aa5874

It is completely mis-leading to claim Tacitus mentioned Jesus of the NT when the word Jesus is nowhere in Annals.

The word is Christus, and if Christus was a title, then whoever was killed during the 10 year governorship of Pilate could have have any first name.

Wasn't Simon "Christus" too?

There is not enough information in "Annals" to positively claim "Christus" is Jesus of the NT, and it is almost certain that Josephus did NOT write AJ 18.3.3, but in any event, the Jesus in the "TF" is some kind of ghost or apparition, he ROSE from the dead after being DEAD for three days.

The truth is there is NO mention of JESUS of the NT, except for forgeries in Josephus.

Zaphod

Well, you have put your finger on the horns of the dilemma for those who argue for a Historical Jesus. If the Argument from Silence instructs that Jesus must NOT have been an actual miracle worker, then that alone is an important conclusion, and a dangerous one.

It is important because millions of people in the real world have based their faith on a false image of Jesus, as they do actually believe that Jesus was the son of God who walked the Earth performing miracles.

If the sage advice of the modern Biblical Historian is that Jesus must NOT have been a miracle worker, then that is a very important item of news indeed. And it should be made public to an international scope.




Is this true? I have read on these pages that historians of the time wrote about infinitesimally inconsequential characters and events. The Argument from Silence would not have the importance that it enjoys if the historical record only spoke of great and noticeable men.

Indeed, apologists have fastened onto the small (probably interpolated?) references found in Josephus and Tacitus, etc, as being references that have an expected character. I don't recall reading about the rejection of, say, Josephus' line item about Jesus as being uncharacteristically trivial, and therefore inadmissible as "proof" of the Historical Jesus.

I have not read Josephus. Does he or does he not write about small men, local characters, small events?

spin

"[P]robably interpolated?", yet "I have not read Josephus."

Naughty. Very naughty.


spin

Zaphod

Perhaps, spin, you are correct.

I am not a Biblical scholar - I am a reader of these Biblical Criticism pages. A huge difference!

Do you think I have made an unsupportable statement?

aa5874

The Biblical scholars should all write to the Pope and leaders of all Christian Denominations or publish their findings in the News Media, local and international, to warn or alert people, just as with Global Warming, that Jesus had been erroneoucly thought to be a miracle worker, and that there is no evidence now to support such a notion and that Jesus may not even have existed.

Anyhow, the human only Jesus cannot survive scrutinity. He cannot be found, he can only be assumed. There cannot any internal records of the human only Jesus.

Mary gave birth to the offspring of the Holy Ghost, she is the witness to the Son of God, the implausible.

Zaphod

aa5874

I actually do believe that having the correct framing of the question of the Historicity of Jesus is extremely important.

Billions of Christians are completely unaware that there is a controversy ( there is one, isn't there? ) over whether Jesus even existed.

The apologists have been very good, it seems to me, at avoiding the issue, or manufacturing a false sense of consensus on the issue.

But IF there is a valid argument to be made that the best available evidence shows that the historicity of the Historical Jesus must be assumed to be false, then it seems to me to possibly be a very significant position indeed. And very important to a lot more people than just the folks who visit here.

If you modern Biblical scholars who frequent this site and others were to agree that the framing of the question of the Historical Jesus should, indeed, be framed as false based on the best available evidence, that would be important.

If there was to be a true consensus among the majority of Biblical scholars that this was the case, it would likely be newsworthy around the world.

And it would be information that would deserve to be told.

bacht

Kind of like telling your kids that there's no Santa Claus

Wouldn't the disproving of the HJ scenario be a problem mainly for fundamentalists and scriptural literalists? I'm thinking that "liberal" Christianity could still carry on using allegory etc.

aa5874

I think Biblical scholars are in a dilema, they REJECT the Jesus of the NT. They must take the obvious next step, notify the Pope and the like, that his existence has been quashed.

bacht

he might know already :huh:

I got a laugh out of the popularity of the Da Vinci Code. People can't wait to hear stuff about Jesus' personal life, or a feminist Mary M. But the biggest potential "hoax" of all doesn't even register on people's thought horizon.

Zaphod

I think most Christians base their belief on the presumption that Jesus was at least an actual man, a preacher, who lived and walked on Earth, and that his personal philosophy is the bedrock of their religion.

I think most Christians would appreciate being updated on the truth of the matter, for better or worse.