List of early writers who could have mentioned Jesus

A well-known list of early writers from Remsberg is much bandied about by sceptics.

This list names a large number of early writers who lived about the time of Jesus, but who failed to mention him.

Some of the names on the list do not belong, because they just could not be expected to have mentioned Jesus. The Remsberg list is also without dates and subjects and places, and is unclear in identifying some authors.

So, I have updated and improved this list, taking it up to the mid 2nd century. Some of the writers listed need more details.



How Likely was a mention of Jesus?

The issue is really HOW LIKELY they would be to mention Jesus.

Factors which increase the expectation that Jesus would be mentioned in a work include :
* a large work (i.e. one which has large index of names)
* a work on an issue somehow related to Jesus or the Gospel events,
* a work whose genre tends to frequently mention or allude to many subjects and people,


I have thus classified these writers into broad categories -
* writers who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (5),
* writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (4,3),
* writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus (2,1, or even 0.5),
* writers who WOULDN'T have mentioned Jesus (0)

I have given each writer a WEIGHT out of 5 as indicated.

As well as -
* writers CLAIMED to mention Jesus.



Of course, one writer who didn't mention Jesus means nothing.
But,
when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to mention anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors), this argues against historicity.


The argument is sometimes made that these writers could not possibly have mentioned Jesus - because he was a minor figure and unrelated to the issues at hand.

This assumes that no such writer ever mentions a minor figure in passing, that they never make an aside about other events or figures who are not specially related to the subject.

Of course, this is not true, as the evidence below shows that many of the writers mentioned make many references to many other minor figures and often make excurses about other subjects and events and people.


I have included astronomers on the list who might have mentioned the Star of Bethlehem and/or the darkness at the crucifixion - if they had heard of them. This is a lesser issue then the existence of Jesus, and I have rated such writers as 0.5.



Summary of Results

The results of my current classifications is:

1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.)

3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch, Justus.)

31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus.


(20 writers who could not be expected to.
6 writers claimed to mention Jesus, but disputed or suspect.)



Iasion

10th February 2005





WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

PHILO

Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.

Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.

If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings.

Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 5



WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

SENECA

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.

Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.

In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul.

How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4


PLUTARCH

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.

Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.

Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the "Vision of Aridaeus", a spiritual journey, or out of body experience, or religious fantasy -
members.iinet.net.au...

If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4



JUSTUS

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.

Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3



WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS


DAMIS

Damis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person.

If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



APOLLONIUS

See Damis.




PLINY THE ELDER

Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CE

Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.)

It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



JUVENAL

Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd century.

Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian, Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.)

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



MARTIAL

Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century.

Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
* Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
* virgin's blood,
* Roman funerary practices,
* the way accused men look in court,
* Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
* anointing the body with oil,
* Molorchus the good shepherd,
* Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
* the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,

This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and issues.

He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events).

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PETRONIUS

Petronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon" c.60CE.

Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including :
** a CRUCIFIXION !
** a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
** a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision,
* gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
* writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
* books such as the Iliad,
* Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
* people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
* female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
* baths, shipwrecks, meals...

This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PAUSANIAS

Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century.

Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. He mentions a large number of minor figues from within and without Greece.

He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown: "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]

Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



EPICTETUS

Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant.

Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to :
* the early Christians,
or
* the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.

Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a figure such as Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



AELIUS ARISTIDES

Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2)

If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



FRONTO

Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd century.

According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2



PERSIUS

Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.

The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus, is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus (but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.)

Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people and issues.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



DIO CHRYSOSTOM

Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.

Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



AULUS GELLIUS

Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium of many topics and which mentioned many people.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



LUCIUS APULEIUS

Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MARCUS AURELIUS

Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MUSONIUS RUFUS

C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome in mid 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



HIEROCLES

Hierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in late 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



MAXIMUS of TYRE

Cassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1



ARRIAN

Arrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE.

The subject is not related, but Arrian wrote a very large work which mentioned HUNDREDS of people, some not from Alexander's time.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



APPIAN

Appian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid 2nd century.

It's not particularly likely that this specific writer would mention Jesus.
But,
he wrote a LARGE work which mentions HUNDREDS of people.
Appian does mention some issues of HIS day (mid 2nd century), e.g. a decision by Hadrian.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



THEON of SMYRNA

Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century.

Theon wrote about philosophy. If Jesus and his teachings were known, it is entirely plausible for to mention them.

Theon also wrote about astronomy.
If he had heard about the Star of Bethlehem or the Darkness (as an event, or from the Gospels) he could easily have mentioned it.

Apologists frequently cite Phlegon and Thallus, astronomers who mentioned eclipses (but NOT Jesus or the Gospel events, that is merely later Christian wishful thinking) as evidence for Jesus.

An astronomer could easily be expected to mention those incidents, especially when apologists claim other astronomers of the period did exactly that.

The silence of early astronomers about the Star of Bethlehem or the crucifixion darkness argues these "events" were unknown until later.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



QUINTILIAN

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the "Education of an Orator" in Rome in late 1st century.

One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds.

If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS

Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.

Although not directly on subject, Florus wrote a large work which mentions many names. He could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



LUCAN

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century.

In his large poem, the Pharsalia, he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing.
He:
* mentions an event from 56CE,
* refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
* refered to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world,
* refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



STATIUS

Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome in late 1st century.

Statius wrote many works on several subjects, he could have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



HERO of ALEXANDRIA

Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



GEMINUS

Geminus wrote on mathematics astronomy in Greece.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



ALBINUS

Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in early 2nd century, a little survives.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



ARISTOCLES

Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, early 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



APOLLODORUS

Apollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



HEPHAESTION

Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



SEXTUS EMPIRICUS

Sextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5



WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS

JOSEPHUS

Much has been said about Josephus, but not here.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.



TACITUS

Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.



NUMENIUS

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"

Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed to him.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.



SUETONIUS

Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman Caesars c.120CE.

He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.



PHLEGON

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the Gospel darkness.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.



THALLUS

Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.




WRITERS WHO COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

Dion Prusaeus
Paterculus
Ptolemy
Valerius Maximus
Pomponius Mela
Quintus Curtus Rufus
Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
Favorinus
Phaedrus
Babrius
Silius Italicus
Marcus Manilius
Cleomedes
Dioscorides
Sextus Julius Frontinus
Nicomachus of Gerasa
Menelaus of Alexandria
Menodotus of Nicomedia
Tiberius Claudius Herodes Atticus
Valerius Flaccus

A bump as this subject popped up again...

Iasion

I'll need to spend more time going through the links you've provided, but at first glance, it seems like all you've proven is that a lot of people didn't mention Jesus. You assume that means no Jesus, but I disagree with the Should, Probably Should, etc.

Those are just words to try and prove your point based on nothing. No such scale exists.

With the exception of Philo, none seem like they Should or Probably Should have mentioned anything.

Several of them appear to be Jews, writing Jewish histories and whatnot - I don't think I'd mention a renegade who claimed to speak with God and claimed to be the messiah - it's embarassing and anti-noteworthy.

Are you in agreement that Christianity, or some movement like it, came about through the work of Paul?
Did any of these writers speak of Christianity? If so, they are speaking of Jesus indirectly.
If they don't mention Christianity, why would they mention Jesus? - it proves nothing besides a disinterest in Christianity and Jesus.

Agreed.
Jesus became a problem, and he was killed. End of story for jews/pagans alike.

There was one secular writer that mentions him wasnt there? Josephus(sp?)?

Lets not forget a few others from that time who certainly wrote about Him

Mark
Mathew
Luke
John
Paul
Peter
Jude
James
John


Those have all be brought INTO one book....but they were separate at the time,

Greetings jake,

Lets not forget a few others from that time who certainly wrote about Him

Many people wrote about Sherlock Holmes too - so?


Mark
Spiritual literaure, written in Rome, based on the Tanakh by someone who knew little about Palestine and who had never met any of the actors, certainly not any historical Jesus.

Mathew
Luke
Plagiarised largely from G.Mark, with some changes for clear doctrinal reasons - thus not by anyone who met Jesus.


John
A late work which tells a very different story - not by anyone who met Jesus.


Paul
Met Jesus only in a VISION, just like he says the others did.


Peter
Not written by Peter, but by someone who never met any Jesus.


Jude
Not written by Jude, but by someone who never met any Jesus.


James
Not written by James, but by someone who never met any Jesus.


John
Not written by John, but by someone who never met any Jesus.


These are the conclusions of modern NT scholars (e.g. Brown, Metzger etc.)

Those of you who want to read what modern scholarship has to say on these issues should try the online masterpiece of
Early Christian Writings :
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

This site has a complete collection of all the early writings related to Christianity, as well as commentary and links on each - this is THE SITE for NT studies.


Iasion

fascinating stuff iasion
it certainly makes you think, I'll have to read up on this

Thats a quite a research, heres to more!

nice piece of research.

will definately have to follow this up

Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings jake,

Lets not forget a few others from that time who certainly wrote about Him

Many people wrote about Sherlock Holmes too - so?


Mark
Spiritual literaure, written in Rome, based on the Tanakh by someone who knew little about Palestine and who had never met any of the actors, certainly not any historical Jesus.

Mathew
Luke
Plagiarised largely from G.Mark, with some changes for clear doctrinal reasons - thus not by anyone who met Jesus.


John
A late work which tells a very different story - not by anyone who met Jesus.


Paul
Met Jesus only in a VISION, just like he says the others did.


Peter
Not written by Peter, but by someone who never met any Jesus.


Jude
Not written by Jude, but by someone who never met any Jesus.


James
Not written by James, but by someone who never met any Jesus.


John
Not written by John, but by someone who never met any Jesus.


These are the conclusions of modern NT scholars (e.g. Brown, Metzger etc.)

Those of you who want to read what modern scholarship has to say on these issues should try the online masterpiece of
Early Christian Writings :
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

This site has a complete collection of all the early writings related to Christianity, as well as commentary and links on each - this is THE SITE for NT studies.


Iasion

I dont know if you have actually read the gospel but John really isn't that different from the other gospels, it just goes into more detail on some subjects and skims over the others. The only difference between Sherlock Holmes and Jesus is that Jesus did actually exist. I think you need to spend your time in better ways than trying to disprove someones existance so that you can justify your own. Truly Sad.

Though I agree that asides and mentions of minor events do occur. One must take a look at the world and the times that these writers should have mentioned Jesus. The dissemination of knowledge and information was primitive at these times. This is not even the most compelling reason for Jesus absence. The truth is that Jesus story was not very amazing (Minus the miracles, like the Star of Bethlehem and the darkness at the crucifixion. Which can be argued never took place). During these times of occupation there were hundreds of prophets and people claiming to be the messiah. Though Jesus linage did give him more credence, he was still only of middle to slightly high importance. It wasn’t that these writers had not heard of him but perhaps heard of him amongst hundred other names. You must also remember that there were other prophets that spoke of rebellion and of other far more controversial ideas. These people would be far more likely to get attention. One more extraordinary reason is that post Constantine Christianity destroyed many records of Jesus that did show Jesus as they wished him to appear. Some of these writers might have mentioned him but there writing might have been destroyed.

The truth is that there is little doubt that Jesus the man existed. There are many secular and religious records that show that there was most likely was a Jesus. If he was Gods son or a prophet is up to faith to decide, but there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that man did live

i was gonna bring up the point about how slow things were communicated back then if he responded to my smart ass remark!

One thing also to remember is that Judea was a backwater of the roman empire, and was far away from Rome itself. While most of changes occuer mainly amoung the jews.

Also how many people at work talk about thier beliefs? the same could be true in the Roman empire when entirehouseholds of roman dignataries were being converted. Not to metion about 300 years later Rome made christianity the offical religion.

So how much reseach did you put into this? have you gone and read thier original works to make sure? seems a project like this would have taken years to complete.

any qoutes from works that have "claimed" to have recorded Jesus?

Did you also take into account anything that could have been destroyed, or lost in the 2000 some years since the historic dates?

If i were a history professor I would probly give you an incomplete on this project

Greetings quango,

I'll need to spend more time going through the links you've provided, but at first glance, it seems like all you've proven is that a lot of people didn't mention Jesus. You assume that means no Jesus, but I disagree with the Should, Probably Should, etc.

Wrong.
I didn't assume anything.
I have ARGUED that Jesus didn't exist, based on many inter-related factors - one of which is the total absence of contemporary records.

Those are just words to try and prove your point based on nothing. No such scale exists.

Wrong.
I explained the rationale for my scale.
And I provided details for why writers "should" mention Jesus.
You just tried to dismiss all my work by calling it "notjing".
Yet you provided no argument or facts in rebuttal, just some vague opinions.

Clearly, it is your argument that is based on nothing.

With the exception of Philo, none seem like they Should or Probably Should have mentioned anything.

So YOU say.
I provided arguments for my claims,
I look forward to you providing evidence for yours.
The facts show that these writers mentioned all sorts of minor figures, including false Messiahs, and even including many called "Jesus" - but no mention of THE Jesus.

Several of them appear to be Jews, writing Jewish histories and whatnot - I don't think I'd mention a renegade who claimed to speak with God and claimed to be the messiah - it's embarassing and anti-noteworthy.

But several of these writers DID write about renegade Messiahs, e.g. the Talmuds has many cases of false Messiahs, Josephus wrote about dozens of minor prohets and renegades who lead Jews astray.

Such figures ARE recorded in history - funny how Jesus never gets a mention.

The argument that the Jews would not write about something that is embarassing is outright nonsense - their histories are filled with many embarassing failures and disasters.

Are you in agreement that Christianity, or some movement like it, came about through the work of Paul?
Did any of these writers speak of Christianity? If so, they are speaking of Jesus indirectly.
If they don't mention Christianity, why would they mention Jesus? - it proves nothing besides a disinterest in Christianity and Jesus.

Thats the whole point -
Paul created Iesous Christos,
then the G.Mark literature was based on him,
then after 2 wars and a century of troubles,
some people started beleiving Jesus was historical,


Iasion

Greetings Ryanp5555,

I dont know if you have actually read the gospel but

How typical of apologists -
if I disagree, it must be because I haven't read the Gospels,
because everyone who reads the Gospel agrees with you, right?
What nonsense.

John really isn't that different from the other gospels, it just goes into more detail on some subjects and skims over the others.

Apologist nonsense.
The difference between G.John and the other Gospels is so profound they have their own name - the synoptics, the Gospels that see eye-to-eye (compared to G.John which is see things DIFFERENTLY.)

The only difference between Sherlock Holmes and Jesus is that Jesus did actually exist.

But sadly, you can't produce any evidence that Jesus existed, can you?

I think you need to spend your time in better ways than trying to disprove someones existance so that you can justify your own. Truly Sad.

In other words, you completely lost the argument, so you insult me and hope I'll leave.


Iasion

Greetings worldwatcher, yekway, juggle,

Thanks for your kind words :-)

You can find the current web copy of this list here:
members.iinet.net.au...

You might like to check out some of the other related pages there, such as the
Chronological Table of Christian References to Gospel Events :
members.iinet.net.au...

This table is a real eye-opener...

Iasion

Greetings,

The dissemination of knowledge and information was primitive at these times.

Nonsense.
We have dozens of books on many subjects which mention many THOUSANDS of minor figures.

Though Jesus linage did give him more credence, he was still only of middle to slightly high importance.

In other words the "real Jesus" was so forgetful, so minor, so umimportant, so irrelevant that NO-ONE recorded him?

The "real Jesus" did no miracles, left no special teachings - he was less remarkable than the most minor of nobodies, he went completely un-remarked in his society, he was so trivial and common that there are NO RECORDS at all of him?

Is that what you call the REAL Jesus?

The truth is that there is little doubt that Jesus the man existed. There are many secular and religious records that show that there was most likely was a Jesus. If he was Gods son or a prophet is up to faith to decide, but there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that man did live.

Pardon?
Open you eyes, man !

There is MUCH DOUBT whether Jesus existed.

Because the "evidence" Christians cite is so poor.
I LISTED all the alleged "evidence" and showed exactly why it is all so suspect.

You then IGNORED all the details I posted,
and now turn around and say there is "great deal of evidence" !

What?
Where is it?
SHOW me the "great deal" of evidence you think proves Jesus exsistence.

Of course, you better not post any of the names I mentioned above, as they are NOT EVIDENCE at all, as I showed.

Come on,
where IS this evidence?
Put up or shut up.

Iasion

doubt amongst whom? People like you? Yes there is much doubt. But between religious scholars, and historians this really isn't much of a debate. I think you need to open your eyes. I don't know why i am responding to this, there is a million and one of these threads.

By the by, i have no idea why people continue to post silly topics such as these. If you dont believe in Christianity then you may bite on this, but that is all that would bite on this. Do you actually believe that you are going to get a christian to believe, especially since the facts do back them, that Jesus didn't exist. Ridiculous. Oh yeah, why would Jesus' brother, James, write about him if he was non-existant. Didn't James get stoned to death for believing his word. Are you really gonna tell me that James decided that it was okay to die for a fake brother?

The greatest evidence for Christ’s existence is the destruction of records 300AD-400AD. If there’s no mentions of Jesus Christ why would there be a huge act of censorship.

In my mind Jesus was a normal man who preached a different theory about god. Whose life and teachings were greatly altered to further the goals of others. The man was changed into a symbol and the records of his human life like him getting drunk having children a wife and dying and staying dead. Record were destroyed and hidden over time. The Vatican holds within its walls almost a hundred book, which were removed from the current bible. You have to remember that almost all information in the western world from that period of time was saved and coped by the church. A large part of record were coped and transcribed by monks. A huge amount of information in are modern world comes later edition that we do not know were unaltered. There is also the fact that early Muslim records show him to be human profit.


Jesus was just another man. Who was turned into a symbol that probably does not even resemble the man.

Originally posted by RazorDragon3000
The greatest evidence for Christ’s existence is the destruction of records 300AD-400AD. If there’s no mentions of Jesus Christ why would there be a huge act of censorship.

In my mind Jesus was a normal man who preached a different theory about god. Whose life and teachings were greatly altered to further the goals of others. The man was changed into a symbol and the records of his human life like him getting drunk having children a wife and dying and staying dead. Record were destroyed and hidden over time. The Vatican holds within its walls almost a hundred book, which were removed from the current bible. You have to remember that almost all information in the western world from that period of time was saved and coped by the church. A large part of record were coped and transcribed by monks. A huge amount of information in are modern world comes later edition that we do not know were unaltered. There is also the fact that early Muslim records show him to be human profit.


Jesus was just another man. Who was turned into a symbol that probably does not even resemble the man.

Actually the fact that records were destroyed of Jesus says to me that certain people DIDNT want the truth about Jesus to be known to further there own beliefs. I am talking about the Jews. The "early" Muslim records you are talking about can only be attributed, in my mind, to what was given to Muhammad 600 years after his death, so that really doesn't make too much sense. However, what does show that Jesus did and WAS the way it is said he was, is what is stated in the gospel, the similarities, the miracles all coincide with each other. Not to mention that these people had relatively no contact, to absolutely no contact with each other during this period of time in which they wrote their versions of the story. Also, it seems to me that, even though revelation is thought to be just a tactic used by the church to scare people into the religion, everything is going the way it was said it would. I dont know about you, but the whole Gog and Magog attacking Israel, Syria and Russia. Well if you read the news here, Iran and Syria have an alliance, and Russia and Iran have an alliance. There have been 7 Secretary Generals of the UN, and that is a very corrupt organization. It is all very interesting, not to mention the changed weather patterns and such. But this isn't about Revelation. But i guess we will all believe what we choose to believe, i have enough evidence from my personal life to know for a FACT that I am correct in my stance, and nothing that is said here can or will change that. You can call it ignorance if you choose, really doesn't matter, because in the end i will be right.




Now, here is where people start attacking