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.

(February 18, 2013 at 3:24 pm)EGross Wrote: 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.

They might have started back in the early 4th century when Constantine's mother was given the job of finding holy relics. I wonder who sold her buckets of earth.

Relic Discoveries

Quote:Sozomen and Theodoret claim that Helena also found the nails of the crucifixion.

Helena left Jerusalem and the eastern provinces in 327 to return to Rome, bringing with her large parts of the True Cross and other relics,

Tradition says that the site of the Vatican Gardens was spread with earth brought from Golgotha by Helena

According to one tradition, Helena acquired the Holy Tunic on her trip to Jerusalem and sent it to Trier.

and pieces of the rope with which Jesus was tied on the Cross.

(February 18, 2013 at 3:24 pm)EGross Wrote: This argument has been going on for 2000 years.

I find it interesting seeing various ideas of how Christianity got started without a real man behind the myths and legends, though. My favourite is Allegro's Sacred Mushroom Theory.

Quote:Allegro argued that Jesus never existed and was a mythological creation of early Christians under the influence of psychoactive mushroom extracts such as psylocibin.[1]

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 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. Why would they think that details of such nonsense would be regarded as significant in the future? See the start of Post #140 for a scholar's theory about why Tacitus mentioned their Christ being executed by a procurator. Tacitus saw an opportunity to make a catty comment about Christians and men of Pilate's rank (equestrian) being given so much power and he took the opportunity.

Pliny's Letter To Trajan is him asking for guidance about how to go about prosecuting Christians. He gives Trajan a brief account of what the Christians told him concerning their meetings and said that he tortured two slaves who were called deaconesses for further information. He ends the report with "But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition." We'll never know what this depraved, excessive superstition was in Pliny's and Tacitus's day.

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. We then went on to discuss this and our discussion had nothing to do with whether Christians had invented Christ rising from the dead by AD 64 or whether Tacitus's catty comment is supposed to be proof that Jesus existed.

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

(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

(February 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: They might have started back in the early 4th century when Constantine's mother was given the job of finding holy relics.

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..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

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 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm)ThomM Wrote: IF there was a christ and he actually rose from the dead - that would have been reported by someone

What does that have to do with Christians being persecuted by Nero in 64 AD? I'll post the information from the BBC website because it's easier to follow than reading Tacitus.

Nero's Persecution

Quote:Christians were first, and horribly, targeted for persecution as a group by the emperor Nero in 64 AD. A colossal fire broke out at Rome, and destroyed much of the city. Rumours abounded that Nero himself was responsible. He certainly took advantage of the resulting devastation of the city, building a lavish private palace on part of the site of the fire.

Perhaps to divert attention from the rumours, Nero ordered that Christians should be rounded up and killed. Some were torn apart by dogs, others burnt alive as human torches.

Do you think this really happened?

(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.

(February 19, 2013 at 3:52 am)EGross Wrote: 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.

I found something interesting relating to Christian beliefs about Gamilel The Elder.

Quote:The Acts of the Apostles introduces Gamaliel as a Pharisee and celebrated scholar of the Mosaic Law.[19] In this passage, Saint Peter and the other apostles are described as being prosecuted by the Sanhedrin for continuing to preach the Gospel, despite the Jewish authorities having previously prohibited it. The passage describes Gamaliel as presenting an argument against killing the apostles,

According to Acts, his authority with his contemporaries was so great that they accepted his advice, regardless of how unwelcome it was. Gamaliel's concluding argument to them had been:

The Book of Acts later goes on to describe Paul of Tarsus recounting that he was "educated at the feet of Gamaliel" about Jewish law,[7]

Gamaliel being a real person doesn't prove that Paul and the apostles existed but it shows that the Christians were trying to give their beliefs a bit of historical background.

(February 19, 2013 at 3:52 am)EGross Wrote: 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.

I'm having problems finding him - his name might have been translated into something else in articles written in English. Could you give me some more details such as when he was beheaded, please? I find him interesting because he claimed he could perform a miracle.

(February 19, 2013 at 3:52 am)EGross Wrote: . 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.

Those were obviously later additions to the story. Minimalist gave me a lead to Lucian of Samosata who was the first to write that a man had been crucified in Palestine although he doesn't say the man's name was Jesus. Lucian was born in 125 AD. Maybe in the early part of the first century the story had got as far as Pilate executing Christ. Later on people must have decided that, as the Romans crucified criminals, Christ must have been crucified as well. Lucian's comments suggest that he's repeating what the Christians were saying in his lifetime.

(February 19, 2013 at 3:52 am)EGross Wrote: 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.

Was that Yeshu Ha Notzri who was supposed to have been stoned to death and hung up somewhere on the eve of Passover? From what I can gather, legends say he was also known as Yeshu ben Pandera because his father was a Roman solider.

(February 19, 2013 at 3:52 am)EGross Wrote: 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.

Looks like he's now commanding a fleet of space ships - Christian Ufology - Jesus Has A Spaceship.

(February 19, 2013 at 3:52 am)EGross Wrote: It then inspires him to use them as a way to misdirect focus from him and his problems, until he eventually has Paul executed.

That reminds me of the legend of Saint Peter's martyrdom.

Quote:The Annuario Pontifico gives the year of Peter's death as A.D. 64 or A.D. 67. Early church tradition says Peter probably died at the time of the Great Fire of Rome of the year 64.

All I can find on this is Eusebius is saying that Saint Peter was crucified under Nero..

Quote:It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself,541 and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero.542

If Sulpicious Severus forged the Tacitus passage, why didn't he write it to suggest that Peter was included in the spectacle? Tacitus said -

Quote:Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

I think we can safely say that the immense multitude is an exaggeration but Severus could have phrased this on the lines of "all who pleaded guilty including their leader from Judea; then etc. etc."

(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.