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]

[Alter2Ego]

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.

You will notice that both I and the person going by the screen name TOR said "some" or "many" people reject God/Jesus/the Bible because they don't want to be accountable for their bad behavior. I'm sure you will agree that neither the word "some" or "many" are equivalent to "all unbelievers."

[Flail]

Haven wrote:

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.

Agreed for the most part, but you should be careful castigating all possible supernatural beings just because of the nonsensical claims in the Bible. Of course first century propagandists almost surely got it all wrong about supernaturals, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything at all when it come to the truth does it?

[Goat]

You will notice that both I and the person going by the screen name TOR said "some" or "many" people reject God/Jesus/the Bible because they don't want to be accountable for their bad behavior. I'm sure you will agree that neither the word "some" or "many" are equivalent to "all unbelievers."

I challenge you to show evidence that the reason people are 'unbelievers' (anybody) is that they don't want to be accountable for their bad behavior.

[Alter2Ego]

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?

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- GOAT:

I believe I provided evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ in this thread by means of non-Christians from the 1st Century AD who mentioned him in their writings. That's hardly what I would describe as "religious promotional material." It's not my problem if people reject the evidence.

I also just started a thread in which I am beginning to provide non-religious, scientific evidence of Jehovah God's existence, entitled: "Is Precision in Nature Evidence of God or Evolution?" You can read my first post therein by using the following weblink:[/font]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 69bce24ad8

[Goat]

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?

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- GOAT:

I believe I provided evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ in this thread by means of non-Christians from the 1st Century AD who mentioned him in their writings. That's hardly what I would describe as "religious promotional material." It's not my problem if people reject the evidence.

I also just started a thread in which I am beginning to provide non-religious, scientific evidence of Jehovah God's existence, entitled: "Is Precision in Nature Evidence of God or Evolution?" You can read my first post therein by using the following weblink:[/font]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 69bce24ad8

Well, the only that was 1st century was Josephus, and that is a forgery.

And, if you read Tacitus, it is unknown where he got this information, but he was early second century, had errors, so it shows he didn't get his information from a primary source, and probably got it from his friend Pliny, or Christians..

Sorry, but those are late enough, the information would be evidence for Christians, but not for Jesus.

I mean, it's pretty darn desperate to include a forgery.

[Alter2Ego]

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?

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- GOAT:

I believe I provided evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ in this thread by means of non-Christians from the 1st Century AD who mentioned him in their writings. That's hardly what I would describe as "religious promotional material." It's not my problem if people reject the evidence.

I also just started a thread in which I am beginning to provide non-religious, scientific evidence of Jehovah God's existence, entitled: "Is Precision in Nature Evidence of God or Evolution?" You can read my first post therein by using the following weblink:[/font]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 69bce24ad8

Well, the only that was 1st century was Josephus, and that is a forgery.

And, if you read Tacitus, it is unknown where he got this information, but he was early second century, had errors, so it shows he didn't get his information from a primary source, and probably got it from his friend Pliny, or Christians..

Sorry, but those are late enough, the information would be evidence for Christians, but not for Jesus.

I mean, it's pretty darn desperate to include a forgery.

[font=Verdana]Right, I see exactly where you're coming from. Everything Flavius Josephus wrote was accurate--except the parts where he mentioned Jesus Christ. Only the parts about Jesus Christ are forgeries, based upon yours and the opinions of other non-believers.

Understood. Got it![/font]

[Goat]

[font=Verdana]Right, I see exactly where you're coming from. Everything Flavius Josephus wrote was accurate--except the parts where he mentioned Jesus Christ. Only the parts about Jesus Christ are forgeries, based upon yours and the opinions of other non-believers.

Understood. Got it![/font]

Well, no, not at all. Josephus is not very accurate at all. And not, it's not just 'mine and other 'none believers opinion. Until Meier's came up with the 'partially authentic' concept, which to me appears to be clutching at straws, there was many people who thought the passage was a forgery. It is more than just opinion.. it is the preponderance of evidence.

Of course, that is not going to convince the 'True Believer' that needs to support their 'True Belief' with the most flimsy of evidence.

[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?

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.

I said either ignorant or a callous disregard for precision; misquoting what I've said kind of helps make that point. If someone discussing WW2 used uncapitalised 'nazi' to mean "a harshly domineering, dictatorial or intolerant person" as a basis for dismissing said person's views instead of the obvious meaning for the period, I would say that they were showing a callous disregard for precision and clarity also.

More to the point, I notice that you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were "fanatics who were uncompromising in pursuit of religious ideals," nor why that would invalidate them as historical sources.

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.

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.

I know where Paul mentions numerous people, including himself and Jesus' brother and chief disciple, who allegedly saw the risen Christ; and I know where he says that he consulted extensively with those others in confirmation of his core beliefs on the matter. I don't know where he wrote that he "obtained much of his source material from an unwitnessed visitation with a man who had been dead for many years." Please provide a reference for your claim.

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.

You haven't clarified how you believe being in the 'deluded column' affects the way we should view the information available to us from such people. But it sounds as though you think that any past or present person who supposedly communicates with the dead or with a God can be considered deluded and any information provided by them dismissed. Is that your view?

You entered the thread with what appeared to be some rigorous questioning of the sources and methodology involved in ancient references to Jesus. But when questioned on the assertions you've made regarding biblical authors, your answers so far have been vague and evasive. It almost sounds as though you think any writer who makes reference to the supernatural should be dismissed wholesale as a source of evidence. But if your position is more nuanced than that, I hope you can do us the courtesy of showing at least some of the thoroughness in justifying your own assertions as you have requested from others.

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

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.

Mithrae wrote:

I said either ignorant or a callous disregard for precision; misquoting what I've said kind of helps make that point.

Your parsing makes no point, but nice effort.
Mithrae wrote:

If someone discussing WW2 used uncapitalised 'nazi' to mean "a harshly domineering, dictatorial or intolerant person" as a basis for dismissing said person's views instead of the obvious meaning for the period, I would say that they were showing a callous disregard for precision and clarity also.

Wow, nazi with a small n....quite uncommon usage compared to zealot don't you think....parsing again...missing the point.

Mithrae wrote:

More to the point, I notice that you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were "fanatics who were uncompromising in pursuit of religious ideals," nor why that would invalidate them as historical sources.

As I stated we don't know much about any of them and offered my opinion that they were zealots.....since we don't know who they were, I was obviously speculating based upon my reading of the gospels...to me they seemed pretty uncompromising in their attitudes about the Christ and thus not impartial outside observers reporting as unbiased historians. Do you have a competing view or what's your point? What do you know about them?

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 are correct, I am not an expert in any of this and offered my opinions. My first post here (#6) asked questions of the experts here and you are obviously one of them.
I was referencing 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8 and also Acts (admittedly not his claims). My point was that those who claim these men were historians (not that you make that claim) were speculating in that we know very little about them and must therefore conjecture...and my response to the conjecture of Christians who claim them as historians despite knowing little about them was that such is no better than my speculations that they were biased zealots and that Paul had also talked directly to Jesus as claimed in Corinthians and expanded by Luke or someone in Acts. But you are right I have no actual facts to prove my speculations. Do you have facts to prove they were legitimate historians offering unbiased reports? My entire point was in reference to those who speculated they were historians.

I am a novice when it comes to the Bible and religion which is why I come here; to learn and have my weak points refuted and explained. Thank you.

I do have some expertise as to mental illness and that experience and my knowledge of those who are afflicted lead me to believe that people who insist they get direction from the dead and communicate directly with Gods are deluded.

I have obviously upset you and am just getting in the way of the thread...so I will bow out and concede and try to learn more from the experts here. Sorry for my intrusion on the topic.

[Mithrae]

My point was that those who claim these men were historians (not that you make that claim) were speculating in that we know very little about them and must therefore conjecture...and my response to the conjecture of Christians who claim them as historians despite knowing little about them was that such is no better than my speculations that they were biased zealots and that Paul had also talked directly to Jesus as claimed in Corinthians and expanded by Luke or someone in Acts. But you are right I have no actual facts to prove my speculations. Do you have facts to prove they were historians? My entire point was in reference to those who speculated they were historians.

I have obviously upset you and am just getting in the way of the thread...so I will bow out and concede and try to learn more from the experts here. Sorry for my intrusion on the topic.

We don't know enough about Matthew, Mark, Luke or John to know what they were other than that they were zealots. . . .
As to Paul we know a little more. We know that he too was a zealot and therefore bias...
~ Flail

It doesn't exactly come across as speculation, but your point is taken. We might summarize your post as "fundamentalists make exaggerated claims," perhaps?

And yes, it does upset me a tad when insults are used in place of evidence and analysis - especially following a post which requests from others many specifics of sources and methodology! You and I might recognise that valid information can be gleaned from sources whose views differ from our own - even radically different views - but I'm not sure that kind of rhetoric helps either the discussion itself nor any readers of the thread who might not be as informed as you on these issues.