DiamondH

If this was tennis and theories were balls, it's game,set and match.

Toto

An obvious forgery.

aa5874

Tacitus is not an obvious forgery. It cannot be proven to be a forgery.

It cannot be shown that the christians in Tacitus were Jesus believers or had ever heard about Jesus of Nazareth.

Toto

[QUOTE=Elijah;5769723] ....

These are some of the questions I would ask:
Groups of Diaspora Jews in the Roman Empire

Widespread, but in contact throught the excellent Roman road.

The story is not the point.

THey don't have to believe in the story. The story epitomized their life and hard times in the Roman Empire.

The story constantly evolves.

See above.
There was probably a Jewish preacher who ended up as Paul, who later Christians decided was their forerunner.
What they are now, minus the few references to a historical Jesus.

They probably wrote them, based on his teachings.

It was a faction of Judaism from the start.

In the late 2nd century, proto-orthodox Christians decided that Jesus must have been a historical figure who gave instructions to his followers. so that they could claim a line of authority from him. But they always thought that he was also a god. Around the 16th century, western Enlightenment scholars started looking for a historical Jesus, trying to separate out the human Jesus from the God. That's were all the confusion starts.

The need for a social support group. Read Rodney Stark's Rise of Christianity.

Probably like the Communist Party in Russia in 1918.

There were martyrs under some of the Roman Emperors, who noticed that Christianity was growing and decided to put a stop to it.

Ignatius is probably the first identifiable. But there were some before him

The story about Stephen and Paul is just fiction, you know.

People are willing to die all the time. It's what makes war possible. But Tank Man did not start a new religion. Gandhi did not start a new religion.

Ben C Smith

Nitpick: It is not people being willing to die that makes war possible; it is people being willing to kill. Tank Man and Gandhi did not start a new religion, but they did not start a new war, either.

Ben.

Toto

Counter nitpick - if people were willing to kill, but not willing to die, there would be no wars. The people with the most guns would just show them, and the other side would surrender.

Elijah

No evidence is to be had that is reliable in any way. So you better start thinking. We are talking about 2000 years ago you know?
You have yet to produce any reason that the writer couldn’t believe even the nonsense interpretation you assume.
No, I’m reading the same text as you, I’m just not focusing on miracles or outlandish claims because I know they can’t be possible and focusing on understanding what is going on. I’m trying to understand it and you’re trying to disprove it so we are going to be focused on different aspects.
I admit I won’t explain it to you again because I was unable to get past a few basic points with you.

Admit you have misunderstood the concept Son of God.

Admit that you have no reason to not believe in a historical core and no theory to support a mythical origin.

Admit that you have no reason to believe the writer of Mark didn't believed what he was writing was possible.

Then we can move onto a rational understanding of Christ, the suicide man.

Don’t let pride get in the way of you admitting what is rational. It’s ok to admit you are wrong it shows character and is how we grow.

Elijah

Completely vague statement. So the belief in whatever you are suggesting was spread through all four main groups of the Jews at the time of the Diaspora?
And they all had the same story/belief about what you are suggesting about a symbolic Israel rising from the dead or something? Even the Hellenized Jews in Alexander were a part of this?
Hopefully the nature of the story will shed light on how it was confused for history and why it was spread.
“After a generation, a group took over the church and required belief in this story as a condition of commitment to the movement.”

What belief of the story was required?
So no idea how the story started or its evolution? I’ll repeat this question. “Are the gospels meant to be a story of a messiah or of a symbolic Israel and where do they fit into your theory?”
Don’t know what they changed about him to make him Christian still.


And what is that?
So they didn’t actually have any letters Paul is a teacher of them? Or are you suggesting other texts of Paul’s influenced Paul’s letters.
You said it was widespread earlier? When did it move from a faction of Judaism to widespread gentile acceptance?
Why did the proto-orthodox Christians think that Jesus must have been a historical figure? What texts did they have at that time and how did they come about em? What is the size and makeup of the religion now? So Jesus isn’t a messiah at this time or a personification of the Logos he is a god in the supernatural pagan sense? What happened to the other widespread Jews who believed in a symbolic Christ; did they all agree at the same time that he should be made historical?
No idea what the 16th century is doing here.
I won’t be shopping for any books anytime soon. If you can’t state your belief or hit me with a link just say it’s too complicated for you to explain.

Christianity at the time provided what needed social support for Rome?
What is special about Christianity in that regard?
Ha ha funny ?
When did this start and what was the nature of Christianity that it needed stopping by Rome?
I thought this thing started around 130, how is Ignatius a part of it and how could there be others before him? Did John the Apostle know him and exist to? What about the other apostles?
Obvious I don’t know that and obvious neither do. Do you know that the theory you are standing on is vague, full of holes and has almost no evidence to support it?
People do what they're told is what makes war possible and will defend their lives by killing the enemy.

Is there really much possibility of Tank Man being able to start a religion and you may be speaking a little to prematurely about the effect Gandhi’s memory will have on India.

Jesus wasn’t starting a new religion either. As you said it was a faction of Jews. That was later preached to the gentiles. The similarity between the men in discussion is that they were standing against governmental oppression of the people. But if you can’t see the impact they have it’s not surprising you don’t understand the impact of Jesus’ sacrifice.

bacht

I think Toto's essay is as plausible as anything you've suggested. Maybe you're overlooking the corporate focus of OT prophecy.

I am the man who has seen affliction
under the rod of his wrath;
he has driven and brought me
into darkness without any light;
surely against me he turns his hand
again and again the whole day long.
He has made my flesh and my skin waste away,
and broken my bones;
he has besieged and enveloped me
with bitterness and tribulation;
he has made me dwell in darkness
like the dead of long ago.

Lamentations 3:1-6 [Jeremiah speaking as Israel]


Who has believed what we have heard?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb,
so he opened not his mouth.

Isaiah 53:1-7 [describing Israel]


I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.
"As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious and the visions of my head alarmed me.
I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me, and made known to me the interpretation of the things.
`These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth.
But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever.'

Daniel 7:13-18

Elijah

How would you know it is as plausible? You are only aware of the basic premise that he has presented. What have I suggested that is implausible?

You may be confusing an OT prophecy overlay to bring credibility to a messiah claimant as the source of the person.