aa5874

I have not shifted the topic, I have addressed your post where you claimed Peter Kirby could not find ANOTHER person called Christ in the first century.

I am pointing out to you that it is not even certain that anyone [ a real person] was called Christ whose name was Jesus in the 1st century.

And according to Josephus in Wars of the Jews, Vespasian or Titus may have been the Messiah.
And further some people believe that "Christus" in Tacitus Annals who suffered the ultimate penalty is a different character to Christ of the NT.

Jeffrey Gibson

I don't suppose that there's a snowball's chance in hell that you'll finally grace us with the criteria you use for determining what evidence is "credible" and what is not?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

But what if Christ is not a name but a title or a job description? Is perfumer a reasonable translation? Embalmer?

What if we just look for the use of the terms christ chrest and any likely variations?

mountainman

Some roughly gathered notes on
The sources of CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS in Antiquity

I do not present them as authoritative.
I present them for the purpose of discussion.

Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

I have just found some psuedo-Clementine writings that claim Simon Magus was called Christ.

Simon Magus: His History VII I think by the time the author of Mark wrote the words "Many shall come in my name saying I am Christ and shall deceieve many" that these words had already come to pass long before he wrote his Jesus story. See Mark 13.6.

Simon Magus perhaps was one of the Christs.

stonewall1012

toto: being skeptical of ancient stories is not a method it is a disposition. proponents of ID are "skeptical" of Evolution are you going to call that skepticism a "method"?

clivedurdle claimed that syncretism occurred "all over the place". that I will not contest. However, just because syncretism occured it does not follow that every connection is evidence of syncretism. The Maccabean revolt, whether you agree with it or not, pulled the Jews away from full assimilation into Greek thought. The high Priest Simon(I might be wrong but I think it was him) in 170 attempted a type of merger with Yaweah and Zeus which caused a significant problem by 168BCE. Most syncretism occurred on the philosophical level. Evidence: the Essenes. who embraced a type of pre - monastic lifestyle. The Jews seems to struggle with merging philosophical Platonism with a type of religious cultic practices centered around the Temple. If Christianity is any thing it is a merger of this type of religious platonic philosophy with something else. It clearly isn't Judaism however it uses Jewish terms: Philo provides us a great example of how a closer version of Judaism would have merged with platonic philosophy. Christianity is a something else entirely. It doesn't fit neatly into either category.
Where does the notion that "Christ's"(whether you think him mythological or historical is irrelevant) physicality is not only important but vitally important to existence of Christianity? Clearly the author of 1 John (4:2) believed that the physical existence of either the mythical or historical "Jesus" was important. Where does this belief come from? Platonic philosophy acknowledged the superiority of Spirit to the Flesh- so this particular belief of the physicality of "a deity" is dubious as having Greek origins. More over this attests to the existence of some who believed that Jesus was not a physical entity but a spiritual entity. We see evidence of this belief in later "heresies" which contended that "Christ" only "appeared" to suffer and "appeared" to die. Having an appearance of flesh but only an appearance. The author of 1 John has clear regard for this "Christ" and believes him to be connected in some way to "God" and "The Son". Move over the author speaks of sacrifice in Jewish terms of atonement. Somehow in this authors mind this physical "Christ" mediated some kind of sacrifice that atones for "Sin" clearly a Jewish term. The author is not speaking in Roman terms, neither is the author speaking in Egyptian terms but clearly evoking Jewish terms but in a different manner. He has either created a "new" use for old Jewish terms or reworked them in a manner where he thinks he is staying consistent with their "traditional" use. So here is what we have a strange belief that doesn't fit traditional Platonism, yet does not fit traditional Judaism. The author of 1John seems to believe he is some how consistent with Judaism but does not seem to realize human sacrifice is completely against Jewish law(4:10). How is this possible? Where does this belief come from? It is not enough to say: It's Jewish syncretism when it insists upon human sacrifice clearly against Jewish law, and yet insists upon the physical presence of it's "deity" which Platonism and the following "Heresies" tried to accomplish but failed for nearly 3 centuries. Chronos sounds great in theory except when you dig into the details it begins to fall apart. Where is Chronos in 1John at all- find ANY references or allusions? Remember now I chose 1John not any of Pauls writtings from the 1st Century. 1John was cited by Irenaeus (180 A.C.E.)but not included in Marcions Cannon (150 A.C.E.)(which could be because of it's insistence upon a "fleshy" Christ) This is your theory... Chronos is the basis for Christ. Please, I await your historical criticism.

Finally I looked up the Zachariah 4 reference to anointed. The Greek Septuagint is uiou poitatos (I don’t have access to my Greek font) literally translated it means son of richness (referencing plants) it is not Christos.

Toto

stonewall: First of all, what is all this about "method"? I haven't claimed any method, just that I am skeptical of historical sources, especially ones that claim miraculous or near miraculous events.

If you want to discover some history behind ancient documents, then you need a method - that is what most of the historicists here lack.

Proponents of ID are skeptical about evolution, but scientists in fact do have a method (it's called science) that is able to establish the high probability of its claims, and test them against the evidence.

Secondly - LEARN HOW TO BREAK YOUR TEXT INTO PARAGRAPHS WITH BLANK LINES BETWEEN THEM!! (sorry for shouting, but the rest of this is unreadable without some editorial assistance.)

So you have a method for sorting them out?

Jewish zealots and extremists rejected Hellenistic influences, but obviously, those influences were having an effect.

Consider restructing this paragraph so you make a point.

Why is this clear to you?

But Christianity seems to have borrowed a lot of philosophy from Philo. Why is this a counter example?

Uh, the Nicene Creed?

What exactly are you arguing for here? It sounds like you could be claiming that Christianity does not need a human founder, but you don't develop that point. Are you trying to say that Christianity is not Judaism? Has anyone argued that?

And you might note that "human sacrifice" is counter to Judaism, but sacrificing your life for the benefit of humanity is not.

If you are talking to me, I have never advocated that Chronos has any relationship to Christ. It sounds unlikely. You will find that there are a number of posters here who throw out ideas from left field just to see if they fly (not to mangle a metaphor or anything.)

This is a reply to Cesc, who spelled the name Zechariah.

stonewall1012

toto at 8:44 yesterday you said that the only "historical method" you follow was skepticism of old stories. My point was that skepticism is not a method....

So you are claiming to not approach history with anything but skepticism towards "old stories" do those stories apply to all history or is this "skepticism" reserved for only a select few...

For example do you doubt Ceasars Conquest of Gaul, or Heroditus histories? Are you skeptical of those stories to the same level and degree that you are skeptical of other stories?

Thank you for correcting my spacing as I look back on my post i can see how it would make others ... cross eyed.

My point... is that in historical criticism you have to actually examine the documents and try to uncover the story that lay behind the narrative that the text produces. The context, the author, the recipients, the philosophical back ground and even the language of the text must be examined in order to determine what the text is concerning and it's veracity.

My point was to engage the "Chronos" argument and see if it could produce anything resembling an analysis of the text other than... It's Christian... I don't believe it...

Your reference to Nicea obviously displays your position... The council of Niecea didn't happen till 325 A.C.E. As I cited in the body of my text 1 John giving the most liberal and non controversial dating puts it at least to around 180 A.C.E. The council of Nicea COULD not have influenced the writing of 1 John. The only other way is to pretend that all our documents that date pre nicea were "planted" post Nicea which would amount to the greatest historical hoax of all time... for which I would hope you would have evidence for.

So given that the council of Nicea occurred 325 A.C.E. and that 1 John was at least at the most liberal 180 A.C.E. what influenced the author of that Text to believe that mythological or not "Jesus" sacrifice was effective for "salvation"

TOTO: "And you might note that "human sacrifice" is counter to Judaism, but sacrificing your life for the benefit of humanity is not."

Ok so are you saying that "Christ’s" sacrifice was not a sacrifice in the Jewish sense..? For the Jew's a sacrifice involved a ritual and an "appeasement" of a specific persons "sins" to God. What influenced the writer of this work PRIOR to Nicea to believe that "Jesus" death was not only a appeasement of a specific persons sins but what you called a "benefit to humanity"?

The Jews did not believe that one sacrifice did it all. They believed you had to keep doing it over and over... it was a ritual that had meaning in it's continuation not in it's metaphorical expression. What changed? Why does this author by at least 180 A.C.E. believe that Jesus death was not just a tragedy but a "sacrifice" in Jewish understanding but yet NOT according to traditional Jewish understanding.

More over by 180 A.C.E. the temple was extinct, meaning the cultic practice of sacrifice was done... So the only logical conclusion is that either it was written pre 70 A.C.E or the sacrifice is understood in some symbolic sense. But Jews to this day do not believe that sacrifice in a purely symbolic sense is effective for sins.

If your wondering where this is going... I am asking YOU or any one for that matter to explain how Nicea, at the latest, 150 years in the future could effect the writer of this work?

If you really want to discuss history it begins with the documents... I will discuss any document you would like to discuss. That is what history is supposed to be about not supposition and conjecture

Toto

I think that I apply my skepticism to all historical documents. Some historical documents have support from archeology, or have other indicia of reliability that the gospels lack.

The Chronos argument is not mine. What does that have to do with a healthy skepticism of Christian propaganda?

You asked "Where does the notion that "Christ's"(whether you think him mythological or historical is irrelevant) physicality is not only important but vitally important to existence of Christianity? " Perhaps my reply was a bit flippant, but your long paragraph gave no indication that you were tying this point to 1 John.

And now you have changed the apparent topic from the physicality of Jesus to the sacrifice. Could you restructure your argument?

Christian doctrine has Jesus' death as a sacrifice that replaces the Jewish sacrifices and ends them. I can see various connections to Jewish thought. Are you saying there is no way early Christians could have found a justification for this doctrine in their Jewish experience?

You write as if there were a single Jewish doctrine that all Jews adhered to. I don't think this is the case.

Modern Jews don't, but is it that out of line to see this different understanding as having some Jewish influence?

So you spent all this time on a misunderstanding. :huh:

OK - the topic of this thread is the question of whether there were any historical persons referred to as "Christ" in the first century. Would you like to say anything about that?

If you have some other point, are you unclear about how to start a new thread? Ask if you need help.

Toto

Chi Rho symbology split off here

The Chronos connectoin split off here

The Vatican library inscription linking Mithras and Chrestos