Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 05-27-2006, 04:09 AM

Most importantly, how do you explain away the Roman accounts of Nero blaming the buring of Rome on the Christians if there were no Christians at the time????

Quote:

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.
- Annals; Tacitus; 109 CE

I agree with scholars who say that this quote is not evidence of a historical Jesus, but it certianly IS evidence of a a BELIEF in Jesus and the existance of people calling themselves Christians, despite a number of the statements in the passage being wrong, they only show Tacitus' misconceptions.

Toto · 05-27-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Simply put, mountainman, the theory is implausible. Where's the evidence? To my ears, it's no different than fundy garbage going on about how Jesus is the son of god.

For Kraessakess, we have crosses dating to the 1st century with Jesus' name attached to it. See here.

Those aren't crosses, they are scratch marks on ossuaries with a common name IESOUS. It's stretching things to say that they are clear evidence of Christianity in the first century.

Here's the last thread in this forum on that find:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=164255

Note post #6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

I recently tracked down the Sukenik ossuary discovery, which took place near Jerusalem in 1947. Supposedly from as early as 42/43 CE, it too had crosses and what was promoted as an inscription appealing to Jesus for resurrection. I finally came across this passage in Crossan and Reed's "Excavating Jesus":

After a description of the discovery -

But. Later and more careful inspection of those orssaries, along with consideration of the vast array of available ossuary inscriptions and their crosslike markings, dismissed those claims. The cross, it turns out, was perhaps simply the letter tau or a mason's mark indicating where the lid was to be positioned. The initial reading of the charcoal graffito ignored additional marks that resembled the Greek letter delta.... These temporaily spectacular inscriptions simply identified the dead person, as did the names on the chambers other ossuaries, which is always the purpose of ossuary inscriptions. No cross, no appeals to Jesus, no earliest Christian record.
There's no reason to think that the old Dominus Flavit discovery is any more likely to be an actual Christian ossuarium.

The relatively recent discovery of an early Christian church in Megiddo prison, Israel, has spectacular Christian mosiacs that include the fish symbol, but no crosses. As far as I can determine, the church, conservatively dated to 323 CE or thereafter and of Byzantine, not local, origin, is the earliest credible archeological evidence of Christian activity in Palestine.

Toto · 05-27-2006, 10:38 AM

And Malachi151 - there is well informed speculation that the Tacitus passage is a medieval forgery. There is no good reason to take it at face value.

jeffevnz · 05-27-2006, 11:23 AM

Is it really true that there is no Eusebius-independent evidence of Christianity from before the Council of Nicaea?? No papyrus, no artifacts, no literature referring to Xtianity that has come down to us through other sources? Nothing???

I'm not being rhetorical. I'm just a novice in Biblical criticism, and I'm curious.

Roger Pearse · 05-27-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And Malachi151 - there is well informed speculation that the Tacitus passage is a medieval forgery.

Interesting: who says this? As far as I know (from Mendell's book) the idea has never enjoyed any support.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

post tenebras lux · 05-27-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Most importantly, how do you explain away the Roman accounts of Nero blaming the buring of Rome on the Christians if there were no Christians at the time????

Well, first: what evidence do you have that there actually was a such a fire under Nero or that he blamed the christians?

Chris Weimer · 05-27-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Well, first: what evidence do you have that there actually was a such a fire under Nero or that he blamed the christians?

I call Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio to the stand, please.

Malachi151 · 05-27-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre 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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses...

Hmm... this sounds familiar. I wonder if these events inspired the story that Jesus had met a similar fate.

Fortuna · 05-27-2006, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Elsewhere, Roger Pearse wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
The Christian bible certainly was not composed at Nicaea, despite a
myth to this effect that goes around.

Whether or not some ignorant teenager has chosen to repeat the myth on
Wikipedia, it remains a myth. Anyone asserting it must produce some
ancient testimony to it, or accept that it is a myth. One or the
other, surely?

Let me say that, from what little I know of it, I would agree that Constantine /Eusibius and company did not officially determine the NT canon, and that this was in fact done at some later council.

However, as I understand it (and I would like to know the primary source for this, or at least if anyone could point me in the right direction), Constantine commissioned some # of copies of a collection of the then known Christian scriptures to be produced for the council.

Given the pagan and Christian sources who make reference to the Gallileans or Christians, and repeat the Jesus myth, even if secondhand, shows that something called Christianity probably existed prior to Connie/Eusie, and that a Jesus character was involved.

Also, while recently in Rome (Xmas vacation 2005-2006), while touring the catacombs, our guides told us that in fact the cross was a later icon of Christianity, and that for the early Christians, the icthys, chi-rho, good shepherd were the typical Christian icons of the earliest Christianity. (not that tourguides are always correct). to the best of anyone's knowledge, is this a true statement ? That is, was the cross/cricifix in fact a later icon of the Christians ?

post tenebras lux · 05-27-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I call Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio to the stand, please.

But how old are the oldest copies of the relevant sections of these works? For instance, I thought that the Tacitus was only first mentioned after 1000 AD, and that the monks who had it claimed to have themselves copied it from only a 5th century copy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-27-2006, 10:38 AM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	And Malachi151 - there is well informed speculation that the Tacitus passage is a medieval forgery. There is no good reason to take it at face value.

05-27-2006, 11:23 AM	#14
jeffevnz Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Alexandria, VA, USA Posts: 3,370	Is it really true that there is no Eusebius-independent evidence of Christianity from before the Council of Nicaea?? No papyrus, no artifacts, no literature referring to Xtianity that has come down to us through other sources? Nothing??? I'm not being rhetorical. I'm just a novice in Biblical criticism, and I'm curious.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.