Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Opinion · 02-19-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you so naive not to understand that mythological figures are also claimed to have mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters?

The mythological Achilles had a human father, according to Homer.

Not interested in Achilles.

Quote:

Do you not understand that the word "Christ" is a title or means "anointed"? Do you not see that the word Jesus is missing from the passage?

Yes its missing from the passage? So what you don't accept the passage were Jesus is mentioned.

Quote:

Around, 133 CE, Simon barKokhba was regarded as a messiah, and Eusebius and Justin Martyr used the name "Barcochebas" to identify him and not the title messiah.

Indeed but not one who received the extreme penalty under Pilate or one which found its origins from. Even in 1638 Amakusa Shiro was regarded as the son of God.

Quote:

First Apology 31

Quote:

For in the Jewish war which lately raged, Barchochebas, the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy.

And further based on the NT, Jesus was not known as Christ during the days of Pilate. Jesus was called son of David, son of man, Elijah or one of the prophets

Son of God is mentioned in the NT and Christ. Plus Josephus himself mentions Christians. Now if you think that passage is wrong well that's on you I believe.

Quote:

Secondly there were no followers of Jesus called Christians before Jesus was crucufied.

Since the word "Christus" is only mentioned one time in Tacitus, and the word Jesus is missing it cannot be assumed Christus refers to Jesus of the NT.

So Jesus is not mentioned. Therefore you must agree to the one that mentions Jesus twice.

Quote:

Do you not realise that no church writer in antiquity ever used that passage in Annals to claim that Jesus existed, instead the forged passaged in Josephus was used in the 4th century by Eusebius?

I've never used the passage either, up until recently. So even I waited longer then them. But I'm no historian like Josephus and Tacitus.

andrewcriddle · 02-19-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

George Gilbert, in his book Greek Thought, states of such cults, “ The nucleus of the popular cults, as the cults of Attis, Osiris, and Adonis, is this: a divine being comes to earth, assumes human form, dies a violent death, rises, and, through union with him…men are redeemed. And what does Paul teach? A being who existed in the form of God appeared on the earth in the likeness of sinful flesh, was crucified, and rose from the dead. Men, through their relation to this experience of a celestial being, are redeemed.” (Pg 77)

The problem is, how far is this what the Greek texts themselves actually say and how far is it a modern interpretation of them ?

Andrew Criddle

Let's quote some bias Christians who woud like to dispel any claim to dying/rising gods...

This if from Gary Habermas/Michael Licona's The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:

Osiris was killed by his brother, chopped up into fourteen pieces and scattered throughout Egypt. The goddess Isis collected and reassembled his parts and brought hi back to life.

(pg 91)

They go on to explain that this is not a resurrection or similar to Jesus. But he does die/rise. This form of Isis/Osiris cult come from 300 BCE (Ronald Nash/Christian apologist from The Greeks and the Gospels). (pg 126) The cult is much older.

The original claim was

Quote:

a divine being comes to earth, assumes human form, dies a violent death, rises, and, through union with him…men are redeemed.

Accepting FTSOA that the death and reanimation of Osiris corresponds to part of this pattern, it does not seem to correspond to the whole scheme.

Andrew Criddle

LogicandReason · 02-19-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Let's quote some bias Christians who woud like to dispel any claim to dying/rising gods...

This if from Gary Habermas/Michael Licona's The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

(pg 91)

They go on to explain that this is not a resurrection or similar to Jesus. But he does die/rise. This form of Isis/Osiris cult come from 300 BCE (Ronald Nash/Christian apologist from The Greeks and the Gospels). (pg 126) The cult is much older.

The original claim was

Quote:

a divine being comes to earth, assumes human form, dies a violent death, rises, and, through union with him…men are redeemed.

Accepting FTSOA that the death and reanimation of Osiris corresponds to part of this pattern, it does not seem to correspond to the whole scheme.

Andrew Criddle

I agree with you, it doesn't. I think we can infer that Hellene myth and religions imbue the culture and thinking of the 1st century Diaspora and some of that influences the 'Christology' of a new sectarian Jewish cult, Christianity.

The later Gospel Christology and theology is far more Jewish and complex than Osiris, Attis or Adontis. We see traces of rituals and ideas but definitely not a perfect or even close copy. We have to remember that mythology then was not considered superstition.

LogicandReason · 02-19-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Indeed but not one who received the extreme penalty under Pilate or one which found its origins from.

Thousands of Jews received that penalty under Pilate. It is likely that Paul put the 'crucifixion' with the death story. It is interesting that Pilate or Jerusalem is never mentioned by Paul either (the pastorals were written after 120 CE).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Son of God is mentioned in the NT and Christ.

We are not examining Tacitus' comment and not the NT. The making of Christ (a title) and Jesus synonymous is a Christian sleight-of-hand. Jesus is the Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Plus Josephus himself mentions Christians. Now if you think that passage is wrong well that's on you I believe.

I've read all 93,400 lines of Josephus' Wars and Antiquities and IMHO the 12 lines you reference are interpolated. Pharisees never reference others as being 'the Christ.' That would make Josephus a Christian convert. He was a very religious rabbi when he penned Antiquities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

So Jesus is not mentioned. Therefore you must agree to the one that mentions Jesus twice.

Again, you need to read Josephus yourself. The only Jesus he writes about is the High Priest that was usurped by Menelaus after Antiochus invaded Jerusalem. Josephus does not refer to any Christian 'Jesus.' The scribe how helped Josephus out used the title 'Christ.'

aa5874 · 02-19-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you so naive not to understand that mythological figures are also claimed to have mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters?

The mythological Achilles had a human father, according to Homer.

Not interested in Achilles.

Well, the mythological Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35 if you're interested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Yes its missing from the passage? So what you don't accept the passage were Jesus is mentioned.

You mean with the part where Jesus rose from the dead?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you not realise that no church writer in antiquity ever used that passage in Annals to claim that Jesus existed, instead the forged passaged in Josephus was used in the 4th century by Eusebius?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

I've never used the passage either, up until recently. So even I waited longer then them. But I'm no historian like Josephus and Tacitus.

And you may have used the passages before Josephus and Tacitus, too.

It would appear Josephus did not even use the TF in his own lifetime.

Roger Pearse · 02-20-2009, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Tacitus says:

"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. Christ [uses 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, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

The red I added to Roger's statement (actually wording) and the green is for my emphasis. So Tacitus clearly says the Christians get their name from a person 'Christus.'

This post appears to consist of reiteration. I refer readers to my previous comment.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

angelo · 02-20-2009, 03:42 AM

No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!

Also, see www.jesusneverexisted.com

aa5874 · 02-20-2009, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!

Also, see www.jesusneverexisted.com

It is completely erroneous and mis-leading to claim Tacitus mentioned a Jesus. It is just not true at all. The word "Jesus" is nowhere in the Tacitus' "Annals".

Why are you repeating such a ridiculous claim when the translation of Annals 15.44 show the word CHRISTUS?

Look at the passage as translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. 1942.

Tacitus Annals 15,44

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.....

No "Jesus" is in Tacitus' Annals.

aa5874 · 02-20-2009, 05:11 AM

There is really no need for such complex theories to show that Jesus of the NT was a pagan concept.

Just read Matthew 1.18 or Luke 1.35 and then Homer's Achilles or Greek mythology.

The concept where humans mate with gods is pagan or Greek mythology.

There is no such concept in Jewish tradition where humans mate with a God.

Jesus of the NT is a product of paganism or Greek mythology.

LogicandReason · 02-20-2009, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no such concept in Jewish tradition where humans mate with a God.

I think this ideas sums it up.

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

02-20-2009, 03:42 AM	#187
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either! Also, see www.jesusneverexisted.com

02-20-2009, 05:11 AM	#189
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	There is really no need for such complex theories to show that Jesus of the NT was a pagan concept. Just read Matthew 1.18 or Luke 1.35 and then Homer's Achilles or Greek mythology. The concept where humans mate with gods is pagan or Greek mythology. There is no such concept in Jewish tradition where humans mate with a God. Jesus of the NT is a product of paganism or Greek mythology.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.