Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
''The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[9][10]''
''Although its authenticity has sometimes been questioned, most scholars hold the passage to be authentic.[41][42][43] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[44] Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.[5][6][7][44]''
Scholarly consensus is that Tacitus was referring to the execution of Jesus. Most scholars hold the passage to be authentic. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.
The sources for those statement are in the reference section of the article.
You might want to rant and rave about something else.
You call it ranting and raving because you don't like my position. I call it straightening out untruths you Christians have been spreading for centuries in a feeble attempt to keep your floundering religion from collapsing entirely.
Just so the readers are clear: Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd are raging Christian theologians so right away before they open their mouths we know they are going to be in a raging biased defense of Christianity. William L. Portier is another raging Christian theologian so same thing--biased defense of Christianity. Why can't you ever quote any secular Biblical scholars who don't have an ax to grind?
I will give you the exact straight dope on Tacitus and Suetonius and some of it will hurt my position: Tacitus wrote "Chrestians" you cannot deny that because we have the earliest text from the 9th century that everyone is forced to use. It clearly shows the "e" in Chrestians whited out so that it looks like an "i". Once again here's the proof.
This Tacitus passage from Book 15 of Annals survives in a single copy at the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino. Show us a photocopy of the text from that sole existing copy that shows the word, "Christians" without any tampering to the script and you will have proved your point. Otherwise I have the stronger case with Tacitus having written "Chrestians" in which an attempt was made to change it. Additionally, Suetonius uses the word, "Chrestus"
Suetonius:
“He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus.”
So it is not a one-off error by Tacitus. The words, Chrestus and Chrestians was a known word at the time. But was it a reference to Jesus? That is the 64 thousand dollar question. Perhaps this might help explain better. I ask the mods to indulge a fairly long quote so I can support my position better:
Lasse Norén: (google it)
Part of this passage in Tacitus clearly indicate that it cannot be about Christians as the group identified as “Chrestianos” was supposedly an “imminence multitude” of the population in Rome. (the passage ends)
“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.”
If we use a normal exponential growth of the religion with a starting point in 35 CE (with about 5,000 followers) and a total population of Christians between 5 and 10 million in the year 300 CE (as is estimated by many scholars). Then we expect to see between 10,000 and 12,000 Christians in total in the whole world by the 64 CE.
(A growth-rate of about 2.7% to 2.8% gives you between 5.8M to 7.5M people at 300 CE
Thus with this growth-rate the population at 64 CE would be between 10.8K and 11.1K ) If every single one of them were in Rome during this time they would not be referred to as an “immense multitude” by a writer, as Rome had over one million people living it it at that time.
The scarcity of Christians is also illustrated by the writings of Pliny the Younger who was a magistrate in Rome and who’s uncle was Pliny the Elder (an author and native of Rome during this time). But despite this, Pliny the Younger write that he has never participated in a trial of a Christian in his letter to the Emperor Trajan around 112 CE. He has no knowledge about how to go about this.
“IT is a rule, Sir, which I inviolably observe, to refer myself to you in all my doubts; for who is more capable of guiding my uncertainty or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials of the Christians, I am unacquainted with the method and limits to be observed either in examining or punishing them… ” (Pliny the Younger, Book 10 letter 96)
How is that possible that Pliny has no knowledge about this if an “Immense multitude” of Christians had been tried in Rome jut 50 years earlier and his uncle, who taught him, would have been present at (at least some of) these trials?! There would also have been a “legal presidencies ” in writing about how to do this if the trials of Christians had been common (as is indicated in Tacitus)
If we instead take the word “Chrestianos” to mean “slaves” (as it was a common term used for slaves in the first century CE). Then we do have a multitude of these “chrestianos” in Rome at that time -- some 30% – 40% of the total population. In that case the part of the Tacitus passage that deals with Pilate could be an interpolation. Do note that we only have manuscripts of this passage from the 12th century and that none of the early church fathers (including Eusebius) ever referred to it as a proof of Jesus supposed existence.
We can go on and on like this, Michael, with you contradicting me with weak refutations and me supplying you with stronger ones, or you can just give up and admit I've proven my point better than you have.
You call it ranting and raving because you don't like my position. I call it straightening out untruths you Christians have been spreading for centuries in a feeble attempt to keep your floundering religion from collapsing entirely.
Just so the readers are clear: Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd are raging Christian theologians so right away before they open their mouths we know they are going to be in a raging biased defense of Christianity. William L. Portier is another raging Christian theologian so same thing--biased defense of Christianity. Why can't you ever quote any secular Biblical scholars who don't have an ax to grind?
I will give you the exact straight dope on Tacitus and Suetonius and some of it will hurt my position: Tacitus wrote "Chrestians" you cannot deny that because we have the earliest text from the 9th century that everyone is forced to use. It clearly shows the "e" in Chrestians whited out so that it looks like an "i". Once again here's the proof.
This Tacitus passage from Book 15 of Annals survives in a single copy at the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino. Show us a photocopy of the text from that sole existing copy that shows the word, "Christians" without any tampering to the script and you will have proved your point. Otherwise I have the stronger case with Tacitus having written "Chrestians" in which an attempt was made to change it. Additionally, Suetonius uses the word, "Chrestus"
Suetonius:
“He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus.”
So it is not a one-off error by Tacitus. The words, Chrestus and Chrestians was a known word at the time. But was it a reference to Jesus? That is the 64 thousand dollar question. Perhaps this might help explain better. I ask the mods to indulge a fairly long quote so I can support my position better:
Lasse Norén: (google it)
Part of this passage in Tacitus clearly indicate that it cannot be about Christians as the group identified as “Chrestianos” was supposedly an “imminence multitude” of the population in Rome. (the passage ends)
“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.”
If we use a normal exponential growth of the religion with a starting point in 35 CE (with about 5,000 followers) and a total population of Christians between 5 and 10 million in the year 300 CE (as is estimated by many scholars). Then we expect to see between 10,000 and 12,000 Christians in total in the whole world by the 64 CE.
(A growth-rate of about 2.7% to 2.8% gives you between 5.8M to 7.5M people at 300 CE
Thus with this growth-rate the population at 64 CE would be between 10.8K and 11.1K ) If every single one of them were in Rome during this time they would not be referred to as an “immense multitude” by a writer, as Rome had over one million people living it it at that time.
The scarcity of Christians is also illustrated by the writings of Pliny the Younger who was a magistrate in Rome and who’s uncle was Pliny the Elder (an author and native of Rome during this time). But despite this, Pliny the Younger write that he has never participated in a trial of a Christian in his letter to the Emperor Trajan around 112 CE. He has no knowledge about how to go about this.
“IT is a rule, Sir, which I inviolably observe, to refer myself to you in all my doubts; for who is more capable of guiding my uncertainty or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials of the Christians, I am unacquainted with the method and limits to be observed either in examining or punishing them… ” (Pliny the Younger, Book 10 letter 96)
How is that possible that Pliny has no knowledge about this if an “Immense multitude” of Christians had been tried in Rome jut 50 years earlier and his uncle, who taught him, would have been present at (at least some of) these trials?! There would also have been a “legal presidencies ” in writing about how to do this if the trials of Christians had been common (as is indicated in Tacitus)
If we instead take the word “Chrestianos” to mean “slaves” (as it was a common term used for slaves in the first century CE). Then we do have a multitude of these “chrestianos” in Rome at that time -- some 30% – 40% of the total population. In that case the part of the Tacitus passage that deals with Pilate could be an interpolation. Do note that we only have manuscripts of this passage from the 12th century and that none of the early church fathers (including Eusebius) ever referred to it as a proof of Jesus supposed existence.
We can go on and on like this, Michael, with you contradicting me with weak refutations and me supplying you with stronger ones, or you can just give up and admit I've proven my point better than you have.
Get help for your problem thrillobyte. You need it. And again, scholarship is against your rants.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Was the passage or passages, available at the time of Tacitus or Suetonius?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Probably, although we can not be sure. Historically we can date the gospels between 70 and 150 AD, but precise dates in between are more difficult. Many Christians naturally date them earlier, but I am talking as an amateur historian. I date Luke and John as early 2nd century AD, with Mark sometime between 80 and 100 AD, with Matthew between Mark and Luke. So the basic text would have been indirectly available to Tacitus.
" ... the first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) Imagine it! If the writing of the New Testament had been begun at the same time as the U.S. Constitution, we wouldn't see a final product until the year 2076! The four Gospels were written from thirty to sixty years after Jesus' death and resurrection. In the interim, the Church relied on oral tradition-the accounts of eyewitnesses-as well as scattered pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. Most churches only had parts of what was to become the New Testament. As the eyewitnesses of Christ's life and teachings began to die, the Apostles wrote as they were guided by the Holy Spirit, in order to preserve and solidify the scattered written and oral tradition. Because the Apostles expected Christ to return soon, it seems they did not have in mind that these gospel accounts and apostolic letters would in time be collected into a new Bible. During the first four centuries A.D. there was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon of Scripture." (emphasis is mine)
Yes, there was disagreement, but the basic texts were decided sometime between 150 and 170 AD, when some church power collected many of the texts we now use to refute Marcion's gospel. After that, it was just fine tuning.
"One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities."
Also at one time (years ago) I looked into the 7 churches that are mentioned in Revelation; what I found out was the 7 churches that the letters were addressed to were 7 different groups of people. The church of the era were groups of people and not defined in the same way as we would define a church today.
As for as Tacitus or Suetonius is concerned, thrillobyte may be correct, the scripture hadn't been produced yet. Which for me calls into question language adopted for the written word used to refute the oral history, vowels, yes or no?
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 09-16-2022 at 11:05 AM..
You have been given good advice here...even by other Atheists.
That you respond this way ^^^ is just confirmation that their assessment of your status is accurate.
I sympathize with your affliction...and I will keep you in my best thoughts.
Ya know...there is a "Prayer Request" thread. You might get some good energy from there with a proper and sincere appeal. Please think about that.
You call it ranting and raving because you don't like my position. I call it straightening out untruths you Christians have been spreading for centuries in a feeble attempt to keep your floundering religion from collapsing entirely.
...
We can go on and on like this, Michael, with you contradicting me with weak refutations and me supplying you with stronger ones, or you can just give up and admit I've proven my point better than you have.
Why not stop patting yourself on the back with self-congratulations and listen to what others are saying about your posts. That would be wiser.
"With the exception of such instances as those of Nero and Domitian, there is the surprising fact to notice, that it was not the worst emperors, but the best, who became the most violent persecutors. One reason probably was that the ability of those emperors led them to see that the religion of Christ is really a divisive factor in any kingdom in which civil government and pagan religion are indissolubly bound up together. The more that such a ruler was intent on preserving the unity of the empire, the more would be persecute the Christian faith. Hence, among the rulers who were persecutors, there are the names of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius the philosopher-emperor, and Septimius Severus (died at York, 211 AD)."
2. Christians and the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64
Tacitus, Annals book 15 ch. 44 (circa A.D. 117)
"Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man."
And in all the volumes of written material there is at the hand of Tacitus does he ever refer to Tiberius as the most cruel emperors of ancient Roman Empire? (Pontius Pilatus is an agent of Tiberius)
This is not a game or a contest, Thrill. You will regret your assault on God no matter how valid your frustration is with the bogus religious dogma you were indoctrinated with. God is not at fault for our stupid human beliefs about Him!
The idea that God controls us or anything about our physical life here is human wishful thinking, vanity, and hubris writ large. God is SPIRIT and is concerned only with our spiritual development, period! Yours is not in very good condition right now, IMO.
I have not been super engaged with this thread of late because something about it has been bugging me.
The premise of this thread as I understand it is:
1) Atheists / skeptics possess "truth"
2) The religious do not
Skeptics don't "have the truth", they have evidentiary standards and don't make or endorse claims for which evidence is unavailable or unconvincing or points in the opposite direction.
The religious don't "have the truth", they have assertions that they claim are of divine origin.
Both can be, and at times are, wrong. Being human, and all.
Mystic is right that this is not "a game or a contest". "I have truth." "No, I do. Nyah nyah." Or it should not be at any rate. And need not be unless we make it so.
While I agree with many of Thrill's points and a good deal of his evidence, I'm not interested in winning some sort of crusade against Christianity. It doesn't need me to mount a crusade to save it from itself. It will collapse under its own unsustainability in the fullness of time, and a push from me is not required for that to happen. And the irony is that it can only happen one person at a time. Each and every Christian has to get there on their own. There's even a religious aphorism for it: "God has no grandchildren". Or more generically: "None of us can inherit our reasoning process from someone else".
And as a formerly religious person, I understand that they don't want to be saved anyway. They are trying to save the world, why would they accept that they are in the wrong in any way?
So reducing this to who is "right" is a waste of time IMO.
Especially all this about Jesus mysticism / historicism. If you are convinced by Tacitus, then you are convinced. It is not really even intellectually indefensible to think it is modestly more likely than not that Jesus was a discrete historical person. However, the historicity of Jesus is necessary but far from sufficient to validate the truth claim of Christianity. Jesus could have walked the earth and been crucified by Pilate and still be completely misrepresented by modern Christian orthodoxy. He could have walked the earth and been crucified and never turned water into wine, resurrected or ascended to heaven.
The other thing is motives. Motives are being ascribed to religion in general and to Christianity in particular. The problem is that motives vary by subgroup and certainly by individual. Most Christians, by the sheer numbers, do not have an agenda other than to get through life without ticking off the cranky Jewish war god that they worship (and that is ignoring all the Christians who think they worship a god of Love, meek and mild Jesus or the Comforter, say, rather than Jehovah).
Christian leadership often IS hypocritical and exploitive, but I can assure you from my own experience and observation on the inside that MOST Christians do not think that deeply about theology; they just go along to get along. They are Christians because their parents were and everyone around them is, basically. They want structure and they want the familiar, and their beliefs provide it. They respect their leadership because they're supposed to.
The folks on c-d are not represenatative of typical Christians OR typical atheists. They are the ones interested enough to debate matters, however badly at times.
So I just don't see a Grand Conspiracy on the part of MOST Christians to ruin the world and subject it to clever lies. Threads like this, I think, succeed only in ticking off Christians who see themselves as sincere rather than nefarious, and sharpens the evasion tactics of those who deploy dishonest arguments.
Of course Thrill will argue that he's just trying to shock pew warmers into seeing the untenability of their position, but I'd repeat that if they aren't ready, shocking them won't help. I wasn't ready until I was. I had people try to talk sense to me, and they might as well have put a lampshade on their head and shouted "booga-booga" at me. I KNEW. They didn't. Poor things! The abstraction hadn't sufficiently leaked yet. Later, it did. For some, though, it NEVER does. So it goes. Christianity can be sufficient throughout many people's lives, and as I often say, until the pain of changing is less than the pain of not changing, they will go with what they know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And again, scholarship is against your rants.
