JESUS CHRIST: Myth or Historical Person?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]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.

Highlights on Tacitus: A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome."


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 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). He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. Flavius Josephus belonged to the group of Jewish religious leaders--the Pharisees--responsible for Jesus' death.

Flavius Josephus joined the zealots who rebelled against Roman rule between 66 and 74 AD, becoming a leader of their forces in Galilee, and living through the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. He was captured by the Romans, and would have been executed, but he went over to their side and ended up becoming the Roman emperor's Adviser on Jewish Affairs.


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 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.


DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. All three of the individuals described above were people in powerful positions. What did they have to gain from mentioning the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings?

2. Flavius Josephus, a Jew, was born 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?

3. 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?[/font]

[McCulloch]

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.

While some non-believers do claim that the evidence that Jesus existed is confined to the pages of the Bible, most, in my view, recognize that this is an overstatement. A truer claim is that almost all of what we know about Jesus comes to us from the writers of the New Testament. Any non-Christian source attesting to the historicity of Jesus, is secondary and could have gotten their information from the Christians.

Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Historian
DOB to Date of Death: A.D. 55 to A.D. 120

He was born about two decades after Jesus was said to have died. His Annuls, to which you refer was probably written near the end of his life, about 116AD. He could very well have been merely repeating what he had heard from the Christians, a movement which would have been gaining steam about then.

Attitude Towards Christianity: Hostile

He was not a Christian, but is he on record as being hostile?

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

Tacitus, who could not have been there to witness the execution, does not provide his source, however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator.

Highlights on Tacitus: A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome."

Being that he was a historian, he knew well that the Romans executed many Jewish rebels and would be messiahs. He also heard from the Christians that their messianic claimant was executed. It contradicted nothing that he knew, so he may have included that fact.

Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian
DOB to Date of Death: 37 AD -- Died after 100 AD

Another source born after all the events had transpired. What he is alleged to have written about Jesus was written around 93"94 AD.

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

His discussion of the Death of Jesus is less controversial than the miracle bit. Essentially, the same argument as above, against Tacitus. The Testimonium Flavianum is the most disputed passage in all of Josephus' writings and perhaps in all ancient literature. Scholars have differing views on its authenticity. The general scholarly view is that the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety.

Pliny The Younger (born Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus), Roman Governor
DOB to Date of Death: 61 AD to 112 AD

Another posthumous witness.

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

This is an accurate representation of the views of the late first century Christians.

None of these witnesses are enough to convince me from my agnosticism regarding the historical existence of Jesus. He may have existed. If he existed, he was most probably executed by the Romans. He was probably not buried. There is no evidence of any significant upheaval in Jerusalem at the time of his death. The movement he is said to have founded, remained under the radar, practically unnoticed for several decades.

[Goat]

[font=Verdana]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.

Highlights on Tacitus: A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome."


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 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). He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. Flavius Josephus belonged to the group of Jewish religious leaders--the Pharisees--responsible for Jesus' death.

Flavius Josephus joined the zealots who rebelled against Roman rule between 66 and 74 AD, becoming a leader of their forces in Galilee, and living through the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. He was captured by the Romans, and would have been executed, but he went over to their side and ended up becoming the Roman emperor's Adviser on Jewish Affairs.


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 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.


DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. All three of the individuals described above were people in powerful positions. What did they have to gain from mentioning the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings?

Let's take them one at a time... .. and see what they said, and the confidence level of their comments.

2. Flavius Josephus, a Jew, was born 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?

There were two mentions.. the first one , (antiquities 18) has been acknowledged to have at least been highly modified... with a number of people thinking it was a
total insertion (i.e. forgery). Since it is acknowledged that it has been highly modified to start with, before it is accepted as evidence, there has to be some actual evidence that it existed before it was quoted by Eurusibus in the 4th century.

As for Antiquities 20, since its phrase 'the one called Christ' is so similar to 3 separate phrases in the Gospels, it can not be shown to be original with Josephus either. It also could be referring to Jesus, the high priest., who is mentioned in the same passage, since the high priest was a Christ also (anointed).

3. 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?[/font]

Now, Tacitus' writing was done in 110 C.E, has some anachronisms (called Pilate a procurer for example), and doing nothing that was not being promoted by the Christians of that era. The source of his information is unknown... but if the quote is genuine, it is most likely gotten through Christians.

On the other hand, the earliest knowledge of this quote is in the 15th century, when ti was 'discovered' in a Christian monastery. None of the early Christian fathers knew about it,nor was it quoted before. So, best case for it being accurate information is 'he probably got his information from Christians'.

As for Pliny, he definitely got his information about Jesus from the torture of some Christians. This is clear evidence that Christians existed in 110 C.E. and were annoying to the Roman Empire since they didn't accept the worship of the Emperor as God. Since he got his information from Christians, we can not separate the Jesus of the myth from a historical person from his letters.

So, summation.. Josephus is too corrupted to accepted as evidence of anything about Jesus, and the other two got information from Christians (if Tacitus is genuine ... that's the best case scenario).

As extra biblical evidence for a historical Jesus, those three sources are extremely weak, or suspect.

Those sources are not strong enough to conclude there was a historical person behind the myth. While it is likely, just because that is a simple solution to 'why there is this story to begin with' it is not conclusive. The other simple solution is that the Jesus in the bible is an number of different preachers of that time period.

Of course, just because there was an historical person the stories were based on doesn't mean the Jesus of the Bible is NOT a myth. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

[Clownboat]

[font=Verdana]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.

Do you still believe those sources "hook, line and sinker" now that you have been shown why the credibility is questioned?
I can only assume this is new information for you, otherwise I don't see why you would question this as a favorite argument by non-believers.

I wonder why this does not bother Christians more myself.

Any thoughts as to why no writing (outside of the Bible) mentions the dead bodies walking around Jerusalem after the resurrection? Not news worthy at the time or what?

[Mithrae]

[font=Verdana]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. . . .


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.

There were two mentions.. the first one , (antiquities 18) has been acknowledged to have at least been highly modified... with a number of people thinking it was a
total insertion (i.e. forgery). Since it is acknowledged that it has been highly modified to start with, before it is accepted as evidence, there has to be some actual evidence that it existed before it was quoted by Eurusibus in the 4th century.

As for Antiquities 20, since its phrase 'the one called Christ' is so similar to 3 separate phrases in the Gospels, it can not be shown to be original with Josephus either. It also could be referring to Jesus, the high priest., who is mentioned in the same passage, since the high priest was a Christ also (anointed).

Hi Alter2Ego, and welcome to the forum. As you would have seen, some of the concerns about the evidence value of these sources are valid - particularly in the case of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 18 (the Testimonium Flavianum). As Goat and McCulloch have pointed out, it's universally agreed (even by Christian apologists) that Josephus' comments about the miracles and death of this Jesus fellow were tampered with by Christians. For me it's been a very long road of learning from being a 17 year-old Christian reading Josh McDowall's apologetics to the alcoholic cynical bastard that I am today, but I still think it's very unfortunate that there's many Christian sites and authors out there who really seem intent on telling only half the story or not presenting an honest view. Fortunately debating is a wonderful chance for us all to learn a whole lot more

In the case of Josephus' reference to the death of James the brother of Jesus (Antiquities 20), Goat and I have enjoyed locking horns on several occasions in the past. As he mentions, there are essentially two views sceptical of whether Josephus made reference to the Christian Jesus in this passage, one being that the 'Christ' comment is not genuine and the other that it's not referring to the Christian Jesus.

• Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1
  AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees,[23] who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.[24] Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

A different Jesus: This is the fall-back position, on the occasions I've encountered it at least. The theory runs that on this one single occasion that Josephus uses the term 'christ' - which happens to be someone called Jesus with a brother called James - it's most likely that it doesn't refer to the Christian Jesus. From the writings of Paul we can deduce that Jesus' brother James lived in Jerusalem at least into the 6th decade of the first century (Galatians 2). The 2nd century Jewish-Christian church chronicler Hegesippus writes about the death of Jesus' brother James (also called James the Just), an apparently embellished account which in its core details says that he was killed by Jerusalem's religious authorities shortly before the Jewish revolt. Nevertheless, the fall-back position of some sceptics is that when Josephus writes about the death of James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, at the hands of Jerusalem's religious authorities not long before the Jewish revolt, it probably refers to the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus who then became high priest briefly. Why Josephus, on this single occasion, used the term 'christ' to describe that individual remains an article of faith as far as I can tell.


A Christian interpolation: The Christian Jesus was called Christ, obviously and vehemently, and it's hard to consider it particularly unusual if Josephus identified this James by reference to his brother better known in the gentile world. So as Goat implies, the 'smoking gun' used to suggest Christian tampering in this passage is a similarity with passages in the gospels. Unfortunately what Goat doesn't mention (in the manner of the aforementioned Christian apologists, much as I hate to say it) is that since 'Jesus' and 'Christ' are exceptionally common words in the gospels, this remarkable similarity between gospels and Josephus consists of two words - and they're in a different case in Josephus than in the gospels!

Moreover, one of the reasons that we know the Testimonium Flavianum was tampered with is because the Christian author Origen (early 3rd century) didn't quote it, and in fact specifically says contrary to the TF that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. So Origen obviously possessed copies of the works of Josephus which had not been tampered with by the TF interpolator... but on no less than three separate occasions he quotes this passage regarding the death of James. From this post discussing the supposed Josephus/gospel similarity:

• Hi Goat. We discussed this a while back and as you know it's not quite the same as found in the bible:
  • John 4:25 - The woman said to Him, I know that Messiah is coming (who is called Christ). When He comes, He will tell us all things.
    ho legomenos Christos (source)
    
    Matthew 1:16 - And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ
    Iesous ho legomenos Christos (source)
    
    Josephus Ant. 20.9.1 - ...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others...
    ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
    
    Origen Com. on Matt 10.17 - ...in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is that, though he [Josephus] did not accept Jesus as Christ...
    ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source)
    
    Origen Contra C. 2.13 - ...whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
    ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou (source above)
    
    Origen Contra C. 1.47 - ...says nevertheless"being, although against his will, not far from the truth"that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)...
    adelphos I"sou tou legomenou Christou (d.thomas' transliteration; though the source above has adelphon again)
  
  The connection with the gospels consists of two words in a different case, which on one single occasion are used to identify Jesus as Christ in a peculiar manner. It's absurd to imagine that this was the basis for Origen using a larger phrase identically on three separate occasions, each time referencing it to to Josephus (mentioning Antiquities specifically on two of them, contrary to your claim).

You may also be interested in reading Goat's reply and my further thoughts. Essentially the view which Goat continues to promote involves the elements:
* That the similarity between the gospels' ho legomenos and Josephus/Origen's tou legomenou in describing this Jesus as a Christ is a remarkable enough comparison from which we can infer interpolation or scribal glossing between the two
* And given this, that the order of interpolation/glossing was
. . . from the Iesous ho legomenos Christos found in Matthew, to the ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou which Origen said he got from Josephus, and then later inserted word-for-word into Josephus' actual works (before their next recorded use by Eusebius early in the next century)
INSTEAD OF
. . . from the ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou found in Josephus, to the ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou which Origen said he got from Josephus in his Commentary on Matthew, and then later glossed into Matthew in a vague manner (before the earliest extant copies of Matthew early in the next century)

Personally I find both of those points quite dubious, but I guess it'd be a funny world if we were all alike. However I find this Josephus passage particularly interesting since Josephus was living in Jerusalem at the time of these events (c. 62CE). That would mean that, along with Paul, we have two primary sources regarding this fellow James who was known as the brother of Jesus called Christ. Of course, as occurred later in that thread I linked, then there's always the sceptics who say that someone being known as the 'brother of Christ' doesn't really mean that they were the brother of Christ...

[Flail]

[font=Verdana]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.

Highlights on Tacitus: A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome."


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 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). He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. Flavius Josephus belonged to the group of Jewish religious leaders--the Pharisees--responsible for Jesus' death.

Flavius Josephus joined the zealots who rebelled against Roman rule between 66 and 74 AD, becoming a leader of their forces in Galilee, and living through the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. He was captured by the Romans, and would have been executed, but he went over to their side and ended up becoming the Roman emperor's Adviser on Jewish Affairs.


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 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.


DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. All three of the individuals described above were people in powerful positions. What did they have to gain from mentioning the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings?

2. Flavius Josephus, a Jew, was born 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?

3. 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?[/font]

I have some questions for the experts here:
Do we know the source material for these historians' writings on the subject of Jesus? Did these historians attribute their claims and statements or just make assertions without reference to source? Which witnesses did they interview; which documents and writings did they examine? What investigation did they conduct to verify sources and credibility of witnesses interviewed? Were these historians merely repeating what had or was becomin legendary among Christian faithful from oral traditions?

[Goat]

[font=Verdana]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.

Highlights on Tacitus: A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome."


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 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). He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. Flavius Josephus belonged to the group of Jewish religious leaders--the Pharisees--responsible for Jesus' death.

Flavius Josephus joined the zealots who rebelled against Roman rule between 66 and 74 AD, becoming a leader of their forces in Galilee, and living through the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. He was captured by the Romans, and would have been executed, but he went over to their side and ended up becoming the Roman emperor's Adviser on Jewish Affairs.


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 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.


DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. All three of the individuals described above were people in powerful positions. What did they have to gain from mentioning the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings?

2. Flavius Josephus, a Jew, was born 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?

3. 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?[/font]

I have some questions for the experts here:
Do we know the source material for these historians' writings on the subject of Jesus? Did these historians attribute their claims and statements or just make assertions without reference to source? Which witnesses did they interview; which documents and writings did they examine? What investigation did they conduct to verify sources and credibility of witnesses interviewed? Were these historians merely repeating what had or was becomin legendary among Christian faithful from oral traditions?

We know the source from Pliny the younger... he got it from the torture of Christians. We do not know the source of Josephus' idea or tacitus. It is more than a little bit likely that Josephus was later addition (i.e. forgery). There is some anachronisms on Tacitus, so it makes his account weak at best.

[Flail]

[font=Verdana]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.

Highlights on Tacitus: A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome."


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 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). He has been credited by many as recording some of the earliest history of Jesus Christ outside of the gospels. Flavius Josephus belonged to the group of Jewish religious leaders--the Pharisees--responsible for Jesus' death.

Flavius Josephus joined the zealots who rebelled against Roman rule between 66 and 74 AD, becoming a leader of their forces in Galilee, and living through the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. He was captured by the Romans, and would have been executed, but he went over to their side and ended up becoming the Roman emperor's Adviser on Jewish Affairs.


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 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.


DEBATE QUESTIONS:
1. All three of the individuals described above were people in powerful positions. What did they have to gain from mentioning the existence of Jesus Christ in their writings?

2. Flavius Josephus, a Jew, was born 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?

3. 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?[/font]

Some Christians claim that the Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and also Paul were historians. We don't know enough about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John to know what they were other than that they were zealots, which clearly places them in the bias column and thus discredited as historians.

As to Paul we know a little more. We know that he too was a zealot and therefore bias. We also know from his own admission that Paul obtained much of his source material from an unwitnessed visitation with a man who had been dead for many years and whom he thought was a God. So we can place Paul in the deluded column as well.

[Slopeshoulder]

Oh not this again.

Jesus, like Elvis and countless gurus and heroes, was both. He is considered by mainstream historians to be quite real, to have lived and taught in a place and time, and to have emphasized certain themes that made their way into christianity.
He is also mythologized, as legends, magical stories, and archetypal interpretive meaning frameworks got attached to him.

A myth, in lit crit and hermeneutics, is not a tall tale or a lie, it is a story that is considered classic, and has rich archetypal meaning. People who say the word myth and mean tall tale or lie don't know what they're talking about, and when this is applied to religion and ancient sacred texts, they double the error. OF COURSE it's a myth, that's the point.

Jesus was a historical person and is a myth. Historical Jesus person and Cosmic Christos symbol. Both. It's Christology 101, now playing at your local div school or religious studies department.

I can understand identifying legendary and mythic elements for what they are, but this occasional desire to debunk his very existence is beyond me. Strikes me as a conspiracy theory wrapped in a wank rag. (I defy you to come up with a better image! )

What's the problem? Can we put this one to rest?

[Mithrae]

Some Christians claim that the Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and also Paul were historians. We don't know enough about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John to know what they were other than that they were zealots, which clearly places them in the bias column and thus discredited as historians.

From Wikipedia, "Zealotry was originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70)." It's curious that in claiming that these sources are discredited as historians, you yourself show either a remarkable ignorance of that very period in history, or a callous disregard for precision and clarity when discussing it. So rather than simply taking your word for all this, I wonder if you can support these assertions with evidence?

As to Paul we know a little more. We know that he too was a zealot and therefore bias. We also know from his own admission that Paul obtained much of his source material from an unwitnessed visitation with a man who had been dead for many years and whom he thought was a God. So we can place Paul in the deluded column as well.

Could you show where in Paul's writings you get this information from? I'm not familiar with it myself.

Also I wonder what criteria you used to come up with this 'deluded' column, and how you believe being in that column affects the way we should view the information available to us from various ancient and modern folk who fit in it?

Sorry to be a pain, but I'd like to think that discussion of historical possibilities should consist of a little more than insult -> blanket dismissal