Chaucer

Actually, these sound about like Tacitus in their approach, now don't they? And by the way, I'm not discussing the Biblical sources in this particular exchange, only the extrabiblical ones, so kindly resist the urge to drag in N.T. texts in this context. They are irrelevant. Thank you.

Chaucer

Chaucer

Suuuuuure we do........................ It doesn't strike me that Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc., are any more sympathetic to Christianity than general skeptics of today are -- and they're also a whole lot closer to that time period than people living in 2011.

Chaucer

Chaucer

igsfly:igsfly:igsfly:

Jews didn't kill Jesus; Romans did. It was crucifixion, remember? Not stoning, or whatever may have been the indigenous Palestinian flavor of the week. Crucifixion was a Roman execution, and in crucifying Jesus, a human preacher, Romans were officially executing a Jew. It was part and parcel of the Roman oppression of the Jews during their imperial occupation of Palestine.

Chaucer

maryhelena

cut to music.......

:boohoo:
Anything you could do, I could do better
I can do anything better than you!
No you can't!
Yes I can!
No you can't!
Yes I can!
No you can't!
Yes I can!
Yes I can!
:boohoo:

maryhelena

From the Wikipedia link in above post...

Make sure you notice the word *belief*....

Toto

No they don't. The only thing Tacitus says is "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius."

Where does Tacitus give his sources, or indicate that he had a source? Where does Tacitus discuss Jesus? Why is the volume of his history that covers the years around 29-32 missing?

How can this one throw away line be compared to Livy's discussion of Hannibal?

Get real.

Chaucer

Which takes away nothing from the plain fact that Jesus was a Jew born and bred, and what we have here is a Jew executed by Romans and not by his own people, as you left-handedly appear to imply, whatever your disclaimers.

Chaucer

Chaucer

In his introduction. He states clearly that everything in his history is from direct sources except where specified, in which case he always specifies when he's using only hearsay. And in fact, he always keeps to that: There are a fair number of cases throughout in which he does specify that such-or-such a detail comes from hearsay. So that's a consistently maintained rule in his chronicle. It's therefore significant that he offers no such caveat in the sequence referencing Pilate's execution of Jesus the human preacher.

Chaucer

maryhelena

Nope - my left hand is pretty useless for most things - ah, but my right hand - well now, way to go...

Oh my, plain fact that Jesus.....etc etc etc......Each to his own I suppose - many years since I ditched such an outrageous idea and moved on to more interesting things - like history...

aa5874

HJ was NOT Christ so don't even try to "LEFT-HANDEDLY" imply that Tacitus mentioned HJ.

HJ was an OBSCURE apocalyptic preacher according to HJers.

And please the MYTHS Romulus and Remus were born of a woman.

You have NO point at all.

You know that ALL references to Jesus Christ are about NT Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, and not about HJ.

Church writers claimed the Jesus Christ in the forgeries of Josephus is the very same OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost found in the NT Canon.

And NONE used Tacitus even as late as the end of the 4th century.

Please stop wasting time.

Not a single credible source of antiquity mentioned HJ the OBSCURE apocalyptic preacher.