|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:53 pm
This is a list of people who lived during, or within a century of Jesus' life, how come none of them wrote about Jesus?
Josephus
Philo-Judææus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phæædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
Now, I'm a Classicist. I study Latin and Roman culture intensively. All of my professors agree that Josephus and Tacitus truly didn't mention Jesus, it was a forgery because the Latin does not flow properly. I read Latin and I too can tell different styles (Cicero is a b***h). I have read writings from many, many of the listed men.
So why did no one write about him if he was so important and made such an impact??
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 12:45 am
Omg, my Latin lecturer HATED Cicero. We translated a passage on his death in second semester and he was all "YEAH! THAT'S RIGHT!"
...because this one time all his friends got drunk at this awesome party and he couldn't go because he had to stay home working on his dissertation translating Cicero.
He was an awesome lecturer.
Anyway. I was going to say that I don't know for many of them, but I imagine Tacitus and co. were a bit busy to worry about some random guy preaching about some religion and then crucified. Apparently that happened quite a bit anyway, didn't it? Why would it be worth mentioning? I got the impression that messiahs were thick as flies at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:19 am
I'm going to say that the people who wrote the Gospels had less than three people in common with Jesus. Some of the Gospels were written by men who knew one of the apostles or written by an apostle. I don't think any of those guys knew Jesus...That could possibly be the reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:06 am
were all of those during or after Jesus' life? or were some from before?
anywho, i think i noticed a few in there that actually DID write about Jesus, but in Apocryphal texts that the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches deemed unfit for the Bible, which was only compiled so as to appeal to all teh different sects of Christians and thus unify the religion. some of these, called the Dead Sea Scrolls, were saved by the Knights Templar. come on, it's the most popular bit of history there is! constantly abused and embellished, but still able to be cleaned off to find the origional telling to be clear on it if one puts in the little bit of effort to sift through teh hype.
Pliny the Elder wrote about him. so did Josephus. of course Ptolemy didn't, he was a devout Pagan!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:32 am
Chieftain Twilight some of these, called the Dead Sea Scrolls, were saved by the Knights Templar. come on, it's the most popular bit of history there is! constantly abused and embellished, but still able to be cleaned off to find the origional telling to be clear on it if one puts in the little bit of effort to sift through teh hype. The Dead Sea Scrolls didn't contain any gospels written within Jesus's lifetime. We'd certainly have heard about it if they did. The earliest gospel was written about 40 years after Jesus's death, was it not? IMR will know better than I, I think. Quote: Pliny the Elder wrote about him. so did Josephus. of course Ptolemy didn't, he was a devout Pagan! Her point was that if he made such a big impact during his lifetime, people would have written about him whether or not they were Pagan. Obviously he made an impact after his death....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:17 am
Sanguina Cruenta Chieftain Twilight some of these, called the Dead Sea Scrolls, were saved by the Knights Templar. come on, it's the most popular bit of history there is! constantly abused and embellished, but still able to be cleaned off to find the origional telling to be clear on it if one puts in the little bit of effort to sift through teh hype. The Dead Sea Scrolls didn't contain any gospels written within Jesus's lifetime. We'd certainly have heard about it if they did. The earliest gospel was written about 40 years after Jesus's death, was it not? IMR will know better than I, I think. Quote: Pliny the Elder wrote about him. so did Josephus. of course Ptolemy didn't, he was a devout Pagan! Her point was that if he made such a big impact during his lifetime, people would have written about him whether or not they were Pagan. Obviously he made an impact after his death.... you forget that the Romans had a habit of trying rewrite history to their own glory. they like to change things, including other cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:35 am
I think this is a kind of silly question...
Jesus made a large impact when he was alive, yes, but only to those around his city. At the most, he traveled 30 miles away from his home. It was up to his disciples to really spread the word, and through them he made a larger impact. It didn't happen overnight.
As the word continues to spread, more people know about him and more people write about him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:20 am
Sanguina Cruenta Chieftain Twilight some of these, called the Dead Sea Scrolls, were saved by the Knights Templar. come on, it's the most popular bit of history there is! constantly abused and embellished, but still able to be cleaned off to find the origional telling to be clear on it if one puts in the little bit of effort to sift through teh hype. The Dead Sea Scrolls didn't contain any gospels written within Jesus's lifetime. We'd certainly have heard about it if they did. The earliest gospel was written about 40 years after Jesus's death, was it not? IMR will know better than I, I think. Quote: Pliny the Elder wrote about him. so did Josephus. of course Ptolemy didn't, he was a devout Pagan! Her point was that if he made such a big impact during his lifetime, people would have written about him whether or not they were Pagan. Obviously he made an impact after his death.... Ah, the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'd love to know how the Knights Templar saved a bunch of scrolls from Qumran when I have met actual archaeologists who have worked at Qumran, but hey, I'm just a silly historian with nothing valid to say ;]. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essenes who were a heretical group of Jews who did not like the corruption going on in Jerusalem The Pharisees were only in it for the money and were corrupting Judea, the Essenes took it upon themselves to be strict frum Jews and wrote a lot about what probably should have ended up in the Mishanh if not the Tanakh itself. These scrolls are wonderful to look at. I've taken a couple of pictures of the ones at the museum of Amman if anyone wants to see them. The Plinys wrote about a lot of things that were insignificant, such as gardens. I wrote about the use of amicitia princeps, it's kind of like a friendship built around business deals, but what this matters is that if Jesus made a huge impact and was performing miracles and what not, the Plinys would have written about it, they didn't. In all fairness, the Younger wrote a letter to Trajan asking him "What am I going to do with these so called "Christians" who keep martyring themselves in the name of their god? They're getting annoying, they enjoy getting themselves killed, and gaining more followers the more they choose to feed themselves to the lions". Trajan told him to make sure that they realise they will die if they call themselves Christisns. They ask these little martyrs if they were Christians three times, making sure they were fullly understanding that they would die, and the Christians still claimed to be Christians... this is why Christian persecution in the Roman empire is, well, bullshit. The story of Perpetua makes my brain hurt. Comfy, my point is, is that, if there is no sources for something, no primary sources (Jesus has no primary sources, the New Testament doesn't count, it's secondary) then as a historian, that something will be deemed as a myth and nothing else. If Jesus made such a huge impact and was performing all these miracles and walking on water... someone would have written about it as a primary source. It's not silly, it's how history works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:25 am
In Medias Res IV If Jesus made such a huge impact and was performing all these miracles and walking on water... someone would have written about it as a primary source. It's not silly, it's how history works. People did write about it. :/ And besides, I have published writing. I've never written about Bill Clinton or George Bush. Since I haven't, does this make anything they did invalid? No. Those people not writing about Jesus proves nothing imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:28 am
I'm going to take a guess that maybe some of them did, but it was just never published, found or accepted as a valid work? confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:38 am
Performing miracles was something common during that time. Of course no one was going to write about them. I mean Simon Magus was on such person. There were healers and miracle workers in temples dedicated to other Gods.
I mean what historian would make a record of every doctor that exists today? If anything the miracles were probably included in the Gospels to provide legitimacy to the budding religion. Be that as it may though, the absence of evidence is not evidence. Now here's the proof I'm going to ask for. Provide me with writings from the time period in question dismissing Jesus as a myth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:51 am
rmcdra Performing miracles was something common during that time. Of course no one was going to write about them. I mean Simon Magus was on such person. There were healers and miracle workers in temples dedicated to other Gods. I mean what historian would make a record of every doctor that exists today? If anything the miracles were probably included in the Gospels to provide legitimacy to the budding religion. Be that as it may though, the absence of evidence is not evidence. Now here's the proof I'm going to ask for. Provide me with writings from the time period in question dismissing Jesus as a myth. There are none, but calling something a myth doesn't mean that it's not true. Do I believe Christianity is a myth? Yes, I do. Do I believe Judaism is a myth? Absolutely, but we are allowed to believe in our mythology. So please, when I say myth, don't think I am negating something. But, are there writings, outside of say Lucretius, that say the Imperial Cult is a myth? Does that make Minerva real?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:11 am
In Medias Res IV rmcdra Performing miracles was something common during that time. Of course no one was going to write about them. I mean Simon Magus was on such person. There were healers and miracle workers in temples dedicated to other Gods. I mean what historian would make a record of every doctor that exists today? If anything the miracles were probably included in the Gospels to provide legitimacy to the budding religion. Be that as it may though, the absence of evidence is not evidence. Now here's the proof I'm going to ask for. Provide me with writings from the time period in question dismissing Jesus as a myth. There are none, but calling something a myth doesn't mean that it's not true. Do I believe Christianity is a myth? Yes, I do. Do I believe Judaism is a myth? Absolutely, but we are allowed to believe in our mythology. So please, when I say myth, don't think I am negating something. But, are there writings, outside of say Lucretius, that say the Imperial Cult is a myth? Does that make Minerva real? A god cannot be proven or disproven and you know that. That's not what I'm asking though, I'm not talking about his Godhood. Most of the early writings of Yeshua say he was a man. The earliest manuscripts of Mark make no claim to him being God. Him being God was a later invention to support a particular theological stance from what I understand in my studies. I am aware of that but I wanted to see what you stance was regarding myth. As for Yeshua as a historic figure, we lack the evidence to dismiss his existence, though most of the history that does exist about him is embellished with the mythology. There had to be a reason why writings and stories about him would have even started in the first place. Any theories on that I would be happy to hear. I'm actually agnostic to his existence though I have beliefs that he did exist historically in some form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:20 am
rmcdra In Medias Res IV rmcdra Performing miracles was something common during that time. Of course no one was going to write about them. I mean Simon Magus was on such person. There were healers and miracle workers in temples dedicated to other Gods. I mean what historian would make a record of every doctor that exists today? If anything the miracles were probably included in the Gospels to provide legitimacy to the budding religion. Be that as it may though, the absence of evidence is not evidence. Now here's the proof I'm going to ask for. Provide me with writings from the time period in question dismissing Jesus as a myth. There are none, but calling something a myth doesn't mean that it's not true. Do I believe Christianity is a myth? Yes, I do. Do I believe Judaism is a myth? Absolutely, but we are allowed to believe in our mythology. So please, when I say myth, don't think I am negating something. But, are there writings, outside of say Lucretius, that say the Imperial Cult is a myth? Does that make Minerva real? A god cannot be proven or disproven and you know that. That's not what I'm asking though, I'm not talking about his Godhood. Most of the early writings of Yeshua say he was a man. The earliest manuscripts of Mark make no claim to him being God. Him being God was a later invention to support a particular theological stance from what I understand in my studies. I am aware of that but I wanted to see what you stance was regarding myth. As for Yeshua as a historic figure, we lack the evidence to dismiss his existence, though most of the history that does exist about him is embellished with the mythology. There had to be a reason why writings and stories about him would have even started in the first place. Any theories on that I would be happy to hear. I'm actually agnostic to his existence though I have beliefs that he did exist historically in some form. I think that what Jesus' message was is not what it is today. I think he was a rabbi who wanted to change the face of Judaism and bring gentiles back to monotheism. There are records of early Noachides and it IS a Jew's job to bring HaShem to the gentiles. I think Jesus gave a lot of hope to a lot of different people who needed it at the time. I think if he said he was the son of G-d, he meant it just as Adam, Avraham, Moses, and Noah are the son of G-d. Early Christianity was about community and helping people like them, the lower classes of the Roman empire. I don't see how people claiming Jesus was G-d is any different than an Imperator claiming lineage to say Romulus and Remus or Ares, or the Chabad claiming that their late rebbe is actually the moshiach. Early Christianity is a fantastic concept. If Christianity today was focussing on community, spreading love, hope, peace, happiness, and tolerance for other nations and religions... it would still be a great religion. I don't care about the historicity of Jesus, for all we know, he could have had a different name (not Yashua, for the love of Hashem), I care about the validity of his divinity. Let's be honest, I attack Judaism with as much gusto as I do Christianity but no one has seemed to have paid attention to how many times I have attacked the Chassidim or have called them sexist, amongst other things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
