Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh, you figured out how to quote this time, good job. I'm so proud of you. All you had to do was believe in yourself.No, it proves you do zero research and should feel bad. Your post also proves you apparently don't know how to properly quote, so good job with that.So Tacitus proves the NT is false and teaching another Christ? Because it says Jesus was slew (stoned) and hanged not crucified.
Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree" 1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us... Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"
Under Rabbinic Law, criminals are to be stoned (John 8:3-11.) The 'Jesus' mythos was stoned (slew) and then hung on a tree -- which is what the Christanic mythologies say.
So now the burden on you is to humor us with which Christ is Tacitus referring to?
What era is Tacitus from?
Did he say the name Jesus or use the term Christ? Show sources.
*plays the Jeopardy theme song in the background waiting for a reply*
Being crucified was also referred to as being hanged. The meaning of the word "hanged" is to fasten something to an object without supporting it from below. Hanging with a rope wasn't referred to that way until medieval times, needless to say that method is quite obviously not what Tacitus was referring to.
Not true, the crucified christs where termed Crucified, the hanged on a tree Christ in
2 sources is deemed stoned and hanging as was the type of punishment in that era and as I posted such.
According to your argument you'd have to admit Jesus was the serpent(false prophet) of Genesis when saying believe in his tree you'd live forever, because in the NT Jesus says believe in his cross (you say=tree) and be eternal.
That being said:
You do not know my research abilities, nor know who uses my research, because I'm guessing you never went to Harvard, Oxford, or Yale.
You didn't post a source, you quoted Tacitus' writings, which were from the time period in which being crucified was referred to as hanging.
I'm not arguing over religious text, I'm telling you that Jesus existed as a historical figure.
You have no evidence of that.I went to bed because it was 5AM. You're just in such a rush to proclaim your victory because you know you're wrong. Hence your use of replying instead of quoting, hoping I won't notice.I'm not gonna wait for the run and hide non answer so I'll give you some resources and research to put this claim in proper perspective.
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just CLAIMED evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a Christ of many Christs.
Hint: the only christ figure in the Pilate era was Theudas by the Jordan and yes he was crucified 45ad, but the son of Mary figure was hanged on passover 130 aprox years earlier around 85bc and the Galilean tax revolter Yehuda crucified in 6bc 51 years earlier.
So much for your historians and seminary schools.
Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible - Biblical Archaeology Society
Tacitus used the word as that's what practically EVERYONE called him. He didn't have to have gotten it from the Roman records, as during his time, Jesus was famous.
Tacitus was one of the greatest Roman historians, I don't see why people WOULDN'T reference his work. Not only that, but most classical historical writers don't cite their sources in the first place.
There's no evidence speaking against it being based on Roman records, as he has no reason to copy them word for word in the first place, it was probably easier to write it as a historical account anyway, due to the fact that they couldn't just copy and paste.
How about a source for that?
You do realize no Jews were ever called Jesus, right? And what did this after the era historian who never met the icon call him?
Once again generically called im Christ which was a term "anointed" for many figures and groups.
You did not answer my questions nor refute that post.
In fact you proved my points, because Lucifer in Ezekiel 28:14-15 is called anointed (christ)
cherub(guardian in Hebrew=Nazarene) deemed perfect(sinless).
So by you claiming Jesus this Christ Tacitus is talking about means you are arguing over the historical existance of the
son of perdition(lucifer).
I see you've now given up proving any of your points and are instead poking fun at Christians for holding beliefs different from your own. Militants are truly sickening people.Oh, you figured out how to quote this time, good job. I'm so proud of you. All you had to do was believe in yourself.No, it proves you do zero research and should feel bad. Your post also proves you apparently don't know how to properly quote, so good job with that.So Tacitus proves the NT is false and teaching another Christ? Because it says Jesus was slew (stoned) and hanged not crucified.
Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree" 1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us... Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"
Under Rabbinic Law, criminals are to be stoned (John 8:3-11.) The 'Jesus' mythos was stoned (slew) and then hung on a tree -- which is what the Christanic mythologies say.
So now the burden on you is to humor us with which Christ is Tacitus referring to?
What era is Tacitus from?
Did he say the name Jesus or use the term Christ? Show sources.
*plays the Jeopardy theme song in the background waiting for a reply*
Being crucified was also referred to as being hanged. The meaning of the word "hanged" is to fasten something to an object without supporting it from below. Hanging with a rope wasn't referred to that way until medieval times, needless to say that method is quite obviously not what Tacitus was referring to.
Not true, the crucified christs where termed Crucified, the hanged on a tree Christ in
2 sources is deemed stoned and hanging as was the type of punishment in that era and as I posted such.
According to your argument you'd have to admit Jesus was the serpent(false prophet) of Genesis when saying believe in his tree you'd live forever, because in the NT Jesus says believe in his cross (you say=tree) and be eternal.
That being said:
You do not know my research abilities, nor know who uses my research, because I'm guessing you never went to Harvard, Oxford, or Yale.
You didn't post a source, you quoted Tacitus' writings, which were from the time period in which being crucified was referred to as hanging.
I'm not arguing over religious text, I'm telling you that Jesus existed as a historical figure.
Then bring him to the forum if he's historical.
1st Kings 18:25,27 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal
"Call on the name of your god..."And it came to pass at noon,that Elijah mocked them, and said,"Cry aloud! For surely he is 'God'.Or, perhaps he is deep in thought,Or, perhaps he is busy,Or, perhaps he is on a journey,Or, perhaps he is sleeping, and must be woken."
You only know what you're been told. Another problem is the most important story ever in man's history was not even written down at the time. Not by the disciples and not even the main character. We are told he spoke in Aramaic and nothing was written down until a generation later and in common Greek.What intrigues me about the Gospels is we have a superhuman being talking to humans, and they don't understand a word he is telling them. I understand what Jesus is saying, but only because I already know what he's hinting at, I've had a lifetime of learning it as a child, and living it as an adult. But the Apostles are clearly clueless, and it only gradually dawns on them what Jesus is trying to say, and Peter is the first to figure out who Jesus really is.
Wow. You need instant answers or you parade around in total victory? How old are you?What's interesting is that I've been sitting at my computer for a couple of hours, and so far no one has told me why I should believe Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical person who never really existed.
I think haShev tried to explain it to me, but I'm unable to follow his arguments.
And really, he's on shaky ground because the entire Jewish faith is based on stories which are further back in time and less likely to be literally true than the Gospel stories, and Acts of the Apostles.
You have no evidence of that.I went to bed because it was 5AM. You're just in such a rush to proclaim your victory because you know you're wrong. Hence your use of replying instead of quoting, hoping I won't notice.I'm not gonna wait for the run and hide non answer so I'll give you some resources and research to put this claim in proper perspective.
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just CLAIMED evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a Christ of many Christs.
Hint: the only christ figure in the Pilate era was Theudas by the Jordan and yes he was crucified 45ad, but the son of Mary figure was hanged on passover 130 aprox years earlier around 85bc and the Galilean tax revolter Yehuda crucified in 6bc 51 years earlier.
So much for your historians and seminary schools.
Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible - Biblical Archaeology Society
Tacitus used the word as that's what practically EVERYONE called him. He didn't have to have gotten it from the Roman records, as during his time, Jesus was famous.
Tacitus was one of the greatest Roman historians, I don't see why people WOULDN'T reference his work. Not only that, but most classical historical writers don't cite their sources in the first place.
There's no evidence speaking against it being based on Roman records, as he has no reason to copy them word for word in the first place, it was probably easier to write it as a historical account anyway, due to the fact that they couldn't just copy and paste.
How about a source for that?
You do realize no Jews were ever called Jesus, right? And what did this after the era historian who never met the icon call him?
Once again generically called im Christ which was a term "anointed" for many figures and groups.
You did not answer my questions nor refute that post.
In fact you proved my points, because Lucifer in Ezekiel 28:14-15 is called anointed (christ)
cherub(guardian in Hebrew=Nazarene) deemed perfect(sinless).
So by you claiming Jesus this Christ Tacitus is talking about means you are arguing over the historical existance of the
son of perdition(lucifer).
Generically called him "The Christus" from which the word "Christian" originated from, specifically.
I refuted your post, and I don't see a question I missed.
I don't see the relevance of that statement.
I'm arguing about a historical figure's existence, I don't particularly care of you think he's the "son of lucifer" or not.
You have yet to cite any sources for any of your claims.
I see you've now given up proving any of your points and are instead poking fun at Christians for holding beliefs different from your own. Militants are truly sickening people.Oh, you figured out how to quote this time, good job. I'm so proud of you. All you had to do was believe in yourself.No, it proves you do zero research and should feel bad. Your post also proves you apparently don't know how to properly quote, so good job with that.So Tacitus proves the NT is false and teaching another Christ? Because it says Jesus was slew (stoned) and hanged not crucified.
Acts 5:30 "Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 10:39 "whom they slew and hanged on a tree" Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree" 1 Peter 2:24 "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree" Galatians 3:13 "Christ... being made a curse upon us... Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"
Under Rabbinic Law, criminals are to be stoned (John 8:3-11.) The 'Jesus' mythos was stoned (slew) and then hung on a tree -- which is what the Christanic mythologies say.
So now the burden on you is to humor us with which Christ is Tacitus referring to?
What era is Tacitus from?
Did he say the name Jesus or use the term Christ? Show sources.
*plays the Jeopardy theme song in the background waiting for a reply*
Being crucified was also referred to as being hanged. The meaning of the word "hanged" is to fasten something to an object without supporting it from below. Hanging with a rope wasn't referred to that way until medieval times, needless to say that method is quite obviously not what Tacitus was referring to.
Not true, the crucified christs where termed Crucified, the hanged on a tree Christ in
2 sources is deemed stoned and hanging as was the type of punishment in that era and as I posted such.
According to your argument you'd have to admit Jesus was the serpent(false prophet) of Genesis when saying believe in his tree you'd live forever, because in the NT Jesus says believe in his cross (you say=tree) and be eternal.
That being said:
You do not know my research abilities, nor know who uses my research, because I'm guessing you never went to Harvard, Oxford, or Yale.
You didn't post a source, you quoted Tacitus' writings, which were from the time period in which being crucified was referred to as hanging.
I'm not arguing over religious text, I'm telling you that Jesus existed as a historical figure.
Then bring him to the forum if he's historical.
1st Kings 18:25,27 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal
"Call on the name of your god..."And it came to pass at noon,that Elijah mocked them, and said,"Cry aloud! For surely he is 'God'.Or, perhaps he is deep in thought,Or, perhaps he is busy,Or, perhaps he is on a journey,Or, perhaps he is sleeping, and must be woken."
The fact is, the doubters have no alternative theories.
That's something that's noted by historians. The Jews, which was the group most familiar with Jesus, constantly referred to him as "The Christ", Tacitus likely assumed it was his given name because of how he was referred to. If you check my link, it's mentioned in the article as well. Considering people didn't carry IDs at all, and could go by a different name simply by referring to themselves as a different name, it's likely wasn't a difficult error to make.
The myth of Jesus and the superstitions of christianity were lifted whole and mostly intact from other, older religions.
Is there really anyone who doesn't know that?
The old testament prophecized a Messiah. So it's not impossible 11 guys made up the story and spread it.You would have to explain where the entire Christian religion came from if Jesus of Nazareth wasn't an actual person who actually lived in Israel at about the time 30 A.D.
Normally, we don't expect a small band of fishermen and a tax collector to invent an entire religion out of whole cloth.
Also, Paul was a Pharisee, and he seemed mighty convinced that Jesus was a real person who actually appeared to him and stopped him from persecuting Christians.
Unless you're going to say Paul wasn't real either, and everything he wrote was written by a fiction author.
Also, they actually found Peter's bones under the Vatican, so you'd have to explain whose bones those were if Peter wasn't a real person.
So please tell, me what was real and what wasn't?
I'm dying to hear your theory.
Mohammed and Joseph Smith were real people. Doesn't make their stories true.
Even if Jesus is real the story has been embellished.
Why did it take Christians 1900 years before they started giving women equal rights?
There were religions before Christianity with oddly similar stories to the Jesus myth.
I see, so Islam, Budhism, Taoism, etc. are true too? You can't see what you don't want to.I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character made up by some fiction author, like Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins. We have billions of Christians spanning thousands of years, and that religion didn't just pop up out of nowhere.
I am not saying Islam, Buddhism, and Taoism are true, but it would be quite ridiculous to say that fictional characters founded these religions either.I see, so Islam, Budhism, Taoism, etc. are true too? You can't see what you don't want to.I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character made up by some fiction author, like Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins. We have billions of Christians spanning thousands of years, and that religion didn't just pop up out of nowhere.
You don't think Mohamed or Buddha have been exalted above mere human status?I am not saying Islam, Buddhism, and Taoism are true, but it would be quite ridiculous to say that fictional characters founded these religions either.I see, so Islam, Budhism, Taoism, etc. are true too? You can't see what you don't want to.I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character made up by some fiction author, like Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins. We have billions of Christians spanning thousands of years, and that religion didn't just pop up out of nowhere.
They are real people who actually lived, are you saying they are not?You don't think Mohamed or Buddha have been exalted above mere human status?I am not saying Islam, Buddhism, and Taoism are true, but it would be quite ridiculous to say that fictional characters founded these religions either.I see, so Islam, Budhism, Taoism, etc. are true too? You can't see what you don't want to.I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character made up by some fiction author, like Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins. We have billions of Christians spanning thousands of years, and that religion didn't just pop up out of nowhere.
Where did it come from? The corrupt church of England and Rome?I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character made up by some fiction author, like Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins. We have billions of Christians spanning thousands of years, and that religion didn't just pop up out of nowhere.
And I have seen nothing to convince me of virgin births, walking on water or rising from the Dead and yet you believe those things. Interesting. That's wishful thinking.I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character made up by some fiction author, like Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins. We have billions of Christians spanning thousands of years, and that religion didn't just pop up out of nowhere.
They might not be fictional characters but they told fictional storiesI am not saying Islam, Buddhism, and Taoism are true, but it would be quite ridiculous to say that fictional characters founded these religions either.I see, so Islam, Budhism, Taoism, etc. are true too? You can't see what you don't want to.I have seen nothing in this thread to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character made up by some fiction author, like Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins. We have billions of Christians spanning thousands of years, and that religion didn't just pop up out of nowhere.
