Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Existence of Jesus Christ
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 316 of 378 (569408)
07-21-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by crashfrog
07-21-2010 6:01 PM


crashfrog writes:
So is Time Magazine. But a claim in Time Magazine that something happened in 33 AD isn't evidence.
I would call it evidence but not irrefutable evidence.
crashfrog writes:
The Bible is a historical document, to be sure, but it's not a contemporary document to the events that it claims to describe.
Agrred, but all of the accounts from that era as far as I know were written after the fact. Even Josephus wrote about the period preceding the resurrection by several years even when you disregard his story of creation.
crashfrog writes:
That's its critical weakness, and the reason that it can't reasonably be taken as evidence for any of the events it describes.
As somebody here said it wouldn't stand up in a court of law but that doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence that can be either accepted or rejected. We have come to different conclusions.
crashfrog writes:
So let's discuss the evidence for the existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which you led us to believe was "overwhelming." You accepted that the resurrection of Christ would surely be an "extraordinary" event. Doesn't such an event require extraordinary evidence to support it? To say that Jesus Christ existed is not at all the same as saying Julius Caesar existed, because nobody claims Caesar as lord and savior, or claims he did miracles on the floor of the Roman Senate.
There isn't a lot of point in doing this because the bulk of the evidence comes from the Bible which you completely reject. I will say however that it isn't just because the Bible says so but the way that the accounts are written.
I posted this link on the other thread but I think you've already read it.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 6:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 7:02 PM GDR has replied
 Message 321 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 7:47 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 326 by Kapyong, posted 07-23-2010 6:36 PM GDR has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 317 of 378 (569409)
07-21-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by GDR
07-21-2010 7:00 PM


As was stated on the other thread. There is no evidence in that link.

Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 7:00 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by hERICtic, posted 07-21-2010 7:18 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 319 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 7:18 PM Theodoric has replied

hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 318 of 378 (569413)
07-21-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Theodoric
07-21-2010 7:02 PM


Think of it this way. The events mentioned in the gospels are quite amazing. Yet no writer living at that time wrote about these happenings?
We have the story of the dead rising out of their graves...surely, it would have causes great chaos and fear-but no one one mentions it at all?
Philo, wrote many books on the Jews and their history 30-40. He visited Jersuelem. He lived at the exact time of Jesus. His family was there.
Yet he never wrote a single story about Jesus or any of the amazing stories. Nothing.
Justus of Tiberias before the end of the first century wrote a history of the Jewish Kings in Galilee. Yet he never mentions Jesus or any of the events.
Both were contemporaries, yet neither wrote about Jesus. Both should have.
There are a few more but I cannot think of them right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 7:02 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Kapyong, posted 07-23-2010 6:42 PM hERICtic has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 319 of 378 (569414)
07-21-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Theodoric
07-21-2010 7:02 PM


That's my point. There is nothing to discuss as you put no value in anything that I would have to say because there is no evidence that is irrefutable.
The Bible exists but as it can't be proven to be true. You don't accept it so there's no point in opening up a discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 7:02 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 7:23 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 322 by AZPaul3, posted 07-21-2010 11:07 PM GDR has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 320 of 378 (569416)
07-21-2010 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by GDR
07-21-2010 7:18 PM


[qc]there is no evidence that is irrefutable.[/qs]
Drop the last 3 words and you are correct. There is NO evidence. If there were you would present some. You are the one that claimed huge amounts of evidence. So far you have presented nothing.

Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 7:18 PM GDR has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 321 of 378 (569426)
07-21-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by GDR
07-21-2010 7:00 PM


I would call it evidence but not irrefutable evidence.
Not everything is evidence, GDR, and repeating the same lie twice doesn't corroborate it.
It's about sources. If someone repeats a claim they heard from someone else, they're not a source for that claim - the person who they heard it from is. But if you trace a claim back through everyone who repeats it and arrive at a single source, you've been had. You've been took. And the fact that a bunch of people found a claim worth repeating isn't evidence for the claim. That's how urban legends are passed along.
Agrred, but all of the accounts from that era as far as I know were written after the fact.
Indeed. Decades after the fact. Suspicious, no? Again - actual historical figures leave contemporary historical records. Mythical figures appear in no record until decades after their supposed period of activity.
For instance, Jesus was contemporary with the invention of two-column accounting. Many of those records survive to this day. Wouldn't there be one set of books, at least, that said "couldn't do business today; some guy named Jesus kicked us out of the temple with a whip."
As somebody here said it wouldn't stand up in a court of law but that doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence that can be either accepted or rejected.
Embracing a less rigorous standard of evidence isn't something you should do without thinking about it. You shouldn't agree to be convinced by less evidence than you normally would, without thinking long and hard about the falsehoods you're suddenly going be at risk of falling for.
Would you trust your money to a bank that publically agreed to stop asking for ID to make withdrawals? Would you trust yourself to a hospital that suddenly said it wasn't going to require medical licenses or degrees? Personally, I can't imagine why you would think it would be reasonable to insist on a less rigorous standard of evidence. Don't you think Christianity can withstand even the most pointed inquiry? That's certainly what you were saying before. Now you're acting like the evidence for the existence of Jesus, which you previously described as overwhelming, is a house of cards that will collapse if you let us so much as glance at it too hard.
There isn't a lot of point in doing this because the bulk of the evidence comes from the Bible which you completely reject.
The bulk? Is there, in fact, anything you have that isn't ultimately sourced back to the Bible?
I posted this link on the other thread but I think you've already read it.
Yeah, and there was literally nothing there. Wright just takes half the stuff in the Bible as a given, and then asserts that it wouldn't make sense for only half the Bible to be true.
Ok - but what if none of the Bible is true? What if Jesus didn't just "swoon on the cross" not because he actually died, but because he didn't actually ever live? Wright doesn't even consider the possibility. I don't get the impression you ever have, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 7:00 PM GDR has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 322 of 378 (569494)
07-21-2010 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by GDR
07-21-2010 7:18 PM


There is nothing to discuss as you put no value in anything that I would have to say because there is no evidence that is irrefutable.
The Bible exists but as it can't be proven to be true. You don't accept it so there's no point in opening up a discussion.
So that I understand properly:
You are saying there is no point in having a debate where the evidence for the proposition has already been refuted?
I could agree with this. But it does bring up the larger issue.
If the proposition fails because all its evidence has been refuted why do you continue to assert its efficacy? Based on what?
If solely by faith then I would also agree a debate has no point since we would be dealing with confirmation bias, critical thinking failure and circular reasoning. These have no place in proper debate.
So maybe this thread should just die.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 7:18 PM GDR has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 323 of 378 (569774)
07-23-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by GDR
07-21-2010 11:26 AM


Re: Bump for GDR
Gday,
GDR writes:
Paul's early writings, including Romans, were written within 20 to 25 years of the resurrection.
Only if you ASSUME the resurrection actually happened.
GDR writes:
As I said there would be many around at that time who would have been able to point out that Paul was off base.
WOULD have been?
Only if you assume it happened in the first place.
GDR writes:
Josephus was writing around 50 years after and wouldn't have including writing about something that had been discredited by eye
witnesses.
The T.F. is a Christian forgery.
There were NO eye-witnesses to Jesus.
We do not have even ONE authentic claim to have met a historical Jesus (just the late forgery 2 Peter.)
Kapyong
Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 11:26 AM GDR has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 324 of 378 (569776)
07-23-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by GDR
07-21-2010 12:00 PM


Re: Bump for GDR
Gday,
GDR writes:
Paul may or may not have met Jesus but he certainly had considerable contact with those that had.
May have?
Do you have ANY evidence that Paul met Jesus?
According to your own Christian tradition he did NOT.
Paul says he got his Gospel from NO MAN,
that he did NOT LEARN it,
that he got it from revelation and scripture.
Paul also says he is just as much an apostle as they are - NO mention of them having met Jesus.
Kapyong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 12:00 PM GDR has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 325 of 378 (569777)
07-23-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by GDR
07-21-2010 5:48 PM


Gday,
GDR writes:
If nothing else the Bible is an historical document...
A "historical document"?
In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now, CLAIMS it to be true.
All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal. Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is just not true - no historian presumes an ancient book to be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.
Consider some other ancient works -
* the Golden Ass of Apuleius - this "historical document" tells the story of how Apuleius turned into an Ass and met the gods face to face. It dates to the very same period as the Gospels, is set in historical places and includes historical figures and events. It has speeches and stories and miracles and divine events, including an EMPTY TOMB scene!. In short it is very similar the Gospels.
http://eserver.org/books/apuleius/
* the Iliad - this "historical document" is famous and very well attested indeed. This work was seminal in Greek culture (in ancient Greece "getting an education" meant learning Homer) and includes real places and realistic people - to the Greeks, Homer was like the Bible.
http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html
Both of these writings are similar to the Gospels and are similarly true - i.e. not particularly true at all. In other words being a "historical document" means nothing about a book's truthfulness.
Kapyong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 5:48 PM GDR has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 326 of 378 (569778)
07-23-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by GDR
07-21-2010 7:00 PM


Gday,
GDR writes:
Agrred, but all of the accounts from that era as far as I know were written after the fact.
Every single document ever written by anyone, anywhere was written "after the fact". SO what?
The issue here is how LONG (and by who.)
GDR writes:
As somebody here said it wouldn't stand up in a court of law but that doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence that can be either accepted or rejected.
It HAS been used as evidence, and it has been rejected for reasons well-covered in this thread.
GDR writes:
We have come to different conclusions
Fair enough.
Please present your argument and reasons and evidence then.
Kap
Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 7:00 PM GDR has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


(2)
Message 327 of 378 (569780)
07-23-2010 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by hERICtic
07-21-2010 7:18 PM


Gday ERIC,
hERICtic writes:
There are a few more but I cannot think of them right now.
Here is my list of those who coulda woulda shoulda :
Summary of Results
The results of my current classifications is:
1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.)
3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch, Justus.)
31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus.
(20 writers who could not be expected to.
6 writers claimed to mention Jesus, but disputed or suspect.)
WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS
PHILO
Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.
Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.
If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings.
Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 5
WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS
SENECA
Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.
Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.
In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul.
How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?
Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4
PLUTARCH
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.
Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.
Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the "Vision of Aridaeus", a spiritual journey, or out of body experience, or religious fantasy -
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them.
Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4
JUSTUS
Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.
Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."
It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.
Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3
WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS
DAMIS
Damis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person.
If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
APOLLONIUS
See Damis.
PLINY THE ELDER
Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CE
Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.)
It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
JUVENAL
Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd century.
Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian, Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.)
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
MARTIAL
Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century.
Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
* Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
* virgin's blood,
* Roman funerary practices,
* the way accused men look in court,
* Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
* anointing the body with oil,
* Molorchus the good shepherd,
* Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
* the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,
This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and issues.
He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events).
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
PETRONIUS
Petronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon" c.60CE.
Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including :
** a CRUCIFIXION !
** a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
** a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision,
* gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
* writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
* books such as the Iliad,
* Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
* people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
* female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
* baths, shipwrecks, meals...
This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could easily have mentioned Jesus.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
PAUSANIAS
Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century.
Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. He mentions a large number of minor figues from within and without Greece.
He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown: "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]
Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
EPICTETUS
Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant.
Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to :
* the early Christians,
or
* the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.
Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a figure such as Jesus.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
AELIUS ARISTIDES
Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2)
If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have mentioned Jesus.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
FRONTO
Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd century.
According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.
Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2
PERSIUS
Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.
The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus, is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus (but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.)
Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people and issues.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
DIO CHRYSOSTOM
Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.
Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
AULUS GELLIUS
Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium of many topics and which mentioned many people.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
LUCIUS APULEIUS
Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
MARCUS AURELIUS
Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
MUSONIUS RUFUS
C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome in mid 1st century.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
HIEROCLES
Hierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in late 1st century.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
MAXIMUS of TYRE
Cassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works in mid 2nd century.
Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1
ARRIAN
Arrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE.
The subject is not related, but Arrian wrote a very large work which mentioned HUNDREDS of people, some not from Alexander's time.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
APPIAN
Appian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid 2nd century.
It's not particularly likely that this specific writer would mention Jesus.
But,
he wrote a LARGE work which mentions HUNDREDS of people.
Appian does mention some issues of HIS day (mid 2nd century), e.g. a decision by Hadrian.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
THEON of SMYRNA
Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century.
Theon wrote about philosophy. If Jesus and his teachings were known, it is entirely plausible for to mention them.
Theon also wrote about astronomy.
If he had heard about the Star of Bethlehem or the Darkness (as an event, or from the Gospels) he could easily have mentioned it.
Apologists frequently cite Phlegon and Thallus, astronomers who mentioned eclipses (but NOT Jesus or the Gospel events, that is merely later Christian wishful thinking) as evidence for Jesus.
An astronomer could easily be expected to mention those incidents, especially when apologists claim other astronomers of the period did exactly that.
The silence of early astronomers about the Star of Bethlehem or the crucifixion darkness argues these "events" were unknown until later.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
QUINTILIAN
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the "Education of an Orator" in Rome in late 1st century.
One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds.
If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS
Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.
Although not directly on subject, Florus wrote a large work which mentions many names. He could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
LUCAN
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century.
In his large poem, the Pharsalia, he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing.
He:
* mentions an event from 56CE,
* refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
* refered to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world,
* refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
STATIUS
Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome in late 1st century.
Statius wrote many works on several subjects, he could have mentioned Jesus.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
HERO of ALEXANDRIA
Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.
If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
GEMINUS
Geminus wrote on mathematics astronomy in Greece.
If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
ALBINUS
Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in early 2nd century, a little survives.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
ARISTOCLES
Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, early 2nd century.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
APOLLODORUS
Apollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
HEPHAESTION
Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote many works in mid 2nd century.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
SEXTUS EMPIRICUS
Sextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in mid 2nd century.
Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5
WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS
JOSEPHUS
Much has been said about Josephus, but not here.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.
TACITUS
Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.
NUMENIUS
In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"
Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed to him.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.
SUETONIUS
Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman Caesars c.120CE.
He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
PHLEGON
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the Gospel darkness.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
THALLUS
Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.
Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.
WRITERS WHO COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE MENTIONED JESUS
Dion Prusaeus
Paterculus
Ptolemy
Valerius Maximus
Pomponius Mela
Quintus Curtus Rufus
Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
Favorinus
Phaedrus
Babrius
Silius Italicus
Marcus Manilius
Cleomedes
Dioscorides
Sextus Julius Frontinus
Nicomachus of Gerasa
Menelaus of Alexandria
Menodotus of Nicomedia
Tiberius Claudius Herodes Atticus
Valerius Flaccus
Kapyong

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by hERICtic, posted 07-21-2010 7:18 PM hERICtic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2010 7:48 PM Kapyong has not replied
 Message 330 by John 10:10, posted 08-02-2010 7:24 PM Kapyong has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 328 of 378 (569787)
07-23-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Kapyong
07-23-2010 6:42 PM


Wow.
Post of the month material. Utterly devastating to the Case for Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Kapyong, posted 07-23-2010 6:42 PM Kapyong has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 329 of 378 (569830)
07-23-2010 10:54 PM


Thanks :-)
By the way -
Some years back I posted under various name here and there - including the name "Iasion" used here in the past. I have since rationalised my various accounts into the name "Kapyong", including here.
In short, I, Kapyong used to be called Iasion here.
Kapyong

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2010 7:35 PM Kapyong has not replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 330 of 378 (571861)
08-02-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Kapyong
07-23-2010 6:42 PM


The writer, Paul, who did mention the Lord Jesus Christ declared this in Acts 2:
32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.
33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.
34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says : 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."'
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ -this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren , what shall we do ?"
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
I doubt if any of the writers you have mentioned asked the right question written in verse 37 and then followed through with the right answer given by Peter in verses 38-39.
For this reason, they and you ignore the truth of who the Lord Jesus is, and the promise He gives to those who repent of their sins and honor Jesus as Lord.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Kapyong, posted 07-23-2010 6:42 PM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2010 7:37 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 334 by ramoss, posted 08-03-2010 11:58 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 335 by ringo, posted 08-03-2010 2:12 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024