This guy:
Philip the Evangelist was a (former(?) not sure) General in Herod's army according to Eisenman.
I don't think it is a popular idea.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
This guy:
Philip the Evangelist was a (former(?) not sure) General in Herod's army according to Eisenman.
I don't think it is a popular idea.
Belz...
Fiend God
And you are a broken record.
And how many times have I told you that conflating the mythical and the historical is a poor way to prove your point ?
Belz...
Fiend God
And how many times has Belz... made a claim that Jesus is a real guy ?
Zero.
You are so utterly obsessed with your conclusion that you are unable to follow any conversation on the topic. But your continued confusion is not my problem.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Which Herod?
I'd have to look it up, but I think Herod the Tetrarch. Or Agrippa II, not sure if that's the same bloke.
Now I think it might be Herod of Chalcis.
If I come across it again, I'll make a note.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
J1
meanwhile, we seem to be assuming a great deal while the Admiral is napping.
pakeha
While I do thank you for the link about the Pliny-Trajan correspondence, I was unable to recognize the two short letters I have read from the commentator's lengthy descriptions of them. I appreciate that any writing touching on Christian interests which arrives to us through Christian channels must be viewed with caution. I share the initial caution, but few of the ensuing concerns.
According to Acts, Stephen was killed for blasphemy against God and Moses. It is a complete answer because that charge is both sufficient on its face for him to be killed and is the entirety of the information about the charges which is available. I gave my source, Acts 6:11 for the charges, and for the whole incident, which is the surrounding and succeeding text, including all of chapter 7, where you can see how he answered the charges.
meanwhile, we seem to be assuming a great deal while the Admiral is napping.
Did Peter appoint Clement before or after he shot down the flying magician from the skies over Rome?
What page are you on? What book is it in? I know that you and your mouthpiece are offended by requests for sources for these many extraordinary and contentious assertions. After all, how can you can keep making new claims if you have to take the time to back up each of the many that you have made already? Think of how long a post that would take - a book at least. Nevertheless, please do your reader the simple courtesy of naming the text you're talking about.
Thank you for naming this text at least. Those are two separate issues, since the letter ... oh wait, it's unresonable to ask where in the likely-authentic letter does its author say he met Peter.
Being able to quote from documents is evidence for the existence of the documents. What does it add, if anything, to the documents' own value as evidence for the existence of Jesus?
pakeha
While I do thank you for the link about the Pliny-Trajan correspondence, I was unable to recognize the two short letters I have read from the commentator's lengthy descriptions of them. I appreciate that any writing touching on Christian interests which arrives to us through Christian channels must be viewed with caution. I share the initial caution, but few of the ensuing concerns.
But Price's points dove tail into what Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall states regarding the meaning of "historical Jesus":
1) a man, Jesus, existed, and is the source of the myth but that the myth itself may not be an accurate portrayal of the man;
2) not only did Jesus exist, but the Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events.
Even in point 2 we still have a wild variation in just what Jesus supposedly was and point 1 allows you to basically have Jesus be anything you want him to be...even if it is as out there as a spaceman from an advanced civilization.
I'm fine with this but the topic was Jesus as myth which I find difficult to reconcile.
Well Pliny wrote a letter and Trajan replied. It's clear they persecuted Christians for being Christians. The entire uproar was over one guy who claimed to the the Son of God and who acknowledged to the court that he was indeed. For that he was crucified as a threat to the order of Israel and blasphemy daring to declare himself the Son of God which is a Jewish way to say God himself. Pilate crucified him to placate the elders and their law which he had already been admonished for not respecting enough but mostly because he was creating trouble for the Romans and they feared an uprising.
So with that background it's clear that at the very least Pliny didn't want trouble and it is a huge huge stretch to think he didn't know about this Jesus and his followers. It makes good print and story to think he got Jesus confused with others but that is just not very probable.
Now I don't think he cared who Jesus was but it is very clear Pliny knew there was a person who was crucified and his followers had some very weird (to him) ideas. This is definitely a real person who has created these followers who concern him. I'm just as certain the Emperor had been clued in about this Jesus and his followers and you can read his response.
The Pliny letter to Trajan reveals that Pliny knew NOTHING of a character called Jesus and knew nothing of a Christian cult who supposedly worshiped Jesus as a God since at least 37-41 CE.
In the Pliny letter Pliny executed some Christians but did NOT know what they believed and had to TORTURE some to find out the truth.
The Pliny letter confirms that the Jesus story was unknown and was not established up to c 110 CE.
Around c 110 CE Pliny had no idea, no clue, that there was a supposed character called Jesus of whom many Gospels and letters were written and should have been circulated in the Roman Empire, even Rome and Bithynia, since before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.
1 Peter 1:1 KJV
The Pliny letter confirms there were people called Christians BEFORE the Jesus story was invented.
The story of Jesus was invented AFTER c 110 CE.
That's a good read. My knowledge of Pliny is not expansive to say the least.
I think they are like many other 'letters' where we run into the same problems. You can dissect these in which way but loose but you still have the basic topic which rings true. Most people agree there was persecution and it was because they followed this Jesus or at the very least a troublemaker put to death whom his followers have a ridiculous belief of a resurrection and something along the lines of eating his flesh. I am not a scholar in that medium only an amateur with an interest. So if you have a convincing argument one way or the other I'm happy to listen and read more about it. I don't think the case wobbles around one particular datum.
Indeed.
Some on the HJ side here appear not to know that the word "Christ" is just the Greek translation of the ancient Hebrew word for "Messiah" .
It’s only after the writing of Paul c.60AD, where Paul is the first known person to say that the messiah had been a person/spirit called Jesus (Iesos, Yehoshua) that later writers took the word “Christians" to mean people who followed Paul's belief in Iesos (Jesus) as the promised messiah.
Before Paul, any mention of Christians only means followers of the Jewish faith of believing in the prophesised messiah of the OT.
That's a good read. My knowledge of Pliny is not expansive to say the least.
I think they are like many other 'letters' where we run into the same problems. You can dissect these in which way but loose but you still have the basic topic which rings true. Most people agree there was persecution and it was because they followed this Jesus or at the very least a troublemaker put to death whom his followers have a ridiculous belief of a resurrection and something along the lines of eating his flesh. I am not a scholar in that medium only an amateur with an interest. So if you have a convincing argument one way or the other I'm happy to listen and read more about it. I don't think the case wobbles around one particular datum.
If your knowledge of Pliny is limited then you should refrain from making statements which are not compatible with Pliny's letter.
It is a fact that Pliny did not mention a character called Jesus and Pliny also showed that he was not aware of the stories of Jesus and Churches where Jesus was worshiped as a God.
There should have been disciples and apostles who had Publicly preached the Gospel and documented the stories in books and Epistles in circulation in Rome and Bithynia since 37-41 CE
Pliny was a Roman lawyer and lived in Rome so it must be expected that based on his profession alone that he was likely to at least hear about the Jesus cult if there were being persecuted and martyred under the Roman Emperors.
Why should Pliny TOTURE Christians to find out the truth when it should have already been established what they believed for at least 60 year?
The Pliny letter is evidence against the NT including the Pauline Corpus.
Pliny never saw, read or heard of the Gospel of Jesus or the Pauline Jesus.
The stories of Jesus were unknown by Pliny and that is precisely why he TORTURED the Christians who never even mentioned Jesus AFTER the gruesome ordeal.
The Pliny letter supports the argument that the Entire NT is a product of forgeries--late writers posing as pre 70 CE authors.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
I commend you on a full post without insults !
Explain.
You mean, from a different messianic tradition ?
Well, at least you made one post without them...
Can you provide evidence that the gospels pretend to be written pre-70 ? Or even Paul, for that matter ?
Explain.
You mean, from a different messianic tradition ?
Well, at least you made one post without them...
Can you provide evidence that the gospels pretend to be written pre-70 ? Or even Paul, for that matter ?
I don't know who you are referring to, but I'm well aware of the origins of the word "Christian".
One thing I'd like to see is a reference to Christians existing before Paul. Do you have such a thing?
Where is the evidence for Christians existing anywhere before the late 1st century in Antioch?
But Price's points dove tail into what Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall states regarding the meaning of "historical Jesus":
1) a man, Jesus, existed, and is the source of the myth but that the myth itself may not be an accurate portrayal of the man;
2) not only did Jesus exist, but the Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events.
Even in point 2 we still have a wild variation in just what Jesus supposedly was and point 1 allows you to basically have Jesus be anything you want him to be...even if it is as out there as a spaceman from an advanced civilization.
You did notice that little smilie face at the end of the statement? You mean to tell me that you don't recognize satire?!
Gads, he doesn't recognize satire (nor did he get the bad pun I also made)!
Last edited:
You did notice that little smilie face at the end of the statement? You mean to tell me that you don't recognize satire?!
Yes I noticed it. You seemed to think that because the HJ was different to the Gospel Jesus that therefore people could say anything about him.
I'm just saying that some ideas are ruled out.
I saw the joke, I just thought you were using it to make an actual point.
My mistake. I should have known that you didn't have a point.
Sorry.
Gads, he doesn't recognize satire (nor did he get the bad pun I also made)!
I absolutely recognize satire. You just aren't very good at it.
I do admit to missing the pun though, where was that?
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Maximara: I found the reference to "Chrestians" as opposed to "Christians" in Tacitus here. However, the site doesn't say that the"Chrestians" were followers of Serapis. Here is what it says:
In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown. It is impossible today to say who altered the letter e into an i. In Suetonius’ Nero 16.2, "christiani", however, seems to be the original reading".[16] Since the alteration became known it has given rise to debates among scholars as to whether Tacitus deliberately used the term Chrestians, or if a scribe made an error during the Middle Ages.[17][18] It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians.[19] Robert Van Voorst claims that many sources indicate that the term Chrestians was also used among the early followers of Jesus by the second century.[18][20] The term Christians appears only three times in the New Testament, the first usage (Acts 11:26) giving the origin of the term.[18] In all three cases the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus in Greek reads Chrestianoi.[18][20] In Phrygia a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".[20]
Adolf von Harnack argued that Chrestians was the original wording, and that Tacitus deliberately used Christus immediately after it to show his own superior knowledge compared to the population at large.[18] Robert Renehan has stated that it was natural for a Roman to mix the two words that sounded the same, that Chrestianos was the original word in the Annals and not an error by a scribe.[21][22] Van Voorst has stated that it was unlikely for Tacitus himself to refer to Christians as Chrestianos i.e. "useful ones" given that he also referred to them as "hated for their shameful acts".[17] Paul Eddy sees no major impact on the authenticity of the passage or its meaning regardless of the use of either term by Tacitus.[23]
I'm interested in your take on this, since I do value your input.
In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown. It is impossible today to say who altered the letter e into an i. In Suetonius’ Nero 16.2, "christiani", however, seems to be the original reading".[16] Since the alteration became known it has given rise to debates among scholars as to whether Tacitus deliberately used the term Chrestians, or if a scribe made an error during the Middle Ages.[17][18] It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians.[19] Robert Van Voorst claims that many sources indicate that the term Chrestians was also used among the early followers of Jesus by the second century.[18][20] The term Christians appears only three times in the New Testament, the first usage (Acts 11:26) giving the origin of the term.[18] In all three cases the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus in Greek reads Chrestianoi.[18][20] In Phrygia a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".[20]
Adolf von Harnack argued that Chrestians was the original wording, and that Tacitus deliberately used Christus immediately after it to show his own superior knowledge compared to the population at large.[18] Robert Renehan has stated that it was natural for a Roman to mix the two words that sounded the same, that Chrestianos was the original word in the Annals and not an error by a scribe.[21][22] Van Voorst has stated that it was unlikely for Tacitus himself to refer to Christians as Chrestianos i.e. "useful ones" given that he also referred to them as "hated for their shameful acts".[17] Paul Eddy sees no major impact on the authenticity of the passage or its meaning regardless of the use of either term by Tacitus.[23]
I'm interested in your take on this, since I do value your input.
Last edited:
This has come up before. I think it is because of a letter describing Egyptians and there superstitious religious practices. Some ancient Roman compares the followers of Christ and Serapis saying they all do anointings and exorcisms etc.
Some people have decided that it means that Serapis and Jesus worship are the same thing.
I'm trying to remember the name of the roman who wrote the letter. He mentions that The Patriarch had to suffer these superstitions when he visited...
there/their
Now tell me the difference mr so-called Brainache...
I blame spellcheck.
Well St Peter definitely existed, because the Vatican just put his bones on public display in St Peters Square in Rome. And Peter died in c.67AD, How cool is that!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...he-vatican-says-it-doesnt-matter-8960451.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...he-vatican-says-it-doesnt-matter-8960451.html
Interesting:
Might not be Peter, but it's not as bad as finding out about some Saints:
Not Safe For Children!
Last edited:
- Status