The Historical Jesus III

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm getting worried that we are not going to get a remotely reasonable explanation for just who that guy is that suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate and whose followers called Christians were flourishing about 30 years later in Rome.

I mean lots of directly contradictory explanations that make no sense that we have.
 
Last edited:
Trying to bolster the flimsy 'evidence' such as Tacitus's Annals is all the historical-Jesus crowd have.
 
16.5 said:
I'm getting worried that we are not going to get a remotely reasonable explanation for just who that guy is that suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate and whose followers called Christians were flourishing about 30 years later in Rome.

I mean lots of directly contradictory explanations that make no sense.
Click to expand...
You mean lots of contradictory assertions or flimsy propositions.

There is no information about Chrstians in Rome beyond that dubious Annals reference or Suetonius in Nero 16 -
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition
Click to expand...
They may have been pagan-Christians for all we know
 
Last edited:
Well, I see that our resident correspondents are utterly flummoxed by the "extreme penalty" line in Tacitus... Huh, must be a day that ends in "y".

Have a super night!
 
As far as Suetonius's account in Nero 16: viz. -

"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."
Click to expand...
.
Marius Heemstra thinks Suetonius was backdating the accusation of the practice of a new superstitio in his times to the time of Nero1 (Perhaps it was later edited that way by meddling Christians).

The word translated as "mischievous" in that passage -maleficus - can also mean "magical". It may be that Suetonius is accusing Christians of using "black magic", as Celsus did about 1772.

1 Marius Heemstra (2010) The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways, Mohr Siebeck GmbH & Company, p.89
. . . . . . . . . . . . ISBN 9783161503832

2 Wilken, Robert Louis (2003). The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (2nd ed.). Yale University Press, p. 93.
. . . . . . . . . . . . ISBN 978-0300098396.​
 
Last edited:
Gerald F. Hawthorne (1964) 'Tatian and his Discourse to the Greeks'. Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 57(3); pp 161-188
To one who is familiar with the New Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Tatian's 'Discourse to the Greeks' comes as quite a surprise. Supposedly an apology for Christianity, there is within it not one mention of Christ or Christianity (at least, not in these terms). Other familiar words such as “Jesus,” “Lord,” “Church,” “Savior,” “salvation,” etc., are also absent. Except for a passing reference to “the God who suffered” (15, 5–6), and the unqualified statement that “God was born in the form of a man” (23, 6), one might overlook altogether the fact that Tatian was a 'Churchman'.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7823718​
Tatian lived c. 120-180 AD
 
16.5 said:
I'm getting worried that we are not going to get a remotely reasonable explanation for just who that guy is that suffered the extreme penalty under Pilate and whose followers called Christians were flourishing about 30 years later in Rome.

I mean lots of directly contradictory explanations that make no sense that we have.
Click to expand...

An historical Jesus makes no sense.

16.5 You are afraid to tell us who Christus was in Tacitus' Annals.

In the Pauline Corpus Jesus Christus was God's Own Son from heaven.

Paul was supposedly in Rome in the time of NERO telling people that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven who was RAISED from the dead.

If Christus in the Roman writing of Tacitus was the Jesus Christus of the Roman Church of Paul then Christus was a figure of myth/fiction.

Paul was supposedly in Rome and preaching and documenting that Jesus Christus was the Lord God from heaven and God's own Son since the time of King Aretas.

Don't be afraid 16.5.

Tell us who you think Christus was in the Roman writing of Tacitus?

You can't remember!!!!

The Epistle to the ROMANS.

Romans 1:8 ---First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Drews did? Did it have something to do with the Sudetenland? Nazis were always going on about the Sudetenland....
Click to expand...

Don't forget to mention the ROMAN Jesus cult whenever you talk about Nazis.

Examine the words of Jesus Christus of the Roman Church.

Jesus Christus of the Roman Church HATED the Jews.

Matthew 3:7---- But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

John 8:44---- Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
 
Mcreal said:
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?
Click to expand...
This is really very strange. The question of mediaeval interpolation has been discussed here in great detail, with an abundance of evidence and very profound reasoning; and you casually make comments like that, as if nobody had mentioned it.

But you swallow the whole of Ahmed Osman, who offers no rational evidence at all and is an obvious charlatan and scammer, milking the conspiracy theory market for every penny he can get.
 
Craig B said:
This is really very strange. The question of mediaeval interpolation has been discussed here in great detail, with an abundance of evidence and very profound reasoning; and you casually make comments like that, as if nobody had mentioned it.
Click to expand...
Comments like what??!

The comments of mine you're obscurely having a dig at weren't addressed to you anyway: they were addressed to 16.5 in the context 16.5 is somewhat hard-headed.

Craig B said:
But you swallow the whole of Ahmed Osman, who offers no rational evidence at all and is an obvious charlatan and scammer, milking the conspiracy theory market for every penny he can get.
Click to expand...
I don't like the tone of your accusation that I "swallow" the 'whole' of Osman.

I think there is a lot more to the whole history of those times - 1BC to 4 AD - than we have previously been led to believe, so wider propositions should be considered, especially when it comes to the origins of Christianity and, separately, the presence and influence of pagan/mystery religions present during those times.
 
Last edited:
Mcreal said:
I don't like the tone of your accusation that I "swallow" the 'whole' of Osman.
Click to expand...
Here's what I have in mind.
Mcreal said:
Ahmed Osman (2005) Christianity: an Ancient Egyptian Religion. Bear & Company; ISBN-10: 1591430461, ISBN-13: 978-1591430469

1. "Shows that the Romans fabricated their own version of Christianity and burned the Alexandrian library as a way of maintaining political power

"With the help of modern archaeological findings, Osman shows that Christianity survived as an Egyptian mystery cult until the fourth century A.D., when the Romans embarked on a mission of suppression and persecution. In A.D. 391 the Roman-appointed Bishop Theophilus led a mob into the Serapeum quarter of Alexandria and burned the Alexandrian library, destroying all records of the true Egyptian roots of Christianity. The Romans' version of Christianity, manufactured to maintain political power, claimed that Christianity originated in Judaea."

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-An-Ancient-Egyptian-Religion/dp/1591430461​

2. Osman argues that Christianity has its roots in the Alexandrian Cult of Serapis.

http://www.ru.org/spirituality/egyptian-origins-of-the-judeo-christian-religion.html​
Note that Serapis, Osiris, and Isis were sometime conflated -

Click to expand...
 
I'm fairly certain that the philosophical underpinnings of National Socialism have little to do with the question of whether Jesus existed some 1,900 years earlier. Please stay on topic.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
16.5 has already admitted that he thinks Christus in the Roman writing of Tacitus' is Jesus.

In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker.

According to the ROMAN Church writer Jerome, Peter was preaching about JESUS CHRISTUS in ROME since the 2nd year of Claudius or around c 43 CE at least 12 years BEFORE Tacitus was born.

Peter preached about Jesus Christus in ROME for 25 years which is at least up to c 68 CE.

Jerome's "De Viris Illustribus"
Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia— pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.
Click to expand...



In the writings of the Roman Church, the Jesus cult Christians do NOT worship men as Gods.

In Rome, Jesus Christus was God of God and Born of a Ghost WITHOUT a human father.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3
.....Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church...........These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God.
Click to expand...

If Christus in the copy of the Roman writing "Annals" is Jesus Christus then Christus was a Myth/Fiction character.

Jesus Christus was GOD of God in Rome.

The Jesus cult Christians in ROME do NOT worship men as Gods, Not even the Emperors of Rome.
 
Last edited:
dejudge said:
In Rome, the supposed BISHOPS of Rome, especially Peter and Paul, preached and documented that Jesus Christus was God's Own Son, the Lord from heaven, Born of a Ghost [of the same substance as a Ghost], God Creator and a Transfiguring Water Walker.
Click to expand...
They preached all that? Do you have copies of their sermons?
 
Okay, so the evidence is the Bible, writing from third party sources years after the supposed events and an account from the Talmud which other than a similar name does not match the gospels?

I have to appreciate the irony though of claiming as evidence "science has never observed anything that (or anyone who) could escape death, Jesus’ death is beyond question" while omitting the inconvenient fact that science has also never seen anyone come back from being clinically dead for three days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom