ApostateAbe

Sorry, which sources?

Jayrok

Well sure you can argue he was not aware. Others can argue that there isn't enough data based solely on the letter.

No they don't.


Just as you are.


I know what your viewpoint is on the matter. I understand that you infer that Pliny was not aware of the Jesus story. But you simply can't know for sure. I don't have a problem with what you believe or what you don't believe. You just tend to pass off what you believe on such matters as facts.


Well there you go. You talk about using other available data that you use to infer something someone said or thought. There are also lots of sources that associate Jesus with "Christ", and it is a fact that Christ is mentioned multiple times in Pliny's letter. Based on your reasoning, then, Pliny did mention Jesus Christ.

That is, one can INFER that Pliny thought of Jesus when he said "Christ", based on the abundance of data that associates Jesus with "Christ". It works both ways, guy.

Oh well, then, stop the presses. Since they are all fiction imagined by some anonymous writer, why are we even talking about them? Hey, perhaps the letter from Pliny to Trajan is fiction too. It was fabricated by someone to make people think some character called Pliny didn't know anything about the Jesus story.


We do?


I understand it fine. So you agree that the letter is not proof that Pliny hadn't heard of Jesus.

Horatio Parker

As you would say, pagan one sources. We've been through this...

ApostateAbe

Would you mind going through it again? I don't remember going through this, and this time I will keep it indexed. I have a "Wiki of Mythicist Claims," and I would love to examine the evidence that any ancient pagans believed in a sub-lunar realm.

EarlDoherty

For Chrissakes, Abe, we are just in the course of looking at that evidence in writers like Julian and Plutarch.

If you are demanding a modern laboratory report on the extent, quality and characteristics of the sublunar realm, you're not going to get one.

Earl Doherty

ApostateAbe

Yeah, maybe that is what Horatio Parker is referring to. I thought he was referring to something the two of us have already been through.

aa5874

An argument without enough data will fail before it even begins.

Of course the actual contents of the Pliny letter support my argument.

If Pliny did not know of Jesus and the Pauline letters that is EXACTLY what I expected--no mention of Jesus and the Pauline writings in the letter.

In the letter, it is claimed Pliny TOTURED Christians to find out what they Believed and NOTHING was mentioned of Jesus--That is EXACTLY what I expected.

What did you expect if stories of Jesus and the Pauline writings did NOT exist in the time of Pliny??

You are utterly confused. The Pliny letter does not claim Pliny was aware of the Jesus stories and the Pauline writings so it must be speculated.

Again, if the Jesus stories and the Pauline writings never existed at the time of Pliny that is EXACTLY how the letter would look.

There would be NO mention of Jesus and the Pauline letters.

When one has NO knowledge then One writes Nothing about the unknown.

I invite you to read the ENTIRE Pliny letter and it will be seen that the contents is COMPATIBLE with having no knowledge of the Jesus stories and the Pauline letters.

The Pliny/Trajan letter is COMPATIBLE with the argument that Pliny did NOT know of Jesus and the Pauline letters.


Again, I am making ARGUMENTS based on the Preponderance of evidence of antiquity.

My Argument that Pliny did NOT know of the Jesus stories and the Pauline letters is based on written statements in the Pliny letters, the RECOVERED DATED Manuscripts, the writings of Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Origen, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, the short gMark, the long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, Revelation, Julian the Emperor, Eusebius, Jerome and others.


What absurdity!!! How illogical can you be??? Don't you know that 'Christ' is associated with Kings and High Priests in Hebrew Scripture??

Saul was associated with Christ. David was associated with Christ.

It is utterly absurd to assume the word Christ must be associated with Jesus.

Well, you don't make much sense then. Perhaps, Pliny did NOT even mention Christ. Perhaps he did actually claim the Jesus story was a Myth Fable and that it was a Pack of LIES.

Speculation gets us Nowhere.

All we know is the the Pauline writings are Sources of Fiction with events that most likely did NOT happen. The Pauline writer is NOT Credible.

He claimed a Myth God Revealed his Son to him and that he Consulted with Mythological characters--See Galatians 1--What a Pack of Lies!!!!

The Pauline writer did NOT even realise that the Jesus stories were all Fiction--None of the characters called Jesus and the disciples existed.

The Pauline writer has been trapped.

I will list some of the the Pack of Lies of Paul.

1. Paul claimed a God Revealed his Son to him.

2. Paul claimed he Consulted with Entities without Flesh and blood.

3. Paul claimed he Testified as a witness of the Resurrection of Jesus.

4. Paul claimed he was Seen of the resurrected Jesus.

5. Paul claimed Jesus was the First Born of the dead.

6. Paul claimed if Jesus did NOT resurrect that there would be NO remission of Sins.

7. Paul claimed Jesus was Given a name above every other name by God.

8. Paul claimed it was revealed to him that Jesus was delievered up in the night after he had supped.

9. Paul claimed he Met the Apostle Peter in Jerusalem and stayed with him for fifteen days.

10. Paul claimed he met the Lord's brother in Jerusalem .

11. Paul claimed he was commissioned by Jesus to preach to the uncircumcised.

12. Paul claimed he persecuted the Faith.

Horatio Parker

I'll hold off until you two are finished.

I was looking at Numenious, Iamblichus and Plato, not Julian and Plutarch.

Jayrok

If the stories of Jesus and the Pauline writings did not exist in the time of Pliny, I would expect a letter to Trajan to not even mention Christians or Christ whatsoever. But since it does, it is compatible with the idea that the stories of Jesus did exist at the time of Pliny.

It would have been better if Pliny had told Trajan exactly what the women told him. As it is, we don't know what they told Pliny. We only know he thought it was superstition. It's possible that Pliny thought the Jesus story and Christian salvation is this superstition he was telling Trajan about. To Pliny, the rantings of Justin Martyr and/or other church fathers of his day... mere superstition in his view.

I never said it did claim he was aware of the Jesus stories. I'm also not saying that Pliny was aware of Jesus or the stories. I'm only saying that we can't know for sure if Pliny had heard of Jesus or not simply based on his correspondence with Trajan.

Your bias slants your viewpoint towards the idea that Jesus and Paul are unknown entities during the time of Pliny. And that's ok. It could be the case. I'm just saying that I don't believe the letter proves your theory. Help me be convinced, my mind is open.

I have read Mr. Doherty's book and find it fascinating. The arguments are compelling but I'm not totally convinced that Jesus didn't exist.

Well sure, I agree that it is compatible with the argument. Perhaps he didn't know of Jesus. But it doesn't prove he didn't know of Jesus.

In your opinion. Why should I believe this is a fact? Why should I take your word over that of scholars who have spent their lives studying the NT? :huh:

aa5874

You keep repeating the very same error.

Do you not understand that it is claimed that there were CHRISTIANS who did NOT believe the Jesus stories??

Again, it is completely illogical to assume that all Christians of antiquity were believers in the Jesus story.

Please get familiar with Irenaeus "Against Heresies", Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho", Hippolytus "Refutation Against all Heresies" and Tertullian's "Prescription Against the Heretics".

2nd century Theophilus of Antioch claimed he was a Christian because he was ANOINTED by the oil of God and never mentioned Jesus, or Jesus Christ and did NOT claim he worshiped Jesus for Remission of Sins.

Theophilus was a Christian but Believed ONLY in GOD.

Theophilus' To Autolycus 1.12[u] Please read "Plea for the Christians" attributed to 2nd century Athenagoras.

Athenagoras claimed he was a Christian but NEVER mentioned Jesus, or Jesus Christ and never claimed that he worshiped Jesus for Remission of Sins.

As soon as it is understood that NOT all Christians believed the Jesus story then it cannot be assumed that Pliny's Christians worshiped Jesus of the NT.

Please, read Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, he too claimed that there were Christians who did NOT believe the Jesus stories.

You are SPECULATING. No such thing is in the Pliny letter.

It is certain that Jesus and Paul are NOT in the Pliny letter and that is EXACTLY what is EXPECTED if they were unknown to Pliny.

Do you expect Pliny to write that he did NOT know about Jesus and Paul if they were unknown to him???

Again, you keep making the same errors. Did I not show you some of the writings that I used in conjunction with the Pliny letter??

Please, again, I used and examined written statements in the writings Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, Suetonius, the short gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, the Recovered DATED Manuscripts, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Origen, Julian the Emperor and others.


I am not trying to start a cult. You MUST examine the Evidence from antiquity for yourself.

I AM NOT IN THE CONVINCING BUSINESS.

I PRESENT AND EXAMINE EVIDENCE FROM ANTIQUITY.

Well, based on the Preponderance of Evidence the NT is a compilation of Myth Fables about a Son of a God.

Not one author of the very Canon even claimed that they personally interacted with or saw a human Jesus--Not one.

The Pauline writer in his folly boasted that he SAW Jesus AFTER he was resurrected. See 1 Cor.15

This is most incredibly. The supposed contemporaries of Jesus NEVER wrote of actually seeing a human Jesus or wrote of his Life on earth.

Well, even in a court if there is NO evidence that a defendant committed a crime then it is wholly reasonable to ARGUE that he did NOT carry out the act.

This is basic. The ARGUMENT must be Compatible with the evidence.

Again, I did examine written statements from antiquity and it is claimed for hundreds of years in the Roman Empire that Jesus was born AFTER his mother became Pregnant by a Ghost.

Codices and NT manuscripts have been found and they essentially say the same thing.

Jesus was a product of a Ghost and a Virgin.

The same is in Apologetic writings.

When we look for his disciples we find NOTHING.

Non-Apologetic sources did NOT write about Jesus of NAZARETH and his Twelve Disciples.

Not even Paul wrote about Jesus of Nazareth---Paul wrote about a Revealed Resurrected Jesus--the First Born of the Dead.

Colossians 1:18 KJV