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

god or advanced entity?

  • god

    Votes: 14 40.0%
  • advanced entity

    Votes: 21 60.0%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,966
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
On first reading, Tacitus' writings suggest that a person called Jesus once existed. However some have considered that Tacticus' writings are far from contemporaneous, being written almost eighty years after the supposed event. The reference to Christ is merely a passing reference while discussing something else, to explain how the Christians got their name. Others have claimed that Tacitus did not base the reference on official records as, if they had existed, they would have called the victim ‘Jesus’, instead of ‘Christ’ and given Pilate his proper title of ‘prelate’.

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of what Tacitus wrote about Jesus is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in AD 403), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date in AD 403. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were also reproducing.

There are a number of other serious difficulties which must be answered before Tacitus' Jesus passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

It's also interesting that only two unrelated Christian monasteries had any interest in preserving Tacitus' Annals, and neither of them preserved the whole thing, but each less than half of it, and by shear luck alone, they each preserved a different half. And yet there are still large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31 - the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred).

Scholars such as E.P. Sanders note, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And even renowned Christian apologist William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."

On top of that no early Christian writer uses Tacitus' passage in their apologetics, even when discussing Christian persecution by Nero:
* Tertullian (ca. 155–230)
* Lactantius (ca. 240 - ca. 320)
* Sulpicius Severus (c. 360 – 425)
* Eusebius (ca. 275 – 339)
* Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

Tacitus did in fact write a thorough history of the purported times of Jesus and his ministry, and while this work is lost to us, or the relevant parts missing as described above, Tacitus never makes any cross reference to it during his discussion of christians and Nero nor at any other point in his surviving works.
Welcome Roylion.
Your balance is always a joy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
On first reading, Tacitus' writings suggest that a person called Jesus once existed. However some have considered that Tacticus' writings are far from contemporaneous, being written almost eighty years after the supposed event. The reference to Christ is merely a passing reference while discussing something else, to explain how the Christians got their name. Others have claimed that Tacitus did not base the reference on official records as, if they had existed, they would have called the victim ‘Jesus’, instead of ‘Christ’ and given Pilate his proper title of ‘prelate’.

Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of what Tacitus wrote about Jesus is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in AD 403), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date in AD 403. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were also reproducing.

There are a number of other serious difficulties which must be answered before Tacitus' Jesus passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.

It's also interesting that only two unrelated Christian monasteries had any interest in preserving Tacitus' Annals, and neither of them preserved the whole thing, but each less than half of it, and by shear luck alone, they each preserved a different half. And yet there are still large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31 - the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred).

Scholars such as E.P. Sanders note, "Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports." And even renowned Christian apologist William Lane Craig states that Tacitus' statement is "no doubt dependent on Christian tradition."

On top of that no early Christian writer uses Tacitus' passage in their apologetics, even when discussing Christian persecution by Nero:
* Tertullian (ca. 155–230)
* Lactantius (ca. 240 - ca. 320)
* Sulpicius Severus (c. 360 – 425)
* Eusebius (ca. 275 – 339)
* Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)

Tacitus did in fact write a thorough history of the purported times of Jesus and his ministry, and while this work is lost to us, or the relevant parts missing as described above, Tacitus never makes any cross reference to it during his discussion of christians and Nero nor at any other point in his surviving works.
Considering the condescending tone of the writings of Tacitus, it's highly unlikely that the early church fathers would have used his writings for proof - that is of course if they were even available to them! The critical undertones of this writing would also more than likely prove that there is a lack of Interpolation from other Christian writers. Tacitus refers to Christianity as superstition etc. Don't forget either that Tacitus was more a historian and not a social commentator as it were, and would have largely relied on government record etc for his information.

This creates a further question then, that are the writings of Tacitus usually accepted as generally reliable history, and are they then only called into question when reference is made to Jesus? If so, why is this? Would a historian suddenly change to fanciful writing for only one topic when they have a track record of accuracy elsewhere?

As far as Nero is concerned, the main support for this is again Tacitus. Maybe he once again was taken to fanciful writings.
In any case, the main point this passage shows is that there was a man named Jesus who lived and died. In regards to Pilate, is it possible that
Tacitus was basically using an anachronism for the sake of clarity - procurator, prefect? Or maybe that Judea was relatively young, could Pilate have held
dual positions?
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,966
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
pie eyed
Still, it's possible for anyone (me) to question your view. There is real dispute about Armstrong landing on the moon, JFK and that guy on the hill, or Australia was uninhabited in 1788.
If Hitchens lived with Jesus, there may have been very little of Hitchens' books etc surviving today. Jesus had many authors writing about him as he organised 12 as board of directors. Do you have evidence different from academics that the Bible was mainly written by 65 CE?
I have no issue with dispute of the Moon landings, though there is little dispute that Kennedy was killed in Dallas.
These highly contemporary events have not only been filmed and witnessed, such as Television is a witness, but dissected and investigated in a manner Religion has never been exposed to. Religion, faith if you like, has had a "freepass" for thousands of years.
In the case of the Moon Landings who, if not Armstrong and co., placed the mirrors on the moon which cosmologists bounce lasers off several hundred times a day?
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
Welcome Roylion.
Your balance is always a joy.

Who says he brings balance?
Now, Roylion appears to be very intelligent and I respect him for that.
I also respect him as he appears to be dispassionate.

He however can not bring balance in a discussion about the life of a person if his presupposition
and the point that his arguments start from is that Jesus did not exist. That is not balance.

Maybe you appreciate his 'balance' as it is supportive of your beliefs?
Maybe you appreciate it because he seems to be able to say what you struggle with?

Again, I have no reason to like or dislike him, but I will respect him
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,966
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
On evidence that the earliest Gospel was written between 60-70 years after Jesus alleged death, at the very earliest, even the Vatican accepts this.
What of the Gospels which did not fit?
What of them?
Where do they fit in the historicy of the New Testament?
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,966
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
Who says he brings balance?
Now, Roylion appears to be very intelligent and I respect him for that.
I also respect him as he appears to be dispassionate.

He however can not bring balance in a discussion about the life of a person if his presupposition
and the point that his arguments start from is that Jesus did not exist. That is not balance.

Maybe you appreciate his 'balance' as it is supportive of your beliefs?
Maybe you appreciate it because he seems to be able to say what you struggle with?

Again, I have no reason to like or dislike him, but I will respect him
Roylion is and has been aware of the actual facts surrounding the accumulation of the bible. He, as a far as I am aware, a religious person,but accepts that claims to fact must be supported by same.
He simply states the ascertainable facts about Jesus, the accumulation of stories which constitute the New Testament and religious dogma as they stand.

As far as Roylion goes there is no like or dislike from my corner simply respect for his honest representation of his own faith.
As to supporting my beliefs, my beliefs have little if anything to do with the real world ascertainable facts surrounding Jesus alleged life and/or existence.
They simply are what they are.
This has nothing to do with my beliefs or wishes.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #2,932
In any case, the main point this passage shows is that there was a man named Jesus who lived and died.
No. It shows the Christians, one or two generations on had told Tacitus the story of the founding of their cult as they saw it.

The actual text is

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos* appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

translated as:

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 Judea, 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.

Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity. All he is doing is is repeating a story no doubt relayed to him by Christians (people with a vested interest) or people who had come into contact with Christians.

If someone like Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus who visited Egypt and Jerusalem and was well versed in the politics and events in first century Judea had mentioned Jesus in his writings, then that would be a different story.
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
On evidence that the earliest Gospel was written between 60-70 years after Jesus alleged death, at the very earliest, even the Vatican accepts this.
What of the Gospels which did not fit?
What of them?
Where do they fit in the historicy of the New Testament?


60-70 years after Jesus' death would place that at around 100AD.
If we consider that the earliest fragments of John were dated to a few years after this and were found in Egypt
that firstly opposes your view. Secondly, none of the Gospels refer to the destruction of the temple in AD70. This is
significant because Jesus foretold of its destruction. To not mention this then would be odd.
Luke wrote the book of Acts after writing his gospel. Now this book makes no mention of the persecution of
Christians by Nero, for example, nor the martyrdoms of Paul, Peter or even James which happened in 62AD.

Now, following this line, this puts Lukes' gospel being prior to the Acts which was finished no later than 62-63 AD
This then puts Luke at anything fro 55-59 or 60 AD. Within 30 years of the death of Jesus. And it is not even the earliest gospel.
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
No. It shows the Christians, one or two generations on had told Tacitus the story of the founding of their cult as they saw it.

The actual text is

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos* appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

translated as:

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 Judea, 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.

Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity. All he is doing is is repeating a story no doubt relayed to him by Christians (people with a vested interest) or people who had come into contact with Christians.

If someone like Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus who visited Egypt and Jerusalem and was well versed in the politics and events in first century Judea had mentioned Jesus in his writings, then that would be a different story.
Ok, even if I accept that Tacitus is not talking about the direct birth of Christianity, is it unreasonable to believe that this religion would have
grown so widely in such a short time if fallacies and discrepancies of its origins were being questioned? It would not have been difficult for Tacitus
to find fallacies if he had wanted to. He was a historian after all.
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Posts
9,156
Likes
8,254
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Cronulla Sharks PGFC Detroit Lions
see, one of the first things people need to realise is that the gospels in particular and books like the Acts are full of actual history and real people. There is no chance at all that Christianity would have survived 20 years after the crucifixion if it was easy to discredit or disprove! If it was pure mythology it would have been impossible to survive.
Why is it real? There is no firm evidence confirming ANY of it. No contemporary collaborating evidence. More so a shrieking silence from any of the greek, roman, persian accounts of the day. Supernatural events would've been noticed as much back then as they would be today. The fact that other religions have survived and thrived really only supports myth and legend can coalesce given time into some sort of belief system in any part of the world. Nothing extraordinary about that.

There IS something in this! There are plenty of other mythological religions if you like, like scientology, but none of them have the unique characteristics of the teachings and actions of Jesus.
[
Massive claim to make. Without us knowing every religion that ever existed you just cannot make that claim. That aside, of the top of my head Budda also has some of the humanism that features with jesus mythology. Supernatural claims are not unique to jesus either.

They truly are distinct. Now, there are definitely a couple of ways of looking at the 'revisions' if you will of Christianity. One is purely changing methodologies to remain relevant and responsive in an ever changing world. The other, and more controversial which people seem to like, is revisionist theology which rips apart the fabric and nature of the faith in order to make it easily palatable for skeptics, non-believers etc. Unfortunately this is a common thing but it does not represent real Christianity. There is a core truth in the faith that even 2000 years after the fact can not and has not changed. That is that Jesus came into the world to give his life so that everybody could be in a relationship with God and have the promise of eternity with him. This can't be argued away at all.
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.

I find the notion of perpetual sin absurd. Life is too short and precious to waste apologising for your existence over fiction. That's my view. I don't mean for it to offend a believer like you but threats of metaphyiscal torture realms controlled by other mythological figures just as powerful as god don't scare me into believing supernatural claims from thousands of years ago. To be fair the same claims and threats from Hinduism dont fill me the same way either. you realise the same threats exist in Hinduism. Are you fearful of going to Hindu hell?
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
Massive claim to make. Without us knowing every religion that ever existed you just cannot make that claim. That aside, of the top of my head Budda also has some of the humanism that features with jesus mythology. Supernatural claims are not unique to jesus either.



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.

and this is the uniqueness of Christianity. It is called Grace.
Grace says that God would love his creation so much that he would sacrifice everything so that they
can be in relationship with him. Grace says that there is nothing you can do to earn the favour of God,
and it is just given. Grace says that no matter what you have done, God is willing to forgive it
and take the penalty upon himself just so that people can have community with him.

No other religion has the awesome message of grace.
It is freeing!

I would also like to add that God did not place sin on people.
People choose to sin.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
Why is it real? There is no firm evidence confirming ANY of it. No contemporary collaborating evidence. More so a shrieking silence from any of the greek, roman, persian accounts of the day. Supernatural events would've been noticed as much back then as they would be today. The fact that other religions have survived and thrived really only supports myth and legend can coalesce given time into some sort of belief system in any part of the world. Nothing extraordinary about that.

Actually, there truly is a lot of evidence supporting the historicity. I would also suggest that other religions and their
claims and legend can in the most part be explained away. This is not so easy with Christianity.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #2,938
Roylion is and has been aware of the actual facts surrounding the accumulation of the bible. He, as a far as I am aware, a religious person,but accepts that claims to fact must be supported by same.
I'm agnostic.

I'm of the view that holds that nothing is known, or is likely to be known, of the existence of a deistic God or indeed of anything beyond material phenomena.

I define 'god' in two ways:

- an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

or alternatively...

- any supernatural being (deity), worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

I therefore live my life without concern for observing the worship of an unknowable god and do not concern myself with any of religion's material trappings (all invented by man)...beyond being an impartial, interested observer.

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

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #2,939
There is a core truth in the faith that even 2000 years after the fact can not and has not changed. That is that Jesus came into the world to give his life so that everybody could be in a relationship with God and have the promise of eternity with him. This can't be argued away at all.
That is a matter of faith and belief. Not necessarily truth and/or fact.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #2,941
Actually, there truly is a lot of evidence supporting the historicity.
No there is not. If you'd like to present the evidence, I'm happy to debate it point by point. We've done Tacitus. Will we perhaps move on to Josephus?

I would also suggest that other religions and their claims and legend can in the most part be explained away. This is not so easy with Christianity.
How so?
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #2,942
in one sense yes, but it is a core truth of Christianity, and again, it can't be argued away.
In just about every sense.

What Christians believe in terms of Jesus coming into the world to give his life so that everybody could be in a relationship with God and have the promise of eternity with him comes down purely to faith and belief. It is not a truth, other than that Christians believe this as a core plank of their religious faith.
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
No there is not. If you'd like to present the evidence, I'm happy to debate it point by point. We've done Tacitus. Will we perhaps move on to Josephus?
Let's finish with Tacitus first! In fact, are you able to respond to my responses to your responses etc etc?
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Posts
11
Likes
0
AFL Club
Hawthorn
.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. . Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.
Which "official record" about Jesus do you mean? Naming Pilate as ruler in Judea would be reasonable for Roman pagan readers.
wikipedia: [The town Antioch, which is said to have given them the name Christian, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames.[10] However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.[11] (1st century).
The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him;"[12] (1st century) Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; ]
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #2,945
Ok, even if I accept that Tacitus is not talking about the direct birth of Christianity, is it unreasonable to believe that this religion would have grown so widely in such a short time if fallacies and discrepancies of its origins were being questioned?
Grown so widely? Christianity was but one of a myriad of cults and religions within the Roman Empire and by no means the largest. Those who acknowledged Rome's hegemony retained their own cult and religious calendars, independent of Roman religious law. There were cults originating from Egypt, Greece, Iberia, India and Persia. The cults of Cybele, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus were more important than Christianity was for a long time. Judaism was also accepted, as was Hellenism and there was an important Imperial cult where the deification of Roman Emperors was commonplace.

Rodney Stark's book “The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries.” estimated that by 50 AD there may have been about 1,400 Christians in total. Fifty years later he estimates just over 7,500 and by 150 about 40,000 Christians in an estimated Roman empire population of about 60 million. That's 0.07% of the population.
It would not have been difficult for Tacitus to find fallacies if he had wanted to. He was a historian after all.
Why would he? The small Christian sect / cult would not have interested him. That's assuming the passage was genuine. And I've already cast doubts on that.
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
and yet such a small sect had such a big impact!

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

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
37,966
Likes
15,370
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
60-70 years after Jesus' death would place that at around 100AD.
If we consider that the earliest fragments of John were dated to a few years after this and were found in Egypt
that firstly opposes your view. Secondly, none of the Gospels refer to the destruction of the temple in AD70. This is
significant because Jesus foretold of its destruction. To not mention this then would be odd.
Luke wrote the book of Acts after writing his gospel. Now this book makes no mention of the persecution of
Christians by Nero, for example, nor the martyrdoms of Paul, Peter or even James which happened in 62AD.

Now, following this line, this puts Lukes' gospel being prior to the Acts which was finished no later than 62-63 AD
This then puts Luke at anything fro 55-59 or 60 AD. Within 30 years of the death of Jesus. And it is not even the earliest gospel.
You think it odd that a text purporting to be of Jesus time would not mention an event which, in reality had happened at the time of actual writing, yet for their purposes itsuited to give the impression Jesus had predicted it?

You know I predicted 9/11 many years agoin great detail even naming the main players.....
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
22,122
Likes
17,541
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
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?
 

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Posts
17,564
Likes
6,091
Location
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
Grown so widely? Christianity was but one of a myriad of cults and religions within the Roman Empire and by no means the largest. Those who acknowledged Rome's hegemony retained their own cult and religious calendars, independent of Roman religious law. There were cults originating from Egypt, Greece, Iberia, India and Persia. The cults of Cybele, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus were more important than Christianity was for a long time. Judaism was also accepted, as was Hellenism and there was an important Imperial cult where the deification of Roman Emperors was commonplace.

Rodney Stark's book “The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries.” estimated that by 50 AD there may have been about 1,400 Christians in total. Fifty years later he estimates just over 7,500 and by 150 about 40,000 Christians in an estimated Roman empire population of about 60 million. That's 0.07% of the population.


Why would he? The small Christian sect / cult would not have interested him. That's assuming the passage was genuine. And I've already cast doubts on that.
I love reading your work. So informed. So accurate. So unemotional. Do you still teach? Such a pity if you don't. What a loss that would be. The ability to change children's lives, spilling over into their adulthood and dotage, is an underrated, if not ignored, skill. Like all great teachers, and this, by definition, excludes those selling religion, you provide a way to think, rather than what to think. People like you make life worth living, and if you turn around, I'll piss in your other pocket. :)
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,424
Likes
17,018
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
pie eyed
Still, it's possible for anyone (me) to question your view. There is real dispute about Armstrong landing on the moon, JFK and that guy on the hill, or Australia was uninhabited in 1788.
If Hitchens lived with Jesus, there may have been very little of Hitchens' books etc surviving today. Jesus had many authors writing about him as he organised 12 as board of directors. Do you have evidence different from academics that the Bible was mainly written by 65 CE?
If Hitchins hung out with Jesus then the Bible would have been a much more entertaining read. Paul was a complete bore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom