dating the birth stories?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by hakeem » Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:31 am

,
hakkem wrote:I have already shown you that Tacitus' Annals did not contain the word Christus or Chrestus when Sulpitius Severus quoted the passage in Sacred History 2.29.
Bernard Muller wrote: Severus did not quote the whole passage, just a short abbreviation of it.
The whole passage from Severus did not include any character called Christus and in addition Tacitus in Histories 5.13 admitted the Jews expected their Messianic rulers around c 66 CE. Tacitus also admitted that Vespasian and Titus were really the prophesied Messianic rulers. We know that there was no Jewish Christ in the time of Pilate because 100 years later Simon Barchocheba was considered the Jewish Messiah after defeating the Romans around c 133 CE.
hakeem wrote:Jews called many persons Christ [the anointed].
Bernard Muller wrote:I went through that already, Don't you read my posts?
What you say does not alter the fact that Jews called their Kings and High Priest the name of Christ [the anointed]

King Saul was called Christ --the anointed in Hebrew Scripture. See 2 Samuel 1.16.
hakeem wrote:Jewish Kings and High Priest were called "Christ" [the anointed]. The Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 was alive in the time of Albinus.
Bernard Mueller wrote:First it is Festus, no Albinus. James was alive then, but that does not mean Jesus was not dead then.
How many times must I show you that Jesus was made High Priest when Albinus was already appointed Governor?

Festus was already dead as stated in the very first line of Antiquities 20.9.1

Ant. XX.IX.1.
AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator.

hakeem wrote:It is documented that there was an High Priest by the name of Jesus in the time of Nero.
Bernard Muller wrote: So what. Did that Jesus called Christ?
Also James having Jesus as brother (by then dead) is documented in Galatians.
Again, there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph in all the works of Josephus.
In addition, there is no claim whatsoever that James in Ant. 20.9.1 was an apostle or follower of a Christian cult.

There is also no reference to any letter by Paul to the Galatians in all the writings of Josephus.

Josephus also admitted that the Jews expected their Messianic ruler c 66 CE and corroborated by Suetonius and Tacitus.


hakeem wrote: If Josephus did not want to write about NT Jesus then he did not in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.
Bernard Mueller wrote:How many times I have to tell you that Jesus called Christ in Ant. 20.9.1 is only to identify James.
You are merely repeating the same contradiction.. It does not make sense for Josephus to write nothing about the supposed prophesied Messianic ruler of whom there was supposed to be many books, letters and thousands of followers and then write about an unknown James which is not mentioned even in the Gospels and Acts.

In fact, there is no apostle called James who was the brother of NT Jesus in virtually all apologetic writings.
hakeem wrote:Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does not say Jesus called Christ was dead.
Bernard Mueller wrote:Josephus did not have to specify that. When Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians in 50 CE, he said Jesus was dead (4:14, 5:10).
Josephus wrote nothing about NT Paul, nothing of his supposed letters, and nothing of Christians in c 50 CE.

Jesus was an High Priest c 63 CE so he could not be dead in the time of Pilate.c 27-37 CE.

By the way, in the Epistles the Pauline Jesus was alive. Over 500 persons, including Paul saw him..

1 Corinthians 15:8
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time

hakeem wrote:It states that Jesus was made High Priest by Albinus.
Bernard Mueller wrote: That's another Jesus altogether.
Jesus the High Priest c 63 CE was not the son of Joseph or the brother of an apostle.
hakeem wrote:I am extremely happy that you mention Germanicus in Ant. XX ch.8 and that he was already dead in the time of Albinus.
But, you forgot to tell me that it was Josephus who stated Gemanicus was dead in the very same Antiquities 18.2.5…
Bernard Mueller wrote: So what do you draw from that?
Your assumptions are baseless that Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1 was already dead in the time of Albinus.
hakeem wrote:It is documented that Jews called their High Priest by the title of Christ.
Eusebius Church History 1.3.7….
Bernard Mueller wrote: But did Josephus write that Jesus, son of Damneus, was called Christ?
Again, it is a fact that Jews called their Kings and High Priests by the name of Christ since there were actually and physically anointed with oil in Jewish tradition.

Josephus wrote nothing about a Jesus of Nazareth or son of Joseph who was a King or High Priest of the Jews.


hakeem wrote:You forgot to mention the very next passage.
Bernard Mueller wrote: Justin related to passages (out of context) from the gospels to say Jesus warned against 2nd century Christian "heretics", such as Marcion.
Justin writings admit there were people called Christians who did not believe the stories of Jesus and that there were people who claimed to be Christ.
hakeem wrote:Why do you expect Josephus and Tacitus to write about Christ when they were not even Christians?
Bernard Mueller wrote:Why writers wrote about Trump even if they are not among his followers?
Again, Josephus wrote "Jesus called Christ" to identify James. That's it.
Tacitus wrote about Christian/Chrestian and Christus as part of his description of the great fire in Rome and Nero's reaction to it.
Both Josephus and Tacitus did not have to be Christian to write that.
You keep repeating the same nonsense that Josephus did not write about Jesus but he wrote about James of whom no Christian writer identified as an apostle and actual brother of .NT Jesus.


hakeem wrote:I expected Christians to write that Tacitus mentioned their Christ in their Sacred History but they could not. There was none.
Bernard Muller wrote: Tacitus mentioned that the Christians' beliefs were: most mischievous superstition ... the first source of the evil ... where all things hideous and shameful
Bernard Muller wrote:Nothing sacred to be told.
The problem is that the very word “ChEstians” in Tacitus Annals was confirmed to have been manipulated --altered to appear as the word “ChrIstians”.
hakeem wrote:I have already shown you that Tacitus' Annals did not contain the word Christus or Chrestus when Sulpitius Severus quoted the passage in Sacred History 2.29.
Again and again I explained that Severus did not quote the whole of Tacitus' passage, only a short abbreviation of it.[/quote]

What you say does not alter the fact that Severus does not corroborate that Tacitus wrote about Christus.

The Severus passage about Nero starts before and ends after the phrase about “Christus” which shows that there was no mention of a character called Christus by Tacitus in the time of Severus.

The addition of “Christus” in Tacitus Annals 15.44 occurred sometime after the writings of Severus’ Sacred History.
hakeem wrote:Christian writers stated that there were thousands of Jews who believed Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah
Bernard Muller wrote: Very likely an exageration. Anyway three thousands is rather small compared with about 60,000 to 80,000 living in Jerusalem then.
What? In Acts of the Apostles in two days alone there were 8000 converts. And there were also thousands of Jews converted by Paul..
Acts
Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 4:4--Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
Acts 21:20
And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

hakeem wrote:And even worse Tertullian, referring to the Histories of Cornelius Tacitus does not use Annals to argue against Marcion to prove his Christ was a figure of history and not a phantom.
Bernard Mueller wrote: Marcion did not describe the earthly Jesus as a phantom in his gospel. Just that Jesus came to earth differently that normal human. And he was crucified.......

Christian writers did claim Marcion’s Son of God was a phantom.

Tertullian Against Marcin 3.8
Our heretic must now cease to borrow poison from the Jew — the asp, as the adage runs, from the viper — and henceforth vomit forth the virulence of his own disposition, as when he alleges Christ to be a phantom.


Tertullian’s Against Marcion 5.8
In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to Marcion's phantom

Bernard Mueller wrote:Tacitus had nothing which would indicate Christus came to earth without being birthed by a woman.
Tacitus' Annals did not mention Christus as shown in Severus Sacred History and did not mention Christians as confirmed by ultra-violet light.

Not even Christians writers used Tacitus Annals to prove Jesus was a figure of history. Ignatius, Clement, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Athenagors, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Severus, --not one of them used Tacitus' Annals to prove Jesus did exist.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:20 am

The whole passage from Severus did not include any character called Christus and in addition Tacitus in Histories 5.13 admitted the Jews expected their Messianic rulers around c 66 CE. Tacitus also admitted that Vespasian and Titus were really the prophesied Messianic rulers. We know that there was no Jewish Christ in the time of Pilate because 100 years later Simon Barchocheba was considered the Jewish Messiah after defeating the Romans around c 133 CE.
I already provided explanations on that, and more than once.
Again, there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph in all the works of Josephus.
In addition, there is no claim whatsoever that James in Ant. 20.9.1 was an apostle or follower of a Christian cult.
So what? I already explained that was not Josephus' aim in Ant. 20.9.1.
There is also no reference to any letter by Paul to the Galatians in all the writings of Josephus.
And why Josephus would be interested in Paul, and his letters?
Bernard Mueller wrote:
How many times I have to tell you that Jesus called Christ in Ant. 20.9.1 is only to identify James.
You are merely repeating the same contradiction.. It does not make sense for Josephus to write nothing about the supposed prophesied Messianic ruler of whom there was supposed to be many books, letters and thousands of followers and then write about an unknown James which is not mentioned even in the Gospels and Acts.
No contradiction whatsoever. James, as a brother of Jesus, is mentioned in gMark, gMatthew and Galatians (and Josephus).
In fact, there is no apostle called James who was the brother of NT Jesus in virtually all apologetic writings.
James, as brother of the Lord, is mentioned in Hegesippus' writings.
Jesus was an High Priest c 63 CE so he could not be dead in the time of Pilate.c 27-37 CE.
Jesus, son of Damneus is not the same as Jesus called Christ. Was ever James called the son of Damneus or the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus? NEVER
By the way, in the Epistles the Pauline Jesus was alive. Over 500 persons, including Paul saw him..
When the Pauline epistles were written Jesus (brother of James) was dead and Jesus son of Damneus was alive, but not yet high priest.
Jesus the High Priest c 63 CE was not the son of Joseph or the brother of an apostle.
You said it: bravo!
Your assumptions are baseless that Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1 was already dead in the time of Albinus.
But I proved with Germanicus and Claudius, that someone declared a brother of someone else can be dead when the other is alive and kicking, as Claudius being emperor.
Justin writings admit there were people called Christians who did not believe the stories of Jesus and that there were people who claimed to be Christ.
Not the stories of Jesus, but his doctrine that they were not preaching. And Justin never said these Christian heretics, or others, called themselves Christ.
You keep repeating the same nonsense that Josephus did not write about Jesus but he wrote about James of whom no Christian writer identified as an apostle and actual brother of .NT Jesus.
What about Hegesippus? And do you think a pillar should abstain to be an apostle?
Galatians 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised
These pillars would do the preaching to the Jews while Paul would do the preaching to Gentiles.
That would put the pillars (including James) as much apostle as Paul (declaring so himself in Galatians 1:1).
The problem is that the very word “ChEstians” in Tacitus Annals was confirmed to have been manipulated --altered to appear as the word “ChrIstians”.
However, I am leaning now on Tacitus writing "Christianos". Because it does not make sense that Tacitus would write that the origin of Chrestianos would be Christus.
Again and again I explained that Severus did not quote the whole of Tacitus' passage, only a short abbreviation of it.
What you say does not alter the fact that Severus does not corroborate that Tacitus wrote about Christus.
The Severus passage about Nero starts before and ends after the phrase about “Christus” which shows that there was no mention of a character called Christus by Tacitus in the time of Severus.
Severus did not mention a lot of what Tacitus wrote in the relevant passage in Annals.
Furthermore Severus (c. 363 – c. 425) was a Christian writing to other Christians. There was no need to say the origin for "Christian" was Christus.
However Tacitus writing much earlier to Latin speaking non-Christians, when Christianity was not as spread as centuries later, felt he had to explain the origin of the word Christian (for the ones who knew about Christians but little else).
What? In Acts of the Apostles in two days alone there were 8000 converts. And there were also thousands of Jews converted by Paul.
OK, I missed that. But probably exagerated, even greatly exagerated. Anyway that would put these 8000 at about 10% of the population of Jerusalem then.
Paul came later than the beginning of the Church of Jerusalem. And thousands compared to an estimated 2 to 4 millions of Jews in the Roman empire then, that's very little.
Christian writers did claim Marcion’s Son of God was a phantom.
It is just propaganda against Marcion. And not how Marcion described Jesus. For sure, phantoms cannot be touched, be kissed, able to eat and crucified (all of that attested in Marcion's gospel).
Not even Christians writers used Tacitus Annals to prove Jesus was a figure of history. Ignatius, Clement, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Athenagors, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Severus, --not one of them used Tacitus' Annals to prove Jesus did exist.
For these Christian writers, the fact that earthly Jesus existed was never doubted.
Even Gnostics like Basilides, Valentinus & Marcion had Jesus on earth in a bodily human form.
Celsus had the past existence of a human & earthly Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by hakeem » Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:11 pm

hakeem wrote:The whole passage from Severus did not include any character called Christus and in addition Tacitus in Histories 5.13 admitted the Jews expected their Messianic rulers around c 66 CE. Tacitus also admitted that Vespasian and Titus were really the prophesied Messianic rulers. We know that there was no Jewish Christ in the time of Pilate because 100 years later Simon Barchocheba was considered the Jewish Messiah after defeating the Romans around c 133 CE.
Bernard Muller wrote: I already provided explanations on that, and more than once.
Your explanation does not make sense.
hakeem wrote:Again, there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph in all the works of Josephus.
In addition, there is no claim whatsoever that James in Ant. 20.9.1 was an apostle or follower of a Christian cult.
Bernard Muller wrote: ]So what? I already explained that was not Josephus' aim in Ant. 20.9.1.
Again, your explanation does not make sense.

Jesus called Christ in Josephus' was alive in the time of Albinus.
hakeem wrote:There is also no reference to any letter by Paul to the Galatians in all the writings of Josephus.
Bernard Muller wrote:And why Josephus would be interested in Paul, and his letters?
And why would Tacitus be interested in Christus?

Bernard Muller wrote: How many times I have to tell you that Jesus called Christ in Ant. 20.9.1 is only to identify James.
hakeem wrote:You are merely repeating the same contradiction.. It does not make sense for Josephus to write nothing about the supposed prophesied Messianic ruler of whom there was supposed to be many books, letters and thousands of followers and then write about an unknown James which is not mentioned even in the Gospels and Acts.
Bernard Muller wrote:No contradiction whatsoever. James, as a brother of Jesus, is mentioned in gMark, gMatthew and Galatians (and Josephus).
Again, there is no apostle called James who was the brother of Jesus in Josephus, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, the fragments of Papias, Jerome's De Viris Illustribus, and even the Lord Jesus himself said so in the Apocalypse of James.

The 1st Apocalypse of James
It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you; so that when I give you a sign - know and hear.

The Pauline writer was lying about meeting the Lord's brother based on the words of Jesus in the Apocalypse of James.

James in Antiquities 20.9.1 was the brother of Jesus, the High Priest the son of Damneus who was alive in the time of Albinus.

hakeem wrote:Jesus was an High Priest c 63 CE so he could not be dead in the time of Pilate.c 27-37 CE.
Bernard Muller wrote: Jesus, son of Damneus is not the same as Jesus called Christ. Was ever James called the son of Damneus or the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus? NEVER.
Did Josephus ever write that Jesus called Christ was the son of Joseph or from Nazareth? NEVER.

These are the words of the Lord Jesus to James you are not my brother materially...
hakeem wrote:By the way, in the Epistles the Pauline Jesus was alive. Over 500 persons, including Paul saw him..
When the Pauline epistles were written Jesus (brother of James) was dead and Jesus son of Damneus was alive, but not yet high priest.

When the Pauline Epistles were written The Pauline Jesus was alive.

If the Pauline Jesus was not alive then the Epistles are a pack of lies.

1 Corinthians 15:8
Andlast of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time...

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

hakeem wrote:Jesus the High Priest c 63 CE was not the son of Joseph or the brother of an apostle.
Bernard Muller wrote: You said it: bravo!
Bravo!! Jesus said it to James "you are not my brother materially"...
hakeem wrote:Your assumptions are baseless that Jesus in Antiquities 20.9.1 was already dead in the time of Albinus.
Bernard Muller wrote:But I proved with Germanicus and Claudius, that someone declared a brother of someone else can be dead when the other is alive and kicking, as Claudius being emperor.
What you say is just hopelessly absurd. Whether or not Gemanicus was alive or dead has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus called Christ the High Priest in the time of Albinus.
hakeem wrote:Justin writings admit there were people called Christians who did not believe the stories of Jesus and that there were people who claimed to be Christ.
Bernard Muller wrote:Not the stories of Jesus, but his doctrine that they were not preaching. And Justin never said these Christian heretics, or others, called themselves Christ.
What you say does not make sense. What Jesus preached is part of the Jesus story.
hakeem wrote:You keep repeating the same nonsense that Josephus did not write about Jesus but he wrote about James of whom no Christian writer identified as an apostle and actual brother of .NT Jesus.
Bernard Muller wrote: What about Hegesippus? And do you think a pillar should abstain to be an apostle?
Galatians 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised
These pillars would do the preaching to the Jews while Paul would do the preaching to Gentiles.
That would put the pillars (including James) as much apostle as Paul (declaring so himself in Galatians 1:1).
What about the Lord Jesus in the Apocalypse of James?

The Apocalypse of James
For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially.

Jesus must have said that to James while he [Jesus] was alive.
hakeem wrote:The problem is that the very word “ChEstians” in Tacitus Annals was confirmed to have been manipulated --altered to appear as the word “ChrIstians”.
Bernard Muller wrote:However, I am leaning now on Tacitus writing "Christianos". Because it does not make sense that Tacitus would write that the origin of Chrestianos would be Christus.
It has been proven that the original word was ChrEstianos so the word Christus was inserted later and then ChrEstianos manipulated and changed to ChrIstianos in order for the passage to appear to make sense.
Bernard Muller wrote:Again and again I explained that Severus did not quote the whole of Tacitus' passage, only a short abbreviation of it.
hakeem wrote:What you say does not alter the fact that Severus does not corroborate that Tacitus wrote about Christus.
The Severus passage about Nero starts before and ends after the phrase about “Christus” which shows that there was no mention of a character called Christus by Tacitus in the time of Severus.
Bernard Muller wrote: Severus did not mention a lot of what Tacitus wrote in the relevant passage in Annals.
Furthermore Severus (c. 363 – c. 425) was a Christian writing to other Christians. There was no need to say the origin for "Christian" was Christus.
However Tacitus writing much earlier to Latin speaking non-Christians, when Christianity was not as spread as centuries later, felt he had to explain the origin of the word Christian (for the ones who knew about Christians but little else).
Since it is proven that the original word was ChrEstianos then even if Tacitus mentioned the word "Christus" then his explanation would not make any sense. People who knew Greek would have already known that the Greek word for ChrIstianos is derived from the Greek word meaning ChrIst.
What? In Acts of the Apostles in two days alone there were 8000 converts. And there were also thousands of Jews converted by Paul.
Bernard Muller wrote: OK, I missed that. But probably exagerated, even greatly exagerated. Anyway that would put these 8000 at about 10% of the population of Jerusalem then.
Paul came later than the beginning of the Church of Jerusalem. And thousands compared to an estimated 2 to 4 millions of Jews in the Roman empire then, that's very little.
The author of Acts greatly exaggerated his claims about converts? What else did he exaggerate? The conversion of Saul/Paul, the preaching of Saul/Paul, the persecution by Saul/Paul?

The NT is not mere exaggerations but a pack of lies, forgeries and false attribution.
hakeem wrote:Christian writers did claim Marcion’s Son of God was a phantom.
Bernard Muller wrote:It is just propaganda against Marcion. And not how Marcion described Jesus. For sure, phantoms cannot be touched, be kissed, able to eat and crucified (all of that attested in Marcion's gospel).
So, now you admit Christian writers made stuff up. Christian writings about Marcion are known packs of lies especially those attributed to Irenaeus and Tertullian.
hakeem wrote:Not even Christians writers used Tacitus Annals to prove Jesus was a figure of history. Ignatius, Clement, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Athenagors, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Severus, --not one of them used Tacitus' Annals to prove Jesus did exist.
Bernard wrote:For these Christian writers, the fact that earthly Jesus existed was never doubted.
Even Gnostics like Basilides, Valentinus & Marcion had Jesus on earth in a bodily human form.
…..
The NT itself contradicts you. There were people who claimed Jesus did not physically come to earth.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Bernard Muller wrote:.... Celsus had the past existence of a human & earthly Jesus
Celsus could not have been a witness of an historical Jesus since he lived at least one hundred years after the time of Tiberius.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:24 pm

to Hakeem,
I won't bother to answer all what is in your post, because I already addressed many issues in it before.
Your explanation does not make sense.
Again, your explanation does not make sense.
None of my explanations make sense to you: I am getting used to it.
Jesus called Christ in Josephus' was alive in the time of Albinus.
Jesus, son of Damneus, is not "called Christ" by Josephus.
That Jesus was anointed when he became high priest. OK. But if there was a reference to that, then that Jesus would be Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, but not "called Christ".
And Josephus never refer to any high priest as anointed. What would it be different for Jesus, son of Damneus?
Again, there is no apostle called James who was the brother of Jesus in Josephus, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, the fragments of Papias, Jerome's De Viris Illustribus, and even the Lord Jesus himself said so in the Apocalypse of James.
The 1st Apocalypse of James
It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you; so that when I give you a sign - know and hear.

The 1st Apocalypse of James (with Gnostic elements in it) is estimated written at the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the third. Rather late and it is obvious that's complete fiction.
By "materially", the author probably meant: conceived not by the same father, but the same mother (Mary), therefore called brother regardless. The myth of Mary's perpetual virginity started not before the 4th century.
1 Corinthians 15:8
Andlast of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time...
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
What do you draw from that?
1 Corinthians 15:81 relates to the Heavenly Jesus after his resurrection. So Jesus was dead before Paul's public life.
Romans 10:9 addressed doubt that Jesus was resurrected, as seen also in 1 Corinthians.
What you say is just hopelessly absurd. Whether or not Gemanicus was alive or dead has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus called Christ the High Priest in the time of Albinus.
Absolutely. It has to do with Germanicus dead when Claudius was emperor, and Jesus being dead when James was still alive, and in both cases, still declared to be brothers: Germanicus & Claudius, and Jesus called Christ & James. Nothing to do with Jesus son of Damneus (who BTW, is not declared to be the brother of James).
What you say does not make sense. What Jesus preached is part of the Jesus story.
No, doctrines are not stories of Jesus, but concoctions made by Paul and Gnostics like Marcion.
The Apocalypse of James
For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially.
Jesus must have said that to James while he [Jesus] was alive.
Yes, believed alive in the heavens, after the Resurrection.
For behold, I shall complete this destiny upon this earth as I have said from the heavens.
if Tacitus mentioned the word "Christus" then his explanation would not make any sense. People who knew Greek would have already known that the Greek word for ChrIstianos is derived from the Greek word meaning ChrIst.
Yes, that's what I think.
The author of Acts greatly exaggerated his claims about converts? What else did he exaggerate? The conversion of Saul/Paul, the preaching of Saul/Paul, the persecution by Saul/Paul?
In Acts, the conversion: exagerated, the preaching: invented, the persecution: validated by Paul in Galatians.
So, now you admit Christian writers made stuff up.
I also knew that. Most of my work was to extract the few elements which are true, from most which are not, using many criteria.
The NT itself contradicts you. There were people who claimed Jesus did not physically come to earth.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

That is addressed to Gnostic Docetists:
[Docetism] the doctrine, important in Gnosticism, that Christ's body was not human but either a phantasm or of real but celestial substance, and that therefore his sufferings were only apparent.

Docetist texts according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism# ... e_docetism
Acts of John
Fundamental Epistle: In Against the Fundamental Epistle, Augustine of Hippo makes reference to Manichaeans believing that Jesus was docetic.
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel of Basilides
Gospel of Judas
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Philip
Second Treatise of the Great Seth

Cordially, Bernard

robert j
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by robert j » Tue Mar 09, 2021 2:00 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:24 pm
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:9 addressed doubt that Jesus was resurrected, as seen also in 1 Corinthians.
For 1 Corinthians 15, sure. But how do you see Romans 10:9, in context, as addressing doubts about the resurrection?

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:13 pm

to robert j,
But how do you see Romans 10:9, in context, as addressing doubts about the resurrection?
But it certainly looks that way here:
"12 Now ['de'] if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But ['de'] if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And ['de'] if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes ['de'], and ['kai' can be translated as "also"] we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And ['de'] if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. ..."

Please note I have many arguments indicating 1 Co 15:3-11 is an interpolation: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem
Posts: 634
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by hakeem » Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:29 pm

Bernard Muller wrote: Jesus, son of Damneus, is not "called Christ" by Josephus.
Jesus of Nazareth is not called Christ in Josephus.
Bernard Muller wrote:...That Jesus was anointed when he became high priest. OK. But if there was a reference to that, then that Jesus would be Jesus Christ, or Christ Jesus, but not "called Christ".
Jewish Kings and High Priests were called Christ by Jews as documented in Hebrew Scripture. King Saul was called Christ in 2 Samuel 1.16.
Bernard Muller wrote:And Josephus never refer to any high priest as anointed. What would it be different for Jesus, son of Damneus?
And Josephus never referred to Jesus of Nazareth in all his writings.
hakeem wrote:Again, there is no apostle called James who was the brother of Jesus in Josephus, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, the fragments of Papias, Jerome's De Viris Illustribus, and even the Lord Jesus himself said so in the Apocalypse of James.
The 1st Apocalypse of James
It is the Lord who spoke with me: "See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you; so that when I give you a sign - know and hear.

Bernard Muller wrote:The 1st Apocalypse of James (with Gnostic elements in it) is estimated written at the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the third. Rather late and it is obvious that's complete fiction.
The so-called Pauline Epistles are also products of fiction, forgery and false attribution. The Pauline writers were confirmed to be liars since at least 1600 years ago.

Eusebius "Against Hierocles
And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards....



Bernard Muller wrote: By "materially", the author probably meant: conceived not by the same father, but the same mother (Mary), therefore called brother regardless. The myth of Mary's perpetual virginity started not before the 4th century.
NT Jesus was fathered by a Ghost so if both Jesus and James had the same mother they would be still be brothers.
1 Corinthians 15:8
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time...
Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Bernard Muller wrote: What do you draw from that?
1 Corinthians 15:81 relates to the Heavenly Jesus after his resurrection. So Jesus was dead before Paul's public life.
Romans 10:9 addressed doubt that Jesus was resurrected, as seen also in 1 Corinthians.
You mean Jesus was still dead after the resurrection?
hakeem wrote:What you say is just hopelessly absurd. Whether or not Gemanicus was alive or dead has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus called Christ the High Priest in the time of Albinus.
Bernard Muller wrote:Absolutely. It has to do with Germanicus dead when Claudius was emperor, and Jesus being dead when James was still alive, and in both cases, still declared to be brothers: Germanicus & Claudius, and Jesus called Christ & James. Nothing to do with Jesus son of Damneus (who BTW, is not declared to be the brother of James).
Josephus stated that Germanicus was dead before the time of Albinus but he never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and never mentioned he was dead before the governorship of Felix, Festus, Albinus or anyone else in the history of the Jews.
hakeem wrote:What you say does not make sense. What Jesus preached is part of the Jesus story.
Bernard Muller wrote:No, doctrines are not stories of Jesus, but concoctions made by Paul and Gnostics like Marcion.
You are still not making sense. The Sermon on the Mount is part of the Jesus story in gMatthew.
hakeem wrote:The Apocalypse of James
For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially.
Jesus must have said that to James while he [Jesus] was alive.
Bernard Muller wrote:Yes, believed alive in the heavens, after the Resurrection.
For behold, I shall complete this destiny upon this earth as I have said from the heavens.
Do you remember writing this? "
The 1st Apocalypse of James (with Gnostic elements in it) is estimated written at the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the third. Rather late and it is obvious that's complete fiction".

if Tacitus mentioned the word "Christus" then his explanation would not make any sense. People who knew Greek would have already known that the Greek word for ChrIstianos is derived from the Greek word meaning ChrIst.
Bernard Muller wrote:Yes, that's what I think.
Yeah, Tacitus could not have mentioned Christus since it is proven the word was originally ChrEstianos.
hakeem wrote:The author of Acts greatly exaggerated his claims about converts? What else did he exaggerate? The conversion of Saul/Paul, the preaching of Saul/Paul, the persecution by Saul/Paul?
Bernard Muller wrote:In Acts, the conversion: exagerated, the preaching: invented, the persecution: validated by Paul in Galatians.
Paul validates Saul?

It was Saul who persecuted people in Acts--not Paul.
hakeem wrote:So, now you admit Christian writers made stuff up.
Bernard Muller wrote: I also knew that. Most of my work was to extract the few elements which are true, from most which are not, using many criteria.
Is it true that God raised Jesus from the dead and was seen by Paul and over 500 persons at once?

robert j
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by robert j » Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:38 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:13 pm
to robert j,
But how do you see Romans 10:9, in context, as addressing doubts about the resurrection?
But it certainly looks that way here:
"12 Now ['de'] if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But ['de'] if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And ['de'] if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes ['de'], and ['kai' can be translated as "also"] we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And ['de'] if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied. ..."

Please note I have many arguments indicating 1 Co 15:3-11 is an interpolation: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Cordially, Bernard
In case my words weren't adequately clear, I acknowledged that 1 Corinthians 15 includes responses to doubts about the resurrection. My question, as you can see here, is about your claim for Romans 10:9.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Mar 09, 2021 8:30 pm

to robert j,
My mistake.
In Romans 10:9, believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead
Jesus' resurrection is a matter of belief, but believing in it give a reward "you shall be saved". So, you better believe in the Resurrection (for the ones who don't) or else: no salvation.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3900
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the birth stories?

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:27 pm

to hakeem,
To this he [Hiorocles] adds after a little more the following remark: " And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards, --"

Well, that's something a non-Christian would say: no surprise here.
NT Jesus was fathered by a Ghost so if both Jesus and James had the same mother they would be still be brothers.
And that's what the author of the 1st Apocalypse of James was saying. But with James a half brother, then that would explain "not materially".
You mean Jesus was still dead after the resurrection?
No, but my bad writing: I should have say So Jesus was dead died before Paul's public life. (but was believed, after his alleged resurrection, alive in heaven)
The Sermon on the Mount is part of the Jesus story in gMatthew.
But it can hardly be considered as doctrinal.
Do you remember writing this?
The 1st Apocalypse of James (with Gnostic elements in it) is estimated written at the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the third. Rather late and it is obvious that's complete fiction".
So what? that would not prevent anyone to comment on it, regardless if it is fiction or not.
And you used that text as it was not fiction, but statement of fact.
Yeah, Tacitus could not have mentioned Christus since it is proven the word was originally ChrEstianos.
No, it is not proven.
However, "christus" shows no sign of tempering.
From https://www.historyofinformation.c ... hp?id=3742
Books 11-16 of the Annals, and what remains of the Histories, also survived in a single manuscript, written at the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino, and also preserved in the Laurentian library (MS. plut 68.2.) This is referred to as M. II or 'second Medicean', to distinguish it from the unique codex of Annals 1-6. Like source M, this codex is dated by the Laurentiana to 1000-1100.

"This MS is written in the difficult Beneventan hand. It was written at Monte Cassino, perhaps during the abbacy of Richer (1038-55 AD). It derives from an ancestor written in Rustic Capitals, as it contains errors of transcription natural to that bookhand. There is some evidence that it was copied only once in about ten centuries, and that this copy was made from an original in rustic capitals of the 5th century or earlier, but other scholars believe that it was copied via at least one intermediate copy written in a minuscule hand.

It was Saul who persecuted people in Acts--not Paul.
Since Saul (for Paul) appears only in Acts in the NT, and you consider Acts factual for that, I''ll also use Acts: 13:9 But Saul, who is also called Paul
Is it true that God raised Jesus from the dead and was seen by Paul and over 500 persons at once?
It is true it was believed "God raised Jesus from the dead" (but certainly not believed so by me).
As for "seen by Paul and over 500 persons at once?", I determined for many reasons that 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11 is an interpolation. I explained everything about that here: http://historical-jesus.info/9.html Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 an interpolation? I have eight arguments in favor of YES.

Cordially, Bernard

Post Reply