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]

[Tor]

Many people have some knowledge about the teachings of Jesus and the Church. One of the dogmas of the Church is belief in hell.
Jesus Christ is a myth to those whose conscience is guilty and weighs heavy on them; so to justify their immoral behavior and to quite down the voice of their conscience they say, Jesus is just a myth. It feels a little more comforting to them to deny God's existance and His revelation to us.

[McCulloch]

Oh not this again.
[...]
What's the problem? Can we put this one to rest?

* sigh * probably not. As long as people keep trotting out the following, the message from scholarly theology is not getting through to the masses. Modern Christian theology needs better PR.

Many people have some knowledge about the teachings of Jesus and the Church. One of the dogmas of the Church is belief in hell.
Jesus Christ is a myth to those whose conscience is guilty and weighs heavy on them; so to justify their immoral behavior and to quite down the voice of their conscience they say, Jesus is just a myth. It feels a little more comforting to them to deny God's existance and His revelation to us.

This is utter nonsense. I, for example, have as much or more knowledge about Jesus and the churches as most professing Christians. My reasons for leaving Christianity have nothing to do with conscience, guilt or immoral behavior. I do not find that my denial of God's existence or my denial of the inspiration of the New Testament are particularly comforting. The thought that this life is all that I will ever experience can be a disturbing and unsettling thought. Divine forgiveness and the possibility of an eternal blissful afterlife, those are comforting doctrines. And to my mind, wishful thinking.

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

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.

Mithrae wrote:

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?

You have misrepresented my statement. If you will re-read, I used a small 'z' zealot as a common noun which, as per my 21st century dictionary, means a fanatic who is uncompromising in pursuit of religious ideals. You mistakenly reference 'Zealot', with a capital Z, a proper noun usage, and a member of an ancient Jewish sect. Then you use your erroneous reference to castigate my post as remarkably ignorant and in callous disregard for precision???? I would say that you show a callous disregard for and imprecision in the use of both a dictionary and the rules of grammar.

Flail wrote:

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.

Mithrae wrote:

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

You can do some basic research by googling the Apostle Paul and therein find Biblical reference to his letters quoted in the Bible wherein he claimed to have the referenced visitation from Jesus.
Mithrae wrote:

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?

My personal experience in representing many people in mental commitment proceedings who claimed to have had religious visions of the supernatural and my wife's personal experience in treating such patients for mental illness leads to my opinion of Paul and my placement of him in the deluded column. I fear he had been misled in his beliefs by his mental condition at the time. Otherwise one would have to conclude that he actually conversed with the dead/God. If that is what you believe please advise.

[Alter2Ego]

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.

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.

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.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- MCCULLOCH

You are desperately attempting to explain away the writings of respectable historians. Look at your quoted text above, and focus on the words that I highlighted in red. All of your arguments against the authenticity of these men--who were reputable historians and well-respected by their contemporaries--amounts to your personal opinions/speculations. This is a public forum where everybody has an opinion. Therefore, nobody's opinion is more valid than anyone elses. Unless you can present EVIDENCE to prove what you're saying, none of your objections hold water.

FYI: It's not necessary for an experienced and qualified historian to live within the same century of the person about whom he/she writes or be an eyewitness to events of import. All that's required is that the historian be skilled in research and that he/she has access to credible documentation--which is the case with all three of the individuals I used in my opening post. I might add that there are several other people who mentioned Jesus Christ in their writings. I selected these three because of their established places in history and their notoriety (Pliny the Younger) or because of their positions of great prominence (Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus).

Next you will be arguing that the historians of the 20th century who wrote books about the "founding fathers" of the USA took a time machine back a few centuries and were eyewitnesses of these people.

Cornelius Tacitus lived through the reign of several Roman emperors and was described as the greatest historian of his time. In other words, he did excellent research and historical reporting in order to have earned such a reputation. Are you suggesting that everything he wrote (for which he earned the prominence of "greatest historian") is accurate--except what he wrote about Jesus Christ?


Your objections to what Tacitus wrote amounts to nitpicking when you said:

"some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator."


That's your opinion and the opinion of "some scholars" as to what title Tacitus should have assigned to Pilate. Either of the two titles "prefect" or "procurator" are correct. Who are you or anybody else to complain about which title Tacitus should have assigned to Pilate in his historical writings? Below is the dictionary definition of both words.

DEFINITION OF "PREFECT"
in ancient Rome, any of various high-ranking officials or chief magistrates in charge of governmental or military departments
http://www.yourdictionary.com/prefect


DEFINITION OF "PROCURATOR"
an official of ancient Rome who managed the financial affairs of a province or acted as governor of a lesser province
http://www.yourdictionary.com/procurator[/font]

[Alter2Ego]

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.

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.

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.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- MCCULLOCH

Again, you're attempting to explain away the writings of respectable historians. Notice the red-highlighted portion of your quoted text above with reference to Flavius Josephus. I suggest you go back and read what I said about Flavius Josephus in my opening post. He was a Jewish Pharisee--which gave him a position of power among the Jews and access to records of executed Jews. He was also the Roman Emperor's Advisor, which further gave him access to the death records of people that had been executed by the Romans.

Pliny the Younger (born Gaius Caecilius or Gaius Caecilius Cilo and lived from 61 AD to 112 AD) was a 1st century Roman governor who routinely executed Christians, regardless of whether they were adults or children--if they either refused to curse Christ or would not deny they were Christians. Below is an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Emperor Trajan of Rome in which he wondered belatedly if he should spare the children and kill only the adults. His letter confirms that Jesus Christ existed in history. To read the full letter, you can use the link that's at the end of this post.


[center]EXCERPTED LETTER FROM PLINY THE YOUNGER TO ROMAN EMPEROR TRAJAN[/center]

Pliny Queried as to Whether he Should Spare the Lives of Children and Execute Only the Adults
"I have never been present at the examination of the Christians [by others], on which account I am unacquainted with what uses to be inquired into, and what, and how far they used to be punished; nor are my doubts small, whether there be not a distinction to be made between the ages [of the accused]? and whether tender youth ought to have the same punishment with strong men?"


Pliny Wrote That He Used Threats to Get Christians to Recant. Those Who Didn't Recant Were Executed.
"I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished."


Pliny Wrote That He Spared Those Who Submitted To Image Worship And Those Who Cursed Christ In His Presence.
"These denied that they were Christians now, or ever had been. They called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are ready Christians be compelled to do; so I thought fit to let them go. All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ.


Pliny Wrote That He Tortured Some Into Recanting Their Christian Beliefs
"These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition.[/font]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... pliny.html

[JoeyKnothead]

Many people have some knowledge about the teachings of Jesus and the Church. One of the dogmas of the Church is belief in hell.
Jesus Christ is a myth to those whose conscience is guilty and weighs heavy on them; so to justify their immoral behavior and to quite down the voice of their conscience they say, Jesus is just a myth. It feels a little more comforting to them to deny God's existance and His revelation to us.

How long will we continue to face these sorts of slanders before the mods decide to do something about it?

It's not enough these holy books are so condemning of so many of us, but do we really need this sort of bigotry to show us the Christians on this site are allowed to insult us anytime they want?

No, I didn't bother reporting the post, as a recent report along these same lines went, for lack of a better term, ignored.

If this is what passes for 'civil' around here, I propose we just move this site over to 4chan.

[Alter2Ego]

Many people have some knowledge about the teachings of Jesus and the Church. One of the dogmas of the Church is belief in hell.
Jesus Christ is a myth to those whose conscience is guilty and weighs heavy on them; so to justify their immoral behavior and to quite down the voice of their conscience they say, Jesus is just a myth. It feels a little more comforting to them to deny God's existance and His revelation to us.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- TOR:

You nailed it down when you stated the reason why some reject God, the Bible, and Jesus: they don't want to be accountable for their bad behavior, and so they feel that if they deny the existence of the Creator and his son, this will free them up to do as they please. Well, it doesn't work that way. That's like driving through a red light and claiming: "I don't believe in traffic laws; so I'm not accountable for violating traffic laws."

Regardless of whether or not people acknowledge the existence of Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ, they will still be held accountable for whatever wrongdoings they commit.

BTW: The hellfire teaching is of pagan origin and is not a Bible teaching. I started up a thread on that topic called: "Is Hellfire A Bible Teaching". You can find it easily by means of the following link.[/font]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=19223

[Haven]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't "reject Christ" because of my "bad behavior." I don't have any "bad behavior." I try to live a good, moral life, help others, live within my means, obey the law, and do what is right, not what is easy. I place the needs of others above my own. I avoid violence and try to live at peace with all living things.

The reason I "reject Christ" is that there is no evidence that he was who the Bible says he was. Whether or not Jesus existed as a historical person is irrelevant to me; he was just a man, a man with a few reasonably good teachings, but just a man. He wasn't a god.

In fact, there are almost certainly no gods or supernatural beings of any kind. Gods are an entirely human construct, invented by our ancestors to explain the unexplainable. As humanity's knowledge has increased, we have discovered naturalistic explanations for the previously unexplainable phenomena once ascribed to gods. Thunder, lighting, and rain were once attributed to divine action, now, we know and understand the naturalistic causes behind these phenomena.

I am confident that one day science will discover the answer to the ultimate question -- "why does reality exist?" -- and yes, that answer will be entirely mundane and naturalistic. At that point there will be no more need for gods, and humanity can throw off ancient superstitions and move forward using love, understanding, logic, reason, rationality, philosophy, science, and ethics to light the way in our lives.

[Goat]

Many people have some knowledge about the teachings of Jesus and the Church. One of the dogmas of the Church is belief in hell.
Jesus Christ is a myth to those whose conscience is guilty and weighs heavy on them; so to justify their immoral behavior and to quite down the voice of their conscience they say, Jesus is just a myth. It feels a little more comforting to them to deny God's existance and His revelation to us.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- TOR:

You nailed it down when you stated the reason why some reject God, the Bible, and Jesus: they don't want to be accountable for their bad behavior, and so they feel that if they deny the existence of the Creator and his son, this will free them up to do as they please. Well, it doesn't work that way. That's like driving through a red light and claiming: "I don't believe in traffic laws; so I'm not accountable for violating traffic laws."

Regardless of whether or not people acknowledge the existence of Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ, they will still be held accountable for whatever wrongdoings they commit.

Except for referring to religious promotional material, please provide some kind of evidence that there is a 'Jehovah' and Jesus was his 'son'. Can you show that your claims are true, and that you are just not promoting a mythical story?

[Flail]

Alter2Ego wrote:

You nailed it down when you stated the reason why some reject God, the Bible, and Jesus: they don't want to be accountable for their bad behavior, and so they feel that if they deny the existence of the Creator and his son, this will free them up to do as they please. Well, it doesn't work that way. That's like driving through a red light and claiming: "I don't believe in traffic laws; so I'm not accountable for violating traffic laws."

Huh? I thought it was you who sought to be forgiven and relieved of responsibility for your wrongdoings from your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

I for one have absolutely no problem being accountable for my wrongdoings...none at all. In fact, accountability is the only coherent way to look at failings IMO. It's accountability that motivates us toward improvement is it not? Why do you find it so hard to live with your own accountability? Are you that bad?