aa5874

Apology 5
The passage is before you.

1.The very first sentence is fiction, the name "christian" did not make its entry into the world during the reign of Tiberius.

2. The very first sentence is fiction, there was no God on earth named Christ or Jesus Christ.

It should be obvious by now that there were not even any followers of a God called Christ during the days of Tiberius for the name christian to have "entered the world" at that time.

The name christian preceeded Tiberius by hundreds of years.

The name "christian" is derived from the word "anointed" and as such contradicted the fiction found in Apology 5.

aa5874

The Jesus story where Jesus was called Christ and worshipped as a God is just plain fiction.

According to Tertullian the word “Christian” derives its meaning from “anointed”.

It therefore can be shown that there were other Jews that were called Christ and were never worshipped as a God, did not have the power to forgive sins nor resurrected on the third day.

In Hebrew scripture King David was called the CHRIST of the God of Jacob.

King David was not worshipped as a God with the power to forgive sins or had resurrected on the third day.

2 Samuel 23.1-32Ch 6:42 – Cyrus was also called CHRIST.

Cyrus was not worshipped as a God with the power to forgive sins and claimed to have raised on the third day.

Isa 45:1 - And other Jews or kings were called CHRIST.

Kings were not worshipped as Gods with the power to forgive sins or had the ability to resurrect on the third day.

1 Chronicles 19-22 It is clear that Tertullian was a fiction writer when he claimed the name Christian entered the world with the advent of the fiction called Jesus Christ.

And Tertullian himself will clearly demonstrate his own fiction. He massacres Isaiah 45.1 blantantly omitting the nameCYRUS who was the CHRIST OF THE Lord and NOT Jesus.

Isaiah 45:1 - The name Cyrus has vanished from Tertullian’s reference to Isaiah 45.1, Jesus the Christ will suddenly take the place of CYRUS the CHRIST of the Lord.

Tertullian “Answer to the Jews” 7. 1. The name Christ preceded Jesus.

2.King David was the Christ of the God of Jacob.

3.Cyrus was the Christ of the Lord.

4. King David and Cyrus were not worshipped as Gods and asked to forgive the sins of the Jews or were raised on the third day.

Jesus of the NT could have only been fiction or mythical fables.

Amaleq13

According to Greek, that's what the word means ("the anointed one").

That's also what "messiah" means in Hebrew.

The Greek word "christ" is a translation of the Hebrew word "messiah".

As I understand it, Tertullian is saying that believers in Christ called themselves "Christians" because they believed themselves anointed by their faith.

Nobody denies this. I think most people who read this forum already know it. This is unique to Christianity. Why do you think it is relevant?

This demonstrates his belief in prophecy. Who cares? :huh:

The title or term preceded Jesus but I don't think there are earlier examples of it being used as a name. That seems to be unique to Jesus.

Yes.

Yes.

Correct.

Non sequitur.

aa5874

Do I have to always quote Matthew 1.18, Mark 9.2 and Acts 1.9?

I might as well remind you.

Mt 1:18 - Mr 9:2 - Ac 1:9 - These are the actions of a fictional or mythical entity.

Jesus came into the world in fiction, transfigured in fiction and left as fiction. Jesus of the NT has no history except forgeries where he mythically/fictionally rose from the dead after the third day.

Jesus of the NT was myth/fiction.

aa5874

The word "CHRIST" is nowhere in Tacitus' Annals 15.44. Nowhere whatsoever. The word is "CHRISTUS".

It cannot be proven that "CHRISTUS" must refer to Jesus of the NT. In Tacitus' Annals15.44, there is no claim made that "CHRISTUS" was divine.

Now , if "CHRISTUS" was just a mere man and was Jesus then all the authors of the NT and church writings wrote fiction about the man, including Paul. The author of gJJohn claimed Jesus Christ existed before the world began and it was Jesus Christ as the Word who carried out the acts of creation.

Gjohn's Jesus was not "CHRISTUS."

In "The Apology" by Tertullian, the author claimed the [b]Roman Emperor Tiberius had verification that Jesus was divine and that Tiberius threatened wrath against accusers of Christians.

"The Apology" by Tertullian. And even Eusebius, the author of Church History, did not use Annals' CHRISTUS. Eusebius preferred the forged TF where Jesus was divine,and rose from the dead, but in Annals, CHRISTUS was a dead-duck.


There is virtually no indication that CHRISTUS refers to Jesus Christ of the NT.

Ben C Smith

:banghead:

My pet theory that you are a fundamentalist Christian who posts as a skeptic in order to make skeptics look bad has yet to be toppled; in fact, it is looking better all the time.

Ben.

steve_bnk

VCIA Vatican Counter Inteligence Agency

delusional

He, or his source, saw fit to latinise the Greek Christos, so what? We anglicise it.


I suppose the only people who would have said he was divine were the Christians with whom Tacitus evidently had no sympathy.


No, he was Christos.


Then just who do you think it might refer to? Christus, or Christos, was a proper name in neither Latin nor Greek, and to suppose it is purely coincidental that the person being referred to was crucified by Pontius Pilate stretches credulity a bit.

aa5874

According to the passage, the man's name was Christus, just like the author of Annals was called Tacitus or another called Suetonius

Was Christus a Jewish name? How many of His anointed, or the anointed the Lord were executed in the 1st century by Tiberius or Pilate.


But Tacitus did not ever see Jesus Christ even if he was a real man and Jesus of the NT was not presented as a man, as a God and man.


There was no mention of crucifixion in Annals 15.44. It is really not known the actual method of execution of Christ.

Amaleq13

It is how "Christos" is written in Latin.