There are non-Biblical contemporary accounts of a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
No there isn’t. Simply not true, you’ve been led to believe the bible is reliable, but even the bible description of Jesus is written a lifetime after the fact by third parties, based on hear say (or fantasy).
There is not a single verifiable or first hand historic evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, continuing to claim that doesn’t make it so.
Well, I’m certainly glad that I wrote out all that, for you just to reply to the first paragraph!
Anyway, you’re wrong. Literally minimum effort required to dig these out, but I’ll do it for you anyway.
Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus
Annals by Tacitus
Antiquities has two mentions, along with a rather grim description of what Nero was doing to Christians. Annals has one mention.
And I think you’re fundamentaly mistaken about what the Bible is. It’s just a collection of works. The Old Testament is pretty much the same stuff as the Jewish Tanakh, and predates Jesus fairly significantly. The New Testament is composed of works created after Jesus’s death. This includes several letters by a guy named Paul.
“OK, and…”, I hear you say.
He was absolutely a contemporary of the historical Jesus, carried out missionary work after his conversion.
I’ll grant that there are no first-hand accounts - even Paul’s accounts were second-hand from people who actually knew Jesus. But it doesn’t mean anything - there are few first-hand accounts of anybody from before the early middle ages, let alone a commoner born 2000 years ago.
Either way, I appreciate you providing those, it’s a fascinating topic. Frankly even if Jesus was just some guy running around deceiving people into thinking he was the Messiah, he had some good lessons and that’s gotta count for something.
His moral teachings were pretty bland, even relative to his era. (Which, for example, is why he never criticized slavery, despite it being something he’d encountered daily.)
I don’t really have to look up those, I’m very well aware of them, because as I wrote, there are excruciatingly little, even when counting things that aren’t really evidence.
First Josephus wrote that way after the fact, and they are NOT first person experiences (as you admitted), so even if truly written by him, it does not constitute reliable historic evidence.
In fact the entry was allegedly written a decade AFTER the oldest book in the Bible describing the life of Jesus. So clearly more likely faked by himself to seem more complete, or by a fraudster to create evidence, maybe to increase the value, or to please his church.
Notice not a single mention of Jesus until near the end with this comment:
its mention of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a spurious interjection, added later, and not written by Tacitus.
It must be embarrassing to have to quote those as “evidence”, for what billions consider the most significant event in the history of mankind, when both reek of having been manipulated.
The fact that you really believe I was unaware of these, just show your own ignorance. Because these are parroted over and over again by Christians, exactly because they don’t have any historically reliable evidence.
This despite huge efforts to find this evidence, financed by Churches through 2000 years, combined using by far more resources than any other investigation into the history of anything.
Investigating the pyramids have been peanuts by comparison, yet we know several Pharaoh that are thousands of years before the story of Jesus Christ.
Just Cleopatra which were slightly earlier than the fantasy figure Jesus Christ, But Cleopatra is an indisputable historic character, despite the Roman empire was way more notorious in cataloging everything.
But that’s because Cleopatra and Pharaohs actually existed, and despite being way less significant, than if Jesus Christ had actually founded Christianity. Even without the miracles of the Bible being true!!!
If you think about it critically and regard the context and compare to the evidence of other historical events, it becomes pretty clear that Jesus Christ never existed as an actual person.
The claim about Tacitus not writing on Jesus comes from one “source” in the pop culture section. That source is a fictional character in a novel (one who’s obviously portrayed as highly biased on this issue, ironically…) it gets even more embarassing when you look up what that novel is about…
There’s also this which mentions that his writings on Jesus are pretty much agreed to be authentic. The Roman empire was indeed very good at keeping records, that’s why Tacitus is considered such a reliable source…
You’re making a lot of claims about the motivations of people, with no actual evidence to show for it, and using that to dismiss them as sources. This is painfully ironic. Not everything is a Catholic conspiracy, it’s okay for the world to be nuanced.
Thanks for replying to this. This is everything I would have said, except in a far less exasperated way than I would have said it!
I’m going to draw a line under it now though. I honestly don’t have energy to explain why a street-preacher who was active for a only a few years does not have the same quality of historical evidence as Cleopatra.
They’re either stupid or a troll. A quick look through their profile shows a lot of posts in Danish, so I don’t think they’re stupid. Scandinavia, however, is famously home to trolls of all shapes and sizes.
Ahaha, that’s very true Scandinavia is a mysterious place.
Yeah the comment on Cleopatra is just laughable on the face of it haha, I didn’t even think it was worth addressing.
Glad you’re stepping away there’s no point getting worked up on this. I normally wouldn’t have engaged to this degree myself, but I found that particular rebuttal to Tacitus to be so damn funny that I couldn’t not.
I suspect they’re genuine, I feel I’ve been this person in the past. Sometimes it’s hard to learn to reevaluate and be wrong about things, and religion is a pretty stigmatising issue that can leave you with a lot of unresolved and misguided anger. It’s unfortunate, but human.
Actually they made movies and we have the original text of Harry Potter so … it’s a less credulous statement than that.
Lots of folks getting their panties in a bunch about something they don’t understand, it’s not OUR fault no contemporary peers wrote of this “Jesus” fellow but instead we got tales of a rebel leader inflated over the years.
He’s just John Henry with a couple thousand years to simmer.
No there isn’t. Simply not true, you’ve been led to believe the bible is reliable, but even the bible description of Jesus is written a lifetime after the fact by third parties, based on hear say (or fantasy).
There is not a single verifiable or first hand historic evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, continuing to claim that doesn’t make it so.
Well, I’m certainly glad that I wrote out all that, for you just to reply to the first paragraph!
Anyway, you’re wrong. Literally minimum effort required to dig these out, but I’ll do it for you anyway.
Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus
Annals by Tacitus
Antiquities has two mentions, along with a rather grim description of what Nero was doing to Christians. Annals has one mention.
And I think you’re fundamentaly mistaken about what the Bible is. It’s just a collection of works. The Old Testament is pretty much the same stuff as the Jewish Tanakh, and predates Jesus fairly significantly. The New Testament is composed of works created after Jesus’s death. This includes several letters by a guy named Paul.
“OK, and…”, I hear you say.
He was absolutely a contemporary of the historical Jesus, carried out missionary work after his conversion.
I’ll grant that there are no first-hand accounts - even Paul’s accounts were second-hand from people who actually knew Jesus. But it doesn’t mean anything - there are few first-hand accounts of anybody from before the early middle ages, let alone a commoner born 2000 years ago.
???
Either way, I appreciate you providing those, it’s a fascinating topic. Frankly even if Jesus was just some guy running around deceiving people into thinking he was the Messiah, he had some good lessons and that’s gotta count for something.
People have always known how to behave kindly.
His moral teachings were pretty bland, even relative to his era. (Which, for example, is why he never criticized slavery, despite it being something he’d encountered daily.)
Josephus:
I don’t really have to look up those, I’m very well aware of them, because as I wrote, there are excruciatingly little, even when counting things that aren’t really evidence.
First Josephus wrote that way after the fact, and they are NOT first person experiences (as you admitted), so even if truly written by him, it does not constitute reliable historic evidence.
In fact the entry was allegedly written a decade AFTER the oldest book in the Bible describing the life of Jesus. So clearly more likely faked by himself to seem more complete, or by a fraudster to create evidence, maybe to increase the value, or to please his church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews
Actual meaning they don̈́t agree.
How is it both authentic and subjected to Christian interpolation.
Annals by Tacitus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
Notice not a single mention of Jesus until near the end with this comment:
It must be embarrassing to have to quote those as “evidence”, for what billions consider the most significant event in the history of mankind, when both reek of having been manipulated.
The fact that you really believe I was unaware of these, just show your own ignorance. Because these are parroted over and over again by Christians, exactly because they don’t have any historically reliable evidence.
This despite huge efforts to find this evidence, financed by Churches through 2000 years, combined using by far more resources than any other investigation into the history of anything.
Investigating the pyramids have been peanuts by comparison, yet we know several Pharaoh that are thousands of years before the story of Jesus Christ. Just Cleopatra which were slightly earlier than the fantasy figure Jesus Christ, But Cleopatra is an indisputable historic character, despite the Roman empire was way more notorious in cataloging everything.
But that’s because Cleopatra and Pharaohs actually existed, and despite being way less significant, than if Jesus Christ had actually founded Christianity. Even without the miracles of the Bible being true!!!
If you think about it critically and regard the context and compare to the evidence of other historical events, it becomes pretty clear that Jesus Christ never existed as an actual person.
The claim about Tacitus not writing on Jesus comes from one “source” in the pop culture section. That source is a fictional character in a novel (one who’s obviously portrayed as highly biased on this issue, ironically…) it gets even more embarassing when you look up what that novel is about…
There’s also this which mentions that his writings on Jesus are pretty much agreed to be authentic. The Roman empire was indeed very good at keeping records, that’s why Tacitus is considered such a reliable source…
You’re making a lot of claims about the motivations of people, with no actual evidence to show for it, and using that to dismiss them as sources. This is painfully ironic. Not everything is a Catholic conspiracy, it’s okay for the world to be nuanced.
Thanks for replying to this. This is everything I would have said, except in a far less exasperated way than I would have said it!
I’m going to draw a line under it now though. I honestly don’t have energy to explain why a street-preacher who was active for a only a few years does not have the same quality of historical evidence as Cleopatra.
They’re either stupid or a troll. A quick look through their profile shows a lot of posts in Danish, so I don’t think they’re stupid. Scandinavia, however, is famously home to trolls of all shapes and sizes.
Ahaha, that’s very true Scandinavia is a mysterious place.
Yeah the comment on Cleopatra is just laughable on the face of it haha, I didn’t even think it was worth addressing.
Glad you’re stepping away there’s no point getting worked up on this. I normally wouldn’t have engaged to this degree myself, but I found that particular rebuttal to Tacitus to be so damn funny that I couldn’t not.
I suspect they’re genuine, I feel I’ve been this person in the past. Sometimes it’s hard to learn to reevaluate and be wrong about things, and religion is a pretty stigmatising issue that can leave you with a lot of unresolved and misguided anger. It’s unfortunate, but human.
The only verifiable fact is that the Romans were into crucifying people AND there were rebel sects in Judea.
The rest is just really good story telling
That’s like saying that trains stations are a verifiable fact of Harry Potter.
Actually they made movies and we have the original text of Harry Potter so … it’s a less credulous statement than that.
Lots of folks getting their panties in a bunch about something they don’t understand, it’s not OUR fault no contemporary peers wrote of this “Jesus” fellow but instead we got tales of a rebel leader inflated over the years.
He’s just John Henry with a couple thousand years to simmer.
Yes by comparison the evidence for Harry Potter is overwhelming.