How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As to a citation - well you have been rather grandly posturing about your expertise in Tacitus to St Frank, but apparently have not read it. Tacitus, volume 3 book XVI specifically refers to Nero's spies.

So first you refer to my ignorance of Tacitus by referring to a "volume 3 book xvi" that doesn't exist except in collections of the entire works of Tacitus which he never produced. Then you tell me I am not familiar with Tacitus' book Annales, chapter XVI, because you read some translation you came across which was poorly translated. There is no word for "spy" in Latin, and in general Tacitus describes Nero's use of his soldiers and guards using metaphors:

"In Tiberius' day, informers might be said to have been actors in that they gave false testimony (e.g., 4.36.3); In Nero's, however, genuine actors, such as Paris, are informers, and the charges they bring are just as false. Woodman has demonstrated hos Tacitus relates the Pisonian conspiracy with a mixed proliferation of theatrical imagery and terminology. Similar figures of speech are evident throughout the reign of Nero. For instance, when the emperor's conspirators trump up charges against Agrippina, Tacitus portrays them in theatrical terms..."
L'hoir, F. S. (2006). Tragedy, rhetoric, and the historiography of Tacitus' Annales. University of Michigan Press.

I can't be sure what translation you relied on, but some internet searching for free English translations revealed some which, in book XVI, chapter 5, of Annales, use the word "spies":
"For it was a graver ground of fear to be missing from the spectacle, since there was a host of spies openly present, and more in hiding, to note the names and faces, the gaiety and gloom, of the assembly." (source)

There is no word here that is translated as spies. The Latin refers to "multis palam et pluribus occultis" ("many known and more hiding") who were among the spectators of Nero's public performance so that the nomina ac vultus ("names and faces) of those who weren't adequately laudatory and receptive scrutarentur ("were carefully noted").

In other translations sometimes the spread of rumors about Nero by his personal security apparently made the translator decide that "spies" was best used to translate "bodyguards". Tacitus uses this same word to refer to the public stationing of soldiers/guards whose duty was also to note what they saw/heard just like modern security guards.


Most importantly, a translation I found that uses "spy" to describe Nero's own bodyguards who spread rumors about him are able to do so because he was an idiot who couldn't help but make a fool of himself. You're suggesting that because you read some translation of a language you can't read that describes informants, plots, and so forth in Rome means that Nero had some sort of network that informed him of a marginal and marginalized movement not yet really distinguished from the Jewish matrix it grew out of despite the fact that
1) Years later, Pliny's letters indicate both Trajan and Pliny didn't know what to make of these weird atheists who refused to practice the least required by religio-political law, but Nero was on the ball with his "intelligence agency"

2) That multiple emperors had consistently failed to predict massive revolts despite their "intelligence agencies" even after Roman governors we installed (and fired for ineptitude) to keep a closer eye on Jerusalem, but Nero was sufficiently informed about a particular "Jewish" sect/movement because of "spies".
&
3) Finally, that Nero's knowledge isn't far more easily explained by the infamy (and to a much lesser extent acceptance) of Christians thanks to the fact that unlike the "Hebrews/Jews" they were both proselytizers and sought to convert gentiles, unlike Jews, but whose religion was just as alien and in violation of law. Only Nero couldn't make scapegoats out of Christians if nobody knew who they were.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

I gave you a citation in Tacitus where he specifically refers to Nero's spies - that is the citation you asked for. The rest of your comment is just gibberish.

Nero had spies, all of the Emperors did - that was the rebuttal you gave addressed and the citation you asked for.

Nobody said that nobody knew about the Christians Legion, the point is that they were not a large or significant group at the time. Rome was full of different, sects, cults and so on at the time. Christianity was one of them.

Your attempt to argue that the word 'spies' in English translations of Tacitus means 'body guards' is about as pathetic a deflection as is possible.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

This 'yeah, but you don't speak Latin' appeal to your own authority that you throw at everyone is just tragic.

 

[Prophet]

Correct. And thanks for conceding it. The rest pf your comment is just babble.

Apparently, Bunyip has twisted the meaning of the word "concession" in his mind as well as he was actually reading an incredulous question. Add that to a long list of twistings that includes the word "historical", "contemporaneous", "primary and secondary sources", and I'm sure so many other I've missed.

 

[Bunyip]

Apparently, Bunyip has twisted the meaning of the word "concession" in his mind as well.

Gotta love how you give up instantly and resort to trolling.

Love even more that you think that is winning.

 

[Prophet]

Gotta love how you give up instantly and resort to trolling.

Love even more that you think that is winning.

What did I give up on? Did you offer debate?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

BOOK XVI.

Srcr. I. Nero is amused with hopes of finding great stores of hidden treasure in Africa; one Cesellius Bassus, deluded by his dreams, communicated the secret, and thence the wild prodigality of the prince—IV. The quinquennial games; Nero contends for the victory in song and eloquence; he mounts the public stage; Vespasian (afterwards emperor) in danger from*Nero’s spies*stationed in the playhouse—VI.

I should have read this first. You didn't even bother to quote a translation of Tacitus' Annales but relied on the authors summary of the chapters in book XVI of Annales.

However, the passage you refer to is the one I provided the Latin for and in which there is no word we can translated as spies because in Latin the adjectival use of the words for "many known and more in hiding" can imply "many persons in public and more hidden/in hiding" which, thanks to the fact that they "scrutinized" (the Latin word is actually the etymological basis for the English) those who didn't adequately applaud Nero's performance.

Your citation for evidence of any "intelligence agency" comes from a 19th century summary of Book 16 of Tacitus' Annnales in which he put his soldiers to work to tell him who didn't act like his performance was great. Do you suggest this is somehow evidence that Nero had an "intelligence agency" which informed him as to the existence and nature of a minority, marginalized and largely Jewish movement (differentiated mainly by outsiders at that point)? If so, why did he use them as scapegoats when (according to you) nobody knew of them?

Basically, in your version, Nero's intelligence network of spies gives him information about a little known movement/sect. He then takes this secret information from his "intelligence agency" and uses it to announce to the Roman populace that they shouldn't blame him for the disaster of the Great Fire, but rather that it was caused by a group they'd never heard of and thus couldn't have anything against and no reason to think responsible of anything. He was a brilliant master of HUMINT, but so stupid that he ought to shift blame to a group nobody had any reason to think did anything wrong instead of one of many hated groups available (including various Jewish sects or the Jews in general who had a history of revolt and violence against the empire dating back to when "the empire" was Greek).

And best yet, Tacitus specifically states that "To dispel the gossip Nero therefore found culprits on whom he inflicted the most exotic punishments. These were people hated for their shameful offences whom the common people called Christians"

So, brilliant spymaster Nero whom Tacitus describes as being duped by his own bodyguards has an intelligence network reaching so far that he knew of the obscure (to non-Jews/Christians) nuances of 1st century Jewish sects/movements, decided to use them as scapegoats for the massive fire despite the fact that you assert nobody even knew who they were, and he did so because (according to Tacitus) the people you describe as not knowing them "hated them for their shameful offences".

 

[Prophet]

Google "nero spies". Click link. Copy. Go to religiousforums.com. Spew ignorance. Paste "research".

Instant debate.

 

[Bunyip]

I should have read this first. You didn't even bother to quote a translation of Tacitus' Annales but relied on the authors summary of the chapters in book XVI of Annales.

However, the passage you refer to is the one I provided the Latin for and in which there is no word we can translated as spies because in Latin the adjectival use of the words for "many known and more in hiding" can imply "many persons in public and more hidden/in hiding" which, thanks to the fact that they "scrutinized" (the Latin word is actually the etymological basis for the English) those who didn't adequately applaud Nero's performance.

Your citation for evidence of any "intelligence agency" comes from a 19th century summary of Book 16 of Tacitus' Annnales in which he put his soldiers to work to tell him who didn't act like his performance was great. Do you suggest this is somehow evidence that Nero had an "intelligence agency" which informed him as to the existence and nature of a minority, marginalized and largely Jewish movement (differentiated mainly by outsiders at that point)? If so, why did he use them as scapegoats when (according to you) nobody knew of them?

Basically, in your version, Nero's intelligence network of spies gives him information about a little known movement/sect. He then takes this secret information from his "intelligence agency" and uses it to announce to the Roman populace that they shouldn't blame him for the disaster of the Great Fire, but rather that it was caused by a group they'd never heard of and thus couldn't have anything against and no reason to think responsible of anything. He was a brilliant master of HUMINT, but so stupid that he ought to shift blame to a group nobody had any reason to think did anything wrong instead of one of many hated groups available (including various Jewish sects or the Jews in general who had a history of revolt and violence against the empire dating back to when "the empire" was Greek).

And best yet, Tacitus specifically states that "To dispel the gossip Nero therefore found culprits on whom he inflicted the most exotic punishments. These were people hated for their shameful offences whom the common people called Christians"

So, brilliant spymaster Nero whom Tacitus describes as being duped by his own bodyguards has an intelligence network reaching so far that he knew of the obscure (to non-Jews/Christians) nuances of 1st century Jewish sects/movements, decided to use them as scapegoats for the massive fire despite the fact that you assert nobody even knew who they were, and he did so because (according to Tacitus) the people you describe as not knowing them "hated them for their shameful offences".

Legion, not a word of that addresses the point under contention. Nor did I say that nobody knew of the Christians - a misrepresentation I addressed in your prior post, and which you of course simply repeat anyway. In fact most of the post I quote above addresses that precise misconception of yours, gleefully unaware apparently of the fact that it was your own invention - and that had already been pointed out to you.

 

[Prophet]

So, brilliant spymaster Nero whom Tacitus describes as being duped by his own bodyguards has an intelligence network reaching so far that he knew of the obscure (to non-Jews/Christians) nuances of 1st century Jewish sects/movements, decided to use them as scapegoats for the massive fire despite the fact that you assert nobody even knew who they were, and he did so because (according to Tacitus) the people you describe as not knowing them "hated them for their shameful offences".

It sounds like you're up against something a lot like religious fanatics who'd assert God put so many clues against ID in nature to test their faith. With each evidence presented, both ID advocates and Jesus mythers "test their faith" by finding some way to reject the evidence they are presented with, be it science, source criticism, etc. Hell I even saw one idiot imply that because "story" is included inside the word "history" that history is permitted to contain mere stories.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

A citation for you: Policing the Roman Empire: Soldiers, Administration, and Public Order

Christopher J. Fuhrmann*- 2011

Look up 'Frumentarii', they were officials of the Roman Empire and acted as a secret service.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I gave you a citation in Tacitus where he specifically refers to Nero's spies

No, you referred me to a volume that didn't exist and the translator's short summaries of the contents of the upcoming chapter.

The rest of your comment is just gibberish.

Then I'll simplify. The reason there is no word for "spy" in Latin is because there was no such role. Rather, those in particular positions could be used at times to inform others either for pay or as part of their general service. There was no "intelligence agency" and there were not "agents" used to obtain information about a still basically, Jewish sect marginalized by other Jews who were collectively marginalized by both the Greek and Roman empires.

Instead, the Christians were not only known by gentiles but were named Christians by outsiders. Also, Nero used them as scapegoats because the Christians, as Tacitus says, were hated by the populous. Your spy hypothesis isn't just based on speculation and a commentary by a 19th century author, but ignores the quite blatant statement by Tacitus that Christians were generally known and disliked even at that time (before the canonical gospels were written).

Nero had spies, all of the Emperors did - that was the rebuttal you gave addressed and the citation you asked for.

You didn't give me a citation. You referred me to a short summary by a translator rather than the actual passage which describes Nero's vanity: he planted his soldiers to find out who didn't applaud him and you use this to support your claim here:

Based upon the fact that all Emperors throughout all of time have had intelligence gathering agencies.

and that Nero's "agency" that didn't exist and we have no evidence for is somehow a reason to think that this is why he blamed the Christians even though, according to you, nobody knew about them. On the other hand, Tacitus tells us the populous not only knew about them but disliked them, which he says is why Nero used them as scapegoats.

So on the one hand we have your quote-mining a translation and failing to actually quote the translated text, and on the other we have what Tacitus actually says.

Nobody said that nobody knew about the Christians Legion

The reality is that the majority of people simply didn't even know about the story - it was not popularised until much later.

Legion

I said:"That doesn't mean that it was common knowledge"

You reply: "Because Nero had some great intelligence agency as yet unknown to historians? How, do you imagine, that he learned of it?"

Of course Nero had an extensive intelligence agency, and it is well known to historians.

So Tacitus says that Nero blamed the Christians because the majority of the people hated them, but you think an "extensive intelligence agency", the existence of which you postulate based upon Nero's use of soldiers stationed among the spectators of his performance to report who didn't clap loud enough, is a better explanation for why the emperor of Rome knew about Christians while Paul was around and before all the gospels.

Rome was full of different, sects, cults and so on at the time.

I spent several posts describing religion as it existed in the ancient world apart from Judaism (in its later forms) and Christianity. In short, there was nothing like Christianity other than Judaism because there "religion" in the ancient world was about practice, which is what so confused Trajan and Pliny about the Christians' failure to save their lives by doing the least of religion.

Your attempt to argue that the word 'spies' in English translations of Tacitus means 'body guards' is about as pathetic a deflection as is possible.

Actually in the passage you refer to there is no word for spies.

It simply isn't there.

 

[Bunyip]

It sounds like you're up against something a lot like religious fanatics who'd assert God put so many clues against ID in nature to test their faith. With each evidence presented, both ID advocates and Jesus mythers "test their faith" by finding some way to reject the evidence they are presented with, be it science, source criticism, etc. Hell I even saw one idiot imply that because "story" is included inside the word "history" that history is permitted to contain mere stories.

Um. History is just the stories buddy. The word come from Old French estorie and literally means story, chronicle. Historians compile and study these stories - historicity is about connecting them to real people.

The first recorded usage in English was in 1390 and the meaning was, can you guess? A:STORY.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

*The reason there is no word for "spy" in Latin is because there was no such role.

One of the words for spy is frumentarii. The role of the frumentarii was spying. Not to forget other words like 'Curiosi' a class of spies, informers and secret police. A Curiosus is a member of that class.

See also CUSTOS and OTACUSTES both also Latin words for 'spy'.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Look up 'Frumentarii', they were officials of the Roman Empire and acted as a secret service.

"As their name implies, the frumentarii were, in origin, concerned with frumentum - with the supply of corn to the Roman armies."

Sinnigen, W. G. (1962). The Origins of the" Frumentarii". Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 211-224.

"Thus, the activities of the frumentarii etc. as tax gatherers should not solely be interpreted as part of a somewhat vaguely defined "militarization" of the eastern provinces, as Mitchell would have it. Rather, these activities can (also) be viewed as a fairly rational central government response to the problem of a shrinking tax income due to population decrease. This was a problem, of course, which was only aggravated by the fact that it occurred during a period when the government needed ever more money for troops to ward off the continuous and growing threats to the Empire's borders east and west. Not that the new tax system worked perfectly: we mostly know about the activities of the frumentarii, stationarii, and colletiones through (responses to) complaints by civilian and rural populations about illegal exactions and abuse at the hands of these very officials." (italics in original; emphases added)
Zuiderhoek, A. (2009). Government centralization in late second and third century AD Asia Minor: a working hypothesis. Classical World, 103(1), 39-51.

But let's go with some more sensationalist descriptions and find that you still are left with nothing:
"The term 'Secret Service' has several definitions. It can mean the detective service of government, a police force concerned with the internal security of the state, and when used to describe an institution of the Roman Empire, it may thus suggest the image of an ancient Gestapo, NKVD, or FBI. Actually, the resemblance between the Roman internal security police force and its modern counterparts, while close in some important particulars, is by no means complete. Accordingly, the expression "secret service" should be conceived as a convenient, if not perfectly descriptive, label for an ancient institution which has no exact modern parallel.
A secret service developed rather late in Roman history for several reasons...The agency that was to deserve the title of secret service first came into existence at some time shortly before A.D. 100, and one may with some confidence attribute its foundation to Domitian." (emphases added).
Sinnigen, W. G. (1961). The Roman secret service. Classical Journal, 65-72.

Notice that to the extent it is appropriate to ascribe to any force of antiquity the "expression 'secret service'" which "has no exact modern parallel", the founding of this imperfect parallel was after by a later emperor after Nero was long dead.


So, again, where is the evidence for an "intelligence agency" (not legionnaires whose role was more policing than anything else and even this role was one of many, the main one being supplying corn) informed Nero about the Christians when Tacitus tells us that the reason he blamed the Christians for the Great Fire was because the majority of the people disliked Christians?

And why, suddenly, are you citing scholarship (or trying to)? I thought this was nothing but an appeal to authority.

 

[Prophet]

Um. History is just the stories buddy. The word come from Old French estorie and literally means story, chronicle. Historians compile and study these stories - historicity is about connecting them to real people.

The first recorded usage in English was in 1390 and the meaning was, can you guess? A:STORY.

Bunyip is much too dense to realize that neither the words contained within its letters, nor word origin, nor any other agenda-oriented, idiomatic meaning he can generate have any bearing on something's technical usage, whether the subject is the meaning of the word "history", the meaning of the word "contemporaneous" or what comprises a primary source in ancient history.

This isn't the first, nor will it be the last time Bunyip victoriously gloats over a red herring.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

One of the words for spy is frumentarii.

The name comes from their role as food suppliers to the military, but over a few hundred years they became useful for military leaders and the emperor to assign to other duties. These included a kind of "military intelligence/police", but was never officially so and certainly not during Nero's time. Also, that isn't a Latin word. It's the nominative plural of frumentarius which means "corn".

The role of the frumentarii was spying.

No. Originally it was what the word suggests: corn. Later, it involved many functions which seems to include military intelligence/policing. They were not spies, because to the extent they served as intelligence agents it was as legionnaires who reported to their superiors about military operations, taxation issues, and unofficial policing, and similar functions. This is because as an "agency" they only official purpose they had was to supply food. They seem to have been used for many other things and were disbanded because they weren't an "intelligence agency" but used in an ad hoc fashion by multiple military and political officials, not just the emperor:


"It is undoubtedly true that the frumentarii were attached to a numerus frumentariorum based in Rome, complete with its own organization and officers. It is equally true that this centralized organization in Rome allowed them to be employed by the emperor for his own purposes. The Life of Hadrian tells the story of a frumentarius sent to eavesdrop on a prominent senator, and the frumentarii appear as imperial spies in the Lives of Macrinus and Claudius and as assassins in the service of the emperor in the Lives of Commodus, Iulianus and Niger as well as in a passage of Herodian describing an attempt by Septimius Severus to eliminate Clodius Albinus. It is clear that by the early third century they had acquired a thoroughly unsavoury reputation which evidently led to the disbanding of the corps..."

Rankov, N. B. (1990). Frumentarii, the Castra Peregrina and the provincial officia. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 176-182.

Not to forget other words like 'Curiosi' a class of spies

"As detectives, the unofficial epithet curiosi- "snoops" or "busybodies" - was probably applied to them by about A.D. 200."
Sinnigen, W. G. (1961). The Roman secret service. Classical Journal, 65-72.

The word "Curiosi" is simply again a form of the word curiosus, whence comes "curious" and which meant "attentive" or "diligent". Once again, there was no actual agency.

A Curiosus is a member of that class.

Actually it's an adjective. You should read Suetonius more carefully (and learn Latin).

See also CUSTOS

Already described. I was waiting for you to indicate you had no clue what word I was describing the meaning of.

and OTACUSTES both also Latin words for 'spy'.

Actually it's a rare transliteration of the Greek word ὠτακουστής, meaning "eavesdropper".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Nor did I say that nobody knew of the Christians - a misrepresentation I addressed in your prior post, and which you of course simply repeat anyway.

I didn't claim you said "nobody knew."

Legion, that is just painfully, heartbreakingly stupid. No I do not need to show evidence that the Jesus story was not well known at the time - that is just a ridiculous objection. If you need a citation for that, you are beyond help.

My claim was "painfully...stupid" because I asserted (among other things) that when an Emperor knows of a marginalized, largely still Jewish sect/movement is sufficiently familiar with it to use its members as scapegoats it is evidence that the movement was well-known. You respond by various obscure references to Latin texts you can't read and Latin words you don't know, a 19th century summary of a chapter from Tacitus' Annales that you inaccurately described as a chapter in "volume 3" of Tacitus in order to explain Nero's knowledge. Tacitus, however, says quite clearly that not only did the majority know of Christians- he tells us that most of the people disliked/hated them and that this is why Nero used them as a scapegoat (not because of any "intelligence agency" you've thus far managed to support by using plural forms of the words "corn", "attentive", "guard", and "eavesdropper".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't know if he existed or not. I've been doing research on this for years and I'm not convinced he did exist since no conclusive evidence has been offered, although I accept the possibility that someone did exist who inspired the Christian writings, or maybe even multiple people inspired those writings. The jury is still out, for me. I don't make up my mind based on consensuses. I have to personally be convinced of something in order to agree with it.

Im not sure exactly what will be needed to convince you, then...you have at least 5 historical sources that all indepedently mention either Jesus, or the early Christians...plus you have the letters of Paul, who was contemporary. Again, I must continue to emphasize that we are not talking about the heavy stuff yet...we are talking about historically, from a historical perspective, do we have enough to be convinced that Jesus of Nazareth, the man, existed...not the "God", or the "angel" or the "walking zombie"...but just the man.

Christianity would have never gotten off the ground if the "man" never existed. The earliest letters of Paul are dated between the late 40's AD to the early to mid 50's AD, and he spoke about Jesus, and he was a contemporary source. He was there during the time and geographical location, and if Jesus never existed he would have never converted to Christianity.

Again, at least 5 non-Christian sources which mentions Jesus, and of those 5, only Josephus' account has been interpolated...and even if you remove the interpolations, you still are left with a historical Jesus. The other accounts besides Tactius' are uncontroversial.

So what about Tacitus' account? If a Christian interpolated it, I would expect the same obvious theological babble in Tacitus' account that we've found in Jospehus' account. But guess what? We have no such implications. Any time Jesus/Christ is mentioned anywhere, someone can always say "That passage was interpolated by Christians!!!", as if it is down right impossible for any non-Christian to even mention Jesus/Christ.

If the only record we have of Jesus was from the Gospels/Bible, skeptics would say, "if Jesus was so cool, how come he is not mentioned anywhere outside of the Bible?", but we have 5 sources that mentions him outside of the Bible, now all of a sudden, that isn't good enough either?

Foolishness.

I have showed you that the line didn't say anything about "Christians" and this is based on evidence.

Well, according to my "evidence", the line did say "Christians". The only beef with this passage is whether "Chrestus" refers to Jesus Christ or not...which doesn't really matter to me, because I was only using Suetonius' account as evidence for early persecutions of Christians, not as a way to establish Jesus as historical.

Now you are basically admitting that you refuse to accept evidence contrary to your beliefs.

Actually, no I am not. As it was proven to you in a earlier post, for every link that you can give me against my position, I can give you a link which supports my position...so I will ask you again...at that rate.....who wins?

You are not interested in truth

That is completely false...because I am interested in Jesus Christ...and Jesus Christ is the truth..John 14:6 "I am the WAY...the Truth...and the light."

, as you've demonstrated in discussions on so many other topics besides this one, so I'm not interested in talking to you.

Good, one less person to intellectually spank.

You are just an apologist, a propagandist, and a hard-headed one at that.

No, I don't "apologize" for being a Christian. Hahahahha

 

[Sapiens]

Im not sure exactly what will be needed to convince you, then...you have at least 5 historical sources that all indepedently mention either Jesus, or the early Christians...plus you have the letters of Paul, who was contemporary. Again, I must continue to emphasize that we are not talking about the heavy stuff yet...we are talking about historically, from a historical perspective, do we have enough to be convinced that Jesus of Nazareth, the man, existed...not the "God", or the "angel" or the "walking zombie"...but just the man.

Sorry, it'd take two contemporaneous sources ... there are none.

Christianity would have never gotten off the ground if the "man" never existed. The earliest letters of Paul are dated between the late 40's AD to the early to mid 50's AD, and he spoke about Jesus, and he was a contemporary source. He was there during the time and geographical location, and if Jesus never existed he would have never converted to Christianity.

Four unsupported claims and one fallacious one.

Again, at least 5 non-Christian sources which mentions Jesus, and of those 5, only Josephus' account has been interpolated...and even if you remove the interpolations, you still are left with a historical Jesus. The other accounts besides Tactius' are uncontroversial.

None are contemporaneous.

So what about Tacitus' account? If a Christian interpolated it, I would expect the same obvious theological babble in Tacitus' account that we've found in Jospehus' account. But guess what? We have no such implications. Any time Jesus/Christ is mentioned anywhere, someone can always say "That passage was interpolated by Christians!!!", as if it is down right impossible for any non-Christian to even mention Jesus/Christ.

A shaky claim that rests on part on a question as to was it an "e" or an "I" that was written or was it later edited ... give us all a brake, that's the best you can offer up?

If the only record we have of Jesus was from the Gospels/Bible, skeptics would say, "if Jesus was so cool, how come he is not mentioned anywhere outside of the Bible?", but we have 5 sources that mentions him outside of the Bible, now all of a sudden, that isn't good enough either?

Non contemporaneous, and (not that it matters) I count three (without Josephus).

Foolishness.

You said it.

Well, according to my "evidence", the line did say "Christians". The only beef with this passage is whether "Chrestus" refers to Jesus Christ or not...which doesn't really matter to me, because I was only using Suetonius' account as evidence for early persecutions of Christians, not as a way to establish Jesus as historical.

That's quite a jump.

Actually, no I am not. As it was proven to you in a earlier post, for every link that you can give me against my position, I can give you a link which supports my position...so I will ask you again...at that rate.....who wins?

Links in and of themselves are meaningless, it is the quality of the source and none of the sources rise (in reality) to the rank of a primary source.

That is completely false...because I am interested in Jesus Christ...and Jesus Christ is the truth..John 14:6 "I am the WAY...the Truth...and the light."

You have a strange way of showing it ... both stubborn and irrational.

Good, one less person to intellectually spank.

You think you have intellectually spanked anyone? Guess again.

No, I don't "apologize" for being a Christian. Hahahahha

You should apologize to every other person who claims to be a Christian.