How so?
Tacitus Annals 15.44? Part of a single manuscript found in an Italian monastery library-scriptorium in the 13th/14th century? Not referred to by any historians or authors previously?
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
Tacitus Annals 15.44? Part of a single manuscript found in an Italian monastery library-scriptorium in the 13th/14th century? Not referred to by any historians or authors previously?
How many times must we go through these absurd arguments from GDon?
The Pauline Corpus does confirm the myth/fiction character called the Lord Jesus.
Jesus in the Pauline Corpus is GOD INCARNATE.
In the Pauline Corpus the Lord Jesus has the same NOMINA SACRA as the Lord God of the Jews.
Jesus is the Lord God of the Christian cult.
Anyone who understands Greek will immediately see the NOMIMA SACRA for the LORD called Jesus is the very same NOMINA SACRA for the LORD who is the God of the Jews in the Greek Christian Bible.
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Rom-5.html
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-11.html
Why does a Christian in the 21st century want to make Christians of antiquity look like liars?
Jesus cult Christians of antiquity did not worship men as Gods.
Minucius Felix Octavius
Do not wander from the neihbourhood of the truth.
The Pauline Jesus was GOD who became man.
The Pauline Jesus was a myth God.
We have the NOMINA SACRA to prove it.
The Pauline Corpus does confirm the myth/fiction character called the Lord Jesus.
Jesus in the Pauline Corpus is GOD INCARNATE.
In the Pauline Corpus the Lord Jesus has the same NOMINA SACRA as the Lord God of the Jews.
Jesus is the Lord God of the Christian cult.
Anyone who understands Greek will immediately see the NOMIMA SACRA for the LORD called Jesus is the very same NOMINA SACRA for the LORD who is the God of the Jews in the Greek Christian Bible.
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Rom-5.html
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-11.html
Why does a Christian in the 21st century want to make Christians of antiquity look like liars?
Jesus cult Christians of antiquity did not worship men as Gods.
Minucius Felix Octavius
Do not wander from the neihbourhood of the truth.
The Pauline Jesus was GOD who became man.
The Pauline Jesus was a myth God.
We have the NOMINA SACRA to prove it.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Well, one can say the same thing about the whole of the Annals, can't one, and I think you will find that historians willing to throw out the whole of the annals because he mentions Christians in Rome to be rather thin on the field.
What an absurd baseless ridiculous statement!! I have not rejected ancient documents. I am presently showing the contents of the Pauline Corpus found in Papyri 46.
In Papyri 46 the Pauline Lord called Jesus has the same NOMINA SACRA as the Lord who is God of the Jews.
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-1.html
http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-11.html
The Pauline Jesus was a myth God.
16.5 said:
What fiction you write.
You will not be able to show that a character called Jesus is mentioned in Tacitus' Annals.
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
I can't speak for anyone else...
3 is an article of faith. History / historians cannot weigh in on these. As an atheist, if there was a historical Jesus, he was a standard human.
1 is what history / historians can search for: A human on which the myths built.
2 seems to be an alternative to #1. I assume #2 would mean that there is no historical Jesus, so the mythical Jesus is a complete fabrication.
I am not studied on the HJ arguments, so can't really do anything but ask questions of the much more knowledgeable members in this thread. As an atheist, the idea that Jesus never existed has a certain appeal, but my atheism doesn't hang on the notion.
One might want to look at the Jesus of Nazareth: Man or myth? A discussion with Zeba Crook and Richard Carrier debate on this issue just from the stand point of the NT.
I agree regarding the Antiq Jews 20(?) issue.
First we have the inconsistencies regarding James the Just if one assumes this passage refers to him.
Second Origen's makes two supposed references to this passage that both say that Josephus himself states this death was the main reason for the fall of "Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple". Nothing even remotely like this appears in the passage we have.
Finally, the passage is inconstant with how Josephus explains and references things.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Naw, just a guy who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate and whose followers called Christians who showed up a few years later in Rome. Probably some other dude called Christ.
That reply doesn't really address my question -
I wasn't referring to the whole of Annals being thrown out.
Nor was I referring to a narrow reason it may be thrown out ("because he [allegedly] mentions Christians in Rome").
Besides; Books 1-6 were independently discovered at Corvey Abbey in Germany in 1508, and were first published in Rome in 1515.
The sections between them and Annals 11-16 - that would have referred to the key times Jesus in the times of Tiberius - are missing.
(Books 7–10 and parts of books 5, 6, 11 and 16 are missing)
Last edited:
This is an extreme strawman that ignores logic.
Yes, we know from things like Acts of Pilate that Christians weren't above forging evidence but unless it directly dealt with Christianity such works were small; perhaps a paragraph or two.
They would NOT forge a work that for 99.99% of its text does NOT talk about Jesus as a way to show evidence for Jesus. No, on a practical level it would far simpler (and saner) to insert a paragraph or even better change a handful of words.
Jay Raskin pointed out the passage as it stands has problems: "Tacitus would have had to explain more about the suppression of the new superstition if it died out in the 30’s and started again in Rome around in the 60’s. (The Fire was in 64)."
However Josephus tells us of Festus' encounter with some robbers and it has been suggested the passage originally looked like this before the Christians tinkered with it:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."
Change those three names and Pestro chango you have a testimony for Jesus
Robert Van Voorst in his Jesus Outside the New Testament touched on the idea of some Chrestus running around and in what has to be a prime example of hypocrisy dismisses it with an Argument from Silence. The VERY argument HJ-er deride mythers for using against Jesus is perfectly good to use FOR Jesus...HOW THE (bleep) DOES THAT WORK?!?
More over we see evidence that Chrestus is also used as a TITLE as well as a name so even if "Chrestus" wasn't a common name among Jews there is nothing preventing a Jew form using it as a title.
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate?
Must have been a bunch of that going around?
It seems that Pontius Pilate occupied a prominent position in early Christian thought judging by the literature written allegedly written by him, for him or about him. A Passage in 'the Gospel According to Peter' reflects a desire or tendency to minimize guilt attributed to Pilate.
There is or are so-called 'Acts of Pilate' (Acti Pilati), a supposed 'official report of the procurator' concerning Jesus; it seems there may be various versions.
There is also a 'Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius’, which is given as a Latin-translation appendix to the Evangelium Nicodemix (ie. the 'Gospel of Nicodemus'; aka Gesta Salvatoris), and is also inserted in Greek into the late Acts of Peter and Paul.
x1 "a fifth-century apocryphal passion narrative, showed remarkable vitality throughout the Middle Ages and by the close of the period established itself as one of the most influential religious texts, its authority approaching - though not often attaining - that of the canonical gospels."
http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9780888443700-1
x2 http://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/10.1484/J.MSS.3.1315?journalCode=mss
http://www.brepols.net/Pages/ShowProduct.aspx?prod_id=IS-9780888443700-1
x2 http://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/abs/10.1484/J.MSS.3.1315?journalCode=mss
Justin Martyr remarks in his first Apology (35), ~150-160 AD, after he mentioned the passion and crucifixion of Jesus; "and that these things happened, you can ascertain from the 'Acts of Pontius Pilate'." A similar statement occurs in Apology 48.
Tertullian refers twice to a 'report made by Pilate to Tiberius'. According to Tertullian, Pontius Pilate 'informed the Emperor of the unjust sentence of death which he had pronounced against an innocent and divine person'; the Emperor was so moved by his [Pilate's] 'report' of the miracles of Christ and his resurrection, that he proposed the reception of Christ among the gods of Rome. But the Senate allegedly refused (Apologeticum 5).
Tertullian says in Apol. 21, 24 that the "whole story of Christ was reported to 'Caesar' [at that time, Tiberius] by Pilate, himself in his secret heart already a Christian".
Tertullian’s Apologeticum was composed before the year 197 AD.
These writings seem to reflect a desire to use the Roman procurator as a witness for the "history of the death and resurrection of Christ" and "the truth" of Christianity.
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
This is an extreme strawman that ignores logic.
Yes, we know from things like Acts of Pilate that Christians weren't above forging evidence but unless it directly dealt with Christianity such works were small; perhaps a paragraph or two.
They would NOT forge a work that for 99.99% of its text does NOT talk about Jesus as a way to show evidence for Jesus. No, on a practical level it would far simpler (and saner) to insert a paragraph or even better change a handful of words.
Jay Raskin pointed out the passage as it stands has problems: "Tacitus would have had to explain more about the suppression of the new superstition if it died out in the 30’s and started again in Rome around in the 60’s. (The Fire was in 64)."
However Josephus tells us of Festus' encounter with some robbers and it has been suggested the passage originally looked like this before the Christians tinkered with it:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Chrestians by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (i.e., Crucifixion) during the reign of Nero at the hands of one of our procurators, Porcius Festus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."
Change those three names and Pestro chango you have a testimony for Jesus
Robert Van Voorst in his Jesus Outside the New Testament touched on the idea of some Chrestus running around and in what has to be a prime example of hypocrisy dismisses it with an Argument from Silence. The VERY argument HJ-er deride mythers for using against Jesus is perfectly good to use FOR Jesus...HOW THE (bleep) DOES THAT WORK?!?
More over we see evidence that Chrestus is also used as a TITLE as well as a name so even if "Chrestus" wasn't a common name among Jews there is nothing preventing a Jew form using it as a title.
Lolz, and you accuse me of a straw man? I did enjoy when you put in Another name in place of pilate's name, tho. Presto chango indeed
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Tacitus was not a Christian.
Jay Raskin's proposition is a reasonable one - Annals 15.44 first talks about Nero; then there is the currently focused-on passage about Tiberius and Pilate; then Annals 15.44 finishes on Nero again.
Annals 15.44 is set in the time of Nero: it is conceivable the whole passage was about Nero, and the Tiberius and Pontius Pilate mentions are the result of Christian manipulation.
Especially given the history of a single manuscript of Annals Books 11-16 appearing in and passing through Christian hands.
Last edited:
I wasn't referring to Tacitus - I was referring to Christian texts reflecting an obsession with Pilate and various spurious stories about him.
Other apocryphal 'reports of Pilate', including the Anaphora Pilati, the 'Letter of Pilate to Tiberius'*, the Paradosis Pilati, 'the sentence of Pilate by the Emperor', and correspondence between Pilate and Herod, belong to the Middle Ages.”
A 'Letter of Tiberius to Pilate' takes an unfavourable view of Pilate and alludes to a supposedly journey by Mary Magdalene to Rome to accuse Pilate.
ie. the Pilate-literature industry was strong
* written in renaissance Latin, probably in the 16th century. The letter cannot be traced any earlier than the renaissance.
A 'Letter of Tiberius to Pilate' takes an unfavourable view of Pilate and alludes to a supposedly journey by Mary Magdalene to Rome to accuse Pilate.
ie. the Pilate-literature industry was strong
Last edited:
Naw, just a guy who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate and whose followers called Christians who showed up a few years later in Rome. Probably some other dude called Christ.
You have only exposed your lack of knowledge.
1. In the Christian Bible there was more than one person called the anointed [Christos].
2. It has been conclusively proven that Tacitus Annals 15.44 has been corrupted.
3. Christus in Tacitus Annals is NOT obscure HJ.
4. The Christian Bible claims many persons would be called Christos.
5. Tacitus Annals is not evidence of an historical Jesus.
6. Tacitus believed mythology was history.
7. For hundreds of years No contemporary Christian writer of antiquity used Tacitus' Annals 15.44 to argue that Jesus did exist.
8. A Christian writer claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius--Not Pilate.
9. Christus in Annals could not be Jesus Christus--Jesus cult Christians do NOT worship men as Gods.
10. The Jewish Christus has NOT yet come.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Wrong. That makes no sense at all. the reference to Pilate was not currently focused.
That makes no sense. so ridiculous
- Status