Template:Jesus real
Denial of Christ
There are a lot of people that leap at the idea that Jesus was completely made up and never existed.
The scholar Bart Ehrman who has written a number of critical books on modern christian ideas and biblical interpretations into a scholarly context of history says people who suggest that Jesus never existed "Just make themselves look silly." But then he is the same guy who said “The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.”
He wrote the book "Did Jesus Exist?" in which he wrote:
- “The problem then with Jesus is that he cannot be removed from his time and transplanted into our own without simply creating him anew.”[1]
Ehrman is not alone in his errors. Those who are suggesting that Jesus did not exist have been popping up like tares in a wheat field.
Just as the masses in those early days hated the doctrine of Jesus so did their masters.
Many today hate Jesus but if we want to understand why He provoked such hatred then we only need to hold His teachings up to the light.[2]
Many modern Christians might hate the idea and those who share the truth that they are under a Strong delusion about their own faith and are actually the very workers of iniquity Jesus and His followers warned us about.
The real problem is the more doctrines modern Christians invent the less they seem to know about the real Jesus and the less they know about the real Jesus the more they give the real Jesus a bad name.
Historical Jesus
Religious movements with no grounding in reality whatsoever and real historical events are almost none existent. Yet, thousands of people were dying and being persecuted, having their property seized and their bodies dismembered and even set on fire. What was driving them?
They would not partake of the free bread and welfare of the Roman State which was at the core of the Christian conflict with Rome and even with the Pharisees and their Corban.
During times of economic failure, famines, and "dearths" the early Christians would not eat at the "tables" of the Roman State and were often mercilessly persecuted for that choice. That is a lot to expect from followers who had no Bible, no Churches and a supposedly made up founder.
Did any independent historian talk about Jesus?
Of course, Paul has two brief meetings with Jesus’ brother James. Since James’ existence could have been verified to the readers of Paul it would have been foolish to make him up.
Josephus
Josephus was a Roman-Jewish historian who supposedly wrote the Testimonium Flavianum—an ‘early’ reference to Christ. Some, however, think it is fake. But Josephus’s works also include a much less known passage that is not disputed.
In Book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews there is a clear reference to the execution of “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”.
Tacitus
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire.
The Great Fire of Rome was talked about extensively by Tacitus clearly mentions Christ and His movement that was hated by the masses.
Tacitus wrote of his suspicions that the fire was set and then blamed on a "class hated for their abominations, called Christians". He also mentions the name of the man they followed identified as "Christus". He even makes reference to this Christus' death by torture during the "reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus”.
Tacitus at the risk of his own life wrote of a government coverup in his Annals 15.44 :
"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.”
There has been clear evidence from many authors like Tacitus who went on to complain about this early Christian religion called a "superstition".
Here Tacitus calls Christianity a "mischievous superstition" that would be "checked" breifly but appeared again in Judea where it began.
"and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Why does Tacitus call them "mischievous" and "evil"?
Why did so many Romans, at least those who took to the streets to riot, see Christians as deplorable?
Both the common terms translated religion and superstition had to do with religion. The former from the Greek :threskia meaning what you do and the latter was what you think.
Something about what Christians thought triggered Romans and also the Pharisees.
This could be because Romans and Christian separately called Caesar and Jesus the Son of God.
They both called their respective kings their Savior.
They both provided free bread at their tables of welfare.
They both where said to have temples but while Roman temples were made of stone the Christian temple was made without hands of lively stones.
Understanding the purpose of these Roman temples and their function and purpose is essential in understanding the Christian conflict with Rome.
The difference was that early Christians provided their daily ministration for their needy through a personal and voluntary network of believers by The Way of faith, hope and, fervent charity. While Romans and the Pharisees depend upon systems of legal charity through the rule of force, fear, and fealty.
The Way of those followers of "Christus" was called pure Religion by them because it was unspotted by the public religion of the world of Rome.
Many Christian Jews had been exiled from Rome under Claudius.[3]
This exile was because jealousy and envy among the "masses" had caused riots and unrest which was the result of a sort of "Christus" derangement syndrome due to their own appetite for benefits and the habit of obtaining through force.
The masses of the Roman people had long been degenerating into perfect savages as predicted by Polybius 200 years earlier.
Now Tacitus writes of a true Holocaust against Christians.
"Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."
They did admit to setong Re on fire but of being followers of this "superstition that Jesus was the Son of God and [[Savior and not Caesar.
They were not also not signed up
This hatred has been seen in the prison camps, in the Russian gulag, and Chinese reeducation camps.
Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."
Why would someone even suggest there is no evidence that Jesus the Christ was real?
Why did the masses hate Him and His followers and would the masses today hate real Christian if they were actually doing what the early Church did?
Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger name was Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, born Gaius Caecilius in 61 –ad and died 113, and was a lawyer, author, and magistrate of Ancient Rome.
Pliny's uncle, Pliny the Elder, helped raise and educate him.
Pliny the Younger wrote hundreds of letters, of which 247 survive, and are of historical value. Some are addressed to reigning emperors or to his friend and historian Tacitus. He served as an imperial magistrate under Trajan reign.
The reply of Trajan
Trajan' reply to Pliny did allow Pliny's treatment of the case but gives four orders:
- Do not seek out the Christians for trial.
- If the accused are found guilty of being Christian, then they must be punished.
- If the accused deny they are Christians and show proof that they are not by worshipping the gods, then they must be pardoned.
- Anonymous accusations should not be considered.
"Private religion" would not be fully outlawed until Saturninus during the Christian conflict in Africa.
Rome had a long history of freed of religion but the thinking of Christians was undermining the source of bureaucratic power.
It has been reported that Lucius Annaeus Seneca, the Younger once said "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."
Letter to Trajan
"It is my custom, O lord, to refer all questionable issues to you. For who is more capable of resolving my doubts and instructing my ignorance?"
"I have never been present at a formal inquiry of "Christ-niks." Consequently, I do not know the nature or the extent of the sanctions usually administered against them, nor the grounds for opening a formal inquiry and how far it should be pressed. Nor am I at all sure whether any distinction should be made between them on the basis of age, or whether young people and adults should be treated identically, whether a pardon ought to be granted to anyone retracting his beliefs, or if he has once professed being a "Christ-nik," he shall gain nothing by renouncing it; and whether it is the mere label which is actionable, even if not guilty of a crime, or rather the crimes associated with the name."
"In the meantime, this is the approach I have taken with everyone brought before me on the charge of being "Christ-niks": I have asked them in person if they are "Christ-niks"; and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time with a warning of the sanction awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution. For, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy should not go unpunished. Others as fanatical who are citizens of Rome I have listed to be remanded to "the City" for trial."
"Now that I have begun to deal with this problem, as so often happens, the charges are becoming more widespread and increasing in variety. An anonymous writing has circulated which contains the names of several accused individuals. From these, I considered dismissing any who denied that they were or ever had been "Christ-niks" when they had recited after me an invocation of the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your statue�which I ordered brought into court for this purpose along with the images of the gods�and further reviled the name of Christ: none of which, I understand, any true "Christ-nik" can be induced to do. Others, whose names were given to me by an informant, first admitted the charge and then denied it; they said that they had ceased to be "Christ-niks" two or more years before, and some of them even twenty years ago. They all venerated your statue and the images of the gods in the same way as the others, and cursed the name of Christ."
"They also declared that the totality of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a certain day to chant verses antiphonally amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves with an oath, not in a criminal conspiracy, but to abstain from fraud, banditry, and adultery, to commit no breach of trust, and not to renege on a deposit. After completing this foolishness, it was their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an common and innocuous type; but they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your instructions, which banned all associations. This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth from two female slaves�whom they call "ministers"�by means of torture. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of superstition carried to immoderate lengths."
"I have, therefore, put off any further consideration awaiting your counsel. The matter seems worthy of your consideration, especially in light of the number of persons at risk. For numerous persons of every age and every class, both genders, are being brought to trial, and this is likely to continue. It is not only the town, but villages and countryside as well which are infected through contact with this perverse superstition."
"I think that it is still possible for it to be checked and directed to better ends, for there is no doubt that people have begun to throng the temples, which had been almost entirely abandoned for a long time. And the sacred rites which had been allowed to lapse are again being performed, and the flesh of sacrificial meat is on sale everywhere, though until recently hardly anyone was buying it. It is easy to infer from this that a great many people could be rehabilitated if they were given an opportunity to recant."
Suetonius
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was born 69 CE in Rome and died after 122,
His family was of a knightly class, or Equestrian. As a protégé of the government official Pliny the Younger he was well known.
After Pliny’s death Suetonius found another patron, Septicius Clarus.
Under Emperor Hadrian (117), he entered the imperial service, holding the posts of controller of the Roman libraries, keeper of the archives, and adviser to the emperor on cultural matters. He was eventually promoted to secretary of the imperial correspondence,
As a Roman biographer and antiquarian[4] sponsored by Pliny his writings include De viris illustribus (“Concerning Illustrious Men”) which was a collection of short biographies of well known Roman literary figures, and De vita Caesarum (Lives of the Caesars).
These often contained bits of gossip and scandal relating to the lives of Julius Caesar and the first 11 Roman emperors which secured him lasting place in history.
After Pliny's death Suetonius found another patron, Septicius Clarus, to whom he later dedicated De vita Caesarum.
We know about lives of Horace, Lucan, Terence, and Virgil from writers who derived their facts from Suetonius.
Life of Claudius
"He drove out from Rome the Jews who stirred up by Chrestus continually caused unrest."
Life of Nero
"[After the great fire of Rome] Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition."
Suetonius meaning
So he saw the Christians as a knew "mischievous" religious thinking. It was mischievous because it caused "unrest". That unrest was undoubtedly because Romans who had been a part of the temples legal charity welfare system were now followers of The way contributing through fervent charity to a private religion system without the covetous practices which provided the free bread of Rome.
Some Romans could remember the war crimes of Caesar against the Gauls and the failure to prosecute him.
Many had turned a blind eye to his crimes because he spread amongst the "gifts, gratuities, and benefits" which was the ruin" of the people according to Plutarch.<Ref name=""That the man who first ruined the Roman people twas he who first gave them treats and gratuities" Plutarch's Life of Coriolanus (c. 100 AD.)
- “The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.” Plutarch</Ref>
Those who would not repent of their past sloth and avarice would grow to hate those who did.
One man's repentance is another man's superstition.
Archaeological evidence
Was there archaeological evidence that Christ existed?
What is the meaning of archaeological evidence?
The archaeological record is the body of physical (i.e. not written) evidence about the past. It is one of the core concepts in archaeology, the academic discipline concerned with documenting and interpreting the archaeological record.
What we usually call archaeological record are usually found in the ground.
What would you expect to find as an archaeological record of Jesus?
We know that James was Jesus brother and that he lived and we appear to have found his bone box. The Ossuary or bone box immediately came into question and the Israeli police arrested the collector who found Ossuary on the suspicion of forgery.
But the case was thrown out because those experts who were making these accusations were evidently lying and the inscriptions appear to be authentic.
The Ossuary or bone box of Caiaphas the high priest was also found containing bones and for some unknown reason also contained three spikes that could have been used in a crucifixion.
There are apparent discrepancies in the book we call the Bible but these do not affect the message of the Gospel. The ancient prophecy saying the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem begs why was he from Nazareth in Mark and only later from Bethlehem in Luke and Matthew.
Jesus's Mother having stayed in Bethlehem during the birth may make Jesus a prophetic anchor baby but he would still be from the polis of Nazareth. Even Herod Antipas' Mother went to Bethlehem to give birth to baby of Herod the Great just so he could improve his claim to the throne.
- ↑ Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
- ↑ John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
- ↑ Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; 2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
- ↑ dealing with such subjects as Greek pastimes, the history of Roman spectacles and shows,