Antitheism?

I just posted this on the Christian forum, but it might work here, too. The emperor for most of Jesus' life was Tiberius. He was a great general before becoming a nasty, lecherous emperor--so they say. But did he exist? All we have to go on are biographies by Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius, only the first of which could be considered an "eyewitness", the others writing 75 to 200 years after his death. Tacitus and Suetonius are sources for Jesus, as well, so maybe their testimony on behalf of Tiberius should be considered suspect. I'll stick my neck out and go along with most historians in concluding that Tiberius existed and that there is greater reason to believe in Tiberius than in Santa Claus, or more aptly, the Grinch.
P.S., Are there any records of any particular person being crucified by Pontius Pilate or any other Roman Governor in Palestine during the period? Yet Josephus tells us that thousands of Jews were during the first century.

 

This assertion is not accurate.

 

Elaborate, Iconoclast.

 

You're right. I was referring mainly to biographical sources comparable to the scriputural and historical documents on Jesus. There is non-biographical evidence that corroborates the existence of Tiberius: coins from the early first century bearing Tiberius' images; statues of him from the period; remains of his villa on Capri, etc. So actually my previous post was rather dumb, except for the point that much historical biography, where most of our detailed knowledge about Tiberius comes from, could be challenged by the same kinds of attacks used against the existence of Jesus.

 

I thought of a better example. Socrates, of the 4th century B.C., known to the youth of today from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, is generally regarded as the father of modern western philosophy. But did he exist? There are no coins, statutes from his time, or other physical evidence. Our knowledge of him comes mainly from his pupil, Plato, who is also our main source for the Lost Continent of Atlantis, with bits of partial corroboration from Plato's pupil, Aristotle, from Xenophon's Symposium, and from Aristohanes play Clouds. Many scholars doubt that Socrates said all of the things Plato attributed to him, and there is no hard evidence that he said any of them at all. Belief that he even existed comes mainly from the corroboration of his existence by the other writers. But Aristotle wasn't even born until fifteen years after Socrates' death, and obviously got his information from his teacher, Plato. There are notable discrepancies between Xenophon and Plato, e.g., over whether or not Socrates took money for this teaching gigs. And Aristophanes portrays him only in a play, as a clown. So what to do? Would it be appropriate to put Socrates in the same category as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and deride anybody who takes him seriously and reveres him (most of the philosophy faculties in the U.S. and Europe) as being childish fools? And (Socratic question) how does this relate to Jesus?

 

If you're trying to compare following Socrates' methods to Jesus', you must bare in mind the Socrates doesn't tell you to believe in an all-powerful Swedish Arm Chair that tells you what you can and can't do. Christianity deprives you of your fundamental pleasures in the 7 deadly sins.

 

That statement is inaccurate. No other sources besides the ones I mentioned mention Socrates. As for Tiberius, who lived when Jesus did,three of the four historians who mentioned him didn't do so until 75 years or more after his death, and two of those mentioned Jesus as well. And Tiberius was the Roman emperor, and Jesus was an itinerant peasant preacher in a backwater province who was one of thousands crucified. The notion that historians of the period before the printing press and modern communication mentioned most events is absurd.

We might also consider prince Gautama Siddhartha, the Buddha. The accounts of his life come from records that were based on an oral tradition committed to writing about four centuries after his death in a canon of scriptures called the Tripitaka. It's said that before his incarnation as Gautama, he lived in the heavenly realm, and that he was conceived when a white elephant impregnated his mother through her rib cage. He is said to have been a prince, but non-Buddhist historians of the period, such as they were, did not record any events of his life. Did he exist?

 

Yeah, I can see why there would be much more resistance to Jesus. But we're talking his existence, not his teachings or divinity.

 

There happens to be "a TON" of historical accounts about various things, but many things we'd think there would be more accounts of just aren't there, and lots of the accounts were written decades after the event, which is understandable because they were written by scribes after the historian had to do some real digging in an era before printing presses, airplanes, foreign correspondents, computers, etc.

Neither do I, so what are we arguing about?

 

^what are you okiefreak if you dont mind me asking?

 

I am Legion, for we are many. Which of us were you inquiring about? My religious personae? I haven't whigged out, but your question is hard to answer. I'm lots of things, including human but I assume you're asking about my religion, which is (very) progressive-liberal Christian existentialist /pragmatist/ humanist/borderline agnostic-mystic. Did that answer your question?

 

Sure.

 

I think the Catholic church might have a classification that nicely fits what you've described according to their interpretation of it of course: heretic.

 

Thank you Torquemada. So burn me at the stake!