Romans Made Up Jesus as Wartime Propaganda to Pacify Jews, US Scholar Claims

a reply to: ElectricUniverse




That isn’t right after his death..


Hell slavery was 150 years ago and segregation was 50 years ago..


Now think of how far in the past that SEEMS and double and triple it....


Before the printing press expecting things to remain unchanged for 220 years is a joke.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

But to be fair most of not all of those you listed are AT LEAST hotly debated as later forgeries by Christian scribes..


And I’m not talking about by some militant atheist scholars or mythicists (someone who believes Jesus was a total fabrication from whole cloth).

Mainstream scholars are pretty sure they are fabrications..

Obviously this isn’t my personal analysis lol, but apparently things like sentence structure and vocabulary change..


But more than that... let’s say they are legit..



Shouldn’t we have more than a couple questionable texts???

For example... how many contemporary accounts of Alexander the Great do we have???


Way more than Jesus..

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wrong again.There is mention of Jesus by various ancient historians and other evidence.

Tacitus is a good source of knowledge for the Roman Empire at his time , the veracity of his or any other historian's writings is up for question unless they have evidence contemporary to the subject they are writing about.

a reply to: JustJohnny

Oh you were waiting with baited breath?

Sorry I just got busy with other things than banging my head against the wall.

Stay tuned...

originally posted by: JustJohnny

That isn’t right after his death..

So what?... We have information about other important historical figures that was written hundreds of years after they died...

originally posted by: JustJohnny
Hell slavery was 150 years ago and segregation was 50 years ago..


Now think of how far in the past that SEEMS and double and triple it....

Are you serious?... I know the concept of how long it was that Jesus died... Could you actually come up with an intelligent argument instead of making inane claims that make no sense?...

originally posted by: JustJohnny
Before the printing press expecting things to remain unchanged for 220 years is a joke.

Obviously you are completely ignorant on the subject. Ancient historians copied more ancient texts/accounts word for word, and Latin/or ancient Greek did not change that much for those ancient historians whom wrote about him even 50-200 years after he died to give an entirely different account of what happened...

originally posted by: JustJohnny

But to be fair most of not all of those you listed are AT LEAST hotly debated as later forgeries by Christian scribes..

FALSE... Now you are making claims which are completely false.

For example...

Publius Cornelius Tacitus is still known as one of the most important Roman historians that ever lived. He didn't make up anything, he wrote accounts from more ancient texts most of which do not exist anymore.

Pliny the Younger was a lawyer, author and a Roman magistrate, and his letters are considered as having great historical value. He didn't make up claims either.

Even Celsus, whom was a Greek philosopher and was an ardent opponent of Christianity did not question the existence of Jesus.

Contrary to YOUR claims most historians/scholars accept the fact that Jesus, as is described by Pagan Roman historians and Jewish historian/scholars, did exist. They only question/ed his divinity, not that he existed.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
And I’m not talking about by some militant atheist scholars or mythicists (someone who believes Jesus was a total fabrication from whole cloth).

Yes you are...

originally posted by: JustJohnny
Mainstream scholars are pretty sure they are fabrications..

FALSE...

The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[3][4][5][note 1]
...
While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[10][note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.
...

Historicity of Jesus

originally posted by: JustJohnny
Obviously this isn’t my personal analysis lol, but apparently things like sentence structure and vocabulary change..

Yes it is YOUR personal claim, and that of a few atheists and mysticists...

originally posted by: JustJohnny
But more than that... let’s say they are legit..

Shouldn’t we have more than a couple questionable texts???

For example... how many contemporary accounts of Alexander the Great do we have???

Way more than Jesus..

Are you serious?... i am starting to question your ability to think...

Jesus was treated as a criminal and was murdered as a criminal... The authorities of the time did not believe him to be important... They would not have erected statues of him, or imprinted his image in coins... Yet despite this we do have several LEGITIMATE sources that do corroborate his existence.

Alexander the Great was always viewed as an important figure, there were statues erected to him, his image was imprinted in coins and he was considered as important even to his contemporary scholars/historians... Hence the reason why there are more texts, statues, coins, etc, that mention him. And even then many of his accomplishments were written down years to hundreds of years after he died...

You really need to learn on how to make a factual and intelligent argument. So far you are failing miserably and you are only making up LIES...

originally posted by: gortex

Tacitus is a good source of knowledge for the Roman Empire at his time , the veracity of his or any other historian's writings is up for question unless they have evidence contemporary to the subject they are writing about.

Wrong again. If that was true we would have to question the veracity of every historical figure of which we have ancient texts written years to hundreds of years after they died, and there is a lot of them...

Again, most historical documents/texts that Thallus wrote, whom could have been alive not long after Jesus died or even could have been alive when Jesus died, have not survived the passage of time and we only have a few fragments of his works. However, other later historians did write about his works such as Sextus Julius Africanus. Sextus Julius Africanus is considered as important, not just to Christianity, but to the entire school of Greek chroniclers.

Julius Africanus is the father of Christian chronography. Little is known of his life and little remains of his works. He is important chiefly because of his influence on Eusebius, on all the later writers of Church history among the Fathers, and on the whole Greek school of chroniclers.
...

Link

a reply to: 727Sky

Never made it a secret that when I was younger I even took refuge with a Buddhist monk and learned at least the basics of Buddhism. I never took the vows thou, which you have to take to be truly Buddhist.

However, even in Buddhist belief if you don't take the correct path you must be reborn, and you might be reborn as a lesser being depending of what you did during your life. Isn't this kind of "hell" to have to reincarnate as a lesser being because you didn't take the right path? Only the "enlightened" can return on their own free will to "help others."

Heck, as it is in Buddhist teachings, just like in Hinduism, you must accept as whom you are born and in what strata of the civilized world you were born in. For example. If you were born in a poor family, or in a family that has x illness you must accept that life and must not change it because it means you are making up for something horrible you did in a previous life. In other words, according to Buddhist and Hinduist teachings you must not try to better your life. You must accept life as it is and as you were born. Isn't that a "kind of hell"? If you were born with an illness you must not seek to get better from that illness. For example "the untouchables" of India.

All religions, and even the way of life that Buddhism is, have their own concept of "hell" if you don't follow x teachings.

As it is if you took the Buddhist vow and you killed ANY mosquito at any time in your life you have committed "kind off a sin" (all life is sacred including mosquitos and lesser forms of life) and will pay for it in your next reincarnation.

BTW, I am aware that there are different branches of Buddhism and there are some differences between them. But the fact is there is only one act of free will you are given in Buddhism. That one act of free will is whether you follow Buddhism as a way of life, or whether you decide not to do so. If you follow Buddhism as a way of life you can kiss goodbye to free will from then on.

There are some things I have learned about Buddhism that I won't and can't repeat, but as far as I know what I wrote above goes for every branch of Buddhism, unless it is a branch invented in Calihellfornia.

a reply to: gortex

Here is what many of you fail to understand. Historians whom wrote about people like Jesus took that information from earlier sources (earlier historians/scholars) that no longer are available for one or another reason. Just because the original sources are no longer available it doesn't mean these historians/scholars were lying. But that's one of the arguments being made by atheists/mysticists and anti-Christians, despite the fact that if we were to use that same logical fallacy we would have to get rid of most of the history of the world we know about, as well as having to get rid of the accomplishments and knowledge that many historical figures like Alexander the Great did.

Heck, as it is if we were to use your logical fallacy there would be no religion known as Hinduism or "the way of life" known as Buddhism. Hindusim was passed by word of mouth word by word from generation to generation for thousands of years before it was put in written form. The same thing occurred with Buddhism, except that it's teachings are not as old as Hinduism. Buddhism was originally passed down by word of mouth and future generations were made to memorize those teachings word for word. Not to mention the hidden teachings which no one outside of a Buddhist temple, in Tibet, would know about.

So, are you ready to get rid of most of our historical knowledge and get rid of other religions/ways of life?

a reply to: gortex

BTW, before you answer my question in the post before this one, and I see that you seem to have at least respect for the Aborigines of Australia, how is it that they passed down their history and teachings? Does that mean their history and teachings are all false and made up?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I find it problematic to use Tacitus as a source for Jesus for one glaringly obvious reason - his writings refer to Pilate as a Procurator.

Pilate was actually a Prefect, not a Procurator and this is something that Tacitus would / should have been aware of. This suggests that the Jesus reference has been added to Tacitus works at a later stage (probably around the time of Eusebius).

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Heck, as it is in Buddhist teachings, just like in Hinduism, you must accept as whom you are born and in what strata of the civilized world you were born in. For example. If you were born in a poor family, or in a family that has x illness you must accept that life and must not change it because it means you are making up for something horrible you did in a previous life. In other words, according to Buddhist and Hinduist teachings you must not try to better your life. You must accept life as it is and as you were born. Isn't that a "kind of hell"? If you were born with an illness you must not seek to get better from that illness. For example "the untouchables" of India.

There are as many sects of Buddhist as there are those who claim to be Christen. Hundu Buddhism is different than many sects in Asia. Scribes/Monks have a way of changing things over time to fit a given population..

The sect I am familiar with says you have 7 chances or seven lives to better yourself and to learn what you must learn before you move to the next level (whatever that is )... That is a simple reason why when you meet people some are dumb as dirt and some are truly gifted as they may be on their 4,5,6, or even their 7th lifetime. Even Hitler would not come back as a worm but he may exist as a deformed mistreated idiot someplace sometime...Karma can be a bitch.

As far as being borne into a low class that may work for India but that ship don't sail around here. If you are borne poor and end up rich it is because you had good luck or smarts, or worked hard. The Temples are full of people praying for good luck and donating money.. During the week of the Lottery numbers being chosen the devote are asking that their numbers are good numbers to bring it all down to a basic level. My wife gets real devoted during the week of the Lottery hahah

So just like you can not judge a baptist by Catholic or the first borne (who thinks everyone is going to hell unless they are of the church of the first borne especially the Catholics) there was only one Buddha and his words were recorded ....yet the interpretation of said words are vastly different depending on the culture IMO. Just Like the Sunni and Sharia of Islam not to mention the Wahhabi idiots.

I do not care about religion one way or the other..People can believe whatever they want as long as they do not try to hurt me or mine. I have seen healing and other reported miracles and from what I have come to realize is no religion has a monopoly on the good or the bad of mankind ... Being old I will find out one way or the other in not the to distant future which religion is correct. I look at is as the next great adventure.

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I find it problematic to use Tacitus as a source for Jesus for one glaringly obvious reason - his writings refer to Pilate as a Procurator.

Pilate was actually a Prefect, not a Procurator and this is something that Tacitus would / should have been aware of. This suggests that the Jesus reference has been added to Tacitus works at a later stage (probably around the time of Eusebius).

Except that you are wrong.

...
Prefect of Judea

In 26 A.D. the Roman Emperor Tiberius appointed Pontius Pilate prefect of the Roman provinces of Judaea, Samaria and Idumæa, although Pilate is best known for his leadership of Judaea. While the typical term for a Roman prefect was 1–3 years, Pilate was to hold his post as the fifth Roman procurator for 10 years. In assuming his position, Pontius Pilate succeeded Valerius Gratus.
...

www.biography.com...

...
Though by definition the procurators were prefects,...

en.wikipedia.org...

Even Jewish sources confirm this.

PROCURATOR

PROCURATOR, title of the governors (first over Judea, later over most of Palestine) appointed by Rome during the years 6–41 and 44–66 C.E. From a recently discovered inscription in which *Pontius Pilate is mentioned, it appears that the title of the governors of Judea was also praefectus. Procuratorial rule came into force with the banishment of *Herod's son *Archelaus in the year 6 and was interrupted for three years during the reign of *Agrippa I (41–44). The Judean-Palestinian procurator held the power of jurisdiction with regard to capital punishment (jus gladii). Roman citizens had the privilege of provocatio, i.e., the right to transfer the trial from the provincial governor to the emperor (cf. the case of *Paul, Acts 25:10–12; cf. 22:25ff.). The procurator was subject to the Roman legate in Syria, an illustration of this being the deportation of Pontius Pilate (26–36 C.E.) by Vitellius. Josephus also states (Wars, 2:280–1) that formal charges would have been preferred by the Jews against the last procurator Gessius *Florus (64–66 C.E.; see below) but that they refrained from taking their case to *Gallus in Syria from fear of reprisals. The Sanhedrin was allowed to exercise jurisdiction in civil matters, although the procurators could exercise control in this sphere as well. As a rule, the procurators maintained supervision over the country from their official residence at Caesarea. On Jewish festivals, their seat was temporarily transferred to Jerusalem in order to control the thousands who flocked to the Temple and on these occasions they sometimes gave physical expression to their hatred of Rome.
...

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

What are you going to claim next, it is a Jewish link and can't be trusted?...

a reply to: Flavian

And here is some more information debunking your claim.

PROCURATORS:
...
The procurators may be divided into two series: those preceding and those following the reign of Agrippa I. Those of the first series (6-41 C.E.) ruled over Judea alone, possessing, together with the legate, the power of supervision over the Temple, and the right to appoint and depose the high priest. Those of the second series (44-70) administered Samaria and Galilee, besides Judea. Tacitus' statement ("Annales," xii. 54) that Cumanus was procurator of Galilee only, is not confirmed by Josephus, who was better informed. In this period the supervision over the Temple and the high priests was exercised by Jewish princes of the Herodian dynasty. While the reader is referred to the special articles in The Jewish Encyclopedia on the several procurators, a condensed account of them, as well as of the legates who followed them, is here presented in the order of their succession. The first series of procurators includes the following:
...
Pontius Pilate 26-36). As Josephus expressly states (ib. 4, § 2), he was deposed before the first appearance of Vitellius in Jerusalem, namely, in the spring of 36 (comp. ib. 4, § 3 with 5, § 3).
...

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That's some lovely condenscension you are displaying there, so in the same vein i will be equally condescending back. How aware are you of the Pilate Stone?

Pilate Stone

I take it not familiar at all as that is a limestone block placed by the Romans bearing the inscription "Praefectus Iudea" - literally Prefect of Judea. Unless you are trying to claim that the Romans didn't know what his rank actually was?

a reply to: Flavian

You still can't understand that "Though by definition the procurators were prefects"? i wasn't condescending one bit, I just pointed out that your claim, which came up from other atheists/mysticists in the other thread, is wrong... That isn't being condescending, that's just making a statement of fact. But if you want me to be condescending... i made it easy even for a 5 year old to understand the evidence I provided by making in bold the relevant parts... But apparently I also need to increase the size to catch your eye, otherwise you become blind to facts...

PROCURATOR

PROCURATOR, title of the governors (first over Judea, later over most of Palestine) appointed by Rome during the years 6–41 and 44–66 C.E. From a recently discovered inscription in which *Pontius Pilate is mentioned, it appears that the title of the governors of Judea was also praefectus. Procuratorial rule came into force with the banishment of *Herod's son *Archelaus in the year 6 and was interrupted for three years during the reign of *Agrippa I (41–44). The Judean-Palestinian procurator held the power of jurisdiction with regard to capital punishment (jus gladii). Roman citizens had the privilege of provocatio, i.e., the right to transfer the trial from the provincial governor to the emperor (cf. the case of *Paul, Acts 25:10–12; cf. 22:25ff.). The procurator was subject to the Roman legate in Syria, an illustration of this being the deportation of Pontius Pilate (26–36 C.E.) by Vitellius. Josephus also states (Wars, 2:280–1) that formal charges would have been preferred by the Jews against the last procurator Gessius *Florus (64–66 C.E.; see below) but that they refrained from taking their case to *Gallus in Syria from fear of reprisals. The Sanhedrin was allowed to exercise jurisdiction in civil matters, although the procurators could exercise control in this sphere as well. As a rule, the procurators maintained supervision over the country from their official residence at Caesarea. On Jewish festivals, their seat was temporarily transferred to Jerusalem in order to control the thousands who flocked to the Temple and on these occasions they sometimes gave physical expression to their hatred of Rome.
...

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Pontius Pilate was both a praefectus and a procurator... BTW in case you didn't know we only have a fragment of the Pilate stone, we don't have the whole thing. It is missing several letters and could be missing words...

So Tacitus is a 100% reliable source. Not to mention the other sources which I presented which are also 100% reliable.

a reply to: 727Sky

I have no idea what Hundu Buddhism is. Is that the name of your sect? Couldn't even find anything by searching. But the point is, even your sect has a definition of hell "if people don't get it right."

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: 727Sky

I have no idea what Hundu Buddhism is. Is that the name of your sect? Couldn't even find anything by searching. But the point is, even your sect has a definition of hell "if people don't get it right."

Sorry it was a mistake on my part as I was typing as fast as my two fingers can...which evidently out raced my 3 working brain cells. Let me type slower and try to engage 4 brain cells.

India inspite of many areas of progress and hundreds of years is still and has been a caste system (started and directed by the Hindu religion) although not as strongly held as it once was it is all part of Hinduism.. The Hindu and the Buddhist live for the most part in peace. Yet they both walk the same roads and after awhile end up smelling like each other. Texas we used to say if you walk across a cow lot enough you start smelling like a cow...same theory. So.. Hinduism has rubbed off on India's Buddhist population just as Buddhism has rubbed off Hinduism.

Sometime after 563 B.C. the Buddha accepted many of the teachings of Hinduism such as reincarnation and Karma but he rejected the Caste system totally in his teachings as anyone low or high could achieve enlightenment by following the eight fold task or the middle path/way.. Right understanding, right concentration, right speech, right thought, right action, right effort, right livelihood, (which I have always admired in that you should do noting to harm someone else or the environment through you work..( Me thinks they need a bit more consideration on that one !!) and lastly right mindfulness.. all have different meanings and explanations ....They could have probably combined some of those and made it the 5 fold path or whatever. Kinda like the ten commandments

I am no means an expert on Buddhism nor have I delved deeply in the faith even though my wife was raised and is a real Buddhist who goes to Temple at least a few times a month. Lottery comes out twice a month!! hahah. She knows I am not superstitious but she does make me drive a car blessed by a Monk and wear a gold chain with a 1300 year old small Buddha encased in gold...for good luck !! hahah The sacrifices I make for love !

The Japanese Zen Buddhism just as many other sects are totally cool as far as I am concerned for a true Buddhist tries to follow the middle path. When people go to a temple it is not to pray to Buddha for he is not a god. It is to listen to his teachings and have the Monks speak in parables so the teachings can be applied to everyday life.. Buddhist do not believe in a god that lives and watches everything you do and is ready to punish you for your transgressions; your life's actions will be judged on the wheel of life as far as I have it figured. They do not care about who or if a god created this world they care about this world "in the now" and how to help people have a happy and fulfilled life .Another thing I like about the Buddhist is they never learned the "turn the other Cheek" thingy.. After the 8 fold way and a true understanding is reached then it can be "war on baby" !

If some God showed up tomorrow the Buddhist would just bow their heads in acknowledgement and maybe ask, "what took you so long" while the temples and the monks would try to figure out a way to make money off the event.....Just like any other formal religion IMO. Buddhist a realist IMO even though they can be superstitious which mostly comes from Hindu teachings IMO

Buddhism actually got a big kick start after a huge war in India. The ruler/warlord saw the death and destruction his army has caused and so he converted to Buddhism as a true believer.. Thus many temples and monks were sent to and fro to spread the word.. Politically speaking that was a great plan for India had always been busy during the warlord days of rape pillage and plunder. Maybe no country was more war like according to some historians.. Alexander certainly met his match in India.


Dalai Lama: Hinduism & Buddhism are like twin brother & sisters
Politically speaking it is a good idea to make nice because of the march of Islam
youtu.be...

Hinduism is at least 2500 BC years old.. Buddhism was a late comer so as indicated above.
youtu.be...


There are three main sects of Buddhism I forget the names but they are kinda like Methodist, Baptist, or Catholics. All supposed teach from gods word but certain differences are and have been there since the christen church divided between Protestant and Catholic churches..

Buddhism is concerned with stopping the suffering in ones life from wanting but good luck as I see many who want want want and in some cases for good reasons..

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You may not have meant it but you certainly were condescending. And from your source it says "it appears" - not it was.

And, again, the Pilate stone shows Prefect of Judea, not Procurator of Judea. This may all be semantics to you but it is actually very important in this regard as the Romans simply didn't put false titles on dedication stones. Tacitus would certainly have known this and used correct titles throughout his works (regarding other figures), so why would only this one be different to what the Romans themselves said? It smacks of being added at a later date, probably by Eusebius when he was digging out other "evidence" for Christ.

Maybe Jesus existed, maybe not but Tacitus is certainly not reliable as a source for him. This particular issue of this particular part of Tacitus work has been discussed to death by scholars over the years, it isn't random claims by me.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

But to be fair most of not all of those you listed are AT LEAST hotly debated as later forgeries by Christian scribes..


And I’m not talking about by some militant atheist scholars or mythicists (someone who believes Jesus was a total fabrication from whole cloth).

Mainstream scholars are pretty sure they are fabrications..

Obviously this isn’t my personal analysis lol, but apparently things like sentence structure and vocabulary change..


But more than that... let’s say they are legit..



Shouldn’t we have more than a couple questionable texts???

For example... how many contemporary accounts of Alexander the Great do we have???


Way more than Jesus..

Considering Alexander the Great conquered huge swathes of the world as it was known at the time, with hundreds of thousands of followers and victims, rather than an individual in a backwater stretch of what was effectively semi desert land - both geographically and culturally, the comparison is a bit disingenuous isn't it?