Re: Medzvezdna potovanja
Objavljeno: 8.9.2016 19:33
Sic!shrink napisal/-a:No, pa dajmo malo komentirati Tacita:
in v splošnem:Tacitus (ca. 55 - 117 CE; oldest relevant copy is from 11th century): In his Annals (ca. 109 CE) Tacitus gives a brief mention of a "Chrstus" (generally read as "Christus" but in reality is could just as easily be read "Chrestus"), in a passage that shows evidence of tampering and contains no source. Also, the entire section of the Annals covering 29-31 CE is missing: “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.” His account is also at odds with the Christian accounts in The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (150-200 CE) where the first has Nero reacting to claims of sedition by the group and the other saying thanks to a vision he left them alone.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_f ... sus_ChristChrestus/Christ, Chrestians/Christians
The assumption that "Chrestus" or "Christ" must refer to Jesus and "Chrestians" to his followers is a prime example of the confirmation bias issue on the historical Jesus side of the argument as demonstrated by the claim "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius." In reality, none of these Roman historical writers mention Jesus by name, but refer rather to Chrestus, Christ, or Christians. To make this claim one must assume Chrestus and Christ must refer to Jesus and only to Jesus and that the existence of the movement means its creator also existed none of which is certain.
Not only was "Chrestus" a familiar personal name meaning "good" or "useful",, but it was also a name of the Graeco-Egyptian god Serapis, who had a large following in Rome, especially among the common people.