For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[WinterHold]

Nobody has suggested that "somebody invented Jesus one day". My post here outlines how such an urban legend could have formed.

Okay....

You're blending folklore with history.

I don't see how that section links up with any kind of folklore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...man_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

WTF? Medieval peasants? You've jumped 1000 years in history.

Yep. I date the dark ages & the start of the Medieval era by the division of rome & the beginning of the barbarian invasions.

The decline, seen in retrospect, occurred over a period of four centuries, culminating in the final dissolution of the Western Roman Empire on September 4, 476,

Outside rome, there were peasants, living exactly in the same environments we see in 8th century medieval europe.
You can also read about the vandals, the goths -especially goths- and see if they were living like peasants or not.

Don't forget that through all this timeline, europe was almost hanged ; without any kind of change.

All the more reason why folklore and urban legend could have run unchecked.

: )

[Confused Ape]

Were there any other similar pieces of evidence OR were it not for the long Christian history of forgery, interpolation and pseudo-epigraphy, OR were it not for the evidence that the document was tampered with, I might actually consider it compelling.  

I took a look at this. The minor alteration is in the word which is translated as Christians but the word Christos wasn't changed.

Later the same year, it was discovered that under ultraviolet light, an 'e' is clearly visible in the space, meaning that the passage must originally have referred to chrestianos, a Latinized Greek word which could be interpreted as the good, after the Greek word χρηστός (chrestos), meaning "good, useful", rather than strictly a follower of "Christ".

So the passage originally read ..."Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called by the populace good/useful. 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."

Maybe somebody changed the e into an i because he noticed that the passage didn't make sense for the following reasons -

1: The Romans hated this class for their abominations so would hardly have referred to them as good/useful people unless they meant it in a sarcastic way.

2: Tacitus said that this class was named after someone they referred to as Christus which means the anointed one. If the class was really called chrestianos after the word chrestos meaning good/useful it couldn't have been named after someone referred to as Christus.

The reference was so oblique, it's plausible that he might have just been taking their claims at face value, considering Pilate killed a great many Jews and their leaders.

Which is why I'm talking about what Christians believed. The passage also tells us what Tacitus thought about the Christians' beliefs.

He is talking about Nero blaming the christians for the burning of Rome and them shouting something about a Chrestus as their saviour. That word as been forged by a later hand.

Even if the word chrestianos hadn't been altered the passage would still have referred to a class hated for their abominations and somebody with the title of Christos who'd been executed by Pontius Pilate.

Early xtian writers never mention Tacitus' at all. He is not a factor in what the earliest xtian writers said or thought or wrote.

Exactly - he was reporting what Christians believed at the time. The Christians didn't need to read his book in order to learn what they were supposed to believe.

http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=reledne...jesus.html

All I'm getting is a blank page.

The reason no commentator made reference to this passage before the 15th century is that the entire “Annals” in which it appears was unknown until the purported “discovery” made by Johannes de 1468.

The annals have been dated by scholars along with what must have been the earliest versions of the four canonical gospels. None of them prove that Jesus existed - they only show when people started believing he existed.

with a built in bias in favor of their godboy are perfectly willing to overlook the problems with the Tacitus reference. I am not.

What has that got to do with the subject of this topic? Are you saying that Christianity never got started?

How many times have I got to point out that this topic is not about whether Tacitus's report proves that Jesus existed. Everyone is supposed to take the attitude that Jesus did not exist and suggest how Christianity could have got started without a man to pin the myths and legends on.

[DeistPaladin]

I don't see how that section links up with any kind of folklore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution...man_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

Whoever wrote that wikipedia article is taken in by melodramatic folklore of Christian persecution at the hands of dastardly pagan Romans allied with Jewish persecutors to crush an early Christianity which got off the ground quickly and spread rapidly. Christians get a free ride off this folklore that passes for history and then they construct their apologetic arguments based upon it.

Actual history tells a different story, which I will get to in my response to Ape.

---

My apologies, Ape. I will change gears and focus on the beliefs of early Christianity.

The glib assertions of Christian folklore is that a single, unified theology that formed Christianity sprang up out of nowhere, got off the ground quickly, endured fanatical persecution by the Romans (who were normally quite tolerant of and indifferent to alternative religions) and spread like wildfire and captured the Roman hearts with their message of peace, love, yatta yatta.

Actual history tells a different story.

In the first place, there was no unified "Christianity" during the first few centuries. As Bart Ehrman's research has unveiled, in points barely disputed by apologists, during the first few centuries, those who called themselves "Christian" might have believed any of the following:

1. Jesus was a higher god (superior to the one of the OT), a mortal man adopted by God as a son, an angel sent by God, or an illusion sent by God.
2. Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus was born as all babies are born, Jesus descended from Heaven as an adult or he was never a physical being at all.
3. Jesus preached that we must keep OT laws or that we need not keep the OT laws and must be saved on faith.
4. There is only one god or two gods or many gods.
5. Jesus died that we may be saved, or Jesus died that we need not sacrifice animals anymore or Jesus never died at all.

So as you can see, the picture becomes even murkier as we get into the real history of Christian theology.

Christian apologists do not deny the existence of these "heterodox" forms of early Christianity. Instead they try to dismiss them as minor schismatics and heretics. However, the fact that heterodoxy was a big problem for the early "church" and echoes of their conflict are found in the very Bible itself.

1st John 4:1-3
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2nd John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

These epistles were allegedly penned by John, a supposed companion of Jesus who knew him personally. He writes not one but two epistles that survive condemning the Docetic Christians (who saw Jesus as an apparition sent by God). They did not believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus for such a materialistic Jesus would be an abomination to God (as all things material might be).

It's interesting that he uses the language not of recent history and obvious reality but of faith. "Believe"? "Confess"? Why not just dismiss the Docetics as crazy? Were there not relatives of Jesus or those who lived in his hometown who could have testified of his childhood, of his growing up, of his being a real, physical being?

There was no single unified theology in existence TO get off the ground quickly or spread rapidly. Orthodoxy in Christianity had to be established through the Council of Nicaea and enforced with Roman authority.

[CleanShavenJesus]

Wouldn't it be easier for the writers of the Bible (if you don't think God wrote it) to have Jesus born in Jerusalem and call it a day?

Sure, but that wasn't the point. The author of Matthew was addressing the Jewish population. This is why he is hell bent on lifting OT prophecy and meshing them into his story of Jesus; read Micah in this case. Luke followed suit. Mark is silent regarding the birth of Jesus and John is more ethereal and doesn't mention Mary by name.

No, they had him move there. That tells me that this had to be a real person, or at least, for you atheists' sake, based on a certain person.

Does this mean that you think that the Iliad and Odyssey are historical accounts or based on real events simply because Odysseus wasn't born and raised just outside the walls of Troy?

You are Catholic. Please tell me that you have yet to go through confirmation.

No, because iliad and Odyssey were fictional stories, and the characters were put in certain places on purpose for the sake of their characterization and for the story itself. The Bible, while I realize it has gone under several editions, has been and always will be based on true stories.

[Minimalist]

Exactly - he was reporting what Christians believed at the time. The Christians didn't need to read his book in order to learn what they were supposed to believe.

Ape you refuse to even consider the distinct probability that P. Cornelius Tacitus never said any such thing. That this whole bit of bullshit was a later insertion by a medieval monk/scribe who was trying to provide a little historical basis for his boy.

In case you think that sort of thing did not happen you really need to read up on the long history of xtian forgeries.

http://www.harrington-sites.com/fa.htm

Try to remember the words of Eusebius, the so-called church historian.

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood
as a medium for the benefit of those
who require to be deceived;"

--- Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea, (circa 324)

Curiously, it was Eusebius who suddenly "discovered" the Testimoniam Flavianum of Josephus after centuries of xtian writers had missed it.

Really.


I cannot explain why you are getting a blank page - however I did try to link to it so honor is served. Fortunately, it is not all that long. Enjoy.

Sunday, March 12, 2006
DID TACITUS MENTION JESUS?
Did Tacitus mention Jesus as a historical person?

One historian, Edwin Yamauchi, calls the mention in Tacitus “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”
The quote, supposed to have been written around 117 AD, reads:
“Nero fastened the guilt . . . 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 . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome .”

This passage is interesting for several reasons.

The discussion is of the sect of “Christianity,” not Jesus Christ. Jesus is mentioned only with reference to the Christian claim that he was their founder.

This is of little importance, however, as the passage is likely a forgery perpetuated by Church not for the purpose of providing evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but to promote the idea that Nero persecuted Christians for burning Rome.

1. No contemporary historians record a Neronian persecution of Christians.
2. Nero’s famed minister, Seneca, wrote extensively but never even mentioned Christians in Rome.
3. Eusebius never refers to this passage when makng the claim of Neronian persecution.
4. Tertullian quoted Tacitus extensively, but never refers to this passage.
5. No commentator who quoted Tacitus ever made reference to this passage before the 15th century.

The reason no commentator made reference to this passage before the 15th century is that the entire “Annals” in which it appears was unknown until the purported “discovery” made by Johannes de 1468.

It is always cause for suspicion when a copy of an “ancient” writing by a famous historian is suddenly discovered, centuries after the death of the author, containing passages radically different from other writings by that author which enjoyed continuity. The fact that those touting the discovery had a vested interest in the spurious passage makes it even more doubtful, as this provides a motive for the forgery.

[catfish]

You keep asking me. Make a statement instead.
If someone wants to believe that the Bible is infallible, I ask why? Because someone else said to?
You implied the Bible was infallible, I want to know why you would imply that or why you think others would imply that. When someone feeds you the "all scripture is inspired blah blah blah", do you see that as a command to believe everything? Or do you make up your own mind? I can accept that verse literally and still acknowledge the Bible has errors...
.

You know what, I'll let you in on a secret. I'm a closet Christian. I believe that murder is wrong just like the Bible says. I believe that turning the other cheek is usually the best thing to do when in conflict with someone. There are things about me that are reflected in scripture, which means I undeniably believe in those portions of scripture.

Now that the truth about me is out there, I might as well keep going. I'm also a closet Taoist. I acknowledge the polar opposites of this world like night & day, life & death, male & female etc...

Buddhism makes sense to me because my real experiences of deja vu indicate to me that I have been reincarnated before.

Do you see some sort of pattern here? Our beliefs are bound to be found in superstitious scribblings of less civilized people. To then go further and idolize those scribblings to the extent of relabelling things according to those scribblings (e.g. intellectual dissonance -> demons) is your choice. My advice to you is to simply let go of the book. There's nothing miraculous about finding your values/morals to be reflected in scripture. Religions of the world don't have a monopoly on values/morality/experiences/philosophy. Just let go and be you.

I'm not labeling them demons, the people who believe in them do that. "Evil" thoughts are something everyone has and they come from within no matter what you name them. When you think to yourself, do you hear your own voice? Same thing in my eyes but how can I be sure someone isn't picking up electrical interference or that spirits aren't real?

I am me, always have been, always will be. I too see my beliefs reflected in a lot of things and all paths really do lead to God. I'm not holding onto anything, I have no idols, no texts, no rituals, no requirements except to be good.

Does it really bother you that I can read the Bible and interpret it as we are all connected and everyone gets "saved"? Does it bother you that I reject Jesus' sacrifice and still am a Christian? Does it bother you that I have a God that I do not know and cannot prove? Does it bother you that I'm attempting to get people to make up their own minds instead of listening to other people? Does it bother you when I use the Bible to debunk what I see as "evil" or outright lies/mistakes in the Bible?

It bothers me that people have enough hate to believe in hell and call it righteous... I hate seeing human sacrifice being portrayed as good. I loathe the so-called "holy spirit" that convinces people this crap is good (which I'm sure is only because of peer pressure). People actually do swear that they feel the "presence" of the holy spirit... It bothers me when a "logical" person who claims to not believe in the Bible, would fight me tooth and nail on the definition of aeonian... Really, why the Hades would anyone fight that point? To keep the reason to hate the Bible? To save pride by denying they could have been wrong or fooled?

So again, I don't need the book. I have never needed it and never will. I am me and when I see "evil" I speak up or take action. The message in the book is basicaly the same message that has been told through many different people, the same message I was born with.

"James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

Seriously now, what is wrong with that??? ^^^^
.

[Confused Ape]

Ape you refuse to even consider the distinct probability that P. Cornelius Tacitus never said any such thing. That this whole bit of bullshit was a later insertion by a medieval monk/scribe who was trying to provide a little historical basis for his boy.

Gospel Dating

Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs.

Pontius Pilate In The Canonical Gospel Accounts

According to the canonical Christian Gospels, Pilate presided at the trial of Jesus and, despite stating that he personally found him not guilty of a crime meriting death, handed him over to crucifixion. Pilate is thus a pivotal character in the New Testament accounts of Jesus.

The reason no commentator made reference to this passage before the 15th century is that the entire “Annals” in which it appears was unknown until the purported “discovery” made by Johannes de 1468.

Even if the Gospels weren't actually written until the 4th century, it would be a bit pointless faking Tacitus's account 1,000 years after the Gospels had already said that Pontius Pilate had crucified Jesus. You'd think a faker would have added a few details such as the name of the man referred to as Christus etc. as well.

Anyway, you're just the person I'm looking for where this topic is concerned. You don't believe there was an historical Jesus in any shape or form so you can suggest how Christianity got started when there was nobody at all who got obscured by myths and legends. Questions I'd like you to come up with answers for -

1: When did Christianity start?

2: Where did it start?

3: How did it start because somebody, somewhere had the idea that the real Jewish Messiah was crucified and rose from the dead.

I keep asking you for suggestions but you keep forgetting to make any.

[Aegrus]

No, because iliad and Odyssey were fictional stories, and the characters were put in certain places on purpose for the sake of their characterization and for the story itself. The Bible, while I realize it has gone under several editions, has been and always will be based on true stories.

Good luck proving that the bible is any more based on a true story than the Odyssey.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

No, because iliad and Odyssey were fictional stories, and the characters were put in certain places on purpose for the sake of their characterization and for the story itself. The Bible, while I realize it has gone under several editions, has been and always will be based on true stories.

Good luck proving that the bible is any more based on a true story than the Odyssey.

Same way we know that the god Yahweh is real but the god Zeus and other deities featured in the Odyssey are just made up.

As America's 2nd Best Christian, Pastor Deacon Fred once wisely said, "you don't need facts when ya got Jesus."

After all, "cult" is only a word used in the second or third person. When it's your religion, it's the Truth with a capital "T".

Praise! Glory!

[Minimalist]

Even if the Gospels weren't actually written until the 4th century, it would be a bit pointless faking Tacitus's account 1,000 years after the Gospels had already said that Pontius Pilate had crucified Jesus.

You are missing the point of the passage. Modern xtian apologists are using it to "prove" that jesus existed but as noted in the discussion the church was pushing the idea that NERO began the persecution of xtians.
As noted in Moss' book, there was no official persecution of xtians until the mid-3d century and even then it was sporadic. The church would have had no reason to prop up the idea of jesus' "historicity." At that time they could have simply burned anyone who argued that point at the stake. The idea that jesus is historical fiction did not emerge until the late 18th century...when the church had lost the power of murdering anyone who dared to suggest that.

As to your questions you have to lose the idea that this was some sort of unified religion that began at a specific point in time.

1: When did Christianity start? Xtianity as we know it now seems to flow from the mid 2d century AD although it has continued to undergo doctrinal changes ever since. The precursors of it are unknown although the Gabriel Revelation Stone gives us a hint that some concept of resurrection after 3 days was existent c 4 BC. Unfortunately the dying/resurrected vegetation god was a common motif throughout the ANE. "Jesus" is the last bit of chrome on the bumper of that idea - not the beginning of it.

2: Where did it start? Unknown but anywhere from Egypt to Asia Minor seems plausible.

3: How did it start because somebody, somewhere had the idea that the real Jewish Messiah was crucified and rose from the dead. How does any religion start? They sure as shit did not get that idea from the "Jews" for whom the messiah was supposed to be a successful military leader - not some schmuck who got his ass nailed to a board after attaining none of the goals which the messiah was supposed to do. There were so many gnostic groups that no one can really sort out how one came to dominate the others and then re-write history to make themselves the "one true faith." I highly recommend Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" for some background on this point. PM me an email address if you'd like an electronic version.