Did Jesus exist?

[DC]

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.

strange that you felt spoken to. with them, i meant Christians, i guess you don't count yourself to them.

 

[Brainache]

strange that you felt spoken to. with them, i meant Christians, i guess you don't count yourself to them.

The two are often conflated by the MJ proponents in these threads.

 

[IanS]

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.

His knowledge on Pilate: numerous sources from his life as a Roman official

We are not talking about a "fire"! . We are talking about the existence or otherwise of Jesus.

You were asked - who told Tacitus anything about Jesus?

So ... when did Tacitus ever see or hear Jesus?

Or did someone else tell Tacitus the stories about Jesus? Who? Where did Tacitus get any Jesus stories from?

What is the earliest date for any extant copy of anything supposedly once written by Tacitus? Who wrote any such earliest extant copy? It was not Tacitus was it!!

 

[IanS]

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.

Well as you very well know, we have been through that fallacy here many times before, and it is simply NOT true at all that any properly established parts of ancient history would have to be discarded ... because -

(1) historians do NOT typically believe things to be facts on such manifestly and deeply flawed "evidence" as the religious biblical beliefs in Jesus.

and -

(2) just because some people may believe other historic events upon only appallingly poor and obviously unreliable evidence, is not an excuse for saying we should ever accept such awful evidence in the case of Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Well as you very well know, we have been through that fallacy here many times before, and it is simply NOT true at all that any properly established parts of ancient history would have to be discarded ... because -

(1) historians do NOT typically believe things to be facts on such manifestly and deeply flawed "evidence" as the religious biblical beliefs in Jesus.

and -

(2) just because some people may believe other historic events upon only appallingly poor and obviously unreliable evidence, is not an excuse for saying we should ever accept such awful evidence in the case of Jesus.

Learn how to do History.

For ****'S sake!

 

[abaddon]

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.




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".

Dejudge, you are hard to figure out.

I largely agree with a lot of what you say. All of the religious, spooky mumbo-jumbo is bunk. The holey babble can in no way be taken as any sort of historical record, and so forth. I simply do not reject out of hand that there maybe was some crackpot preacher upon which later mythology was built. Hell, we could take a sandwich board clad nutjob of any street corner right now and invent a mythology out of whole cloth, which is pretty much what I consider Paul to have done, funny enough. That being said, I am not wedded to the idea that there was a real live bloke, I simply think it likely that there was one wandering around upon whom later myths got painted. It might even be an amalgam of several all rolled up together. There were plenty of apocalyptic whackos around.

But here is your problem. As an atheist, I might very well have supported you in these discussions, but when you accuse me of being a closet fundamentalist christian, I lose interest. Rapid. In all of these threads, I have made only one claim. That there may have been some lunatic preacher upon whom all of the subsequent religious crap was hoisted in a post hoc manner by Paul et al. I do not state it as fact, just opinion, and I do not care either way if it is proven or disproven but it has not been.

And that's it. IMHO one or more apocalyptic jewish preachers lost the plot, subsequent religious mania caused the writing of the holey babble, humanity suffered as a result of this nonsense for 2,000 years, and continues to do so. Not to be outdone, the arabs invented their very own buffoonery, not to be outdone, so did the jehovahs witnesses, the mormons, scientology, Branch Davidians, 7th day adventists, lutherans, baptists, jews, Bahai....the list is endless.

The bottom line here is it is all <insert expletive of choice>.

 

[Craig B]

Well as you very well know, we have been through that fallacy here many times before, and it is simply NOT true at all that any properly established parts of ancient history would have to be discarded ... because -

(1) historians do NOT typically believe things to be facts on such manifestly and deeply flawed "evidence" as the religious biblical beliefs in Jesus.

and -

(2) just because some people may believe other historic events upon only appallingly poor and obviously unreliable evidence, is not an excuse for saying we should ever accept such awful evidence in the case of Jesus.

Dear heaven, you have just written:

What is the earliest date for any extant copy of anything supposedly once written by Tacitus? Who wrote any such earliest extant copy? It was not Tacitus was it!!

 

[The Big Dog]

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.




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".

Folks that is a FINE example of a Gish Gallop that I have ever seen.

me: Christus is the guy who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate according to Tacitus.
you: you don't know who Christus is!
me:

 

[turingtest]

Dejudge, you are hard to figure out.

I largely agree with a lot of what you say. All of the religious, spooky mumbo-jumbo is bunk. The holey babble can in no way be taken as any sort of historical record, and so forth. I simply do not reject out of hand that there maybe was some crackpot preacher upon which later mythology was built. Hell, we could take a sandwich board clad nutjob of any street corner right now and invent a mythology out of whole cloth, which is pretty much what I consider Paul to have done, funny enough. That being said, I am not wedded to the idea that there was a real live bloke, I simply think it likely that there was one wandering around upon whom later myths got painted. It might even be an amalgam of several all rolled up together. There were plenty of apocalyptic whackos around.

But here is your problem. As an atheist, I might very well have supported you in these discussions, but when you accuse me of being a closet fundamentalist christian, I lose interest. Rapid. In all of these threads, I have made only one claim. That there may have been some lunatic preacher upon whom all of the subsequent religious crap was hoisted in a post hoc manner by Paul et al. I do not state it as fact, just opinion, and I do not care either way if it is proven or disproven but it has not been.

And that's it. IMHO one or more apocalyptic jewish preachers lost the plot, subsequent religious mania caused the writing of the holey babble, humanity suffered as a result of this nonsense for 2,000 years, and continues to do so. Not to be outdone, the arabs invented their very own buffoonery, not to be outdone, so did the jehovahs witnesses, the mormons, scientology, Branch Davidians, 7th day adventists, lutherans, baptists, jews, Bahai....the list is endless.

The bottom line here is it is all <insert expletive of choice>.

Good job; this reflects pretty exactly my thinking on the subject. And, like you, I'm a little puzzled by dejudge's insistence that anyone who concedes even the possibility of a historical template for the mythology is just the same as any Christian who buys the mythology in its entirety.

It's almost as if dejudge himself, in only being able to accept one of two absolutes ("did" or "did not" exist), with no allowance for doubt or "could have" in between, is the one with a faith equal to Christians. I've always hated that lame fundie "it takes as much faith to be an atheist as to be a Christian" claptrap; but apparently there are cases where it might be true.

 

[abaddon]

Folks that is a FINE example of a Gish Gallop that I have ever seen.

me: Christus is the guy who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate according to Tacitus.
you: you don't know who Christus is!
me:

I don't see how it is a gish gallop. Tacitus says:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, 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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

So he clearly regards it as a cult based on an executed lunatic.

He goes on to say:

then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Interesting, is it not, that the christian hatred of normal human life continues to this day.

 

[abaddon]

Good job; this reflects pretty exactly my thinking on the subject. And, like you, I'm a little puzzled by dejudge's insistence that anyone who concedes even the possibility of a historical template for the mythology is just the same as any Christian who buys the mythology in its entirety.

It's almost as if dejudge himself, in only being able to accept one of two absolutes ("did" or "did not" exist), with no allowance for doubt or "could have" in between, is the one with a faith equal to Christians. I've always hated that lame fundie "it takes as much faith to be an atheist as to be a Christian" claptrap; but apparently there are cases where it might be true.

Thank you, sir. It seems odd to me that anyone would come to a discussion board where the overwhelming majority are overtly, blatantly atheists and berate those same atheists for being secret theists. I can't feature that.

The claim that there absolutely could not have been one or more wandering jewish nutbar preachers in the levant of 2,000 years ago seems baseless to me. One part of it all where I do remain bemused is whether Paul was a religious maniac, or a ruthless political opportunist. Hard to say for sure.

 

[DC]

Folks that is a FINE example of a Gish Gallop that I have ever seen.

me: Christus is the guy who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate according to Tacitus.
you: you don't know who Christus is!
me:

has Tacitus provided any evidence for his claim? or is he merely writing down a story he heard?

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge, you are hard to figure out.

I largely agree with a lot of what you say. All of the religious, spooky mumbo-jumbo is bunk. The holey babble can in no way be taken as any sort of historical record, and so forth. I simply do not reject out of hand that there maybe was some crackpot preacher upon which later mythology was built. Hell, we could take a sandwich board clad nutjob of any street corner right now and invent a mythology out of whole cloth, which is pretty much what I consider Paul to have done, funny enough. That being said, I am not wedded to the idea that there was a real live bloke, I simply think it likely that there was one wandering around upon whom later myths got painted. It might even be an amalgam of several all rolled up together. There were plenty of apocalyptic whackos around.

I am not hard to figure out at all.

You simply don't care about the evidence for Myth Jesus.

You admit the Bible is bunk but still insist on BELIEVING it is based on history.

You fail to understand that in antiquity Jews and Romans did not worship WACKOS and Crucified Criminals as Gods.

Can you tell me of any known religion outside of Christianity where a Wacko and Crucified Criminal was worshiped as a God?


You fail to understand that even if you assume there was a Jesus that you will NEVER EVER be able to present any corroborative evidence.

But here is your problem. As an atheist, I might very well have supported you in these discussions, but when you accuse me of being a closet fundamentalist christian, I lose interest. Rapid. In all of these threads, I have made only one claim. That there may have been some lunatic preacher upon whom all of the subsequent religious crap was hoisted in a post hoc manner by Paul et al. I do not state it as fact, just opinion, and I do not care either way if it is proven or disproven but it has not been.

It is not necessary to disprove what has not been proven and for which no evidence has been presented.

You admit you have an UN-EVIDENCED opinion about the existence of Jesus.

What do you want me to do?

IMHO one or more apocalyptic jewish preachers lost the plot, subsequent religious mania caused the writing of the holey babble, humanity suffered as a result of this nonsense for 2,000 years, and continues to do so. Not to be outdone, the arabs invented their very own buffoonery, not to be outdone, so did the jehovahs witnesses, the mormons, scientology, Branch Davidians, 7th day adventists, lutherans, baptists, jews, Bahai....the list is endless.

I don't know how you can admit that you have an UN-EVIDENCE opinion and still claim your opinion is HONEST.

You must realize that Christians in antiquity Honestly believed their Jesus was God incarnate, the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator.

You must not have realised that what you HONESTLY think about your apolcalyptic Jesus may be honestly considered buffoonery by "the arabs, the jehovahs witnesses, the mormons, scientology, Branch Davidians, 7th day adventists, lutherans, baptists, jews, Bahai....the list is endless".

I do not fall into the trap of inventing buffoonery like them.

All I do is show their buffoonery.

Is not the Jesus story buffoonery?

You already admit it.

Well, it is an extremely simple matter.

Jesus is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

You understand my position now?

The God of the Jews is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

Adam and Eve are buffoonery until new evidence is found.

Satan the Devil is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

The angel Gabriel is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

The Holy Ghost is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

Jesus of Nazareth is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

The evidence for the buffoonery is found in hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings.

I invent NOTHING.

Examine the Published buffoonery of the conception and birth of Jesus.

Matthew 1:18 CEB

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they were married, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line here is it is all <insert expletive of choice>.

You are talking to yourself. You admit the story of Jesus is buffoonery but still claim you believe there was a real Jesus using the same source with the buffoonery.

Why do you do such thing?

 

[dejudge]

Folks that is a FINE example of a Gish Gallop that I have ever seen.

me: Christus is the guy who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate according to Tacitus.
you: you don't know who Christus is!
me:

Have it not crossed your mind that the passage was unknown by the Church itself?

Why are you using Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus today when NO Church writer ever used it up to at least the 5th century 300 years years after it was written.

Do you not read Tacitus Histories?

Tacitus Histories 5 contradict Tacitus Annals.

There was NO known Jewish Christ, No Jewish Messianic ruler in the 1st century based on Tacitus Histories.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is WITHOUT corroboration in the writings attributed Josephus "Wars of the Jews", Suetonius "Life of Vespasian", Tacitus "Histories", Eusebius Church History and Sulpitius Severus "Sacred History".

The Jews expected their Messiah c 66-70 CE--He never came--the Temple fell and Jerusalem was destroyed--thousands of Jews were killed.

What Christus are you talking about?

When did Christus come?

Up to today, some Jews may be still waiting for the advent of Christus.

 

[The Big Dog]

has Tacitus provided any evidence for his claim? or is he merely writing down a story he heard?

He provided exactly as much "evidence" for this claim as he provided for the rest of his Annals, which have universally been declared authentic and authoritative.

Wait, check that, in fact in this section, he has more authority because it actually occurred when he was alive.

I understand that THIS section is heretical to Mythticians of course.

 

[DC]

He provided exactly as much "evidence" for this claim as he provided for the rest of his Annals, which have universally been declared authentic and authoritative.

Wait, check that, in fact in this section, he has more authority because it actually occurred when he was alive.

I understand that THIS section is heretical to Mythticians of course.

ah, so he wrote down a story of the time, nothing more.

im no Mythtician

why so aggressive?

 

[abaddon]

I am not hard to figure out at all.

Yes, you are because you proceed to write the following baseless rubbish:

You simply don't care about the evidence for Myth Jesus.

Correct, I don't care. In the very same way that I don't care about invisible pink unicorns, santa, and the tooth fairy.

You admit the Bible is bunk but still insist on BELIEVING it is based on history.

Lie.

You fail to understand that in antiquity Jews and Romans did not worship WACKOS and Crucified Criminals as Gods.

Strawman.

Can you tell me of any known religion outside of Christianity where a Wacko and Crucified Criminal was worshiped as a God?

The flying spaghetti monster died in the creation of this universe and makes more sense than your jebus obsession.

You fail to understand that even if you assume there was a Jesus that you will NEVER EVER be able to present any corroborative evidence.

My claIm: Possibly there might once have been a religious nutbar who got these fairy tales rolling, maybe. We have not way to rule it in or out.

Your claim: Religious nutbars cannot possibly exist.

It is not necessary to disprove what has not been proven and for which no evidence has been presented.

I claim no proof whatsoever, I simply consider that it is likely that there was some religious nutbar upon whom the entire religious house of cards was built. Much like the phenomenon of cargo cults.

You admit you have an UN-EVIDENCED opinion about the existence of Jesus.

Nope. I simply have an opinion that the later writings of primitive goat herders are more likely to have been inspired by one or more preachers as opposed to being made up of whole cloth.

What do you want me to do?

Chill out a little. Calm down. I already told you that I largely agree with you so why are you getting so bent out of shape?

I don't know how you can admit that you have an UN-EVIDENCE opinion and still claim your opinion is HONEST.

Why? What is so odd in the idea that some yahoo wandered the levant spouting nonsense? You can find similar today on any street corner.

You must realize that Christians in antiquity Honestly believed their Jesus was God incarnate, the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator.

Yup. What a bunch of superstitious suckers. And?

You must not have realised that what you HONESTLY think about your apolcalyptic Jesus may be honestly considered buffoonery by "the arabs, the jehovahs witnesses, the mormons, scientology, Branch Davidians, 7th day adventists, lutherans, baptists, jews, Bahai....the list is endless".

The Hindu think all christian beliefs to be buffoonery, and vice versa. So what? It is all baseless superstitious nonsense.

I do not fall into the trap of inventing buffoonery like them.

You just fall into a different trap, one of your own making. You take an antagonistic, aggressive attitude with those who would agree with you, and get even more aggressive when you alienate them. To what end and purpose?

All I do is show their buffoonery.

Oh, please. Do you want a round of applause for accomplishing the simplest of tasks?

Is not the Jesus story buffoonery?

Absolutely.

You already admit it.

Yup. But you want me not to do so in order to have a strawman to rail against. Sorry, but I am not biting. The jebus story is complete and utter bollox end to end.

Well, it is an extremely simple matter.

Jesus is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

You understand my position now?

Why should I make any effort to do so in the face of your scurrilous accusations against me and your steadfast refusal to extend the same courtesy to me?

The God of the Jews is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

Adam and Eve are buffoonery until new evidence is found.

Satan the Devil is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

The angel Gabriel is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

The Holy Ghost is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

Jesus of Nazareth is buffoonery until new evidence is found.

The evidence for the buffoonery is found in hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings.

All agreed. And?

I invent NOTHING.

Lie. You invented a wholesale fantasy about me and whatever I may or may not believe out of whole cloth.

Examine the Published buffoonery of the conception and birth of Jesus.

Been there, done that. Best I can do there is understand the logic of why the NT authors invented all of that.

You are talking to yourself. You admit the story of Jesus is buffoonery but still claim you believe there was a real Jesus using the same source for with the buffoonery.

Why do you do such thing?

Try again. What I said was that I have no problem with the idea that one or more wandering preachers of the time whose name/names could have been anything could well have served as inspiration for later written texts. Nothing religious, or supernatural or even strange about that. It is no different than Mesopotamian floods giving rise to Gilgamesh epics which were later appropriated into the Noachian flood myth.

 

[dejudge]

Good job; this reflects pretty exactly my thinking on the subject. And, like you, I'm a little puzzled by dejudge's insistence that anyone who concedes even the possibility of a historical template for the mythology is just the same as any Christian who buys the mythology in its entirety.

Well, I am puzzled why people who admit the Bible is bunk still use it as a basis for their belief that there was an historical Jesus.

I find such thinking absurd and illogical.

The Jesus story is admitted bunk therefore I can only accept Jesus as bunk until new evidence is found.

I did the same thing for the God of the Jews, Adam and Eve, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost--they are all bunk UNTIL new evidence is found.

What do you want me to do with all the bunk in the Bible?

I just DUMP bunk.

It's almost as if dejudge himself, in only being able to accept one of two absolutes ("did" or "did not" exist), with no allowance for doubt or "could have" in between, is the one with a faith equal to Christians. I've always hated that lame fundie "it takes as much faith to be an atheist as to be a Christian" claptrap; but apparently there are cases where it might be true.

I have NO absolute. Your statement about me is a fallacy.

I said I need evidence not bunk and I may review my position.


I need EVIDENCE for Jesus just like I needed evidence for the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, Adam and Eve, the angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost.

There is no new evidence--Jesus is still bunk.

 

[DC]

He provided exactly as much "evidence" for this claim as he provided for the rest of his Annals, which have universally been declared authentic and authoritative.

Wait, check that, in fact in this section, he has more authority because it actually occurred when he was alive.
I understand that THIS section is heretical to Mythticians of course.

what ? he was alive when exactly?

 

[The Big Dog]

Have it not crossed your mind that the passage was unknown by the Church itself?

Why are you using Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus today when NO Church writer ever used it up to at least the 5th century 300 years years after it was written.

Do you not read Tacitus Histories?

Tacitus Histories 5 contradict Tacitus Annals.

There was NO known Jewish Christ, No Jewish Messianic ruler in the 1st century based on Tacitus Histories.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is WITHOUT corroboration in the writings attributed Josephus "Wars of the Jews", Suetonius "Life of Vespasian", Tacitus "Histories", Eusebius Church History and Sulpitius Severus "Sacred History".

The Jews expected their Messiah c 66-70 CE--He never came--the Temple fell and Jerusalem was destroyed--thousands of Jews were killed.

What Christus are you talking about?

When did Christus come?

Up to today, some Jews may be still waiting for the advent of Christus.

I'm not certain if you understand what a Gish Gallop is, but your "arguments" are a sterling example of them.

The issue for discussion is absolutely clear: who was Tacitus writing about when he used the words "Christians"? The answer is: followers of Christus who suffered the extreme penalty before Pilate. Not followers of Osirus or other Egyptians. Progress

It appears that you feel you have an argument that the presently understood text of that section is not authentic. Feel free to make your case, knowing of course that it has been almost universally accepted as authentic.