evidence for Christianity before the third Roman Jewish conflict

[dewitness]

It is extremely easy to deduce that the Jesus cult of Christians was initiated sometime in the 2nd century--after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

The very first point is that the Gospels in the Canon and the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or falsely attributed to supposed 1st century characters.

Forgeries are specifically carried out to deceive the reader into thinking that the Jesus stories were known in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

However, there are at least four writers of antiquity, who will confirm that the Gospels and the Pauline story of Jesus are indeed forgeries and their accounts are most likely invented.

In the NT Canon, Jesus was an extremely significant character--He was the supposed prophesied King of the Jews, the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator, Savior and healer.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was Lord, equal to God, was God's own Son and that every knee in the Roman Empire should BOW to the name of Jesus.

By c 120 CE, if the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are not forgeries then there should have been multiple stories of Jesus the King of the Jews, multiple Epistles and multiple Churches around the Roman Empire.

More books and Epistles should have been written about Jesus than the contemporary Emperors.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius not only did not write about Jesus and the Jesus cult but showed that Jews did not worship a man as a God in the 1st century and that the Jews expected their King at around c 70 CE.

1. In Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius",[c 50 CE] it is stated that the Jews did not worship Gaius or men as Gods.

2. In Josephus' "Wars of the Jews"[c 75 CE] it is claimed that Vespasian was the predicted Messianic ruler found in Hebrew Scripture.

3. In Tacitus' Histories 5" [c 110 CE] it is claimed Vespasian and Titus were the Predicted Messianic rulers in Hebrew Scripture.

4. In Suetonius' Life of Vespasian [c 120 CE] it is claimed that Vespasian was the predicted Messianic ruler in Hebrew Scripture.

The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are indeed forgeries or falsely attributed to Jews and Jesus cult Christians in the 1st century.

The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are also works of fiction and do not represent the historical events before c 70 CE.

The recovered dated NT manuscripts also provide evidence for the Jesus cult in the 2nd century and later.

The very weakest and unsupported argument is that the Jesus cult of Christians originated before c 70 CE.

[spin]

It is extremely easy to deduce that the Jesus cult of Christians was initiated sometime in the 2nd century--after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Opening assertion. OK. We'll wait for this deduction.

The very first point is that the Gospels in the Canon and the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or falsely attributed to supposed 1st century characters.

In what sense are the gospels as whole works forgeries?

Forgeries are specifically carried out to deceive the reader into thinking that the Jesus stories were known in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

This contains an assertion that assumes forgery and pretends to know why the assumed forgery was done. The pretension is that dewitness can read the writers' intentions.

However, there are at least four writers of antiquity, who will confirm that the Gospels and the Pauline story of Jesus are indeed forgeries and their accounts are most likely invented.

Most often when pundits talk of probability ("most likely") they are merely expressing their own desires. There is no substance to them.

In the NT Canon, Jesus was an extremely significant character--He was the supposed prophesied King of the Jews, the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator, Savior and healer.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was Lord, equal to God, was God's own Son and that every knee in the Roman Empire should BOW to the name of Jesus.

The writer is certainly able to express his opinion.

By c 120 CE, if the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are not forgeries then there should have been multiple stories of Jesus the King of the Jews, multiple Epistles and multiple Churches around the Roman Empire.

Note that surreptitious insertion here "should have". This is one of those statements of probability that cash out to a pundit expression their own desires. So, there is no content here.

More books and Epistles should have been written about Jesus than the contemporary Emperors.

Pure non sequitur.

Still waiting for the deduction which is so unapparent from the stuff already waded through.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius not only did not write about Jesus and the Jesus cult but showed that Jews did not worship a man as a God in the 1st century and that the Jews expected their King at around c 70 CE.

Non sequitur.

1. In Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius",[c 50 CE] it is stated that the Jews did not worship Gaius or men as Gods.

2. In Josephus' "Wars of the Jews"[c 75 CE] it is claimed that Vespasian was the predicted Messianic ruler found in Hebrew Scripture.

3. In Tacitus' Histories 5" [c 110 CE] it is claimed Vespasian and Titus were the Predicted Messianic rulers in Hebrew Scripture.

4. In Suetonius' Life of Vespasian [c 120 CE] it is claimed that Vespasian was the predicted Messianic ruler in Hebrew Scripture.

A sequence of non sequiturs.

The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are indeed forgeries or falsely attributed to Jews and Jesus cult Christians in the 1st century.

Another non sequitur. This is a stement which has no support whatsoever.

The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are also works of fiction and do not represent the historical events before c 70 CE.

Bald assertion of no consequence.

The recovered dated NT manuscripts also provide evidence for the Jesus cult in the 2nd century and later.

Yet another non sequitur.

The very weakest and unsupported argument is that the Jesus cult of Christians originated before c 70 CE.

This statement indicates that you cannot deduce anything. You can only assert that the claim that the Jesus cult of Christians originating before c 70 CE is very weak.

[MrMacSon]

...

The very first point is that the Gospels in the Canon and the Pauline Corpus are forgeries or falsely attributed to supposed 1st century characters.

Forgeries are specifically carried out to deceive the reader into thinking that the Jesus stories were known in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.
.....

Dude, can I suggest you don't put your conclusions as declarative statements at the start of a post?!

[MrMacSon]

Here is another way of laying out your particular thesis

intro
In the NT Canon, Jesus was an extremely significant character--He was the supposed prophesied King of the Jews, the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator, Savior and healer.

The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was Lord, equal to God, was God's own Son, and that every knee in the Roman Empire should bow to the name of Jesus.

It can be deducted/inferred that the Jesus cult of Christians was initiated sometime in the 2nd century--after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

There are at least four works of antiquity that suggest that the Gospels and the Pauline story of Jesus ... are most likely invented ...


information

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius not only did not write about Jesus and the Jesus cult, but showed that Jews did not worship a man as a God in the 1st century and that the Jews expected their King at around c 70 CE.

• 1. In Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius",[c 50 CE] it is stated that the Jews did not worship Gaius or men as Gods.
  
  2. In Josephus' "Wars of the Jews"[c 75 CE] it is claimed that Vespasian was the predicted Messianic ruler found in Hebrew Scripture.
  
  3. In Tacitus' Histories 5" [c 110 CE] it is claimed Vespasian and Titus were the Predicted Messianic rulers in Hebrew Scripture.
  
  4. In Suetonius' Life of Vespasian [c 120 CE] it is claimed that Vespasian was the predicted Messianic ruler in Hebrew Scripture.

The recovered dated NT manuscripts also provide evidence for the Jesus cult in the 2nd century and later [elaborate here]


discussion & conclusion/s (needs more work)

By c 120 CE, if the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are not forgeries; then there should have been multiple stories of Jesus the King of the Jews, multiple Epistles and multiple Churches around the Roman Empire.

More texts and Epistles should have been written about Jesus than the contemporary Emperors.

The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus .... do not represent the historical events before c 70 CE: The very weakest and unsupported argument is that the Jesus cult of Christians originated before c 70 CE. The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are likely forgeries or falsely attributed to Jews and Jesus cult Christians in the 1st century.


Forgeries are specifically carried out to deceive the reader into thinking that the Jesus stories were known in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

[Peter Kirby]

The presumed divergence between a "Jesus cult" and a society of Christians who name their founder Christus is an implicit assumption that needs to be mentioned. Even if the passage in Tacitus were considered Tacitean, the argument is that this does not attest a "Jesus cult" because there is no word for "Jesus" in the non-Christian writer's Latin.

[dewitness]

The presumed divergence between a "Jesus cult" and a society of Christians who name their founder Christus is an implicit assumption that needs to be mentioned. Even if the passage in Tacitus were considered Tacitean, the argument is that this does not attest a "Jesus cult" because there is no word for "Jesus" in the non-Christian writer's Latin.

Your response highlights the extreme weakness of the argument for the Jesus cult in the 1st century. You clutch to a known interpolation carried out sometime after the end of the 4th century or at least after Eusebius' Church History".

Tacitus' Annals 15 with Chrestus is a known interpolation.

We know this from Tacitus' Histories 5.

Not even Eusbeius used Tacitus Annals to prove Jesus did exist. Eusebius used the "TF"--an interpolation in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

The interpolator of Tacitus Annals must have forgotten that we have Tacitus Histories

The Jews expected their Messianic Ruler about c 66-70 CE based on Hebrew Scripture.

Jewish men and women fought against the Romans c 66-70 CE expecting the prophesied Jewish King.


Tacitus' Histories 5

.... in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.

These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth.

I have heard that the total number of the besieged, of every age and both sexes, amounted to six hundred thousand. All who were able bore arms, and a number, more than proportionate to the population, had the courage to do so.

Men and women showed equal resolution, and life seemed more terrible than death, if they were to be forced to leave their country.

The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are fiction and forgeries. The stories about a Messianic ruler called Jesus since c 30 CE in the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are uncorroborated by Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

The Predicted Jewish King of the Jews NEVER came up to c 70 CE.

It was Vespasian who made the Blind see and the Lame walk--NOT the fiction King called Jesus in the forgeries of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus.

[MrMacSon]

The presumed divergence between a "Jesus cult" and a society of Christians who name their founder Christus is an implicit assumption that needs to be mentioned.

Moreover, a "Jesus cult" and a society of Christians may have part of a wider 'Chrestian' community incorporating various other sects or cults.

[Peter Kirby]

The presumed divergence between a "Jesus cult" and a society of Christians who name their founder Christus is an implicit assumption that needs to be mentioned.

Moreover, a "Jesus cult" and a society of Christians may have part of a wider 'Chrestian' community incorporating various other sects or cults.

What "Jesus cult"? What defines it? What is the evidence for it? What is the evidence that it had any separate existence? Why are we talking about this phrase at all?

For all his talk of the "weakness" of anything and everything that isn't stated by dewitness in posts by dewitness...

The very basic premises of his presentation are never explained. Even the necessity of giving an explanation is not acknowledged.

(It's part of why I honestly regret following spin's lead of trying to inject some logic here. It's futile to have a conversation with a wall.)

[spin]

(It's part of why I honestly regret following spin's lead of trying to inject some logic here. It's futile to have a conversation with a wall.)

Should I fall on my sword now, oh great and mighty kosmokrator? It was not my intention to inject any logic here, only to underline the lack of logic. I'm sorry I misled you. Our interlocutor works under the stated view that he can do history deductively. I merely wanted to note that, though it was his desire, he failed dismally to do any deductive history in the attempt I commented on. But please, hypsistos, should I humbly fall on my sword now?

[MrMacSon]

The presumed divergence between a "Jesus cult" and a society of Christians who name their founder Christus is an implicit assumption that needs to be mentioned.

Moreover, a "Jesus cult" and a society of Christians may have part of a wider 'Chrestian' community incorporating various other sects or cults.

What "Jesus cult"? What defines it? What is the evidence for it? What is the evidence that it had any separate existence? Why are we talking about this phrase at all?

Jeezes! So many questions; so few answers!

Good questions, though. I wonder/speculate that there were various influences or cult-like followings of various reported-real Jesuses of the time - Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Damneus, +/- others, or narratives about them (real or embellished).

I wonder if the Jesus of Nazareth character is a compilation of narratives, [add] so go along with/espouse the notion of divisions with regard to early evolving christianity.

[add] I wonder if that is reflected in the various gnostic 'sects, and the various apocryphal & pseudepigraphic texts [see next post]