Discussion in 'Christianity' started by soleil10, May 22, 2009.
Does this mean that I have to tear John Chapter 1 out of my Bible?
There is no paradox. MU is Absolute, or is / is not. You will never get this apart from the Hindu understanding of Absolute and Relative.
So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
He was unfilled with knowledge as Relative Prime. Even so, he was complete before the world as evidenced in John 17. Both. Still, if you read Colossians 1:15-17, all is cleared up. All means All. No paradox. MU
You might have to do that with Mat. chapter 1 from the NT as it teaches about the Greek demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman if you read Mat. 1:18.
A good evidence for the historical existence of Jesus is Nero's historically documented persecution of Christians within 20 years of Jesus' death. It's unlikely the cult would have grown up around a non-existent person in such a short time? There is also written historical documentation that Augustus was familiar with Herod's massacre of innocents.
What is the exact text of this? When was it written?
Just so we can discuss?
Was the writing/reporting/ledger before 53 AD or the events?
So often these things are casual one line mentions of something in the past without specifics that have been interpreted to fit a narrative.
Ummm ... I just accept Nero's persecution.
No evidence to hand.
Will have a go when back on wi-fi ...
Then we will discuss when we have more than faith to go on.
When was this written? And how does it relate to Nero? Or are we moving topics?
Wil...re: post 276...Don't no how I originally missed it but you are square on. Questions do abound. Refer to David Fitzgerald's "Ten Myths..." ED
No, I said in my post 284 there is documentary evidence of Herod's massacre of innocents. The number isn't important, but the fact it happens shows that Jesus (or someone) was born that caused Herod a lot of anxiety. Macrobius statement is definite history. So it's an indication of the historical existence of Jesus. That's what I meant.
I'm sorry, but irritatingly, the link now opens on a different document to the one I posted yesterday. So let me try and sort that out first.
Then I'll do a bit of digging into your questions about Nero, I'm on a proper PC for a while. As I said, I just assumed it was historical fact. I could be wrong.
Sorry, this is a bit better: (Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, Saturnalia, book II, chapter IV:11):
κρείσσον Hρώδου ύα είναι, ή υία
(polytonic probably: κρεῖσσον Ἡρώδου ὗα εἶναι, ἤ υἷα)
Τhe original Latin is:
*** audisset inter pueros quos in Syria Herodes rex Iudaeorum intra bimatum iussit interfici filium quoque eius occisum, ait: Melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium (Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, Saturnalia, book II, chapter IV:11): "When Augustus heard this, that among the infants under two whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered to be killed, Herod's own son had also been slaughtered, he said, 'Better to be Herod's pig than his son!' " (Since the Torah forbade the slaughter and consumption of pork.) ...
(Herod killed his own adult son at the same time but for a different reason to his massacre of male children: the two events were unrelated. The quote is proof of both events, however.)
But it's not relevant to Nero, I'm still going to that, Wil.
... 'Persecution under Nero, 64–68 AD
Main article: Great Fire of Rome
The first documented case of imperially supervised persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire begins with Nero (37–68). In 64 AD, a great fire broke out in Rome, destroying portions of the city and economically devastating the Roman population. Some people suspected that Nero himself was the arsonist, as Suetonius reported, claiming that he played the lyre and sang the 'Sack of Ilium' during the fires. In his Annals, Tacitus (who wrote that Nero was in Antium at the time of the fire's outbreak), stated that "to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians (or Chrestians) by the populace" (Tacit. Annals XV, see Tacitus on Jesus). Suetonius, later to the period, does not mention any persecution after the fire, but in a previous paragraph unrelated to the fire, mentions punishments inflicted on Christians, defined as men following a new and malefic superstition. Suetonius however does not specify the reasons for the punishment, he just lists the fact together with other abuses put down by Nero.' ...
Tacitus: AD 116
So nothing definite written before 53AD
So did he say Christians? Or say people of a new melefic superstition were punished or persecuted?
This is what I mean buly historians looking to interpret things in a way to prove their paradigm...
I also remember reading that early Christians saw martyrdom as a way to get better accommodations in heaven...that many who went to the lions were hoping to goto the lions....like a modern day suicide bomber.
'... In his Annals, Tacitus ... stated that "to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians (or Chrestians) by the populace" (Tacit. Annals XV, see Tacitus on Jesus) ...'
The articles above reference that the Christian 'abominations' included cannibalism and drinking human blood -- a misunderstanding of the eucharist -- and also Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.
'Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest Roman historians' ...
IF this was happening within a quarter century of Jesus' death it probably wasn't long enough for a Christian or 'Chrestian' cult to already grow up around a person who never lived.
So this is from a book written 80 years after Jesus death, 50 years after the incident described whose oldest surviving copy is from the 11th century?
So the author AT BEST had secondhand 50 year old info when he wrote it?
Your honor this is hearsay I move to exclude, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please ignore the last testimony.
Yet whatever else Tacitus writes is accepted by good historians as good history by a good historian -- within the limits. Circular argument from here on.
Perhaps the maid protesteth too much ...
Are you telling me none of Tacitus is in question by historians?
I don't know.... I am not a historian. I sure can't write anything about anything 50 years ago that isn't embellished by time and stories since then. And if I did, I need citations as to where my facts came from... Does he leave citations? Again I don't know, I just find it interesting how when someone finds something that satisfies their paradigm they quit looking.
Do I remember you saying you are a preacher? If so, do you have a Q&A after your sermons? I find preachers that do have answers prepares for these questions.... And are careful not to use anything specious or that they can't clearly defend in their sermons.
dang didn't take me long to find something that fit my paradigm.
Well, no -- you say I'm a preacher. And i thought you wanted a discussion. Right, so I'm coming to this Nero stuff new. A lot of historian study is finding a snippet written without an axe to grind in some document, then relating snippets. Eye-witness testimony us actually quite rare in historical writing.
So we have 3 separate snippets relating to Jesus' historical existence: Suetonius, Tacitus and Microbius. It's you whose making such a big deal out of it, not me. Perhaps Jesus never existed as an historical person, but if perhaps he did, why does the ides make you a so angry?
I'm not crusading, bro: you've got me wrong.
Separate names with a comma.