Did Jesus exist?

[pakeha]

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

Is there something to indicate Tacitus, as a boy, had any contact with Christians?

 

[pakeha]

During that same period we have another Roman, a Consul, philosopher and writer who never mentioned the Christians nor their beliefs, even though his own brother is said to have tried Paul in Corinth.
I refer to Seneca, of course.

I've yet to see a good explanation as to how the Christians completely escaped Seneca's attention, 16.5.
Have you?

 

[The Big Dog]

During that same period we have another Roman, a Consul, philosopher and writer who never mentioned the Christians nor their beliefs, even though his own brother is said to have tried Paul in Corinth.
I refer to Seneca, of course.

I've yet to see a good explanation as to how the Christians completely escaped Seneca's attention, 16.5.
Have you?

Considering that he was Nero's man for a long time, and we have lost more works of Seneca's than we have found, this truly is a great example of absence of proof is not proof of absence.

 

[dejudge]

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

A Christian community that flourished since the time of Claudius, c 41-54 CE, worshiped Simon Magus the magician as God.

There was no known Christian community that worshiped an obscure Jewish preacher called Jesus who was crucified because he caused a disturbance at the Temple.

1. HJers admit their obscure Jesus was NOT Christ.

2. HJers have proposed their HJ was crucified but NOT for starting a new religion.

You appear to be completely unfamiliar with the assumptions and proposals of HJers.

Again, obscure HJ could not be the well known Christus in Annals who was killed for starting a mischeivous new religion with Jews and other non Jews.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus has no relevance to HJ.

There is no evidence that obscure HJ was a Christian.

Obscure HJ was crucified for starting a disturbance--that is all.

 

[dejudge]

Considering that he was Nero's man for a long time, and we have lost more works of Seneca's than we have found, this truly is a great example of absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I am glad you mention that most works of Seneca are lost.

Well, the original manuscripts of Tacitus are lost.

Your argument has immediately collapsed because you cannot prove what is found in Tacitus Annals in the 11th century copy was in the 2nd century original.

Based on your view, your argument is truly a very great example of absence of proof is NOT proof of absence.

Please, stop your un-evidence argument immediately you have no proof of what was in Tacitus Annals.

 

[The Big Dog]

A Christian community that flourished since the time of Claudius, c 41-54 CE, worshiped Simon Magus the magician as God.

There was no known Christian community that worshiped an obscure Jewish preacher called Jesus who was crucified because he caused a disturbance at the Temple.

1. HJers admit their obscure Jesus was NOT Christ.

2. HJers have proposed their HJ was crucified but NOT for starting a new religion.

You appear to be completely unfamiliar with the assumptions and proposals of HJers.

Again, obscure HJ could not be the well known Christus in Annals who was killed for starting a mischeivous new religion with Jews and other non Jews.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus has no relevance to HJ.

There is no evidence that obscure HJ was a Christian.

Obscure HJ was crucified for starting a disturbance--that is all.

GISH GALLOP.

1. it has been proven in this thread that the Christians were followers of the man who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate.

was Simon Magus crucified by Pilate? YES OR NO?

2. Even assuming that people were following Simon Magus, Simon Magus claimed to be a follower of Christ.

Answer the simple question, dejudge.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am glad you mention that most works of Seneca are lost.

Well, the original manuscripts of Tacitus are lost.

Your argument has immediately collapsed because you cannot prove what is found in Tacitus Annals in the 11th century copy was in the 2nd century original.

Based on your view, your argument is truly a very great example of absence of proof is NOT proof of absence.

Please, stop your un-evidence argument immediately you have no proof of what was in Tacitus Annals.

I do not know why I bother... he does not even understand the use of the word "lost" in reference to ancient historical manuscripts. Unbelievable.

 

[pakeha]

Considering that he was Nero's man for a long time, and we have lost more works of Seneca's than we have found, this truly is a great example of absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Agrippina's man, if the stories be true.

Now, back to why you reckon Tacitus had contact with Christians as a growing boy?

 

[The Big Dog]

Agrippina's man, if the stories be true.

Now, back to why you reckon Tacitus had contact with Christians as a growing boy?

I never said his contact/knowledge of the Christians was limited to when he was a boy.

 

[maximara]

During that same period we have another Roman, a Consul, philosopher and writer who never mentioned the Christians nor their beliefs, even though his own brother is said to have tried Paul in Corinth.
I refer to Seneca, of course.

I've yet to see a good explanation as to how the Christians completely escaped Seneca's attention, 16.5.
Have you?

How about the point I brought up that was ignored:

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.

Oh on the whole 'in the 1st century the followers of Jesus were not known as Christians' that in one form or another pops up in MJ literature. One such work (Refuting Missionaries) states that "Christians" in the 1st century were known by the term Notzrim.

In fact, the very term "Christian" does NOT appear in any of Paul's writings and in the actual Biblical text in only three places: Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16

 

[dejudge]

GISH GALLOP.

1. it has been proven in this thread that the Christians were followers of the man who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate.

was Simon Magus crucified by Pilate? YES OR NO?

GISH GALLOP!!!

1. It has not been proven that Christus was crucified in Tacitus Annals 15.44.

2. It has not been proven that there was only one person called Christus.

3. It has not been proven that Christus was crucified because he caused a disturbance at the Temple.

4. It has not been proven that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus was found in the original.

5. In gMark, there was a person using the name of Christ when Jesus was called John the Baptist or one of the prophets.

6. Obscure HJ was crucified according to the assumptions of HJers.

7. It has not been proven that obscure HJ was crucified.

8. It has not been proven when obscure HJ died.

9. It has not been proven that Jesus of the NT was crucified.

10. It has not been proven that Jesus died in the time of Pilate. He was seen ALIVE by Paul and over 500 persons perhaps YEARS after he was supposed to be dead in the NT.

11. Apologetic writers did not use Tacitus Annals to prove the advent of the Christ.

12. Non-Apologetic writers did not use Tacitus Annals to prove Jesus was just a man.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 does not prove anything about HJ.

It is just an 11th century copy with PROOF of manipulation of the word ChrEstian.

It has been proven that the word ChrEstians in the 11th century copy was indeed corrupted when examined with ultra-violet light.

 

[The Big Dog]

How about the point I brought up that was ignored:

It hasn't been ignored, rather it has been addressed ad nauseum.

Given the gaps in the historical documents, no one can draw any definitive conclusions whatsoever from the "absence" of writings.

You Logical Fallacy is....

 

[The Big Dog]

GISH GALLOP!!!

Yes, dejudge, that is a classic gish gallop.

I'll take that as a "NO." Thanks, another silly argument, this one about Simon Magus: utterly destroyed.

 

[Aepervius]

GISH GALLOP.

1. it has been proven in this thread that the Christians were followers of the man who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate.

What has been proven , maybe, is that there was a group of people which thought they were following the teaching of such a man. It has not been proven they were followers of him, aka, as him existing.

It is a subtle difference but a major one if you think about it.

And yes I think it is more probable that jesus existed, than not, but let us get real, having follower isn't a proof of existence. There are actual modern example of person not having existed , and having follower.

 

[Craig B]

... Could you shout me a source for that hilited bit, please?

That, according to Maximara, in the first century the followers of Jesus were not known as Christians.

While it's something that's probably been mentioned in previous threads, I don't recall reading it.

I'm not at all sure that it's true. The opposite is stated in Acts 11.

25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

There's nothing implausible about that, though Acts is not by any means an infallible source of information. They proclaimed Jesus as a messiah, or christ, after all. As the younger Pliny reports shortly later, in the early second century; by that time they were worshipping the messiah as a god.

 

[dejudge]

GISH GALLOP!!!

1. It has not been proven that Christus was crucified in Tacitus Annals 15.44.

2. It has not been proven that there was only one person called Christus.

3. It has not been proven that Christus was crucified because he caused a disturbance at the Temple.

4. It has not been proven that Tacitus Annals 15.44 with Christus was found in the original.

5. In gMark, there was a person using the name of Christ when Jesus was called John the Baptist or one of the prophets.

6. Obscure HJ was crucified according to the assumptions of HJers.

7. It has not been proven that obscure HJ was crucified.

8. It has not been proven when obscure HJ died.

9. It has not been proven that Jesus of the NT was crucified.

10. It has not been proven that Jesus died in the time of Pilate. He was seen ALIVE by Paul and over 500 persons perhaps YEARS after he was supposed to be dead in the NT.

11. Apologetic writers did not use Tacitus Annals to prove the advent of the Christ.

12. Non-Apologetic writers did not use Tacitus Annals to prove Jesus was just a man.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 does not prove anything about HJ.

It is just an 11th century copy with PROOF of manipulation of the word ChrEstian.

It has been proven that the word ChrEstians in the 11th century copy was indeed corrupted when examined with ultra-violet light.

Yes, dejudge, that is a classic gish gallop.

I'll take that as a "NO." Thanks, another silly argument, this one about Simon Magus: utterly destroyed.

Gish Gallop!!!

I take it that you have NO proof that the well known Christus was crucified.

I take it that you have NO proof that the well known Christus was the scarcely known HJ.

It was highly illogical to assume the well known Christus, the leader of a new cult, who was executed to stop its spread was the scarcely known HJ who was not Christ and was crucified because of a disturbance at the Temple.

You cannot even prove obscure HJ was a Christian or that he died around the 15th year of Tiberius.

Tacitus Annals 15.44 only PROVES the 11th century copy was manipulated.

That is all.

 

[The Big Dog]

GISH GALLOP

Your logical fallacy is.....

 

[dejudge]

They proclaimed Jesus as a messiah, or christ, after all. As the younger Pliny reports shortly later, in the early second century; by that time they were worshipping the messiah as a god.

I won't allow you to continue the propaganda.

Pliny the younger did not mention Jesus in the letter to Trajan.

Pliny the younger did not claim Jesus was the Messiah.

Pliny the younger did not know what the Christians believe.

Pliny TORTURED some to find out and they still did not mention Jesus.

You already know it is claimed that there were Christians who worshiped Simon Magus as a God since 41-54 CE. See Justin's Apology.

You already know that it is simply a fallacy that all people called Christians worshiped Jesus.

Please, let us be honest.

Please, stop the propaganda that Pliny the younger mentioned Jesus.

The propaganda has been already exposed.

You cannot continue to make assumptions as facts--that is wrong and unacceptable at any level.

 

[IanS]

GISH GALLOP.

1. it has been proven in this thread that the Christians were followers of the man who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate.

Where did you "prove" in this thread that Jesus existed?

You are claiming to have proved in this thread that these Christians were followers of an executed Jesus, right? You cannot execute people who do not exist. So please quote where in this thread you "proved" that Jesus existed.

How did you prove (as you just claimed) that Jesus existed?

 

[abaddon]

I won't allow you to continue the propaganda.

Hyperbole.

Pliny the younger did not mention Jesus in the letter to Trajan.

Orly? What did Pliny write to Trajan?

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged.

They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god

Who might this "Christ" be of whom Pliny spoke? Let's see what your favourite source of cherry picked quotations says.

1 Corinthians 11:3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

2 John 3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

And on and on and on.

Pliny the younger did not claim Jesus was the Messiah.

True.

Pliny the younger did not know what the Christians believe.

He had a vague idea, no more than that.

Pliny TORTURED some to find out and they still did not mention Jesus.

They were faithful christians who declined to curse christ. What about the ones who did?

You already know it is claimed that there were Christians who worshiped Simon Magus as a God since 41-54 CE. See Justin's Apology.

By definition they were not christians.

You already know that it is simply a fallacy that all people called Christians worshiped Jesus.

Also by definition not christians.

Please, let us be honest.

Exsqueeze me?

Please, stop the propaganda that Pliny the younger mentioned Jesus.

Hyperbole again.

The propaganda has been already exposed.

And again.

You cannot continue to make assumptions as facts--that is wrong and unacceptable at any level.