evidence for Christianity before the third Roman Jewish conflict

[spin]

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.

One can't really talk of the "i" being "interpolated". It certainly was changed, but as we don't have the source it was copied from we don't know if it was a "bona fide" correction in which the scribe made a mistake (if for example he was French) or if the copy was "improved" to "christian" when the source had "chrestian". Many changes in texts reflect scribal corrections.

[MrMacSon]

Yes; good points about change / scribal error v interpolation

[dewitness]

It has already been proven that the letter was an E by ultra-violet light.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[15] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

In any event, no Christian writer used Tacitus Annals to prove Jesus existed up to the 5th century and it cannot be presumed that all Christians in any century were only Jesus cult Christians.

Simon Magus and his followers were called Christians in the 1st century.

[dewitness]

The word is 'Chrestianos'

See http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tacitus/tac.ann15.shtml

....Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut deum placamentis decedebat infamia, quin iussum incendium crederetur. ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus..

[spin]

It has already been proven that the letter was an E by ultra-violet light.

You did not prove it. You reported what others proved.

[dewitness]

Virtually all the evidence for a pre 70 CE Jesus story and cult is missing.

In the very Canon of the Jesus cult all the authors are fakes. In other words, they were written precisely to deceive. The Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are not only compilation of forgeries but their contents are known fiction------riddled with events about Jesus that never happened and could not have happened.

No author of the Canonised Gospel and the Pauline Corpus has ever been identified by any non-apologetic writer.

No author of the Canonised Gospels admitted that they personally interacted with Jesus only Paul admitted he interacted with Jesus AFTER he was resurrected.

Incredibly, Paul boasted that he got information from the Resurrected Jesus somewhere in the THIRD heaven although he admitted he really don't know how it happened.

1 Corinthians 12

Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable ; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago -whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows -such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I know how such a man -whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows - 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. 5 On behalf of such a man I will boast....

Paul appears to have suffered from Amnesia.

Now examine gMark, it is suggested that Jesus was a carpenter.

Mark 6:3 NAS

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon ? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.

Origen will categorically state that in NONE of the Gospels it was taught that Jesus was a carpenter.

Origen's "Against Celsus 6.36

.....in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

Now, examine gMatthew it is suggested that Jesus was a carpenter's son.

Matthew 13:55 NAS

"Is not this the carpenter's son ? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas ?

Origen will specifically identify the 'father' of Jesus--A Holy Ghost.

Origen's De Principiis

......Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures........ it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit...

Jesus Christ was neither the son of a Carpenter or a Carpenter--He was born of a Spirit and a Virgin.

The Jesus Christ character was pure unadulterated mythology.

The Jesus story and Pauline Corpus only makes sense long AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and outside of Judea.

That is precisely what the recovered and dated NT manuscripts show.

None of the NT manuscripts have been found in Judea and None have been dated pre 70 CE.

[dewitness]

It will be noticed that those who argue for a pre 70 CE Jesus cult of Christians hardly present any supporting evidence for their position but are constantly ridiculing others who argue for a post c 70 CE Jesus cult.

The very first thing that must be understood is that all Gospels are forgeries or falsely attributed to characters of whom there is no corroborative evidence for their existence.

In the Canon itself, Scholars have already agreed almost universally that the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

We see that for hundreds of years people were duped into thinking that the Gospels must have been written in the 1st century because Christian writers of antiquity claimed Matthew and John were actual disciples of the supposed Jesus and that Mark and Luke were contemporaries of Jesus and the Apostles.

The Forgeries were specifically carried out to DECEIVE and dupe the reader.

In "Church History" it is claimed gMatthew was composed before gMark which was already composed by Mark since the time of Philo or since c 50 CE.

Church History 6

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ

Church History 2.17

1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.

Now, the writings of Justin Martyr show that the four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not known or used in the Churches up c 150 CE.

Justin's First Apology LXVII

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits

Based on Justin gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn are most likely forgeries or falsely attributed to the named authors after c 150 CE.

[avi]

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

It is a random process usually characterized as memory less: the next state depends only on the current state and not on the sequence of events that preceded it

There is nothing random about the comments of dewitness, hence this was a back handed ad hominem implying his submission to the forum of a sequence of purely random thoughts.

You may disagree with the analysis of dewitness, but the forum will be more profound, educational, interesting, and attractive, if your criticisms, of the submissions of any forum member, are accompanied by evidence refuting an interpretation, instead of mere name dropping in order to appear erudite. To my way of thinking, the real "non-sequitur" here, on this thread, is the comment invoking the concept of randomness, in seeking to repudiate the interpretation offered by 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.

One can't really talk of the "i" being "interpolated". It certainly was changed, but as we don't have the source it was copied from we don't know if it was a "bona fide" correction in which the scribe made a mistake (if for example he was French) or if the copy was "improved" to "christian" when the source had "chrestian". Many changes in texts reflect scribal corrections.

"if for example he were French"... Well, I am certainly no linguist, but you are, spin, so I will ask your twin, spin2, to respond to this query:
How does spin1 write "chrestian", above, implying, incorrectly, that only a SINGLE letter had been altered, by a French scribe, accustomed to writing "chrestian", when spin knows, perfectly well, that even in OLD FRENCH, from the middle ages, the word was Chretien, not "chrestian". There are at least THREE phonemes different between the French word and the English, derived from the northern "French" Anglo Norman. I doubt that a northern Norman (= Danish) monk resided in the southern Italian monastery, changing Tacitus' Annals. See Chretien de Troyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chr%C3%A9tien_de_Troyes. The Greek word is χριστός , so it is improbable that a scribe, fluent in Greek, (else could he function as a scribe?), would have confused "e" and "i". The most reasonable explanation, in my opinion, is that the copy prepared in the monastery had been written, in Latin, (in my opinion, a translation of Tacitus' original text in Greek) Chrestians, "good people", as they proclaimed themselves.

[dewitness]

..... The most reasonable explanation, in my opinion, is that the copy prepared in the monastery had been written, in Latin, (in my opinion, a translation of Tacitus' original text in Greek) Chrestians, "good people", as they proclaimed themselves.

The issue is not what was the original but what is the Latin word on the copy on the Medicean copy. Is it Chrestianos or Christianos?

The matter has been resolved because under untra-violet light it is found that it is Chrestianos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

..."With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.

Now, the article continues and claim that in ALL three times in the Codex Sinaiticus the word Chrestianoi is found NOT Christianoi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

The term Christians appears only three times in the New Testament, the first usage (Acts 11:26) giving the origin of the term.[18] In all three cases the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus in Greek reads Chrestianoi.

Now examine the writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Tertullian in the 2nd-3rd century. They admit that the word Chrestians was used or mis-pronounced for Christians.

Justin's First Apology IV

For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust.

Tertullian's Ad Nationes 1

The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us “Chrestians”....

The author of Ad Nationes is clear and specific. "You call us CHRESTIANS"

The writings of Apologetics show that the word CHRESTIANS was used for Christians up to at least the 4th century so it is very likely that Tacitus Annals would have contained the word CHRESTIANOS and not Christianos.

It cannot be presumed that CHRESTIANS only referred to the Jesus cult.

[hanery]

You might be aware that Epictetus mentions Christians from around 110 A.D. He taught at Nicopolis, the place where Titus mentions there being a Christian community. If you have Christians there at this date you must surely date the Christian movement's beginning several decades before.