Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 06-05-2005, 05:35 AM

or again Timeline

Quote:

Vorkosigan
Veteran User

Join Date: January 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 10,662

John Donahue (Donahue, John R. 1995. Windows and Mirrors: The Setting of Mark's Gospel. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, v57, January 1995, p1-26. )writes:
"Although there is virtually universal consensus that the persecution under Nero should be dated to late in A.D. 64, the account of Tacitus does not indicate this unequivocally.(FN77) The persecution of Christians is recounted only after an extensive and presumably lengthy building project, which could scarcely have been completed in six or seven months.

Steven Avery · 06-05-2005, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Kephas is the name used in the letters of Paul. best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Yes, in 1 Corinthians and in Galatians 2:9
... Paul also uses 'Peter' in Galatians.

Galatians 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. (Also 2:7 - 2:8 - 2:11 - 2:14 )

The name Cephas was originally given by Jesus to Simon Peter.

John 1:42 - And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Clivedurdle · 06-05-2005, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Lampe (From Paul to Valentinius) notes in his discussion that the punishments meted out to the Christians were actual Roman punishments: arsonists were to be burned (Twelve Tablets), and murderers wrapped in animal skins (Seneca, Suetonius, Modestinus)

(also Vork)

andrewcriddle · 06-05-2005, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

I have the feeling that there's a new book out on Nero. Supposedly he wasn't the sadistic klutz he was painted out to be by Tacitus et al. If anyone's heard about it, let me know.

You may mean 'Nero: The man behind the myth' by Richard Holland.

FWIW Holland accepts the passage in Tacitus about Nero persecuting Christians as written by Tacitus, but in a long discussion suggests that the victims may have mostly been people who would not have been regarded as orthodox Christians by the later church.

(On Nero's sadism, Holland argues that Nero was more likely a masochist than a sadist.)

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby · 06-05-2005, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Yes, in 1 Corinthians and in Galatians 2:9
... Paul also uses 'Peter' in Galatians.

Galatians 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. (Also 2:7 - 2:8 - 2:11 - 2:14 )

You may enjoy this article:

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/barnikol.html

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

NOGO · 06-05-2005, 08:53 AM

Quote:

John 1:42 - And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

So Paul went to Jerusalem to see the man they called "Stone".

Peter is also equivalent to stone in Greek and Latin.

I may be wrong but only the Gospels identify this man as Simon and that it was Jesus who gave him this surname.

Amaleq13 · 06-05-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

The name Cephas was originally given by Jesus to Simon Peter.

Reading claims made in the later Gospel stories back into Paul is not a very good way to understand Paul. There is nothing to support this later claim to be found in Paul's letters.

Toto · 06-05-2005, 12:12 PM

'Nero: The man behind the myth' by Richard Holland.

John A. Broussard · 06-05-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

'Nero: The man behind the myth' by Richard Holland.

Thanks. Interesting reviews of it.

I'll get to it sometime in the near future. It sounds as though the reasoning may be good, but the historic evidence so thin as to demand a great deal of speculating. That's no worse than much about that era and place in world history.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-05-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The mythicist reconstruction of the origins of Christianity is much more coherent that the Eusebius version (the so called "big bang" version), which has a charismatic historically unique person recruiting a few disciples and making an incredible personal impact on them, but leaving no clear historical record outside of their religious writings, and then these inspired individuals slowly recruiting other followers, until the movement suddenly appears several generations later.

This is a matter of opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If Jesus was such a charsmatic teacher, why was his influence so limited? Why hadn't Philo heard about him? Why did Josephus write so much more about John the Baptist, if he wrote anything about Jesus at all? Why were there so many competing versions of his message, so many different memories? Explain that.

All of these questions have easy answers. For example, it's very common for all sorts of religions to have many competing versions. There must be hundreds of competing versions of Hinduism, as well as of Buddhism. So this doesn't exactly prove that Buddha was unhistorical.

There are also many competing versions of Judaism, as well.

Yuri.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2005, 12:12 PM	#228
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	'Nero: The man behind the myth' by Richard Holland.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.