How do you know for sure jesus did the things he did and really existed?

[childeye]

tell me- how valuable was paper in jesus time?
what was the literacy rate?
how was history recorded in that time?

Is there usually a time period in ancient history between events and there recording?

Do eyewitness accounts send men to jail/death?

Forgive me if I appear aloof, but I honestly just don't see the point you are making. Why does it matter to you the value of paper in Jesus' time? How was history recorded? Literacy Rate? Hearsay vs accurate accounts is all I can gleam you are getting at from these questions.

 

[Chris]

This is rather worrisome. If the events described in the gospels are, indeed, historically accurate, there should be an overwhelming amount of contemporary supporting material from a wide variety of sources. Instead, we have almost nothing. This makes very little sense if the gospels are historically accurate. However, it makes perfect sense if the gospels are fictional.

Forgive me if I appear aloof, but I honestly just don't see the point you are making. Why does it matter to you the value of paper in Jesus' time? How was history recorded? Literacy Rate? Hearsay vs accurate accounts is all I can gleam you are getting at from these questions.

this has everything to do with the way history is recorded.

The previous post raised that point. so I raised the point of resources, literacy and standard recording methods in first century times
You could add into this an understanding of Jewish oral traditions.

 

[pianodwarf]

tell me- how valuable was paper in jesus time?

I'm not certain, and a quick Google search has not proved fruitful. If you can explain how this is relevant, I'll investigate further. I am willing to stipulate that it would be more expensive then than it is now, considering that it would have been quite a bit more time-consuming and labor-intensive to create. Will that suffice?

what was the literacy rate?

That would vary by which segment of the population you're referring to. Some segments of the population would be better educated than others. According to what I've read on the subject, the literacy rate would be anywhere from three to twelve percent.

how was history recorded in that time?

I'm not certain how this is relevant... can you help me, here?

Is there usually a time period in ancient history between events and there recording?

Indeed... it has only been with the advent of mid- to late-Twentieth Century technology that an event could be recorded as it occurred. In the First Century, this would not have been possible.

Again, though, I'm not seeing the relevance. How quickly the events of Jesus' life were recorded is not so important as the paucity of documentation surrounding it. Jesus supposedly worked thousands of miracles in front of thousands of people all over the Middle East for at least three years, possibly longer. There should be far more documentation of this than actually exists if it really happened, and that documentation should also be far better vetted.

Do eyewitness accounts send men to jail/death?

Since there exist no eyewitness accounts of Jesus' words or deeds, this question is irrelevant.

 

[Chris]

I'm not certain, and a quick Google search has not proved fruitful. If you can explain how this is relevant, I'll investigate further. I am willing to stipulate that it would be more expensive then than it is now, considering that it would have been quite a bit more time-consuming and labor-intensive to create. Will that suffice?



That would vary by which segment of the population you're referring to. Some segments of the population would be better educated than others. According to what I've read on the subject, the literacy rate would be anywhere from three to twelve percent.



I'm not certain how this is relevant... can you help me, here?



Indeed... it has only been with the advent of mid- to late-Twentieth Century technology that an event could be recorded as it occurred. In the First Century, this would not have been possible.

Again, though, I'm not seeing the relevance. How quickly the events of Jesus' life were recorded is not so important as the paucity of documentation surrounding it. Jesus supposedly worked thousands of miracles in front of thousands of people all over the Middle East for at least three years, possibly longer. There should be far more documentation of this than actually exists if it really happened, and that documentation should also be far better vetted.



Since there exist no eyewitness accounts of Jesus' words or deeds, this question is irrelevant.

Paper was for the wealthy it was very expensive and literacy was like at about 10% stories were kept alive as oral traditions.

have a look in here all questions are answered it is a good documentary on you tube.
] well partly until you watch all of it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMvaSAwL7_k&feature=player_detailpage

 

[pianodwarf]

Paper was for the wealthy it was very expensive and literacy was like at about 10% stories were kept alive as oral traditions.

That all seems reasonable, yes. I don't have to watch your YouTube documentary, I'll take your word for it. Or for most of it, that is.

The thing is, though, it isn't really relevant. I gave a long list of writers and historians contemporary to the time of Jesus. Given their profession, they would all have been literate by definition. Similarly, they would not have wanted for paper, for they would have had benefactors.

Oral tradition would not have been all that much of a factor during the first century Roman Empire. The Romans kept exquisitely meticulous records, so they would have documented a man traveling for three years throughout the entire Middle East, performing thousands of inexplicable miracles in front of thousands of people. Yet not only do they not document it, they do not even mention it.

There are various explanations for how all that could be true. What do you think is the most obvious one?

 

[Chris]

watch it we only grow wiser by what we learn. To formulate ideas we must take in as much info for and against as we can that video has a bit of both. The answer to your above question is in that video I would just be regurgitating it along with similar books I have read.

 

[pianodwarf]

watch it we only grow wiser by what we learn. To formulate ideas we must take in as much info for and against as we can that video has a bit of both. The answer to your above question is in that video I would just be regurgitating it along with similar books I have read.

Could you just sum it up in a couple of paragraphs or so?

 

[montanaviking]

Oral tradition would not have been all that much of a factor during the first century Roman Empire. The Romans kept exquisitely meticulous records, so they would have documented a man traveling for three years throughout the entire Middle East, performing thousands of inexplicable miracles in front of thousands of people. Yet not only do they not document it, they do not even mention it.

There are various explanations for how all that could be true. What do you think is the most obvious one?

I have to admit that I am not a Roman History historian. But could you offer some proof of your thoughts here? Was there any other single person mentioned in Roman history that was not significant to Rome? In other words do the Roman historians mention any other famous teachers or rabbis or something in their writings?

I am not surprised actually at the lack of mentioning of Jesus. Remember that his ministry was only three years long and he died a criminals death. The ministry of Christ and his death and ressurection had far more impact on the jewish community that it did the Romans. In the eyes of Rome, I can see Jesus being a footnote of the times. He was come and gone so quickly. However the historians are far more generous with the mentioning of the Christians. Why, it was because the Christians began to have a serious impact upon the Roman world. Christianity spread like wild fire and instead of it being so localized in area of Judea it spread into a vast portion of the Roman world. It's impact was enormous. So even though the mention of Jesus specifically during his actual life time on earth is small for the historians. Later historians mentioned the Christians who were the followers of Christ.

 

[Vivisectus]

So far the evidence that seems to have been included in this thread is all written evidence. If we the people are willing to believe in the writings of these non-biblical sources, then why not the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, Peter, etc? Sounds like a double-standard.

The written evidence you refer to is critically examined and compared to other contemporary sources. We certainly do not "believe" Tacitus when he rails against Nero, for instance, but try to compare what he says to other sources to try to ascertain what was going on.

 

[pianodwarf]

I have to admit that I am not a Roman History historian. But could you offer some proof of your thoughts here? Was there any other single person mentioned in Roman history that was not significant to Rome?

It wasn't even just the Romans, it was everyone. In case you missed it in my original post, here is a list of writers and historians of the period who didn't write a single word about Jesus (and not all of whom are Romans, as you can readily see): 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, Pausanias, Seneca, Justus of Tiberius, Silius Italicus, Juvenal, Statius, Lucanus, Suetonius, Lucian, Tacitus, Lysias, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Paterculus, and Valerius Maximus.

However the historians are far more generous with the mentioning of the Christians... Later historians mentioned the Christians who were the followers of Christ.

Yes, they do indeed... no one disputes the existence of Christians. However, saying that Christians exist does not say anything at all about whether Christ existed. Zoroastrians also exist... no one disputes that, either, but one would hardly regard it as proof of the existence of Zarathustra.

 

[pianodwarf]

So far the evidence that seems to have been included in this thread is all written evidence. If we the people are willing to believe in the writings of these non-biblical sources, then why not the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, Peter, etc? Sounds like a double-standard.

First, proof of the Bible's veracity must come from outside the Bible. Secondly, despite the names of the books, much of the authorship of the Bible is either disputed or unknown. The first book of the New Testament might be named "The Gospel According to Matthew", for example, but in fact, we have no idea who wrote it, and it is problematic in other ways as well. It was written at least forty years after the events that it purports to be a description of, and there are indications within the text itself that it was written by someone who had never even visited the area.

 

[francisdesales]

It wasn't even just the Romans, it was everyone. In case you missed it in my original post, here is a list of writers and historians of the period who didn't write a single word about Jesus (and not all of whom are Romans, as you can readily see): 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, Pausanias, Seneca, Justus of Tiberius, Silius Italicus, Juvenal, Statius, Lucanus, Suetonius, Lucian, Tacitus, Lysias, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Paterculus, and Valerius Maximus.

Many of the men you mention are either not historians (who were not interested in writing about the life of a criminal in a backwater and rebellious corner of the Empire) or were not contemporaries of Jesus.

In addition, your comment can be said for many GREAT figures of the ancient world, such as Alexander the Great. We have not one word from a person who saw him alive, nor witnessed any of his battles...

Diodorus of Sicily gives us the first written biography (somewhat) of the conqueror. Some 300 years after Alexander died (Diodorus was a contemporary of Augustus)... Much of what military historians know about his campaigns comes from Arrian, who writes nearly 500 years after the fact. It is accepted by serious military students because it claims to be taken from general Ptolemy, Alexander's half brother and contemporary. (modern historians accept oral traditions...)

I believe Alexander the Great's history is taken for granted, despite the histories of him are from men who never seen him. This is true of many historical figures of the ancient world. One must wonder why some suddenly set the bar far higher and require the specific mentioning of a criminal in an outback of the empire, while accepting at face value the biographies of men dated 300 years after they died. Don't we have biographies of Jesus, dated less than a generation from His death?

Yes, they do indeed... no one disputes the existence of Christians. However, saying that Christians exist does not say anything at all about whether Christ existed. Zoroastrians also exist... no one disputes that, either, but one would hardly regard it as proof of the existence of Zarathustra.

What we know of the life of Jesus of Nazareth pales in comparison to Zarathustra. For starters, specifically where and when Jesus was born...

Regards

 

[Chris]

@francisdesales

he wrote that:
Historians/writers of the time who made no mention of Jesus:

I caught on later what he meant, Cornelius tacticus never mentions "Jesus" which is correct he mentions Christus - lol its a play on words. A bit of trickery for us.


The Annals
by
Publius Cornelius Tacitus


Book 15 - (A.D. 62-65)




[15.44] Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Suetonius (c. A.D. 69 - c. A.D. 140)
Lives of the Caesars - Claudius, sec. 25:

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.
Lives of the Caesars - Nero, sec. 16
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

​

 

[pianodwarf]

Many of the men you mention are either not historians (who were not interested in writing about the life of a criminal in a backwater and rebellious corner of the Empire) or were not contemporaries of Jesus.

Yes, I said that it was a list of historians and writers, not just historians. And they wouldn't have to be contemporaries of Jesus to be able to report accurately about him, as you yourself claim below about "the biographies of Jesus".

In any event, if the events in the gospels are to be considered historically accurate, Jesus was not merely a criminal, he was a "supervillain". In other words, the authorities wouldn't think of him as just a thief or an arsonist, he would be more like Darkseid or Galactus. If nothing else, I would think they would want to document it just to keep records of what they were up against.

In addition, your comment can be said for many GREAT figures of the ancient world, such as Alexander the Great. We have not one word from a person who saw him alive, nor witnessed any of his battles...

Perhaps not, but even though there may be a lack of written documentation, there is a gargantuan amount of archaeological evidence that he existed, not least of which is all the cities named "Alexandria" that he established. There is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of Jesus.

Don't we have biographies of Jesus, dated less than a generation from His death?

What we have are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all of which are anonymous uncorroborated documents written some time after Jesus' death by people who likely never met him. Mark is generally agreed to be the earliest of the four, and even that one was almost certainly written no earlier than the year 65. The others all came later, Luke and John possibly even in the Second Century.

In most circumstances, this would probably not be so problematic. If, for example, you found four different documents dating to the first century, talking about a man named, oh, I don't know... "Pianodwarf", let's say and they said that he was born in Jerusalem, lived there making a living as a potter, married when he was 25, had three children, and died when he was 40, you would find the document reasonable. (Well, except that pianos hadn't been invented yet, but let's overlook that part.) You might not know for sure whether it was historically accurate or not, but you'd also have no real reason to doubt it. There were undoubtedly many men in First Century Jersualem who lived lives much like that.

The claims about Jesus, however, are rather more extraordinary. It isn't every day that someone walks on water, cures leprosy, restores blind people's vision, raises people from the dead, and comes back from the dead himself. Accordingly, a higher standard of evidence is required before we can say that the stories are, or even might be, historically accurate.

What we know of the life of Jesus of Nazareth pales in comparison to Zarathustra. For starters, specifically where and when Jesus was born...

Actually, we know very little about Jesus' life at all; there is even some room for uncertainty as to whether he existed at all. Keep in mind that the gospels are not documentation of Jesus' life. Rather, they are claims about Jesus' life that need to be documented. If the claims were accurate, we would expect to find overwhelming supporting documentation. Instead, there is almost none at all, and what little there is is of doubtful accuracy and authenticity at best.

Regards

And to you as well.

 

[pianodwarf]

"Historians/writers of the time who made no mention of Jesus:"

I caught on later what he meant, Cornelius tacticus never mentions "Jesus" which is correct he mentions Christus - lol its a play on words. A bit of trickery for us.

No, not trickery. First of all, it is not certain whether the word is "Christus" or the much more common "Chrestus". Scholars investigating the original manuscripts have found a letter "e" there that appears to have been erased. Also, even if the word actually is "Christus", it is not clear that this is actually a reference to Christ.

 

[Chris]

No, not trickery. First of all, it is not certain whether the word is "Christus" or the much more common "Chrestus". Scholars investigating the original manuscripts have found a letter "e" there that appears to have been erased. Also, even if the word actually is "Christus", it is not clear that this is actually a reference to Christ.

Jesus was a very popular and common name in that time so the mention of Christ is the key but having pontius pilate and Christ in the same sentence with the bible account is fairly solid...you gotta admit that. I took Tacticus quote from a copy of his writings that were not on a christian website it was a copy of his annals.

As i was reading them it looks like they had a "us" on the end of everything for some reason.

like you say it does not say jesus christ but I would assume the guy was spelling it as best he could. The fact he was mentioned at all is amazing as Where he came from wes a roman backwater nothing place to the Romans. he was not a man of high social standing to be recorded like he was not a nobleman or governor. Paper was pricey they didnt waste it on writing about anything.

 

[pianodwarf]

Jesus was a very popular and common name in that time so the mention of Christ is the key but having pontius pilate and Christ in the same sentence with the bible account is fairly solid...you gotta admit that. I took tacticus quote from a copy of his writings that were not on a christian website to be sure.

How do we know that Tacitus wasn't just recording what he was told by, or about, "Christians", whoever they were?

By the way, Tacitus also called quite a few other people "miracle workers". He documents Vespasian as having performed quite a few pagan miracles, for example. Do you also hold those accounts credible?

 

[Chris]

How do we know that Tacitus wasn't just recording what he was told by, or about, "Christians", whoever they were?

By the way, Tacitus also called quite a few other people "miracle workers". He documents Vespasian as having performed quite a few pagan miracles, for example. Do you also hold those accounts credible?

Must we say everything written down by those that lived before us is false and question everyone's honesty?

They wrote it down for us because they wanted us to know what they saw. I tend to believe.

 

[pianodwarf]

Must we say everything written down by those that lived before us is false and question everyone's honesty?

Please do not use "straw man" arguments. I never said or implied anything like this.

They wrote it down for us because they wanted us to know.

That is not necessarily the case. There are many other reasons for writing than for imparting knowledge.

 

[Chris]

Please do not use "straw man" arguments. I never said or implied anything like this.

You dont have to, anyone who questions the authenticity or motives of something written also questions the integrity of the author to some degree. As you examine Tacticus writings and scrutinize those are natural avenues of questioning.

I wasn't picking at you at least you know what your talking about. I usually hear the "It was all made up because I think it was" line. Then when I say something its "that guy probably never existed, or how do we know the historian wasn't all made up too, - Do you ever hear that? I heard a bit of that today and i think you got my frustrations from silly comments from people who have never looked into a book on it telling me all things are false. It sorta saddened me to think that those before us are so mistrusted now because of the differences in our technology to record stuff.

my apologies if I said something to offend you.