Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6328
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:07 pm

yalla wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:02 pm
Wiki "Serapeum"
A serapeum is a temple or other religious institution dedicated to the syncretic Greco-Egyptian deity Serapis

See http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 614#p26614

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6328
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:11 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:55 pm
to spin,
You've just done the same thing yourself with just as valid a conclusion:
Suetonius probably did not have a high opinion on Christians, considering them as garbage, about the same as Tacitus did.
My "probably" is justified by what appears in Suetonius' work: "Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition"

to MrMacSon,
The Egyptian god Serapis was known as 'Serapis Chrestus'. The cult of Serapis was spreading through the eastern Mediterranean through the 1st to 3rd centuries ad.
Rome is not considered to be in the eastern Mediterranean [ = besides the point; and it kind of is].

The Chrestus in Suetonius' work caused trouble within the Jewish community in Rome1. Consequently, that Chrestus most likely is not Serapis1:

"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
.
1 Are you implying Chrestus was a Jew? ie. not a Christian? or not of another religions or cult?

or, are you implying Jews were not loyal to Judaism?
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6328
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:22 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:10 pm
to MrMacSon,
Such assertions by Eusebius and Tertullian don't reflect history:
Why not?
they reflect legends that started with legends about Nero* and then incorporated legends about Christians, and legends about Peter and Paul's supposed fate in Rome (supposedly at his hand), to try to shore up what was really a false history.
How do you know that?
Read my recent post about these legends and how they're tied to the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter -
and
Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:10 pm
Eusebius & Tertullian did not deal with only Peter & Paul's persecution by Nero (and not Nero Redivicus), but also with Christians of Rome.
The alleged 'persecution of Peter and Paul in Rome by Nero' is tied to the alleged 'presence and persecution of Christians in Rome'.

.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:24 pm

to Jax,
The highlighted is just a polite way of saying that Acts is all but worthless as a source of history for the early Christian cult.
This is not what the Acts Seminar said:
"This is not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."
I hate to break this to you but it's not just the "mythicists" that have issues with Acts but rather the (by far) greater non-fundamentalist critical scholarship of the last two hundred years.
I have issues with Acts also.

When you remove the letters of Paul from Acts, a whole different picture emerges.
And what would be that different picture?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6328
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:32 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:24 pm

This is not what the Acts Seminar said:
"This is not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical but to observe that it [ie. Acts] is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."
but You're cherry-picking aren't you, Bernard? Here's your cherry-picked quote in context -


.. a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:
  1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
  2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
  3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
  4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
  5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
  6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
  7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
  8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
  9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
  10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

While the Jesus Seminar, in sifting through the Jesus tradition, was able to find a credible core set of data about the historical Jesus, the Acts Seminar has not found a core historical story of Christian beginnings in Acts. This is not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical, but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed. Its story has long dominated Christian imagination and shaped critical scholarship, but we must now rethink how we reconstruct Christian origins in the absence of the Acts default.

At the same time, Acts has emerged as a primary resource for early second-century Christianity, a program of research that is increasingly attracting the attention of a new generation of Acts scholars. The Acts Seminar Report is an essential resource for future research because of its contribution in providing:
  • A comprehensive analysis and deconstruction of presuppositions about first-century Christian beginnings that can no longer be credibly sustained
  • A foundation for future studies of second-century Christianity as evidenced by Acts
https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... e-apostles
.


Nathan
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:30 pm

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by Nathan » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:37 pm

Jax wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:34 am
Image

I find it interesting to note that, besides Marcion in the 140's, Philemon isn't used by anyone else until the 4th century.

The same with 3 John.
It bears mentioning that Philemon was in fact used already by Origen, e.g., Homilies on Jeremiah 20.2.2:
... Paul with understanding was saying to Philemon in the letter to Philemon concerning Onesimus: "So that your good be not according to compulsion, but according to free will" (Philem. 14).
Origen also mentions and/or cites several of the other books missing from his column on the chart, including Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 1 John, and Jude. He also refers to the "epistles" of John in a homily on Joshua, suggesting of course his knowledge of more than just one epistle, but IIUC there is some question about the authenticity of that statement, whether it belongs to Origen or rather Rufinus.

User avatar
spin
Posts: 2075
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by spin » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:07 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:55 pm
to spin,
You've just done the same thing yourself with just as valid a conclusion:
Suetonius probably did not have a high opinion on Christians, considering them as garbage, about the same as Tacitus did.
My "probably" is justified by what appears in Suetonius' work: "Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition"
I understand your refusal to read the comment in context. Here it is again:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Extreme penalty [ie death] was given to the Christians [afflicti suppliciis Christiani], a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

Practices were stopped that caused public disturbances. The abuses involved rowdiness at taverns, attacks on bystanders during chariot races, pickpocketing and theft at pantomimes. The execution of christians has nothing to do with the main thrust of the measures against abuses, ie the reference does not fit the context. The naming of christians implies that they were a large enough entity in the 60s for them to be of note to the Roman authorities and cause some anti-christian crackdown and mass execution. This only fits tendentious christian tradition.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by Jax » Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:01 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:24 pm
When you remove the letters of Paul from Acts, a whole different picture emerges.
And what would be that different picture?

Cordially, Bernard
You know, a interesting experiment might be for us to each take a couple of free online personality tests as we envision Paul to be, and then compare the results. No substitute for an analysis by competent professionals of course, but some common traits may point towards a clearer picture of a possible historical person.

https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/test

Might be fun. :)

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by Jax » Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:36 am

Jax wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:01 am
Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:24 pm
When you remove the letters of Paul from Acts, a whole different picture emerges.
And what would be that different picture?

Cordially, Bernard
You know, a interesting experiment might be for us to each take a couple of free online personality tests as we envision Paul to be, and then compare the results. No substitute for an analysis by competent professionals of course, but some common traits may point towards a clearer picture of a possible historical person.

https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test

https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/test

Might be fun. :)
On the first test I get "Executive (ESTJ-T) https://www.16personalities.com/estj-personality

On the second I get, perhaps, Enneagram Type 3 - The Achiever https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/type3 but that is conditional as this was the first page of the results https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/evaltest

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3490
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:35 am

to spin,
I understand your refusal to read the comment in context. Here it is again:
I read the whole passage from Suetonius many times, prior to your posting, and I do not see any clash, as long as Suetonius thought these Christians were undesirable & stupid, therefore not a big deal about their riddance.
Furthermore I do not think that a Christian interpolator could have written: "Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition"

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply