Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[evo]

The problem with jesus resurrection story is that, when you boil it down and examine it, it's god sacrificing himself to himself, to wash away the sin he placed on the people he created to save them from himself. That is just absurd.

Hehe. Funny stuff isn't it. When you boil it down, much of the Bible just doesn't make sense. And a billion people buy the shyte. You wouldn't read about it.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

It was written before the event! What part of that can you not understand? I showed you how your
opinion of the dating was incorrect, and this is your response?

Just give up.

Roylion will destroy you.

 

[chimeraegol]

Grown so widely? Christianity was but one of a myriad of cults and religions within the Roman Empire and by no means the largest. .

However, all the others were respectable. Mithraism was a soldier's religion with temples in Britain etc probably similar to RSL in Oz today. Christianity in the beginning was mainly for slaves or Jews in Rome, about a non-hero who got flogged like a convict and executed. They didn't offer incense to Caesar the god and weren't into fighting and so on. Losers.

 

[Roylion]

and yet such a small sect had such a big impact!

Not at the time of Tacitus.

By the way, are there many other passages by Tacitus that are called into question of validity?

The reliability of Tacitus has been called into question by some scholars such as M.L.W. Laistner. Tacitus certainly isn't a dispassionate historian. His portrayal of the Emperor Tiberius for example has been described by some as little more than a mere caricature and of limited historical worth. His background as a Roman senator clearly influenced his writing and some of his biases are clear to see.

 

[Bennett.]

Just give up.

Roylion will destroy you.

Thanks for the heads-up Mario, but I'm not looking to fight anyone.
I like debating, something which I'm sure bothers some people.

Your man-crush on him is cute though

 

[Bennett.]

Not at the time of Tacitus.



The reliability of Tacitus has been called into question by some scholars such as M.L.W. Laistner. Tacitus certainly isn't a dispassionate historian. His portrayal of the Emperor Tiberius for example has been described by some as little more than a mere caricature and of limited historical worth. His background as a Roman senator clearly influenced his writing and some of his biases are clear to see.

Absolutely, he could be critical, dispassionate, satirist etc, but again this does not really show that his accuracy or reliability of reporting about people is
questionable. Even if his style of writing of them is negative, it's still generally accepted that those he wrote about were real yes?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Thanks for the heads-up Mario, but I'm not looking to fight anyone.

I'm not stating that.

I like debating, something which I'm sure bothers some people.

A debate is about challenging views which further unfolds in to an educative process.

You obviously enjoy the exercise due to self reinforcement, rather than as an exercise is education.

You're doing little more than jacking off in public.

 

[chimeraegol]

I've asked Roylion about errors and he hasn't replied yet. Making unfounded declarations, or just being anti religious, aren't strong positions.

 

[Roylion]

Absolutely, he could be critical, dispassionate, satirist etc, but again this does not really show that his accuracy or reliability of reporting about people is
questionable.

Tacitus comes from the Greco-Roman tradition of history writers whose purpose is as much to promote a rhetorical flourish-filled moral agenda as it is to record facts. What he wrote about certain people is questionable historically and has been done so by scholars. His writings make it clear that Tacitus believed that the Roman emperors of the 1st century were evil and capricious men who stifled republican freedoms, practiced arbitrary despotism while hypocritically claiming to champion free institutions, and indulged themselves in moral degeneracy. Tiberius is the best known example. Hardly a dispassionate historian keen to just record the 'facts'. Many see his writings on the emperors at least as embittered, partisan diatribes.

Even if his style of writing of them is negative, it's still generally accepted that those he wrote about were real yes?

But Tacitus didn't write directly about Jesus as he did about for example the Roman emperors or his father in law Agricola. It's very clear that he was explaining who these "Christians" are, not talking abot an indvidual called Jesus of Nazareth. Using Tacitus as 'abundant proof" of the historicity of Jesus is very questionable, given that the name Jesus isn't even used. All that is mentioned is that their founder is the anointed one, i.e. "Christus". Tacitus was an imperial writer in that it appears he used official Roman records much of the time at least and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ."

Tacitus mentions Jupiter and Hercules as well, but I dare say that you wouldn't use that as evidence of Jupiter's or Hercules' existence.

As I mentioned, Philo of Alexandria wrote in depth about early first century Palestine. He was a leading scholar, who wrote on various Jewish sects, such as the Essenes, and a significant political figure plugged into the elite concerns of Alexandrian Jews, who even chose him to lead their embassy to the emperor of Rome. (He also made regular pilgrimages to Jerusalem: Philo, On Providence 2.64.)

For example he wrote on a certain madman called Carabbas in Flaccus VI written between AD 38 - 47. Note a few similarities with Matthew 27:26-29.

"(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;
(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;
(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.
(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris! (Lord); and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign"

See the similarities?

The other thing that strikes me about Tactius is that the passage about Christos is never quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity.

 

[chimeraegol]

Tacitus was an imperial writer in that it appears he used official Roman records much of the time at least and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ."

.

Pliny the Younger wrote of "Christians" which implies a "christ".
[Pliny served as an imperial magistrate under Trajan (reigned AD 98–117).[1] Pliny was considered an honest and moderate man, consistent in his pursuit of suspected Christian members according to Roman law. He rose through a series of Imperial civil and military offices, the cursus honorum (see below). He was a friend of the historian Tacitus and employed the biographer Suetonius in his staff.]
Suetonius wrote of Chrest and his followers. Josephus who was of the Jewish establishment also did, contemporary with these writers.
[Josephus fully defected to the Roman side and was granted Roman citizenship, and became an advisor and friend of Vespasian's son Titus. He served as an advisor and translator to Titus when Titus led the Siege of Jerusalem].

 

[evo]

Tacitus mentions Jupiter and Hercules as well, but I dare say that you wouldn't use that as evidence of Jupiter's or Hercules' existence.

Well played, sir.

 

[evo]

Pliny the Younger wrote of "Christians" which implies a "christ".

AFAICT Roylion has never denied there were "Christians", only that he is sceptical that all the stories ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels are necessarily about the same individual.

 

[chimeraegol]

Well played, sir.

Foul. Jupiter and Hercules had temples or statues and the perceptions of their influence caused real events. Democracy and slavery were invisible but existed.

 

[chimeraegol]

AFAICT Roylion has never denied there were "Christians", only that he is sceptical that all the stories ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels are necessarily about the same individual.

wha...?
"Consequently whether Jesus actually existed or not is immaterial to me.
Claims that there is abundant historical evidence that Jesus existed simply cannot be substantiated. "

 

[Roylion]

Pliny the Younger wrote of "Christians" which implies a "christ".

There were plenty of Christs around that time. At this time the word "Christ" was a title (the Messiah) and not a personal name.. Christós, meaning 'anointed' is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), the Messiah.

Pliny's writing do not mention the name Jesus. This could have referred to any of the other "christs", who were being followed by some Jews who thought they had found the messiah.

Pliny’s report is only of what other people believed. Even if this sentence does refer to a group who followed Jesus it is not particularly enlightening as no one denies that Christianity was in existence at that time. Pliny's report might be useful in documenting the cult, but not the historic Jesus.

[Pliny served as an imperial magistrate under Trajan (reigned AD 98–117).[1] Pliny was considered an honest and moderate man, consistent in his pursuit of suspected Christian members according to Roman law. He rose through a series of Imperial civil and military offices, the cursus honorum (see below). He was a friend of the historian Tacitus and employed the biographer Suetonius in his staff.]

Errr....yes. What's your point?

Suetonius wrote of Chrest and his followers.

Gaius Suetonius wrote in about AD 120, in his major work, “Lives of the Caesars.”

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

Now, Chrestus may be a misspelling of Christus, but it is also the correct Latin version of a different Greek name. So this passage means one of two things:

Either:
- There were Christians in Rome at the time of Claudius, causing trouble in the name of their Christ, whose name was misspelled by an expert in linguistics; or
- There was a Jew in Rome called Chrestus, directly causing trouble.

Either way, the passage written by Suetonius proves little about the historical accuracy of Jesus as a person.

Josephus who was of the Jewish establishment also did, contemporary with these writers.
[Josephus fully defected to the Roman side and was granted Roman citizenship, and became an advisor and friend of Vespasian's son Titus. He served as an advisor and translator to Titus when Titus led the Siege of Jerusalem].

Josephus is not a contemporary of the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels and attributed to somewhere around AD 33. At least one of the two passages where he supposedly wrote about Christ is considered to be a later interpolation, while the other is subject to much debate.

Josephus was born about AD 37, three-four years after the traditional date fixed for the crucifixion of Jesus. It is also believed that his writings were made about AD 93, and took place AFTER the writing of the first gospel, commonly believed to be that of Mark.

There are two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings...

The first reads as follows:
"About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

and the second reads as follows:
"Ananus… convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

There are serious doubts that Josephus actually wrote the first of these passages. For example why would Josephus (a Jew), call Jesus the Messiah. As a Jew he would believe that the Messiah is yet to come. Origen, a Church father, who dealt extensively with Josephus - stated that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, i.e., as "the Christ." So why did Josephus call Jesus that? It almost imputes that Josephus was a devout Christian and he certainly was not!

Furthermore many historians have stated that the first passage seems out of context and has been placed there by a later Christian, possibly Eusebius about AD 324. No one before Eusebius quotes the passage, though second and third-century Christian scholars such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen knew the Josephus book well. Had they known of the passage, surely they would have quoted it in their theological disputes with the Jews. They didn't.

This is the same Eusebius who said that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ: "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).

Voltaire in the 16th century also cast significant doubts on the Josephus passage.

Opinion about the second "James" passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the first may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. Now if Jesus was so well known and in fact performed the great miracles that are reported in the Gospels, then why doesn't Josephus mention these in more detail?

However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.

Whatever the case, using Josephus as firm evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ of the Gospels is based on somewhat shaky ground.

 

[Roylion]

Foul. Jupiter and Hercules had temples or statues and the perceptions of their influence caused real events.

They must really exist then. Is that what you're implying? I'd say not.

But seeing their existence may well be confirmed by the presence of temples and statues, as well as the writings of Tacitus, maybe I should become a follower of Jupiter. Now's where my white ox? Better get sacrificing. And the Ides of January isn't far away. Better get down to the market to pick up my white castrated ram.

 

[evo]

Mithraic and Elusian mystery cults sounded pretty cool. Drunken bull-slaying orgies.

 

[chimeraegol]

You stated that Tacitus would not likely use "Christ" as it was not an official reference. Pliny shows it was, by implication from his use of "Christian". Maybe in the 2nd century a myth cult could have emerged in Rome, but a Christian religion in Judea by people of Jesus' generation would easily be refuted there, if false. It's unlikely that other Christs had Jewish followers in Rome if the messiahs were Jewish territorial activists.
"Jupiter and Hercules had temples or statues and the perceptions of their influence caused real events."
Romans perceived the gods as real and we understand that Romans actually did so perceive. They spent cash on gods and went to war according to omens. A person can read Hitler or Marx without becoming a Nazi or Comm believer.

 

[Bennett.]

I'm not stating that.



A debate is about challenging views which further unfolds in to an educative process.

You obviously enjoy the exercise due to self reinforcement, rather than as an exercise is education.

You're doing little more than jacking off in public.

I'll leave the masturbation techniques to you.

If you can't see that I am answering opinions with my own, then I'm not sure what I can tell you.

 

[Bennett.]

But Tacitus didn't write directly about Jesus as he did about for example the Roman emperors or his father in law Agricola. It's very clear that he was explaining who these "Christians" are, not talking abot an indvidual called Jesus of Nazareth. Using Tacitus as 'abundant proof" of the historicity of Jesus is very questionable, given that the name Jesus isn't even used. All that is mentioned is that their founder is the anointed one, i.e. "Christus". Tacitus was an imperial writer in that it appears he used official Roman records much of the time at least and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ."



The other thing that strikes me about Tactius is that the passage about Christos is never quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity.

So, even the fact that he refers to 'Christus' as founder of the 'Christian' sect that was named after him and who was
executed by Pilate is not enough because he doesn't give accurate height, weight or proper name?

I already gave a reason as to why the church fathers wouldn't have used Tacitus as a proof text, as such.

 

[Bennett.]

Pliny the Younger wrote of "Christians" which implies a "christ".
[Pliny served as an imperial magistrate under Trajan (reigned AD 98–117).[1] Pliny was considered an honest and moderate man, consistent in his pursuit of suspected Christian members according to Roman law. He rose through a series of Imperial civil and military offices, the cursus honorum (see below). He was a friend of the historian Tacitus and employed the biographer Suetonius in his staff.]

Pliny the younger lived from about 63 A.D to about 113 A.D and he admitted torturing and killing christians.
Yeah these were the same Christians who were small in number, worshipping some guy who didn't exist etc etc.
Maybe they were followers of Bob Christ, as Jesus is never specifically mentioned?

 

[Bennett.]

Gaius Suetonius wrote in about AD 120, in his major work, “Lives of the Caesars.”

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

Now, Chrestus may be a misspelling of Christus, but it is also the correct Latin version of a different Greek name. So this passage means one of two things:

Either:
- There were Christians in Rome at the time of Claudius, causing trouble in the name of their Christ, whose name was misspelled by an expert in linguistics; or
- There was a Jew in Rome called Chrestus, directly causing trouble.

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit

Suetonius seems to imply the word 'Chrestus' as a title. The lack of 'quodam' which means 'a certain' (i.e a certain christ, or a certain person known as Christo) is telling.

impulsore - Instigation not instigator, so it appears again he is using Chrestus as a title, not name

Chrestus was a Greco-Roman slave name. Suetonius tells us that 'foreigners' were not allowed to adopt such names. Now it is highly unlikely that the Jews would have followed a gentile slave of the same name to such an extent that it got them kicked out of Rome!

Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Lactanius also use the term Chrestus when talking about Christians too.

Therefore, the passage reads that the Jews were making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, so they were expelled.

Which of these seems a more likely option? A direct reference to Jesus, or a regular slave?

 

[chimeraegol]

Interesting hint about why Jews were expelled:
[Claudius was concerned with the spread of eastern mysteries within the city and searched for more Roman replacements. He emphasized the Eleusinian mysteries which had been practiced by so many during the Republic. He expelled foreign astrologers, and at the same time rehabilitated the old Roman soothsayers (known as haruspices) as a replacement. He was especially hard on Druidism, because of its incompatibility with the Roman state religion and its proselytizing activities.[citation needed]
It is also reported that at one time he expelled the Jews from Rome, probably because the Jews within the city caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.[32] Claudius opposed proselytizing in any religion, even in those regions where he allowed natives to worship freely. The results of all these efforts were recognized even by Seneca, who has an ancient Latin god defend Claudius in his satire.]

 

[Pie eyed]

Thanks for the heads-up Mario, but I'm not looking to fight anyone.
I like debating, something which I'm sure bothers some people.

Your man-crush on him is cute though

If you're keen for debate then getting a hold of the facts is a great start.
Everything Roylion and others have posted regarding the historicy of the Jesus tale is easily available on the net.
I have posted in minute detail the actual evidence, the actual words of the key players, the facts as officially acknowledged by the Vatican, their own scholars, numerous unaffiliated experts in the field and the hard evidence for every aspect numerous times in this and numerous other threads on the exact subject down to linking to scans of the actual dead sea scrolls, accurate translations of said and a literally hundreds of links to relevant documents and records.

That you now wish to ask the question is fabulous but I've posted and reposted this inormation dozens of times, as have numerous others.

It is a simple task to spend a week, not posting what you believe, but researching the actaul facts.
Then come back and draw up the parametersof your debate.

I'm sick of being the called upon to disprove the unprovable by those too lazy to even get a decent grasp of their own beliefs.
They're not my beliefs and the onus is on the claimant to back their claims.

 

[Pie eyed]

I find it lol-worthy that all evidence for Jesus actual existence, let alone his holiness, is dependent on the perceived writing style and possible mood on the day he may or may not have offhandedly mentioned, not by name mind you, a person who may or may not be construed to be a man who possibly had something to do with a small, but otherwise un-noteworthy minor civil disturbance amongst a few jews, who may or may not have been of an unnamed sect which may possibly be construed to "Christians" of you squint from a distance, by an otherwise totally unremarkable minor Roman clerk.

Hollah!


What a massive stretch I see.