The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Does it bother you that your points are wildly contradictory or totally irrelevant to the analysis of tacitus?
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
Does it bother you that your points are wildly contradictory or totally irrelevant to the analysis of tacitus?
What does that last expression mean? Not a statement. The author of the words is indicating that people called James the brother of a person who was referred to as messiah. Why is that not a "statement"?
I simply don't understand this approach. Mythicists say things like "there is no evidence". We have asked you for evidence for years. Produce it. Just give us it, OK. Etc etc. So we produce several sources of evidence that Jesus had a human brother called James.
The response? There were other people called James. Therefore Jesus didn't have a brother called James. Therefore there is no evidence. Therefore you have not produced evidence. But we have asked you for evidence for years. Produce it. Just give us it, OK. Etc etc.
This is all rubbish. Now, the indications and arguments of historicity from the NT and other sources have been shown repeatedly in this thread. Argue with them if you want. But to say, there is no evidence, or to manufacture spurious criteria of evidence as IanS does, is simply a device intended to avoid confrontation with the evidence that does plainly exist.
You keep appealing to 'tacitus'.
Your posts lack nuance.
You fail to either realize or acknowledge the tenuous nature of annals 15.44 in the big picture.
It's either (i) edited interpolation or (ii) hearsay about a non-specific Christ-entity.
That's right. Yes. These two observations follow from each other. If it wasn't found before the 14th century, it obviously wasn't mentioned before the 14th century. Most ancient authors are represented, in their earliest extant mss, by medieval productions, including Caesar and Josephus.
So, are you saying, Tacitus wasn't found before the 14th century. Therefore he is not evidence? But we've been asking you for evidence for years. Just produce it ... etc, etc ...
it's a passing reference. In a passage otherwise about other people ie. Ananus, & Albinus.
It does not state anything concrete. It is not a statement per se.
.
Do you realize that the various James in the NT had different fathers??
Why is it all rubbish??
Which James is which? Which James is which outside the Synoptics?
Such hand-waving doesn't count.
So it wasn't attested before the 14th century. Which increases the chance it was 'doctored' in the Middle Ages. To suit Christianity.
This is all complete drivel. the statement that James had a brother called the messiah is not "concrete"? The several Jameses were not only different people (So what?) but had different fathers (As they would have. Different siblings are usually given different names!)
And not only are there different Jameses in the Synoptics, there are different ones outside the Synoptics. Again, of course there are. So what?
Hey, here's an argument for you. There are two Jesuses in the Synoptics. The Nazarene and Barabbas - whose surname, by the way, means "Son of the Father" and whose name Jesus is attested in early mss. Outside the NT - in Josephus, there are about fifteen Jesuses. Therefore, if they had different fathers (as they did) that proves there was no Jesuses at all. Or the Jesuses aren't concrete enough. Or whatever.
What does siblings names have to do with the various James having different fathers?
Mary was a slut?
Run that past me again. I have no idea what you mean.
You have said two things. There were different Jameses. Yes. They had different fathers. Yes. I mean, that follows, unless some person had more than one son called James. Mary is given in the Synoptics only one son called James, so I don't know how her sexual activity is relevant to this question.
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
I guess?! wtf?! I can't believe you actually think you're making any semblance of points with this line of reasoning ...
So Mary was having sex with different men?
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
"It is not against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology" -Remsburg The Christ 1909
"Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation. Whatever may be said of the remainder of this passage, this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative. In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence, if genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not write this sentence."
If we correct the tampering we know happened and remove the passage we see Remsburg is right; the passage DOES flow better (and ALL evidence of Jesus goes bye bye):
"Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed to those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Chrestians: These he punished exquisitely. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man"
As I have mentioned before is that the Christians themselves were telling two wildly different stories regarding this event.
In The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) we are told Nero is burning Christians to death NOT as a way to shift blame for the fire (which since this is supposedly around the death of Paul happened some three years ago) but rather Nero has seen some guy named Patroclus who had supposedly died and was told that Christ Jesus would "overthrow all kingdoms" and this man was now a solder in Jesus' army. So here the Christians themselves have Nero reacting to a possible attempt at overthrowing his government.
"The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE) claims that Nero considered to "destroy all those brethren who had been made disciples by Peter" but had a dream after Peter's death (either 64 or 67 CE) which said 'you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ.' and a frightened Nero 'kept away from the disciples . . . and thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord . . .'. So here the Christians themselves claim that Nero considered to destroy them but before he could get the project going had a vision that so frightened him that he kept away from them.
NEITHER of these after Tacitus CHRISTIAN accounts agree with Tacitus. If anything The apocryphal Acts of Paul better fits Suetonius' vague "Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition" then anything Tacitus (supposedly) relates. NOTHING REMOTELY like Tacitus shows in CHRISTIAN writings until the early 5th century with Sulpicius Severus.
Funny thing about Sulpicius Severus part of his passage is nearly word for word to that found in Tacitus:
In the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire while Nero was stationed at Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and the emperor was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means that he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night. It was in this way that cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians. Afterward, too, their religion was prohibited by laws which were given, and by edicts openly set forth it was proclaimed unlawful to be a Christian. At that time Paul and Peter were condemned to capital punishment, of whom the one was beheaded with a sword, while Peter suffered crucifixion.
While Carrier argues for this being from Sulpicius Severus' hand and copied into Tacitus take the passage as coming from Tacitus. Note what is missing: the 'Their founder, one Chrstus had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.' passage! Everything else is a near verbatim so why leave that out...unless it wasn't there to use.
Last edited:
If she had two sons called James, that would be evidence of such conduct. But according to Matthew she had sex with a man (Matt 1:25) and, as dejudge reminds us, a Ghost.
Last edited:
and if she didn't have two sons called James?
eg. one son named James?
eg. 3 sons names James?
note: The various fathers of the various *James* in the bible are Alpheus, Zebedee, and Clopheus/Clopas (ie. not Joseph).
Matt 1:25 New International Version
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Matt 1:25 New Living Translation
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
Matt 1:25 English Standard Version
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matt 1:25 New American Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Matt 1:25 King James Bible
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Matt 1:25 New Living Translation
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
Matt 1:25 English Standard Version
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matt 1:25 New American Standard Bible
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Matt 1:25 King James Bible
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
None of that precludes sex with other people.
You don't do 'logic' very well, do you?
Last edited:
Which one would have been 'brother of the Lord'?
Which one could Antiquities 20 have been referring to?
I can see why you put commas round 'logic' there. None of it precludes sex with a dinosaur.
The different Jameses had different patronyms. Yes. Therefore different fathers. Yes. But your 'logic' requires them to have the same mother? How does that follow?
- Status