The Historicity of Jesus Christ

[Alter2Ego]

A favorite argument by non-believers is that Jesus Christ's existence is confined to the pages of the Judeo-Christian Bible.   When presented with documentary evidence of his historical existence, Bible critics then use another ploy: they attack the credibility of those who confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ and/or they attack the credibility of what was written about Jesus Christ.

 

Below are three non-Christians from the 1st Century AD who mentioned Jesus Christ in their secular writings. The questions for debate are at the end of this post

 

PERSON #1:

Name and Occupation: Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historian

DOB to Date of Death: A.D. 55 to A.D. 120

Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile

What He Said: He confirmed that CHRISTUS (a common misspelling of Christ at the time) was executed by Pilate. 

 

PERSON #2:

Name and Occupation: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian

DOB to Date of Death: 37 AD -- Died after 100 AD

Attitude Towards Christianity: Apathetic (could care less about them)

What He Said: He confirmed that Christ who performed miracles was executed by Pilate.

 

Highlights on Flavius Josephus: A Jewish historian of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the 1st century AD (the century in which Jesus Christ lived and died).

 

PERSON #3:

Name and Occupation: Pliny The Younger (born Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus), Roman Governor

DOB to Date of Death: 61 AD to 112 AD

Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile. He executed Christians

What He Said: Referred to Jesus Christ as a "god of the Christians."

 

Highlights on Pliny: Pliny condemned Men, Women, and children to death if they refused to curse Christ and if they refused to deny they were Christians.

 

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

A.  All three of the individuals described above were people in powerful positions who were anti-Christian and belonged to groups that actively killed Christians.  All three individuals belonged to organizations that were responsible for Jesus' death.  What did they have to gain from mentioning the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings--thereby confirming his historical existence?

 

B.   Flavius Josephus, a Jew, was born a mere four years after Jesus was executed. He became a Jewish Pharisee as an adult, in addition to becoming a respected historian and advisor to the Roman emperor. Do you see anything significant to his being a Pharisee, a historian, and Roman emperor advisor--and the fact that he mentioned Jesus Christ in his writings?

 

C.    Cornelius Tactitus was known as the greatest historian of his time, during which he lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors. Do you see anything significant to his resume and the fact that he mentioned Jesus Christ in his writings?

Edited September 2 by Alter2Ego

[+and-then]

Welcome to UM, Alter2ego.  Brace for a howling pack of "scholars".  There isn't much they get more excited about than explaining why Christians are idiots...  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Well, Josephus was know for a noted ability to ‘read the room” and say precisely what the folks holding him by thr balls in power want to hear. Pliny was a collator of other’s ideas and lived in an era of rising Christian influence (he also got the fact of Jesus’ relationship to God wrong). 
And FTR - I’m Catholic. 

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Alter2Ego said:

A favorite argument by non-believers is that Jesus Christ's existence is confined to the pages of the Judeo-Christian Bible.   When presented with documentary evidence of his historical existence, Bible critics then use another ploy: they attack the credibility of those who confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ and/or they attack the credibility of what was written about Jesus Christ.

1)  No one can confirm the existence of a person who died BEFORE they were born. Belief is NOT confirmation, it is merely belief. 
 

2)  Textual mentions of Jesus AFTER he died and by those who never knew him in life IS NOT confirmation, it’s also a belief. 
 

3)  Jesus was born and raised a Jew, so by the religious tenets of the Jews he committed blasphemy by claiming himself both the Son of God and Messiah. The Bible says during one event some Jews even tried to stone him for that transgression, BUT HE RAN AWAY. Doesn’t sound much like he’s either to me. 
 

4)  Jesus claimed to have come to FULFILL the law, so tell me where in the Bible is blasphemy against one’s own God a fulfilling of the law? 
 

cormac

[+joc]

There are only two conditions of the reality of humanity.  Things we know and things we don't know.  Things we know are provable. Things we do not know haven't been proven yet, or they cannot be proven ever.  We do not believe things we know.  We can only believe things that we do not know.  

Things we know:  Virgins do not have babies...ever.   Dead is dead...forever.  Human beings do not have the mental power to overcome the laws of physics...i.e. changing the molecular structure of water.  Walking on the surface of the water.  

Things we believe:  Who cares.   If it isn't provable, it isn't provable.

 

[+Link of Hyrule]

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God or a deity or anything like that. That's a matter of faith. However, there is no faith required to accept the existence of the man Jesus on whom the stories of the Bible were written. His existence is as close to historical fact as one can get when talking of ancient figures. Jesus certainly existed. 

Though that doesn't mean the miracles attributed to him in the Bible are real. That's a completely different argument. 

[Will Due]

19 minutes ago, joc said:

If it isn't provable, it isn't provable.

 

That's right.

But if it isn't proven, it doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

That's right.

But if it isn't proven, it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Doesn’t mean it is either. 
 

cormac

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

Doesn’t mean it is either. 
 

cormac

No, stop right there. Do not go giving our cut rate Confucius room to start his routine. 

[Ell]

6 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

Flavius Josephus said something like: "If it is permitted to call [Jesus] a man". (Book xviii, line 63)

So Jesus was not a living human being.

It is also well known that the early Christians (actually Jews) 'worshipped' donkeys.

A donkey is not a living human being.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

25 minutes ago, Ell said:

Flavius Josephus said something like: "If it is permitted to call [Jesus] a man". (Book xviii, line 63)

So Jesus was not a living human being.

It is also well known that the early Christians (actually Jews) 'worshipped' donkeys.

A donkey is not a living human being.

Your mum’s a donkey 😛

[Alchopwn]

6 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

PERSON #1:

Name and Occupation: Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historian

DOB to Date of Death: A.D. 55 to A.D. 120

Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile

What He Said: He confirmed that CHRISTUS (a common misspelling of Christ at the time) was executed by Pilate. 

The problem is that the term Christus means "the anointed with oil"  and actually referred to the hybrid Egyptian god Serapis, long before it ever applied to Yeshua ben David.  Serapis was worshipped in Alexandria, and his high priests were called Bishops.  Alexandria was also where John the Baptist had his primary ministry, by which I mean the most converts.

6 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

PERSON #2:

Name and Occupation: Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian

DOB to Date of Death: 37 AD -- Died after 100 AD

Attitude Towards Christianity: Apathetic (could care less about them)

What He Said: He confirmed that Christ who performed miracles was executed by Pilate.

Highlights on Flavius Josephus: A Jewish historian of priestly and royal ancestry who recorded Jewish history, with special emphasis on the 1st century AD (the century in which Jesus Christ lived and died).

Josephus is the best evidence for an historical Jesus.  A very old nobleman with the correct name is mentioned during the siege of Masada.  No doubt he suicided like the rest.

6 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

PERSON #3:

Name and Occupation: Pliny The Younger (born Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus), Roman Governor

DOB to Date of Death: 61 AD to 112 AD

Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile. He executed Christians

What He Said: Referred to Jesus Christ as a "god of the Christians."

 

Highlights on Pliny: Pliny condemned Men, Women, and children to death if they refused to curse Christ and if they refused to deny they were Christians

Calling someone a "God of the Christians" is far from suggesting this was a real person.

Shall we now address the case for the nagative?

[Ell]

8 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Jesus Christ's existence

Jesus existence is irrelevant.

Jesus was about ethics and humanity, about civilized Christian values - as opposed to sociopathic Jewish values. Those teachings are relevant. You would be wise to discuss those instead of his alleged existence.

[Piney]

8 hours ago, and-then said:

Welcome to UM, Alter2ego.  Brace for a howling pack of "scholars".  There isn't much they get more excited about than explaining why Christians are idiots...  

She's not new. She's a Jehovah's Witness who's been trolling this forum and many science ones for years.

@eight bits has it documented...

Edited September 2 by Piney
The End Times is for hopeless losers

[eight bits]

9 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

A favorite argument by non-believers is that Jesus Christ's existence is confined to the pages of the Judeo-Christian Bible. 

Confident assertion that there was no historical Jesus whatsoever is a minority position, even within the community of "non-believers."

Quote

When presented with documentary evidence of his historical existence, Bible critics then use another ploy: they attack the credibility of those who confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ and/or they attack the credibility of what was written about Jesus Christ.

That the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus is thin and inconsistent is just a fact. Believers seem to be comfortable with that, since religion is a matter of faith anyway.

The earliest attack I know of against "the credibility of what was written about Jesus Christ" by a named non-believer was that of Celsus's The True Word, written in the 2nd Century and preserved for us by Origen's rebuttal Against Celsus, written in the 3rd Century. Nowhere in Origen's report did Celsus suggest that Jesus did not exist. Likely there are two reasons for this: (1) personal disbelief in a historical Jesus is not an argument against someone else's personal belief, and (2) as Celsus himself pointed out, there are plenty of devastating arguments against Christianity based on simply accepting the Christian scriptures at face value.

9 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Below are three non-Christians from the 1st Century AD who mentioned Jesus Christ in their secular writings. The questions for debate are at the end of this post

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger wrote about Christians in the 2nd Century. Josephus's Antiquities was indeed composed in the last decade of the 1st Century. What, if anything, he wrote about Christians is a matter of scholarly debate.

I notice some other problems with your list, for example, Pliny did not mention Jesus by name, or Christus is not a misspelling of anything. These little lapses make me wonder: Have you personally read the passages in your list?

As to your discussion questions:

10 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

A.  All three of the individuals described above were people in powerful positions who were anti-Christian and belonged to groups that actively killed Christians.  All three individuals belonged to organizations that were responsible for Jesus' death.  What did they have to gain from mentioning the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings--thereby confirming his historical existence?

None of the three were around when Pilate was governor, so I don't see that any of them have a personal stake in Jesus's death, nor can I puzzle out what organizational affiliation(s) you have in mind. What the writers confirm (assuming authenticity) is the existence of a widespread Christian church by the turn of the 2nd Century. Pliny could hardly be clearer that he is passing on what he learned about Christian beliefs from interviewing Christians; he makes no personal commtment to the historical accuracy of what he has been told. Neither received Josephus nor Tacitus cite their sources, but there is nothing in the passages that supports independence of the public teaching of the Christian movement.

10 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

B.   Flavius Josephus, a Jew, was born a mere four years after Jesus was executed. He became a Jewish Pharisee as an adult, in addition to becoming a respected historian and advisor to the Roman emperor. Do you see anything significant to his being a Pharisee, a historian, and Roman emperor advisor--and the fact that he mentioned Jesus Christ in his writings?

That's an interesting question. You do realize, though, that this line of inquiry potentially conflicts with your claim that Josephus was "apathetic" about Jesus and the Christian movement. It's also a difficult question, since the uncertainty about what Josephus wrote about Jesus (if anything) is severe.

10 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

C.    Cornelius Tactitus was known as the greatest historian of his time, during which he lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors. Do you see anything significant to his resume and the fact that he mentioned Jesus Christ in his writings?

You may have a better opinion of Tacitus than some others, but yes he was an important figure in Roman politics and a reputable historian.

One thing I find significant in his resume was that he was a pagan priest, parallel with Josephus, who was a Jewish priest, and in both cases they were members of the up-market portion of their respective priesthoods. Maybe priests have a special interest in religious matters?

[+Sherapy]

11 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Confident assertion that there was no historical Jesus whatsoever is a minority position, even within the community of "non-believers."

That the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus is thin and inconsistent is just a fact. Believers seem to be comfortable with that, since religion is a matter of faith anyway.

The earliest attack I know of against "the credibility of what was written about Jesus Christ" by a named non-believer was that of Celsus's The True Word, written in the 2nd Century and preserved for us by Origen's rebuttal Against Celsus, written in the 3rd Century. Nowhere in Origen's report did Celsus suggest that Jesus did not exist. Likely there are two reasons for this: (1) personal disbelief in a historical Jesus is not an argument against someone else's personal belief, and (2) as Celsus himself pointed out, there are plenty of devastating arguments against Christianity based on simply accepting the Christian scriptures at face value.

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger wrote about Christians in the 2nd Century. Josephus's Antiquities was indeed composed in the last decade of the 1st Century. What, if anything, he wrote about Christians is a matter of scholarly debate.

I notice some other problems with your list, for example, Pliny did not mention Jesus by name, or Christus is not a misspelling of anything. These little lapses make me wonder: Have you personally read the passages in your list?

As to your discussion questions:

None of the three were around when Pilate was governor, so I don't see that any of them have a personal stake in Jesus's death, nor can I puzzle out what organizational affiliation(s) you have in mind. What the writers confirm (assuming authenticity) is the existence of a widespread Christian church by the turn of the 2nd Century. Pliny could hardly be clearer that he is passing on what he learned about Christian beliefs from interviewing Christians; he makes no personal commtment to the historical accuracy of what he has been told. Neither received Josephus nor Tacitus cite their sources, but there is nothing in the passages that supports independence of the public teaching of the Christian movement.

That's an interesting question. You do realize, though, that this line of inquiry potentially conflicts with your claim that Josephus was "apathetic" about Jesus and the Christian movement. It's also a difficult question, since the uncertainty about what Josephus wrote about Jesus (if anything) is severe.

You may have a better opinion of Tacitus than some others, but yes he was an important figure in Roman politics and a reputable historian.

One thing I find significant in his resume was that he was a pagan priest, parallel with Josephus, who was a Jewish priest, and in both cases they were members of the up-market portion of their respective priesthoods. Maybe priests have a special interest in religious matters?

I think the best thread on this topic is the one you did some years back. Do you remember the year and title, so I can link it in this thread.

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

I think the best thread on this topic is the one you did some years back. Do you remember the year and title, so I can link it in this thread.

Thank you for the kind words.

I'll look for it when I get back (from what? you ask; why, walking a dog, of course!)

[+Sherapy]

14 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Thank you for the kind words.

I'll look for it when I get back (from what? you ask; why, walking a dog, of course!)

👍🏼

[zep73]

@Alter2Ego

Check this out. If you dare.

 

[Alchopwn]

4 hours ago, Ell said:

Jesus existence is irrelevant.

Jesus was about ethics and humanity, about civilized Christian values - as opposed to sociopathic Jewish values. Those teachings are relevant. You would be wise to discuss those instead of his alleged existence.

Actually no.  Jesus wasn't about ethics.  Much of what Jesus said and did makes no sense unless he was the physical son of god.  In fact, if that isn't so, he'd be a bit of a loon really, even if he was an excellent stage magician.

[Will Due]

24 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

makes no sense unless he was the physical son of god.  

 

And that's why what Jesus said makes perfect sense.

 

 

[Will Due]

 

It's a person's prerogative to reject or deny this but it's a fact that there's overwhelming evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person and the incarnate Creator Son of God.

 

 

Edited September 2 by Will Due

[Alchopwn]

50 minutes ago, Will Due said:

And that's why what Jesus said makes perfect sense.

But it isn't actually good ethical philosophy, as not everyone is the blood descended child of God.

Edited September 2 by Alchopwn

[Will Due]

45 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

But it isn't actually good ethical philosophy, as not everyone is the blood descended child of God.

 

All of us are more than physical material beings and what Jesus taught is spiritual and not merely philosophical.

 

 

Edited September 2 by Will Due

[Alchopwn]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

 All of us are more than physical material beings and what Jesus taught is spiritual and not merely philosophical.

But we aren't blood descended from God the way Jesus was, so really Jesus' whole ministry message was less about ethics than establishing his divinity.