What about Tacitus? Historical 'Christus' reference

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

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.

Only $10.24 for the kindle version.
www.amazon.com.au...

I realised that. There's even an audible one available. 8 years of professional, educated internet trolling. Nice to have lying around when the post-apocalypse arrives. Gonna miss all this.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

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.

Only $10.24 for the kindle version.
www.amazon.com.au...

I realised that. There's even an audible one available. 8 years of professional, educated internet trolling. Nice to have lying around when the post-apocalypse arrives. Gonna miss all this.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

As you said yourself, his work was 116 A.D. meaning, He was right around the time where the Romans were building up Christianity. If his work was around 1-20 A.D. it would be a lot more credible. 116 A.D means Jesus died and 116 years later some guy writes a book that mentions word remotely relevant to the current miss-translation of the person's name who people pray to.

a reply to: Heruactic

Just for fun. Would you say today's historians know less or more about the outbreak of WW1 than the historians living 100 years ago? There is a difference between reporters and historians. The Evangelion is the news. Tacitus et al are the historians.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
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.

rationalwiki.org...

Quoting rational wiki on a debate about historical Jesus is a bit like letting George Bush decide if Americans won 'the war' in Iraq.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Just for fun. Today we have multiple sources recording history and if there are contradictions with just 1 source, we know it is false since we have many others. Back then 500-1900 years ago historians faced following issues.
1 - no one gave a frying duck about history, except for select few.
2 - Inquisition.
3 - book burning.
4 - Lack of backup copies.
5 - politicians who wanted to write themselves as heroes.
There are others, but i do not claim to know for sure. We can draw parallels to today's media. Look at the bible, it literally had parts removed from it. Doctoring was easier too. These days there is a backlog for everything on some private server. Even the terms and conditions on Google.com from when it was first launched and every version that was changed since then. If i was a person writing a book in 100 AD and i wrote that jesus had 3 testicles, there would not be a single text to disprove me and today it would be viewed as a mark of god if someone had 3 balls.

I do not disprove anything but without corroboration i do not take it as 100% fact.

P.S on a matter of faith. We did not need faith before jesus died. There were miracles and interactions with god that required no faith. After Jesus died it became reverse, where everyone has faith but there are no actually "magic" miracles like splitting the sea or even any instances of god trying to communicate. I wonder why...

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
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.

rationalwiki.org...

Quoting rational wiki on a debate about historical Jesus is a bit like letting George Bush decide if Americans won 'the war' in Iraq.

You are allowed to follow up and look into the claims and show where they might be wrong, instead of pandering to your bias. I would say relying on "Religious Scholars" who are usually devoted believers in all things Christian woo (many even believe the miracles, which means they have departed from reality altogether) would be far worse.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
You are allowed to follow up and look into the claims and show where they might be wrong, instead of pandering to your bias. I would say relying on "Religious Scholars" who are usually devoted believers in all things Christian woo (many even believe the miracles, which means they have departed from reality altogether) would be far worse.

Have looked into the claims and discussed them on ATS before at a decent depth. There a handful of reasonable conclusions one can reach about a historical Jesus and the idea of a historical Jesus isn't an unreasonable one at all. In fact most criticisms of historical figures that can be levelled at Jesus can be levelled elsewhere.

I'm a card carrying punk Atheist and I still wouldn't cite rational wiki using a ten foot pole with a spike on the end. So which bias am I pandering to?

originally posted by: Pinke

Quoting rational wiki on a debate about historical Jesus is a bit like letting George Bush decide if Americans won 'the war' in Iraq.

Quite ironic you would use that one. You know, the part imaginary Jesus played in it all, via telepathy.

originally posted by: Pinke

Have looked into the claims and discussed them on ATS before at a decent depth. There a handful of reasonable conclusions one can reach about a historical Jesus and the idea of a historical Jesus isn't an unreasonable one at all.

Of course it's not unreasonable as a belief. It's not impossible after all, just completely unevidenced. Therefore unlikely IMO, which is an even more reasonable idea.

In fact most criticisms of historical figures that can be levelled at Jesus can be levelled elsewhere.

Not so. I doubt there are many (if any) figures with no historicial evidence and overwhelmingly magical/mythological claims that aren't considered myth.

I'm a card carrying punk Atheist and I still wouldn't cite rational wiki using a ten foot pole with a spike on the end. So which bias am I pandering to?

The one against rationalwiki, of course. Usually it's the "rational" part that is incompatible with religion and belief in mythical people. For you it might be something else.

a reply to: Heruactic

I think you are being unfair towards Roman historiography. We may have better methods today, but back then they were already collecting and writing history mostly like we do today. And your claim that forgery was easier and more widespread 2000 years ago? You are aware that producing a book back then, true or false cost the equivalent of millions in todays money and took years completing. They didn't have shortcuts to copy/paste and undo back then. A lot more books and source material were available to the historians writing 2000 years ago than we have available today. I'd say the Roman Imperial Archives could explain a thing or two, all that's lost today. Like you say, burned to ashes by inquisitive "civil savages" mostly, often representatives of a certain church.

I would just like to mention, that Jesus Christ is the highest authority in the entire history of the world, what he said is law ! there is no one above him, he and God are one !

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Pinke

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
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.

rationalwiki.org...

Quoting rational wiki on a debate about historical Jesus is a bit like letting George Bush decide if Americans won 'the war' in Iraq.

You are allowed to follow up and look into the claims and show where they might be wrong, instead of pandering to your bias. I would say relying on "Religious Scholars" who are usually devoted believers in all things Christian woo (many even believe the miracles, which means they have departed from reality altogether) would be far worse.

Its clear to see that even the slightest bit, as in this case, of even a reference to Jesus is subject to outright rejection on its face. The ideas about Tacitus in this thread demonstrate that. There hasn't been a single criticism, on this thread, of his reference to Jesus that is worth any sort of salt.

a reply to: Ove38

Oh my! Look what the cat dragged in. Guess I should bid you welcome. How's the bread?

originally posted by: Heruactic
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

As you said yourself, his work was 116 A.D. meaning, He was right around the time where the Romans were building up Christianity. If his work was around 1-20 A.D. it would be a lot more credible. 116 A.D means Jesus died and 116 years later some guy writes a book that mentions word remotely relevant to the current miss-translation of the person's name who people pray to.

By no means were the Romans "building up" Christianity at this time. 60 years in historical terms is not by any means what historians would call "remotely relevant". Nor was the name Tacitus used a mistranslation but more like a colloquialism.

a reply to: Logarock

Besides, in the early 2nd century the Christian churches were hardly the uniform group with a literary canon and lofty architecture like the Church today. Tons of different groups with their separate theology and library. If any, since the early church was more a social thing, a sub culture like the hippies. A community thing. They met in eachother's homes sharing the latest of surfacing literature, discussed morals and philosophy, healed the sick and lead the blind, many were into astrology and prophecy. Had they lived 1300 years later they would have been burnt on the stake by the same Church they were developing.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Ove38

Oh my! Look what the cat dragged in. Guess I should bid you welcome. How's the bread?

As you may hear, tasty and powerful as ever thank you !

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Logarock

Besides, in the early 2nd century the Christian churches were hardly the uniform group with a literary canon and lofty architecture like the Church today. Tons of different groups with their separate theology and library. If any, since the early church was more a social thing, a sub culture like the hippies. A community thing. They met in eachother's homes sharing the latest of surfacing literature, discussed morals and philosophy, healed the sick and lead the blind, many were into astrology and prophecy. Had they lived 1300 years later they would have been burnt on the stake by the same Church they were developing.

Well that was then, and now is now ! not so easy o kill anymore

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

In fact most criticisms of historical figures that can be levelled at Jesus can be levelled elsewhere.

Not so. I doubt there are many (if any) figures with no historicial evidence and overwhelmingly magical/mythological claims that aren't considered myth.

There are plenty of things we thought were mythological but later turned out not to be with various bits of magic attached to them. Everything from being born of gods, having golden limbs, writing on the moon, meeting Amazonian queens ... it's bit like watching '300' or 'Braveheart'. It's really not uncommon for people to have myths or legends added to them in history. We even do it these days.

The basic crux is, is there anything special about historical Jesus and what would we expect?

* Jesus wasn't the first Jewish 'messiah' around this time to make bold claims.
* He wasn't the first Jewish 'messiah' to be executed.
* He wasn't the first to interpret the world through parables.
* Pontius Pilate probably existed.
* John the Baptist probably existed.
* Jesus never really did anything that obviously amazing in the first place if you discount the magical parts.

The only thing particularly special about Jesus is that a modern religion exists around the person. As far as the Romans were concerned it was just another week day where they had to nail someone to a piece of wood. It's not like we can find evidence of burnt cities, forgotten wars, or cloned fish. What 'historical' evidence would we expect from an executed ancient Jewish peasant?

It's totally possible that Jesus didn't exist, but that's not as obviously evident as people make out. There are also plenty of alternatives to who the 'real' Jesus is... You've even admitted that it's not entirely unreasonable and yet ...

The (bias) against rationalwiki, of course. Usually it's the "rational" part that is incompatible with religion and belief in mythical people. For you it might be something else.

I see what you did there.

Rational wiki, whilst it can be an okay starting point, is overwhelmingly easy to predict, rude at times, and overly certain of itself on some issues. It mirrors many of my beliefs but there are a large number of articles where I know the opponents on the issue have better arguments than the ones presented. It doesn't quite pass as academic or as opinion piece and it's sometimes more one than the other without warning.

The only other reason I could think of to bust it out would be in a discussion like this and then it's mostly just too insulting to change minds. Most of the time I feel like it's just a place for snarky people to give each other metaphorical back rubs whilst wearing ceremonial top hats and monocles. They used to also have a cult of fedora wearers but they exiled those to redit sometime ago.

originally posted by: Pinke

* Pontius Pilate probably existed.

probably ?

en.wikipedia.org...