Jesus was mentioned in credible Roman records. What makes their records of Jesus less credible?
44 comments
There are two references by Romans that might, if you're in a generous mood, refer to Jesus. One talks about a a "Chrestus." They were written about 200 years after the time of Christ, and are quite obviously based on hearsay. Not real strong evidence, know what I mean?
"Credible records"? Does he mean the Alexamenos Graffito?
image
"People don't WANT Jesus to exist."
You do, and a large number of others. Your conclusion goes both ways.
I could care less if he did, but if he did the Jews and Islamics probably have the story closer to reality. Your religions even more piecemeal and rewrite then theirs, and that's saying a lot as theirs is heavily borrowed
There is no official record of Jesus.
No confirmation of Jesus (who, at this time, must have been long dead)
"Jesus was mentioned in credible Roman records."
Citation, please.
"What makes their records of Jesus less credible?"
Their non-existence mostly.
"People don't WANT Jesus to exist."
I don't give a fuck one way or the other. Even if you could somehow show a Jesus existed, in the appropriate area and at the appropriate time who, somehow, managed to actually have done the mundane believable things recorded in your Babble you'd still be one hell of a long way from being able to claim he's god incarnate.
"Oh, yeah, and scientists could well be lying to us."
Scientists get fired for shit like that. Not only fired but their career is completely ruined. Nobody would hire a scientist who has falsified information, hence it's incredibly unlikely they're lying to anyone. Not only that, but due to the way science works someone would have found out by now.
Josephus mentions Jesus, but he appears only to be repeating what was believed by the Christians, not documenting Jesus personally. Josephus wasn't a Roman record. He was a Jewish Roman historian who wrote a history of the Jews.
"Oh, yeah, and scientists could well be lying to us. "
Now apply that logic to the Gospel writers......
@ Shadow Boxer: Ouch, nice one.
As for Jesus, my point of view is that he's dead, and he ain't coming back.
"Jesus was mentioned in credible Roman records"
i.e. one written account briefly referencing his first name (a common one) and the title of "Christ", along with what people already believed about him, several decades after his death. And one apparently forged account. Wheee!
@kelpfoot: LOL. What a proud artistic heritage! Was Jesus a cow?
What have scientists got to do with a historical issue? Whether or not there is valid historical evidence for Jesus existing doesn't seem to depend on carbon dating.
Actually, this is an interesting point, I have already noticed that fundies never accuse historians of being evil as regularly as they do scientists. (Though of course they are generally as ignorant of history as they are of science.) So here, if a historical record is 'wrong' it's the scientists' fault.
The reference to Suetonius (circa 120 AD) to Chrestos is not in any way connected with Christos. The first means 'useful' in Greek, and was often given as a slang name to a slave. The second means simply annointed. It was an adjective of description, not really a name. Annointing was common enough then. There is really no evidence to connect this a a god/man.
In the Alexamenos grafitto, the first letter of the last word is a theta, yield 'theon' god rather than 'aeon' age, although the original poster seems to have copied the translation correctly.
The only good attestation for Jesus outside the Bible is Josephus mention of his brother James.
Jesus was mentioned in credible Roman records.
Ur reckords.
People don't WANT Jesus to exist.
Having read the Old Testament... of course I don't.
@Illuminatalie: "Actually, this is an interesting point, I have already noticed that fundies never accuse historians of being evil as regularly as they do scientists. (Though of course they are generally as ignorant of history as they are of science.) So here, if a historical record is 'wrong' it's the scientists' fault."
I actually think that fundies feel that ANYONE (ie not a member of their particular church, or a vetted bible thumping preacher, or personally approved by Hovind) associated with academia is ACTUALLY a 'scientist'=evil lie-monger.
Yeshua was a Jewish terrorist. No surprise the Romans picked him up and crucified him with other terrorists. How else do you keep the law in a conquered city populated with a conquered people.
Oh, but I suppose Jesus wasn't a terrorist.
Plus, what you just wrote makes no fucking sense together.
Ramses II.
Temples, stelae, the works. Plenty of documented facts about him.
And a DNA-analysable body does his existence no harm, neither.
Until you can find - with DNA traces to prove it - just one artifact known to have belonged to him, then I'm afraid your 'Jesus' is looking less & less credible.
All those artifacts proven to have belonged to Tutankhamun, frankly we're spoiled for choice. Tutankhamun existed . We have the body to prove it, too.
Your 'Jesus'? '[citation needed] '.
Your character in WoW, pastorb; you can see it. It has possessions: artifacts . Question: does it actually exist ...?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
