I absolutely love the selective use of "evidence"!
"Yeah ... it proves Jesus exists because it mentions Jesus ... but he didn't have a wife! No! Definitely not! I know it mentions his wife, but that ... em ... that doesn't mean his wife. It's just a figure of speech. His wife just means any wife!"
"So, presumably the word "Jesus" could just mean any preacher?"
Using documents from the period from Jesus's time.
Oh really? Apart from the fact he was doing a hatchet job on Nero, so the Christians rather than Jews being blamed for the Great Fire is open for debate, there's the possibility he was familiar with the basis of Christianity by the time he wrote his history, and wasn't relying on other documents, and/or maybe even knew early drafts of the Gospels.
Oh really? Apart from the fact he was doing a hatchet job on Nero, so the Christians rather than Jews being blamed for the Great Fire is open for debate, there's the possibility he was familiar with the basis of Christianity by the time he wrote his history, and wasn't relying on other documents, and/or maybe even knew early drafts of the Gospels.
How in heck is a scrap of paper dated as from the 7th - 9th century proof that Jesus existed?
Its no wonder people continually quote texts mentioning Jesus from decades or centuries after he supposedly lived and claim that constitutes contemporary evidence.
I think you misunderstand what evidence is. You made a statement that Tacitus used documents from Jesus' lifetime. If that was true then why make Tacitus your choice, show his sources.
I merely pointed out there are reasonable explanations why Tacitus wrote what he did, without jumping to "inside knowledge of prior documents".
I think you misunderstand what evidence is. You made a statement that Tacitus used documents from Jesus' lifetime. If that was true then why make Tacitus your choice, show his sources.
I merely pointed out there are reasonable reasons why Tacitus wrote what he did, without jumping to "inside knowledge".
That is true with most historical events, wriiten by the winners.
The common consenus from modern day scholars from all beliefs and non beliefs is that a man Called Jesus was crucified under the reign Tiberius.
But where is the evidence. The Romans were some of the best record keepers in history but he isn't mentioned in any record during the period he should have been around based on Biblical accounts. The few Roman mentions of him come in two accounts that are been 70 and 90 years later. If there was a Radical preacher who was enough of a throne in the side of them that they felt he needed to be crucified surely there should be more records of him.
I suspect that in reality Jesus is like Robin Hood. Its lots of different people and different stories that over the years have been amalgamated into single mythological person
We consider Jesus important, but the historical Jesus, if he consider the gospels as a starting point, would not be worth mentioning at all. So it's not surprising he's not referred to by the romans. There were masses of preachers and masses of people crucified, in the big scheme of things he did not make at all a mark for roman history at that particular time.
I studied History and the truth is with the amount of information written about Jesus, and the fact that very early christians did exist and where referred to, is enough to consider an anonymous person as been historically real. Jesus does not have to be treated differently because he became, he wasn't at the start, this staggering figure.
Ah that vast collection of documents from 'Jesus time' that went missing after he wrote his two very basic passing references to Jesus. Its amazing how the people who kept records on everything managed to lose all of them but were able to keep two small passages safe isn't it.
And why did Philo who recorded vast amounts of events from the area in the 'Time of Jesus' failed to mention Jesus at all.
That is true with most historical events, wriiten by the winners.
The common consenus from modern day scholars from all beliefs and non beliefs is that a man Called Jesus was crucified under the reign Tiberius.
Common consensus doesn't make it true though. The closer you go back to the original time, the closer you get to the truth. Which is why Tacitus doesn't make Jesus real, but more it's a good historical piece on the birth of Christianity.
As there are no known documents about Jesus from his lifetime, nobody can state with 100% certainty that he was real. Well they shouldn't but you know faith.
But note that even the one the supports it makes several references to historians who do not accept it - and even states their disappointment that this passage is not held as particularly important in historical circles.
Comments
I am sorry, but he was.
link to said documents? Would love to read these documents. Thanks in advance for your help.
I don't think he was. As far as i understand there is no proof he existed at all.
Written about in Roman documents during his lifetime? He wasn't.
The closest you will get to outside Biblical accounts is Josephus, in an aside and a fake entry. After that it's the turn of the Century.
I absolutely love the selective use of "evidence"!
"Yeah ... it proves Jesus exists because it mentions Jesus ... but he didn't have a wife! No! Definitely not! I know it mentions his wife, but that ... em ... that doesn't mean his wife. It's just a figure of speech. His wife just means any wife!"
"So, presumably the word "Jesus" could just mean any preacher?"
"Oh no! Definitely not! We have proof!"
Written in 116CE
Using documents from the period of Jesus's time.
Oh really? Apart from the fact he was doing a hatchet job on Nero, so the Christians rather than Jews being blamed for the Great Fire is open for debate, there's the possibility he was familiar with the basis of Christianity by the time he wrote his history, and wasn't relying on other documents, and/or maybe even knew early drafts of the Gospels.
The next question the judge would ask is "do you have access to these documents?". If you don't he will dismiss the hearsay from the case.
Evidence?
Evidence of what?
Its no wonder people continually quote texts mentioning Jesus from decades or centuries after he supposedly lived and claim that constitutes contemporary evidence.
Dare I say it, but...Jesus Wept.
So we can ignore a bulk of the history of the world then.
Your opinions on Tacitus.
I think you misunderstand what evidence is. You made a statement that Tacitus used documents from Jesus' lifetime. If that was true then why make Tacitus your choice, show his sources.
I merely pointed out there are reasonable explanations why Tacitus wrote what he did, without jumping to "inside knowledge of prior documents".
That is true with most historical events, wriiten by the winners.
The common consenus from modern day scholars from all beliefs and non beliefs is that a man Called Jesus was crucified under the reign Tiberius.
We consider Jesus important, but the historical Jesus, if he consider the gospels as a starting point, would not be worth mentioning at all. So it's not surprising he's not referred to by the romans. There were masses of preachers and masses of people crucified, in the big scheme of things he did not make at all a mark for roman history at that particular time.
I studied History and the truth is with the amount of information written about Jesus, and the fact that very early christians did exist and where referred to, is enough to consider an anonymous person as been historically real. Jesus does not have to be treated differently because he became, he wasn't at the start, this staggering figure.
Ah that vast collection of documents from 'Jesus time' that went missing after he wrote his two very basic passing references to Jesus. Its amazing how the people who kept records on everything managed to lose all of them but were able to keep two small passages safe isn't it.
And why did Philo who recorded vast amounts of events from the area in the 'Time of Jesus' failed to mention Jesus at all.
Common consensus doesn't make it true though. The closer you go back to the original time, the closer you get to the truth. Which is why Tacitus doesn't make Jesus real, but more it's a good historical piece on the birth of Christianity.
As there are no known documents about Jesus from his lifetime, nobody can state with 100% certainty that he was real. Well they shouldn't but you know faith.
LOL
It really isn't and if you read up on it, you will see that there is massive disagreements on this one piece of evidence from Tacitus alone.
Here's quite a good summary against it;
http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/the-jesus-myth-tacitus/
and for the sake of balance, here is one that supports it;
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.php
But note that even the one the supports it makes several references to historians who do not accept it - and even states their disappointment that this passage is not held as particularly important in historical circles.