Iskander

Tertullian: ad nationes

“This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus”—Jesus was born during the reign of Augustus [Augustus (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus;[2] 23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14)]



“under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity;552”— Jesus taught during the reign of Tiberius with the clearness and authority of the first teacher. [Tiberius ( Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus;[1] 16 November 42 BC – 16 March 37 AD)]


“under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,553”—The men and women that had accepted the teaching of Jesus. [Nero ( Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus;[1] 15 December 37 – 9 June 68),]


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10166b.htm

aa5874

The writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are accepted as HISTORICALLY reliable by Scholars and Historians and I have accepted them as such.

I have NOT ever claimed that Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius were NOT historically reliable.

It is YOU who must show that Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are NOT regarded as HISTORICALLY reliable sources by Scholars and Historians.

The Gospels and the sources for the Gospels are considered UNRELIABLE Historically by Scholars and Historians and I have ACCEPTED them as such.

I simply cannot use ACCEPTED UNRELIABLE sources as a STARTING point. ALL claims about Jesus Christ are Historically UNRELIABLE.

In the NT and Church writings, Jesus Christ was some kind of Ghost.

I cannot accept Ghost stories as history.

maryhelena

Nothing to do with Augustus here. The gospel JC disciples are only called Christians after the death of JC - and depending upon dating - anything up to the end of Pilate's rule in 36 c.e. And that would put 'Paul' and his preaching in Antioch way past the time of Tiberius....You can, of course, discredit Acts - but that's the NT story...

Iskander

Paul the Apostle, also called the Apostle Paul, Saul of Tarsus, and Saint Paul (c. AD 5 – c. AD 67),


Yes, Tiberius died before Paul.

aa5874

Your claim is erroneous. You have ZERO evidence that "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 was partially interpolated.

You IMAGINE your own partial interpolation.

You appear to have very little understanding of the word "Christian".

The word "Christian" did NOT derive from Jesus.

The Word "Christian" is DERIVED from the word "Anointing".

The Word "Christ" PREDATES the Jesus stories.

King DAVID was regarded as the CHRIST of God.

It is a LOGICAL FALLACY to attempt to assert that because the word "Christians" is found in Annals that Jesus was human.

There is a source of antiquity, Justin Martyr, who showed that people were called "Christians" since the days of Claudius, BEFORE NERO, that did NOT believe the Jesus stories.

And, now examine the very NT. EXAMINE gMark

It is claimed that there was ANOTHER person preaching UNDER the name of Christ who did NOT follow Jesus.

Mr 9:38 - Amazingly, in gMark, it is CLAIMED that there was a MIRACLE worker was USING the name CHRIST who did NOT follow Jesus.

It was ANOTHER MIRACLE worker, NOT Jesus who was PUBLICLY using the name CHRIST in the time of Jesus in gMark

Jesus was NOT PUBLICLY known as CHRIST in gMark.

Mark 8 It is NOW seen that even in gMark that it is claimed there was at least one PUBLICLY known miracle worker using the name CHRIST.

Tacitus ANNALS proves NOTHING for HJers based on gMark 9.38-39.

Toto

GDon seems to be ignoring me, but the meaning of this passage (once you find a more coherent translation) is that Christ is both preexistent, ruler over all, and fully human. This would imply that Paul was perfectly in tune with later catholic dogma on the nature of Christ. Amazing! This passage is not compatible with the historical Jesus hypothesis that Jesus was originally a mere human, who later accumulated legends that made him appear to be godlike, but then nothing Paul wrote supports this.

I don't know why GDon keeps repeating his question like a broken record without interacting with the answers. Why is the mere prima facie reading of interest?

TedM

I believe Don addressed the question of why it is of interest in the OP, in response to another question you posed:

Similarly, what Don, archibald, myself and others keep saying is that despite the lack of specific actions/sayings by Paul attributed to Jesus, the fact remains that the prima-facie reading of Paul overwhelmingly supports the idea that Paul believed Jesus had walked the earth as a human being.

The theory that Paul's Jesus was not a historical being, and that Paul himself did NOT believe that Jesus had been a human who had walked the earth, is in sharp contrast to the prima-facie reading of Paul, and requires appeals to interpolations, conspiracies, unusual definitions of words and unusual beliefs unsupported by the text. It requires further than Paul's epistles were modified without knowledge that Paul himself had never believed in the gospel Jesus (because otherwise we would have seen many clear references to the actions and sayings found in the Gospels).

In short, the non-historical theory requires piling uncertainties and unlikelihoods upon uncertainties and unlikelihoods. Perhaps modern scholarship prefers a prima-facie reading to going down that path.

Iskander

Paul’s words make Jesus a very special human-like-god figure and it took a long time for Christians to agree on the one statement about Jesus nature. Arius and many others gave diverse theological interpretations of this man-like-god.

Does Paul say that Jesus is a man? , Yes

Is Paul saying that Jesus is only an ordinary man? No, the founders of religions are traditionally embellished with extraordinary qualities.Paul says Jesus is very, very special.

archibald

Toto, perhaps if you had a good point, Gdon would address it. As it is this 'sounds like it's from later' thing is just your speculation. To start with, it's based on an interpretation of the text that you are making, and to follow, whether it 'sounds like' something which came later is not evidence that it came later, since something later could be based on something similar which was said earlier. It requires you to know what Paul would have said in the first place. That would be quite a trick, as would Paul being the sort of person who wasn't capable of saying a variety of things at different times, all of which aren't perfectly consistent with each other. Needless to say, this appears to be a thin, weak basis on which to form anything like a conclusion. It's on a par with spin saying (i) the word 'scriptures' in 1 Cor 15 sounds like later, (ii) the way the witnessing by others is described in 1 Cor 15 sounds like later.....etc etc ad infinitum. It's just lit crit. And not very convincing lit crit.

Now, you have previously said that you think about 50% of 'Paul' is not original. I would like to hear you explain how you know this, and more importanly, how you know what the original 50% was.

And for goodness sake, come out in the open and say whether you lean towards mythicist or not.

Stephan's evidence, on the other hand, is the sort of possible clue that provides what any objective, non-speculator could ask for.

All that is left is for someone to address all the other indicators from Paul and find similar evidence.

This passage is just one feather on Paul's duck. Too often on this forum, I see people studying one writer's image of a duck and saying, 'that bit doesn't look like a typical duck feather' and ignoring that the overall creature they are investigating still looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like one.

MJ fails the Duck Test, the Occam Test and the David Hume test. :]

aa5874

Why, oh why can't you even write what is found in the Pauline writings?

"Paul" claimed Jesus was GOD'S SON, and was HEAVENLY. The Pauline Jesus was God in the Flesh of man, God INCARNATE not man deified.

Ga 4:4 - 1Co 15:47 - The Pauline Jesus was GOD INCARNATE from HEAVEN not man deified from earth.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was GOD'S SON? YES.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was the Lord FROM HEAVEN? YES.

Does "Paul" claim he was NOT the Apostle of a man? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim he did NOT Get his gospel from man? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was raised from the dead? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was in the Form of God? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus thought it NOT robbery to be equal with God? Yes

Does "Paul" claim Jesus would come back in the AIR? Yes.

Does "Paul" claim Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth? Yes[


The Pauline Jesus was God INCARNATE from HEAVEN not man deified from earth.