Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2014, 08:42 PM
RE: Jesus myth
Let me add: he would not use the name Jesus instead of Christus because he wasn't relying on a record that named Jesus, as a primary document would.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:44 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 06:39 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  It appears from a brief search that Tacitus does in fact name Moses, which conflicts with the notion that he does not identify any Jews. Certainly when he is writing about the origin of the Jews, he makes reference to Moses by name. Thus, when writing about the origin of Christianity, whether he gave a fuck about Jesus or not, it seems at least plausible that he would have named him (and he did not have an allergy to doing so).

Incorrect. Tacitus does not mention Moses even once in either Annals nor Histories.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:49 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 08:42 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Let me add: he would not use the name Jesus instead of Christus because he wasn't relying on a record that named Jesus, as a primary document would.

On the contrary, he was relying on a prime Roman historical document, and not a Jewish/Christian record which he despised.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:53 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 08:12 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 06:39 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ok. So you are saying that Tacitus used a primary source, ( Roman records of Jesus' crucifixion under Pilate, which, obviously, would have recorded Jesus' real name, ) but changed that name to "Christ" in his description?

No, he didn't change anything for the simple reason that we are speaking about two completely different cultures; the Jews, and the Romans. With this comes many differences, one of which would be names that were spelled and pronounced in a Semitic language such as Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

The Romans spoke neither Semitic language, nor wrote anything in either language. They wrote in either Greek or Latin, therefore the translation and/or pronunciation of Semitic names simply did not exist to them.

However, with the title of "Christ" being a Greco-Roman title, and one which was familiar in the Greek and Latin languages, then that is precisely why Tacitus deferred to the title of Christus instead of what we see in English as "Jesus."

Tacitus simply did not understand the Semitic languages well enough to translate any Jewish names such as "Yeshua" et al.

This is exactly why Presentism is such a fallacy. We see things from a modern perspective, and within our culture and our modern language, and then attempt to rationalize it from that position.

But to understand the Tacitus entry regarding his use of "Chrestianos/Christus," you must immerse yourself in that culture, and understand it from the perspective of a 1st century Roman.

I hope you can understand this.

I'm not following you.

You write "No, he didn't change anything." I think you're saying Tacitus used a primary source that used the name "Christus" (not Jesus or Yeshua)

Then you write "Tacitus simply did not understand the Semitic languages well enough to translate any Jewish names such as "Yeshua" et al." thereby you imply the primary source Tacitus used did mention Yeshua or Jesus.

What exactly is your position?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:59 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 08:39 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  That's not even a tough question, seeing as it presupposes my position. If it's commonly known, then there is no need to go searching for a primary record to validate it.

If it's NOT commonly known, then the omission of the information is even more glaring.

Besides, "commonly known" is not the same as "universally known." The fact that he feels the need to explain the origin of Christianity to his readers shows that they did not share in this knowledge, even if this knowledge was common in other circles.

Really, when you reduce yourself to picking on my word choice, you diminish your argument.

Very poor response.

My point is obvious. If Tacitus relied on what was commonly known about Jesus and Christianity, then obviously he would have called him Jesus instead of Christus.

The fact that he calls him Christus instead of Jesus indicates that he was not getting his information from what was commonly known.

In fact, and I reiterate once again, Tacitus got his information regarding "Christus" from previous Roman historical documents, just as he says at the beginning of his re-telling of the Great Fires of Roman, which includes the Christus reference.

My points have been made on evidence.

You have made no point, provided no evidence, and made only assertions.

The only thing that has been proven here is that the best argument wins, and the only argument that has provided any evidence at all has been mine.

Now, I suppose you will be like all the others I have had this discussion with and categorically deny that anything I provided here was evidence. That is up to you, and the readers can decide for themselves.

But at the end of the day some evidence trumps no evidence 100% of the time.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 09:08 PM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2014 09:13 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 08:53 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 08:12 PM)Free Wrote:  No, he didn't change anything for the simple reason that we are speaking about two completely different cultures; the Jews, and the Romans. With this comes many differences, one of which would be names that were spelled and pronounced in a Semitic language such as Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

The Romans spoke neither Semitic language, nor wrote anything in either language. They wrote in either Greek or Latin, therefore the translation and/or pronunciation of Semitic names simply did not exist to them.

However, with the title of "Christ" being a Greco-Roman title, and one which was familiar in the Greek and Latin languages, then that is precisely why Tacitus deferred to the title of Christus instead of what we see in English as "Jesus."

Tacitus simply did not understand the Semitic languages well enough to translate any Jewish names such as "Yeshua" et al.

This is exactly why Presentism is such a fallacy. We see things from a modern perspective, and within our culture and our modern language, and then attempt to rationalize it from that position.

But to understand the Tacitus entry regarding his use of "Chrestianos/Christus," you must immerse yourself in that culture, and understand it from the perspective of a 1st century Roman.

I hope you can understand this.

I'm not following you.

You write "No, he didn't change anything." I think you're saying Tacitus used a primary source that used the name "Christus" (not Jesus or Yeshua)

Then you write "Tacitus simply did not understand the Semitic languages well enough to translate any Jewish names such as "Yeshua" et al." thereby you imply the primary source Tacitus used did mention Yeshua or Jesus.

What exactly is your position?

You are correct about one thing; you are not following me.

What I am saying is quite simple, Mark. Tacitus used a primary Roman source for the simple reason of the language barrier between the Romans and Jews. Therefore, the primary Roman source Tacitus used also had the title of Christus instead of Jesus. The reasoning and logic demosntrates why Tacitus used Christus instead of Jesus; he was using a Roman source and not a Jewish/Christian/Commmon Knowledge source, which undoubtedly would have used the name of Jesus instead of Christus.

After all, "Christus" is a Greco-Roman name, not a Christian or Jewish one.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 09:10 PM
RE: Jesus myth
A primary source would not have had Christus!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
24-01-2014, 09:17 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 09:10 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  A primary source would not have had Christus!

Yes! Logic says you are right.

If you execute someone, and make a record of the fact, you record that person's name, not make his name up. This talk of hating the Jews ( which I agree was likely) is no reason to not record Jesus' name.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 09:23 PM
RE: Jesus myth
In any case, I don't think Paul's Christ was morphed into gospel's Jesus until well after the time of Tacitus. If I'm right, the quote in Tacitus is obviously an interpolation.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 09:27 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 08:59 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 08:39 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  That's not even a tough question, seeing as it presupposes my position. If it's commonly known, then there is no need to go searching for a primary record to validate it.

If it's NOT commonly known, then the omission of the information is even more glaring.

Besides, "commonly known" is not the same as "universally known." The fact that he feels the need to explain the origin of Christianity to his readers shows that they did not share in this knowledge, even if this knowledge was common in other circles.

Really, when you reduce yourself to picking on my word choice, you diminish your argument.

Very poor response.

I reject your opinion.

Quote:My point is obvious. If Tacitus relied on what was commonly known about Jesus and Christianity, then obviously he would have called him Jesus instead of Christus.

No, he would have said Christus, because he was talking about the origin of Christianity and he didn't respect Jews enough to identify them by name. Seriously, are you just making suit up at this point?

Quote:The fact that he calls him Christus instead of Jesus indicates that he was not getting his information from what was commonly known.

That Statment has no basis in reality. Why wouldn't he call the founder of Christianity Christus?

Quote:In fact, and I reiterate once again, Tacitus got his information regarding "Christus" from previous Roman historical documents, just as he says at the beginning of his re-telling of the Great Fires of Roman, which includes the Christus reference.

And any such reference would be secondary, which has been my point all along. A primary source would have referenced Jesus and NOT Christus. Tactics did not reference Jesus. We therefore have no evidence he relied on a primary source.

Quote:My points have been made on evidence.
No, your points have presupposed a conclusion and interpreted the evidence to fit that conclusion rather than arrive at a conclusion based on the evidence. I started this conversation with you respecting your approach, but I have to retract that. You are approaching this information with the zeal of a theist and not with the critical eye of a skeptic. I am disappointed.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your comment because, frankly, I don't respect it and I'm tired of talking to a wall.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: