andrewcriddle

You may well be right.

I am unsure whether the passage in Suetonius does or does not refer to [Jesus] Christ.

I was explaining the position of those who do see the passage as referring to [Jesus] Christ, without necessarily myself agreeing with it.

On the other hand, IF one accepts as historical the claim in Acts 18:2 that Claudius' action had resulted in the departure from Italy of the prominent Christian evangelists Aquila and Priscilla, then ones suspicions that the Jewish controversies in Rome were actually about Jesus are IMO increased.

Andrew Criddle

vid

Acts directly says that Jews were expelled, not Christians. Also as far as i know, Aquila and Priscilla in Acts are Jews when expelled, and only converted later - Acts 18:26. This passage wouldn't make sense if they already were christians.

andrewcriddle

Acts 18:26 clearly refers to the correction by Priscilla and Aquila of Apollos' inaccurate/inadequate ideas about Christianity. The passage actually only makes sense if they are already Christians at this point. (And presumably already Christians of repute and good-standing.)

Andrew Criddle

vid

After careful rereading, you're right, sorry. I have misread the passage last time.

However, Acts 18:2 still talks about "certain Jew named Aquila", who is persuaded to christianity in Acts 18:4. Would Luke (presumably author of Acts) refer to someone holding christian beliefs as "certain Jew", without explicitly mentioning it (like in case of Apollos)? I still see this text as refering to Jews persuaded to Christianity by Paul at Acts 18:4.

squiz

If Chrestus does happen to be a mangled form of "Christ", it still would not necessarily follow that this is referring to Jesus Christ. This turbulence all happened in the lead up to a massive war of rebellion by the Jews. Seutonius could very well be referring to agitation in Rome by Messianic Jews, whether their Messiah was an individual in Rome or someone that they were still expecting.

The again, it could very well just be an individual called Chrestus and be totally unrelated. Who knows?

Crimson Glory

How do we know that Acts is not made up using a biased reading of the aforementioned passage of Suetonius?

yalla

“Chrestus” is not another spelling of “Christus”, as some Christians pretend. Chrestus is the Latin form of a Greek name Chrestos. It means “Excellent One” in Greek. Christus means Messiah, so “Chrestus” would have to be a mispelling of “Christus”, meaning Christ to imply a Christian presence in Rome at the time.

Chrestus as a proper name is so common that it occurs over 80 times on Roman inscriptions. Chrestus was a common name in Rome because it was given to hard working slaves, many of whom earned their freedom over the years."

From this site:
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity...ngRecords1.php

I cannot vouch for this site but the quote above is similar to material I have read elsewhere.
Possibly someone can provide more authorative information presuming such exists.
cheers
yalla

Littlejohn

Hello, yalla!

You have reason to say that the words "Chrestus" and "Christus" it isn't the same thing, because, indeed, they differ significantly in meaning. Chrestus, in fact, is the latin transformation of greek "Chrestos" whose meaning is yes "Excellent One" but also "Good one": practically, the "Good Teacher" that we find even in the canonical gospels.

Christus, instead, is the transformation in latin of the greek Christos, who is, in turn, the translation of the hebraic "maschiah" (messiah in english), whose meaning is "anointed". As for specific reasons (linked to the "Chrestos") the term Christus NOT was translated, as logic would, in the latin UNCTUS, identical meaning, happened (and still happens!) that a believer of Greek language understand immediately when feel from "celebrant" the word "Christians" who is talking about "those anointed", while not the same thing happened to the faithful of latin language or other languages which (unless they were experts scholars of language greek ) all the first did not understand what you would say that "strange" word, ie "Chrestus"!

All this, of course, would not have happened if it had translated into latin the greek Christus with Unctus! At this point, every intelligent person should ask why the "founding fathers" chose not to do the translation ...

As I said, everything is related to the greek word "Chrestos" ("Good", in this case). This was the TRUE attribute that the contemporary Romans used to indicate Jesus!

Since that attribute had little to do with the moral character of Jesus, but rather with his "particular" theological choice (in some respects "devastating" for fraudulent theological construction of the founding fathers of Catholicism!), was decided maintain not translated the Greek form Christus, to have the opportunity to pretend, when the various characters of pagan Rome of then pronounced or wrote the word Chrestus, about Jesus, they erred and that "confused" Christus with Chrestus! ...

All best reagards

Littlejohn
.

Crimson Glory

No at all. How do you arrive at such strange conclusion?

Littlejohn

Hi!

What seems strange is only because you ignore most of the aspects of the story. Let's see what it says the gospel of Matthew:

"Good Teacher, what can I do to inherit eternal life?"

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".

In this case, the embarrassing aspect is represented OWN from the "Good"! (CHRESTOS in greek). Behind this attribute, apparently "harmless", there is actually a hidden truth devastating for keeping of the hallucinanting fraudulent construct of fathers counterfeiters! The addition of adjective 'good' to the noun "teacherr", was used to "reassure" the Christian faithful on what the "rumors" of the pagans reported about the attribute "good", referring to Jesus. In brief, they wanted make them to believe that this attribute was simply referring to the concept of "teacher": means a teacher "good", for precisely! Let's see the response "of" Jesus:

"Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, but God alone!"

Almost certainly NEVERt Jesus spoke these words. They were designed and written by counterfeiters founders for a well precise purpose; in practice, a purpose similar to that for which the Jewish counterfeiters imposed to the their faithful Jewish-hebraic never to pronounce the name of God. (the God's name of the original hebraism was AMEN!)

In short, the phrase above, attributed to Jesus, was intended to invite the Catholic faithful of the origins, to refrain from to associate the concept of "good" to the name of Jesus, in order to forget at the more soon the mental association Jesus and "good" (Chrestos).

There are still many similar mechanisms in the context New Testament. Gradually try to touch everyone.


Best greetings


Littlejohn

_____________________

Declaration: all the material posted by Littlejohn in this forum of Infidels.org and in others forums must be deemed in all respects copyright©
.