Clivedurdle

I didn't realise Jesus did that and caused the Roman invasion of Britain!

Littlejohn

Ha! ha!... You must be a very wittiest person!..

I like the wittiest people!


Ad maiora!


Littlejohn

..

Ps: What it is that seems incredible to you about I'm exposing ... All?

.

vid

Do the greek manuscripts actually use word "chrestos" here?

Littlejohn

No. They are used the following expressions:

"Didascale agathe" (good teacher),
"Ti me legeis agathon" ( Why do you call me good)
"oudeis agathos ei me eis o Theos" ( Nobody is good, but God alone)

Agathos can mean:

buono (good)

dabbene (person of good manners)

nobile (noble)

onesto (honest)

utile (useful)

virtuoso (virtuous)


All best

Littlejohn
.

Solo

This has been argued before, e.g. in G.R.S. Mead's Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.. I think the "Chrestus=mangled Christus <> Jesus" theory is appealing given the above and the fact that Suetonius was aware of Christians (Christiani) as a separate sect in Nero's reign, calling them a superstitio nova et malefica (a new and evil superstition). Improbable then he would not have made a connection between Christus and Chrestus.

Jiri

stonewall1012

littlejohns: "Many of the things you found in the writings evangelicals, were included in the origins' drafts to deflect attention on aspects VERY embarrassing about Jesus, his mother and other evangelical "actors"."

I had trouble making sense of you're post but i think I got the idea that you are claiming they were associating Good with teacher so that they couldn't realize that Christos and chrestos sound the same.... Other than your pile of propaganda I didn't see a lick of evidence other than that Chrestos and Christos SOUND similar.


For all our sakes I hope you can produce evidence for the claim that: "Jesus never spoke these words" based upon something more than "catholic conspiracy"

Littlejohn

Hi!

"... Other than your pile of propaganda I.."

I don't realize... What propaganda?... If you known all data that I gathered, sure you don't would speak so!..

However, I appreciate your note because it allows me to anticipate a debate that has long been thought to refer to readers.

"...I didn't see a lick of evidence other than that Chrestos and Christos SOUND similar. "

EXACTLY! The two words have made a very similar phonetic sound ... BUT NOT HAVE ABSOLUTELY THE SAME MEANING!!

Chrestos, between different meanings, has even that of "good", while Christos is merely translation of the hebraic MASCHIAH, whose meaning is ANOINTED! If the writers in the Greek language intended to translate the hebrew word in their corresponding term Christos, because the writers of latin language have not done the same, translating maschiah or christos con the latin UNCTUS ??... All this is simply absurd, and even more absurd that whole generations of exegetes laity have overflown on this issue (as on many other extremely important for research on the origins of Christianity!)

How could a scholar as Tacitus claim to have learned what he knew about "Christus" reading, in the libraries senatorial and imperial, reports made by Pilate? .. How could Pilate, an official imperial, prepare his report to the emperor (ie TIberio) in the greek language? ... He was in Judea, where only a small minority spoke greek, as well as in Aramaic and Latin. Most of the population spoke Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin, the language of the Roman ruler.

In this alleged relationship, Tacitus should have read UNCTUS or, at most, a transliteration of the hebraic "maschiah", but NEVER Christus! And there is still those who say that paragraph 44 of the fifteenth book of Annales is genuine! ... Crazy!... It's clear that the "Christus" was inserted by a person accustomed to listen and write that word, such as a person that, in a given time, was part of the Roman Curia, ie POGGIO BRACCIOLINI!

Now it is true that a person of the people, don't learned, could confuse the term Christos with Chrestos, given their phonetic similarity, but how could the well-educated, who certainly knew the greek, such as Suetonius and other authors (see Tertullian and Lattanzio) confused in their writings Christus with Chrestus, since the meaning of two terms is CLEARLY different?? ... The real "propaganda" is that of apologists Catholics who have always tried to pretend everything, that is to say that the ancients confused!...

Maybe you ignore, but in France Christians are called "CHRETIENS." This word, at least until the seventeenth century, was written and pronounced "CHRESTIENS", ie chrestians! Then, for reasons unknown, but not difficult to guess, the "s" was deleted and the word
transformed, in fact, in "chrètiens".

But, why the inhabitants of Gaul (mainly the south), formerly called the Catholic followers "chrestians" and NOT "christians", as happened in Rome, Italy and the rest of the eastern part of the Empire? ... The reason is soon said. To make known Jesus and his deeds to the people of southern Gaul then, was his secondborn John, who there, in the Gaul, took over the nick "Marcus" and gave birth to a sect called "sect of marcosians." To the gallic populations then, John "Marcus" spoke of Jesus as Chrestos and NOT as Christus, a term that John absolutely ignored because unknown to their contemporaries of Jesus (that is, no one knew that Jesus was defined Christus, since such nick was associated with his name in the second century!)

As has tried to disappear traces of everything, manipulating the narrative concerning the figure of "Marcus" (which Augustine said did not know because he had not heard of him!) eloquent traces remain of everything, including the attempt to falsify "Chrestus" with Christus. Actually, I think it is the only case in history of patristic literature, it is possible recognize counterfeiting, including the mathematic way!

I repeat once again that if the astute foxes counterfeiting who gave life to the Catholic worship, have not translated Christus with Unctus, wasn't negligently, but to keep the ambiguity with the term Chrestus, which represented a kind of coal burning under the feet of counterfeiters, because of everything that was connected to the word Chrestos!


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

mountainman

Hi Littlejohn,

Perhaps this is related to what Momigliano refers to as the christianisation of literature which he identified as having ocurred in the fourth century, and which appears to be still happening in all the intervening centuries. It may be appropriate to mention that Momigliano writes with heavy irony. He was an Italian Jew who fled Mussolini's regime. He read and wrote in many languages and was considered one of chief ancient historians of last century.



Best wishes,


Pete

Littlejohn

If I understood correctly, this italian-jew, Momigliano, affirm the invention of Christianity by Constantine ... This means that he, in practice, disconfess what is reported in Tamul about Jesus. Please note that the hebrews of all ages, starting from the early centuries of our era, deemed "sacred" the talmudic literature and difficultly a rabbi could incorporate into it the things that he deemed patently false as, for example, the "unlikely" historical existence of Jesus!

Into Talmud there are a number of occurrences on the figure of Jesus and his mother. These citations were deliberately disguised by the rabbis to deflect the "satanic" catholics inquisitors' attention! However, at least given my experience, I found them almost all strictly accurate, except for some for which the exact version (after careful comparison with other data) I found in Toldoth Yeshu ("Tales of Jesus", deemed unreliable by apologists Catholics!)

Do You know Abelard Reuchlin ?.... He too is a jew. However in his work, "The real authorship of the New Testament", he is not proposing that there is no historical Jesus, but simply its assumptions about the true dynamics through which the Gospels were composed. This is seemingly bizarre a exposure: I too, when make the first approach with it, several years ago, I thought that it thought the majority of critics: that it was an absurd thing. However, with the progress of my research I realized, with amazement, that Reuchlin had reported data that had a high chance of being trues!


All the best

Littlejohn
..

Crimson Glory

Sorry, but this sounds like pure wishful thinking to me.