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.
You can find various anwers to your procurator bvs prefect objection at the following website.
Procurator vs. Prefect: An Ineffectual Argument Against Tacitus (http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/procurator-vs-prefect-an-ineffectual-argument-against-tacitus/comments - broken link)
JP Holding is an arse. I know, I've had enough dealings with this 'Bible apologist'. He claims in your link (as he has done for years, despite various and numerous scholars of history proving he is wrong) that....
"Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D."
Bull!!The Pilate Stone confirms that Pilate's title was 'Prefect' not 'Procurator'. The office of Procurator for governors of Judaea was not established until 44CE (Cuspius Fadus being the first) so we can see that Holding's claim, that Pilate held both titles, is utter nonsense. There was no such title when Pilate was in office (26-36CE). Not until 44CE was there an office of 'Procurator' so Pilate couldn't have held the title.
That, 'Radrook', is how scholars are able to ascertain that the Tacitus passege is a forgery. At the time it was forged, the title of Procurator, DID exist for the office that Pilate had held between 26-36CE. Unfortunately for them, the Christian forgers didn't know their political history well enough and thought that the title 'Procurator' (as used in their time) had always been in use.
One just has to wonder why, if Christianity is 'true', it is associated with so much forgery, deception and lies.
I would respectfully suggest that you read the whole of this thread before making further copy and pastes from apologist websites. Most if not all of your claims have been already addressed in this thread....making the same claims again and again aren't going to make them come true.
I'm a little more cautious about Tacitus on the Christians. It is very tempting for those who want to relegate Jesus to a Tammuz - myth to dismiss any mention in histories of the time as forgeries. But I have to say that the Tacitus mention is the best such evidence for a Historical Jesus. In fact it is really the only historical mention which stands up.
Josephus is demonstrably a forgery - in both mentions Suetonius is doubtful in that it is not certain that the 'Jews' rioting at the instigation of 'Chreshtus' were anything to do with Christians at all. Thallus, Julius Africanus and Phlegon are just later speculations about the crucifixion darkness being an eclipse. They have no useful evidence to give for a historical Jesus at all. Tacitus and Possibly Suetonius are the only non - Biblical sources of the time to give any support to a historical Jesus.
However, even if they do, Suetonius only shows that Christians were around in Rome in the time of Claudius and Tacitus shows that they were around in Rome at the time of Nero.
While Prefect and Procurator are not as interchangeable as the apologists imply, I don't have a problem with Tacitus, writing at a time when Judea was ruled by procurators, put down Pilate as a procurator. After all they both did the same job.
The sentiments of the passage don't bother me either. While there is some evident sympathy for the victims it hardly implies a fellow - believer but more someone at pains to show up Nero's brutality.
It certainly is surprisingly early for Christians to be around in such numbers in Rome and with such a poor reputation, but we must recall that Paul had been visiting and writing to the existent churches for what - twenty - odd years?
The Council of Jerusalem (Gal 2 1-10 and Acts 15) was around 50 AD and Nero's fire 64 AD.
I would like to know more about that passage not being known until the 15th century. That after all is a strong argument against the Flavian testament (not known 'till 3rd century).
But even if Tacitus is genuine, all it says is that Pilate has someone executed who a lot of people took to be the messiah. I personally don't have any great historical or religious objection to that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-15-2011 at 06:16 AM..
I'm a little more cautious about Tacitus on the Christians. It is very tempting for those who want to relegate Jesus to a Tammuz - myth to dismiss any mention in histories of the time as forgeries. But I have to say that the Tacitus mention is the best such evidence for a Historical Jesus. In fact it is really the only historical mention which stands up.
My dear old chap...absolutely elated to see that you are back posting.
Now, IMO, Tacitus is no more evidence for an historical Jesus than is Josephus, Suetonius et al. All Tacitus is doing is relating stories about Christians who believed in someone called Jesus... don't you think old beast?
I'm a little more cautious about Tacitus on the Christians. It is very tempting for those who want to relegate Jesus to a Tammuz - myth to dismiss any mention in histories of the time as forgeries. But I have to say that the Tacitus mention is the best such evidence for a Historical Jesus. In fact it is really the only historical mention which stands up.
Josephus is demonstrably a forgery - in both mentions Suetonius is doubtful in that it is not certain that the 'Jews' rioting at the instigation of 'Chreshtus' were anything to do with Christians at all. Thallus, Julius Africanus and Phlegon are just later speculations about the crucifixion darkness being an eclipse. They have no useful evidence to give for a historical Jesus at all. Tacitus and Possibly Suetonius are the only non - Biblical sources of the time to give any support to a historical Jesus.
However, even if they do, Suetonius only shows that Christians were around in Rome in the time of Claudius and Tacitus shows that they were around in Rome at the time of Nero.
While Prefect and Procurator are not as interchangeable as the apologists imply, I don't have a problem with Tacitus, writing at a time when Judea was ruled by procurators, put down Pilate as a procurator. After all they both did the same job.
The sentiments of the passage don't bother me either. While there is some evident sympathy for the victims it hardly implies a fellow - believer but more someone at pains to show up Nero's brutality.
It certainly is surprisingly early for Christians to be around in such numbers in Rome and with such a poor reputation, but we must recall that Paul had been visiting and writing to the existent churches for what - twenty - odd years?
The Council of Jerusalem (Gal 2 1-10 and Acts 15) was around 50 AD and Nero's fire 64 AD.
I would like to know more about that passage not being known until the 15th century. That after all is a strong argument against the Flavian testament (not known 'till 3rd century).
But even if Tacitus is genuine, all it says is that Pilate has someone executed who a lot of people took to be the messiah. I personally don't have any great historical or religious objection to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
My dear old chap...absolutely elated to see that you are back posting.
Now, IMO, Tacitus is no more evidence for an historical Jesus than is Josephus, Suetonius et al. All Tacitus is doing is relating stories about Christians who believed in someone called Jesus... don't you think old beast?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescityleon
......any fool can say that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Then why don't you prove Chango wrong??
I am pleased to see Arequipa posting again . . . and his more moderate stance is encouraging. Rafius could take a clue from it and back off his unwarranted atheist arrogance . . . but that would probably be expecting a bit much from an old rocker.
Why was this particular Tacitus passage not mentioned or quoted by any of the early Church fathers, including Tertullian, Clement and Eusebius? Even though they quoted extensively from Tacitus?
Can you give a source for this, i.e., "quoted extensively from Tacitus"? Can you give an example of such quotes from Tacitus? Do we know they had copies of the "Annals"? or any of Tacitus?
Zombie thread alert...boy, I do wish that Rafius would resurrect..
Now that lists of 'Bible Discrepancies' are of limited value in the debate, a list of 'Christianity -related quotes from Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, et al in the Church fathers' writings.' would be very valuable.
This site has has useful insights.
Although a number of writers and apologists have argued that Justin Martyr is the first Christian writer to be cognizant of the canonical gospels, in reality Martyr does not quote from the New Testament texts but apparently uses one or more of the same sources employed in the creation of the gospels, as well as other texts long lost. Furthermore, no other writer subsequent to Martyr shows any awareness of the existence of the gospels until around the year 180. It should also be noted that Martyr 's works did not escape the centuries of mutilation and massive interpolation done to virtually every ancient author's works, which makes the disentanglement all that more difficult. Yet, even as it stands, Justin 's writing still does not demonstrate knowledge of the canonical gospels.
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.
Nice bluff
