Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Annals(tacitus) And Christians


Abiyoyo

Recommended Posts

'with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car'

 

I didn't know they had automobiles in those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tacitus are now believed to have depicted Tiberius in unfavorable manner. So we have a historian that intentionally or not, make mistakes. Secondly, the manuscripts of Tacitus comes from one (1) single copy in the 14th century. It may, or may not, have been a forgery. I don't build my knowledge, trust and understanding of the world on such a shaky ground. Also he states Pontius Pilate wrongly as a procurator, so if this "historian" gets one detail wrong, then why not another? Why is one detail (your favorite), a few phrases, your support for you faith, life, culture, religion etc, to be considered 100% true, while other facts in the text is not? Consistency, please!

 

In the books from that time, there are "history" written how emperors healed people and how their soul left their body as a visible dove when they died, how can we trust one document, but not the other? Or should we apply the same rules to all of them, and only accept the things that can make sense, and disregard the supernatural stories, based on the fact that they were pretty superstitious back then? We can't trust everything we read from that time.

 

But even so, lets say Tacitus was correct, and Jesus did exist, and he did have a group of followers. So what? If we allow those stories to describe "real" events of miracles, then we have to, as a matter of consistency, also allow all the other "mystical" books with stories of miracles to be true. This means that Muhammad's journey to Heaven must be true also, and Allah and Islam is the next generation of religion you must obey... no wait... we have to allow all the modern religions too! We have to convert to Scientology or Realianism, or maybe we should join one of those meteor cults that want to die and travel into space?

 

So in the end, the best it can show is that Jesus was a person, a leader of a cult, had a group of crazy followers. He might even have done some magic tricks (there are magicians doing similar tricks today, but no one believes it to be supernatural gifts from God). Even the resurrection could have been staged. Did anyone in our life time meet and talk to these so called "witnesses"? We can't. We can't assume the witches during the dark ages and medieval times were real witches, and we can't assume those "witnesses" were right, or even honest. People do lie under oath. People do go to death for things they believe in, even if we today can prove their faith to be wrong.

 

The conclusion is, it really doesn't matter. Yoyo, you're grasping for straws. To prove Jesus and God to be true and exist, do a miracle, that's impressing, not arguments or history. If God is a "living" God, then this "living" God needs to show that he's alive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tacitus are now believed to have depicted Tiberius in unfavorable manner. So we have a historian that intentionally or not, make mistakes. Secondly, the manuscripts of Tacitus comes from one (1) single copy in the 14th century. It may, or may not, have been a forgery. I don't build my knowledge, trust and understanding of the world on such a shaky ground. Also he states Pontius Pilate wrongly as a procurator, so if this "historian" gets one detail wrong, then why not another? Why is one detail (your favorite), a few phrases, your support for you faith, life, culture, religion etc, to be considered 100% true, while other facts in the text is not? Consistency, please!

 

In the books from that time, there are "history" written how emperors healed people and how their soul left their body as a visible dove when they died, how can we trust one document, but not the other? Or should we apply the same rules to all of them, and only accept the things that can make sense, and disregard the supernatural stories, based on the fact that they were pretty superstitious back then? We can't trust everything we read from that time.

 

But even so, lets say Tacitus was correct, and Jesus did exist, and he did have a group of followers. So what? If we allow those stories to describe "real" events of miracles, then we have to, as a matter of consistency, also allow all the other "mystical" books with stories of miracles to be true. This means that Muhammad's journey to Heaven must be true also, and Allah and Islam is the next generation of religion you must obey... no wait... we have to allow all the modern religions too! We have to convert to Scientology or Realianism, because, or maybe we should join one of those meteor cults that want to die and travel into space?

 

So in the end, the best it can show is that Jesus was a person, a leader of a cult, had a group of crazy followers. He might even have done some magic tricks (there are magicians doing similar tricks today, but no one believes it to be supernatural gifts from God). Even the resurrection could have been staged. Did anyone in our life time meet and talk to these so called "witnesses"? We can't. We can't assume the witches during the dark ages and medieval times were real witches, and we can't assume those "witnesses" were right, or even honest. People do lie under oath. People do go to death for things they believe in, even if we today can prove their faith to be wrong.

 

The conclusion is, it really doesn't matter. Yoyo, you're grasping for straws. To prove Jesus and God to be true and exist, do a miracle, that's impressing, not arguments or history. If God is a "living" God, then this "living" God needs to show that he's alive!

 

There is also the a priori assumption that the Christos mentioned is the Jesus one... Simon of Gitta was ALSO called the Christos, and had a Roman cult after his death... IIRC Simon was crucified at one stage, but survivied (IIRC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the a priori assumption that the Christos mentioned is the Jesus one... Simon of Gitta was ALSO called the Christos, and had a Roman cult after his death... IIRC Simon was crucified at one stage, but survivied (IIRC)

Good point.

 

And the word "Christos" is the translation of the word "Messiah" and is used in the OT for several prophets and kings. So anyone who was some kind of inspired orator who got people interested and rallied up, could have been someone "anointed by God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conclusion is, it really doesn't matter. Yoyo, you're grasping for straws. To prove Jesus and God to be true and exist, do a miracle, that's impressing, not arguments or history. If God is a "living" God, then this "living" God needs to show that he's alive!

 

Not to mention, even IF jesus had been a real person, and even IF he had followers, and EVEN IF he was a thorn in Rome's butt enough to make them put him to death, and even IF his followers upheld jesus's as a martyr opposing Roman tyrrany and continued the following...

 

Let's pretend ALL that were historically verified from multiple sources.

 

It STILL doesn't prove the jesus-as-son-of-god-performing-miracles-giving-all-humanity-salvation-so-long-as-they-believe-it dogma that is the cornerstone of the whole religious movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It STILL doesn't prove the jesus-as-son-of-god-performing-miracles-giving-all-humanity-salvation-so-long-as-they-believe-it dogma that is the cornerstone of the whole religious movement.

Exactly.

 

Analyzing history is a matter of building scaffoldings based on probability and assumptions, that is true, but it also means that one can not allow one document be more "true" than another. If one rule is used in critical reading of old documents, then the same rule has to apply to other readings. Personally, I think there is a small probability there was a leader for a cult, but I suspect his name wasn't "Jesus" or "Christos" but were assigned/labeled as such afterwards. And Simon Magus, who Gramps mentioned, is a very strong candidate in my opinion. And on top of that legendary magician, there were other beliefs added to it which made it into a full blown religious cult that would grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in the end, the best it can show is that Jesus was a person, a leader of a cult, had a group of crazy followers.

He might even have done some magic tricks (there are magicians doing similar tricks today, but no one believes it to be supernatural gifts from God). Even the resurrection could have been staged. Did anyone in our life time meet and talk to these so called "witnesses"? We can't. We can't assume the witches during the dark ages and medieval times were real witches, and we can't assume those "witnesses" were right, or even honest. People do lie under oath. People do go to death for things they believe in, even if we today can prove their faith to be wrong.

 

The conclusion is, it really doesn't matter. Yoyo, you're grasping for straws. To prove Jesus and God to be true and exist, do a miracle, that's impressing, not arguments or history. If God is a "living" God, then this "living" God needs to show that he's alive!

 

I just thought it was interesting. I actually stumbled across it when trying to do some homework on Rome. I seems like anything that has to do with Christianity and their literature is always 'presumed' forged. Why is that Hans? This is a relevant, whether someone altered it or not, piece of history that depicts the Roman government for some time. So what to this.

 

So what that it got Pilate wrong, he wasn't that big in the picture anyway. Thats like someone labeling a local senator wrong, doing a biography on the last 5 presidents. Right? The Christian movement obviously wasn't hitting the 'big picture' of Roman government, until the city burned. Even still, that incident of who started the fire is unknown. Tacitus seemly suggested that Nero blamed them as a possibility, along saying that many of these 'Christians' were then crucified, with there Christus. I just thought the direct, unattached view from a historian of that age and his writting was interesting, and identified the Christian movement of persecution, along with Christ being prevalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Je...and_Reliability

 

covers the current state of affairs on the Tacitus issue...

 

I read that as well, though if you keep reading it says that a vast majority of scholars consider it authentic.

 

It may well be the case... but let us follow that link, shall we?

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It STILL doesn't prove the jesus-as-son-of-god-performing-miracles-giving-all-humanity-salvation-so-long-as-they-believe-it dogma that is the cornerstone of the whole religious movement.

Exactly.

 

Analyzing history is a matter of building scaffoldings based on probability and assumptions, that is true, but it also means that one can not allow one document be more "true" than another. If one rule is used in critical reading of old documents, then the same rule has to apply to other readings. Personally, I think there is a small probability there was a leader for a cult, but I suspect his name wasn't "Jesus" or "Christos" but were assigned/labeled as such afterwards. And Simon Magus, who Gramps mentioned, is a very strong candidate in my opinion. And on top of that legendary magician, there were other beliefs added to it which made it into a full blown religious cult that would grow.

 

Maybe so Hans, Wr, Gramps. But no matter 'who' the real joe is; it is can not be denied that the Christian movement has gone far beyond 'magicians' and has been one of the leading religions, movements known to man. So whether it was Jim the butcher, or Joe the tax collector doing the miracles; I would assume by simple rationality that whatever happened impacted the Roman government, the people of Rome, leaders of Rome, eventually to the succession of the first Christian emperor; then worldwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Je...and_Reliability

 

covers the current state of affairs on the Tacitus issue...

 

I read that as well, though if you keep reading it says that a vast majority of scholars consider it authentic.

 

It may well be the case... but let us follow that link, shall we?

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

 

I understand your direction of the piece Grandpa, but I ask you this. If this is not accurate, then was the 'cease fire' on Christians accurate from Constantine I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your direction of the piece Grandpa, but I ask you this. If this is not accurate, then was the 'cease fire' on Christians accurate from Constantine I?

 

The conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity was a purely political move. Constantine himself didn't even convert to Christianity until his death bed.

 

All this really shows is what Tacitus was told: Nero blamed an obscure cult known as "christians" to cover for a fire that he most likely started (early real estate scheme). They were called "christians" because their founder was known as "christos". So we've established that a group calling themselves "christians" existed at this time. That's it.

 

Anything else is some serious interpolation of the text...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so Hans, Wr, Gramps. But no matter 'who' the real joe is; it is can not be denied that the Christian movement has gone far beyond 'magicians' and has been one of the leading religions, movements known to man.

 

No one here is denying that. Why would we? History proves that just fine, and we don't have to go all the way back to Tacitus for evidence of it.

 

Osiris was an Egyptian god worshipped from 2400BC to about 6th century A.D. Does the longevity of his religion make the god Osiris real?

 

Longevity and popularity (both genuine and governmentally enforced) of religion doesn't make a god real. People are taught religion as though the god came first, and the religion followed, but history indicates the religions started first, and defined gods as they developed. The more complex the religion, the more complex (or numerous) the gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Je...and_Reliability

 

covers the current state of affairs on the Tacitus issue...

 

I read that as well, though if you keep reading it says that a vast majority of scholars consider it authentic.

 

It may well be the case... but let us follow that link, shall we?

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

 

I understand your direction of the piece Grandpa, but I ask you this. If this is not accurate, then was the 'cease fire' on Christians accurate from Constantine I?

 

Yes since there are numerous sources, written by Constatine's historians at the time and in the Vatican, in original form pretty much, not some 14th redact... basically constantine was tired of them killing each other and decieded to make them sit down, sort out their differences and let the 'official' church wipe out th e losers porperly... which is the historic record as it happened... Anathasius of Alexandria was a bloody handed tyrant and the Bishops of Jerusalem were wiped out to a man for being James-Thomas not Paul-Peter... it's a time you should be proud of, being an apologist... all was unified and pacified... by use of torture, mass execution and redaction of History... took em another 1100 years to sort out which books of the bible supported what was decided at Nicea... and a lot more blood... strange how a 'religion of peace' involves so much killing and striving for temporal power... to the point of forging wills and forcing people on pain of death to join... but then, Eusebeus' greatest trick was to manage to take the communist teachings of an anarchist terrorist into a relgion that would rule an Empire... but I'm wasting my time responding to you, since you're as bad for making up pretty lies to cover up the seething corrutpion that lies at the heart of your beleifs and between your ears...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your direction of the piece Grandpa, but I ask you this. If this is not accurate, then was the 'cease fire' on Christians accurate from Constantine I?

 

The conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity was a purely political move. Constantine himself didn't even convert to Christianity until his death bed.

 

All this really shows is what Tacitus was told: Nero blamed an obscure cult known as "christians" to cover for a fire that he most likely started (early real estate scheme). They were called "christians" because their founder was known as "christos". So we've established that a group calling themselves "christians" existed at this time. That's it.

 

Anything else is some serious interpolation of the text...

 

Maybe so, but its relevant. It just simply puts a messiah, Christ,etc; in that period. As well as his followers. Simple it may be, but to some an important piece of history to the one they put their entire faith into; as a Christian. Religion alongside of history makes connections to reality.

 

Now, if If I were trying to interconnect the Nt miracles of Jesus to this bit of history, that would definitely imply a interpolation of the two. But, I'm not. I'm just observing history observing history, in which relates to my religion. Right?

 

I don't deny that the Bible Nt, may or may not have been altered, changed to fit what the church leaders wanted etc; but it shows that Judaism, the Christian movement; where prevalent during that time. In which, even if you took out all the 'superman' attributes of Christ, He still moved a group of people into a different sect of Judaism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were hundreds of bloody messiahs, with all sorts of numbers of followers... to claim uniqueness is just excrement... Simon of Gitta was a better Messiah than Jesus...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so Hans, Wr, Gramps. But no matter 'who' the real joe is; it is can not be denied that the Christian movement has gone far beyond 'magicians' and has been one of the leading religions, movements known to man.

 

No one here is denying that. Why would we? History proves that just fine, and we don't have to go all the way back to Tacitus for evidence of it.

 

Osiris was an Egyptian god worshipped from 2400BC to about 6th century A.D. Does the longevity of his religion make the god Osiris real?

 

Longevity and popularity (both genuine and governmentally enforced) of religion doesn't make a god real. People are taught religion as though the god came first, and the religion followed, but history indicates the religions started first, and defined gods as they developed. The more complex the religion, the more complex (or numerous) the gods.

 

Maybe the Egyptian God died. Maybe he went into the body of a swine and drowned. :wicked: Obviously, along with the Christian movement in that era of time, the newly acquired knowledge of 'demons' was introduced, Biblically. Christianity, though not tied into Judaism, became a separate entity of belief, yet following the same God as the Jews.

 

Christ merely expounded on the notion that anything other than God is of Satan. This was the beginning of this thought. The Ot would say repetitive that He was the only God. In all that I am saying that the leader of this time of the end of worship was the beginning of new for Christians. Biblically, Satan has power, and so did his followers. These Gods proved to be nothing but something not of God, if that is one religiously thinks that the God of Israel is the True God.

 

Some would say Christ was killed, implying that the Christian God isn't real either; yet this piece of history indicates that whether Christ was very powerful, prophet, magician, whatever, Christ claimed the God of Israel. Son of God aside; He claimed divinity from the true God. In that, whether he rose from the dead or just died; he impacted the people of in that time to where it became the religion of religions. Did Osiris rise from the dead? Did this god influence his followers that he was all, and everything else is from evil? Did this god exert its power crushing the Christian movement to nothing?

 

No. The opposite happened, in connection with the Roman Government; the ones that I might add that mainly worshiped this god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Je...and_Reliability

 

covers the current state of affairs on the Tacitus issue...

 

I read that as well, though if you keep reading it says that a vast majority of scholars consider it authentic.

 

It may well be the case... but let us follow that link, shall we?

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

 

I understand your direction of the piece Grandpa, but I ask you this. If this is not accurate, then was the 'cease fire' on Christians accurate from Constantine I?

 

Yes since there are numerous sources, written by Constatine's historians at the time and in the Vatican, in original form pretty much, not some 14th redact... basically constantine was tired of them killing each other and decieded to make them sit down, sort out their differences and let the 'official' church wipe out th e losers porperly... which is the historic record as it happened... Anathasius of Alexandria was a bloody handed tyrant and the Bishops of Jerusalem were wiped out to a man for being James-Thomas not Paul-Peter... it's a time you should be proud of, being an apologist... all was unified and pacified... by use of torture, mass execution and redaction of History... took em another 1100 years to sort out which books of the bible supported what was decided at Nicea... and a lot more blood... strange how a 'religion of peace' involves so much killing and striving for temporal power... to the point of forging wills and forcing people on pain of death to join... but then, Eusebeus' greatest trick was to manage to take the communist teachings of an anarchist terrorist into a relgion that would rule an Empire... but I'm wasting my time responding to you, since you're as bad for making up pretty lies to cover up the seething corrutpion that lies at the heart of your beleifs and between your ears...

 

So basically then; the Christian God in Christ is the same God of the OT. He would raise someone up to lead the people, performing a variety of things to show Himself to the people and then lead them to successful battles, wars, population and religious culture. The only 'difference' is that Jesus, Rome, Christianity is a majority religion in a relatively uneventful environment religiously. Other than the Israel-Palestine still warring amongst each other. Basically, Christianity has evoloved to a civilized, controlled entity among America as well as still having sects; as did the old days of Judaism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought it was interesting. I actually stumbled across it when trying to do some homework on Rome.

Okay. I'm good with that.

 

I seems like anything that has to do with Christianity and their literature is always 'presumed' forged. Why is that Hans? This is a relevant, whether someone altered it or not, piece of history that depicts the Roman government for some time. So what to this.

I think the reason why there's a strong reaction against any Christian claims, is because Christians have been very pushy about these things themselves. They take small fragments of some document and some fanciful stories about some character we don't know existed or not, and make it to the 100 billion % truth, while at the same time discount any other claim from any other religion or ideology. What is the result? A counter reaction that wants to prove the opposite. If Christians did spend a little more time thinking about their claims, and even admitting the possibility of things not being absolutely or universal or undeniable or take-it-for-all-that-it-is attitude, we could have a more civilized conversation, and you might even be surprised how close we all could be in our agnostic views of things. But it's the hard core dogmatism that causes these things to become hot potatoes. Like I said in my response, even if it is true, I don't count the stories in the Gospels for being real events of supernatural source any more than I would for other stories told in history. So personally, I don't have a huge issue with Tacitus or his claim, but still if he can be wrong about one thing, why can't he be wrong about another? After all, he was born 25 years after Jesus supposed death. So he goes on rumors about Jesus.

 

Rael claims that he met aliens, should we now, 25 years later, assume that he must be telling the truth since they have a half a million of disciples?

 

So what that it got Pilate wrong, he wasn't that big in the picture anyway. Thats like someone labeling a local senator wrong, doing a biography on the last 5 presidents. Right? The Christian movement obviously wasn't hitting the 'big picture' of Roman government, until the city burned. Even still, that incident of who started the fire is unknown. Tacitus seemly suggested that Nero blamed them as a possibility, along saying that many of these 'Christians' were then crucified, with there Christus. I just thought the direct, unattached view from a historian of that age and his writting was interesting, and identified the Christian movement of persecution, along with Christ being prevalent.

So you're saying, one statement that doesn't affect your faith is okay to be wrong, but a statement about your faith, must prima facie be correct? I can't accept that.

 

Tacitus was referencing the movement called Christians, and he made a statement based on the claims this group made, that they were established by Christos. What does this prove? It proves that there were Christians at the time of his writings that claimed they believe in a Christos. That's nothing new about that. That's known. That's know through other documents. There are documents that claim Muhammad was taken to Heaven, and the Muslims believe it, that doesn't make it true. It's only true that this is what they believe. Again, I think you're mixing up facts and values and don't see the difference between what is a factual claim and what is a factual claim about someone else's opinion.

 

For instance I can say that you believe in Jesus, and that you exist and that you write about such things. Does that make it true that Jesus exists? Just because you believe that, you claim it, and I know that you claim it, then my neighbor should assume that your claim is true? It doesn't work that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoyo, no amount of logical argument will sway your view one iota, so let me try the other way.

The bible is a collection of fairy tales and myths, and trying to "prove" that some savior existed by using it is like proviing icarus flew too close to the sun because a story said so.

Now stick your pointy little head back up your ample ass and worship your fucking jebus 'til he either shows up or you give up. I ain't buying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so Hans, Wr, Gramps. But no matter 'who' the real joe is; it is can not be denied that the Christian movement has gone far beyond 'magicians' and has been one of the leading religions, movements known to man. So whether it was Jim the butcher, or Joe the tax collector doing the miracles; I would assume by simple rationality that whatever happened impacted the Roman government, the people of Rome, leaders of Rome, eventually to the succession of the first Christian emperor; then worldwide.

Yoyo. There's no denying that Islam has gone far beyond just a movement of believing in a schizophrenic and epileptic so called prophet. Islam is of the same size as Christianity. About 2.1-2.2 Billion people. Do you really say that the majority delusion must be true because of it's masses of people supporting it? Was the dot-net boom some years ago a correct assumption balloon or was it the false assumption from the masses that there was some kind of "New Economy" floating around and the market would only go up, and up, and up to fantasy numbers, increasing with 200% a month? The masses aren't right, they're a mob, and that is known to be one of the dangers of democracy, it's good and bad, but don't assume it is always right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.