Christ's birthday

[chatpilot]

Exactly my point Retorth. Apologetics is an appropriate name for the science of lying lol. "We're sorry for being caught in so many lies, please let us explain". Everything Christians do is ass backwards.

[rjh4 is back]

Just in case you wondered why I said fictional Jesus, have a look at this article:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic..._live.html

I wonder what you would say about the following passage from the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus in Annals XV, 44:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. 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.

Also, here is an article which cites many scholars who have studied the works of Tacitus which addresses criticism of this quote. Tacitus and Jesus

Do you just dismiss this as being Christian garbage? If you dismiss this as being a forgery, how do you address the argumentation set forth by the author of the website? Furthermore, how do you discern from historical documents what is true and what is not? Do you dismiss anything refering to Jesus Christ because it must be a forgery without looking at the evidence? Given the paltry evidence provided here that Jesus is fictional, it seems to me that what I have cited is sufficient to rebut such a claim. Do you agree? (I am not holding my breath. )

[chatpilot]

Just another pathetic apologists argument read this article as a refutation to the one you posted rjh4. http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm This refers to both Pliny and Tacitus paltry reference to your Christ and it too makes some stinging points against the claim that the quote from the Annals is sufficient evidence for the existence of Christ.

All evidence for the existence of Christ outside the gospels are forgeries or later interpolations which just goes back to being later forgeries by Christian apologists. The evidence of the gospels is so distorted and inconsistent that it actually works against the existence of Christ and rather favors the argument that his story was a fabrication.

[rjh4 is back]

All evidence for the existence of Christ outside the gospels are forgeries or later interpolations which just goes back to being later forgeries by Christian apologists.

Why, do you suppose, a Christian apologist would feel the need to provide such forgeries to begin with? The passages that to which your article refers do not really shed a positive light on Christianity. Are you suggesting that some Christian in the past sat down and thought:

Christians need to make sure there is some secular support for the existence of Jesus. There does not appear to be that evidence out there so I think I will forge some evidence. Hmmm...I guess I cannot make such forged evidence too positive towards Christianity because people might catch on. I will make the forged evidence not so positive so as to appear more credible. Surely with this forged evidence it will be easier for people to believe that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected.

I think that kind of thinking would be ridiculous. What other reasoning can you come up with as to why one for forge such passages? I cannot come up with anything that would make sense to me and your articles certainly did not help. What is your basis for saying these are forgeries?

[Violet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccolò_Machiavelli He thought like that.

[chatpilot]

rjh4 Christians back then and even to this day have been searching for secular evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the gospels to further validate their beliefs and provide historical evidence to the unbelievers. Remember the synoptic gospels namely: Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not make their first appearance till about 70 AD (Mark). The other gospels are further removed from the time of Jesus alleged trial and crucifixion. The gospel accounts blatantly contradict each other on many of the so called historical accounts of the biography of Jesus. Also, when these gospels first made their appearances they were presented anonymously and did not get the names attributed to them as authors until the mid second century.

Then entire account of the life of Jesus as presented in the gospels are based on hearsay and not on established fact and they are not eyewitness accounts. There are currently no original copies of the gospels in existence and what we have are copies of copies etc. The gospels themselves are biased and meant to promote a belief in Christ as the messiah, the gospels are propaganda meant to proliferate the authority of the Christian church.

If you weigh the evidence honestly the evidence is against the existence of Christ. The scant secular evidence of the life of Christ is inconsistent with the life of such a man who purportedly performed so many wonders and was the source of such great exploits as feeding 5,000 plus people with a few loaves of bread and fishes. How could the disciples testify as to what were Christ last words or moments on the cross when the gopels say they all fled and abandoned him: Matthew 26:56 [But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.] Only the women stayed faithful and were with him till the end.

As stated above the very names attributed to the gospels as authors were forgeries attached to these books about 120 years after the alleged death of Christ.

---

Even if the Tacitus quote were authentic it only acknowledges the there was a sect called Christians "Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities." That their founder was called Christus (simply repeating the then known legends). And he referred to Christianity as a "pernicious superstition", repressed for a time broke out again". Yes, read it again a superstition defined as: irrational beliefs: irrational and often quasi-religious belief in and reverence for the magical effects of some actions and rituals or the magical powers of some objects. This is a definition according to Encarta.

As demonstrated above this qoute in no way validates the existence of Jesus Christ.

[rjh4 is back]

rjh4 Christians back then and even to this day have been searching for secular evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the gospels to further validate their beliefs and provide historical evidence to the unbelievers. Remember the synoptic gospels namely: Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not make their first appearance till about 70 AD (Mark). The other gospels are further removed from the time of Jesus alleged trial and crucifixion. The gospel accounts blatantly contradict each other on many of the so called historical accounts of the biography of Jesus. Also, when these gospels first made their appearances they were presented anonymously and did not get the names attributed to them as authors until the mid second century.

Then entire account of the life of Jesus as presented in the gospels are based on hearsay and not on established fact and they are not eyewitness accounts. There are currently no original copies of the gospels in existence and what we have are copies of copies etc. The gospels themselves are biased and meant to promote a belief in Christ as the messiah, the gospels are propaganda meant to proliferate the authority of the Christian church.

If you weigh the evidence honestly the evidence is against the existence of Christ. The scant secular evidence of the life of Christ is inconsistent with the life of such a man who purportedly performed so many wonders and was the source of such great exploits as feeding 5,000 plus people with a few loaves of bread and fishes. How could the disciples testify as to what were Christ last words or moments on the cross when the gopels say they all fled and abandoned him: Matthew 26:56 [But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.] Only the women stayed faithful and were with him till the end.

As stated above the very names attributed to the gospels as authors were forgeries attached to these books about 120 years after the alleged death of Christ.

You are trying to switch the subject. We were talking about the secular references to Jesus, particularly that of Tacitus. You said it was a forgery and I questioned you regarding your statements. Now you are merely ignoring my questions. You can ignore my questions if you want and you can certainly come to a different conclusion than me. It would be nice though if you would answer the questions that I asked, if you, in fact, have a reasonable answer.

[Violet]

I think that kind of thinking would be ridiculous. What other reasoning can you come up with as to why one for forge such passages?

Politics.

What is your basis for saying these are forgeries?

Aside from historical proofs... the voice and style of the author changes dramatically and suddenly for a single paragraph, or perhaps even a chapter, and then just as suddenly reverts to the previous style and voice.

[rjh4 is back]

I think that kind of thinking would be ridiculous. What other reasoning can you come up with as to why one for forge such passages?

Politics.

How would the quote from Tacitus help Christians at all politically such that one would forge it?

What is your basis for saying these are forgeries?

Aside from historical proofs... the voice and style of the author changes dramatically and suddenly for a single paragraph, or perhaps even a chapter, and then just as suddenly reverts to the previous style and voice.

Do you have evidence that this is the case for the quote in Tacitus?

[chatpilot]

I am not changing the subject, I cannot prove it was a forgery but as I stated above even if it were authentic as I pointed out in my post it does nothing to prove the existence of Jesus. Not changing the subject, just stating the facts. In fact this so called evidence is actually weaker than the statements made in Herodotus.