The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
It is unimportant, in my view, whether or not the evidence of the date of the manuscript is internally derived, or externally established. The point is, you erred, Craig, in my opinion, by claiming that dejudge had argued for a specific date of authorship of Paul's epistles. He simply had asserted that they had not appeared prior to 180 CE.Craig B said:
Were Turing himself, analyzing the text of this thread, and he had been asked by the war department, not to crack enigma, but to figure out which among the posters to the thread, had offered some kind of text, of no matter what degree of utility, but fulfilling the minimum requirement of addressing the topic of the thread, would he have included your name, in that list?turingtest said:
I disagree.Gdon said:
I am a Holocaust denier. I deny that 100% of the Jews were rounded up and butchered by the Nazi's. Many, perhaps, MOST of the Jews living under Nazi rule were brutalized, raped, murdered, tortured, enslaved, but not ALL of them. I know this to be true, because I met, personally, with Jews, from central Europe, who not only survived Nazi brutality, they were not even incarcerated inside concentration camps.
Certainly, I do not dispute the horrors of the unjust Nazi persecution of Jews in the 1920's, 30's, and 40's in regions under their control. What I dispute, is the use of the term, HOLOcaust. It was not even close to holocaust.
Read about the Cham culture in VietNam. They were destroyed. In toto. Gone. no longer on the planet earth.
Read about the Taina "Indians" of the Caribbean islands. Gone, and forgotten. No more language, no more temples, no more art, no more cities, nothing. As though they never existed. That's a holocaust.
We are today, surrounded by Jews. Judaism flowers like no other religion. Every single television station tells us in excruciating details about Jerusalem, when some kooky terrorist murders innocent people. What about the same horrible killings in every USA city, every day. Does not generate that much coverage, why? Look at the TV programs. Something as apparently innocuous as "Bones", nevertheless, has to interject Yiddish, into the dialogue. Why?
How can there be, at the same time, a "holocaust", and a resurgence of unimaginable proportion, of Judaism? Is there a resurgence of Cham culture? If we go to VietNam, will we be able to turn on the television, and hear Cham language spoken, as we do here, constantly, encountering Yiddish words, spoken by Jewish actors and actresses. What percentage of USA television network broadcast acting is accomplished by Jews? Holocaust? Where are the Taina actors and actresses? When Columbus discovered the new world, there were as many Taina on planet Earth, as Jews. What about today? Holocaust, absurd.
This is all kind of off-topic, but do you think "holocaust" means "genocide"? It was an attempt at genocide which didn't succeed, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a holocaust.
I think that's enough on that subject.
Nonsense. And your view, absurd as it is, does not change the fact that dejudge is mistaking external for internal evidence. It's dejudge's view that he and I are discussing.
Sorry to have interrupted your private email correspondence. The only thing clear about dejudge is that English is not his native language. You on the other hand, understand that his error about internal and external is insignificant compared to your error, addressing the substance of his point: that the date when the epistles first appeared, cannot be, as you have insisted, in the first century.Craig B said:
So no holocaust?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bełżec_extermination_camp#Death_toll
Seven survived, so no holocaust, eh?
Putting Yiddish in stops "Bones" from being innocuous? Oh dear.
You are simply playing with words. The expression Holocaust denier does not suggest denial of the fact that seven Jews out of half a million survived Belzec. It means denial of the fact that half a million Jews and others were murdered in Belzec, and it is in that sense that the word is being employed in this discussion. So your personal definition, crazy as it is, has no bearing on the matter under consideration.
ETA In any case your literal word definition isn't even accurate. Per Google
So by your absurd understanding it was even less of a holocaust, for untold myriads of Jews were murdered by shooting and in other ways, and their bodies were buried in pits, as at Kiev, and not burned.
Last edited:
I have offered internal evidence, and I have explained repeatedly what the expression means, and that palaeography can date a manuscript but not necessarily its contained text. Even if dejudge doesn't understand these concepts, which I don't believe, I'm sure you do. So explain why a corpus of works in which there are contemporary references to first century things can not have been composed in that century? A book can't have been composed before the date of the earliest surviving copy?
The Greek word is ὁλοκαυτεῖν, and, yes, you are correct, I am wrong, I was sloppy, and inaccurately equated total destruction by conflagration, with total destruction by any means.Craig B said:
If I were consistent, and erudite, and I am neither, I would have argued, as you have pointed out, Craig, that it is wrong to use the term "holocaust", because they were not all burned (in sacrifice to Zeus).
It was a terrible event in human history, one that shames us all. I simply dislike people like me, who are sloppy with words, as I was, and who inappropriately write "holocaust", even though the Jewish people were not completely destroyed (thankfully).
Of course, they can be. I am not arguing that internal evidence demonstrates that the epistles could not have been composed in the first century CE.Craig B said:
I am arguing that the reference to people and places known to have existed in first century, does not equate to assurance that the text was written in the first century.
Further, with the reference to Scott's Ivanhoe, I illustrated that a work of fiction can easily be written centuries after the events described in the text. The elaboration of genuine historical figures and events in a work, does not rule out the assessment of the text as fundamentally a work of fiction.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Well, that was kind of a pompous, belabored way to say "off-topic", but, hey, you're right; don't mind me, I'll just sit over here one the sidelines and continue to enjoy the spectacle of folks arguing an absolute negative against others arguing only a possibility (one that does not, AFAICT, involve deifying Jesus, as dejudge seems to think).
turingtest said:
a. nothing wrong with taking Alan Turing's moniker. He is one of my heroes.
b. Your English here, is ambiguous: "as dejudge seems to think". What, you mean that you suppose that dejudge believes in deifying Jesus? Sure not. What then? I am confused, even more than usual.
c. In my opinion, you are bright, and talented, then, I cannot appreciate why you don't harness that skill, and elaborate something of merit on this thread. Please, write to the issue raised, on the historicity of Jesus. The issue is not dejudge, important as his contributions may be. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his position that the epistles of Paul date from a time after the appearance of Mark's gospel (and I agree), it is still necessary to acknowledge, that at least his posts address the topic. You can do better, turingtest. Take your foot off the brake, and accelerate.
There are many questions raised. At least some of these conundra have potential answers, but those require research, investigation, and scholarly demeanor, not throwing a dart at the board in a pub. Have you skill with foreign languages? How's your Greek? Hebrew? Turing himself, didn't have somebody else to turn to, and say, "please, help me figure this out". He did it, on his own, one bit at a time. We owe him a great debt. If you wish to use his name, on your posts, remember please, there are those of us, who idolize Turing's efforts. I don't know how many lives were saved because of his cracking Engima, but, I am certain that at least some soldiers' certain death was postponed, because of his efforts. That makes him a hero, in my eyes. No one else, figured it out.
No, actually I don't. Because I know absolutely nothing about any stories or claims for any of those figures.
But we are not talking about any other figures here. We are not talking about Socrates, Nero, Kim Jong il, Mickey Mouse or the Man in the Moon. We are talking specifically about the figure of Jesus as described in the NT bible.
Of course I do not believe Jesus, if he lived at all, could have done all the miraculous things claimed in the bible. That description of Jesus is clearly untrue and not believable.
But do I accept that there were countless Jewish preachers around in that region around that time? Yes, as far as I know there is no reason to doubt that.
And do I accept that one or more of those preachers might have been the basis for later biblical stories under the name "Jesus"? Yes, that is trivially possible, of course.
However, as far as the detailed stories of the bible are concerned, even if you take away all the fictional miracles, I have yet to see any credible evidence that anyone ever met a human Jesus of the sort described there.
Why should I bother with a positive statement of disbelief for any sort of Jesus figure? What is the point of even bothering to claim he did not exist? It’s more than sufficient just to point out that there is no good evidence of his existence. Nobody needs to say or go further than that. That much is fatally damaging to the HJ belief insisted upon by bible scholars like Bart Ehrman (let alone committed Christians and theologians).
In fact on the contrary, there is actually a great deal of evidence to show that what was written about him was no more than religious superstition of the time. To claim more than that is unnecessary. I do not need to say anything further than that against a HJ.
Having said that, it is of course conceivable that we could actually “disprove” the biblical Jesus stories in a quite direct way. And in fact that has actually been done. For example, Randel Helms (Gospel Fictions) shows very clearly where many of the gospel stories were taken from various parts of the old testament. And of course, modern science has long since shown that “miracles” are physically impossible, and that’s a “fact” that was not known at all when the gospels were written ... no doubt, at the time, the miracle stories were the very thing which so convinced people that Jesus must surely have been the true messiah of Yahweh.
That is part of the reason. It is also morality repugnant because it hints that Christ Mythers are dismissing a historical Jesus because they are anti-Christian.
I also find it morality repugnant on a scientific level because it implies that the evidence for a historical Jesus is just as good as the evidence that the Nazis ruthlessly slaughtered 6 to 10 million people.
The evidence for Jesus has NEVER been any where near the quantity much less quality seen for the Holocaust and to even hint that is anywhere even near is disgusting.
Remember I also said it was intellectually bankrupt and historically deceptive as well. It is an emotional argument is so non sequitur that you know that anyone who uses it must know at some level the evidence for a historical Jesus they have is crap...otherwise why use it?
Last edited:
OK, if I ever meet Bart Ehrman I'll ask him to stop doing that.
My challenge to you is to explain the spread of Christianity in the 1st century, the authentic Pauline corpus, the organisation in Jerusalem led by James The Just, etc without mentioning 20th century cargo cults or John Frum...
That was something Robert Price said:
"What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time." - Price, Robert (2000) Deconstructing Jesus, pp. 15-16
"My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." - Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)
Carrier goes one step further in On the Historicity of Jesus showing strong correlative evidence that Jesus ben Ananias [Ananus] (66-70 CE) in Jewish Wars 6.301-306 was used as the framework for the Jesus in gMark - pg 428-430.
Here is a combined summation for the 20 points and one inversion:
JW 6.301 = Mk 14.2; Mk 11-17; Both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah;
JW 6.306 = Mk 14.49;
JW 6.304, 306, 309 = Mk 13.17;
JW 6.300, 309 = Mk 13.2;
JW 6.302 = Mk 14.43; Mk 14.58; Mk 14.60; Mk 14.65; Mk 15.1;
JW 6.305 = Mk 15.2-4 (this is actually three different points);
JW 6.304 = Mk 15.15;
JW 6.305 is inverted in Mk 15.34;
JW 6.308-309 = Mk 15.34 (two points); Mk 15.37
Brainache said:
1. "spread of Christianity"?...? I have no idea when it began, or where, or under whose leadership. I certainly deny that there exists any credible evidence for any gospel prior to second century CE. I have already explained, ad nauseum, why I believe "Paul" came after Mark.
Do you imagine "spread of christianity", sans gospel of Mark? If so, where's the evidence for this?
2. "authentic Pauline corpus" ??? how did you determine authenticity? Whose attestation did you employ? Earliest author I know, to reference these ugly epistles, is Irenaeus, a completely discredited account, in Latin, full of holes, written by a guy, supposedly from Lugdunum, but originally an Aramaic speaking inhabitant of what we call today Turkey, who somehow evaded Roman soldiers, though they ostensibly captured his predecessor in Lugdunum, and killed him according to legend. How did they miss finding the Bishop of the city's christian congregation? Didn't they have some kind of Basilica, in Lugdunum, in the late second century? What, the Roman troops were unable to locate it? It was a secret temple?
3. "organization in Jerusalem"... ???? what???
you lost me here.
How did a bunch of Greek speaking, heretical rabble, take over the holiest city of the Jews? When did this happen? Were the Jews so emasculated that they permitted a bunch of cannibals to set up shop in Jerusalem? Was this before or after the first Jewish Roman war? Where is there any evidence, anywhere on planet earth, for a "christian" presence, prior to the third century CE? Coin, stone, mosaic, graffito, papyrus, monument, anything that firmly convinces someone, say a guy or gal from Outer Mongolia or Sikkim, that Christianity was practiced in the second century?
The problem there as Carrier points out is that we know next to nothing about Christianity clearly from the 1st century; we have Paul, Clement of Rome (generally dated to 95 CE but at least after 67 CE), and that is it! (OHJ pg 306)
Everything else we know is propaganda of questionable value and either is from the early 2nd century or likely from that time period.
As I have stated before James the Just is a mess. There is nothing connecting the James Paul mentioned to the James in Acts to the one in Josephus but after the fact propaganda. In fact, thanks to that propaganda we know nothing about the man.
"The book of Acts has been all but discredited as a work of apologetic historical fiction." (Carrier OHJ pg 359) The best one can hope is that "maybe there was some authentic source material behind some of what appears in Acts, somewhere" [sic] (Carrier OHJ 362). However, Acts resembles so many non-canonical works that obviously are not historical either (such as Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul, Acts of Andrews, Acts of John, and Acts of Thomas) and has a structure exactly like a novel of the period (Carrier OHJ pg 364-8) that even that hope sputters and dies.
Also I have pervious mentioned Ned Ludd supposed founder of the Luddites:
"As the supposed founder of the Luddite movement, Ned Ludd had many contradictory traditions arise about, quite rapidly--in fact, within forty years of his alleged techno-sabatoge in 1779, an event historians have failed to fine any evidence of. Nor have they discovered any evidence of the man at all, despite a vastly better survival of books and records than is enjoyed for any period antiquity (we even have daily newspapers)" (Carrier OHJ pg 9)
"The King Arthur legend sold a particular product: a united England. (...) Likewise, the Ned Ludd myth fueled a protest movement by providing a hero and a mission to rally behind, again with the aim of generating unity. In fact, there were many separate movements that co-opted the Ned Ludd story each in their own way; and a unified story about him only evolved later." (Carrier OHJ pg 9)
So your question assumes things that are not proven to be true in the first place. And you cannot prevent Ned Ludd and the Luddite being presented as a counter example of movements without a founder as they are in Europe and in the 19th century relating events supposedly in 1779.
And if you don't like Ned Ludd we have Robin Hood and King Arthur to play with.
Last edited:
Right and as I have mentioned before the NT is first and foremost propaganda. Anything it claims must be crosschecked against what little exists of history of the 1st century BC to 4th century CE and when we can crosscheck it is found to be spouting historical nonsense.
Aside from what based on the non mention by Josephus and Pliny the Elder who both were in Rome c64 CE appears to be a 2nd century urban myth of Nero persecuting Christians no one outside the movement even notices it. This indicates a small mystery based movement.
Ned Ludd and the Luddites are the 19th century European equivalent of the Malaysian cargo cults (which we have records all the way back to 1871). In fact, there is even more regarding the period Ned Ludd supposedly started the movement then exist for John Frum in the form of daily papers and yet we have less for Ned Ludd then we have for John Frum!
Again, you confirm you are a fiction writer. Paleographers used the INTERNAL EVIDENCE, the very TEXT itself, to date the existing Pauline Corpus to c 175-225 CE.
You don't know that the TEXT itself is INTERNAL evidence.
It is you who are using the very same Pauline Corpus which have already been dated to c 175-225 CE and have PRESUMED without external or internal evidence that the ORIGINALS were composed c 50-60 CE.
You have NO internal evidence for your PRESUMED originals.
The Pauline writings do not state anywhere that letters to Churches were written c 50-60 CE.
It does not take 100 years to copy a letter.
It is hopelessly absurd to suggest that Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE because 2nd century or later manuscripts mention Aretas.
In addition, you have also admitted that your Pauline writer's stories of Jesus were products AUDITORY hallucinations and that Paul in reality may have been OFF his NUT.
You have DISCREDITED your Paul.
The letters under the name of Paul are historically worthless and there are NONE from the 1st century pre 70 CE
Your Paul appears to have been either a Crazy man, an IDIOT, a LIAR or the combination of all three.
Your Paul claimed he had CONFERENCE WITHOUT Flesh and Blod and that he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Based on the INTERNAL EVIDENCE, the very Text itself, YOUR Paul was a CRAZY, LYING, IDIOT if he did exist in the time of Aretas.
In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed the JEWS KILLED GOD Creator.
What a big Lie!!
What a Crazy man!!
What an IDIOT!!
The Pauline Corpus are completely useless in the argument for an historical Jesus and there is ZERO internal evidence to date the Pauline Corpus to c 50-60 CE.
I hope that you have NOT forgotten that the letters of the Pauline Corpus are part of the NT.
In effect, The Pauline Corpus is first and foremost propaganda.
The Pauline Corpus is found to be spouting historical nonsense when cross-checked with history.
In fact, ALL the books of the NT are spouting historical non-sense.
Last edited:
Your statement is an established fallacy.
We have ZERO writings of the Pauline Corpus dated to the 1st century.
We have ZERO writings of Clement dated to 95 CE.
Who dated your UNKNOWN letters?
Geologists who study Rock layers??
maximara said:
It is most amusing that you put out the propaganda that we have Paul and Clement when you know your claim is a well-known fallacy.
In fact, ALL you have is PROPAGANDA about Paul and Clement.
Not even in the Bible itself it is claimed that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches up to 61 CE or up to 2 years AFTER Saul/Paul was in Rome when Festus was governor.
Not even Apologetics claimed the Pauline Copus was written BEFORE gMatthew.
Apologetics claimed it was the TWELVE disciples of Jesus who preached the Gospel to the whole world.
Paul, the Pauline Corpus and Clement are ALL propaganda invented NO EARLIER than c 180 CE or AFTER "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.
We know that by the early 2nd century Christianity had spread to Bithynia where Pliny the Younger was governor and, from his correspondence with the Emperor in Rome, it was known there too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just#Early_Christian_apocrypha
So either James the Just was the head of the organisation in Jerusalem, or all of these early sources were citing someone that no one knew to lend non-existent authority to their teachings...
Actually there is NO real evidence that there were Christians who worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God since the time of Pontius Pilate.
Every single story that we have about Jesus and Paul are from the 2nd century later.
In fact, in the so-called Pliny letters, the author appeared to have NOT heard of the stories of Jesus and was NOT even aware what Christians believed.
Pliny ADMITTED he TORTURED Christians to FIND out what they really believed.
Amazingly, AFTER TORTURE, the Christians never mentioned that they worshiped Jesus of Nazareth.
How is it possible that Pliny did NOT know Christians worshiped Jesus of Nazareth as a God who was crucified under Pilate?
Did NOT Paul and the twelve disciples preach to the whole world including the Roman Empire that Jesus was God Incarnate, God's OWN SON, the Lord from heaven, that he died and was raised from the dead for Remission of sins?
After all there should have been multiple bishops of Rome and evangelists like Peter, Paul, Linus, Ignatius, Anacletus, Clement and Evaristus who preached about Jesus as God in the Roman Empire and even in Rome.
Pliny the younger also knew Tacitus who should have written about the new MISCHEIVIOUS superstition of Christians .
Amazingly, Pliny was unsure what Christians believe AFTER he had EXECUTED some of them.
In addition, it is NOT known if the Christians in the Pliny letters were followers of Heretics who had REJECTED the stories of Jesus.
davefoc
Philosopher
At first take this seems like the most solid reference to early Christians available from the early second century. I went looking for some skeptical views.
As to the authenticity:
The authenticity has been disputed for a very long time. In 1788 a book by Dr. Seimler of Leipsic appeared in which he is said to have offered nine arguments against its authenticity.
Some of the arguments as described here (http://tinyurl.com/k7qpc75)
- The describe persecution is inconsistent Pliny's with"humane and dignified character"
- The letter contains a statement that the early Christians met and "sing an hymn as to god" and no Christians this early would have revered Jesus as a God.
- Forgery was a common practice for the early Christian writers
- The Roman government was known to be highly tolerant of religious beliefs and it is not clear as to why the Christianity would be the first known exception.
However Dr. Semler was aware of this argument and he posits that Tertullian's reference may be forged as well.
The Wikipedia article on Pliny's letter claims that Trajan's response was recorded separately. That would seem to be a pretty good argument for authenticity.
Were the Christians referenced followers of Serapis?
This is an argument that dejudge makes note of in his post above: The Christians referred to were followers of Serapis. Pliny's letter doesn't provide enough information to determine who the Christians were that Pliny claimed to be persecuting in the letter.
The article goes on to discuss the possible confusion of Christians with followers of Serapis and concludes with this:
.
My conclusion:
So is this proof of early second century Christians? I don't know. The wording of the letter was different than I would have expected for a Roman governor but not so different that I thought it was unlikely to be authentic just based on the wording. I'm leaning to authentic. The separate collection of Trajan's letters seems like good evidence, but do we know that the versions of Trajan and Pliny's words that came down to us today didn't pass through the same Christian copyist's hands?
I've heard the Serapis/Christian thing before. Once again I don't know. It's plausible but if I'm guessing I'd go with the idea that Pliny was using the term Christian as how we understand it today.
Last edited:
I think it's authentic and I don't think there is anything to suggest that Christians and worshippers of Serapis were ever confused. Hadrian appears to be saying that Egyptians were unreliable and superstitious, not that Serapis and Christ were the same thing.
I don't think there is any reason to doubt that Christianity was spreading through the Roman Empire in the early years of the 2nd Century; How did that happen?
You seem not to be even aware that there are two fundamental arguments and none of them are absolute negative.
1. Jesus was a figure of mythology.
2. Jesus was a figure of history.
It is most bizarre that you put forward the notion that the argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology is an absolute negative and those who argue for an HJ only claim it is possible.
Well Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist"? contradicts you and argues that Jesus of Nazareth CERTAINLY DID EXIST.
Now, the Speculation that it is possible that Jesus of Nazareth did exist has no real value as evidence.
There are no actual manuscripts of Pliny letters dated to the early 2nd century. The existing Pliny letters CANNOT be PRESUMED to be authentic or assumed to be historically credible.
In any event, the name Christian was NOT used ONLY by those who believed the stories of Jesus.
All WERE CALLED CHRISTIANS according to Justin Martyr.
In "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, it is documented that there were MULTIPLE Christian cults who did NOT believe the stories of Jesus.
Marcion and the Marcionites were CHRISTIANS in the 2nd century and they worshiped a Son of God and this Son of God came down directly from heaven.
In effect, Pliny letter to Trajan is virtually useless for an HJ since it does not mention Jesus of Nazareth.
You only spout logically fallacies if you put forward the notion that the name "Christian" in any writing of antiquity refers to followers of Jesus, the Lord from heaven.
Last edited:
As I pointed out a long time before there are two versions of Hadrian letter:
"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians , and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle" - Giles, Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. II, p86, 1877
Now compare it to this version:
"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Chrestians , and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Chrestus are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Chrestian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle" - Drews, Arthur (1912) The witnesses to the historicity of Jesus
Note the hilited part. In Giles version it is expressly stated that "the worshipers of Serapis (Osiris) are called Christians" ie Christians and worshippers of Serapis were confused with each other as we are expressly told they are the same group!
It is only in the Drews version that the confusion falls a way. But then we are shown there was some tampering even at this stage of the game. Also note that "Chrestus" in addition to be a name could and was used as a title going clear back to the 5th century BCE (Mitchell, James Barr (1880) Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence; Pleket, H.W.; Stroud, R.S.. "Egypt. Funerary epithets in Egypt.(26-1702)." Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Current editors: A. T. R.S. R.A. Chaniotis Corsten Stroud Tybout. Brill Online, 2013.
Dositheos the Samaritan was claimed to have "pretended" to be the Christ (ie used the title) by Origen. "Contra Celsum," i. 57, vi. 11; in Matth. Comm. ser. xxxiii.; "Homil." xxv. in Lucam; "De Principiis," iv. 17.) Clement of Rome, l.c. ii. 8; several passages in Origen; Epiphanius, l.c. and "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Prmitive Christianity", Jean Danielou, p. 95-96, 1958, Mentor edition 1962 all put him before Simon of Peraea who died in 4 BCE but Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, iv. 22, § 5 put him after Simon of Peraea.
Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies hints that Simon Magus many have used the title "Christ" as well.
So from the Christians own writings they were saying or implying there were at least two other people used the title "Christ"
The same way the Luddites spread throughout England in the 19th century: social political reasons.
Last edited:
No one is confused in that letter, he is calling them interchangeable and saying that they are as bad as each other for spouting a lot of superstitious nonsense. We have been through this before.
Yes, so what? It means "Anointed", I'm not surprised that religious hucksters would claim to be "Anointed".
OK. Please complete this sentence: The social and political reasons for the spread of Christianity into the wider Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd Centuries were...
(Personally I think it had something to do with Paul and his cronies spreading a Gentile-friendly version of Jewish Messianism into Italy, Greece and Turkey, much to the annoyance of the Apocalyptic Jewish Messianic types back in Jerusalem)
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
Because Christians denied the divinity of Roman goods. Romans were only tolerant to religions that acknowledged the Roman gods in some fashion. And they weren't just intolerant to Chrisitians. They were also intolerant to Druids and native soothsayers. From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid#Prohibition_and_decline_under_Roman_rule
According to Pliny the Elder, writing in the 70s CE, it was the emperor Tiberius (who ruled from 14 to 37 CE), who introduced laws banning not only druidism, but also other native soothsayers and healers, a move which Pliny applauded, believing that it would end human sacrifice in Gaul.
Last edited:
i.e. that
As far as I am concerned, I don't simply "hint" that, at least in many cases. I observe it plainly. Here, for example.
Here's what.
Then there's all the stuff about Paul meeting these guys, which I have cited before, but will be happy to paste here again, if need be.
davefoc
Philosopher
My apologies Craig B, but what argument are you making here? Is it that people are mentioned in Acts which may have existed? In other places you've claimed that people that are known to have existed in the appropriate time period are mentioned in Acts. I think I understand that argument a bit better, but of course that doesn't preclude the possibility that the authors obtained the names of real people from historical sources. But if there isn't any corroboration of an individual outside of the NT I don't see how that fact advances any theory about the existence of a first century Jewish Jesus cult centered some place near Jerusalem.
I know this isn't a popular idea, but I think they sound a lot like these Jewish chaps:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm
Dead Sea Scroll said:
Also Waters might like to investigate just who the Ebionites were (hint: They weren't invented by Stalin...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
wiki said:
- Status