Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Jesus Types Boost DaVinci Code Release!

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Jesus Types Boost DaVinci Code Release!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:42 am Post subject:

mithridates wrote:

Well, this is interesting. Since I'm making yogurt right now and too busy to write anything of length I'll just paste something that a friend of mine sent back to me when I sent him the following links to peruse. Curious to see what anyone thinks of his response.

I generally like Ehrman. I think he occasionally misses the mark, but in general I've really enjoyed his scholarship.

Yes, the heretics were fragmented groups. The orthodoxy had the backing of Constantine. Prior to Nicea and Eusebius, there was no uniformity among the presbyters, which was the whole point of the Council.

Sure, you could take the perspective that the 'heretics' were 'isolated', but then us 'heretics' remain isolated today. Look at the present state of the world and you can find enough evidence of that. Reasonable doesn't always win out against the fundamentalists. It didn't win out when the Church was forming either. A cursory awareness of the larger disagreements during the early Councils illustrates that well-enough.

Allowing 'belief' to temper your memes seems a certain path to error.

Namaste.

Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject:

I feel that it's time for me to retire from this thread--I need to learn more about this. I've clearly been outclassed; back to the threads about Korean food and dancing girls! But before I go, I would like to raise a few last points.

I can only discuss a few historical points with some credibility. In other areas, I can only talk about what seems logical to me in motivation or possibility. I don't know the historical period deeply, but I know a little about human nature!

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:
Here Tacitus mentions Christ's execution in his histories. Is this then also a fabrication?

Quote:

There were many Krysts. MANY. It was a common appellation. Tacitus didn't mention anything about a crucifixion, and even if he did, it wouldn't categorically imply Jesus

I would like to see what Tacitus writes in Latin. But to me this playing around with different spellings of Christ is deliberately muddying the waters--much like Shakespeare doubters who say, "Look! This play was written by Shakspere, a different guy!" I give Tacitus, otherwise seemingly a scrupulous historian, credit to distinguish between different Christs. By AD 64 the Christians seem to have a strong enough following to differentiate themselves by one name, and I think Tacitus would give more details if he felt it necessary to avoid confusion. Maybe not.

Quote:

Jesus may well have been executed - but not under the pretences popularly assumed, and almost certainly not in the manner described in the modern bible.

That's certainly possible. Early believers identified themselves with a fish, not a cross. But to Christians, his manner of death is irrelevant--his resurrection is what's important. I don't see a motive for fraudulently changing his method of death when it's not important anyway.

Quote:

Pope Damasus frankly admitted that Gospel manuscripts of his day were "full of errors and dubious passages". (The Library of the Fathers, Damasus, Oxford, 1833-45). To prevent the fabricated writings being seen by the wrong eyes, Pope Damasus banned the bible.

It's a strange decision to me. Why would they do this? To enhance their power and shut down dissent? But I do think that it's fair to at least consider the reasons these contemporaries used. Perhaps the early church leaders really did feel there was a risk from willy-nilly copying of scripture. At any rate, considering the rates of literacy at the time, I'm not sure how dramatic the effects of these actions was.

>The word 'hear-say' developed into 'heresy'
No. From the Greek word for 'choice', hairesis. English did not yet exist as a language at this time.

'Moldy Rutabaga wrote:
[H]ow did the church survive through three centuries of intermittent persecution if the essential doctrines of Christianity--his crucifixion and resurrection--weren't there and were just thrown in later? What were these lay people risking their lives for if, until Eusebius, Christ was a nice guy who had two kids and a station wagon?

Quote:

Prestige. The presbyters were anything but learned blokes. They were charlatans. Rapists. Thiefs.

I guess I have two final points, and then I'll pipe down.
1. Maybe I'm too trustful of scripture, but maybe it's no better to be too trustful of anti-church writings. Certainly the people who criticized the church fathers or accused them of other motives had their own agendas. Many of the sources you list are from post-reformation times, when there would have been no shortage of Protestant writers looking to discredit the 'Papists' and the medieval church. And then there's Gibbon, who blames the entire fall of Rome on Christians!

2. I just don't buy it. I don't see the possibility or motivation. It's a giant overgeneralization to call 300 years of church leaders charlatans and thieves, and then say that 1700 years of institutionalized and organized thievery followed. Human beings don't work this way, ignorant Roman peasant or not. How do you keep a movement going and growing for 300 years of the authorities throwing you to animals and using you as human torches if Christ was just a decent guy and nothing else, and there's nothing in it for you but some philosophical, Confucian idea that you should imitate him? I like Gandhi, but I'm not going to face death unless I renounce him!

How would corrupt and evil men build a church into an organization strong enough to become the religion of Rome without a co-ordinated concept of faith and redemption holding them together? There's always going to be some corrupt leaders--but if everyone at the leadership level knows it's all a big scam, how do you coordinate the scammers? If they're all snake oil salesmen, aren't they going to be in it for themselves?

If Eusebius & Tertullian were simply inventing scripture for their own uses, why would they choose the theologies they did? Why suppress Mary Magdelene--it's not a sin to get married or have children, and it's an interesting biographical detail, but hardly a threat to Christianity. If they hated women, why retain the Virgin Birth and the veneration of Mary as the mother of Christ?

I might be very naive. Freud would have trotted out an analogy of people inventing a harsh religion to ameliorate their guilt. But if I were Eusebius & Tertullion and were evil men, I would re-invent the religion to include a lot of marijuana and oral sex, and very little turning the other cheek. You and I have very different views on human nature, I think. I just don't see an organization or movement lasting 2,000 years if everyone beyond the level of sergeant is a con man who knows it's all pulled out of someone's bum to hold down the masses.

But to return to the OP of this thread, I saw the movie last night, and enjoyed it. I didn't see what all the fuss was about. I was more offended by the Korean habit of turning off the end titles to herd everyone out faster! Cool

Ken:>

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

But to return to the OP of this thread, I saw the movie last night, and enjoyed it. I didn't see what all the fuss was about. I was more offended by the Korean habit of turning off the end titles to herd everyone out faster! Cool

Ken:>

Yes! Please add the offending theatre to the list:

http://wiki.galbijim.com/List_of_movie_theatres_that_do_not_show_credits

That's why I only watch movies at COEX now. Every other place I go to turns it off too soon and I get in an argument with the owners.

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 12:02 am Post subject:

The first recorded use of 'hearsay', that I've found anyway, was in 1532. Heresy derived from the Latin 'haeresis'. I wouldn't suggest they were using English. I was using English translations of Latin. Smile

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

But to Christians, his manner of death is irrelevant--his resurrection is what's important. I don't see a motive for fraudulently changing his method of death when it's not important anyway.

But even the resurrection was an interpolation. Neither the crucifixion nor the resurrection get any mention at all in any of the earliest texts.

The motive for changing the method of death came from Constantine and his efforts at solidifying his rule (and gaining recognition for his lineage back to Jesus).

There were no less than 53 Gods debated at the Council of Nicea. "As yet, the new God had not been selected by the council, and so they balloted, in order to determine the matter. For one year and five months the balloting lasted." (Gods Book of Eskra, xlviii 26-53).

After those 17 months, Constantine returned to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a short list of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, and Zeus. Constantine presided over the Council and he ultimately decided the new God for them. He determined that the names of his two first century descendents (Jesu Cunobeline and Judas Khrestus) would be joined as one, Jesu Khrestus, and that would be the official name of the new Roman God. A vote was subsequently taken and it was with a majority show of hands that both men became one God ... 161 votes to 157. Following longstanding custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman Apotheoses Decree to legally deify the new God for the rabble and did so by democratic consent and with the blessing of presbyters in attendance. A new Roman God was proclaimed and 'officially' ratified by Emperor Constantine. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Edinburgh Ed. 1797)

There are at least sixteen slain savior Gods, believed by their followers to have lived and died for the sins of the world (all with remarkable similarities to the Jesus mythos): Osiris, Egypt 1700BCE; Bel, Babylon 1200BCE; Atys (Attis), Phrygia 1700BCE; Tammuz, Syria 1160BCE; Dionysius, Greece 1100BCE; Krishna, India 1000BCE; Hesus, Europe 834BCE; Indra, Tibet 725BCE; Bali, Asia 725BCE; Iao, Nepal 622BCE; Alcestis, Pherae 600BCE; Quetzalcoatl, Mexico 587BCE; Wittoba, Travancore 552BCE; Prometheus, Greece 547BCE; Quirinius, Rome 560BCE; Mirthra, Persia, 400BCE. Indeed, scholars have noted no less than 346 striking parallels between Krishna and the Gospel Jesus Christ. Matt 1:25 and 2:11 were directly plagiarized verbatim from the story of the birth of Krishna recorded in the Mahabharata.

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

If Eusebius & Tertullian were simply inventing scripture for their own uses, why would they choose the theologies they did? Why suppress Mary Magdelene--it's not a sin to get married or have children, and it's an interesting biographical detail, but hardly a threat to Christianity. If they hated women, why retain the Virgin Birth and the veneration of Mary as the mother of Christ?

We can only make educated guesses as to the why's. But regardless of why, they certainly did.

I listed some of my preferred authors in one of my first comments in the thread. You may find some merit in beginning there.

Namaste.

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 12:04 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Quote:

200+BCE = 200 years (or more) Before the Common Era,
or 200 years (or more) Before Christ

That was very stupid of me. I did not read that carefully. Embarassed

I do think it's important, though, to remember that this was not a mainstream group of people. Were they the Moonies of their day?

Early Christians were also hardly mainstream, rather they were seen as dangerous radicals. So not much validity in this statement.

Quote:

The Church admitted that passages about Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum were 'interpolations by Christians'

Quote:

But that's an irrelevant point-- the TF is not scripture, and was not written by a Christian, but by a Jewish historian who would hardly be expected to be neutral. And even if doctored or changed or a complete fraud, it is not proof of any church revision of scripture.

A christian could hardly be expected to be neutral either. I can't see that you've made any relevant points in this post.

Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea

Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 1:24 am Post subject:

Quote:

Early Christians were also hardly mainstream, rather they were seen as dangerous radicals. So not much validity in this statement.

I meant relative to the mainstream church, if we can say there was one, looking back on the Essenes. And what movement starts out being accepted by everybody!

Quote:

A christian could hardly be expected to be neutral either. I can't see that you've made any relevant points in this post.

To me it is relevant to suggest that a historian or writer antagonistic to Christianity is not automatically more reliable than one sympathetic. Is a Sunni a reliable historian of Shiite events?

Ken:>

Satori

Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all

Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 1:40 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Quote:

Early Christians were also hardly mainstream, rather they were seen as dangerous radicals. So not much validity in this statement.

I meant relative to the mainstream church, if we can say there was one, looking back on the Essenes. And what movement starts out being accepted by everybody!

Quote:

A christian could hardly be expected to be neutral either. I can't see that you've made any relevant points in this post.

A Christian writer can hardly be neutral though. They have a lot invested in what is written about events surrounding the early times of the Church.

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 2:25 am Post subject:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

And what movement starts out being accepted by everybody!

Umm... the only reason the orthodox 'movement' was 'accepted' was because of the ruthless condemnations of the orthodoxy. They burned and murdered tens (hundreds?) of thousands. Look what happened to the Gnostics at the hands of the orthodoxy. They were so ruthlessly oppressed that historians had to rely on second-hand literature for nearly 1500 years. And the only reason why we know more about them today is because the Gnostics were smart enough to hide literature from the ravaging orthodoxy. The only thing this illustrates is that the orthodoxy used more aggressive methods of control.

You could use the modern version of 'democracy' in the West as a great example. It has been accepted by the majority, but does that make it compatable with the principles of democracy? Nope. Majority opinion seldom coincides with reasonable opinion.

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

To me it is relevant to suggest that a historian or writer antagonistic to Christianity is not automatically more reliable than one sympathetic.

Josephus wasn't necessarily antagonistic towards the Christians. He recognized that they were rather gullible and n�ive, but then the early Church relied upon that ignorance to gain converts. They were quite clear that their teachings weren't meant for the educated. The presbyters preached to the ignorant rabble and controlled them like animals.

Regardless, Josephus comes into the conversation because of forgeries done in his name. In regards to the historicity of events, he is only one of many sources. In regards to orthodox historicity of events, we can often refer to the sources themselves to illustrate their complete lack of ethics. Augustine, Jerome, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, etc all freely admitted to acts we'd classify as repugnant and cultish today. These were different times, with easily misled fools to preach to. Over time the fools became so indoctrinated with fantasy that they stopped questioning.

That's what Locke was referring to in the quote mentioned in a previous comment.

Faith, by its very nature, precludes critical thought. The Church relies on faith rather than reason to substantiate its dominance. This is why the Italian case (where the Church has been called to verify the validity of its claims of Jesus having lived) has so much intrigue. If they have evidence, it certainly hasn't been released. Under conditions like that, it seems unethical to consider the Church's position as valid.

Namaste.

Troll_Bait

Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject:

Xian wrote:

You claims are simply not true, the crucifixion has historical record, not just in regards to the Bible. Josephus (the first century Jewish Historian who also worked for the Romans) is a very early source on this event. There are others too. Josephus is a good read that is easily available today for a secular writing of the history.

hermes.trismegistus wrote:

Ah, good old Josephus. Always fun to see people trying to pawn him off as a reputable source.

The Church admitted that passages about Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum were 'interpolations by Christians' (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Cross, p. 549). Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity (d. 1760), said the passages 'should be forever discarded from any place among the evidences of Christianity.' (Life of Lardner, Dr. Kippis, p. 23). Theologians believe it was Eusebius who forged the passages when he re-wrote a copy of Josephus' works immediately after the Council of Nicea. (On the Canon of the New Testament, Dr. B. Westcott). The passages cannot be found in any edition prior to the era of Eusebius - who argued that falsehood might be used as medicine for the benefit of the church. (Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius, vol. I). Origen himself admitted to editing the Jewish historian's work. (Contra Celsus, Origen). He also affirmed that Josephus 'did not acknowledge Jesus'. (Contra Celsus, Origen, ch. xxxv, bk. 1; see also Lardner, vol. vi, ch. iii.).

So yeah, use Josephus to illustrate your point. Wink

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Here Tacitus mentions Christ's execution in his histories. Is this then also a fabrication?

hermes.trismegistus wrote:

There were many Krysts. MANY. It was a common appellation. Tacitus didn't mention anything about a crucifixion, and even if he did, it wouldn't categorically imply Jesus ben Panthera. His twin, Judas Thomas (a name which literally means "the twin"), was condemned for rising against Caligula. He was sentenced to execution, but due to his royal heritage, one of the Simon's took his place. After losing his heritage, he was sold into bondage. A widespread tradition in both the East and West maintained that Judas Khrestus died of old age at Meliapore in India. Evidence can be found in the writings of Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinius, St. Jerome, and later in the writings of Gregory of Tours and others. Gregory of Nazianzus held that Judas the Twin (Khrestus) went to India (which was also mentioned in Acts of Thomas.

Origen, Epiphanius and Julian the Emperor all clearly recorded that John the Baptist, Judas and Jesus' cousin, was a 'Krist' figure, but made no reference to Jesus himself attaining that status.

In The Arguments of the Emperor Julian, he wrote:

Quote:

At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Mark dared to say that Jesus is God, but only the Krist John, the adventured to assert this.

The word 'Krist' had its origin in ancient Egypt and was the name of a highly regarded early god - Horus. This ancient name was found extensively inscribed into the Palermo Stone, the largest and best preserved of six basalt stones, originally uncovered in Egypt.

'Krist', according to St. Epiphanius, was the spiritual self in each and every living person. This explained why Epiphanius was baffled when he said he could find no writings to confirm his own later orthodox views concerning Jesus as an actual living person. Epiphanius recorded that Alexander was also a 'Krist'.

The Essenes also mention 'Krist' in the Book of Enoch, written somewhere between 150-120BCE. Krist was also established in the doctrine of the Gnostics who held 'Kristo' to be the personal and immortal spirit of man. The son of Poseidon and Meduse was called Khryst and the priests of Apollo were known as Khyrstes. The word Kristo and its derivations, Krst, Krist, Kristo, Khyst and Krish-na appeared in every ancient religious system and showed that the original Kristo concept was believed to be the personal and invisible mediator and guide between God and everything spiritual in man. The Krist concept has been an ancient religious tradition continually suppressed by the Catholic church through the centuries.

In a document called 'Dialogue with Trypho', written by St. Justin Martyr sometime around 160CE, Trypho claimed that the church 'invented a Kristo'. Written around 130 years after the canonical date of the death of Jesus, Trypho's comments clearly showed the Jesus Christ promoted today was actually unknown among the general populace but the Krist concept from the Book of Enoch and Kristo, the Hindu name of the Sun, were.

In the same work, Trypho said that the word 'Krist' was really a substitute for a very ancient divine name, and its power was known to the 'Elect' alone of the fully initiated Rabbis.

Jesus may well have been executed - but not under the pretences popularly assumed, and almost certainly not in the manner described in the modern bible.

( emoticon for giving a high-five )

More than once on this board, Josephus and others have been brought up as "evidence" of a "historical Jesus," and more than once I've refuted them, but seemingly in vain.

I was feeling lonely out here, and am thus grateful for the cavalry rescue.

So, in addition to Josephus and Tacitus, the other two pieces of "evidence" of a "historical Jesus" that are dutifully trotted out are Suetonius and Pliny the Younger.

I've already refuted them, but I'd like to hear your perspective.

Maybe with two of us speaking out, that'll make it more difficult for people to stick their fingers in their ears and say, "Lalalala I can't hear you lalalala there is overwhelming historical evidence for Jesus lalalala I can't hear you lalalala ... "

For the record, I don't have anything against Christianity or people being Christian.

It's just that when people tell you that "there is overwhelming historical evidence for Jesus" they're either lying or speaking from ignorance.

red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject:

Troll_Bait wrote:

Xian wrote:

hermes.trismegistus wrote:

Moldy Rutabaga wrote:

Here Tacitus mentions Christ's execution in his histories. Is this then also a fabrication?

hermes.trismegistus wrote:

Quote:

At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Mark dared to say that Jesus is God, but only the Krist John, the adventured to assert this.

Troll Bait, can you refer me to any good books about this? I've also heard claims that Jesus may have been a mythical figure, but I still don't feel that I know enough to reach a firm conclusion. There was a book that came out a few years ago, but I don't remember the name of it.

Troll_Bait

Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject:

red dog wrote:

Here's the preferred book for people who like to argue that there was a historical Jesus Christ:

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus, by Lee Strobel

(This book is available in Korean bookstores, such as Kyobo, etc.)

Here's the book that provides a rebuttal:

Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ", by Earl Doherty

(Not available in Korean bookstores, as far as I know ... )

Read them both, and reach your own conclusions.

However, there is another book by Doherty which I think is better, possibly the best book on the subject:

The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus, by Earl Doherty

red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:05 am Post subject:

Thanks! I'm pretty sure I read the first book a few years ago and found the author's "case" pretty thin -- but it may have been a similar book by the same author, now that I think about it. I thought there was also another book by two co-authors who took the position that Jesus was a mythical figure? Anyway, this helps. I'll add these books to my list.

Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:23 am Post subject:

It's the Age of Quarrel and Confusion and all, but if you doubt that Jesus existed historically you're really lost. Atheists and extreme sectarian interests will always try to cast doubt concerning God and his empowered representatives (and perfect son...)

red dog

Joined: 31 Oct 2004

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 3:34 am Post subject:

Rteacher wrote:

It's the Age of Quarrel and Confusion and all, but if you doubt that Jesus existed historically you're really lost. Atheists and extreme sectarian interests will always try to cast doubt concerning God and his empowered representatives (and perfect son...)

Well, I don't really identify with the term "atheist," thanks for asking, but I do have some doubts about whether Jesus existed. Years ago I remember reading something by (feminist scholar) Barbara Walker suggesting that he may have been a composite of a few different people and that the teachings attributed to him may have come from other sources. She was pretty persuasive, as I recall, and implanted some serious skepticism in my mind, but I'd certainly like to look into the matter further when I have more time. It's not at the top of my list of things to do, but it is on the list.

Rteacher, I don't know why you'd object to someone reading a few books if you're so sure you're right -- after all, a fair investigation would only support your position, right?

hermes.trismegistus

Joined: 08 Sep 2005

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 8:46 am Post subject:

Troll Bait wrote:

So, in addition to Josephus and Tacitus, the other two pieces of "evidence" of a "historical Jesus" that are dutifully trotted out are Suetonius and Pliny the Younger.

I've already refuted them, but I'd like to hear your perspective.

Suetonius (70-140) served as secretary to Emperor Hadrian (d. 117CE). It was said that he had access to the Imperial Roman archives. His major historical work, The Lives of the Caesars, published about 120CE, gave accounts of the reigns of Julius Caesar and the eleven emperors who followed him. In a chapter of his writing called The Life of Claudius (25:4), Seutonius made reference to a man called Khrestus 'acting in Rome, the part of a leader of insurgents'. Claudius (10BCE-54CE) was the Emperor of Rome during the years of 41-54CE.

The document attributed to Suetonius said Emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome because of disturbances instigated there by Khrestus. This expulsion was confirmed in the NT (Acts 18:2-3) in an undateable narrative that described Aquila, a Jew, and his wife Priscilla, being driven out of Rome by an edict of Claudius forcing them to travel to Corinth to start a building business. The Roman historians' statements provided conflicting information because Tacitus cited Tiberius as the Emperor at the time and Suetonius recorded that it was Claudius, thus providing a discrepancy of some eight years. The expulsion by Claudius may have been caused by Judas Khrestus' sons (Jacob and Simeon) whose combined messianic uprising was violently suppressed in 46CE by Claudius' appointee, Fadus, and they were subsequently crucified. (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, p. 1118. Judas Khrestus' grandson, Eleazar, was also crucified after Jerusalem was taken in 70CE, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbons, 1994, p. 531) Both historians were writing long after the events that they described, and many similar conflictions are found in their records. Suetonius, for example, said Tiberius 'was of fair complexion and wore his hair rather long at the back'. Tacitus, on the other hand, said that the emperor had a head 'without a trace of hair'. They sometimes disagree with one another so markedly that only one of them can be right, and both may be wrong.

Tacitus was writing around fifty years after the events he was recording and Suetonius some forty years after Tacitus. As Tacitus was living closest to the time of the event and 'he is always carefult to ascertain and record the truth', (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, 1995, p. 611) his report usually supersedes Suetonius.

It seems likely that Suetonius was writing about some other figure than Jesus - very probably Judas Khrestus. Judas Khrestus and his rebels 'started in Galilee' and came 'all the way here' (Luke 23:5) to Rome to challenge his father, Emperor Tiberius. They subsequently arrived at 'a farm called Gethsemane which belonged to a man called Joshua', (Syrian Bible, Matt. 26:36) situated on the outskirts of the city. Some early English-language Bibles (c. 1611-1687) recorded the name Judas, not Jesus in this Matthew passage (26:36). The later Church deemed 'Judas' was a 'misprint' and NT versions recording Judas' name subsequently became valuable collector's items today called the Judas Bible.

So the uprising Suetonius wrote about may have been instigated by Judas Khrestus in his efforts at claiming his heritage as the King of Judea and the Emperorship of Rome. I've got plenty of references to that end, but your question centered around Suetonius and Pliny.

As to Pliny, I'm sorry to say that I don't have my references on him handy. My library has been spread over four countries and three continents, so I make due with some of the notebooks I've compiled, but most of my literature remains unavailable until I gather the collection together upon my return to North America.

However, I do recall that Pliny's letter, which referred to the worship of the Khrestians, was written much later than the time attributed to Jesus, so it couldn't possibly be used to validate the existence of Jesus. The best it could illustrate was that the Khrestians were quite boisterous around 100CE.

Sorry I couldn't be of help on that front.

Troll Bait wrote:

It's just that when people tell you that "there is overwhelming historical evidence for Jesus" they're either lying or speaking from ignorance.

Exactly.

The question of whether Jesus lived, like so many other issues of liturgy, has conflicting alternatives.
Did Jesus Live, Marshall Gauvin
Did Jesus of Nazareth Actually Exist (Religious Tolerance.org - includes multiple perspectives)
Did Jesus Ever Live?, Louis Cable
Did a Historical Jesus Exist?, Jim Walker

Etc.

Texts questioning the existence of Jesus:
The Jesus Myth, G. Wells
The Truth About Jesus, Is He A Myth?, Mangasar Magurditch Mangasarian
Jesus: God, Man or Myth? An Examination of the Evidence, Herbert Cutner
The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus, Earl Doherty
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?, Timothy Freke
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Acharya S

Rteacher wrote:

I find faith-based ideologies repugnant. Since you must rely on faith in order to accept the historicity as well as the inherent divinity of Jesus, I find the ideology repugnant and irresponsible. Willfull ignorance.

Practical spiritual systems do not rely upon faith. You can put spiritual science into practice and test methodology in the laboratory of life. Thankfully, we have a plethora of non-competing systems which offer different flavors. Looking at some of the other posts you've made, it sounds as though you haven't progressed as far as you think you have if you still rely upon faith.

Neither faith nor belief have any place in an ethical individual.

Aside from all that, I don't ally with the atheists or sectarians. Considering your fondness for faith ("...belief in the absurd." - Twain), I doubt you have the memes to comprehend my models. But hey, feel free to pander to ignorant consumption all you want. It makes it easier to marginalize.

Namaste.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe