The Historical Jesus III

[The Big Dog]

Your posts are a waste of time. You have ZERO evidence of an historical Jesus.

You had NO idea that Tacitus had serious problems with history and mythology.

Tacitus believed myth/fiction characters like Romulus and Christus were figures of history.

Romulus and Christus were born of a Ghost.

When Romulus and Christus died their bodies vanished and day was turned into night.

Romulus and Christus ascended to heaven AFTER they were raised from the dead.

The assumed HJ was NOT Christus [anointed]

The assumed HJ was an obscure criminal/rebel/preacher/IDIOT/False prophet/ wizard/LIAR/ some unknown crazy man or modern fiction derived from FALSE assertions.

Worldwide scholarly consensus:

Tacitus, in full Publius Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born ad 56—died c. 120), Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language. Among his works are the Germania, describing the Germanic tribes, the Historiae (Histories), concerning the Roman Empire from ad 69 to 96, and the later Annals, dealing with the empire in the period from ad 14 to 68.

Antitheist desperate to discredit anything relating to Jesus:

Tacitus believed in ghosts!

From a historical perspective, I'm not really impressed with appeals to emotion.

 

[Belz...]

Antitheist desperate to discredit anything relating to Jesus:

Tacitus believed in ghosts!

From a historical perspective, I'm not really impressed with appeals to emotion.

If you've ever made a mistake, no one can ever trust you with anything again. If Plato believed in gods, his philosophy is useless nonsense. If Alexander killed a baby who was a potential future rival, his empire was founded on barbarism. If Caesar thanked the gods for his fortunes, the Roman Empire was built on fantasy. Etc.

 

[tsig]

Worldwide scholarly consensus:

Tacitus, in full Publius Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born ad 56—died c. 120), Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language. Among his works are the Germania, describing the Germanic tribes, the Historiae (Histories), concerning the Roman Empire from ad 69 to 96, and the later Annals, dealing with the empire in the period from ad 14 to 68.

Antitheist desperate to discredit anything relating to Jesus:

Tacitus believed in ghosts!

From a historical perspective, I'm not really impressed with appeals to emotion.

Has anything an atheist ever posted that did impress you?

 

[Belz...]

Has anything an atheist ever posted that did impress you?

16.5 is refering to antitheists, not atheists.

 

[Craig B]

If you have followed the link provided you would know the answer to that question. Stop being lazy and actually follow the links provided.

It's going, going, it is gone. The logical ball is out of the park! The Christ Mythers win the Pennant! The Christ Mythers win the Pennant!

This is all great stuff, maximara.

 

[Mcreal]

Worldwide scholarly consensus:

Tacitus, in full Publius Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born ad 56—died c. 120), Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language. Among his works are the Germania, describing the Germanic tribes, the Historiae (Histories), concerning the Roman Empire from ad 69 to 96, and the later Annals, dealing with the empire in the period from ad 14 to 68.

Yes, Agricola, Germania, and Historiae are considered good works, but Annals less so -

Though his work is the most reliable source for the history of his era, its factual accuracy is occasionally questioned: the Annals are based in part on secondary sources of unknown reliability, and there are some obvious minor mistakes (for instance confusing the two daughters of Mark Antony and Octavia Minor, both named Antonia). The Histories, written from primary documents and personal knowledge of the Flavian period, is thought to be more accurate, though Tacitus's hatred of Domitian seemingly colored its tone and interpretations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitean_studies

and

Since the 18th century at least five attempts have been made to challenge the authenticity of the Annals as having been written by someone other than Tacitus, Voltaire's criticism being perhaps the first.[6] Voltaire (d. 1778) was generally critical of Tacitus and said that Tacitus did not comply with the standards for providing a historical background to civilization.[7] In 1878 John Wilson Ross and in 1890 Polydore Hochart suggested that the whole of the Annals had been forged by the Italian scholar Poggio Bracciolini (1380–1459).[8][9][10] According to Robert Van Voorst this was an "extreme hypothesis" which never gained a following among modern scholars.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)

references above #1606

and

Annals is, suspiciously, missing information from around 29 CE to 32 CE: that highly relevant time-frame for the alleged key events at the start of Christianity, in the rule of Tiberius. Robert Drews theorizes that the only plausible explanation for this gap is that the embarrassment of Tacitus making no mention of Jesus’ crucifixion (or associated events such as 'the darkness covering the world' or the appearances of resurrected saints) led to Christian scribes destroying this portion of the text, and to perhaps fabricate the Book 15 reference.¹
1 Robert Drews (1984), “The Lacuna in Tacitus’ Annales Book Five in the Light of Christian Traditions”,
. . . . . . . American Journal of Ancient History. no. 9: pp. 112-122.

 

[Mcreal]

Fortunately critical thinkers know that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

'absence of evidence' can very well be because of absence per se

nor do serious scholars believe that the section was fabricated let alone the entire book, as you seem to claim.

"serious" scholars lol - such a loaded bare assertion

Most scholars are not scholarly enough to consider it.

Anti-theists have long been twisted into knots by the simple reference in Tacitus.

lol. As have theists and other pro-'historicists'

 

[The Big Dog]

Yet

and

and

that is odd... you just reposted the same comment you made earlier...

That seems to be a thing around here.

Plus citing to actual bona fide Nazis

 

[Mcreal]

that is odd... you just reposted the same comment you made earlier...

b/c you fail to acknowledge; b/c you continue to assert; b/c you ignore nuance;

and, notice I edited the first sentence -

and Yes, Agricola, Germania, and Historiae are considered good works, but Annals less so -​

 

[Mcreal]

Plus citing to actual bona fide Nazis

You're a piece of work; besides, Arthur Drews wrote Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus in 1912

That link - in this post - is to the full wikisource version ^

 

[dejudge]

Worldwide scholarly consensus:

Tacitus, in full Publius Cornelius Tacitus, or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (born ad 56—died c. 120), Roman orator and public official, probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language. Among his works are the Germania, describing the Germanic tribes, the Historiae (Histories), concerning the Roman Empire from ad 69 to 96, and the later Annals, dealing with the empire in the period from ad 14 to 68.

Antitheist desperate to discredit anything relating to Jesus:

Tacitus believed in ghosts!

From a historical perspective, I'm not really impressed with appeals to emotion.

People who are desperate claim Tacitus' Annals mention a character called Jesus when he did not.

It is an obvious blatant fallacy.

There is a worlwide consensus that Tacitus' Annals mentions the word the ANOINTED [christos]--NOT Jesus.


The assumed historical Jesus was NOT the anointed.

Tacitus' Annals, in any copy, in any chapter, in any line, does not identify a person named Jesus who was an obscure criminal/rebel/IDIOT/false prophet/Liar/.

Tacitus believed that Myth/Fiction characters like Romulus, Christus, Jupiter, Diana, Hercules and others did exist as real figures of history.

Romulus and Christus were BORN of Ghosts and Virgins.

 

[The Big Dog]

There is a worlwide consensus that Tacitus' Annals mentions the word the ANOINTED [christos]--NOT Jesus.

The word "ANNOINTED" suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate.

world wide consensus that Pilate crucified a word.

World wide.

Check, we'll make a note of it. Thanks for checking in.

/Christ.....

 

[dejudge]

The word "ANNOINTED" suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate.

world wide consensus that Pilate crucified a word.

World wide.

Check, we'll make a note of it. Thanks for checking in.

/Christ.....

You have exposed your absurdity and lack of knowledge.

You had NO idea that the Greek word χριστον for Anointed was used hundreds of years BEFORE and AFTER the myth/fiction fables called the New Testament.

You had no idea that Jewish Kings and High Priest were called the Anointed [χριστον]

"χριστον"--the anointed one.

1 samuel26:16 --και ουκ αγαθον το ρημα τουτο ο πεποιηκας ζη κυριος οτι υιοι θανατωσεως υμεις οι φυλασσοντες τον βασιλεα κυριον υμων τον χριστον κυριου και νυν ιδε δη το δορυ του βασιλεως και ο φακος του υδατος που εστιν τα προς κεφαλης αυτου.

Please, just go and get familiar with the meaning of the Greek word χριστον.

 

[dejudge]

I would not say I forgot them... Lolz, just funning ya.

Say it seems that you "forgot" to address my last post!

I am obligated to address your absurdities and logically fallacious arguments.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus is a blatant forgery.

Non-apologetic writers of antiquity wrote NOTHING about Jesus and Paul up to at least the 4th century or up to the time of Julian the Emperor.

Tacitus' Annals 15.44 with Christus was MANUFACTURED at least AFTER the time of Julian's Against the Galileans or after c 350 CE.

 

[Mcreal]

There is no reason to get emotional about it, it is just another example of one of the finest Historians of antiquity being thrown under the bus because he mentioned that Jesus "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

Tacitus is authentic and authoritative on this Christ point, wouldn't it be best to address it head on rather than desperately attacking the foundation of the long proven evidence?

It is simply an allegation that a Jesus suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Annals is not an authentic and authoritative "Christ point".

Suetonius refers to a vague Chrestus in the times of Claudius who preceded Nero.

Who knows who the Christ was in Annals? a pagan? an medieval interpolation?

 

[The Big Dog]

You have exposed your absurdity and lack of knowledge.

You had NO idea that the Greek word χριστον for Anointed was used hundreds of years BEFORE and AFTER the myth/fiction fables called the New Testament.

You had no idea that Jewish Kings and High Priest were called the Anointed [χριστον]

"χριστον"--the anointed one.

1 samuel26:16 --και ουκ αγαθον το ρημα τουτο ο πεποιηκας ζη κυριος οτι υιοι θανατωσεως υμεις οι φυλασσοντες τον βασιλεα κυριον υμων τον χριστον κυριου και νυν ιδε δη το δορυ του βασιλεως και ο φακος του υδατος που εστιν τα προς κεφαλης αυτου.

Please, just go and get familiar with the meaning of the Greek word χριστον.

Oh... I see... someone referred to as χριστον suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate and several years later his followers known as Christians were attracting the attention of Nero in Rome.

GOTCHA!

You know who I think χριστον was? Who else suffered the extreme penalty???

JESUS! YAY!

 

[dejudge]

Oh... I see... someone referred to as χριστον suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate and several years later his followers known as Christians were attracting the attention of Nero in Rome.

GOTCHA!

You know who I think χριστον was? Who else suffered the extreme penalty???

JESUS! YAY!

We already know that there are billions of people who believe WITHOUT evidence.

Tacitus also believed Romulus was the founder of Rome.

Please, just go and tell the Church what you believe.

This is not Sunday School.

Your baseless BELIEF is of no value.

There is NO evidence of an historical Jesus--Never was.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is simply an allegation that a Jesus suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilate.

Annals is not an authentic and authoritative "Christ point".

Suetonius refers to a vague Chrestus in the times of Claudius who preceded Nero.

Who knows who the Christ was in Annals? a pagan? an medieval interpolation?

somebody that suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate obviously.

Not sure why everyone is having a problem with the fact that it is a dude who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate, so obviously not whoever the hell Suetonis was referring to OBVIOUSLY.

Unless it was those crafty forgers that DeJudge was talking about!

 

[The Big Dog]

We already know that there are billions of people who believe WITHOUT evidence.

Tacitus also believed Romulus was the founder of Rome.

Please, just go and tell the Church what you believe.

This is not Sunday School.

Your baseless BELIEF is of no value.

There is NO evidence of an historical Jesus--Never was.

This is trying to figure out who suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate, and you have come up with TWO mutually exclusive ways of completely dodging the question.

Well three if you count the bull **** dodge about Romulus.

 

[dejudge]

Wait.... you just explained to the assembled multitude that χριστον meant anointed one and we were to get familiar with it, and NOW you are claiming the whole damn thing was a forgery so the forgers used a term that did not refer to Jesus to refer to Jesus?

Well, that does not sound likely, dejudge. Unless they are sending messages into the future to anti-Theists to you know confuse everyone with utterly RIDICULOUS arguments like that.

In that case? Pretty clever, you and the Nazi we talked about earlier, broke the case.

Whenever you mention the Nazis do not forget to mention the Roman Jesus cult of Christians.

Tacitus was a Roman writer who mentioned a character called Christus.



According to the ROMAN Church Jesus Christus was God of God and born of a Ghost who came down from heaven.

The Creed of the Church

And [we believe] in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us, humans, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became fully human.

If Christus in Roman writing of Tacitus is Jesus Christus of the Romans then Christus is a figure of myth/fiction.

Tertullian was a Roman writer.

What did Tertullian the Roman writer say about Jesus Christus.

Tertullian "On the Flesh of Christ"

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

Based on the evidence, if Christus in the Roman writing of Tacitus was Jesus Christus of the Romans then Christus in Tacitus Annals was a myth/fiction character and forged no earlier than the end of the 4th century.