The historical Jesus

[Buffett and Colbert]

Yes they were. People were killed for a faith. That is hate, genocide, what you want to call it. At some point, Romans understood that Christianity was dangerous to their own traditions and religions, and tried to eliminate it. And, as you can see in my post above, even with that you have MORE sources speaking of Jesus within 150 years of his death than the Roman Emperor at the time!

Not hate. Business as usual. They did not hate the Christians. Nor did they fear them I bet. They only "contaminated" the minds of the pagans, which naturally they couldn't have. It wasn't a matter of hate, just practicality (in their eyes).

[Buffett and Colbert]

Sorry, Buffy, but no. The Romans did keep lots of records, and there probably were records of executions, but we don't have them. The fact that we don't actually have the paperwork isn't proof that he never existed.

We can go like this all day. There's virtually no proof or disproof for anything.

Do you have anything better to do?

I could finish cataloging my coin collection. But that's boring as hell. So I guess I'll have to stick with you guys.

[JLAEST]

Yes they were. People were killed for a faith. That is hate, genocide, what you want to call it. At some point, Romans understood that Christianity was dangerous to their own traditions and religions, and tried to eliminate it. And, as you can see in my post above, even with that you have MORE sources speaking of Jesus within 150 years of his death than the Roman Emperor at the time!

Not hate. Business as usual. They did not hate the Christians. Nor did they fear them I bet. They only "contaminated" the minds of the pagans, which naturally they couldn't have. It wasn't a matter of hate, just practicality (in their eyes).

Then the Jews' genocide by the Nazis wasn't hate too. They just thought they contaminated the world.

Farnhamia, waiting for reply

[Grays Harbor]

It's Greek for 'anointed one'. Jesus would have had an Aramiac last name.

Probably would just have been Ben Joseph, wouldn't it?

maybe his name was really "Murray the Carpenter" and he needed something more impressive and came up with "Jesus Christ" as a Nom de Plume.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Yes they were. People were killed for a faith. That is hate, genocide, what you want to call it. At some point, Romans understood that Christianity was dangerous to their own traditions and religions, and tried to eliminate it. And, as you can see in my post above, even with that you have MORE sources speaking of Jesus within 150 years of his death than the Roman Emperor at the time!

Not hate. Business as usual. They did not hate the Christians. Nor did they fear them I bet. They only "contaminated" the minds of the pagans, which naturally they couldn't have. It wasn't a matter of hate, just practicality (in their eyes).

Then the Jews' genocide by the Nazis wasn't hate too. They just thought they contaminated the world.

Farnhamia, waiting for reply

Actually, yes. I don't believe in hate, or dislike (I just utilize the terms for communication's sake). I don't believe in their opposites either. I think we do things to suit our needs, not because we dislike something or do like it. Our needs might be pleasure. I don't believe like is a substitute however. That sort of thing.

[Conserative Morality]

Not hate. Business as usual. They did not hate the Christians. Nor did they fear them I bet. They only "contaminated" the minds of the pagans, which naturally they couldn't have. It wasn't a matter of hate, just practicality (in their eyes).

In the eyes of some, such as Nero, it was most likely hate. Emperors like Trajan probably saw it more as a duty, seeing as the Christians refused Roman gods, which they probably saw as a sign of disrespect and as destabilizing the region.

I think.

[Farnhamia]

Yes they were. People were killed for a faith. That is hate, genocide, what you want to call it. At some point, Romans understood that Christianity was dangerous to their own traditions and religions, and tried to eliminate it. And, as you can see in my post above, even with that you have MORE sources speaking of Jesus within 150 years of his death than the Roman Emperor at the time!

EDIT: @Gift-of-God, that's true, but it wasn't a name given to many people. So, we may consider it was related to the person we speak of as Jesus, even if Jesus wasn't is real name.

The Romans in charge of the persecutions did get ... creative, but I sincerely doubt there was wide-spread "hatred" of Christians throughout the Empire. Many people would have felt that refusing to give a nod to the traditional gods of the Empire was perhaps subversive. And that is all that was being asked, you know, a sacrifice to the official cult.

There are estimates that only around 1,500 people were actually killed in the persecutions, about 50 a year over 300 years. What the persecutions did do for Christianity was give it all those martyrs and saints, really good PR for future converts, heroes who spoke truth to power and died for their faith. Indeed, more Christians have died for their faith in the last 50 years, probably, that died in the first 300 years of the Early Church.

Oh, yeah, and more sources speaking about Jesus than about Tiberius? Hmm, maybe, but that doesn't mean anything. We do know Tiberius existed.

[Enadail]

Making it clear:

Stuff about people having written about Jesus 150 years after he died

Understand what I mean now? The quantity of information about Jesus is, for that time, not only normal, but really good. Even if it seems few information for us.

Actually... all you've proven is years after Jesus supposedly died, people wrote about him. If people wrote about Matlock in 100 years, it doesn't make him more real, it just means people think he's real. What happened to eye witnesses within 20 years?

[Farnhamia]

Yes they were. People were killed for a faith. That is hate, genocide, what you want to call it. At some point, Romans understood that Christianity was dangerous to their own traditions and religions, and tried to eliminate it. And, as you can see in my post above, even with that you have MORE sources speaking of Jesus within 150 years of his death than the Roman Emperor at the time!

Not hate. Business as usual. They did not hate the Christians. Nor did they fear them I bet. They only "contaminated" the minds of the pagans, which naturally they couldn't have. It wasn't a matter of hate, just practicality (in their eyes).

Then the Jews' genocide by the Nazis wasn't hate too. They just thought they contaminated the world.

Farnhamia, waiting for reply

What, are you in a hurry?

[Enadail]

Yes they were. People were killed for a faith. That is hate, genocide, what you want to call it. At some point, Romans understood that Christianity was dangerous to their own traditions and religions, and tried to eliminate it. And, as you can see in my post above, even with that you have MORE sources speaking of Jesus within 150 years of his death than the Roman Emperor at the time!

EDIT: @Gift-of-God, that's true, but it wasn't a name given to many people. So, we may consider it was related to the person we speak of as Jesus, even if Jesus wasn't is real name.

The Romans in charge of the persecutions did get ... creative, but I sincerely doubt there was wide-spread "hatred" of Christians throughout the Empire. Many people would have felt that refusing to give a nod to the traditional gods of the Empire was perhaps subversive. And that is all that was being asked, you know, a sacrifice to the official cult.

There are estimates that only around 1,500 people were actually killed in the persecutions, about 50 a year over 300 years. What the persecutions did do for Christianity was give it all those martyrs and saints, really good PR for future converts, heroes who spoke truth to power and died for their faith. Indeed, more Christians have died for their faith in the last 50 years, probably, that died in the first 300 years of the Early Church.

Oh, yeah, and more sources speaking about Jesus than about Tiberius? Hmm, maybe, but that doesn't mean anything. We do know Tiberius existed.

Don't forget that the Romans were EXTREMELY tolerant of religions within their culture. Christians were persecuted after they refused to pay tribute to the state God of the time. They weren't being asked to follow the state God, but to pay tribute. Basically, Christians decided to pee all over the Roman couch, and then got angry that someone was mad.

[Gift-of-god]

...
EDIT: @Gift-of-God, that's true, but it wasn't a name given to many people. So, we may consider it was related to the person we speak of as Jesus, even if Jesus wasn't is real name.

'Christ' wasn't a name given to anyone by anyone, except the Greeks. Unless the early Christians of Tacitus' time were basing their faith on Greek translations of the gospels (hard to believe as the Gospels probably were not even written by then), it is doubtful they are speaking of Jesus Christ.

Something along the lines of "son of Joesph," I imagine. But Tacitus would have heard of someone called "Jesus the Annointed One," not "Jesus the son of Joseph" because the early Christians would have refered to him by his title, I think.

Why would early Christians use a Greek title? The Judean Christians would have spoke Aramaic, while the Romans would have spoken Latin.

[Farnhamia]

Yes they were. People were killed for a faith. That is hate, genocide, what you want to call it. At some point, Romans understood that Christianity was dangerous to their own traditions and religions, and tried to eliminate it. And, as you can see in my post above, even with that you have MORE sources speaking of Jesus within 150 years of his death than the Roman Emperor at the time!

EDIT: @Gift-of-God, that's true, but it wasn't a name given to many people. So, we may consider it was related to the person we speak of as Jesus, even if Jesus wasn't is real name.

The Romans in charge of the persecutions did get ... creative, but I sincerely doubt there was wide-spread "hatred" of Christians throughout the Empire. Many people would have felt that refusing to give a nod to the traditional gods of the Empire was perhaps subversive. And that is all that was being asked, you know, a sacrifice to the official cult.

There are estimates that only around 1,500 people were actually killed in the persecutions, about 50 a year over 300 years. What the persecutions did do for Christianity was give it all those martyrs and saints, really good PR for future converts, heroes who spoke truth to power and died for their faith. Indeed, more Christians have died for their faith in the last 50 years, probably, that died in the first 300 years of the Early Church.

Oh, yeah, and more sources speaking about Jesus than about Tiberius? Hmm, maybe, but that doesn't mean anything. We do know Tiberius existed.

Don't forget that the Romans were EXTREMELY tolerant of religions within their culture. Christians were persecuted after they refused to pay tribute to the state God of the time. They weren't being asked to follow the state God, but to pay tribute. Basically, Christians decided to pee all over the Roman couch, and then got angry that someone was mad.

Yes, thank you, I should have mentioned that. The Empire didn't much care what you did as long as you paid your taxes and didn't disturb the peace. If you disturbed the peace the Empire's reaction might be rather extreme, but once the moment had passed, it would go back to sleep. Christians were seen as disturbers of the peace.

It must also be said that what Christianity was and what Christians did during worship was badly understood. A lot of wild stories got about concerning eating of human flesh and love-feasts and such. That didn't help.

[Farnhamia]

...
EDIT: @Gift-of-God, that's true, but it wasn't a name given to many people. So, we may consider it was related to the person we speak of as Jesus, even if Jesus wasn't is real name.

'Christ' wasn't a name given to anyone by anyone, except the Greeks. Unless the early Christians of Tacitus' time were basing their faith on Greek translations of the gospels (hard to believe as the Gospels probably were not even written by then), it is doubtful they are speaking of Jesus Christ.

Something along the lines of "son of Joesph," I imagine. But Tacitus would have heard of someone called "Jesus the Annointed One," not "Jesus the son of Joseph" because the early Christians would have refered to him by his title, I think.

Why would early Christians use a Greek title? The Judean Christians would have spoke Aramaic, while the Romans would have spoken Latin.

When Paul took Christianity to the Gentiles, he took it to a Greek-speaking world. Greek was the common language throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Many Romans who had been in the East for any length of time would have spoken some Greek, and an educated Roman would have been fluent in the language. The members of the Early Churc in Rome would more than likely have spoken Greek and not Aramaic.

[Tmutarakhan]

Yes, just like Robin Hood... King Arthur...

Neither of which have any support from primary sources outside folk legends.

This is incorrect in both cases. The near-contemporary references to Robin are scanty, but we should not expect more (he was just a bandit, as far as the monks were concerned). Roman mentions to Arthur are disguised, since his title rig-otham "the high king" rather than his personal name is how he is referred to, but particular incidents in Geoffrey of Monmouth's late garbled account do match with events in Roman sources which Geoffrey could not have been copying.

But Tacitus would have heard of someone called "Jesus the Annointed One," not "Jesus the son of Joseph"

That's correct.

Sorry, Buffy, but no. The Romans did keep lots of records, and there probably were records of executions, but we don't have them.

This is also correct. People have this imagined picture of how much survives from ancient times which greatly exceeds reality. We have minutes from exactly one session of the Roman Senate: the one which ratified the late Theodosian Code (by this time the Senate is no longer a debating forum, but a "North Korean" assembly whose proceedings consist of repeated chanting in unison of acclamations of praise for the emperor and the wisdom of his laws). We have a valuable document called Notitia Dignitatus in multiple copies, listing the high civilian and military posts: actually a fusion of two such documents, one giving a snapshot of the eastern empire in 395, the other from the west of 420. We have a unique trove of city charters from the south of Spain, where for some reason it became the fashion to post these on brass tablets. And of course there are building dedications carved in stone, naming the local potentate and donors, rarely saying much more. AND THAT IS IT as far as Roman "records" are concerned.

We get chroniclers who write down, as old men, what they remember from earlier decades; often we don't have them firsthand, but as excerpted and sometimes garbled by later authors. These recollections may sometimes be distorted by failing memory, and by revised perspectives on the former events in the hindsight of what came after. Texts describing events as they occurred are generally less, not more reliable: we have a lot of "orations" delivered to assemblies, and "panegyric" poems in praise of particular leaders, which are nakedly propagandistic in intent and need to be read with care. We have a surprising number of letter-collections (important people would make multiple copies for circulation and keep copies in personal archives), but much of the subject is trivial chit-chat (more interesting for the sociology than for narrative history), and current events are described in maddeningly vague ways, since the recipients would of course already know what the writer was talking about.

Jesus is mentioned often, and early, as ancient figures go.

[The Scandinvans]

Jesus, speaking from a point seperate from my own faith, did exist. Firstly, there are credible and susbstainial historical sources speaking of him. Secondly, there was, within a century, detailed religious pratices performed in honor of him, which speaks of Jesus most likely establishing a format of worship sometime before his death which was latter expanded by his followers.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Jesus, speaking from a point seperate from my own faith, did exist. Firstly, there are credible and susbstainial historical sources speaking of him. Secondly, there was, within a century, detailed religious pratices performed in honor of him, which speaks of Jesus most likely establishing a format of worship sometime before his death which was latter expanded by his followers.

While I agree with you, you saying it doesn't make it true. Where are these sources of which you speak?

[Farnhamia]

Jesus, speaking from a point seperate from my own faith, did exist. Firstly, there are credible and susbstainial historical sources speaking of him. Secondly, there was, within a century, detailed religious pratices performed in honor of him, which speaks of Jesus most likely establishing a format of worship sometime before his death which was latter expanded by his followers.

You haven't actually read the whole thread, have you, in which we kind of, you know, discuss the accuracy of the alleged historical records?

What we have are records of a group of people who worshipped someone whose name has come down to us as "Jesus Christ." There's nothing about the man himself.

[The Scandinvans]

Jesus, speaking from a point seperate from my own faith, did exist. Firstly, there are credible and susbstainial historical sources speaking of him. Secondly, there was, within a century, detailed religious pratices performed in honor of him, which speaks of Jesus most likely establishing a format of worship sometime before his death which was latter expanded by his followers.

While I agree with you, you saying it doesn't make it true. Where are these sources of which you speak?

Tacitus and Pliny.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Jesus, speaking from a point seperate from my own faith, did exist. Firstly, there are credible and susbstainial historical sources speaking of him. Secondly, there was, within a century, detailed religious pratices performed in honor of him, which speaks of Jesus most likely establishing a format of worship sometime before his death which was latter expanded by his followers.

While I agree with you, you saying it doesn't make it true. Where are these sources of which you speak?

Tacitus and Pliny.

You were supposed to let him answer.

[Gift-of-god]

...
EDIT: @Gift-of-God, that's true, but it wasn't a name given to many people. So, we may consider it was related to the person we speak of as Jesus, even if Jesus wasn't is real name.

'Christ' wasn't a name given to anyone by anyone, except the Greeks. Unless the early Christians of Tacitus' time were basing their faith on Greek translations of the gospels (hard to believe as the Gospels probably were not even written by then), it is doubtful they are speaking of Jesus Christ.

Something along the lines of "son of Joesph," I imagine. But Tacitus would have heard of someone called "Jesus the Annointed One," not "Jesus the son of Joseph" because the early Christians would have refered to him by his title, I think.

Why would early Christians use a Greek title? The Judean Christians would have spoke Aramaic, while the Romans would have spoken Latin.

When Paul took Christianity to the Gentiles, he took it to a Greek-speaking world. Greek was the common language throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. Many Romans who had been in the East for any length of time would have spoken some Greek, and an educated Roman would have been fluent in the language. The members of the Early Churc in Rome would more than likely have spoken Greek and not Aramaic.

I see. Thank you.

[The Scandinvans]

Jesus, speaking from a point seperate from my own faith, did exist. Firstly, there are credible and susbstainial historical sources speaking of him. Secondly, there was, within a century, detailed religious pratices performed in honor of him, which speaks of Jesus most likely establishing a format of worship sometime before his death which was latter expanded by his followers.

You haven't actually read the whole thread, have you, in which we kind of, you know, discuss the accuracy of the alleged historical records?

What we have are records of a group of people who worshipped someone whose name has come down to us as "Jesus Christ." There's nothing about the man himself.

Well considering the sources and the speed at which Christanity emerged, we either have to consider that Jesus did exist, with various personal followers acting to spread his teachings upon his death, or that there was a long standing cult that would have already been organized around following a unknown Prophet.

[Farnhamia]

Jesus, speaking from a point seperate from my own faith, did exist. Firstly, there are credible and susbstainial historical sources speaking of him. Secondly, there was, within a century, detailed religious pratices performed in honor of him, which speaks of Jesus most likely establishing a format of worship sometime before his death which was latter expanded by his followers.

You haven't actually read the whole thread, have you, in which we kind of, you know, discuss the accuracy of the alleged historical records?

What we have are records of a group of people who worshipped someone whose name has come down to us as "Jesus Christ." There's nothing about the man himself.

Well considering the sources and the speed at which Christanity emerged, we either have to consider that Jesus did exist, with various personal followers acting to spread his teachings upon his death, or that there was a long standing cult that would have already been organized around following a unknown Prophet.

I'm sorry, meaning what? While communications back then were hardly what we're used to today, you could get around the Mediterrean lands pretty well, especially if you stuck to the big cities and main roads.

Even if Jesus himself didn't exist, Paul of Tarsus certainly did, and it's because of him Christianity exists. Say what you like about Paul but it's because of him that we don't have just a footnote in the history of Judaism that mentions some messiah-claimant from Galilee around 2000 years ago.

[Sitspot]

If one is a Christian the historical proof is largely irrelevant. Faith comes out of a personal relationship with God (or delusion if you prefer) and historical evidence will neither help nor hinder that faith. If one isn't Christian, all the historical evidence in the world will at most confirm the existence of a man and do nothing to convince you of his deity (nor should it).
Whether one finds the historical references that exist persuasive depends entirely on very subjective criteria. Though If one wishes to entirely disbelieve them, consistency would seem to demand that one also disbelieves a large quantity of consensus view ancient history.

[Treznor]

If one is a Christian the historical proof is largely irrelevant. Faith comes out of a personal relationship with God (or delusion if you prefer) and historical evidence will neither help nor hinder that faith. If one isn't Christian, all the historical evidence in the world will at most confirm the existence of a man and do nothing to convince you of his deity (nor should it).
Whether one finds the historical references that exist persuasive depends entirely on very subjective criteria. Though If one wishes to entirely disbelieve them, consistency would seem to demand that one also disbelieves a large quantity of consensus view ancient history.

As someone who is not religious, but is constantly pressured by the religious to believe their superstitious claims, I look for something to verify the validity of those claims. That's the purpose of this debate.

Otherwise, we're back to the dragon in my garage.

[Farnhamia]

If one is a Christian the historical proof is largely irrelevant. Faith comes out of a personal relationship with God (or delusion if you prefer) and historical evidence will neither help nor hinder that faith. If one isn't Christian, all the historical evidence in the world will at most confirm the existence of a man and do nothing to convince you of his deity (nor should it).
Whether one finds the historical references that exist persuasive depends entirely on very subjective criteria. Though If one wishes to entirely disbelieve them, consistency would seem to demand that one also disbelieves a large quantity of consensus view ancient history.

As someone who is not religious, but is constantly pressured by the religious to believe their superstitious claims, I look for something to verify the validity of those claims. That's the purpose of this debate.

Otherwise, we're back to the dragon in my garage.

You and your bloody dragon, Trez! The neighbors are starting to talk about all that smoke, you know.