wanderer085 said:
There is not one comteporary historian of the supposed Jesus that even knew he existed, strange since he supposed created such a rukus in Jeruslaem. In fact, all references to Jesus by historians are considered to be either forgeries later added by Eusabious, or some other early Christian out to create a historical figure, or were second-hand from unknown or questionable sources.
We know that atleast in 60 ad christians existed
There is a general lack of documentation on just about everything from 1st Century Palestine. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, which might have contributed to this lack of documentation
Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman.(2) This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him
Africanus(ancient Reknown historian) says Thallus (ancient credible historian), in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun."(3) Africanus stated his objection to the report arguing that an eclipse of the sun cannot occur during the full moon, as was the case when Jesus died at Passover time. The force of the reference to Thallus is that the circumstances of Jesus' death were known and discussed in the Imperial City as early as the middle of the first century. The fact of Jesus' crucifixion must have been fairly well known by that time, to the extent that unbelievers like Thallus thought it necessary to explain the matter of the darkness as a natural phenomenon. Will Durant observed that Thallus' "argument took the existence of Christ for granted."(4) Neither Jesus nor the darkness at his death were ever denied as factual. Durant summed up the matter of Christ's historical existence for himself by saying that it never occurred to the early opponents of Christianity to deny the existence of Jesus.(5) Ironically, Thallus' efforts have been turned into the mainstream of historical proof for Jesus and for the reliability of Mark's account of the darkness at his death.
Mara Bar-Serapion
. In prison at the time of the writing, the father pleads with his son to be wise. He illustrated the folly of persecuting wise men like Socrates, Pythagoras, and the wise king of the Jews, which the context obviously shows to be Jesus.
What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger, the Samians were overwhelmed by the seas; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which He had given. (6)
Three Roman officials, who held stature with emperors as well as with the empire, wrote of Jesus in such a way as to take his historical existence for granted. Their writings appeared at the turn of the century.
The first of these, usually rated as the greatest of Roman historians, was Cornelius Tacitus, who was born about A.D. 52-54. At about the age of sixty, while writing of the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68), he told how the Christians were made scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64. It had been rumored that Nero had himself started the fire so that he could attain to glory by rebuilding the great capital city in more glorious fashion. When Tacitus wrote about this, he mentioned Jesus by the name of Christus:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus. (7)
To Tacitus, a pagan who knew little or nothing of Jewish messianism, "Christus" was more than likely only a proper name; but to him, Christus was as real as the Roman procurator who executed him. C. Plinius Secundus, called Pliny the Younger to distinguish him from his uncle, the elder Pliny, was governor of Bithynia about A.D.112. He often wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking his Imperial advice on how best to deal with the problem of the Christians in his province. According to him, they were causing trouble. In one of his letters, he spoke of Christ as he reported of some information which he extracted from some Christian girls by torture, "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed ... after which it was their custom to separate, and then meet again to partake of food, but food of an ordinary kind."(8)
There are two separate books of writings dealing with Jewish law called the Talmud. The first of these is the Mishnah, which is the Jewish code of religious jurisprudence. It began to be compiled sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and was completed about A.D. 200. This great body of newly codified case law became the object of Jewish study from which grew a body of commentaries called Gemaras. Together, the Mishnah (the law book) and the Gemara (the commentary) are called the Talmud. Being Jewish, suffice it to say, all references to "Yeshu'a of Nazareth" in the Talmudic writings are unfriendly, but nevertheless sufficient in number to establish beyond doubt his historical reality.
The most important references to the historical Jesus from a Jewish source is from a former Jewish general turned historian by the name of Flavius Josephus. In his writings he tells us who he was, what he did, and his own evaluation of a historian. He wrote of many of the outstanding persons we read of in the New Testament: Pilate; Quirinius of Syria (during whose governorship Rome enrolled the Empire for taxation purposes); the Caesars; the Herods; the Pharisees and the Sadducees; Annas and Caiaphas, who had Jesus crucified; Felix and Festus, under whose governorships the apostle Paul was arrested and before whom he spoke of Jesus; Jesus' brother, James; and John the Baptist.
Most significant is his reference to Jesus himself in the following words: And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and also many Greeks. This man was the Messiah. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the instigation of our own leaders, those who had loved him from the first did not cease. For he appeared to them on the third day alive again, as the prophets had predicted and said many other wonderful things about him. And even now the race of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out. (11)
All attempts to discredit this reference to Jesus as having been dressed up by a Christian copiest have failed. The reference is included in all of the manuscripts of Josephus, including the copy from which the fourth-century historian, Eusebius, read and quoted. At the close of his excellent book offering evidence for the historical reliability of the New Testament, F.F. Bruce has observed, Whatever else may be thought of the evidence from early Jewish and Gentile writers ... it does at least establish, for those who refuse the witness of Christian writings, the historical character of Jesus himself. Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the Christ-myth'' theories. (12
And by the way the only one that
SOME hisotorians
Quesiton is Josephus
nto all historical proofs, and again as seen in my last post, historical findings of argheoligists shows that places and events of the bible took place.... as simple as that. Both credible archeologists and historians rarely question the historical Jesus , the small group that does are Non-Christians and 99% non-Archeologisits or historians.
and even faced with solid proof you will still deny or look for some dreesable , covered up reply. the fact is simple, there was a historic man Jesus, and daily things are being discovered to prove such.. the accounts of the bible on a daily basis becoming more true based on more recent findings, including the moutain which moses stood upon.
