What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

originally posted by: LeviWardrobeTacitus, like the others who supposedly wrote of Jesus, appears to have been heavily [or entirely] reliant on purely oral sources. Worship and story telling that was passed down for decades by word of mouth alone [so far as we know].

Most written sources throughout history are lost to us entirely. It's very possible Tacitus would have had access to writings we're unaware of though this can go either way ... If Tacitus knew something was wrong, why didn't he say so? If Tacitus believes Jesus is just another Jew, why would he check?

Also spoken word was taken a bit more seriously back then to most people.

Was the life and death of Jesus exactly notorious enough to warrant a couple sentences half a century after his death? Why was it not more noteworthy, or less noteworthy?

Many Jewish leaders rebelled around Jesus's time. We don't debate them.

One tried to find the ten commandments up a hill. The Romans killed that person. Another tried to part some local waters ... Romans killed that person too. To many Romans of the time, Jesus was just another person they killed. Why would they show special respect to this character?

originally posted by: Malynn
As an aside, "Nazareth" did not exist as a place when the person known as Jesus supposedly existed.

There are piles of places we can't find that went missing less than one thousand years ago or have been referred to with multiple names. If we can't find where major battles occurred in the 1300s why are we worried about Nazareth which existed in a very changeable time?

Very few people debate these minor characters in history that were offed at the turn of a wrist, but mention Jesus and the whole world goes crazy.

So really i'm a bit confused. You know the old stories better than most people i know. I'm assuming you've seen the correlation and mingleing of several cultures origin stories and how they came to be sifted through, amalgamated, homogenized, and then hand chosen by the romans to portray the background of their new god and their new universal church, led by them.


(Reading the minutes of those meetings clearly explains how and why Rome needed to bring all of the widely varying local myths under one universal church, controlled by them. Then they get to the process of choosing which books best represent a story which will be the most popular. That way people will have an easier time conforming to the new law which strictly forbids any other practices.). You know.... They wouldn't have to kill as many of them if the people would willingly conform. And stuff.

I'm assuming you are aware of the Nicean council and the nicean creed.


But even though you understand this, you are still arguing on the side of a biblically accurate jesus? The magical jesus who magically healed the sick and plucked food from the netherworld? Walked on water, turned it to wine, raised the dead by the hundreds, died and came back to life jesus?

Or the jesus who may have been a guy among hundreds of people walking around at that time claiming to be a messiah, jesus?

I don't get it. Are you a proponent for magical jesus?
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Malynn
As an aside, "Nazareth" did not exist

True. And there's more, Jesus claimed to be a Nazarean only since he was from Nazareth, this part is actually the first time in history that the lovely tradition of Jewish stand-up is recorded: "Me, Nazarean? Oh, that's right, I am from Nazareth?" [laughter]. He was quite funny sometimes.

LOL.

Nazareth was a funerary (cemetary). That's why "nothing good comes from Nazareth". I can just imagine young boy Jesus playing among the tombs talking with ghosts about salvation!

originally posted by: Woodcarver
But even though you understand this, you are still arguing on the side of a biblically accurate jesus?

Such a Jesus doesn't exist. The "miracles" are rhetorical and practical jokes mostly. Seriously. I'm not even a Christian, I just feel the guy deserves my far side that's all. I honestly believe Jesus lived, that behind all that madness covered in that Booke, there existed and in some hermetic sense exists eternally because of his impact on humanity alone-- A person once called Yeshua bar Joshef or similar who was a rabbi and a holy man of god worthy an ear and a nod or two. I'd say the same thing about Buddha if I ever got to know his stories well enough to transcend into his part of the spirit-realm. Thing is, there are things and persons in this world which are sacred and holy. Sometimes I respect that. Jesus never harmed me so why should I knock him about for what existing?!?

The magical jesus who magically healed the sick and plucked food from the netherworld? Walked on water, turned it to wine, raised the dead by the hundreds, died and came back to life jesus?

It can all be done. For instance, Roman soldiers seem to have loved the guy. And they not only saved the life of Jesus during the crucifixion others copied the recipe, and people walked living out of the other graves too after having been pronounced dead and brought to their graves. No magic needed. AND. Back when Jesus lived whales were considered fish, how many whales would it take to make soup for 5 000 people? And how much coal would he need? And, flour to bake the giant loaves, how many sacks? Pitas the size of helipads. It's easily done. Build a raft or a boat and he could walk across any lake in Palestine. How he could walk through walls and stuff? Stuff called windows and doors, he could invoke such powerful magic, it's called Carpentry, he was a bleeding artisan for heavens sake. Whoever wrote the gospels were obviously meaning to be messing with our heads, and to me it has the usual sound of Latin to it. Only translated into the languages of their enemies. Greek and Hebrew.

Or the jesus who may have been a guy among hundreds of people walking around at that time claiming to be a messiah, jesus?

I don't get it. Are you a proponent for magical jesus?
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Magical jesus? What's that? Only thing that comes to mind is Paul's making a mess when he meets a certain "Son of Jesus", who's a magician. Paul temporarily blinds him (payback for what happened on the way to Damascus? See below quote). Things aren't always as they seem, and it's never entirely as it is in the books. To me, the Bible as such, is the "Serpent of Old".

When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus. [ESV] Acts 13:6

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Malynn
As an aside, "Nazareth" did not exist

True. And there's more, Jesus claimed to be a Nazarean only since he was from Nazareth, this part is actually the first time in history that the lovely tradition of Jewish stand-up is recorded: "Me, Nazarean? Oh, that's right, I am from Nazareth?" [laughter]. He was quite funny sometimes.

LOL.

Nazareth was a funerary (cemetary).

No that's funny hehe. Perhaps he didn't come back from Hades bleeding all over the place after all? He just came up from the basement with some more wine.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim



What if Joseph (the first, rock old one, not Joseph the father of Jesus' siblings, they have even two separate genealogies) .... what if Joseph was Caesarion.... Could explain quite a bit I suppose. "...a branch from his roots will bear fruit..." Roman nobility were related to the house of Jesse often through king Solomon of the House of David who had more lovers than gold. If Jesus was Caesarion's son, that would explain a whole damn lot.

Egad! What a bunch of slinging!

However to one of your points......maybe they didn't call themselves....Julian.....for nothing.

Please continue. Julian? Where?

The Julian Roman emperors, family. From the family that Julius Cesar stems from.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim



What if Joseph (the first, rock old one, not Joseph the father of Jesus' siblings, they have even two separate genealogies) .... what if Joseph was Caesarion.... Could explain quite a bit I suppose. "...a branch from his roots will bear fruit..." Roman nobility were related to the house of Jesse often through king Solomon of the House of David who had more lovers than gold. If Jesus was Caesarion's son, that would explain a whole damn lot.

Egad! What a bunch of slinging!

However to one of your points......maybe they didn't call themselves....Julian.....for nothing.

Please continue. Julian? Where?

The Julian Roman emperors, family. From the family that Julius Cesar stems from.

Thought you were talking about Jesus calling his family Julian....

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim



What if Joseph (the first, rock old one, not Joseph the father of Jesus' siblings, they have even two separate genealogies) .... what if Joseph was Caesarion.... Could explain quite a bit I suppose. "...a branch from his roots will bear fruit..." Roman nobility were related to the house of Jesse often through king Solomon of the House of David who had more lovers than gold. If Jesus was Caesarion's son, that would explain a whole damn lot.

Egad! What a bunch of slinging!

However to one of your points......maybe they didn't call themselves....Julian.....for nothing.

Please continue. Julian? Where?

The Julian Roman emperors, family. From the family that Julius Cesar stems from.

Thought you were talking about Jesus calling his family Julian....

You were talking about Jesse and some relation with Roman nobility. I just thought is was odd that this old Roman family called themselves Ju-lian. Jew-lian. Like the Jutes used to hang out with the Saxons....supposedly Sons of Isaac.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim



What if Joseph (the first, rock old one, not Joseph the father of Jesus' siblings, they have even two separate genealogies) .... what if Joseph was Caesarion.... Could explain quite a bit I suppose. "...a branch from his roots will bear fruit..." Roman nobility were related to the house of Jesse often through king Solomon of the House of David who had more lovers than gold. If Jesus was Caesarion's son, that would explain a whole damn lot.

Egad! What a bunch of slinging!

However to one of your points......maybe they didn't call themselves....Julian.....for nothing.

Please continue. Julian? Where?

The Julian Roman emperors, family. From the family that Julius Cesar stems from.

Thought you were talking about Jesus calling his family Julian....

You were talking about Jesse and some relation with Roman nobility. I just thought is was odd that this old Roman family called themselves Ju-lian. Jew-lian. Like the Jutes used to hang out with the Saxons....supposedly Sons of Isaac.

Ah, I didn't catch that one hehe, good one. I must be a bit slow. Reminds me of a joke I probably should keep to myself. As a sidenote: Joseph was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons, often used as ref. for the name. Joseph was exiled in Egypt where he became a prince and word is he was quite the prophet-- after his brothers had sold him to a caravan as a slave because of jealousy, and said he had been killed by lions and proving it by showing his rainbow coat soaked in blood leaving Jacob sobbing and growing older by the day as if he had lost his only son.

Compare that story with the story of Caesarion son of the union between Julius Caesar and Cleopathra and the only known heir to Julius. Now, Caesarion is reported killed not long after he ascended the Egyptian throne, though no body has ever been provided to my knowledge. His age would fit with Joseph, given he managed to escape. His name would be spot on. The significance of Jesus and the Church taking over the Roman empire makes sense. And how Jesus could order a Legion to march over a cliff to certain death also makes sense. It all seems to make sense and fall into place. What if Jesus was the grandson of Julius Caesar? No wonder Rome was shivering upon hearing or reading of Jesus.

originally posted by: Metallicus
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.

He exists I tell you. I have seen him heal the sick and the lame. I have watched him walk on water, feed the multitudes and all manner of miracles. He is the son of God. He is the Messiah.

Funny how I still could have claimed all these things even if he was completely fictitious.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You can read about Richard Lionheart in Robin Hood. Even if it's a fairytale this doesn't prove Richard was fictional and never existed.

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

You can read about Richard Lionheart in Robin Hood. Even if it's a fairytale this doesn't prove Richard was fictional and never existed.

Your comparison is ridiculous. Like saying that even if Jesus didn't exist (which is quite likely) that doesn't mean Tiberius wasn't real.

Robin and his band of merry men would be more comparable to Jesus and his disciples (and can also be verified historically to the same extent).

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

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

You can read about Richard Lionheart in Robin Hood. Even if it's a fairytale this doesn't prove Richard was fictional and never existed.

Your comparison is ridiculous. Like saying that even if Jesus didn't exist (which is quite likely) that doesn't mean Tiberius wasn't real.

Robin and his band of merry men would be more comparable to Jesus and his disciples (and can also be verified historically to the same extent).

Hehe, didn't know Michael Paulkovich had disciples or was in a band and actually going by the name Jesus.

The earliest Tacitus works themselves have been tampered with, this is a fact. Whether the passage itself existed originally, or to what extent it was changed, isn't so certain either. At best he is repeating urban myth, at worst it is Christian forgery.

He certainly isn't copying Josephus. That passage wasn't noticed by early Christian writers and was the work of Eusebius the nutter. Josephus claimed his patron Vespasian was the messiah. If he did exist, it's extremely unlikely he would talk about some executed Jewish upstart like that.

However, there is much to question the validity of the passage. There is no other historical confirmation that Nero persecuted Christians...not even in Christian works after Tacitus...

In fact, it isn't until Sulpicius Severus c. 400 CE that the Christians themselves start writing about Nero persecuting them. Moreover, Josephus and Pliny the Elder who were both in Rome in 64 CE don't mention Christians at all which would be impossible if Nero was trying to blame them for the fire. Furthermore, On Superstition by Seneca the Younger c40 - c62 covered every cult in Rome and yet the only reason we know it did NOT talk about Christianity at all is Augustine in the 4th century complained about it; which if it was closer to the 40 than the 62 doesn't make sense.

So not only do non-Christians who were in Rome at the time not notice Nero's persecution of Christians, but the Christians themselves appear to be unaware of it as well and instead give two wildly contradictory accounts--either Nero killed Christians with Paul some three years after the fire, or he had a dream resulting him leaving them alone which could have been as early as 64...the year of the fire. The passage is therefore highly suspect and adds virtually no evidence even for early Christianity. In fact, Richard Carrier in "The Prospect of a Christian Interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44" Vigiliae Christianae, Volume 68, Issue 3, pages 264 – 283 (an earlier and more detailed version appears in Hitler Homer Bible Christ) shows strong evidence that the passage is an interpolation, And if that wasn't enough we have proof the earliest copy of Tacitus we have has been tampered with.

rationalwiki.org...

All one has to do is suggest something has been tampered with.....and there they go!

Its like the one thing we should swallow whole without thinking are accusations, under the flag of scholarly examination, that something has been tampered with.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Oy vey! Look up! I'd love a copy of 'Hitler Homer Bible Christ'

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

Oy vey! Look up! I'd love a copy of 'Hitler Homer Bible Christ'

Nah, I agree with Carrier on many things and appreciate his position, but even I find him boring.

originally posted by: Logarock
All one has to do is suggest something has been tampered with.....and there they go!

Its like the one thing we should swallow whole without thinking are accusations, under the flag of scholarly examination, that something has been tampered with.

No, we should research why historians think that (there are usually good reasons), than give it some thought, reach our own conclusions.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

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

Oy vey! Look up! I'd love a copy of 'Hitler Homer Bible Christ'

Nah, I agree with Carrier on many things, but even I find him boring.

A book with a title like that can hardly be boring. Seriously, I might just go ahead and get it. Better design than my Complete Tacitus too.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

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

Oy vey! Look up! I'd love a copy of 'Hitler Homer Bible Christ'

Nah, I agree with Carrier on many things, but even I find him boring.

A book with a title like that can hardly be boring. Seriously, I might just go ahead and get it. Better design than my Complete Tacitus too.

edit. make that $8.98 for the kindle edition.

www.amazon.com...