Did Jesus exist?

[dejudge]

That had nothing to do with what I wrote.

The vast majority of historians reject silly arguments like this. Tacitus is authentic and authoritative.

Actually, I had NO IDEA whatsoever just how weak the Mythticians argument were.

Your claim is known Chinese Whispers. You have no data, no survey, no poll that show what "the vast majority of historians reject".

Please, be honest.

Are you not aware that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ?

Are you not aware that no HJ has ever been found after it was admitted that the NT is about a Jesus of Faith?

Please, stop the Chinese Whispers and go help HJers to find their unknown obscure preacher man.

They need help.

Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith--a Myth.

You seem to have no idea of the history of the Quest for an HJ.

HJers are looking for a scarcely known itinerant preacher from the backwater of Nazareth who was CRUCIFIED.

Please be honest!!

Was Christus crucified in Tacitus Annals 15.44?

Was Christus scarcely known in Tacitus Annals 15.44?

Christus is not who you are looking for.

Keep looking for your HJ.

You might be lucky one day.

 

[Brainache]

That had nothing to do with what I wrote.

The vast majority of historians reject silly arguments like this. Tacitus is authentic and authoritative.

Actually, I had NO IDEA whatsoever just how weak the Mythticians argument were.

It is truly bizarre the number of self declared "Skeptics" and "critical thinkers" who fall for this nonsense.

Ideological bias is a powerful force, whether you are an Atheist or a Theist.

 

[Brainache]

Your claim is known Chinese Whispers. You have no data, no survey, no poll that show what "the vast majority of historians reject".

Please, be honest.

Are you not aware that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ?

Are you not aware that no HJ has ever been found after it was admitted that the NT is about a Jesus of Faith?

Please, stop the Chinese Whispers and go help HJers to find their unknown obscure preacher man.

They need help.

Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith--a Myth.

You seem to have no idea of the history of the Quest for an HJ.

HJers are looking for a scarcely known itinerant preacher from the backwater of Nazareth who was CRUCIFIED.

Please be honest!!

Was Christus crucified in Tacitus Annals 15.44?

Was Christus scarcely known in Tacitus Annals 15.44?

Christus is not who you are looking for.

Keep looking for your HJ.

You might be lucky one day.

Is this supposed to be an argument for the MJ?

It isn't.

 

[dejudge]

Your claim is known Chinese Whispers. You have no data, no survey, no poll that show what "the vast majority of historians reject".

Please, be honest.

Are you not aware that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ?

Are you not aware that no HJ has ever been found after it was admitted that the NT is about a Jesus of Faith?

Please, stop the Chinese Whispers and go help HJers to find their unknown obscure preacher man.

They need help.

Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith--a Myth.

You seem to have no idea of the history of the Quest for an HJ.

HJers are looking for a scarcely known itinerant preacher from the backwater of Nazareth who was CRUCIFIED.

Please be honest!!

Was Christus crucified in Tacitus Annals 15.44?

Was Christus scarcely known in Tacitus Annals 15.44?

Christus is not who you are looking for.

Keep looking for your HJ.

You might be lucky one day.

Is this supposed to be an argument for the MJ?

It isn't.

Have you found your HJ yet? Was he a scarcely known Cynic, an obscure rabbi, an unknown Jew, a little known Zealot, a Nobody....an itinerant preacher man?

The Quest for HJ is still on-going for hundreds of years.

No evidence and no HJ has ever been found.

All the evidence is for Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

Myth Jesus did not die under Pilate.

In the NT, Myth Jesus survived the crucifixion.

You can't use the story of Myth Jesus for an HJ.

You can't use a Pack of Myth fables as history.

You might as well use Genesis to prove Adam and Eve were human beings.

 

[Brainache]

Have you found your HJ yet? Was he a scarcely known Cynic, an obscure rabbi, an unknown Jew, a little known Zealot, a Nobody....an itinerant preacher man?

The Quest for HJ is still on-going for hundreds of years.

No evidence and no HJ has ever been found.

All the evidence is for Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

Myth Jesus did not die under Pilate.

In the NT, Myth Jesus survived the crucifixion.

You can't use the story of Myth Jesus for an HJ.

You can't use a Pack of Myth fables as history.

You might as well use Genesis to prove Adam and Eve were human beings.

This argument just demonstrated that even after all this time and so many posts, you still don't understand what anyone here is talking about.

This is actually a little bit sad.

 

[Damien Evans]

There were christians ready to die at the hands of Nero in 43ad, rather than recant and deny Jesus. It seems unlikely that people within living memory of Jesus lifetime would be willing to die for a fictional character. So I conclude there was a Jesus.

Really? You're actually going to contend that Nero was killing Christians at the age of 6?

I know the guy has an awful reputation but I don't think he was quite at the level of murdering people when he was 6.

 

[The Big Dog]

This argument just demonstrated that even after all this time and so many posts, you still don't understand what anyone here is talking about.

This is actually a little bit sad.

Just the typical Gish gallop, I noticed that no one actually responded to my post rebutting the "missing" text hoax.

When I joined this thread, I believed it unlikely that here was historical evidence of Jesus, but given the lack of quality arguments against it...

 

[The Big Dog]

GISH GALLOP.

Stop, no one is reading your Gish gallop anymore.

What a waste of time, rolls eyes....

 

[Brainache]

Stop, no one is reading your Gish gallop anymore.

What a waste of time, rolls eyes....

Indeed.

A waste of time for everyone, dejudge included.

 

[dejudge]

Stop, no one is reading your Gish gallop anymore.

What a waste of time, rolls eyes....

You are reading them. You can't stop!!

Gish Gallop?? you have nothing for anyone to read.

Let us be honest.

Is it not claimed by HJers that their HJ was a Nobody--a scarcely known itinerant preacher man?

How come all of a sudden their HJ was the well known Christus, a leader of a new mischievous cult in Tacitus Annals 15.44?

Not even Jesus Christ in the NT was the Christus in Tacitus Annals.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, never started any new religion in the NT.

Pilate found no fault with Jesus, the Son of God.

Pilate did not even know why the Jews brought the Son of God for trial.

Mark 14:56 ASV

For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together.

Mark 15:14 KJV

Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done ?.....

Christus in Annals was neither Jesus Christ nor an assumed scarcely known obscurity called HJ.

The Quest for HJ still continues after hundreds of years because NT Jesus is a Jesus of Faith.

NT Jesus is a Myth--an eschatological concept--a Figure of Faith.

HJ is also a figure of Faith and imagination.

HJers use the NT as their PRIMARY source for their HJ.

Descriptions of Myth Jesus perfectly fits HJ.

They both never lived and have an imaginary biography.

 

[Brainache]

You are reading them. You can't stop!!

Gish Gallop?? you have nothing for anyone to read.

Let us be honest.

Is it not claimed by HJers that their HJ was a Nobody--a scarcely known itinerant preacher man?

How come all of a sudden their HJ was the well known Christus, a leader of a new mischievous cult in Tacitus Annals 15.44?

Not even Jesus Christ in the NT was the Christus in Tacitus Annals.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, never started any new religion in the NT.

Pilate found no fault with Jesus, the Son of God.

Pilate did not even know why the Jews brought the Son of God for trial.

Mark 14:56 ASV

Mark 15:14 KJV

Christus in Annals was neither Jesus Christ nor an assumed scarcely known obscurity called HJ.

The Quest for HJ still continues after hundreds of years because NT Jesus is a Jesus of Faith.

NT Jesus is a Myth--an eschatological concept--a Figure of Faith.

HJ is also a figure of Faith and imagination.

HJers use the NT as their PRIMARY source for their HJ.

Descriptions of Myth Jesus perfectly fits HJ.

They both never lived and have an imaginary biography.

Please stop taking the bible at face-value. It's embarrassing.

 

[maximara]

Unless Osirus was crucified by Pilate, there is no possibility of confusion.

And whether or not they burned Rome is also irrelevant. That they were there to be blamed is the point, not whether or not they were guilty.

That had nothing to do with what I wrote.

The vast majority of historians reject silly arguments like this. Tacitus is authentic and authoritative.

Actually, I had NO IDEA whatsoever just how weak the Mythticians argument were.

You two really don't get it.

Tacitus Histories is from primary sources and deals with the period after Nero while the The Annals were from secondary documents and as a result Tacitus gets himself confused at times. For example, Tacitus mixes up the daughter of Mark Antony with that of Octavia the Younger because they have the same name.

This means that it is well with in the realm of possible that Nero went after Chrestians (followers of Osiris) and years later Tacitus hears Christians claiming their leader died at the hand of Pontius Pilate and (incorrectly) assumes Chrestians = Christians and connects the two.

We know that Tiberius in 19 CE expelled Jewish and Egyptian worshipers from Rome (Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123) which would have logically included worshipers of Serapis (Chrestus) so they were obviously a target for former emperors and depending on how you read Suetonius Claudius may have had issue with that cult too.

If this isn't enough it has been suggested that there was a messiah group following a person called Chrestus who were calling themselves Chrestians. (E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas, “The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution,” RTR 25 (1966): 85).

So you have a pagan group being called Chrestians, a messiah group being called Chrestians, and Jesus' band of Christians and expecting people do not get them confused?!

Also it has stated that in the 1st century the followers of Jesus were not known as Christians which if true would throw a monkey wrench into every thing as you have the same situation as with the word "vampire" which has been retroactively applied to creatures that were never originally called by that term.

 

[dejudge]

You are reading them. You can't stop!!

Gish Gallop?? you have nothing for anyone to read.

Let us be honest.

Is it not claimed by HJers that their HJ was a Nobody--a scarcely known itinerant preacher man?

How come all of a sudden their HJ was the well known Christus, a leader of a new mischievous cult in Tacitus Annals 15.44?

Not even Jesus Christ in the NT was the Christus in Tacitus Annals.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, never started any new religion in the NT.

Pilate found no fault with Jesus, the Son of God.

Pilate did not even know why the Jews brought the Son of God for trial.

Mark 14:56 ASV -----For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together.

Mark 15:14 KJV--- Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done ?.....


Christus in Annals was neither Jesus Christ nor an assumed scarcely known obscurity called HJ.

The Quest for HJ still continues after hundreds of years because NT Jesus is a Jesus of Faith.

NT Jesus is a Myth--an eschatological concept--a Figure of Faith.

HJ is also a figure of Faith and imagination.

HJers use the NT as their PRIMARY source for their HJ.

Descriptions of Myth Jesus perfectly fits HJ.

They both never lived and have an imaginary biography.

Please stop taking the bible at face-value. It's embarrassing.

Jesus born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin caused a disturbance in the Temple and he was later crucified under Pilate in the NT.

Do you by any chance accept that Jesus caused a disturbance at the Temple and was crucified under Pilate?

Do you by any chance accept that Paul met Peter and James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem as stated in the Bible?

Don't be embarrassed!! Just answer the questions.

Please be honest.

Tell us what you take at face value in the Bible?

 

[Brainache]

Jesus born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin caused a disturbance in the Temple and he was later crucified under Pilate in the NT.

Do you by any chance accept that Jesus caused a disturbance at the Temple and was crucified under Pilate?

Do you by any chance accept that Paul met Peter and James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem as stated in the Bible?

Don't be embarrassed!! Just answer the questions.

Please be honest.

Tell us what you take at face value in the Bible?

You don't think there is any difference between a miraculous claim and a mundane claim?

Weird.

 

[Brainache]

You two really don't get it.

Tacitus Histories is from primary sources and deals with the period after Nero while the The Annals were from secondary documents and as a result Tacitus gets himself confused at times. For example, Tacitus mixes up the daughter of Mark Antony with that of Octavia the Younger because they have the same name.

This means that it is well with in the realm of possible that Nero went after Chrestians (followers of Osiris) and years later Tacitus hears Christians claiming their leader died at the hand of Pontius Pilate and (incorrectly) assumes Chrestians = Christians and connects the two.

We know that Tiberius in 19 CE expelled Jewish and Egyptian worshipers from Rome (Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123) which would have logically included worshipers of Serapis (Chrestus) so they were obviously a target for former emperors and depending on how you read Suetonius Claudius may have had issue with that cult too.

If this isn't enough it has been suggested that there was a messiah group following a person called Chrestus who were calling themselves Chrestians. (E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas, “The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution,” RTR 25 (1966): 85).

So you have a pagan group being called Chrestians, a messiah group being called Chrestians, and Jesus' band of Christians and expecting people do not get them confused?!

Also it has stated that in the 1st century the followers of Jesus were not known as Christians which if true would throw a monkey wrench into every thing as you have the same situation as with the word "vampire" which has been retroactively applied to creatures that were never originally called by that term.

OK Maximara.

I'm not going to try to argue you out of the corner you've painted yourself into regarding the Historical authority of Tacitus.

Good luck with the Academy.

 

[dejudge]

Jesus born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin caused a disturbance in the Temple and he was later crucified under Pilate in the NT.

Do you by any chance accept that Jesus caused a disturbance at the Temple and was crucified under Pilate?

Do you by any chance accept that Paul met Peter and James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem as stated in the Bible?

Don't be embarrassed!! Just answer the questions.

Please be honest.

Tell us what you take at face value in the Bible?

You don't think there is any difference between a miraculous claim and a mundane claim?

Weird.

You appear to be embarrassed to admit you take the Bible at face value.

Now, please tell us what you consider mundane at face value if it was done by the Son of a Ghost?

I find it really absurd if you accept as a mundane claim that Jesus caused a disturbance at the Jewish Temple when he was a Ghosts son or something that could walk on the sea.

You must have forgotten that there are mundane fiction stories and myth fables.

Have you ever heard of the mundane claims for Romulus--he was born of a woman, had a human brother and lived in Rome.

Romulus was the mundane founder of Rome.

Romulus was a Myth--Jesus too.

HJ is perfect example of mundane fiction.

 

[IanS]

That had nothing to do with what I wrote.

The vast majority of historians reject silly arguments like this. Tacitus is authentic and authoritative.

Actually, I had NO IDEA whatsoever just how weak the Mythticians argument were.

Well now you are reduced to the very weak position of making what is called an "appeal to authority". Saying you believe whatever bible scholars say about any conclusions they may or may not draw from the 11th century Christian copies of Tacitus.

But whatever those bible scholars might claim, they do not claim as you have been doing, that Tacitus was an eye-witness to anything that ever happened to Jesus.

 

[dafydd]

Have you found your HJ yet? Was he a scarcely known Cynic, an obscure rabbi, an unknown Jew, a little known Zealot, a Nobody....an itinerant preacher man?

The Quest for HJ is still on-going for hundreds of years.

No evidence and no HJ has ever been found.

All the evidence is for Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

Myth Jesus did not die under Pilate.

In the NT, Myth Jesus survived the crucifixion.

You can't use the story of Myth Jesus for an HJ.

You can't use a Pack of Myth fables as history.

You might as well use Genesis to prove Adam and Eve were human beings.

Why

all

the

spaces

?

 

[pakeha]

wow, it appears the Mythticians do not even understand what Tacitus wrote, and are intentionally using this lack of information disingenuously.

Here is what you actually asked: "Which eye-witness ever authenticated anything Tacitus wrote about Jesus?"

Here is what you are now claiming you asked: "I asked you to quote the eye-witness who gave the story to Tacitus, and you say that his eye-witness was himself!"

WORDS MEAN THINGS, your two questions are completely different. Why did you do that? Why are you misrepresenting your question?

Of course Tacitus was an eye witness to the community in Rome, of course nero was an eyewitness to the fire and the later persecution, of course Pilate was an eye witness.

How do you figure Tacitus was "an eye witness to the community in Rome"?
Wasn't he born after 56 CE?

You two really don't get it.

Tacitus Histories is from primary sources and deals with the period after Nero while the The Annals were from secondary documents and as a result Tacitus gets himself confused at times. For example, Tacitus mixes up the daughter of Mark Antony with that of Octavia the Younger because they have the same name.

This means that it is well with in the realm of possible that Nero went after Chrestians (followers of Osiris) and years later Tacitus hears Christians claiming their leader died at the hand of Pontius Pilate and (incorrectly) assumes Chrestians = Christians and connects the two.

We know that Tiberius in 19 CE expelled Jewish and Egyptian worshipers from Rome (Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123) which would have logically included worshipers of Serapis (Chrestus) so they were obviously a target for former emperors and depending on how you read Suetonius Claudius may have had issue with that cult too.

If this isn't enough it has been suggested that there was a messiah group following a person called Chrestus who were calling themselves Chrestians. (E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas, “The Origin of the Church at Rome: A New Solution,” RTR 25 (1966): 85).

So you have a pagan group being called Chrestians, a messiah group being called Chrestians, and Jesus' band of Christians and expecting people do not get them confused?!

Also it has stated that in the 1st century the followers of Jesus were not known as Christians which if true would throw a monkey wrench into every thing as you have the same situation as with the word "vampire" which has been retroactively applied to creatures that were never originally called by that term.

Could you shout me a source for that hilited bit, please?
While it's something that's probably been mentioned in previous threads, I don't recall reading it.

 

[The Big Dog]

How do you figure Tacitus was "an eye witness to the community in Rome"?
Wasn't he born after 56 CE?

Yes, right during the period Christian community was beginning to flourish.