mountainman

Hey Littlejohn,

I have reponded to each of your sources.
There is a case that none are integrous.


Tacitus's source Annals 15:44 is first mentioned in the 15th century accompanied with charges of forgery. Far too late, too "black".



Interpolation - See Philosopher Jay's investigative report



No mention of the nation of the canonical christians.



Pliny’s uses the term Christiani. However two major problems are that
(1) that, like Tacitus, the first mention of the Pliny Letter is very late, and
(2) there is no extant surviving manuscript for this letter.





What does the manuscript tradition have to say about this fragment?



Two recent authors publishing recent Greek to English translations of the "Meditations" of Marcus Aurelius agree that the christian reference is a later margin gloss and has been interpolated. The references for this are here



The Talmudic sources are late, and are silent about Big J and the Canonical Chrestians. The Toledoth Yeshu asserts that Big J was conceived following the rape of the Virgin Mary by a Roman soldier. This is a negative silence.


For which no manuscript evidence exists that is unambiguously pre-Nicaean and for which the two C14 dating tests suggest a late date.


Eusebius is our only source for Basilides and a legion or two of "Church Fathers", Bishops, Heresiologists and Official Apologists.



Muhammad finds himself the supreme victor and copies Constantine by bringing in a "Holy Writ" to be canonized the purpose of which was to serve as the basis for a centralised monotheistic empire-wide cult.



Not much left after Ardashir burnt it and created a centralised monotheistic empire wide cult c.222 CE in Sassanid Persia.




The papyri fragments containing the "nomina sacra" form of Jesus ("J_S") are not dated, and the date estimate supplied is via handwriting analysis. Some fragments (and inscriptions) mention "Chrestos" not "Christos". The C14 dating and the palaeographical dating are not mutually supportive.



Again we have to take Eusebius's citations of the Alexandrian Origen the Christian's (not the Alexandrian Origen the Platonist) as bone fide 3rd century comments, in order to postulate the existence and arguments of the lone Pagan refuter called Celsus.




Why did it take until the 4th century and the appearance of Hierocles in order for the appearance of a comparison between Jesus and Apollonius of Tyana to occur. If both wandered around the 1st century we would surely expect a comparison to have been made in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd century. Why does the EXPLICIT comparison wait until the 4th century?



The Platonist and preserver of the works of Plotinus and Euclid. Claimed to have authored "Christian related" literature ("The Philosophy from Oracles" )by Eusebius. Claimed to have stated that "The Apostles were inventors". Constantine apparently ordered the writings of Porphyry to be burnt, so we dont really know what he may have written. He is quoted by his Christian heresiological detractors, but there is no guarantee they are not lying through their imperially-sponsored teeth, as an investigation of their integrity in dealing with the heretic Mani discloses.



Quotes a saying from Jesus that never made the official agraphon list. But this is certainly how Julian viewed the purported founder of what Ammianus calls "the plain and simple religion of the Christians" ....




The number of books forged in the name of Lucian during the 4th century cannot be restricted to a small list. See LUCIAN of SAMOSATA - Introduction by A.M. Harmon, 1913, published in Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes, Greek texts and facing English
translation: Harvard University Press.


No. But that's about the end of your list. None of the items in themselves are either convincing or unambiguous. The trail of evidence for the Big Bang of Christian origins in the 1st century is cold and vacuum-like. The blips on the radar in the 2nd century are all Eusebian or palaeographic.

Best wishes


Pete

Littlejohn

«... I asked you for credible sources for the history of YOUR 66 year old Jesus...»

It's simple: Jesus was born in 6 AD, at the time of the famous census wanted by emperor Octavian Augustus (see Josephus), and died stoned in 72, two years after the end of the First Jewish War. We have references to what in the rabbinical Talmud and in the same canonical gospels: as long they are read with a minimum of 'grano salis'.... Keep in mind that in 72 the highest roman authority in Palestine was the General Tito and NOT the procurator Pontius Pilate! .. Titus, the firstborn of Vespasian, was a friend both of JESUS ​​'(*) and Joseph of 'Arimathea' ...

Since the 'martiriologico' (ie, book of martyrs) of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church places the death of Judas Thomas, twin brother of Jesus, in year 72, (although in 'India', sic!), it is HIGHLY likely that Judas was killed in the same context of the arrest of his brother Jesus. Almost surely was him, and NOT Simon Peter, which died in Rome in 64, to oppose to the arrest of the Nazarene: brave, generous and unnecessary attempt that cost him his life ...

Not for nothing Judas Thomas is remembered with 'Thaddeus' attribute: transliteration well known of the hebraic 'Theudas', meaning 'brave' ... In addition, he is also celebrated as 'patron' of the 'hopeless causes', ie that have no chance of success: thing, this, strengthening what was stated above ...

«.. You gave me sources for the 33 year old Jesus...»

Eusebius of Caesarea, according to which 'the passion of Jesus' took place in the 19th year of Tiberius (year 14th of the christian era, the death of Octavian, + 19 = 33!)

«...that was FATHERED by a Ghost....»

For counterfeiters 'fathers'! .... For the pagans, his contemporaries, Jesus was stating (obviously out of Palestine!) to be the son of a Virgin and a God (but Yahweh NOT!).

_______________________

(*) - Tito, definitely, like his father Vespasian and his brother Domitian, had known Jesus at Rome: see Suetonius, 'impulsore Chrestos'.


Greetings

.

Littlejohn

The Talmud tells an anecdote in which is said: ".. Balaam (ie the same than Jesus of Nazareth) had the 'half his age', ie 33 years, when Pinchas the bandit (reference to Pilate, n.o.r.) killed him ..."

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

.

Hello Montanaro!..(mountainman)

You have written a 'missal'! .. (I refer to the length of the message)

I'll try to respond calmly, one by one to your 'questions-observations' ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Chili

Sounds about right for a midlife (menopause) event that transformed water into wine and so in substance with the father as God and Lord God. So now 'fathering' means 'set-aside' and consecrate in wholeness of mind, body and soul = one einai here now fully man and fully God with no equal to be found ("he has no equal he is God," Chichikov, Dead Souls but forgot where).

aa5874

Please, I am not here to play games.

Which one of your sources indicate or confirm that your Jesus was 66 years old?

I cannot find NOT any indication that any of those writers mentioned your 66 year old Jesus and some of your sources like Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny, did NOT mention the name Jesus at all.

Chili

Get real and read that Judaism delivered him to be set free from the bondage of slavery and sin to have Pure Reason remain with no impurities or blemish to be found.

Littlejohn

I think that your conclusions are those as a faithful, not like a historian ...


Greetings

.

dockeen

Perhaps my question was unclear - I was asking whether any of the authors
you list were alive and reporting at the time of the events they reported.

Chili

Not sure about that since in history the image crucified was an illusion to start with and so just went 'poof' to leave behind only that which was real, with historians looking for that which rapured away. IOW, they would never re-cognize that which remained.