The Historical Jesus II

[Tomtomkent]

Why not Jesus and Jesus? We know from early manuscripts that the released Barabbas (which means "son of the father" in Aramaic) was named Jesus too.

According to the testament of Barnabus Judus was crucified not Jesus.

 

[SezMe]

In this case, serious. I'm not the first person to read the gospels this way - Heinlein wrote Stranger In A Strange Land based on the notion, and he wasn't the first either.

One of my favorite books but I never made that connection. Is this discussed somewhere?

 

[dejudge]

The fact that no Christian writer mentioned Tacitus' Annals with Christus for hundreds of years is extremely significant and is evidence against its authenticity.

Anyone who understands how history is done will realize that Provenance of a text is extremely important in "Source Criticism".

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

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


Who was the first apologetic writer to mention Tacitus' Annals with Christus?

Answer--No Apologetic writer for about 1000 years.

Who was the first non-apologetic writer to mention Tacitus' Annals with Christus?

Answer-No one.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus has virtually ZERO Provenance for about 1000 years.

It must be noted that when the History of the Church was supposedly composed by Eusebius that he used the FORGERY called the "TF" in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3.

It is clear that the Roman Church or their agents were fabricating evidence to support their bogus history of the Jesus cult.

Tacitus' Annals with Christus was most likely invented about 1000 years AFTER Tacitus was dead.

 

[JaysonR]

Who did the Middle Ages Orthodox Church need to prove Jesus' historicity to, and further who was demanding secondary non-apologetic citation?

 

[dejudge]

Who did the Middle Ages Orthodox Church need to prove Jesus' historicity to, and further who was demanding secondary non-apologetic citation?

Your question exposes your lack of knowledge of writings of antiquity. Supposed orthodoxy was not handed to the Church on a platter. Evidence had to be fabricated.

Why did Eusebius supposedly write "Proof of the Gospel" in the 4th century?

Why did Eusebius supposedly write "Against Hierocles" in the 4th century?

Even Christian themselves claimed Jesus was NOT born.

Apologetic writers themselves admitted that many Christians argued that the Son of God came down directly from heaven into Galilee.

Apologetics admitted that the Jews argued that Christus had NOT yet come up to at least the 5th century.

Please, get familiar with "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "The Answer to the Jews" and "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian, "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen, "Refutation of All Heresies" and "Treatise Against the Jews" attributed to Hippolytus, "First Apology" and " Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr, "Reply to Faustus the Manichean" attributed to Augustine of Hippo, "Church History" attributed to Eusebius, "Sacred History" attributed to Sulpitius Severus, "De Viris Illustribus" attributed to Jerome and others.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity do show that Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus has virtually ZERO Provenance and was a very very late forgery fabricated around 1000 years AFTER Tacitus was dead.

 

[JaysonR]

"Who?"

 

[Horatius]

If you have to get the B-Jesus out before A-Jesus comes in, why kill him? Why not just scare him out?

I saw what you did there.

 

[proudfootz]

Who did the Middle Ages Orthodox Church need to prove Jesus' historicity to, and further who was demanding secondary non-apologetic citation?

It's not clear whether anyone was 'demanding' proof of an historical Jesus at that time.

However, christian authors and apologists like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius often cite pagan references to Jesus or Christ just the same in making their arguments.

I am only observing that this specific reasoning that such citations require a debate about historicity seems incomplete in its considerations.

 

[maximara]

Not that I have any concern over Tacitus, but the logic implied that Tacitus is false because no one cited him (like Wikipedia rules for entry into validity) is a bit odd.

Perhaps I'm missing something that is obvious, so forgive me if I am, but why is it inherently held as the absolute case that the apologist list would either be aware of the entry, or if aware, would want to use it or be allowed to use it for citation?

Which (like Jospehus) is the point. Move over Christian works right after Tacitus don't mention this event either.

The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE CE) does have Nero burning Christians to death but this is around death of Paul ie 67 CE some three years after the fire and no mention of Nero blaming the Christians for the fire is made.

The later "The Acts of Peter" (late 2nd century CE) has Nero considering to "destroy all those brethren who had been made disciples by Peter" but had a dream after Peter's death (either 64 or 67 CE) but has a dream which said 'you cannot now persecute or destroy the servants of Christ.' and a frightened Nero 'kept away from the disciples . . . and thereafter the brethren kept together with one accord . . '.

Moreover, Josephus and Pliny the Elder who were both in Rome c 64 CE don't mention Christians at all which would be impossible if Nero was trying to blame them for the fire.

So not only do non Christians who were in Rome at the time not notice Nero's persecution of Christians but the Christians themselves appear to unaware of it as well and instead give two wildly contradictory accounts--either Nero killed Christians with Paul some three years after the fire or he had a dream resulting him leaving them alone which could have been as early as 64...the year of the fire.

This should send up a red flag up faster then a 25 car pile up at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway about the Tacitus passage being history.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Oh, I hadn't caught that! Nice!

 

[Belz...]

Religion is a product of ignorance.

For once I find myself agreeing with you. I will add that bias despite knowledge may also contribute.

 

[Belz...]

But just as all religious fanatics can agree that an atheist is worse than a heretic, bible academics largely agree that the most evil people are those who don't take their faith in a real Jesus seriously enough.

Stone claims that "mythers", as he calls them, are a cult, and you claim that historicists (please don't call them 'hysterics') are one as well, as implied above.

Let's just say that the two sides have been talking past each other for months now.

 

[Belz...]

Apparently someone is recklessly 'reporting' posts to the moderators.

Such behavior seems to indicate that there is material these 'reporters' are afraid of being discussed in an open and honest way.

Really ? I thought people usually report what they believe is against the Membership Agreement.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Ah, OK then the serious Scholarly approach then?

It might surprise you to learn that not many Academics will agree with your conclusions.

Of course they don't agree. They can't overcome the hidebound thinking of conventional education. The Wizard gave me an honorary doctorate in Thinkogy and I've never studied the Bible formally. Thus, my mind is free to see the truth.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In this case, serious. I'm not the first person to read the gospels this way - Heinlein wrote Stranger In A Strange Land based on the notion, and he wasn't the first either.

I grok that.

 

[proudfootz]

Stone claims that "mythers", as he calls them, are a cult, and you claim that historicists (please don't call them 'hysterics') are one as well, as implied above.

Let's just say that the two sides have been talking past each other for months now.

Please don't put me in the same category as Stone.

People who are not regular readers of this or any forum I participate in might take such absurd comparisons seriously.

 

[Belz...]

Please don't put me in the same category as Stone.

People who are not regular readers of this or any forum I participate in might take such absurd comparisons seriously.

Then don't act like him.

 

[Belz...]

I disagree with you, abbadon, regarding the existence of a singular character who formed the seed of the Jesus myth. The man Yeshu bin Yusuf existed, raised a rabble and was strung up by the Romans as a troublemaker. The conspiracy started with the theft of the body from the tomb and subsequent disposal of the body. My researches on cults in general and middle eastern primitive religions both suggest a possibility of ritual cannibalism. In the instance of Yeshu, his core group of followers consumed knowingly and the peripheral members consumed unknowingly. The remainder was tossed into the Sea of Tiberias by Simon and peter.

...evidence ?

 

[IanS]

Cripes, you mean dejudge moved the goalposts further than I ever thought possible? Josephus? Da heck?

Tacitus wrote that people in Rome were following someone who suffered the ultimate penalty under Pilate. Dejudge's arguments, while zealously held, have notably failed to contradict this point. In fact, they are so poor that Tacitus as proof of the historicity of the early Christians is fully established in my view.

You regard Tacitus as "fully established" "proof" of anything he himself knew when he wrote about Jesus or about early Christians?

What did Tacitus actually write about Jesus and Christians? You do not know. You cannot possibly know. Because we have absolutely nothing that he wrote about Jesus or about any Christians he knew.

All that we have under the name "Tacitus" is, apparently, some copies made by Christians themselves 1000 years and more after Tacitus had died!

That huge time lapse might not be completely fatal to Tacitus as a source on Jesus, if he had written extensively and in detail about Jesus and his personal followers. But he did not. Like Josephus and the rest, Tacitus barely wrote anything at all about Jesus and his contemporary Christian disciples.

And moreover, Tacitus was not even supposed to have been born until decades after Jesus was thought to have died. So anything he did ever write about Jesus and his Christian disciples, could only have been hearsay anyway. And since he never says where he obtained his very brief mention of Jesus, that hearsay source is also anonymous.

As "proof" of anything to do with anyone knowing any living Jesus, Tacitus is completely worthless.

 

[proudfootz]

I don't follow how the scholarly theory that the figure of Jesus might be every bit as historical as Adam, Noah, Jonah, Job, and other bible characters somehow qualifies as a 'conspiracy theory'?

Is it a 'conspiracy theory' to suggest the Greek gods were mythical beings?