Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-18-2012, 06:42 PM

The question is "How old was Jesus when he died according to "John"? It is Extremely important that we understand that we were asked about gJOHN'S JESUS.

So let us SIMPLY look in the gospel according to "John" to find out when Jesus came into existence.

gJohn's Jesus was the CREATOR.

gJohn's Jesus was God.

In the very first verses of gJohn it is claimed Jesus was in EXISTENCE with God and was God the Creator.

John 1

Quote:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.........14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

According to "John" his Jesus is as "OLD" as God.

John 10:30 KJV

Quote:

I and my Father are one.

maryhelena · 08-19-2012, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

It seems to me that our problem is that we have a number of sources that all unreliable. We should not pretend that one is more reliable than another.

Let us examine Luke, Josephus, Irenaeus, and Eusebius (or a Eusebean source that Eusebius used)

The only gospel that gives us a date linking Pilate and Tiberius is Luke. The problem is the contradiction of Irenaeus with Luke and Josephus. He places Pilate under Claudius. How can we resolve this puzzle?

<snip>
Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi, Jay

Perhaps Irenaeus did know about the gLuke link between Pilate and Tiberius - and found it not restrictive to dating the crucifixion/passion of JC to the time of Tiberius. Why? One reason could be that gLuke also links Lysanias of Abilene to Tiberius - and that linkage is historically in error. Lysanias of Abilene ruled in 40 b.c. - around 70 years earlier. gLuke's historical time frame is in error re Lysanias. Therefore, one could reason further that gLuke's time frame re Tiberius and Pilate is also in error. (Yes, I know, Josephus has the same linkage - but Luke and Josephus seem to have some sort of affinity....)

gLuke's historical error does suggest that the Lukan writer is not dealing with history but with pseudo-history, with a prophetic historical reconstruction re a prophetic time frame of 70 years. So, if these 70 years run backwards to 40 b.c. - then why not, re Irenaeus, run these 70 years forwards. From around 30 c.e. to 100 c.e. That takes us to the time of Trajan, 98 to 117 c.e. (Hadrian being from 117 c.e.)

Against Heresies: Book 2

Quote:

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"(13) when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.(2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. (3) Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement.

Whatever the historical details re Pilate, gLuke, with it's inference, re Lysanias of Abilene in 3:1, gLuke is not dealing with a one year period but with a 70 year prophetic time slot. gJohn is having JC not yet 50 years old. And, if JC was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius - the gLuke nativity date of 6 c.e. is in error. That nativity date is moved to around 1 b.c. - which makes gLuke's JC not yet 50 years in 50 c.e. -during the rule of Claudius.

(The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712172...ortpilate.html)

Could well be, re Luke and that 15th year of Tiberius, that this is only a marker of sorts - run 70 years either way. Back to 40 b.c. or forward to 100 c.e. 140 years of Hasmonean and Herodian history. History from which the pseudo-historical gospel story of JC has been developed. Yes, that pseudo-history has been condensed into either the synoptic 1 year ministry or the gJohn 3 year ministry - and we need to unzip the pseudo-history by laying the actual history on the table...

Interesting - when running 70 years from 30 c.e. to 100 c.e. - we are face to face with the Josephan writer. Antiquities being written around 93/4 c.e. - and the gLuke writer.

Thus, a crucifixion/execution storyline dated to:

1) Queen Helene of the Toledot Yeshu (Queen Cleopatra Selene II - born 40 b.c. time of death unknown...)

2) The Slavonic Josephus timeline, the 15th year of Herod the Great, that runs, using gJohn's not yet 50 years, to a crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius, either 19 or 21 c.e. (either from co-regency or sole rule) That's the Eusebius and the Acts of Pilate 'problem'.

3) gLuke and the 15th year of Tiberius and JC being about 30 years old. Crucifixion, 1 year ministry, around 30 c.e. Using the 6 c.e. birth narrative, crucifixion around 36 c.e. Or using a 3 year ministry from the 15th year of Tiberius, crucifixion in 33 c.e.

3) Using gLuke and gJohn - 1b.c. birth and not yet 50 years = crucifixion around 50 c.e. - in the time of Claudius. Tactius, re Procutator, Irenaeus and The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius

With all of these possibilities, it's little wonder that early christian writers were having trouble re the gospel 'history' and actual, on the ground so to speak, history. Living closer to the gospel time frame, there would be people with historical memories. The job of harmonizing real historical memories with the gospel pseudo-history would have been difficult. Today, with historical memories a thing of the past - all we have left is the gospel pseudo-history - and that Josephan writer who is keeping closed the door to the relevant Hasmonean and Herodian history.

Why is the door being kept closed? Simple really. The JC storyboard would not have a chance of being perceived as history when the real history was an open book. Additionally, and to be charitable to the Josephan writer, the NT storyboard is about neither Jew nor Greek, all are one in Christ. That required that any historical figures, figures relevant to Jewish history, and thus relevant to the creation of the gospel JC storyboard, had to be sidelined. Neither Jewish history nor Jewish bloodlines were to be given special status in the NT's new covenant. That necessitated closure of the door to the actual history of the first century. (people follow people, fans are big business even today, not always a problem - but add nationalism to the mix and bigger problems arise....)What we have, in large measure, are Josephan tall tales - pseudo-history, prophetic history, fused with actual history. What the gospel writers could do re pseudo-history - so too could the Josephan writer...

=============

footnote:

History = Antigonus executed by Rome in 37 b.c.
Pseudo history = JC crucified by Pilate around 70 years later, 30 c.e. 33 c.e. or 36 c.e.
History = Agrippa I = died in 44 c.e. under Claudius
Pseudo history = gJohn and his JC being not yet 50 years old, years run, re gLuke, to time of Claudius - i.e. this historical figure was not crucified/executed by Rome.

Two historical figures, one executed by Rome in 37 b.c., the other living, re Josephus, until he was 54 years old, dies under Claudius. (41 c.e. - 54 c.e.)

Mix this up, fuse the history of these two figures - and you have the problems re the gospel JC pseudo-history of when to date the crucifixion story. One history is brought forward to around the 15th year of Tiberius. The other history, re Agrippa I, allows the JC storyboard to run past the 15th year of Tiberius....

One historical figure executed by Rome in 37 b.c. Another historical figure living until the time of Claudius - and was not crucified by Pilate = a composite gospel JC figure.

aa5874 · 08-19-2012, 01:48 AM

The question of the thread has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Josephus, Irenaeus, gMark, gLuke or gMatthew. It is about JOHN'S Jesus.

The QUESTION is "How old was Jesus when he died according to "John"?

JOHN's Jesus was FROM the Beginning and was God the Creator who made everything who later became Flesh and was Crucified when Caiaphas was high Priest, Pilate was Governor.

John 18

Quote:

28Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled ; but that they might eat the passover.

29Pilate then went out unto them, and said , What accusation bring ye against this man?

In gJohn there is NO date given when Jesus, God the Creator, the WORD was made Flesh but he was WITH GOD, was GOD, and FROM the Beginning and was Crucified when Caiaphas was High Priest and Pilate was Governor.

gJohn's Jesus is the very SAME "AGE" as GOD. gJohn's Jesus was GOD.

John 17

Quote:

1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.

2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.

yalla · 08-19-2012, 02:58 AM

From Melito of Sardis died c 180 to Marcus Aurelius.

From Wiki
Melito of Sardis (died c. 180) was the bishop of Sardis near Smyrna in western Anatolia, and a great authority in Early Christianity: Jerome, speaking of the Old Testament canon established by Melito, quotes Tertullian to the effect that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful...

From the Apology Addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.x.v.ix.html

"For the race of the pious is now persecuted in a way contrary to all precedent, being harassed by a new kind of edicts everywhere in Asia. For unblushing informers, and such as are greedy of other men’s goods, taking occasion from the orders issued, carry on their robbery without any disguise, plundering of their property night and day those who are guilty of no wrong.

If these proceedings take place at thy bidding, well and good. For a just sovereign will never take unjust measures; and we, on our part, gladly accept the honour of such a death. This request only we present to thee, that thou wouldst first of all examine for thyself into the behaviour of these reputed agents of so much strife, and then come to a just decision as to whether they merit death and punishment, or deserve to live in safety and quiet. But if, on the contrary, it shall turn out that this measure, and this new sort of command, which it would be unbecoming to employ even against barbarian foemen, do not proceed from thee, then all the more do we entreat thee not to leave us thus exposed to the spoliation of the populace.

For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son, if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus; to which also thy more recent ancestors paid honour, along with the other religions prevailing in the empire. A very strong proof, moreover, that it was for good that the system we profess came to prevail at the same time that the empire of such happy commencement was established, is this—that ever since the reign of Augustus nothing untoward has happened; but, on the contrary, everything has contributed to the splendour and renown of the empire, in accordance with the devout wishes of all. Nero and Domitian alone of all the emperors, imposed upon by certain calumniators, have cared to bring any impeachment against our doctrines. They, too, are the source from which it has happened that the lying slanders on those who profess them have, in consequence of the senseless habit which prevails of taking things on hearsay, flowed down to our own times. But the course which they in their ignorance pursued was set aside by thy pious progenitors, who frequently and in many instances rebuked by their rescripts those who dared to set on foot any hostilities against them. It appears, for example, that thy grandfather Adrian wrote, among others, to Fundanus, the proconsul then in charge of the government of Asia. Thy father, too, when thou thyself wast associated with him in the administration of the empire, wrote to the cities, forbidding them to take any measures adverse to us: among the rest to the people of Larissa, and of Thessalonica, and of Athens, and, in short, to all the Greeks. And as regards thyself, seeing that thy sentiments respecting the Christians are not only the same as theirs, but even much more generous and wise, we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee.
"

Lets connect some of my bold dots.

A respected Christian bishop says Christianity, that is the philosphy, the doctrine, flourished before the death of Augustus in 14 CE.
So .. either JC is irelevant to Melito's christian/philosophy/doctrine or ...JC was born, crucified, resurrected and so on, well before the death of Augustus.
Some decades, at a minimum, before the conventional dating.

maryhelena · 08-19-2012, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

From Melito of Sardis died c 180 to Marcus Aurelius.

From Wiki
Melito of Sardis (died c. 180) was the bishop of Sardis near Smyrna in western Anatolia, and a great authority in Early Christianity: Jerome, speaking of the Old Testament canon established by Melito, quotes Tertullian to the effect that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful...

From the Apology Addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.x.v.ix.html

"For the race of the pious is now persecuted in a way contrary to all precedent, being harassed by a new kind of edicts everywhere in Asia. For unblushing informers, and such as are greedy of other men’s goods, taking occasion from the orders issued, carry on their robbery without any disguise, plundering of their property night and day those who are guilty of no wrong.

If these proceedings take place at thy bidding, well and good. For a just sovereign will never take unjust measures; and we, on our part, gladly accept the honour of such a death. This request only we present to thee, that thou wouldst first of all examine for thyself into the behaviour of these reputed agents of so much strife, and then come to a just decision as to whether they merit death and punishment, or deserve to live in safety and quiet. But if, on the contrary, it shall turn out that this measure, and this new sort of command, which it would be unbecoming to employ even against barbarian foemen, do not proceed from thee, then all the more do we entreat thee not to leave us thus exposed to the spoliation of the populace.

For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son, if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus; to which also thy more recent ancestors paid honour, along with the other religions prevailing in the empire. A very strong proof, moreover, that it was for good that the system we profess came to prevail at the same time that the empire of such happy commencement was established, is this—that ever since the reign of Augustus nothing untoward has happened; but, on the contrary, everything has contributed to the splendour and renown of the empire, in accordance with the devout wishes of all. Nero and Domitian alone of all the emperors, imposed upon by certain calumniators, have cared to bring any impeachment against our doctrines. They, too, are the source from which it has happened that the lying slanders on those who profess them have, in consequence of the senseless habit which prevails of taking things on hearsay, flowed down to our own times. But the course which they in their ignorance pursued was set aside by thy pious progenitors, who frequently and in many instances rebuked by their rescripts those who dared to set on foot any hostilities against them. It appears, for example, that thy grandfather Adrian wrote, among others, to Fundanus, the proconsul then in charge of the government of Asia. Thy father, too, when thou thyself wast associated with him in the administration of the empire, wrote to the cities, forbidding them to take any measures adverse to us: among the rest to the people of Larissa, and of Thessalonica, and of Athens, and, in short, to all the Greeks. And as regards thyself, seeing that thy sentiments respecting the Christians are not only the same as theirs, but even much more generous and wise, we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee.
"

Lets connect some of my bold dots.

A respected Christian bishop says Christianity, that is the philosphy, the doctrine, flourished before the death of Augustus in 14 CE.
So .. either JC is irelevant to Melito's christian/philosophy/doctrine or ...JC was born, crucified, resurrected and so on, well before the death of Augustus.
Some decades, at a minimum, before the conventional dating.

The gospel JC crucifixion story, ie. that specific element of the gospel storyboard, is based upon the execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus. Bound to a cross, flogged and then killed (Cassius Dio) in 37 b.c.

Augustus ruled from from 27 b.c. to 14 c.e. During these years, re Melito, christian philosophy was flourishing. In other words, I would suggest, that the execution of Antigonus provided an impetus, a stimulus, a driving force to a reevaluation of old theological/philosophical ideas - resulting in some new thinking re turning a non-value, a flesh and blood execution/crucifixion, into a spiritual/intellectual 'salvation' value.

yalla · 08-19-2012, 03:32 AM

Mary Helena

Does that mean no JC, a la the NT gospels, then?

maryhelena · 08-19-2012, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Mary Helena

Does that mean no JC, a la the NT gospels, then?

Of course.....

The gospel JC figure, a literary figure, has been created out of OT midrash, prophetic interpretations, mythology.................and elements from the lives of major historical figures that were relevant to the story the gospel writers were creating. The gospel story has condensed Hasmonean and Herodian history into a 3 year, gJohn, or a 1 year, synoptic gospels, time frame. That symbolic, condensed, time frame needs to be unziped via actual history. gLuke indicating such a condensed history re his use of Lysanias of Abilene within a time slot of Tiberius.

And that, I would suggest, is what is missing from the usual, re Doherty, ahistoricist/mythicist theory. Doherty's heavenly, spiritual, crucifixion theory, is only half of the NT story. The other half is the gospel JC story with it's use of Hasmonean and Herodian history for it's pseudo-historical JC figure. i.e. the Jerusalem above necessitates a Jerusalem below - history is relevant to the creation of the JC storyboard...

andrewcriddle · 08-19-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
This one's a somewhat nebulous association but as that great 20th, 21st, and 19th century philosopher Doc said, "I just figured, whatthehell!".

From the site of Ben Smith (perhaps the best scholarship of any Christian who has ever graced FRDB):

Philip of Side (emphasis mine saith the brother of the Lord)

Quote:

Papias in the second volume says that John the theologian and James his brother were done away with by Jews. The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian.

My interest here is the latter, as Raymond Brown would say, "fantastic", claim:

Quote:

Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian

Christian apologists assume that PoS (Philip of Side) is mistaken here about Hadrian since Hadrian reigned 117-138:

Hadrian

and Apologists hate to arrive late for the Last Supper. Sadly, the aforementioned Smith lowers himself from the lofty standards of this Forum and goes with the Apologist spew, ur, flow. The related Apologist thinking is that if PoS is quoting Papias' "they lived until Hadrian" this sounds like Papias wrote after Hadrian (138) (MM and aa look out!) and this just can not be because it is dating evidence which goes against their dating conclusion. It's possible though that PoS is not quoting Papias here, just summarizing that Papias indicated they lived until Hadrian (117).

Apologists have traditionally taken the offending verses of Papias above primarily as evidence of the fantastic but I believe that Papias' primary motivation was to provide supposed historical witness to Jesus. In the offending verse:

Quote:

Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian

I have faith that Papias' emphasis here is not the supposed miracle of an extended life due to being resurrected by Jesus but the value of supposed historical witness to being resurrected that was close to Papias.

The nebulous associations here supporting that per "John" Jesus was fiftyish:

1) Patristics associate Papias with "John".

2) Papias wrote that people resurrected by Jesus lived until Hadrian (117).

3) Mathematically, if someone was 20 when they were resurrected and lived until 90, if they died c 120 than they were resurrected c 50.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

The simplest explanation is that Philip of Side read in Papias a/ that Papias wrote during the reign of Hadrian b/ that Papias claimed that the resurrected dead survived until his (Papias') lifetime. (Compare the similar claim in Quadratus.)

Philip interpreted this (wrongly) as the resurrected dead surviving until the reign of Hadrian.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 08-19-2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The gospel JC crucifixion story, ie. that specific element of the gospel storyboard, is based upon the execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus. Bound to a cross, flogged and then killed (Cassius Dio) in 37 b.c.

Augustus ruled from from 27 b.c. to 14 c.e. During these years, re Melito, christian philosophy was flourishing. In other words, I would suggest, that the execution of Antigonus provided an impetus, a stimulus, a driving force to a reevaluation of old theological/philosophical ideas - resulting in some new thinking re turning a non-value, a flesh and blood execution/crucifixion, into a spiritual/intellectual 'salvation' value.

Your post has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the question of the thread.

"How old was Jesus when he died according to "John"?

Let us Examine gJohn for clues about the Age of the Johanine Jesus.

John 8:58 KJV

Quote:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM

It is CLEAR that gJohn's Jesus was completely Mythological.
The Johanine Jesus is as "OLD" as GOD.

1. The Johanine Jesus was the LOGOS--See John 1

2. The Johanine Jesus was GOD--See John 1

3. The Johanine Jesus was From the Beginning--See John 1

4. The Johanine Jesus the Creator---See John 1

5. The Johanine Jesus was God's Begotten Son---See John 3

6. The Johanine Jesus was BEFORE Abraham---See John 8

7. The Johanine Jesus and GOD were ONE--See John 10.

maryhelena · 08-19-2012, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"How old was Jesus when he died according to "John"?

Let us Examine gJohn for clues about the Age of the Johanine Jesus.

John 8:58 KJV

Quote:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 8:56-57

Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!

View Poll Results: How old was Jesus when he died according to "John"?
About 50 years	6	33.33%
About 30 years	4	22.22%
About 3,801 years, 11 months, 26 days, 6 hours, 6 minutes and 6 seconds	0	0%
About 15 billion years	2	11.11%
Don't know	1	5.56%
Whatever age spin says	3	16.67%
Almost as old as JW's jokes	2	11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

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

08-19-2012, 02:58 AM	#34
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	From Melito of Sardis died c 180 to Marcus Aurelius. From Wiki Melito of Sardis (died c. 180) was the bishop of Sardis near Smyrna in western Anatolia, and a great authority in Early Christianity: Jerome, speaking of the Old Testament canon established by Melito, quotes Tertullian to the effect that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful... From the Apology Addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.x.v.ix.html "For the race of the pious is now persecuted in a way contrary to all precedent, being harassed by a new kind of edicts everywhere in Asia. For unblushing informers, and such as are greedy of other men’s goods, taking occasion from the orders issued, carry on their robbery without any disguise, plundering of their property night and day those who are guilty of no wrong. If these proceedings take place at thy bidding, well and good. For a just sovereign will never take unjust measures; and we, on our part, gladly accept the honour of such a death. This request only we present to thee, that thou wouldst first of all examine for thyself into the behaviour of these reputed agents of so much strife, and then come to a just decision as to whether they merit death and punishment, or deserve to live in safety and quiet. But if, on the contrary, it shall turn out that this measure, and this new sort of command, which it would be unbecoming to employ even against barbarian foemen, do not proceed from thee, then all the more do we entreat thee not to leave us thus exposed to the spoliation of the populace. For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire. For from that time the Roman power has risen to greatness and splendour. To this power thou hast succeeded as the much desired possessor; and such shalt thou continue, together with thy son, if thou protect that philosophy which has grown up with thy empire, and which took its rise with Augustus; to which also thy more recent ancestors paid honour, along with the other religions prevailing in the empire. A very strong proof, moreover, that it was for good that the system we profess came to prevail at the same time that the empire of such happy commencement was established, is this—that ever since the reign of Augustus nothing untoward has happened; but, on the contrary, everything has contributed to the splendour and renown of the empire, in accordance with the devout wishes of all. Nero and Domitian alone of all the emperors, imposed upon by certain calumniators, have cared to bring any impeachment against our doctrines. They, too, are the source from which it has happened that the lying slanders on those who profess them have, in consequence of the senseless habit which prevails of taking things on hearsay, flowed down to our own times. But the course which they in their ignorance pursued was set aside by thy pious progenitors, who frequently and in many instances rebuked by their rescripts those who dared to set on foot any hostilities against them. It appears, for example, that thy grandfather Adrian wrote, among others, to Fundanus, the proconsul then in charge of the government of Asia. Thy father, too, when thou thyself wast associated with him in the administration of the empire, wrote to the cities, forbidding them to take any measures adverse to us: among the rest to the people of Larissa, and of Thessalonica, and of Athens, and, in short, to all the Greeks. And as regards thyself, seeing that thy sentiments respecting the Christians are not only the same as theirs, but even much more generous and wise, we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee. " Lets connect some of my bold dots. A respected Christian bishop says Christianity, that is the philosphy, the doctrine, flourished before the death of Augustus in 14 CE. So .. either JC is irelevant to Melito's christian/philosophy/doctrine or ...JC was born, crucified, resurrected and so on, well before the death of Augustus. Some decades, at a minimum, before the conventional dating.

08-19-2012, 03:32 AM	#36
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Mary Helena Does that mean no JC, a la the NT gospels, then?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.