Did Jesus really die?

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Debunking the Historical Jesus Part 1: TACITUS and the Tallmud

Tacitus:
Tacitus was hardly a contemporary source. He wasn't even born at the time that Jesus supposedly lived. Tacitus is widely known in apologist circles as the first pagan reference to christ or christianity. Early church fathers, however, curiously did NOT save all of Tacitus' writings. In fact, there's an interesting gap in his work concerning the emperor Tiberius from 29 CE - 31 CE, which includes the supposed year of the crucifixion. The passage that apologists cling to is in the 15th volume of his annals where he describes an incident concerning the emperor Nero.

"In order to put an end to this rumor, there fore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters" Annals 15, ch 44



Can this brief mention in the annals be considered reliable, historical and contemporary evidence for the existence of Christ? Simply put, no. Tacitus does not claim to be quoting any original source that cites this "christus". What he is doing is doing a quick drive-by account of what modern christians believe to be true, repeating the legends that he's come into contact with - not claiming historical truth. Furthermore, this passage is the exception, not the rule to the overall feel of the passage, and he clearly does not hold these christians in high regard.

Romans did not keep records of their countless crucifixions, so there is nowhere that Tacitus could have looked to source his information at all - for an event that happened almost a century earlier. If there WERE historical records concerning Jesus, the early church fathers would have pounced on it, seeing as they jumped on this passage and any other passing reference to someone they could claim fit the bill for their supposed savior. There is no written documentation from Pilate, or anyone else associated with the crucifixion itself. Furthermore, no roman record would have referred to someone they considered to be a common criminal as Christus. Christus (or the Christ or Messiah) is a title, not a name, therefore a common criminal would have been listed as Jesus ben Joseph - or the Latin equivalent.


Arguments against Tacitus are not reserved for purely secular scholars. Respected Christian scholar R. T. France does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus.

Tacitus was NOT a witness, NOR EVEN ALIVE when Christ was. He was only writing what others before him had written (forged). Not proof of anything. Hearsay.

adjensen

You are aware that the Bible is about an all powerful God who is able to resurrect people from the dead, right? I mean, that's kind of front and centre to the whole thing.

I'm absolutely aware, but I'm talking from a Biblical standpoint. I'm talking from a common sense standpoint. One cannot say that believing in bodily resurrection after death is more plausible of an idea than a coma is, I don't care what the source of the story is lol.

Given the basis of the text, yes, it is far more plausible that Jesus was resurrected after being dead for three days than it is for him to have slipped into a coma after being scourged and crucified, been tossed into a cave without any medical care, and later just "came out of it", well enough to move a large stone and go track down his followers.

No, it's not. And according to the story upon "dying" his body was retrieved and prepared for the tomb and whatnot. So one cannot say that there was no "medical care" - or whatever passed for medical care back then - before he was laid in his tomb.

The story has a hell of a lot of holes and if you read it you see that there were "angels" present at the tomb. Do I think those were actual angels? No, I do not. It's more plausible that they were something else and whomever/whatever they were they helped him get out.

If it was as simple as you make it out to be, we should have dozens of stories of people being resurrected after being crucified, yet we only have the one.

You are 100% wrong. Krishnha was one; Dionysus was another. You also have Attis of Phrygia. And they all pre-date Jesus.

Source citation

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Pilate had tons of people executed. Jesus would NOT have allowed the use of the title "Chrestus" or even "Christ" to have been associated with name, according to his teachings, as those were pagan concepts. The followers of Jesus weren't even referred to "Christians" at the time Tacticus wrote that, as I have shown.

AlienBuddha
You are 100% wrong. Krishnha was one; Dionysus was another. You also have Attis of Phrygia. And they all pre-date Jesus.

Source citation

You're seriously going to cite Kersey Graves with a straight face?

Show me, with the Bhagavad Gita or other actual Hindu scripture, where Krishna was crucified. Show me, in the original myths, which pre-dated Christ, where Dionysus and Attis were crucified.

I am not 100% wrong, I am 0% wrong, because, unlike you, I've read the original myths, and I've read what idiots like Kersey Graves and Gerald Massey (and, by extension, modern day morons like Achyra S who cite Graves and Massey,) had to say about them, and there is pretty much nothing to their claims. Not by what the people who actually believed in Krishna, Dionysus and Horus had to say about them, anyway.

reply to post by adjensen


So when you disagree you call people idiots and ignore everything else that was said to you. Got it. Well, I guess our interaction is done. I won't be talked down to or insulted. Have a good day.

windword
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Pilate had tons of people executed. Jesus would NOT have allowed the use of the title "Chrestus" or even "Christ" to have been associated with name, according to his teachings, as those were pagan concepts.

"Christ" means anointed, which he was, by Mary in the Pharisee's house. It also means Messiah, which he did not deny being. There is nothing, scriptural wise, that says Jesus would not have "allowed" its use, not that it matters, because Tacticus didn't live in Jesus' time, and what they called him 30 years after his death was hardly any of his concern.

The followers of Jesus weren't even referred to "Christians" at the time Tacticus wrote that, as I have shown.

You've shown no such thing -- you've simply allowed yourself to be duped into believing it, because you'll accept any crackpot theory if you think it discredits Christianity.

There are numerous explanations for a possible "e" in one of four places where an "i" was present in duplicates of Tacticus's document, but yours is the worst, postulating a sizable group of people called the Chrestians who were contemporaneous to Christians, had all of their attributes, and then mysteriously disappeared without a trace, replaced simultaneously with a group of people called Christians.

Seriously, read that again -- it is absolutely laughable.

Let us not forget about Pliny the Younger, who was a contemporary of Tacticus, and who also wrote about Christians in a manner consistent to Tacticus.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by adjensen

 

So when you disagree you call people idiots

Yes, I consider people who fabricate evidence, which even a grade school student could see through, to suit their biased opinions to be idiots -- and Graves, Massey and Achyra S fit that description. I guess that I could call them dishonest idiots, but I think the singular insult suits. And I think anyone who promotes those ridiculously false conclusions without even bothering to investigate whether they are based in reality to be a non-critical thinking fool.

But I'll answer my unanswered question for you -- no, you cannot demonstrate in the original myths where Krishna, Horus or anyone else was crucified, because they weren't.

reply to post by adjensen


Whatever makes you feel superior in life, I guess. Have fun with that. Meanwhile, you're the one cosigning WarminIndy's argument that an anonymous Roman soldier cited by an anonymous Gospel writer is a suitable judge of whether someone was actually dead or not.

But, I'm the idiot. Yeah.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by adjensen

 

an anonymous Roman soldier cited by an anonymous Gospel writer is a suitable judge of whether someone was actually dead or not.

The text indicates, in multiple places, that he was dead. The circumstances of his treatments, per the text, prior to crucifixion, and what we know about the effects of crucifixion and a spear through the heart, support him being dead. The text indicates that he was resurrected from the dead, a belief held by Jews before Christ's time, and which everything in the NT was leading up to.

But no, let's think it more reasonable that none of that happened, but rather someone in a coma was wrapped in linens and tossed in a cave, magically recovered without apparent after-effect, and then 11 of his followers died horrible deaths, rather than reveal the "secret".

Dead is dead. If you want to believe everything about the text apart from his death and resurrection, that's called "cherry picking" and it isn't an effective argument.

reply to post by adjensen


Yeah, the spear was in his side, not his heart. If you're gonna bring up "the text" at least get right what it actually says. Now had he actually been stabbed in the heart your argument might have held weight that he was killed. But he wasn't, so it doesn't.

But no, let's think it more reasonable that none of that happened, but rather someone in a coma was wrapped in linens and tossed in a cave, magically recovered without apparent after-effect, and then 11 of his followers died horrible deaths, rather than reveal the "secret".

LMAO! It's more reasonable to believe that he died, magically recovered in the cave, and came back out alive?!

And again the entire thing is a story, not history. Even if it were history, his "11 followers" who died doesn't mean that they were keeping a secret. It simply means that they believed that he died and resurrected, not that he actually did.

reply to post by adjensen


While we're wasting time on pointless arguments, how about some proof that the guy they crucified actually was Jesus and not some loony who gladly agreed to take his idol's place on the cross, as per The Last Temptation of Christ?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Or, AfterInfinity, per the Muslim theory on the subject. They believe that Allah put the likeness of Jesus over someone else and that person was crucified in his place.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by adjensen

 

Whatever makes you feel superior in life, I guess. Have fun with that. Meanwhile, you're the one cosigning WarminIndy's argument that an anonymous Roman soldier cited by an anonymous Gospel writer is a suitable judge of whether someone was actually dead or not.

But, I'm the idiot. Yeah.

edit on 9-10-2013 by AlienBuddha because: (no reason given)

Have you ever seen a dead body? I have. And I am not a medical expert. Not only did I see a dead body, I had to clean it. This was my grandmother who died of liver cancer. I was there when she died, I was present when her body took its last breath. So don't tell me that one has to be a medical expert to know a dead body.

Do you want me to give particulars of what happens when someone dies after being in a coma? The heat from the body goes to the part of the body lying against whatever they are on. Their mouth continues to have muscle contractions that make them look like fish. But then the heat leaves the body and the body becomes stiff. My grandmother died with her mouth open and I closed it.

So please, don't tell me any more about needing to be a medical expert when it comes to dead bodies. The only reason for a medical examiner is to determine the time of death and in case a person were killed in an accident or murdered, but guess what, my grandmother was dead before the funeral home director came to my home to take her body out and I had to tell him about her life to write in her obituary. But those disciples didn't know anything about the life of Jesus, did they? No, they never wrote His obituary, did they?

Before you go on about people not knowing when someone is dead, perhaps you should ask everyone who has ever seen a dead body. There are plenty of people who have had a loved one die at home or at the hospital, and they KNEW the person was dead, the didn't need to wait for someone else to come and tell them.

Do you think this is something you ever forget, to witness a person taking their last breath? I can tell you everything about that day, from the moment I woke up to the moment the funeral director took her body out. We had to call the funeral director. It was a good thing she had paid for her funeral before she died.

AlienBuddha
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yeah, the spear was in his side, not his heart. If you're gonna bring up "the text" at least get right what it actually says. Now had he actually been stabbed in the heart your argument might have held weight that he was killed.

The Gospel of John says that, as a result of that wound, "blood and water" poured out.

Where did the water come from?

Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel. (Source)

Once again, you miss the detail -- the soldier wouldn't have just arbitrarily poked Jesus, he'd have used a killing blow, so that if Jesus was still alive, he'd be killed, since they were under orders to speed up the executions.

It is unlikely, at the time, that anyone would have understood the medical reason that blood AND water would have come out of someone treated in that manner, so the detail again testifies to the fact that he was dead -- from crucifixion, or from a spear through major organs, your choice.

reply to post by adjensen

"Christ" means anointed,

That's extremely simplistic, but I wouldn't expect any less from you.

which he was, by Mary in the Pharisee's house

What a stretch! Why wasn't he annointed at birth? At his Bar Mitzvah? When he was baptized? By a priest in the temple where he read aloud?

Jesus WAS a Nazarene. Nazarenes didn't DO annionting.

They then changed back into their working clothes and resumed their labours until the evening. Sweating through exertion was not considered impure and they would not sanitize themselves by using fragrant oil as a cosmetic—oil was a defilement used other than functionally, for medicine or cooking. www.thenazareneway.com...

Besides, the last person to be annointing people, in way that the religious would acknowledge, would be a former prostitute who was supposedly possessed by 7 demons! LOL!

Besides that, feet weren't annointed, heads were!

It also means Messiah

More simplistic blather.

There is nothing, scriptural wise, that says Jesus would not have "allowed" its use, not that it matters, because Tacticus didn't live in Jesus' time, and what they called him 30 years after his death was hardly any of his concern.

BULL! The followers of Jesus were not called Christians during the lifetime of Tacticus. However, the cults of Chrestus among the slave population of Rome were high in number. These slaves posed a lot of problems that were easily mended by Nero's blame.

you've simply allowed yourself to be duped into believing it, because you'll accept any crackpot theory if you think it discredits Christianity.

The only people who keep on using those bogus citation as proof of the existence of "Jesus Christ" are desperate Christian apologetics who refuse to let go of their supersticious biases. They just keep repeating the same old debunked bogus citations over and over and over, as if they keep repeating it, the evidence against their case will go away. It won't.

There is NO evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ outside the Bible. Furthermore, the Bible story of Jesus' resurrection is highly contradictory, interpolated, questionable and full of holes. Even early "Christians" didn't all believe it.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Think of how many people today, wake up in morgues. There were so many accounts, in history, of people being buried alive that bell on ropes were installed in coffins. The "waking dead" is where the myths of zombies come from.

But the "nail in the coffin" to the "Jesus died" story is the fact that he was up and about, eating, walking, talking talking and telling people that he WASN'T was spirit! Dead men don't eat!

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Think of how many people today, wake up in morgues. There were so many accounts, in history, of people being buried alive that bell on ropes were installed in coffins. The "waking dead" is where the myths of zombies come from.

But the "nail in the coffin" to the "Jesus died" story is the fact that he was up and about, eating, walking, talking talking and telling people that he WASN'T was spirit! Dead men don't eat!

Then that kind of makes it a miracle. There is still room in this universe for miracles, isn't there?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Then that kind of makes it a miracle. There is still room in this universe for miracles, isn't there?

No, it makes it a mistake. There is no room for miracles that break the laws of the universe.

reply to post by WarminIndy



And your story doesn't prove that the Roman soldier was qualified to know that Jesus was alive or that he didn't make a mistake even if he were. And no amount of emotional outburst from you is going to change that. Sorry about your grandmother but don't let an emotional story get you all defensive towards people. And the two are hardly comparable stories. For one, we know who you are... well, sort of. You're not an anonymous unnamed person written about by another anonymous person. Second, the two experiences - yours and the Roman soldiers - are completely different in every single aspect.

Go take a breath and calm down or something. If you continue to act like a confrontational jerk on this thread I'm just gonna ignore you. Personally, after only being here a few days and seeing how some people act on these threads, I wish ATS had a block button like FB.

reply to post by adjensen

This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel.

A) "Probably," not "definitely."
B) Your full "source" says fluid, not blood and water which is what the Bible says. Big difference. Again, we are taking the word of an anonymous Roman soldier in an anonymously written story from 2000 years ago.