aa5874

But, your post is full of speculation.

First of all, you cannot speculate that "Christus" means "Christ", it could mean just as it is written a name, that is, some one called "ChristUS", just like some-one being called TiberiUS or AugustUS.

Secondly, you cannot speculate that Christus means Jesus of Nazareth. There is absolutely no information about where Christus actually lived.

Next, you cannot speculate that Christus refers to Jesus when it is really not known how and when Christus was executed.

Was Christus executed the first or last year of the governorship of Pilate, was there a trial?

You can answer if you want to continue to speculate.

show_no_mercy

If the reference for Christus is evidence for the historicity of Jesus the Nazarene, then the reference to a heresiarch named "Ebion" by Tertullian as the founder of the Ebionites is evidence for the historicity of a man named "Ebion".

LogicandReason

Good point. I posit that Paul is the author of the 'crucifixion' as the means of the cosmic Christ's death and that it frustrates him when his ridiculous story is turned down by the Jews because of his exegesis or poetic license.

I agree. Most of those mythical stories seem to compete with Hellene competitors. I don't think Paul, Mark, Luke or John were written to the Jews...especially John and its anti-Semitic references.

The only thing Paul's Christ did of note was that he got crucified. Paul doesn't even care where or when he got crucified. This might be why Cephas doesn't refer to any of these events for authority. The only "authority" Cephas has is that this Christ figure "appeared" to him first. Yet Paul doesn't distinguish the nature of Christ's appearance to Cephas and Christ's appearance to himself.[/QUOTE]

fatpie42

Of course there are further problems that Nazarene may well not mean "from Nazareth". There are clues from the way the different gospel accounts write the term that some of them recognise that it is dodgy because they change it to a more suitable form.

The question is did they someone get mixed up and presume that the term 'Nazarene' referred to living in Nazareth? Or did they just write the term for 'living in Nazareth' wrong?

Of course we know all too well that 'Nazarene' can just as easily refer to a particular group of ascetics.

LogicandReason

Yep...If Tacitus refers to a Jesus of Nazareth....bingo....we have historicity. What we have now is no more significant that calling Buddha the founder of Buddhism.

GakuseiDon

Hi LogicandReason, the idea of rising/dying spiritual beings is one I'm interested in. Can you cite where Osiris, Attis or Adonis are referred to as rising/dying spiritual beings, please?

LogicandReason

George Gilbert, in his book Greek Thought, states of such cults, “ The nucleus of the popular cults, as the cults of Attis, Osiris, and Adonis, is this: a divine being comes to earth, assumes human form, dies a violent death, rises, and, through union with him…men are redeemed. And what does Paul teach? A being who existed in the form of God appeared on the earth in the likeness of sinful flesh, was crucified, and rose from the dead. Men, through their relation to this experience of a celestial being, are redeemed.” (Pg 77)

aa5874

But, "Ebion" may not have been a name of a person.

According to Eusebius, "Ebionites" signify "poverty of understanding" or "the name of a poor man".

Church History 27.3.6 "Ebion" may have just simple mean "poor".

andrewcriddle

The problem is, how far is this what the Greek texts themselves actually say and how far is it a modern interpretation of them ?

Andrew Criddle

show_no_mercy

That's my point. "Ebion" is a title, just like "Christ" is a title. Tertullian assumed that the Ebionites get their name from a person named "Ebion", but he was wrong; no person named "Ebion" existed. It's equally fallacious to assume that because someone references "Christ[us]" this means that a Christus existed.

Relax, I agree with the part that I quoted you on earlier.