Protestantism

» Migisi - Some thoughts...

.
From Brian's blog:
http://protestantism.suite101.com/blog.c...
.
Suetonius writes in his Life of Clauidius that the Roman Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome "as the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus." (Historians agree that this was an alternative spelling or misspelling of "Christus" - the Roman name for Christ).
.
Not all historians agree - just Christian ones. 'Chrestus' is the correct LATIN form of an actual Greek name, not a mispelling of 'Christus', meaning Christ. 'Christos' is simply Greek for the Hebrew Messiah, the 'anointed'. And at that time, there were many claiming to be this. The reference may be simply to a Messianic riot among the Jews. What reason would the followers of Christ have for making 'constant disturbances' or rioting?
.
Claudius ruled from 41-54 A.D. Jesus was allegedly crucified around 30 A.D. Jesus - by any name - could not have been in Rome personally at that time instigating a riot.
.
Suetonius was born about 70-71 A.D. He was NOT an eyewitness during Claudius' reign some 30 years earlier. He was not around for the expulsion of Jews from Rome, and did NOT have first hand knowledge of Claudius' reason. He was private secretary to Emperor Hadrian, not Claudius or Nero. He was simply repeating hearsay.
.
Suetonius provides more insight into how and why "Chrestus" would cause such disturbances among the Jews in Rome when he tells of Nero's campaign of persecution against the Christians,...
.
In his 'Life of Nero' (54-68), he tells us that certain 'Christiani' were severely punished or tortured; and characterises them as 'a class of people who believed in a new and noxious superstition'. This likely applies to Messianists. The Romans had been dealing with many disturbances like this in Palestine during Tiberius, Claudius and Nero. It seems far more likely that Suetonius reproduced what he'd read in some brief official Roman record, or borrowed from from his contemporary, Tacitus.
.
Did you know that Josephus called Agripa I 'Chrestos'?
.
Even if Suetonius IS referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians. There's no doubt there were Christians in Rome during the first century.
.
And even if Suetonius' remarks were genuinely about Jesus, they would no more prove the existence of Jesus than do writings about other gods prove their existence. In other words, by this same argument one could provide many quotes from ancient writers that the numerous pagan gods also existed as 'real people.'

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Some thoughts...

In response to Some thoughts... posted by Migisi:
Thanks for the thoughts, Migisi. I was not implying or suggesting that Jesus was in Rome. Only that controversy surrounding Jesus had made its way to Rome.

Were there other Jews who claimed to be the Messiah? Yes. But no claim had the staying power that Jesus' did. Factual history bears this out, given the fact that it's Christianity which has risen to prominence over the centuries.

The controversy surrounding Jesus as the Messiah is well documented in Syrio-Palestine. Not even you can dispute that.

It seems logical, based on these references from Suetonius, that the unrest in Rome was an extension of the unrest ALREADY DOCUMENTED in Syrio-Palestine.

» Brian Tubbs - Further answers

In response to Some thoughts... posted by Migisi:

In his 'Life of Nero' (54-68), he tells us that certain 'Christiani' were severely punished or tortured; and characterises them as 'a class of people who believed in a new and noxious superstition'. This likely applies to Messianists.

Agreed, and the leading contenders for the Messianists that could/would cause this much trouble for Rome would be those who believed in Jesus. You're stretching here, Migisi, to say otherwise.

The Romans had been dealing with many disturbances like this in Palestine during Tiberius, Claudius and Nero.

Indeed.

It seems far more likely that Suetonius reproduced what he'd read in some brief official Roman record, or borrowed from from his contemporary, Tacitus.

The Romans no doubt had extensive government and historical records to draw from. They were efficient record-keepers.

Did you know that Josephus called Agripa I 'Chrestos'?

No. Interesting.

Are you saying that Agripa I was the cause of the disturbance which got the Jews expelled from Rome?

If you're not, then I'm not sure I see any relevance. If you're just trying to cloud the issue by pointing out that others, outside of Jesus, were referred to us as "Chrestos," that's a fine debating tactic. But let's not engage in that kind of back-and-forth. You know as well as I that it proves nothing.

Even if Suetonius IS referring to Christians in Rome...

And this is almost surely the case.

...this only confirms the existence of Christians. There's no doubt there were Christians in Rome during the first century.

Agreed. And this is devastating to those who argue that belief in Jesus of Nazareth as God and Messiah was a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century conspiracy.

We know that Christianity - and by that, I mean people who embraced and followed Jesus as their Lord and Savior, as the divine Messiah - was on the rise in the FIRST century!

And even if Suetonius' remarks were genuinely about Jesus, they would no more prove the existence of Jesus than do writings about other gods prove their existence.

You're attacking a strawman here. I did NOT say that Suetonius' reference to followers of Jesus proved the existence of Jesus. But it does prove that there WERE followers of Jesus in Rome in the mid-1st century, not too long after Jesus reportedly died (and there is OTHER evidence for the reality of Jesus's life and death).

In other words, by this same argument one could provide many quotes from ancient writers that the numerous pagan gods also existed as 'real people.'

Suetonius is not the only source that I've utilized. Read my earlier article called "Proving Jesus."

Migisi, if it's your position that Jesus wasn't a real historical figure - that he was a mythical composite or construct of the early Christian church - if that's your position, then you are very much in the minority.

Virtually all historians - and I do mean that - agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first century Syrio-Palestine, that he amassed a large following, and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. There is very little dispute on those facts. You're really putting yourself out on a very radical limb to dispute those facts.

» Migisi - Further answers

In response to Further answers posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Agreed, and the leading contenders for the Messianists that could/would cause this much trouble for Rome would be those who believed in Jesus. You're stretching here, Migisi, to say otherwise.
.
I think Christians do the stretching, Bri. As I asked before... thinking rationally... why would CHRISTIANS constantly create so much trouble for Rome, or be the culprits causing riots? If CHRISTIANS had been specifically identified by Roman authorities as the trouble-makers, why wouldn't they have expelled them from Rome, rather than expelling all the JEWS - when most Jews opposed the Christians? Doesn't make sense. The trouble in Rome was and had been with the Jewish Zealots - per Jospehus in his "The Jewish Wars". The uprisings in Rome weren't caused by the small community of Christians. If Christians were the instigators, surely ALL historians (even secular ones) would've documented that.
.
==============================
.
Me: Did you know that Josephus called Agripa I 'Chrestos'?
.
You: Are you saying that Agripa I was the cause of the disturbance which got the Jews expelled from Rome?
.
No. I'm remarking on the word 'Chrestos' and ~one~ of its original meanings - one being 'a good man'. Perhaps you know that Josephus was appointed governor of Galilee, took the Emperor's family name (Flavius), and after the siege and fall of Jerusalem, Vespasian granted him Roman citizenship and a pension. He was pro-Rome and an admirer of Agrippa (among other Roman officials).
.
If you're just trying to cloud the issue by pointing out that others, outside of Jesus, were referred to us as "Chrestos," that's a fine debating tactic. But let's not engage in that kind of back-and-forth. You know as well as I that it proves nothing.
.
Cloud the issue? A debating tactic? Proves nothing? It proves that MANY were called 'Chrestos' - and WAY before Jesus and Christianity. If Christians insist that 'Chrestos' (or its variations) refers to Jesus exclusively in any ancient literature (as in Suetonius), they are uninformed. 'Chrestos' is of pre-Christian pagan origin, and it has/had several meanings. This article would be well-worth very close reading:
The Esoteric Character of the Gospels
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-...
.
=============================
.
Me: There's no doubt there were Christians in Rome during the first century.
.
You: Agreed. And this is devastating to those who argue that belief in Jesus of Nazareth as God and Messiah was a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century conspiracy.
.
I think the 'conspiracy' is in the dogma/doctrines (Jesus-is-God, and Messiah) which developed by church leaders in those centuries. Belief developed into a full-blown man-god religion with all the cult trappings.
.
We know that Christianity - and by that, I mean people who embraced and followed Jesus as their Lord and Savior, as the divine Messiah - was on the rise in the FIRST century!
.
And? There were many cults in the first century. Since Mohammed, look how Islam has grown.
.
(and there is OTHER evidence for the reality of Jesus's life and death).
.
I've asked you before to present your secular "evidence" of Jesus' LIFE (including his miracles) and DEATH (including his resurrection).
.
=======================
.
Me: "In other words, by this same argument one could provide many quotes from ancient writers that the numerous pagan gods also existed as 'real people.'"
.
Suetonius is not the only source that I've utilized. Read my earlier article called "Proving Jesus."
.
For the reader's convenience: http://protestantism.suite101.com/articl...
You mentioned Tacitus and Josephus. Biblical historians discount Josephus' remarks as an interpolation (a later insertion by someone else). You wrote: "There are also references to Jesus or to early followers of Jesus [my bold] in the writings of Roman historian Suetonius, second century Greek satirist Lucian, and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion." I've been focusing on (albeit very briefly) two of your references: Josephus and Suetonius. Haven't gotten to the others yet. Or maybe you'd like to start a new thread for each?
.
Note in my reply - 'gods as real people'. I could reverse that to read "real people as gods'. If Jesus was 'real people' ~and~ a god, could you and I (being 'real people') be gods too? Well, yeah.
Jn 10:33 - "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? (Psalm 82:6 - "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.') Interesting idea.
.
========================
.
Migisi, if it's your position that Jesus wasn't a real historical figure - that he was a mythical composite or construct of the early Christian church - if that's your position, then you are very much in the minority.
.
Naturally, I'd be in the minority - living in a Judeo-Christian society. But would I be in the minority in India, China, the Soviet Republic, or some other nonChristian country? Must I adhere to any majority POV? But let's say that I think the man Jesus did exist - that he was born, lived, and died. Does this mean that I MUST believe that he was conceived without coitus, performed amazing miracles, physically resurrected from the grave, and was God-in-the-flesh on earth then, or IS the God? MUST I believe that EVERYTHING written by his followers in the Bible about him is the inerrant, literal, and absolute truth?
.
Virtually all historians - and I do mean that - agree that Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in first century Syrio-Palestine, that he amassed a large following, and that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. There is very little dispute on those facts. You're really putting yourself out on a very radical limb to dispute those facts.
.
What does 'virtually all' mean? You mean ~some~ historians do dispute Jesus existence? Of those 'virtuals', would those in dispute be secular historians? You use the word 'facts'. Definitions: "something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality; based on evidence". I don't think I'd use 'facts', since there's no evidence of actual existence, occurence, or 'objective' reality. I think 'consensus' would be a more appropriate word ("general agreement; the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned; group solidarity in sentiment and belief").
.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - 'Historians' simply repeating hearsay

.
Quoting from:
.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
.
"NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES
.
Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.
.
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
.
Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, - born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.
.
Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which got written around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.
.
Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.
.
Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey, actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
.
The above sources get quoted the most as "evidence" for Jesus by Christians. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian), some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (cira 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - cira 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). All these people born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.
....
.
WHAT ABOUT WRITINGS DURING THE LIFE OF JESUS?
....
Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).
.
If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?
.
(end quotes)

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Migisi

Read both your posts in their entirety. My time is short today, though, so I won't be able to respond to all your points. Briefly, let me just say this...

1) You can believe whatever you want. As can I. I'm not trying to coerce you to think, say, feel a certain way. However, since this is a public Christian forum, I am within the realm of appropriateness to defend the basic tenets of Christianity. That is what I'm doing.

2) In this PARTICULAR discussion, I'm restricting my defense of Christianity to a few very MINIMAL facts or points that pertain to Christianity. In THIS case, I'm arguing simply...

a Jesus was a real, historical figure
b There was a sizable FIRST-century community of people who claimed to BELIEVE in Jesus as a God - i.e., the "dogma" of Jesus-as-God began in the FIRST century, and was not a later conspiratorial creation.

The above two points are the ones I'm arguing for right now with you.

3) Suetonius' writings BOLSTER the argument that Christianity (which was based on Jesus of Nazareth) had spread to Rome by the 40s or at least the 60s AD.

4) You are engaging (not necessarily deliberately) in a little smoke-and-mirrors here, by claiming that this debate is about secular or non-Christian evidence that Jesus is God. I'm not making that direct link. I'm arguing that Jesus was a real, historical figure and that people in the FIRST century claimed he was God. THOSE are the points I'm arguing, and the evidence I'm producing (incl Suetonius) supports that. Stop trying to push my argument to an extreme strawman so you can beat it down.

» pink101 - Interesting

.
Interesting.
.

-- posted by pink101