Quote:
Originally Posted by newsbone  Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world.
1- An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that the Roman emperor Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."
2-Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected.
3-Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is consistent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, certainly not biased toward Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."
4-This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders, not on obscure rabbis from distant provinces of the Roman Empire. Yet ancient historians (Jews, Greeks and Romans) confirm the major events that are presented in the New Testament, even though they were not believers themselves. Borrowed from everystudent.com( why you can believe the Bible) |
It really makes no sense to try a copy-paste debate. I don't mind Bible quotes. But the rest is pointless. There are 1000's of writings by people who claim to be abducted by grey ufos. I do not believe them. I don't care what they say or by whom they were wrote. Get over it.
At any rate, there is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of the first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions (Bishop Eusebius admitted it was ok to "lie for the Lord", had ties with Constantine like I said, and experts have concluded, that Eusebius forged the paragraph in question and then attributed it to your Jew for Jesus, Josephus) the writings of Roman historian Tacitus concerning the alleged historicity of Jesus are neither clear or specific - ample evidence exists to show that Tacitus was simply repeating what he had been told by Christian informants. I mean he identified Pilate by the rank of procurator, which title was a Roman administrative office from the second half of the first century!! The writings of the Jewish historian Josephus on the allegedly historic Jesus have undeniably been adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin, and the observations of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Plithy the Younger, do not provide reliable evidence of Jesus’ actual existence. Blah, blah, blah...
You will not find these things from pro-Christian websites or books. I don't care, this stuff is so uninteresting. I've seen these debates before and am NOT interested. I've already spent countless hours reading this stuff. If historical quotes are all you've got, go away.
Your reason for believing is faith. Go for it, I don't care. My original quote that you interrupted, stands. The Jesus mythos is metaphorical to me.