A non-miraculous Jesus, executed on earth by Pontius Pilate: that is, the Historical Jesus, is presented to us by Tacitus.
I just made that last sentence up. Naughty me!
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
Belz...
Fiend God
"The historical Jesus is implausible"
- Why so ?
- Well, it's got no evidence for it.
- Ok, what's your alternative, short of 'I don't know' ?
- That it started out as divine myth.
- You mean, prior to Jesus being considered a man and then a god ?
- Yep.
- Where's your evidence ?
Both have little to no evidence to support them, but on the face of it, HJ has one fewer leap.
Belz...
Fiend God
Is not Mark a writing of antiquity ?
Oh, that's right. You believe the bible's myth claims because it suits your purposes.
FIFY -
A non-miraculous Jesus Christ, [supposedly] executed by Pontius Pilate: that is, Christos, is presented to us by Tacitus 
Last edited:
The Gnostics' concurrent belief in the celestial support the contention
Yes, but Tacitus treats that simply as a person whose designation gave rise to the name of the sect. I regard it as vastly probable that Jesus is intended; the reference to PP being the link.FIFY -
Anon-miraculous JesusChrist, [supposedly] executed by Pontius Pilate: that is, Christos, is presented to us by Tacitus
Belz...
Fiend God
Could you expand on that ? I admit that I've been following this thread only occasionally, recently.
Tacitus was a contemporary of Seutonius, Pliny-the-Younger, and Hadrian.
Each of them wrote about either Christ (Tacitus), Chrestus (Seutonius), Christians (Hadrian, & Pliny-the-Younger), or Chrestians (Tacitus). None wrote about "Jesus" in Judea.
Seutonius wrote about a Chrestus (& Jews) in Rome -
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."
Hadrian was writing about Christians he saw in Egypt who worshiped Serapis.
Pliny-the-Younger, as the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus, northern Asia Minor (Turkey), was writing to Trajan about Christians being accused of something non-specific.
Tacitus's reference may be repeating hearsay, or it may be interpolation. A single copy of Annals 15 was discovered in the 13th/14th century in a scriptorium/library of a monastery.
Each of them wrote about either Christ (Tacitus), Chrestus (Seutonius), Christians (Hadrian, & Pliny-the-Younger), or Chrestians (Tacitus). None wrote about "Jesus" in Judea.
Seutonius wrote about a Chrestus (& Jews) in Rome -
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."
Hadrian was writing about Christians he saw in Egypt who worshiped Serapis.
Pliny-the-Younger, as the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus, northern Asia Minor (Turkey), was writing to Trajan about Christians being accused of something non-specific.
Tacitus's reference may be repeating hearsay, or it may be interpolation. A single copy of Annals 15 was discovered in the 13th/14th century in a scriptorium/library of a monastery.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Is that a response to my request ? I don't see the celestial there, nor are those references all necessarily about the Christians we all know and love.
Mcreal appears to be saying the references are all spurious, or if they are authentic and do refer to anything it isn't Jesus the Nazarene or Christianity.
Well Pliny's quasi deo (translated either as 'as to a God' or 'as if to a God') does point to a "Christ" being regarded as some form of celestial being.
Hadrian's letter references Christians (or Chrestians) worshiping Serapis a pagan god (ie celestial being)
The fact modern scholars present these as "evidence" of Jesus being historical means it is just as valid to use them as evidence against Jesus being historical.
Craig B, you have been caught writing more fiction.
You forgot that you stated that your "Jesus was a Jew who founded no new religion".
Your posts are recorded.
Your HJ argument changes its 'color' to blend with surroundings.
Your HJ can TRANSFIGURE.
Your HJ is a myth.
At one time Jesus is an OBSCURE preacher, another time he is a rebel, a prophet, a sage, one time he is founder and then he is not, and the next time he is a WELL KNOWN Messianic ruler of the Jews.
It is clear HJ is imaginative fiction.
The HUGE problem with that is WHY would Tacitus assume such a thing? Chrestus as both a name and a title can be found as far back as the 5th century BCE.
Is it it is akin to think any chieftain must have something to do with cooking because of the similarity to the word "chef". More over early Christian authorities like Tertullian go to great pains in explaining that Christian and Chrestian were two different words with entirely different meanings and were not variants of each other, a claim supported by the evidence. (The sources of CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS in Antiquity; The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity)
In Panarion 29 Epiphanius in the 4th century expressly states "this group did not name themselves after Christ or with Jesus’ own name, but Natzraya." a term that was applied to all followers of Jesus. He then relates that they were even called Jessaeans for a time. In fact, since the term Chrestian only appears in Acts which tends to get a 90s or later composition there is no actual evidence that the term "Chrestian" was actually used in the 60s.
Another interesting thing is if you really look at our oldest copy of Tacitus it doesn't say "Christ" either! The word being rendered as "Christ" in reality has not vowel between the 'r' and the 's' (Proof Tacitus Manuscript was Altered) so this could be reference to some OTHER troublemaker named Chrestos whose followers were still causing trouble in the time of Nero.
That assumes Tacitus actually wrote the "Their founder, one Christ, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius." There is a good argument that that particular line is a gloss later inserted into the main text.
Tacitus supposed reference is like Josephus' TF: full of logic glitches and Christian fiddling.
Last edited:
In the Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint GOD is CHRESTUS-- [God is GOOD].
People of antiquity who were followers of GOD the GOOD [Not Jesus] were called CHRESTIANS.
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/19_105.htm
Psalm 106:1 Praise ye the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good [τω κυριω οτι χρηστος]
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/19_106.htm
Psalm 107:1 ---O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good [τω κυριω οτι χρηστος]
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/19_135.htm
Psalm 136:1--- O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good [τω κυριω οτι χρηστος]
Mcreal said:
Jewish Kings and High Priests were physically ANOINTED at the very start of tenure.
Jewish Kings are High Priests were the ANOINTED [Christos] of God.
Even if Jesus did exist Jews would have NEVER called Jesus the Anointed [Christos] because he was NOT a Jewish King or High Priest.
In the Old Testament of the Greek Septuagint, King Saul and David are called the ANOINTED [Christos] of God.
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/09_024.htm
1 Samuel 24:10 --Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord's anointed. [κυριου χριστος]
The NT is a gross mis-representation of history and Hebrew Scripture.
There was no actual person called Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Pontius Pilate who was worshiped as a God by Jews and people of the Roman Empire before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.
The relevant page he uses can be found at The Tertullian Project and it is EXACTLY as he shows it in the video.
There is in fact NO VOWEL between the "r" and "s" in what is translated as "Christ". If anything it looks more like "chrfhif" then anything else thanks to to the way who ever wrote this did his letters.
Oh this youtube author found something interesting in P52; what appear to be three lowercase Greek letters and spaces between words. These features appear in texts in later part of the second century which means the 125 CE requires ignoring (surprise surprise) other data that points to a later date.
Not at all. If this is a peculiarity of the Christians, as Pliny seems to be suggesting to Trajan, then the point must be that they worshipped the christ - the Messiah - as a god, in a manner that Jews did not. That Pliny was aware of Jewish ideas means no more than that he had perused his uncle's works, as we know he did.Well Pliny's quasi deo (translated either as 'as to a God' or 'as if to a God') does point to a "Christ" being regarded as some form of celestial being.
Hadrian's letter references Christians (or Chrestians) worshiping Serapis a pagan god (ie celestial being)
The fact modern scholars present these as "evidence" of Jesus being historical means it is just as valid to use them as evidence against Jesus being historical.
Worshipping cosmic beings as gods was a common or garden practice. But here we have some bunch worshipping a messiah as a god! Weird. In fact Pliny dismissed the whole thing as "depraved, excessive superstition".
I think that, if anything, Pliny's strictures point to the "Christos" having been in his mind a human being, rather than a supernatural cosmic entity, which explains his indignation at Christians making him an object of worship.
If he had said "they sing hymns to a supernatural being in the sky, as if to a god" that would have been commonplace to the point of absurdity.
Again, your argument is void of logic. You display the same "chameleon" type of argument. Your Obscure HJ was NOT the Christ but all of a sudden a mention of Christ is your HJ.
The Pliny letter is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus when it is argued that there were MULTIPLE Messianic claimants.
The very Christian Bible claims that MANY would come in the name of Christ and DECEIVE.
The Pliny letter does NOT identify any person called Jesus of Nazareth.
In addition there were MULTIPLE sects of Christians with UNKNOWN characters claiming to be Gods or Christ.
It is most absurd to ASSUME that a mention of the Christ in the 2nd century can ONLY refer to YOUR OBSCURE HJ.
The HJ argument must be the very worst argument known to mankind.
Mark 13:6 ---For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Christians writers ADMITTED that there were many Heretical Christian cults since the 1st century and in the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE.
See Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" Hippolytus'" Refutation Against All Heresies" and writings attributed to Justin Martyr.
The Pliny letter is completely useless to argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.
How much longer can Craig B continue with his bizarre logically fallacious arguments?
Last edited:
A 'peculiarity' of those Christians, in that location ie. Bithynia-Pontus in then northern Anatolia, now northern Turkey.
I'm not sure we can say
From Pliny's letter to Trajan: There seems to have been a series of incidents, and the tone of the Christians seems to have change after some executions (I find some of the punctuation, in what I have made to be a 2nd paragraph, problematic)
ie. they were called upon to worship the emperor Trajan (emperor worship was commonly expected in those times). And ...
ie. they seemed to be worshiping "Christ, as [to] a god" as part of a superstition.
Here's part of Trajan's reply -
Last edited:
Peter Kirby addresses it here - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32416#p32416
- Status