Here in Israel there used to be 3 tombs, now I think they dropped what was a wine press house ("But look, it's got a rolling stone in front, it must be the tomb!") and now have the church of the seplucre and one other, a bit further north.

The reality is, however, that if the Church had any physical proof, and I mean ANY, they would have been waving that flag the day they got it. Even the shroud fell apart when it was shown to be a painting. Crosses? I'm sure the vatican has tons! During the middle ages, none believers were making and selling the stuff like it was going out of style. But carbon dating really is a drag.

There is no physical evidence, and the Church knows it, so there is this idea that "the empty tomb proves that Christ arose" which means, no physical evidence is now the keystone to faith.

This argument has been going on for 2000 years. If the Church finds something for real (rather than buying the stuff one of our local antique forgers has been selling), then we will have something to say. Until then, his existance is an expression of faith by the true believer and nothing more.

PS - for Minimalist. Why are you so against the idea that Tacitus was reporting what Christians believed early in the 2nd century? You're happy to refer to Lucian not mentioning Jesus in 160 AD and Celsus being the first writer to mention the name in 180 AD. Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus any more than Pliny and Lucian did and he doesn't mention crucifixion either - he just says executed. The only thing about Tacitus's report is that it mightn't have been what Christians believed in 64 AD because he wrote the Annals 45 years later.


--------

There is no question that people were "believing" something by the 2nd century - however - what they believed was NOT the christianity of today - which changed radically over the time before the bible was made canon.

In fact - there were LOTS of different beliefs - just as there are arguments among xtians today - that resulted in many different churches.

However - if the early mentions of the christ were to be significant - why do they not mention his miraculous rising from the dead ? Maybe that was NOT made up to be part of the MYTH yet?

(February 18, 2013 at 6:25 pm)Confused Ape Wrote:

(February 18, 2013 at 5:23 pm)ThomM Wrote: However - if the early mentions of the christ were to be significant - why do they not mention his miraculous rising from the dead ? Maybe that was NOT made up to be part of the MYTH yet?

Pagan Roman historians weren't interested in writing books about Christian beliefs because they regarded Christianity as superstitious nonsense.

-------

And you see - that IS THE POINT

IF there was a christ and he actually rose from the dead - that would have been reported by someone

THAT it was not is because is was NONSENSE and had NO support in fact.
Still doesn't

We know that in the year 30, Shammai dies in Jerusalem and Rabban Gamliel the Elder takes over, for the next 5 years there will be people fasting and praying for some redeemer. We know of a couple, one called Yehudah, who led a rebellion against the Romans, reclaimed some Jewish prisoners, and claimed he could part the seas and get passage back to Egypt. The Romans beheaded him and put his head on a spike, and massacred many of his followers. After this, Pilate decided to sack the Jewish Temple and take it's treasures. The Jews rebelled and the Romans were taking a beating. And after two years of clashes, Caligula recalled Pilate and replaced him with a pair of overseers which calmed things a bit.

We know what happened between 30-37CE because the Jews and the Romans wrote about it (the Romans were far more interested in dates, so we can get some accuracy there). But neither write of the massacre of thousands of Jewish baby boys, or even of there being some weird tradition to release a Jewish prisoner on the ever of Passover which is not documented. Nor of the walking dead, the thousands of exorcisms, and anything else.

The Romans were so obsessed with documenting everything, we not only know what they wore, but how they made their clothing and the dyes.

Now while there is a "Yeshu" in the Talmud, he is a Hellenized Jew, and given the name of his teacher, he would have lived around 120BCE. And in the centuries that followed, he became a sort of polemic character, and where it said "student" "Yeshu" was sometimes added to mock the Christians. (He is stoned to death for teaching idolotry and was excommunicated for having too much of an eye for the ladies). Obviously not the same guy.

My ex-roomate believe that there was a historical Jesus, but that he was an alien and left on his space ship and was probably chewed out by his Commander for violating the Prime Directive.

It makes just as much sense and nobody can disprove it!

---

(February 18, 2013 at 6:25 pm)Confused Ape Wrote:

(February 18, 2013 at 5:23 pm)ThomM Wrote: However - if the early mentions of the christ were to be significant - why do they not mention his miraculous rising from the dead ? Maybe that was NOT made up to be part of the MYTH yet?

Do you think that Nero put Christians to death in horrible ways after the fire of Rome?

According to some historians, Nero wanted some additional real estate to build entertainment areas, and had his men burn down those areas and shift the blame to the crazy cult that nobody gave a damn about. Easy scape goats. It then inspires him to use them as a way to misdirect focus from him and his problems, until he eventually has Paul executed. So yes, I believe, based on these accounts, that the sadistic little bastard probably had torture included just for fun!

(February 19, 2013 at 8:03 am)Confused Ape Wrote:

(February 18, 2013 at 8:18 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Don't forget the Holy Foreskin! The pecker tip of jesus should be enough to convince us infidels, but gosh darn it, the pope can't remember which closet he stored it in..

But which Holy Foreskin was the real one? There were several.

Wow! Now I know why he was such a legend!!! He was a god amongst women and the bible writers just got the wrong idea why!

Quote: There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome3

1- This is a "lost work" of Tertullian ( convenient? ) and even worse was found by Eusebius who also ( coincidence? ) discovered the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus which no one had heard of before, either. Call that a red flag but consider the second part of that sentence. When did Nero "subdue" all the east? He had been dead for two years before Titus even finished putting down the Great Revolt? And then "he exercised his cruelty against ALL at Rome?" That's not what any of the Greco-Roman writers say.

Again, Candida Moss' book is about the manufacture of the xtian persecution myth after xtianity attained political power in the 4th century. Eusebius fits right in with the idea.

---

Quote:My PS to Minimalist was me wondering why he didn't believe what Tacitus said about Christ being executed by Pilate and it turned out that he doesn't think the passage about Christians being persecuted is authentic.

Primarily because the passage is unknown to other writers in antiquity - even xtian writers. There is no getting around this. I also think that the idea that Severus edited Tacitus is weak. Had he done so he would not have left out the bit about Pilate and Christus which does not appear in Chronica.

No, it looks much more likely to me that someone knew of the Chronica passage but when the manuscript of Annales was produced in Western Europe the passage was beefed up a bit and passed off as Tacitus' work which is a type of pseudoepigraphy well known from the non-"authentic" epistles of Paul.

So to answer your question it is highly problematic that Tacitus said anything about xtians let alone the phrase that has been attributed to him. We have evidence in a single 11th century manuscript of scribal alteration and when to quote the adage "one lie is detected a thousand are suspected." Suetonius refers to Chrestus - apparently so did Tacitus. Were Chrestus and Christus the same person? It seems impossible since the xtians insist their boy was dead before 37 and Chrestus is named by Suetonius in Rome during the 50's AD.