The Historical Jesus II

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is a product of intellectual dishonesty.

Let us examine Galatians 1.19 found in manuscripts and Codices dated to the 2nd century and later.

This is a KJV translation of the verse.

Galatians 1.19--- "But other of the apostles saw I none save James the Lord's brother"

In a most despicable intellectual dishonest argument circulated around the world it is claimed the "Lord" is the historical Jesus.

Anyone who understands Koine Greek would immediately realize the "Lord" in Galatians 1.19 refers to the LORD GOD.

The word translated as "LORD" "KY" in Galatians 1.19 is the same NOMINA SACRA -"ΚΥ" for the "LORD GOD" which is found hundreds of times in the Greek Septuagint Old Testament.

Examine images of the Psalms of the Codex Sinaiticus and you will see the NOMINA SACRA "KY" for the "LORD" GOD.

Examine the Last line of the first column of Psalms 117.

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=26&chapter=118&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0


Examine an image of Galatians 1 found in Papyri 46.

Examine line 24.

The NOMINA SACRA "ΚΥ" for the "LORD" GOD is used.

http://earlybible.com/images/p46gal2.jpg

Examine an image of Galatians 1.19 in the Sinaticus Codex.

Examine line 13 the NOMINA SACRA "ΚΥ" for the "LORD" GOD is used.

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=19&zoomSlider=0

It was already known for HUNDREDS of years since at least the 2nd-3rd century that Galatians 1.19 did not refer to an historical Jesus [a man with a human father] but was a reference to the LORD GOD.

Please, stop the intellectual dishonesty.

The EVIDENCE from antiquity has been shown. It can no longer be denied.

The IMAGES of Galatians 1.19 of PAPYRI 46 and the SINAITICUS Codex CONFIRM that the NOMINA SACRA "KY" refers to the LORD GOD.

 

[Brainache]

Non-posting readers of this thread who may still think there is actually still some sort of evidenec in the bible for a human Jesus, should take a long hard look at quotes such as the following which are still being produced by one of the two remaining permanent HJ believers here -






That quote is trying to claim that we should believe Jesus was real because in one of Paul's letters it says that on the night of his betrayal Jesus sat eating bread and drinking wine with disciples. We are supposed to believe that means Jesus must have been real because only real people sit around eating and drinking.

That lords supper story originates from one of Paul's letters. But as has just been explained at least a dozen times on the past few pages alone, when Paul offers that story to his readers, he is absolutely insistent and absolutely clear about where he got that story from. He got it by revelation from the Lord!

In telling that story, Paul says (from memory) "for I received of the Lord, what I now pass on to you ...". There can be absolutely no mistake about what Paul says there. He does NOT claim to have got any such story from any humans who were present at any such supper. And he did not get it as a result of himself being at the supper. Instead the story came to him as divine revelation from the Lord who was by then a dead talking spirit from the sky!

And yet the HJ poster above is still trying to tell people here that Paul's divine revelations from a heavenly spirit are evidence showing Jesus was real. And that by the way is the same HJ believer who just spectacularly blew his own HJ position to pieces by admitting that he believes Jesus was a “composite character” made up of various anonymous people (which is a long-time classic mythicist theory, not a HJ position at all).

That just shows the utterly absurd depths to which the HJ position has now sunk.

What it shows is you are completely misrepresenting my position.

Your objections aside, I don't think Paul received any heavenly vision, I think he gained his knowledge of Jesus in more mundane ways. The point is, he isn't describing a celestial sub-lunar Jesus. He says he had a spiritual revelation in order to claim to be an Apostle, like those "Pillars" Peter and the "Lord's brother"...But unlike those guys, Paul's revelation is from the "spirit" not the flesh.

So, unless you are actually endorsing Carrier's sub-lunar celestial Jesus made by god from his heavenly sperm bank of David, you should accept that when Paul describes a Jesus who was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh", he was describing an earthly Jesus who claimed descent from old King David in the normal human way.

As for me saying that stories of other people were ascribed to Jesus in the gospels, that doesn't make me a mythicist unless you think anyone who doesn't take the gospels literally is a mythicist.
ETA: People like J. D. Crossan and E. P. Sanders also accept the fact that there are inauthentic sayings and episodes in the gospel stories. If your definition of "Mythicist" includes people like them, it is meaningless.

I wish you would read up on some of the actual scholarship around this issue. Take a closer look at things like the DSS and see what those people thought a Messiah was (hint: being a human being was part of the job description, spirits need not apply).

 

[maximara]

But we know it existed before then, because Pliny has to deal with Christians in about 110 in Bithynia, so he writes to the Emperor for advice on Christians and the Emperor Trajan seems to know all about them. How did that happen?

Actually there is nothing in Emperor Trajan's reply that shows any such knowledge. Look at what he says:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Something very similar to this advice came about from Alonso de Salazar Frías in 1613 regarding witches. Part of the protocol that Salazar came up with regard to witches reads very much like Emperor Trajan's protocol regarding Christians:

They were not to be sought out.
Denouncement must come with actual proof
anonymous (and forced) accusations should not be allowed

Sure it is not one to one given the difference in cultures but Emperor Trajan's advice is nothing more then common sense to prevent the wild escalation that generally occurs with a Moral Panic. No special knowledge of Christians is needed here.

 

[Brainache]

Actually there is nothing in Emperor Trajan's reply that shows any such knowledge. Look at what he says:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Something very similar to this advice came about from Alonso de Salazar Frías in 1613 regarding witches. Part of the protocol that Salazar came up with regard to witches reads very much like Emperor Trajan's protocol regarding Christians:

They were not to be sought out.
Denouncement must come with actual proof
anonymous (and forced) accusations should not be allowed

Sure it is not one to one given the difference in cultures but Emperor Trajan's advice is nothing more then common sense to prevent the wild escalation that generally occurs with a Moral Panic. No special knowledge of Christians is needed here.

Yes, but he does know that it is an illegal activity and that they don't worship Roman gods etc. So some knowledge of the cult was present in Rome by that time, which was about twenty years before the Bar Kokhba revolt.

 

[maximara]

Yes, but he does know that it is an illegal activity and that they don't worship Roman gods etc. So some knowledge of the cult was present in Rome by that time, which was about twenty years before the Bar Kokhba revolt.

This is very basic knowledge and not unique to Christianity

The Bacchanals were declared illegal in 186 BCE because according to Livy "there was nothing wicked, nothing flagitious, that had not been practiced among them"

Pliny in Natural History 30.4. reported that under Tiberius Druids as well as their diviners and physicians were made illegal.

For all we know the Roman knowledge of Christianity was on par with my grandfather's knowledge of Mormons ('They're like the Amish but they have electricity') - slowly rising to nil.

If a religion repeatedly caused problems (like Bacchanals) or was supposedly performing immortal acts (Druids supposedly practiced human sacrifice) the Romans would outlaw it. Odds are Roman simply dumped Christians into the Messiah follower pile.

Note that Pliny's test to prove someone was not a Christian ("offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods") would also fail a Jew so either there were no Jews in the Bithynia-Pontus Province or Romans were not making a distinction here (for whatever reason)

If the Pontus Philo references is part of the now merged Bithynia-Pontus Province (it could refer instead to to the entire geographic area along the coast) then there had been Jews there. Since Pliny's test would fail Jews as well as Christians either something happened to these Jews or the Romans didn't didn't distinguish between Jews and Christians in this crackdown.

 

[dejudge]

What it shows is you are completely misrepresenting my position.

Your objections aside, I don't think Paul received any heavenly vision, I think he gained his knowledge of Jesus in more mundane ways. The point is, he isn't describing a celestial sub-lunar Jesus. He says he had a spiritual revelation in order to claim to be an Apostle, like those "Pillars" Peter and the "Lord's brother"...But unlike those guys, Paul's revelation is from the "spirit" not the flesh.

Again, what you think is of no value because you will not be able to present any evidence. You very well know that it is claimed that Jesus was FROM HEAVEN in 1 Corinthians 15.


1. The Pauline Jesus is the Lord GOD.

2. The Pauline Jesus is FROM HEAVEN.


The manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus show that the Lord Jesus has the very same NOMINA SACRA as the God of the Jews.

The author of Galatians introduced the character called Jesus with the NOMINA SACRA "KY".

See Galatians 1.3---3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.

http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-1.html

Examine line 15 of the image of Galatians in Papyrus 46.

The Lord Jesus has the same NOMINA SACRA as the Lord God of the Jews.

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...&chapter=1&lid=en&side=r&verse=3&zoomSlider=0

Examine line 12-13 of column 3 of the Sinaiticus manuscript.

The Lord Jesus has the same NOMINA SACRA as the LORD God of the Jews.

In Papyri 46 it is stated that Jesus was FROM HEAVEN--SPIRITUAL.

http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv

Papyri 46 1 Corinthians 15---ο πρωτος ανθρωπος εκ γης χοικος ο δευτερος ανθρωπος πνευματικος εξ ουρανου

In the Sinaticus Codex of 1 Corinthians it is also stated that Jesus WAS FROM HEAVEN.

Sinaiticus 1 Corinthians 15:47 ---The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man, from heaven.

How long can this intellectual dishonesty continue?

The evidence from antiquity has been shown to contradict your fallacies.

 

[IanS]

Well here is that same quote again, with Max immediately pointing out that what Brainache says he believes about Jesus, is in fact a classic myth theory -

I also think that the gospel stories are quite likely based on a conflation of more than one person (plus a fair bit of invention, OT "Prophecy" and sectarian propaganda).

As I pointed out before that position would be MJ:

On the issue of the so-called “lords supper” as evidence of a human Jesus - I’m pretty sure that neutrals and non HJ readers who have followed the last few pages of this thread, including those who rarely post replies, will very easily see that such claims are rendered bogus once you know that the story comes from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians in which he specifically states that the supper story came to him as divine revelation from the spirit of Christ communicating from the heavens.

 

[Brainache]

Well here is that same quote again, with Max immediately pointing out that what Brainache says he believes about Jesus, is in fact a classic myth theory -

What? Accepting that episodes in the gospels are not all authentically about Jesus is basic modern HJ thinking. If that is your criteria for "myth theory" then you can include just about every member of the Jesus Seminar in your "Mythicist" definition. That will be news to them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

"Seven pillars of scholarly wisdom"[edit]
The Five Gospels lists seven bases for the modern critical scholarship of Jesus, claiming these "pillars" have developed since the end of the 18th century.[17]

Distinguishing between the historical Jesus and the stories that the gospels tell about him. Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768) started the historical Jesus project and David Friedrich Strauss established it as part of biblical criticism with his book Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1835).
Distinguishing between the Synoptics and John. Since the 1800s, Bible scholars have distinguished between the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) and the Jesus in John, generally favoring the synoptics as more historical and John as more spiritual.
Identifying Mark as the first gospel. By 1900, critical scholars had largely concluded that Mark came before Matthew and Luke and served as a source for each.
Identifying the hypothetical Q document. By 1900, scholars had hypothesized this lost collection of Jesus' sayings, thought to be the source of material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.
Questioning eschatological (apocalyptic) Jesus. In 1906, Albert Schweitzer portrayed Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet, and this analysis virtually put an end to historical inquiry into Jesus. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, critical historians returned to the topic of historical Jesus. Some of these scholars identified the apocalyptic imagery in the gospels as originating with John the Baptist, and not authentic to Jesus.
Distinguishing between oral and print cultures. Since Jesus lived and preached in an oral culture, scholars expect that short, memorable stories or phrases are more likely to be historical.
Reversing the burden of proof. In his day, Strauss had to offer evidence to question the historicity of any part of the gospels because his audience assumed that the gospels were historical. Today, the assumption is nearly the opposite, with the gospels understood to be so thoroughly embellished that one needs evidence to suppose that anything in them is historical.

Even those guys don't accept everything in the gospels at face value and they are a bunch of Christian apologists.

On the issue of the so-called “lords supper” as evidence of a human Jesus - I’m pretty sure that neutrals and non HJ readers who have followed the last few pages of this thread, including those who rarely post replies, will very easily see that such claims are rendered bogus once you know that the story comes from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians in which he specifically states that the supper story came to him as divine revelation from the spirit of Christ communicating from the heavens.

I would hope those very same posters would realise that Paul's description of Jesus doesn't match Carrier's ludicrous idea of a spirit constructed by god from heavenly Davidic tubs of spunk... And that if Paul wasn't talking about a Jesus manufactured in the sky by god in his Davidic sperm bank, he was talking about a Jesus who walked and talked down on earth. Indeed the whole concept of a Davidic Jewish Messiah requires a human being on earth, not a spirit in the sky.

You either accept the heavenly sperm bank idea of Carrier (which you deny), or you accept that Paul was talking about a Jesus who did stuff down here on earth (which you also deny)... Where Paul got his Jesus information from is a separate question. He might claim he got it all from a vision, but I have my doubts. I would say the "vision" was just the excuse he used to justify the fact that his version of Jesus was so at odds with James' version.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, but he does know that it is an illegal activity and that they don't worship Roman gods etc. So some knowledge of the cult was present in Rome by that time, which was about twenty years before the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Again, it is intellectually dishonest to put out the fallacy that people in antiquity called Christians were ONLY followers of or believers of the story of Jesus of Nazareth especially when you are aware of the MULTIPLE cults of Christians which did not follow or believe stories of Jesus.

The Christian cults called the Valentinians, the Marcionites, the Basilidians and others did not believe the stories of Jesus.

The Pliny letter does not identify any character called Jesus of Nazareth and Pliny did not know of the belief of the Christians which he executed.

"First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr, "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus, "Prescription for the Heretics" expose your fallacious argument.

The Pliny letter to Trajan is useless to argue for an historical Jesus and useless to argue for a cult of Christians who believed the story of Jesus in the NT.

 

[dejudge]

I would hope those very same posters would realise that Paul's description of Jesus doesn't match Carrier's ludicrous idea of a spirit constructed by god from heavenly Davidic tubs of spunk... And that if Paul wasn't talking about a Jesus manufactured in the sky by god in his Davidic sperm bank, he was talking about a Jesus who walked and talked down on earth. Indeed the whole concept of a Davidic Jewish Messiah requires a human being on earth, not a spirit in the sky.

The posters here know that the Pauline description of Jesus does not match the ludicrous idea that Jesus was a man with a human father.

We have manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus and Jesus is described as God Creator, God from heaven, God's Own Son, and that he was Spirit.

The Pauline Corpus is in agreement with the teachings of the Church that Jesus is ONE and the same substance as God and the Spirit.

Jesus of the Pauline Corpus was a Myth--the son of a God and a Woman.

 

[dejudge]

I would hope those very same posters would realise that Paul's description of Jesus doesn't match Carrier's ludicrous idea of a spirit constructed by god from heavenly Davidic tubs of spunk... And that if Paul wasn't talking about a Jesus manufactured in the sky by god in his Davidic sperm bank, he was talking about a Jesus who walked and talked down on earth. Indeed the whole concept of a Davidic Jewish Messiah requires a human being on earth, not a spirit in the sky.

The posters here know that the Pauline description of Jesus does not match the ludicrous idea that Jesus was a man with a human father.

We have manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus and Jesus is described as God Creator, God from heaven, God's Own Son, and that he was Spirit.

The Pauline Corpus is in agreement with the teachings of the Church that Jesus is ONE and the same substance as God and the Spirit.

Jesus of the Pauline Corpus was a Myth--the son of a God and a Woman.

 

[dejudge]

I would hope those very same posters would realise that Paul's description of Jesus doesn't match Carrier's ludicrous idea of a spirit constructed by god from heavenly Davidic tubs of spunk... And that if Paul wasn't talking about a Jesus manufactured in the sky by god in his Davidic sperm bank, he was talking about a Jesus who walked and talked down on earth. Indeed the whole concept of a Davidic Jewish Messiah requires a human being on earth, not a spirit in the sky.

The posters here know that the Pauline description of Jesus does not match the ludicrous idea that Jesus was a man with a human father.

We have manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus and Jesus is described as God Creator, God from heaven, God's Own Son, and that he was Spirit.

The Pauline Corpus is in agreement with the teachings of the Church that Jesus is ONE and the same substance as God and the Spirit.

Jesus of the Pauline Corpus was a Myth--the son of a God FROM Heaven and a Woman.

 

[Craig B]

The Pliny letter to Trajan is useless to argue for an historical Jesus and useless to argue for a cult of Christians who believed the story of Jesus in the NT.

It is, however, evidence for the existence of a "Christ" movement for upwards of twenty five years prior to 111 CE, whose adherents had elevated the messiah to the status of a god.

Of course you can assume anything you like, but that is evidence for Christianity at that place and time. It is also good evidence for its date of appearance - mid to later 1st century, and its location - Eastern Mediterranean/Asia Minor, and one of its known characteristics - refusal to worship the image of the Emperor. The Jews were permitted to abstain from such worship, because they had been around before the imperial cult was established. That is evidence that the Christ cult had not been in existence, and did not claim to have been in existence, prior to the imperial era.

 

[dejudge]

It is, however, evidence for the existence of a "Christ" movement for upwards of twenty five years prior to 111 CE, whose adherents had elevated the messiah to the status of a god.

Your statement is void of logic.

The claim of a Christ movement is not evidence of an historical Jesus and is not evidence the cult had elevated the messiah to the status as god.

Some Christian cults claimed the Christ was not human or that Christ was IMMORTAL and was a separate Spiritual being.

According to Christian cults of antiquity the Christ ENTERED Jesus when he was Baptized.

Please, just go and get familiar with "Against Heresies" and other writings against Heresies.

The historical Jesus [ a man with a human father] was a KNOWN LIE for at least 1600 years

Of course you can assume anything you like, but that is evidence for Christianity at that place and time. It is also good evidence for its date of appearance - mid to later 1st century, and its location - Eastern Mediterranean/Asia Minor, and one of its known characteristics - refusal to worship the image of the Emperor. The Jews were permitted to abstain from such worship, because they had been around before the imperial cult was established. That is evidence that the Christ cult had not been in existence, and did not claim to have been in existence, prior to the imperial era.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

You very well know that Christian writings do state that there were so-called Christian cults who did not believe the Jesus story.

The Christians called the Marcionites did not believe the Son of God had flesh.

It is just total nonsense to assume that all people called Christians in antiquity were followers or believers of the Jesus story.

You can't bamboozle anyone here with your fallacies.

 

[Craig B]

Please, just go and get familiar with "Against Heresies" and other writings against Heresies.

I know you find it most distressing WHEN anyone here deviates in the smallest degree FROM THE Infallible Teaching of Holy Mother Church.

The historical Jesus [ a man with a human father] was a KNOWN LIE for at least 1600 years

In the eyes of the Infallible Pontiffs the Virgin BORN Divine Jesus is a known eternal truth, WHICH I see that you defiantly proclaim AMONG us Heretics and Blasphemers.

You very well know that Christian writings do state that there were so-called Christian cults who did not believe the Jesus story.

The Christians called the Marcionites did not believe the Son of God had flesh.

It is just total nonsense to assume that all people called Christians in antiquity were followers or believers of the Jesus story.

These no-flesh people still believed in the JESUS story. They have BEEN denounced as Heretics.

Pliny says nothing about Christ having or not having flesh in the beliefs of the people he investigated. He explicitly states he doesn't give a toss about such details: he calls their doctrines excessive superstition and ignores them. He was interested only in the question whether these people were an illegal assembly, and whether they would venerate the Emperor.

 

[dejudge]

I know you find it most distressing WHEN anyone here deviates in the smallest degree FROM THE Infallible Teaching of Holy Mother Church.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

You admit the NT stories of Jesus are NOT credible but still use the very NT as a credible historical source WITHOUT external corroboration.

You DEVIATE from veracity by a LARGE degree.

In the eyes of the Infallible Pontiffs the Virgin BORN Divine Jesus is a known eternal truth, WHICH I see that you defiantly proclaim AMONG us Heretics and Blasphemers. These no-flesh people still believed in the JESUS story. They have BEEN denounced as Heretics.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

The no-flesh people did not believe Jesus was born.

Pliny says nothing about Christ having or not having flesh in the beliefs of the people he investigated. He explicitly states he doesn't give a toss about such details: he calls their doctrines excessive superstition and ignores them. He was interested only in the question whether these people were an illegal assembly, and whether they would venerate the Emperor.

Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

Pliny said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth and said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth having flesh.

 

[Craig B]

Again, you display intellectual
Again, you display intellectual dishonesty.

Pliny said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth and said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth having flesh.

You display inability to understand what I wrote, which was

Pliny says nothing about Christ having or not having flesh in the beliefs of the people he investigated.

Where is "Jesus"? Where is "Nazareth"? And I said exactly that Pliny said nothing about Christ having flesh. So what are you on about?

 

[dejudge]

You display inability to understand what I wrote, which was Where is "Jesus"? Where is "Nazareth"? And I said exactly that Pliny said nothing about Christ having flesh. So what are you on about?

I said you display intellectual dishonesty. Your posts are recorded. Why can't you tell us EXACTLY what you said?

Pliny said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth and did not say Jesus of Nazareth had flesh.

The "no flesh" Christian cult did not believe Jesus was born.

 

[Craig B]

I said you display intellectual dishonesty. Your posts are recorded. Why can't you tell us EXACTLY what you said?

Pliny said nothing about Jesus of Nazareth and did not say Jesus of Nazareth had flesh.

The "no flesh" Christian cult did not believe Jesus was born.

This is very ODD. Here is what I said which you have not RECORDED exactly. Your recording device must HAVE blown a fuse, and then ceased TO function! I wrote

Pliny says nothing about Christ having or not having flesh in the beliefs of the people he investigated. He explicitly states he doesn't give a toss about such details: he calls their doctrines excessive superstition and ignores them. He was interested only in the question whether these people were an illegal assembly, and whether they would venerate the Emperor.

If you find anyone who says Pliny used the WORDS Jesus or Nazareth you may argue your point WITH them.

 

[dejudge]

This is very ODD. Here is what I said which you have not RECORDED exactly. Your recording device must HAVE blown a fuse, and then ceased TO function!

It took you a long time to post EXACTLY what you said.

Again, what you said displays intellectual dishonesty.

In the Pliny letter to Trajan he TORTURED some of the Christians to find out what those Christians believed which demonstrates that he was interested in any detail the TORTURED victims would give.

It is intellectually dishonest to say Pliny "explicitly states he doesn't give a toss about such details"

The Tortured victims did not mention a character called Jesus of Nazareth and did not mention they worshiped Jesus of Nazareth as a God.

I wrote If you find anyone who says Pliny used the WORDS Jesus or Nazareth you may argue your point WITH them.

The Pliny letter does not use the words Jesus of Nazareth or that the Christians worshiped Jesus of Nazareth as a God so why are you arguing with me?