Jedi Mind Trick

If Paul and others made it all up, which to a certain extent I agree, then why did Paul have other "Followers of the Way" taking oaths to have him killed for preaching a perverted version of Jesus' message? IOW, why were there competing versions if it was all made up out of whole cloth? It seems to me that the fact of competing versions is best explained by the idea that there was one controversial figure who was easily misunderstood who started the whole shebang.

Ben C Smith

You appear to be confusing Suetonius (who mentions a Chrestus, and I agree that it is not at all certain that this is supposed to be Christ) with Tacitus (who has Christus).

Ben.

aa5874

It is not prudent to accept certain parts of the "Pauline" epistles as true, when you agree that other parts appear to be made up. There is no external credible source to support any event about "Paul" or the other disciples or any controversies between "Paul" and any other competing versions of Christianity.

It has been drawn to my attention that the entire NT is just propaganda or fiction written for the sole purpose of making people believe that a god called Jesus was on earth during the reign of Tiberius.

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if you'd be good enough to specify what you mean by "credible" and to give us the criteria you use to determine what is and is not a "credible" ancient source.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Even allowing for the fact that you are confusing Tacitus with Suetonius, what point would that be?

Jeffrey

Jedi Mind Trick

Paul was an innovator, but he was not a fibber. He believed that Jesus gave to him, via visions, a new and improved gospel, a gospel of grace and a new dispensation as opposed to the gospel of the kingdom that the other apostles preached. The kingdom gospel was pure law; the gospel of grace did away with the law. I accept that what Paul says in his epistles is the truth from his POV, but there were clear indications that the twelve disagreed with this new gospel.

The evidence for this is the fact of a very real rift in early Christianity over the issue of the law observances. This is attested to by the traditions of the orthodox who wrote polemics against the “Judaizers” and the traditions within these very sects denouncing Paul as an apostate. They existed and they corroborate what can be seen in the epistles and other writings, that is, the rift between Paul and Jerusalem.

Ted Hoffman

See Ben's quote below.
And Ben, isn't that aa5874's point? I have not been following the discussion but I have read the last two pages and I think that is his point. Or is it your point that he has a point wrt Seutonius but not wrt Tacitus?
Thanks for the correction.

Ben C Smith

Aa5874 has been arguing that Tacitus is not necessarily referring to Jesus Christ. I have not exchanged word one with him about Suetonius (that I can recall, at least not recently and in this connection), and have certainly never argued that the Chrestus reference in Suetonius is a positive lock.

Bingo about the Tacitus. We had not discussed Suetonius.

Ben.

Amaleq13

The point is he confused Suetonius with Tacitus while the discussion was specifically about the latter's reference.

We've had no indication that he understands the confusion but, then again, that is par for the course. Silence is as close as one is likely to get to an admission of error.

Ted Hoffman

Ah, okay. Thanks. Now, just to be clear, and perhaps help aa5 admit his confusion, is it the argument of those who disagree with aa5 that whereas it is not at all certain that Chrestus (Seutonius) refers to Christ, it is quite certain that Christus (Tacitus) refers to Christ?

Thanks.