The start of the Jesus story

[MrMacSon]

... the Jews expected their Christ, their Messianic ruler... Tacitus himself wrote about the fact ...

Tacitus' Histories 5.13

... there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judæa, were to acquire universal empire.

The association or identification of Melchizedek with a/the Messiah predates Christianity, developing in Second Temple period Jewish messianism.

The last section of the Second Book of Enoch (a Jewish sectarian work dated to the 1st century AD) is 'the Exaltation of Melchizedek' which tells how Melchizedek was born of a virgin, Sofonim (or Sopanima), the wife of Nir, a brother of Noah. The child came out from his mother after she had died and sat on the bed beside her corpse, already physically developed, clothed, speaking and blessing the Lord, and marked with the badge of priesthood. Forty days later, Melchizedek was taken by the archangel Gabriel (Michael in some manuscripts) to the Garden of Eden and was thus preserved from the Deluge without having to be in Noah's Ark. See

• https://web.archive.org/web/20100129084 ... noch7.html

• The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (W.R. Morfill)

• https://www.scribd.com/doc/14387249/Melchizedek

Gnostic scripts in the Nag Hammadi library contain a tractate proposing Melchizedek is Jesus Christ. Melchizedek, as Jesus Christ, lives, preaches, dies and is resurrected, in a gnostic perspective. Coming of the Son of God Melchizedek speaks of his return to bring peace, supported by God, and he is a priest-king who dispenses justice. See http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/melchiz.html

And of course, the association of Melchizedek with Christ is made explicit in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Melchizedek the "king of righteousness" and "king of peace" is explicitly associated with the "eternal priesthood" of the Son of God.

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

Saying that--that "Tacitus did not write about an expected Messiah to come"--is beyond disingenuous

I was referring to Tacitus' Annals 15.44:

But Tacitus did not write about an expected Messiah to come: according to Tacitus, before Nero's reign, Christ had already emerge and then died during the reign of Tiberius, under Pilate's rule:

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

I was referring to Tacitus' Annals 15.44

• But I wasn't, and nor was hakeem. And no doubt you will keep shit-posting shit

[Bernard Muller]

to hakeem,

In Cassius Dio "Roman History" it appears that Jerusalem did exist and that Jews were living there but the name was changed in the time of Hadrian sometime around c 130 CE or before the Jewish revolt by Simon Bar Kochba.

NO, it does not appears this way: the one which had been razed to the ground was Jerusalem, and its utter destruction was done in 70 CE.
According to Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69, 12.1

At Jerusalem he founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there.

So maybe the temple of Jupiter started to be built or had been built, but when the Jews took control of Jerusalem, it would be destroyed. Anyway, there was anything Jewish to defend.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

I was referring to Tacitus' Annals 15.44

• But I wasn't, and nor was hakeem. And no doubt you will keep shit-posting shit

I made clear (but not clear enough for you) I was referring to Annals 15.44."

But Tacitus did not write about an expected Messiah to come: according to Tacitus, before Nero's reign, Christ had already emerge and then died during the reign of Tiberius, under Pilate's rule:
"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

An expected Messiah to come in the late 60's. A Messiah who already came around 30 CE but was killed (but believed to be resurrected): two different Messiahs

About that shit, how many times I have been proven wrong: very few times, and mostly on details.

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

I made clear (but not clear enough for you) I was referring to Annals 15.44."
About that shit, how many times I have been proven wrong: very few times, and mostly on details.

You responded to a point about Tacitus Histories 5.13 by deflecting to Annals 15.44.

To avoid the point about Histories 5.13. Which you've now done repeatedly.

Thinking you can then take the high road, repeatedly, is extremely arrogant to the point of being malignant narcissism.

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

You responded to a point about Tacitus Histories 5.13 by deflecting to Annals 15.44.

To avoid the point about Histories 5.13. Which you've now done repeatedly.

hakeem dropped this expected Messiah in the late 60's with no explanation why that would interfere with Tacitus' Annals 15.4 and no request I comment on that.
As for myself, I see no connection between the two Messiahs, one who came and was killed and one expected one generation later.
I have no reason to get engaged on this.
Maybe hakeem should explain to us why that expected Messiah would affect the one of Annals.

Thinking you can then take the high road, repeatedly, is extremely arrogant to the point of being malignant narcissism.

On that very minor issue, you have committed the heavy artillery . Maybe you are confusing me with Cora

Cordially, Bernard

[cora]

B, I think he was talking to you. Since you have nothing to say, you decide to divert the attention to someone else, who is not even participating in the whole discussion. This is actually behind my back, and mean. A new trait of your character I am afraid. Any conversation between us is hereby excluded. I suppose apologizing is not a part of your personality.

You obviously do not know from earlier discussions here that the name Jesus was invented by Justin Martyr, referring to the Jesus in exodus (the new name for Joshua in the LXX). So that is where the Jesus story starts. If I saw it right, he also replaced Chrestos with Christos. So that is where the Messiah story starts. And he invented the cross and the crucifixion (before a stake). By forgery of a psalm. This psalm is subsequently used for the crucifixion stories of the gospels. So you have to thank Justin for a lot from your fake-stories. How do you call them again? Ancient sources? Evidence?
You simply think that ancient means true. It has been written so long ago, it MUST BE true. It MUST BE evidence. Ever heard of source criticism? I learned it already at school, to do to greek texts. I didn't think you would. Just repeating ancient texts and taking them as 100% true, without knowing anything else about the time, the developments, the religions, the surroundings, the motivations, that is not evidence, that is just lack of any sense of history, and therefore extraordinary stupid. So what I do outside the sources, which is called historical study, which always must be done otherwise you sources mean nothing, you have indeed the arrogance to call speculation. Because it is information from outside the Christian scriptures, which makes me not a real historian. You must have ancient sources, otherwise you have no evidence. I don't know where you went to school, but here we do it my way. I must say you are not the only one, it is full of them, but you are the most outspoken and mean. This stupidity is why nothing gets solved for a 100 years now. Not because it cannot be, but because it is stopped and prevented and laughed at by the likes of you and all the other assholes of your sort. I must say this talking about Justin Martyr is an eye-opener. But it did not happen before 70!! Well, nothing happened before 70.

[MrMacSon]

to MrMacSon,

You responded to a point about Tacitus Histories 5.13 by deflecting to Annals 15.44.

To avoid the point about Histories 5.13. Which you've now done repeatedly.

hakeem dropped this expected Messiah in the late 60's with no explanation why that would interfere with Tacitus' Annals 15.4 and no request I comment on that.

1. hakeem posted the opening post of this thread: viewtopic.php?p=120432#p120432

2. you responded ie. engaged thus

to hakeem,

There was no new Jewish religion known to Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius where thousands of Jews were worshiping a Galilean as a God.

That's one of the reasons why Tacitus & Suetonius wrote the religion of the Christians during the rule of Nero was a mischievous superstition. Pliny the Younger, who met 1st century ex-Christians, said he was dealing with a "depraved, excessive superstition", whose members were singing a "hymn to Christ as to a god".

a. I don't think you addressed his point ie. about there being no records of Jews worshipping *a Galilean person* in the 1st to early 2nd centuries


3. hakeem responded thus

You keep forgetting that the Jews expected their Christ, their Messianic ruler, during the reign of Nero. Tacitus himself wrote about the fact that Jews believed their prophesied Christ [Messianic ruler] would be revealed precisely in Nero's reign. The fire in Rome during the reign of Nero occurred at around the time the Jews expected their prophesied Christ.

Tacitus never wrote about Jesus of Nazareth or believers in Jesus of Nazareth, but about Jews who believed in their prophesied Christ [Messiah] who would emerge sometime in the reign of Nero.

Tacitus' Histories 5.13

Some few put a fearful meaning on these events, but in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judæa, were to acquire universal empire.

These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth.

The ancient records of the Jews contained no prediction of a Jewish Christ or expected Jewish Christ in the time of Pilate called Jesus of Nazareth which is corroborated also by Josephus' War of the Jews 6 and Suetonius' Life of Vespasian..

The story of Jesus of Nazareth started after it was realized that the Jews were deceived into believing their Christ [Messianic ruler] would emerge in the time of Nero after the Jews lost the War and their Temple destroyed.

4. you responded to that^ post in part thus

to hakeem,

You keep forgetting that the Jews expected their Christ, their Messianic ruler, during the reign of Nero. Tacitus himself wrote about the fact that Jews believed their prophesied Christ [Messianic ruler] would be revealed precisely in Nero's reign. The fire in Rome during the reign of Nero occurred at around the time the Jews expected their prophesied Christ.

Tacitus never wrote about Jesus of Nazareth or believers in Jesus of Nazareth but about Jews who believed in their prophesied Christ [Messiah] who would emerge sometime in the reign of Nero.

But Tacitus did not write about an expected Messiah to come: according to Tacitus, before Nero's reign, Christ had already emerge and then died during the reign of Tiberius, under Pilate's rule:

• "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

b. what I have bolded is a denial of the excerpt of Tacitus Histories 5.13 that hakeem had posted and which you had also failed to include in your quote of hakeem's post. (You did address some other points which hakeem had made and they were fair responses.)


5. hakeem responded again, in part, thus

I just showed you Tacitus' Histories 5.13. which is corroborated by Josephus and Suetonius ...

and

... Josephus admitted the Jews were deceived after the they lost the War and the Temple destroyed.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4

But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

c. What I have bolded was a reasonable point. As is the quote from Josephus' War.


6. You responded with commentary about Annals 15.44 and made reasonable reference to Sulpitius Severus in Sacred History thus

Sulpitius Severus in Sacred History only wrote a short condensed rendition of part of the "Christian" passage of Tacitus. You cannot expect to see in Severus all the details showing in Tacitus.

d. I have noted in another thread that

Arthur Drews proposed, 100 yrs ago, that this passage, Sulpitius Severus Sacred History 2.29, dated ~ 400-402 AD/CE, and the relevant parts of Annals 15.44, generally attributed to the author that the whole of Annals is attributed to, Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (c. AD 56 – c. 120), were written/inserted at the same time and probably by Sulpitius Severus (though it could have been by someone else).

The fact there is little if any provenance for Annals 15,44 -indeed for the whole of Annals- other than this 'reflection' in Sulpitius Severus Sacred History 2.29 raises doubts about the veracity of Annals 15,44 as does the fact that Tacitus namesake, Marcus Claudius Tacitus Augustus; (c. 200 – June 276), Roman Emperor briefly from 275 to 276, is said to have had a fascination with propagating works attributed to the earlier Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus.

7. hakeem wrote a general post about his position: viewtopic.php?p=120498#p120498

8. you responded to that post in part thus

to hakeem,

In my earlier posts it is shown that no independent writer mentioned any new Jewish religion where thousands of Jews were worshiping a Galilean called Jesus as a God or a Messianic ruler

Argument from silence.

and that Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all admitted that the Jews expected their Christ, their Messiah, in the time of Nero.

The Messiah of the Christians had died in the reign of Tiberius. He could not have been the expected Messiah in the late 60's, one generation after.
.

9. hakeem responded but did not [re]address those points viewtopic.php?p=120503#p120503


e. I weighed in pointing out hakeem's point based on Tacitus Histories 5.13; basically saying it was a good one and you were disingenuous for ignoring it, viewtopic.php?p=120518#p120518


As for this -

As for myself, I see no connection between the two Messiahs, one who came and was killed and one expected one generation later.
Maybe hakeem should explain to us why that expected Messiah would affect the one of Annals.

f. The connections are

1. there weren't two messiahs. There was only an account by Tacitus of a proposition that "rulers, coming from Judæa, were to acquire universal empire." (Histories 5.13)
2. the account in Tacitus Annals 15.44 is of dubious veracity with respect to it being an actual account Jesus of Nazareth
3. the proposition that the narratives about Jesus of Nazareth developed as a response to and/or in lieu of a failure of said "rulers from Judea" to eventuate.

[MrMacSon]

Justin Martyr First Apology V

For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (the Word, Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue.

ie. 'reason (Logos) prevailed ... Reason (the Word, Logos) Himself...took shape and became man, and was called Jesus Christ"

Justin Martyr First Apology 31

There were, then, among the Jews certain men who were prophets of God, through whom the prophetic Spirit published beforehand things that were to come to pass, ere ever they happened. And their prophecies, as they were spoken and when they were uttered, the kings who happened to be reigning among the Jews at the several times carefully preserved in their possession, when they had been arranged in books by the prophets themselves in their own Hebrew language. And when Ptolemy king of Egypt formed a library, and endeavoured to collect the writings of all men, he heard also of these prophets, and sent to Herod, who was at that time king of the Jews, requesting that the books of the prophets be sent to him. And Herod the king did indeed send them, written, as they were, in the foresaid Hebrew language. And when their contents were found to be unintelligible to the Egyptians, he again sent and requested that men be commissioned to translate them into the Greek language. And when this was done, the books remained with the Egyptians, where they are until now. They are also in the possession of all Jews throughout the world; but they, though they read, do not understand what is said, but count us foes and enemies ... In these books, then, of the prophets, we found Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin, growing up to man's estate, and healing every disease and every sickness, and raising the dead, and being hated, and unrecognised, and crucified, and dying, and rising again, and ascending into heaven, and being, and being called, the Son of God.