Civil1z@tion

Welcome Littlejohn! I hope you enjoy the forums!

Regarding your statements about Jesus, you say he was famous throughout the Roman Empire and beyond (perhaps the Parthian Empire as well?), I have a question. Are there any sources talking about Jesus during his life or within a few decades of his death (preferably non-christian as those sources tend to be biased towards exagerrating their messiah's impact)? I know there are two quotes from Josephus, but one is definitly a later Christian forgery and the other might be one as well. Are there any other Roman (or perhaps Parthian if he was known outside the empire) texts which speak about Jesus within, say, 40 years of his death?

Littlejohn

"Welcome Littlejohn! I hope you enjoy the forums!"

Tanks you, Civil1z@tion!

Yes, that's right..

I don't think there are. But there are many fragments, scattered here and there, in various literatures (apocrypha, gnostic, manichean, rabbinic-Jewish, pagan, etc.).. This is to combine these fragments together properly and integrate them as possible.

Above all we must not let absolutely to condition from what the catholics apologists say subtly, according to which only the most ancient sources (in their opinion, of course!) are the most reliable, and since they estimate fraudulently the Gospels have been written a few decades after the death of Jesus, these sources would then be the most reliable, despite the fact that these works are full of contradictions and hallucinanting lies of all kinds! Only objective "riscontri" (coincidences with other sources) make it a reliable source, irrespective of the time when that source was composed.

If you can prove (and is!) that the Gospels contain lies, next to news that can be estimated to contain a core of historical truth, then would you have, for absurd, that one source of this kind, although composed allegedly near the historical facts narrated, is more reliable source of a written perhaps in the second century, but which has undoubted objective met with other texts, perhaps of origin other than Catholic (such as the rabbinic).

I know not it. However, not long ago I discovered in a dictionary of the closest '700, once the first Epistle of John was known as "Letter to the Parthians." This means that a certain "feeling" with the Parthians there was ... Please also note that at the time of Jesus the Parthian Empire included also Babylon ... Again, please note that the John of Epistles, of Revelation, of the fourth gospel, and John "Mark", were the same, identic person ...

Finally, one last thing. In ancient times, in the West, it was thought that India was an immense continent, which went from its current borders until Ethiopia !(*)... The Parthia, namely the Parthian Empire, was already considered India ..

I think I have you provided enough suggestions ...



(*) - This "strange" idea probably originated in the days of Cyrus the Great, whose achievements are extended to the deep south of Egypt, at the ends of Ethiopia, if not beyond. It seems that Cyro liked to boast, saying that his Empire went from India to Ethiopia: a thing that may have triggered the idea of an extraordinary extension of Indian continent.


My best greetings

Lttlejohn
..

Littlejohn

Hello Vid!...Greetings!

It's very likely that this passage of Suetonius, which appears in the life of Claudio, has been moved from "pitiful" scribes' hands and that this passage originally appeared in Life of CLAUDIUS NERO, rather than that of Claudius Tiberius: father-in-law and uncle of Claudius Nero. Most likely this edict was promulgated around 64, after the attack to Simon Magus (because of what it was, and not a simple fall while "flew"). Rather than make a "slaughter" of Jews by the diaspora, considered accomplices of the attack-men (including the" holy" Simon Peter!), Nero was advised, after execute those direct responsible and their closest collaborators, exile most part the Jewish community in Rome. (it was not, therefore, a Christians' persecution, absolutely no-existent at that time!) It is not unlikely that advise Nero to do so, may have been the same Simon Magus which, unlike as pseudo- historic news reported, escaped death, although he reported serious fractures.

Orosius, the Augustine's "factotum", said that the expulsion occurred on 9th year of Claudius, which is leading the various scholars, especially those of catholic "home", to say that this event took place in 50-51, second if you start to count the years of the reign of Tiberius Claudius from 41 or 42. (*) However, if the count is moved to the reign of Claudius Nero, then 9 years above their lead to 64, since Nero ascended to the throne around 54-55.

In addition Orosio said that even Josephus indicated that date (ie 9th year of CLAUDIO). However, nothing of this sort is present today in the current works of famous historical Jewish, Jesus' contemporary. There is no need to exert the mind to understand that such a step was subsequently deleted from the works of Josephus ... Why was this done? ... Maybe because Josephus accompanying these citations with data and information that no one should have read?.... Personally, I imagine how things go ...

Finally, there is the not-witness of the historic Dio Cassius. The latter, in his History of Rome, cites the "simple" warning that Tiberius Claudius gave the Roman Jews of the diaspora, when ascended to power in 41-42, but absurdly he did not refer to the event expulsion of Jews from Rome (certainly much more important than the mere reprimand!), that "Suetonius" (or "who" for him!) place it in the reign of Tiberius Claudius.

_________________

Note:

(*) - Claudius not immediately ascended the throne, following the killing of a nephew and emperor Gaius Caligula, which took place precisely in 41. In fact spent several months before the Senate to ratify the appointment of Claudio Emperor Tiberius.

.....................


I have the vague impression that what I place here does not meet an "excessive" interest. I am a little surprised, because I thought that being the arguments that "stretch", and especially the way they stretch, rather distant from the usual way in which the topics on Christianity and its origins are treated, they would have provoked a certain "curiosity" . But has not yet manifested.

In the Italian forums, where I posted, I was often attacked hard, and it is unnecessary to stress that it was, in general, attacks "ad hominem ", rather than what I exposed. When these attacks felled within tolerable limits, I don't raged at all, since I understand that I was hitting the mark (I had "clashes" with prelates, also) and that what I went posting gave very annoying!

Here, on the contrary, I do not receive any attack and I perceive that it is not only a question of style, very important aspect of course, but also because some people to whom what placed should inspire at least a minimum of interest, remain in silence. It 'clear that confidence about what I'm posting, for these people is almost zero! However, I believe that we should not be worrying too much, also. It may be that sooner or later the interest grows.

The reason why I wanted to include in my thread here what I had already posted to the topic "Dating Suetonius' Chrestus expulsion", ie the message above, is to add something that previously, for reasons related to "copyright ", I don't wanted to insert.

All I'm going inserting here, in the forum of "Infidels.org", I was already published in the Italian forums some time ago, so the copyright, I believe, is now established. But I take this opportunity to point out that all the material I go posting here in the forum, it shall be construed in all respects copyright. Everyone can use it in private as he wills. However, when you want to make a different use you must ask permission to myself.

I apologise if all this may appear a boring pedantry, however, who has inderstand what it cost me all the research work, will surely somewhat 'more than understanding. And now we think that post.

Let's see again this passagge:

«... Most likely this edict was promulgated around 64, after the attack to Simon Magus (because of what it was, and not a simple fall while "flew").»

At this point, the question that arises is if there is somewhere a data, a claim that could support the hypothesis that I set out above. Well, these "indications" there are even two!

The first is contained in the biography of Apollonius of Tyana, by writer of the third century AD Filostrato. Into it we find that Apollonius was forced to leave Rome because of an expulsion edict promulgated by Nero against the "philosophers". This information is partially incorrect and makes no effort to recognize this as the usual hand "pitiful" of the forger scribe (obviously christian scribe!). Indeed, not only do not have reports of this (expulsion of philosophers) from any historic of that time (Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, etc..), but is well known, however, that this edict was issued by the Vespasian and NOT by NERO!

Apart from tampering with what he had written originally Filostrato (it's impossible to believe, in fact, that he might have written such a falsehood: attribution to Nero of an edict issued by Vespasian!), here the relevant information is that Nero issued a "certain" edict...

The second indication is contained in literature called "Cycle of Pilate." It's indicated into it that Nero issued an edict against the "nobles" (patricians). This news was partially tampered with (of course always with the same objective: namely to falsify the truth "uncomfortable").

Edict of Nero, as now anyone is able to guess, was issued to oust Jews of the roman diaspora (or a good part of them), not only because they detest Simon Magus, "guru" of Nero, but a most of them had certainly given aid "logistics" to the Jews killer that attempted life of Simon. However, although the news, as reported, appears tampered with, in reality the patricians of that time (or part of them) entered in some way in the affair that almost cost the life to Simon Magus.


Littlejohn
.

mountainman

Hi Littlejohn,

Have you studied any of the works by
Arnaldo Momigliano such as this?
See especially chapter 6.

He also wrote in Italian.

Best wishes,

Pete

Littlejohn

Hi Pete!

No, I don't know Momigliano, but I was acquaintance with Andreas Agnellus story, involved Bacchini and Muratori, also.

Do you know the Muratori's Canon? I suggest you to read it, because it is VERY, VERY INTERESTING!.... It's need read it with much attention, also...


All best greetings.


Littlejohn

..

mountainman

From the WACE INTRO


Another rank forgery by some theological romancer in an unknown century but in bad latin in the city of Rome. The table of the evidence for the historical jesus is littered with rank forgeries by theological romancers commencing from an entirely unknown century.

Hello, can anyone count past 3?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Hi Littlejohn,

Here is another quote from the famous Italian/Jewish/British/American ancient historian Momigliano (from the same link above):


What did Pietro Giannone write that Momigliano points to?
Have you ever seen this? I would be very interested if anyone in this forum can appraise me of the length of this sketch of the history of ecclesiastical history written by Pietro Giannone.

I doubt there is an english translation, but I am happy to be surprised.

Best wishes,


Pete

Littlejohn

Sorry....What do you meant with "count past 3"?..


I will write in another occasion why the muratorian canon is much interesting...


Best greetings

Littlejohn
.

mountainman

The first century: most historians agree we have zero evidence for HJ.
The second century: Eusebian evidence strewn on a beach.
The third century: Eusebian evidence strewn on a beach.

Most theories therefore examine the ground of the first three centuries in a very conjectural manner, since the evidence itself is either entirely tenuous or typically solidly Eusebian. (ie: via Constantine).

Most people only count from 1 to 3 in an attempt to perceive the period of christian origins.

However I think the action happened in the fourth century.

The fourth century: here I remain to be convinced that Constantine did not invent the top-down emperor cult upon assuming the role of Pontifex Maximus in 312 CE.

So I sometimes try to make a joke.

Best wishes,


Pete

Littlejohn

OK!...I understand.

No, I disagree.

Constantine wasn't the emperor who "invented" Christianity, establishing the canon of NT, as alleged by Dan Brown and Tony Busby, but ANOTHER EMPEROR!!

I will write...

The emperor referred to above, was speaking just a Pontifex Maximus. It was practically him to establish the tradition pope = Pontifex Maximus.

For this character I found, surprisingly, "riscontri" (coincidences in another text) in the work of Abelard Reuchlin, although this author has made a blatant confusion!

I did not know of Peter Giannone. Try to investigate and then refer you

My best greetings

Littlejohn

.