aa5874

I find your statement to be foolish.

spamandham

...well, I agree, but then, attack it from that perspective rather than a semantic perspective.

aa5874

A semantic perspective? I do not use semantics or faith-based meritless opinions in my defense.

It is those who claim "Christus" in Annals is "Christ" in the NT based strictly on the meaning of "Christus" that are using semantics and faith in their attack.

spamandham

The point is, if you're questioning the authenticity of Tacitus' Annals or some portion thereof, then present the case for that rather than getting wrapped around the axel with whom the forged passage refers to. To argue that 'Christus' does not refer to 'Jesus Christ' is to implicitly agree that the passage is worthy of analysis at face value, i.e., of reasonable fidelity.

aa5874

My position is that "Christus" as mentioned in Annals 15.44 is primarily ambiguous and that there is not sufficient information about "Christus" in Annals to claim that "Christus" referred to the Christ of the NT.

For, example, the body of Christ in the NT could not be found early on a sunday morning, there is no information about the dead body of "Christus". Did his body also disappear early on a sunday morning after being buried by some Joseph?
Or, was it ever rumoured that "Christus" in Annals was resurrected and ascended to heaven just like Jesus of the NT?


And secondly, if "Christus" in Annals refered to the Christ of the NT, then it may have been interpolated sometime after Eusebius of the 4th century, since this would have been a vital piece of information for the early church fathers to use to strengthen their case that Jesus Christ was actually on earth, but as I would have thought upto the 4th century, no early church father seem to be aware of this "Christus" in Annals 200 years later.

Gamera

Perhaps, but the reference to Pilate, execution, and the fact that this Christus fellow was the founder of the Christian religion strongly suggests the reference is to Jesus, as opposed to some other eponymously named Christus.

Sounds like a movie script -- the second crucifixion of Christ.

aa5874

As I read Eusebius' "Church History" I am confronted with cold hard fact that Eusebius did not account for Jesus in the 1st century. He mentioned Philo, a supposed contemporary of Jesus, yet Eusebius only claimed that Philo either met Mark or converts of Mark and Peter probably in Rome.

I have already discussed that although Eusebius claimed Mark was in Alexandria and had converted many to christianity, and that Philo was aware of these christians and even wrote about them, in all of Philo's extant writings, there is no mention whatsoever of christians, Mark or churches large, small or in houses.

In effect, Philo did not account for Mark or his converts.

In another effort to make Peter a figure of history with the Church, Eusebius uses Philo, an accepted writer of antiquity, again.

"Church History" 2.17 And, again, Philo never mentioned any rules of any Christian Church, any doctrine or teaching of Jesus, the epistles of Peter or Paul or the gospels in any of his extant writings.

Eusebius has failed once more to account for the history of Jesus, but he could not, since Eusebius claimed that Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews and born of the Spirit through a virgin. Such an entity could not exist.

youngalexander

I reckon that you have a strong possibility of being correct on at least one of these three.

I shall shortly be designing a Poll to allow a free vote on which?

aa5874

I hope you realise that there is ALWAYS the possibility that Jesus, the twelve and Paul are fiction, and likewise the reverse, there is ALWAYS the possibility that Jesus, the twelve and Paul are NOT fiction.

These two possibilities are ALWAYS relevant even after the examination of the information or evidence about Jesus and his apostles.

But, the evidence or information is the main factor in determining which possibility is stronger.

Now, after reading the NT, the OT, the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin Martyr, Theophilus , Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertullan, Origen, Eusebius and other relevant writers, it is clear to me that Jesus, the twelve and Paul are fiction is the stronger possibility.

There is virtually no credible or compelling information external of apologetics to support the possibility that these characters did exist.

And I have observed an odd occurence, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all claimed that the Jews expected the Messiah at around 70 CE, and may have helped to spark the Jewish War, but strangely, the word "Christus" is in Tacitus, "ChrEstus in Suetonius, and "Christ" in Josephus.

Now, incredibly, Eusebius, in the 4th century, only used the forged passages of Josephus to "corroborate" the history of Jesus in "Church History" , he never used Tacitus' "ChrIstus" or Suetonius' "ChrEstus" and these writings, if truly authentic, would have been known over 200 years before Eusebius.

The evidence for the possibility that Jesus, the twelve and Paul are fiction is extremely strong, the evidence for the reverse is very weak.

Amaleq13

Why is this an "odd occurence" or why do you consider these references "strangely" worded?