Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus, Suetonius as church forgeries

Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:59 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
ruby sparks;621227 wrote:Do you want to refer me to this one as well?
How the fuck are you a mod?

Post 94?

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]
ruby sparks;621049 wrote:
Koyaanisqatsi;621047 wrote:
And how do you know they weren't faithful to Paul? Is that your speculation?
I don't understand why you're asking that.
Seriously? You were attempting to argue that it was the writers of the Codex who are to blame for the use of "Chrestians." How do you know they were not being faithful to Paul's original spelling? Is this your speculation?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

That still doesn't make any sense to me. It didn't then and it doesn't now.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:19 pm

[quote=""ruby sparks""]
Koyaanisqatsi;621230 wrote:
ruby sparks;621225 wrote:From post 84:
Koyaanisqatsi;621034 wrote:How is the term "Chrestian" used by Paul in his letters in all three instances? Derisively, as a reproach.


In all 3 instances?
That's what I wrote. Did you read the sections I quoted?
But why would Paul have written in such a way? :d unno:[/QUOTE]

Why would Paul have had his version of Agrippa using the disparaging term "Chrestians"?

See if you can figure it out brainless. Plug it into Acts:
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Chrestian?”
Paul is putting words into Agrippa's mouth. Got that? So Paul is painting Agrippa as the one using the term "Chrestian" in a disparaging manner. Assuming of course that this at all historical (a meeting between Agrippa and Paul), then the story had to originate with Paul, yes? Either written or oral. If not, then it's just all made up period and therefore irrelevant.

Now why do you think an undercover agent intent on both hiding his own duplicitous status and establishing himself within that movement as an authority for the purposes of redirecting the group's ideological rudder might do such a thing?

ETA: What is the difference between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"?
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:20 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]Now why do you think an undercover agent intent on both hiding his own duplicitous status and establishing himself within that movement as an authority for the purposes of redirecting the group's ideological rudder might do such a thing?[/quote]

I don't know. You tell me. Seriously.

For one thing, elsewhere, Paul preached love and so on, on behalf of a loving messiah. Etc.

There's something I'm not getting here.
Last edited by ruby sparks on Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:40 pm

[quote=""ruby sparks""]
Koyaanisqatsi;621235 wrote:Now why do you think an undercover agent intent on both hiding his own duplicitous status and establishing himself within that movement as an authority for the purposes of redirecting the group's ideological rudder might do such a thing?
I don't know. You tell me. Seriously.[/quote]

They call you terrorists, but I call you freedom fighters! *Waits for applause break* Now listen to me freedom fighters as to what freedom really means and what our fight truly is about, for it is not of this earth it is... *insert failed attempt to sway Jewish insurrectionists out of their martyr mythology and into a spiritual debate*

Clearer now?

The author of Acts is unknown. The story being related, however, could only have come from Paul (if indeed it is authentic). I'm pretty sure no one would have asked Agrippa about his version of the interaction. 1 Peter's authorship is also in question, with some arguing that it was actually written by Silvanus (aka "Silas") who was one of Paul's traveling companions and was apparently in Rome at the same time 1 Peter was being written. Thus Paul has links to all three instances of the use of "Chrestian" in the Sinaiticus, so again, how do you know that the authors are not simply being faithful to Paul in their uses of "Chrestian," either directly or indirectly? Is that your speculation?
For one thing, elsewhere, Paul preached love and so on, on behalf of a loving messiah. Etc.
To people who were following a martyred insurrectionist during a period of increasing Jewish rebellion. Gee, I wonder why he'd be trying to change that narrative from a martyr to a messiah; from a man killed by the Romans to a Jewish "savior" killed by Jews during a time of mounting Jewish rebellion? Why oh why would that be when we know no matter what he could not possibly have been killed because the Jews asked Pilate to kill him and Pilate wanted to appease them because of the glory and wonder of Passover/fear of a riot that he would never have feared and would never have taken place?
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:43 pm

Let me get this straight. You're saying that Paul (around the 60's-70's AD) was going around on the one hand preaching a loving, peaceful messiah and on the other hand, at roughly the same time, upping his credibility among what were at that time followers of a terrorist messiah by referring to him disparagingly, and that those 3 instances give this away?

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:44 pm

Your slight problem is that Paul is not attributed with writing these instances, nor is the word 'Chrestian' put in his mouth in them.

Though somehow, you have, on at least two previous occasions recently, referred to them as Paul's Letters. Most interesting, Koy.

When did you work out that that was in fact incorrect? Just a few minutes ago?

'Paul's letters'. Good one.

Your theory is so lame that you didn't even realise that they weren't written by Paul. Lol.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:48 pm

[quote=""ruby sparks""]Let me get this straight. [/quote]

:rolleyes:
You're saying that Paul (around the 60's-70's AD) was going around on the one hand preaching a loving, peaceful messiah and on the other hand, at roughly the same time, upping his credibility among what were at that time followers of a terrorist messiah by referring to him disparagingly, and that those 3 instances give this away?
Wrong. Try again.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:53 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""] :rolleyes: Fucking hell. You are referring to the three times the word "Chrestian" is used in the letters of Paul from the Codex Sinaiticus. Acts 11:26 is the first place where "Chrestian" occurs; then again in Acts 26:28 and then in 1st Peter 4:16. Who do I believe is a Roman agent? Paul. What is Paul's mission? To subvert from within a Jewish insurrectionist movement that I believe the Romans referred to as....Chrestians. How is the term "Chrestian" used by Paul in his letters in all three instances? Derisively, as a reproach.[/quote]

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

And, finally, in regard to the three uses in the Sinaiticus' of "Chrestian" in Paul's letters, the fact that it is used in all three instances as a reproach actually supports my hypothesis for the reason previously provided.[/quote]

You even bolded the first one yourself, in case I missed it! Lol.

There's 'three instances' of a slightly different sort for you koy. :D

Truly embarrassing.

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:57 pm

They weren't in his letters. The texts they were in weren't attributed to him, and in those texts, they are not even words put by the writers into his mouth.

Cue…'when I clearly and repeatedly said, 'Paul's letters', 'letters of Paul' and 'used by Paul in his letters' I didn't of course mean, 'Paul's letters', 'letters of Paul' or 'used by Paul in his letters'….because I knew, didn't I, that the word does not appear in Paul's letters……and……'

One large slab of fudge sundae coming up?
Last edited by ruby sparks on Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:29 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:32 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]See if you can figure it out brainless. Plug it into Acts:
28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Chrestian?”
Paul is putting words into Agrippa's mouth. Got that? [/quote]

(my bold)

No. Maybe I'm brainless. Lol.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:33 pm

[quote=""ruby sparks""]Your slight problem is that Paul is not attributed with writing these instances[/quote]

Yeah, I know. I just pointed that out.
nor is the word 'Chrestian' put in his mouth in them.
Again, how would anyone know about the exchange between Agrippa and Paul if it did not come from Paul? Festus? Bernice? And again that would have been in a letter, not, "Hey, Paul, tell me about the time you met Agrippa and I'll transpose your conversation for you..."
Though somehow, you have, on at least two previous occasions recently, referred to them as Paul's Letters.
Yes as that's most likely where it would have come from. Remember my hypothesis that Paul is acting to infiltrate and take over the movement? You know how he wrote a lot of letters that--regardless of my theory--demonstrate precisely that attempt?

See if you can follow this. I know it will be difficult. I made the assumption that Paul--being someone who writes a lot of letters--might have actually, you know, written more than just the few we have today. I know, silly me. And that in those other letters the origin of the Agrippa meeting might have taken place, because, you know, it's so detailed and has both sides of the conversation that no one but he would have any reason to record?
When did you work out that that was in fact incorrect?
What was incorrect?
'Paul's letters'. Good one.

Your theory is so lame that you didn't even realise that they weren't written by Paul. Lol.
:facepalm: Read the previous posts. How else would the story of the interaction between Agrippa and Paul have been recorded unless it came from Paul? Assuming--as I repeatedly pointed out--it happened at all then it had to have been related by Paul to someone. Considering that Paul had a hard on for letters, then it is likely that would have meant via a letter Paul wrote, unless you think Paul dictated to some scribe what he and Agrippa said to each other?

Likewise, 1 Peter. Silvanus was Paul's choice to serve under him after Paul had served under Barnabas. If my hypothesis is correct, it's therefore likely that Paul would have chosen Silvanus for a reason; either because he was in league with Paul, or, at the very least, someone Paul could count on to keep Paul informed of anything Silvanus did or said that related to the movement or its adherents. Paul had several such loyalists after all who were fanatical in their devotion to him. It's therefore not at all surprising that Silvanus--assuming he did write 1 Peter or helped to write it--did not at least inform Paul about it or, more likely seek out Paul's assistance on the letter; not even in any nefarious sense, just because Paul would have insisted that his former servant do so as a matter of course. This too would likely have come in the form of letters between the two with Paul acting as editor and giving a final approval of the letter Silvanus would have then delivered.

So, yes, Paul's letters. Not his canonized Epistles; the basis for the story about Paul in Acts and the background for 1 Peter (both of which deal with the same actual disciple, btw; Peter). Sorry if I assumed you were intelligent enough to comprehend that I was referring to source material and that subsequent authors would be faithful to that. I will not make such a mistake in overestimating your intelligence going forward.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:35 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]So, yes, Paul's letters. Not his canonized Epistles; the basis for the story about Paul in Acts and the background for 1 Peter (both of which deal with the same actual disciple, btw; Peter).[/quote]

Keep digging. An epistle is a letter. Even if it wasn't, Neither Acts or 1 Peter could be described as 'Paul's letters'.

These were your three suggested instances of 'evidence' for your 'Roman Spy Paul's duplicity', because of the "disdain", or something (would be utterly crap evidence in any case, even if it had been in the letters) and it turns out none of them were even written by Paul your supposed Roman Spy. You couldn't make this shit up, as they say, except that's what you're doing.
Last edited by ruby sparks on Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:43 pm

[quote=""ruby sparks""]
Koyaanisqatsi;621247 wrote:So, yes, Paul's letters. Not his canonized Epistles; the basis for the story about Paul in Acts and the background for 1 Peter (both of which deal with the same actual disciple, btw; Peter).
Keep digging. An epistle is a letter. [/quote]

Hence my specifying "canonized" to delineate. Once again, my apologies for assuming you were intelligent enough to comprehend that.
Even if it wasn't, Neither Acts or 1 Peter could be described as 'Paul's letters'.
1 Peter can if my theory is correct and for the last time, where else does the story of Agrippa and Paul come from if not from Paul in a letter we don't have (assuming it authentic at all)? Do you seriously not understand that for us to even have that story it had to come from Paul? The three instances of "Chrestian" found in the Bible are all tied either directly or indirectly to Paul, but the POINT I was making had to do with the fact that you were speculating as well while at the same time attempting to make the idea of speculation a counter-argument!
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:50 pm

Hey koy, what if we agree that the writer of Acts used an 'e' would that help? Lol. All we have to do then is get it to disappear from trace again, only to turn up in Codex Sinaticus 200 years later, because Constantine found it out and wanted to name the new Roman Religion after an anti-Roman cult, which didn't work out because the 'e' disappeared again.

And then there are the other two cults, the creisans and the creistians. Do them next. Oh do.

Then we can do Paul's missing letters, and what's probably in them. Or something.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:53 pm

[quote=""ruby sparks""]Hey koy, what if we agree that the writer of Acts used an 'e' would that help? [/quote]

Help you understand that accusing someone of "speculation" is not a counter argument?
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sat Jan 02, 2016 11:59 pm

No but citing misleading evidentiary sources is either a balls up or intellectually dishonest, and either way not admitting it is just plain pathetic.

Your ridiculous theory was already truly comical long before this most recent cock-up, imo.

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]Hence my specifying "canonized" to delineate. Once again, my apologies for assuming you were intelligent enough to comprehend that.
[/quote]

What I'm intelligent enough to work out is that (a) you only latterly 'specified canonised' after having not 'delineated' on at least three clear occasions initially where you said 'is used by Paul in his letters' (which it isn't) and (b) there aren't even any relevant 'uncanonised' ones to refer to in any case, so even using the word 'canonised' is, er, to use your favourite word, 'unquestionably' a meaningless correction.

Night night.
Last edited by ruby sparks on Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:30 am, edited 11 times in total.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:31 am

[quote=""ruby sparks""]No but citing misleading evidentiary sources[/quote]

Were did I cite "misleading evidentiary sources"?
is either a balls up or intellectually dishonest, and either way not admitting it is just plain pathetic.
:noid: I'm the one that clarified what YOU clearly didn't understand thirteen fucking posts ago! You obviously did not know the controversy about 1 Peter or that it can be tied to Paul, nor do you understand the basic fact that we couldn't possibly have the exchange between Agrippa and Paul unless it came from Paul (assuming it was at all authentic) a fact I repeatedly pointed out to you to which you had no response except for this childish bullshit.

This is what started this nonsense to begin with:
koy wrote:
ruby sparks wrote:
koy wrote: And how do you know they weren't faithful to Paul? Is that your speculation?
I don't understand why you're asking that.
Seriously? You were attempting to argue that it was the writers of the Codex who are to blame for the use of "Chrestians." How do you know they were not being faithful to Paul's original spelling? Is this your speculation?
The exchange between Agrippa and Paul had to come from Paul, correct? If my hypothesis is correct, then Paul could also have been behind 1 Peter. The point being, WE DON'T KNOW, soooooooo, as I asked you before, how do you know the authors of the Codex were not being faithful to Paul's original spelling in all three instances? Is this your speculation?

Do you fucking follow it now? You do not know what the authors of the Codex were doing or what their source material was. NO ONE knows because you can't know what someone's motivations were unless they tell you or what their source material was unless they provide it. YOU were speculating! YOU were committing the same "crime" you were accusing me of committing. GET IT?
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:39 am

Once again I'll have to stop you at line 1.

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]The exchange between Agrippa and Paul had to come from Paul, correct? [/quote]

Nope. Acts is considered notoriously unreliable, even among many bible academics, and contradicts the epistles (that's letters to you) regarding Paul. The supposed meeting with Agrippa itself (let alone the actual dialogue!) could have been entirely made up by the writer of Acts.

Try 'Catholic Answers' again, maybe?

Comedy gold. And here was I thinking I was on a rational skepticism forum.
Last edited by ruby sparks on Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Samnell
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 9:45 am
Location: Northeastern Lower Michigan, USA

Post by Samnell » Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:14 pm

[staffnote=Mod Note]Moved another post and a reply to it off to the same place as before.[/staffnote]
I have a blog about nineteenth century America. It's theoretically educational!

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:18 pm

For some reason Samnell moved the response and not your original post, so I'll edit my response accordingly so there can be no reason to remove it again:

[quote=""ruby"]
Koyaanisqatsi" wrote:The exchange between Agrippa and Paul had to come from Paul, correct?
Nope. Acts is considered notoriously unreliable[/quote]

As I stated over and over, if the exchange between Agrippa and Paul is at all authentic, then it had to come from Paul. If it wasn't made up, then only Paul could be the original source as I seriously doubt Agrippa would have recorded that exchange in his own letters. That would necessarily mean that there are other letters Paul wrote--that are NOT the canonical Epistles--that could be the source material. All three instances of "Chrestians" could therefore be traced to Paul's letters. OTHER letters (hence the delineation). And yes, I believe Paul had a hand in writing or at least editing 1 Peter through the (I thought) widely known theory that Silvanus wrote or had a hand in writing 1 Peter. Again, my mistake in thinking you understood the proper context of what we were talking about, particularly in light of your ironic insistence in regard to scholarly authority. Evidently I am more of an authority on Paul than you, but then you should have expected that considering the subject of my hypothesis.

The point, however, once again being that you have no way of knowing whether or not the 4th Century scribes were being faithful to Paul. In the same words I used before and you continue to ignore, you were engaging in speculation, thus rendering your use of the word "speculation" as some sort of counter-argument to my hypothesis specious.

Every single biblical "scholar" you have ever read is engaging in speculation. Absent signed confessions, not a single one knows why a particular scribe made a particular change or wrote a particular word, or for that matter, what the actual source material was for anything we currently have. It is ALL speculation because what we are talking about is motivation/intent. Even the idea the synoptics simply copied GMark is speculation. I buy it, but it's speculation.

As before, we all know the apologetic about alleged changes to the Jesus story in regard to wanting to hide from Roman persecution, thus this somehow explains the impossible passion narrative details. So the motivation/intent/conspiracy for changing the "official" story to have Pilate be more sympathetic to Jesus and at the mercy of the "crowd of Jews" is explained by the cult with the idea that later Christians feared Roman reprisals. This motivation, however, does not hold up either to literary scrutiny, historical accuracy or to the simple fact that once such a fear was no longer, then said Christians would have reverted back to the REAL story; the one they necessarily would have taught in secret and written down in secret, etc. So where is the REAL story?

ETA: Final point being that my hypothesis as to what actually may have happened is just as legitimate as anyone else's and most definitely more parsimonious than any Christian-biased apologetic nonsense and yes that includes the evidence I have presented over the years to support it. The question regarding the different spellings of "Christian/Chrestian" included as well in so far as it supports the idea that there were two groups; at least in the minds of Romans, but evidently not in the minds of later cult members.
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
ruby sparks
Posts: 7781
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:51 am
Location: Northern Ireland

Post by ruby sparks » Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:16 pm

As I replied before, thanks for the conversation. It was interesting. I'd be fibbing if I said I thought you were making rational reasonable sense, (especially in that last post, above) or even being consistent, but I don't see any point in continuing.
Last edited by ruby sparks on Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Koyaanisqatsi
Posts: 8403
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:23 pm

Post by Koyaanisqatsi » Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:12 pm

[quote=""ruby sparks""]As I replied before, thanks for the conversation. It was interesting. I'd be fibbing if I said I thought you were making rational reasonable sense, (especially in that last post, above) or even being consistent, but I don't see any point in continuing.[/quote]

Astounding in regard to the content of your fibbing as it literally could not be more clear, but agreed in regard to your lack of vision as to the point. :D
Stupidity is not intellen

User avatar
Kookaburra Jack
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:02 am
Location: Falls Creek, rural Australia
Contact:

Post by Kookaburra Jack » Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:59 am

[quote=""ruby sparks""]And sources outside Christianity would have to be rewritten too. [/quote]


Some as late as the middle ages.

Was there no fire in Rome that Nero blamed xtians for?

The Neronian persecution of Christians is pseudo-historical propaganda.
Who was Leucius Charinus? ... A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius][Website]

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:57 pm

[quote=""Kookaburra Jack""]The hypothesis here is that the Christian related references in Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus & Suetonius are the interpolations and/or forgeries of the Middle Age church industry. There is a link below to separate pages for Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus & Suetonius, in which the detailed evidence is listed and indexed by its estimated chronology. Feel free to criticise the argument and/or the evaluation of the evidence behind the argument.

If there is sufficient interest perhaps the means, motive and opportunity might be evaluated.


Enjoy!



ABSTRACT: Tetrarchy of Church Forgeries

The term "tetrarchy" (from the Greek τετραρχία "leadership of four [people]") describes any form of government where power is divided among four individuals. The earliest and most prestigeous references to the the persecution of "Early Christians" by Roman Emperors are divided among the manuscripts attrubuted to these four individual authors. This tetrarchy of authors bind together strongly and support each other in their testimony of Christian persecution in the rule of the Roman Emperor Nero. Collectively this "leadership of four" sources represents a tetrarchy of government directly related to authenticity of historical events in Rome in the later 1st century of the common era. One of the core principles for determining reliability using the historical method is that "If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased". As a result the references to the Christians in this tetrarchy of Roman writers is generally accepted as authentic. With only a few exceptions, the consensus of opinion among modern historians is that the persecution of Christians under Nero is an actual historical event. This may be stated in another form: the hypothesis that Nero persecuted the Christians, is generally accepted as being true.

However in this article, the exceptions to this consensus are gathered, and the counter-arguments to authenticity are outlined in their basic form. Another of the core principles for determining reliability using the historical method is that "Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability." Many of the academics who have argued against the authenticity of some or all of these references have done so on the basis that they suspect them of being forged, or corrupted in some manner. Many of the manuscripts containing these references were "suddenly and unexpectedly discovered" in the manuscript archives of the church, which will here not be treated as a "Divine Institute" but rather as a "Church Organisation" or "Church [Belief] Industry", and associated with political, financial and business agendas. The manuscripts of four individual Roman authors - Pliny, Trajan, Tacitus and Suetonius - have not certainly not been "miraculously and immaculately transmitted from antiquity. It needs to be stated quite clearly that history has demonstrated that the church organisation slash industries (and their CEO's) have perpetuated themselves (business as usual) from antiquity by means of .... atrocities, exiles, tortures, executions, inquisitions, book burning and prohibition of books, censorship, and (one of the most vital instruments of deceit) literary forgery. Accordingly it needs to be stressed that the organisation that was responsible for the "miraculous and immaculate transmission of the these manuscripts from antiquity was itself utterly corrupt, at least from the 4th century when it became a political instrument of the Roman Emperor Constantine. It will be argued that this literary evidence currently attributed to this tetrarchy of Roman authors was probably forged by the church organisation during the Middle Ages, and that, as a result, the hypothesis that Nero persecuted the Christians is probably false.



LINKS to DETAIL DATA

PLINY: ............. http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... Trajan.htm
TRAJAN: .......... http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... Trajan.htm
TACITUS: ........ http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... acitus.htm
SUETONIUS: .... http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... tonius.htm





Image[/quote]

every single Christian written has been made up by people other r=than they attributed to, this is true for all centuries. It is true day. also most people om the first cemetery me ver existed. any evidence against my world vview is automatically wrong.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 513
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 2:55 pm

Post by Metacrock » Sun Jan 31, 2016 10:59 pm

[quote=""Kookaburra Jack""]
ruby sparks;623440 wrote:And sources outside Christianity would have to be rewritten too.

Some as late as the middle ages.

Was there no fire in Rome that Nero blamed xtians for?

The Neronian persecution of Christians is pseudo-historical propaganda.[/QUOTE]

Bull shit! the lengths you guys will go to to keep from from admittin g the evidence isnot in yourfavor.

Post Reply