocate; though, as he explained in his Dialogue on Orators, times of imperial peace do not encourage forensic pleading to flourish as it had under the republic, and in consequence he moved over to a political and administrative career...Germany, too, was the subject of a special moralizing study of great ethnological interest, the Germania, providing a reminder that Tacitus never commits the error of regarding Rome, or even its empire, as the only existing in the world.

Grant, Michael. "History of Rome" History Book Club. 1997 p 330.

As we can see Michael Grant, one of my favorite historians, praised Tacitus for being a historian among historians almost. Tacitus as we can see was not one to praise Rome when it hid the truth. The glory of Rome be great but even Tacitus knew other empires existed in the world.

QUOTE

Then he turned to his supreme achievement, the narration of Rome's history from the death of Augustus to the death of Domitian (A.D. 14-96). This survey is divided into the Histories and the Annals. of the former work, dealing with the last twenty-eight of those years, only the first part, describing the convulsed Year of the Four Emperors, is still extant. But the greater part of the of the subsequently Annals, dealing with the earlier period from Tiberius to Nero, has survived. Tacitus draws upon studies by earlier historians, now lost, but transforms them by the massive power of his own personality; and these haunting, penetrating, moralistic analyses of the men holding such monstrous power in their hands comprise our earliest and only extensive account of the imperial phenomenon. Tacitus was unique for the meticulous care with which he collected and sought to verify the evaluate his facts, far exceeding in this respect the fascinating biographers who were his contemporaries, Suetonius and Plutarch, writing in Latin and Greek respectively. His claim to impartiality, however, cannot be accepted, since his hatred of of Domitian, for example, overflows into unfair bias against an emperor he saw as Domitian's forerunner, Tiberius. Incisive, abrupt, tortured, and unfailingly stimulating, Tacitus's literary style is also frequently poetical in its vocabulary and construction, echoing tragic of drama (which he had at one time attempted to write) in its awareness of the implacability or malevolence of destiny and in its stress upon the more sinister aspects of the imperial regime.

Nevertheless, these gloomy implications sometimes clash strangely with the more favorable facts that Tacitus was far too good a historian to suppress. Thus he was able, for example, to weigh up objectively the credit and debit side of Roman rule as it appeared to the peoples of the empire.

Grant, Michael. "History of Rome" History Book Club. 1997 p 330.

Again Micheal Grant praises Tacitus but he also acknowledges the bias he had against Domitian and Tiberius. In page 277 of the same book he states 'Tiberius (A.d. 14-37), * whose unfair depiction is the most brilliant achievement of the historian Tacitus...' But as a historian he did not ignore facts and insured their credibility but also offered a view of history from the people. Whether the term 'Christian' as used in the Annals by Tacitus was from the people or from other historians now lost to time we might never know but most historians agree his work is valid including the part regarding Christians for it fits in with his style.

This is all highly fascinating to me more in regards that we can learn about people from the past, even the historians themselves, by reading. Either way in some I do not mind discussing history and spending two hours on one post such as thus in research but I do mind simply having to uncover works claimed from historians but are actually from non-historians such as the works from Gordon Stein. If such shall be introduced as true history I will bow out of the conversation for discussing history is more interesting to me than simply disproving someone's point of view. I would rather achieve consensus than conflict. That is all.

Tiggs

May 20 2008, 07:09 AM

QUOTE

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

I have no issues with Pliny the Younger's (62 AD to 112 AD) reference.

The full reference can be found here. I see nothing within it that points to Christ's historical existence.

QUOTE

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

The passage is as follows:

And it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come and plead on his behalf." And since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover.

It then goes on to talk about Yeshu's five disciples - Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah.

It should be noted that Yeshu is not Yeshua. Also, from the context of other events regarding Yeshu, if Yeshu is referring to Jesus, then the Christian timescale's for Christ's life are 100 years too late - which would be seemingly impossible, given that we know the time when Pontius Pilate was present in Jerusalem.

In addition, given the rather late date of writing (somewhere between 200 AD and 500 AD) and the contrasting nature between the events described within the Talmud and the New Testament (the 40 day trial and death by hanging, for example), it's neither contemporary nor cohesive evidence for Jesus' historicity.

Rosewin

May 20 2008, 07:15 AM

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 19 2008, 10:18 AM)

The point has been made by several historians that Chrestus is quite possibly a Greek name, rather than referring to Christ. As I think we can agree that it's unlikely that Christ was actually in Rome at this point in history, in context, it seems quite feasible. Either way, it's not historical evidence that Christ existed - at best, it's only evidence that there were Christians within Rome.

While the first part of 'Chrestus' possibly being a name is true the second part is misleading. Jesus known as Christ by some of his followers was most likely not in Rome but it is very likely the title of Christ or some form of it was actually used in Rome early on. The Jewish Diaspora, Roman Roads, and Pax Romana all led to the fast travel of the followers of the one named Jesus which allowed for the spread of Christianity to even occur. But anyways let us look at what actual historians have to say. To claim it is not historical evidence when historians and other professors at credible universities agree that it is history...guess who me and others are going to believe?

QUOTE

Ignatius of Antioch was the first Christian to use the label in self-reference and made the earliest recorded use of the term Christianity (Greek Χριστιανισμός), around 100 AD.[1] "Christ" is a modified transcription of the Greek word christos, meaning "anointed one". The form of the Greek term Χριστιανοί (Christianoi) indicates it was a transcription of a Latin word. It was mostly like coined by a Roman official in Antioch, which was the seat of Roman administration in the eastern Mediterranean.[2]

The suffix (Latin -iani, Greek -ianoi) means "belonging to the party of", much like the suffixes -er and -ite are used in modern English.[3] It (-iani, -ianoi) was a standard wording used for followers of a particular person (such as Pompeiani and Caesariani). It was this "follower" wording that led Claudius to blame "Chrestus" for the disputes among Roman Jews that led to their expulsion from Rome in circa 49.[4] Suetonius's report that it was on account of "Chrestus" that the Jews were expelled from Rome in 49 was due to the use by some pagans (for whom "Christ" was an unusual and meaningless name, but "Chrestos" a common name) of "Chrestians" in place of the term "Christians".[5]

Accordingly, "Christians" (with the variant "Chrestians") was by 49 already a familiar term in the Latin-speaking capital of the Roman Empire. As the church spread throughout Greek-speaking Gentile lands, the appellation took prominence and eventually became the standard reference for followers of the faith. Dr. James Tabor suggests that Christian (in essence meaning a "Messianist") was an attempt to approximate Nazarene in Greek.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_early_Christianity

From the above we can gather that regardless if the title of Christ or even a more common name of Chrestus was known by the Romans. Now these Romans who were not followers of this person titled Christ might not have known all the facts. The enemies of the early 'Christians' might have very well thought they were following someone named 'Chrestus'.

Now if anyone doubts the wikipedia quote they should check out who the sources are from. Just click on the names below and even go to the actual article to compare the validity of the quote above and that they are all from professors at credible universities with some rising to the rank of prestigious universities. If others who wish to bring in history that might be a point of contention it would be appreciated that the material has credible sources from people in the field.

Walter Elwell and Phillip Wesely Comfort teach at Wheaton College and Columbia International University respectively. Walter Elwell has experince both in theological schools and secular ones.

Markus Bockmuel is in the faculty of Theology at the University of Oxford.

William Barclay was a professor at the University of Glasgow.

James Dunn taught at the University of Durham.

James Tabor teaches at the University at North Carolina

Rosewin

May 20 2008, 08:16 AM

OK I will go back to this post, the second one you made in regards to the list of historians, but it will take some time. I will comment on your third one before that one since this one is much smaller.

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 20 2008, 02:09 AM)

I have no issues with Pliny the Younger's (62 AD to 112 AD) reference.

The full reference can be found here. I see nothing within it that points to Christ's historical existence.

What is odd is that Pliny the Younger was probably born around five or seven years after Tacitus. And Tacitus died maybe around four years after. Yet you claim Tacitus' work regarding Christians was probably false, especially that the term Christian was in use, yet here again we see someone in the same time frame make plenty of mention to them. In fact Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were friends and also wrote letters to each other. Yet you have no issues with Pliny the Younger's work? Maybe it is because you have not given it complete thought and since Gordon Stein, a Jesus Myther, casted doubt on Tacitus but not Pliny that is why you have no issue? If real history does not concern you and you just wish to perpetuate myths from Jesus Mythers let me know so I can bow out of this conversation. This is the second time I have made this accusation and forgive me for doing so for I do not wish to accuse you of anything misleading but this is what I am assuming from the posts and well if that is true sadly I will not mention it a third time.

Again maybe some do not understand the historiography and the historical method but many works in ancient history are not actual face-to-face interviews with the people who are being written about. They are gathered from other sources and they are considered primary sources for other historians after them to go by. Tacitus believed that the 'Christians' followed a person with the title or name translated as Christ existed, even if he did not know much about this Christ, and that is why we to have one more piece of evidence to believe Jesus existed. No doubt his followers existed. So they do make a case for Christ's historical existence more than they do for the nonexistance. Let us consider Pliny. He was born 30 years give or take a few after Jesus died if he died around 33 CE which is an estimate that falls somewhat in the middle of the estimated 26-36 CE common estimate. So imagine it is historical times and you were born 30 years after a leader whose followers started small but erupted in size and threat to the country you live in...a large empire. What is more likely? The letters to Trajan are estimated to have been written in 100 CE. That is around 70 years after Jesus died. Now who would die en masse to a fictitous character? The earliest disciples who first spread the word? Would they make something up and choose to die to only have the Jews and Pagans both persecute them? Not likely. Would subsequent converts to this new faith die in vain if they did not believe those who died before them? Either way let us look at what Grant has to say about Pliny the Younger and Trajan.

QUOTE

He also lightened the burden of taxation in the provinces; and a series of letters preserved by Pliny the Younger, his governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, displays his humane care for the welfare of the provincials-combined with a suspicious preoccupation with internal security and a paternalistic tendency to interfere in the affairs of the ostenibly self-governing cities where their finances, as frequently happened, were unsound.

Grant, Michael. "History of Rome" History Book Club. 1997 p 295.

So we can see that the governor Pliny the Younger under Trajan was concerned with internal security to which Christians posed a threat. That is why they are mentioned in great abundance in Pliny the Younger's Book 10 of his Letters.

Yet the Christians, from an early date, had encountered opposition. The Greek population of the East never liked them, any more than it liked the Jews, because of their deliberate self-separation from the rest of the community, in which the followers of Jesus declared themselves to be more strangers and sojourners. As a result of this attitude, the Greeks remained largely ignorant of their customs and in consequence made them the targers of extraordinary accusations, including charges of obscenity and even of cannibalism.

QUOTE

Moreover, in the West too, as Christianity gradually became better known, the same sort of hostility towards its followers began to develop among the inhabitants of the cities. And, before long, the same unfriendly attitude spread to the Roman imperial administration as well. Indeed, when the Roman govvernment became able to distinguish the Christians from the Jews, it liked the Jews rather better, for their religion at least as an ancestral heritage, whereas no such excuse was available for the Christians. Already in A.D. 64, under Nero, they were blamed for the Great Fire of Rome. But that was a feeble charge, and in reality what was being held against them, as Tacitus points out, was that they seemed to "hate the human race." Nevertheless, that remained an exceptional occasion, for the emperors were normally concerned to cool the temperature rather than heat it; and for another century to come, they remained on the whole more inclined to protect the Christians from the hostile public than to take the initiative in convicting them of any crime. Trajan wrote instructions on the subject to Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia. "They are not to be hunted out," he orderd; "any who are accused and convicted should be punished, with the proviso that if a man says he is not a Christian and makes it obvious by his actual conduct-namely by worshiping our gods-then, however suspect he may have been with regard to the past, he should gain pardon from repentance."

Grant, Michael. "History of Rome" History Book Club. 1997 p 403-404

Here we see that it took some time for the Romans to differentiate between the Jews and the Christians. Another clue we get is that the early Christians converts who were not Jews made radical changes from their prior beliefs and refused to worship other gods. It was used as a test to see if they were Christian or not. Clearly though in both Tacitus and Pliny's work we can see that neither knew much about the personage of Jesus. As I stated before this does not make a clear case that Jesus did exist for those wishing to disprove him but it makes a stronger case that he did rather making any case that he did not. If the strongest case against Jesus being a real person is 'that references of his followers prove nothing' well that is not a case at all. If the strongest case on the other hand is the Jesus Myth...well that can easily be disected. While there is some mythological truth to comparing Jesus to some of the myths, nothing to the extent or of the sort the Jesus Myth offers, it in itself does not disprove a real person named Jesus did not exist. Maybe some will not understand this because I am not the greatest at illustrating my points concisely and get jumbled at times.

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 20 2008, 02:09 AM)

The passage is as follows:

And it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come and plead on his behalf." And since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover.

It then goes on to talk about Yeshu's five disciples - Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah.

It should be noted that Yeshu is not Yeshua. Also, from the context of other events regarding Yeshu, if Yeshu is referring to Jesus, then the Christian timescale's for Christ's life are 100 years too late - which would be seemingly impossible, given that we know the time when Pontius Pilate was present in Jerusalem.

In addition, given the rather late date of writing (somewhere between 200 AD and 500 AD) and the contrasting nature between the events described within the Talmud and the New Testament (the 40 day trial and death by hanging, for example), it's neither contemporary nor cohesive evidence for Jesus' historicity.

I believe there is several references regarding Jesus within the Talmud if I remember correctly. For the one you mentioned I agree it does not appear to be talking about the Jesus that is most popular in our minds at all. I wish I had more time in the world to study the Talmud for it offers great insight into the life and outlook of the Jews during the period it covers. I would also be able to read for myself if any of the persons within at all bear any resemblance to Jesus.

Tiggs

May 20 2008, 08:30 AM

QUOTE (Clovis @ May 19 2008, 11:21 PM)

Actually Tacitus is the oldest source of records that we have that 'first' mentions the term which when translated is 'Christian'.

Given that within the earliest surviving fragment of Tacitus's letter within the Codex Mediceus, the word is spelt Chrestion rather than Christian( Chrestiani to be exact), I think you'll find that most historians would pretty much agree that at the very least the word Christian was redacted.

Contrary to popular belief, there are only a limited number of points that can be made for and against the validity of a Historical document. It's rather obvious that I haven't simply paraphrased Stein, given that he refers to the "Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus" whilst I refer to Severus's "Sacred History", but do feel free to rant about sources I haven't used.

Rosewin

May 20 2008, 08:45 AM

That is why I said translated into 'Christian'. Chrestion's are followers of Chrestus and it is Chrestus whom some of the early Romans believed were the person Christians were following. The case of the Romans not having a clear knowledge of who or what the Christians were or believed offers support that the word Chrestus was just a lack of clarity regarding Christianity on the part of the Romans. I have offered extensive excerpts as well as the wiki link that explains all this. This is what historians accept. Stein is the first to propose that Sulpicius had 'redacted' the word Christian and again he is not a historian. When you can find an earlier source before Stein that made mention of this then let us know.

QUOTE

Tiggs wrote: given that he refers to the "Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus" whilst I refer to Severus's "Sacred History"

Are you aware that the Chronicle is the same work as the Sacred History? Just two different names but the same exact work.

Now I was not ranting but admonishing the fact that you are adding in sources from non-historians into this thread and not even providing sources from where these thoughts come from in regards to your thoughts which seem exactly correlated to Stein's in that debate of his. While no one expects everyone to offer sources if they are generally speaking but when one offers the same exact thoughts of another then sources are not only appreciated but expected.

Maybe you were not even aware of Stein and instead read another watered down version of his work from another source? Either way it is disingenuous you keep mentioning historians said this or that yet do not provide sources and it all leads back to Stein. I also stand by my word that if anyone wants to mention non-historical sources regarding Jesus I will cease discussing with them the historicity of Jesus (since it is better we talk about other topics and unfair to discuss history when both parties are not on the same level) and any of the history of that time and era. It is the latter that interests me more. The talking of history is more appealing to me than proving or disproving the historicity of Jesus but if I can do both at the same in this thread then it shall be done.

Tiggs

May 20 2008, 08:53 AM

QUOTE (Clovis @ May 20 2008, 01:16 AM)

What is odd is that Pliny the Younger was probably born around five or seven years after Tacitus. And Tacitus died maybe around four years after. Yet you claim Tacitus' work regarding Christians was probably false, especially that the term Christian was in use, yet here again we see someone in the same time frame make plenty of mention to them. In fact Tacitus and Pliny the Younger were friends and also wrote letters to each other. Yet you have no issues with Pliny the Younger's work? Maybe it is because you have not given it complete thought and since Gordon Stein, a Jesus Myther, casted doubt on Tacitus but not Pliny that is why you have no issue? If real history does not concern you and you just wish to perpetuate myths from Jesus Mythers let me know so I can bow out of this conversation. This is the second time I have made this accusation and forgive me for doing so for I do not wish to accuse you of anything misleading but this is what I am assuming from the posts and well if that is true sadly I will not mention it a third time.

I have no issue with Pliny's letter because he states within it that he's had explicit contact with Christians - Tacitus, on the other hand can't even spell their name correctly. There's no written evidence of Pliny and Tacitus ever exchanging correspondence in regard to Christians that I'm aware of. Again - please drop your paranoid name-calling.

Rosewin

May 20 2008, 09:02 AM

Name calling? If you mean me expecting some standards within a historical debate then I will cease and desist from debating this topic with you. If you mean something else please point it out to me for I do not wish to name call anyone...

Tiggs

May 20 2008, 09:14 AM

QUOTE (Clovis @ May 20 2008, 01:45 AM)

That is why I said translated into 'Christian'. Chrestion's are followers of Chrestus and it is Chrestus whom some of the early Romans believed were the person Christians were following. The case of the Romans not having a clear knowledge of who or what the Christians were or believed offers support that the word Chrestus was just a lack of clarity regarding Christianity on the part of the Romans. I have offered extensive excerpts as well as the wiki link that explains all this. This is what historians accept. Stein is the first to propose that Sulpicius had 'redacted' the word Christian and again he is not a historian. When you can find an earlier source before Stein that made mention of this then let us know.

Erich Koestermann (1968) (1971), Kenneth Wellesley (1986) both conclude the word Christian was redacted. I have no idea when Stein mentioned it.

QUOTE

Are you aware that the Chronicle is the same work as the Sacred History? Just two different names but the same exact work.

I am now.

QUOTE

Now I was not ranting but admonishing the fact that you are adding in sources from non-historians into this thread and not even providing sources from where these thoughts come from in regards to your thoughts which seem exactly correlated to Stein's in that debate of his. Maybe you were not even aware of Stein and instead read another watered down version of his work from another source? Either way it is disingenuous you keep mentioning historians said this or that yet do not provide sources and it all leads back to Stein. I also stand by my word that if anyone wants to mention non-historical sources regarding Jesus I will cease discussing with them the historicity of Jesus and any of the history of that time and era. It is the latter that interests me more. The talking of history is more appealing to me than proving or disproving the historicity of Jesus but if I can do both at the same then it shall be done.

Since it seems the only way to appease you is to provide full and ample references, then I shall.

Rosewin

May 20 2008, 10:24 AM

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 20 2008, 04:14 AM)

Erich Koestermann (1968) (1971), Kenneth Wellesley (1986) both conclude the word Christian was redacted. I have no idea when Stein mentioned it.

I am now.

Since it seems the only way to appease you is to provide full and ample references, then I shall.

Well I barely found out too ^__^

As far as Erich Koestermann his theory is that chrestianoi was in reference to a Jewish revolutionary named Chrestus and that is who Nero actually persecuted and not the followers of Christ. (source) I could not find any sources regarding Kenneth Wesley and I am sure Koestermann had more to say about this topic. Do you have any more information to share regarding either of their views in any kind of depth? Would be interesting to hear. Koestermann might be harder to come by since his works are in German I believe. Wesley seems to have a few history books out.

Rosewin

May 20 2008, 12:32 PM

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 19 2008, 01:09 PM)

I'll skip Joesephus for now - I think that's been pretty much done to Death, though we can go over it again, if you wish.

The quote from Julius Africanus (early third century AD) is as follows:

As can be seen from the above, Africanus was arguing that it's impossible for an eclipse to happen during the time of a full moon.

Well there goes the theory of all Christian historians being apologist and even willing to lie. Sextus Julius Africanus even here points out an eclipse is impossible which might seem to take away from the gospel account. While I do not want to get into defending the gospel account on this thread since it is about the historicity of Jesus it would seem the gospel's account of the sky darkening, the veil of the temple being rented from top to bottom, and the bodies of the saints coming out of graves and walking again, would clearly fall into the realm of miracles.

Another thing that should be pointed out is that the bit that Sextus Julius Africanus wrote about what Thallus wrote only survives by what George the Syncellus wrote. George wrote this in a monastery in the 800s. So there even goes more of the theory that all church writers edited documents to support Jesus when clearly he left the bit of the eclipse in. source source 2

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 19 2008, 01:09 PM)

Sadly, Thallus's original work is no longer with us. The only mention of Thallus comes to us through quotations of the Early Christian fathers. As Africanus doesn't quote what he said, all we know for certain is that he mentioned an eclipse.

QUOTE

on the whole world there pressed a fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. (Africanus, in Syncellus)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_%28historian%29

You are correct for above is the fragment of Thallus. This does not mention anything about Jesus. It can be correlated by to refer to the gospel but Sextus Julius Africanus already deconstructed that. Even so it can be correlated to the miracle of what happened but that does not make good history even if I did believe that it does explain a miracle. The only way for it to be the miracle of Crucifixion day is if it was not an eclipse but some other event.

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 19 2008, 01:09 PM)

Phlegon's (Mid 2nd Century) recordings are also mainly only preserved through quotation, although a few extant pieces do exist to convince us of his Historicity. One of these quotations is from Eusibius:

The fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad equates to 32 AD.

A few things should be pointed out here. The first is that there is no independent evidence of Phlegon writing this, other than than within the writing of the Early Christina Fathers. 32 AD is the date given by Africanus for the crucifixion of Christ...by carefully calculating and projecting forward the 70 week prophecy in Daniel from the known date of the order for rebuilding the temple.

Well you judge historians too quickly maybe just because you might believe they are defending the historicity of Jesus. In this case this has nothing to do with Jesus but eclipses only. So there is no need to cast doubt on Phlegon's writings or blame them as lies forged by the 'Early Christina Fathers' at all since all you are disproving are eclipses. The more you say this over and over you begin saying it where it does need apply and it then casts doubt when you say it any other time where it might be more valid. George the Syncellus and Eusebius (source) did jump to conclusions and claim Thallus and Phlegon respectively were speaking about an eclipse that occurred during the Crucifixion, they were wrong, and as we know and as Sextus Julius Africanus pointed out the eclipse could not have happened since the Crucifixion took place on Passover which begins in the full moon.

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 19 2008, 01:09 PM)

The second is that Science agrees with Africanus. It's completely impossible to have an eclipse at the time of a full moon.

Thirdly - Science states that the maximum time for eclipse totality is seven minutes and thirty one seconds. Not even close to three hours.

Fourthly - An eclipse in Bithynia would not be visible in Jerusalem.

All of which, although interesting, is not historical evidence for Jesus having existed.

Agreeing on your second and third points. Not agreeing with your last point since an eclipse in Bithynia or Jerusalem could be seen by each other. If it was a total eclipse over one or the other city then the other would see a partial eclipse during the event. Seven minutes within a narrow area applies only when complete occultation occurs but from start to finish an eclipse event can last several hours and be seen as a partial eclipse from a vast area.

Conclusion: that Sextus Julius Africanus (or Thallus or Phlegon) should not be on the list that adds to the historicity of Jesus. They do make mention of eclipses which might not even be the same one as far as I read.

Tiggs

May 20 2008, 08:24 PM

QUOTE (Clovis @ May 20 2008, 05:32 AM)

Agreeing on your second and third points. Not agreeing with your last point since an eclipse in Bithynia or Jerusalem could be seen by each other. If it was a total eclipse over one or the other city then the other would see a partial eclipse during the event. Seven minutes within a narrow area applies only when complete occultation occurs but from start to finish an eclipse event can last several hours and be seen as a partial eclipse from a vast area.

NASA has a good reference for historical solar eclipses, complete with maps of effected areas - other good Nasa Links include this world map of Eclipse paths between 20 and 40 AD and the Five Millennium Catalog of solar eclipses.

Mark R. Kidger has done some work calculating the effects of the eclipses around the time of Jesus' Death within Jerusalem. He draws the conclusions that even the most likely eclipse in 29 AD would have not been noticeable to the naked eye outdoors and lasted in it's entirety for 90 minutes, during which time it traversed from the North Sea to Syria.

Rosewin

May 20 2008, 08:46 PM

How can we be sure Thallus and Phlegos were talking about the same event? The fragment we have from Thallus mentions only Judea. The one from Phlegon only mentions Bityhnia. It was Eusebius who incorrectly attributed Phlegon's account to the Crucifixion. Tertullian further perpetrated the myth that an eclipse occurred during the Crucifixion.

In theory though an eclipse could be seen from both even though one might see it as a full eclipse and another a partial eclipse. This is evidenced in the 24 November 29 CE eclipse.

Tiggs

May 20 2008, 08:57 PM

QUOTE (Clovis @ May 20 2008, 03:24 AM)

Well I barely found out too ^__^

As far as Erich Koestermann his theory is that chrestianoi was in reference to a Jewish revolutionary named Chrestus and that is who Nero actually persecuted and not the followers of Christ. (source) I could not find any sources regarding Kenneth Wesley and I am sure Koestermann had more to say about this topic. Do you have any more information to share regarding either of their views in any kind of depth? Would be interesting to hear. Koestermann might be harder to come by since his works are in German I believe. Wesley seems to have a few history books out.

Other than they're both listed pretty high on the Encyclopedia Britannica's list of authors of Tacitus collections, not very much.

To be honest - I'm confused. As far as I know, the earliest surviving version of Tacitus (Tenth Century) we have had a mix of words - Chrestian and Christus, with a scribes note indicating that Chrestian should be Christian.

QUOTE

Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

I've seen it being discussed that this was Tacitus' way of pointing out that the word Chrestian had the incorrect root. I'm unsure as to why Koestermann would conclude that this is unrelated to Christ - the phrase Chrestian was rebuked by Tertullian:

QUOTE

Christian indeed, as much as it is to be interpreted, is derived from anointing. And even when it is falsely pronounced Chrestian by you, for neither is there any certain notice taken of the name among you, it is made up of sweetness or benignity. Thus even an innocent name is hated among innocent men. But indeed the sect is hated in the name of its author.

As I said earlier, given that we have copies of Tacitus' work with both the words Chrestianos and Christianos, (Not to mention the scribe's note) - I think it's a reasonable assumption that Chrestian was redacted to Christian at a later date. Personally, from what I've read, I also think that without any further evidence to prove otherwise, it's a reasonable working assumption that it was originally referring to Christ and Christianity.

Tiggs

May 20 2008, 09:25 PM

QUOTE (Clovis @ May 20 2008, 01:46 PM)

How can we be sure Thallus and Phlegos were talking about the same event? The fragment we have from Thallus mentions only Judea. The one from Phlegon only mentions Bityhnia. It was Eusebius who incorrectly attributed Phlegon's account to the Crucifixion. Tertullian further perpetrated the myth that an eclipse occurred during the Crucifixion.

I don't think there is any way to be sure. The only connection we have between them is the one that Eusebius made, as you've noted, and the assumption that Africanus's rebuttal of Thallus is talking about an eclipse at the time of the crucifixion.

QUOTE

In theory though an eclipse could be seen from both even though one might see it as a full eclipse and another a partial eclipse. This is evidenced in the 24 November 29 CE eclipse.

It's possible, but as Kidger has pointed out, the effects of a partial eclipse are generally unnoticeable when a distance away from the main eclipse.

Rosewin

May 20 2008, 09:47 PM

Ya, I understand the farther away it would only eclipse the corner of the whole of the sun.

randomhit10

May 21 2008, 07:52 PM

QUOTE (OpenMyEye @ May 13 2008, 01:48 AM)

Is there any solid evidence of Jesus or God?

yes

randomhit10

Thisisnotmyname

May 22 2008, 05:33 PM

Edit: bleh, nevermind...

sduncan

May 30 2008, 01:09 AM

Hasn't anyone ever seen this movie? http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/, it has claims that Jesus was not an actual person and that there was actually more than one messiah, even though this movie doesn't give any SOLID proof i think its an interesting watch

Karlis

May 30 2008, 01:53 AM

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 20 2008, 04:09 AM)

~~~ ... Africanus was arguing that it's impossible for an eclipse to happen during the time of a full moon.

...

Hi folks -- I propose that there is no need to show an eclipse was possible.
The darkness lasted from noon till three o'clock in the afternoon, which eliminates the eclipse theory.

Why not simply accept that God caused the three-hour darkness? But then; to accept that would mean accepting that God exists.

Karlis

Paranoid Android

May 30 2008, 06:12 AM

QUOTE (sduncan @ May 30 2008, 11:09 AM)

Hasn't anyone ever seen this movie? http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/, it has claims that Jesus was not an actual person and that there was actually more than one messiah, even though this movie doesn't give any SOLID proof i think its an interesting watch

I've seen the first part (the part dealing with Jesus) but not the rest of the Conspiracy. Suffice it to say that you should carefully check the sources that Zeitgeist used - many of them are untrustworthy, with some even being discredited and ridiculed by Atheist groups, so unreliable as they are.

Tiggs

May 30 2008, 06:38 AM

QUOTE (Karlis @ May 29 2008, 06:53 PM)

Hi folks -- I propose that there is no need to show an eclipse was possible.
The darkness lasted from noon till three o'clock in the afternoon, which eliminates the eclipse theory.

Why not simply accept that God caused the three-hour darkness? But then; to accept that would mean accepting that God exists.

Karlis

Unless, of course, you happen to be reading the Gospel of John, where the three-hour darkness didn't occur, and the most memorable thing that happened during the crucifixion was Jesus asking his mother to adopt one of his disciples.

Tiggs

May 30 2008, 06:41 AM

QUOTE (sduncan @ May 29 2008, 06:09 PM)

Hasn't anyone ever seen this movie? http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/, it has claims that Jesus was not an actual person and that there was actually more than one messiah, even though this movie doesn't give any SOLID proof i think its an interesting watch

Zeitgeist has been widely panned for having many historical inaccuracies. Take whatever you see in there with a large skeptical pinch of salt. There have been quite a few threads on the film before within the forums - use the Search facility and have a read

Karlis

May 30 2008, 07:06 AM

QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 30 2008, 04:41 PM)

Zeitgeist has been widely panned for having many historical inaccuracies. Take whatever you see in there with a large skeptical pinch of salt. There have been quite a few threads on the film before within the forums - use the Search facility and have a read

Though my question is off-topic, what is your opinion about the Federal Reserve segment?
Karlis

Tiggs

May 30 2008, 08:49 AM

QUOTE (Karlis @ May 30 2008, 12:06 AM)

Though my question is off-topic, what is your opinion about the Federal Reserve segment?
Karlis

Good question. In all honesty, I don't think I'm informed enough to have an opinion on it - usually, I like to have a look at both sides of the story before drawing any conclusions. I remember I was pretty shocked at the whole concept, the first time I saw it and it's on my to-do list to investigate in more detail at some point - this site here seems to have made a decent attempt at debunking the majority of the claims.

Rosewin

May 30 2008, 08:50 AM

Learning about the Federal Reserve segment in the early 90s, in a New Age store that also had literature from the militia movement, I tend to agree with that portion of the movie. Going off the gold standard has surely hurt us. With the way Bush has devalued the dollar we are suffering in almost every category from gas prices to travel overseas because of it. The Federal Reserve, which is a private corporation, and as zeitgeistthemovie claims, it is about as federal as Federal Express, has continuously ruined our economy so bankers can make a profit at the expense of the populace.

Here is a an unrelated commentary that was published in a magazine I barely got around to reading the other day that offers some insight that might be appreciated by some.

QUOTE

"Cents and Sesnibility" (Septermber 2000) reminded me that visual elegance is not all that has been lost thanks to "progressive" changes to our currency. Other sensuous elements have been sacrificed as well.

When the first clad coins were issues, my grandfather, a retired Pittsburgh steelworker, returned from the bank and called me into the kitchen. In one hand, he held a handful of clad coins; in the other, the same number of silver coins.

He gave the silver coins a shake, then dropped them onto the kitchen table, where they rang musically until the last coin had spun to a stop. It was a sweet sound, full of good memories: my dad jingling his pocket change when he was getting ready for work; the sound of silver being counted for ice cream from a street vendor.

Sweeping the silver aside and with a gesture of disdain, my grandfather then threw down the clad coins. They clanked, making a dull, dead sound.

"Well, they've done it," he said with disgust. "They've ruined our money."

Thank you for Mr. Dorgan's beautifully written piece. Future generations will never know the pleasure of touching, holding, jingling, and admiring the lovely everyday artwork that we used to take for granted.

Roberta Nordheim-Wallace
Manlius, N.Y.

Nordheim-Wallace, Roberta. Letter. American Heritage Nov. 2000: 7.