The Resurrection of Jesus - did it really happen?

makes sense, if someone translated my name and then tries to address me by that name, I would have no clue who the heck he was referring to, cause that "translation" would not be my name

mo mater where I travel, my name remains the same, it doesn't get said differently in different countries languages as I travel

 

Still don't get it do you? The Tacitus passage by all accounts is authentic not a problem. His account is what they would call a Secondary source. He is not a contemporary nor a primary source for a jesus.

Secondary sources provide interpretation and analysis of primary sources. Secondary sources are one step removed from the original event or "horse's mouth.

All you see is the mention of the word Christus so you automatically assume Tacitus is confirming a jesus this was not to provide evidence of the historicity of Jesus but to promote the idea that Nero persecuted Christians for burning Rome. Could Tacitus have gotten his info from Pliny? Possible. But even that is no conformation of a jesus. Pliny had the same problem with christians and wrote several letters to Trajan on how to handle the new cult:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

Read Pliny's letter to Trajan here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pliny-trajan1.asp

What could Tacitus have possibly drawn from this? Pliny refers to christians as a cult, mentions them praying to a christ as if he were a god....another secondary source from the horses mouth....in other words Tacitus and Pliny though both make reference to a christ are to far removed from the event to be of any help confirming a jesus ever lived. Mentioning it is not fact.

 

So are the secondary sources maybe 20 years later?

 

Jesus is a god-man .....all Mysteries had a god-man. Dionysus story is Christs story.

The story is symbolic. It is the first initiation story, to be interpreted by the pupil in their own words ....if the coded symbolism within the story is properly understood the pupil can be initiated as an immortal.

It is to do with casting off the fundimental/material and starting the journey to self awarness and becoming a Christ. There have been many Christs as there have been many Buddhas and so on.

Within true Christianity was a Goddess called Sophia, the lamp to light our way.

 

Pliny comes along in 62 some 30 years later...Tacitus comes along in 56 some 26 years later....Christ is not a name it's a title! It was a common name then...Pope Hadrian wrote in about 134 CE:

Serapis was a Greco-Egyptian god.....

It does not matter when Tacitus or Pliny came along.The Neronian persecution of Christians in all of Tacitus writings the Annals 15:44 is the only one where he mentions a Christ, again a title and a common name then.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.VI.37.html

In Acts 28:30-31 Paul was avidly preaching in Rome at the time yet he makes no mention of any such persecution...Eusebius (AD 263 – 339) speaks of this persecution but never refers to the Annals 15:44 passage.....did he know about it?

Christians in their haste to prove an HJ have to look nearly a hundred years after to find even the slightest mention of their god man.

 

Perfect question for the perfect person..

I hope the giftedone will enlighten us all about this evidence. Sometimes posts get overlooked so I thought I might give it a little bump.

 

Playing Devil's Advocate here.
Jesus has become the name that holds the power, even if His real name was Fred.
Just like Marion Morrison does not command much awe, but John Wayne does, at least to some.

 

If the name doesn't matter then the phrase doesn't matter.

God gave you His name YHWH. It is through His titles that we are to learn of His character. Elohim, majesty as it relates to justice, and intimates plurality supporting the trinity. El Shaddai, God the destroyer. YHWH Shalom, the God of peace. YHWH Jireh, God the provider. Adonai. El Elyon. YHWH Tsidkenu... there are many titles God gave himself, and they all bear meaning and importance. From scripture we see:

Leviticus 13
2 “Tell Aaron and his sons that they must deal respectfully with the holy offerings of the Israelites, which they consecrate to me, so that they do not profane my holy name. I am the Lord."

John 1
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Matt 18
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Acts goes on rather a lot about the importance of worshiping in the name of Jesus. Of course my biggest gun would be that not using His name in vain is one of the 10 commandments. That at least indicates that such is important. More important than, say, not raping.

This is America, where names are meaningless. Robert has no hidden meaning. Steve doesn't mean a thing. God's names are titles and of profound profound importance.

Jesus doesn't MEAN anything... and Christ means the anointed one, messiah.
Yehoshûa means YHWH is salvation!

 

I would be very interested in seeing what you constitute as good evidence.

 

And yet with all that, when Moses wants to know God's name, He answers with the simple "I am". A rejection of what He is called in favor of what He is.
Food for thought.

 

He answers "I Will Be What I Will Be", represented by the tetragrammaton YHWH... and this is the true name of God. Exodus 6.
1 Then the Lord said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land.

2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

 

In Exodus 3:14 it is translated in just about every English translation of the bible as "I AM THAT I AM" and Moses is instructed to tell his people "I AM hath sent me unto you".
It seems that the great power is less hung up on this than you are.

 

This is my point... the transliteration of the bible loses its meaning. That is a bad translation. הָיָה = hayah = will be.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H1961&t=KJV

Note every use (Strongs 1961) in the bible except this terrible translation, is either future tense of something coming or the past participle of what came to be, but never simply IS, as in I am. It speaks to His permanence and inability to be affected by other forces... not "Here I am!!!". He isn't a retard.

Jesus is all over the bible too.
Ain't His name.

Substitution is used the world over to try and avoid using the Lord's name in vain. "G-d" "Oh my gosh". If whatever you use to refer to God didn't really matter... folks would not take such care to avoid blaspheming.

 

Every English translation is bad?
Look up megalomania.

 

Hebrew Aramaic and Konic Greek to Latin to English... yes. I just showed you. You have but to look. I am also not familiar with EVERY English bible... so maybe not.

Every English translation of Jesus is bad as well. Do you deny the name of the savior? Do you deny his name was Yehoshua? Is this not enough to satisfy you that the translation is bad?

This all pre-dates English. We are NOT the authority on the OT.
http://www.yhwh.com/ahyh/ahyh.htm
http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/1731262/jewish/I-Will-Be-What-I-Will-Be.htm
http://www.bluethread.com/ehyeh.htm

 

The VAST majority of modern translations do not go through Latin as part of the process. That is one reason that the KJV is probably among the least accurate translations we have. It does.
I am saying that your fixation on the name is misguided, compared to the teachings. The translation I AM is actually a marvelous teaching in and of itself.

 

I added this a little late... just want to be clear you see it.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9864

What you think is a teaching is a mis-translation. That says something about... everything. You want to know what is in the Tanach? Ask a Jew.

Hi Moishe3rd. Hope this pings you here

Can you please translate the name of God to English?
יד. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל משֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם:

(Shemot 3:14)

 

The best translations today, such as the NRSV and the ASV, use hebrew scholars to edit the OT text. Unless you think you are in their realm of scholarship, you may be able to learn something from their contributions.

 

I am not resistant to being wrong. I simply do not believe that I am.

Are you willing to accept that you are?

This is the name of the Jewish God. I believe THEY have been studying it a lot longer than Christians. It is rather important... unless of course you don't think names are important, as you have been contending.

 

I feel the same.
Why do you think these hundreds of scholars have been so misled?

 

The Christian movement came from somewhere, and there was in all probability a messianic leader.

One needs to keep in mind that Christianity originated as a Jewish phenomenon. The Jews had long held beliefs about messianic leaders coming to restore Israel to its former glory.

There was a messianic leader named Simon of Peraea who was killed by the Romans in 4 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Peraea


Here is another messianic leader who was believed by his followers to be the Messiah .. around 3 AD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athronges



There was a messianic tradition among the Jewish people at the time and some of these people claimed to be the messiah (Christos).

The followers of Simon held on to the belief that he was the messiah (Christos) long after his death. They also thought that Simon was raised from the dead after 3 days.

Clearly there were a number of messianic leaders leading up to the eventual big clash with the Romans which led to the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD

That Tacitus would mention a messianic leader (Christos) was killed by a Roman magistrate named Pilot is not a big stretch.

Tacitus does not give us the name of the particular messianic leader he was talking about but it could well have been Yeshua/Joshua.

This does nothing to help us with the verifying the other stories about Yeshua but it is consistent with the Judeo Christian movement at the time.

The Bible alludes to Yeshua as a military leader but in fact he would have had to have been for the Jews to rally around him as that was how the Jews believed he messiah was foretold in prophecy.

Luke 22:36

 

Post 446.... at your service

 

I don't really think they were mislead. I think they knew full well what it was, but it had been mistranslated for millennium... and lessons built on it... popes and pontifs writing at great length about it... changing it back would rock the boat a bit... so we will translate loosely here? Maybe? I don't need to know the why to know it is wrong. I can speculate some scenarios if you want but that seems like a waste of time. אֶהְיֶה is a verb. Hebrew verbs denote action, not time. The LITERAL translation is "I will be what I will be".

Why do you think millions of scholars have been wrong since before your religion or language existed?

 

Actually you DO need to know why they did it in order to know they are wrong.
That is where the humility comes in to actually believe it is possible that YOU are wrong, like you said you could consider.

The NRSV scholars do not disagree with you in regards to the "I will be what I will be" translation you suggest, they just don't feel that "I am what I am" disagrees or contradicts that in any way.

The editors of modern translations don't seem to be afraid to rock the boat. The NRSV editors, for example, put in the notes that the story of the woman at the well does not appear in the earliest full manuscripts of the bible and that it was a later scribal addition. The Oxford Bible leaves the story out altogether as not being able to be considered authentic.

 

Are you serious? I have to explain a hidden motive to you with proof, about why the Hebrew translations of Hebrew are wrong?

This is where the humility comes in and says "Oh... I didn't think of it that way." They also did not change the name of Jesus and they KNOW that is contrived. But you can't have everybody in the world switch and start praying to Joshuah now can you? It would rock all the boats. The Catholic Church would declare them heretics... couldn't sell books. They have the Septuagint... and it says Iosus... and that translates to "not Joshuah".

How about you show ME why the Jews are wrong about their own language, as that is YOUR assertion.