List of Early Writers Who Could Have Mentioned Jesus

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,980
Well, fortunately there is the second approach which for some mysterious reason is never employed. That is to examine the accusation from purely logical perspective. However, there is one very important factor which is far more powerful and absolutely indisputable in establishing that Jesus did exist. That is the fact that his enemies never accused him of never having existed. Why is this remarkable and absolutely devastating to that argument of nonexistence? Simple, because the Jews vehemently hated Jesus and his teachings were considered blasphemous both during his ministry and after the time of his described death.
From your words we can understand that in the times just after the Jesus life everyone was sure of the real Jesus and could not doubt his real existence. Otherwise his enemies would use it to their benefit. That’s your point of “logical” argument. That is – in the first-second centuries everyone believed Jesus was real.
But… you misses the existence of the so called “docets”. The docetic movement (the rejection of the real historical Jesus) began in the 1st century. How can that happen if it was easy at that time to look up the birth records, talk to friends, relatives or just eyewitnesses of his life?
Actually we have this:
First century – some people believed Jesus was real, some people believed he was not.
3-4 centuries – all those who believed Jesus was not real were repressed, called heretics, books of those who thought so were burned or just not rewrited and thus disappeared.
So I guess your logical argument is not very strong.
 
Dec 2011
586
Perth
Gday all,

“Jesus never existed! It was all made up! There is absolutely no historical evidence to support the existence of this Jesus character.” Ever hear that kind of talk? Well, it’s called the Christ Myth Theory which is very popular among those who harbor animosity towards religion in general and more specifically against Christianity itself.

False.
This is yet another example of believers here personally abusing anyone who dares to disagree with them - it's also :

  • ad hominem - attacking the persons,
  • genetic fallacy - attacking the source of the argument,
  • poisoning the well - spoiling the entire argument.
Furthermore, it is obvious from your post that you harbour animosity towards Jesus mythicists - making it hypocrisy too !

I hope your post goes on to give some actual evidence for the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.


Kapyong
 
Dec 2011
586
Perth
Gday all,

This kind of opposition to Christianity is of course much different than violent persecution employed against by both Rome and Jews. Neither is it merely an attack against its theological teachings. No siree bob. It isn’t a finding flaw with Christ’s teachings or personality. personality. Instead, it is a denial of his existence called the Christ Myth Theory. This attack is far more cunning and far more potentially devastating because it involves the complete annihilation of Jesus as a person. The complete destruction of the very foundation of Christianity by describing it as based on a blatant lie.
No evidence there - just more emotional abuse.
I have not lied.
Please apologise for that, or produce evidence I lied.

Or is it just normal practice for you to abuse anyone who disagrees with you like that ?


Kapyong
 
Dec 2011
586
Perth
Gday all,

Of course the question concerning this unusual attack that has arisen so suddenly, after approx 2000 years since Jesus’ death, is whether those leveling such an accusation have a leg to stand on. Now, there are two ways to respond to that question. One is to search for non-Christian historical support which will substantiate the historicity ofJesus. This has been attempted before with references to Tacitus the Roman historian and Josephus the Jewish historian as well as quotes from the Jewish Talmud and other historical sources as well as to the New Testament itself as historically trustworthy. Yet, all these references have been glibly shunted aside as suspect in one way or another and the anti-Christian side has chosen to vehemently hold its ground.
Yes, it has been attempted with Tacitus and Josephus.
No, they were not "glibly shunted aside", but found to be worthless as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Tacitus,
in early second century, reports second century Christian beliefs about Jesus. We know there were Christians who believed in Jesus in early second century.

But that is not evidence for Jesus actually existing.

I am not sure you grasp the difference between :

  • Jesus existing,
  • later Christians believing Jesus existed.
Josephus
is almost certainly a forgery, or at least corrupted by Christians - it is worthless as historical evidence.


Kapyong
 
Dec 2011
586
Perth
Gday all,

Well, fortunately there is the second approach which for some mysterious reason is never employed. That is to examine the accusation from purely logical perspective. However, there is one very important factor which is far more powerful and absolutely indisputable in establishing that Jesus did exist. That is the fact that his enemies never accused him of never having existed. Why is this remarkable and absolutely devastating to that argument of nonexistence? Simple, because the Jews vehemently hated Jesus and his teachings were considered blasphemous both during his ministry and after the time of his described death.
False.

It appears you are not aware of the actual evidence -

The NT letter of 2 John specifically refers to Christians who do NOT :
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".
Porphyry said the same :
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"
Numerous early Christians believed Jesus was a phantasm, a ghost, an illusion :
Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”
Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :
"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh..."
Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.
"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -
Celsus also called Jesus a “shadow” (according to Origen) :
Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the members of His own troop--for I will take the word that Celsus employs--did really appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against the Gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow.
Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"
Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians
Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
Julian was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”
Seriously Radrook, if you want to discuss these subjects. I recommend you study the evidence rather than just repeating faithful falsehoods.

There was a great deal of early doubt about Jesus, and his stories.


Kapyong

 
Dec 2011
586
Perth
Gday all,

Then we have the historically recorded Roman persecution of Christianity that even included throwing Christians to the lions in the arena for the entertainment of the spectators because they were considered heretics. Nero set them on fire. Surely such deep hatred would have caused the Romans to denigrate the Christian religion by pointing out that they were followers of a man who never existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire
So what ?
Everybody then ASSUMED Jesus existed - so what ?

As you can see, the Historian Tacitus makes no such claim against Jesus but acknowledges his historicity.
Tacitus ASSUMED Jesus existed - so what ?

Did the Romans attack the Jews by pointing out Adam and Eve and Noah and Moses were myths ?

Did the Romans attack the Bacchoi by pointing out that Bacchus was a myth ?

Did the Romans attack the Mithraics by pointing out Mithra was a myth ?

No.
Does that make Adam and Eve and Bacchus and Mithra historical ?
No.

Back then, almost everyone just assumed old stories were about real people - so what ?

According to YOUR argument Radrook - EVERY SINGLE ancient god, deity, hero etc. must have existed. Your argument is obvious nonsense.


Kapyong
 
Dec 2011
586
Perth
Gday all,

Instead they said that he was performing the by means of Satan as mentioned before.
Did anyone ever point out that Satan didn't exist ?
No.

So - according to Radrook's argument - that means Satan really exists.

Radrook and I do agree on one thing - Satan is just a historical as Jesus.


Kapyong
 

Similar History Discussions