What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

All assumption too - oh ya, a witty guy with good solutions.
It's just a nonsensical debate based on loose interpretation and assumptions.

a reply to: stargatetravels

Yes, the Greek text doesn't specify anything other that Jesus had no problem feeding 5000 people with a few fish and bread. We can assume that Jesus was serving big game fish here.

Swordfish, tuna, shark several species of whales and dolphins etc. Jesus would have had no problem feeding 5000 people if he had two whales, or two big swordfish or tunas.

And how big is a bread?

This big? ==> metro.co.uk...

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

Conjecture.

Christ's very historical existence is conjecture based on scant or very poor historical evidence. No one knows whether he really existed.

You assume too much.

Yes, some massive assumptions...unlike the following...

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?

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

How big is a fish?

How big is a bread?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Many sources and variations here.
In one case it's a young lad's fish and bread that Jesus magic's into plenty and in others it's not even fish at all.


biblehub.com...

a reply to: stargatetravels

The thing is that so many priests and bishops have said so many things concerning this event that these stories have developed and grown like the leaven of the Pharicees, and with the rules of precedence within the Church a rabbi and carpenter who messed up with the establishment, turned into the Only Begotten Son of God who was willingly sacrificing himself in a pagan ceremony to lift the burdens of sin from mankind. BS in motion.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Well I wholeheartedly agree there.

originally posted by: stargatetravels
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Many sources and variations here.
In one case it's a young lad's fish and bread that Jesus magic's into plenty and in others it's not even fish at all.


biblehub.com...

The word translated two fish in John simply means relish, so it could be two boiled fishes, two containers of sliced ham or it could be relish made from two tunas. What is certain, is that there were no magic happening here. Jesus didn't turn two fried trouts into tons of food. There was a way to understand these things that Jesus only shared with his closest disciples. Parables and fairytales for the ones on the outside, like how a report of a man walking on water may sound unbelievable, until you learn the secret that, say, the lake was frozen solid? No problem. Or that he made a float? The Genesareth Lake was not really a lake, it was a pond in Jesus' backyard?

Jesus was an orator and a wise and witty one, and well versed and really clever humour and punchlines, tons of wordplay lost in translation and, well, it was probably just supposed to be fun all the way to the bank, as some way to make a living, and then it all got very frightening and it became their fun little games became dead serious all of a sudden they were wanted dead or alive across the whole Roman Empire.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

How big is a fish?

In all likelihood, about this big.

Nun says there are 18 species of indigenous fish in the Sea of Galilee, and that 10 of those are important commercially. The edible fish are classified as follows:

Musht. This group includes the popular Tilapia Galilea, commonly called Saint Peter’s fish.

Biny (Barbels). “This group consists of three species of the Carp family.” The two most common species are the Barbus longiceps and the Barbus Canis. Both are used by Jews for Sabbath meals and feasts.

Kinneret Sardine. “At the height of the fishing season, tens of tons of sardines are caught every night.” In New Testament times these fish were preserved by pickling. Magdala was known as the center of this industry.

The Musht is and was one of the most popular fish to be consumed as there flat shape makes them ideal for the frying pan. They also have few small bones and an easily removable spine. These characteristics make this type of fish the primary fish of the Sea of Galilee.

thewikibible.pbworks.com...

ferrelljenkins.wordpress.com...

How big is a bread?

About this big.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

How big is a fish?

In all likelihood, about this big.

So, what you say is it's likely that Jesus fedd 5000 people with two herrings? When he had plenty big game fish available a few miles away, from the Mediterranean Ocean? Besides, where are Jesus and the others sailing here?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

How big is a fish?

In all likelihood, about this big.

So, what you say is it's likely that Jesus fedd 5000 people with two herrings? When he had plenty big game fish available a few miles away, from the Mediterranean Ocean? Besides, where are Jesus and the others sailing here?

No, I highly doubt any such person as described in the bible actually existed. The gospel authors claim he did this and in context, are obviously inferring a miracle. It is far more likely to be a "parable". A story that might not have been historically true, but is used to convey a message or contain a deeper meaning.

It isn't "a few miles away" it is about 27 miles away over undulating terrain (it is also the Mediterranean "sea"). In John's version (or the anonymous account erroneously attributed to John) you have to account for a boy randomly being there with stocks of blue fin tuna/ blue whales and having baked 5 strange loaves equalling possibly hundreds/thousands of loaves of traditional bread. This doesn't sound very feasible. Also that he was simply willing to give all of this away, or did jesus and his apostles simply take his food?

This is one of the problems with treating the gospels as historical accounts. It's very unlikely, somewhat unlikely they were ever supposed to be that.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

You said it yourself 116 AD. That is not contempary.

a reply to: Cypress

It was written according to the very strict Roman doctrines of historiography that made Rome the great empire it was. There is no reason to believe that Tacitus did not rest (that's a double negative) his works on the most accurate Roman and other available sources now lost that he could find. I'd say demanding contemporary eyewitness accounts before claiming anything in regards to the history were ideas established and developed by said Rome, and knowing how important history was for the Roman elite and for the Empire, I can hardly see your response as anything other than what some might call intellectual suicide.

Publius or Gaius Cornelius Tacitus was of the Roman school, and would most likely rely on the best available sources, like whatever eye witness accounts and sources unavailable to us today— that he indeed had available. There would also be plenty relevant sources still alive during his lifetime (he seems to have died a few years before 120 AD). For all I know he was murdered by Rome (this is a conspiracy site after all) for publishing material on Christus and Christians and Nero, but since his references were so ambiguous Rome figured they'd keep it, after all, it happened a century before his works were published. But there was clearly at least to me— a damnatio memoriae on both Jesus and everything relating to him and his mob.

Tacitus is not another Herodotus to add marvels to the usual seven. I have yet to see anyone being able to prove Tacitus a forgery, but I may be wrong. I'd love to see evidence of Tacitus being a forgery.

What I find very interesting is that critics of Biblical accounts & persons once upon a time held a un-wavering belief that figures of the Bible such as Sennacherib, Pontius Pilate, Herod & more did not exist apart from only references in the Bible. The thing is that because of archaeological findings & secular history we now can say that these people did exist from secular historical accounts as well.

In the case of Jesus, aside from the Gospel accounts, the historian Flavius Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus also states that Jesus ''(Christus), from whom Christians took their name'' was a real person & not mythical. As Utnapisjtim said Rome's historical record keeping ''was written according to the very strict Roman doctrines of historiography that made Rome the great empire it was. There is no reason to believe that Tacitus did not rest (that's a double negative) his works on the most accurate Roman and other available sources. Roman historians took reports on eyewitness accounts very serious as they were part of Roman secular historical facts. Neither Flavius Josephus nor Tacitus had anything to gain from their recordings on someone they did not believe to be the Jews divine Messiah, but none the less a real living person.

No one has proven the burden that historian Flavius Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus' records on Jesus ''Christus'' are forgeries. Up to the 3rd century Christianity & Christians were despised of, hated & persecuted in every way imaginable until the diplomacy of Constantine made Christianity the state religion by fusing in pagan believers doctrines from borrowed religions & infused them with the teachings of a watered down replica of Christianity in order to win the popularity vote among his citizens.

originally posted by: Transparent
What I find very interesting is that critics of Biblical accounts & persons once upon a time held a un-wavering belief that figures of the Bible such as Sennacherib, Pontius Pilate, Herod & more did not exist apart from only references in the Bible. The thing is that because of archaeological findings & secular history we now can say that these people did exist from secular historical accounts as well.

Got anything to back this up with? So that it won't sound like a sweeping generalisation and possibly somewhat empty religiously motivated claim. I hear similar claims a lot, haven't seen them backed up yet.

"Critics of biblical accounts and persons" and "once upon a time" seems rather vague. Who were they, how many were there specifically? Was there a formal "people of the unwavering belief that certain figures from the bible did not exist" society or something lol?

a reply to: Transparent

The Josephus passage about Jesus have been proven to be a forgery by many Christian scholars since the 1800s.
A few references:
- Charles Guignebert, Jesus, 1956.
- Dr. Lardner (a prominent Christian authority), Christian mythology unveiled, 1842.
- Origen (a church father), Contra Celsus book 1, 248 AD.
And many many more.

The Tacitus passage has also been shown to be a forgery, lots of info on this thread (see my post on page 1).

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Transparent

The Josephus passage about Jesus have been proven to be a forgery by many Christian scholars since the 1800s.
A few references:
- Charles Guignebert, Jesus, 1956.
- Dr. Lardner (a prominent Christian authority), Christian mythology unveiled, 1842.
- Origen (a church father), Contra Celsus book 1, 248 AD.
And many many more.

The Tacitus passage has also been shown to be a forgery, lots of info on this thread (see my post on page 1).

What would possibly make you say that? Was it because the early christian apologists familiar with Tacitus such as Clement, Eusebius etc who scoured such documents and compiled mentions of jesus couldn't seem to find it, or at least must have thought it irrelevant, that it has been altered, or that it was only (ahem) magically found to be there in the 1600's after a thousand yrs or so of Christian "safe keeping".....lol?

Only joking, I agree completely. The Josephus one in particular is really clutching at straws.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

hahaha it was magic! I think Eusebius almost had a heart attack after reading Origen and worked hard at putting the 'evidence' right.

Seriously, they are both such clear forgeries, proven to be so by Christian scholars!

And now I wait for somebody to mention the other forgery: the Talmud reference of Jesus Christ.
~sigh~

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

hahaha it was magic! I think Eusebius almost had a heart attack after reading Origen and worked hard at putting the 'evidence' right.

Seriously, they are both such clear forgeries, proven to be so by Christian scholars!

And now I wait for somebody to mention the other forgery: the Talmud reference of Jesus Christ.
~sigh~

Or the Toledot Yeshu if they're really grasping. Though they usually leave that one till last, if at all, for obvious reasons lol.

Apart from the propping up belief in jesus with dubious historical references as in this thread, something ironic about the "no mainstream historian" blah blah blah fallacy usually accompanying such things by jesus supporters, is that many of these "historians" are not actually historians. At least not in the way we would normally think of it.


They often have qualifications in "religious studies" or "new testament studies" and often from religious based institutions (dedicated to the greater glory of jesus) and therefore consider themselves historians. The great "agnostic" defender and champion of jesus they often cite (Ehrman) is a good example. Not that that necessarily precludes decent scholarship I suppose.


The methods also seem overly reliant on assumptions and various criteria rather genuine historical evidence itself (understandable when there really isn't any).


The fallacy probably should more accurately read "very few christian bible scholar doubt the existence of jesus, although amongst historians (ie. people trained in history departments of secular universities) who have bothered to look into it, there seems to be more of a mixed opinion".


ps. If the bible is historically reliable as people claim and all historians think jesus existed, has anyone ever found the "bible" itself, or simply the new testament promoted as a historical book in the "history" section of the library? Why might that be?