Malachi151

Well, the twelve comes from the Gospel of Mark where they are invented based on Jewish literary tradition. All other references to the twelve apostles stems from their introduction in Mark. This is actually one of the other arguments against historicity, since Paul never uses the term disciples, which is what they are called in the Gospels. Paul only talks about apostles, which are just evangelicals like himself. Paul calls himself an apostle. Disciple is a word meaning a student of. Apostle is just an evangelical. Paul never uses the term disciple, and he never mentions the twelve. There is one use of The Twelve in Paul's letters, but its a pretty clear cut interpolation.

My view is that belief in a human Jesus was the product of people thinking that the Gospel of Mark was an actual historical document, not a fictional story, which is what it really was, in addition to some theological reasoning that made belief in a human Jesus important for certain sects, i.e. the Catholics.

aa5874

The name Jesus is NOT in any extant writings of Tactitus.

Solitary Man

Actually, apostle means one who is sent out.

This is pretty disingenuous of you. Paul does mention The Twelve, and it's not at all a "clear cut interpolation". Interpolations cannot be assumed so easily.

thentian

I'd say it's because HJ appears to be the commonsense explanation. "No smoke without fire", "a feather becomes five hens." etc.

mrunicycler

...

*struggling***to***not***keep***derailing***this** *thread***

I said I would, and am really, really, trying.

Perhaps, you should try being respectful, as well, and drop it.

Or, start the thread.

Thank you.

Amaleq13

Those are the only possibilities you can imagine?

In your view, is it impossible for anyone to rationally consider the ambiguous evidence and conclude, if for no other reason than ubiquity, that it is more likely that a real person has been thoroughly mythologized rather than conclude that a mythical person has been historicized?

thentian

Tacitus writes about "Christus", so while it is factually true that he does not mention "Jesus", it is a bit misleading to say that the name Jesus never appears in his writings. He did after all write about that person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

"...Christus ... suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

It is unfortunate that Tacitus doesn't mention the source of this information. Did he just hear it from a christian or did he get it from an official source or person?

Solitary Man

Respectful? What in the world are you talking about? If it's a derail, then the mods will move it. Unless you recognize your defeat, why aren't you starting the new thread?

Thank you.[/QUOTE]

There are no writings of Tactitus anyway. And Tacitus uses the name "Christ".

Dave31

From my view, yes, the belief in a HJ appears to be like a sort of religious acceptance that never ceases to amaze me. Even many so-called atheist and freethinking scholars are expected to tow the party line that there was HJ without any evidence that stands up to peer review and scientific scrutiny. They offer merely wishy washy assumptions.

Even Christian authorities concede the evidence for Jesus is "scanty and problematic" "but I still believe..." type of responses.

A paradigm shift is in order. It's time to put an end to the a priori assumption that there was a HJ until there is evidence for it that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny.

Who Was Jesus? video
http://www.livevideo.com/video/1FDF3...prints-of.aspx

aa5874

There is just not information in Annals 15.44 to claim "Christus" must be "Jesus of Nazareth".

Tacitus did not say that Christus was crucified. It is not known if Christus was beheaded.

Tacitus did not say where in Judaea Christus died.

Based on the NT, followers of Jesus of Nazareth were NOT called Christians when Jesus of Nazareth was alive. Followers of Jesus were FIRST called Christians in Antioch while Paul was preaching in Antioch, long after Pilate.

Acts 11.25-26 No early Christian writer, not even Eusebius in Church History used Annals 15.44 to prove that Christus was Jesus of Nazareth.

Christus is at best ambiguous and may very well be an interpolaion.