Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

One final final thought....

The period 4-37 CE was not 'quiet' at all. Either Josephus just deliberately didn't write about it, or he did and it was excised. Because (drum roll then insert favourite conspiracy theory).

And on that bombshell, as Alan Partridge might say........

Goodnight.

Jax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:28 pm

archibald wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:21 pm As to the love and pacifism.....I'm going to go for 'developed over a period of time', as opposed to 'just thought up'.

I'll go along with that.

Phew. Human nature's good side is saved.

Now all we need to do is find out who the developers were.

One more thought before I hit the sack. This idea that a pacifist or non-politically partisan Jesus would be an oddity during a time of troubles. I think this can be taken too far. As someone who lived, from age 12 onwards, in Belfast, in the middle of 'The Troubles', I can say that despite outside ...

As to the love and pacifism.....I'm going to go for 'developed over a period of time', as opposed to 'just thought up'.

I have even heard it suggested that there was a Chrestus. A good man. Which I suppose might mean that Christ is not, after all, the koine Greek word for messiah. Or something. Because I find it hard to assume that there were Chrestians and Christians floating around simultaneously. What are the odd...

That's hardcore cynicism. And I say that as a hardcore atheist.

I have even heard it suggested that there was a Chrestus. A good man. Which I suppose might mean that Christ is not, after all, the koine Greek word for messiah. Or something. Because I find it hard to assume that there were Chrestians and Christians floating around simultaneously. What are the odds?

There are some who think it was lifted from peaceful Gnostic spirituality (or sayings).

Jax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:03 pm

archibald wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:57 pm

Jax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:50 pm

archibald wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:47 pm Ok.

I'll have to reconsider my currently favourite view of Paul as a cynical and opportunist conman.

Don't bother.

He is that as well.

Maybe.

(There's a word you might use more often, imho).

Maybe.

Lol

Though I confess that the idea that arguably one of the world's most profound and humanistic and loving philosophies was nothing but part of a cynical ploy is rather...tickling.

And a bit sad.