Jeffrey Gibson

They are not translating. They are transliterating/reproducing the Latin term.

Jeffrey

Gamera

Honestly, the reference in the Annuls is hardly ambiguous, though its authenticity is up for grabs. In contrast the reference by Suetonis in The Twelve Ceasars is ambiguous, though its authenticity is unquestioned as far as I know.

Are you conflating the two?

aa5874

Well if the twelve disagreed with "Paul", how is it that, according to Eusebius in "Church History" , Peter was also preaching in Rome and was a co-founder or first bishop of the Church of the Romans.

And why did Peter say this, according to the NT?

Acts 15.7 It appears from Acts that Peter was already chosen by God to preach the gospels to the Gentiles. It seems that Peter was given the new dispensation before "Paul".

Peter's words contradict "Paul's".

Who are these orthodox writers? I hope you are not referring to the early Church fathers because they appear to be part of the propaganda machinery.

But, what is the evidence to support the chronology? There is no non-apolgetic source that can corroborate the whereabouts of any disciple including Peter and "the apostle Paul" in the 1st century.

You simply have faith in the Epistles.

TJ12

I've decided that aa isn't really serious. He's just trying to see how long he can keep this thread going. ;-)

aa5874

To keep a thread going, one must provide information to back up their position. I have made my position clear and have always used available information to support my position.

I am still interested in "the dead beloved teacher and the 12 scared guys" of yours.

TJ12

And I am still interested in answers to any of the questions I posed that you responded to simply by making demands of me. I'm always open to two way discussions with anyone (OK, maybe not Thomists. Or Calvinists.).

aa5874

If the word "Christus" in Annals actually referred to Jesus Christ, then Eusebius missed probably the most convincing piece of information about Jesus.

Eusebius had about 200 years of circulation time to have heard that Tacitus mentioned "Christ" in Annals 15.44. Tacitus, it is claimed, wrote Annals early in the 2nd century, Eusebius wrote "Church History" sometime in the 4th century, yet Eusebius did not, it would appear, remember or never heard of this "Christus" in Annals 15.44.

It is extremely odd that Eusebius did quote the two forged passages from Josephus, written at the end of the 1st century, [AJ 20.9.1 and 18.3.3] which mentioned "Christ" ,in his quest to produce evidence for Jesus, yet completely missed Tacitus' "Christus and Christians".

But, Eusebius is not alone.

Justin Martyr did not tell Trypho the Jew about Tacitus' "Christus" when Trypho declared that Christ has not yet come.

Irenaeus did not make any reference to Tacitus" "Christus" in "Against Heresies" to short-circuit the so-called heretics like Marcion who claimed Jesus was an apparition.

Tertullian appear to have completely missed Annals' "Christus" in "Against Marcion".
So, too, Origen did not use the Annals' "Christus" in his reply to "Against Celsus".



So, if the passage did exist in Annals, early in the 2nd century, and never mentioned by the early Church fathers in their refutations of heresies, then this may be an indication that this "Christus" of Tacitus was not considered to be the "Christ" of the NT, or perhaps the word "Christus" is an interpolation added to Annals sometime after Eusebius of the 4th century.

spamandham

Doesn't that depend on how brutal Pilate was, and how many Christian cults there were in Judea?

If Pilate made a habit of executing Judeans, and if there were multiple christ cults, then why would it not be ambiguous who Tacitus was referring to?

Amaleq13

Repeating an error after it has been explained to you is simply foolish.

Trypho declared that the Christ had not yet come.

Knowing the reference in Tacitus seems unlikely to have convinced him otherwise.

Please explain specifically how the passage from Tacitus causes a "short-circuit" in Marcion's beliefs. Did Marcion deny that Jesus, even as an apparition, was crucified under Pilate?

aa5874

If the authenticity of the passage itself is ambiguous, then the word "Christus" is for grabs.