evidence for Christianity before the third Roman Jewish conflict

[dewitness]

There were many Christian cults that did NOT believe and did NOT accept the Jesus story.

We have "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus and "Prescription Against the Heretics" attributed to Tertullian which documented some of those Christian cults WITHOUT Jesus.

There are Christian texts WITHOUT Jesus.

There were early Christians who believed ONLY in GOD.

1. It is well known that Theophilus of Antioch c 180 CE claimed to be a Christian by "Anointing with OIL" and did not mention Jesus in his Three BOOKS "To Autolycus".

...

Could such references be to Chrestians/Chrestianos?

I cannot speculate.

I deal with the written statements found in "To Autolycus".

It is wholly erroneous that one cannot find Christ without Jesus in Christian writings.

In the three books "To Autolycus", the author never once admitted that Jesus was the Savior of mankind, that Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator who resurrected on the third day and ascended in a cloud.

The author of "To Autolycus" did NOT accept the Jesus story even though he was called a Christian.

The very fact that there are writings Against Heresies must mean that there were Christians who did NOT believe or accept the Jesus story.

Examine "De Principiis", the very Origen claimed that many so-called Christians differed in their beliefs about Christ.

Origen's De Pricipiis"

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points.

[MrMacSon]

There are Christian texts WITHOUT Jesus.

There were early Christians who believed ONLY in GOD.

Could such references be to Chrestians/Chrestianos?

I cannot speculate.

... The author of "To Autolycus" did NOT accept the Jesus story even though he was called a Christian.

The very fact that there are writings Against Heresies must mean that there were Christians who did NOT believe or accept the Jesus story.

I'm not asking you - or anyone - to speculate.

It is quite well documented that at least one of the written Tacitus passages refers to Chrestianos; I'm just asking if other texts do.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_o ... Chrestians - also [in this post on this forum]

and http://brepols.metapress.com/content/y4m58q8x60600153/


This is interesting -

Examine "De Principiis", the very Origen claimed that many so-called Christians differed in their beliefs about Christ.

Origen's De Pricipiis"

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit ...

[Leucius Charinus]

Could such references be to Chrestians/Chrestianos?

We would need a fragment from that epoch to answer that question, which is highly unlikely.

However AFAIK someone has thought or claimed that one of the papyri fragments was from Irenaeus.
I don't have the reference handy but will check later, the question being whether the "Church Fathers"
wrote their Greek and Latin works using "nomina sacra" or using the expanded forms.

[spin]

It is easily seen that the argument for a pre 70 CE Jesus cult is the very weakest argument.

You've asserted this before.

The Jesus story was fabricated after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and sometime after c 120 CE or after Suetonius "Twelve Lives of the Caesars".

Pure assertion without anything to give it any reasonableness at all.

It is claimed that around c 115 CE Pliny the younger wrote a letter to Trajan about some Christians in his custody.

The Pliny letter to Trajan reveal that at around c 115 CE that Pliny knew NOTHING of the Jesus story and Nothing of the Jesus cult of Christians.

In fact, Pliny executed some WITTHOUT knowing what they believed and tortured others.

Whaddaya know: another example of aa5874 confused between lack of evidence and evidence of lack.

Amazingly, the Christians who were tortured mentioned no-one by the name of Jesus.

Amazingly? Why don't you explain your assumption that seems to be something about your christians having to use the name of Jesus in Pliny's letter?

By c 115 CE, the supposed Jesus of Nazareth should have been a household name in the Roman Empire with more books and Epistles written about him than any Emperor of Rome.

Piffle.

There should have been bishops of Rome and other major cities including Peter, Clement, Ignatius and Paul who were executed in Rome.

You seem to be citing hagiography.

Pliny the younger lived in Rome before he was governor Bithynia yet he tortured Christians to find out what they believed.

The Jesus cult should have been established in Rome for at least 50 years by 115CE.

But, examine the NT Canon, it is claimed that Peter, the supposed bishop of Rome, wrote Epistles to the Church of BITHYNIA.

This is so stunningly contentless.

1 Peter 1:1 KJV

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia...

The Jesus story and cult should have also been established in Bithynia for about 50 years at c 115 CE.

If the Jesus story and cult were well established for 50 years in Rome and Bithynia then Pliny the younger would have no need to torture Christians to find out what they believed.

I guess you think that Pliny should have had access to christian knowledge if it had been around so long. Religions don't necessarily give out their theologies quite the way you want them to have done. What exactly do you learn from Lucian about the beliefs of the christians in his Passing of Peregrinus? Almost nothing. Your logic is fallacious.

After all, it is not expected that Pliny would torture Jews to find out their beliefs.

So, did Pliny know anything about the beliefs of Jews?

Pliny Letter to Trajan

......Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

Pliny knew NOTHING of the BELIEFS of the Christians and after he tortured some they never mentioned Jesus.

Yeah, let's repeat that.

This confirms the NT Canon are riddled with forgeries.

Let us, for the sake of argument, accept "this" as true for a moment. There is absolutely no rationale behind this claim of confirmation. It's a pure non sequitur.

The Gospels, Epistles of Peter and Paul were composed AFTER the time of Pliny the younger or after the Pliny letter to Trajan.

The Jesus story and cult was unknown in Rome and Bithynia up to c 115 CE.

Not one single NT manuscript has been recovered in Bithynia, Rome and Judea and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Not one single NT manuscript has been found in Aramaic or Latin and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

Virtually all the earliest NT manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd century are found in Egypt.

The actual recovered and dated NT manuscripts show that the Jesus story and cult was in Egypt in its early development in the 2nd-3rd century.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger are witnesses that the Jesus story and cult were unknown up to 120 CE.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne ... ent_papyri

This litany of non sequiturs is stunning. I'm getting to like the Markov-chain idea more and more.

[dewitness]

It is quite well documented that at least one of the written Tacitus passages refers to Chrestianos; I'm just asking if other texts do.

What I can say is that when "Church History" is examined it will be seen that Tacitus Annals with Chrestus was not used at all to prove Jesus existed. In fact, no apologetic source used Tacitus Annals for hundreds of years which would indicate that it was interpolated very late.

Tertullian was aware of the writings of Tacitus yet did not use Annals with Chrestus in arguing "Against Marcion".

If Marcion did argue that Jesus was a Phantom then Tertullian should have mentioned that Tacitus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus.

In any event, c 400 CE, Sulpitius Severus made reference to a passage that is very similar to Tacitus' Annals 15 and the name and execution of Chrestus cannot be found.

Severus' Sacred History 2.29

And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent.
Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night.

This is interesting -

Examine "De Principiis", the very Origen claimed that many so-called Christians differed in their beliefs about Christ.

Origen's De Pricipiis"

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit ...

Now, hear Justin Martyr. He claims some so-called Christians with whom he has NOTHING in common, that they are ATHEISTS and make blasphemous statements about God and Christ.

It is clear that there were Christians in antiquity who did NOT accept the Jesus story.

Dialogue with Trypho XXXV

There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians...

[MrMacSon]

It is quite well documented that at least one of the written Tacitus passages refers to Chrestianos; I'm just asking if other texts do.

What I can say is that when "Church History" is examined it will be seen that Tacitus Annals with Chrestus was not used at all to prove Jesus existed.

I am referring, in this case, to Chrestianos or Christians; not to Christ, nor Christos, nor Chrestos.

Please, see the picture on the right-hand-side here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_o ... Chrestians

[MrMacSon]

Now, hear Justin Martyr. He claims some so-called Christians, with whom he has NOTHING in common, ... are ATHEISTS, and make blasphemous statements about God and Christ.

It is clear that there were Christians in antiquity who did NOT accept the Jesus story.

Dialogue with Trypho XXXV

There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin. (For some in one way, others in another, teach to blaspheme the Maker of all things, and Christ, who was foretold by Him as coming, and the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, with whom we have nothing in common, since we know them to be atheists, impious, unrighteous, and sinful, and confessors of Jesus in name only, instead of worshippers of Him. Yet they style themselves Christians...

Good point.

[dewitness]

It is quite well documented that at least one of the written Tacitus passages refers to Chrestianos; I'm just asking if other texts do.

What I can say is that when "Church History" is examined it will be seen that Tacitus Annals with Chrestus was not used at all to prove Jesus existed.

I am referring, in this case, to Chrestianos or Christians; not to Christ, nor Christos, nor Chrestos.

Please, see the picture on the right-hand-side here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_o ... Chrestians

I see the picture. I have already told you that Annals 15.44 was interpolated and the picture confirms it.

There was no pre 70 CE Jesus cult of Christians. ALL the supposed 1st century stories of Jesus and cult are forgeries and fiction giving the false impression that the authors were from the 1st century.

[MrMacSon]

I have already told you that Annals 15.44 was interpolated and the picture confirms it.

Yes but it's a question of whether

• it was just the 'i' that was interpolated,
  just the word Chrestianos, or
  the entire passage.

Even if authentic, the passage just refers to Christians, or a version of Christianity then, not to a Christ or Jesus

[dewitness]

I have already told you that Annals 15.44 was interpolated and the picture confirms it.

Yes but it's a question of whether

• it was just the 'i' that was interpolated,
  just the word Chrestianos, or
  the entire passage.

Even if authentic, the passage just refers to Christians, or a version of Christianity then, not to a Christ or Jesus

It must have been known for hundreds of years that the word translated as "Christians" was manipulated.
On the page exhibited the "RI" lettering in all other words are distinctly different to what was assumed to be the RI combination in the word for ChRIstians.

Enlarge the page and Look carefully at the "RI" in the words for ChRIstus and Tiberius--you should immediately see the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MII.png