Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 06-28-2009, 02:02 PM

There was no character known as Jesus the Christ, human or heavenly, up to the start of the 2nd century.

The NT and church writings propagate that Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, was born some time around or no later than the beginning of the first century and that Jesus would have had thousands of followers and was well known throughout the region.

This character called Jesus was later crucified, according to NT scriptures, sometime during the time of Pilate or after the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Jesus the Christ would supposedly come back to life on the third day after his death.

Sometime after the miraculous resurrection, Jesus was witnessed going through the clouds by his disciples.

Peter, a disciple of Jesus, with other disciples and later a character called Saul then Paul would preach about Jesus the Christ all over the Roman Empire during the 1st century.

But the extant information external of the Church will show or help to show that the Church produced fiction as found in the NT.

All the information about a character called Jesus the Christ found anywhere in the NT and the church writings post-dated Tacitus Annals and the Pliny letter to Trajan.

Based on a writer called Irenaeus , by 115 CE, there were supposedly established churches all over the Roman Empire, there were bishops of the church of Rome, namely Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, and Alexander.

Saul later called Paul, it was claimed, preached about Jesus the Christ in Syria, Clilicia, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Phrygia, Galatia, Troas, Macedonia, Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Caesarea and Rome.

But two Roman writers, Pliny and Tacitus writing at the beginning of the 2nd century wrote nothing about any character called Jesus, even though they mentioned people called Christians.

And it is Pliny in his letter to Trajan who shows that the Christians that he wrote about were not likely to be followers or believers of the character called Jesus but were probably Jews or people who followed Jewish religious rites, with temple worship and animal sacrifice to their God.

This is Pliny describing the activities of the Christians.

Pliny to Trajan

Quote:

……They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so….

……. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

It should be noted the following

1.Pliny's Christians are going back to the temples that they have once deserted.
2.Pliny's Christians are resuming long-neglected religious rites.
3.Pliny's Christians are now sacrificing animals once more.

So, from the Pliny letter it can be seen that there is no mention whatsoever of a character called Jesus, even after torture, and that at 111-113 CE, Christians were either Jews or people who had once neglected their religious rites, worshipped in temples and sacrificed animals to their God.

Pliny has no information at all about Jesus, Jesus believers, churches where Jesus is preached, and Pliny, up to 111-113 CE, appear not to have heard that Jesus had died for the sins of mankind so Jesus believers did not need to sacrifice animals to their God.

Based on the Pliny letter and Tacitus Annals, there was no character known as Jesus the Christ, who had started a religion with thousands of followers called Christians.
Pliny’s Christians were people who were in recent times resuming religious rites that they had long abandoned.

All the information about a character called Jesus the Christ, human, heavenly or phantom, in the NT and church writings is after the Pliny letter and Tacitus’ Annals.

eheffa · 06-28-2009, 11:04 PM

These are good observations aa. Thanks

I have been trying to get a clearer sense of when "Gospel Jesus followers" or Christians in the Orthodox sense can be first identified in the extant literature or by non-christian observers & I keep drawing blanks until mid-second century...

How would you date 1 Clement or the Ignatian epistles? Can these be used as evidence of some sort of first century CE Gospel Jesus Christianity? Do you think the Tacitus reference to Nero's Christian victims is evidence for first century Christianity?

Paul's epistles betray no real knowledge of the Gospel Jesus & no-one seems to have quoted or recognized the canonical gospels until mid-second century so the common datings of 60 - 100 CE seem doubtful to me.

Earl Doherty's articles on the Second Century apologists are very interesting in revealing how little of the Gospel Jesus there was in the theology or understandings of those calling themselves Christians in the second century.

I think the evidence points to Orthodox literalist Christianity as a mid to late second century creation back-dating and fabricating its history to the time of Pontius Pilate. I see no good evidence to contradict this opinion. Your post only seems to confirm this impression.

-evan

bacht · 06-29-2009, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

I think the evidence points to Orthodox literalist Christianity as a mid to late second century creation back-dating and fabricating its history to the time of Pontius Pilate.

-evan

Is it reasonable to assume that the literalist gospel arose after the final Jewish revolt in the 130s and after the relegation of apocalyptic expectation to the fringe of Rabbinic Judaism? That is, once Christianity moved out of the synagogues did it devolve into Greco-Roman myth?

Huon · 06-29-2009, 08:56 AM

There is another understanding of the letter of Pliny to Trajan.

Quote:

……. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

The temples which had been almost deserted are the temples of the roman gods, or of the local gods.
The established rites, long neglected, are the old rites of the gods accepted in the Empire.
The sacrificial animals are sacrificed to the local gods. I never heard of a sacrifice of animals to the god of Jesus.

The multitude of people who can be reformed if they repent are the people who followed (erroneously, according to Pliny) the new religion, deserted the temples, neglected the old rites, and did not pay for sacrificial animals.

Tyro · 06-29-2009, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The multitude of people who can be reformed if they repent are the people who followed (erroneously, according to Pliny) the new religion, deserted the temples, neglected the old rites, and did not pay for sacrificial animals.

This makes perfect sense. In the 1915 Loeb edition the last sentence is translated as "From hence it is easy to imagine what multitudes may be reclaimed from this error, if a door be left open to repentance." Perhaps someone knowing Latin could translate "Ex quo facile est opinari, quae turba hominum emendari possit, si fiat paenitentiae locus." and thus make misunderstandings, like the one made by aa5874, disappear. There is nothing to suggest that the Christians were the ones reclaiming old rites - which old rites would that be?

Clivedurdle · 06-29-2009, 09:54 AM

I thought Pliny was reacting to a loss of trade by the providers of sacrificial animals and their priests of the old gods to these non sacrificing new fangled followers of this puritan happy clappy superstitio that had treacherous implications because they were also not sacrificing to the emperor.

Huon · 06-29-2009, 10:00 AM

Ex quo = From that
facile est opinari = it is easy to get an opinion,
quae turba hominum = what crowd of people
emendari possit, = it would be possible to improve (amend)
si fiat = if there was
paenitentiae locus = a place for penitence.

This is a word for word translation, using words which are near the latin words, simply to show the relatively clear structure of the sentence.

Note that the word "locus" can be translated usually by "a place", but according to the general meaning of the sentence, it could also be "a time", "a situation", etc...

aa5874 · 06-29-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

There is another understanding of the letter of Pliny to Trajan.

Quote:

……. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

The temples which had been almost deserted are the temples of the roman gods, or of the local gods.
The established rites, long neglected, are the old rites of the gods accepted in the Empire.
The sacrificial animals are sacrificed to the local gods. I never heard of a sacrifice of animals to the god of Jesus.

The multitude of people who can be reformed if they repent are the people who followed (erroneously, according to Pliny) the new religion, deserted the temples, neglected the old rites, and did not pay for sacrificial animals.

Your post is completely erroneous.

Pliny's Christians believed in Christ, not any Roman Gods. And further some of the Christians were Roman citizens.

Pliny to Trajan

Quote:

.....Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.....

Tyro · 06-29-2009, 01:51 PM

Yes, aa5874, the Christians believed in Christ and song hymns to him. Pliny said it was going bad for the old religion, and that the Christians could be converted back to this old religion by penitence. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Christians sacrificed animals or engaged in abandoned Roman rites.

aa5874 · 06-29-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

Yes, aa5874, the Christians believed in Christ and song hymns to him. Pliny said it was going bad for the old religion, and that the Christians could be converted back to this old religion by penitence. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Christians sacrificed animals or engaged in abandoned Roman rites.

Your post makes very little sense.

Pliny is clearly claiming that the superstition is spreading all over, and may be getting out of control if measures are not put in place to stop the Christian superstition.

Pliny to Trajan

Quote:

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved.

For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms.

But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

See www.earlychristianwritings.com

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

06-28-2009, 11:04 PM	#2
eheffa Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 84	These are good observations aa. Thanks I have been trying to get a clearer sense of when "Gospel Jesus followers" or Christians in the Orthodox sense can be first identified in the extant literature or by non-christian observers & I keep drawing blanks until mid-second century... How would you date 1 Clement or the Ignatian epistles? Can these be used as evidence of some sort of first century CE Gospel Jesus Christianity? Do you think the Tacitus reference to Nero's Christian victims is evidence for first century Christianity? Paul's epistles betray no real knowledge of the Gospel Jesus & no-one seems to have quoted or recognized the canonical gospels until mid-second century so the common datings of 60 - 100 CE seem doubtful to me. Earl Doherty's articles on the Second Century apologists are very interesting in revealing how little of the Gospel Jesus there was in the theology or understandings of those calling themselves Christians in the second century. I think the evidence points to Orthodox literalist Christianity as a mid to late second century creation back-dating and fabricating its history to the time of Pontius Pilate. I see no good evidence to contradict this opinion. Your post only seems to confirm this impression. -evan

06-29-2009, 09:54 AM	#6
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I thought Pliny was reacting to a loss of trade by the providers of sacrificial animals and their priests of the old gods to these non sacrificing new fangled followers of this puritan happy clappy superstitio that had treacherous implications because they were also not sacrificing to the emperor.

06-29-2009, 10:00 AM	#7
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Ex quo = From that facile est opinari = it is easy to get an opinion, quae turba hominum = what crowd of people emendari possit, = it would be possible to improve (amend) si fiat = if there was paenitentiae locus = a place for penitence. This is a word for word translation, using words which are near the latin words, simply to show the relatively clear structure of the sentence. Note that the word "locus" can be translated usually by "a place", but according to the general meaning of the sentence, it could also be "a time", "a situation", etc...

06-29-2009, 01:51 PM	#9
Tyro Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: US Posts: 90	Yes, aa5874, the Christians believed in Christ and song hymns to him. Pliny said it was going bad for the old religion, and that the Christians could be converted back to this old religion by penitence. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Christians sacrificed animals or engaged in abandoned Roman rites.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.