Freethought Nation

"Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius: No Proof of Jesus"
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

Pliny, Tacitus nor Suetonius ever mentioned the name "Jesus." And it goes down hill from there.

Be sure to study "The Historical Jesus?" chapter in "Suns of God" starting on page 372. She also discusses this in "Christ Conspiracy" in the "Non-Biblical Sources" chapter starting on page 49.

Here's a short excerpt. For more details you'll need to actually read the book - http://www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm

FFRF Co-President Dan Barker, a former Preacher of 20 years, cites Acharya's first book as a reference in his online article: "Debunking the Historical Jesus"
http://ffrf.org/news/2006/debunkingJesus.php

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Funny in that link you posted I read about the lawsuit against the priest, so again church in general. Here the mass-media coverage was embarassing. So you know about it in US?


Gian

Oh yeah - the case was all over the news in the US.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html



from Kenn Humphreys' website

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

I dunno if it was already posted. Thru a link I saw here I've found on this site a study on the Tacitus munuscript. Ultraviolet light reveals that an "i" has been overwritten on an "e" in the word chrestos.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html#chrestos


Here there's a PDF file of the study. I hope it can be interesting.


Gian

_________________
No God takes care of poors, sicks, emarginated. They can only hope in your help, intelligence and generosity.

http://www.giwersworld.org/early-christian/pliny-christians.phtml

This is the Pliny quote with my [comments].

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day [once a year? month? once every seven days? Only Judeans had a calendar with weeks.] before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ [the Anointed] as to a god, [Neither is a known Christian tradition.] and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. [There is a specific gospel prohibition against making oaths. One assumes the closer to the event the more seriously the prohibition would be taken.] When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. [This suggests there was some issue with what they were accused of eating but the only eating tradition would have been from the Last Supper, not last breakfast.] Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. [Nor is stopping so easily considered "christian."] Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. [It is difficult to imagine what he could have meant by excessive superstition but if it were all "christian" superstitions he finds no fault with it.]

See the problems with the selective non-translation? If they had just called themselves the Jesusites there would be no problem. Whomever these people were they cannot be identified as Christians without the non-translation of anointed. Also note there was no capitalization in Latin so even the A in anointed and the C in christian implies something to us which is not in the original.

Quick question to anyone out there

Clement of Rome, living in the first century I understand, did refer to Jesus.
What do you have to say in response to this?

Also, according to what I've read in the forums Philo does not mention Jesus.

But he doesn't mention Appolonius of Tyana either?

According to many Biblical scholars, the gospel of Mark dates to around 65 A.D. and the letters of Shaul
to even 55 A.D. If this IS the case, why accepting the account drawn up in the third century
by Philostratus as the "true" identity on whom the gospels were based?

What kind of response are you looking for exactly?

In a thread about Pliny, Tacitus, & Suetonius, I'm not sure what relevance Clement would have to their usefulness concerning the historicity of Jesus.

Paul mentions Jesus as well. And he is even earlier than Clement.

The reason Paul is not reliable is because the genuine writings of Paul offer us no biographical information about Jesus. These writings do not portray Jesus in a historical way, but rather in a mystical way. The portrait of Jesus found therein is perfectly compatible with the Docetic Jesus, which was also not a historical human being, but just an incorporeal apparition.

Paul mentions that Jesus was crucified and resurrected, had twelve disciples and instituted sacraments such as baptism and Eucharist.

Paul makes no mention any kind of date or historical backdrop in which to place Jesus to determine when he might have lived. Paul's Jesus could just as easily have been set in 33 BCE as he could have 33 CE.

Paul makes no mention of the annunciation or virgin birth.
No Mary or Joseph.
No magi or shepherds.
No Herod.
No flight to Egypt.
No childhood prodigy at age 12.
No John the baptist and thus no baptism of Christ himself.
No descent of the Holy Spirit like a dove.
No 40 days in the wilderness.
No gathering of the disciples.
No miracles.
No parables.
No prophecies.
Hell, no words of Jesus at all, save only the Eucharist expression of "this is my body..." etc.
No post-resurrection ministry.

Paul claims to have learned of Jesus from no flesh & blood human being, but instead through personal revelation.

So not only does he claim no firsthand knowledge of a human Jesus, but not even any second hand knowledge from anyone who might have known him.

And so getting back to Clement, Clement likewise makes no claims to any first hand knowledge of a human Jesus. Clement shows dependence on Paul, whom he cites from, from the epistle of Romans. And one brief citation at that.

In fact, that is the ONLY time Clement quotes from any New Testament work at all.

Anyway, like Paul, Clement offers us no biographical information about Jesus. Clement pretty much only mentions the resurrection of Jesus and the promise of a future resurrection for his followers. That's it.
So again, Clement's portrait of Jesus is just as ambiguous as Paul's and likewise could just as easily be the non-human Docetic Jesus.

Moreover, I've seen scholars date Clement's epistle to anywhere from 80 CE to as late as 120 CE.

So Clement of Rome really offers us nothing to tip the scales one way or another for a historical Jesus or a mythical (or Docetic) Jesus.



Correct. And?

It is unlikely that Apollonius rose to fame while Philo was still alive. Philo's death is typically dated to around 50 CE. Apollonius's birth is typically dated to around 15 CE. Philostratus's biography has Apollonius still a student up until around the age of 20 when he took an initiatory five year vow of silence.
After this he has Apollonius travelling to India for quite sometime.

It is really upon his return from India that his career really took off within the Roman Empire.

But by this time Philo would have already been dead. Hell, when Apollonius's vow of silence ended, it would have already been around 40 CE (if we grant the 15 CE date for his birth), so as Apollonius's career was just beginning, Philo's was reaching its end. So as I said, it's unlikely that Apollonius reached any kind of prominence while Philo was still alive. Philostratus's account certainly doesn't give the impression that he was. He was likely still just a student at the end of Philo's life.



Huh? What do you mean "as the true identity on whom the gospels were based"?

Great answer there, GA.

There is no clear and unambiguous verbatim quote from the canonical gospels as we have them prior to the end of the second century. Justin Martyr speaks of the "Memoirs," which, like "Acts of the Apostles," appears to be a single text, not the four canonical gospels, which contains material not found in the New Testament, and which does not quote any of the canonical gospels verbatim and unambiguously. Ditto with Clement - if there are resemblances between a few phrases here and there, that would speak of evidence of a source text used by the evangelists, not the other way around.

As we know, the Lukan prologue speaks of "many" attempts before him at writing the "narrative" (diegesis). In my book Who Was Jesus? I provide evidence from early Church fathers such as Origen and Jerome that these "many" included the gospels of Basilides and the Egyptians - second-century texts, once again indicating that Luke was not written until the latter half of that century.

If I recall correctly, Justin's "Memoirs of the Apostles" has been suggested to be the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Also note that Apollonius of Tyana would not necessarily be of interest to Philo, who was very focused on Jewish individuals and ideas. Moreover, Philo was writing about the Logos, in terms expressly attached to Jesus at a later date - if Jesus had been the logos wandering around Philo's homeland, he would have taken notice. Unlike Apollonius during Philo's lifetime, Jesus is reputed in the NT to have been famed far and wide, years before Philo died.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Hi Acharya

Thank you for your response.

First I want to say that I'm Afrikaans speaking so have patience.
I'm currently reading "From Chrishna to Christ" by Dr. Raymond Bernard and "Antiquity Unveiled" by J.M. Roberts.
According to both, the origin of the New Testament account has strong relations to Appolonius of Tyana.
According to my understanding: in one it is said for instance that he was the person on whom the gospels ware based,
in the other that he brought the gospel of chrishna to the west introducing it to the Essene community.

Now, my question in this regard is:

If Appolonius of Tyana was such an important figure, why is he barely mentioned in historical accounts?
Origen I understand to be the first, barely mentions him.

My other question is this. I understand that the argument by some is that Jesus was invented at the council of Nicea in 325.
I do not understand this logic because the gospels were written, according to scholars, much earlier than this.
Even Marcion of Sinope (140 A.D.) proofs that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a christian.

Remember that Origen was a contemporary of Philostratus, and if, as the story goes, Philostratus was the first to gather all the various traditions about Apollonius and compose them into one single cohesive narrative, then it might be that Origen had little to go on, except a few scattered, and likely conflicting, reports here and there, since Philostratus had yet to finish composing his book.

But if you give Philostratus's account any validity, then there were sources on the life of Apollonius from the time of his death on down until the time of Philostratus. Most important being the writings of Damis, Apollonius's disciple.

These works unfortunately are no longer extant to us today, but at least Philostratus is citing some source texts, which is more than can be said for the New Testament.

And it's understandable that none of his sources survived. If his book was the first complete, or near complete, biography, and is based on the incomplete stories, then for most readers it probably would have seemed useless to preserve several various books with incomplete portions of Apollonius's life story, when you could just preserve it all in just one book by Philostratus.

I suppose it's analagous to how the Syrian churches replaced the four individual gospels with Tatian's Diatessaron, out of convenience. It's easier to copy one book, than four books with often redundant material.

That's admittedly not a perfect analogy, since we do still have the Diatessaron's sources, i.e., the four canonicals, but I think you get my point.



LOL, if there's anyone arguing that, they are bat shit crazy.

I think what those folks probably mean is that our modern portrait of the Jesus character was "invented" at that council.

Though even that much is disputed.

The Jesus character certainly existed prior to then, but he was interpreted so many different ways by various sects that he probably wouldn't have much resembled the Jesus we think of today. As time went along, certain interpretations grew in popularity over others, and even began to attack opposing interpretations as heresy. The closer we get in the timeline to the fourth century, it seems that the interpretation of Jesus becomes more consolidated and more & more closely resembles the interpretation we recognize today.

But I'm just speculating that this is what is meant by the claim that Jesus was "invented" in the fourth century. I really wouldn't know as I have never held that view myself nor have ever even heard of it.

Thank you for your kind reply.

So, do you believe that Jesus did exist as a historical person between the timeline of say a 100 b.c. To 50 a.d? And if not, on whom do you believe were these NT accounts based? Shaul mentions Apollo, so it seems unlikely that he (shaul) could have been Appolonius. I do agree that certain things in the New Testament are disputable, but then certain sayings seem again very credible. Shaul does mention in Rom 9:5 that Christ was born according to the flesh out of physical Israel, thus a historical figure. What is your commentary on the above?

Ya'ovBenYisraEl, I'm not sure if you're aware but articles can be easily translated into Afrikaans via the Google translate button.

Apollonius, Jesus and Paul: Men or Myths?

Ya'ovBenYisraEl, you would probably enjoy the book

Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

No. I'm agnostic on the issue.



I don't believe the NT accounts were based on any real person, to be honest. The stories of Apollonius might have had some influence, if we grant that he was a real person and that Damis was really a disciple and wrote his books during or shortly after the life of Apollonius.

But that's really too close to call, since Apollonius was a contemporary with the New Testament authors. To me, I think the parallels more demonstrate a common literary formula that was in circulation at the time, as well as recurring mythological/religious motifs. For instance, I've read that the gospel of Mark has a story structure similar to Homer, and I've read that there is influence of Homer in Philostratus's book on Apollonius. (I'm not well read in Homeric literature, so I wouldn't know how true this claim is, I'm just using this example to make my point.)

So that would mean that neither one necessarily had to influence the other, they have simply both been influenced by mutual third party sources.

If the Jesus of the New Testament is "based" on anything, as Acharya said, it seems it is based on the Hellenized Jewish logos written of by Philo.

But the New Testament stories, as well as many non-canonical stories and traditions, show much similarity to, and thus probable influence from, the mythologies of the dying and rising gods of the ancient Mediterranean world. Especially Osiris, and to a lesser extent Serapis, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Mithras.

The Jesus character isn't so much the retelling of just one key figure, it is more the junction point where several crossroads converged after many centuries of syncretism between several different cultures and ideologies.



Well, given that I am currently in the Marcionite priority camp (i.e, the Marcionites had the original versions of Luke and the Pauline epistles, or at least, a version closer to the original than the Catholic versions, and it was later authors who interpolated material into these books, rather than Irenaeus's claim that Marcion removed material), such passages pose no problem to me, as the Marcionite version of Romans does not contain them.

You can read a partial reconstruction of the Marcionite version of Romans here: http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/Romans_Translation_with_Notes.pdf

And while it has not made it to chapter 9 yet, you can see that other such anti-docetic passages such as 1:3 are not in there.

But even then, Paul's usage of the word flesh is not so cut & dry. Do bear in mind certain passages such as Romans 4:1 in which Paul tells the Romans that Abraham is their father according to the flesh (σάρξ, same word used in 9:5).
Surely not the Gentiles among them, who no doubt composed the majority of their congregation?

The perceived dilemma seems to me to be resolved in the very verses following 9:5-
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
...
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, 'I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God'."

Add to that 1 Corinthians chapter 15, in which Paul explains "All flesh[σάρξ] is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
...
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh[σάρξ] and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

So how can Paul say that flesh[σάρξ] and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, if the very Lord of that kingdom is allegedly made of flesh?

Because as Paul wrote in verse 39, not all flesh[σάρξ] is the same flesh. There are different types. So as I said, his usage of this word is not always so cut & dry.

Not all flesh is the same flesh, he says. Humans have one type of flesh, that is natural (i.e., corporeal), and heavenly beings have another type of flesh, which is spiritual (i.e., incorporeal, like the substance that the bodies of angels, demons, and gods are made of).

So when Paul says flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, in his mind, and in the minds of his readers who understand him, there is no discrepancy there. He is simply referring to natural bodies rather than spiritual bodies, to corporeal substance rather than incorporeal substance.
Hence, even if he had written that Jesus descended from flesh (which I don't think he did as I already explained), I wouldn't see that as a problem. He explained in verses 45-47 that the first Adam was made of earthly substance while the second Adam, i.e. Jesus, was made of heavenly or spiritual substance.

This is perfectly corroborative with Docetism.

And corroborative with this here is the view propounded in texts like the Ascension of Isaiah, in which Jesus descended through each of the seven stages of heaven, and at each stage taking on the appearance of the substance of the angels & spirits in that stage, until finally he got to the firmament of earth and took on the appearance of the substance of the angels of the air and inhabited Mary's womb. After she delivered him, her body immediately appeared normal again, as though she had never been pregnant at all.

His presence was not visible or perceivable at all to anyone whose eyes had not been opened by God, including Joseph. When Jesus was born, Joseph couldn't even see him and asked what Mary was freaking out about. Only then were his eyes opened and he was able to actually see Jesus.

But the masses likewise could not see him, and thus they even said that Mary was never pregnant, she never gave birth to Jesus, and even though they heard of this alleged Jesus, no one ever seemed to know where he was.
It's interesting that they claimed she never gave birth, because after she delivered Jesus, she looked as though she had never been pregnant at all.

And even when Joseph's eyes were opened and he finally saw Jesus, he & Mary both were instructed by a voice to tell no one of the "VISION" that they saw.

This text is blatantly Docetic, and explains away the pregnancy and birth (i.e. his descending from "flesh" or the "seed of David") as being nothing more than a vision, an illusion, and Jesus himself as being composed of the heavenly substance of the angels of the air which was not perceivable to normal human beings.

And as I wrote in another thread, this smacks of damage control. As though it's trying to explain away the fact that no one ever saw Jesus as due not to the possibility that he didn't exist, but instead to the fact that he was made of incorporeal substance that is invisible to humans.
'Oh, no, Jesus certainly existed, it's just that no one saw him because he was invisible'.

This reminds me of how parents tell kids that Santa is real, it's just that he only comes when they are asleep, that's why they never see him.

Thanks for the advice about the translate tab
I'm still figuring out my first Steve Jobs creation.
To cut to the chase.
In watching the above attached video clip I couldn't help
to realize that not only Acharya, do you approach the New Testament from
a historical perspective but also from a devotional perspective in
citing some quotes and contents therein.

From a devotional approach and standpoint I can not so easily
reject many principles that is taught in the so called New Testament, being from Shaul
or the Gospels. I'm not utterly and willingly blind of the fact that Chrishna
was but one of many resurrected entities. Horus, Tammuz etc.
But let me stress the following:

When it comes to the New Testament I Do Not Believe that The Greek were the original at all!
I do not proclaim the name Jesus because it is Greek and nowhere in The Old Testament to be found in prophecy at all! I also do not believe in the Jews being the people referred to because the word Jew is never mentioned in the Greek nor the Hebrew. Yehudah is mentioned - a Patriarch of twelve.
Twelve I don't consider mystic because Elohiym Being the Creator of His Own Creations, the Elohiym of His Cosmos so to speak, did also create the moon for the sign of seasons and the sun to pronounce day and night which the heathens exaggerated to the zodiac and astrology, something which is prohibited in the Torah anyways.

Thus, according to me, the entity of the New Testament, being a Saviour of the world is not to be found in the Textus Receptus.
The announcement was that He shall save IsraEl from there sins - Mat 1:21b

To confirm this further in Rom 11 where both houses of YisraEl will be saved referred to as
the two sons in Luke - the one in exile (Israel) and the one in the house (Judah).
See also Eph 2:11-19 in reference to the two sons, or two houses.

Furthermore, I do not believe in the feast of Ishtar, the feast of Zus etc. concepts that were brought in that we call paganism. Paganism certainly had it's influence but yet nowhere in the Bible we find that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. In fact he was born in the summer because there were shepherds in the open fields, something that can only happen in summertime in the northern hemisphere.

Nowhere in the Torah I find a prophecy regarding someone called Jesus though. Nor do
I find a prophecy regarding a resurrection of such a person. I do not read anything in the Torah about baptism either. I also find nowhere that anyone else is supposed to be worshipped but One. So certainly I have questions and that is why I registered on this site, so that I can partake.

That paganism found it's way into the New Testament is highly likely and that some Old Testaments verses are quoted out of perspective is so, but that there are contents of a blueprint of YisraEl through them (the New Testament) is for certain. Something of which most Christians do not even realize, but rather want to believe that God works now with a so called church.

The Jew is Judah and the gentile is YisraEl who were in exile. How else can Eph 2:11-19 be explained, I ask myself. The church managed well therein to suppress this and proclaim a world savior, born on the 25th etc.

What do I say?
1) That I can't dismiss everything in the New Testament we currently have.
2) That prior to the version we have, there must have been one that did not consist of the name Iesous.
3) That Paul did base his theory, I believe, on someone historical in the flesh is evident. The fact that his letters date back to before Mat, Mark, Luk and John confirms my thesis.