Originally Posted by aa5874

You are going the wrong way. Turn around. You have to go FORWARD not backward. The farther back you go the worse your story line gets.

Even apologetic sources show that the Jesus story was hardly known by the Roman Emperor, the Senate and the People of Rome CONTRARY to the claims of the Church and its writers.

The writings of Justin Martyr do show that Justin himself was NOT aware of an actual character called Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee that evangelised the Roman Empire preaching Christ crucified and resurrected.

You are going in the wrong direction. You need to go PAST 110 CE towards, Justin, Lucian and Celsus and you will find the History of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

That's your way aa5874 - my way is to go back. I'm interested in early or proto-christianity - origins. To move forward in understanding early christian origins one has to go backwards. One needs to search for it's roots in Jewish/Hasmonean history.

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is NOT my way. It is the EVIDENCE from antiquity that SHOW us the way. Pliny has given us the earliest time of c 110 CE.

You won't find any evidence that Jewish people practised the Ritual of Human Sacrifice of a Murdered victim in Josephus or the Slavonic version.

You have to go to the 2nd century, past Philo, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Justin, Lucian, and Celsus to find the people who practised the ritual of Human Sacrifice to appease their God.

Originally Posted by rlogan

Well yes, of course. The great thing about that is listening to Eusebius, the first who makes mention of the TF, preen about it. The guy is oozing with the hubris born of having an Emperor's backing to make the forgery, and the forgery itself is so preposterously stupid the same thing goes there - an Emperor's backing means you can tell this fantastical lie.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Changing, updating and developments, within a storyline are the prerogative of it's creator/creators. This literary activity is only of negative consequence for the JC historicists. For the mythicists/ahistoricsts its a literary aid useful for seeing the progress or development of the storyline.

Yes, the Pilate crucifixion story of JC - anywhere from dating Pilate early, 19 c.e. to 36 c.e, is pseudo-history. And yes again, that's story 'criminal' inference is bizarre when take literally for Christian theology/philosophy. However, that a crucified man was important to early, proto-christianity, is something that can't be washed away by charges of pseudo-history for the gospel JC story. The gospel JC is ahistorical. That does not mean that history was not relevant to the creators of the literary and pseudo-historical gospel JC story. On the one hand there is history - and on the other hand is that history's 'salvation' interpretation - retold in the literary form. A history of a terrible death at the hands of the Romans - retold as 'salvation history' within a different context, within a new, different, time slot.

To destroy the historical JC assumption is not to destroy, or negate, the history of early Christianity. The JC gospel story - or Paul himself - are not the historical roots of early, proto-christianity. Yes, 'Paul' and the gospel JC story are what we today know as Christianity - and it's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking that what we have today is what always was. What we have is the finished product. For the real deal we have to get our hands dirty with real history - itself not an easy task as we have to face Josephus. We have to come face to face with a prophetic historian with the ability to mix history and pseudo-history into a tapestry of incredible intrigue.

Originally Posted by la70119

Bear in mind that when I said that I am not talking about how Christianity actually got started and developed, but rather the "Real-Life Child of a Ghost" and official church "history".

Bear in mind also that Pliny in his correspondence to Trajan admits that he had NEVER heard of Christians or their alleged persecutions under Nero and Domitian, depite having (likely) to have grown up in Rome. This alone probably makes Christianity a very late First-Century, early Second-Century phenomenon.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....That's theological 'history', theological developments - play all day long with such theological musings if that is what interest you - but you will not get to early proto-christian history by so doing. It's the reality of proto-christian history we should be seeking - not it's reflection, its symbolism, it's interpretation, in either pseudo-history or theological speculation.

Originally Posted by aa5874

What BS.

You are directly dependent on your "prophetic" historian for your Antigonus--JC story and have disputed your "prophetic" source.

We have DIRECT evidence from a Magistrate and Lawyer of Rome that shows he was completely UNAWARE of a character called Jesus, Unaware of the Beliefs of Christians, and Tortured Christians find the Truth of their Beliefs up to c 110 CE.

You can't go below c 110 CE.

Your "prophetic" historian did NOT write anything about Christians. The Forgeries in Josephus happened AFTER c 110 CE.

110 CE is the cut-off point based on the Magistrate and Lawyer who lived in Rome and encountered Christians for the very First time in Bythinia, NOT Rome.

Turn back, your are going in the wrong direction.

You must go towards the Forgeries in Josephus---they happened AFTER c 110 CE.

We have DIRECT evidence from Pliny the younger.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

aa5874 - methinks your cherry picking sources.....whatever it was that proto-christiany was about - it was about it long before Pliny had his story to tell........

Originally Posted by aa5874

It makes no sense to give me what you imagine. Just show me the source for YOUR proto-orthodoxy BEFORE c 110 ce.

Please, please, please--the Apologetic source Melito is c 180 CE--After 110 CE.

Please, please, please--the Aplogetic source Tertullian is c 160-225 CE--After 110 CE.

You have NO direct evidence for your Antigonus--JC story. Josephus did NOT write about any ritual by Jews of Human Sacrifice of a Murdered Victim called Jesus.

We have Pliny, the Magistrate and Lawyer who lived in Rome who ACTUALLY Met Christians and DOCUMENTED their Beliefs AFTER TORTURE.


You MIGHT as well quote Eusebius' for the History of your Antigonus-JC story.

The DIRECT evidence from Pliny is there. Use it.

The Jesus story was developed AFTER 110 CE.