aa5874

There are latin writings of some of the church writers like Tertullian. In the english translations of Tertullian's works the word "CHRISTUS" cannot be found anywhere.

Now, when Tacitus's latin writing of Annals is [B] translated to english, the word "CHRIST" cannot be found anywhere.

It must be obvious that Annals' CHRISTUS of Tacitus is not the same as "CHRISTUS" in Tertullian's Apology.

In Annal's by Tacitus, the latin CHRISTUS is left as CHRISTUS in English.

In Apology by Tertuallian, the latin CHRISTUS is changed to CHRIST.

It must be obvious that Christus was not Jesus Christ. Christus was only a man, Jesus Christ was not.

spin

This is not quite correct, to be accurate. According to Greek it meant "ointment or unguent". When the Jews translated ideas into Greek they made the apparent mistake of mistranslating M$YX, "messiah" from the verb M$X, "to anoint" and equated with the Greek xriw also meaning :"to anoint", using Hebrew language ideas and ended up with a form meaning "that which is used for anointing", which they used to mean the one anointed. Outside Judeo-christian circles the word already had a meaning. (Its history is a bit like the word "gay", in that its meaning has been overshadowed by more recent social forces.)


spin

spin

The original comment is a gem. The word "christ" is modern English in form, while Tacitus wrote in Latin, so obviously "christ" isn't in a Latin text. The literal truism is stunning if not banal.

It's a bit like saying that the word "head" isn't in a Latin text which uses "caput", notwithstanding the fact that the two words are cognates (they've come into two languages from the same parent language source) whose meanings overlap greatly (ie they usually mean the same thing).

I can only repeat Ben C's cogent comment:

:banghead:


spin

aa5874

But, your response does not deal with the matter at hand.

It is clear that no-one can prove that Tacitus' Christus was Jesus Christ.

1. Jesus Christ was presented in the NT as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, not as just human.

2. The words "anointed"," the anointed", "mine anointed", "the anointed of the Lord" meaning "christ" predated Jesus by hundreds of years.

It is most obvious by now that word "christian" was not dependent on a mere man "christus" at all.

And Theophilus of Antioch supports such a position.

Theophilus to Autolycus 12 And Theophilus never mentioned "christus".

delusional

If I recognise the type he once was a fundamentalist Christian, but finally, after years of peddling the same kind of boneheaded arguments he uses on here, he was somehow forced into the realisation that his position was untenable. Unable to forgive his former creed for his own boneheadedness, he now fercociously attacks it with the same kind of spurious arguments he once used to defend it.

aa5874

You have presented a most absurd and ridiculous statement.
Your post is pathetic. There is no substance at all. You appear to be using tactics to divert from the issues at hand.

Just prove or show, unless you are boneheaded, that Tacitus' "christus" was Jesus of the NT.

It cannot be done.

Even the great, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius of Church History did not ever claim that Tacitus' "christus" was Jesus Christ of the NT.

It was the "Christ" in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, the forged TF, he was Jesus Christ. He rose from the dead.

Annals' "christus" was a dead duck.

delusional

The standard of proof you require of everybody except yourself is available in mathematics only. So far as ancient history is concerned, the balance of probabilities is the most that can be asked for. Here we have a movement which has spread through the Roman Empire, originating in Judea, founded by somebody called Christus, and the founder executed by Pontius Pilate. The conclusion would be obvious to anybody not determined to shut their eyes tight when confronted with any evidence which doesn't fit in with their preconceived ideas.

And then, having just swallowed a camel, you strain at a knat - namely the trivial fact that Tacitus transliterated Χρίστος as Christus.

aa5874

But, it is you who have no evidence yet is claiming to know the history of Tacitus "Christus".

There is only one reference to the word "Christus" in Annals.

No church writer ever referred to Tacitus "Christus" as Jesus Christ of the NT.

In the NT, Pontius Pilate was not looking for Jesus Christ to have him executed. Pontius Pilate seemed totally unaware of Jesus as a trouble-maker or had started a seditious sect.

In the NT Jesus asked the Jews to pay their dues to Caesar. Jesus asked the Jews to turn the other cheek.

Jesus was a model citizen of the Roman Empire.

Tacitus' Christus was not.

That's why Pontius Pilate killed Tacitus' Christus.

You don't know what you are talking about.

At one time I did pre-conceive Jesus of the NT did exist, I no longer have such pre-conception.

Now, if there is no proof that Jesus existed, mathematically or otherwise, those who believe Jesus did exist, they must do so by PRE-CONCEPTION.

Now, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius would have known that. They probably realized Tacitus' Christus was the anointed one like Simon Barcocheba.

Tacitus' Christus was a killer. Tacitus' Christus, if given a chance, would kill many Romans.

That is why Hadrian killed the "Christ" called Simon Barcocheba.

The real Jewish "Christ" is a killer, he is a wolf in sheep clothing.

Mt 7:15 - Tacitus' Christus was probably considered a false Christ by the church writers.

delusional

The argument from silence again. There is no reason why any of the Church writers would have wanted to cite him; especially as he referred to Christians in none too complimentary terms.

There is no suggestion in Tacitus that he had been actively looking for him.


And how do you know that? Tacitus' Christ is accussed of nothing worse than being the founder of "a most mischievous superstition." The NT's Jesus was acquiring a sizable following, and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem would have been more than enough for a nervous Roman Governor to want him out of the way.



They have the historical record of large numbers of people following somebody who, according to you, didn't exist. They are entitled to ask themselves whether that sounds entirely likely. By far the most likely explanation for there being a first century movement supposedly founded by somebody called Jesus of Nazareth is that it actually was founded by somebody called Jesus of Nazareth. It is somebody who wants a far more baroque explanation who has got some explaining to do.



Now you really have got a vivid imagination. There is absolutely nothing in Tacitus to justify that assertion.

aa5874

You produce the most absurd arguments.

You seem not to realise that people claimed christians were cannibals and that the church writers wrote about it.


But, again the source that you used to claim there was a triumphal entry into Jerusalem did not ever claim that Pilate was nervous.

The same source claimed Pontius Pilate found no fault with Jesus and offered to release Jesus for a criminal.

It must be obvious that the the triumphal entry and the large following as stated in the NT did not make Pontius Pilate nervous at all.

Pontius Pilate wanted to put Jesus Christ back on the streets again.

And, by the way, How, do you know anything in the NT about Jesus was true?

I have seen too much identifiable fiction in the NT purporting to be sacred scripture. I must reject the writings as sacred scripture and call them fiction until credible evidence is found to reverse my determination.

You are trying to divert attention away from your failure to provide any evidence external of apologetic sources to show that Tacitus' Christus was Jesus Christ.

How do you intend to prove they were a historical record of large numbers of people following Tacitus' Christus because he was Jesus of the NT.

You simply do not understand how things can be deduced.

Simon Barcocheba was a ''Christ" and he was a killer and destroyer of the Romans, and the Romans eventually destroyed him.

If it is assumed that Tacitus' Christ was a Christ and was killed by the Romans, it can be deduced that he was a deadly threat to the Romans.

But, based on the NT, Jesus Christ was not a deadly threat to Pontius Pilate or the Roman Empire.