Problems: only been quoted approximately 1600 years, not 1950 years.
The passage is written in xian terminology, and did not get acclaimed until aprx. 350 C.E.
For those that are not familiar with the passage, book 18. start from the beginning & it becomes rather obvious that someone else is in the writing mood. Goes from boredom to excitement in one passage, then back to normal.
Continue to read the evils & screw ups of Herod, then read about John the Baptist. The most important individual ever on Earth is only given one small passage.
Robbers & petty rulers receive pages of reporting, only one small passage for the lad. Speaks not well for anything except forgery.
It is not mentioned by Justin Martyr nor any early church father. Terullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen are amazingly quiet about this passage. Eusebius was the first to mention the passage, & was known to forge records & lie for the glory of the church. Chrysostrom & Photius reject the message of Eusebius in his Evangelical Demonstration. Photius wrote about 500 years after sebius & his revision of Joesephus disregards the passage & says that Josephus made no mention of the christ. Chrysostom was familiar with the works in the latter part of the 4th. cent. C.E. & makes no mention of the passage..
Tacitus:
Roman historian who wrote about the fire of 64 C.E. many claim that Tacitus wrote of the christ myth as personal knowledge. He did not.
Following problems with xian claims from Annals 15 section 44.
Mind that Nero was in Antioch at the time of the fire, but was accused of the fire. Got to love politics.
1. It is never quoted by the church fathers [why not].
2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, & never used the passage which would have helped his position.
3. Clement of Alexandria made a listing of all pagan references to the christ myth, Tacitus is missing from that list.
4. Origen arguing with Celsus would have used the information had it existed.
5. Eusebius surprisingly makes no mention, though does quote Jewish & Pagan sources.
6. It is not quoted by any xian authority or author prior to the 15th century.
7. That article has been dated to the 8th. century, 600 years after Tacitus's time.
8. The copy was in the possession of an xian, so forgery is very possible.
There are more points to consider, but other historians to consider as well.
Pliny the Younger ca. 62-1114 C.E. Mentions xians but no christ figure.
Which of these historians claim the lad, not his followers, existed?
Josephus ca. 37 C.E. -?
Philo-Judaeus Ca. 20 B.C.E-40 C.E.
Senneca the Elder Ca. 55 B.C.E.-40 C.E.
Senneca the Younger Ca. 5 B.C.E.-65 C.E.
Pliny the elder Ca. 23B.C.E-79
Suetonius Ca. 75-160 C.e.
Juvenal Ca. 55-130 C.E.
Martial Ca.40-104 C.E
Persius Ca. 34-62 C.E.
Damis Ca. 304-384
Statius Ca. 45-96 C.E.
Tacitus Ca. 55-120
Lysias Ca. 445-380 B.C.E
Plutarch Ca. 46-120 C.E.
Justus of Tiberius Contemporary of the lad.
Govenor of Galille, etc. Church historian Photius makes no mention
of the lad from his works.
Appoloius Ca. 100C.E.+
Quintilian Ca.35-100 C.E.
Lucanus Dates not confirmed my sources.
Epictetus CA. Dates not confirmed.
Silius Italicus Dates not confirmed.
Satius Ca. 45-96 C.E.
Pliny the Younger Ca. 62-144 C.E.
Hermogones Dates not confirmed
Valerius Maximus Dates not confirmed
Pompon Mela Dates not confirmed
Lucian Ca. 117-180 C.E.
Pausanias Ca. 100C.E. +
Valerius Flaccus Dates not confirmed.
Favorinus Dates not confirmed.
Phaedrus Ca. 1st century
Florus Lucius Ca. 117-180 C.E.
Aulus Gellius Dates not confirmed
Columella Dates not confirmed.
Dio Chrysostrom 347-407 C.e.
Appion of Alexandria Ca. 2nd century C.E.
>>>> "Did a historical Jesus exist?":
>>>> http://members.icanect.net/~zardoz/exist.htm
>>>Incorrect. he is mentioned briefly inthe historical account of
>>>Josephus, a contemporary of Christ. Jesus is also mentioned in the
>>>Jewish Talmud. In fact, I believe it is in the Talmud where Jesus'
is
>>>said to be the illegitimate son of the Roman Centurion, Pantera.
Read the above historians & weep. The lad & his foofarah have no mention in the annals of history. That seems to upset you, but the universe just doesn't seem to care.
>> Exactlyt right. The fact that the Talmud, which belongs to a religion
>> that denies Jesus, mentions Him is quite compelling evidence that
he
>> existed. Infact, there is more than enough writings about Jesus
to
Hum, do you know when William Tell founded Switzerland, no answers from spectators please.
>> validate his historical existance.
>Not MORE than enough evidence, no; just the shred, which for most is
Not even a shred that stands on it's own. You might buy a bottle of Excedreen for one of those thinking moments & try the idea on for size.
>enough. The Talmudic passage (deleted from most editions) could not
date
>before the 2nd century C.E. but if taken at face value, the story
was
Doesn't work that way, history, not religious works & myths, says the bucko wasn't around.
>contemporary to Mary's life. But how many grass roots movements are
>reported by historians? It's not evidence either way. He probably
existed
Quite a few, but then, those movements are verifiable as to having happened. The xian myth isn't, never was, & still is never likely to be verified beyond Jerusalem existed.
>as a minor rabbi whose flock consisted out outcasts such prostitutes
and
>working peasants and the mentally ill ("possessed"), & Paul made
the rest
>up.
Paul, you mean the true founder of xianity was a liar, what a novel idea.
>-paghat