A few noticeable events in the life of Jesus but historians at the time didn’t write about any of it.

11060249_646744002137486_507178838087821284_n

Advertisements
Image | This entry was posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Jehovah's Witness, Mormonism, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to A few noticeable events in the life of Jesus but historians at the time didn’t write about any of it.

  1. Rick says:

    God will have the final word and all who reject Jesus Christ’s sacrifice will bow in abject terror as he pronounces sentence upon their rebel heads. Rant against God all you want, but your weak arguments will fade into oblivion and your arrogance will turn into horror and great fear as you face him in all his holiness and power.

    The fool has said IN HIS HEART there is no God. It’s a heart issue. Your feeble intelligence can’t grasp spiritual truth apart from divine revelation. Only the infinite God can open your spiritually blind understanding. Repent while you have time left on this planet. You only have this life to get it right. Continue in your rebellion and you will find that this is no idle threat but God’s promise to all who rebel against him and his words. There will be no way to reverse your choice after death.

  2. Linuxgal says:

    Sixty years after the death of Jesus, and twenty years after the immolation of the temple by Titus, it was safe for the authors of the gospels to write about the temple curtain being torn from top to bottom because no one could go back and check. The temple was gone and the witnesses were dead.

  3. Tim says:

    I know of at least 5 that did.

    • AtheismDefended says:

      Oh, and I’m sure I KNOW whom you’re referring to. Not to make your head explode but:
      (this is only about 1/3 of the original file. I decided to show mercy since NONE of you have been able to refute any of this in the past at other places)

      The alleged secular sources for a historical Jesus??

      sources include: Barker, Ehrman, Moss, Arnheim, Doherty, Fitzgerald, Carrier, Remsburg, et.al.

      ALL serious scholars say that the Josephus quote is a fraud, put in by possibly Eusebius decades after Josephus died. Among many clues historians look for is continuity of a passage, ie: the subject matter flows in a way as to be understood logically and seamlessly. With Josephus’ text the verse right before the forgery and right after it discuss the horrible events surrounding Pilate’s killing of people. But, right in the middle of the story we have a jesus commercial as I call it! An obvious ADDITION made decades, maybe centuries, after the original writing by Josephus and, I might add, NO different than many parts of your bible which, in the nt, was repeated by orthodox fundies intent, just like YOU, on making the myths/legends of a christ going on and on.

      The actual Josephus forgery was: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.“ (Ant., book 18, chapter 3)

      **My comment** – Josephus was an orthodox Jew, albeit perhaps not a very religious one but still a non-Christian. By using the word, Christ, among other things, he was committing blasphemy and would have been dealt with accordingly by local Jewish officials.

      Tacitus offers a vague reference to a Chrestus which was a name for something OTHER than the mythical Christos. Regarding any followers, Tacitus claimed a christ ( I say ‘a’ christ because many deluded prophets were going around during that time claiming to be a christ) was put to death as criminal, nothing about a magical comeback. Tacitus went on to CRITICIZE the followers for ‘their hatred of the human race’ and being PROSECUTED for their crimes such as their ‘depravity and filth’. Nothing about a Jesus or resurrection or miracles, etc.

      Pliny reference – In 112AD Pliny, the younger wrote, christians were singing a hymn to christ as to a god. Nothing about a jesus, etc. No different than saying hari kristnas were singing to lord kristna. And Pliny may have been referring to the other false christs going around claiming to be THE one and only. Suetonius (AD 70-160) recorded that Claudius expelled them from Rome for causing continual disturbances. As you can see, Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus say NOTHING about a specific jesus. This is of great importance since the apologists LOVE using those 3 sources to prove a jesus did live in ancient times. The sources just described mention NOTHING about a person and ONLY about the criminal element calling itself ‘Christian’. One other note – the apologists also misuse the Nero citation as some kind of proof of universal martyrdom perpetuated on this cult. According to respected historians(source: http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gba_christians.htm) shared on our non theist community by +MMaximuSS1975 Nero’s actions may have been the result of the cultists actually setting fire to parts of Rome. Nero had arrested Christians in Rome for arson and for other antisocial behaviour – this same kind of behavior other critics throughout history have charged this cult with. Elsewhere, in this same source shared by +MMaximuSS1975, the article cited numerous cases where the cult actually did set fire to places of worship by other religions and even secular buildings. My premise is that Nero may have had justification for prosecuting (not persecuting) them Both Pliny and Tacitus say NOTHING about a specific jesus.

      EVERYONE in a religious cult, xtian or otherwise, did that but the xtians were notorious for lying.

      Celsius derided them for fabricating crap out of thin air and even Origen, a Christian, admitted to incredibly sloppy transcribing from one manuscript to another.
      Philo Judaeus whom I’ll speak of in more detail shortly was an ancient historian who lived at the SAME time that a jesus allegedly lived and even resided in the same area. Philo said SQUAT about him or even his alleged followers even though other events of that time were judiciously recorded by him. Justus of Tiberius, a Galilean, was another contemporary of that time and also wrote NOTHING about their lord or his supplicants. In fact, a 9th century xtian, named Photius verified the lack of historical writings by complaining about Philo and others not mentioning anything about the cult – a tacit admission of sorts.

      From: http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm

      By Richard Smith
      Consider the following list. These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ’s alleged lifetime or within a hundred years of it, after the time (41). Not ONE of them mentions a historical Jesus and/or any followers of his (some previously cited by me): Apollonius, Persius, Appian, Petronius, Arrian, Phaedrus, Aulus Gellius, Philo-Judaeus, Columella, Phlegon, Damis, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Pliny the Younger, Dion Pruseus, Plutarch, Epictetus, Pomponius Mela, Favorinus, Ptolemy, Florus Lucius, Hermogones, Quintius Curtius, Josephus, Seneca, Justus of Tiberius, Silius Italicus, Juvenal, Statius, Lucanus, Suetonius, Lucian, Tacitus, Lysias, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Pausanias

      Nicolaus of Damascus (c. late 1st century B.C.E. – early 1st century C.E.) was, among many other things, tutor of Cleopatra and Mark Antony, and personal friend, advisor and court historian to King Herod the Great. Nicolaus wrote a world history in 144 books up to the end of Herod’s reign, relying heavily on Herod’s personal memoirs and of course his own first-hand knowledge (Josephus cites Nicolaus as a principal source for his own account of Herod’s reign). Only a few fragments of this work remain, but if the nativity story in Matthew really happened, it is somewhat incredible that none of it was mentioned by Nicolaus. He would have been an eyewitness when the wise men came to Herod’s court and so badly troubled the King (“and all Jerusalem with him,” Matt. 2:3) that he summoned all the chief priests and scribes for an emergency meeting to learn more about this rival messiah. He would have been on hand when Herod learned that the magi had deceived him, went into a rage, and dispatched his soldiers to kill all the infant boys in Bethlehem “and all its districts” (Matt.2:16). Yet, Nicolaus says nothing of this.

What you think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s