Non-Biblical Mentions of Jesus

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

From another thread ...

Originally Posted by PowerWizard
There are more sources though, read up on it.

What a baseless assertion. Name your sources.

Flavius Josephus mentions a character Jeshua twice, and one of them is dubious and perhaps fabricated.
Then there's Tacitus, who writes two sentences about Jesus in his Annales.

And that's it.

Suetonius makes a reference to a character called Christ (a very common 'nickname' at the time), but the events he describes are from 50 AD, so he's most likely referring to someone else.
Pliny the Younger talks about the ways he punishes Christians, and he mentions that they worship Christ. Which does not mean anything either.
The Babylonian Talmud also mentions a certain preacher that's sentenced to death, but there are so many contradictions between what the others sources say that we're most likely dealing with another character as well.

So in conclusion, there are two. Making baseless posts will not change the historical facts.

Nicely summarised. There are really only three extra-Biblical references to Jesus which are to the historical person rather than the object of a cult: the two in Josephus and the one in Tacitus. That's it.

And, despite the yapping of the Jesus Mythers, that's enough, taken with the gospels - to accept that he existed.

[GuineaPig]

I accept that he existed purely because it's a bit of a stretch to assume that someone who never existed would have so many followers a couple of decades after his death, in time for Tacitus to mention them.

It's hardly concrete proof, but it seems reasonable enough.

[wearycelt]

I accept that he existed purely because it's a bit of a stretch to assume that someone who never existed would have so many followers a couple of decades after his death, in time for Tacitus to mention them.

It's hardly concrete proof, but it seems reasonable enough.

I am in no way questioning the reasoning of your argument. Frankly, I can agree with it. But anytime someone brings up the logic of him having followers = existence, I always think about the last part of the film "Last Temptation of Christ"....

[finsternis]

I am in no way questioning the reasoning of your argument. Frankly, I can agree with it. But anytime someone brings up the logic of him having followers = existence, I always think about the last part of the film "Last Temptation of Christ"....

You mean when Paul started telling lies about Jesus? Yeah that was a very interesting part. He pretty much said "people have religion because it makes them feel good, regardless of whether it is true or not".

But as IrishHitman said (well, his first line only): it does not matter if he existed or not.
What matters is what we can learn from it. Santa is not real, but kids learn to be good from him (well, some kids, less and less kids believe in him nowadays).

[Chaigidel]

its far more proof than we have for most of the people who lived then.

[IrishHitman]

Whether he existed or not is irrelevent....
He wasn't the son of the Jewish God, regardless of how many gentiles go around thinking so these days.

[Arch-hereticK]

its far more proof than we have for most of the people who lived then.

Considering that millions of people lived then, you're right.

[basics]

" And, despite the yapping of the Jesus Mythers, that's enough, taken with the gospels - to accept that he existed."

ThiudareiksGunthigg,

Is it not true that within the Vatican there are thousands of writings about Jesus Christ yet they are not in the Bible. And does not Gibbon tell of a Roman Caesar when in an argument regarding the authenticity of Mary, Joseph and Jesus claim that he had record to prove their existence?

[Manco]

Is it not true that within the Vatican there are thousands of writings about Jesus Christ yet they are not in the Bible.

Not contemporary and usually referring to the Biblical/religious Jesus instead of the historical.

And does not Gibbon tell of a Roman Caesar when in an argument regarding the authenticity of Mary, Joseph and Jesus claim that he had record to prove their existence?

Gibbon is hardly considered reliable these days, and whatever evidence that was it's lost now.

But no one denies Jesus's existence really, just the extent of evidence and knowledge on the historical Jesus.

[basics]

" Not contemporary and usually referring to the Biblical/religious Jesus instead of the historical."

Manco,

Then what about the books or letters not accepted as Scripture yet written by men and women who lived and saw the things He did. Then take the day of Pentecost for example. Here was a day when men were considered drunk because they were extolling the Gospel in tongues that they couldn't speak before so that visitors to the city could understand what they were saying. My point now is is it possible that the hearers in many cases did not write to friends, or tell by word of mouth, the things that they saw and heard on that particular day?

Our problem is that most of these as well as the original Gospel writings would have been written in the Hebrew because the original churches were for the most part Hebrew converts still averse to anything Gentile including speaking or writing in Greek. The Jews did not like the Gentiles in those days and it took Paul to correct that within the Jerusalem church. My point here being what happened to these originals? Logic tells me that as the Gentile converts outpopulated the Jews within the churches much of the Hebrew writings were discarded, being replaced by Greek.

But since not all Greeks could speak Hebrew nor understand it's need anymore the importance of the Hebrew content was lost and probably a great deal of confirmation along with it. This is seen in John's letters, 1,2,and 3 as he exorts those in the churches to be wary of other gospels taking effect. The point here being that these Gentiles never saw Jesus never mind hearing Him and could only rely on what other Gentiles had translated into Greek. Therefore any authenticity was lost as time went on.

[finsternis]

In other news, the CIA has the Ark of the Covenant in a wooden crate hidden in a huge warehouse and the British Royal Family are all shape-shifting aliens.

I KNEW IT!!!!!!! And people called me crazy.

Then what about the books or letters not accepted as Scripture yet written by men and women who lived and saw the things He did. Then take the day of Pentecost for example. Here was a day when men were considered drunk because they were extolling the Gospel in tongues that they couldn't speak before so that visitors to the city could understand what they were saying. My point now is is it possible that the hearers in many cases did not write to friends, or tell by word of mouth, the things that they saw and heard on that particular day?

True, the bible has been edited, translated (wrongly) and edited again. We all know this.

I believe another tool used to help corroborate the historical Jesus is archaeology.. the recently rediscovered Pool of Siloam, etc. etc..

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the current digs to fully understand how they work into the historical Jesus field.

Well this only shows that the bible has some historical relevance (but so does every other holy book).
Remember, these are people writing what they see (whether it is true or not), every time someone writes something, that's history. Proving the bible as a historical document only proves that the bible is a historical document, it does not mean that everything in it is true (like the magical things).

Isn't the Iliad a historical document too? Is everything in it true?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

" And, despite the yapping of the Jesus Mythers, that's enough, taken with the gospels - to accept that he existed."

ThiudareiksGunthigg,

Is it not true that within the Vatican there are thousands of writings about Jesus Christ yet they are not in the Bible.

No, that is not true. That is what we call "total and complete gibbering nonsense" and is peddled by idiots.

And does not Gibbon tell of a Roman Caesar when in an argument regarding the authenticity of Mary, Joseph and Jesus claim that he had record to prove their existence?

Not that I know of. No-one ever questioned the existence of Jesus until the late Nineteenth Century, so I have no idea why this Roman emperor would even be engaged in such a discussion.

[Helm]

They were all written hundreds of years after Jesus was said to have died though. They're not exactly conclusive proof that he ever existed.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

They were all written hundreds of years after Jesus was said to have died though. They're not exactly conclusive proof that he ever existed.

Basics seems to be referring to the kooky conspiracist fantasy that the evil old "Vatican" has hidden away lots of very early Christian writings to keep them from the eyes of the faithful because they undermine the claims of the Catholic Church/mention Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene/prove Jesus was an alien/insert kooky nonsense here. Apparently these writings are hidden in the Secret Vatican Archives which, despite being so damn "secret" seem to have contents known to every single kook and weirdo on the internet.

In other news, the CIA has the Ark of the Covenant in a wooden crate hidden in a huge warehouse and the British Royal Family are all shape-shifting aliens.

[basics]

" Basics seems to be referring to the kooky conspiracist fantasy that the evil old "Vatican" has hidden away lots of very early Christian writings to keep them from the eyes of the faithful because they undermine the claims of the Catholic Church/mention Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene/prove Jesus was an alien/insert kooky nonsense here. Apparently these writings are hidden in the Secret Vatican Archives which, despite being so damn "secret" seem to have contents known to every single kook and weirdo on the internet."

ThiudareiksGunthigg,

Oh how melodramatic we are tonight. Basics never intended anything of the sort. I never even mentioned the word secret, rather saying that in the Vatican are books or letters that never were accepted as Scripture. But if that is not the case then what I read somewhere is not true. So I take it you can tell me then where exactly are these books some debated already on these threads?

But just to set the record straight, what is Scripture as we know it, is quite sufficient for me, so I couldn't really give a monkey's what might be there or what might not. My point was that there were other writings about Jesus so on that I must be at least some way to being correct. As for Gibbon and his recording of that particular incident, I will when time permits look it out.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

ThiudareiksGunthigg,

Oh how melodramatic we are tonight. Basics never intended anything of the sort. I never even mentioned the word secret, rather saying that in the Vatican are books or letters that never were accepted as Scripture. But if that is not the case then what I read somewhere is not true. So I take it you can tell me then where exactly are these books some debated already on these threads?

If you mean non-canonical and apocryphal texts like the Nag Hammadi gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, they tend to be in museums, not in the Vatican. The Nag Hammadi texts, for example, are housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

[Burnum]

If you mean non-canonical and apocryphal texts like the Nag Hammadi gospels and the Gospel of Thomas, they tend to be in museums, not in the Vatican. The Nag Hammadi texts, for example, are housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

Weren't the they written 200 years after his death? Beside it's Gnostic nonsense.

[motiv-8]

I believe another tool used to help corroborate the historical Jesus is archaeology.. the recently rediscovered Pool of Siloam, etc. etc..

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the current digs to fully understand how they work into the historical Jesus field.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Wow, Thiu, creating a thread starting with the quote of me and not inviting me for the discussion, that's really nice of you!

Anyway, I saw Tankbuster read and summarized the wiki article on Jesus' existence, one couldn't possibly want more than having a disemboweled wiki article as munition. He completely disregards the gnostic gospels, and the references of other witnesses of Jesus' life, such as Saint Paul, who undoubtedly lived too - the evidence at hand is simply overwhelming. There are also evidences - albeit disputed - of Jesus related to Buddhism through the Essenes. There are over 5000 historical source documents to support the validity of the New Testament, much more than any other ancient book. All the Gospels were published within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses, and yet there’s no record of anyone ever refuting their veracity.

I wonder how stupid Jesus mythers really feel when they are disproved from time to time. Perhaps when their heads are smashed to the wall, they will start thinking.

Whether he existed or not is irrelevent....
He wasn't the son of the Jewish God, regardless of how many gentiles go around thinking so these days.

Whether what you think is irrelevant in this matter, since you are by definition a dogmatic.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Wow, Thiu, creating a thread starting with the quote of me and not inviting me for the discussion, that's really nice of you!

Eh? I put a link to this thread on the thread it split off from. What did you want, a gilt edged invitation delivered to your door on a silk cushion?

Anyway, I saw Tankbuster read and summarized the wiki article on Jesus' existence, one couldn't possibly want more than having a disemboweled wiki article as munition.

I'll let Tankbuster comment on where he got the information in his summary from, the fact remains that the extra-Biblical references to Jesus as historical figure rather than as the focus of the Christian sect boil down to (i) Josephus and (ii) Tacitus.

He completely disregards the gnostic gospels,

Because they are too late and too allegorical/symbolic to be regarded as any kind of evidence for a historical Jesus.

and the references of other witnesses of Jesus' life, such as Saint Paul,

Because we are talking about extra-Biblical references to Jesus. And Paul gives no indication that he ever knew Jesus during his life. The reference by Paul to meeting Jesus' brother James in Galatians is good evidence Jesus existed (since myths don't have flesh and blood brothers), but it isn't extra-Biblical.

the evidence at hand is simply overwhelming.

The extra-Biblical evidence is sufficient, but hardly "overwhelming".

There are also evidences - albeit disputed - of Jesus related to Buddhism through the Essenes.

There's the understatement of the thread!

There are over 5000 historical source documents to support the validity of the New Testament, much more than any other ancient book.

*Sniff sniff* Smells like more apologetic nonsense; a bit like poor old boofhead's "Jesus/Caesar" garbage. But the "support" (whatever that means) that some documents give to the "validity" (whatever that means) of the NT isn't under discussion here. The existence of Jesus is. And there are precisely two sources that support that outside the Bible: (i) Josephus and (ii) Tacitus

All the Gospels were published within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses, and yet there’s no record of anyone ever refuting their veracity.

Given that during the lifetimes of those eyewitnesses Jesus' followers were a tiny little sect of Jews numbering no more than a few score or less, this isn't exactly surprising. What is clear is that when Christianity became big enough for objections to it to register in the textual record, its critics clearly had a well-developed repertoire of objections, some of which give signs of having been around for a very long time (eg the accusation that Jesus was illegitimate - something even the earliest gospel writers were obviously trying to counter).