The Bible Fraud

[Guest]

LOL!

 

All of this is moot anyway, cause Tactius isn't contemporary to jesus in the first place, writing some 40 or 50 years after his supposed death, and the event he is reporting seems to have been a current event at the time of writing, right? I mean Chrestus (oops, sorry, Christus) and the Chrestians were being blamed for the fire in Rome, correct? Where in the gospels can I find that story?

 

Edit: Sorry, just read the full text again and it seems that it does not imply Chrestus was alive at that time. I thought there was a reference to a leader of the Chrestians, named Chrestus. Maybe it was in Setunious...

[Badger]

I'm not saying it couldn't be originally chrestianoi (in fact, Van Vroost also regard this as much more likely reading). All I'm doubting is the claim that bad Christians tampered with Tacitus in order to deceive people and support their doctrines.

[Badger]

All of this is moot anyway, cause Tactius isn't contemporary to jesus in the first place, writing some 40 or 50 years after his supposed death, and the event he is reporting seems to have been a current event at the time of writing, right?

I don't see how it's a problem that Tacitus is not contemporary to Jesus.

 

I mean Chrestus (oops, sorry, Christus) and the Chrestians were being blamed for the fire in Rome, correct? Where in the gospels can I find that story?

Where does Tacitus says Christus is being blamed for the fire? Doesn't he say that Chrestians (or Christians) named after Christus were blaimed?

[Ouroboros]

From Erik Zara's, Th.D, reexamination of "Chrestus" issue: (link)

 

 

He agree with the finding btw that it's an "e", and that the "i" was written several times over to strengthen.

 

It's an intentional act to change, not a copy-error.

 

It is obviously and undeniable an alteration, not a mistake.

[Badger]

And that prove evil Christians manipulate Annals, huh?

 

He agree with the finding btw that it's an "e", and that the "i" was written several times over to strengthen.

 

It's an intentional act to change, not a copy-error.

 

It is obviously and undeniable an alteration, not a mistake.

Where does he claims that? I'm reading the text you linked but I don't find such conclusions.

[Ouroboros]

And that prove evil Christians manipulate Annals, huh?

Yes, absolutely. Very evil.

 

Well, someone changed it. You can't deny that. Why they changed it, hmm... maybe they were evil atheists who wanted to frame the Christians for having done the deed? Hmm? Does it sound plausible? Perhaps. Maybe it was a panda bear from China who spilled ink on that parchment? Or perhaps the writer was sleepy and sleepwalked? I don't know. But I think the most probable explanation is that someone intentionally changed it to "Christians" to make it more like what they wanted it to be, and it's most likely they were Christians and needed this as validation for their existence. Of the different options, this is the more likely one.

[Guest]

All of this is moot anyway, cause Tactius isn't contemporary to jesus in the first place, writing some 40 or 50 years after his supposed death, and the event he is reporting seems to have been a current event at the time of writing, right?

I don't see how it's a problem that Tacitus is not contemporary to Jesus.

 

Do you read anything I write badger? This whole thread I've asked you to provide contemporary evidence of jesus as a real man. I've mentioned several times.

 

I mean Chrestus (oops, sorry, Christus) and the Chrestians were being blamed for the fire in Rome, correct? Where in the gospels can I find that story?

Where does Tacitus says Christus is being blamed for the fire? Doesn't he say that Chrestians (or Christians) named after Christus were blaimed?

 

Actually, I guess you don't read anything I write, because I corrected my error right under that paragraph.

 

And that prove evil Christians manipulate Annals, huh?

 

No, but it shows that xtians alter texts to aid their side of the story, and as such should not be trusted at face value.

[Badger]

Do you read anything I write badger? This whole thread I've asked you to provide contemporary evidence of jesus as a real man. I've mentioned several times.

And I have asked many times why it's a problem that Tacitus is not contemporary. Yet I haven't get answer.

 

Actually, I guess you don't read anything I write, because I corrected my error right under that paragraph.

I see no correction for the claim that Christus (and Chrestians) was blaimed for the fire in Rome.

 

No, but it shows that xtians alter texts to aid their side of the story, and as such should not be trusted at face value.

And where do you base your assumption it was altered by Christians?

[mwc]

Here's the actual article on the Tacitus paper (in PDF format).

 

I had typed some other info but the Catholic Encyclopedia had roughly the same info but more concisely written so I thought I'd post it instead:

The word Christ, Christos, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messias, means "anointed." According to the Old Law, priests (Exodus 29:29; Leviticus 4:3), kings (1 Samuel 10:1; 24:7), and prophets (Isaiah 61:1) were supposed to be anointed for their respective offices; now, the Christ, or the Messias, combined this threefold dignity in His Person. It is not surprising, therefore, that for centuries the Jews had referred to their expected Deliverer as "the Anointed"; perhaps this designation alludes to Isaias 61:1, and Daniel 9:24-26, or even to Psalms 2:2; 19:7; 44:8. Thus the term Christ or Messias was a title rather than a proper name: "Non proprium nomen est, sed nuncupatio potestatis et regni", says Lactantius (Divine Institutes IV.7). The Evangelists recognize the same truth; excepting Matthew 1:1, 1:18; Mark 1:1; John 1:17; 17:3; 9:22; Mark 9:40; Luke 2:11; 22:2, the word Christ is always preceded by the article.

 

Only after the Resurrection did the title gradually pass into a proper name, and the expression Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus became only one designation. But at this stage the Greeks and Romans understood little or nothing about the import of the word anointed; to them it did not convey any sacred conception. Hence they substituted Chrestus, or "excellent", for Christus or "anointed", and Chrestians instead of "Christians." There may be an allusion to this practice in 1 Peter 2:3; hoti chrestos ho kyrios, which is rendered "that the Lord is sweet." Justin Martyr (First Apology 4), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata II.4.18), Tertullian (To the Nations II), and Lactantius (Divine Institutes IV.7), as well as St. Jerome (In Gal., V, 22), are acquainted with the pagan substitution of Chrestes for Christus, and are careful to explain the new term in a favourable sense. The pagans made little or no effort to learn anything accurate about Christ and the Christians; Suetonius, for instance, ascribes the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius to the constant instigation of sedition by Chrestus, whom he conceives as acting in Rome the part of a leader of insurgents.

 

The use of the definite article before the word Christ and its gradual development into a proper name show the Christians identified the bearer with the promised Messias of the Jews. He combined in His person the offices of prophet (John 6:14; Matthew 13:57; Luke 13:33; 24:19) of king (Luke 23:2; Acts 17:7; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Apocalypse 15:3), and of priest (Hebrews 2:17; etc.); he fulfilled all the Messianic predictions in a fuller and a higher sense than had been given them by the teachers of the Synagogue.

This doesn't mention that Marcion, and basically all the Gnostics (pretty much all the heterodox sects), used "chrestus" and that the earliest dated (note the use of the word "dated") xian inscription from 318 CE says "Jesus the GOOD" (or basically "Jesus Chrestus"). The church had to make a concerted effort to rid itself of "chrestus" and ensure the sole usage of "christ[us]." They wanted to dispose of "Jesus the good [shepherd]" and have only "Jesus the King" (which is what the maintained "christ" means which is not quite accurate of course).

 

mwc

[Guest]

Do you read anything I write badger? This whole thread I've asked you to provide contemporary evidence of jesus as a real man. I've mentioned several times.

And I have asked many times why it's a problem that Tacitus is not contemporary. Yet I haven't get answer.

 

Because anything that is not contemporary is hearsay, and is most likely taken from biased, xtian sources. And like mwc just posted from the catholick encyclopeida;

The pagans made little or no effort to learn anything accurate about Christ and the Christians; Suetonius, for instance, ascribes the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius to the constant instigation of sedition by Chrestus, whom he conceives as acting in Rome the part of a leader of insurgents.

So anything that happened decades after the fact can not be considered reliable. BTW, I just went thru the whole thread, and I mentioned contemporary evidence in posts # 22, 110, 120, 124, and 150.

 

Actually, I guess you don't read anything I write, because I corrected my error right under that paragraph.

I see no correction for the claim that Christus (and Chrestians) was blaimed for the fire in Rome.

 

Go back and re-read post #179. Edit was made @ 12:49 p.m. today. And the correction was that a single man, Chestus, was blamed. Tactius makes it quite clear that xtians as a group were blamed for the fire.

 

No, but it shows that xtians alter texts to aid their side of the story, and as such should not be trusted at face value.

And where do you base your assumption it was altered by Christians?

 

Who else would alter a text to make it appear that it was referring to xtians? Maybe the Gou'auld? And I also added that xtians change and alter facts even today (evolution and the founding of America for 2 examples), so why should I believe that they wouldn't lie and change facts 2,000 years ago?

 

If xtians didn't alter the spelling, who do you think would? And if they weren't xtians, what motive would they have for altering the spelling?

[Badger]

Because anything that is not contemporary is hearsay, and is most likely taken from biased, xtian sources.

Non Sequitur. To be non-contemporary doesn't mean to be hearsay.

 

Go back and re-read post #179. Edit was made @ 12:49 p.m. today. And the correction was that a single man, Chestus, was blamed. Tactius makes it quite clear that xtians as a group were blamed for the fire.

Was blamed for what? Fire?

 

Who else would alter a text to make it appear that it was referring to xtians? Maybe the Gou'auld? And I also added that xtians change and alter facts even today (evolution and the founding of America for 2 examples), so why should I believe that they wouldn't lie and change facts 2,000 years ago?

 

If xtians didn't alter the spelling, who do you think would? And if they weren't xtians, what motive would they have for altering the spelling?

Yep, so you have no argument for your assumption.

[mwc]

Non Sequitur. To be non-contemporary doesn't mean to be hearsay.

That may be so but your own Britannica source already said:

This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus.

Kind of makes this a moot point.

 

mwc

[Badger]

This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus.

I think that's questionable statement, but even if that's the case it doesn't make it necessarily hearsay.

[Ouroboros]

This knowledge of Jesus, however, was dependent on familiarity with early Christianity and does not provide independent evidence about Jesus.

I think that's questionable statement, but even if that's the case it doesn't make it necessarily hearsay.

Huh?

 

Do you know what hearsay means? It means second hand report. In other words, not directly from the eye-witness, but from someone who heard it from someone (which in turn could be first-hand or second-hand).

 

I guess what you're reacting to is the word "hearsay" in the more colloquial use as rumors. Rumors are never a second hand report from a first hand eye-witness, while hearsay is used as a legal term for a person who hears it from the person who saw it. Rumor has a bit more negative connotation, while hearsay is basically: "not first hand report," or in this case: "not contemporary."

 

For something to not be a hearsay, it has to be contemporary, and first hand. Simple as that. Basically, that you claim the non-contemporary sources as not being hearsay, is a contradiction, since all the sources were born after the events took place and could not be first hand eye-witnesses.

[Badger]

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1: rumor 2: hearsay evidence.

 

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

information you have heard, although you do not know whether it is true or not.

 

Macmillan Dictionary

information that you have heard without having any proof that it is true.

 

Collins English Dictionary

Hearsay is information which you have been told but do not know to be true. (gossip; rumour)

[Guest]

Was blamed for what? Fire?

 

I made the statement that Chrestus was blamed for the fire, then fixed my error, because Tactius says it was the Chrestians that were blamed, not Chrestus himself. Basically, I had mixed up Tactius' report of Nero executing Chrestians for burning Rome with Suetonius' report of Jews causing unrest at the instigation of someone named Chrestus.

 

And your definitions are exactly how I intended the word, save for Mirriam-Webster. I used it as a legal term, not a colloquial one.

[Ouroboros]

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1: rumor 2: hearsay evidence.

 

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

information you have heard, although you do not know whether it is true or not.

 

Macmillan Dictionary

information that you have heard without having any proof that it is true.

 

Collins English Dictionary

Hearsay is information which you have been told but do not know to be true. (gossip; rumour)

 

 

And in legal text, a hearsay is something which one person heard from another person. Simple as that. And it could even be true, but you can't be sure:

"n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her. " (from law.com)

 

Any non-contemporary reporter can not have seen Jesus directly, so the reports they would give would be second hand, hence: "second-hand evidence in which the ..." = hearsay.

[Badger]

OK. Then it was my mistake.

[Guest]

Who else would alter a text to make it appear that it was referring to xtians? Maybe the Gou'auld? And I also added that xtians change and alter facts even today (evolution and the founding of America for 2 examples), so why should I believe that they wouldn't lie and change facts 2,000 years ago?

 

If xtians didn't alter the spelling, who do you think would? And if they weren't xtians, what motive would they have for altering the spelling?

Yep, so you have no argument for your assumption.

 

OK, so who else would intentionally alter the spelling of a single word in an historical text? Motive for anyone else? This was not a copy error, it was intentionally scratched out and made into an "i".

 

And don't we have charges of changing and altering texts from pagan opponents to early xtians like Celsus and the like? And IIRC, Eusubius even gloats that it is righteous to lie for the glory of christ or something like that?

[Badger]

Marty if you read the document linked by HanSolo and mwc you will find this

I personally believe that there was only one change made, and that the person who changed the text changed the "e" and added the hyphen and the dot above the "i". - - For which intent and by whom the letter "e" was altered, we will probably never know for certain. We only know that the scribe originally wrote about Chrestianos, "Chrestians”, which could have been just a spelling error, but, as Fuchs says «

even if this change was made already by the copyist, the original 'e' does not lose its meaning. In that case the copyist, which Andresen has explained, could very well have found the form "chrestianos" in his original, and by himself changed the strange "e" into the familiar "i".

» (my translation)

[Ouroboros]

OK. Then it was my mistake.

No problem.

[Guest]

Marty if you read the document linked by HanSolo and mwc you will find this

I personally believe that there was only one change made, and that the person who changed the text changed the "e" and added the hyphen and the dot above the "i". - - For which intent and by whom the letter "e" was altered, we will probably never know for certain. We only know that the scribe originally wrote about Chrestianos, "Chrestians”, which could have been just a spelling error, but, as Fuchs says «

even if this change was made already by the copyist, the original 'e' does not lose its meaning. In that case the copyist, which Andresen has explained, could very well have found the form "chrestianos" in his original, and by himself changed the strange "e" into the familiar "i".

» (my translation)

 

It doesn't matter who changed what, or why they changed it. The fact is that it has been changed, and deliberately at that. I could give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the error was benign, but again, where in history have xtians been honest about the facts? They have lied so often and continue to do so, that I find it very, very hard to think they would have behaved any differently 2,000 years ago. And I am almost certain we have claims of xtians altering texts from their opponents in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, so there is even precedent for what I am saying.

 

Even if Josephus and Tactius was undisputed, they hardly make up "overwhelming" evidence for jesus having been a real human.

 

And besides, Ceaser, Alex the Great, all those people you mentioned earlier; is the evidence we have for them also rife with interpolations and changed words? Or is that information been treated like any other report of any other normal human? IOW, are there any textual reasons for me to doubt the evidence for Ceaser, like the coins that bear his name and likeness?

[Badger]

And I am almost certain we have claims of xtians altering texts from their opponents in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, so there is even precedent for what I am saying.

Of course you can assume that's the case and prove it with ... assumptions. That's fine for me.

 

Even if Josephus and Tactius was undisputed, they hardly make up "overwhelming" evidence for jesus having been a real human.

Just keep in mind that Josephus and Tactius are not the only sources we have.

[Guest]

And I am almost certain we have claims of xtians altering texts from their opponents in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, so there is even precedent for what I am saying.

Of course you can assume that's the case and prove it with ... assumptions. That's fine for me.

 

I'm not assuming anything. From memory, I believe it was Celsus that accused xtians (Esuebius directly maybe?) of altering the texts of Pagan religions and then claiming the ideas were original to xtianity in around the early 3rd century IIRC. I think this is also where the idea that the devil made religions resemble xtianity beforehand in order to throw people off the true path first came on to the scene in response to these accusations of plagiarism. I've been up since 4:30 with a migraine, so I'm not thinking quite clearly right now. I will have to get back to you with more info on this after I complete my responsibilities for the day. I'm sure Hans, mwc, or another of our house "history experts" will probably know a bit more about what I'm talking about, if not exactly. Maybe they will chime in, but for now, know that I will get back to you with more information. Unlike...

 

Even if Josephus and Tactius was undisputed, they hardly make up "overwhelming" evidence for jesus having been a real human.

Just keep in mind that Josephus and Tactius are not the only sources we have.

 

The why haven't you listed them? Damnit badger, why else am I talking to you? I have asked and asked, and I will ask again, where is this overwhelming evidence that jesus was a real man? I'm not taking part in this thread because I like you; I'm here because you said there is lots of evidence that jesus was a real man and I said I looked for over 15 years and found nothing convincing. Please...present the evidence. So far we have discussed and ruled out Josephus, Tactius, Suetonius, and any source that was used for the gospel. What else is there?

[Badger]

From memory, I believe it was Celsus that accused xtians (Esuebius directly maybe?) of altering the texts of Pagan religions and then claiming the ideas were original to xtianity in around the early 3rd century IIRC.

Can you quote the passage from Celsus?

 

It may be Christians that made the change, but I would think that's not at all certain. Given the fact that the change is not crucial one I don't see reason to postulate such.

 

The why haven't you listed them? Damnit badger, why else am I talking to you? I have asked and asked, and I will ask again, where is this overwhelming evidence that jesus was a real man? I'm not taking part in this thread because I like you; I'm here because you said there is lots of evidence that jesus was a real man and I said I looked for over 15 years and found nothing convincing. Please...present the evidence. So far we have discussed and ruled out Josephus, Tactius, Suetonius, and any source that was used for the gospel. What else is there?

I don't remember I have ever claimed there is "overwhelming evidence."

 

Well, I meant we have the Synoptic Gospels, Paul and non-canonical writings along with Josephus and Tactius.