"Maybe the most important discovery in the history of archaeology."

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Pliny the Younger mentions christians, but that is not direct evidence for jesus.

Despite numerous references to Pliny The Elder, historians believe that the above post may be the first direct reference to Pliny The Younger on NSC.

 

[Albion Rob]

Despite numerous references to Pliny The Elder, historians believe that the above post may be the first direct reference to Pliny The Younger on NSC.

Surely Pavillionaire's post 30 minutes earlier (to which the one you quoted was a response) was the first to mention the younger Pliny?

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Surely Pavillionaire's post 30 minutes earlier (to which the one you quoted was a response) was the first to mention the younger Pliny?

Indeed. I stand corrected. Pavillionaire's post has now been carbon-dated and historians accept that Pavillionaire's post is indeed the first verifiable reference to Pliny The Younger on NSC, preceding Scampi's reference by some thirty minutes.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Many's the time I've thought of casting my postings in lead.

 

[Don Quixote]

And there will STILL be absolutely no evidence or contemporaneous writings that refer to the nazarene. Not a single historian thought it worth writing about the fact the graves opened and the dead walked the streets of Jerusaleum or that this person returned from the dead and the floated up into heaven.

They can find as many books as they want but until a contemporaneous account is unearthed I will still not believe he either existed nor that he was the son of their imaginary friend.

What about Josephus? Jesus existed, whether he was the son of God or not is open to debate.

 

[Gully]

I would think this would help with Jewish history as it is written in Hebrew but the earliest Christian letters (written within 20 years of the death of Christ) and gospels are all in Greek. I wonder why this is being linked to Christianity and not Judaism?

That occurred to me too, especially as there is a menorah on the front cover, which is one of the most important symbols of Judaism.

 

[beorhthelm]

What about Josephus? Jesus existed, whether he was the son of God or not is open to debate.

even that is not verified, albeit likely there was some revolutionary running around Galilee, with that or a similar name. or could be a figure head for several people.

 

[vegster]

We will terraform and colonize Mars or Venus before we find proof that any of the major religions holds water.

Well, thats going to be quite some time, the council have all the terraforming teams still filling all last years road potholes

 

[readingstockport]

It's almost unanimously accepted that Jesus DID exist - there are Roman historical accounts of the events in Judea covering this period that mention him. The same applies to John The Baptist.

As a historian I'm interested in the extent to which this man WAS like the man in the New Testament. I can buy the teaching, the faith healing, the incident in the temple and the crucifixion but it's the extent to which he was more than this that interests me.

This is a very exciting discovery.

No there is not. There is not a single account that mentions jesus before Josephus and Tacitus. Tacitus wasn't even born until ad 56 and josephus ad37. How could they have written contemporeanous accounts when they weren't even born at the time?

No-one mentions the dead rising from the graves and you REALLY would think thta might have garnered some attention at the time. No roman histories mention the crucifixion of this bloke. There is no evidence AT ALL outside of your fable book and later accounts, which as has already been pointed out are highly suspect in the case of josephus.

When you say unanimous you mean by xian historians.

 

[brunswick]

the word christ was long about before the man (or archetype) of Jesus.

Gnostic thought and the essenes wrote much pre Jesus....so much doctrine today is twisted.

the gospel of thomas (supressed by the vatican) tells a different tale.

the rosicrucians still carry some of the truth of the ancient mystic doctrine.

 

[Pavilionaire]

There is no evidence AT ALL outside of your fable book and later accounts

When you say unanimous you mean by xian historians.

My fable book? What ARE you talking about?

I've got a History MA with Honours. It's the history I'm interested in, not the religion. I take it through your use of "fable book" you've got a personal anti-religious agenda, in which case how can you be objective about the historicity of Jesus?

You talk about the lack of written accounts of Jesus's life and supposed miracles as though that's somewhat surprising. What about the fact the Romans crushed 2 Jewish revolts after Jesus's death and layed waste to everything sacred, including the Temple? It's no coincidence the Nag Hammadi and Qumran scrolls, and now these new books, have all come to light from covert hiding places in caves and suchlike.

The weight of literary evidence suggest there was a Jesus / Christus man that existed. There were certainly early Christians in the AD 50s - where did they come from and why would they believe in a man that never existed, even though he was supposed to have died on the cross just 20 years earlier?

 

[northampton_seagull]

I'm just forever grateful that they didn't discover some tedious pots and pans from circa 12ad when they finally started digging the foundations at you-know-where.

That would have been bloody typical.

Nope they did not find any pots from the 13thCentury, but they did find lots of prehistoric things, including roundhouses

 

[vegster]

Many's the time I've thought of casting my postings in lead.

I wouldn't bother, Royal Mail charge a fortune even for lightweight postings

 

[Seagull Steve]

Good on her. Makes a change from falling out of nightclubs and flashing her knickers to the adoring press.

True BOF, but why has she picked Cliff Richard?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

You talk about the lack of written accounts of Jesus's life and supposed miracles as though that's somewhat surprising. What about the fact the Romans crushed 2 Jewish revolts after Jesus's death and layed waste to everything sacred, including the Temple? It's no coincidence the Nag Hammadi and Qumran scrolls, and now these new books, have all come to light from covert hiding places in caves and suchlike.

A very good point.

Some people seem to forget that it's the victors who write history.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I've got a History MA with Honours.

Is there such a thing as a Masters without honours in this day and age, you being the expert and all that?

 

[Pavilionaire]

Is there such a thing as a Masters without honours in this day and age, you being the expert and all that?

It's a proper one from 1990 - 4 years study - not one of those you get in a Christmas Cracker nowadays.

 

[Firingblanks1]

So pray tell me Pavilionaire, where do you find a cracker with a History degree with honours? I'm currently half way through mine and studying a level 3 course in the history of religion with the Open University and it aint easy (especially whilst holding down a full time job). Just because you did yours at university does not make yours better than everyone else - you Pretentious knobhead.
Nice thread though....and some really interesting points.

 

[readingstockport]

My fable book? What ARE you talking about?

I've got a History MA with Honours. It's the history I'm interested in, not the religion. I take it through your use of "fable book" you've got a personal anti-religious agenda, in which case how can you be objective about the historicity of Jesus?

You talk about the lack of written accounts of Jesus's life and supposed miracles as though that's somewhat surprising. What about the fact the Romans crushed 2 Jewish revolts after Jesus's death and layed waste to everything sacred, including the Temple? It's no coincidence the Nag Hammadi and Qumran scrolls, and now these new books, have all come to light from covert hiding places in caves and suchlike.

The weight of literary evidence suggest there was a Jesus / Christus man that existed. There were certainly early Christians in the AD 50s - where did they come from and why would they believe in a man that never existed, even though he was supposed to have died on the cross just 20 years earlier?

So the romans surpressed all writings and evidence of this chaps existance but the bibul survived? PLEASE?

FACTS. Please. Give me a cite that is contemporeanous that supports this persons existance. There is not one. Not a single one. Nowhere. Not even a scribble on a wall.

The romans can put down as many revolts as they liked but there is NOTHING at all in the histories that tie those in with the mythical crucifixtion of a non-exitstant son of a all knowing imaginary being. END OFF.

There is NO literary evidence that suggest the bloke ever existed. If you can find anything that does so then I suggest you publish it. A nobel prize awaits you. As well as a probable shoe in for the templeton prize.

 

[gullshark]

Apparently the very first page was translated to read "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."