Did Jesus exist?

[The Big Dog]

Your claim is not corroborated by any Christian or Apologetic writer of antiquity for hundreds of years.

It is the complete opposite.

It was commonly believed that Jewish Messianic rulers would come at around c 66-70 CE--not c 33 CE.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius corroborate the COMMON belief among Jews.

At c 75 CE, when Wars of the Jews was composed, Vespasian was considered the Savior of the Roman Empire--Not Christus.

Who was Christus?

How did Christus die?

Please, stop the Chinese Whispers and Rumors.

We don't know who Christus was in Tacitus Annals--not even the Christians of antiquity acknowledged him.

HJers admit their Jesus was hardly known and that it was decades later he was embellished.

Christus and his followers were already well known in Judea and Pilate had to stem the new religion by killing Christus.

It took hundreds of years, perhaps a thousand years, before Christian writers mentioned Tacitus' Christus.

Why??

It was a forgery.

Folks, a great example of the Gish gallop.

Note the the dejudge does not address the rest of the "missing" text from Tacitus that showed how ludicrous his claims are.

The apoligists did not mention Tacitus because he was a vicious nasty anti-Christian bigot.

Obvious facts are obvious.

 

[The Big Dog]

Curious. Your claim is that because Severus did not quote the section with Christ and Pilate that it was "missing." This seems to suggest intent was to copy word for word from Tacitus, whether it fit his theme or not. That of course is completely ludicrous.

Lets go to the text:

Tactitus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind" Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed. .

To compare:

"And in fact, Nero could not by any means 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."

Say, dejudge, there seems to be quite a lot of Tacitus "missing," doesn't there? I highlighted it for you! Well, for one, Tacitus calls them hated for their abominations, while Severus calls them innocents. severus also does not mention that they admitted it, were convicted, not for setting the fire, but their "crimes against mankind."

So much "missing." Hmmm, also missing is: "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."

Now why do you think that those incendiary insults against Christ and his followers were not included in Severus "sacred history" that included his description of the martyrdom of the innocent victims of Nero?

Curious that Severus also did not include the claim that they were "criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment."

Is it because they were "missing" dejudge? Perhaps something else, dejudge?

So much "missing."

tl;dr: just because it wasn't quoted, does not prove it wasn't there

Bears repeating. Absolutely fantastic post.

 

[dejudge]

Folks, a great example of the Gish gallop.

Note the the dejudge does not address the rest of the "missing" text from Tacitus that showed how ludicrous his claims are.

The apoligists did not mention Tacitus because he was a vicious nasty anti-Christian bigot.

Obvious facts are obvious.

You have very limited knowledge of the writings of antiquity.

You had no idea that Tacitus Histories 5 exposed that Annals was manipulated.

There is no history that Jews ever worshiped a man as a God and no history of any new Jewish religion in the 1st century.

Tacitus' Histories 5

...the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence.

They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials. They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay.

They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honour to our Emperors.

God is a mental concept to the Jews.

God cannot be represented by man according to Jews.

HJ was a Crucified Criminal--it is absurd and highly illogical that Jews actually worshiped a man as a God who was caught in his act of criminality--creating havoc in the Temple.

HJ is not plausible if it is claimed he was caught red-handed!

It does not make any sense for Paul to have started a New Religion asking Roman citizens to worship a Criminal as a God whom the very Romans crucified.

The Jesus story and start of the only makes sense if the entire NT was composed after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and if Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Folks, a great example of the Gish gallop.

Note the the dejudge does not address the rest of the "missing" text from Tacitus that showed how ludicrous his claims are.

The apoligists did not mention Tacitus because he was a vicious nasty anti-Christian bigot.

Obvious facts are obvious.

Ironic, isn't it?

Dejudge omitted information from an article he cited about Tacitus in an attempt to show that a scribal alteration of the word "Chrestians" to "Christians" in an 11th Century copy of Annals proved that Tacitus was actually talking about a completely different group of people. He quoted a bit about how a scholar noticed the seeming alteration in 1902 and that it was later confirmed by ultra-violet analysis. What he neglected to quote was the rather extensive explanation immediately following this passage that explains that "Chrestians" and "Christians" was used interchangeably during the early Christian era, and that the 4th Century Codex Sinaiticus uses the spelling "Chrestianoi" all three times that the name for Christians is mentioned in the New Testament.

He may not like Christianity, but he sure uses a lot of the same defense mechanisms for what he wants to believe.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You have very limited knowledge of the writings of antiquity.

You had no idea that Tacitus Histories 5 exposed that Annals was manipulated.

There is no history that Jews ever worshiped a man as a God and no history of any new Jewish religion in the 1st century.

Tacitus' Histories 5

God is a mental concept to the Jews.

God cannot be represented by man according to Jews.

HJ was a Crucified Criminal--it is absurd and highly illogical that Jews actually worshiped a man as a God who was caught in his act of criminality--creating havoc in the Temple.

HJ is not plausible if it is claimed he was caught red-handed!

It does not make any sense for Paul to have started a New Religion asking Roman citizens to worship a Criminal as a God whom the very Romans crucified.

The Jesus story and start of the only makes sense if the entire NT was composed after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and if Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery.

Dejudge, it's been explained to you like a thousand times that the Jews didn't worship Jesus as a god. Lot's of Jews were known as "Son of God", and it didn't mean that they were divine. Just because Pagans, lacking that doctrinal taboo, later came to portray Jesus as divine doesn't mean that he claimed to be God.

Again, you're just ignoring what you don't want to hear. That's one of those religious defense mechanisms that I talked about. If you want to know how people can ignore reality, look no further than yourself.

 

[The Big Dog]

You have very limited knowledge of the writings of antiquity.

You had no idea that Tacitus Histories 5 exposed that Annals was manipulated.

There is no history that Jews ever worshiped a man as a God and no history of any new Jewish religion in the 1st century.

Tacitus' Histories 5

God is a mental concept to the Jews.

God cannot be represented by man according to Jews.

HJ was a Crucified Criminal--it is absurd and highly illogical that Jews actually worshiped a man as a God who was caught in his act of criminality--creating havoc in the Temple.

HJ is not plausible if it is claimed he was caught red-handed!

It does not make any sense for Paul to have started a New Religion asking Roman citizens to worship a Criminal as a God whom the very Romans crucified.

The Jesus story and start of the only makes sense if the entire NT was composed after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and if Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery.

Yeah, getting pretty clear that the Gish gallop is a purely defense mechanism. Your "missing" text theory was blown up by yours truly. No one cares about whatever nonsense you've posted here, seriously. It is actually kind of pathetic at this point.

Post something about how the guy who absolutely blew you up on the missing text theory has "limited knowledge of the writings of antiquity."

Welcome to jref sport, next time bring your A game.

Drops mic.....

 

[dejudge]

Well, let's try the "two statements" thing again; which of these two best represent your argument?

1) Based on the EXISTING evidence, there was definitely never any such person as Jesus.
or
2) Based on the EXISTING evidence, there may have been an otherwise unknown itinerant preacher (who may or may not even have been named Jesus) around whom the Jesus mythology of the NT was built and grew. The lack of evidence indicates that no such person ever existed, but he may have.

Aren't you smart?

This statement represents my argument.

I will consider that Jesus is a figure of mythology based on the existing evidence and until new evidence surfaces.

Please, record my statements for future references so that you won't ask me the same question over and over.

I did the same thing for the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost, Adam and Eve--I consider them figures of myth based on the existing evidence and until new evidence surfaces.

Now, you tell me what statement represents your argument?

 

[The Big Dog]

Curious. Your claim is that because Severus did not quote the section with Christ and Pilate that it was "missing." This seems to suggest intent was to copy word for word from Tacitus, whether it fit his theme or not. That of course is completely ludicrous.

Lets go to the text:

Tactitus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, 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. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind" Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed. .

To compare:

"And in fact, Nero could not by any means 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."

Say, dejudge, there seems to be quite a lot of Tacitus "missing," doesn't there? I highlighted it for you! Well, for one, Tacitus calls them hated for their abominations, while Severus calls them innocents. severus also does not mention that they admitted it, were convicted, not for setting the fire, but their "crimes against mankind."

So much "missing." Hmmm, also missing is: "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."

Now why do you think that those incendiary insults against Christ and his followers were not included in Severus "sacred history" that included his description of the martyrdom of the innocent victims of Nero?

Curious that Severus also did not include the claim that they were "criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment."

Is it because they were "missing" dejudge? Perhaps something else, dejudge?

So much "missing."

tl;dr: just because it wasn't quoted, does not prove it wasn't there

Yeah, I'll just leave this here.

Boom!

 

[Brainache]

Aren't you smart?

This statement represents my argument.

I will consider that Jesus is a figure of mythology based on the existing evidence and until new evidence surfaces.

Please, record my statements for future references so that you won't ask me the same question over and over.

I did the same thing for the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost, Adam and Eve--I consider them figures of myth based on the existing evidence and until new evidence surfaces.

Now, you tell me what statement represents your argument?

Just pathetic.

Not even playground level.

Why are you STILL making this totally unconvincing and abominably stupid argument?

It will never convince anyone who knows anything about this subject.

The futility of its repetition should be apparent, even to you.

Is it?

 

[The Big Dog]

Just pathetic.

Not even playground level.

Why are you STILL making this totally unconvincing and abominably stupid argument?

It will never convince anyone who knows anything about this subject.

The futility of its repetition should be apparent, even to you.

Is it?

Great point, dejudge is entering spam at this point.

 

[dejudge]

The fiction seems to be built around a preacher who was executed by Pilate (not outrageous, as you yourself point out, he was famous for it).

There is no evidence for what you claim.

Actually, in the story the character crucified under Pilate was not a human being but was described as God Creator and the Son of God, the Logos.

It was not outrageous at all for people of antiquity to believe that Gods and Sons of God came down from heaven.

In fact, the Myth Flood in Genesis it is claimed Sons of God had sexual intercourse with females.

The NT is a compilation of mythology not history. The authors made no effort whatsoever to portray Jesus as figure of history but made him equal to God.

 

[Brainache]

There is no evidence for what you claim.

Actually, in the story the character crucified under Pilate was not a human being but was described as God Creator and the Son of God, the Logos.

It was not outrageous at all for people of antiquity to believe that Gods and Sons of God came down from heaven.

In fact, the Myth Flood in Genesis it is claimed Sons of God had sexual intercourse with females.

The NT is a compilation of mythology not history. The authors made no effort whatsoever to portray Jesus as figure of history but made him equal to God.

Please stop telling these lies.

You have been shown to be wrong. Repeatedly.

This kind of blind, empty bravado impresses nobody.

 

[dejudge]

Please stop telling these lies.

You have been shown to be wrong. Repeatedly.

This kind of blind, empty bravado impresses nobody.

Again, you present the same nonsense day after day. It has been explained to you that it is virtually impossible for you to know what impresses everybody in the world.

You have not even voted for an HJ in the polls.

In fact, so far, the unofficial poll reflect the evidence.

According to Belz, it is agreed the evidence for an HJ is Terrible, that it is very weak and that he is not convinced there was a HJ.

This is compatible with the poll so far.

About 70% of those who voted either admit there is insufficient evidence or that Jesus was a myth.

Most people are not convinced there was an HJ based on the existing evidence.

 

[dejudge]

It will never convince anyone who knows anything about this subject.

The futility of its repetition should be apparent, even to you.

Is it?

You keep making the same baseless comments as if you have accomplished some great feat.

What you post is exactly what I expected--just baseless absurdities.

The HJ argument was dead in the water as soon as it was speculated that HJ was a little known preacher, was not born in Bethlehem and was NOT the Christ.

Little known HJ is a myth.

What is the latest on the Quest for an HJ? Have you found the supposed standard HJ?

The supposed standard HJ is not in the NT, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

 

[Brainache]

You keep making the same baseless comments as if you have accomplished some great feat.

What you post is exactly what I expected--just baseless absurdities.

The HJ argument was dead in the water as soon as it was speculated that HJ was a little known preacher, was not born in Bethlehem and was NOT the Christ.

Little known HJ is a myth.

What is the latest on the Quest for an HJ? Have you found the supposed standard HJ?

The supposed standard HJ is not in the NT, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

That's why people use the Historical method to reach conclusions about History. They don't do whatever it is that you are doing; they do History.

 

[dejudge]

Ironic, isn't it?

Dejudge omitted information from an article he cited about Tacitus in an attempt to show that a scribal alteration of the word "Chrestians" to "Christians" in an 11th Century copy of Annals proved that Tacitus was actually talking about a completely different group of people. He quoted a bit about how a scholar noticed the seeming alteration in 1902 and that it was later confirmed by ultra-violet analysis. What he neglected to quote was the rather extensive explanation immediately following this passage that explains that "Chrestians" and "Christians" was used interchangeably during the early Christian era, and that the 4th Century Codex Sinaiticus uses the spelling "Chrestianoi" all three times that the name for Christians is mentioned in the New Testament.

He may not like Christianity, but he sure uses a lot of the same defense mechanisms for what he wants to believe.

Your claim that Chrestians and Christians were used interchangeable does not help the HJ argument because you have no actual dated 1st century writing to demonstrate what you say.

You have an 11th century copy which shows signs of manipulation and want to argue for an little known HJ.

Now, now, now!!! If ChrEstians and ChrIstians were used interchangeable why the need to manipulate the word ChrEstians?

Why attempt to change the "E" to an "I"?

There is an answer.

The ChrEstians were NOT Jesus cult Christians.

 

[Brainache]

Your claim that Chrestians and Christians were used interchangeable does not help the HJ argument because you have no actual dated 1st century writing to demonstrate what you say.

You have an 11th century copy which shows signs of manipulation and want to argue for an little known HJ.

Now, now, now!!! If ChrEstians and ChrIstians were used interchangeable why the need to manipulate the word ChrEstians?

Why attempt to change the "E" to an "I"?

There is an answer.

The ChrEstians were NOT Jesus cult Christians.

You're kidding, right?

You can't be saying that this group who worshipped a Christ who suffered the ultimate punishment under Pilate, weren't Christians, can you?

These Christians who were thrown to the lions by Nero were some completely separate group that later Christians pretended to be related to, for no apparent reason.

You prefer this version of events to the mainstream Historical version. Why? No one else in the entire world agrees with you.

Is there any way I can convince you to reassess your position? What would it take to change your mind?

 

[IanS]

I'm not certain how you draw that conclusion. For example, Tacitus would have ready access to documentary evidence long lost to us regarding Pontius Pilate and his activities.

Isn't that just speculation? How do you know what sources Tacitus may have drawn upon?

Because I am very familiar with the scholarly analysis demonstrating the overwhelming consensus that Tactus Annals are authentic and authoritative.

You are very familiar with scholarly analysis? You are a self declared expert upon it? And you say Tacitus had the documents that showed Jesus was a real person? OK, excellent. So where are these documents then?

How do you know there ever were any such documents?

How do you know that any such documents ever mentioned anything true about anyone named Jesus?

How do you know that Tacitus had the documents?

Where and when did Tacitus get hold of these documents proving Jesus?

Can you show where Tacitus said he had those documents proving Jesus?

Can you provide any evidence of anyone at that time saying Tacitus had documents proving the life of Jesus?

No? Why not?

Don’t tell me that you are merely making all this up?

 

[Brainache]

You are very familiar with scholarly analysis? You are a self declared expert upon it? And you say Tacitus had the documents that showed Jesus was a real person? OK, excellent. So where are these documents then?

How do you know there ever were any such documents?

How do you know that any such documents ever mentioned anything true about anyone named Jesus?

How do you know that Tacitus had the documents?

Where and when did Tacitus get hold of these documents proving Jesus?

Can you show where Tacitus said he had those documents proving Jesus?

Can you provide any evidence of anyone at that time saying Tacitus had documents proving the life of Jesus?

No? Why not?

Don’t tell me that you are merely making all this up?

Papers! Where are your papers <snip>

 

[IanS]

Do you think that's true? I don't. I think the various so called books of the bible were simply screeds composed by the authors and directed to an audience which they wished to brainwash into compliance with whatever orthodoxy was the flavour of the day. In other words, the authors simply wrote (and subsequent others altered it) whatever they thought would have most effect on their intended audience. It is the ultimate cold reading which has lasted thousands of years. What the authors did not expect was that their writings would be assembled and critically compared side by side, and their entirely contradictory nature would be exposed.

One only has to look at the two gospels which give the genealogy of jesus through joseph, all the way back to King David. Not only do the two accounts of the genealogy disagree, Joe is not his father anyway. I continue to be astonished at the mental hoops believers jump through to explain this.

I don't think we are disagreeing on this. Or else I’m not recognising any distinction.

Afaik, the probable origin of what became the earliest written canonical NT was, according to EP Sanders for example, that preached so-called "pericopes", ie short illustrative stories designed to instruct the congregation in correct practice of the faith, were collected together (no doubt others discarded) to form (first) shorter proto-gospels, and then gradually altered and refined to become the canonical gospels more or less as we find in the earliest extant written copies dated from around 4th-6th century onwards.

So when I say that “all roads lead back to the bible”, eg in respect of anything written by later authors such as Tacitus or Josephus, I mean that as far as we can honestly tell, the only earlier known source from which those authors could have obtained any information about Jesus, was that earlier source of the biblical writing and preaching itself, i.e. from whatever was being preached about Jesus at the earliest time and from whatever became written down from that earliest time as the “pericopes” that eventually became accepted as the NT bible.

That, afaik, is the only known original source for any mention of Jesus from which later writers such as Tacitus could have got their ideas about what had been said and/or written on behalf of Jesus.

IOW - Tacitus was relying on the earlier preaching and writing which we now call the bible (what anyone called that lot in the first half of the first century, I don’t know).