What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

originally posted by: Klassified

I expect to see atheists lying themselves to damnation to feed their choice-supportive bias and people calling themselves scientists showing clear signs of the same indoctrination you normally see with the religious people.

How does the atheist who has gained notoriety attacking the historicity of Jesus handle this one?

Well, here we go again. You speak from the same ignorance you accuse atheists of having when they speak of xtianity. An atheist is one who lacks a belief in a god/deity/divinity. Being an atheist does not automatically put one in the Jesus did not exist camp. Atheists are individuals with one thing in common. They don't believe in god. After that, we may or may not agree on other things.

Fair enough I could have formulated myself better. I was generalising and I see that it came out the wrong way. I am pretty sure the other one you quote in this post agrees. I should have used something like Bible-critics or similar. I will change my OP if there is still time.

ETA: It was too late to change the OP, however seeing I wrote "atheists lying" I am not saying that I mean all atheists are lying , I simply made a note that I expected those who would claim Tacitus a fraud in this thread would most likely be the kind of self proclaimed atheists who use all their energy refuting anything Christian. Personally I am not a Christian, and I don't really belong to any specific religion (perhaps Heretism?), but I believe Jesus was a historical person and the literary traditions surrounding him and the Bible is rather an obsession.

As to Tacitus. I give his writings as much validity as I give other writings of the time. They are all suspect, because the writers had their own agenda and perspective. Just like today. I can only imagine the convoluted mess we are leaving for those who are alive 2000 years from now.

Agreed.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I wasn't aware my philosophy professor was using that system in philosophy of religion ...

However it was brought to my attention that Jesus is a title not a name. So, if you like to read about say all mothers instead of your mother keep up the vague work!

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I wasn't aware my philosophy professor was using that system in philosophy of religion ...

Well, the Harvard system is called thus since it was a norm for crediting authors inline and in notes that was preferred at Harvard and later adopted by most universities and publishers of scientific papers.

However it was brought to my attention that Jesus is a title not a name. So, if you like to read about say all mothers instead of your mother keep up the vague work!

Jesus is a name. Christ is the title you are so attentive about And yes, Tacitus doesn't actually name the Christus he refers to, but there is no real doubt as to whom he is referring to who had a notable body of followers who were accused by Nero of having torched Rome.

originally posted by: illuminnaughty
If some one had fed thousands with a few loafs of bread and a couple fish then he would have had millions of people queuing up to see it.

Well, reportedly there were a few thousand. Jesus was probably talking about barbequeing when he talked about staying three days in the ground "like Jonah's fish". Jonah's fish, is no longer a fish, it is a mammal, a whale. Similarly we no longer pronounce a person dead if he stops breathing and a wound in his chest sprouts hemothorax. Same thing. It's about how words' semantics change over time often a direct reflection of how science is being steadily refined giving us new understandings of the facts in life. Whales are no longer counted among the fishes, and Jesus was a man of language, knowledge and words, he wasn't the suicidal magician of the Church.

Wonder... how can you prepare a couple of whales in a sandy desert? Hmmm. And how much flower do you need to bake seven loaves that will be enough to feed a handful thousand people in the same desert? Hmmm.....


This is how they are doing it in Morocco. I think they are Berbers.


ETA: Here's a Wikipedia article about using the earth as an oven ==> en.wikipedia.org... -- also the vikings used "kokegrop" to prepare whole "baked" animals. I've personally seen it done with a leg of lamb. It was delicious.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
I wasn't aware my philosophy professor was using that system in philosophy of religion ...

However it was brought to my attention that Jesus is a title not a name. So, if you like to read about say all mothers instead of your mother keep up the vague work!

I think you mean the word Christ, Jesus is a name.

'JESUS. The Hebrew yeshua or yehoshua, meaning "Jehovah saves,"

CHRIST. Greek for Messiah (anointed one) is Christos, Christ in English. Thus, "Jesus Christ" joins a name and a title, and means Jesus the Messiah.

eom.byu.edu...

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Tacitus obviously based his work on other sources than his own memory. Are you saying that a historian writing about things before he was born is automatically a fraud? That would discredit most historians ever having lived on this planet. Please, help me here.

History has just as much credibility as the MSM.

Finding the truth sometimes requires believing the opposite of what propaganda is telling us...

"History is more or less bunk." ~ Henry Ford

"The falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind" - Rousseau

“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac

I expect to see atheists lying themselves to damnation to feed their choice-supportive bias

I'm an Atheist and I don't say Jesus never existed.

I think Jesus was a real person, but do I believe he was the son of god, walked on water, and resurrected? ... Nope.

It's the same skepticism I have for Muhammed who was meditating when the angel Gabriel gave him a message from Allah saying that the word of god was distorted by other prophets.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Yes, and when the Roman Empire forged history, how did they usually do it? By inventing and producing forgeries? No, they destroyed any citation or comments made about the people they wanted to discredit, they even had a name for it, the Roman Senate could issue "Damnatio memoriæ" to eradicate the memory of people concidered traitors or who were seen as threatening Roman superiority (like the Jewish renegade rabbi Jesus, crucified for being "King of the Jews", like some trophy) ==> en.wikipedia.org... This is probably why Tacitus is so fragmented and scattered, and how everything he has to say about the years 29-32 AD for instance-- is missing. And since Tacitus most likely refers to yet another well known work of history being targeted as a forgery by various scholars the during the last 50 years or so, Josephus' Antiquities.

Flavius Josephus records both Jesus, his brother James the Just and John the Baptist. James the Just is described as "brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". For some reason, his mentioning of John the Baptist and James the Just have never been seriously disputed, and there is a current consensus that both Josephus and Tacitus and a few others do mention Jesus or Christ and Christians (or Chrest and Chrestians for that matter), and that Jesus was a historical person, and there is none others than a few critics presenting populistic and questionable "evidence". These critics do however have a great audience among Bible bashers and internet trolls who show themselves just as indoctrinated and biased as the Christians they attack.

originally posted by: danielsil18

I expect to see atheists lying themselves to damnation to feed their choice-supportive bias

I'm an Atheist and I don't say Jesus never existed.

And I didn't intend to claim you did either. Please see www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think Jesus was a real person, but do I believe he was the son of god, walked on water, and resurrected? ... Nope.

It's the same skepticism I have for Muhammed who was meditating when the angel Gabriel gave him a message from Allah saying that the word of god was distorted by other prophets.

Fair enough. Sorry for the misunderstanding

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Well im sure Tacitus is referencing the same story. It still does nothing to prove jesus was a real person and definately doesn't make mention that he was a magical entity who could perform miracles and was the son of a deity.

It does not matter if jesus was a real person or not. The acts attributed to him could still not be confirmed or believed by anyone with a sound mind. Even if we found lots of contemporary writings about first hand accounts of his life. The earliest writings depicted him as a regular dude. The embellishments came much later.

To me, it does not matter if there was an actual person named jesus. The events that were copied and pasted onto him are still just as unbelievable.


a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Magic if anything, is literary. Language is the main remedy in virtually all schools of magic. Jesus was a man of the word, and his walking on the water is probably a product of another truly magic technique, the Crafts. In this case carpentry and boatbuilding or the making of a ferry and posing as the riddled Ferryman, you know the two coins over the eyes one, prominent in Sumerian and Greek traditions-- crossing the Sea of Galilee. However he wouldn't even need to make a boat, for the given sea froze over during wintertime back then. Yes, the Sea of Galilee froze, allowing people to walk on the ice. And ice is water.

And it was the magic of rhetorics, a highly esteemed tradition of midrash and argumentation and stuff like how quarrymen can lit. move mountains-- that Jesus saved his Big Day and he and his family's honour, when they ran out of wine in the middle of his wedding. To fix it, he bid his mother make their servants serve water to their guests and bid them listen to Jesus explain how water is the better wine.

So, no UFO hovering above Christ allowing him to walk on the waves. No physically transforming water in to red wine of the best selection, but a midrash in the best of Jewish rabbinical traditions. It should be mentioned that he turned a crisis into a great story and received the applause and probably tipped his head a bit to the left, slightly lifting his brows and arms addressing his family in law for their mercy, and in my vision the father of Rosemary immediately laugh, claps his hands in applause for his wise and accurate midrash with all the other guests following his example, and Jesus takes the bow....

ETA: Also the part about Jesus being the son of God, this relies on the testimony of the Centurion traditionally called Panthera or Longinus sayng something along the lines of: "Truly this was certainly a son of the gods". This sentence is infact a common Roman idiom used in the time of Christ to express that "the subject is truly righteous" (and innocent). It's all down to semantics and how we treat these expressions and idioms, rhetorical traditions and Jesus being Logos-- which Aristotle explained as "reasoned discourse". Quite fitting. Thanx, Aris

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Flavius Josephus records both Jesus, his brother James the Just and John the Baptist. James the Just is described as "brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". For some reason, his mentioning of John the Baptist and James the Just have never been seriously disputed, and there is a current consensus that both Josephus and Tacitus and a few others do mention Jesus or Christ and Christians (or Chrest and Chrestians for that matter), and that Jesus was a historical person, and there is none others than a few critics presenting populistic and questionable "evidence". These critics do however have a great audience among Bible bashers and internet trolls who show themselves just as indoctrinated and biased as the Christians they attack.

Well said. I'd give you applause if I could. It's refreshing to see a Non-Christian actually in pursuit of the truth on this issue, and not merely seeking an audience to stroke their own ego.

I would add to your OP that it isn't just Tacitus or Josephus that lends credence to a historical Jesus, but a wealth of other writings and historical occurrences, including material contained within the New Testament itself. It wasn't that long ago that Christ Mythicists claimed Pilate never existed either, until archaeology vindicated the NT on that point, and proved that he did in fact exist. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this, however.

The idea that Jesus was invented is absurd when you examine the body of evidence as a whole. For instance, we can establish with 100% certainty that there were Christians living in Rome a mere 30 years after Christ's crucifixion. Clearly, the religion would have needed time to spread from Judea to Rome. A completely fictional account of some pauper dying on a cross (the most shameful way a person could be killed at the time) would not have spread so quickly without eyewitnesses to those events being able to corroborate at the very least, said individuals existence.

We also have clear evidence within the writings of Paul that there were already documents in circulation among Christians throughout a good portion of the Roman empire, which would indicate that much of the new testament may have been written down either during Jesus life, or shortly after His crucifixion.

While we don't have Roman records of Jesus crucifixion, we have evidence of Christian persecution within a very short period of time after. It seems unlikely that so many people would be willing to meet such grisly deaths for the sake of a fictional character.

Finally, we also have the writings of Christianity's most vocal opponents (the Jews and the Romans), neither of these groups ever indicate that Jesus was a fictional character. Wouldn't this be one of the first accusations to be made if either the Jews or the Romans wished to discredit the early rise of Christianity? Instead we find accusations that Jesus was a sorcerer, or a fraud. But never that he was a fictional creation.

The evidence is clear. Even Richard Dawkins is honest enough to admit the man walked the earth 2000 years ago.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
Finally, we also have the writings of Christianity's most vocal opponents (the Jews and the Romans), neither of these groups ever indicate that Jesus was a fictional character. Wouldn't this be one of the first accusations to be made if either the Jews or the Romans wished to discredit the early rise of Christianity? Instead we find accusations that Jesus was a sorcerer, or a fraud. But never that he was a fictional creation.

Good point! I've never thought of that before. Makes perfect sense to me.

I have read many current authors and none of them have mentioned Michael Paulkovich.

Therefore, I have proven he does not exist and he was made up by secular humanists so they could have someone to worship.

a reply to: Metallicus

Well put! This nonsense that you have to be recognised by contemporary eyewitnesses, who are also historians, the ones who aren't fakes-- in order to have existed-- it has to stop. Jesus Christ is mentioned by quite a few respected historians. Though the idea that Jesus is purely a mythical character is intriguing, it becomes something of an absurdity when you source out the matter. If Jesus didn't exist, that alone would be far more amazing than if he did. And he did live and he even made it to the history books.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Flavius Josephus records both Jesus, his brother James the Just and John the Baptist. James the Just is described as "brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". For some reason, his mentioning of John the Baptist and James the Just have never been seriously disputed, and there is a current consensus that both Josephus and Tacitus and a few others do mention Jesus or Christ and Christians (or Chrest and Chrestians for that matter), and that Jesus was a historical person, and there is none others than a few critics presenting populistic and questionable "evidence". These critics do however have a great audience among Bible bashers and internet trolls who show themselves just as indoctrinated and biased as the Christians they attack.

Well said. I'd give you applause if I could. It's refreshing to see a Non-Christian actually in pursuit of the truth on this issue, and not merely seeking an audience to stroke their own ego.

I would add to your OP that it isn't just Tacitus or Josephus that lends credence to a historical Jesus, but a wealth of other writings and historical occurrences, including material contained within the New Testament itself. It wasn't that long ago that Christ Mythicists claimed Pilate never existed either, until archaeology vindicated the NT on that point, and proved that he did in fact exist. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this, however.

The idea that Jesus was invented is absurd when you examine the body of evidence as a whole. For instance, we can establish with 100% certainty that there were Christians living in Rome a mere 30 years after Christ's crucifixion. Clearly, the religion would have needed time to spread from Judea to Rome. A completely fictional account of some pauper dying on a cross (the most shameful way a person could be killed at the time) would not have spread so quickly without eyewitnesses to those events being able to corroborate at the very least, said individuals existence.

We also have clear evidence within the writings of Paul that there were already documents in circulation among Christians throughout a good portion of the Roman empire, which would indicate that much of the new testament may have been written down either during Jesus life, or shortly after His crucifixion.

While we don't have Roman records of Jesus crucifixion, we have evidence of Christian persecution within a very short period of time after. It seems unlikely that so many people would be willing to meet such grisly deaths for the sake of a fictional character.

Finally, we also have the writings of Christianity's most vocal opponents (the Jews and the Romans), neither of these groups ever indicate that Jesus was a fictional character. Wouldn't this be one of the first accusations to be made if either the Jews or the Romans wished to discredit the early rise of Christianity? Instead we find accusations that Jesus was a sorcerer, or a fraud. But never that he was a fictional creation.

The evidence is clear. Even Richard Dawkins is honest enough to admit the man walked the earth 2000 years ago.

I would be happy to admit that someone named jesus existed at the time if you'll concede that he had no magic powers, did not raise from the dead, and was not a god incarnate.

I have no trouble believing in a rebel jesus much in the fashion of john lennon, or ghandi. Someone who was not afraid to speak up when an occupying force (rome) was dividing the populace. There have been many heros all throughout history. If jesus was real, this is the model i would accept.

As has been said, people who believe in Jesus do so IN SPITE of the facts, not because of them.

originally posted by: thektotheg
As has been said, people who don't believe in a historical Jesus do so IN SPITE of the facts, not because of them.

Fixed that for you.

Clarify for me, if you would, if you mean people who believe in a historical jesus, or people who believe in the Christian Jesus, or people who believe in the Muslim version of Jesus?

Maybe you meant all 3 and you aren't aware of the evidence that actually exists for a historical jesus?

An interesting quote for sure. The Josephus quote oft brought up is considered a forgery by many scholars. I don't know about this.

For me, as a former Christian and now spiritual (not atheist) person, it really matters not. I would have no problem believing that a historical Jesus existed in some form. However, this has little to do with Christian theology or it's veracity. We know Muhammed existed, that answers nothing about whether an angel spoke to him or if he is the true prophet.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Anyone here ready to disprove the Roman historian Tacitus in the fifteenth book of his 116 AD work, Annals-- and his mentioning 'Christus', 'Pontius Pilatus', 'Christians' and 'Nero' ?

classics.mit.edu...

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

I used to join the choir messing that there are no historical mentioning Jesus by historians. But then I went off and bought the books where he's supposed to have been mentioned, and did some research into the matter. And amazingly, there are infact a few quotes that remain virtually unchallenged. Among them Tacitus.

So, is Tacitus a forgery? Few serious scholars (if any) believe so, and I have yet to come across a convincing debunking hypothesis. So please, humour me. I expect to see atheists lying themselves to damnation to feed their choice-supportive bias and people calling themselves scientists showing clear signs of the same indoctrination you normally see with the religious people.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Flavius Josephus records both Jesus, his brother James the Just and John the Baptist. James the Just is described as "brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". For some reason, his mentioning of John the Baptist and James the Just have never been seriously disputed, and there is a current consensus that both Josephus and Tacitus and a few others do mention Jesus or Christ and Christians (or Chrest and Chrestians for that matter), and that Jesus was a historical person, and there is none others than a few critics presenting populistic and questionable "evidence". These critics do however have a great audience among Bible bashers and internet trolls who show themselves just as indoctrinated and biased as the Christians they attack.

Well said. I'd give you applause if I could. It's refreshing to see a Non-Christian actually in pursuit of the truth on this issue, and not merely seeking an audience to stroke their own ego.

I would add to your OP that it isn't just Tacitus or Josephus that lends credence to a historical Jesus, but a wealth of other writings and historical occurrences, including material contained within the New Testament itself. It wasn't that long ago that Christ Mythicists claimed Pilate never existed either, until archaeology vindicated the NT on that point, and proved that he did in fact exist. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this, however.

The idea that Jesus was invented is absurd when you examine the body of evidence as a whole. For instance, we can establish with 100% certainty that there were Christians living in Rome a mere 30 years after Christ's crucifixion. Clearly, the religion would have needed time to spread from Judea to Rome. A completely fictional account of some pauper dying on a cross (the most shameful way a person could be killed at the time) would not have spread so quickly without eyewitnesses to those events being able to corroborate at the very least, said individuals existence.

We also have clear evidence within the writings of Paul that there were already documents in circulation among Christians throughout a good portion of the Roman empire, which would indicate that much of the new testament may have been written down either during Jesus life, or shortly after His crucifixion.

While we don't have Roman records of Jesus crucifixion, we have evidence of Christian persecution within a very short period of time after. It seems unlikely that so many people would be willing to meet such grisly deaths for the sake of a fictional character.

Finally, we also have the writings of Christianity's most vocal opponents (the Jews and the Romans), neither of these groups ever indicate that Jesus was a fictional character. Wouldn't this be one of the first accusations to be made if either the Jews or the Romans wished to discredit the early rise of Christianity? Instead we find accusations that Jesus was a sorcerer, or a fraud. But never that he was a fictional creation.

The evidence is clear. Even Richard Dawkins is honest enough to admit the man walked the earth 2000 years ago.

I would be happy to admit that someone named jesus existed at the time if you'll concede that he had no magic powers, did not raise from the dead, and was not a god incarnate.

I have no trouble believing in a rebel jesus much in the fashion of john lennon, or ghandi. Someone who was not afraid to speak up when an occupying force (rome) was dividing the populace. There have been many heros all throughout history. If jesus was real, this is the model i would accept.

Exactly. A lot of people have existed and many myths have roots in some event or person. But Christian theology itself is too errant and problematic for me to accept in total (original sin, hell, damnation, etc).

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Metallicus

Well put! This nonsense that you have to be recognised by contemporary eyewitnesses, who are also historians, the ones who aren't fakes-- in order to have existed-- it has to stop. Jesus Christ is mentioned by quite a few respected historians. Though the idea that Jesus is purely a mythical character is intriguing, it becomes something of an absurdity when you source out the matter. If Jesus didn't exist, that alone would be far more amazing than if he did. And he did live and he even made it to the history books.

Even if a historical person named Jesus existed, the Christian religion definitely seems to have appropriated a series of pagan myths such as from Mythra and Apollonius of Tyana and superimposed them over the name and life of Jesus, such as miracles, 12 disciples, etc.