Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-04-2008, 09:54 PM

The deification of Augustus and the claim that Jesus was the son of a God, although they may seem similar, Jesus suffers from a fundamental problem.

Jesus has no history. No credible non-apologetic source wrote about him.

Augustus has history. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, even Eusebius wrote about Augustus.

Tacitus "Annals" 1.1

Quote:

...Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus- more particularly his last acts....

Suetonius "Life of Augustus" 5

Quote:

Augustus was born just before sunrise on the ninth day before the Kalends of October in the consulship of Marcus Tillius Cicero and Gaius Antonius, at the Ox-Heads in the Palatine quarter, where he now has a shrine built shortly after his death....

Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" 16.6.5

Quote:

Marcus Agrippa to the magistrates, and the people of Cyrene sendeth greeting. The Jews of Cyrene have interceeded with me for the performance of what Augustus sent orders about to Flavius, the then praetor of Libya and to the other procurators of the province, that the sacred money may be sent to Jerusalem freely...

Jesus had no history.

Solitary Man · 05-05-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The deification of Augustus and the claim that Jesus was the son of a God, although they may seem similar, Jesus suffers from a fundamental problem.

Jesus has no history. No credible non-apologetic source wrote about him.

Augustus has history. Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, even Eusebius wrote about Augustus.

Tacitus "Annals" 1.1

Quote:

...Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus- more particularly his last acts....

Suetonius "Life of Augustus" 5

Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" 16.6.5

Quote:

Marcus Agrippa to the magistrates, and the people of Cyrene sendeth greeting. The Jews of Cyrene have interceeded with me for the performance of what Augustus sent orders about to Flavius, the then praetor of Libya and to the other procurators of the province, that the sacred money may be sent to Jerusalem freely...

Jesus had no history.

You mean except Josephus who mentions him twice, Tacitus who mentions him once, Paul who knew his brother mentions him, and the gospels, though unreliable and not history per se, still mention him and know about oral (or, as Meier makes clear, written) traditions of him?

aa5874 · 05-05-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus had no history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

You mean except Josephus who mentions him twice, Tacitus who mentions him once, Paul who knew his brother mentions him, and the gospels, though unreliable and not history per se, still mention him and know about oral (or, as Meier makes clear, written) traditions of him?

You have provided mis-leading and erroneous information.

In Josephus' writings there are two FORGED passages with the words Jesus, "Antiquities" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1, possibly forged by Eusebius, the only person who made reference to the passages 200 years later. Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen never mentioned the passages.

The word JESUS is nowhere at all in Tacitus Annals whatsoever.

And since as you say, the NT is unreliable and is not history, it can be said again that Jesus has no history, except for forgeries.

Solitary Man · 05-05-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In Josephus' writings there are two FORGED passages with the words Jesus, "Antiquities" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1, possibly forged by Eusebius, the only person who made reference to the passages 200 years later.

This is your religious belief. This is not a fact.

Quote:

Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen never mentioned the passages.

Neither did Vladimir Lenin.

Quote:

The word JESUS is nowhere at all in Tacitus Annals whatsoever.

No, but he says Christ was. And well before Tacitus Jesus was called the Christ. And even afterwards. How many Christs were crucified by Pilate? Only one.

Quote:

And since as you say, the NT is unreliable and is not history, it can be said again that Jesus has no history, except for forgeries.

You are unreliable and you are not an historian. Does that make you a forgery?

Perhaps your time would be better spent actually looking up the meanings of words, and then trying to come up with a coherent methodology than playing the fool for IIDB.

aa5874 · 05-05-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In Josephus' writings there are two FORGED passages with the words Jesus, "Antiquities" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1, possibly forged by Eusebius, the only person who made reference to the passages 200 years later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

This is your religious belief. This is not a fact.

Total BS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The word JESUS is nowhere at all in Tacitus' Annals whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

No, but he says Christ was. And well before Tacitus Jesus was called the Christ. And even afterwards. How many Christs were crucified by Pilate? Only one.

Total BS.

Tacitus never mentioned that Christus was called Jesus in "Annals".

Quote:

And since as you say, the NT is unreliable and is not history, it can be said again that Jesus has no history, except for forgeries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

]You are unreliable and you are not an historian. Does that make you a forgery?

Your post is just total BS, no substance, no facts, just mindless nonsense. You are not making any sense.

Civil1z@tion · 05-05-2008, 02:18 PM

Here are the two passages.

Josephus 18.3.3

Quote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

And Josephus 20.9.1

Quote:

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

The first mention is an obvious Christian forgery. Its obvious for a few reasons. 1) Jospehus was not a Christian so if he writes so praisingly of Jesus why didn't he convert? 2) Much of the text does not contain his style of writting so its a poor forgery. 3) Josephus was not a fan of the messianic preachers that were springing up all over the place during Jesus's time so why would he be a fan of Jesus.

The second is a possible partial forgery with the words "the so-called Christ" a possible later addition. However, that is far from certain.

Source: http://ptet.dubar.com/ecw/josephus.html

Solitary Man · 05-06-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Total BS.

Yes, I'm glad you realize that your religious beliefs are total BS. Maybe now you'll wake up to real scholarship, though somehow I'm betting on not.

Quote:

Tacitus never mentioned that Christus was called Jesus in "Annals".

No, but Josephus, whom Tacitus knew, did.

Quote:

Your post is just total BS, no substance, no facts, just mindless nonsense. You are not making any sense.

I'm not making any sense to you because your religious beliefs, apparently, won't let you. Even the moderators have pointed out your "broken record" stance - your posts are riddled with logical fallacies, you have no grasp on the ancient world or its culture, and you cannot comprehend even the most basic of arguments.

Solitary Man · 05-06-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

The first mention is an obvious Christian forgery.

It is? Do you know what a forgery is? A forgery is a very distinct term with very distinct implications. It means someone purposefully altered the text in order to deceive people, usually for gain (see Stephen Carlson's digression on what constitutes a forgery in his work on Secret Mark).

There are other possibilities, such as a marginal note that got incorporated into the text, or text conflation or confusion. This is standard stuff for all ancient literature, i.e. to have included interpolations from myriad sources with different reasons for each.

Quote:

Its obvious for a few reasons. 1) Jospehus was not a Christian so if he writes so praisingly of Jesus why didn't he convert? 2) Much of the text does not contain his style of writting so its a poor forgery. 3) Josephus was not a fan of the messianic preachers that were springing up all over the place during Jesus's time so why would he be a fan of Jesus.

If it was a poor forgery, what makes you think it was a forgery at all? Why not marginal notes which got included into the text by some later scribe? Why not some scribe moving the text where he thought to have originally been, though it wasn't? Both of those are standard methods of unintentional interpolation found not only in Christian texts but all throughout Classical texts.

Quote:

The second is a possible partial forgery with the words "the so-called Christ" a possible later addition. However, that is far from certain.

It's also unlikely.

aa5874 · 05-06-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Total BS.

Yes, I'm glad you realize that your religious beliefs are total BS. Maybe now you'll wake up to real scholarship, though somehow I'm betting on not.

No, but Josephus, whom Tacitus knew, did.

Quote:

Your post is just total BS, no substance, no facts, just mindless nonsense. You are not making any sense.

I'm not making any sense to you because your religious beliefs, apparently, won't let you. Even the moderators have pointed out your "broken record" stance - your posts are riddled with logical fallacies, you have no grasp on the ancient world or its culture, and you cannot comprehend even the most basic of arguments.

You believe Jesus lived.
You need the NT to maintain your belief that Jesus lived.

You must be a believer.

Solitary Man · 05-06-2008, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Yes, I'm glad you realize that your religious beliefs are total BS. Maybe now you'll wake up to real scholarship, though somehow I'm betting on not.

No, but Josephus, whom Tacitus knew, did.

I'm not making any sense to you because your religious beliefs, apparently, won't let you. Even the moderators have pointed out your "broken record" stance - your posts are riddled with logical fallacies, you have no grasp on the ancient world or its culture, and you cannot comprehend even the most basic of arguments.

You believe Jesus lived.
You need the NT to maintain your belief that Jesus lived.

You must be a believer.

Hey nice come back. Too bad none of that is true.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.