Identity of Christ?

[triv]

Where did Jesus get his reputation from?

 

The fact that there was a man named Jesus in the first century who stirred up some controversy is not debated too much anymore among historians. That's not what I'm worried about. The question I have is that who made him into what he is in the Bible? Was he a very good deciever and tricked people into believing his lies? Did his followers make up all the stories? Or was it the later church that deified him?

 

I just want to know the nonchristian/exchristian argument for where the break between the historical Jesus and the real Jesus happened. Also, who was Jesus if he wasn't God?

[Celsus]

The existence of a man we now refer to as "Jesus of Nazareth" is very much a point of contention with historians, as no contemporary records exist that corroborate the claims of the New Testament.

[triv]

What about these?

 

Tacitus (AD 55-120) - Annals

Suetonius (AD 120) - Life of Claudius

Josephus (AD 37 - 97) - Antiquities

Pliny the Younger (AD 112) - Epistles X

Thallus (AD 52) - Histories

Mara Bar-Serapion (AD 73)

Phlegon (AD 80)

and more

 

All nonchristian, all talk about Jesus.

Here are some things mentioned in these writings:

1. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

2. He was a wise and provocative teacher.

3. He reportedly performed miracles and made prophetic claims.

4. His followers believed that he had risen from the dead.

plus more of course

 

Again, that was not my question. I want to know how Jesus became legendary.

[Asimov]

What about these?

 

Tacitus (AD 55-120) - Annals

Suetonius (AD 120) - Life of Claudius

Josephus (AD 37 - 97) - Antiquities

Pliny the Younger (AD 112) - Epistles X

Thallus (AD 52) - Histories

Mara Bar-Serapion (AD 73)

Phlegon (AD 80)

and more

 

All nonchristian, all talk about Jesus.

Here are some things mentioned in these writings:

1. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

2. He was a wise and provocative teacher.

3. He reportedly performed miracles and made prophetic claims.

4. His followers believed that he had risen from the dead.

plus more of course

 

Again, that was not my question.  I want to know how Jesus became legendary.

 

 

What about them? A lot of those such as thallus, pliny, and tacitus are not direct information about Jesus. Josephus never mentions Jesus, that is most likely a forgery. As for the others, I have no idea, you need to provide more information, such as actual writings...

[triv]

Actually Josephus does mention Jesus and the forgery is the a very small interpolation which I don't exactly remember but it's only like the words "who was the Christ" or something like that.

[Asimov]

Actually Josephus does mention Jesus and the forgery is the a very small interpolation which I don't exactly remember but it's only like the words "who was the Christ" or something like that.

 

He mentions a jesus who was hanged....

[Valgeir]

Now's one of those times when I miss Rameus...

[triv]

Tacitus did not have direct information about Christ?

Well here ya go: taken from book 15 from Annals

 

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius"

 

Don't know how you can be more direct than that.

???

[Valgeir]

Seriously, someone has to e-mail Rameus, I'm sure he'd find the time to shoot this to shit.

 

Edit: Eh, I don't even have all my stuff together. I'm gonna go see if I can find Rameus' old posts.

[triv]

Found Josephus' quote too:

 

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man."

 

The underlined part is the part that is questioned to be interpolation.

[triv]

You can explain all these away as forgeries but when does it stop. Its just out of control skepticism. I read on this forum about how Christians get put down for always trying to look away from things and ignore them and try to explain them, its a stalemate for both sides, both have problems that the other side thinks they have an answer for.

 

So I guess I got my answer indirectly for my first question, is Jesus just a fabrication by people way later than the first century who made up the gospels and put lies in historical works? Or is it something else?

[Valgeir]

http://exchristian.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=946

[Valgeir]

Jesus of Nazareth is thought by a growing number of scholars to be a mythical construct.

[triv]

Good to know, theres still the facts though so they can come up with whatever construct that they want.

 

And the whole Josephus thing, I know it is controversial, thats why I added 6 more sources for ya.

[Valgeir]

Yeah, then went on to quote Josephus.

 

Either way, I'm ducking out now. Rameus could have handled this way better than I could, and I'm sure there're some other people here capable.

[triv]

Ok thats fine, I just want an answer to my original question.

[Asimov]

# Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus

 

Tacitus: "But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man." (Annals XV, 44)

 

It would be utterly ridiculous to use this, but still, some do.

 

 

    * (1) It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus. The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities. For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance.

    * (2) The phrase "multitudo ingens" which means "a great number" is opposed to all that we know of the spread of the new faith in Rome at the time. A vast multitude in 64 A.D.? There were not more than a few thousand Christians 200 years later. The idea of so many just 30 years after his supposed death is just a falsehood.

    * (3) The use of the Christians as "living torches," as Tacitus describes, and all the other atrocities that were committed against them, have little title to credence, and suggest an imagination exalted by reading stories of the later Christian martyrs. Death by fire was not a punishment inflicted at Rome in the time of Nero. It is opposed to the moderate principles on which the accused were then dealt with by the State.

    * (4) The Roman authorities can have had no reason to inflict special punishment on the new faith. How could the non-initiated Romans know what were the concerns of a comparatively small religious sect, which was connected with Judaism and must have seemed to the impartial observer wholly identical with it.

    * (5) Suetonius says that Nero showed the utmost indifference, even contempt in regard to religious sects. Even afterwards the Christians were not persecuted for their faith, but for political reasons, for their contempt of the Roman state and emperor, and as disturbers of the unity and peace of the empire. What reason can Nero have had to proceed against the Christians, hardly distinguishable from the Jews, as a new and criminal sect?

    * (6) It is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus formed a community in the city at that time of sufficient importance to attract public attention and the ill-feeling of the people. It isn't the most popular way to convert and bring people into their religion.

    * (7) The victims could not have been given to the flames in the gardens of Nero, as Tacitus allegedly said. According to another account by Tacitus these gardens were the refuge of those whose homes had been burned and were full of tents and wooden sheds. Why would he risk burning these by lighting human fires amidst all these shelters?

    * (8) According to Tacitus, Nero was in Antium, not Rome, when the fire occurred.

    * (9) The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the Dark Ages and not like Tacitus. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments Nero took particular care that no lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."

    * (10) It is highly unlikely that he mingled with the crowd and feasted his eyes on the ghastly spectacle. Tacitus tells us in his life of Agricola that Nero had crimes committed, but kept his own eyes off them.

    * (11) Some authorities allege that the passage in Tacitus could not have been interpolated because his style of writing could not have been copied. But this argument is without merit since there is no "inimitable" style for the clever forger, and the more unususal, distinctive, and peculiar a style is, like that of Tacitus, the easier it is to imitate. Moreover, as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned we are, perhaps, interested only in one sentence of the passage and that has nothing distinctively Tacitan about it.

    * (12) Tacitus is assumed to have written this about 117 A.D., about 80 years after the death of Jesus, when Christianity was already an organized religion with a settled tradition. The gospels, or at least 3 of them, are supposed to have been in existence. Hence Tacitus might have derived his information about Jesus, if not directly from the gospels, indirectly from them by means of oral tradition. This is the view of Dupuis, who wrote: "Tacitus says what the legend said." In 117 A.D. Tacitus could only know about Christ by what reached him from Christian or intermediate circles. He merely reproduced rumors.

    * (13) In no other part of his writings did Tacitus make the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians." Christus was a very common name, as was Jesus, in fact Jospehus lists about 20 in the time Jesus was supposedly said to have existed.

    * (14) Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians took their denomination from Christ which could apply to any of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, including Christ Jesus.

    * (15) The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called "Christians." Serapis or Osiris had a large following at Rome especially among the common people.

    * (18) The expression "Christians" which Tacitus applies to the followers of Jesus, was by no means common in the time of Nero. Not a single Greek or Roman writer of the first century mentions the name. The Christians who called themselves Jessaeans, Nazoraeans, the Elect, the Saints, the Faithful, etc. were universally regarded as Jews. They observed the Mosaic law and the people could not distinguish them from the other Jews. The Greek word Christus (the anointed) for Messiah, and the derivative word, Christian, first came into use under Trajan in the time of Tacitus. Even then, however, the word Christus could not mean Jesus of Nazareth. All the Jews without exception looked forward to a Christus or Messiah. It is, therefore, not clear how the fact of being a "Christian" could, in the time of Nero or of Tacitus, distinguish the followers of Jesus from other believers in a Christus or Messiah. Not one of the gospels applies the name Christians to the followers of Jesus. It is never used in the New Testament as a description of themselves by the believers in Jesus.

    * (19) Most scholars admit that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any degree of fidelity.

    * (20) This passage which could have served Christian writers better than any other writing of Tacitus, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he often quoted the works of Tacitus. Tertullian's arguments called for the use of this passage with so loud a voice that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounted to a violent improbability.

    * (21) Eusebius in the 4th century cited all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources but makes no mention of Tacitus.

    * (22) This passage is not quoted by Clement of Alexandria who at the beginning of the 3rd century set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.

    * (23) Origen in his controversy with Celsus would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.

    * (24) There is no vestige or trace of this passage anywhere in the world before the 15th century. Its use as part of the evidences of the Christian religion is absolutely modern. Although no reference whatever is made to it by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before the 15th century (1468 A.D.), after that time it is quoted or referred to in an endless list of works including by your supposed historian.

    * (25) The fidelity of the passage rests entirely upon the fidelity of one individual (first published in a copy of the annals of Tacitus in the year 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice who took his imprint of it from a single manuscript) who would have every opportunity and inducement to insert such an interpolation.

    * (26) In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. If genuine, such a sentence would be the most important evidence in pagan literature. How could it have been overlooked for 1360 years?

    * (27) And lastly, the style of the passage is not consistent with the usually mild and classic language of Tacitus

 

From Rook Hawkins.

 

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name...&t=5522&start=0

[Thurisaz]

I just want to know the nonchristian/exchristian argument for where the break between the historical Jesus and the real Jesus happened.  Also, who was Jesus if he wasn't God?

 

There may or may not have been a historical Jesus. If he existed, he may well have been a wise man... at least for his time (by today's moral standards, some of his actions were, well, questionable). But that's not the point.

 

To paraphrase from www.jesusneverexisted.com:

 

The real question is: Did a holy carpenter walk on water, raise the dead and come back after death?

 

This is the part of the legend which constitutes an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence. I've yet to see any, and until I do, I dismiss the Jesus myth as a fairy tale, though one with some good lessons to learn from.

 

I'm not holding my breath though.

[SmallStone]

I just want to know the nonchristian/exchristian argument for where the break between the historical Jesus and the real Jesus happened.

Assuming an historical Jesus of course, I'd say the fiction begins at the moment when the claims about Jesus' life go from being tales of an average first century guy to being tales of the son of god and miracles. Isn't the claim of the extraordinary usually the difference that separates myth and reality? Why should these extraordinary claims be treated any differently than the claims made by Rastifarians about Haile Selassie? Many contemporary non-Rastafarian writers chronicled those claims, are they automatically true therefore?

 

Also, who was Jesus if he wasn't God?

Who was David Koresh if he wasn't god?

[Ouroboros]

triv,

 

Regarding the historians

 

Considering that these people supposedly referred to the extremely important event for human mankind; that God came down as a human and died and was resurrected, with all fireworks going on around it, how come these people/historians didn't write whole essays, liberally exploring all the ins and outs and benefits of being christian, because they've been proven that God actually sent his son to us. Wouldn't they have converted after seeing the proof of the living god?

 

And the quote from Josephus:

 

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

 

Josephus was a believing Jew working under Romans, would he ever write "He was the Christ" (The Anointed One). The only one that can anoint someone is Yahweh, and for Josephus to write this, that is sacrilege and blasphemy. So either Josephus was a closet Christian (which doesn't show in the rest of his work – if he did one reference to his secret belief, he would let it out in many other places too – otherwise then why even do it here), or the sentence was not written by him.

 

[edit: spellchecked]

[Ouroboros]

Where did Jesus get his reputation from?

 

The fact that there was a man named Jesus in the first century who stirred up some controversy is not debated too much anymore among historians.  That's not what I'm worried about.  The question I have is that who made him into what he is in the Bible?  Was he a very good deciever and tricked people into believing his lies?  Did his followers make up all the stories?  Or was it the later church that deified him?

 

I just want to know the nonchristian/exchristian argument for where the break between the historical Jesus and the real Jesus happened.  Also, who was Jesus if he wasn't God?

 

Just because the historical references to Jesus are too vague and inconsistent, there is a chance that:

 

1. Jesus didn't exist at all

- All stories made up in the purpose to give spiritual teachings, and then later it evolved to a “personalized” person.

 

2. Someone, or different people, existed that was doing some controversial teachings, and not necessarily at the time it's been portrayed

- Stories compiled from different sources and many stories made up

 

3. Someone existed doing teaching, and used trickery to convince followers

- Stories not made up, but followers fooled by scam artist

[Ouroboros]

Han I believe that you are on the good side of the force, for sure!  :-) 

 

Well, some would say I'm on the dark side of the force

(Especially my family)

[Ouroboros]

He mentions a jesus who was hanged....

 

Actually he makes a lot of references to Jesus, but they were different persons. Jesus was most likely a very common name at the time. Jesus is a derivative from Yoshua, or Joshua as we have it today. Both names means savior. This is exactly like people name their kids Jesus or Mohammed. They take the name from a famous and successful person in history and give it to their kid. (Sorry beside the point.)

 

The historians name a lot of Jesus-es and some of them were good and some not.

 

But now I will try to answer your question Triv.

 

Personally I believe that Jesus was a person, different from what the Bible depicts. He was a philosopher, teaching love, tolerance and understanding, and it affected his first followers greatly.

 

I even believe that this might have happened earlier than the Gospels tell. The group was small at first, and then later it grew and became more noticeable in society.

 

The original Jesus died, and their teachings developed on its own.

 

I believe these people were Jews, but had mixed in Greek philosophy, and the religious Jews had a hard time receiving the message. So the way of convincing people was to add the supernatural element. They had to give some potency to their teaching to gain better trust in the listeners. So they developed more stories and miracles etc, mixed in from other religions. Most likely because they totally missed the point the teacher tried to tell them.

 

It’s likely that the Q Gospel did exist, and was the original story. And I think the teaching was more of naturalistic or pantheistic character at first, and then later developed to Gnostic.

 

This is what I live by today; respect people around you, respect their belief and thoughts, live in awe for life, nature and the universe, do your best no to hurt or destroy things around you, humans as well as animals and nature.

 

And that is what I think the original Jesus (or whatever his name was) wanted to say to us all. And I don’t feel Christians are doing too swell of a job to follow this creed.

[Ouroboros]

Tacitus did not have direct information about Christ?

Well here ya go: taken from book 15 from Annals

 

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius"

 

Don't know how you can be more direct than that.

???

 

It doesn't sound like he had the first hand information, but only a second hand reference how things went down. The same way historians write history books today. They reference other people that sometimes have their own references. It’s nothing more than hearsay.

 

Besides Jesus name was not Christus. It’s not his last name, so Tacitus stating Jesus name was Christus is weird. It’s an epithet, like Catherine the Great. We wouldn’t talk about her in history books as the The Great, all over. Or talk about “The founder of the Greatians”, etc.

 

Christus means the anointed one, just like Neo in the Matrix, the Chosen One.

 

What I’m saying is that Tacitus didn’t know who or what he was talking about. He had information, but it was misconstrued.

[Ouroboros]

Your funny..LOL

 

Han... Wouldn't it seem true also that Josephus being a devote Jew to think that the Messiah was "god in the flesh"?  Afterall, that was never part of any prophecy; that the Messiah would be god himself, that is.

 

No, the messianic prophesies was about a human come to deliver the Jews from oppression. He would have been a rebel and warmonger to raise them up to their former glory, and of course under the influence of God, but nothing more.

 

That’s why the (correctly so) the Pharisees were said to be upset and rightly so. It was a blasphemy, and not supported by the OT. Messiah was supposed to be anointed by God, but not born by him.

 

The whole story that Jesus was the son of God was the influence of Greek mythology and philosophy. I think the original purpose was to meld Jewish and Greek philosophy to one united, maybe to make it more accepted as a philosophy rather than a religion.

 

Jesus didn’t fit the picture of the Jewish Messiah, and still doesn’t.