Zoroaster had a very similar mythology. He claimed that he would someday return from the dead – and his presence did have an effect on Jewish belief. It’s believed by some scholars that the “wise men” in Matthew were followers of Zoroaster.
Ah, from your original post, I thought you were saying Zoroaster was a contemporary of Jesus. Many Zoroastrian beliefs certainly influenced Judaism and Christianity, although I think the extent to which this is true is over-emphasized by proponents of the religion. None of this, of course, proves Zoroaster ever existed - that’s what this thread is about, right? Because really the argument among Western scholars boils down to this: the Gathas are so beautiful and full of personality that they must have been composed by a single individual. I’m being only slightly facetious. And when I say “scholars” disagree with the historical Zoroaster, I’m not talking about the fringe.
That’s not even remotely true. Jesus is mentioned in Roman history within a couple of generations of his death. Tacitus is the most important source. He refers to a “Christus” in the Annals, 15.44, which was written any time from the 90s through 130 or so (some critical opinions vary widely). Here’s the relevant section, taken from an awful translation I found on the web just now:
“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.”
Of course, there are skeptics who believe that this reference was inserted at a later date, but that seems ridiculous considering the nature of the work itself, and the negative impression of Christianity given by Tacitus. Also, there were not “many” Roman historians in this time period. Tactius is the only Roman historian whose work on this time period is relatively extant (and there are of course huge sections missing in both the Annals and the Histories). We’ve got Suetonius, who mentions Christianity briefly in the same context as Tacitus, but he wrote imperial biography, not history, and Christianity simply wasn’t important or scandalous enough to warrant much effort. There’s also a famous reference in the letters of Pliny to Trajan around the same time, but there is no specific mention of Christ. Others who wrote on the period considerably later have only survived in epitome, like Cassius Dio, and a few others wrote (Eutropius, etc.) in such brief passages that there is no room for digressions on a minor/hated/derided figure in the pagan world.
Nobody was much interested in the religion in the first century, really, as it was a minor cult at best. Only Nero’s apparent use of Christians as scapegoats for the fire in Rome gets them any notice in Tacitus and Suetonius, as it served to outline the hideous nature of the emperor for the former and make the latter’s work more salacious (as was the nature of imperial biography).
Most of all, though, Christ wouldn’t have been a big deal to Romans. Nobody outside of Judaea would have heard of him. He was just another Jewish radical who had to be executed, and unlike some of his “followers” like Bar Kochba in the 120s and 130s, he accomplished virtually nothing in terms of revolt. He only became prominent during the reign of Nero, when the new cult had spread to Rome. So it’s not logical to cite the absence of on-the-scene historical reports as evidence that Christ wasn’t a real person. I personally think that there is enough in the early sources to state with fairly good certainty that there was a person named Jesus Christ.
Oh, one more thing. It’s nowhere near 50/50 on the reliability of Tacitus’ reference; it’s more like 90/10 in favor of it being accurate. Virtually everyone today sides with Syme–or they did seven years ago when I was still doing classical grad work. The passage only makes sense if you consider it as Tacitus’ own work. A Christian surely wouldn’t have been so nasty. If you’re going to insert something, why not put something in that was positive, or at least somewhat neutral? Also, the section reads like Tacitus. And how would a monk copyist from the 11th century know that Pontius Pilate was in charge of Judaea at this time? That’s been proven by epigraphical evidence, I believe.
And it seems equally tenuous that Tacitus was simply wrong. Yes, he could have been mistaken. But this was one of most tenacious historians in the ancient world, and it seems unlikely that he would have included the specific reference to Christus if he wasn’t nearly certain that such a person existed. Anyways, it’ll always remain an interesting subject for debate.
There was no serious Roman civil service in the first and second centuries. I mean, records were kept, but things were incredibly slip-shod in comparison with what developed in the third and fourth centuries–when things became so regimented and autocratic that the feudal system was essentially born (it’s actually quite remarkable–the Roman world went from one without an organized legal system to one where you were bound by law to your parent’s occupation in just two centuries). What papyrus records were kept have not survived, except in parts of Egypt and in bizarre circumstances like that cache in Britain and the burned family records from late antiquity found in Petra (which involves an incredible story of restoration; I got to see them working on the carbonized fragments in Amman in 1997). There is epigraphical evidence, of course, but there would never have been a reason to erect a monument or plaque to an executed criminal. I’m pretty sure there is epigraphical proof that Pilate was running Judaea for Tiberius, but that’s as close to Christ as we’re probably ever going to get.
I was about to post some things that Brett has already posted. From my readings, even most atheists who are historians of the era agree that Jesus existed. Whether he is who he said he was, or who many today say he is, can be questioned, but when I was studying this stuff in college (and in later readings) I don’t think anyone without an agenda argues that Jesus didn’t exist. In fact, I’m in the middle of a Roman history binge, and at least a couple mention other historical references to Jesus, and all of them speak of Jesus the man as a historical fact. The one here on the end table (Colin Well’s The Roman Empire, Harvard Press) discusses the New Testament as a very good historical document for many of the details of the time. There’s also some independent writings that relate to the martyrdom of some of the apostles.
Even my atheist ancient history prof in undergrad, who had a wonderful time trying to convince me of the folly of Christianity, did state that Jesus as a man who lived and was executed and was the source of what evolved into Christianity was something most historians accepted as fact.
What Jessica said - it’s incredibly hard to find any scientific fact about Jesus’ life (or not). The best most people can find is scientific fact about his legend, typically written (as she said) around 80-100 years after his death or more.
Bear in mind, at this point in history people lived pretty short lives, married young, and had children at a young age. 80 years would see four generations come, and at least two of them go. Most people didn’t live past 40.
Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that the four gospels were written by other hands - the earliest documents were untitled and not signed in any way, and most of the apostles were illiterate (as most of the general populace was at the time).
Certainly there was enough “talk” about this Jesus fella 2000 years ago that it was written about in by many people in both religous and secular documents. But then again, in 2000 years such “proof” would lead our descendants to believe there was a Santa Claus. ;)
The point, of course, is moot. If you’re just looking to learn from Jesus’ teachings, well you can do that whether he was real or not – the teachings are still there. And if you’re a Christian and it is therefore important for your salvation that he DID exist (so he could die for your sins), then you don’t need proof. That’s what faith is for, and indeed the very reason they call it “faith” and not “fact.” If it could be proven, you wouldn’t need to believe.
Its just amazing how many scholars we have here. Especially Jessica, who never ceases to amaze.
At any rate, while I believe that Jesus exists, I believe it with the same notion that with all the crap I’ve gone through, it had to take divine intervention to sort out. :D
Anyway, all I know is that, a thousand years from now - after the great apocalypse - nobody will be debating my existence. I intend to make sure of that. :D
I can’t believe in todays technological age that people still believe that Jesus was this supernatural being… and I can’t believe that people still believe in a God. Stop kidding yourselves! They don’t exist. Evolution is the only answer as any body with half a brain will tell you.
Look at it this way… Poor people believed in Jesus because they wanted to believe that a better life was waiting for them when they died. And how about when lighting striked the ground or they had a massive flood. The people of that time thought God was punishing them. Now we know better… It’s not God, but acts of nature that caused the massive flooding.
As I stated earlier… I can’t believe that the people of this forum are debating whether or not Jesus existed. If Jesus did exist he was a con man who fooled a lot of people in his time. He was probably a drunk also…
So… Let’s clear this up. God doesn’t exist and Jesus was an average human being like us today. That’s it…
There is no afterlife… So stop fooling yourselves and anyone who is educated will also come to this conclusion. Live life to the fullest today because when you die that’s it!
Ph.D. Chemistry, graduate training in Physics and Biochem. 19 years working in advanced physical chemistry, physics, chemistry, and for the last few years quite a bit in Biotechnology. During my educational sojourn both in academia and industry I’ve worked with two Nobel Prize laureates and many who have been nominated. Another couple of pages in my CV of similar background.
If you’d care to go head to head in “educated” or engage in some debate in any number of scientific fields, I’d be happy to oblige.
Oh - I do believe in God. With both heart and mind. I’ve been a scientist far too long to believe in something that violated my intellect. I went through a phase in undergrad where I challenged that belief quite strongly, but as I went through more scientific training and studies, I came back to that belief. I’m not going to retread the various debates we’ve had here, but I just wanted to let you know that your blanket statement regarding “anyone who is educated” is hence disproved. (BTW - many of my co-workers, most of whom are at least as educated as I, also believe in God. As well as a fellow I’ve recently done some work with who is one of the folks who broke the human genome puzzle.)
I didn’t mean to offend anyone by what I said, as I was in a very cranky mood. Working midnights and attending college full time is sometimes difficult and tends to put me in a bad mood.
But what I’m trying to say is…
Why is it if I believed in faries and dragons I would be committed to a funny farm, but yet people can say that they have seen God and are taken seriously. Aren’t the two similar? Let’s see…
A Farie is a mythological figure that has wings, etc. etc… A God susposedly flies around and sends people to hell.
C’mon… I doubt you believe in faries and dragons? Why should I believe in God then?
I suppose I may be opening up a fairly major can of worms here, but I do wonder what the basis is for someone with a great deal of scientific knowledge to believe in God. Is it a purely intellectual decision; you’ve studied the ideas and concluded that there must be a God? Or is it a social/cultural/moral decision; you’ve decided that it is better socially or morally to believe in God? Or is it an emotional decision; you just feel a strong need to believe in God and the universe feels unfulfulling and coldhearted without God? Some combination of the above? Or some other reasoning?
As for myself, I am an atheist who believes the world makes sense without belief in any Deity. With no evidence to directly support the existence of a Deity, I simply don’t believe. However, I do respect the opinions of others who do believe: I believe there is a separation between personal religious beliefs and people’s ability to reason, participate in dialogue, and play games with me :). But when I look at the scientific explanations of the world I do sometimes wonder why a knowledgeable person would continue to believe, for purely intellectual reasons.
Dan
BTW, I just started reading a very interesting book called The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, the fellow who wrote How the Mind Works. Its interesting (if somewhat dense) so far. Although not directly related to religious issues, its a very interesting discussion of the great nature/nurture debate. Quite good so far.
I can’t believe that obvious troll created such a long thread so quickly. Funny. Maybe I’ll try to roust up a good “PC vs. console” debate. Since we’re all posting, however…
Prove God doesn’t exist. I can’t prove he does, but you’ll have no better luck proving he doesn’t.
Unless you put stock in faith (which by definition operates independently of reason), there is no need to prove god’s non-existence, any more than there is a need to prove that the sun doesn’t turn green when I close my eyes. By claiming that god exists, a claim that cannot be supported (or at least has not been supported) by observation or deduction, you bear pretty much all the burden of proof in that particular argument. Good luck.
By claiming that god exists, a claim that cannot be supported (or at least has not been supported) by observation or deduction, you bear pretty much all the burden of proof in that particular argument. Good luck.
Actually, I don’t care. AIM is the one making claims he can not support. I’ve no interest in convincing anyone either way. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. That’s fine by me. Like I said, the burden of proof lies with AIM, as he is the one making an argument.
