Did Jesus exist?

[Navigator]

How do you spot which parts of the message have been toyed with if you don't know what the original message was? Which parts of the message contradicts the original message?

The bits I like will do for the 'original message' The 'bits I don't like' I can;t recall off hand. What bits don;t you personally like?

By taking the character as its best, and going with that...that's the way I fire up.

The message obviously has to suit me, my own personality and character for me to then understand 'what part of the message' gives it (the message) a place in my heart and a soft spot for the messenger, in this case the messenger being the character Jesus.

(I also have a soft spot in my heart for other messengers with similar messages.)

The bits I like will suffice.

 

[Brainache]

The bits I like will do for the 'original message' The 'bits I don't like' I can;t recall off hand. What bits don;t you personally like?

By taking the character as its best, and going with that...that's the way I fire up.

The message obviously has to suit me, my own personality and character for me to then understand 'what part of the message' gives it (the message) a place in my heart and a soft spot for the messenger, in this case the messenger being the character Jesus.

(I also have a soft spot in my heart for other messengers with similar messages.)

The bits I like will suffice.

Of course Dafydd's point was that you don't know which bits of this "message" came from "Jesus".

How do you know that the bit of the message that appeals to you didn't come from Paul, or James, or Peter, or anyone else of the countless individuals involved in the transmission of these stories?

From what I can tell, Jesus' "message" was about strict adherence to the "Law of Moses". That righteousness is unobtainable outside the "Law".

I'll bet that isn't the message you get.

 

[dafydd]

What bits don;t you personally like?

I don't like or dislike it. It has no relevance to me or my life. Nor indeed to any of my friends or acquaintances. I don't know anyone religious, I only come across believers on this site. Which parts of the message do you like?

 

[dafydd]

Of course Dafydd's point was that you don't know which bits of this "message" came from "Jesus".

Or indeed if any of it came from Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Or indeed if any of it came from Jesus.

Well, yes. Navigator has to first decide what he thinks Jesus would have said, and then go looking for it.

He can probably find all manor of wonderful "messages" if he reads it right...

 

[Navigator]

Of course Dafydd's point was that you don't know which bits of this "message" came from "Jesus".

Of course, as it was my point that it didn't matter. Did you miss that bit?

How do you know that the bit of the message that appeals to you didn't come from Paul, or James, or Peter, or anyone else of the countless individuals involved in the transmission of these stories?

Makes no difference. Did you miss that bit? The only reason we are even discussing Jesus is the Poll and OP.

From what I can tell, Jesus' "message" was about strict adherence to the "Law of Moses". That righteousness is unobtainable outside the "Law".

What has that got to do with me having a soft spot in my heart for Jesus? I have just as much room in that place for some of the things Neil Young, Carl Sagan, John, Paul, Ringo, George and Yoda, have said, just to name a few characters in life, past present and no doubt future. Fictional or not, makes no difference to me.

I'll bet that isn't the message you get.

What message do you think I 'get'?

 

[Navigator]

I don't like or dislike it. It has no relevance to me or my life. Nor indeed to any of my friends or acquaintances. I don't know anyone religious, I only come across believers on this site. Which parts of the message do you like?

If they ever come up in discussion one way or the other I will let you know.

 

[Brainache]

Of course, as it was my point that it didn't matter. Did you miss that bit?

So, you like Jesus' message, but don't think it was Jesus' message?

Makes no difference. Did you miss that bit? The only reason we are even discussing Jesus is the Poll and OP.

Not exactly Jesus' message though, is it?

What has that got to do with me having a soft spot in my heart for Jesus? I have just as much room in that place for some of the things Neil Young, Carl Sagan, John, Paul, Ringo, George and Yoda, have said, just to name a few characters in life, past present and no doubt future. Fictional or not, makes no difference to me.

But in those cases you can usually tell who said what, unlike the case with Jesus.

What message do you think I 'get'?

Whatever it is, I'll bet it doesn't involve keeping the Jewish Holy Days, eating Kosher food, circumcision, daily ritual bathing and regular sacrifices in the Temple...

 

[Craig B]

... And that’s apart from the quite laughable fact that what is being offered as Tacitus, are Christian religious copies dating from c.1000 years after Tacitus had died!

As evidence of Jesus that is hopelessly compromised.

Then virtually the whole of ancient literature is to be rejected, as we have it in much later copies, the bulk of them from the pens of monks or other religious people. All of it is therefore laughable and compromised. What is being offered as Caesar; what is being offered as Josephus .... In their totality.

 

[dejudge]

How did Tacitus know about the fire? how did Tacitus know about Christians? How did Tacitus know what Christians believed? How did Tacitus know that Nero blamed them for the fire?

answer: he lived it.

Please answer these question before you answer your own.

Where did Tacitus actually live when there was the Fire in the time of Nero?

Do you have a 2nd century copy of Tacitus Annals?

Do you know if the word was ChrEstians?

Now answer your own questions.

How did Tacitus know about the fire?


How did Tacitus know what Christians believed?

How did Tacitus know that Nero blamed them for the fire?

You have no answer.

You have nothing.

Do you know that no existing apologetic writing at least up to the 5th century mention of Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus?

Jesus of Nazareth did not live.

There was NO Jesus cult in the time of Nero.


If there were actual known records that Jesus was just a crucified criminal then then the Pauline Corpus makes no sense whatsoever and would have been known as a pack of lies.

It is highly illogical that a new religion would be able to start on known lies.

The Jews and Romans knew Jesus was a criminal and they crucified him for creating a disturbance in the Temple of God.

Who would have worshiped a criminal as a God, caught in the act, caught committing a crime, in the very Temple of God?

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a forgery.

Jesus of the NT was only BELIEVED to have existed --he was never KNOWN to exist.

 

[dejudge]

Then virtually the whole of ancient literature is to be rejected, as we have it in much later copies, the bulk of them from the pens of monks or other religious people. All of it is therefore laughable and compromised. What is being offered as Caesar; what is being offered as Josephus .... In their totality.

Except the part where it says Jesus was crucified under Pilate?

Except the part where Tacitus mentioned Chrestians/Christians?

Except the part where Josephus mentions Jesus called the Christ?

 

[The Big Dog]

Please answer these question before you answer your own.

Where did Tacitus actually live when there was the Fire in the time of Nero?

Do you have a 2nd century copy of Tacitus Annals?

Do you know if the word was ChrEstians?

Now answer your own questions.

How did Tacitus know about the fire?


How did Tacitus know what Christians believed?

How did Tacitus know that Nero blamed them for the fire?

You have no answer.

You have nothing.

Do you know that no existing apologetic writing at least up to the 5th century mention of Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus?

Jesus of Nazareth did not live.

There was NO Jesus cult in the time of Nero.


If there were actual known records that Jesus was just a crucified criminal then then the Pauline Corpus makes no sense whatsoever and would have been known as a pack of lies.

It is highly illogical that a new religion would be able to start on known lies.

The Jews and Romans knew Jesus was a criminal and they crucified him for creating a disturbance in the Temple of God.

Who would have worshiped a criminal as a God, caught in the act, caught committing a crime, in the very Temple of God?

Tacitus' Annals with Christus is a forgery.

Jesus of the NT was only BELIEVED to have existed --he was never KNOWN to exist.

We have already established that you are the distinct minority in regards to the authenticity of the annals, and while you have zealously asserted that he annals are forgeries, you have not even tried to establish that case. So lets go with your questions! Where did Tacitus live when Rome burned? Exactly! He was Alive and a citizen of the Roman Empire! Progress. Do I have a copy? Lolz, of course not, what a silly question. Chriestians? Now that is a question, lets go to the text! Tacitus was referring to followers of "christus" a person who suffered the extreme penalty under Pontus Pilate! Context supplies us with the answer.

Context! Fantastic.

Nifty example of the Gish gallop though, dejudge!

 

[maximara]

Sure, that cult that derived its name from Christus who suffered the ultimate penalty under Pilate, right?

"called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

That is where the previously mentioned confusion comes in.

Here is how the Chrestians (followers of Osiris) are described in the Hadrian to Servianus 134 CE letter:

"They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle."

Note how Tiberius describes the Chrestians as an "abominable superstition" “hated for their crimes” and hinted that is just one of the "every kind of depravity and filth" that had gravitated to Rome and this group has a "hatred of the entire human race."

Now compare this with Pliny's description of what the Christians he knew told him "oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal" which was enough for him to investigate further and that is when things went pear shaped.

The really annoying thing is Pliny doesn't tell us why Christians were such an issue at this time or how what he found differed from what he was told. It does show a major disconnect between Pliny's Christians and the Chrestians of Tiberius.

 

[Brainache]

That is where the previously mentioned confusion comes in.

Here is how the Chrestians (followers of Osiris) are described in the Hadrian to Servianus 134 CE letter:

"They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle."

...

Are you sure that is "Chrestians" he is talking about here, not Egyptians generally?

Here is a longer version:

From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis.

There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.

They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle. Some are blowers of glass, others makers of paper, all are at least weavers of linen or seem to belong to one craft or another; the lame have their occupations, the eunuchs have theirs, the blind have theirs, and not even those whose hands are crippled are idle.

Their only god is money, and this the Christians, the Jews, and, in fact, all nations adore. And would that this city had a better character, for indeed it is worthy by reason of its richness and by reason of its size to hold the chief place in the whole of Egypt.

I granted it every favour, I restored to it all its ancient rights and bestowed on it new ones besides, so that the people gave thanks to me while I was present among them. Then, no sooner had I departed thence than they said many things against my son Verus, and what they said about Antinous I believe you have learned. I can only wish for them that they may live on their own chickens, which they breed in a fashion I am ashamed to describe.

I am sending you over some cups, changing colour and variegated, presented to me by the priest of a temple and now dedicated particularly to you and my sister. I should like you to use them at banquets on feast-days.

Take good care, however, that our dear Africanus does not use them too freely."

See the bold?

You were being naughty Maximara. That sentence does not say what you claimed.

Please amend this.

 

[The Big Dog]

That is where the previously mentioned confusion comes in.

Here is how the Chrestians (followers of Osiris) are described in the Hadrian to Servianus 134 CE letter:

"They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle."

Note how Tiberius describes the Chrestians as an "abominable superstition" “hated for their crimes” and hinted that is just one of the "every kind of depravity and filth" that had gravitated to Rome and this group has a "hatred of the entire human race."

Now compare this with Pliny's description of what the Christians he knew told him "oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal" which was enough for him to investigate further and that is when things went pear shaped.

The really annoying thing is Pliny doesn't tell us why Christians were such an issue at this time or how what he found differed from what he was told. It does show a major disconnect between Pliny's Christians and the Chrestians of Tiberius.

Hadrian was not limiting his discussion to Christians, he was describing the people of Alexandria/egyptians where the people who claim to worship Serapis really worship Christ, the bishops of Christ worship Serapis, and the Jews, Christians and Samaratins are all soothsayers. He was saying that the Alexandrians were a hypocritical deceitful lot. Pretty obvious in context.

 

[dejudge]

Hadrian was not limiting his discussion to Christians, he was describing the people of Alexandria, where the people who claim to worship Serapis really worship Christ, the bishops of Christ worship Serapis, and the Jews, Christians and Samaratins are all soothsayers. He was saying that the Alexandrians were a hypocritical deceitful lot. Pretty obvious in context.

What does it matter when Christians claimed Christ was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin?

Aristides supposedly lived in the time of Hadrian and admitted Jesus Christ was God who came down from heaven.

It is pretty obvious who Jesus was in context.

Aristides Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called..

Aristides wrote to Hadrian and described who the Christ was.

Jesus Christ was BELIEVED to have existed as a God---he was not known to have existed as history shows.

 

[geni]

I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented), and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions. Otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of which is a general plague infecting the whole world.

Extract from the Letter of the Emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians.

The timing is suggestive.

 

[dejudge]

We have already established that you are the distinct minority in regards to the authenticity of the annals, and while you have zealously asserted that he annals are forgeries, you have not even tried to establish that case.

You have established nothing because you have not and cannot produce a shred of corroborative evidence for anything you claim about the authenticity of Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus.

So lets go with your questions! Where did Tacitus live when Rome burned? Exactly! He was Alive and a citizen of the Roman Empire! Progress. Do I have a copy? Lolz, of course not, what a silly question. Chriestians? Now that is a question, lets go to the text! Tacitus was referring to followers of "christus" a person who suffered the extreme penalty under Pontus Pilate! Context supplies us with the answer.

Who was Christus? You don't even know who Christus was.

What does Christus have to do with Jesus?

You don't even know who Jesus was.

The Gospels are forgeries and not eyewitness accounts.

Who was HJ? You forget that HJ was assumed to be an obscure preacher man?

Christus was NOT an obscure preacher man in Tacitus Annals 15.44.

There was no Messianic ruler of the Jews up to c 69 CE IN Tacitus Histories 5

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery based on Tacitus Histories 5, Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 and Suetonius "Life of Vespasian".

 

[DC]

oh, let them have their Jesus, what else do they have, nothing.

 

[Brainache]

oh, let them have their Jesus, what else do they have, nothing.

That is an amusing joke DC. I get it.

But: I really don't care about "Jesus" beyond trying to establish some kind of Historically accurate picture of what happened there and then.

My own ideas on the subject are not mainstream, AFAIK, but I think there was a Jewish Rabbi that got mythologised into "Jesus Christ" and was used as a cypher for various factions in early Christianity.