- This topic is empty.
- Posts
If you do not believe in Jesus because you feel there is a lack of evidence he existed, I challenge you to prove that Rabbi Gamaliel (Gamaliel the Elder) was a real person.
There is a reference in Acts 5:34; 22:3. According to Jewish tradition, he was the first president of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem.
He occupied a high position in the highest court, the great council of Jerusalem.Except from this reference in Acts, Gamaliel isn't mentioned anywhere at all, except in a few rabbinic materials.
An example from the Mishnah (Sotah 9:15): “When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Law ceased and purity and abstinence died.” (Translated by H. Danby)
If you are someone who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed, you probably think that Acts was written in the second century. So we can throw that out as any real proof that he existed, for the same reason you discard much of the gospels–it must be heresay, passed down.
Yes, sure, you say he wrote some epistles. But those could have been forged by Gamaliel fanatics later on.
Perhaps he was a fake created to inspire Jewish persons, and a rallying point used to keep Jewish persons in line in the troubling period after Bar Kochba–leader of a jewish-Roman war.
After all, if this Gamaliel was such a hot shot (first to be called Rabban) and a great Jewish leader, why is his name missing from the works of historians of the day?
He's not mentioned by the chief Jewish historian of his day, Josephus, who as a comtemporary would surely have recognized him as a brilliant man if all that is said above was true about him.
“When he died the honor of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct” (Sot.ah xv: 18)
Wow, this guy seemed big–for a non-existent guy.
He's not found in the works of Tacitus, Plutarch, Quintillian, Seneca, Pliny, Juvenal, Arrian, Petronius, Appian, Lucanus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Lucian, Pompon Mela, Favorinus, Damis, Columella, etc.
Surely if Gamaliel was so important, one of these writers would have taken the time to at least write a sentence about him. Why don't they?
The few records we have of him are suspicious.
There is no hint of where he was born, or where he was educated, or what he looked like, or anything.Surely something would have compelled someone to tell us all this useless information about him.
Given that Gamaliel of Jabneh, also known as Gamaliel the Younger (the supposed grandson of this obviously mythical figure Gamaliel the Elder) was the head of the school of Jabneh, which became the center of Judaism and Jewish studies after the destruction of Jerusalem, it could easily be speculated that the reason for inventing the Gamaliel myth was that the persons in charge of the school of Jabneh needed to bolster the authority of their school and thus they together invented this Gamaliel myth in order to root the authority of their leading figure all the way back to the the supposed first “rabban”.
Credits to JPH (Turkel)
Of course, this thread is in response to this idea:
“If Jesus existed, we should have heard a lot more about him from historical sources outside the Christian scriptures.”
On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself.
1. As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a “blip” on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a “celebrity” that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter “so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought.” [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that “Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented” Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
2. Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 – Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed “Messiahs” of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
3. Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established “news organs” of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
4. Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
5. Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
6. Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!And then theres the actual “historians” that many people wonder about. Why didn’t they mention Jesus? Well, why would they?
Being writers of either fiction, poetry, or on mundane and practical matters like oratory and agriculture, or historians or writers of another time or place, many of the “historians” that people ask about have no reason for mentioning Jesus.
Which historian living in that time should have mentioned Jesus that didn’t?
I'd like to state for the record that I'm using some false reasoning in the first post, to make a point.
I expect, that this thread will largely be ignored, and then forgotten. It's not that interesting talking about someone who didn't even exist.
Of course. But….you don't have one….so,
we still can't prove he existed, at least there is no credible proof (the same sort of proof we require of Jesus existence.)
Quote (david @ Nov. 08 2007,21:36) If you do not believe in Jesus because you feel there is a lack of evidence he existed, I challenge you to prove that Rabbi Gamaliel (Gamaliel the Elder) was a real person. There is a reference in Acts 5:34; 22:3. According to Jewish tradition, he was the first president of the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem.
He occupied a high position in the highest court, the great council of Jerusalem.Except from this reference in Acts, Gamaliel isn't mentioned anywhere at all, except in a few rabbinic materials.
An example from the Mishnah (Sotah 9:15): “When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Law ceased and purity and abstinence died.” (Translated by H. Danby)
If you are someone who doesn't believe Jesus ever existed, you probably think that Acts was written in the second century. So we can throw that out as any real proof that he existed, for the same reason you discard much of the gospels–it must be heresay, passed down.
Yes, sure, you say he wrote some epistles. But those could have been forged by Gamaliel fanatics later on.
Perhaps he was a fake created to inspire Jewish persons, and a rallying point used to keep Jewish persons in line in the troubling period after Bar Kochba–leader of a jewish-Roman war.
After all, if this Gamaliel was such a hot shot (first to be called Rabban) and a great Jewish leader, why is his name missing from the works of historians of the day?
He's not mentioned by the chief Jewish historian of his day, Josephus, who as a comtemporary would surely have recognized him as a brilliant man if all that is said above was true about him.
“When he died the honor of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct” (Sot.ah xv: 18)
Wow, this guy seemed big–for a non-existent guy.
He's not found in the works of Tacitus, Plutarch, Quintillian, Seneca, Pliny, Juvenal, Arrian, Petronius, Appian, Lucanus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Lucian, Pompon Mela, Favorinus, Damis, Columella, etc.
Surely if Gamaliel was so important, one of these writers would have taken the time to at least write a sentence about him. Why don't they?
The few records we have of him are suspicious.
There is no hint of where he was born, or where he was educated, or what he looked like, or anything.Surely something would have compelled someone to tell us all this useless information about him.
Given that Gamaliel of Jabneh, also known as Gamaliel the Younger (the supposed grandson of this obviously mythical figure Gamaliel the Elder) was the head of the school of Jabneh, which became the center of Judaism and Jewish studies after the destruction of Jerusalem, it could easily be speculated that the reason for inventing the Gamaliel myth was that the persons in charge of the school of Jabneh needed to bolster the authority of their school and thus they together invented this Gamaliel myth in order to root the authority of their leading figure all the way back to the the supposed first “rabban”.
Credits to JPH (Turkel)
Who cares if he existed? No one ever said we needed to believe in Gamaliel to escape hellfire and damnation.Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,14:39) On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself.
David doesn't the rest of your post directly contradict this claim?Stuart
Quote Who cares if he existed? Well, for one, the Jews seem to care.
So, Towshab apparently has no proof that Gamaliel existed. Does anyone else?
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 09 2007,19:12) Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,14:39) On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself.
David doesn't the rest of your post directly contradict this claim?Stuart
Sorry stu. No, not really. The rest of my post explains why we would expect to have very little of historians speaking of him. He was no politician, etc, etc.Think of it this way. In your mind, we have tons of “evidence” for evolution. Of course, we really have very little. But you could probably provide reasons why there is so little. Yet, despite these conditions which would make evidence rare, you probably think there is lots of evidence.
That is what I was saying.Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,19:24) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 09 2007,19:12) Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,14:39) On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself.
David doesn't the rest of your post directly contradict this claim?Stuart
Sorry stu. No, not really. The rest of my post explains why we would expect to have very little of historians speaking of him. He was no politician, etc, etc.Think of it this way. In your mind, we have tons of “evidence” for evolution. Of course, we really have very little. But you could probably provide reasons why there is so little. Yet, despite these conditions which would make evidence rare, you probably think there is lots of evidence.
That is what I was saying.
The fossil remains that we have discovered is only a tiny fraction of all the plants and animals that ever lived, but if all the transitional forms (that's all of them) were all to be dumped on one spot, I wouldn't want to be underneath at the time. Now, tell me how many truckloads of non-christian evidence there is for the existence of Jesus. Is it one highly debateable reference in the writings of Josephus, well know to have suffered editing by early christians?Stuart
If you're talking about that monkey with the head of a human, you're right. I sure wouldn't want that to fall on me!
Although references to Jesus Christ by early secular historians are meager, such references do exist.
Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ. In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”
The New Encyclopædia Britannica thus concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”
david
Hi David
++”If you're talking about that monkey with the head of a human, you're right. I sure wouldn't want that to fall on me!
Sorry, what are you talking about?
++”Although references to Jesus Christ by early secular historians are meager, such references do exist.
Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.”Cornelius Tacitus was born around 56CE. He wasn’t an eyewitness, or even a contemporary of the alleged messiah.
++”Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ.
Do you have a reference for that? My reading suggests that neither Suetonius nor Pliny make any mention at all. They were born in 65CE and 30CE respectively. Again, not eyewitness, nor contemporary writing, unless Pliny was a seriously precocious infant.
++” In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”
Josephus, born in 37CE, and famously rewritten by early christians.
We know how variable the accuracy of modern news reporting can be, even though the reporting is done by people who are contemporary with the events, and can verify facts for themselves (even if they don’t!). While it is definitely not disproof of the existence of Jesus, you would have to seriously question how accurate is, for example, the transcription of the sermon on the mount, given that there are no eyewitness accounts of this event, and none of the man alleged to have given it.
Stuart
Quote ++”Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ. Do you have a reference for that? My reading suggests that neither Suetonius nor Pliny make any mention at all.
Seutonius:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/suey.htmlPliny:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/pliny.htmlQuote Josephus, born in 37CE, and famously rewritten by early christians.
Ya…no.http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html
Quote Cornelius Tacitus was born around 56CE. He wasn’t an eyewitness, or even a contemporary of the alleged messiah. You're not a contemporary of darwin. But does that mean you're not knowledgeable of him? Tacitus was a guy who knew his stuff:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.htmlQuote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,20:47) You're not a contemporary of darwin. But does that mean you're not knowledgeable of him?
Darwin wrote books. His contemporaries quoted him from direct hearing. There are photographs of him. I have stood in his study where there are photos of him sitting at his desk.That's not too bad, as evidence goes, don't you think?
Stuart
David
Regarding Seutonius, he describes riots that occurred during the rule of Claudius, under “the instigation of Chrestus”. Claudius ruled from 41 to 54CE. Was Chrestus a person with that name? Was it a generic term for christians? There is no autobiography or contemporary account or picture of Jesus sitting at the desk in his study with this “evidence”.
“Pliny explained that he forced Christians to “curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do.” He also described their actions and practices thusly:
They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up. “Pliny is not verifying the reality of the Christ, he is simply referring to it in the same way you could reference a myth.
Josephus:
Ya yes!“Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned. “
This is the most convincing of them, but is not without some doubt, to say the least.
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. “
“If it be lawful to call him a man”? “He was the Christ”? Even allowing for translation etc, how could you say that this has not been tampered with? What Jew of the time would have written this? The testimonium is widely regarded as a forgery, and had it been real it would have been useful ammunition for later ongoing disagreements between Jews and christians, yet it was not (because it did not exist as such?).
Tacitus:
“Nero fastened the guilt [of starting the blaze] 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 [14-37] 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.”
This would seem to be a clear confirmation of the execution of Jesus as per the gospels, as long as you forget that it was written many years after, is not a personal account and it was not the first time that Tacitus made errors and used secondary material of dubious probity.
I happen to think it likely that Jesus was an historical figure, but the history really isn’t there to support my belief.
Stuart
Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,02:45) If you're talking about that monkey with the head of a human, you're right. I sure wouldn't want that to fall on me! Although references to Jesus Christ by early secular historians are meager, such references do exist.
Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ. In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”
The New Encyclopædia Britannica thus concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”
david
David,Written in 116 CE (86 years after Jesus), from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
============================================
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.
=================================Hardly the 'proof' of Jesus one desires. Tacitus does not clarify that he is going by written record of Pilate executing Jesus but seems to tying superstition about Jesus. Thus it could be like this: the Christian claim they follow someone Pilate crucified. No real evidence at all.
As to you Josephus reference, most scholars agree the James was mentioned but most also doubt the validity of the phrase 'who was called Christ' was in the original writings of Josephus.
As I've said more than once (I think I have) I don't doubt the existence of a historical Jesus, I just doubt that a man who supposedly did all of the things in the Christian bible that would have drawn attention form every historian in the area would have made it into the annuls of history. None of your 'references' actually mentions anything of the life of Jesus but rather his followers. No mention of the earthquake, 'night of the living dead', 3 hours of darkness, multitudes from cities all around coming to hear him preach, feeding thousands at a time, made it into any book. All we have is the mischeivous works of the later followers of a crucified criminal.
Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,03:47) Quote ++”Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ. Do you have a reference for that? My reading suggests that neither Suetonius nor Pliny make any mention at all.
Seutonius:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/suey.htmlPliny:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/pliny.htmlQuote Josephus, born in 37CE, and famously rewritten by early christians.
Ya…no.http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html
Quote Cornelius Tacitus was born around 56CE. He wasn’t an eyewitness, or even a contemporary of the alleged messiah. You're not a contemporary of darwin. But does that mean you're not knowledgeable of him? Tacitus was a guy who knew his stuff:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html
Pliny the Younger wrote of Christians not Jesus. These Christians are no more proof that Jesus was who the GT (Greek text) says he was but more of the proof of Paul the Apostate spreading the story of Jesus. You have no proof that any of this is not the result of Paul the apostate since we know he was the first one to write of Jesus and also the only apostle to not walk with Jesus.Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,02:19) Quote Who cares if he existed? Well, for one, the Jews seem to care.
So, Towshab apparently has no proof that Gamaliel existed. Does anyone else?
Again no one holds the thought of eternal damnation over people if they don't accept that Gamaliel lived. So its a non-starter.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
