Did Jesus exist?

[The Big Dog]

what ? he was alive when exactly?

About 56 to 120 CE.

 

[DC]

About 56 to 120 CE.

so he was not alive during Jesus's time.

 

[dejudge]

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

Lie.

Why are you talking about Lying when your posts are recorded?

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.

You believe that the mythology about Jesus may be based on a real crackpot.

Who is caught lying?

 

[DC]

Why are you talking about Lying when your posts are recorded?



You believe that the mythology about Jesus may be based on a real crackpot.

Who is caught lying?

you, not him

 

[dejudge]

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.

I consider your argument as baseless because you are not familiar with the evidence which clearly shows that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery and a very late one indeed.

You seem to have had no idea that NOT even the Church knew of Tacitus Annals with Christus when the History of the Church was composed by at least TWO different authors.

 

[The Big Dog]

so he was not alive during Jesus's time.

I'm not sure what you mean about "alive during Jesus time." I assume you mean while Jesus was alive? No, of course not, no one has ever claimed otherwise.

he was of course alive during the great fire, and nero's persecution of the Christians, which were the subjects of which he was writing.

 

[The Big Dog]

I consider your argument as baseless because you are not familiar with the evidence which clearly shows that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery and a very late one indeed.

You seem to have had no idea that NOT even the Church knew of Tacitus Annals with Christus when the History of the Church was composed by at least TWO different authors.

Well, we have made progress, no one is disputing that (if authentic) that Tacitus is referring to Christians and Christ. Excellent! PROGRESS!

Now you have placed the following assertion that there is "evidence which clearly shows that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery and a very late one indeed." Excellent.

I look forward to your evidence:

 

[DC]

I'm not sure what you mean about "alive during Jesus time." I assume you mean while Jesus was alive? No, of course not, no one has ever claimed otherwise.

he was of course alive during the great fire, and nero's persecution of the Christians, which were the subjects of which he was writing.

so his writing does not help in establishing if Jesus was a real person or not.

 

[abaddon]

Why are you talking about Lying when your posts are recorded?

Because both my and your posts are recorded.

You believe that the mythology about Jesus may be based on a real crackpot.

Again with the strawman. Do not attempt to put your words in my mouth.

Who is caught lying?

You.

 

[The Big Dog]

so his writing does not help in establishing if Jesus was a real person or not.

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.

 

[DC]

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.

maybe, maybe not. who knows.

 

[abaddon]

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?

 

[dejudge]

I'm not sure what you mean about "alive during Jesus time." I assume you mean while Jesus was alive? No, of course not, no one has ever claimed otherwise.

he was of course alive during the great fire, and nero's persecution of the Christians, which were the subjects of which he was writing.

Where was Tacitus during the Fire? Was he in Africa, Jerusalem, Samaria, Arabia, Athens, Alexandria, Rome, Corinth....?

Again, Tacitus never mentioned Jesus.

What has Christus to do with obscure HJ?



Jesus of the NT was called John the Baptist, Elijah or one of the prophets---NOT Christus.

There were people called Christus who were not Jesus in antiquity.

HJers admit that Jesus was an OBSCURE preacher man now all of a sudden he becomes the WELL KNOWN Christus with many followers.

HJers are actively arguing that their Jesus was OBSCURE and that the stories were EMBELLISHED decades later.

Well, Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus, if authentic destroys, their claim of later embellishment decades later.


If authentic, Tacitus Annals with Christus shows a WELL KNOW Christus with many followers of a new religion by the time of Pilate.

HJers really have nothing but forgeries and fiction to grasp at.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

 

[turingtest]

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.



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.

Well, let's try this-

1) "I believe that there was an historical Jesus."

2) "I think that there may have been an actual person around whom the mythology of Christianity was built and grew."

Do you see those as equivalent statements?

 

[The Big Dog]

Jesus of the NT was called John the Baptist, Elijah or one of the prophets---NOT Christus.

Yes, you said that before. And in the same post quoted places in NT where he was called Christ, which was amusing.

Anyway, looking forward to the promised evidence.

 

[maximara]

You were being naughty Maximara. That sentence does not say what you claimed.

You do know there are apparently two versions of the Hadrian to Servianus letter, right? Here is the other version with the differences bolded:

"Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians, and those who call themselves priests of Chrestus are devoted to Serapis. There is not a high-priest of the Jews, a Samaritan, or a priest of Chrestus who is not a mathematician, soothsayer, or quack. Even the patriarch, when he goes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus. They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men. They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt." (Drews, Arthur (1912) The witnesses to the historicity of Jesus)

 

[dejudge]

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

You are familiar with Chinese Whispers and flawed opinion. You are not familiar with the evidence from antiquity.

Please, name the earliest Apologetic writer to mention Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus.

You have no data, nothing.

You have not yet shown the survey or the data which supports your claim about "overwhelming consensus".

How many scholars participated in the survey?

In which country was the survey carried out?

How many of those scholars were born-again Christians?

How many of those Scholars were theologians?

We are really tired of those "overwhelming consensus" baseless inventions.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, we have made progress, no one is disputing that (if authentic) that Tacitus is referring to Christians and Christ. Excellent! PROGRESS!

Now you have placed the following assertion that there is "evidence which clearly shows that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery and a very late one indeed." Excellent.

I look forward to your evidence:

Gish Gallop snipped

we seem to have regressed. I had requested the "the evidence which clearly shows that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus is a forgery and a very late one indeed."

Your last post contained no such evidence.

Please post the evidence of which you previously spoke so confidently.

 

[dejudge]

Well, let's try this-

1) "I believe that there was an historical Jesus."

2) "I think that there may have been an actual person around whom the mythology of Christianity was built and grew."

Do you see those as equivalent statements?

Ok. I get it.

You don't know whether or not Jesus existed.

I am arguing that Jesus of the NT was a figure of mythology and you are incapable of arguing against my position.

If Jesus may have existed then it is inherently implied that he may not have.