youngalexander

Apa-poly-logies for tardiness in replying. Got caught up in the excitement of the moment.

Lampe has an entire chapter 30 (p330-34) on Marcus Aurelius Prosenes and Other Members of Caesar's Familia, as well as a number of other single mentions. Also there is a Christian Persons in the City of Rome in the First Two Centuries index p510-12 detailing all pages where the
A. Historically probable: 100, of which 23 are women
B. Uncertain: 21, of which 4 are women
C. Legendary: 42, of which 19 are women
D. Visitors: 6+
are mentioned.
That is a fair few people to dispose of!

Yes, Lampe gives the inscriptions (in Latin), there are two. He discusses them, the sarcophagus and circumstances of Prosenes death, etc. Granted 'Christian' is problematic, but there is other good evidence.

What Prosenes's freed persons did after the death of their patron is in many ways unusual.

The second inscription "receptus ad deum", the sarcophagus, transporting the body back to Rome (rather than cremating him & sending an urn with ashes) ...
Whatever, a game of probabilities.
p148, n35. W.Eck, "Das Eindringen des Christentums in den Senatorenstand bis zu Konstantin d. Gr." Chiron 1 (1971) 388-91, 393-95 (including nn. 40 and 53) - bon chance!

mountainman

Thanks YA, I have trimmed a little to concentrate
first of all on this example of the Prosenes inscription.

It is totally indicative of my plight.
Thanks for your digging this out of Lampe.


Take a look at this review of the Prosenes inscription:


The grave of Marcus Aurelius Prosenes--set up by several
of his own freedpersons (liberti)--reveals that this
imperial freedman had moved his way through the hierarchy
of imperial service, even holding several procuratorships
(senior positions of considerable influence) under Commodus.

Though nothing in the original inscription
suggests Christian identity,
one freedman named Ampelius
later inscribed on the stone
the fact that Prosenes was

"welcomed before God"

(receptus ad deum) on March 3, 217,
an expression which may best
be explained in terms of Christianity.

(ICUR VI 17246; cf. Mazzoleni 1999: 153).


The phrase: "welcomed before God",
clearly, need not have been added
by a christian later hand.

What is "christian" about it?
Answer = "Nothing".

One of the other references that you will find'
that your author mentions, if he is going down the
path in citing stuff people have cited, is the
inscription to Basilides, in Rome.

The basis that this inscription is "believed christian"
hinges on the presence of the phrase "he sleeps".
If you dont believe me, have an independent look.

What you are reading is a sand-castle of conjecture.
The evidence it cites has been looked at the same
way for perhaps centuries. What other alternative
perspective on this evidence was there anyway?

I am not blaming anyone here. It is not a conspiracy
UFO over the Nullabor thesis. Its all about a different
interpretation of the evidence. Before there was no
alternative. Now I am offering an alternative, and
I am saying these citations are not necessarily
christian.

I feel I am reasonable in rejecting this, and dozens
like it (See the review) on the basis I have outlined.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Lucretius

For a while now I have been wondering whether the whole Historic Jesus V Mythical Jesus argument is not missing the fact that there may also actually have been Multiple Jesus, either by that name or even including strories of the "other Messiahs" .
I accept that this idea is just off the top of my head (i.e I can't be bothered to do any real research myself ) but it is an intruiging concept that may go part way to explaining some apparent contradictions in the whole "Jesus story" 2 possible dates of birth being the most obvious.
Of course Multiple Jesus /Messiahs is just as fatal for him being the Son Of God as the Mythical Jesus would be .

youngalexander

Well, not quite.
Paraphrasing Lampe p331
1. 'Receptus ad deum' was never used by pagans.
2. Similar expressions are found in Christian inscriptions of a later period (fourth and fifth centuries) (3) (3) is a note on p331., you don't want to know (or at least I prefer to write this than cite it).

I must say MM, and I definitely do not wish to encourage you, but of all the nutty guys I have encountered, and that is quite a number - you certainly have the most difficult case to debunk. Bunk tho it is.:grin:

youngalexander

Well, that makes two of us. Except that I can well recall that there have been a number of threads and numerous posts re - what was it? Multiple Jesi.

Go and do your bloody homework.