It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

page: 15
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

We are not talking of Origen or Josephus here. We are talking of Tacitus. His Annals.




posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Transparent




Whichever way you choose to respond, the fact of the matter is that there is proof of the existence of Jesus.


No. There isn't proof of a biblical Jesus outside of the Bible. However, Jesus, sure, there were plenty of men named Jesus that lived during the 1st century. Josephus names 19 of them. None, however fit the criteria for the times and adventures of one Jesus of Nazareth Christ.


Who are referring to the Bible here? You are? You are biased by the fact that you don't believe the Biblical narrative, neither do I, but to say Jesus never existed because he was a magician is like saying Reagan never existed since he was an actor in movies, they aren't real. I bet in the future people like you will sit an troll down threads claiming politicians like Reagan and Arnold were but makebelieve. Actors never existed.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Honestly, I don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth ever really existed, The compelling evidence leads me to believe that Jesus is a composite figure, made up of some real messianic figures of the day mixed with plenty of mythology.

Certainly, Tacitus' testimony does nothing to proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.



is like saying Reagan never existed since he was an actor in movies


If one of Reagan's make believe characters from a movie was elevated and worshiped as a God in the future, it would be about the same thing. Or, it would be like believing that Hamlet was a real person, because we've seen actors play the role.








edit on 18-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Your compelling evidence is all but laughed at by all serious scholars round the world. You have nothing other than mere speculation. And I don't think you understood anything with my Reagan example. Jesus obviously liked to perform his social-work in the form of grand scale practical jokes. That the guy had humour doesn't mean he's the laughing stock. Gospel is a series of jokes and puns, must have made his efforts easier to handle somehow.
edit on 18-9-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Agartha

We are not talking of Origen or Josephus here. We are talking of Tacitus. His Annals.


First,Transparent mentioned Josephus as evidence, hence my answer.

Second, after this comment of yours I had to explain what I meant about Origen:




Without having read any of the «Christian scholars» you list up except for your out-of-your mind reference to Origen who himself has no doubts on Jesus life and existence. I guess your other references are as noughtwitted as your Origen quote so I don't even bother looking them up.



Origen's words show that Josephus never talked about Jesus 'the Christ'.

And Tacitus again..... what more can we add?



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

What's the problem? Josephus refers to James, brother of Jesus, at some point a scribe has added 'Christ' in the margin. I don't see the problem. Can you cite one papyrus or otherwise text from that age that doesnot contain marginal remarks. That don't make them forgeries. You don't have a case. How many brothers did James the Just have that was named Jesus and who was not the character called Christ?
edit on 18-9-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim




You have nothing other than mere speculation.


No. Using Tacitus as proof of the historical existence of one Jesus of Nazareth is mere speculation.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Utnapisjtim




You have nothing other than mere speculation.


No. Using Tacitus as proof of the historical existence of one Jesus of Nazareth is mere speculation.



My dad is stronger than your dad!



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Agartha

What's the problem? Josephus refers to James, brother of Jesus, at some point a scribe has added 'Christ' in the margin. I don't see the problem. Can you cite one papyrus or otherwise text from that age that doesnot contain marginal remarks. That don't make them forgeries. You don't have a case. How many brothers did James the Just have that was named Jesus and who was not the character called Christ?


The problem is that Josephus never called James 'the just' but simply James. James and Jesus were really common names. And he never called Jesus 'the Christ' as Origen's work shows. So we only have a James and a Jesus. That doesn't prove Jesus of the Bible was real.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

How is a tertiary source a valid source for existence?


How is Tacitus a tertiary witness? He would most likely be a secondary witness. Referring to eye witness accounts and Roman documentation of such written according to strict Roman doctrines of documentation.


No... He CAN'T be a secondary source. A primary source would be something written DIRECTLY from Jesus himself. A secondary source would be someone who witnessed and wrote about Jesus. A tertiary source (what Tacitus' writings are) is someone who compiled other people's accounts (can be primary, secondary, or tertiary).


And because of oxygen, if we are to speak on the manuscripts themselves. Unless you'd write on fine vellum at the cost of a year's wages per sheet— your writings would disintegrate within 100-1000 years depending on handling and storing. Transcription and copying was essential, for unless they kept up the pace, the corpus of manuscripts would rot and turn to dust. They didn't have paper. Interpolations happen all the time it has nothing to do with forgery really, it could even be the direct opposite. If they were added it means their entry could not be falsified nor rejected. There are however often political or sectarian implications surrounding these added texts. Question remains whether they remain and the nature of these interpolations, whether they are missing passages originally contained,or they represent different schools and sects, or whether they belong to some other hitherto unknown tradition. For there were many copies of these books normally, and they were recopied on a steady page. If we were to find the missing Tacitus books or a few pages belonging to one of them, but copied by, say, another scribe, and these books were put into an existing codex, these added books could easily be considered interpolations.


None of this changes the fact that Tacitus lived AFTER Jesus died and couldn't have possibly witnessed him to write about it.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

No, the problem is you trying to prove legitime history a fake because you don't believe the Biblical narrative. Claiming Jesus was not a historical person and substantiate that by modern hearsay and bad intelligence, Do you even know what these documents look like? Your integrity is about as thin as slime now and the person who was called Christ was a real person. The stories contained within the NT are genuine, if so, given, they belong to a tradition of goodwill and a method of making the impossible possible. Jesus' method somehow toppled Rome and soon it will Topple Religion. And pseudo science, including but not exclusively, discredit based on loose assumptions and other ways to get laid ///
edit on 18-9-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim




No, the problem is you trying to prove legitime history a fake because you don't believe the Biblical narrative.


And, you are trying to use historicity to prove that biblical narratives are true. The only way you can link the "Chrestus", that Tacitus referred to, to Jesus is through biblical narrative, much of it written and compiled hundreds of years after the supposed facts. But while living, Jesus wasn't called "Christ". That title wasn't bestowed on him until after the legend of his supposed resurrection became popular.

"Tacitus' Chrestus" could be anyone, like the Sumerian leaders that were so brutally crucified that Caesar was recalled from his post back to Rome.




edit on 18-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

The portion that I refer: ''James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ." to was not forged. The portion that reads:
''Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
may be since we know that if Josephus would've recognized Jesus publicly as such would've been treason to Rome by acknowledging another ruler other than Cesar & was possibly done to add credence to the vague mentioning of Jesus by Josephus. This portion I will not argue on.
Footnote: Josephus did not use the word cross as the devise that Jesus was executed on. The device was a single vertical piece of wood called a stauros (Greek) or stake crux (Latin) or cross to which he did not write this in as Greek was the prominent language of the time. So by the changing of the Greek stauros/stake to the Latin crux/cross shows that something was altered, when we do not know.

''Josephus wrote that he believed that Vespasian was the Messiah.''

Sources that claim this is definitely erroneous. Josephus, although having dual citizenship of both Rome & Jerusalem & being a Jew but siding with Roman authority knew full well being taught by his father being of Jewish priestly ancestry that the Messiah was to come from a Jewish bloodline. What Josephus did say was that God gave him divine ability of revelations because he said that Vespasian would become Rome's next leader. He also said that God (monotheism/ one) , the creator of the Jewish people, had decided to "punish" them, that "fortune" had been given to the Romans, and that God had chosen him "to announce the things that are to come" as Rome believed in a patheon of Gods including their emperors. There is no way that Josephus believed that Vespasian was believed to be the Messiah of the Jews.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Actually I do believe the Biblical Jesus.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Transparent

I'm sorry, but many scholars disagree with you and your scholars.

If someone got up in a court of law and testified, and was found out to lying about the main points, how much the rest of that person's testimony would be considered valid in a court of law? Where there's one forgery, and second forgery, there's going to more.

Also, Josephus used messianic terminology when referring to the Jewish Messiah, his expected coming and the prophecy from which the expectation originally sprung. It's unlikely that Josephus would give credence to one of many supposed and self professed messianic figures he discussed, referring to one them a "Christ". If it doesn't make sense, in this case, it probably isn't true. Especially unprobable seeing how all of the Jesus mythology is unbelievable in the first place.



Sources that claim this is definitely erroneous.



Josephus shrewdly reinterpreted the Messianic prophecies. He predicted that Vespasian would become the ruler of the 'entire world'. Josephus joined the Romans, for which he was branded a traitor. He acted as consultant to the Romans and a go-between with the revolutionaries. Unable to convince the rebels to surrender, Josephus ended up watching the second destruction of the Temple and the defeat of the Jewish nation.

His prophecy became true in 68 C.E. when Nero committed suicide and Vespasian became Ceasar. As a result, Josephus was freed; he moved to Roman and became a Roman citizen, taking the Vespasian family name Flavius. Vespasian commissioned Josephus to write a history of the war, which he finished in 78 C.E., the Jewish War. His second major work, the Antiquities of the Jews, was completed in 93 C.E. He wrote Against Apion in about 96-100 C.E. and The Life of Josephus, his autobiography, about 100. He died shortly after.
sacred-texts.com...


Jews were expecting a military leader, not a turn the other cheek, crucified and secretly risen from the dead.....disappeared into heaven, Messiah.


edit on 18-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


''while living, Jesus wasn't called "Christ"

Actually he was. There are ''secondary'' sources by actual people that were witnesses that mentions Jesus being called the Christ/Messiah.
edit on 18-9-2015 by Transparent because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2015 by Transparent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Transparent

The Old Testament Septuagint calls Saul, David, Solomon and Cyrus the Great "Christs". Anyone who had been annointed as King was a Jewish Christ. But the words "Christ" and "Christian" for non-Jewish, Helenistic Greeks was reserved for the followers of Serapis 1st century BC and beyond.



Jesus came to be called "Jesus Christ", meaning "Jesus the Christós" (i.e. Jesus, the anointed; or "Jesus, the Messiah" by his followers) after his death and believed resurrection. Before, Jesus was usually referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus son of Joseph". In the epistles of Paul the Apostle, the earliest texts of the New Testament, Paul most often referred to Jesus as "Christ Jesus", or "Christ".
en.wikipedia.org...


At best Jesus, if he existed, was sometimes called "Chrestus", which meant "good and useful" in Greek.


And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.


edit on 18-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

''I'm sorry, but many scholars disagree with you and your scholars.''

The same can be said of the scholars you back that says otherwise. Your scholars questioned & challenged the validity of the Biblical Jesus' existence. When presented with historical references to him they call everything a forgery. Til this day your scholars have yet to prove he didn't exist. If this were a legal court of law the burden of proof has been upon the nay-sayers for centuries to provide without a reason of a doubt that Jesus did not exist & they can't.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Transparent

Nope. The burden of proof is on those who make outrageous claims. It's impossible to prove a negative.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: windword

Your compelling evidence is all but laughed at by all serious scholars round the world. You have nothing other than mere speculation. And I don't think you understood anything with my Reagan example. Jesus obviously liked to perform his social-work in the form of grand scale practical jokes. That the guy had humour doesn't mean he's the laughing stock. Gospel is a series of jokes and puns, must have made his efforts easier to handle somehow.


When used in the way you have here, the underlined is simply an empty "appeal to authority fallacy" that isn't true, which also makes it a dishonest one (with many examples refuting it given in this very thread). Got a feeling more than a few "serious scholars" could get a chuckle out of the highlighted portion though.



edit on 18-9-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join