Submitted by Boris (not verified) on Sat, 12/19/2009 - 3:52am.
Jay Rogers,
Your appeal to the authority of historians is a logical fallacy and demonstrates the weakness of your case. The percentage of honest historians who accept the gospels as historical narratives is zero. Historical narratives do not contain word for word dialogs and monologues with people speaking in complete sentences. No one speaks that way in real life and narratives such as these are always fictive. Plus historical narratives don’t contain tales of the supernatural starring such beings as angels, demons and Satan all of whom also have speaking roles in these narratives as well. Produce a historical narrative that is written in the style of the gospels, Acts or Revelation.
I cannot accept the claim that Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus all wrote about Jesus. First of all any historian writing decades or centuries after the events could only write of those things which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing hearsay, secondhand accounts of what Christ's followers said about him. Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. Second, the writings of these historians weren’t in some kind of library. They were in the possession of the Church, who studied them and made copies of them by hand. The Church had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to forge historical documents. The entries in the works of Josephus known as the ‘golden paragraphs’ are widely accepted to be forgeries done by church propagandist and admitted liar Eusebius. Even if these accounts are the words of these historians Josephus wrote in 90 CE and Tacitus and Suetonius in 112 CE. This is 60 and 82 years after the supposed ministry of Christ and his crucifixion. Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius mentioned Jesus of Nazareth or the name Jesus at all but only the existence of Christians. All the non-existent resurrecting god-men had many followers. Having followers certainly doesn’t mean Adonis, Dionysus, Attis, Demeter, Horus or any other gods actually existed. Using the testimonies of these historians as proof of Jesus’ existence only proves just how weak the case for a historical Jesus really is.
There were a lot more than four Roman historians who wrote about the first century. Thallus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cremutius Cordus, Livy, Appian, all unmentioned by you because you never heard of them, or more likely conveniently forgotten because none of them mentioned Jesus Christ. Authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy compiled a list of over forty Roman and Jewish historians all of whom wrote BEFORE Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus and contemporary with the time the gospels are set in. Needless to say not one of these historians wrote a word about Jesus Christ.
If you think history professors are teaching about a historical Jesus think again. What material would a history teacher use to teach about the life of Jesus? The Bible? A book that says the earth is flat and never moves and had vegetation on it BEFORE the sun and moon even existed? Dream on. I’m quite sure you haven’t the foggiest notion what history even is let alone how it is taught at the university level.
»
Reply
What People Say About Steve Noble "When Steve talks, people listen."
Stephen Kendrick,
Co-Writer & Co-Producer of Facing The Giants and Fireproof Read More Quotes
Jay Rogers, Your appeal to
Jay Rogers,
Your appeal to the authority of historians is a logical fallacy and demonstrates the weakness of your case. The percentage of honest historians who accept the gospels as historical narratives is zero. Historical narratives do not contain word for word dialogs and monologues with people speaking in complete sentences. No one speaks that way in real life and narratives such as these are always fictive. Plus historical narratives don’t contain tales of the supernatural starring such beings as angels, demons and Satan all of whom also have speaking roles in these narratives as well. Produce a historical narrative that is written in the style of the gospels, Acts or Revelation.
I cannot accept the claim that Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus all wrote about Jesus. First of all any historian writing decades or centuries after the events could only write of those things which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing hearsay, secondhand accounts of what Christ's followers said about him. Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. Second, the writings of these historians weren’t in some kind of library. They were in the possession of the Church, who studied them and made copies of them by hand. The Church had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to forge historical documents. The entries in the works of Josephus known as the ‘golden paragraphs’ are widely accepted to be forgeries done by church propagandist and admitted liar Eusebius. Even if these accounts are the words of these historians Josephus wrote in 90 CE and Tacitus and Suetonius in 112 CE. This is 60 and 82 years after the supposed ministry of Christ and his crucifixion. Neither Tacitus nor Suetonius mentioned Jesus of Nazareth or the name Jesus at all but only the existence of Christians. All the non-existent resurrecting god-men had many followers. Having followers certainly doesn’t mean Adonis, Dionysus, Attis, Demeter, Horus or any other gods actually existed. Using the testimonies of these historians as proof of Jesus’ existence only proves just how weak the case for a historical Jesus really is.
There were a lot more than four Roman historians who wrote about the first century. Thallus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cremutius Cordus, Livy, Appian, all unmentioned by you because you never heard of them, or more likely conveniently forgotten because none of them mentioned Jesus Christ. Authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy compiled a list of over forty Roman and Jewish historians all of whom wrote BEFORE Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus and contemporary with the time the gospels are set in. Needless to say not one of these historians wrote a word about Jesus Christ.
If you think history professors are teaching about a historical Jesus think again. What material would a history teacher use to teach about the life of Jesus? The Bible? A book that says the earth is flat and never moves and had vegetation on it BEFORE the sun and moon even existed? Dream on. I’m quite sure you haven’t the foggiest notion what history even is let alone how it is taught at the university level.