Historians validate Jesus.. In no way whatsoever




Thanks to @gspellchecker for these.


About (V)nemoni)(s

The views and opinions expressed here are purely my own. I am not affiliated with and business or political body. All content is either my own work, items in the public domain, or items used under the terms of Fair Usage for criticism, commentary, or education purposes. (Also; only a fool would take anything posted on here seriously.)
This entry was posted in Atheism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Historians validate Jesus.. In no way whatsoever

  1. Yes, the longer of the two statements from Josephus’ Antiquities is universally (essentially) agreed to be largely, if not entirely a Christian interpolation. The smaller of the two is also believed to be an interpolation, but both sides have valid points, so it’s still open to debate. The date, however, is unquestionable. Therefore, the account can be nothing more than hearsay.

    Tacitus, who refers to Jesus as “Christos”, wrote so far after the supposed events that it was certainly derived from second or third-hand knowledge — at best. Also, Christos is not a proper name. Moreover, Tacitus refers to Pilate as a Procurator, which was the common title in Tacitus’ day, but not of Pilate’s; as evidenced by the Pilate stone, discovered in the 1960’s, he was a prefect. Therefore, his testimony was clearly not derived from official archives.

  2. john zande says:

    I consider the entire TF a forgery.

    (Hey, just a suggestion, but could you put up a Follow Blog by Email widget?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s