Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians

[Pyrrho]

He was ''disposed'' in the way that he was crucified - we know he wasn't slaughtered like a militant Jew because the death of Christ via Crucifixion is an event which is well-attested to; both via historical reference from Tacticus (who also hated Christians, but acknowledged his cruxification) and on a logical level.
...

I presume you mean "Tacitus."  "Tacticus" could be Aeneas Tacticus,  Aelianus Tacticus, or possibly someone else who made no mention of Jesus.

In the case of Tacitus (that is, Publius [or Gaius] Cornelius Tacitus), the mentioning of Christ (which is not Jesus' name) is known to be tampered with.  See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Furthermore, even if genuine, Tacitus is obviously repeating some other source, as he could not possibly have been a witness to anything he is mentioning about Christ.  Of course, that he knew about Christians is another matter.

So, even if the passage is authentic and not something patched in later by a Christian liar (as has been shown to be the case in other instances of old texts), all it means is that the story was being spread by circa 116.  Obviously, Tacitus did not witness anything directly beyond the fact that there were members of a bizarre cult, who made various claims.  So it just means that Christians were making such claims in circa 116 about Christ, nothing more.

In other words, this is not evidence that anyone existed at all, just evidence that there were such stories in about 116.  And that is even assuming that the text is genuine, which is questionable.

One can read old texts in which Apollo and Zeus are discussed as existing, too.  They may have as much reality in them as Jesus.

All of this is a rehash of a thread from earlier this year; here is a post from that thread:

---

Personally I have not heard a single argument that convinces me that HJ is likely. Everything I've heard, even from historians, is based on assumptions and motivations. If there's any actual argument you have, feel free to use a historians argument, then I'd be happy to hear it. But I don't care about Genghis Khan or the level of evidence for anyone else. I'm only interested in actual arguments and evidence for HJ, if you want to make that point. I didn't see anything I'm that thread you posted that was convincing.

The fact that Christian historians (who, of course, are the most numerous types of historians who [if you will pardon the expression] historically have studied the historical Jesus) believe that there was an historical Jesus convinces TheMessiah that there really was an historical Jesus.

The idea that all historians have approached the question without bias is laughable.  For the most part, the people who seriously study the issue do so because of their religious convictions.  And then we are supposed to take their conclusions seriously, when they started by assuming that their conclusions were true!


If we look at someone like Tacitus, who he mentioned earlier here,

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31487-po...#pid870718

what that proves is that Christianity existed in 116, and that Tacitus had heard the basic outline of the story that Christians were spreading.  It does nothing whatsoever to show that the events actually took place, only that the story was in circulation at the time.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

No one is questioning the existence of Christianity (which is all that Tacitus really proves); it is only a matter of whether or not there was some person upon whom the story is based.  A story can be written with or without such a person, and can be influential (or not) with or without such a person.

Tacitus, having heard the basic story, had no particular reason to say that there was no basis in fact, but neither had he any proof that it did.  Quite frankly, the existence of such a person was unimportant to him, as, indeed, it is unimportant to pretty much anyone who is not a Christian.  It does not matter whether the story (I should write, "stories," because they are not consistent with each other) is based on a real person or not.


If TheMessiah is consistent, then he believes that there is also an historical Herakles (Hercules to those of you who prefer Roman names) and every other half-god being that there is some ancient story about.  But my guess is, he makes a special exception for Jesus, because of the indoctrination that people get on this subject.  (If you are reading this, TheMessiah, do you believe in an historical Herakles?  If not, why not?  He is referenced by multiple ancient authors and described as if he existed.  Or is it that you just go along with the prejudices of the Christian society in which you have been raised?)


Most people who attempt to search for the historical Jesus start with the assumption that there is an historical Jesus.  This is true whether they are Christians or not.  And when most of them end up believing what they started with presupposing to be true, why should anyone be surprised?

---