Are there any articles by Catholic historians that debunk the slanderous claims about Jesus mentioned in The Life of Brian but attributed to the titular character? Claims like Jesus’ father being a Roman soldier, for example.
>>18378726Throw him to the floor!
>>18378726It can't be debunked more than anything specific about Jesus can be proven without the Bible. It's the only "source" we have on his life, and you either believe it or you don't. All a Catholic "historian" would have to do would be to point to the Bible and say that it disagrees. Asking for more is a sign that you lack faith.
>>18378726You'd just get stuff like "The Tallmud is the origin of Mary's Jesus pregnancy is from her getting fucked by a Roman soldier".There's nothing that you could really debunk though.
>>18378726You really can’t debunk it anymore than you can prove Jesus was actually God and that the New Testament isn’t a heavily distorted account of what actually happened. Our oldest non-Biblical sources on Jesus’ life are Tacitus and Josephus whose accounts are extremely brief and basically just say:>“So there’s this group calling themselves Christians and they worship some Judean preacher named Jesus who got crucified or something like that.”So other than “he existed, preached things that the religious elites considered heterodox, and got crucified,” you can’t really prove anything beyond that. It’s all a matter of what you personally believe I guess.>>18379499Basically this.
>>18379632Actually our oldest known account of that story predates the Talmud and comes from The True Word, a critique of Christianity written by the Middle Platonist philosopher Celsus around the year 180. He does however claim to have gotten it from an earlier (presumably now-lost) Jewish source.
>>18378726My dad protested this movie when it came out with his church. He has since wised up and realised that protesting a comedy film that makes absolutely zero attempt to claim authenticity/accuracy is for retards.So either OP is in his late 60s, or he is so hopelessly retarded that he's managed to fall for ragebait from the 1970s.
>>18379499>>18379632>>18379651>>18379655>>18379667I just need a historian to do the debunking because that’s part of the marking criteria for my assignment. It’d get drastically marked down if it doesn’t quote a historian extensively.
>>18378726the entire point is that brian is not jesus. he's just some guy
>>18378827>A woman?>No no, a Roman
>>18379703Is this assignment for catholic school or something? If the assignment is just to find a historian debunking something that's in a movie there's far better examples you can pick. You just picked a particularly unfalsifiable one.
>>18379795But the film was banned in many Christian countries.
>>18379655Interesting. I never realized that Celsus quoted it from an even earlier, now lost, source.>>18379651>Our oldest non-Biblical sources on Jesus’ life are Tacitus and Josephus whose accounts are extremely brief andwere tampered with by Christians, so there's no reason to trust either. We have Eusebius saying that it's time to use Josephus. In our earliest surviving copy of the part from Tacitus literally shows the edit in the process.There's literally no reason to trust that either historian actually wrote those parts.
>>18379703Dummy. Literally all you'd have is a historian recounting the stories in the Bible, citing the Bible as a source.
>>18379809Oh really, what was his name?
>>18380016That’s good enough for me. >>18379878It’s for a university bridging course: the role of the individual in history. I chose Jesus, and you have to have two perspectives. One of them has to come from a historian, the other can even be a film if wanted.
>>18380116>I chose Jesus, and you have to have two perspectives.Again, this was a bad choice. Change it if you can to an actual historical figure. You'd struggle just the same with the Buddha. No professor is going to accept a citation to a historian who is just saying "nuh uh the bible doesn't say that." You're especially out of luck because Life of Brian explicitly doesn't show Jesus doing anything he doesn't do in the gospels. Brian and Jesus are distinct characters in the film, and while Brian is a parody of Jesus, the film quite explicitly is not saying that Jesus is the son of a Roman soldier. You need to pick a different topic, this one doesn't work for multiple reasons. And you really need to understand that there are no historical sources on Jesus like this, the reason his father being a Roman soldier is a popular theory is because it explains why his mother would lie about who the child's father was and is far more realistic than an unproven God coming down.
>>18379703Richard Carrier on the historicity of Jesus
>>18378726Jesus appears and is mentioned in the movie briefly but everything he says and thus is sourced from the Bible. The titular character is very obviously a different person who at times is mistaken for the Messiah. I'm not even sure that the Python guys knew about the whole Panthera rumor when they wrote the part about Brian's father being a Roman soldier. That similarity is probably just a coincidence since Jesus and Brian have nothing to do with each otherwise.The only theme that can be seen as anti-Christian is that at the time, there were others believed to be the Messiah so Jesus wasn't special in that regard. This is also a historic fact.
>>18380039Nautius Maximus
>>18380461It’s actually a high-school level course, not university-level. The teacher even ran my choice of historical figure by the marking panel and said it was okay.
>>18381076Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching by Maurice Casey. Uses both the Bible and other sources and is by an academic historian.
>>18381104Any historian worth a damn, is going to be looking more into Josephus and Tacitus, than the biblical scholars.A historian is going to see that Josephus and Tacitus were tampered with, and wouldn't use them as sources. There's no other sources that actually even approach what would support Jesus existing in history.Biblical scholars aren't quality academics.
>>18381260>Josephus and TacitusHe works those in as well, they're used thats why I said "other sources"Problem is there is hardly anything there in those accounts. It's the closest thing OP is gonna get and he said a historian using the Bible as a source was OK.
>>18381260>>18381267Oh, I just reread your post I think I misunderstood it at first. He does acknowledge the statement "He was the Christ" may have been added later to Josephus' account. How is Tacitus tampered with? Its fairly hostile.
>>18381268>How is Tacitus tampered with? Its fairly hostile.They changed the word Chrestians to Christians. In the oldest surviving copy that we have for that chapter, it's literally showing the edit in progress.The 'E' was being edited, as shown conclusively with UV light, and the word Christians is in the margins.We can see that the Christian scribes were editing documents.But obviously in Latin letters.>picrelThe top picture shows the Chrestians 'E' edit, with Christians in the margin.The bottom picture shows the UV light visual, shows that it was originally an 'E'.
>>18381268There's also other telltales signs that the entire thing was edited.>Using the spelling Chrestians and then saying they're named after "Christus" is nonsensical.>Early Christians were terrorists that pleaded guilty, leading to an immense multitude of them being convicted.>It only mentions Christus, not Jesus. If his information was based on the Roman archives, either:>>Tacitus is mistakenly only referring to a title.>>The title of the person was recorded instead of their name.>>There was someone named Christus.>No other historian or contemporary figure mentions the Christians being persecuted by Nero for the fire in Rome. Suetonius writes about the fire, but doesn't associate it with the Christians.>Tacitus had access to the Roman archives but makes several unusual mistakes:>>He doesn't provide sources.>>A Reference to a title without a name. This is about as useful as a gravestone marked "Oiled.">>Instead of a date, he only provides the range of during Tiberius' reign. A window of 22 years, 5 months, 27 days.>>Doesn't mention Crucifixion. Only that he suffered the extreme penalty.>>Calls Pilate a procurator instead of prefect. While the position was changed in the 40s, he gets the position correct and notes a differnce in earlier in the same book. He evidently knows the difference; he mentions prefects 77 times within three books.Agricola 22Annals 4.36, 4.73, 6.10, 6.27, 12.35, 12.38, 12.45, 12.46, 14.37, 14.41, 14.42, 14.43, 14.63, 15.25(Differentiates Procurators and Prefects a few chapters before making the mistake)The Histories 1.5, 1.13, 1.14, 1.19, 1.24, 1.26, 1.28, 1.46, 1.58, 1.81, 1.82, 1.87, 2.15, 2.26, 2.29, 2.33, 2.39, 2.46, 2.49, 2.55, 2.59, 2.63, 2.70, 2.82, 2.88, 2.89, 2.92, 3.7, 3.12, 3.14, 3.19, 3.35, 3.36, 3.58, 3.64, 3.75, 3.77, 4.2, 4.11, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, 4.31, 4.32, 4.39, 4.49, 4.50, 4.59, 4.78, 5.20Tacitus just wouldn't make such amateur mistakes, as seen in this passage. It's clearly an edit.
>>18381470Who else could he possibly have been referring to though? Who the fuck are Chrestians?
>>18381480>A Nero apologistOh you're one of those, Christians were never persecuted Nero did nothing wrong bro guys
>>18381481Chrestians would be followers of a Chrestus. Chrestus means "The Good One". So that would be their leader. It can also be what you called your best slave, but I don't think it fits in the context.The important thing to note is that Chrestians had been recorded to exist in the 1st century BCE. So there's no reason to assume that it's the Jesus followers.BUT if you want to say that it's the Christians, that's fine too. The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus both say Chrestians in their versions of Acts. But then you'd have to admit that what Tacitus is saying is accurate, and they weren't persecuted, but prosecuted for their many crimes. Which goes against every narrative created by the early church.>>18381483You're retarded. You've never actually read the Tacitus passage before.>Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.Annals as we have it, literally says that the group being talked about is responsible for the fires in Rome.I'm not being a Nero apologist, you're just VERY uneducated on this topic, to not know what the passage says.
>>18381485Nice try Neronigger. Enjoy Hell.
>>18381488Oh, it's the KJVonlyfag. Literally no one cares about your opinion, and seeing as you're dodging the entire topic now, I accept your concession.There's no reason to accept that the Tacitus passage is something that he wrote. I provided a lot of evidence to support my stance. You've shown that you haven't even read it before, then ended with a threat.Which "Hell" do you believe in? Fire, separation, annihilation, or something less common? I'd be nice to know what you're actually threatening me with.
>>18381490Enjoy Hell.
>>18378726There were lots of false messiahs preaching violence against the state at the time.Not blasphemous.Last Temptation of Christ on the other hand...
