Circular reasoning? :rollinglaugh: External Historical Documentation recorded by the enemies of Christianity and the Most powerful civilized kingdom of Antiquity (Rome).....A world Calender....27 Books containing detailed personal information of eyewitness accounting....detailed in such perfection that the Book of Acts is said to be one of the most if not the most explicitly detailed account of the political and geographical conformation offered in history for that time period {Archaeologist Sir William Ramsey Nobel Prize Winner}. Yes most certainly any half-wit with just one ounce of intellectual honesty can see where this is going.....its going to point out what the Scientific and Historical community commonly call the knowledge of the truth as established by the only plausible conclusion that the prima facie....direct eyewitness accounts....archaeological and historical documentation proves...the existence of Jesus Christ as a real historical figure.
And the fact that even though Tacitus, Josephus, and other historians from the first and second century were not followers of Christianity and Jesus...they did have SOMETHING TO SAY about his existence....as they did record an accounting of the fact that he was a real historical figure....a real person who was so famous during that time period that the Emperors of Rome took notice of his existence. :dunno: But of course, you mandate by the power of your AD HOMINEM opinion....he did not exist. Thus, just a small amount of bigotry and humanistic sun worshiping intellectual dishonestly might be perceived by a neutral observer.....just saying......private personal philosophy has no authority over actual PHYSICAL PROOF.
And the fact that even though Tacitus, Josephus, and other historians from the first and second century were not followers of Christianity and Jesus...they did have SOMETHING TO SAY about his existence
But of course, you mandate by the power of your AD HOMINEM opinion....he did not exist
A Man so famous indeed that you cannot produduce one single eyewitness account of the Son of the Creator of the Universe.
Sir william was a devout Christian with a vested interest, not only that but every single one of his books is over 100 years old. Things have moved on since then. If he is your 'Ace' in the Hole you will need to work harder than that.
Of course they had something to say, they heard about a mysterious man who was said to be the Son of a God. Everyone Knew someone who knows someone who knew Jesus. Classic Urban Myth
Well so far you haven't proved he did exist.
Provide the physical proof together with archaeological and historical documentation and we can disect it. Remember no hearsay and conjecture We need first hand information.
It should be easy to get hold of, he was so famous thousands of ordinary folk and scholars a like had the pleasure of seeing him, and he was the creator of the Universes Son, and we know how big the universe is so a small and insignificant thing like and eyewitness account should be simple to provide.
You are correct....there is not "ONE" single record of an eyewitness account....there are volumes of eyewitness accounts, testaments...sworn before God to be true, these 27 books were dedicated to the sole purpose of confirming the life and times of Christ Jesus. And as of yet.....you have offered NOTHING in the way of empirical evidence that would decant these eyewitness accounts. Yet, I have offered a 'Plethora" of "Prima Facie"...EXTERNAL, HOSTILE, evidences that does nothing expect SUPPORT the fact of these stated eyewitness accounts. The historical documents presented by "external" and hostile sources merely validate these accounts as being true. Of course these known "enemies" of Christianity could have been so stupid as to propagate the "continued legend" of a man that did not exist.....and according to your "humorous" ad hominem accounting of history they did just that. First they staged a "fake" execution, that was recorded in all the historical accounts of all the Romans Emperors of that time period. A religious movement that was threatening the very heart of the Roman Empire was helped along by spreading lies in historical documentation for the sole purpose of helping this threat consume the Roman Empire. :dunno: Have you ever stepped back and looked at the words of bigotry that you present and just how ridiculous your refusal to accept such clear evidence demonstrates your position to be? :rollinglaugh:
And of course...simply because a religious group of peoples calling themselves "CHRISTIANS" have been historically documented to have existed for some 2000 years and consumed 1/3 the worlds population with that HISTORICAL TITLE....means nor proves nothing....the same with the Calender that you.....look at everyday to keep track of HISTORY...as does all of the civilized world (A.D./B.C)...means nothing. Your BIGOTED ad hominem opinion holds all the authority you need to ARGUE for ARGUMENTS sake.
If you are looking for a reason not to believe....you will have to look elsewhere besides History Actual...as I have presented only the Hostile Historical accounts of the very real existence of Jesus. There are numerous "friendly" accounts of recorded history presented by VALID HISTORICALLY documented Christian historians that PROVE the existence of HISTORICAL JESUS.
Lots of words but no proof outside of the bible. Every single one of your accounts outside of the Bible are nothing but hearsay and conjecture unless you can provide the eyewitness accounts.
No jury would convict someone on the type evidence you provide outside of the Bible.
'Yes M'lud I did so on the 14th March 10 BC Talk to someone who said thy knew someone who saw jesus'
'And this is the evidence you provide as proof of this man?'
'Yes M'lud'
No Bigotry here mate, demonstrate there was a Jesus and a God and I shall believe. So far all you have is faith and hearsay and conjecture for evidence. You've had 2000 years to find the eyewitness accounts and still you have none outside of a book put together 300 years after Jesus is supposed to have died.
Keep the Faith, it's all you have. :thumbup:
No proof? You mean that you are unable to decant any of the following VERIFIED HISTORICAL PROOFS and find them lacking truth? 1.) The New Testament Documents which contain over 5000 Greek manuscripts, in whole or in part, or the historical documentation that proves that All of the BOOKS USED in canon of the New Testament was completed within 60 years of Jesus' death. And of those 27 books no less than 10 were pinned by PERSONAL COMPANIONS of Jesus. And Paul who personally was responsible for bringing about numerous deaths of many Christians during that time period recorded 13 of the remaining 14 books. Try as they may....many secular scholars that have attempted to rewrite history and declare these writings did not not exist until the 4th century or latter have fallen victim to History Actual and the historically verified writings of such men as Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen...and many others that demonstrate these Greek Manuscripts not only existed but where in use in the 1st century and being used to establish Doctrine for the New Testament church of Christianity....they make direct mention of all the Gospels, Acts, and the works of Paul.
2.) Ancient Jewish sources of historical documentation...such as "The Antiquities of the Jews" written by Josephus the historian hired by Rome to record a detailed account of the fall of Jerusalem and Israel.....Who directly mentions Jesus' not once but twice in this accurate account of Roman history {18;3:3, 20;9:1} and The Jewish Babylonian "Talmud" also makes note of Jesus' physical existence as proven by some the works contained therein which originated in the 1st century....Of course this work attempts to debunk the Christ as nothing but a man...but it does demonstrate the Historicity of Jesus none the less.
3.) Historical Roman Writings.....Pliny governor of Bithynia addressed the Historicity of Jesus in a direct and documented personal letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan in 112......Tacitus in his "Annals of 115" also addresses the Historicity of Jesus....as well as does Suetonius in 120.
4.) Writings of the early antagonists of Christ......Celus, Lucian of Samosata, Porphyry of Greece.....all of these spent a great deal of their lives trying to debunk the Christian religion...but what they did not seem to find fault in was the fact of Jesus' actual and historical existence....strange for people that were trying to destroy an entire culture....not to use a FACT of Jesus non existence to accomplish what they could not....We can only assume it simply slipped the minds of these great historical scholars...no?
5.) The testimonies of the Patristic writers....These "Church Fathers" have documented many historically verified writings dated in the 1st century...and they make mention of Jesus and Christianity....Polycarp 69 A.D lived in the city of Smyma in Asia Minor....Spoke Passionately of Jesus and wrote against Heretics of his day. Irenasus....120 A.D. said in one of his writings that Polycarp had a personal relationship with the Apostle John, and others who had directly seen the Lord {Eusebius V.XX} He died a Martyr having lived 86 years testifying of the Historicity of Jesus.
6.) The Art found in the Roman Catacombs........are found the words..."Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior"...among 4000000 graves and tombs....sure this makes sense, Jesus did not exist, yet millions living in the shadow of the first century were buried bearing these inscriptions.
7.) Finally the impact of Christianity itself upon history.......a world Calender....ending in modern times with 1/3 the worlds population having faith in the originator of that Calender. You have demonstrated NO LOGICAL or historical example of just how Christianity itself came into existence without the fact of its ORIGINATOR having historically existed...despite historical documentation to the contrary...Therefore Christianity itself is more than enough proof that the people who originated this religion knew of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
The case we have presented is not backed by mere faith but by UNSHAKABLE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION to the Historicity of one Christ Jesus.
And all the opining of your ad hominem personal philosophy and pseudo knowledge has no authority whatsoever to debunk....HISTORY ACTUAL. You have nothing but your bigotry and hatred to represent your FAITH in the human mind....and its clear...thats exactly were your evidence rests....in the human mind IN ALL ITS BIGOTED GLORY.:dunno:
The New Testament Documents which contain over 5000 Greek manuscripts, in whole or in part, or the historical documentation that proves that All of the BOOKS USED in canon of the New Testament was completed within 60 years of Jesus' death.
as "The Antiquities of the Jews" written by Josephus the historian hired by Rome to record a detailed account of the fall of Jerusalem and Israel.....
.....Pliny governor of Bithynia addressed the Historicity of Jesus in a direct and documented personal letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan in 112......Tacitus in his "Annals of 115" also addresses the Historicity of Jesus....as well as does Suetonius in 120.
Celus, Lucian of Samosata, Porphyry of Greece.....all of these spent a great deal of their lives trying to debunk the Christian religion..
Polycarp 69 A.D lived in the city of Smyma in Asia Minor....Spoke Passionately of Jesus and wrote against Heretics of his day. Irenasus....120 A.D. said in one of his writings that Polycarp had a personal relationship with the Apostle John, and others who had directly seen the Lord {Eusebius V.XX} He died a Martyr having lived 86 years testifying of the Historicity of Jesus.
The Art found in the Roman Catacombs........are found the words..."Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior"
Finally the impact of Christianity itself upon history.......a world Calender....ending in modern times with 1/3 the worlds population having faith in the originator of that Calender
Therefore Christianity itself is more than enough proof that the people who originated this religion knew of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
The canon process did not preclude the originals from existing, and most certainly the Historicity of their existence is beyond dispute as confirmed by the very real and valid writings of the Historians that were presented.
Never said they didn’t exist at one time…just that they no longer exist and we only have copies of copies of copies of copies…ad infitium ad naseum… as for the historicity of the NT documents, the first mention is by Papias who refers to a collection of Jesus sayings and also mentions that the recollections of Peter recorded by Mark but neither of these references is to what we know as the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. These were not very well known since other prominent Christian writings from this period do not contain any references to them (Polycarp, Epistle of Barnabas, the Exigetica, the Book of Hermas).
The first mention of Gospels is made in the works of Aristides of Athens, who referred to “the holy Gospel writing” around 140 CE. Marcion, the founder of the Marcionite heresy, established the first canon, which included a stripped down version of the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul (The oldest copy of a letter from Paul (Galatians) is dated at approximately 200 A.D. - Ehrman, 2005, p. 60) in the fifth decade of the second century. In 150 CE, Justin Martyr specifically refers the “memoirs” of Luke, Matthew and Mark but clearly he is not referring to the Gospels as we know them. Around a decade or more later, Tatian who was a student of Justin Martyr gathered the four gospels into a harmonized book that he wrote in his native Syric and called it the Diatessaron but it wasn’t until 180 CE that names were first mentioned – In Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies”
Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates, however, there is an increasing number of scholars who believe the later dates are more accurate (e.g., Koester, 1980; Ellegard, 1999; Freke & Gandy, 1999). Ellegard (1999) notes that the word synagogue does not appear in 1st Century writings (such as Paul) but does in 2nd Century texts, and that the word appears in all 4 canonical Gospels (Luke 17 times, Mark 12, Matthew 9, and John 5) thus suggesting their 2nd Century origins. He also notes that in 1st Century writings the early Christians are referred to as “saints” whereas in 2nd Century writings this usage is extremely rare. The only usage of “saint” in the canonical gospels is in Matthew (27:52), again suggesting that the Gospels were written in the 2nd Century.
Another indication that the gospels were written in the Second Century comes from the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew. Herein the inclusion of four women with "questionable" backgrounds is usually taken by scholars to be an attempt by the writers of Matthew to discount the rumors that Mary had an affair with a Roman archer. In other words, if these four women with questionable backgrounds nonetheless led exalted lives, then Mary's questionable background can be discounted too. While there is near unanimity that this is the rationale, as far as we know, rumors about Mary are a Second Century phenomenon, mentioned for the first time in Celsus, around 175 AD. Hence, any remedies to offset these rumors must also have been from the Second Century.
Continuing with the Gospel of Matthew, those writers attempted damage control again in the passage about the resurrection, in which they claimed "this story [stealing the body of Jesus from the tomb] is still told among the Jews to this day (28:15).” In fact, there are no references to this story in the literature of the First Century and only in the Second Century is it mentioned by writers such as Tertullian [c. 155 - 230] and Justin Martyr [c. 100 - 165]. So, if the writers of Matthew are writing when these rumors are “still being told”, they must be writing in the Second Century, not the First.
Or consider the Gospel of Luke. Luke goes to great lengths to tone down the apocalyptic emphasis clearly present in Mark. Ehrman (1999) notes: “Luke continues to think that the end of the age is going to come in his own lifetime. But he does not seem to think that it was supposed to come in the lifetime of Jesus’ companions. Why not? Evidently because he was writing after they had died… (p. 130).” Now consider what the “lifetime of Jesus’ companions” involved. Assuming Jesus died in 36 AD and assuming that some of his followers were 12 to 15 years old at the time (a reasonable assumption, particularly considering that “boy” is often mentioned), and assuming that it wasn’t unusual for a person to live to be 60 years old in those days (some people are said to live to be 100, but that’s probably an exaggeration), it means that the boys who attended Jesus would have lived until the end of the First Century. So if the writers of the Gospel of Luke were writing after the followers of Jesus were all dead, ipso facto, they were writing at the very end of the First Century, or more likely, in the Second Century. If you narrow the definition of "followers" to refer only to the disciples, we have to consider John, son of Zedebee, who was said to have lived to be 100. If John was 30 when Jesus died, and lived another 70 years, it still places the writing of Luke into the Second Century.
A further indication that the gospels are Second Century inventions comes from a careful study of the non-Christian writings (Van Voorst, 2000). The earliest works by Thallos (55 AD), Mara bar Serapion (73 AD), Pliny the Younger (100 AD), Tacitus (116 AD), and Suetonius (120 AD) contain virtually no historical information about Jesus, despite mentions of Christ, Chrestus, etc. But starting with Lucian of Samosata (165 AD), Jesus is mentioned as a "crucified sophist" and then with Celsus (175 AD) there is a plethora of historical information. Something happened between 120 AD and 170 AD that the non-historical Jesus suddenly assumed his historical mantle. Our assumption is that the appearance of the gospels, in the early to mid Second Century, accounts for this phenomenon. Had the Gospels been circulating in the First Century, historical material about Jesus would have appeared in the works of these writers early non-Christian writers such as Thallos, Pliny, and Tacitus.
We get still another indication that the Gospels were written in the Second Century from Pilate's title, Prefect. The office of Prefect was abolished around 46 AD, 10 years after Pilate had been removed from office. In 115 AD, Tacitus made the error of referring to Pilate as a Procurator, instead of a Prefect, probably because by that time the distinction had disappeared (Wroe, 1999, p. 65). Yet the Gospels refer to Pilate as a Procurator. Had they been written shortly after Jesus' death, the writers would have known about the difference between the Prefect and Procurator, and surely would have remembered the title of the longest serving Prefect in Judea. Instead, they use the term Procurator, implying that they are using the Tacitus error or, if not, they are writing at a similar time in which they and Tacitus make the same error. This places the gospel writings into the Second Century.
Another indicator that the Gospels are Second Century inventions comes from the rabid anti-Semitism contained therein. In the very early years, Christians were all Jews. By mid First Century, if the letters of Paul are to be believed, the Gentile movement took hold, but Jews and Gentiles still got along. But it was only after the destruction of the Temple and at the end of the First Century that relationships between Christians and Jews deteriorated, illustrated by the special malediction placed in the central Jewish prayer, the Shermoneh Esrei (aka Sherman Esrei), cursing the Nazarenes and other Christian groups. Thus, the rabid anti-Semitism of the gospels is clearly a Second Century phenomenon. groups, cementing the schism between Christians and Jews. Prior to this date (approximately 90 AD), such vehement anti-Semitism would not have been expected.
Finally, our survey of the early Christian art indicates that prior to the Third Century there are almost no portraits of Jesus in any medium. Had Jesus’ life been celebrated by the gospels as early as the First Century, one would have expected any explosion of artwork in the Second Century. Instead, it is only in the Third Century that we find such an explosion, suggesting that the gospels and the celebration of Jesus’ life is a Second Century phenomenon.
To summarize – Evidence from carbon dating, language analysis (e.g., use of Pilate, rabid anti-Semitism, the allusion to rumors about Mary, etc.) and citation as well as First Century non-Christian sources, show that the Gospels were written in the Second Century. Moreover, inferences from the artwork confirm this conclusion. By 160 A.D. we know, without question, that all four gospels were in circulation, and by 180 A.D. they were considered authoritative. Yet this is more than 100 years after Jesus’ death . Of course this is using the standard date of his life as assigned by Christians, which “ain’t necessarily so” to quote my Old Grandpaw.
Many orthodox scholars still stick stubbornly to the traditional earlier dates, however, there is an increasing number of scholars who believe the later dates are more accurate (e.g., Koester, 1980; Ellegard, 1999; Freke & Gandy, 1999). Ellegard (1999) notes that the word synagogue does not appear in 1st Century writings (such as Paul) but does in 2nd Century texts, and that the word appears in all 4 canonical Gospels (Luke 17 times, Mark 12, Matthew 9, and John 5) thus suggesting their 2nd Century origins. He also notes that in 1st Century writings the early Christians are referred to as “saints” whereas in 2nd Century writings this usage is extremely rare. The only usage of “saint” in the canonical gospels is in Matthew (27:52), again suggesting that the Gospels were written in the 2nd Century.
I said nothing about forgeries, just that the gospels were changed over a period of two centuries or more…as I pointed out we only have two small fragments from the 2nd century, the earliest is tentatively dated to 124 CE but by the 3rd century there are several fragments and manuscripts, but then that should not be a surprise, considering that the gospels were a product of the 2nd century. Please give your source for the British Museum study because the only one I can find is dated in the 1930s. I will address you seeming lack of knowledge of how Christian documents were reproduced for the first 3 centuries of the religion’s history. Until the 4th century (and the establishment of the professional scribes of the Alexanderia School) the various scriptures, Epistles, Apologia, etc were copied by whatever literate or semiliterate member of the congregation that was willing to spend the time and effort to make copies. The first centuries were a period where the large majority of the congregants were illiterate, consequently copying scriptures usually fell to those few members that were capable of reading, no matter how haltering their ability was. Paleoepigraphers point out that the level of competence varies to such an extent that often the very meaning of a word/phrase/sentence/verse is radically changed. This is why we have no idea which manuscript actually preserves the original and without the original we have no idea of the true message.
Complicating this is that the ancestors of modern Christianity had a myriad of competitors, some that seem to be older than they. These Competitors also had scriptures, scriptures that present an often different message than your ancestors. The Ebionites were the original church of Jersusalem and they considered Jesus entirely human, a prophet and nothing more. The Gnostics considered Jesus to be adopted at the moment of his baptism (the Christ entered him at that moment and subsumed his being) and at the moment of his death, the Christ (who was entirely a spirit) left him…hence the cry “My Lord, my Lord why have you left me”.
Add this to the fact that the current Gospels disagree among themselves and with recorded history, we come to the conclusion that as it currently stand, Christianity is based on a set of falsehoods and is no more valid than any other revealed established religion. :patriot:
by actual Science or History, the Bible is proven correct every time.
you just referenced from a dead antiquated language that has not existed for thousands of years...the original Hebrew language contained less than half of the letters of the English language
...the original Hebrew language contained less than half of the letters of the English language....thus, the possibility for the word used for CIRCLE had many uses...and could very well be used in describing a GLOBE, thus the possibility proves your bigoted position of SUGGESTING what truth this language is demonstrating is more than laughable.
the contextual structure concerning the 4 Pillars is also laughable simply because when its read in CONTEXT is very easy to prove that what was being presented was symbolic in nature...and not to be taken literally.
information that has been DEBUNKED time and time again......
there is NO documented historically demonstrated, observed, empirical INFORMATION that can prove the original scriptures were not drafted in the 1st century.
just as a plethora of Christian Historians have proven..via their direct referencing of such originals
The WORDS historically exist, and have existed for over 2000 years
.....you must prove your NEGATIVE suggestion of accusing them to be less than truthful. Simply present....observable, proof of what you charge and you have proven your case
There is no evidence outside of the Bible to support the existence of Jesus. If you can produce eyewitness accounts of Jesus then I am happy to believe there was a man called jesus.
So far no-one has been able to.
Strange do you not think that there is not one single eyewitness account of the Son of God?
Once you prove there was a man called Jesus, the next step for you is demonstrating him as everything you have stated above.
There is a basic failure that all people who are so stanch in your position make.
Its the idea that because Jesus is important now he was improtant then and thus there should be ample amounts of records regarding him.
That idea could not be future from the truth. Jesus was a nobody. Just some random guy who tipped over some tables and angered a small yet power group of Jewish leaders who convinced their governor to get rid of a trouble maker.
Why would there be copious amounts of material about such a person? Even the bible talks about a magician doing many of the same miracle that Jesus did, but there are no records of him either. At that point in history this, he was equally unimportant.
Now you might, or they might have been brought up later in the thread (sorry for not reading it all), of the historians (and they were very good ones for their time) that did write about Jesus every single one of them wrote as though he was a known an real person. None call him a myth, none question his existence.
Now of course none of this remotely even suggest Jesus was the Son of God, but it is more than reasonable to believe that he was a real if unimportant Jewish rebel preacher.
No eyewitness accounts of the supposed son of a God, interesting no?
All the historians accounts of jesus are of 3rd, 4th 5th hand, urban myth stuff. Yet to be proven wrong on the eyewitness accounts, unless you have some?
ugh...did you actually read anything typed in the post you quoted?
No, there aren't any eyewitness accounts of the supposed son of God for the reasons I just mentioned. Why? Because to 99% of those that had contact with him he was just a crazy kook rabbi whos entire "career" lasted maybe a year and who didn't do anything remarkable or noteworthy during that time.
And all of those supposed miracles nobody seemed to notice? Surely someone would have seen something. A man who goes around healing the blind and yet nobody thinks to take note of it?
Tacitus a Roman senator and Historian. Not a dumb guy or one who would not have access to actual Roman records not accessible by just anyone. And known to be a very reliable source from other historians of all time frames. There is no reason to believe that he would have wrote anything knowingly false.
Pliny the Younger talks about an already established Christian tradition only 90 years after the death of Jesus.
You don't seen any cults during this time frame coming from absolutely imaginary figures
anytime Jesus or his followers are mentioned they are mentioned to have a legit standing and reason for existence.
One would think that if such a religion so diametrically apposed to both Roman law and their Jewish forefathers would have something negative written about them and their supposed originator, but nothing as such exists.
Most of those miracles where done in front of just a small number of people anyway
Again, Jesus was a nobody, he's work lasted during only a very short period of time, and most people thought was just another magician and criminal.
Like noted earlier, Pilate, someone far more important to the everyday existence of operations of Judea has all of just his name carved in a stone structure that confirms his existence.
Ultraviolet photos of a critical word from the earliest known extant manuscript of Tacitus (second Medicean, Laurentian library, Italy).
The photograph reveals that the word purportedly used by Tacitus in Annals 15.44, chrestianos ("the good"), has been overwritten as christianos ("the Christians") by a later hand, a deceit which explains the excessive space between the letters and the exaggerated "dot" (dash) above the new "i". The entire "torched Christians" passage of Tacitus is not only fake, it has been repeatedly "worked over" by fraudsters to improve its value as evidence for the Jesus myth.
The truth may be that there was an original gnostic cult following a personified virtue, "Jesus Chrestos" (Jesus the Good). Consequently, they were called Chrestians, an appellation which seems to have attached itself at an early date to the sectarians of the "heretic" Marcion. Support for this possibility comes from the earliest known "Christian" inscription, found in the 19th century on a Marcionite church at Deir Ali, three miles south of Damascus. Dated to 318-9, the inscription reads "The meeting-house of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good", using the word Chrestos, not Christos.
As a flesh-and-blood, "historical" Jesus gradually eclipsed the allegorical Jesus so, too, did "goodness" get eclipsed by "Messiahship". Justin, in his First Apology (4), about thirty years after the death of Tacitus, plays on the similarity in sound of the two words Χριστὸς (Christ) and χρηστὸς (good, excellent) to argue for the wholesome, commendable character of Jesus followers.
mako;64920 wrote:
And that is exactly who and what Jesus was.
I can also reply with my own copy paste which I will here.
This is the key objection to using this passage. "Chrestus," as Suetonius spells it, is the correct Latin form of a true Greek name, so that some would say that it does not refer to Jesus Christ. Benko, for example, has suggested that "Chrestus" was some kind of Jewish agitator who had no association with Christianity, perhaps a semi-Zealot reacting to plans by Caligula to put a statue of Zeus in the Jewish Temple; as for the spelling issue, he points out that Suetonius spells "Christians" correctly, so it is unlikely that he misspelled "Christus." [see Benk.EC49, 410-3] . Some may find support for this in that Suetonius' sentence literally refers to "the instigator," not actually "the instigation." [VanV.JONT, 31, 33; who counters, though, that the name "Chrestus" is otherwise unattested among the Jews. On the other hand, one oddball author suggested that the reference was to Jesus Himself - still alive, and visiting Rome in the 40s AD!] Mason [Maso.JosNT, 166], on the other hand, believes that the reference is to Jesus, but that Suetonius altered the name he heard to that of a common slave name. Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 22; see also Harr.GosP5, 354, VanV.JONT, 34-5] notes that the substitution of an "e" for an "i" was "a common error in the spelling of proper names" at the time; Van Voorst adds the peculiarity of a gravestone that offers both spellings at once! Harris also says that because Suetonius did not say, "at the institution of a certain Chrestus," the historian expected that his readers would know the person that he was referring to - hence, this "Chrestus" could not have been merely a Jewish agitator, for there was only one possible "Chrestus" that Suetonius could have been referring to that would have been so well known at the time he was writing (120 AD). It may be that Suetonius wrongly presumed from one of his sources that Chrestus had at some time in the past personally delivered His message to Rome, and that is why he seems to indicate that Chrestus was directly behind the agitation. [ibid., 356] Harris also explains, in an amusing footnote, that to Greek ears, the name "Christos" would have sounded like something drawn from medical or building technology, meaning either "anointed" or "plastered"! (The Romans who heard these Jews talking about "Christus" assumed that, perhaps, another type of "plastering" was going on!) So, they switched it to the more comprehensible "Chrestus," which means "useful one." Harris further indicates, via a quote from the 4th-century Latin Christian Lactantius, that Jesus was commonly called "Chrestus" by those who were ignorant.
mako;64920 wrote:
mako;64920 wrote:mako;64920 wrote:mako;64920 wrote:
Again you do not address the actual topic of the statement. You also seem to pick and choose when these sources are acceptable to use and not.
Thank you for the redundant if not unnecessary historical background. Yes, those followers who would go on to establish Christianity did in fact self-id with the already established Jewish tradition. Yet still, there is nothing at all from the time period that downplays, denies, or is even slanderous against them or their newest prophet.
So its ok to use the sources proof that their authors or audience might be anti-Christian but not that they wrote of the Christians as having legitimate standing.
Again none of them deny Christians that.
mako;64920 wrote:
Yes miracles for the most part performed in obscure areas in front of a few dozen illiterate people. And there is any reasonable expectation that there should be copious amounts of external proof of them. Please lets not be intellectually dishonest here.
And again, you missed the whole point with the chronological establishment of the Jesus tradition.
mako;64920 wrote:mako;64920 wrote:
