aa5874

Well, I just read about Pilate's report to Tiberius about Jesus the Son of God. It seems that the Romans had a record of Jesus of the NT, based on Eusebius in Church History.

Pilate told Tiberius that Jesus did rise from the dead, and ascended to heaven and that Jesus should be DEIFIED by the Roman Senate.

"Church History 2.2.1 So, it would appear that Christus in Annals 15.44 was definitely not Jesus of the NT.

Pontius Pilate did advise Tiberius to have the Senate DEIFY Jesus.

And later in Church History, Tiberius wanted Christianity to SPREAD throughout the world and threatened to KILL those who opposed Christians.

Church History 2.2.6 Based on Eusebius, the doctrine of the Gospel from its very beginning was unmolested and Tiberius did accept and was pleased with the doctrine.

However, in Annals 15.44, Christus doctrine was called a most mischievous superstition, and was killed to stop the spread of his doctrine.

In Church History, Tiberius was pleased with the doctrine of Jesus and asked with the admonition of Pilate, that Jesus be deified. AND THREATENED TO KILL those who opposed the Christians of Jesus.

Christus in Annals 15.44 was not Jesus of the NT, based on the HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, by Eusebius. Pilate, Tiberius and the Roman Senate are witnesses.

Tacitus' Christus has been destroyed!

FathomFFI

You are attempting to assert that Pilate made a positive statement that Jesus rose from the dead, and was the son of God. The truth is, Pilate merely gave a report to Tiberius of what he had heard about Jesus, and that report did not say anything about Jesus being the son of God, but only that many believed that Jesus was a god.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? All the Pilate report does is strengthen my argument that Christus is Jesus.

If you are going to study this stuff then slow down and understand what you are reading. Pilate never advised Tiberius to have the senate deify Jesus at all. Tiberius did that on his own.

He became sympathetic to Christians according to that report.

Which gospel? We have 4 in the bible, and about 10 unaccounted for.

You are speaking about a time 80 years later, through which the Christians were persecuted to no end by the Romans. All you need to do is read the two paragraphs below the Christus part in Tacitus. Here is what Nero did to the Christians 30 years after Tiberius:

Lots of love being shown to the Christians by Nero huh? This continued for 250 more years.

My good friend, you really need to learn this stuff. Tiberius lived 25 years before Nero. They were Roman Caesars. Nero hated the Christians, and couldn't care less what Tiberius liked; he was dead.

Nero would stick the Christians on crosses, and dress them with a type of slow burning linen which would make them suffer and scream for long periods of time while they burned. He was ridiculously cruel.

Even at the time of Tacitus, Christians were still being persecuted. A good friend of Tacitus named "Pliny the Younger" wrote the Caesar to get advice on what to do with the large number of Christians. He was told that if they renounced their religion, and swore an oath to the Roman gods, they could live. If not ... just kill them all.

Both Pliny and Tacitus called Christianity a superstition, and professed their dislike of it. The Romans were no friends to the Christians at the time of Tacitus, not by any means.

Read the history, learn the truth. It's far more fun to have knowledge about all this stuff than it is to make inaccurate statements like you do now. Just read the books. They are good books to read and it won't kill you to learn something.

Christus is Jesus, and cannot be anyone else.

aa5874

And you are attempting to assert that Tacitus' Christus was Jesus of the NT. And the truth is you really don't know where Tacitus got that information and his report didn't say Christus was Jesus of Nazareth. He could be Christus of Hebron.

And in any event, no Christian writer ever mentioned Tacitus' Christus as being Jesus of the NT. And even Eusebius who wrote the History of the Church upto the early 4th century wrote that Pilate asked Tiberius to DEIFY Jesus after he was known to have risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.

But Tacitus' Christus was killed to stop a "most mischievous superstition," during the time of Tiberius at the hands of Pilate.

Tacitus' Christus was rejected by the Christians writers.

Again, another illogical statement. It most unreasonable to come to such a conclusion just based on the information in Annals 15.44.

Team FFI has been destroyed.

Toto

I think you will find that all historians agree that this report from Pilate is a Christian forgery. I'm not sure why you are treating this seriously.

Please note that aa5874 often seems to be pretending to take various documents that he thinks are bogus forgeries as serious history, just to point out some contradiction. It can be hard to follow.

aa5874

What is this?

I am having great difficulty following you. What really are you implying here.

You must mean it is very difficult to follow Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and the anonymous writers of the NT.

I have difficulty following them, I don't pretend.

FathomFFI

You're right, and that's why I didn't use it. But it's still a historical document, true or false. My point was only to correct his misunderstanding of what that report was saying.

Josephus shows that Tiberius was dead before Pilate got to Rome. I'm siding with Josephus.

FathomFFI

We love Occam's Razor. With it, we don't have to prove where every last word came from, but only point to the best and most probable explanation.

The best and most probable explanation according to all the evidence is that Christus is Jesus, and Tacitus used Roman historical and imperial records to write about Christus in his Annals.

There is no evidence at all to contest this. Are you aware that the Tacitus record is the best non-religious record of Jesus there is? No one has ever been able to refute this record ever. The best on the planet have tried, and they all failed.

And so did you.

aa5874

Now, did Pilate have to go to Rome to make a report or a recomendation to Tiberius about any person?

I think letters were being written in the 1st century.

FathomFFI

You wouldn't have such difficulty if you actually studied history. I mean dude, if you are going to argue about this stuff, at least study it.

To anyone who has read this, they will know that you don't have the education. All I am trying to encourage you to do is take some times to actually study this. The books are all online for free.

Educate yourself. Knowledge is power.

I am an agnostic, with a slant towards atheism. But I don't let my anti-religious views get in the way of reason and rationality. That's just wrong.

FathomFFI

It's all there in the Josephus passage. He had to go report to Tiberius, but Tiberius died before Pilate could get there according to Josephus. We don't have any other records to work with, except the Church History record, and that was only hearsay. I'm not saying the Church History record is guaranteed to be false, it could be true. Pilate could have gone to Rome twice, but there's no record of it.