Ben C Smith

If the Suetonius reference to Chrestus refers to Jesus Christ, then Suetonius seems to regard Christ as a Jewish point of controversy. Of course, that Chrestus equals Jesus Christ is possible but hardly proven, and I myself am doubtful.

I think much of the support for the Romans viewing the Christians as a Jewish subsect comes from Acts.

Ben.

schilling.klaus

The apostolic acts are historically worthless, as already proved by Darrell Doughty.


Klaus Schilling

Ben C Smith

Ah. Okay. Thanks for enriching the dialogue.

Ben.

Solitary Man

Question: Has Klaus Schilling ever done anything more than assert?

aa5874

I cannot agree that Tertullian counts as evidence for any Pauline tradition. I am more inclined to count Justin Martyr's writings as more reflective of around the middle of the 2nd century where, it appears to me, no Pauline tradition was known, nor epistles to the seven Churches, only "memoirs of the apostles".

And further, even if I wished to agree, you have not presented any credible argument to support your position.

aa5874

I thought Acts was written long after 70 CE, long after Claudius and Nero. It would seem that Suetonius' and Tacitus' "Christians' had nothing to do with Jesus Christ, whose history was probably written or fabricated also after Nero and Claudius.

aa5874

That is so correct. I represent myself, no-one else.

DevilsAdvocate

It is an interesting proposition ...
testing the ligitimacy of a document or idea by first pronouncing it a complete and utter fiction
...then ...
by assuming any detraction of said document is proven by only some argument supporting the first premise without debate
...then...
and by discounting any that would defend the opposing position as ridiculous and foolish.

Sounds like an argument I would hear from a fundamentalist preacher.

It leaves little room for consideration of the possibility that there is some degree of ligitimacy and historicity about what is being debated, and the position of the proponent is rendered impossible by the rules of the debate.

Doughty, and anyone else has "proven" nothing any more than a mis-informed preacher proves anything by spouting random scripture pulled out of context. He has merely presented one viewpoint and provided supporting material whether it is truly justified or not.

Doughty is not without his learned critics. Unfortunately most would fall under apologists which are summarily dismissed as if they are insincere in their quest for truth whether skeptical or not.

Comment paraphrasing(and criticizing) Doughty on his Acts 18 story...
"In short, Doughty's self-designated "critical analysis" supersedes anyone else's historical detective work, no matter how "learned", and his work earns the right to be called "critical analysis" while everyone else's work of the same caliber taking the texts at value rather than positing conspiracy earns the derisive snort of being called "speculation." What more needs be said of this? Wake up and smell the hypocrisy! "

schilling.klaus

Spreading the pearls before people unable to understand that Jesus is the Logos of Hellenic philosophy would be a pointless.

Klaus Schilling

Ben C Smith

Well, I suspect it was.

Thank you for patiently explaining your view of early Christianity to me yet again; I appreciate your persistence in beating on my head with your bare assertions. I may, after all, have missed your meaning the first 1,089 times through.

Ben.