Rabbits, Colored Eggs and Easter

[Peregrin Toker]

Jesus was crucified at Easter, since the Romans annually offered to redeem a criminal destined for crucification each easter, in the province of Palestine. (I don't remember exactly why)

Pardon me, but how do you confirm the existence of this custom? Is it somehow documented in Roman records?

I read it in a history comic book (not really a comic book per se, but rather a "graphic novel" version of world history) written from a secular point of view by danish comicmaker Claus Deleuran. It's possible that the author used the bible as the source, but he used a damn lot of sources.

[Hethrir]

I'm not sure where the rabbits came from, but some people colour their eggs red to signify Christs Blood.

As a Christian I don't particuarly like Christmas or Easter - for religious and personal reasons.

Religiously i don't see why it is any more special to go to church than any other time of the year, doing so won't make me a "better Christian."

Personally, i don't like it either because of the commercial value. If i want to give someone a present, i should do so because i love them, not because society tells me to - not that this stops me from giving Easter eggs :p

But i totally agree that the emphasis of the holiday should not be put on any one belief. I feel sorry for Jews (and others) at Easter and Christmas.

[Ted C]

Even if it is, the existence of the custom does not confirm the existence of Jesus.

You seriously doubt that Jesus existed?

Yes. Is that a surprise? I doubt the veracity of a lot of the events described in the Bible.

Do you have non-Biblical evidence that this individual actually existed?

[Hethrir]

Muslims also believe in Jesus - but only as a prophet.

[salm]

Even if it is, the existence of the custom does not confirm the existence of Jesus.

You seriously doubt that Jesus existed?

Yes. Is that a surprise? I doubt the veracity of a lot of the events described in the Bible.

Do you have non-Biblical evidence that this individual actually existed?

i seriously doubt that jegs was being serious.

[salm]

Muslims also believe in Jesus - but only as a prophet.

so what?

[jegs2]

Yes. Is that a surprise? I doubt the veracity of a lot of the events described in the Bible.
Do you have non-Biblical evidence that this individual actually existed?

A quick search of the internet revealed something called The Annals of Tacticus. Don't know much about that particular record, nor have I read it. To be fair, in the eyes of the Romans, Jesus would have been of little importance, and I'm not sure they were in the habit of documenting condemned Jews who were subsequently crucified, so it would not be surprising to me if the Romans kept no records of Jesus until long after his death and subsequent resurrection, when much noise began being generated because of him. I would be very surprised if Roman records of one particular condemned Jew survived 2000 years.

But I've found very few who actually think that Jesus did not exist, so yes, your stance is both surprising and amusing to me. It's been my experience that folks who are predisposed to disbelieve something are nearly impossible to convince otherwise, so I'll not try to convince you that Jesus existed. Feel free to disbelieve.

On a related matter, I've met folks who are 100 percent convinced that man did not land on the moon. They feel the moon landing was staged, like a movie in Hollywood. They disbelieve everything anyone tells them or shows them, and they charge that all proof shown them is nothing more than a fabrication to support a great lie.

[Ted C]

To be fair, in the eyes of the Romans, Jesus would have been of little importance, and I'm not sure they were in the habit of documenting condemned Jews who were subsequently crucified, so it would not be surprising to me if the Romans kept no records of Jesus until long after his death and subsequent resurrection, when much noise began being generated because of him. I would be very surprised if Roman records of one particular condemned Jew survived 2000 years.

The death of a single criminal might not rate enough attention from the Romans to produce a record that would survive the fall of the Empire, but what of some of the other spectacular events that supposedly took place on the day of Jesus' execution?

And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.
And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
--Luke 23:44-46

And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elias.
And one ran and filled a spunge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down.
And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
--Mark 15:33-38

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
--Matthew 27:45-53

Are there corroborating records of the sky turning black, the temple collapsing, and dead bodies walking the streets of Jerusalem?

Note to Mods: Anyone want to separate the part of the discussion into a new thread?

[jegs2]

Are there corroborating records of the sky turning black, the temple collapsing, and dead bodies walking the streets of Jerusalem?

Note to Mods: Anyone want to separate the part of the discussion into a new thread?

You didn't ask for records concerning those events. You asked only for evidence concerning the existence of a man called, "Jesus." Were there Roman records for the local events in Judea on the day Jesus was crucified (or on the day he was resurrected)? There may have been. The Book of Matthew tells us that the Pharasees offered bribes to the Romans not to spread word of the missing Jesus, when his grave was found empty:

Matt 28:12-15
12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money,
13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'
14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble."
15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
(NIV)

As to corraborating records of the events you described, they were described from different points of view in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- four different witnesses, describing the events from four different points of view. I know that the Bible (which means, "Books" in Greek) is generally thought to be authored as a single work, but it is not. Read the chart included on my website to see the development of the Bible, and you will find that modern translations go all the way back to the ancient Codex in order to ensure the most literal translation possible. If you are prepared to reject those four books out of hand, then you serve only to reinforce my assertation that people who are predisposed to disbelieve something at all cost are impossible to persuade to a different point of view, and I can foresee nothing that is capable of convincing you of the existence of Jesus.

So, based on what I've written, do you yet maintain that Jesus did not exist?

[Ted C]

You didn't ask for records concerning those events. You asked only for evidence concerning the existence of a man called, "Jesus."

Would separate accounts of these events not corroborate the New Testament accounts?

Were there Roman records for the local events in Judea on the day Jesus was crucified (or on the day he was resurrected)? There may have been. The Book of Matthew tells us that the Pharasees offered bribes to the Romans not to spread word of the missing Jesus, when his grave was found empty:

Matt 28:12-15
12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money,
13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'
14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble."
15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
(NIV)

So Roman soldiers are supposed to go to their superiors and say they were asleep on the job just to help out some Jewish priests? Forgive me for being the suspicious reader, but I think it more likely that the soldiers really DID go to sleep on the job, allowing the body to be stolen, than that they could be convinced to lie about it.

As to corraborating records of the events you described, they were described from different points of view in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- four different witnesses, describing the events from four different points of view. I know that the Bible (which means, "Books" in Greek) is generally thought to be authored as a single work, but it is not.

Are the "original manuscripts" even all that original? To my knowledge, the oldest known texts of the New Testament post-date the time during which Jesus supposedly lived by decades.

[jegs2]

So Roman soldiers are supposed to go to their superiors and say they were asleep on the job just to help out some Jewish priests? Forgive me for being the suspicious reader, but I think it more likely that the soldiers really DID go to sleep on the job, allowing the body to be stolen, than that they could be convinced to lie about it.

I'm not surprised of your suspision. Rather, I predicted it. IMO, it wouldn't matter what evidence I put forth -- you'd still reject it, because you're predisposed to disbelieve anything that goes contrary to what you believe. Furthermore, I posted a Roman record of Jesus, yet you didn't address that. I won't allow you to steer this in a new direction. The question was based on the existence of Jesus, not the events surrounding his death and resurrection. Since you reject the premise of his existence, how does it make any difference what you have to say about events surrounding the man you maintain never existed. Stay on topic, Ted.

Are the "original manuscripts" even all that original? To my knowledge, the oldest known texts of the New Testament post-date the time during which Jesus supposedly lived by decades.

Did you read the chart on my website?

As an aside, one can argue against any historical action or person, based on the arguments you're making. All one must do is discredit the person or group of persons responsible for writing the records. In the end, especially when looking back over centuries or mellennia, one must exercise a certain amount of faith to believe that the history one has been taught is not simply lies or fantasy.

Example: You weren't there. Your friends and family weren't there, and yet you believe that a man landed on the moon -- you gullible fool! The government made it all up in order to justify their spending of our tax dollars. The documents others have shown are nothing more than made-up lies! The "astronauts" who say they were there were paid off by the government! You saw the rocket go up and a capsule come down -- that's all you saw! The "moon landing" was done on a set, and I've seen better jobs from Hollywood -- it didn't even look real! The "moon rocks" are fake! Have you seen them, touched them, or tested them yourself??? See, it's all lies!

Most of us take it on faith that the history of the moon landing is at least somewhat accurate, even if all of what we've been told isn't 100 percent accurate. No, we weren't there on the moon, but we choose to believe that the government wouldn't lie about so big an event, and we take on faith that the evidence they put forth is genuine. When looking even further back into history, we realize that documents recording events may be and likely are skewed to reflect a certain point of view, since no human being is completely objective. Moreover, governments come to power that are at ideological odds with a belief system or culture, and so historical documents may be destroyed. Finally, natural disasters, wars, fall of governments, anarchy, and the simple corrosion of time has destroyed much documentation and historical record, so it would be just plain absurd for one to demand evidence of every single historical event -- amplified all the more, the further back in time a historical event happened. From that, it should be easy to see that records of a single event or day that took place over 2000 years ago might be somewhat sparse. So again, that faith (or lack thereof) must be exercised if we are to apply credence to historical recordings. So far as the books I've described to you about the temporal life of Jesus are concerned, I have no reason to believe they are simply made up, but if you do, then it is your own doubt (and that predisposition to disbelieve that I told you about) that will close you off to any evidence contrary to what you've chosen to believe (or disbelieve).

[Ted C]

I'm not surprised of your suspision. Rather, I predicted it. IMO, it wouldn't matter what evidence I put forth -- you'd still reject it, because you're predisposed to disbelieve anything that goes contrary to what you believe. Furthermore, I posted a Roman record of Jesus, yet you didn't address that.

The site you linked regarding "The Annals of Tacticus" was rather vague. I would like to actually see what it said, but the site includes nothing of the sort. I've heard that there is a Roman record of the execution of someone named "Yeshua" in the province of Judah at roughly the right time, but I've never even heard of anything more specific.

I won't allow you to steer this in a new direction. The question was based on the existence of Jesus, not the events surrounding his death and resurrection.

Fine. Keep it to specific records of his existence (although records of the events surrounding his death would certainly be supporting evidence, particularly if they were "miraculous" events).

Are the "original manuscripts" even all that original? To my knowledge, the oldest known texts of the New Testament post-date the time during which Jesus supposedly lived by decades.

Did you read the chart on my website?

Yes. Was there something specifically dating the scrolls containing the New Testament manuscripts that I missed?

[jegs2]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I apparently haven't convinced you to my point of view, and you certainly haven't changed my mind. If you choose to believe that Jesus did not exist, then so be it. I've laid out what information I have. If something of interest regarding this topic pops up in the future, I'll try to remember to send you a link, but I fear your mind is fully made up on this regardless of what I show you...

[Next of Kin]

As far as I'm aware, they don't worship her, they just get her to intervene on their behalf. That's not to say that it's the right thing to do, but I think you're exaggerating a little there.

Why is that not the right thing to do (pay respects to Mary that is)?

[Mordred]

The site you linked regarding "The Annals of Tacticus" was rather vague. I would like to actually see what it said, but the site includes nothing of the sort. I've heard that there is a Roman record of the execution of someone named "Yeshua" in the province of Judah at roughly the right time, but I've never even heard of anything more specific.

The only passage I know of in the Annals in reference to this is...

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

It is most likely that this was just a reporting of what Christians claimed however, and not a statement based on Roman records. First of all, Tacitus refers to Jesus by the religious title Christ and not by his given name. Second, he wrongly calls Pilate a procurator (he was a prefect). Incidentally, Tacitus was born around 55 CE (Jesus was supposedly crucified around 30 CE). I'm not sure when exactly he wrote this, however it is obviously not a contemporary account. There are no known Roman records of Jesus, and there are no known direct references to those records in any historical writings.

[Ted C]

The only passage I know of in the Annals in reference to this is...

"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)

It is most likely that this was just a reporting of what Christians claimed however, and not a statement based on Roman records. First of all, Tacitus refers to Jesus by the religious title Christ and not by his given name. Second, he wrongly calls Pilate a procurator (he was a prefect). Incidentally, Tacitus was born around 55 CE (Jesus was supposedly crucified around 30 CE). I'm not sure when exactly he wrote this, however it is obviously not a contemporary account. There are no known Roman records of Jesus, and there are no known direct references to those records in any historical writings.

Thank you for clearing that up. At this point, I have yet to see any non-Biblical corroboration that Jesus actually lived, let alone that he performed any miracles. Such corroboration is, of course, unnecessary if you want to take the matters on faith...

Incidentally, Mordred, do you have any information on the dating of the earliest known New Testament texts?