Re: Who existed ? When ? Where ?
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:07 pm
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
1 Are you implying Chrestus was a Jew? ie. not a Christian? or not of another religions or cult?Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:55 pm to spin,My "probably" is justified by what appears in Suetonius' work: "Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition"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.
to MrMacSon,Rome is not considered to be in the eastern Mediterranean [ = besides the point; and it kind of is].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.
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."
.
Read my recent post about these legends and how they're tied to the Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter -Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:10 pm to MrMacSon,Why not?Such assertions by Eusebius and Tertullian don't reflect history:
How do you know that?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.
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 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.
This is not what the Acts Seminar said: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 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 have issues with Acts also.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.
And what would be that different picture?When you remove the letters of Paul from Acts, a whole different picture emerges.
but You're cherry-picking aren't you, Bernard? Here's your cherry-picked quote in context -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."
It bears mentioning that Philemon was in fact used already by Origen, e.g., Homilies on Jeremiah 20.2.2:
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.... 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).
I understand your refusal to read the comment in context. Here it is again:Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:55 pm to spin,My "probably" is justified by what appears in Suetonius' work: "Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition"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.
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.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:24 pmAnd what would be that different picture?When you remove the letters of Paul from Acts, a whole different picture emerges.
Cordially, Bernard
On the first test I get "Executive (ESTJ-T) https://www.16personalities.com/estj-personalityJax wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:01 amYou 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.Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:24 pmAnd what would be that different picture?When you remove the letters of Paul from Acts, a whole different picture emerges.
Cordially, Bernard
https://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test
https://www.eclecticenergies.com/enneagram/test
Might be fun.
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.I understand your refusal to read the comment in context. Here it is again: