Which country should be most proudest of its history?

[canada-man]

Not wanting to comit a hi-jack and turn this into another silly thread on Religion, but this was so easy;

How about some near contemporary historians of some notoriety. Read them slowly, if it helps you.

Exhibit A: Cornelius Tacitus

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) has been called the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome. Two of his most lauded works are The Annuals and The Histories. When he wrote of the reign of Nero he alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome, he said:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the boundaries that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, (Annals XV, 44).

Here he didn’t claim or state anything that would be deemed miraculous. He stated the facts as he knew them about Jesus’ crucifixion.

Exhibit B: Lucian of Samosata

Lucian was a Greek satirist who wrote during the 2nd half of the second century. While speaking scornfully of Christ and the Christians he never argued or assumed they were unreal. He said:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property, (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13).

Exhibit C: Suetonius

Another Roman historian was Suetonius who was the annalist of the Imperial House and a court official under Hadrian. He stated:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (another spelling of Christus which was one way Christ was commonly misspelled by Roman writers), he (Claudius) was expelled them from Rome, (“Divus Claudius,” The Twelve Caesars, pg. 195).

At that time Christians were still seen as a sect of Judaism by the Roman empire. There is no reference that Christ didn’t exist or was made up, but actually credited him that those who followed his teaching were “making constant disturbances.” This event took place in A.D. 49 and Luke makes reference of this in Acts, “And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome,” (Acts 18:2, ESV).

Exhibit D: Pliny the Younger

Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus or better known as Pliny the Younger (AD 61-112) was Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey). He wrote the Roman Emporer Trajan seeking counsel on how to treat the Christians since he was putting so many to death. He asked if he should continue to kill all Christians or only certain ones.

He explained that he made Christians bow down to statues of Trajan, and would make them “curse Christ, which it is said a bona fide Christians cannot be induced to do.” He also spoke of in the same letter of those being tried:

But they declared their guilt or error was simply this — on a fixed day they used to meet before dawn and recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god. So far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, they swore to keep from theft, robbery, adultery, breach of faith, and not to deny any trust money deposited with them when called upon to deliver it, (Epistles, X, 96).

you do realize that those claims are from biased christian sources

 

[rld]

his alledge quote is a forgery

There is no serious historian who holds that his multiple references to Jesus are all forgeries.

There is a doubt about one quote attributed to him in one manuscript, but the rest are rock solid.

You original question was a bit misleading as well. Since everybody at the time was religious or had a vested interest in religion, there are no really secular sources from the period. Your question is properly "what non-christian or pagan sources..."

There are no secular sources that talk about Sulla either...

 

[blackrock13]

his alledge quote is a forgery

That's it no meat and facts on this accusation. Having shown your pension for marginal sources, it would be a good move.

 

[rld]

you do realize that those claims are from biased christian sources

You clearly do not have the historical chops to look at this question properly.

And there is no reason to exclude the gospels either. It is just you imposing your bias on a problem without reason, again.

 

[fuji]

And there is no reason to exclude the gospels either.

Other than they were handed down word of mouth for many years before finally being compiled in writing. Again, though, it would be shocking if there wasn't an actual historical Jesus, and it would be equally shocking if he was anything like what it says in the Bible.

 

[canada-man]

You clearly do not have the historical chops to look at this question properly.

And there is no reason to exclude the gospels either. It is just you imposing your bias on a problem without reason, again.

there is NO source whjich dates between 1CE and 40 CE documenting the existence of Jesus. why is that everything about Jesus are written decades and centuries after his crucifixion around 30-33 C.E histoains living during the alledge time of Jesus NEVER writtened about him




There is no historical reference to Jesus’ life, death or the crucifixion―nothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:

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 Pompon Mela
Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian
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


According to Remsburg,

“Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”

 

[blackrock13]

you do realize that those claims are from biased christian sources

No i didn't Pliny the Younger was christian, but hey.

He certainly doesn't sound very Christian in this; http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/pliny.html

Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113) was Governor of Bithynia. His correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan included a report on proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to his supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to "curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do." He also described their actions and practices thusly:

They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.
Pliny then records how Christians received their punishment.

also noted;

Pliny had certain unique qualifications that make this reference more valuable than we might suppose. Wilken, although saying that Pliny's knowledge of Christianity was "largely second-hand," also points out [Wilk.ChrRom, 6] that Pliny, prior to being a governor, held a position as a state priest - the same position held somewhat earlier by Cicero. His job as state priest included acting as an overseer in the state religion.

and then;

In light of the fact that Christianity was recognized as a threat to public order, Pliny certainly had to know something about it in order to fulfill his duties. It is therefore likely that, while his knowledge of Christianity itself was largely second-hand, he also had firsthand knowledge of basic facts such as Jesus' existence.



Your times up for now CM. Back in your crate.

 

[fuji]

there is NO source whjich dates between 1CE and 40 CE documenting the existence of Jesus. why is that everything about Jesus are written decades and centuries after his crucifixion around 30-33 C.E histoains living during the alledge time of Jesus NEVER writtened about him

The most likely explanation is that at the time of his life and death he was a minor cult figure, leading a religious group that wasn't yet on anybody's radar. Nobody took him or his organization seriously, and the events which were a big deal to them (like his crucifixion) were in reality ho-hum events of the day, not particularly noticed by anybody else.

It wasn't until that organization gathered momentum and large numbers of followers that people began to sit up and take notice, and then those events which had been highly significant to his group itself--but nobody else--would have been revised, historically, to make them seem like they had been world shaking events to everyone else.

This is the most probably explanation--there was a real historical jesus who did not make much of an impact on the world until years after his death when the cult he founded grew into a full fledged broad based religion.

 

[rld]

Other than they were handed down word of mouth for many years before finally being compiled in writing. Again, though, it would be shocking if there wasn't an actual historical Jesus, and it would be equally shocking if he was anything like what it says in the Bible.

I think you are thinking of the OT.

Most scholars suggest that the NT gospels are based on both eyewitness testimony AND the missing source commonly referred to as Q.

 

[canada-man]

here is another fun fact:

The town of Nazareth NEVER existed in 1st century Palestine nor was it listed in the old testament in the section where the tribes of Israel where given portions of Canaan



Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus – many!


The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Iesous in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.


Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.



But was there a crucified Jesus?

Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

 

[blackrock13]

Time to put CM on ignore for a bit. He is a zealot of the worst kind; blind deaf and dumb.

He might want to take his hi jack to another thread but it would be interesting to see if anyone paid attention much.

Now back to the preempted program.

 

[hinz]

The third people in the lie up is none other than the Jewish people. Just to name a few prominent German Jews off my head I can think of Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Felix Mendelssohn and Wolfgang Mozart. Notwithstanding
such colossal Jew-haters as Martin Luther, Richard Wagner and Adolf
Hitler it is the brilliant minds of the Jew that help make Germany one
of the world's preeminent civilization. Humanity should forever owe to the Jews
the lesson to history on what kind of evil even an eminent civilization could
degenerate into. But to me what makes them a truly remarkable
people is that they have their staunchest supporters in the Christian
world although no one knows better than them about the falsehood of
Christianity.

BTW, you ain't seen nothing yet when those deniers come out of the closet in full force to bad mouth everything remotely related to the Jews.

 

[hinz]

Time to put CM on ignore. He is a zealot of the worst kind; blind deaf and dumb.

But the Zealots are Jewish, just like Jesus. What an irony.

 

[blackrock13]

But the Zealots are Jewish, just like Jesus. What an irony.

Don't say that in Iran, but you might be right.

 

[rld]

here is another fun fact:

The town of Nazareth NEVER existed in 1st century Palestine nor was it listed in the old testament in the section where the tribes of Israel where given portions of Canaan

You and this author are about 40 years behind the archeological curve. No surprise.

James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[29] Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[30] In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."[31]
According to the Israel Antiquities Authority, "The artifacts recovered from inside the building were few and mostly included fragments of pottery vessels from the Early Roman period (the first and second centuries AD)... Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it." Alexandre adds that "based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 AD".[32]

And of course if you were at all well read in the area you would also know the proper translation of the Greek is not Jesus of Nazereth, but rather Jesus the Nazerene.

This is just a failed rehash of the Pontius Pilot argument.

And do you not see the ridiculousness of the naming argument. Because George is a common name does mean there was never a King George or President George? If Julius was a common Roman name does that mean that Julius Caesar did not conquer Gaul? IS there no failure of reasoning you are not willing to make in your crusade.

You toss up lie after lie and never even show the slightest shame when they are systematically defeated. Have you no shame at all?

 

[oil&gas]

I think you are thinking of the OT.

Most scholars suggest that the NT gospels are based on both eyewitness testimony AND the missing source commonly referred to as Q.

Whether the gospels are eyewitness testimonies or not
none of the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and
John claimed to be eyewitnesses
nor did they even pretend to know Jesus personally. I think
thats what matters to layman who are in no position to judge
the authenticity of the gospels. To me the gospel accounts are
as believable as an evangelist who would refrain from giving
his own personal testimony of faith while preaching to me.
To this day I have yet to meet one such evangelist. Those I did get to
know mostly have my respect for standing up for their faith in a
secular world.

 

[hinz]

Don't say that in Iran, but you might be right.

LOL, those Shia Iranian nut jobs are so paranoid on anything remotely related to the "Zionists" that they even accelerate the persecution to the Baha'i.

Perhaps this is the reason.

 

[Don Draper]

Actually, there is a million things I can contribute but I find the quote in my signature to be most divinely appropriate of all.

And I never even planned it that way!

 

[seth gecko]

Not sure what the "greatest country" is, however there is no doubt that the coolest country to live in would be Chile.

LOL!!!

Also, what's with the "most proudest" in the title? Why not just axe witch cuntry is the bestest?
Grammar Police, over & out

 

[rld]

there is NO source whjich dates between 1CE and 40 CE documenting the existence of Jesus. why is that everything about Jesus are written decades and centuries after his crucifixion around 30-33 C.E histoains living during the alledge time of Jesus NEVER writtened about him




There is no historical reference to Jesus’ life, death or the crucifixion―nothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:

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 Pompon Mela
Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian
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


According to Remsburg,

“Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”

Sorry I said you were 40 years behind the curve. You are now getting us close to 100 years behind the curve. This chap you are writing about now served in the civil war and was dead by 1919. He was not a historical scholar of any sort. And most importantly DID NOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF HISTORICAL JESUS.

"The conceptions regarding the nature and character of Christ, and the value of the Christian Scriptures as historical evidence, are many, chief of which are the following
1. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.
2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan, and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.
3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.
4. Other Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity."[9]
[edit]

You really are dishonest and desparate arn't you?

Because in fact if you quoted properly you would know your source believed that Christ was a historical figure.

If you had a hint of honour or honesty, you would be ashamed for your shenninigans.