Did Jesus exist?

[zugzwang]

I am assuming that 16: 5 is making the point that as a senator, Tacitus had access to Acta Senatus, the records of the senate. I don't think this means that for every incident or person described, Tacitus would say that he got the information from the Acta.

On the other hand, maybe it was all forged by medieval monks, the cunning little dogs.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, that is not how history works. Make up all you want, your arguments are a joke, sport.

Your argument is that Tacitus is authentic and we know it's authentic because he had access to records that do not exist. I merely pointed out that if we can cite non existent records then all of us are entitled to make up what we want to prove our arguments.

Can you prove there was not a report in Roman records saying that all Christian literature was forged?

 

[IanS]

I am assuming that 16: 5 is making the point that as a senator, Tacitus had access to Acta Senatus, the records of the senate. I don't think this means that for every incident or person described, Tacitus would say that he got the information from the Acta.

On the other hand, maybe it was all forged by medieval monks, the cunning little dogs.

Well that would be just multiple speculation, and with zero evidence to support it.

Eg, it's speculating that (1)Jesus was indeed executed by Pilate, (2) that written Roman records did exist describing that execution of Jesus, (3) that those written records were available to Tacitus, (4) that Tacitus did actually use those records for what he later wrote about "Chrsitsus". But where, afaik, there is zero evidence of any such written Roman records describing the execution of Jesus, and equally zero evidence of Tacitus ever using, or even ever claiming to have seen or used any such records for his one very brief mention of the death of "Christus".

So that is just a whole heap of un-evidenced uncorroborated speculation.

What is not speculation, however, is that according to bible scholars, Paul's letters and the gospels were already in circulation by the time Tacitus wrote about "Christus" (and certainly before the earliest existing copies of Tacitus, which are from as late as the 11th century!). And iirc the name of Pilate occurs first of all in one of the "fake" Pauline letters ... and then it later appears in the earliest relatively complete and readable copies of the gospels which date from about the 4th-6th century onwards (what any first century gospels originally said, is anyone’s guess).

In which case, Paul’s letters (whoever wrote them) and those gospels, together with what Christians themselves were probably saying on the streets at that time, are apparently a known source from which Tacitus and/or his later copyists could have very easily and rather obviously obtained the belief that Jesus was executed under Pilate c.30AD ... a fact which of course, Tacitus himself could not personally have known about, since he was not even born at that time.

 

[The Big Dog]

Tacitus had these written Roman records?

Yes Tacitus had those Roman records.

Ask a historian.

That is why the annals are considered authentic and authoritative, a fact I have made a dozen times, and which has been ignored by you like a truther with the NIST reports.

 

[IanS]

Yes Tacitus had those Roman records.

Ask a historian.

That is why the annals are considered authentic and authoritative, a fact I have made a dozen times, and which has been ignored by you like a truther with the NIST reports.

I am asking you! You are the person here who is making that claim.

So please quote where Tacitus says he got that passage from the official Roman records of Jesus execution.

 

[tsig]

Yes Tacitus had those Roman records.

Ask a historian.

That is why the annals are considered authentic and authoritative, a fact I have made a dozen times, and which has been ignored by you like a truther with the NIST reports.

Unlike the NIST report the Roman records are non existent so referring to them is difficult.

 

[tsig]

I am asking you! You are the person here who is making that claim.

So please quote where Tacitus says he got that passage from the official Roman records of Jesus execution.

The Roman Senate became concerned about the Jesus Agitation so they sent a secret commission to investigate and they reported that it was all a made up story by Rebels Who Wanted a Cause. Of course, this report has been lost but it's just logical it happened given the Roman's deep concern over the rise of Christianity.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am asking you! You are the person here who is making that claim.

So please quote where Tacitus says he got that passage from the official Roman records of Jesus execution.

Are you *********** kidding me? Are you really suggesting that the Annals contain footnotes or something?

Unbelievable.

Have you even the slightest familiarity with how Historians do their work, nor how they have almost universally concluded that the Annals are authentic and authoritative? I mean, one might take you seriously is you even tried to address the wealth of expert opinions concluding that the Annals are authentic and authoritative.

You have refused to do so, and now you are "just asking questions."

We get it! You don't trust Tacitus. Fine, good luck with that, sport.

 

[dejudge]

Are you *********** kidding me? Are you really suggesting that the Annals contain footnotes or something?

Unbelievable.

Have you even the slightest familiarity with how Historians do their work, nor how they have almost universally concluded that the Annals are authentic and authoritative? I mean, one might take you seriously is you even tried to address the wealth of expert opinions concluding that the Annals are authentic and authoritative.

You have refused to do so, and now you are "just asking questions."

We get it! You don't trust Tacitus. Fine, good luck with that, sport.

Why are you making claims for which you have no data?

It is completely erroneous that Tacitus Annals 15.44 is accepted as authentic when it was proven to have been manipulated under ultra-violet light.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

In 1902 Georg

Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

You have already been notified that you are using an 11TH CENTURY copy of Tacitus Annals which shows actual manipulation.

There appears to have been no Christians in the time of Nero.

Also, for hundreds of years no Apologetic writer used Tacitus Annals with Christus even when writing the history of Church.

Tacitus Annals with Christus is WITHOUT corroboration.

Tacitus Annals with Christus is an extremely Late Forgery--even later than the forgery called the TF in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

The NT itself is riddled with Fake authors and Fake accounts of Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

In effect, the Gospel was really a Hoax.

Mankind has been deceived for at least 1600 years and was forced to worship a Ghost as a God.

 

[The Big Dog]

gish gallop snipped

It has been explained to you repeatedly that your theories about "missing text" and "alteration" are ludicrous.

Cripes your own link proves you wrong.

"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."

Ah well, this is what I get when I get into a discussion with Zealots of the Church of Mythticians

 

[pakeha]

I already explained that Tacitus had access to governmental records.

I am assuming that 16: 5 is making the point that as a senator, Tacitus had access to Acta Senatus, the records of the senate. I don't think this means that for every incident or person described, Tacitus would say that he got the information from the Acta.

On the other hand, maybe it was all forged by medieval monks, the cunning little dogs.

Yes Tacitus had those Roman records.

Ask a historian.

That is why the annals are considered authentic and authoritative, a fact I have made a dozen times, and which has been ignored by you like a truther with the NIST reports.

Fail.
Remember, the provincial governors weren't answerable to the Senate, but rather to the Emperor.
Any records about Pontius Pilate and his governorship would have been in the Imperial records, not the Senatorial records.
For obvious reasons, Tacitus wouldn't have had access to the Imperial records.
Or are you claiming he did?

 

[IanS]

Are you *********** kidding me? Are you really suggesting that the Annals contain footnotes or something?

Unbelievable.

Have you even the slightest familiarity with how Historians do their work, nor how they have almost universally concluded that the Annals are authentic and authoritative? I mean, one might take you seriously is you even tried to address the wealth of expert opinions concluding that the Annals are authentic and authoritative.

You have refused to do so, and now you are "just asking questions."

We get it! You don't trust Tacitus. Fine, good luck with that, sport.

What is “unbelievable” is that anyone would try to claim that Tacitus knew about Jesus from official Roman records without being able to quote any such Roman records ever mentioning any execution of Jesus, let alone Tacitus ever claiming that he got any information about Jesus from any Roman records.

Your approach seems to be ...why bother with any actual evidence when you can just make it up yourself!

You are making it up. You have no Roman records saying any such thing.

 

[tsig]

What is “unbelievable” is that anyone would try to claim that Tacitus knew about Jesus from official Roman records without being able to quote any such Roman records ever mentioning any execution of Jesus, let alone Tacitus ever claiming that he got any information about Jesus from any Roman records.

Your approach seems to be ...why bother with any actual evidence when you can just make it up yourself!

You are making it up. You have no Roman records saying any such thing.

Looks like his presumptions are showing.

 

[tsig]

Are you *********** kidding me? Are you really suggesting that the Annals contain footnotes or something?

Unbelievable.

Have you even the slightest familiarity with how Historians do their work, nor how they have almost universally concluded that the Annals are authentic and authoritative? I mean, one might take you seriously is you even tried to address the wealth of expert opinions concluding that the Annals are authentic and authoritative.

You have refused to do so, and now you are "just asking questions."

We get it! You don't trust Tacitus. Fine, good luck with that, sport.

The thing is, all those historians aren't posting here so if you want to use their arguments you will have to defend them here in your words.

Hiding behind unknown historians and non existent records isn't much of an argument.

 

[dejudge]

It has been explained to you repeatedly that your theories about "missing text" and "alteration" are ludicrous.

Cripes your own link proves you wrong.

"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."

Ah well, this is what I get when I get into a discussion with Zealots of the Church of Mythticians

You keep exposing that Tacitus Annals does not mention Jesus.

You are using a known manipulated 11 th century source that did NOT mention Jesus or Christians.

Your argument is a known dead end argument.

Tacitus Annals is not evidence of Jesus and Christians.

Tacitus Annals is WITHOUT corroboration.

Tacitus Histories CONTRADICTS Tacitus Annals.

There was NO Christ, No Jewish Messiah, even up to c 66-70 CE according to Histories attributed to Tacitus and it is corroborated by Josephus and Suetonius.

Tacitus Histories is CORROBORATED by non-apologetics--NOT Tacitus Annals with Christus.

There was NO Jewish Christ, No Jewish Messiah up to the War of Jews c 66-70 CE. See Tacitus Histories 5--Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.5.4--Suetonius Life of Vespasian.

Tacitus Annals with Christus was forged no earlier than the 5th century and there is evidence that the word was ChrEstians--NOT Christians.

Tacitus Annals is worthless for the dead end HJ argument.

 

[The Big Dog]

unknown historians

Historian Ronald Mellor considers it "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".

there ya go, champ, not unknown anymore. Anything you want to share with us, or just going to continue complaining that my sources aren't good enough for you?

 

[dejudge]

Historian Ronald Mellor considers it "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".

there ya go, champ, not unknown anymore. Anything you want to share with us, or just going to continue complaining that my sources aren't good enough for you?

Now, read Tacitus Histories 5 if you believe he represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".

There was NO Jewish Christ known to Tacitus up to the time of War of the Jews c 66-70 CE.

 

[IanS]

Historian Ronald Mellor considers it "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".

there ya go, champ, not unknown anymore. Anything you want to share with us, or just going to continue complaining that my sources aren't good enough for you?

It’s no use at all you simply naming a historian called Mellor and saying that he considered Annals as a whole to be Tacitus’s crowing achievement. Because that is zero evidence that Mellor ever claimed that Tacitus took that particular sentence about Christus from any known Roman records.

I assume got your brief unreferenced quote from Wikipedia? ... where it actually says the following -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
In terms of an overall context, historian Ronald Mellor has stated that the Annals is "Tacitus's crowning achievement" which represents the "pinnacle of Roman historical writing".


And where in a further entry it also says -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
The Annals was Tacitus' final work and provide a key source for modern understanding of the history of the Roman Empire from the beginning of the reign of Tiberius in AD 14 to the end of the reign of Nero, in AD 68.[2] Tacitus wrote the Annals in at least 16 books, but books 7-10 and parts of books 5, 6, 11 and 16 are missing.


From which it is perfectly clear that Mellor was not talking at all about that one ultra brief sentence where Tacitus mentions the death of Christus.

What it actually says is that Mellor considers the value of Annals as a whole, all 16 volumes of it, to be Tacitus crowing achievement and historically important.

Where does it ever say that Mellor claimed that one particular ultra brief sentence about Christus was either accurate or that Tacitus had obtained it from any known Roman records saying Chrsitus was executed?

Where are these Roman records that say Christus was executed c.30AD?

Please quote what those Roman records actually say about any execution of Jesus.

 

[The Big Dog]

pretty colors.

Historians generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. It is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. More sources! YAY!

Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 2001
Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004
Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic,

Color coded demand that I produce the actual original IN LATIN in 3...2...1....

Because that is how Historians do History or something....

 

[IanS]

Historians generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. It is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. More sources! YAY!

Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 2001
Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation by Helen K. Bond 2004
Eddy, Paul; Boyd, Gregory (2007). The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic,

Color coded demand that I produce the actual original IN LATIN in 3...2...1....

Because that is how Historians do History or something....

You have now passed from someone named Mellor who you said was "historian", to listing the titles of three books from people all of whom appear to be NT bible scholars, and not historians.

These are bible scholars writing about their belief in Jesus, are they not? Eddy & Boyd are well known in that respect, the reference to Craig is a reference to a "dictionary of the Bible", and here is the info on Helen K Bond -


http://www.massbible.org/helen-bond
Dr. Helen K. Bond
Title: Senior Lecturer in New Testament Language, Literature and TheologyReligious Affiliation: Church of ScotlandInstitution: University of Edinburgh

Originally from the North-East of England, Helen read Biblical Studies at the Universities of St Andrews (Scotland), Tübingen (Germany) and Durham (England), where she wrote a PhD thesis on Pontius Pilate under the supervision of Prof J.D.G. Dunn. She taught a range of New Testament courses at Northern College in Manchester (1993-6), the University of Aberdeen (1996-2000) and the University of Edinburgh (2000 to the present), where she now holds the post of Senior Lecturer. Her research interests centre around the social and historical world of the first century, the theology and rhetoric of the texts associated with that period, and biblical archaeology. She specialises in the gospels, historical Jesus, Judaean politics, women in the first century, and Josephus. Her books include: Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (CUP, 1998), Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus? (WJK, 2004) and Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity (Baylor, 2007; edited with David B. Capes, April D. Deconick, and Troy A. Miller). She is currently working on a book on Jesus for Continuum’s ‘Guide for the Plerpexed’ and another one on King Herod. Helen is the author of a number of articles and studies, and has appeared several times on TV documentaries. She is married with two small children and lives between Edinburgh and Glasgow.



So the above is yet another example in what is now a very long list of examples of HJ believers in these threads naming various academics in support of belief in Jesus, but where the most cursory search immediately shows that these individuals are invariably NT bible scholars and not typical mainstream neutral historians at all.


And after all that, yet again you still give no quotes whatsoever from any of these people ever claiming to know that Tacitus obtained his one brief sentence from any known Roman records.

That was your claim was it not? That Tacitus knew of the execution of Jesus from Roman records which were available to him.

But you have failed 100% ever to show any such Roman records ever mentioning any execution of Jesus.

And nor have you shown any of the above authors (or Mellor) ever claiming that Tacitus was known to have obtained that sentence from known Roman records.

Where are these Roman records saying that Jesus was executed?

Where are these quotes from any of the people you have just named, claiming to show that Tacitus obtained his mention of the execution of Christus from known Roman records of the time?

You have zero evidence to support a single thing you have claimed.

You appear to be simply making the whole thing up just to support your wish to believe in Jesus.