Did Jesus exist?

[IanS]

Your entire speculation rests on the claim that it was anonymous. There is absolutely no support for your proposition that the source(s) of the evidence were anonymous to Tacitus. This is quite like the "missing" text argument that I destroyed a few days ago.

Further, the history of Pilate was of course neither anonymous nor unreliable.

Tacitus is almost universally accepted as perhaps the earliest third party source of corroboration of followers of Christus in Rome a generation after he suffered the ultimate penalty under Pilate.

Nope.

I am not speculating about anything.

The source is anonymous to us, because Tacitus makes zero mention of where he ever got any such beliefs from. That is the very definition of anonymous hearsay.

 

[The Big Dog]

Nope.

I am not speculating about anything.

The source is anonymous to us, because Tacitus makes zero mention of where he ever got any such beliefs from. That is the very definition of anonymous hearsay.

that is the very definition of authenticated authoritative history.

You seem fairly insistent on ignoring the Pilate angle too, why is that?

 

[dejudge]

Further, Tactius clearly corroborates much of the Jesus story and the existence of Christianity in Rome within a generation after his death, and appears to have been such common knowledge that no citation was necessary.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus does not corroborate the NT story at all.

Tacitus Annals does NOT corroborate an obscure HJ.

Christus was WELL KNOWN since the time of Pilate in Tacitus Annals.

If you had only read the story of Jesus in the NT you would have realized that Christus in Annals was some other character because Jesus was NOT known as Christ by Jews.

In the NT itself He was known as John the Baptist or one of the prophets.

In the NT itself Jesus claimed the Jews were of the Devil.

There was no new cult by Jesus and Pilate found no fault with him.

Christus in Annals is NOT the Jesus character in the NT.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you had only read the story of Jesus in the NT you would have realized that Christus in Annals was some other character because Jesus was NOT known as Christ by Jews.

Gish Gallop.

Notably, the first time that I recall you saying this, you conveniently included a helpful quote from the NT calling him Christ.

We all know that he was called Christ, but I see that you are saying that he was not called Christ by the Jews? Really? that is your argument? wow.

 

[DC]

delete

 

[IanS]

that is the very definition of authenticated authoritative history.

You seem fairly insistent on ignoring the Pilate angle too, why is that?

Which eye-witness ever authenticated anything Tacitus wrote about Jesus?

Can you please quote the eye-witness? That way we can actually know who the source of the evidence was, and what they really said about it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Which eye-witness ever authenticated anything Tacitus wrote about Jesus?

Can you please quote the eye-witness? That way we can actually know who the source of the evidence was, and what they really said about it.

Tacitus. Nero, Pilate.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the fact that Tacitus annals are almost universally accepted as authentic and authoritative.

 

[dejudge]

Gish Gallop.

Notably, the first time that I recall you saying this, you conveniently included a helpful quote from the NT calling him Christ.

We all know that he was called Christ, but I see that you are saying that he was not called Christ by the Jews? Really? that is your argument? wow.

GISH GALLOP

You have no idea that HJers argue that their Jesus was a NOBODY and that embellished stories about were fabricated decades later after he was dead.

Christus in Tacitus Annals was NOT a NOBODY.

Since c 27-37 CE, since the time of Pilate Christus was well known as the leader of a new mischievous cult that was spreading in Judea.

In the NT itself, there was NO new cult and no new religion under the name of Christ--Jesus commanded that no-one be told he was Christ.

Christus in Annals is NOT obscure HJ and NOT Jesus in the NT.

Tacitus Annals with Christus, whether or not it is a forgery, does not help the HJ argument as soon as they admitted their HJ was little known and was NOT Christ.

No HJer can demonstate how their HJ actually died, when he died and who he really was.

 

[DC]

Tacitus. Nero, Pilate.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the fact that Tacitus annals are almost universally accepted as authentic and authoritative.

where?

 

[IanS]

Which eye-witness ever authenticated anything Tacitus wrote about Jesus?

Can you please quote the eye-witness? That way we can actually know who the source of the evidence was, and what they really said about it.

Tacitus. Nero, Pilate.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the fact that Tacitus annals are almost universally accepted as authentic and authoritative.

What? I asked you to quote the eye-witness who gave the story to Tacitus, and you say that his eye-witness was himself! LoL

Tacitus was his own eye-witness to seeing Jesus prior to 30AD, even though Tacitus was not even born until 56AD. You are getting very confused indeed.

And as well as saying Tacitus who was born after 56AD was his own eye witness to Jesus in 30AD (biggle boggle ), you say that further eye-witnesses were Nero (supposedly not born until 37AD) and Pontius Pilate!! lol.

So, I asked you to quote what the eye-witnesses actually told Tacitus about Jesus… so …

…. Where is this quote from Pilate then?

… please quote what Pilate said to Tacitus about the death of Jesus .

 

[The Big Dog]

What? I asked you to quote the eye-witness who gave the story to Tacitus, and you say that his eye-witness was himself! LoL

Tacitus was his own eye-witness to seeing Jesus prior to 30AD, even though Tacitus was not even born until 56AD. You are getting very confused indeed.

And as well as saying Tacitus who was born after 56AD was his own eye witness to Jesus in 30AD (biggle boggle ), you say that further eye-witnesses were Nero (supposedly not born until 37AD) and Pontius Pilate!! lol.

So, I asked you to quote what the eye-witnesses actually told Tacitus about Jesus… so …

…. Where is this quote from Pilate then?

… please quote what Pilate said to Tacitus about the death of Jesus .

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.

 

[IanS]

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.

Nope. You are now deliberately omitting parts of what I actually asked you. Here is what I actually asked you -

Which eye-witness ever authenticated anything Tacitus wrote about Jesus?

Can you please quote the eye-witness? That way we can actually know who the source of the evidence was, and what they really said about it.

So, again(!) -

- please quote where Pilate ever wrote to Tacitus about the execution of Jesus?

- where does Tacitus ever say that it was Pontius Pilate who told him about Jesus?

 

[The Big Dog]

Nope. You are now deliberately omitting parts of what I actually asked you. Here is what I actually asked you -

So, again(!) -

- please quote where Pilate ever wrote to Tacitus about the execution of Jesus?

- where does Tacitus ever say that it was Pontius Pilate who told him about Jesus?

wait, it is not enough that Tacitus himself was an eyewitness, he has to actually talk to the eyewitnesses? What an absurd proposition. Literally no historian in history would ever agree with such a ridiculous standard.

The overwhelming majority of scholars and historians have concluded that Tacitus is authentic and authoritative, based in large part on his unique access to Roman records.

How ridiculous can you get?

 

[maximara]

Are you saying that Tacitus invented the Christians living in Rome in the 60s?

Was Tacitus talking about Christians or some schism of the older Chrestian (Osiris) group?

Did Tacitus confuse the then existing Christian group with the older Chrestian (Osiris) group who along with every Egyptian cult evidently had had issues with Roman emperors all the way back to Tiberius in 19 CE (Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123) and mixed the two together?

Was Tacitus using official records or repeating some propagandist oral tradition?

As pakeha mentioned before there is enough wonky about Tacitus account of the Great Fire with regards to the archeological evidence to conclude he wasn't reporting history but oral tradition and who knows how good that was.

Suetonius, contemporary to Tacitus, is even worse as he claims Nero was personally responsible for the fire so it is hard to tell how much of either report is actual history and how much is distorted oral tradition-propaganda (ala Richard III being an evil hunchback) they simply repeated.

Pliny the Elder who was in Rome during Nero's reign mentions the fire...but not Christians though he does write of the Essenes. It's the Philo-Herod Agripa I situation again...a known adult contemporary who should be providing corroborating evidence for events...but doesn't.

Josephus despite being in Rome in 64 CE doesn't mention the fire, which would make sense as it doesn't reflect on the welfare of the Jewish people...until the persecution of Christians enters the picture in the light of the TF. Certainly Josephus would have written about how the followers of the wondrous man he gave us a paragraph in the TF suffering under Nero...but we instead get nothing.

Philostratus who in Life of Apollonius of Tyana goes on and on about Nero's many crimes and enormities but neither the fire or persecution of Christians are among them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Was Tacitus talking about Christians or some schism of the older Chrestian (Osiris) group?

Did Tacitus confuse the then existing Christian group with the older Chrestian (Osiris) group who along with every Egyptian cult evidently had had issues with Roman emperors all the way back to Tiberius in 19 CE (Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123) and mixed the two together?

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

 

[Brainache]

Was Tacitus talking about Christians or some schism of the older Chrestian (Osiris) group?

Did Tacitus confuse the then existing Christian group with the older Chrestian (Osiris) group who along with every Egyptian cult evidently had had issues with Roman emperors all the way back to Tiberius in 19 CE (Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123) and mixed the two together?

Was Tacitus using official records or repeating some propagandist oral tradition?

As pakeha mentioned before there is enough wonky about Tacitus account of the Great Fire with regards to the archeological evidence to conclude he wasn't reporting history but oral tradition and who knows how good that was.

Suetonius, contemporary to Tacitus, is even worse as he claims Nero was personally responsible for the fire so it is hard to tell who much of either report is actual history and how much is distorted oral tradition they simply repeated.

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.

 

[IanS]

wait, it is not enough that Tacitus himself was an eyewitness, he has to actually talk to the eyewitnesses? What an absurd proposition. Literally no historian in history would ever agree with such a ridiculous standard.

The overwhelming majority of scholars and historians have concluded that Tacitus is authentic and authoritative, based in large part on his unique access to Roman records.

How ridiculous can you get?

You are again wasting everyone’s time trying to claim Tacitus was a witness to Jesus?

Tacitus who was born in c.56AD was not an eye-witness to the life or death of Jesus c.30AD., and he himself could know nothing that happened to Jesus.

In fact, if it comes to that, you can't even know that Tacitus ever mentioned Jesus at all. Because we don't actually have anything at all written by Tacitus ... instead the earliest extant copy we have of Tacitus is apparently from Christian copyists themselves writing 1000 years after Tacitus had died!

As evidence of Jesus, that is worthless.

 

[Brainache]

You are again wasting everyone’s time trying to claim Tacitus was a witness to Jesus?

Tacitus who was born in c.56AD was not an eye-witness to the life or death of Jesus c.30AD., and he himself could know nothing that happened to Jesus.

In fact, if it comes to that, you can't even know that Tacitus ever mentioned Jesus at all. Because we don't actually have anything at all written by Tacitus ... instead the earliest extant copy we have of Tacitus is apparently from Christian copyists themselves writing 1000 years after Tacitus had died!

As evidence of Jesus, that is worthless.

And as usual you missed the point entirely.

Tacitus is evidence for people in Rome in the 60s who worshipped a human Jesus who had been crucified in Palestine by Pontius Pilate.

Tacitus is evidence that the Jesus these people worshipped was not some ethereal being residing in the celestial spheres, as Carrier would have us believe.

Are you ever going to address this point?

Or are you going to ignore it, like you do with all of Paul's references to an earthly Jesus?

The dishonesty of your arguments is obvious.

 

[dejudge]

And as usual you missed the point entirely.

Tacitus is evidence for people in Rome in the 60s who worshipped a human Jesus who had been crucified in Palestine by Pontius Pilate.

Tacitus is evidence that the Jesus these people worshipped was not some ethereal being residing in the celestial spheres, as Carrier would have us believe.

Are you ever going to address this point?

Or are you going to ignore it, like you do with all of Paul's references to an earthly Jesus?

The dishonesty of your arguments is obvious.

Your claims are fallacies and highly illogical.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 does not identify any character called Jesus.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 does not identify any character who was crucified.

Please, be honest.

You do not how Christus died.

Now, may I remind you that you cannot use the NT an historical source.

Do you recall that in the NT it is claimed Jesus survived or was found alive after he was crucified.

You don't even know how obscure HJ the preacher died.

The HJ argument makes no sense. You cannot use Ghost stories for history.

Jesus the Son of Ghost was not dead in the NT.

He was seen alive by over 500 people and Paul.

How did obscure HJ really die?

Please, be honest.

Name your source!!

The Pauline letters admit Jesus was ALIVE after the crucifixion.



1 Corinthians 15

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep .

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time

Please, tell us how your Obscure HJ died and when he died?

Jesus of the NT was seen alive after the crucifixion by over 500 witnesses.

You have no idea how your obscure HJ died---you have no evidence.


Why are HJers using a pack of lies [the NT] as history for their HJ?

Jesus of the NT was seen alive after the crucifixion and it is multiple attested.

 

[The Big Dog]

You are again wasting everyone’s time trying to claim Tacitus was a witness to Jesus?

Tacitus who was born in c.56AD was not an eye-witness to the life or death of Jesus c.30AD., and he himself could know nothing that happened to Jesus.

In fact, if it comes to that, you can't even know that Tacitus ever mentioned Jesus at all. Because we don't actually have anything at all written by Tacitus ... instead the earliest extant copy we have of Tacitus is apparently from Christian copyists themselves writing 1000 years after Tacitus had died!

As evidence of Jesus, that is worthless.

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.