Here's wikipedia on the "historicity of jesus" There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Of the four, Josephus' writings, which document John the Baptist, James the Just, and possibly also Jesus, are of the most interest to scholars dealing with the historicity of Jesus (see below). Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions popular opinion about Christus, without historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. Pliny condemned Christians as easily-led fools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
It is true that Christian historians believe in the historicity of Jesus, but they have not made a really air tight case. NO contemporary historians mention him, which is odd if he really had a very large following and was condemned for sedition. It is a matter of indifference in my view whether he existed or not. The myth (in literary sense) as it relates to the human condition is deep enough on its own without needing a historical figure. One of the popes once famously said, that the myth (in the sense of untruth) has been very useful. --- "Mr. Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When I hear somebody say "I can find no proof that > Jesus even > existed." I think, yeah Ghengis Khan wasn't so > great. I think it > would fun to not believe he existed. Such an easy > and fun way to do > deal with whatever hatred and prejudice that I have > for Ghenghis Khan > that murderous bastard. > Look up Tacitus, Livy, or Jocephus if you want > historical > reference to a historical Jesus of Nazareth. > Actually Luke was a > physician trained in Galatia by some accounts. There > is actually no > reference to him as a disciple. He may have just > been a friend or > associate with literary skills. Or didn't any of > these peopl exist > either? > Not a christian here.... I'm just seeing the same > neglect of > reality that make the fundamentalist born again so > puzzling.... I > always think.........Why do you need to believe > that? > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > Well, the Artist *uses* Science, but usually > not the other way > > around. > > > > > > > > Lawson > > > > > > > > > I believe that for a person who grew up in a > developed county in > > the > > > last 80 years the assimilation of some of the > principles of > science > > > are a given. Even spirituality often uses uses > proof systems that > > > appear to be empirical to some degree. It is > only after proffered > > > evidence is show to be lacking does the > rejection of all science > > > usually take place IME. > > > > > > Even the New Testament tries to build a case for > Jesus' divinity > > based > > > on the performance of physical miracles > witnessed and reported by > > > numbers of people. It surprised me on a re-read > in the last few > > years > > > how much time is spent trying to make this case. > There is much > > more > > > time spent on the miracles than any of his > presentation of ethical > > > philosophy which he gets so much undeserved > credit for IMO. > > > > > speaking of evidence, I can't find any at all that > the fellow even > > existed, much less his divinity. one day I just > looked inside > myself > > and asked myself where is the proof that such a > person Jesus ever > > existed? and I have yet to find any. > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
