Evidence of Jesus existence
Cleopatra is mentioned in Roman history and there were lots of writers, so why is there no record of Jesus in Roman history.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
LeopoldBloom · M
Because at the time, he wasn't important enough to mention. We don't have records of every single criminal the Romans executed, and Jesus was just another criminal to them.
I'm sure there was a Judean rabbi named "Yeshua" who the Romans executed. What's not credible are the miracles and other attributes he's claimed to have. This is the difference between him and Cleopatra. Nobody says that Cleopatra was the daughter of God, performed miracles, that she rose from the dead, or that her death atoned for the sins of humanity.
I'm sure there was a Judean rabbi named "Yeshua" who the Romans executed. What's not credible are the miracles and other attributes he's claimed to have. This is the difference between him and Cleopatra. Nobody says that Cleopatra was the daughter of God, performed miracles, that she rose from the dead, or that her death atoned for the sins of humanity.
AkioTsukino · M
@LeopoldBloom [quote]Because at the time, he wasn't important enough to mention. We don't have records of every single criminal the Romans executed, and Jesus was just another criminal to them.[/quote]
Exactly. Well said.
[quote]I'm sure there was a Judean rabbi named "Yeshua" who the Romans executed. What's not credible are the miracles and other attributes he's claimed to have. This is the difference between him and Cleopatra. Nobody says that Cleopatra was the daughter of God, performed miracles, that she rose from the dead, or that her death atoned for the sins of humanity.[/quote]
Nobody says Cleopatra was the daughter of God? You know that? She was the brother of Alexander the Great, who made similar claims of divinity about himself. What is often conflated in this discussion is the supernatural with the natural. Complicated by the perveance and commonality, historically, in historical context. So you conclude that Yeshua existed but as you say his miracles, the supernatural aspect of his existence, isn't credible. And that's fine, but to you supernatural only really means you can't explain it. If you yourself observed some supernatural event you would deny it. In other words you would doubt it unless you could explain it in some way that wasn't supernatural. And again, that's fine except for that the supernatural claims similar to those of Jesus are extremely common throughout history. The entire Japanese history and specifically the Royal family, the Egyptian dynasties and the Roman. Zeus was a title applied to Roman leaders, on the money in your pocket it says "In God we trust."
To me it seems incredulous to make use of history as if it is or isn't a credible testimony to the existence of Christ when, not only do the spurious nature of some of the alleged references bring into question the credibility of historicity itself, but also due to the superiority of the Bible as reliable history compared to secular histories in which such unscientific supernatural references are the norm. Secular history doesn't even come close to the Bible.
“For Cæsar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Cæsar’s day.
“Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59B.C.-A.D.17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of BooksIII-VI, is as old as the fourth century.
“Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. ...
“The History of Thucydides (c.460-400B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era.
“The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c.488-428B.C.). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.” - The Books and the Parchments, page180.
Exactly. Well said.
[quote]I'm sure there was a Judean rabbi named "Yeshua" who the Romans executed. What's not credible are the miracles and other attributes he's claimed to have. This is the difference between him and Cleopatra. Nobody says that Cleopatra was the daughter of God, performed miracles, that she rose from the dead, or that her death atoned for the sins of humanity.[/quote]
Nobody says Cleopatra was the daughter of God? You know that? She was the brother of Alexander the Great, who made similar claims of divinity about himself. What is often conflated in this discussion is the supernatural with the natural. Complicated by the perveance and commonality, historically, in historical context. So you conclude that Yeshua existed but as you say his miracles, the supernatural aspect of his existence, isn't credible. And that's fine, but to you supernatural only really means you can't explain it. If you yourself observed some supernatural event you would deny it. In other words you would doubt it unless you could explain it in some way that wasn't supernatural. And again, that's fine except for that the supernatural claims similar to those of Jesus are extremely common throughout history. The entire Japanese history and specifically the Royal family, the Egyptian dynasties and the Roman. Zeus was a title applied to Roman leaders, on the money in your pocket it says "In God we trust."
To me it seems incredulous to make use of history as if it is or isn't a credible testimony to the existence of Christ when, not only do the spurious nature of some of the alleged references bring into question the credibility of historicity itself, but also due to the superiority of the Bible as reliable history compared to secular histories in which such unscientific supernatural references are the norm. Secular history doesn't even come close to the Bible.
“For Cæsar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Cæsar’s day.
“Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59B.C.-A.D.17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of BooksIII-VI, is as old as the fourth century.
“Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. ...
“The History of Thucydides (c.460-400B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era.
“The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c.488-428B.C.). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.” - The Books and the Parchments, page180.
LeopoldBloom · M
@AkioTsukino Nobody today is saying Cleopatra was the daughter of God, and there is no existing religion around that. If there was, I'd be questioning that, too.
The problem with saying other historical events are attested to with the same strength as the records of Jesus is ignoring the fact that, to take just one of them, if the Gallic Wars didn't happen, then we have a historical lacuna. We would have to come up with some other way to explain how Gaul became part of the Roman Empire. This isn't the case with Jesus' "miracles." If they didn't actually happen, and were just stories that people came to believe, the historical effect would be identical.
I don't see how my lack of belief in the supernatural is relevant. I'm comfortable saying "I don't know" if I see something I don't understand. Would it be better if I was a Scientologist and attributed the unknown to L. Ron Hubbard? The problem with supernatural explanations is that there's no way to test them or even falsify them, so by definition, they're not scientific theories.
The problem with saying other historical events are attested to with the same strength as the records of Jesus is ignoring the fact that, to take just one of them, if the Gallic Wars didn't happen, then we have a historical lacuna. We would have to come up with some other way to explain how Gaul became part of the Roman Empire. This isn't the case with Jesus' "miracles." If they didn't actually happen, and were just stories that people came to believe, the historical effect would be identical.
I don't see how my lack of belief in the supernatural is relevant. I'm comfortable saying "I don't know" if I see something I don't understand. Would it be better if I was a Scientologist and attributed the unknown to L. Ron Hubbard? The problem with supernatural explanations is that there's no way to test them or even falsify them, so by definition, they're not scientific theories.