For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[CleanShavenJesus]

Sorry - but there IS NO PROOF that a historical person upon whom the MYTH of the christ was developed over time ever existed. Certainly the christ MYTH never actually existed.

There is LOTS of speculation and lots of inference - but it clearly cannot be true

Literacy in Ancient Rome - in the GOLDEN AGE OF ROME - is often dscussed bit is subject to major disagreement - and many scholars say that most Romans could at least read some - it was writing that many could not do.

However - the jews would have known that the christ myth was NOT THE MESSIAH - because the christ myth failed to fulfill the prophecies for the messiah that are the absolute word of the jewish god - and NOT SUBJECT to interpretation or change (THE word of god is ALWAYS GOOD so it would not change it)

IT is always nice to see someone claim that jesus of NAZARETH exsited - when Nazareth itself did not exist as more than a burial plot at that time.

As far as the crucifixion - the christ would have been stoned to death by the jews LONG BEFORE if he actually did any of the things he is claimed to have been done. Claiming to be the son of god alone is heresy in the jewish religion. The money changers at the temple would have stoned him to death if he ever was there. Remember - the christ was a jewish HERETIC - and would NEVER have been allowed to speak in a real jewish temple - and certainly not the near the VATICAN of jewish temples.

Sorry - but using documents and statements FROM THE SUPPOSED TIME of the christ or from people who could PROVE to be eye witnesses is the only way to prove existence. NONE of the bible was PROVABLY written by any such person.

There you go again about proof.

[Cato]

There you go again about proof.

There you go again not having any. Situation: normal.

[Minimalist]

It looks like Tacitus didn't think the Christians did it so it's likely he wasn't the only one with that opinion.

You are still assuming Tacitus wrote that.

[catfish]

He's allowed to assume anything he wants says the World's 2nd best Christian...
.

[fr0d0]

And I'm fighting against that doctrine and when people propagate the lie, I have to point it out. Why do/did people call it inerrant when there's no reason to? I honestly don't think any logical person could ever read it for themself and come to that conclusion. I'm 99.9% sure that in every case it is because someone else convinced them.
.

To me this is just pig ignorance. You're trying to equate mistranslation with biblical errancy. Translation is a moving target. Stuff gets lost, stuff gets found. You are no one man wonder with the secret no one else figured out. What is meant by inerrancy is the accuracy of the text as a whole, as originally intended. Not some nit picking little jerk with some nuggets of new found translations that are nothing new, and that make no difference to the wider meaning.

[Creed of Heresy]

*laughs*

Oh this is a riot. Once again the Christians are incapable of uniting behind the tenets of their faith because of how absurdly obscure, vague, and generally useless those tenets are.

I love it. I love it so much.

Also.

"There you go again about proof."

Yeah. I know. For catholics, the idea of "proof" is a pretty difficult one to deal with. Just better hope you never get stuck in a court of law! You'll REALLY be up shit's creek then! XD

[Minimalist]

Here, fishy. Why not let these fools explain it to you....in their own words.

http://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible

Now, there is a comment worth mentioning here. Inspiration and inerrancy applies to the original writings, not to the copies. In other words, it is the original writings that are without error. The copies, sadly, have copyist errors in them.

Except, since we only have copies, they have to invent a few figures to claim that the copyists were pretty fucking inerrant themselves.

Oh what tangled knots we weave........

[catfish]

Well fuck me with a hot poker...

I didn't realise you guys had access to the original scriptures, how dumb of me to overlook that fucking fack... [/sarcasm]
.

[Confused Ape]

You are still assuming Tacitus wrote that.

Was Tacitus's account of the fire true? I honestly can't see anyone fabricating a long and detailed account of a fire just so they could make a passing reference to Christians. Could Tacitus's original account have said that Nero blamed some other despised group and this was changed to Christians later on? It's possible but it seems that this is a minority view.

Tacitus On Christ - Authenticity And Historical Value

Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.

Does it prove that Jesus existed? As Jesus wasn't mentioned by name I think the most sensible approach is -

James D. G. Dunn considers the passage as useful in establishing facts about early Christians, e.g. that there was a sizable number of Christians in Rome around AD 60.[10] Dunn states that Tacitus seems to be under the impression that Christians were some form of Judaism, although distinguished from them.[10] Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier state that in addition to establishing that there was a large body of Christians in Rome, the Tacitus passage provides two other important pieces of historical information, namely that by around AD 60 it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome and that even pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Judea.[11]

Why didn't any Roman historians check to see if Pontius Pilate really had executed someone called Yeshua so they could write about him? News about previous Messiah claimants had probably filtered back to the city because they'd started revolts.

Jewish Messiah Claimants

Simon of Peraea (c. 4 BCE), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans.[3]
Athronges (c. 3 CE),[4] a shepherd turned rebel leader.
Menahem ben Judah (?), allegedly son of Judas of Galilee, partook in a revolt against Agrippa II before being slain by a rival Zealot leader.

If Tacitus's passing reference to Christians is authentic (and it seems that most modern scholars do think that) the general attitude in Rome was probably "Another idiot got himself executed and these morons started a religion about it." The Romans were pagans at the time so they wouldn't have regarded Christian claims of a divine being coming back from the dead as having novelty value.

Now to the Historicity of Jesus

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7] While there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity[8][9][10][11] most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and Greek.[18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]

The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that in one way or another question the authenticity of the existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels.[106][107][108][109] Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the notion that Jesus never existed has little scholarly support, and although some modern scholars adhere to it, they remain a distinct minority; virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe that his existence can be established.[5][110][111]

You've chosen to believe the distinct minority of scholars who insist that Jesus never existed. I take the attitude that he might have existed and Tacitus's report about Christian beliefs might be authentic. I don't regard the idea that there might have been a real man underneath the myths and fabrications as being a threat to atheism. After all, it doesn't prove that the Christian religion is true.

PS: Just thought of something else if Tacitus's mention of Christians is authentic. The word Christus wouldn't have been of Earth shattering importance to Tacitus - it's the Latinised version of the Greek word meaning anointed which was how Greek speakers had translated mashiah. The Romans were up to their ears in Jewish Messiahs and Tacitus would have regarded the idea of a Messiah as being a mischievous superstition. He had no idea that Christianity would become a major religion so it looks like he made a very brief explanation of who Christians were for future readers - they were named after a Messiah who'd been executed by Pontius Pilate. He'd have had no incentive to write a biography of the executed man because he didn't do anything interesting like starting a revolt.

[Cyberman]

For catholics, the idea of "proof" is a pretty difficult one to deal with. Just better hope you never get stuck in a court of law! You'll REALLY be up shit's creek then! XD

Indeed. The concepts of 'evidence' and 'proof' only become troublesome when you know you don't have any.