The Trouble With Timelines

[Abiyoyo]

I will correct myself here. Not sure if that was a current stance, or if that is what, ..had been said before hand. Anyway, does it change the meaning. I didn't see any relevant info toward the meaning being different, just the letter issues.

[Heimdall]

Probably because they hadn't yet put that together with Suetonius' Chrestus reference. Don't you find it just a little too coincidental that one mentions Chrestus and the other mentions Chrestusions? Don't know about you, but coincidences make my teeth itch...LOL - Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

Probably because they hadn't yet put that together with Suetonius' Chrestus reference. Don't you find it just a little too coincidental that one mentions Chrestus and the other mentions Chrestusions? Don't know about you, but coincidences make my teeth itch...LOL - Heimdall

 

Not really, I just see it as a grammatical correction. Are you suggesting that the church altered this too? If so, I agree. If someone wrote a story about Ex-Christianity and used your site as a reference, but spelled it Ax- Chrestianity, then 100 years later, a follower of former Christianity looks at this writing, and says; Hey thats not right, let me change that. Lets just say this was a document that ended up being a piece of history, respectfully. So, now it's an offical document of history of the America religious culture that is misspelled, then corrected. Now, an independent Christian evaluates this and says it was altered, speculating the existence of this group. That doesn't mean Ex-C didn't exist, it was just misspelled Right? :wink:

[Abiyoyo]

Hey Heimdall. You see this is my signature, right? You....know....I will defend it till I'm blue in the face

[Heimdall]

Only if there were multiple sources, such as with the Tacitus document....otherwise it would just be a correction...as I said coincidences make my teeth itch...see I am just as subborn as you, but I have knowledge of history on my side, not a dying mythology...LOL - Heimdall

[Badger]

So, sorry, the Gospel story is clearly a myth. They fit the description perfectly.

The question is not, can the Gospels be understood as myth by modern readers. Rather, my point is that the Gospels weren't meant to be myth nor they could be understood as myth by contemporary readers.

[Ouroboros]

So, sorry, the Gospel story is clearly a myth. They fit the description perfectly.

The question is not, can the Gospels be understood as myth by modern readers. Rather, my point is that the Gospels weren't meant to be myth nor they could be understood as myth by contemporary readers.

Ah, I see. Okay, there might be some validity to that. However, how does myth come about? Do people sit down and intentionally invent a story they know isn't true, just to create myths? Or do they write down things they believe to be true, but in reality it is just their own understanding of things, and those understandings can be false, and hence they are the creators of myths? So in the end, did the inventor of Thor's hammer making the thunder intentionally make up a myth about the thunderstorm while knowing the explanation was different, or did he write it as he saw it?

 

Who were the readers of the Gospel? They were written long time after the disciples were gone, and Jerusalem was destroyed. Their stories were made from people's beliefs already, so the myth was already in progress. But do people who believe in myths consider those beliefs to be in myths? Or let me put it this way, if you think that the Asatruer believe in myths when they say Thor swings him hammer, then do you think they believe it is a myth? Isn't calling something a myth an act of the people outside, looking in, seeing for what it really is? So yes, the Christians of course do not believe it is a myth, but they think it's true, even the early Christians, however, to those around, even at that time, they probably could think it was made up stories. And it's obvious considering that there are some who tried to argue against the Christians. Just look up what the word "apologetic" means and where it came from. Why the need to write a document defending Christianity, unless some people considered the Christian belief to be... that's right, myth.

[Heimdall]

Maybe I better explain a little…this copy of Tacitus is the oldest known copy…were there older ones in existence that had an unaltered “Christians” instead of an altered “Chrestusions”, then it could be said that it was a correction…however, that is not the case, this is the oldest and (seemingly) the one that all others are copied from (not necessarily true, but it can’t be proved otherwise) or copied from copies of it. To have such a “correction” that coincidentally just happened to agree with the information provided by another writer is very good evidence of a fraudulent “correction”, an attempt like that of Eusebius’ attempt to put Jesus in Josephus’ history of the Jews…Christians are well known for such shenanigans and subsequently it must be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a correction, not a fraudulent change. - Heimdall

[Badger]

Okay, there might be some validity to that.

There sure is. Myths were written in poetry, but that definitely is not the genre of the Gospels.

 

However, how does myth come about? ... So in the end, did the inventor of Thor's hammer making the thunder intentionally make up a myth about the thunderstorm while knowing the explanation was different, or did he write it as he saw it? ... even the early Christians, however, to those around, even at that time, they probably could think it was made up stories.

I see your point. The Gospels, of course, can be "made up stories." Yes.

[Badger]

Apologists often try to trot out such folk as Josephus, totallying ignoring that all but a small group of fundamentalist Christian scholars agree that the Testimonium Flavianium is a later insertion by a Christian scribe (probably Eusebius in the 4th century)

This seems to be an overstatement. First, all apologists I have read admits that Testimonium Flavianium is not totally genuine. Second, as far as I know, only a handful of scholars holds Testimonium Flavianium as entirely interpolation.

[Badger]

But my post shows that either only John was born during Herod (causing a problematic 10 year pregnancy for Mary) or John and jesus were born within months of one another at the time of the 6 CE census (using G.Luke as the source).

Or both John and Jesus are born during Herod's reing and Luke 2 is mistaken.

[Heimdall]

Second, as far as I know, only a handful of scholars holds Testimonium Flavianium as entirely interpolation.

I think you would be surprized as to how many think it is entirely an interpolation...notwithstanding, there is nothing in the Testimonium Flavianium that identifies the Jesus mentioned as Jesus of Nazareth....being that there was an "overage" of Jesuses in the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE, if Josephus actually mentioned a Jesus (if you remove the Testimonium the entire chapter flows better and more logically and ties in with the next statement more logically), It could be any Jesus that he referred to. - Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

M To have such a “correction” that coincidentally just happened to agree with the information provided by another writer is very good evidence of a fraudulent “correction”,

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, because to me it's a little different. These were religious writings. Are you suggesting the whole writings together are fraudulent? If so, we just lost a part of Roman History. I could see your point somewhat if said 'all' the writings about Christians were added from the church, but I don't think thats the case. And if that was accepted mainstream, I'm sure it would have been noted, deleted somewhere. I don't see how these writings were altered though, unless they were held at up at gunpoint. I mean, Christians were being persecuted. Why would they lie?

[Badger]

I think you would be surprized as to how many think it is entirely an interpolation.

How many then?

 

notwithstanding, there is nothing in the Testimonium Flavianium that identifies the Jesus mentioned as Jesus of Nazareth

 

There is, at least the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was condemned by Pilate.

 

then we have to say that we only have Christian sources and of them only Paul (who knows nothing of the basic gospel story) wrote in the 1st century the others were early to mid 2nd century inventions.

That's not correct. Books of the New Testament were written before the beginning 2nd century.

[Heimdall]

.

Are you suggesting the whole writings together are fraudulent?

I am suggesting that they are no more valid than the Buddhist, Zoroasterian, Hindu or Taoist scriptures, that like them, they are nothing more than an attempt by believers to convert non-believers to their religion. I suggest you read Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus : The story behind who changed the bible and why”. As the foremost biblical scholar in the U.S. and a former Fundamentalist Christian, Ehrman goes deep into the NT, showing the changes made to the NT through the first 3 to 4 centuries and explains what internal politics and external threats to the religion caused these changes.

If so, we just lost a part of Roman History

Not really, the history is still there, but the true reasons for what happened are finally revealed.

 

I don't see how these writings were altered though, unless they were held at up at gunpoint.

Read Ehrman’s book and learn why, how and who

 

I mean, Christians were being persecuted. Why would they lie?

For the same reasons members of every other religion or belief system being persecuted lied…Theists have a history of lying and early Christians have a really great history of lying for the religion, some of the greatest early Christian leaders told their congregations that not only was it okay to lie for god, it was their duty to do so…you might want to read Clement, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Epiphanius and others…these folk not only advocated lying but told some pretty big whoppers themselves…Irenaeus said that Jesus lived well into Trajan’s reign (which would have made him over 90) and Epiphanius said that he was born before Herod’s reign, during the reign of Alexander Janneus (early 1st century BCE)

 

There is, at least the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was condemned by Pilate.

We have no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was ever condemned by Pilate…it is not mentioned outside the NT and if you take Matthew and Luke as “the gospel”, then it is impossible for it to be the truth…LOL

 

That's not correct. Books of the New Testament were written before the beginning 2nd century.

Show me one piece of evidence that dates from the 1st century CE…of the 15,000 fragments and parts of the various NT documents that exist (and Christians seem to be sooo very proud of), none are from the 1st century CE and only two very tiny fragments come from late 2nd century, everything else hails from the 3rd century CE or later…mainly later. Christian scholars like to say that the Gospels were written during the 1st century CE, but there is no evidence at all that they were…the first mentions of any gospel wase in the first two decades of the 2nd century where Clement mentions that Mark had written something. It was not until 150 CE that it was said that gospels existed and not until 180 CE that gospels were mentioned by the names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John by Irenaeus, he who said Jesus lived to the 90s…LOL. If you are going to debate someone, have at least basic knowledge of your subject…it is almost like you have come to a gunfight with a gunman armed only with a cap pistol…LOL - Heimdall

[Ouroboros]

I see your point. The Gospels, of course, can be "made up stories." Yes.

And I can go as far as saying that some of the Gospel stories could be based on some truth too. (I say they could, but I don't say they must) And I don't mean the miracle parts, or even the exact number of disciples or who they were, or other details in the story, but rather that there was some group following a teacher with some crazy ideas. At least crazy to the Jews, but perhaps not so crazy to the Romans?

[Ouroboros]

I don't see how these writings were altered though, unless they were held at up at gunpoint.

Out of political reasons. Consider that we're talking about a couple of hundred years of movement. And thousands and yet thousands of people with different interests. Can you vote for all of them to be pure of heart and be followers of Jesus exactly the same way as you are? Can you give a vote of confidence that everyone were true believers, and no one, not one single one could have been driven by greed and lied about things? I mean, you have to take this in perspective. Do you even trust your parents as much as you trust any of the names you see endorsing the different books and letters? It's a lot of trust.

 

I mean, Christians were being persecuted. Why would they lie?

Two things:

 

1) how sure are you they were persecuted for their belief and not for how much upheaval they created by turning over political stability? Is KKK or Neo Nazis right because there are laws against some of their practices? Maybe the reason was that they didn't obey the laws? If their religion drove them to disobey law and order, then is it religious persecution or something else?

 

2) persecution does not stop with Christians, neither did it start with them. Once I read a couple of stories about atheists who died for their causes and beliefs (or rather lack of), but I can't find that darn document now. So if I get tortured and killed for my conviction, would it make my conviction true?

[Abiyoyo]

Out of political reasons. Consider that we're talking about a couple of hundred years of movement. And thousands and yet thousands of people with different interests. Can you vote for all of them to be pure of heart and be followers of Jesus exactly the same way as you are? Can you give a vote of confidence that everyone were true believers, and no one, not one single one could have been driven by greed and lied about things? I mean, you have to take this in perspective. Do you even trust your parents as much as you trust any of the names you see endorsing the different books and letters? It's a lot of trust.

 

Hans, we are talking about the Annals by Tacitus. How could it have been influenced by Christians?; He, Suetonius were observing the punishing, and persecutions of Christians, while Pliny was getting consultations of what to do with these people, even stating in, Epistles Book 10 #96,

 

I considered that I should dismiss any who denied that they were or ever had been Christians, once they had repeated after me a formula of invocation to the gods and had made offerings of wine and incense to your statue (which I had ordered to be brought into court for this purpose along with images of the gods), and furthermore had ursed the name of Christ. Real Christians (I understand) can never be induced to do these things..

 

These writings were written while Christians were being persecuted, and I don't see any other evaluations that say these writings are forged, other than the reference Heimdall gave, which was from an independent study, of who, the man leading it, is hard to find creditable. As far as Heimdall citing Ehrman to the 'altering' of the Annals, that has nothing to do with the Annals? That is a criticized book Ehrman wrote about the NT, that gives a faint explanation of 'some' text deviations, and has by some been accused as a stunt to just sell books.

 

1) how sure are you they were persecuted for their belief and not for how much upheaval they created by turning over political stability? Is KKK or Neo Nazis right because there are laws against some of their practices? Maybe the reason was that they didn't obey the laws? If their religion drove them to disobey law and order, then is it religious persecution or something else?

 

Hans, again. I contend with you here. History is history. The Romans worshiped God..s...not a God, the oracle; they were persecuting the Christians because of the same reason they persecuted Jesus. Jesus claimed authority and divinity of the God of Israel; not only did He endanger His own life, but that of every Jew within a block; because He said....Hey, I claim the God of Israel. So, obviously, from history of the Gospels and Roman History the connection of persecutions from Rome were evident and accurate; even in Roman history.

 

2) persecution does not stop with Christians, neither did it start with them. Once I read a couple of stories about atheists who died for their causes and beliefs (or rather lack of), but I can't find that darn document now. So if I get tortured and killed for my conviction, would it make my conviction true?

 

I'm not saying this isn't true; as any group in a controlled environment, that this group is in opposition of the controlling factors will face consequences of that authority. So, I'm sure there are tons of other religious persecutions that took place, and they probably were real, people of real beliefs of whatever they believed; just as Christians. It just happen to be that Christianity has spread to be one of the largest Religions in the world. :wink:

[Heimdall]

that is all well and good Yoyo, but we weren't discussing persecution but rather the veracity of the gospels and as I pointed out and many scholars are aware of - Matthew and Luke do not agree with each other or with recorded history, which renders their inerrant status as the word of god invalid. If they can't get something as simple and secular as the birth of their founder correct, how can we trust the rest of their words, especially since they toss in astounding miracles, many of which are duplicates of those in more ancient texts. - Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

that is all well and good Yoyo, but we weren't discussing persecution but rather the veracity of the gospels and as I pointed out and many scholars are aware of - Matthew and Luke do not agree with each other or with recorded history, which renders their inerrant status as the word of god invalid. If they can't get something as simple and secular as the birth of their founder correct, how can we trust the rest of their words, especially since they toss in astounding miracles, many of which are duplicates of those in more ancient texts. - Heimdall

 

That's a matter of the reader, and whether one is reading it as historical documentation; or just writings about their faith, and their Christ. For me, its enough to at least show that all these things happened at this time of Rome, but...I wouldn't say it's historical evidence, just historical writings to show historical things

 

Now, Tacitus.....on the other hand....is different

[Heimdall]

Unfortunately your book of mythology isn't history and none of it probably ever happened. This is evidenced by the lack of any contemporary mention by the two Jewish historians Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberia. Philo lived and wrote in Jerusalem at the time Jesus supposedly preached and performed miracles, yet never once mentioned him or his followers even though Philo made a "hobby" of studying and reporting on Jewish sects (of which Christianity would have been considered to be). Early Church fathers commented on how strange it was that he didn't mention Jesus. Justus of Tiberia lived in Galilee at the same time as Jesus and never once mentioned him or any of his miracles...again early Church fathers commented on how strange it was that he didn't. Of the 40 some odd historians living and reporting around that area, not one mentioned him during the 1st century CE, it wasn't until the second century CE that we even have people (other than Paul, whose Jesus doesn't really resemble the Jesus of the Gospels) mentioning him...almost a century after the supposed facts. - Heimdall

[Abiyoyo]

Unfortunately your book of mythology isn't history and none of it probably ever happened.

 

Do you think then that the sections in Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, were added?

[Ouroboros]

Eh, well... okay... yeah, I think you make some good points, so I wont' argue about it.

 

Even Christians can be right sometimes, and people like me can be wrong.

 

So have you looked into how much, or what, is documented about the persecution? To tell you the truth, I have not. But the question is still valid, if there are documents supporting the idea the Christians were persecuted. It's easy for many religious factions to claim they are persecuted.

 

And also, another thought, since there were quite a lot of different sects at that time, maybe the ones who were persecuted and tortured were the false ones, and not the true Christians? I mean, there were these sects who believed Jesus to be a prophet and not the son of God. Or the Gnostics. Where they also captured and quartered? Or was it only the Pentecostal/Lutheran/Southern Baptist Christians?

 

 

I'm not saying this isn't true; as any group in a controlled environment, that this group is in opposition of the controlling factors will face consequences of that authority. So, I'm sure there are tons of other religious persecutions that took place, and they probably were real, people of real beliefs of whatever they believed; just as Christians. It just happen to be that Christianity has spread to be one of the largest Religions in the world. :wink:

It just so happened, for sure. And there are many reasons to why it happened, but I doubt it is miraculous. Consider two things: 1) Islam is almost as big, 2) if Zoroastrianism had won out, then you would be a Zoroastrian and think that your religion became the largest, not because of random chance, but because of God's plan. And if Taoism had become the largest religion, you would think it was because of the balance of the energy in the universe and Tao (or whatever). So if Atheism becomes the largest un-belief in 1,000 years... who can we blame for that? Nahweh or G-Zeus?

[Abiyoyo]

Unfortunately your book of mythology isn't history and none of it probably ever happened. This is evidenced by the lack of any contemporary mention by the two Jewish historians Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberia. Philo lived and wrote in Jerusalem at the time Jesus supposedly preached and performed miracles, yet never once mentioned him or his followers even though Philo made a "hobby" of studying and reporting on Jewish sects (of which Christianity would have been considered to be). Early Church fathers commented on how strange it was that he didn't mention Jesus. Justus of Tiberia lived in Galilee at the same time as Jesus and never once mentioned him or any of his miracles...again early Church fathers commented on how strange it was that he didn't. Of the 40 some odd historians living and reporting around that area, not one mentioned him during the 1st century CE, it wasn't until the second century CE that we even have people (other than Paul, whose Jesus doesn't really resemble the Jesus of the Gospels) mentioning him...almost a century after the supposed facts. - Heimdall

 

Alright. Philo, Justus, along with 40 or so others never mentioned Jesus, and the church Fathers commented on the strangeness of this as well. Well, I can't say that they did. So, I guess my religion doesn't exist, and caused mass hysteria and delusion for 2000years. I guess I am just a delusional believer of Christ.

 

To say you don't believe in Jesus because it's a choice based on this or that is completely different from saying the man or religion never existed. I still wouldn't consider it a myth. We have school courses on Roman History, Greek philosophy, Greek mythology, etc. all history. History is history. Why can't a believer in Christ say, this is our history of Christianity and Jesus? Christianity, whether one feels like it exists or not..., is real. A real religion, in a real world, with real people that claim it. There are many people throughout history that we may know little about through commentary, or no death dates, birthplaces, etc; yet they still are considered people because other people close to their dates of their existence, community, group, etc, wrote about them.

 

The only difference between any other part of history and the history of Christianity is that Christian's use their historical data in trying to prove that God exists, which can't prove that. This in turn causes the 'falsifying history' of Christianity from the people that contend that God doesn't exist. Bottom line, no matter how anyone slices and dices it; Christianity is as much a part of history as any group, culture, history that has writings, books, commentaries, biographies, etc to define that group, or time.

[mwc]

Or both John and Jesus are born during Herod's reing and Luke 2 is mistaken.

And that would be for what reason(s)? G.Luke clearly has jesus born during the 6 CE census. That's the motivation for going to Bethlehem. Once in Bethlehem the baby is born, circumcised 8 days later at the temple in Jerusalem and they return home with no drama.

 

G.Matthew invents a different plot device and simply has the little family move to Nazareth at the end rather than being the place of origin (which is vague but assumed to be Bethlehem). A slaughter of the innocents would have been noticed. Even a dozen babies affects as many as two dozen angry parents and maybe four dozen angry grand-parents not to mention other family and friends. Dozens of outraged people would went right into Jerusalem into the temple the next day. So even if the slaughter of the innocents went unnoticed their story would have gotten heard. But, that too, is nothing but silence. Add to this that G.Matthew states the slaughter was in Bethlehem and its vicinity (however large he considered that to be) and it changes the number of people involved. The family ran to Egypt which was, at the closest, a good 30-40 miles away, so he must have envisioned them needing to go a fair distance to be safe from Herod's supposed slaughter. This makes the number of potential victims increase considerably.

 

mwc