aa5874

Your reasoning is warped.

If the NT contains many opposing or contradictory statements about any event, then it should be obvious that the NT contains fiction and has little credibilty. It should be obvious to you that Matthew contradicts Luke in certain passages and the book called John contradicts Matthew, Mark and Luke in certain passages. You are also aware that, chronologically, the NT, is of little use.

I have used the scriptures of the Bible to show that the Bible itself is inconsistent, incoherent and in some cases fictitious.

You seem not to understand how fraud is exposed.

Ben C Smith

You are asking me for DNA evidence of a Christian persecution before Trajan? Is Allen Funt hiding in the bushes?

Ah, I see now. Yes, very good point. No, I have to say that if there were no Christians until the third century then Christians were probably not prosecuted, persecuted, or indeed electrocuted in the first or second centuries. Your logic is impeccable.

But, alas, your timing is off. There were actually no Christians until the fourth century. Just ask Pete Brown.

Signing out. Thanks for the exchange.

Ben.

aa5874

Trajan's edict only applied to groups or sects that existed, not fabrications.

Pete Brown can't help you.

rlogan

Welcome to the club aa5874, I think.

After assimilating enough material one can start rejecting the gospels and letters of the Bible as pious ex-post frauds, created for liturgical use and religio-political battles over the fertile ground of emerging Christ cults.

So the interesting question becomes when do we actually pick up the trail of Christians, and how or where did it arise in contrast to the ridiculous canon version(s) which ossified in the 4th century.

Pliny's letter is a pretty interesting clue, coming on the heels of Josephus who knew nothing whatever of Christians.

Christianity is apparently growing pretty rapidly in the early second century - but notice that Pliny hears nothing of a flesh and blood Jesus martyr.

The most essential feature of christianity is martyrdom. Jesus is a martyr. The mythical apostles are martyrs. The phony neronian persecution - all about martyrs. And we know it didn't happen because Josephus had visited Rome contemporaneously and knows nothing of it, despite writing on sects of the Jews. Heh. No sense in mentioning the sect being slaughtered.

So the phony 1st century myths are all about martyrdom. BFD. What a bunch of pathetic martyr-grovelers.

One thing to take care with is that Christianity probably is indeed not a sect of the Jews, strictly speaking, and merely had this "validating" ancient history appended to it - as you can see in the writings defending Christianity later this was very important to them.

It's ludicrous of course that on the one hand they point to the Hebrew scriptures as evidence of ancient origin, but on the other hand they reject it outright. So it serves merely as a pedigree.

How can we believe that Marcionism, Gnosticism, and whatever other variants, some represented with their own gospels, sprang from a "big bang" historical Jesus? How incredible that within a few generations of the alleged spectacular beginnings there are a panalopy of completely different beliefs, which are subsequently corralled together much later under the official canon?

That smacks instead of independent "christ" cults that, at the time of Pliny, still do not even have a historical Jesus. That innovation is the key to trumping any other claimant to the throne of authority. A linear succession from Jesus to apostles to ultimately the Church of Rome.

We don't have references to gospels until the second century because there aren't any. Justin Martyr is the first to mention gospels as "memoirs" in the 150's, and then of course we have Marcion's version of Luke vs. the proto-catholic version of Luke not long afterwards.

Gosh, isn't it queer that despite the true believers and HJers dating these terribly important documents to the first century - the sacred scriptures on the life of God on earth -nobody knows about them until almost a century later?

The upshot of this is that Pliny's correspondence with Trajan demonstrates to us more about the true state of nascent Christianity in the early 1st century than anything else we've got. And at that time there are apparently believers in a mystical Christ sans historical Jesus, and there are no gospels in the form we know of them.

That solves a problem for you. Why would Christians be executed if "Jesus" taught them to give unto Caesar and respect authority? Because that is not the way it happened. The gospels were written after some of them were executed, and not before. They learned their lesson.

It is probably not a bad inference to look at the revolts in the first and second century to see how the Romans viewed any religious-based threat to power like an early "Christ". Bar Kochba in the 130's was thought to be the messiah, for example. But there were uprisings off and on for more than a century, the closest to Pliny's letter being those of 115-117.

Look at what happened to the Jewish religion after being completely smashed to bits and dispersed after Bar Kochba. It became far more conservative, with messianic thought more spiritualized. I think we can look at Christianity and see some parallels. Whatever was offensive about "Christ" would have been removed by the time of the gospels and we have Jesus saying to pay your taxes.

aa5874

It is interesting that you mention that Bar Kochba was thought to be the messiah by the Jews circa 130CE, while he was alive. And, it is important to note the words, 'while Bar Kochba was alive', that is, based on the actions of Bar Kochba, a military leader from the line of David that wanted to unify the Jews, rebuild the Holy Temple, drive out the Romans and deliver the Jews from oppression, he appeared, at the time, to have 'qualified' to be called the messiah by the Jews.


Now, if we refer to the Gospels, we will read what the people thought of the so-called Jesus while He was alive; Matthew 16:13-14, '.....[b]Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some say thou art John the Baptist , some, Elias ; and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets'.

Based on the book called Matthew, the so-called Jesus is not known to be the messiah by the people, [b]while He was alive, and this Jesus said, if we look at Matthew 16:20, 'Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Based on the Gospels, we have no Christians while the so-called Jesus is alive, since the people did not think that the so-called Jesus was qualified to be called the Christ or Messiah, Flavius Josephus did not mention any Christians in any of his writings, so when was the so-called Jesus confirmed to be the the Christ and by whom ?

The Jews had their sacred writings that they used to determine the qualification or necessary character of their 'prophesied messiah', Bar Kochba appeared to qualify, while he was alive. How did the so-called Jesus qualify after He was dead?

credoconsolans

I thought the line of David had died out centuries before? :huh:

aa5874

See www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

jgibson000

I wrote:

If you accept (as you apparently do, since you use Lk. 2:3:8 as the evidence showing the truth of your claims about Herod and Jesus) that what Luke says regarding Herod is true and is a report of a real event that happened just as Luke says it happened, then you are admitting that your claim about the fictitious nature of NT writings is false.

You replied

Is it now? I'd be very glad if you show me how it is.

I mean you have claimed that the NT writings are fictitious, haven't you, and that the authors of the NT writings are frauds whose "historical" statements should not be trusted, let alone taken as having any historical veracity, yes?

And yet you also based your claim that historically Herod Antipas never persecuted Jesus not only on, but solely on, Luke 23:8, didn't you?

So why is it wrong/falacious to conclude that you have abandoned/contradicted your claim that the writings of the NT are fictitious and provide us with no reliable historical data?

After all, to use, as you do, Lk. 23:8 not only as evidence but as the evidence that demonstrates the truth of a claim about how historically Herod treated Jesus, entails the assumption that Lk. 23:8 is not fiction. Otherwise how can it be appealed to as "evidence"?

Not in this instance you haven't. You have used "the scriptures of the Bible" to prove a claim you made about what Herod Antipas's attitude toward Jesus was and how Herod treated Jesus.

Perhaps not. But "exposing" the purported "fraudulent" nature of NT writings is not the issue here.

The issue is whether or not you work from a double standards when it comes to your claims about the historical reliability of the Gospels and the data put forth in NT writings.

And as the evidence show, you most certainly do.

The issue is also whether you have the balls to admit it.

And as the evidence shows, you most certainly don't.

JG

credoconsolans

Thanks, any idea where to look? I did searches on House of David and lineage and didn't come up with anything useful.

Everything else I've read so far states that if there ever was a David, his 'House' died out when the last king and his sons during - was it the Assyrian conquest? - were killed/neutralized.

aa5874

Exposing the fraudulent nature of NT writings is always an issue, a basic issue.