OK, got it, I'll never read an article about astronomy from a scientific site again, wouldn't want to read any information from a biased site after all.

If only you guys treated everything you read like you treat Christian websites.
I wouldn't have anything to do. It would be wonderful.

ripley, i checked out thr website, and I was literally almost in tears. thanks.

Agreed! Ripley you out-did yourself bebe.

this is a great site for the pros and cons =

religious tolerance. it also refutes alot of the 'historical facts' brought up in wikipedia.

DID JESUS OF NAZARETH ACTUALLY EXIST?
All sides to the question

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

How about a world-renowned publication with no Christian agenda whatsoever? I speak of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica:

from Jesus Christ
Non-Christian sources

Non-Christian sources are meagre and contribute nothing to the history of Jesus that is not already known from the Christian tradition. The mention of Jesus' execution in the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (XV, 44), written about AD 110, is, nevertheless, worthy of note. In his account of the persecution of Christians under the emperor Nero, which was occasioned by the burning of Rome (AD 64), the Emperor, in order to rid himself of suspicion, blamed the fire on the so-called Christians, who were already hated among the people. Tacitus writes in explanation: "The name is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The "temporarily suppressed pernicious superstition" to which Jesus had given rise in Judaea soon afterward had spread as far as Rome. Tacitus does not speak of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious title "Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside Palestine as a proper name for Jesus). The passage only affords proof of the ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as the founder of a religious movement and illustrates the common opinion of that movement in Rome. An enquiry of the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan (c. AD 111) about how he should act in regard to the Christians (Epistle 10, 96ff.) comes from the same period. Christians are again described as adherents of a crude superstition, who sang
hymns to Christ "as to a god." Nothing is said of his earthly life, and the factual information in the letter undoubtedly stems from Christians. In the Talmud, a compendium of Jewish law, lore, and commentary, only a few statements of the rabbis (Jewish religious teachers) of the 1st and 2nd centuries come into consideration. Containing mostly polemics or Jewish apologetics, they reveal an acquaintance with the Christian tradition but include several divergent legendary motifs as well. The picture of Jesus offered in these writings may be summarized as follows: born the (according to some interpretations, illegitimate) son of a man called Panther, Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshu) worked magic, ridiculed the wise, seduced and stirred up the people, gathered five disciples about him, and was hanged (crucified) on the eve of the Passover. The Toledot Yeshu ("Life of Jesus"), an embellished collection of such assertions, circulated among Jews during the Middle Ages in several versions.

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

I'd suggest reading the final section in particular. I boldened the section just to pinpoint what I'm talking about. And this is definitely not a Christian article with a Christian agenda. The section under Jesus Christ: Christian Sources concludes thus, which indicates a definite non-Christian spin on the text (otherwise there would be no mention of "questionable 2nd-century tradition":

The Synoptic Gospels were originally anonymous. According to questionable 2nd-century tradition, they were written by the immediate disciples of Jesus or companions of the oldest Apostles. Most probably the Gospels were composed between AD 70 and 100.

Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Even in ancient times the critics of Christianity never questioned the historicity of Jesus. It was debated first (and on inadequate grounds mind you) only very recently, according to the non-Christian Encyclopaedia.

Regards, PA

the encyclopedia brittanica, while open-minded, is not "nonchristian".

[quote name='Paranoid Android' date='May 28 2007, 08:40 AM' post='1697262']
How about a world-renowned publication with no Christian agenda whatsoever? I speak of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica:

from Jesus Christ
Non-Christian sources

Non-Christian sources are meagre and contribute nothing to the history of Jesus that is not already known from the Christian tradition. The mention of Jesus' execution in the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (XV, 44), written about AD 110, is, nevertheless, worthy of note. In his account of the persecution of Christians under the emperor Nero, which was occasioned by the burning of Rome (AD 64), the Emperor, in order to rid himself of suspicion, blamed the fire on the so-called Christians, who were already hated among the people. Tacitus writes in explanation: "The name is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The "temporarily suppressed pernicious superstition" to which Jesus had given rise in Judaea soon afterward had spread as far as Rome. Tacitus does not speak of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the religious title "Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside Palestine as a proper name for Jesus). The passage only affords proof of the ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as the founder of a religious movement and illustrates the common opinion of that movement in Rome. An enquiry of the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan (c. AD 111) about how he should act in regard to the Christians (Epistle 10, 96ff.) comes from the same period. Christians are again described as adherents of a crude superstition, who sang
hymns to Christ "as to a god." Nothing is said of his earthly life, and the factual information in the letter undoubtedly stems from Christians. In the Talmud, a compendium of Jewish law, lore, and commentary, only a few statements of the rabbis (Jewish religious teachers) of the 1st and 2nd centuries come into consideration. Containing mostly polemics or Jewish apologetics, they reveal an acquaintance with the Christian tradition but include several divergent legendary motifs as well. The picture of Jesus offered in these writings may be summarized as follows: born the (according to some interpretations, illegitimate) son of a man called Panther, Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshu) worked magic, ridiculed the wise, seduced and stirred up the people, gathered five disciples about him, and was hanged (crucified) on the eve of the Passover. The Toledot Yeshu ("Life of Jesus"), an embellished collection of such assertions, circulated among Jews during the Middle Ages in several versions.

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

I'd suggest reading the final section in particular. I boldened the section just to pinpoint what I'm talking about. And this is definitely not a Christian article with a Christian agenda. The section under Jesus Christ: Christian Sources concludes thus, which indicates a definite non-Christian spin on the text (otherwise there would be no mention of "questionable 2nd-century tradition":

The Synoptic Gospels were originally anonymous. According to questionable 2nd-century tradition, they were written by the immediate disciples of Jesus or companions of the oldest Apostles. Most probably the Gospels were composed between AD 70 and 100.

Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Even in ancient times the critics of Christianity never questioned the historicity of Jesus. It was debated first (and on inadequate grounds mind you) only very recently, according to the non-Christian Encyclopaedia.

Regard

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''





Tacitus and Jesus (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html)

In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

Two questions arise concerning this passage:

1. Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
2. Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?

Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.

The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity.


''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Josephus and Jesus

The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:

1. The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion.
2. In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.

let's see-if joe really did believe eshu was the messiah, why is he proclaimed as a jewich historian?you simply don't see him referred to as "josephus, the famous xian convert historian".

So how would you describe it then? Or is any text that happens to agree with the Christian point of view considered to be a "Christian" source then? The Encyclopaedia Brittanica is "aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias." - (Source). The current owner of the Brittanica is a billionaire actor (Jacqui Safra), not a Christian apologist - indeed, all searches I entered about her indicate she came from a Jewish background.

Sounds like a non-Christian source to me. If we are to discount the Brittanica, then what can we trust? If the Brittanica is considered "the most scholarly of encyclopaedias", then what are we to think of other references?

edit: And just to address the second half of fullywired's post - the Brittanica article I posted did not mention Josephus, it seems like you are trying to bring in new information and attacking that as if that somehow makes my stance less credible. That, in debating circles, is what is called a "straw-man argument".

Regards, PA

I am just showing all evidence for and against ,nothing more .or is it that you don't want to consider anything that does not help you .


And incidently can you tell me the religious beliefs of the "19 full time editors" and the "4000 expert contributors"

fullywired

My apologies, you quoted my article and personal input, and then you discuss Tacitus, who was listed in the article, and then you bring in Josephus. It seemed to me that you were trying to refute my post with information on a person I did not even use. Besides, in attempting to prove Josephus to be false, you did not in any way impact the strength of my argument.

Not every single one of them, but some of the articles belong to such eminent individuals as Albert Einstein, Madame Curie and Leon Trotsky (see source in previous post for reference). Arguing from that point of view is futile though - just because we don't know the beliefs of all 19 editors/4000 experts does not imply that they all (or at least the majority) hold Christian leanings. What we know is that of all encyclopaedia's available, Brittanica is regarded as the least biased (ie, most reliable) of them all.

Unless you or someone else has specific evidence to show that this is a Christian publication, I would surmise that the evidence points to it being decidedly non-Christian.

Alright let us assume that it is a non Christian publication .What is it telling us that we didn't know before ? it is only repeating arguments that have already been rebutted and telling us what Christians believe but I see know proof .It tells us the date of Jesus's birth and death which is surprising because no scholars christian or otherwise claim to know that ,so it must be surmising the dates ,hardly a basis for proof .It quotes Tacitus and Josephus the only two mentions of Jesus, both suspect and written well after the crucifixion.

Trotsky, Einstein,Curie were not historians so why you mention them I don't know .the only contributions they could offer were in their own fields, none of which were religion. What I don't understand is ,if you are a good Christian and I don't doubt you are ,Why are you so concerned with proof ?There is no historical proof .People have been searching for years without success and have even resorted to fabrication of evidence in some cases It is faith, be content with that or is it because you are having doubts?



regards Fullywired

PA, why do you trot out this old boring stuff that is so easily rebutted? Your little bit about Tacitus – well, prior to the early 5th century this little bit of information was never mentions until it quoted almost word for word in the works of Sulpicius Serverus, a renowned forger of antique religious documents! There are (so I am told) existing copies of Tacitus that lack that certain quotation. Cassius Dio, in his “Roman History” gives us real story (Roman History, 60.6), it was the Jews, not the Christians that Nero punished and the punishment was only refusing to let them hold meetings and later after the burning of Rome, he exacted a punishment tax on the all Jews everywhere to help pay for the rebuilding of Rome!
As for Josephus, please explain why this wonderous proof (in every detail) of Jesus’ existence was not used by any writer before the 4th century CE? Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Origen and others never used this golden quotation in all of their defenses against pagan antagonists – NOT ONCE! The first time it was ever mentioned was by Bishop Esuebius, that avowed liar for God! Prior to that no one seems to know it existed…and notice, it wasn’t until Christianity was in control of the empire that it was mentioned…no fear of rebuttal, just ice the rebutter and destroy his works! Truly Christianity is a wondrous religion!

I like the links so thought I'd include one of my favourites:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...eally_live.html

It ends with this paragraph: (which I like alot)
The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.

You tell 'em Sister! Truer words were never spoken!

*boldened relevant quote*

Did anyone actually read the article I linked? I see Mako made this same mistake, perhaps based on your rebuttal of Josephus in your post to me (shame, mako, shame, lol - j/k). The article I posted DOES NOT in any way, shape or form mention Josephus. It quotes Tacitus, and it quotes Pliny the Younger, and it quotes the Talmudic writings. Nothing about Josephus anywhere. I think this is one reason why this article can be considered a scholarly work, considering that they (purposely) omit Josephus from the argument. This is what I meant by a Straw-man argument - you are ascribing the writings of Josephus to my argument and then debunking this writing and thus discrediting my argument, even though I at no time mentioned him in.

edit: in my shock of noticing people quoting Josephus, I missed also that nowhere in my article are the dates of Jesus' birth and death mentioned, though you claim it is mentioned. Are we reading the same article, you and I?

double edit (for Mako): if copies of Tacitus exist without that passage, I know of none. Perhaps you are right, and that would make this a likely forgery, but I have not read anything about this, and I haven't seen any mention of this by those wishing to discredit Tacitus

I realise that. I'm just showing that the Brittanica uses a wide range of experts, and not necessarily those that just support their own agenda.

As to your question to me, I would very much like to know what your basis is for doubting me to be a good Christian (please also explain what you mean by "good Christian"). Why I'm discussing this though is because we are in a debate on that subject. The question was asked and so we have responded. As I said, this article i quoted shows that Jesus' existence is not in question. Whether you believe he performed the miracles ascribed to him in the Bible is a different story, of course, we're just talking about his existence.

Regards, PA

I mentioned Josephus because he ands Tacitus are always referred to when Christians are trying to get some authenticity to their claim .I realise fully that you didn't cite him in your piece but does that mean I can't mention him either,The talmudic writings don't help much they are religious documents and not written until well after the death of Jesus (quote) A SIMPLE INTRODUCTION TO THE TALMUD
The first part of the Talmud is the Mishna which was written C.E.200 by Yehuda The Prince in Israel. It consists of six parts and includes the notes of Rabbi Achiva.
In C.E.300 a Gemara was written by Rabbi Yochanan and combined with the Mishna became known as the Jerusalem Talmud.
In C.E.400 a Gemara was written by Rabbi Ravina and Rabbi Ashi in Babylon. This Gemara is the popular one of today and combined with the Mishna is known as the Babylonian Talmud. source http://www.israelimission.org/talmud.html

The date of Jesus's birth and death I got from the Brittanica not from your article but that doesn't matter as the Brittanica is your reference as untainted


now it's my turn to ask "did you read my article " I said "if you are a Christian and "I don't doubt that you are"

secondly you ask what I mean by a good Christian .I mean a person that believes in the bible and keeps the commandments .I could go on but I think you will have got the idea

and I repeat there is no historical evidence for Jesus

regards fullywired

^Firstly, apologies for missing the key-word "don't" in the "don't doubt". I guess I'm more tired than I thought (too much work, gah). For the rest, I'm not denying you your right to quote Josephus. However, both you and Mako have attempted to make it clear that I am quoting Josephus to support my argument:

Fullywired wrote: Alright let us assume that it is a non Christian publication...... it is only repeating arguments that have already been rebutted.... It quotes Tacitus and Josephus the only two mentions of Jesus, both suspect and written well after the crucifixion.

Mako wrote: PA, why do you trot out this old boring stuff that is so easily rebutted..... As for Josephus, please explain why this wonderous proof...

Now, I may be tired, but I can't seem to see any way past these two posts except to say that my argument is being tied to Josephus, which it is not.

And by the way, I know that the Talmud is not a contemporary writing, but it is an early reference to Christianity, and even back then these Talmudic writings show that critics of Christianity did not doubt the historicity of his existence, which is the point I've been making this whole time.

As for the Britannica citing the dates of Jesus' birth and death, could you be more specific (quote me a relevant source if possible). Thanks

Regards, PA

I can see where you might think I was trying to tie Josephus to your article ,so I will apologise for that.even though that was not my intention

The fact that some one doesn't doubt the existence of Jesus is not proof of his existence and that's what I have been saying all the time



the link you asked for was this http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106456/Jesus-Christ



regards fullywired

Actually I didn't, I was just mentioning the various attempted proofs that Christians trot out, but I got interrupted and when I came back I had forgotten what I intended to do (senility is hell!). So here is the rest – Around 112 CE, Pliny the Younger wrote letters to the emperor Trajan reporting on the trials of Christians that he conducted as a provincial governor. These Christians were tried, not for their religious beliefs, but because Pliny had forbidden political associations, which evidentially he considered them doing. Through torture of two deaconesses, he discovered “nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition”. All the information reported by Pliny was second hand, gleamed from Christians and never once does he mention a Jesus Christ (he does mention that they call their god, “Christ”). Pliny can not be used to prove anything more than the existence of Christians in the 2nd century CE.
The other historian that I was going to mention (and one often used by Christians to “Prove” Jesus) was Suetonius. In his “Twelve Caesars” written around the same time as Pliny was corresponding with Trajan, Suetonius (in the biography of Claudius) wrote, “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” What is humorous here is the attempt of those desperate to find any evidence for Jesus that they attempt to equate “Chrestus”, a common Greek name, used by slaves and freemen, meaning”The Good” with Christ. This name was common enough that it can be seen on numerous Latin inscriptions, many dating long before the 1st century CE. What Suetonius was reporting here was that the Jews were expelled from Rome because of a Jew by the name of Chrestus agitating riots in Rome of the 5th decade of the 1st century CE. He is not referring to a criminal executed in Palestine in the 3rd decade of that century and quite possibly had no knowledge of that individual at all!
It would seem that our “old buddy” did a little “cut and paste” to Suetonius also. In Suetonius’ Life of Nero (part of Twelve Caesars), Suetonius supposedly describes Nero’s persecution of the Christians – “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief…” However, at this time there were no gospels written, no true organization of the various small groups of believers, no common name for them. Paul makes not a single reference to Christians in any of his letters. Most believers at that time identified themselves as saints, brethren or various other names, but no one called themselves Christians. Romans usually lumped them with other groups and sects, calling them Atheists, God Fearers and “Affecting Jewish Ways”, but again it is doubtful they even knew the term, Christ much less Christian. Now mate, do you have any other “evidence” for the existence of Jesus?

This is because that until the late 18th century to present we only had those documents that survived the attempt by the Church to eradicate all information that did not agree with their created history of the religion. The discoveries since the late 18th century have given us a much larger document base and a stronger understanding of what really transpired in the period of the 1st through 8th centuries and the final establishment of the dictatorial system put in place by the Church and their very dependent Aristocracy. Historical research is now peer regulated and what was accepted in the past on the basis that that was what was always believed is no longer accepted as fact. Evidence is weighted and compared with other evidence. Multiple sources are necessary and when they do not agree, the incident/occurrence is carried as questionable until more information is forthcoming. The access of ancient documents unsullied by Christian editors (usually coming from areas that were under Roman influence but conquered by Islam before those aforementioned editors could alter or destroy them) and the discovery of the Gnostic documents (Nag Hammidi library) has opened new vistas of understanding of that critical period for Christianity.