Atheists: Why Did First Century Roman Historians Think That Jesus Existed And Was Crucified By Pontius Pilate?

1. Ekendil Says

   The Roman historians you just listed are NOT contemporary. Fail.
   What’s the matter can’t you do maths, you unlettered bigot?

2. xanzibar Says

   Jesus existed just fine, he was not divine or special.

3. redhead goddess ® Says

   Even “history records” can be biased, my dear.

4. John Says

   First of all, I’m not too sure what you’re hinting at here. Were there Roman historians that probably didn’t check all their facts? Probably, as they did not have access to the network of information that we have today! I mean, when you think about it, it was probably easier to look up fragmented historical records and just take a historian’s word for it. Historians back then did not adhere to the historical methodology that we use today.
   Furthermore, as someone who does not believe in god, I do believe that a man name jesus likely existed – I just don’t believe that he was a divine figure.

5. gutbucke Says

   Not all did think that, and Tacitus was referring to a common appellation.

6. Edgar Says

   if people can be fooled in to thinking he existed today, why could they not be fooled yesterday

7. never trust a muhammad sloth Says

   i know right! jesus never existed lol

8. Diethyl Ether Dinner Candle Says

   What about Barrabas, translated means ’son of god’?
   there were as many jewish zealots back then as there are teabaggers today.
   Christos in Greek simply means anointed (or kingly one) of which many jewish zealots held this title in the first century AD.

9. χάος Says

   Same reason Americans think the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan hastened the end of WW2. I guess even today we don’t check the facts.

10. Lionel10 Says

    If Jesus existed or not is not really in question…there were dozens of “prophets” at this time quite a few called Jesus.

11. cheir Says

    Of course – they should have checked with Reuters or emailed the consulate in Jerusalem.

12. Anonymous Says

    1. books were not readily available to people, word of mouth was
    2. these guys wrote about a religon 80 years after the purported crucifixtion.
    3. In none of these writings do we see anything that actually documents the life of the myth–they merely reguritate what they heard about the myth.

13. Upasakha Jason Says

    Those are not first century historians, first off.
    Second, the earliest author you note wrote decades after Jesus’ death. At best, his information is second hand.
    Third, why did not one contemporary Roman make note of the supposed miracles surrounding Jesus? Roman culture was particularly sensitive to omens and miracles. One would think that the dead coming back to life would have piqued their curiosity.

14. lainiebs Says

    All the references you gave are from the second century.
    None of those historians could possibly have been around when Jesus was supposed to have died, nearly a century earlier.
    The Suetonius quote is not about Jesus. Chrestus is not a variant of Christ, it was a fairly common name, and there is ample evidence that there was a slave named Chrestus who fomented a rebellion. Claudius didn’t become emperor until 41 AD, at least eight years after Jesus was supposed to have died, so he couldn’t possibly have been talking about Jesus.
    Most of the Roman references are about Christians, not Jesus, and most simply refer to the beliefs of Christians. There is no question that Christians existed in the second century.

15. Pyriform Says

    AD 112 and AD115 were not in first century.

16. dewcoons Says

    Both this historians you quoted are technically second century. The first century ended in the year 100 AD. Though both were alive during the very end of the first century, so you might be able to argue that they were “first century” people even though they wrote in the early second century.
    If you want first century sources, you need to look up Josephus. Living in 37 and 90 AD, he writes three different time about Jesus, as while as about about John the Baptist (who he states was Jesus’ cousin) and James the Just (who he states was Jesus brother.) While it appears that his longest mention of Jesus may have been edited to increase its length around the 11th century, a short version of it is found in every existing copy of his writings before that time.
    There is also the Babylonian Talmud. Following the fall of Jerusalem in 7 AD, the leaders of the Pharisees migrated to Tyre where they wrote several volumes about the history and traditions of the Jews of their time. Among the authors were several who were knew to have been members of the Sanhedrin at the time Jesus would have been tried. If he existed (or not) they would know for sure. In the Talmud they speak of a man named Jesus who lived in the correct decade to be the Bible Jesus. The Talmud credits him with having done healing, performed miracles and being a teacher of the people until he was handed over to the Romans who hung him (on a cross). They also state that his body disappeared and his disciples claimed that he had risen from the dead. If there was no such person, why would his opponents say there was?
    These are actual first centuries sources for the existence of Jesus.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.