Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests When did sex become wrong?

I also didn't write this but thought this might be interesting on secular sources for a historical Jesus:

Let's take a closer look at your claims of evidence for a historical Jesus:

1. THALLUS

Around 221 CE, Julius Africanus writes about a discovered reference in the writings of Thallus, dealing with the alleged darkness that covered the land during Christ's crucifixion. Thallus' book was a history of the Eastern Mediterranean that was written around 52 CE.

Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as "an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me."

However, a solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season!

Besides, the fact that a solar eclipse did or did not occur is not in question here. This reference does not refer directly to a historical Jesus, nor does it imply that Jesus ever existed. The most this quote could possibly prove is that Thallus is a real historical figure who recorded it, which itself is in doubt, since no astronomers of the time in China - or anywhere in the west recorded such an event in the sky. But even if the eclipse occurred, it is not evidence that Jesus existed outside the imagination of early Christians.

2. LETTER OF MARA-SERAPION

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria wrote to his son from prison, to motivate him to emulate great teachers like Socrates and Pythagoras. In this letter, dating between 70 and 200 CE, He tells his son:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

Again, there is no direct reference to a historical Jesus here. It mentions the Jews executing a "wise king", but since the author mentions Pythagoras, who died in 497 B.C. and Socrates who died in 399 B.C., it's more likely that he is referring to an ancient "wise man" king, not Jesus.

2. CORNELIUS TACITUS

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) was considered to be "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome. In the Roman Annals 15.44, he speaks of Emperor Nero going after Christians, in hopes to draw away attention from himself after Rome's fire of 64 CE.:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties 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 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, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center 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."
(XV.44.2-8)

"Consequently ... 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 Tiberias at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a deadly superstition, thus checked for a moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in the City."

This writing from Tacitus is not contemporary, however, but dates from about 50 years after the event. The only thing that would make Tacitus' writings an independent testimony to the existence of Jesus and not merely the repetition of Christian beliefs would be if he had gained this information about Christ being crucified under Pontius Pilot from the copious records the Romans kept of their legal dealings. But this is not the case, for Tacitus calls Pilate the "procurator" of Judea, when he was in fact a "prefect," so Tacitus is clearly not returning to the records of the time but quoting hearsay information from his own day. Again, no proof here that a historical Jesus ever existed.

4. PLINY THE YOUNGER, a Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 110 CE, wrote a Letter to Trajan, saying:

".. For the moment this is the line I have taken with all persons brought to me on the charge of being Christians. I have asked them in person if they are Christians, and if the admit it, I repeat the questions a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away to execution ... There have been others similarly fanatical who have been Roman citizens. I have entered them on the list of persons to be sent to Rome for trial... the charges are becoming more widespread ... an anonymous pamphlet has been circulated which contains the names of a number of accused persons. Amongst these I considered I should dismiss any who denied that they were or ever had been Christians when they had repeated after me a formula of invocation to the gods and made offerings of wine and incense to your statue ... and furthermore had reviled the name of Christ; none of which things, I understand, any genuine Christian can be induced to do.

"Others ... first admitted the charge and then denied it; they said they had ceased to be Christians two or more years previously, and some even 20 years ago. ... They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: that they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery ... After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and re-assemble later for food of an ordinary harmless kind; but they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your instructions, which banned all political societies. This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whom they call deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate cult carried to extravagant lengths ... a great many individuals of every age and class, both men and women, are being brought to trial, and this is likely to continue. It is not only the towns, but villages and rural districts too which are infected through contact with this wretched cult. (Letters X 96)"

The above quote only proves that there were Christians, which is not in question here. Notice that it never mentions an alleged historical figure named "Jesus" but refers to a Christ figure. Remember, the term "Christ" simply means a Messiah. This quote tells us nothing about a historical Jesus and is not evidence of his existence.

5. SEUTONIUS (Court official and annalist under Hadrian, 120 A.D.) Relates that between 41 and 54 A.D., the Roman Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, "as the Jews were making constant disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus."

Although Crestus was a widely popular name, this is taken as a corruption of "Christ." Even if this were true, however, Christ is simply the Greek translation of "Messiah" and there were at the time any number of would-be Messiahs rousing the Jews to rebellion in Rome, so the supposition that any reference to "Christ" necessarily refers to Jesus of the gospels is complete unfounded. Anyway, Jesus was never believed to have visited Rome. Again, all we are really being told here is that Claudius had to deal with troublesome Jews in Rome, which was a regular ocurrance in Roman history.

As far as the Book of Acts, the Acts of the Apostles has been shown to be a forgery written in the late second century. No first century father before 177 AD quoted from the Acts of the Apostles.

1. Justin Martyr writing in the early first century has no knowledge of the Acts. Non-apologetic scholars date the Acts to have been put together from other writings between 150 and 177 AD.

2. It's pretty clear Acts was not written by a single author as is claimed. At chapter 16 the narrative jolts from the third person into the first person and continues sporadically like that throughout the narratives.

3. Acts it not even consistent with itself. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to. (hear not see, see not hear etc..)

4. Acts also contradicts Paul's authentic letter to the Galatians about his visions.

And also:

It gets even weirder if you take the Trinitarian view:

It would go something like this:

God, who is omnipotent, can't withstand imperfection.

God, who is perfect, created imperfect people and then cursed them for being imperfect by hiding himself from them.

God, the author of all law, but who is evidently subservient to it, since he's unable to change it, demands that the law be fulfilled, that all debts be paid. Failure to pay the debt, no matter how large or small, results in the same punishment -- eternal damnation.

God, in a rare compassionate moment, finds a loophole in his own law: payment of the debt by a second party. At this point it becomes clear it's not really about individual sin, it's about placation, it's about balancing the books. God doesn't really care who took the money from the till as long as someone makes up for the shortage.

God, knowing his creation is hopelessly imperfect, decides, in another moment of compassion, to punish himself to satisfy his own law. He decides to take the money out of his right pocket and put it in his left pocket.

So God spins off a part of himself -- Jesus. Then he has this part of his omnipotent, eternal self tortured (well, "tortured" in a human sense, but surely nothing worth noting for an omnipotent being) for a few hours (seconds out of eternity) and eventually reabsorbed into his glorious, resplendent, three-sided self.

Then God, being the perfect codependent martyr, tells his imperfect children they can come home if they but acknowledge the "sacrifice" of himself to himself for their sakes. Otherwise, it's off to hell with us to suffer forever, because he loves us so much. The "lucky" ones get to spend forever at Gods feet telling him what a wonderful guy he is.

well [censored], guess i am going to go denounce christianity now...