andrewcriddle

This might be a valid argument if one is referring only to the sentence in Tacitus about Jesus suffering under Pontius Pilate. (which has parallels to the TF.)

I'm doubtful if it is valid when dealing with the whole passage in Tacitus about Nero's persecution of Christians.

Although I don't agree with it, I wasn't criticising the mere claim that Josephus and Tacitus did not originally mention Jesus. I was criticising the claim that not only don't Josephus and Tacitus mention Christ, Tacitus and Suetonius don't authentically mention Christians either.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

I have gathered together various citations which have been
thrown at me as "evidence" and have separately attempted
to deal individually with each one.

There have been only 2 NT related carbon-datings (AFAIK):
1) Nag Hammadi binding (gT) - circa 350 CE
2) gJudas bindings - c.280 CE +/- 60 years

Documents dated to the pre-Nicaean period (such as papyrus
fragments) are dated via paleography, handwriting analysis.
Archeological claims for pre-Nicaean christianity, such as the
purported house-church at Dura-Europa, have been separately
listed at this page:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_070.htm

The above page does not yet list the following:
* the CHRISTIANOS inscription in Pompei
* the Megiddo complex findings
* other inscriptions mentioned in this forum not yet listed.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

spin

Some versions of Jn 1:18 have the only begotten god, referring to Jesus; also the neat trinitarian Mt 28:19, father, son and holy ghost; the binitarian Tit. 2:13, great god and saviour Jesus.


spin

John Kesler

While the fact that the Bible contains numerous textual variants doesn't logically preclude the possibility of divine origin, I wonder why God passed on the opportunity to distinguish the Bible from other works of antiquity by ensuring its faithful transmission.

andrewcriddle

I agree with you that 'only-begotten God" in John 1:18 is not original.
I don't regard Titus as Pauline but see no reason to doubt that our present text of 2:13 is that of original Titus (composed IMHO c 100 CE)

I'm not sure about Matthew 28:19. IMHO Eusebius is not real evidence for a non-Trinitarian form of the verse, on the other hand if Matthew is dated in the (late) 1st century then the mandatory use of a Trinitarian formula in baptism seems a little early, (not the liturgical use of a Trinitarian formula per se). On the whole I would support authenticity (in the sense of being part of Matthew's original text) on the strength of the external evidence.

Andrew Criddle

J842P

I think a better comparison would be to the Iliad.
For example, because of archeological evidence we know some sort of city existed in the area where Troy was suppose to have been. Could a Troy have existed? Certainly. Could a famous warrior named Achilles, and a King called Priam have existed? Sure.
Did Pallas Athena come down from the heavens to stop Achilles from drawing his sword to Agamemnon? Was Achille's mother a sea goddess? I'll have to see some more proof of that.

We can glean some history from the Bible, just as we can from many other ancient books that contain supernatural elements. The apparent double standard arises because people claim that the books supernatural elements are true and should be used as a basis for society.

Vorkosigan

Ok. But we've still got the context problem. It's not wrong to be suspicious in the context of widespread Christian forgery and interpolation of texts from antiquity.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

Divine origin is negated by the fact that God doesn't exist.