Noah's Ark. Fact or Fiction?

So, you know the word 'context', eh? I'm impressed.

Cornelisu Tacitus was a Roman historian and governor of Asia in A.D. 112. He was a personal friend of the historian Pliny the Younger. Tacitus, as a Roman government official and historian with acess to the government archives of Rome, confirmed many of the historical details in the Gospels.

For me Jesus or Christ it's the same person, if you want to follow the letter of the law then Christ is fine with me. He was the one that was crucified and under the authority of Pontius Pilate. And he was crucified as a criminal. Tacitus was not a friend to the Christian faith, in fact he hated Christians. Yet his account only confirms the Biblical account and exposses the Bible as true, and reveals to us that Christ was a real historical person and not just a myth as some would have us believe. Also, his account on the darkness at the time of Christ death on the cross also confirms the biblical account as true.

1) anybody who has been annointed or been believed to be annointed may go by the title "christ"

2) The historical accuratcy of the article you cited is being questioned, Mako has explained this quite well!

Well the point of the matter is if your honest with yourself you will see in all the writings of these ancient historians that Jesus Christ is the only one having a group of Jews in Rome that was giving the Emperors fits. If you recall, it was the Christians who were being fed to the lions in the colosseum.
And it was the Christians that were burned as human torches in Neros palace. So if your having a problem with what one ancient historian has stated, you are really going to have a problem with what many of the others have stated as well. Especially when it comes to their comments about the Christian faith. These historians for the most part took the side of Rome and cared little for the Christians of that time. Your problem, as I have stated before is they agree to much with the Biblical account, even though they hated Christians.

Actually, the people the Roamns truly hated were the rebellious jews. Which accounts for the massive attack on the Temple by Vaspasian's son and future emperor in 70AD. The temple was razed to the ground. And still the crazy jews didn't give up as can be seen by the subsequent siege of Masada. They were the pain in the ass for Romans. The Jesus philospfy of "turn the other cheek" and "Give unto Caeser what is Caesars and unto God what is Gods" couldn't have come at a better time for the Romans who were so beleagured in Palestine. This coincidence gives rise to conjecture that jesus was a roman invention. The fact that Christianity became the state religion subsequently and stemmed objections with horrific acts only leands credence to the conjecture.

Well the point of the matter is if your honest with yourself you will see in all the writings of these ancient historians that Jesus Christ is the only one having a group of Jews in Rome that was giving the Emperors fits. If you recall, it was the Christians who were being fed to the lions in the colosseum.
And it was the Christians that were burned as human torches in Neros palace. So if your having a problem with what one ancient historian has stated, you are really going to have a problem with what many of the others have stated as well. Especially when it comes to their comments about the Christian faith. These historians for the most part took the side of Rome and cared little for the Christians of that time. Your problem, as I have stated before is they agree to much with the Biblical account, even though they hated Christians.

the historically accuratcy of that is greatly questioned!

Well I'm sure the Romans had enought hate to go around, yet the Christians historically were hated especially, and Suetonius points that out to us. "The Christians were punished; a sort of men of a new and magical superstition."

Tacitus stated the Romans hated the Christians because they refused to worship the Gods of Rome and the Emperor.

Pliny the Younger complained that the Christian believers would not worship Emperor Trjan and would not curse their leader, Jesus Christ, even under extreme torture.

A very early confirmation of the truth of the crucifixion of Jesus is found in the writings of the pagan historian Thallus, in his Third History. The significance of this account from the middle of the first century. Thallus wrote his book in 52 A.D. and stated that the darkness totally covered the land at the time of the Passover in A.D. 32.

Reguardless if you believe the Bible or not, you will have a whole number of early historians that you will not be able to believe either. What do you do with these people? Even when some of them are on the side of Rome do you just write their stories off, becuase they agree with Scriptures?

It is greatly questioned mostly by people who donot what to believe the Bible, most of the recorded history by the Roman record is accepted. People so do not want to believe the Bible, that any historical writeing that would be embraced under any other condition, is quickly put on the hit list if it lends support to the Scriptures.

So the first recorded mention of jesus is 52years after his death, correct?

Does the recorded document use the name Jesus or is it another name like christ?

Let's look at the relevant sentence a bit closer:

....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....


Does this reference suggest that Jesus had a trial before the Sanhedrin, or that anyone except the Roman procurator was responsible for the sentence of death?

Nope.
____________

DATES

History places the reign of Tiberius between 14 and 37 AD.

Tacitus wasn't born until ~55 AD.

Therefore, Tacitus is not writing an eyewitness account, but is recording an oral tradition that has been passed on to him.

I believe there my of been earlier accounts such as the letters of Pontius Pilate. However, the original was accessible in the second century. It is quoted twice in the First Apology of Justin the Martyr, who had to explain Christianity in front of the emperor. He says:
And after Jesus was crucified they cast lots upon his vesture, and they that crucified him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the (Acts of Pontius Pilate.)
There are these words: At his coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about. And that he did those things, you can learn from the (Acts of Pontius Pilate.)

It is very unlikley that Justin, whose life was at stake, would have invented a fake report. Lying to the Emperor of Rome was not a wise thing to do, and that is why Justin kept pointing to the (Acts of Pontius Pilate.)

So are we to assume that if someones life is at stake they wouldn't lie to save that life?

So which person saw Jesus, Justin? What is the time line for this?

No letter gives the entire history of Christ life, but they give enought information to confirm statements and certain claims in the Bible are true.

this is partly why the record is under question among other reasons...

There is no doubt that Tacitus would still be able to talk with people who were there at the crucifiction.

no such eyewitness conversation or personal record form an eyewitness exists to date.

Anyone who was eighteen years old at the time of Christ death, would be about 65 years old when Tacitus was 25.

would, could, should, ......speculate all you want doesn't make it fact!

And Tacitus did have axcess to the Roman records.

No roman record of jesus exists to date!

:cool:

I believe there my of been earlier accounts such as the letters of Pontius Pilate. However, the original was accessible in the second century. It is quoted twice in the First Apology of Justin the Martyr, who had to explain Christianity in front of the emperor. He says:
And after Jesus was crucified they cast lots upon his vesture, and they that crucified him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the (Acts of Pontius Pilate.)
There are these words: At his coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about. And that he did those things, you can learn from the (Acts of Pontius Pilate.)

It is very unlikley that Justin, whose life was at stake, would have invented a fake report. Lying to the Emperor of Rome was not a wise thing to do, and that is why Justin kept pointing to the (Acts of Pontius Pilate.)

Justin a Roman Historian quoted from the Roman record, and the personal account of Pontius Pilate. So yes, we do have a personal record from the most important eyewitness of them all. And that extra Biblical account agrees with the Scripture.