Comments on: Would This Be Considerable Secular Evidence For The Existence Of Jesus?

By: monkeybu

monkeybu — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:50:09 +0000

1) The reference to Jesus being called “the Christ” in Flavius was proven a forgery decades ago.
2) The rest of the references are extremely vague and mostly concern Christians, not Jesus himself. This is much the same as referring to Krishna when writing of Jains…
3) …With the exception of the Christian writers. Big surprise. Would you expect a Moslem historian writing with 200 years of Muhammed not to write as though Muhammed really ascended to heaven?
4) Also note that none of these sources are contemporary. All are written at least 20, and up to 200, years after the fact.
5) No reference to Jesus as a real person exists in the contemporary Roman record, despite the fact that they recorded the existence of other would-be Messiahs (such as Apollonius of Tyana).
Your evidence is vague at best, untrustworthy at worst.

By: Janeite

Janeite — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:36:59 +0000

It is very sad that some, so intent on ‘evidence’ overlook the knowledge and opinions of historians to listen to others, out of their field, who wish to slander something/someone, so long as it adds to their argument.

By: neil s

neil s — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:39:38 +0000

Everything about Jesus in Josephus has been shown to be a forgery. (1)
Tacitus and Pliny are talking about what Christians believe, not Jesus as such, so they are little more than hearsay.
Nope, none of that is evidence.
edit: The writing style of the passages was shown to be different than that of Josephus, and thus a forgery. Try to keep up.

By: Rico JPA

Rico JPA — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:30:40 +0000

Sure, considerable evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Zero evidence for the existence of Christ.
That we have evidence for Julius Caesar, doesn’t mean we have to buy his PR that he was descended from Venus.
That Heinrich Schliemann found Troy using only the Iliad as guide, proves the historicity of Homer’s account, geographically, but provides no solid evidence for Zeus or Hera or a big wooden horsie.

By: Pirate AM™

Pirate AM™ — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:09:32 +0000

No. Flavius was born after Jesus and John the Baptist were dead. He was writing from hearsay.
The others were written even longer after the events. The Babylonian Talmud, if it is referring to the same Jesus, directly contradicts the Gospels’ account and is more consistent with the Jewish legal proceedings and rights, i.e. they did not need, nor would they have wanted to, the Romans to execute one of their criminals.
Edit:
Look at #7 from an objective viewpoint, does that mention Jesus? No, it talks about Christians singing about Christ. This is similar to someone writing about Mormons talking about the golden tablets or Greeks revering Hercules.

By: ACC- Greg Inglis style

ACC- Greg Inglis style — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:59:37 +0000

Look, those aren’t real prophecies. They are self-furfilling prophecies.
How many people have come along and claimed to be a prophet of God?
Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, that guy who founded the Druze religion.
His existence is neither here nor there. His authority is what matters.

By: Gazoo

Gazoo — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:20:20 +0000

Well, no. By your own dates they were all born decades after. They aren’t eyewitnesses. They are primary sources for early Christians, but not Jesus.

By: Metal K

Metal K — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:38:53 +0000

very good research

By: Royal Racer Nor-Cal Christian

Royal Racer Nor-Cal Christian — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:25:11 +0000

Cool shades.

By: Jacek P

Jacek P — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:46:19 +0000

When contemporary or later authors mention the same persons or events as the Scriptures, it only proves that these authors were familiar with the original story. Repetition is not evidence of truth.

By: deacon66

deacon66 — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:01:57 +0000

Sorry, no. Start with the Josephus passage. Current Scholars consider the bit about ‘jesus’ to be a forgery inserted by a scribe years after the death of Josephus. How about Tacitus? Writing about christians, not about ‘jesus’. Lucian writing about christians, not about ‘jesus’. Pliny writing about christians, not about ‘jesus’. Bottom line: Not even the gospels are primary sources written by contemporary scholars. There might be some truth there, but most of what you have is fiction.

By: Celestial Teapot {{Atheati}}

Celestial Teapot {{Atheati}} — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:15:39 +0000

“10. Every Christian who has prayed.”
OMFG are you KIDDING ME? HAHA The other arguments are good, but I think this one was just used to have two are so you can have 10.
I think most atheists would agree that a Jesus who claimed to be a Messiah existed. But that proves nothing.
EDIT: UM no. All of this written YEARS after Jesus’s death. Plenty of time for legend to kick in.
Plus his existence DOES NOT prove his divinity.

By: whitepar

whitepar — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:21:40 +0000

There is overwhelming proof in all sorts of literature that Jesus lived. Josephus is considered a very reliable historian. Ironically, some of the most convincing proof that Jesus lived are the Roman historians and especially the Jewish leaders and historians who sought to discredit him.

By: Kate Alex Bahleef

Kate Alex Bahleef — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:27:04 +0000

The fact of the existence of Christianity is enough. The fulfilment of Old testament prophecy tells me of his existence apart from the writings of the New Testament. The fulfilment of New Testament prophecies also are evidence that Christ is alive and well and soon to return to this earth. It requires faith seeing that doubters are more likely to want to keep proving that he did not exist because if they do, then they do not have to follow any of his teachings. Read the whole Bible and see the God Guided message it contains. Profane history is not an exact science and revisionists ply a lively trade.