The Romans didn't recognize the word Chrestus as a title, which is exactly what the Hebrew translation is. In Hebrew, it's "Messiah."Take the forged words of Tacitus and Josephus on Jesus. We are to believe this Roman imperial and Jewish historian working for the Imperials would dare refer to him as the Christ or gush about him as in the Josephus forgery. What do you think the imperial Romans at that point in history would have done to them for writing such a thing?
The Roman historian Tacitus simply made a mistake in the word usage. I covered this in the last post. Tacitus didn't "gush" about him either. In fact, Tacitus is dismissive of the claims surrounding Jesus. He refers to the resurrection as "superstitious" just like you do. In fact, he can't even bring himself to say "resurrection." Tacitus doesn't claim that Jesus didn't exist. Tacitus clearly says that Jesus was crucified. Tacitus uses the words "extreme penalty." Crucifixion was the most extreme penalty in use by the Romans. It was so hideous that civilized Romans (like Tacitus) referred to it as the "extreme penalty."
Next, I don't know where you get the idea that Romans would have executed Tacitus for writing about Jesus, but they wouldn't have. Tacitus was known for historical accuracy. Pliny the Younger was actually upset with Tacitus at one point for not adding political spin that would have been beneficial to Pliny. Tacitus was considered to be very thorough, and very honest. Tacitus reported historical facts accurately and honestly. Did you know that the majority of what we know about historical Imperial Rome comes from a single source? Do you know that source is Tacitus?
Josephus never did believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah, so you're correct about that. The original Josephus passage was tampered with, but not for purposes of deception. A scribe was correcting what he considered to be an incomplete historical account. That's what happens on Wikipedia, and is why Wikipedia isn't the best source for factual information. By modern academic standards that's a major error in historical integrity. Such a change wouldn't happen today without extensive consultation and peer review, but, back then, it was common practice. The Josephus passage, when stripped of the obvious interpolation, still indicates that a person named Jesus lived, that he was considered wise, that he was handed over to the Romans by Jewish authorities, and that he was crucified. The Romans would have never punished Josephus for saying this. The Romans allowed cultures in conquered territories to retain their histories and religious customs. It wasn't like the USSR of the 1950s where everything was censored.Let's just forget that as a devout Jew Josephus would never complimented a false messiah as Jesus would have been to him
As anyone would tell me? Do you have a specific historical expert in mind? My "History of Western Civilization" professor from the secular college I attended would disagree with you.Those imperial Romans didn't take such matters lightly as anyone with a basic knowledge of their history would tell you.
I'm glad to see you're still breathing. It's a good habit to have. Keep up the good work on that.Let's see if you answer... Forgive me for not holding my breath.