Historical evidence of Jesus

May 2013
1,721
The abode of the lord of the north
About 14 decades actually - almost a century and a half between the alleged events and the gospels becoming known to outsiders to criticise.

Even the earliest Christian writer to show knowledge of the gospels was Justin Martyr, around 150 AD or so.

But the first pagan outsider to read and criticise the gospels wasn't until Celsus, around 170 AD or so (he called them fiction based on myths.)

Before then its just unclear comments like Paul's heavenly Christ.
I was talking about Tacitus' mention.
 
Nov 2018
12
Australia
I was talking about Tacitus' mention.
Well, Tacitus wrote about eleven decades after Jesus' alleged birth, and about eight decades after Jesus' alleged death.

Tacitus mentions only the bare details - he doesn't even give the name 'Jesus', but 'Christus' - which can not possibly have come from any Roman records, he is simply repeating Christian beliefs.

But so what ?
We already know Christians existed, and believed, in the early second century.

What exactly is your point ?
What do you think cannot happen in only 80 years or so ?

The Gospel of Mark could have been written in a week or so, myths can easily develop quickly.

Consider the WW2 belief in John Frum - that developed in only a few years into a full blown cult (some even believe he had a brother in Prince Philip.)

Or Sherlock Holmes - people belived he existed within a few years of being written, and some still do.

The claim the Julius Caesar's soul rose to heaven started the DAY he was buried.

Consider how much development happened between Paul (who wrote nothing that clearly places Jesus on earth - no connected names, places, or dates at all) and the Gospels - a huge rate of development that only took about 20 years according to the standard model.

Consider the growth of the stories in the Gospels - from bare Mark to miraculous John in only two decades or so.

So please -
explain exactly what you think cannot happen in eight decades (several generations), and how that argues for a historical Jesus.

Kapyong
 
Jan 2019
130
USA
Well, Tacitus wrote about eleven decades after Jesus' alleged birth, and about eight decades after Jesus' alleged death.

Tacitus mentions only the bare details - he doesn't even give the name 'Jesus', but 'Christus' - which can not possibly have come from any Roman records, he is simply repeating Christian beliefs.
"Adolf von Harnack argued that Chrestians was the original wording, and that Tacitus deliberately used Christus immediately after it to show his own superior knowledge compared to the population at large.[20] Robert Renehan has stated that it was natural for a Roman to mix the two words that sounded the same, that Chrestianos was the original word in the Annals and not an error by a scribe.[23][24] Van Voorst has stated that it was unlikely for Tacitus himself to refer to Christians as Chrestianos i.e. "useful ones" given that he also referred to them as "hated for their shameful acts".[19] Eddy and Boyd see no major impact on the authenticity of the passage or its meaning regardless of the use of either term by Tacitus.[25]"

Only an argument on the other end. What is your opinion on the information above?
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,753
"Adolf von Harnack argued that Chrestians was the original wording, and that Tacitus deliberately used Christus immediately after it to show his own superior knowledge compared to the population at large.[20] Robert Renehan has stated that it was natural for a Roman to mix the two words that sounded the same, that Chrestianos was the original word in the Annals and not an error by a scribe.[23][24] Van Voorst has stated that it was unlikely for Tacitus himself to refer to Christians as Chrestianos i.e. "useful ones" given that he also referred to them as "hated for their shameful acts".[19] Eddy and Boyd see no major impact on the authenticity of the passage or its meaning regardless of the use of either term by Tacitus.[25]"

Only an argument on the other end. What is your opinion on the information above?
As far as I understand "Christus" means "the anointed one" which seems to be at least as positive as "useful ones".....

The question is why would Tacitus use either of these terms ? The character's name was Jesus ("Yeshua").... Assuming the romans recorded his execution -or anything else about him, they would have I assume put his name down as Jesus (perhaps adding son of Joseph and Mary) not as Chr(e)(i)stus... The most probable explanation is that he was simply repeating the christian narrative which by his time was probably widespread in Rome...
The implication is - since Tacitus appears to be parroting the christian narrative- that this mention has no value in terms of evidence
 
not only in abrahamic religions there has been a norm of prophets arriving and renewing the religion but also in case of one indian religion called jainism, there are atleast two jain preachers which are considered historical by the western historians, out of the twenty four of them, so even religions like jainism had prophets/philosophers who renewed the teachings of their respective religions. jesus most certainly renewed the religion of judaism and muhammad renewed the teahcings of jesus, islam says there were 124,000 prophets including muhammad which shows the trend of renewing the faith. Buddha according to buddhists was also a renewer of faith of the previous buddhas even though previous buddhas are not onsidered historical but it does really show how newer religions like buddhism were linked to older religions, a buddhist like stupa was also discovered at mohenjo daro some scholars say its buddhist, but many scholars think its not from buddhist time period and buddhists were known for visiting the sites of previous buddhas one such being the dharmarajika stupa at taxila even though buddha was from eastern india. The extinct religion of ajivika is also thought not to be founded by makkhali gosala but already existed before him.

regards
 
Nov 2016
968
Germany
jesus most certainly renewed the religion of judaism and muhammad renewed the teahcings of jesus,
The expression "renewing" seems a bit too tendentious to me here. I don´t think that Jews see Christianity as a renewal of their religion, just as Christians would certainly not see Islam as a renewal of their faith.

But apart from that, what do you mean by "most certainly"? There is no waterproof fundament for such a statement. A firm belief in the authenticity of supposed evidence is not the same as objective certainty.

Buddha according to buddhists was also a renewer of faith of the previous buddhas even though previous buddhas are not onsidered historical
Mahayanists and Tibetan Buddhists believe in a multiplicity of Buddhas, but not the Theravada school.
 
Last edited:
The expression "renewing" seems a bit too tendentious to me here. I don´t think that Jews see Christianity as a renewal of their religion, just as Christians would certainly not see Islam as a renewal of their faith.

But apart from that, what do you mean by "most certainly"? Science is not roulette. Either you say "possibly" or "quite certainly" or "there is much to say for it" or "there is much to say against it", but you don't say "most certainly" because that is a contradictory expression, because it implies both certainty and uncertainty, which is illogical.



Mahayanists and Tibetan Buddhists believe in a multiplicity of Buddhas, but not the Theravada school.
what are you even speaking about mate?

List of the named Buddhas - Wikipedia

In countries where Theravāda Buddhism is practiced by the majority of people, such as Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand, it is customary for Buddhists to hold elaborate festivals, especially during the fair weather season, paying homage to the 28 Buddhas described in the Buddhavamsa. The Buddhavamsa is a text which describes the life of Gautama Buddha and the 27 Buddhas who preceded him.[2] The Buddhavamsa is part of the Khuddaka Nikāya, which in turn is part of the Sutta Piṭaka. The Sutta Piṭaka is one of three main sections of the Pāli Canon of Theravāda Buddhism.


The first three of these Buddhas—Taṇhaṅkara, Medhaṅkara, and Saraṇaṅkara—lived before the time of Dīpankara Buddha. The fourth Buddha, Dīpankara, is especially important, as he was the Buddha who gave niyatha vivarana (prediction of future Buddhahood) to the Brahmin youth who would in the distant future become the bodhisattva Gautama Buddha.[3] After Dīpankara, 23 more noble people (ariya-puggala) would attain enlightenment before Gautama, the historical Buddha.


Many Buddhists also pay homage to the future (and 29th) Buddha, Maitreya. According to Buddhist scripture, Maitreya will be a successor of Gautama who will appear on Earth, achieve complete enlightenment, and teach the pure Dharma. The prophecy of the arrival of Maitreya is found in the canonical literature of all Buddhist sects (Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana), and is accepted by most Buddhists as a statement about an event that will take place when the Dharma will have been forgotten on Jambudvipa (the terrestrial realm, where ordinary human beings live).
this motif of previous prophets/preachers and upcoming prophets/preachers has been the common motif especially in religions of the indus valley and the mesopotamia, im not sure about non abrahamic mesopotamian religions, but in the case of indic religions from historic periods and the abrahamic religion from the first mil BC, this is the common motif. as i hav already stated, it appears in jainism, buddhism, ajivika and many other minor indic religoons as well.

regards
 

Similar History Discussions