Littlejohn

I have already several times mentioned that fact in Italian forums. Just the fact that the scribe who copied out the text, now present in the Laurentian Library, has transcribed 'chrestianos' (later corrected) in place of 'christianos', is clearly to demonstrate, if proof was it need, that something related to Jesus and his roman followers Tacitus actually wrote. (Obviously, the paragraph n° 44 of the book XV of Annales is a fake, at least as it currently appears!).There is not any doubt that the attribute 'chrestianos' can only derive by the attribute 'Chrestos'!

There is not only very important testimony by Suetonius (".. Chrestos instigator") to tell us that Jesus was known as Chrestos, but we also have vital testimony by the church fathers like Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Lactantius, who complained that the pagans 'corrupted' attribute Christiani with 'CHRESTIANI'!... That says it all!

In short, the Romans of the first century they knew Jesus with the 'Chrestos' attribute, and with a name different than his 'anagraphic' (registred). It's almost certain that Jesus kept us very particularly to maintain concealed its true origin: perhaps because he feared that came to the surface the truth about his birth, which was neither 'virginal'(*), nor divine also! .. According to the Talmud, Jesus, by his classmates, was appealed 'mamtzer', i.e. 'bastard': a thing, this one, that mortally should wound the 'ego' by the very sensitive Jesus, who was, moreover, a character with no joint intelligence.

To note, finally, that the attribute 'Chrestos' means yes 'good' (the 'Good Teacher' of the Gospels), but it had nothing to do with the character by the Nazarene, which was neither good nor bad, but simply a man of his times, and he adapted itself as best he thought ...


Greetings

_______________________

Note:

(*) - Depending on the meaning that you give to such a term: exactly as the quote about the 'seven demons' that Jesus would have made exit by the body of Mary Magdalene!


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

"..you then seem to be asserting there was a real Jesus who would not have permitted this.."

Certainly! ... Jesus would NEVER allow this. But he could not refuse, since when this happened (first half of second century), he was dead for about 70 years! ...

I think it is absolutely necessary to recover the historical Jesus from the heap of falsehood known as 'New Testament', which is contemplating, ultimately, a Jesus never existed, as it much deviates from the storic one. Just recovering such a Jesus, beyond any doubt, can we hope to convince the vast mass of Christian believers about the fact who have been victims by a hallucinating deceit.


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

spamandham

We both agree that the NT is a heap of falsehoods. Yet the NT is nonetheless the best means we have for knowing anything about Jesus.

Why do you believe the NT is merely a distortion of a historical Jesus, rather than a creation of one?

mountainman

Forgery is till rife and profitable - see Oded Golan, the Papal de Rossi et al. If the church's early paper trail was forged - then the obvious and chief suspect of the forgery is Eusebius who did so under sponsorship of the single all powerful warlord and Roman Emperor Constantine. The absolute power weilded by the Roman Emperors corrupted absolutely. If Nero could call forward the Olympic Games and compete in and win all events, then Constantine -- as the "very LAWFUL Pontifex Maximus" could fabricate a new and strange religious cult and back it with his military sword for gold, for profit and to secure an absolute power over all classes of people in His Kingdom.

A top down conspiracy is not exactly a conspiracy because the perpetrators hold an absolute power. IMO this is not a conspiracy but just a very common pattern of similar facts with many military supremacists and malevolent despots. For a recent example (with far less absolute power) read Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book". IMO it is perhaps more appropriate - following the terminology of the ancient historian Arnaldo Momigliano - to call the victory of the Christian Church a "4th century revolution which carried with it a new historiography".

Zaphod

Perhaps they didn't need to be hidden. Perhaps the record that we see are glimpses of two or more competing schools who do read each other's tracts and are presenting midrashed arguments to bolster their own on-the-fly theological inventions.

These are the remnants of formalized responses to debates (perhaps in-person) between members of different orthodoxies. Many of what turns out to be contradictions, false statements, and errors are there deliberately, not accidentally, because these were partisan scholars who used fiction whenever it suited them. They weren't concerned so much with consistency between schools that were in competition as they were with the internal symmetry of their newly-invented theology. It might explain why the Bible is so incoherent and why the criteria of embarrassment is not helpful.

Doug Shaver

No ruler's power is or ever has been as absolute as you imagine Constantine's to have been. Many have certainly wished they had that kind of power. Perhaps a few have thought they had it, but they had to have been delusional to think so.

mountainman

Just a small question at this point - have you read "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars" by C. Suetonius Tranquillus, written c.121 CE ? Constantine's rule is described as "NERONIAN" by one of his "prefects". The head of the Academy of Plato - Sopater - is executed for influencing the winds bring the grain fleet to the City of Constantine. Sons and wives and related innocents are executed in savage displays of inhuman violence. The most ancient and highly revered non christian temples and shrines, which housed libraries and the cultural heritage of centuries, were torn down to their foundations by Constantine's very barbarian driven army.


Yes, you could easily say that a few or even many of the Roman Emperors were delusional but this does not help your case at all. I am not arguing that they were not delusional, I am arguing that they held the reigns of an absolute power in the Roman Empire, and not only did that absolute power corrupt most of these successive Roman Emperors (who fought excessively amongst themselves and their neighbours) but that it corrupted them --- in the words of Lord Acton about the church - absolutely. And I am arguing that Constantine progressively became absolutely delusional, and corrupted by this Imperial Absolute Power as described by Aurelius Victor ... in three phases .... an unholy trinity ...

Constantine: "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"

"[Constantine] was a mocker rather than a flatterer.
From this he was called after Trachala in the folktale,
for ten years a most excellent man, [ Ed: the decade 306-315 CE]

for the following second ten a brigand, [ Ed: the decade 316-325 CE]
for the last, on account of his unrestrained prodigality,
a ward irresponsible for his own actions." [ Ed: the period 326-337 CE]

--- Sextus Aurelius Victor

This is reasonably common knowledge - the Roman Emperors held an absolute power in the Roman Empire. I am talking about the Roman Empire Doug, in which during the 4th century, the first appearance of the Greek "Holy Bible of the Nation of Christians" to the general public was undertaken openly. I am not talking about Sassanid Persia created by Ardashir c.222 CE who held an ABSOLUTE POWER over the army and the civilians by means of the "Holy Writ" of the "Avesta". Within the Roman Empire during the entire period concerned with this question of "Christian Origins", the power of the Lord God Caesar was absolute. In Rome, he held the ancient role of "Pontifex Maximus" the head of the Sacred College of Pontifices - the Graeco-Roman priesthood.

The Roman Emperors had their own mints and held absolute and supreme power, if only for half a day in some cases, and more often than not this absolute power corrupted them into utter delusional maniacs. Read The Lives of the Twelve Caesars for Christ's sake.


It seems to me that the roots of the lies are a deluded Roman imperial fabrication ("cut-and-PAST-ianity")
of Greek wisdom/Logos forged by an absolute power and military control at that very specific epoch around Nicaea.
The literature of Porphyry (and the lineage of the Platonists - Plotinus etc) and Arius of Alexandria is to be burned.
The literature of the quasi-Canonical and bound together "New Testament" and "Greek LXX" is to be lavishly published.

dizzy

Suetonius is not reliable, mountainman. You well know that. And why is it so significant what one of his prefects said? If my mother won't let me have a cupcake, I might very well call her Neronian. But it's just sour grapes.

mountainman

He provides a good introduction to the corruption by absolute power which was the issue being tangentiated. Barbarians, --- by Terry Jones (2006)

"The thesis is that
we've all been told
a false history of Rome that has twisted
our entire understanding
of our own history -
glorifying (and glossing over)
a long era of ruthless imperial power ..."

Testimonial evidence by non christians from inside the event horizon of Constantine's rule is exceedingly rare. All we know about his rule largely stems from 5th century orthodox christian imperially sonsored historical "researchers and censors".


Were the invectives of Emperor Julian against the 4th century christians just sour grapes, or did they have a justified historical foundation in that the literary fabrication of the christians, published by Constantine far and wide, was no more than a fiction of men? Without further evidence either way, this remains an open question.

Doug Shaver

It could be as common as cockroaches, but it isn't knowledge if it isn't true. I believe it's not true, and you have not presented a cogent argument for the contrary.