Athenagoras didn't write much about Jesus at all. We have two things that he wrote. One is an apology that he wrote to Marcus Aurelius in which he mostly wrote about the futility of pagan gods. In the second work, he defends the reality of the coming resurrection of the dead. It wasn't his goal in either of these works to say much about the reality of Jesus on earth. Both the Christians and Romans were well aware that Jesus was an actual person who lived in Judea and stood trial before Pontius Pilate.
uncleanunicorn We have the Acts of Pilate. In it, Pilate relates how he had a conversion with Jesus early in Jesus' ministry, his trial of Jesus, and his investigation into the resurrection because of the empty tomb. To be honest, whether Pilate actually wrote this work is up for debate. Yet, Justin Martyr (160 AD) told Marcus Aurelius that he could read this work for himself and see that Pilate really did put Jesus on trial. In the late first century when Josephus became a Roman citizen and Jewish historian to Emperor Titus, Josephus (who was not a Christian) wrote that Jesus really existed and that he performed many miracles. After these things, there are the letters between Roman governors (such as Emperor Trajan (107 AD) and Pliny the Younger (112 AD)) who ask other Roman governors about what to do with the Christians. The Romans never questioned that Jesus was a real person. Of course, they did not believe that he was the Son of God. As far as we know, the belief that Jesus never lived did not begin until the 1800s.
uncleanunicorn What makes these sources un-authentic? Yes, these sources are certainly not contemporary. After all, to find out what happened 2000 years ago, we ought to go to the writings that were written at that time, correct? In other words, if a source is contemporary, then it's not a primary source; it is only hearsay. How do we know for sure? It is like how a jury must examine if the person on trial is innocent or guilty. How do they know for sure? They listen to witnesses (and they also listen to the man on trial). When it comes to whether a non-Christian Roman believed that Jesus really existed, we can read at their testimonies. Thank you for keeping this dialogue going. I also want to hear more from you.
This image is from plato
You're right. I used that images for a few of my videos, which was a mistake. But I can change the video's thumbnail. Thank you.
But never wrote about an earthly Jesus. Interesting.
Athenagoras didn't write much about Jesus at all. We have two things that he wrote. One is an apology that he wrote to Marcus Aurelius in which he mostly wrote about the futility of pagan gods. In the second work, he defends the reality of the coming resurrection of the dead. It wasn't his goal in either of these works to say much about the reality of Jesus on earth. Both the Christians and Romans were well aware that Jesus was an actual person who lived in Judea and stood trial before Pontius Pilate.
Post-Apostolic Church How do we know that the Romans were aware of Jesus as a real person?
uncleanunicorn
We have the Acts of Pilate. In it, Pilate relates how he had a conversion with Jesus early in Jesus' ministry, his trial of Jesus, and his investigation into the resurrection because of the empty tomb. To be honest, whether Pilate actually wrote this work is up for debate. Yet, Justin Martyr (160 AD) told Marcus Aurelius that he could read this work for himself and see that Pilate really did put Jesus on trial.
In the late first century when Josephus became a Roman citizen and Jewish historian to Emperor Titus, Josephus (who was not a Christian) wrote that Jesus really existed and that he performed many miracles.
After these things, there are the letters between Roman governors (such as Emperor Trajan (107 AD) and Pliny the Younger (112 AD)) who ask other Roman governors about what to do with the Christians. The Romans never questioned that Jesus was a real person. Of course, they did not believe that he was the Son of God.
As far as we know, the belief that Jesus never lived did not begin until the 1800s.
But none of those sources are authentic, or contemporary. How do we know for sure?
uncleanunicorn What makes these sources un-authentic?
Yes, these sources are certainly not contemporary. After all, to find out what happened 2000 years ago, we ought to go to the writings that were written at that time, correct? In other words, if a source is contemporary, then it's not a primary source; it is only hearsay.
How do we know for sure? It is like how a jury must examine if the person on trial is innocent or guilty. How do they know for sure? They listen to witnesses (and they also listen to the man on trial). When it comes to whether a non-Christian Roman believed that Jesus really existed, we can read at their testimonies.
Thank you for keeping this dialogue going. I also want to hear more from you.