What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

Some people are going to believe and some are not - it's really that simple.
We know there isn't the any physical evidence supporting an historical Jesus, no artifacts or self-written manuscripts. Every claim about Jesus is copied and derived from the writings of other people. There is absolutely no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus, not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus - At all.
This guy was so uber important that the total sum of Zero people wrote about him.
All documents about Jesus are well after the life of the alleged Jesus from unknown authors, people who had never met Jesus, or fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

Now I'm not sharing my beliefs on here as they are personal to me and I have respect for anyone who holds deep or spirtual beliefs - but let's not delude ourselves or try and actually get this story to hold significant historical weight, it doesn't.
It takes faith to believe - early Christians knew that which is why there are many forgeries and many additions and fabrications to make the life of Jesus far more grand.

You either believe or you don't but I firmly believe it is dishonest and entirely false to suggest that there is strong, unbiased and convincing evidence that THE Jesus Christ in the Bible existed.
Whether he existed or not is matter of personal faith and that is all.
Trying to rationally argue about the validity of entirely questionable sources, most of which have been proven forgeries and fraudulent, is nothing but a nonsense.

You either believe it you don't - the rest is noise.
Follow Jesus Christ and live a good and positive life.

originally posted by: stargatetravels
Some people are going to believe and some are not - it's really that simple.
We know there isn't the any physical evidence supporting an historical Jesus, no artifacts or self-written manuscripts. Every claim about Jesus is copied and derived from the writings of other people. There is absolutely no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus, not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus - At all.
This guy was so uber important that the total sum of Zero people wrote about him.
All documents about Jesus are well after the life of the alleged Jesus from unknown authors, people who had never met Jesus, or fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

Now I'm not sharing my beliefs on here as they are personal to me and I have respect for anyone who holds deep or spirtual beliefs - but let's not delude ourselves or try and actually get this story to hold significant historical weight, it doesn't.
It takes faith to believe - early Christians knew that which is why there are many forgeries and many additions and fabrications to make the life of Jesus far more grand.

You either believe or you don't but I firmly believe it is dishonest and entirely false to suggest that there is strong, unbiased and convincing evidence that THE Jesus Christ in the Bible existed.
Whether he existed or not is matter of personal faith and that is all.
Trying to rationally argue about the validity of entirely questionable sources, most of which have been proven forgeries and fraudulent, is nothing but a nonsense.

You either believe it you don't - the rest is noise.
Follow Jesus Christ and live a good and positive life.

Excellent post stargatetravels. It's about the size of it.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: windword

seeing as Jesus is the Christ who's historical words have withstood the test of time...
Well...
I guess the books contained in the bible do not constitute history to you either...
Jesus Christ is in reality an actual historical figure because of this...
it does not matter if you can admit that to yourself or what other twist you put upon it...
Jesus does not need your approval to be the Christ...
nor is it necessary for you to see him to know his truths and thus know him...
When his truths become a part of you it is also true he then dwells within you...
this transpires in this reality and not in the ether...
So tell me again what Christians believe...

You believe in Christ because you have faith. Here we are not talking about faith, which is a blind belief in Jesus, but in historical real evidence.

Most of what the Bible tell us about Jesus have been stolen from older figures such as Hercules, Mithras, etc. Here are some incredible similarities: LINK

Most if not all of Jesus' teachings were also stolen from older sources and many of his teaching are word for word identical with Buddha, who allegedly existed 400 years earlier. LINK

Even his famous 'golden rule' can be found in old pagan, Greek and Jewish texts. None of his words were original.

a reply to: Agartha

I don't understand why the Sheep give a hoot to be honest I thought their faith was enough.
Apparently not eh?.


Oh and everyones wrong but me.
The Great White Monkey was the first with conscious thought and actually made up Buddha and Jesus as a joke but it went too far .

originally posted by: boymonkey74


I don't understand why the Sheep give a hoot to be honest I thought their faith was enough.
Apparently not eh?.


Oh and everyones wrong but me.
The Great White Monkey was the first with conscious thought and actually made up Buddha and Jesus as a joke but it went too far

.

LOL Sorry, Oh Great Monkey, but my faith lies on the Holy Spaghetti Monster!

a reply to: Agartha

Monkey made him up also.
Don't need faith for Monkey the nature of Monkey is irrepressible.

Oh and I forgive you my little Chimp .

a reply to: stargatetravels

User Disraeli made a good point. How many Britons made it into the Roman annals for the whole period of occupation? Could you name even one carpenter or any other artisan who raised the brows of Rome enough for him to be mentioned?

I do agree though, that in the following centuries after Jesus died or left for heaven things got a bit out of hand. If Jesus was a franchise or a pyramid scheme I'd probably say it's the most lucrative one out there. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi of supposed royal descent. That's the lemon. Certain literature started showing up describing him as the only begotten Son of God, who was sacrificed to atone for humanity's original sin and was resurrected by God three days later. That's the lemon juice— sparkling blue and alive able to eat food and read poems and stand on one leg and recite the Torah.

Like I said. Things got out of hand. But to argue there was no Jesus ever existing? Please. He was a bleeding carpenter who happened to be a wise and clever chap who were later worshipped as something of a god.

a reply to: Agartha and boymonkey74

You two know there's a spagetti ape out there, right? Even straighter outright than its former evolutionary states. The spagetti monster is evolving into something more comfortable I think. Chimping himself up a wee bit, likely in order to appear more attractive and pleasing for both humans and Elohimian man-keepers alike.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The stranger thing is in 2000 years the internet will be arguing whether I existed or not.
.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Beware the Noodle! It's monstrous!

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: stargatetravels

User Disraeli made a good point. How many Britons made it into the Roman annals for the whole period of occupation? Could you name even one carpenter or any other artisan who raised the brows of Rome enough for him to be mentioned?

How many of said carpenters or artisans drew crowds the size that Jesus did?
How many raised the dead, were murdered for pissing of the establishment, made the kind of waves that JC is said to have made?
If Jesus did all of this then why did nobody write about it at the time?
If he didn't do this stuff and wasn't the son of God and all the other jazz, then why did anyone care what Jesus did?

It's not my fight anyway, I actually side more with those who choose to believe but I'm merely saying from an historical, legal and reality based perspective - there really isn't enough to say that there is any fact or truth in these tales.
The words, morals, parables and philosophy for sure have meaning and resonate with folks - but it also isn't unique or original.
When you strip away the myth and legend you're not left with much, if anything, of substance for the argument for an historical Jesus or biblical Jesus.

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: stargatetravels

User Disraeli made a good point. How many Britons made it into the Roman annals for the whole period of occupation? Could you name even one carpenter or any other artisan who raised the brows of Rome enough for him to be mentioned?

How many of said carpenters or artisans drew crowds the size that Jesus did?
How many raised the dead, were murdered for pissing of the establishment, made the kind of waves that JC is said to have made?
If Jesus did all of this then why did nobody write about it at the time?
If he didn't do this stuff and wasn't the son of God and all the other jazz, then why did anyone care what Jesus did?

It's not my fight anyway, I actually side more with those who choose to believe but I'm merely saying from an historical, legal and reality based perspective - there really isn't enough to say that there is any fact or truth in these tales.
The words, morals, parables and philosophy for sure have meaning and resonate with folks - but it also isn't unique or original.
When you strip away the myth and legend you're not left with much, if anything, of substance for the argument for an historical Jesus or biblical Jesus.

I thought we were talking about the man behind the myths here, we are not discussing church dogma here, but the source of the biggest religious movement the world has ever seen. I don't believe the crap they say about Kim in North Korea either, that he discovered a unicorn egg and that he invented colour TV. But I wouldn't dream of doubting Kim himself was real as sausages is real, whatever they choose to stuff into those sausages doesn't change the fact that we are talking about sausages. I am talking about the historical character behind the Jesus myths. It is nonsense to claim he never existed. It's intellectual suicide.

The real Jesus was supposedly a Jewish rabbi and a builder of royal descent with some very interesting ways of looking at things. Besides, you can easily make great soup for thousands of people from a few fish, you can make soup on rusty nails if you like, well, it would likely be more like fish tea, but with a handful of salt and maybe some bones and a few leaves of coriander and a bit of garlic... and not to mention, back then they called dolphins and whales fish. Which reminds me: Does the text say anything about the size of Jesus' fishes and loaves? Wouldn't a pita the size of St.Peter's Square be enough bread for a few thousand people. Besides. Who said Jesus drew these crowds? Wasn't he merely attending? There were plenty festivals at the time and hey, I have helped organise festivals of ten times the number Jesus could muster, and I will hardly be remembered in a hundred years from now.

I suppose you could feed 5000 people easily with a few monstrous pitas baked in the desert sand. Video below shows how the Berbers are doing it (catchy tune too):

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Oh there absolutely could have been a Rabbi who pissed off the Pharisees and Herodians enough to get himself killed and all his friends were annoyed and vowed to keep the memory of their friend alive.
Just like there may have been a guy similar to Robin Hood who the stories are based on.
Whether a Jesus existed or not is ultimately irrelevant is it not?
Those who believe will always believe and those who don't, won't.
Yes there will be converts and there will be those who lose faith also, but the existence of an historical Jesus is entirely irrelevant to those on either side of the debate.
All of this mental masturbation is completely pointless.

a reply to: stargatetravels

According to four different accounts Jesus managed to feed 5000 (or 4000) from five (or seven) loaves and two (or a few) fish. Let's take a look at the numbers.

To feed one person with fish and bread, you'll need about 250 grams of fish and 50 grams of bread.
Thus, to feed 5000 you'll need:

==> 0.25kg x 5000 ==> 1.25 metric ton fish meat or two Atlantic bluefin tunas
==> 0.05kg x 5000 ==> 250kg bread or five breads of 50 kg each

In clear text this tells us that Jesus' breads weighed about 50kg each and the two fishes might have been two Atlantic Bluefinned tunas common in the Mediterranean ocean ==> en.wikipedia.org... ==> weighs about half a ton a piece. And those aren't even the biggest fish in the area.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: stargatetravels

According to four different accounts Jesus managed to feed 5000 (or 4000) from five (or seven) loaves and two (or a few) fish. Let's take a look at the numbers.

To feed one person with fish and bread, you'll need about 250 grams of fish and 50 grams of bread.
Thus, to feed 5000 you'll need:

==> 0.25kg x 5000 ==> 1.25 metric ton fish meat or two Atlantic bluefin tunas
==> 0.05kg x 5000 ==> 250kg bread or five breads of 50 kg each

In clear text this tells us that Jesus' breads weighed about 50kg each and the two fishes might have been two Atlantic Bluefinned tunas common in the Mediterranean ocean ==> en.wikipedia.org... ==> weighs about half a ton a piece. And those aren't even the biggest fish in the area.

Isn't the sea of galilee fresh water? Or are you claiming they were transported overland from the mediterranean? More than a little imaginative largesse going on there lol. Could be seen as special pleading.

At any rate, that doesn't sound like the “Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?” as told in the gospels (John). Especially as in context it was seen as miraculous enough to have people believe jesus was some sort of messiah, who had already performed healing miracles and shortly after, also walked on water.

There is no way to really know if jesus existed historically. There probably never will be. All we know is that if he did, no contemporary thought him special enough to write about (which seems to put paid to the notion of any biblical version of jesus having existed).

The best the extra biblical references support, is that Christians existed who believed in such stories in the early 2nd century (the Josephus passage being an obvious forgery). Even within religious writings, it's debatable whether Paul knew of any historical person named jesus and about half (at this stage) of his letters are thought to be forgeries. The gospels themselves don't seem to have been referenced by anyone until the middle/later half of the 2nd century.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
At any rate, that doesn't sound like the “Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish

The Greek text says nothing about the size of the loaves and the fish. It is just assumed they'd be small breads and small fish, as the story speaks of a wee boy selling them.

Gr. Ἔστιν (is) παιδάριον (a boy) ὧδε (here) ὃς (who) ἔχει (has) πέντε (five) ἄρτους (loaves) κριθίνους (barley) καὶ (and) δύο (two) ὀψάρια (food for bread ex. fish or meat). (Nestle 1904, John 6:9)

The synoptic gospels have the word Gr. ἰχθύας «ichthyas» (fish):

Gr. πέντε (five) ἄρτους (loaves) καὶ (and) δύο (two) ἰχθύας (fish). (Nestle 1904, Matthew 14:17)

Ichthys is a funny word in a Christian sense, it didn't merely mean fish to the early Christians, it is an anagram for Gr. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ» that is «Iesous Khristos, Theou Hyios, Soter» or «Jesus Christ, God's Son, Redeemer»

So no specifications on sizes of bread and fish, and words used for fish may mean anything really. John's ὀψάρια means simply food, while Ichthys was frequently used as code for Christ himself and the Kingdom of God.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
At any rate, that doesn't sound like the “Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish

The Greek text says nothing about the size of the loaves and the fish. It is just assumed they'd be small breads and small fish, as the story speaks of a wee boy selling them.

Gr. Ἔστιν (is) παιδάριον (a boy) ὧδε (here) ὃς (who) ἔχει (has) πέντε (five) ἄρτους (loaves) κριθίνους (barley) καὶ (and) δύο (two) ὀψάρια (food for bread ex. fish or meat). (Nestle 1904, John 6:9)

The synoptic gospels have the word Gr. ἰχθύας «ichthyas» (fish):

Gr. πέντε (five) ἄρτους (loaves) καὶ (and) δύο (two) ἰχθύας (fish). (Nestle 1904, Matthew 14:17)

So no specifications on sizes of bread and fish, and words used for fish may mean anything really. John's ὀψάρια means simply food, while Ichthys was frequently used as code for Christ himself and the Kingdom of God.

This is the relevant verse from John (6.9).(link at bottom of post). I notice you left a rather relevant part of it out of your quote ie. the part where they wonder how these 5 loaves and 2 small fish could feed so many. If it was bluefin tuna and 250 kg of bread (lol), why would they be so concerned with that?

Ἔστιν παιδάριον ὧδε ὃς ἔχει πέντε ἄρτους κριθίνους καὶ δύο ὀψάρια· ἀλλὰ ταῦτα τί ἐστιν εἰς τοσούτους;"

Which, according to Strong's Concordance, most definitely does refer to "small fish". The question is also asked in this verse "but how far will this go among so many?" Which is making your interpretation sound a bit unreasonable, wouldn't you say?

Not up on ancient Greek, but I know other old languages would rarely if ever have a word for word literal translation anyway. They have to be interpreted, regularly by using context. Even if we overlook that no one knows what the original said anyway and the copies we do have, show hallmarks of "redaction" (according to Ehrman).

Apart from all of this. You're assuming a small boy happened to be dragging at least two bluefin tuna across country from the mediterranean ... and also just happened to have been carrying enough bread to feed 5000 people (250 kg, according to you)...with enough left over to fill 12 baskets!?!?

Sounds legit lol....

It's not jesus they should have been marvelling at lol. Some good reasons here why many don't take such biblical arguments seriously.

biblehub.com...

biblehub.com...

www.biblegateway.com...

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Conjecture. And I suggest you use more than just Strong's and KJV. It's practical, but very outdated I'm afraid. The word used for fish in John here, simply means food. Plato refers to onions as ὀψάρια. It means food that can be eaten together with food. The boy had 5-7 units of what we must assume was fish of some sort, since the synoptic gospels uses the word «Ichthys» which means fish, but was frequently used as code for Jesus himself, and he surely weighed more than a little fish. There is no telling what size, type or weight here.

I used to work a lot with music festivals, and three times every day for about a month each year we would be wondering whether there'd be enough food for all of us hundreds of people who were working. There were tons of food, but still there would be caterers worrying whether there'd be enough food for everyone. A good friend of mine is a chef and finding just the right size portion is nearly a science of its own. You assume too much.

Ever been to a fish market and bought fish from kids? Is there a rule as for what size fish kids can trade? The text says nothing about the kid carrying them, only that he has them available. They could be whales even, back then whales were counted as fish. How about five small, but still 15 ton blue whales? If a fish is big enough to contain Jesus Christ as his trademark does, I suppose it could feed quite a few more people than a few.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Come on - they were not whales, these were small fish.
Those there certainly saw what they had as a small amount.

Andrew asked: "What are [five loaves and two fish] for so many?”

And Philip exclaimed, ““It would take more than half a year’s wages to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!”

So if they had whales and 50ft Pitta breads as you ludicrously suggest, why would anyone doubt that the 15,000 or so people could be fed.
There were 5000 men, plus woman and children as an addition to the number of men.
This is the only other 'miracle' except the the Ressurection to be 'recorded' in all 4 gospels - why would they all claim such a miracle and such a 'small' amount of food was "Multiplied" into more and spread among the people?
It makes no sense - also not only was there enough, there was too much - 12 baskets of leftovers.
It's an allegorical tale and not a literal account of an actual event.

Nobody who believes in God will want for anything.

Little is much when God is in it.

originally posted by: stargatetravels
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Come on - they were not whales, these were small fish.
Those there certainly saw what they had as a small amount.

No the text doesn't say. Where do you have Small from, and what makes you think worrying about having enough food for 5000 people with the food provided, would imply they were talking about five small fish? It would at least have be just about enough, for them even to worry about hitting the target. Think for yourself: Would you even worry about five fishes being enough for 5000 people if you knew they weighed a mere pound each?

You have your assumption that the text implies the fishes being little from poorly translated English bibles and Strong's telling us they were small fishes since the powers behind those bibles have founded their whole business upon Jesus being all impossible, magical and miraculous. He was just a guy who had a few witty solutions.

And yes, the text doesn't say anything about the nature of the bread other than that it was made of barley. A bread of 50kg is about 100 punds. How big is a 100 pound bread? As you'd understand it's not really that big, and certainly not too difficult to handle and make.